Gay Patriot Header Image

The Democratic Department of False Narratives

Below is a screen capture of an image a Facebook friend shared on his wall:

The individual branded, “fool,” is of course the accomplished and determined reformer currently governing the great state of Wisconsin.  This image, however, mis characterizes Governor Scott Walker’s reforms.  The legislation that Republicans signed would not deprive any working man or woman of his right to join a union.

Indeed if anything, his reforms do quite the opposite; they give individual public employees greater freedom, with provisions preventing state and local governments from collecting union dues, requiring annual certification via secret ballot, and allowing employees to “opt out of paying union dues.”  (Last link via Moe Lane who has more.)

Just as Scott Walker has not conducted a “War on Unions” (as some on the left claim), Republicans haven’t conducted as “War on Women” as many on the left claim.  They haven’t even declared a war on contraception.

Rather than engage Republicans on the actual issues, e.g., the specifics of Walker’s reforms or the federal government mandating the employment policies of a private institution, our friends on the left, with a generous assist from the legacy media (and some undisciplined Republicans), prefer to cast Republicans conducting a war on the various constituencies Democrats need to rally to win votes.

And they fault our side for our uncivil discourse.  No wonder they obsess about a slur Rush Limbaugh recently uttered.  (And for which he has apologized.)

Share

33 Comments

  1. Let’s assume Walker’s reforms actually do deprive working men and women of the right to join a union of their choice. Under that assumption, there are still problems with that image. Firstly, just because Dwight Eisenhower said it, doesn’t necessarily make it true (no disrespect to Eisenhower intended). Secondly, Eisenhower did not say that now. In other words, whenever he said it was some time in the past, when things were different. Perhaps, if Eisenhower were around today, he would disagree with that statement. Thirdly, while I can’t be certain, I would assume Eisenhower is referring to either private sector unions or unions in general, not specifically public sector unions. Again, if Eisenhower were around today to see the negative impacts public unions have, perhaps he would also want to limit their right to collective bargaining.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — March 9, 2012 @ 6:26 pm - March 9, 2012

  2. The legislation that Republicans signed would not deprive any working man or woman of his right to join a union.

    It’s a sign of the lows that left-liberals are sinking to, that they cannot state their opponents’ views with any kind of accuracy.

    What if you love unions, and even think public employees should be able to have unions, and you just don’t think the public employee ones should have unlimited power to bargain over benefits? What does that make you? Guess what, it makes you a liberal Democrat, to the left of Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton (all of whom opposed public employee unions). It also makes you… Scott Walker.

    If the Left admitted it, they would have no case against Walker. And they know it well. So they don’t admit it. Instead, they lie that Walker opposes something else: unions as such.

    I could cite other examples near at hand, but to keep it more general… another example is this contraception “debate”. Insurance companies have never been mandated to cover contraception. Women, and the Republic, have survived just fine for 223 years without that mandate. But now all the sudden, if you don’t automatically support that mandate, the Left implies that you want to storm every household and imprison anyone with contraception.

    It’s the tactics of fascism… Goebbel’s “Big Lie” technique.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 9, 2012 @ 8:03 pm - March 9, 2012

  3. I’m really getting tired of these graphic memes that the left loves to trot out.

    All show and no substance. When you engage them and try to actually discuss the issue… well, nevermind. They just throw a tantrum and bandy about the term “hate.”

    Comment by ChrisH — March 9, 2012 @ 8:39 pm - March 9, 2012

  4. When I first looked at the picture, I thought “union” was in the context of marriage and this was Eisenhower being as an image for same-sex marriage.

    Comment by Geena — March 10, 2012 @ 12:18 am - March 10, 2012

  5. Ike was President in the 1950s and it was a different time and ethos. Although Eisenhower addressed only the right to join the union of one’s choice, there was also an understood corollary which probably most Americans knew intuitively.

    1. “Only a fool would try to deprive working men and working women of their right to join the union of their choice.”

    2. Only a fool would try to coerce working men and working women to join a union not of their choice.

    My father joined a union, but fully embraced the rights of others in his profession who did not want to join the union. When dad started his own company, he left the union without rancor on either side.

    Comment by Indigo Red — March 10, 2012 @ 12:57 pm - March 10, 2012

  6. Hi Dan,

    The legislation that Republicans signed would not deprive any working man or woman of his right to join a union.

    Sounds wonderfully benign, but I suspect not the issue your Facebook friend was speaking to…

    A person joins a union for the right to collectively bargain with an employer.

    That is the central issue, Dan. And one, I see, that is no where addressed in your post.

    Comment by Cas — March 10, 2012 @ 2:06 pm - March 10, 2012

  7. A person joins a union for the right to collectively bargain with an employer.

    That is the central issue, Dan. And one, I see, that is no where addressed in your post.

    Comment by Cas — March 10, 2012 @ 2:06 pm – March 10, 2012

    That is because, Cas, your understanding of the law is fallacious.

    The Wagner Act states the following:

    Employees shall have the right of self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities, for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.

    You are not required to join a union to collectively bargain. Unions are merely a form of organization to facilitate collective bargaining, not the only means by which it can be performed. Indeed, requiring a person to join a union as a condition of their hire, continued employment, or only method in which they can collectively bargain is against Federal law.

    But since all you are doing is repeating Obama Party talking points without doing any actual research, Cas, what you illustrate is that the Obama Party and unions’ goals is to deny workers their right to collectively bargain with or without joining a union and thus force all employees to join a union as a condition of employment. Indeed, your Obama Party’s leadership has stated that any non-union company, even if it is non-union due to a vote of the workers not to be, should have all of its workers forced to join a union or be shut down.

    The reason why is obvious; forced union dues are a massive source of campaign contributions for the Obama Party. Both you and Pelosi believe that all workers should be forced to pay a percentage of their earnings back to the Obama Party in kickbacks, and forced unionization is how you do it. If you don’t contribute, as Pelosi has made clear, she will use the power of government to eliminate your job.

    How very fascist of you, Cas. But completely typical.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 10, 2012 @ 3:40 pm - March 10, 2012

  8. I cannot find where this alleged quote of Eisenhower comes from. It would be nice to see the full context. Nevertheless, I agree with these specific words whether Ike uttered them or not. I also agree with Indigo Red in that “only a fool would try to coerce working men and working women to join a union not of their choice”.

    While I do not know where this alleged quote of Ike’s comes from, there isthis speech he gave to the newly-formed AFL-CIO on December 5, 1955. Note this part which is quite salient today (bold emphasis mine):

    [L]abor relations will be managed best when worked out in honest negotiation between employers and unions, without Government’s unwarranted interference

    Ike was clearly speaking about private sector unions and not public sector ones. We can see this in the portion I quote above as well as in this Cold War era speech, how Ike contrasted the misery of labor under communism that lack of free labor unions like the AFL-CIO. Another way we know that Ike didn’t have public sector unions in mind in either the speech I provide a link to or the FB meme, is because such unions were not legal in any state employment (Wisconsin was the first to allow them in 1959) or Federal employment until Ike’s Democrat sucessor JFK authorized them 1962 via Executive Order 10988. This is not to say that there weren’t any public sector unions, mainly that the States & Federal governments didn’t officially recognize them or allow them to collectively bargain. Indeed, the prevailing attitude against such unions prior to 1962 would seem to be summed up by that liberal champion FDR in this 1937 letter to the National Federation of Federal Employees:

    All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters. Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.

    These liberals can misuse an alleged Ike quote all they want for all the good it will do them. I for one side with FDR on the matter.

    Comment by John — March 10, 2012 @ 4:22 pm - March 10, 2012

  9. Hi NDT,
    Thank you–I like the word “facilitate.” Yes, to “facilitate collective bargaining.” I can live with that. Having said that, I like your quote. We agree, then,

    Employees shall have the right of self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities, for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.

    Would I be right in assuming that you believe that workers will have just as good an opportunity to bargain individually with a company, if they do not have a union, than if they had one?

    Would I also be right in assuming that you think that unions are a legitimate way for individuals to facilitate the desire to collectively bargain with an employer?

    Comment by Cas — March 10, 2012 @ 4:23 pm - March 10, 2012

  10. We agree, then,

    No, we do not, Cas.

    You stated that employees have no right to collectively bargain unless they join a union.

    A person joins a union for the right to collectively bargain with an employer.

    Comment by Cas — March 10, 2012 @ 2:06 pm – March 10, 2012

    I proved through links and citations that not only is your statement untrue, but also what you advocate by making it — that employees should be forced by law to join a union to exercise their rights — is patently illegal.

    Until you acknowledge this as factual and your statements as incorrect, there is no agreement and no reason to proceed.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 10, 2012 @ 4:33 pm - March 10, 2012

  11. #8 It does come from his Speech to the American Federation of Labor, New York City, 9/17/52

    http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/all_about_ike/quotes.html#labor

    Comment by TGC — March 10, 2012 @ 5:52 pm - March 10, 2012

  12. Hi NDT,
    I’ll just do this once:
    NDT #10:

    You stated that employees have no right to collectively bargain unless they join a union.

    Cas #6:

    A person joins a union for the right to collectively bargain with an employer.

    These are not equivalent statements. A right granted to one group does not preclude it, necessarily, from being granted to another group or to a group of individuals. Or do you think it does, NDT; and if so, why?

    So, if upon reflection, you change your mind:

    Would I be right in assuming that you believe that workers will have just as good an opportunity to bargain individually with a company, if they do not have a union, than if they had one?

    Would I also be right in assuming that you think that unions are a legitimate way for individuals to facilitate the desire to collectively bargain with an employer?

    Comment by Cas — March 10, 2012 @ 6:07 pm - March 10, 2012

  13. @Indego,

    This is part of the reason that totalitarians are ‘fools’. There’s nothing that a government can give that it cannot then take away.

    “Right to work” increases freedom. It allows the talented to best leverage their individual talents, and, at the same time, allows the less talented, the average and the incompetent to try to leverage their numbers to their advantages, without forcing the talented to be drug down to their level.

    Comment by The_Livewire — March 10, 2012 @ 6:50 pm - March 10, 2012

  14. Specifically to this photo, it’s not the War on Unions that Liberals keep screaming about. It’s the war on anyone who votes & gives money to the Democrat Party.

    Think about it: Liberals claim to support liberty for all, including the freedom to join a Union. How much freedom do you have once you join the union: none. Studying the NLRB, the NLRA, and many union contracts, union employees are pretty much controlled not only by the union bosses, but by those they support.

    In the big picture, it’s not about a war on a specific group (women, contraception, gays, etc.), it’s all about the war on the funding base for the liberals.

    Comment by James Richardson — March 10, 2012 @ 6:52 pm - March 10, 2012

  15. [...] The Democratic Department of False Narratives – Gay Patriot [...]

    Pingback by Saturday Afternoon – Stubborn Baby – Laundry Time , An Ol' Broad's Ramblings — March 10, 2012 @ 7:01 pm - March 10, 2012

  16. Hi NDT,
    I’ll just do this once:

    No, you won’t, Cas.

    Your first step is to lie and make ignorant statements, and you’ve already finished that.

    Your second step is to spin, and that’s where we are at.

    Your third step is to run away and refuse to answer, which then demonstrates what a hypocrite and bigot you are when you scream about other people not answering your questions.

    I repeat myself:

    You stated that employees have no right to collectively bargain unless they join a union.

    A person joins a union for the right to collectively bargain with an employer.

    Comment by Cas — March 10, 2012 @ 2:06 pm – March 10, 2012

    I proved through links and citations that not only is your statement untrue, but also what you advocate by making it — that employees should be forced by law to join a union to exercise their rights — is patently illegal.

    Next, you tried to spin:

    These are not equivalent statements. A right granted to one group does not preclude it, necessarily, from being granted to another group or to a group of individuals.

    Comment by Cas — March 10, 2012 @ 6:07 pm – March 10, 2012

    However, in your desperation, you neglected to think through the fact that this demonstrates that your original attack on Walker for allegedly “taking away” collective bargaining was a lie from the start.

    Since you have now admitted that union membership is NOT required to collectively bargain and that any modification to union terms and conditions does not in the least remove or abrogate the right of collective bargaining, your previous statements are demonstrably lies made on your part, by your own admission.

    Until you acknowledge this as factual and your statements as incorrect, there is no agreement and no reason to proceed.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 10, 2012 @ 7:18 pm - March 10, 2012

  17. Hi Dan,
    Still like to get your take on this issue–since Walker severely curtailed public sector union rights, it deserves a mention in your piece…

    Comment by Cas — March 10, 2012 @ 7:26 pm - March 10, 2012

  18. Like I said, Step 3, ignore and run away.

    And even better, try to lie again.

    Here was your first whine, Cas, claiming that Walker had taken away the right of employees to bargain collectively.

    Sounds wonderfully benign, but I suspect not the issue your Facebook friend was speaking to…

    A person joins a union for the right to collectively bargain with an employer.

    That is the central issue, Dan. And one, I see, that is no where addressed in your post.

    Comment by Cas — March 10, 2012 @ 2:06 pm – March 10, 2012

    Now that the facts showed how conclusively you were lying in your claims that Walker had taken away rights, you try this lie:

    Hi Dan,
    Still like to get your take on this issue–since Walker severely curtailed public sector union rights, it deserves a mention in your piece…

    Comment by Cas — March 10, 2012 @ 7:26 pm – March 10, 2012

    There are no such things as “public sector union rights”. There are only employee rights; unions are nothing more than a mechanism, one of many, through which employees may exercise their rights.

    Furthermore, Cas, you are explicitly anti-employee rights. You have stated, for example, that employees should be coerced to join unions or lose their jobs. Your Obama Party has as a matter of policy that the government should shut down companies that are not unionized, thus punishing workers who have chosen NOT to be represented by a union.

    Walker’s actions increased employee rights and removed the ability of unions to coerce money from employees. You deliberately lied and misrepresented this fact, and you now have been exposed as someone who opposes employee rights and demands that employees be forced to pay kickbacks to the Obama Party to keep their jobs.

    Furthermore, the Wagner Act

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 10, 2012 @ 7:47 pm - March 10, 2012

  19. Hi NDT,
    I really don’t get your problem. You tell me you won’t engage with me “unless I admit I am wrong.” Well, given that you just said, i.e., “I won’t come out and converse unless you agree with me on this condition” there isn’t much to say, if I don’t agree with your interpretation, now is there!? Given the choice you offered of agreeing with you or stopping the conversation, I decided to stop the conversation; that is all. I am unsure why you are so unhappy. You offered two choices, I took one of them. Anyway, I hope that explains why I stopped conversing with you.

    Comment by Cas — March 11, 2012 @ 1:13 am - March 11, 2012

  20. I really don’t get your problem.

    Funny, I get yours.

    First, you are a liar who was caught lying and was trapped by facts.

    Second, you’ve lost control of the conversation, since your usual games of spinning and throwing out irrelevant points to deflect and divert are short-circuited when someone re-focuses on the original lies you told and ignores your baiting.

    And now, you’re whining about how mean is anyone who holds you accountable for your lies and presents facts, rather than allowing you to spin your “interpretations” and endlessly divert conversations.

    No courtesy or quarter will be shown you, Cas, because you have proven yourself to be not only dishonest, but also completely and totally uncivil. To be namecalled and told one has a problem by a proven liar and dissembler like yourself has nothing to do with actually having a problem, but merely a demonstration that you want that person to shut up and allow you to spread your lies.

    No more.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 11, 2012 @ 1:47 am - March 11, 2012

  21. Hi NDT,

    No courtesy or quarter will be shown you, Cas, because you have proven yourself to be not only dishonest, but also completely and totally uncivil. To be namecalled and told one has a problem by a proven liar and dissembler like yourself has nothing to do with actually having a problem, but merely a demonstration that you want that person to shut up and allow you to spread your lies.

    No more.

    Thanks for the heads up, NDT regarding your intentions. I am still at a loss as to how what you are saying relates to what I wrote. I am sorry, but I cannot make sense of it. In any case, I am unsure as to how you can offer less quarter arguing with me, or, be more discourteous, insulting, and rude towards me then you have already shown in the past. But if you decide to follow through on your desire for greater incivility, you or I can ask Bruce and/or Dan to intervene–ironically it would seem, in the interest of maintaining a civil discourse.

    Comment by Cas — March 11, 2012 @ 3:29 am - March 11, 2012

  22. I am still at a loss as to how what you are saying relates to what I wrote. I am sorry, but I cannot make sense of it.

    Comment by Cas — March 11, 2012 @ 3:29 am – March 11, 2012

    Well, of course you can’t, Cas. Here’s the problem:

    1) You lied about what Walker did, then accused Dan of lying because he didn’t repeat your lie

    2) I demonstrated not only that you are lying, but that your Obama Party is actually AGAINST employee rights and wants employees stripped of their jobs for voting against a union.

    3) You then, as I once more demonstrated, lied again about what Walker did AND accused Dan of lying again.

    The basic problem is that you are trying to advance a narrative, and for liberals like yourself, lying, ignoring facts, and slandering other people in the process of doing so is perfectly normal and acceptable.

    I can’t explain to you what you are doing wrong because your ideology/pathology justifies lies and ignoring facts in the process of advancing a narrative, just as we can’t explain to you why Bill Maher and Barack Obama calling women sl*ts, c*nts, and wh*res is wrong.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 11, 2012 @ 10:20 am - March 11, 2012

  23. NDT, nice job.

    There are no such things as “public sector union rights”. There are only employee rights; unions are nothing more than a mechanism, one of many, through which employees may exercise their rights.

    Indeed.

    Walker didn’t curtail “public sector union rights” – since unions, as such, can never truly have rights. They can only have powers, which in some cases are given to them unfairly by a coercive government that abrogates employee rights. Fundamentally, individuals have rights; groups don’t.

    What Walker did was, curtail public sector unions’ *abusive powers* – the union officials’ ability to coerce and abuse the employee and the taxpayer, and thus to get a far better deal than they deserve.

    The sight of real social justicie being done – the sight of abusive powers and abusive monopoly rents being curtailed – that sight, apparently, terrifies Cas.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 11, 2012 @ 5:58 pm - March 11, 2012

  24. ILC,

    The other thing to remember is the Walker reforms put the state unions on equal level with their Federal counterparts.

    RI also passed the same reforms, w/o complaint.

    Comment by The_Livewire — March 11, 2012 @ 7:10 pm - March 11, 2012

  25. Hi ILC,
    since unions, as such, can never truly have rights.
    Do you believe that corporations have rights? If they do, what makes them different from unions, in your mind, that allows them to have rights?

    Comment by Cas — March 11, 2012 @ 7:37 pm - March 11, 2012

  26. Sorry that should have been:

    since unions, as such, can never truly have rights.

    Comment by Cas — March 11, 2012 @ 7:37 pm - March 11, 2012

  27. If they do, what makes them different from unions, in your mind, that allows them to have rights?

    Well as Mitt Romney said, corporations get personhood rights because they’re made up of people, while unions are… umm… what was the question again?

    Comment by Serenity — March 11, 2012 @ 9:54 pm - March 11, 2012

  28. :)
    Nice one Serenity…

    Comment by Cas — March 12, 2012 @ 5:18 pm - March 12, 2012

  29. since unions, as such, can never truly have rights. Do you believe that corporations have rights?

    Fundamental rights, in the sense that individuals have fundamental rights coming from God? No. We may (and do) assign artificial rights to incorporated entities that speak for voluntary associations of specific individuals; examples of such associations include marriages, churches, neighborhood associations, corporations (whose members are the stockholders), employee unions, and more. The keys are that the association must be voluntary, and, that the entity should never do (or can never morally do) more than what the individuals themselves would be entitled to do. For example, if John, Joseph and Mary individually have no right to block Jason from working for General Motors, then, morally speaking, neither can their union. Government may give the union the “right” – but it’s not a right, it’s more of a wrong, that is, a monopoly privilege to abuse and deny the rights of individuals.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 12, 2012 @ 6:13 pm - March 12, 2012

  30. As to speech, however: The individual employees (or stockholders) do have fundamental free speech rights, therefore, their union (or corporation) should by extension have the right to speak freely for their interests.

    Not that you care.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 12, 2012 @ 6:24 pm - March 12, 2012

  31. And of course, ILC, the interesting part: Obama Party supporters like Pomposity and Cas block those people who are part of a corporation from exercising their free-speech rights in the form of campaign contributions, but allow unions to forcibly extract campaign contributions from their members even if they do not support the candidate — at the cost of losing their jobs.

    If Pomposity and Cas were truly in favor of employee rights, they would oppose unions forcing their members to donate or be fired and accept the same limitations as corporations, which are barred by law from compelling employees to contribute. But as I pointed out above, Pomposity and Cas believe that employees who choose NOT to join and/or choose to decertify a union as their representative should lose their jobs. They in fact OPPOSE employee rights and freedom of speech.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 12, 2012 @ 6:47 pm - March 12, 2012

  32. Exactly, NDT. Corporations and unions should be under the same free speech rules and limitations – including that neither should be able to *compel* financial contributions to their speech.

    There is a slight difference, in that most corporations have revenue from sales, while many unions do not. (Some unions do; those who go into the insurance business.) But that difference is not finally meaningful. Like any voluntary association, the union should be able to require contributions as a condition of membership; while being wholly unable to compel membership as such. Compulsory membership is probably the key way in which unions violate people’s rights.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 12, 2012 @ 7:12 pm - March 12, 2012

  33. Hi NDT & ILC,

    For example, if John, Joseph and Mary individually have no right to block Jason from working for General Motors, then, morally speaking, neither can their union.

    A couple of things. I think I would be careful with the comparison that you both implicitly have. You speak of union members as if they are equated with corporation employees, NDT:

    they would oppose unions forcing their members to donate or be fired and accept the same limitations as corporations, which are barred by law from compelling employees to contribute.

    I think ILC is a little more nuanced here, equating union members with shareholders. Unfortunately, ILC, then appears to agree with NDT, when he says:

    Corporations and unions should be under the same free speech rules and limitations – including that neither should be able to *compel* financial contributions to their speech.

    So I think there is some confusion on what you both believe here, since it does not appear to be the same.

    However, let us look at the “compel” argument. On the surface, it looks OK to me, except that if I am a shareholder in a company, being so small (I do not have a lot of shares), I have no voice in whether I want that corporation to fund a candidate that I do not like. They are going to provide funds that I think should go elsewhere (like a dividend…). Like unions, they cannot fund directly, but like unions, they can fund through PACs and super-PACs. So your argument doesn’t persuade me, NDT and ILC.

    Or are you saying, you would agree to both unions and corporations being unable to fund candidates of their choice in any monetary manner whatsoever? I can live with that.

    Comment by Cas — March 13, 2012 @ 12:20 am - March 13, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.