Louisiana voters defeated scandal-plagued Congressman William Jefferson, D-New Orleans, in Saturday's run-off election.

Jefferson will be replaced by a Republican, Anh "Joseph" Cao, but on a host of issues it will be impossible to identify the shift.

That's because, in addition to displaying the ethical laxity of a Tom DeLay Republican, Jefferson often voted like one.

Putting aside the federal probe that has turned up evidence that seems to suggest the congressman solicited huge bribes -- which, even in Louisiana, argued for his defeat -- Jefferson had a horrific record of breaking with his Democratic colleagues to sell out his constituents, his country and the poorest people in the world.

Jefferson may have retained his Democrat registration. But on the issues that really mattered, Jefferson served the Bush administration and Wall Street more diligently than a number of Republicans.

Jefferson's has been one of the steadiest Democratic votes for the president's foreign policy agenda. The Louisianan voted to authorize Bush to use force against Iraq, consistently supported emergency "supplemental" spending to maintain the occupation of that country, and favored deployment of the "Star Wars" Strategic Defense Initiative. He voted for the USA Patriot Act when it was rushed through Congress in 2001, and was a big backer of Vice President Cheney's national energy policy. And, though his record on social issues is mixed, Jefferson has on a number of occasions cast his lot with the White House and its social-conservative allies to help enact restrictions on abortion, school prayer initiatives and a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

But Jefferson's deepest loyalty was not to the Bush administration. Rather, it is to big business. In a Congress where there are plenty of Democrats who are friendly to the legislative agenda of corporate America, Jefferson was devoted to it. This Democrat puts more than a few responsible Republicans to shame when it comes to doing the bidding of Wall Street.

After a key export tax break for US manufacturers was identified as an illegal trade subsidy by the World Trade Organization, Jefferson and most -- though not all -- House Republicans voted to provide $140 billion in new corporate tax cuts for impacted businesses. He voted again and again for bankruptcy law "reforms" that favored the interests of banks and credit card companies over those of working families. And he was the king of the dwindling circle of free-trade Democrats.

Jefferson was not just one of "The CAFTA 15" – the group of Democrats who cast critical votes to save the Central American Free Trade Agreement after the administration was abandoned by 27 Republicans when the agreement came up for House approval in July, 2005 -- he was the chief Democratic cheerleader for that bad trade deal. When the corporate-funded Democratic Leadership Council sponsored a pro-CAFTA teleconference before the vote, there was Jefferson proclaiming: "I'm supporting CAFTA because I believe it's in the best interests of our country."

The Louisiana Democrat, who was a senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee's powerful subcommittee on trade, did similar service during debates over trade deals with Chile, Singapore and Australia. And he was an essential Democratic supporter of normalizing trade relations with China in 2000, arguably the most devastating trade deal since the North American Free Trade Agreement of six years earlier, which Jefferson also backed.

But Jefferson's most unsettling advocacy on behalf of corporate-friendly trade agreements that have undermined job security and wages, environmental protection and human rights in the U.S. and abroad came in 1998, when the congressman was an outspoken advocate for the African Growth and Opportunity Act. AGOA, as that deal was known, was dubbed "NAFTA for Africa" by the business press. Condemned by South African President Nelson Mandela and Africa trade unions that saw it as a move to make it even easier for multinational corporations to exploit the continent's workers and resources, AGOA was described by a leading foe, Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., D-Illinois, as the "Africa Recolonization Act."

During the House debate on the issue, Jackson pointed out that, "The AGOA extends short-lived trade 'benefits' for the nations of sub-Sahara Africa. In exchange for these crumbs from globalization's table, the African nations must pay a huge price: adherence to economic policies that serve the interests of foreign creditors, multinational corporations and financial speculators at the expense of the majority of Africans."

The Illinois Democrat asked, "Whose interests will the AGOA advance? Look at the coalition promoting it -- a corporate who's who of oil giants, banking and insurance interests, as well as apparel firms seeking one more place to locate their low-paying sweatshops. Some of these corporations are already infamous in Africa for their disregard for the environment and human rights."

The coalition promoting the African Growth and Opportunity Act was able to counter the criticisms from Mandela, Jackson and others by highlighting the enthusiastic support for the deal by a prominent member of the Congressional Black Caucus. That member, William Jefferson, gleefully declared that, "Africa is a reservoir of opportunities for American businesses."

(Among the bribes Jefferson is alleged to have accepted are more than $400,000 in payments to help telecommunications firms do business in Nigeria and other West African nations.)

The split in the black caucus back in 1998 helped secure passage of AGOA in a form that was much worse than might have been the case if Jefferson and others had echoed the honest concerns expressed by Jackson.

No wonder that, in recent election cycles, Jefferson reported that almost 79 percent of the political action committee contributions to his reelection campaign came from business interests, while just 19 percent came from organized labor.

Even in his campaign coffers, William Jefferson had the profile of a Republican – and an unsavory Republican at that.

Comments (59)

1. NICHOLS: "......Jefferson's most unsettling advocacy on behalf of corporate-friendly trade agreements that have undermined job security and wages, environmental protection and human rights in the U.S. and abroad came in 1998, when the congressman was an outspoken advocate for the African Growth and Opportunity Act. AGOA,...."

   Well, Mr. Nichols, from your list of Jeffersonian `sins', you call his backing AGOA as the "most unsettling"...and damaging to quite a few of the Libs' typical fear-mongering issues.

   With the passage of 10 years since that Act passed, can you or any libs on this board, document for us how much `undermining' has occurred? Is Africa Re-Colonized by whities? Is Mugabe working for Big Oil? Big Banks?

   Fact is, keeping Africa (& all 3rd world countries) backward is in you Libs' interest......think `green'!

   Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 12/08/2008 @ 10:48pm

2. William Jefferson was a hard core Democrat and liberal.

   He was rated 79% by the ACLU; 94% by the NAACP; 78% by SANE, a pro-peace voting record; 87% by the AFL-CIO; 0% by FAIR, indicating support for for easier immigration; 0% by USBC, indicating an open-border stance; 90% by the ARA, a pro-senior voting record; 25% by NTU, marking him a "Big Spender" on tax votes; 92% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education.

   Is that the performance of "A Democrat in name only"?

   He voted YES on investigating Bush impeachment for lying about Iraq; YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days; YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons; Yes to End harsher sentencing for crack vs. powder cocaine; YES for a moratorium on death penalty; more DNA testing; NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime; NO on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date; NO on approving removal of Saddam & valiant service of US troops; NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism; NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent; NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance; NO on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. . . etc.

   Does that suggest: "on the issues that really mattered, Jefferson served the Bush administration"?

   It suggests Nichols is dishonest to the bone. He wants to pretend, when a Liberal is discovered to be corrupt he was in fact a Republican under the skin. Such is the simplicity of The Nation's mindset.

   Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 12/09/2008 @ 01:13am

3. Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 12/08/2008 @ 10:48pm

   I'm confused...

   Isn't it also in YOUR interest?

   Posted by TexasFlood at 12/09/2008 @ 01:52am

4. So...Jefferson is a DINO? Judging by the content of his refrigerator, I guess he was the kind that went for the greens...

   Posted by Thrawn at 12/09/2008 @ 02:07am

5. Well, I'm just happy for our Right-wing friends...

   they needed SOMETHING "positive" to hang their hats on after a disasterous year.

   So, a Democrat going down for corruption gives it to them and they can gleefully ignore all the OTHER stuff!....heheh

   Posted by Mask at 12/09/2008 @ 07:09am

6. I think that any of these folks in the Senate/ Congress should resign, be fired ,or go to jail if they have done anything against the law. I don't care which side they are on, none of them should be allowed to get away with anything as they should be setting a good example as they should know better you would think!!! There are too many of them out there and they should be dealt with accordingly.

   Posted by Caj at 12/09/2008 @ 07:58am

7. No no no

   Jefferson WILL be re-elected, because libs are like that. None other than Ponti and Darin told us so.

   HUGGY, do you always judge others by what the ACLU says? See, I remember some cons writing about a certain president elect being "the most liberal senator", now those same fear mongers are writing about how pleased they are with the cabinet.

   Does voting to have the same sentence for the same drug make one a liberal? Does ending the death penalty for not guilty people make one a liberal (OK< maybe it does, I know you cons like to kill anybody you FEEL is guilty of anything). Who was he protecting the Pledge of Allegiance from? Was someone trying to stop you from reciting it? How has the Iraq war prevented Islamic terrorism in India?

   I am no fan of Jefferson, but he strikes me as a "centrist". Oh...wait...silly me..... anything left of McCarthy is socialism to you guys. Now I get it. I am starting to fall in line, nationalization of the banking and auto industry, with central control of the auto industry, is the New Capitalism. Risk will be backed by tax payers, invest away!

   Posted by crabwalk at 12/09/2008 @ 08:00am

8. HappyLongHorn,

   Don't fret old boy. Expecting Mr NICHOLS to be objective about matters like this is like expecting Peter Rothberg to voluntarily watch three straight hours of Family Guy. :)

   Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/09/2008 @ 09:08am

9. Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/09/2008 @ 09:08am

   PETER doesn't like "Family Guy"?

   When did he say that?

   Posted by Mask at 12/09/2008 @ 09:10am

10. well, one less sleazeball in washington.

    huzzah...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/09/2008 @ 09:39am

11. "..and they can gleefully ignore all the OTHER stuff!....heheh"

    Posted by Mask at 12/09/2008 @ 07:09am

    lemonade

    Posted by Benchrest at 12/09/2008 @ 09:40am

12. lemonade

    Posted by Benchrest at 12/09/2008 @ 09:40am | ignore this person | warn this person

    quite the optimist, eh? lemons into lemonade?

    YES WE CAN!!!!

    lol...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/09/2008 @ 09:42am

13. MASK,

    No offense, man, but what planet have you been on lately? Can't you recognize understatement when you see it.

    Or am I missing your sarcasm perhaps?

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/09/2008 @ 09:46am

14. Sorry missed your "?" So I did miss your sarcasm.

    Writing before thinking- my bad

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/09/2008 @ 09:48am

15. huzzah...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/09/2008 @ 09:39am

    Looks like two going down.

    Gov. Blagojevich of Illinois just arrested by the FBI guys.

    ah, politicians. gotta love em.

    Posted by Benchrest at 12/09/2008 @ 09:53am

16. ah, politicians. gotta love em.

    Posted by Benchrest at 12/09/2008 @ 09:53am | ignore this person | warn this person

    the sword cuts both ways.

    now that the dems are in power i suspect that we will see more in the coming years, power and its corrupting taint being what it is...

    regardless, it will be hard to live up to the example set by the GOP the last few years...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/09/2008 @ 10:01am

17. regardless, it will be hard to live up to the example set by the GOP the last few years...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/09/2008 @ 10:01am |

    the gop did set the bar quite low, did they not?

    the dems better not screw this one up.(ie. keep their pants zipped up and hands off the cash)

    Posted by Benchrest at 12/09/2008 @ 10:17am

18. Illinois Governor Arrested on Corruption Charges Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and his chief of staff were arrested in Chicago Tuesday on two counts each of corruption charges relating to trying to sell President-elect Barack Obama's vacated Senate seat.

    FOXNews.com

    Tuesday, December 09, 2008

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/ 09/report-illinois-governor-taken-federal-custody/

    Wow........

    Posted by OneVote at 12/09/2008 @ 10:32am

19. Posted by Benchrest at 12/09/2008 @ 10:17am | ignore this person | warn this person

    how low can you go??? LIMBO!!!!

    i suspect that a new era of angry voter demands for accountability will temper cads and potential cads to some extent...

    but i'm sure we will give the pubs a few poster children for dem perfidy and corruption before long...

    still will be hard to rival the rogues gallery of the GOP...

    and i think most republicans now understand...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/09/2008 @ 10:39am

20. Illinois Governor Arrested on Corruption Charges Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and his chief of staff were arrested in Chicago Tuesday on two counts each of corruption charges relating to trying to sell President-elect Barack Obama's vacated Posted by OneVote at 12/09/2008 @ 10:32am

    Yet another idiot and greed filled jerk, how stupid can you get and how does that look for the Obama team!!! I can imagine Obama would be really mad about this latest act of idiocy. I don't care which side of the isle they come from they should be punished accordingly for their mistakes. Time to clean house when Obama is the President, no time for these kind of folks in his administration.

    Posted by Caj at 12/09/2008 @ 11:16am

21. I don't care which side of the isle they come from they should be punished accordingly for their mistakes. Time to clean house when Obama is the President, no time for these kind of folks in his administration.

    Posted by Caj at 12/09/2008 @ 11:16am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Well....part of the story is that the good governor was trying to get an appointment in Obama's cabinet. Did he have a chance? Obama, and certainly Emmanuel, likely have a pretty good handle on Blagojevich. Some are saying that the FED sprung the trap before the inauguration because they were concerned that executive authority would kill the investigation. Chicago politics - a pretty arrogant (and stupid) mafia.

    Posted by OneVote at 12/09/2008 @ 11:31am

22. Who was the Federal Attorney that indicted the IL gov?

    If it was Fitzgerald it must be a witch hunt!!!

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/09/2008 @ 11:43am

23. Will we see a new Koreagate? Keating 5?

    Who will take the place of Tip O'Neil as the Bagman for the DLC?

    hmmm, with Jefferson gone....and Clinton out and about....Rep Frank is good at keeping secrets, or not...nope not him...

    Get your votes in now. Any ballot received after indictments will not be counted.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/09/2008 @ 11:47am

24. Wasn't it Peter Rothberg who said, when asked if he knew William Jefferson because he was a Democrat, denied that he was a Democrat, and, in fact three times denied knowing him?

    No, I guess that was another Peter.

    Posted by Mistral at 12/09/2008 @ 12:03pm

25. Posted by Mistral at 12/09/2008 @ 12:03pm

    Well, if you believe THAT story, Mistral...maybe you can explain exactly how Judas died.

    Posted by Mask at 12/09/2008 @ 12:19pm

26. If it was Fitzgerald it must be a witch hunt!!!

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/09/2008 @ 11:43am | ignore this person | warn this person

    'Fifteen Illinois law enforcement officers have been charged on counts that included accepting cash in exchange for providing armed protection for drug dealing operations in south suburban Chicago.

    Mr. Fitzgerald described the charges as "particularly shocking."

    "Ideally, it should be hard to find one corrupt officer," Mr. Fitzgerald said in a written statement, "and it should never be easy to find 15 who allegedly used their guns and badges to protect people they believed were dealing drugs, instead of arresting them."'

    Fifteen Illinois officers charged in FBI drug sting Sold 'Guns And Badges'

    Karen Ann Cullotta, National Post Published: Thursday, December 04, 2008

    Looks like Mr. Fitzgerald has been on a tear lately in Illinois......good hunting ground for "witches."

    Posted by OneVote at 12/09/2008 @ 12:20pm

27. Posted by OneVote at 12/09/2008 @ 11:31am

    "Some are saying that the FED sprung the trap before the inauguration because they were concerned that executive authority would kill the investigation."

    Obama isn't going to get involved in Illinois state politics. Anyone with eyes to see knows that Blagovich was going to go the way of George Ryan, and Obama doesn't want to get anywhere near that.

    In fact, I think, given the news coverage, it makes more sense for Obama's team to tip off the Feds given that Blagovich was going to sell it off rather than go with the person they want.

    http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6424985&page;=1

    Posted by srjenkins at 12/09/2008 @ 12:24pm

28. Obama isn't going to get involved in Illinois state politics. Anyone with eyes to see knows that Blagovich was going to go the way of George Ryan, and Obama doesn't want to get anywhere near that.

    Posted by srjenkins at 12/09/2008 @ 12:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    You may be right. But I can't agree that Obama isn't going to using his presidential weight in state politics, particularly where it may involve aspiring fed office candidates.

    Posted by OneVote at 12/09/2008 @ 12:40pm

29. Has spring come early? It seems flowers are blooming cause the manure is being spread deep and wide.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/09/2008 @ 1:13pm

30. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/215/gallery/56848-a56762-t3.html

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/09/2008 @ 1:20pm

31. Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/09/2008 @ 1:13pm

    Do please go into detail.

    Is this BS to you :"I don't care which side of the isle they come from they should be punished accordingly for their mistakes. "-CAJ

    This: "regardless, it will be hard to live up to the example set by the GOP the last few years..."

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/09/2008 @ 10:01am |

    "the gop did set the bar quite low, did they not?

    the dems better not screw this one up.(ie. keep their pants zipped up and hands off the cash)"

    Posted by Benchrest at 12/09/2008 @ 10:17am

    Are you going to start telling us that all of the scandals the GOP found itself in are in fact not scandals?

    Or are you refering to the actual article? Are you telling us that Jefferson WAS NOT taking bribes from Big Bidness? Or that he did NOT vote to go to war and did NOT vote to give Chimpy all the money he asked for?

    Or are you referring to the amount of people trying to get far away from Jefferson now? Is he "the second most liberal congressman" in the House, like Obama was "THE MOST liberal Senator"?

    Inquiring minds want to know what you mean.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/09/2008 @ 1:24pm

32. Good one Frost! Nice find.

    What is left out is that the leader in question already has his bags packed.

    We also know, from the folks that brought us the Fitzgerald "witch hunts" and the Marxist Obama administrration, that when that leader leaves office with 2 unfinished wars, 250 people held in limbo in a cuban gulag and the worst economy since 1942...history will prove that he was one of the top ten presidents!

    smoke it if ya got it.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/09/2008 @ 1:29pm

33. Inquiring minds want to know what you mean.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/09/2008 @ 1:24pm

    I mean that you and some others here have posted ad naseum about Republican corruption while ignoring Democratic corruption.

    I have stated consistently that corruption occurs without regard to party because power is a corrupting influence and isn't specific to a particular political party.

    http://boycottliberalism.com/Scandals.htm http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=44804

    I'm happy to see corrupt politicians exposed and justice served whichever party they belong to. Just stop trying to claim that it is all Republican corruption, that's dishonest.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/09/2008 @ 1:32pm

34. I know this is a forum on the corruption of Willy Jefferson (d) LA, but I sure am going to miss this guy (from a humor standpoint)

    "You know, I'm the President during this period of time, but I think when the history of this period is written, people will realize a lot of the decisions that were made on Wall Street took place over a decade or so, before I arrived in President, during I arrived in President." --George W. Bush, ABC News interview, Dec. 1, 2008

    And therer was NOTHING he could do about it because of the liberals in congress?

    "This thaw -- took a while to thaw, it's going to take a while to unthaw." --George W. Bush, on liquidity in the markets, Alexandria, La., Oct. 20, 2008

    "First of all, I don't see America having problems." --George W. Bush, interview with Bob Costas at the 2008 Olympics, Beijing, China, Aug. 10, 2008

    "Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter." --George W. Bush, in parting words to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy at his final G-8 Summit, punching the air and grinning widely as the two leaders looked on in shock, Rusutsu, Japan, July 10, 2008

    "Amigo! Amigo!" --George W. Bush, calling out to Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi in Spanish at the G-8 Summit, Rusutsu, Japan, July 10, 20

    "I remember meeting a mother of a child who was abducted by the North Koreans right here in the Oval Office." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., June 26, 2008

    Who is charge of security? did they get the travel documents!

    Is it Jan 20 yet?

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/09/2008 @ 1:36pm

35. Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/09/2008 @ 1:32pm

    Who claimed that the dems are not corrupt? As I read the posts here it is clear to me that most everyone says that both parties are corrupt, but that the GOP has really set a new standard. Especially after the Contract with America and the whole Family Values platform.

    I am also waiting to hear about how "out of control" Fitzgerald is. I seem to recall that phrase associated with his name not too long ago.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/09/2008 @ 1:40pm

36. And while I have you , Larry, what is it about police and fireman that you see asscoiated with Marxist Mafia and the destruction of capitalism?

    "Well, in the US, unions are marxist organized mafia organizations. They are thugs who want to destroy our system by rewarding mediocrity and destroying capitalism."

    Is it the flowering of Police Union Credit Unions that worry you so?

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/09/2008 @ 1:48pm

37. Bureau of Labor Statistics, US Dept of Labor

    "The union membership rate for public sector workers (35.9 percent) was substantially higher than for private industry workers (7.5 percent). Within the public sector, local government workers had the highest union membership rate, 41.8 percent. This group includes many workers in several heavily unionized occupations, such as teachers, police officers, and fire fighters"

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/09/2008 @ 1:58pm

38. Posted by crabwalk at 12/09/2008 @ 1:58pm

    And your point being?

    Posted by ACook at 12/09/2008 @ 2:06pm

39. Posted by ACook at 12/09/2008 @ 2:06pm

    My point is that Larry, and most of the cons here, have a problem with unions. Larry thinks they are Marxist mafia bent on the destruction of capitalism (I can't make that stuff up)but... never is heard a discouraging word about one of the larger union membership- police and firemen. So, I am wondering how those groups fit into the Marxist mafia.

    ACOOK, when you were asked to join a nurses union, did you undergo Marxist re-education?

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/09/2008 @ 2:13pm

40. This story, as well as Governor Blagojevich of Illinois and, indeed , the Bush presidency, should serve as a meditation on Acton's precept that "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Jefferson was a senior member of the most powerful committee in the House-Ways and Means, which means he gets to write the tax code. How attractive is that for someone to drop a little cold hard cash in exchange for a revision of the tax code. (Pun about the U.S.C. in the fridge intended.) Blago was a two term governor who was just too stupid and greedy to be believed. But he had the support of the Daley machine all along. As a matter of fact, he began his legal career as an Asssitant States Attorney when Daley was running that office. And the sins and excesses of the Bush regime have been gone over in these pages often enough that I need not revisit them. The founders believed in less government, not more. But the country and the world have changed so dramatically in the past 220 years that the changes that are somewhat inevitable. But with those changes have come more opportunities for mischief.

    Posted by The Goods at 12/09/2008 @ 2:14pm

41. My point is that Larry, and most of the cons here, have a problem with unions. Larry thinks they are Marxist mafia bent on the destruction of capitalism (I can't make that stuff up)but... never is heard a discouraging word about one of the larger union membership- police and firemen. So, I am wondering how those groups fit into the Marxist mafia.

    ACOOK, when you were asked to join a nurses union, did you undergo Marxist re-education?

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/09/2008 @ 2:13pm

    I'm speaking about Union leadership. The dictates and demands of unions are based upon marxist dogma. Those facts are not disputable. And most union leaders engage in mafia style coercion against companies and cities as they attempt to wage their agenda of power. It has little to actually do with caring about workers and their jobs.

    I don't have a single family member who likes being part of a union. That goes for a teacher, fireman, and my wife who is a county employee. One of my brothers is very upset because his 20 plus years of employment with one of the major phone companies is threatened if he refuses to join a union soon (he doesn't want to join).

    When I was in the Teamsters and earlier, the UAW, I saw first hand the corruption and the lies. I was actually a Shop Steward in the UAW. I was pressured constantly to file grievances whether justified or not. In the Teamsters, I not only witnessed, but confronted the leadership when they lied during a strike vote about the supposed support fronm another union. For standing up to them, I experienced several years of harrassment from the local. My wage withheld union dues somehow never showed up at the local and I would be forced quarterly to pay new initiation dues plus the dues I had supposedly never paid.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/09/2008 @ 2:46pm

42. And yet you seem to give the non-union management some sort of pass, as if they don't routinely engage in such shady behavior, and on an even bigger scale.

    Once again you're talking about marxism. How surprising.

    Posted by TexasFlood at 12/09/2008 @ 3:42pm

43. Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/09/2008 @ 2:46pm

    Your description sounds like Burnham's Managerial Revolution. Unions are run by managers that primarily look out for themselves over the interests of their union members. Same as the relationship between secior management and shareholders in corporations.

    That's not to say that they don't have a role to play, but anyone that has any involvement with unions knows that they often bring a lot of additional problems to the table.

    Posted by srjenkins at 12/09/2008 @ 3:51pm

44. Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/09/2008 @ 2:46pm

    What IS the proper format for labor to settle disputes with management?

    Posted by Mask at 12/09/2008 @ 4:27pm

45. What IS the proper format for labor to settle disputes with management?

    Posted by Mask at 12/09/2008 @ 4:27pm

    First of all, I don't believe in collective bargaining. I believe that every individual should negotiate between themselves and the employer. It's not a perfect way but I believe in it far more than collectivist coercion. I've won at times and I've lost at times and you have to be adult enough to accept the result either way. If you don't like the result, go elsewhere or learn to do something different

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/09/2008 @ 5:04pm

46. LL wrote: "First of all, I don't believe in collective bargaining. I believe that every individual should negotiate between themselves and the employer. It's not a perfect way but I believe in it far more than collectivist coercion. I've won at times and I've lost at times and you have to be adult enough to accept the result either way. If you don't like the result, go elsewhere or learn to do something different"--Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/09/2008 @ 5:04pm

    Funny - the end of your post is in direct contradiction with the beginning of your post. You're outnumbered in a union shop if you don't want to be part of a union. You cry and cry about it - you're not adult enough to accept the result.

    Posted by urmygyro at 12/09/2008 @ 7:14pm

47. And collective bargaining is what takes place in every state legislative chamber and in Congress.

    Hell, collective bargaining is how we ended up with a little old document called the CONSTITUTION.

    But LL's too good to collectively bargain. What he's really saying is he wants to be his own island - other people are dragging him down.

    It's part of his God complex.

    Posted by urmygyro at 12/09/2008 @ 7:19pm

48. Funny - the end of your post is in direct contradiction with the beginning of your post. You're outnumbered in a union shop if you don't want to be part of a union. You cry and cry about it - you're not adult enough to accept the result.

    Posted by urmygyro at 12/09/2008 @ 7:14pm

    No, there is no contradiction. I have made it a point to never put myself into a situation since I left the union in 1980 to ever be in a union again. If you are smart and care enough about yourself, you don't go into a union workplace.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/09/2008 @ 7:39pm

49. So if/when your wife's government job (you said she's a county worker) goes union are you going to pressure her to quit (or are they already unionized)?

    And yes, you were being contradictory - you're complaining about collective bargaining - to use your words, "be adult enough to accept the result." That includes not crying about it on blogs.

    Posted by urmygyro at 12/09/2008 @ 7:45pm

50. So if/when your wife's government job (you said she's a county worker) goes union are you going to pressure her to quit (or are they already unionized)?

    And yes, you were being contradictory - you're complaining about collective bargaining - to use your words, "be adult enough to accept the result." That includes not crying about it on blogs.

    Posted by urmygyro at 12/09/2008 @ 7:45pm

    I don't cry about it on blogs. I express my opinion. I am against unions and I will fight against them every chance I get. And that includes the fact that I make it a point to cross picket lines whenever I can. But I don't speak for others. They (and that includes my wife) have to make their own decisions. My wife hates the union but likes her job. She refuses to be involved with the union except for the mandatory confiscation of her union dues.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/09/2008 @ 8:00pm

51. And collective bargaining is what takes place in every state legislative chamber and in Congress.

    Hell, collective bargaining is how we ended up with a little old document called the CONSTITUTION.

    But LL's too good to collectively bargain. What he's really saying is he wants to be his own island - other people are dragging him down.

    It's part of his God complex.

    Posted by urmygyro at 12/09/2008 @ 7:19pm

    You are attempting to distort words. You know well that collective bargaining as a union tool versus democratic debate are entirely different concepts (at least I hope you do).

    No one receives their compensation from the constitution.

    It's not that others drag me down, although that is a very real part of union membership. It punishes personal achievement and encourages mediocrity.

    But my personal views on this are exactly why I quit working for others many years ago. I don't want to depend on others for my earnings. I don't want someone else dictating what I make or what my raises are. If I do well it's because of me, and if I do poorly, it's because of me.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/09/2008 @ 8:06pm

52. sounds like your wife is not very principled. she's willing to accept taxpayer money for income and then scoffs that fellow taxpayers she works with want to be part of a union.

    contradictions abound!

    i think your wife, just to have a clear conscience - should give back all the benefits that have been collectively bargained for by the union that she would no doubt be unable to attain on her own.

    It'd be a nice gesture to the taxpayers for her to pay for her own health insurance (if that's covered - and any benefits besides her wage) - just to show them that she means business about how bad unions are to the health of the common man!

    Of course, if she has to be part of the union to have her government job - she could go ahead and quit and join us in the real world. If she wants to move to CT I could put her to work at some non union jobs for minimum wage (just above $7 here) and she can bargain by herself with the employer I place her at for benefits. I won't bargain for her - if she's like you she wants to go it solo.

    Posted by urmygyro at 12/09/2008 @ 8:10pm

53. LL wrote:

    "You are attempting to distort words. You know well that collective bargaining as a union tool versus democratic debate are entirely different concepts (at least I hope you do)."

    They are not entirely different tools. You lack imagination. The colonies were not all co-equal. Studying the Constitutional Convention is a fascinating study in how parties with unequal bargaining power can still force each other's hands. But your condescending "at least I hope you do" reassures me you're not interested in expanding your vision.

    LL wrote: "No one receives their compensation from the constitution."

    Incorrect - Members of all three branches of the federal government are receive remuneration for their service. The Constitution enumerates compensation.

    LL wrote: "It's not that others drag me down, although that is a very real part of union membership. It punishes personal achievement and encourages mediocrity. But my personal views on this are exactly why I quit working for others many years ago. I don't want to depend on others for my earnings. I don't want someone else dictating what I make or what my raises are. If I do well it's because of me, and if I do poorly, it's because of me."

    Actually - everyone is dependent upon someone else for their earnings. Your customers are your boss. No one lives in a vacuum. But what you're talking about it being unhappy as an employee in general - not as a union employee. I've got news for you - in non-union places of business - your wages are dictated to you if you're an employee.

    Posted by urmygyro at 12/09/2008 @ 8:24pm

54. You know what I was thinking - why don't major league baseball players tell their union to go screw? They're all represented by agents. They're all rich (and some wealthy).

    Could it be mlb players think they'd be worse off if the union wasn't there?

    Posted by urmygyro at 12/09/2008 @ 8:38pm

55. You know what I was thinking - why don't major league baseball players tell their union to go screw? They're all represented by agents. They're all rich (and some wealthy).

    Could it be mlb players think they'd be worse off if the union wasn't there?

    Posted by urmygyro at 12/09/2008 @ 8:38pm

    I lost my love for baseball when they unionized. The sport has never been the same.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/09/2008 @ 8:47pm

56. "But my personal views on this are exactly why I quit working for others many years ago. I don't want to depend on others for my earnings. I don't want someone else dictating what I make or what my raises are. If I do well it's because of me, and if I do poorly, it's because of me."

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/09/2008 @ 8:06pm

    I can totally relate to that feeling. Unfortunately, this is not relevant as to whether employees unionize or not. As urmygyro pointed out, you, like me, have a problem being an 'employee'.

    Also unfortunately, this is not a viable option for many, hence unions.

    Question for Larry; If you and I work in the same shop and produce exactly the same, but you are more persuasive/intimidating/attractive, do you deserve to earn more than me?

    I personally would find (i believe, having not worked in one) a union shop and its associated dues, annoying. Why not simply avoid them instead of trying to destroy them?

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 12/09/2008 @ 9:16pm

57. Question for Larry; If you and I work in the same shop and produce exactly the same, but you are more persuasive/intimidating/attractive, do you deserve to earn more than me?

    I personally would find (i believe, having not worked in one) a union shop and its associated dues, annoying. Why not simply avoid them instead of trying to destroy them?

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 12/09/2008 @ 9:16pm

    We each deserve whatever we are able to convince an employer that we merit. And that doesn't always go to purely effort. All life is about sales. From jobs to marriage, we are each engaged in selling ourself to someone or something. How we do in all these areas of life depends on our self confidence and how we learn through life's experiences to do better with each new opportunity.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/09/2008 @ 10:01pm

58. How we do in all these areas of life depends on our self confidence and how we learn through life's experiences to do better with each new opportunity.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/09/2008 @ 10:01pm

    fair enough.

    yet sometimes people construct an economic system based on a house of credit cards and the world crashes down on us.

    what then?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/09/2008 @ 10:06pm

59. fair enough.

    yet sometimes people construct an economic system based on a house of credit cards and the world crashes down on us.

    what then?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/09/2008 @ 10:06pm

    Start over if you have to. Life is not guaranteed to be fair or perfect. You do the best you can, try to make good decisions and learn to accept the things you cannot change. The more you can find contentment in wherever you are physically and materially, the more balanced and satisfying your life will be.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/09/2008 @ 10:11pm

Posting a comment requires registration. Click here to register