Opinion of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley)

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

FA

[Arturo Belano]

FA, because the more you beat up on unions, the greater the chances for a proletariat revolution becomes. Don't you just see it brewing out there?!

#DeadPeople4President2016

You know TNF has thoroughly trashed Taft-Hartley in this thread, right?

Yes, I've noticed an odd cognitive dissonance. One minute they're talking about how all right-wing legislation is horrible and should be stopped, the next they're talking about how they want right-wing policy implemented rather than settle for "meager capitalistic reforms" such as the New Deal and Great Society that merely stifle the growing revolution.

Where the hell has TNF expressed support for right-wing legislation on those grounds?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I have seen leftists musing about voting for ultra-neoliberal candidates that would wreack havoc on existing welfare systems and allow the impetus for a true revolution. Not sure about TNF though.

And yes, HA, etc. I wonder why no Democratic administration has even floated the idea of repealing it since the 60's?

[TNF]

FA, because the more you beat up on unions, the greater the chances for a proletariat revolution becomes. Don't you just see it brewing out there?!

#DeadPeople4President2016

You know TNF has thoroughly trashed Taft-Hartley in this thread, right?

Yes, I've noticed an odd cognitive dissonance. One minute they're talking about how all right-wing legislation is horrible and should be stopped, the next they're talking about how they want right-wing policy implemented rather than settle for "meager capitalistic reforms" such as the New Deal and Great Society that merely stifle the growing revolution.

Could you please show me an example of where I've ever said anything to the extent that you suggest here? I've never been against reforms if they are actual reforms. My comments on the New Deal and the Great Society have largely been to say that they have not gone far enough, not that they were not great advances on the part of the working class. I have also never claimed that either of those things were the result of enlightened liberal politicians, because they weren't. They were a response to organized and militant action in the streets, be it the CIO in the 1930s or the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s.

I have seen leftists musing about voting for ultra-neoliberal candidates that would wreack havoc on existing welfare systems and allow the impetus for a true revolution. Not sure about TNF though.

And yes, HA, etc. I wonder why no Democratic administration has even floated the idea of repealing it since the 60's?

Lyndon Johnson brought repeal up for a vote in 1966. He didn't give the Senate the 'Johnson treatment', and pretty much ignored the whole debate, allowing it to go down in defeat when conservative Democrats and Republicans filibustered it. Jimmy Carter promised a vote on repealing it in 1977, but didn't actually twist any arms to get it passed or brought to the floor, focusing more time on getting the Panama Canal Treaty through. The result was that a contingent of pro-business proto-New Democrats joined with the usual offenders to kill repeal in the House.

Bill Clinton never campaigned on it, but he did promise to support a ban on the use of scabs during a strike. That never came to a vote because Clinton was too busy ramming the anti-labor NAFTA through Congress. Obama of course promised card check, but that also never got to a vote because he had to sell his anti-labor healthcare bill.

[H. Ross Peron]

HA (normal, pro-union)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I have seen leftists musing about voting for ultra-neoliberal candidates that would wreack havoc on existing welfare systems and allow the impetus for a true revolution. Not sure about TNF though.

And yes, HA, etc. I wonder why no Democratic administration has even floated the idea of repealing it since the 60's?

For one thing, right-to-work laws enjoy broad national support, so eliminating those, let alone returning to the era of the closed shop isn't going to happen anytime soon.  The real question isn't why the Democrats haven't pushed to end the ability of States to opt out of union or agency shops by passing a right-to-work law, it's why the Republicans haven't changed it so that States have to explicitly opt in to allowing union or agency shops or even simply disallowing them nationwide.  There are probably at least five States that if the rules were changed from opting out to opting in that would become right-to-work States.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

One of the worst laws passed in the last century.

[IceSpear]

FA, because the more you beat up on unions, the greater the chances for a proletariat revolution becomes. Don't you just see it brewing out there?!

#DeadPeople4President2016

You know TNF has thoroughly trashed Taft-Hartley in this thread, right?

Yes, I've noticed an odd cognitive dissonance. One minute they're talking about how all right-wing legislation is horrible and should be stopped, the next they're talking about how they want right-wing policy implemented rather than settle for "meager capitalistic reforms" such as the New Deal and Great Society that merely stifle the growing revolution.

Could you please show me an example of where I've ever said anything to the extent that you suggest here? I've never been against reforms if they are actual reforms. My comments on the New Deal and the Great Society have largely been to say that they have not gone far enough, not that they were not great advances on the part of the working class. I have also never claimed that either of those things were the result of enlightened liberal politicians, because they weren't. They were a response to organized and militant action in the streets, be it the CIO in the 1930s or the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s.

Didn't you say you weren't a fan of FDR because he stifled the growing socialist/communist movements with the New Deal? Per that logic, wouldn't you have preferred he either dithered or pushed right wing policy to further the revolution?

[Illuminati Blood Drinker]

FA, because the more you beat up on unions, the greater the chances for a proletariat revolution becomes. Don't you just see it brewing out there?!

#DeadPeople4President2016

You know TNF has thoroughly trashed Taft-Hartley in this thread, right?

Yes, I've noticed an odd cognitive dissonance. One minute they're talking about how all right-wing legislation is horrible and should be stopped, the next they're talking about how they want right-wing policy implemented rather than settle for "meager capitalistic reforms" such as the New Deal and Great Society that merely stifle the growing revolution.

Could you please show me an example of where I've ever said anything to the extent that you suggest here? I've never been against reforms if they are actual reforms. My comments on the New Deal and the Great Society have largely been to say that they have not gone far enough, not that they were not great advances on the part of the working class. I have also never claimed that either of those things were the result of enlightened liberal politicians, because they weren't. They were a response to organized and militant action in the streets, be it the CIO in the 1930s or the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s.

Didn't you say you weren't a fan of FDR because he stifled the growing socialist/communist movements with the New Deal? Per that logic, wouldn't you have preferred he either dithered or pushed right wing policy to further the revolution?

I think you're confusing TNF with me during my lunatic True Leftist phase