SEIU Uses Death Of MLK To Push Pro Union Adgenda

[comptr6]

This is shocking. It turns out Martin Luther King JR was a communist this whole time.

…..let us keep the issues where they are. The issue is injustice. The issue is the refusal of Memphis to be fair and honest in its dealings with its public servants, who happen to be sanitation workers. Now, we’ve got to keep attention on that. That’s always the problem with a little violence. You know what happened the other day, and the press dealt only with the window-breaking. I read the articles. They very seldom got around to mentioning the fact that one thousand, three hundred sanitation workers are on strike, and that Memphis is not being fair to them, and that Mayor Loeb is in dire need of a doctor. They didn’t get around to that.

We aren’t going to let any mace stop us. We are masters in our nonviolent movement in disarming police forces; they don’t know what to do. I’ve seen them so often. I remember in Birmingham, Alabama, when we were in that majestic struggle there, we would move out of the 16th Street Baptist Church day after day; by the hundreds we would move out.

He even made a speech to the AFL-CIO in 1961!

"History is a great teacher. Now everyone knows that the labor movement did not diminish the strength of the nation but enlarged it. By raising the living standards of millions, labor miraculously created a market for industry and lifted the whole nation to undreamed of levels of production. Those who attack labor forget these simple truths, but history remembers them."

Here's more evidence!

 

[Genx87]

No, its just well known that Southern Democrats comprised a distinct separate entity within the larger Democratic party, and these same southern Democrats broke with the party over civil rights. (several of them became Republicans over it) Failing to note this when talking about the Civil Rights Act just leads to a cartoonish, childlike representation of history.

Are you trying to make my point? When democrats dont like what you like, they are a small distinct group seperate from the party. When they vote for things you like. The democrats are a big tent party.

Were they or were they not democrats at the time of the civil rights act? What they did years later is just deflection as far as I am concerned.

 

[fskimospy]

Are you trying to make my point? When democrats dont like what you like, they are a small distinct group seperate from the party. When they vote for things you like. The democrats are a big tent party.

Were they or were they not democrats at the time of the civil rights act? What they did years later is just deflection as far as I am concerned.

No, I'm not trying to make your point.

What I am trying to tell you is simple, historical fact. Nobody said they weren't Democrats. What was said was that to leave out important historical context is wrong, and it is done so in the intent to misrepresent what actually occurred. I don't care if people think the Democrats were racist back in 1964, it has no bearing on what the party stands for today. I actually do care about people trying to misrepresent reality though.

It's very odd that you think in a discussion about the comparative stances of two parties that people leaving one to join the other over the issue in question is not relevant.

 

[Tom]

So they arent democrats when they are doing something you dont like. You may want to brush up on what the dixiecrats were. 1948 is a couple decades away from 1968.

umm, the civil rights act was 1964, not 1968.

the dixiecrats were still there, Democrat, and future Republican, Strom Thurmond, was the leader of the filibuster of the Civil Rights Act. dixiecrats was a nickname for Democrats with a particular agenda.

 

[Tom]

Are you trying to make my point? When democrats dont like what you like, they are a small distinct group seperate from the party. When they vote for things you like. The democrats are a big tent party.

Were they or were they not democrats at the time of the civil rights act? What they did years later is just deflection as far as I am concerned.

The thing you keep ignoring is, the Democrats passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Under the leadership of Democratic President Lyndon Johnson.

Not all Democrats voted for it, but a majority did.

Did a majority of Republicans vote for it ??

So what is your point ?

 

[bfdd]

Right. Which is why having a strike so you can join a union is having a strike so you have collective bargaining rights.

What part don't you understand ?

btw, I'm old enough to remember reports of this, first hand. You really cannot imagine how different the world was then, if you weren't there. We are talking about an era of lynchings, police dogs, and race riots, bombing churchs, student protesters gunned down, MLK and RFK gunned down, marchs for civil rights, women's rights, against the war, and on and on.

This strike was brutal, on both sides. There were no niceities such as can we please join a union ?

MLK was NOT down there for workers rights, he was down there to stop the segregation of blacks from the union. That's a very fucking different thing. Playing it up like he was championing the union is straight up bullshit.

 

[LumbergTech]

MLK was NOT down there for workers rights, he was down there to stop the segregation of blacks from the union. That's a very fucking different thing. Playing it up like he was championing the union is straight up bullshit.

Did you miss this quote earlier?

"History is a great teacher. Now everyone knows that the labor movement did not diminish the strength of the nation but enlarged it. By raising the living standards of millions, labor miraculously created a market for industry and lifted the whole nation to undreamed of levels of production. Those who attack labor forget these simple truths, but history remembers them."

 

[bfdd]

LumbergTech, I was talking about that specific incident they were referring to. Not MLK's career as a whole.

 

[Tom]

MLK was NOT down there for workers rights, he was down there to stop the segregation of blacks from the union. That's a very fucking different thing. Playing it up like he was championing the union is straight up bullshit.

WTF are you talking about ?

Please, tell us, what is the name of this union that kept blacks out ?

 

[Fern]

Buzzzzzzznnnnnntttt 30 volts to the wrongo buzzer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.

In March 1968, Dr. King went to Memphis, Tennessee, in support of striking African American sanitation workers. The workers had staged a walkout on February 11, 1968, to protest unequal wages and working conditions. At the time, the city of Memphis paid black workers significantly lower wages than whites. In addition, unlike their white counterparts, blacks received no pay if they stayed home during bad weather; consequently, most blacks were compelled to work even in driving rain and snow storms

In light of the above, I really don't see how the below can be correct:

You know MLK was killed when he was in Memphis to support workers striking for the right to collective bargaining right? Or was MLK's pro-worker pro-union work not in your history book because that's inconvenient?

Does the workers being black somehow change something?

Yes, obviously.

It looks like were striking to be treated equally to the white workers. If they weren't black, they wouldn't have to strike. The obvious seems, well obvious.

Right. Which is why having a strike so you can join a union is having a strike so you have collective bargaining rights.
-snip-

^Seems you're trying real hard to turn an equal rights strike into a collective bargaining rights strike.

Honest questions (I don't know the answers):

1. Were the white santitation workers already in a union?

If so, why were the black workers prohibited from joining?

2. If there was a white worker union, did they already have collective bargaining rights?

I ask because I didn't realize that, outside of Wisc, gov workers had CBR that far back.

TIA

Fern
Throck, can get us a link to verify that the gov workers in Memphis

 

[Throckmorton]

http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/memphis-v-mlk/

During a heavy rainstorm in Memphis on February 1, 1968, two black sanitation workers had been crushed to death when the compactor mechanism of the trash truck was accidentally triggered. On the same day in a separate incident also related to the inclement weather, 22 black sewer workers had been sent home without pay while their white supervisors were retained for the day with pay. About two weeks later, on February 12, more than 1,100 of a possible 1,300 black sanitation workers began a strike for job safety, better wages and benefits, and union recognition. Mayor Henry Loeb, unsympathetic to most of the workers' demands, was especially opposed to the union. Black and white civic groups in Memphis tried to resolve the conflict, but the mayor held fast to his position.

Quoting myself.

 

[senseamp]

MLK would have supported them, not Beck.

 

[Craig234]

Apparently, the parties switching roles from the Republicans' founding in the mid-19th century, where for a century the Democratic party contained the south with its racists in opposition to the north, to the changes that happened from the 60's to Reagan where the Boweevil southern Democrats, following the Democrats' passage of the civil rights bill over the STRONG opposition of the south, became Republicans and the liberal Republican northeast became Democratic, is too complex for the right to understand.

So, it's easier for them to just lie.

Apparently, the fact that the dominant issue of concentrated racism is REGIONAL, not PARTY, in the south it too complex for the right to understand.

So, it's easier for them just to lie.

Up to about 1960, the parties were much more equal on race issues. The changes didn't really start until after JFK was elected - he did not plan to have race issues be a big part of his presidency, but while in office events pushed him to take a stand, and Republicans chose to take advantage of the southern fury against Democrats for doing so. When LBJ signed the civil rights bill, he said he had just given the White House to Republicans for a long time to come (and he was right).

It is dishonest, and disgusting, to watch when honorless, ignorant right-wingers lie about history to try to imply things better fit their false ideology.

There were three relevant groups on the civil rights bill in Congress. The bill *would not have passed* without Democratic leadership, JFK and LBJ. Non-southern Democrats were the group whose LARGE MAJORITY voted for the bill. Non-southern Republicans voted for the bill a bit less than Democrats. Southerners who were pretty much all Democrats then strongly OPPOSED the bill, to the point of filibustering (by a southern then-Democrat who later became a Republican).

ALL southern Republicans (there weren't that many then) voted against the bill.

Here are the vote results:

* Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7%–93%)
* Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0%–100%)

* Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%–6%)
* Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%–15%)

The Senate version:

* Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5%–95%)
* Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0%–100%)
* Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%–2%)
* Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%–16%)

 

[comptr6]

In light of the above, I really don't see how the below can be correct:





Yes, obviously.

It looks like were striking to be treated equally to the white workers. If they weren't black, they wouldn't have to strike. The obvious seems, well obvious.



^Seems you're trying real hard to turn an equal rights strike into a collective bargaining rights strike.

Honest questions (I don't know the answers):

1. Were the white santitation workers already in a union?

If so, why were the black workers prohibited from joining?

2. If there was a white worker union, did they already have collective bargaining rights?

I ask because I didn't realize that, outside of Wisc, gov workers had CBR that far back.

TIA

Fern
Throck, can get us a link to verify that the gov workers in Memphis

They had been recognized and given a charter by the AFSCME but the city didn't consider them a union so they didn't have collective bargaining rights and that's why the greedy pigs went on strike and MLK came to support them.

I'm afraid that MLK was a full on anti-american communist.

"In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, as 'right-to-work.' It provides no 'rights' and no 'works.' Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining... We demand this fraud be stopped."

Negroes are almost entirely a working people. There are pitifully few Negro millionaires, and few Negro employers. Our needs are identical with labor's needs — decent wages, fair working conditions, livable housing, old age security, health and welfare measures, conditions in which families can grow, have education for their children and respect in the community. That is why Negroes support labor's demands and fight laws which curb labor. That is why the labor-hater and labor-baiter is virtually always a twin-headed creature spewing anti-Negro epithets from one mouth and anti-labor propaganda from the other mouth.

It is in this area (politics) of American life that labor and the Negro have identical interests. Labor has grave problems today of employment, shorter hours, old age security, housing and retraining against the impact of automation. The Congress and the Administration are almost as indifferent to labor's program as they are toward that of the Negro. Toward both they offer vastly less than adequate remedies for the problems which are a torment to us day after day.

 

[Tom]

In light of the above, I really don't see how the below can be correct:





Yes, obviously.

It looks like were striking to be treated equally to the white workers. If they weren't black, they wouldn't have to strike. The obvious seems, well obvious.



^Seems you're trying real hard to turn an equal rights strike into a collective bargaining rights strike.

Honest questions (I don't know the answers):

1. Were the white santitation workers already in a union?

If so, why were the black workers prohibited from joining?

2. If there was a white worker union, did they already have collective bargaining rights?

I ask because I didn't realize that, outside of Wisc, gov workers had CBR that far back.

TIA

Fern
Throck, can get us a link to verify that the gov workers in Memphis

There was no union of white workers. Nobody had collective bargaining rights. According to the Memphis newspaper, in the sanitation dept. all the laborers were black, all the supervisors were white.

Nobody was prohibited from joining the union. The union was prohibited from representing their members in collective bargaining.

"The city was sympathetic in 1968 to the union's request for higher pay but its hands were tied by a tight budget. Loeb and other officials, however, strongly objected to union demands for dues checkoff and recognition of the union as the exclusive bargaining agent for public works employees. Some feared that dues checkoff would open the door for union organizing in other city departments."

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/1993/feb/28/the-memphis-sanitation-strike-blood-and-strife/

 

[PeshakJang]

The bill *would not have passed* without Democratic leadership, JFK and LBJ.

Here are the vote results:

Bullshit, little boy.

By party

The original House version:[12]

• Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
• Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[13]

• Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%–34%)
• Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)

The Senate version:[12]

• Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%–31%)
• Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[12]

• Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%–37%)
• Republican Party: 136-35 (80%–20%)

The Democrats held the bill up. It would not have passed without Republican efforts. It would have passed without Democrat involvement.

Save234
Truth234

 

[Tom]

Bullshit, little boy.


[/LIST]
The Democrats held the bill up. It would not have passed without Republican efforts. It would have passed without Democrat involvement.

Save234
Truth234

You don't know what your talking about. Nothing happens in either body of Congress without majority party support.

And the details of how the Civil Rights Act got passed are real, not talking points. There's no way to clear up every misconception and misleading statement in this thread, but if anyone actually cares about the truth, it's out there to be learned from.

There were significant Republicans and Democrats in getting it past. But by far the most significant politician in getting it past was LBJ.

 

[Fern]

There was no union of white workers. Nobody had collective bargaining rights. According to the Memphis newspaper, in the sanitation dept. all the laborers were black, all the supervisors were white.

Nobody was prohibited from joining the union. The union was prohibited from representing their members in collective bargaining.

"The city was sympathetic in 1968 to the union's request for higher pay but its hands were tied by a tight budget. Loeb and other officials, however, strongly objected to union demands for dues checkoff and recognition of the union as the exclusive bargaining agent for public works employees. Some feared that dues checkoff would open the door for union organizing in other city departments."

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/1993/feb/28/the-memphis-sanitation-strike-blood-and-strife/

So, the black workers were NOT in a union?

The union couldn't represent the black workers?

Yet, it looks like the city (or whatever) was in talks with union about the workers' wages etc.

I really don't get it. A union that doesn't exist for black city workers who aren't in a union is negoiating with the city for black workers it doesn't represent? WTH?

Fern

 

[CallMeJoe]

So they arent democrats when they are doing something you dont like. You may want to brush up on what the dixiecrats were. 1948 is a couple decades away from 1968.

I should yield to your superior knowledge of Southern Civil-Rights era politics; after all, I have only what little I was able to glean from living in Alabama then, just outside Bombingham, and from watching those Dixiecrats of the '60s reliably convert to Republicans in the '70s.

 

[PeshakJang]

I should yield to your superior knowledge of Southern Civil-Rights era politics; after all, I have only what little I was able to glean from living in Alabama then, just outside Bombingham, and from watching those Dixiecrats of the '60s reliably convert to Republicans in the '70s.

Are you talking about the people who were solidly Democrat since the party's founding? The ones who completely opposed the GOP, which was founded on the principals of freedom and ending slavery? The ones who JFK depended on to get elected? The ones that nobody in the Democrat party seemed to have a problem with until political pressure forced JFK to push civil rights (reluctantly)?

You act like they were Republicans under a different name, when in reality they were ALWAYS much more aligned with the principals of the Democratic party, with the issue of slavery being the principal difference.

To say "Well they were always Republicans" is about as ignorant a statement as you could make.

 

[Fern]

I should yield to your superior knowledge of Southern Civil-Rights era politics; after all, I have only what little I was able to glean from living in Alabama then, just outside Bombingham, and from watching those Dixiecrats of the '60s reliably convert to Republicans in the '70s.

I lived in the South then too (still do).

My recollection is that the Democrats in the South didn't switch to Repubs until the Reagan years. Throughout the 70's we didn't really have any Repubs in Northern FL. The winner of the Dem primary was the guaranteed winner of the gen election.

That didn't change until later during/after the Reagan era.

Fern

 

[CallMeJoe]

So lets see. When they voted they were voting and portraying the views of their DEMOCRAT constituency.
As for the Sanitation strike, he was there because the RACIST UNION wouldn't let blacks join.
If you think one political group is racist and the other isn't you're a damn fool.
What's more racist? Telling someone to get a job, and work for your money or someone telling someone they aren't good enough to get a good paying job, so we'll just give you money so you don't have to try? But we will only give you enough so you can barely make it by.
Democrats were the racists of old, and they are now. They just figured out how to hide their racism by making minorities seem inferior and making gullible whites feel guilty for nothing.

Racism in the Civil Rights era was not confined to either party; Democrats and Republicans alike fell on both sides of the issue. My problem is with idiots like PJ who try to paint the entire Democratic Party of the '60s with the racism of the Dixiecrats.

Racism today is likewise not entirely Democratic or Republican, despite your dogmatic assertions.

 

[comptr6]

So, the black workers were NOT in a union?

The union couldn't represent the black workers?

Yet, it looks like the city (or whatever) was in talks with union about the workers' wages etc.

I really don't get it. A union that doesn't exist for black city workers who aren't in a union is negoiating with the city for black workers it doesn't represent? WTH?

Fern

AFSCME Local 1733 in Memphis was officially recognized in 1968, but it formed several years
earlier in an attempt to gain collective bargaining rights for Memphis city employees. Local
1733 earned assistance from AFSCME International when sanitation workers began a strike on
February 12, 1968. While the workers struck for union recognition, pay increase, a grievance
procedure, and dues deduction, racial discrimination was also a major target of the strike. In
fact, inequality between black and white sanitation men was the major impetus for the strike.

White sanitation workers enjoyed many benefits not shared by their African American
counterparts. When it rained, white workers were allowed to go home and still be paid. Black
workers had to remain at work or lose payment that day. One day, while rain poured down, two
black sanitation workers got into the back of their garbage truck to stay dry. The truck short-
circuited, and the two men were crushed to death. After this, Local 1733 began its strike.

AFSCME International leaders like President Jerry Wurf, Field Staff Director P.J. Ciampa, and
then Associate Director of Legislative and Community Affairs William Lucy came to Memphis
to help organize the protest. In time, they invited national civil rights leaders to Memphis to help
their cause. Martin Luther King, Jr. traveled to Memphis to support the strikers and organize
marches. The first march ended in violence, but King returned to lead what he hoped would be a
nonviolent march. On April 4, 1968, however, before the march could take place, King was
assassinated.

After this, President Lyndon B. Johnson urged Memphis Mayor Henry Loeb to return to the
negotiating table, and on April 16, after 65 days, Local 1733 won union recognition, wage
increases, dues check off, merit and seniority promotion, and a non-discrimination statement for
union members.

Straight from the mouth of the beast

 

[Fern]

-snip-

Thanks. MLK was there to protest inequality for black workers.

I think those who want to claim MLK was also a champion for CBR need to show examples where MLK was speaking out or marching for CBR unrelated to equal rights for black people/workers.

Unions seem ancillary to his primary purpose of racial rights. So far seems unions were involved only when it furthered that primary purpose.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Thanks. MLK was there to protest inequality for black workers.

I think those who want to claim MLK was also a champion for CBR need to show examples where MLK was speaking out or marching for CBR unrelated to equal rights for black people/workers.

Unions seem ancillary to his primary purpose of racial rights. So far seems unions were involved only when it furthered that primary purpose.

Fern

Why would people need to do that? If we have quotes of him talking in support of both (as we do), then that's all the evidence that is necessary. It doesn't matter if he supported unions because of what they did for black people or if he supported them for any other reason.