Here’s something I truly despise: White politicians and union stooges who have never worked a real job and have no idea what it means to build a business, telling me, a Black, female independent professional, where and how I should be working. You can cut the paternalism with a knife, which is why I prefer to blast it to smithereens with my scholastic gun.
The Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act is languishing on the Senate floor, and hopefully dying a slow, and very painful death. Sadly, the Union-controlled Biden administration still has tricks up its sleeve.
According to CQ Roll Call:
However, union leaders and labor economists told CQ Roll Call there’s a limit to what Biden can do unless the Senate passes a bill that would strengthen protections for workers forming a union. Even Plan B would involve getting provisions of that bill attached to something else that could pass.
Biden’s and the Democrats’ labor record among unionized workers may depend on those provisions getting enacted, or making sure that Republicans take the blame.
Tim Schlittner, a spokesman for the AFL-CIO, said the Senate must pass the bill “by any means necessary.”
“We have had 100 days of a pro-union president, and it’s inspiring, it’s heartening, but we know the best is yet to come and that’s going to require the Senate to pass the PRO Act,” he said, referring to the so-called Protecting the Right to Organize Act.
Biden used his April 28 joint address to Congress to call on the Senate to pass the bill. The president since March has said those provisions are integral to the infrastructure package unveiled that month, a point that cheers the unions.
As RedState Managing Editor Jennifer Van Laar noted immediately after Biden’s speech:
Since many of the individual pieces of the Democrat party’s wet dream wish list of brutal legislation can’t pass on their own (specifically, PRO Act). The Hologram’s decided to roll them into a massive “infrastructure” bill. In their belief,
I’m sorry, but without Wall Street investment, the middle class couldn’t build the country. And, everyone has the right to join a union or seek a unionized workplace. They’re rejecting it in droves. What people want is the right to work, the right to earn income in the ways that make sense for their family and for their lifestyle. If we’ve learned anything from the pandemic, we’ve learned that flexible, remote work is feasible on a large scale, and more and more working mothers are seeking these arrangements. The PRO Act vision for the American economy is going back to a mill/factory town paradigm.
Nope, can’t let working mothers have flexible, remote work arrangements. Schlittner parrots the same point Biden made during the speech:
“Our mantra in the past year has been, build back better with unions, because we see union members as critical to rebuilding America’s infrastructure,” Schlittner said.
The House voted 225-206 on March 9 to pass its version of the bill, sponsored by Rep. Robert C. Scott, D-Va.
But even Senate Democrats acknowledge they don’t have the votes to pass a stand-alone bill, and may not even have all the Democrats’ votes. Attaching the labor provisions to an infrastructure package or some other legislation may be the best option available.
While Schemin’ Schumer is twisting arms and trying to steamroll the infrastructure bill through, Union stooges are working overtime to paint the opposition to the PRO Act as “privileged white women” who want to disenfranchise “people of color and other minorities.” This is the same tactic the teachers union tried with mothers who demanded their children return to in-person schooling.
We see how well that worked out for them; but, they love pouring milk on that big bowl of stupid and gobbling it down. They just can’t help themselves.
Mindy “pass the PRO act!” Isser is a Democrat Socialist Labor Organizer who took to Twitter to fuel this campaign of “privileged white women”.
honestly they should do away with freelancing until we can figure out what’s wrong with white women freelancers. this will have negative consequences for my life but i’m willing to sacrifice
I abhor her kind even more than paternalistic and well-paid politicians like Senator Patty Murray (D-LIAR) because these organizers are so full of their own virtue and righteousness yet have no concept of what it means to actually work a day in their life. In my world, organizing protests does not count as work. Yet, this salter is advocating to push legislation and change laws that will destroy the livelihoods of people like me, who actually do understand the concept of hard work and building a professional legacy.
Sadly, these reality-deficient drones have sycophants who actually think these emergent thoughts are dripping with great insight rather than reeking of horse manure.
Meet “Alexander Hamilton”, who doesn’t have the courage to even put up his/her/their face as their Twitter avatar, rolled all over Isser’s word, like a pig in the mud:
Great point, I’ve noticed it’s all white women piping up about it on Twitter. Why do you think that is, aside from general privilege?
He/She/It has no concept that the very question asked is swimming in that proverbial “privilege.”
A do-over of Woke 101 is in order.
It further chaps my hide that this astroturf campaign to paint the freelancer opposition to the PRO Act as white female privilege is coming from an actual white woman of privilege.
Liz Shuler is the AFL-CIO’s Secretary-Treasurer, basically the No. 2 of the labor organization. Looking over Shuler’s LinkedIn profile, it shows that most of her working career has been spent in the labor movement: from the grassroots/local level, to the national level for both IBEW (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers—1998-2009) and now the AFL-CIO (aka the Teamsters—2009-present).
Riddle me this: If you are so pro-woman and “woke,” why haven’t you insisted that IBEW’s name be changed? “Brotherhood” is so sexist.
According to a 2019 Guardian piece, Shuler is in her 40s. This means that she has spent 22 of her 40-plus years working for Unions — almost her entire adult life. Her LinkedIn profile says she graduated college in 1992, then there are six years that are unaccounted for. The rest of the profile from 1998 on, is all union, all the time. The Guardian article alleges that Shuler’s highest ambition is to take over as president of AFL-CIO once Trumka
steps down is bumped off.
A white woman who wants to take over something built by an old white man. How feminist, innovative, and forward-thinking. You could probably fit her concepts on the future of work on the tip of a pin. Shuler has no idea what it means to work for yourself, to build skills, alliances, and relationships that allow one to create the professional life of their choice.
Shuler hasn’t earned a damned thing in her life, but she wants to dictate and stipulate about the future of my professional life and reputation that I have worked over 30 years to build.
You can take all the seats.
Democrats and their elitist allies make an art form of co-opting Black agency and telling us they know what is best. Good thing I’m not a Democrat and pay no attention to them.
But to my skinfolk who do, and my kinfolk of all races, I ask you this: why are you getting opinions and policy from a white woman who has done nothing in her life but organize for unions run by white men? We are all so much better than this, and we do not need anyone to save us, especially this manipulative and pretentious lackey.
In partnership with Shill Shuler is the National Writers Union (NWU) President Larry Goldbetter, and Editor-in-Chief and Publisher of Columbia Journalism Review Kyle Pope. Both—big surprise!—White Men. Amazing how the supposedly despised and maligned ethnic group and class are the puppeteers in this show.
NWU and CJR are all in for the PRO Act. Both groups are slathering to regain their former dominance and glory when glossy, overpriced magazines and thick newspapers ruled the journalistic landscape, and with it, certain kinds of gatekeepers; rather than the digital warriors and smart entrepreneurs controlling their keyboards and their destinies on their own terms.
CJR has dubbed itself the “Voice of Journalism” and keeps enlisting people to put out these hit pieces against independent professionals (including against our Managing Editor, Jennifer Van Laar, and against our parent company, Salem Media), gaslighting us that our independence and freedom is merely an illusion, and if we only give up these foolish ideas, we can all band together, hold hands and sing, Kumbaya.
Oh, yeah, and get that PRO Act passed.
The title of CJR’s latest hit piece says it all: To regain worker’s rights, freelance journalists should rethink who they are
Not only is the piece poorly formatted, but it also casts the freelance writer as some victim; because victimhood is the order of the day in Joe Biden’s America.
But even the most indicting testimonials maintain a do-it-yourself attitude. Freelance journalists, thrust into shared employment conditions, have banded together as a creative class but rarely as a working one. As isolated instances, their predicaments are often chronicled through the bootstrapping rhetoric of diligent entrepreneurship. But as a collective set of problems belonging to a labor force that provides an increasingly significant share of the industry’s market surplus, they’re best described in blunt terms: exploitation.
My God! You mean writers have to build their careers by themselves?! Yeah, that’s embodied in the definitions of “freelance” and “independence”. CJR bandied the phrase, “Diligent entrepreneurship” as if they were saying, “Stupid M*therf&@kers”.
The prevalent use throughout the article of the terms: “workers” and “laborers” to describe freelancers, rather than: “professional writer” or “talent” was galling. The agenda is made even clearer in the last paragraph:
Like all artists, freelance writers see ourselves as special. But so long as we see ourselves as uniquely special, we will fail to win the protections we are entitled to as workers.
Part of the success in being an independent professional is that you recognize your uniqueness and worth in a sea of other professionals; that is how you are able to market and distinguish yourself, while successfully building your brand. If all you are looking for is a steady paycheck and winning “protections” so-called, then you’re in the wrong industry. When I make enough money to pay my taxes, my own insurances, and still pay my rent and bills, I don’t give a rat’s ass about your version of protections. So, let those who need it toddle off and find themselves a W-2 job, and leave the professionals who know how to handle their sh*t alone.
With the help of NWU’s Larry Goldbetter, the New York Times printed another hit job under the guise of an opinion piece. Shamefully, it is by an Asian female “freelancer,” E. Tammy Kim.
Most independent contractors are not doing well. Our median income is just $32,000 per year, and many of us identify as part of a larger working class. “The vast majority of freelancers have no labor rights, are no longer covered by civil rights law or labor laws,” Larry Goldbetter, the president of the National Writers Union, told me. Those opposing the PRO Act “claim they’re doing better than ever and that our people are losers, basically,” he added.
Basically, Larry, all of you are losers; pure and simple. The point is to learn from that loss and find where you can be successful. Not try to destroy what is a successful model for others; 57 million others, to be exact.
Unlike Tammy Kim’s lie above, many of us do not identify as part of a larger working class: we like our flexibility, our freedoms, and our independence to choose work when we want it. A great majority of us are not only women and minorities, but those with disabilities. But do go off about all those privileged white women.
Black women, minority women, and women of other races are the ones who will be disenfranchised by the PRO Act becoming law. So I ask again, why would you work against your own self-interest?
Independent contracting, entrepreneurship, and self-employment have often been a way to greater freedom and prosperity for Black women, as well as other minority women. So, to have a white woman and two white men foisting legislation that essentially erases Black women and their livelihoods is beyond hypocrisy; it’s racism.
But Shill Shuler and her cabal continue to influence and indoctrinate their white counterparts, who continue to foster lies that the ABC Test is a legitimate measure and that the PRO Act will bring about an equitable pay scale with those awful white men they’re in partnership with.
Newsflash: I don’t want to earn as much as a white man. I want to earn MORE. I have been fighting against California’s AB5 for the past two years, and it has done untold damage to my ability to earn. In years past, I was able to earn more than the average white male. The PRO Act would continue what AB5 started: limit, and destroy my freedom to do so. And that would be spread nationwide to others like me.
Go sell crazy somewhere else. We’re all stocked up here.
Here’s the bottom line: I wish to be the determining factor on what, how, and how much I can earn, not some law embedded with an antiquated test from the 1930s. I also refuse to be used as a poster child to justify the Union’s agenda or malign my fellow independent professionals because they happen to be smart like me and know how to employ the independent contractor model, and because they happen to be white. My allegiances are not skin deep. Stop trying to manipulate me—I’m not the one.
Seeking to rob an entire sector of the population of their ability to earn a living as they choose creates a new employment caste system, and destroys individual freedom and opportunity; especially for Black women.