Political Discussions
What do you think of Obama's Labor Day speech?
Posted by Agit8r • 9/07/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: afl-cio, labor day, obama
President Obama commemorated Labor Day with a speech to the AFL-CIO in Cincinnati...
"We remember that the rights and benefits we enjoy today were not simply handed out to America's working men and women. They had to be won," he said.
"They had to be fought for, by men and women of courage and conviction, from the factory floors of the Industrial Revolution to the shopping aisles of today's superstores. They stood up and spoke out to demand a fair shake, an honest day's pay for an honest day's work," he said. "Many risked their lives. Some gave their lives. Some made it a cause of their lives - like Sen. Ted Kennedy, who we remember today."
www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/07/obama-labor-day-speech-at_n_278772.html
User Comments
-
I haven't had a chance to hear it, but those quotes certainly offer the truth in a country that is still all too hostile to unions, preferring to put its stock in benevolent paternalism, whether or not that paternalism is actually benevolent.-
I'm not going to say that unions are perfect, but organized labor and related movements have certainly improve American working conditions... at least in a general sense
-
For sure. The 8-hour work day never would have come without them.
-
Is that actually what they're trusting? Or maybe they feel that unions are not the most benevolent body either? -
@CAM
Yes, and the ten hour day before that. One might speculate how the halcyon days of the 50's might have been different, had the old twelve (14... 16... whatever) day been the norm.
@JJ
All corporations are set up for the protection of some sort of property. In the case of joinst stock companies, they are set up for the protection of the investors' other assets (thru limited liability), and the competent management of assets invested therein. With corporations of workers, they are set up to protect the fruits of workers' labor. In either case, there is room for oversite by a governmental body to see that such property is being effectively protected. -
@JJ:
Straw man. I can do the same: Would it be better to leave everything up to capital alone? Or maybe you would prefer the government to regulate all wages, not just the minimum wage?
Of course, the first solution would leave no rights for workers whatsoever, and the second one would represent undue and unhealthy interference in the economy. Let's face it. Whatever problems some unions might have, they are a necessary check on the otherwise unfettered power of capital. Yes, government also has a role to play, but it is fairly limited, including legislation about working hours and conditions as well as the minimum wage.
New insurance legislation might fit in there too. Little wonder, since what unions have been able to achieve in that area excludes far too many people. -
In some cases, unions may seem wholly unnecessary (when we hear what the UAW makes, for instance) but there are various unions in various trades, of various actual worth to their members. Having worked various menial professions, i can vouch that laws don't prevent every abuse.
-
Unions do serve a purpose but there are also an abundance of abuses. -
@clioandme: We're discussing common opinion. Straw men are very common in common opinion. Live with it.
But beyond that, how can you call "benevolent paternalism" (calling the American public a bunch of conformist peasants) anything but a straw man? Yes, it's not the same straw men as price controls et cetera, and you might add to your list of reasons against this idea that all labor unions and special interest groups are by their very nature kleptocratic and thus can often burn the land behind them, but this idea that everyone wants a kind master and a leash just because they don't agree with you is very much a straw man.
@Agit8r: That's more like it. Although not all businesses are joint stock corporations - a growing number are privately owned, and privately owned businesses belong to their owners. Still, my main concern is this foolish idea that people support free enterprise because it "takes care" of them. If that were so, that is what the other side would be arguing, instead of arguing for freedom and personal responsibility. Really, what the Republican party today represents is a very Celto-Norse set of values with mansion row being Valhalla, the longship replaced with the Joint Stock Corporation, and military heroism replaced with economic warfare. There's still some social conservatism (cult of Frea), but it has largely taken a back seat. -
I don't believe we need a union for government workers, the SEIU to be specific. -
It does seem a bit redundant for government employees to unionise, but SEIU is composed of many private sector workers as well.
-
Well to be fair, without the good old SEIU who would the Dems bus into the town hall meetings? I mean hiring out thugs can get costly...
-
well, as the laws are currently, that was up to the union's leadership.
I'm glad that less violence went down than I had predicted at the time I wrote that OP -
On that we agree.
-
-
His speech to the UNion?
WHat does it matter, he's already proven that he says one thing to them, and then changes his tune speaking to others.
Not like anything he says matters anymore, it's what he does we'll have to pay attention to.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
