I know that South Carolina is famously hostile toward unions, but still:
“I think Ronald Reagan gave us a great example when federal employees decided they were gonna strike … You strike, you're fired. Simple concept to me.”
— Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), when asked if he would insert himself into the issue of the United Auto Workers strike pic.twitter.com/bZPFtD63o7
— The Recount (@therecount) September 19, 2023
Seriously, wtf? Does Tim Scott really think that unions should be outlawed? That's basically what his remark means, since a private-sector union with no ability to strike is essentially useless.
This is yet another example of the rightward trajectory among Republicans. In the '50s, Republicans accepted unions, if grudgingly. By the '80s they were thoroughly and persistently anti-union, but didn't literally want to eliminate them. Today, there are mainstream Republicans who think the whole concept of organized labor ought to be done away with. What's next on their "populist" agenda?
Except, of course, for police unions, which can have unlimited power.
Unless they endorse gun control legislation.
It's somewhat intriguing that President Ronald Reagan, member and one time president of a union (SAG) led the fight and the whole Republican Party against them.
I've encountered plenty of people who hold the opinion that "unions make people lazy and greedy, except for MY union, which protects hard-working, long-suffering workers like me from evil bosses."
Reagan is just a higher-profile example of that. Besides, he got his, what does it matter to him if the people after him get screwed?
IIRC, wasn't Reagan shot by Hinkley as he left a DC convention center where he had just addressed a labor group (AFL-CIO?) during their annual meeting or something?
According to the Wikipedia article on the assassination attempt, yes.
I keep expecting a white paper from Cato or Heritage advocating that workers should pay corporations for the privilege of being employed.
The typical conservative response to labor actions is something along the lines of "well, if you don't think your pay and benefits aren't generous enough, go find some other job! It's a free market, baby!" Of course that's not how anything works in real life, but that's what they keep saying, mostly from the comfort of their C-suite offices and pundit sinectures at the WSJ. Or campaign stumps.
Poll after poll shows that while private union membership remains relatively low, support for unions and their demands among the general public is quite high right now. So, please proceed Mr. Scott.
cops too right?
Fire them - that's fine. It is the free market. But where do you find the replacements? I don't see how that would be practical. The current economy gives unions significant leverage.
He needs to find a nice Christian girl.
I think the GOP has always wanted to crush unions. They just couldn't risk saying it out loud before.
There are a lot of things that they used to be smart enough not to say out loud. Racism and other bigotries. Antisemitism. Ending democratic elections. Preference for "strongmen." Starve the poor, overfeed the rich.
The dogwhistles started becoming audible to everyone in, I think, the Clinton administration. Heck, after 12 years of Republican hegemony, clearly the party was destined to rule, right? By the time of The Defendant, all the filters were gone and the GOP has dissolved into pure screaming id. Just look at "Coatless Gym" Jordan and Tom Cottonmouth.
Have to imagine Scott’s comments play pretty well with the big donors you need in a Republican primary battle.
"clients" is the right word, because they pay for services, rather than donate.
"Mr. Senator, Jeff Bezos for you on line 1..."
"In the '50s, Republicans accepted unions..."
Hardly. When Republicans took control of Congress in 1947, they (along with racist/conservative Southern democrats) finally had the power to attack unions by passing (over Truman's veto) the Taft/Hartley Act. Had they had the power in the 1950s they would have done more. This is a long game and they never accepted the Wagner Act (along with the rest of the New Deal).
Scott should have shocked everyone when he exclaimed he wanted to break the back of the teachers unions. Only capital should be allowed to collectively organize in the utopian aspirations of ideologues like Scott.
Republicans talk all the time about eliminating public sector unions (except for police and firefighters -- of course). As Kevin points out, Scott here got caught saying the quiet part out loud, which is that they'd like to put the kaibosh on private sector ones as well.
Public sector unions should be eliminated. All of them.
And why is that?
They should turn this into an ad and air it in every B1G state.
"Republicans want to kill unions. Hey autoworkers, you okay with this?"
Better, in my opinion would be "If you're in a union, Tim Scott says you should be FIRED."
A "union" is a kind of abstract thing. Getting fired hits home.
Just maybe, if it was publicly announced in the media, "repulsives want to kill unions", maybe more folks would cross to the blue side of the street. On the other hand, maybe not. They aren't smart enough for that.
There's a lot of right wing-motivated antipathy towards unions since ... as long as I can remember and I'm 70 (sigh!). I'd stick with Tim Scott's message and words: If you're in a union, you should be fired.
Make it personal, not abstract. The focus should be on YOU, not "the union" or unions in general
My father hated unions, used to complain about them all the time for sabotaging cars, etc. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't, he had no way of knowing what he thought he knew. It was just more of "they aren't on my team stuff".
I have a weird relationship with unions, I brought a union in where I work. It gave me some small sense of peace to have them because I organized and that got the boss got off my back.
But, because I worked in the public sector I could also see what union's did that were negative too. In other words, they're like a lot of things, good and bad.
Charles Grassley celebrating his 90th birthday by getting adult braces,
https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2017-09/22/10/asset/buzzfeed-prod-fastlane-02/sub-buzz-10998-1506089398-17.png
All is vanity.
Isn't he old enough to just have a full set of fake choppers installed?
Those are the fake choppers.
His secret plan is to go undercover in an Iowa high school to find out about the horrible reality of furries and their litter boxes.
Isn't this already the case, and pretty much the whole point of a union. The businesses are free to fire anyone, but because of worker solidarity they choose to enter collective bargaining agreements instead of losing their whole workforce. Aren't republicans supposed to love the free market?
That’s what I thought too, and if so, Mr. Drum’s comment doesn’t exactly make sense to me.
Yes, employers could fire their entire workforce if they want, but the costs and difficulties of replacing all of them are too great. I don’t see how that means the governor’s statement means he wants to eliminate private unions. I thought it’s basically the status quo? But I’m probably missing something here…
No. It's illegal for a company to fire members a recognized union during a legal, authorized strike.
yeah, but that's only after the employer has agreed to a collective bargaining agreement right?
I think it's once the union has been recognized by the NLRB.
Scott is a true conservative. His only real goal is to make sure the rich and powerful can always get what they want.
I don't mean this as snarky, or cynical, or know-it-all, but I guess I sort of thought the idea of unions was entirely anathema to the modern GOP, since like the Aughts. Like I really thought they were 100% opposed to the concept.
Tim Scott was likely just trying out a crowd pleaser comment. Since the UAW is a private sector union, it has no relationship to federal workers going on strike like when Reagan fired air traffic controllers. A politician or even a president of the USA can't fire UAW workers.
Perhaps Scott meant that automaker executives should just fire all the striking workers. But that is not possible since under federal law you cannot be fired for participating in a protected strike against your employer. Most strikes are protected. (You can be lawfully fired for participating in an unprotected strike.) When a protected strike ends, you are entitled to return to work.
Or perhaps Scott was implying that federal protections of union workers should be abolished such that "protected strikes" no longer exist.