Thread by @forgotten_ntss

Nigel Carlsbad's Civil Rights vs. Organized Labor thread faithfully replicated in the original format for your viewing pleasure. Enjoy!

Alright, here goes. Civil rights vs. organized labor. For the record, I am not partial to either. The gist of it is that Title VII lawsuits, as "law of the land," overrode NLRA collective bargaining agreements, the "law of the shop."

NLRA case law actually had separate anti-discrimination provisions of its own separate from and prior to civil rights, due to a judicial doctrine of "duty of fair representation" in Steele v. Louisville & Nashville Railway Co. (1944).

Be that as it may, unions offered protective and wage-pushing functions through mechanisms like seniority clauses (departmental, city-wide, county-wide), union work referrals, work rotation clauses, etc. "Equal opportunity" struck all of them down.

Women were subject to protective labor laws that prohibited night shifts, overtime, lifting heavy weights, etc. in addition to having their own sex-segregated union locals. Girlboss striver feminists around NOW destroyed all of that for them.

NAACP rep in 1977, publishing in an "anti-racist, anti-imperialist journal," stating that: "Full employment by itself solves nothing for the black worker." 'BUT WHAT ABOUT MUH CLASS POLITICS,' interjects the post-leftist...

A well-known essay by Heidi Hartmann, "The unhappy marriage of Marxism and feminism" (1979), declared labor unionism to be a patriarchal instrument that promoted the male-breadwinner "family wage" and women's roles as housewives.

And just look at all these deplorable and reactionary attitudes about women's work by Australian and Canadian union men.

In the 1980s there was a major movement around "comparable worth," i.e. raising women's wages to parity with unequal male labor on basis of nonsense statistical assessments so as to remedy "past injustices."

Few have heard of it, because it was mostly influential in the public sector. Indeed, the EEOC, comparable worth, Title VII were crucial in massively increasing the share of public sector unionism at the expensive of private, and esp. favoring women and blacks.

In 10 years, the number of collective bargaining agreements containing anti-discrimination clauses went from 28% to 74%. And look at this vast log of pro-feminist court cases in the 1970s; the whole decade was an all-out feminist revolution.

Now for some ridiculous court cases: United States v. City of Milwaukee (1977). Male jailers vs. female 'matrons.' The men were 24/7 on-duty cops and watched over a lot more inmates, but the court ruled that this wasn't sufficient reason to pay them more!

In Dothard v. Rawlinson (1977), the height and weight requirements for prison guards in Alabama were struck down as discriminatory because they would exclude 1% of men as compared to a whopping 4% (!) of women.

United Steelworkers v. Weber (1979) found affirmative action criteria that openly disadvantaged whites to be lawful because "muh private company" (topkek). But for departmental seniority criteria in AT&T, "muh private company" didn't count, naturally.

How could the bourgeoisie do this????