Quantcast

Franklin Delano Roosevelt would have applauded Scott Walker's victory in Wisconsin!

Ken 2012/06/10 21:16:54


FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT

Letter on the Resolution of Federation of Federal Employees
Against Strikes in Federal Service
August 16, 1937


Mr. Luther C.
Steward,
President,
National Federation of Federal
Employees,
10 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C.


My dear Mr. Steward:


As I am unable to accept
your kind invitation to be present on the occasion of the Twentieth
Jubilee Convention of the National Federation of Federal Employees, I
am taking this method of sending greetings and a message.


. . . .


All Government employees
should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually
understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has
its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public
personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make
it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to
bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee
organizations.
The employer is the whole people, who speak by means
of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly,
administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided,
and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies,
procedures, or rules in personnel matters.


Particularly, I want to
emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the
functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees
in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole
people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and
continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation
is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the
functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests
nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the
operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such
action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have
sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.
It is,
therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the
constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the
provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation
engage in or support strikes against the United States Government."


I congratulate the
National Federation of Federal Employees the twentieth anniversary of
its founding and trust that the convention will, in every way, be
successful.


Very sincerely yours,

/s/ Franklin Delano Roosevelt

You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • Jackie G - Poker Playing Pa... 2012/06/10 22:18:48
    Jackie G - Poker Playing Patriot
    +4
    I find it interesting that FDR, the man they consider their greatest democrat president, was totally against public sector unions because he truly believed it would lead to corruption - and, of course, it has and does.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Lady Whitewolf 2012/06/11 10:10:10
    Lady Whitewolf
    La-De-Da for him!
  • Ken Lady Wh... 2012/06/11 23:42:00
    Ken
    At a loss for words, I see!
  • shadow76 2012/06/11 07:55:17
    shadow76
    +1
    Wow! for once agree with him!
  • Mr. Smith 2012/06/11 01:53:08
    Mr. Smith
    +3
    Even FDR knew collective bargaining rights had no place in public employee unions. It's basic common sense, you can't give a public union that much power where they can hold the public hostage!
  • Ken Mr. Smith 2012/06/11 03:04:11
    Ken
    +2
    It leads to the type of corruption that has ruled Illinois and Chicago for decades. The last three Illinois governors, both parties, went to prison - that should tell us something about Barack Obama's background.
  • Mr. Smith Ken 2012/06/11 03:17:39
    Mr. Smith
    +1
    Exactly right, Ken!
  • Prairie Wind 2012/06/11 01:24:54
    Prairie Wind
    I would suspect FDR would have crapped his pants upon seeing what Scott Walker accomplished and why he did.
  • Ken Prairie... 2012/06/11 03:05:04
    Ken
    +1
    Based upon what? Isn't FDR's message quite clear, that unions have no place in the public sector?
  • Prairie... Ken 2012/06/12 03:34:00
    Prairie Wind
    You're quite right regarding FDR's public opinion, although somehow FDR's twist on socialism has fueled progressives into a mouthwatering panter in pursuit of saving their present mulatto messiah under the basking of of Buffett and Soros.
  • Ken Prairie... 2012/06/12 04:16:21
    Ken
    +1
    That's the only opinion of his I've read that comes even close to being conservative, though. He came out with a "new bill of rights" that was essentially cradle to grave government care. guaranteeing everyone:

    Employment, with a living wage
    Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies
    Housing
    Medical care
    Education
    Social security

    About the only thing he left out is one's sex life, and I imagine the Dems will get around to guaranteeing that as well!
  • Prairie... Ken 2012/06/12 04:19:06
    Prairie Wind
    +1
    The Dems are guaranteeing "hookers? Wow! Time for testesterone shots! LOL
  • JT For Political Reform 2012/06/10 23:55:40
    JT For Political Reform
    +1
    Obviously FDR had a lot more brains than Oblunder.
  • CHUCK 2012/06/10 23:17:58
    CHUCK
    +1
    SO DO I..

    Photobucket
  • Texas Johnny 2012/06/10 23:11:46
    Texas Johnny
    Amazing ain't it?
  • Schläue~© 2012/06/10 22:20:23
    Schläue~©
    +1
    He may have 'said ' that back in 1937 but I guarantee if he was in the WH right now watching the progressive agenda going down the drain he would be singing a different tune.

    He had to feel that way in 1937 because his policies were failing to get us out of the Depression and the last thing he wanted was for the essential services to go on strike and no longer be at his disposal.

    Unlike 0bozo, FDR already had a REAL national crisis on his hands and there was no need to create one. He just didn't know how to rebuild the economy with his socialist programs and had to get us involved in the war to recover.
  • Jackie G - Poker Playing Pa... 2012/06/10 22:18:48
    Jackie G - Poker Playing Patriot
    +4
    I find it interesting that FDR, the man they consider their greatest democrat president, was totally against public sector unions because he truly believed it would lead to corruption - and, of course, it has and does.
  • shadow76 Jackie ... 2012/06/11 07:58:26
    shadow76
    +2
    Consider yourself raved!
  • Kane Fernau 2012/06/10 22:05:53
    Kane Fernau
    +3
    Yep, even FDR knew public unions would be bad for the country!
  • doofiegirl BTO-t- BCRA-F ~... 2012/06/10 21:58:33
    doofiegirl  BTO-t- BCRA-F ~PWCM~
    +2
    I had forgotten this! FDR may have been a better man than I remebered
  • banzaibuckaroo 2012/06/10 21:37:19
    banzaibuckaroo
    Yes, FDR might be clapping, but the difference between 1930's and now is this. Back then, the labor unions were weak, and seeing how they did during the construction of the hoover dam was prove of this; they didn't have to pay them anything near our current workers. In modern times, do you really believe Corporations will create more jobs, when they can maximize productivity on job force that too scared of losing their jobs. It's all about the bottom line, and cutting wages is the first thing they can control. It's happening in both the private, and public sector, but you will notice it's not happening to the folks in control of the Corporations and Government.
  • Ken banzaib... 2012/06/10 23:01:18
    Ken
    +1
    In case you didn't notice, FDR was talking about public sector unions, not unions in the private sector where they work for corporations.

    The only way to "create" lasting jobs is to have a profitable business, and you can't have a profitable business if your goal is to "create" a maximum number of jobs. Of course they want to maximize the productivity of their job force, otherwise they couldn't compete and wouldn't provide any jobs at all.
  • banzaib... Ken 2012/06/11 06:33:57
    banzaibuckaroo
    +1
    but haven't said anything about the folks at the top.
  • Ken banzaib... 2012/06/11 23:50:25
    Ken
    What about the "folks at the top?" Corporations aren't cutting wages - they may be shipping jobs overseas but that is to remain competitive. The salaries of the "folks at the top" may be too high in your opinion (many are too high in my opinion too), but that's the business of the shareholders and the boards of directors that run those companies, not the government.

    The top 1% of income in this nation starts at around $380,000, and many of those are entrepreneurs who own their own family businesses. If you add up the total income of the top 1% it would pay for only one year of the federal deficit.

    It is the federal government's system of taxation and unions' demand for outlandish pay and benefits that has made the U.S. unable to compete in the international market- that is the major reason jobs have gone overseas. The U.S. has among the highest corporate tax rates in the world, and it is double-taxation -- the profits are taxed as income to the corporation and then again when dividends are paid to the shareholders. If you look at the foreign auto manufacturers who have built plants in the U.S., they have all gone to southern states where they don't have to deal with the UAW.
  • banzaib... Ken 2012/06/12 02:21:36
    banzaibuckaroo
    +1
    I own shares in with blue chippers, and a few mid-level cap companies, but what frustrates me are those ridiculous perks, and salaries they been taking out of my bottom line. Folks that are making 1 million a year are not rich, their comfortable.

    Think what you just wrote about the taxation system. If we went to a flat tax system, most of the bigger level corporations would be out of the United States, because their not paying anything, and most companies love hiding revenues. Yes, the public labor union need to take a back step, and realize the government can't pay off the bills, but the when we know two trillion is sitting on the sideline for the private sector...that is BS, especially when we know about golden parachutes of 1 billion for just one CEO. L
  • Ken banzaib... 2012/06/12 04:20:28
    Ken
    +1
    I agree with you - in many cities $300,000 won't buy you much of a place to live - e.g. New York, L.A., San Francisco. And yet Obama wants to tax everyone making over $200,000 ($250K for couples) as though they are "rich." The thing is, the 'Buffet Rule" taxes he wants - making the "rich" pay the same as their employees, would add enough to pay for a single day of our deficit - just over $4 billion! What it amounts to is increasing the capital gains rate to 25% - 30%, even though Obama has acknowledged that history shows that an increase in the capital gains rate has resulted in lower revenues.
  • truthzx95 Ken 2012/06/11 06:36:53
    truthzx95
    +2
    it's painfully obvious these morons just don't get it.
  • westernslope~PWCM~JLA 2012/06/10 21:17:33
    westernslope~PWCM~JLA
    +3
    FDR claps his hands

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/04/24 02:37:33

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals