President Obama Assaults Unions, as the Mainstream Media Cheers (Obama) and Jeers (Walker)

You will remember that President Obama has pledged to FREEZE the salaries of Federal workers. He did that without any "negotiation" with the Federal employee unions. Talk about an ATTACK on unions!!!!!! President Obama is such a hypocrite.

"Uh...Skip"

"Yes."

"You have got this wrong."

"I am NEVER wrong."

"Yes, you are. And there you go with the "all caps" shouting again. Under Federal law, reaffirmed in a law passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by Jimmy Careter, Federal employees have no right to collective bargaining on wages or benefits. Therefore, Obama hama had no basis in law upon which to getotiate with Federal unions."

"............................................Sorry for that long pause I was looking it up. That seems to be right. I guess I was wwwwwrrrrrooooo. Oh, I can't say the word, but you know what I mean. But if that is so, how could President Obama make a statement accusing Governor Walker of an "assault" on unions in Wisconsin, when all Walker is doing is trying to limit pubic emplyuee unions the same way they are limited under Federal law not being challenged by DEMOCRATS. In fact, Walke's bill allows MORE collective bargaining than the Fedeal law--allowing at least some collective bargaining on wages. Further, the Federal law pretty much pohibits mandaroy dues, and Federal employees are pretty much prohibited from participating in political campaigns (Hatch Act)."

"..................................................................(long puase) You think you are clever, don't you. You laid that trayp, and I fell into it. You know that Democrats would LIKE --now you have me doing it--to have Federal employee unions running the country, but they are political cowards."

"Just so. You might also note that President Obama promised (in the same campaign where he promised that his health care plan would NOT require individauls to purchase health insurance as a mandatory thing) that he would be out on the picket linke, in his old shoes, if union rights were threatened. Are you telling me that Obama did not mean what he said? I have not seen him out with the protesters in Winsonsin>'

(no response)

Getting out of the Socratic dialogue. I mention the Hatch Act above. Yes, Federal employees (civil service ones) are not supposed to contribute to political campaigns, and otherwise actively participate in partisan politics. You can see why--unless you are in the mainstream media--why this is so. What if your BOSS comes to you and asks you for a contribution to his political campaign--his OWN political campaing. Yes, it is true you might face something like this dilemma in a private corporation, without civil service protection, if your boss has different political views. But it is not a DIRECT conflict of intrest, as would be true if you are a Federal employee. Sure, your private boss MIGHT run for office, but it is hardly the same as working under a Federal boss who you either publicly opposed or publicly supported. The whole idea of civil service--admittedly not vigorously enforced--is to have a bureaucracy not actively engaged in politics. The CONFLICT OF INTERST is obvious. How would you like, for example, partisan politics to be taking place within the armed forces? Democrats would produce THEIR soldiers, endorsing them, at their convention, and the Repubicans would produce ttheirs. Big help to the "unity" of our fighting forces, would it not be? (sarcasm)

The CONFLICT OF INTEREST is even more obvious with public employee unions. That is the main reason Federal employees are not allowed collective bargaining rights. Instead of the government "shutting down" because of disagreement in Congress, imagine Federal Government UNIONS shutting down the government. Oh, I know that the mainstream media would still blame it on Repubicans, as they are tryig to do in Wisconsin (where public employee unions HAVE shut down parts of the government). It would still be a trrible situation. We are already as bankrupt as GREECE. If we had Federal employees massing in Washington demanding wages and benefits, and that the government "bargain" with them, we would BE Greece. We are close enough to Greece with these public employee unions "demonstrating" across the country.

Just look at how much of a conflict of interest is created with a public employee union--one with MANDATORY dues taken out of the employee's paycheck. The public employee unions condcut CAMPAIGNS to elect lpoliticians, as state unions (but not Federal ones) have done. These public employee unnions are therefore using TAXPAYER money (which pays the employee salaries) to directly INFLUENCE who will represent the taxpayers in "negotiations". If the unions get "their" politicians elected, then they get to negotiate wages and benfits with politicians who owe their JOB to the very unions with which they are negotiating. If politicians get elected by promising to limit wages and benefits, then the public employee unions can try to SABOTAGE the "anti-union" politicians. This is an absurd CONFLICT OF INTERST not allowed on a Federal level. It should not be allowed on a state level, and Republicans should honestly say so (instead of being meanly-mouthed about it, as too many of them are).

But is this not the same conflict of interest that exists when a corporatioin (or corprate executives/employees) contribute to a political campaign, and then the politician votes on legislation that affects the contributer? NO. it is not the same. That situation--which does contain an obvious potential conflict of interest, but one unavoidable in a democracy--is the same conflict of interest that exists when a PRIVATE SECTOR union supports a political candiate. Then the union may expect the candidate to support the legislation the union wants. That is an INDIRECTA conflict of interest. Public employee unions create a DIRECT conflict of interest, whre unions assert the "right" to elecdt the bery people who will "negotiate" their salaries and benefits.

Yes, I AM saying that the Federal rule is basically correct, and that public employee unions should NOT have the "right" to collectively bargain wages and benefits. Nor should they be permitted to actively participate in politcal campaings--at least state campaigns in the very state that employs them. Governor Walker, in Wisconsin, has not even gone this far, and yet he is being treated--and accused of being--a Hitler-type "union buster" (his proposed law would affect no private unions at all--at least as far as I can tell from incedibly incompetent media reporting).

What is the mainstream media doing? You know the answer to this one. Those partisan hacks (see previous article on CNN) are pusing lies and distortions. They refuse to make clear the distinction between public sector and private sector unions. They IGNORE the fact that FEDERAL public employee unions have few collective bargaining "rights". Tehy don't ask the tough questions (Does President Obama propose that Federal employees have the right to collectively bargain?") They are living in a PARTISAN fantasy world of their own,. Yes, a Massachusetts Congressman can say that pubic employee unions should "get bloody" in their protests, and protesters can carry signs comparing Scott Walker to Hitler (and puttiing him in corsshairs), without any reference to CIVILITY. This is exposes the complete hypocrisy to the mainstream media, and leftist Democrats: the worst hypocrites who have ever walked the Earth, on two legs or four. "Cviility NEVER meant anything other than no one but Democrats and leftists are supposed to protest and talk loudly. Are ALL unioin members vicious, uncivil people because of those "hate" sings? If lyou apply the same standards the mainstream media applied to the Tea Party--with less reason--then ALL union members ARE guilty of "hate speech". That is especailly true when union people, and sympathizers, fail to REPUDIATE the "angry", "hatefl" rhetoric.

Whereare the mainstream media questions demanding CIVILITY? Where are the mainstream media questions demanding REPUDIATION and punishment of those union members carryhng vicious signs? Where are the mainsteam media questions and comments asking why the signs were ALLOWED, and not IMMEDIATELY taken away the moment they appear (with the holder of any sign expelled from the union)?

HYPOCRITES is what these people are. They BELIEVE in "guilt by association", but not for THEM and those they support. They believe in an exaggerated idea of "civility", but not for them, and those they suppport. "Protest"--the angiier the better--is the essence of being AMERICAN, so long as the protest is aadvocating something approved by the mainstream media and other leftist Democrats. You can see why I have nothing but CONTEMPT for these people (mainstream media).

And if we are going to have a "coversation" on "public employee unions", then explain why that "conversation" should not include a conversation onf FEDERAL public employee unions. If you are HONEST, it MUST include that question These people--leftist Democrats and the mainstream media--are not honest. It is NOT honest to say that public employee unions have a generally recognized "right" to collectively bargain in this country. If you think they SHOULD have that general right, you should ARUGE it hoestly.

P.S. Note, yet again, that the above--as well as the previous article--has neither been proofread nor spell checked (yeesight).