6 years difference- Libertarians and Right To Work For Less

The Libertarian Party Platform in 2004

Unions and Collective Bargaining
The Issue: Government interference in the employer/employee relationship has imposed undue burdens on our economy, destroying the rights of both to contract in the free market.

The Principle: We support the right of free persons to voluntarily establish, associate in, or not associate in, labor unions. An employer should have the right to recognize, or refuse to recognize, a union as the collective bargaining agent of some, or all, of its employees.

Solutions: We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or the imposition of an obligation to bargain. Therefore, we urge repeal of the National Labor Relations Act, and all state right-to-work laws which prohibit employers from making voluntary contracts with unions. We oppose all government back-to-work orders as the imposition of a form of forced labor.

Transitional Action: Government-mandated waiting periods for closure of factories or businesses hurt, rather than help, the wage-earner. We support all efforts to benefit workers, owners and management by keeping government out of this area. Workers and employers should have the right to organize secondary boycotts if they so choose. Nevertheless, boycotts or strikes do not justify the initiation of violence against other workers, employers, strike-breakers and innocent bystanders.

Flash forward to 2010:

Labor Markets

We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment. We oppose government-fostered forced retirement. We support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions, and an employer should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union. We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain.

Interesting, ehhhh?

Waiting...

Hope

The work of making a better would for our kids and grandkids is an ongoing labor of Love.

Here's a bit of hope :)

More Americans side with public sector unions than side with the Republican governors around the country who are trying to take away the union’s collective bargaining rights according to the newest Gallup poll. The poll found 48 percent agree more with the state employee labor unions, while 39 percent agree with the governors.

And young people side overwhelming with the labor unions–by a greater than two-to-one margin.

Why younger Americans so overwhelmingly back the public sector labor unions is an interesting question given that the age group is the least likely to actually be part of a public sector labor union.
Part of it could be that this has obviously become a very partisan issue, and young people tend to support Democrats, but that in itself isn’t a sufficient explanation because the partisan split among young people isn’t that large.

I have a purely personal suspicion as a member in this age group, I suspect my peers don’t buy–or are scared to let themselves believe–this “middle class in decline” argument the Republican governors are using to justify their attacks on unions. I remember one of the governors defending his actions by saying how everyone else in the middle class has slowly been paying more for health care and getting worse retirement packages, so public sector unions should. too. Basically, the argument was the rest of the middle class dream is dying, so the fair thing to do is drag the unions down with everyone else.

As a young person who eventually wants to start a family, I know sky high unemployment in my age group makes it extreme difficult to establish a career that can pay for that. This message of life getting worse and less secure for working people is our destiny is extremely bleak. Instead of being jealous of public sector unions and wanting to tear them down, young people are “jealous,” but desperately want to make sure a quality middle class lifestyle can still be available to some.

I believe there is the potential for a powerful young-progressive-labor alliance in the simple message: The future doesn’t need to get suckier for the middle class.

Today

No Respect for People or Process lll

The US Chamber of Commerce plays heavily in promoting so called "Right to Work" legislation. An organization the lobby's for corporate interests, it is the highest spending lobbyist of them all. Since its membership it is made up of corporations that lobby on their own, this is worthy of remark.

The following illustrates this organizations contempt of working people and for the democratic process:

Richard Clarke Says U.S. Chamber May Have Committed A Felony With Hacking Plot

Earlier this month, Richard Clarke, who served for both Democratic and Republican Presidents, including a stint as the cyber security czar for the Bush administration, denounced the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for plotting with a group of military contractors to hack into progressive groups. Clarke was in DC speaking at a cyber security conference hosted by Symantec. Although Clarke focused his remarks about the growing threat of global cyber terrorism, ThinkProgress spoke to the longtime public servant about the ChamberLeaks story we originally broke.

According to documents first reported by ThinkProgress, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s attorneys began working with three military contractors — Berico, HB Gary, and Palantir — to come up with a proposal to discredit groups like ThinkProgress, the SEIU, StopTheChamber.com, MoveOn.org, and others. The tactics proposed included spying on families, using malware computer viruses to steal private information, using fake documents to embarrass liberals, and creating fake identities to infiltrate their targets.

Clarke denounced the scandal in no uncertain terms. Noting accurately that the Chamber “took foreign money in the last election,” a story also uncovered by ThinkProgress, Clarke said the Chamber had potentially conspired to commit a “felony”:

FANG: Hi. You talked a lot about classifying and recognizing cyber security threats, but you mostly focused on foreign threats. I’m curious about a story that broke last month, that the US Chamber of Commerce, the world’s largest trade association, based here in DC, had contracted or attempted to contract military defense firms like HB Gary Federal, Palantir, and Berico, to develop proposals to use the same type of cyber warfare tactics normally reserved for Jihadi websites against left-wing activists, trade — labor unions, and left of center think tanks here in America. What do you think about that type of threat from a lobbyist or a corporation targeting political enemies, or perceived enemies here in the US?

CLARKE: I think it’s a violation of 10USC. I think it’s a felony, and I think they should go to jail. You call them a large trade association, I call them a large political action group that took foreign money in the last election. But be that as it may, if you in the United States, if any American citizen anywhere in the world, because this is an extraterritorial law, so don’t think you can go to Bermuda and do it, if any American citizen anywhere in the world engages in unauthorized penetration, or identity theft, accessing a number through identity theft purposes, that’s a felony and if the Chamber of Commerce wants to try that, that’s fine with me because the FBI will be on their doorstep in a matter of hours.

Listen here:
Clarke, the author of a new book called Cyber War, was right to point out that hacking into progressive groups constitutes a felony. There are a number of federal and state statutes that prohibit the theft of private computer information.

Recently, Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) formally requested documents from the NSA and Defense Department relating to contracts with two of the firms involved in this scandal, Berico and HB Gary. Nineteen other lawmakers have called for a wider investigation.

Update David Chavern, the chief operating officer of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, has responded to Clarke's comments and this post on the Chamber's blog. Claiming ThinkProgress is on an "anti-Chamber jihad," Chavern states:

In more than 70,000 hacked e-mails, not one shred of evidence was found demonstrating that the U.S. Chamber ever hired or solicited proposals from any of these security companies. No evidence was found because it doesn’t exist—it never happened.

In fact, as ThinkProgress has reported, there are over half a dozen e-mails showing that the Chamber's attorneys discussed and solicited the hacking plans from military contractors Berico, HB Gary, and Palantir. One e-mail notes that a video showing Palantir's product capability in dealing with Iran for the U.S. government had “sold the Chamber in the first place.” In November, as the military contractors prepared multiple proposals and attack plans for the Chamber, there were several meetings with both Chamber officials and attorneys for the Chamber. On November 23, 2010, a meeting was scheduled where Richard Wyatt, a top attorney for the Chamber, would be “presenting to the client.”

Sadly True

No Respect for the People or Process ll

Rule of Law? Just  a bother to our adversaries.  Rule by Fiat is the Corporatist way:

Wis. Republicans Publish Anti-Union Law -- In Apparent Defiance Of Court Order

Eric Kleefeld | March 25, 2011, 10:27PM

Wisconsin state Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R) and Gov. Scott Walker (R)

Read More

2012 elections, Peter Barca, Scott Fitzgerald, Scott Walker, Wisconsin , Wisconsin Protests, Wisconsin State Legislature

Share

Yet another shoe has dropped in the battle over Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's (R) anti-public employee union law -- with state Republican leaders now apparently defying or attempting to circumvent a court order that temporarily blocked implementation of the law.

Last week, a judge in Dane County (Madison) blocked the law on procedural grounds, ruling that a key conference committee used to advance the bill -- and to get around the state Senate Dems' walkout from the state -- had violated the state open-meetings law by failing to give proper 24-hours notice.

The judge's order "restrain[ed] and enjoin[ed] the further implementation" of the law, including the prevention of Secretary of State Doug LaFollette (D) from publishing the act in the Wisconsin State Journal, which acts as the state's official newspaper for the purpose of giving the public official notice of new laws -- the final step for the law to take effect. That decision is now going through an appeals process, which remains up in the air.
But now, state Republicans have had the bill published through a different office -- the Legislative Reference Bureau, which handles drafting and research for the legislature -- according to the LRB's statutory requirement to publish legislation within ten days of enactment. Interestingly, the LRB itself says that this publication does not constitute action that would put the law into effect. But the state's Republican leaders disagree. Senate Majority Scott Fitzgerald (R) says the LRB publication constitutes official publication and the insists the law will take effect Saturday.

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reports:

"I think this is a ministerial act that forwards it to the secretary of state," said Stephen Miller, director of the Legislative Reference Bureau. "I don't think this act makes it become effective. My understanding is that the secretary of state has to publish it in the (official state) newspaper for it to become effective."

...

Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) claimed it didn't matter that it hasn't appeared in the paper.

"It's published," Fitzgerald said. "It's law. That's what I contend."

Following this action, State House Minority Leader Peter Barca (D) obtained a letter from Scott Grosz, the staff attorney for the Wisconsin Legislative Council -- which offers legal advice to the LRB -- further outlining the LRB's position. Key quote:

As described above, s. 35.095 (3) (b), Stats., refers to the publication activities of the Secretary of State, rather than the publication activities of the LRB. Accordingly, while certain statutory obligations regarding publication of Act 10 have been satisfied by the LRB, the statutory obligation that relates to the effective date of Act 10 has not yet been satisfied by the Secretary of State, and at this time the Secretary's actions remain subject to the temporary restraining order issued in Dane County Circuit Court.

However, Fitzgerald is insisting otherwise, the Wisconsin State Journal reports:

"Every attorney I have consulted said this will now be law," said Fitzgerald. "It wasn't a secret. I think they left the door open for this."

As WisPolitics reports, Fitzgerald said that he had sent the LRB the letter suggesting publication:

"It became clear that this was an option and they were on equal footing with the secretary of state," Fitzgerald said.

Fitzgerald said he could not speculate what legal actions may be taken following LRB publishing the act, but he was confident the move was proper.

"It's law tomorrow," he said.

So what does this all mean? Well, it now appears that Republicans are ready to move ahead with the new law eliminating most collective bargaining rights for public employee unions, despite a court order that prevented not only 'publication' but any "further implementation" of the statute. The move is almost certain to spark yet more litigation and provide more grist for the Democratic efforts to recall Republican state Senators this year and Walker himself next year.