civil service act 1978
collective bargaining
democrats took bargaining rights from fed employee
federal employees
obama
picket line
unions
Obama 2007 promise: "I'll walk that picket line" - Why he won't ever do that
By AnjaP
@Rollo1 (16676)
Boston, Massachusetts
February 27, 2011 11:43am CST
Remember this from a speech in Spartansburg, SC in Novermber of 2007?
"Understand this: If American workers are being denied their right to organize and collectively bargain, when I'm in the White House, I'll put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself. I'll walk on that picket line with you, as president of the United States of America. Because workers deserve to know that someone's standing in their corner" Barack Obama
Well, one reason Obama may be loath to show up on a picket line is that his own employees, federal employees that is, are not allowed to collectively bargain. That's right, the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 outlawed collective bargaining for federal employees, AND made it legal NOT to join a union as condition of employment. Wow, sounds a lot like the Wisconsin bill, doesn't it? You know, that evil bill supported by the greedy, corporate stooge Republican Scott Walker. Only an evil conservative could think up something like this, right?
Wrong. It was Jimmy Carter and a Democratic congress that passed the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. Here's what it says:
1. Federal employees are denied by statute the right to strike
2. The right of federal employees to picket is limited to informational picketing only. It is an unfair labor practice for a labor organization to picket a federal agency in a labor-management dispute if such picketing interferes with an agency's operations.
3. The scope of mandatory collective bargaining for federal employees is limited to personnel employment practices only. Basic working conditions such as wages, hours of work, and employee benefits are instead subject to statutory provisions.
4. Union and agency contract provisions as well as all other forms of compulsory union support are prohibited in the federal civil service.
So, what's the problem that Democrats have with Scott Walker doing exactly the same thing they did a long time ago?
1 person likes this
3 responses
@laglen (19759)
• United States
28 Feb 11
Even if he could have, I think we all know he would not be putting on his comfortable shoes. He is too busy putting on his dancing shoes and dancing with Motown.
As with Arizona's immigration bill SB1070, our federal government proves once again that their own laws are wrong? Or is it just that they feel they should be above the states (which is not true)

@Rollo1 (16676)
• Boston, Massachusetts
28 Feb 11
In 1978, the Dems understood that public sector unions neither need nor should have collective bargaining rights. It is unreasonable to allow someone paid by tax dollars lobby for more tax dollars from elected officials for or against whom they will lobby depending on how many tax dollars they fork over. As the famous saying goes, a system that robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on Paul's support.
1 person likes this
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
28 Feb 11
Nothing wrong with dancing to Motown, there I've supported the president and cannot be called a bad name.
Seriously, I agree that our elected officials all believe they are above the law. Those silly things are only for us peons.
Interesting fact there, Rollo. Can you fill me in on what was different in 1978?
1 person likes this

@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
27 Feb 11
And let's not forget that the Democrat Party pretty much said they didn't care if federal employees were out of work if a shut down happens next week. All because THEY don't want to suffer budget cuts for their pet projects. Seems to me the Democrats are NOT for the working man like they pretend to be at all.
1 person likes this
@Rollo1 (16676)
• Boston, Massachusetts
28 Feb 11
As I hear it, the Democrats stand for the poor, the helpless, the downtrodden and so on and so forth; while the Republicans gain their support from the rich. Well, in order to get elected, one must increase their base of support. Therefore, it seems to me to be in the best interests of the Democrats to make sure there are lots of poor, downtrodden, helpless people; whereas, it would make sense that the Republicans would want to increase the number of rich people. I think I choose the latter - I would rather be rich, or at least have the opportunity to try to become rich.
@whiteheather39 (24403)
• United States
27 Feb 11
The problem is that the people do not seem to realize that the Democratic motto is:
Do as I say not as I do!
1 person likes this
@Rollo1 (16676)
• Boston, Massachusetts
28 Feb 11
Naturally, they are the arbiters of morality. That is how they know that others who say they stand for morals, really do not. If they do not line up with the liberal stance, they are obviously amoral and pawns of the greedy corporations or however that ridiculous speech goes. That's why they can do something and it is alright but becomes immoral when a Republican does the same.




