A Scary Halloween Season for the Left

Some scary things have been happening to the lefties and the Democrat

party. Recent debated between their candidates for various offices in 

various states, among them governorships and U.S. Senate seats, have

not gone well. As a matter of fact, they went from mediocre 

performances to unmitigated disasters. Most notable among the 

latter was the debate between Pennsylvania Democrat Lt. Governor 

John Fetterman and his Republican opponent TV personality

Dr. Mehmet Oz, in which Fetterman stumbled and bumbled his way

through the affair, even declaring at one point that he was in favor 

of fracking to get fuel (he's not, but he has very little grasp over the 

content of his speech when he talks due to a near-fatal stroke he had

around the time of the Pennsylvania primaries. Why his handlers, 

and even his wife, is letting him continue with his campaign and has

let him participate in this debate when he's clearly not up to it all

is anyone's guess). Incumbent Republican Senator Ron Johnson 

in my home state of Wisconsin, seeking re-election, has come form

nearly ten points behind to pass his radical left-wing Democrat 

opponent Lt. Governor Mandela Barnes, as Barnes is being a little 

too honest about one thing while not being honest enough on some 

others; while being vague or worse on employment matters as well as 

on previous personal political activities, i.e. helping to establish the 

far-left Working Family Party, a tiny but feisty minor party which is 

active in Wisconsin, New York, and a few other states while being 

forthright on releasing more violent criminals while favoring issuing 

cash bail requirements for violent criminals to be free while awaiting

their court cases. 

And of course the scene wouldn't be complete without our dementia-

riddled president adding to the pot. His pronouncements on the

inflation rate, which is the highest it's been in over 40 years, as being

minor and temporary have gotten many Americans quizzically

wondering where he gets his gas for his limo (I do believe I've hit on

the crux of the matter re: President Biden's understanding of how 

things like gas prices come to be!). And then he blames the oil 

companies for being greedy, jacking up the price of their gasoline

at the pumps, and even apportioning some of the blame to the gas 

station owners for getting in on the action! He's been just as ridiculous

on other subjects in his speeches as well. It's no wonder that his staff

minimizes his public appearances in terms of times in the limelight

and how much time per appearance!

Meanwhile, GOP candidates are picking up more and more points in 

the polls, including black and Hispanic candidates, eating into the 

heretofore "safe" constituency groups of the Democrats. Polls also

indicate the return of the House to the Republicans and even that 

of the Senate, the former by a wide margin and the latter by a hand-

ful of seats, say 52-48 or so. But it would be enough to hog tie 

President Biden and the Dems for the next two years! And this will

not bode well for them in 2024.

And all around the country, the people have had them up to the sky 

with their mix of incompetence, dishonesty, gaslighting, and arrogance.

So this shall boil down to a witches' brew of frightening consequences 

for the Democrats and their pals, and the coming election will be the 

scariest of the scaries that will manifest. Happy Halloween, Dems!

And a very Happy Halloween to you, my wonderful readers!

MEM

Should Unions Govern?

As your favorite Peasant has written two weeks ago, 

there is a movement afoot to guarantee union power

in the Illinois Constitution, with a ballot measure at 

the forefront of the effort. As an amendment to that

state's constitution, called the Workers' Rights Amend-

ment by its supporters, it would make parents kiss their

parental rights goodbye, taxpayers wave their hard-earned

money so long, along with even a glimmer of a chance 

of a state turnaround, bidding all to send an occasional 

post card. 

This was not always the status quo in the land of Lincoln.

As recently as the 1960s, Illinois government employees 

were considered to be "public servants", and they even 

regarded themselves as such. Although their pay was 

rather low they retired with a pension for life. In 1967,

however, state legislators legalized collective bargaining 

for public sector workers, then in 1973 made it compulsory 

for governments to bargain with state employees. In 1984

a law was passed making school districts negotiate with 

teachers' unions, piling on a rule affording teachers explicit

legal protection to strike in case of disputes. In 1999 the 

state lawmakers did the same for the police and firefighter

unions. 

The legislation also guarantees that no law can be passed 

that "interferes with, negates or diminishes" these afore-

mentioned union rights nor any others. Any lawmakers 

under this law will be blocked from reducing property 

taxes or from restoring parents' rights (see the next 

paragraph to learn the consequences of the latter).

At present, just three states --- New York, Missouri, and

Hawaii --- have collective bargaining provisions in their 

constitutions. Illinois, though, has zoomed past them and

their rights entered in those states' constitutions expanding

bargaining powers beyond hours and wages to include 

the protection of workers' "economic welfare" and "safety",

terms so broad and vague that they enable public unions to

bargain over rent control and defunding the police (!). 

Teachers unions can join in the mischief with the ability to

insert radical racial and sex-education curriculums right into

labor contracts. For example, parents could not go to their 

local school boards to demand that the 1619 Project not be

taught to their children, nor could they protect them from 

sex-ed texts with graphic images and printed descriptions 

of sexual acts and so forth. 

This ballot measure, labeled Amendment 1, would forever

ban right-to-work laws from being enacted in Illinois. 

All but one of Illinois' neighboring states is a right-to-work 

state, and this would be trouble for Illinois' economy.

Any advantages of this proposed law would accrue only to

government workers, as private-sector workers are covered

under federal labor laws, which do not grant such latitude 

in many labor-related matters. 

Illinois' political masters would love nothing better than to 

have their ideas spread to the rest of the country. Don't think

that it couldn't happen; Democrat governors and legislators

in other states have a blueprint to go by. Keep all this in mind 

as you go to the polls on November 8, and on election days to

come.

MEM

On Unionizing Government Workers

There is a movement afoot to recruit federal government 

workers which is being wholeheartedly cheered on by 

the progressive Democrat members of the House of 

Representatives as well as far-lefties outside of Congress.

And it's apparent that these pro-union enthusiasts have 

no sense of history concerning their party, the thoughts on

unionization of federal government workers held by some 

Democrat presidents going back nearly a hundred years,

or the consequences of such unionization. 

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who was one of the

biggest allies unions have ever had in the White House,

opposed unions for federal government workers because it

would place both employer (Uncle Sam) and workers on

the same side of the negotiating table. Politicians would then

have an incentive with no downside, particularly in the form 

of figuring out to pay for their deals with the fed worker's

union, to give workers what they want on contracts.

Taxpayers, who would end up paying more in taxes for said

deals, would have no one representing them and their interests 

in the resultant unbalanced negotiations. 

So far, aides to eight progressive House members have filed 

petitions with the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights 

to start the unionization process. Staffers have long complained 

about discrimination, pay and working conditions, and during

most of these years of such complaining the Democrats have 

held the House, and many years both the House and Senate,

pointing to the Dems as the ones making for tough working

conditions for staffers and other government employees.

And proving FDR correct as well as prescient, the pro-union

staffers' bosses in Congress are joyously cheering the petitions.

All of this came after a House Resolution in May to allow staff

to collectively bargain for the first time in our country's history.

"I am so proud of the staffers who made a historic move today 

in seeking union recognition," crowed Michigan Rep. Andy

Levin (D). "I am inspired by my staff and all those organizing

who are leading by example," gushed Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar 

(D), who by the way is a member of the very far-left super-pro-

gressive group of U.S. representatives known as "The Squad"

whom your diligent Peasant wrote about in this blog some months 

ago. Again, the members of the House will not be paying their 

salaries; the taxpayers will get the bill. That, and the middle finger.

For the time being, each office must hold a separate unionizing vote,

and happily few offices are taking that step. But this could change 

if the Democrats prevail in this November's mid-term election.

The American people deserve to have elected representatives who

work for them; as well they should, for the people have hired them

by voting them into office, so the representative's staff should also

work for the representatives and for the people who elected them,

not for any labor union. Republicans, note well that one of your 

duties should you take back the House this fall should be to repeal

the union resolution. FDR knew that this would be a bad thing.

Some other Democrats over time, to be sure, have shared this stalwart

Democrat President's negative view of such a setup, proving 

opposition to federal workers' unionizing is not a solely partisan 

maneuver. The ball shall be in the GOP's court should they win

this November. 

MEM      

The "Union-est" State in the Union

As Illinois is a deeply blue state (not to be confused with the 

"Deep State", which has been discussed a lot of late on conser-

vative radio shows as well as in conservative periodicals),

its key constituencies have great sway in Springfield, perhaps 

none more so than Organized Labor --- especially public unions.

As we gather here at this blog, Illinois' Democrat legislators 

are trying to amend that state's constitution to entrench the power

of the public employees' unions and to block reforms.

These are just some of the features of Amendment 1, which will  

be placed before Illinois' voters in November.

The Dems hold supermajorities in both chambers of the legislature

which put through this measure for the voters' approval. Amendment

1 would change the Illinois Constitution to read that "employees 

shall have the fundamental right to organize and to bargain collectively

through representatives of their own choosing for the purpose of 

negotiating wages, hours, and working conditions, and to protect 

their economic welfare and safety at work." But the National Labor

Relations Act already has charge over private workers and limits 

who can bargain about what. Illinois is not therefore allowed to 

expand the collective-bargaining rights of private employees. 

Hence the plan of Democrats and their union allies to draft and 

pass legislation to bring private employees up to par, as it were, 

with their public employee counterparts, for according to State 

Sen. Ram Villivalam (D), one of the measure's sponsors, " ... 

the members of the House should be aware, the NLRA governs 

organizing and collective bargaining in the private sector and,

as such, pre-empts any direct State regulation on the subject."

Although he then added that Amendment 1 thus "could not apply 

to the private sector," Villivalam and his fellow Dems in Springfield

are billing Amendment 1 as protection for "all Illinoisans." 

Additionally, the pro-union Vote Yes for Workers" Rights also 

claims that the legislation will benefit "first responders like nurses, 

firefighters, and EMTs" (Note: these categories include private 

workers). 

Furthermore, Amendment 1 would expand eligible subjects to include

anything that effects workers' "economic welfare and safety at work."

This means that this bill would go far beyond the usual subjects of

primary interest to unionized workers, i.e. wages and hours. This 

amendment would bar the Illinois Legislature from passing any 

bill that "interferes with, negates, or diminishes the right of 

employees to organize and bargain collectively over their wages,

hours, and other terms and conditions of employment and work place

safety." Guess what this means for attempts to enact Act 10-type

legislation a' la Wisconsin, with an accompanying right-to-work law.

The Illinois Policy Institute, a free-market think tank, states that 

"contracts created under Amendment 1 will carry the weight of the 

constitution, allowing government unions to override state laws."

Incredible. Astounding. Shocking. And many of us are concerned 

over federal and state bureaucracies which write rules which are 

granted the weight of the law, affecting businesses and the products

and services which they provide. 

The IPI and the Liberty Justice Center, a public interest law firm, 

joined forces to sue to block Amendment 1 from the November 

ballot on the grounds that the plain language of its text contradicts 

the NLRA, and therefore is in violation of the Supremacy Clause 

of the United States Constitution. So far they have been defeated 

in circuit county court and in State appellate court, and now plan to 

ask the Illinois Supreme Court to hear the case, which is certainly

chock full of liberals making up a comfortable majority. So now 

that it looks to be certain that the voters of Illinois will get a say 

regarding Amendment 1, they will be the last hope Illinois has

of avoiding a union takeover of state government and the accom-

panying difficulties for the state's economy and public finances.

But seeing as how these same voters voted these power-mongering

Democrats into office and have consistently returned them in every

subsequent election, it's pretty predictable as to what they'll do 

in November. And Illinois' unions will have power that unions in 

the other 49 states can only dream of possessing.

By the by, Illinois' pension kitty for the public unions is already

broke. 

MEM  

One Person's Democracy is Another Person's ... ?

Early in July, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh,

who had just a bit earlier was the target of a failed assassination

attempt, was dining at a Morton's steakhouse when a mob gathered

outside of the restaurant. Given all this, one would think that a bit

of condemnation of the mob, whose purpose was to intimidate 

Justice Thomas because of their anger over his ruling in favor of 

striking down Roe vs. Wade in the process of making his ruling in 

the Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization case, would  

have been due and duly made public by everyone in the realm 

of politics. The left-wingers, sadly but predictably, made 

equivocation, snark, and just plain old nastiness.

"This is what a democracy is," proclaimed the White House Press 

Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre. Gee, your dumbfounded Peasant never

knew that democracy included behaving in a threatening manner 

toward one with whom you politically disagree with. One learns 

something new every day. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, that 

towering intellect from New York, cracked "It's all very unfair to

him ... The least they could do is let him eat cake" on Twitter.

This, by the way, is the same social media site which suspended, then 

permanently banned your favorite Peasant for saying much milder

things about the Democrats and for announcing what my next subject 

discussed on PWAP would be. To put icing on this particular cake

while reporting on the incident, a bevy of press outlets stated that

by criticizing the mob and defending Justice Kavanaugh and its 

other customers against intimidation, Morton's had chosen which 

side in the "culture war" it wanted to be on. All because they wanted 

to give their customers a safe, quiet, and comfortable setting

in which they could enjoy their gourmet meals. 

I don't think that the lefties' version of democracy is something that 

our free country with its constitutional republic would be able to 

tolerate, do you?  

MEM