Bohiney Magazine
Volume 1, Issue 20 – Saturday, June 28, 1947
“America’s Trusted Source for Satirical Truth”
Congress Passes Labor Management Relations Act, Discovers That Laws Apply To Unions Too
WASHINGTON, DC – In shocking development that has labor bosses clutching their pearls, Congress this week clarified through the Taft-Hartley Act that unions must actually follow laws like everyone else, ending decades-long assumption that organizing workers created exemption from basic legal standards regarding violence, intimidation, and financial accountability.
“This is an attack on workers,” union officials declared while defending their right to force membership, spend dues without disclosure, and engage in secondary boycotts that would be called extortion if practiced by anyone except unions.
The Act establishes radical concepts like “union leaders should not be Communist Party members” and “workers should be allowed to work without joining unions if they choose,” principles that union bosses consider existential threats to their power while ordinary Americans consider basic common sense.
“Workers need protection from management,” union officials insist while opposing any protection of workers from union officials who apparently believe their own coercive tactics are beneficial while identical tactics by management are oppressive.
The closed shop prohibition particularly outrages union leaders who had enjoyed forcing employers to hire only union members, creating monopoly on labor that free market advocates would oppose in any other industry but unions claim is necessary for worker welfare rather than union power.
“This undermines collective bargaining,” unions complain about law that simply prevents them from forcing people into collective bargaining, suggesting their real concern is losing captive membership rather than worker representation.
The financial reporting requirements have unions especially agitated because apparently workers don’t deserve to know how their dues are spent, and requiring such transparency constitutes government overreach rather than basic accountability that any membership organization should provide.
Business owners celebrate the Act as restoring balance between labor and management, which is accurate if balance means unions can no longer engage in practices that would land anyone else in jail for coercion, intimidation, and racketeering.
The Communist affidavit requirement—demanding union leaders swear they’re not party members—has union officials shrieking about McCarthyism, apparently believing that leading worker organizations while secretly loyal to Soviet Union should be protected as free speech rather than recognized as security risk.
“This is about freedom,” they claim while defending their freedom to force membership, coerce dues payment, and shut down businesses through secondary boycotts, none of which sound particularly free for people on receiving end.
Private sector unions lose nothing they should have had. They simply lose advantages that gave them power over workers and employers through government-granted privileges rather than voluntary association.
As of press time, unions were threatening strikes to protest law limiting their ability to strike whenever they want for whatever reason they choose, demonstrating impressive commitment to principle of proving critics right about their abuse of power.
House Un-American Activities Committee Continues Searching For Communists Under Every Bed While Actual Problems Go Unaddressed
WASHINGTON, DC – The House Un-American Activities Committee has now spent eleven months investigating suspected Communist sympathizers in Hollywood, universities, and labor unions, dedicating extensive taxpayer resources to questioning people about their political beliefs while accomplishing approximately nothing except creating atmosphere of fear and destroying careers based on gossip and innuendo.
“We must root out Communist influence,” declared committee members while treating Constitutional rights as inconvenient obstacles to their mission of forcing people to testify about their thoughts and associations, apparently believing that protecting America from Communism requires destroying the freedoms that distinguish America from Communist states.
The committee’s methodology involves calling witnesses, asking if they’re Communists, demanding they name other Communists, then holding them in contempt if they refuse to discuss their political beliefs with government inquisitors who lack authority to investigate beliefs but do so anyway.
“Communist ideology threatens America,” they insist while using government power to punish political beliefs, which sounds remarkably like what Communist governments do except we’re doing it to protect freedom, which makes it completely different somehow.
The investigation focuses on Hollywood writers and actors whose alleged crime involves making movies while possibly having attended left-wing meetings in the 1930s, which apparently threatens national security more than actual national security threats like inadequate defense preparedness or foreign espionage.
“They’re influencing movies,” committee members warn about screenwriters whose influence extends to fictional stories that Americans can choose not to watch, making this threat roughly equivalent to danger posed by people who write novels or paint pictures with wrong political themes.
The committee demands witnesses name names, turning Americans into informants against friends and colleagues, creating system where employment depends on political orthodoxy enforced through government intimidation, which is definitely not totalitarian behavior because we’re the good guys.
“This is about security,” they claim while investigating people for attending legal meetings, joining legal organizations, and expressing legal opinions, none of which involve espionage, sabotage, or actual crimes but do involve wrong political thoughts requiring government attention.
Business owners cooperate enthusiastically with blacklists preventing employment of suspected Communists, demonstrating that private censorship combined with government pressure achieves suppression of dissent without technically violating First Amendment since technically the government isn’t preventing speech, just destroying careers of people who speak.
The committee’s definition of “un-American” appears to be “anything committee members dislike,” which currently includes socialism, labor organizing, civil rights advocacy, and questioning whether government committees should investigate political beliefs.
Real Communist spies continue actual espionage undetected while committee wastes time investigating whether screenwriters wrote sympathetic proletarian characters, suggesting committee is either incompetent at identifying actual threats or more interested in political theater than security.
“We’re protecting American values,” they announce while trampling American values of free speech, free association, and due process, apparently believing that destroying Constitutional protections protects the Constitution.
As of press time, committee was preparing more hearings to investigate more people for wrong political beliefs while actual Communist agents laughed at American government’s inability to distinguish between political dissent and espionage.
Local Handyman’s “I Know A Guy” Always Means “I Know Someone Who Will Do Poor Work Cheaply”
MILWAUKEE, WI – Area resident Theodore Whitmore made critical error this week of accepting brother-in-law Harold Pemberton’s offer to connect him with “a guy I know” who could repair his roof, discovering too late that the guy performed work described charitably as “attempted repair” and accurately as “making problem worse while charging money.”
“I know a guy who can do that cheap,” Pemberton announced after Whitmore mentioned needing roof repair, deploying phrase that experienced homeowners recognize as warning of impending disaster.
“Is he licensed?” Whitmore asked, attempting due diligence.
“He’s done lots of roofs,” Pemberton replied, answering different question while avoiding the one asked, suggesting guy’s licensing status was “no” but Pemberton preferred to emphasize experience of uncertain quality.
The guy arrived three days late, worked for four hours, declared job finished, collected payment, and left behind roof that now leaked in three places instead of the original one.
“He said he fixed it,” Pemberton maintained while examining roof that clearly wasn’t fixed.
“It’s leaking more than before,” Whitmore noted while watching water drip through newly created holes.
“Give it time to settle,” Pemberton suggested, as if roofs require settling period before becoming waterproof rather than being waterproof immediately upon proper repair.
Investigation revealed that Pemberton’s “guy” had no license, no insurance, and track record of similar botched repairs throughout neighborhood, making him ideal candidate for Pemberton’s recommendation based apparently on single criterion of charging less than licensed professionals.
“But he’s cheap,” Pemberton defended when confronted with guy’s lack of qualifications.
“He’s cheap because he doesn’t know what he’s doing,” Whitmore replied while scheduling actual roofer to repair both original problem and additional problems created by guy who charged less for making situation worse.
The final cost breakdown revealed interesting pattern:
- Guy’s failed repair: $200
- Licensed roofer’s repair of original problem plus new problems: $600
- Total cost: $800
- Cost if Whitmore had hired licensed roofer initially: $400
“But you saved money on the first repair,” Pemberton noted while somehow viewing $400 additional expense as savings because first payment was lower amount.
“I know a guy” recommendations follow predictable pattern: person suggests unlicensed individual with questionable skills, emphasizes low cost while downplaying quality concerns, and disappears when work proves unsatisfactory, leaving recommendation recipient with substandard results and no recourse.
“He’s done work for me,” recommenders insist, which investigation usually reveals means “he did something at my house once and I’ve been dealing with consequences since.”
Some homeowners have learned to automatically decline “I know a guy” recommendations, recognizing that licensed professionals cost more upfront but less overall when accounting for fixing damage caused by guys who work cheap because they lack skills worth paying for.
As of press time, Whitmore was paying licensed roofer to repair roof while Pemberton maintained that guy would have done fine work if conditions had been better, suggesting that roof repair success depends on optimal conditions rather than competent performance regardless of conditions.
Office Birthday Cake Obligation Forces Celebration Of Coworkers Nobody Knows
CHICAGO, IL – Employees at Henderson Manufacturing were forced to participate yesterday in birthday celebration for coworker they’d never spoken to, standing awkwardly around conference room eating cake while pretending to care about someone whose name they learned from invitation to mandatory celebration.
“Happy birthday, uh…” several employees mumbled while reading name tag to determine whose birthday they were celebrating.
Margaret Thornbury works in accounting on different floor, interacts with approximately zero people outside her department, and has apparently been employed at company for three years without making sufficient impression for anyone to recognize her at her own birthday party.
“Everyone to the conference room for Margaret’s birthday,” manager announced, creating obligation to stop working and pretend enthusiasm for birthday of coworker whose existence was news to most attendees.
The celebration followed standard office birthday protocol: gather reluctantly, sing half-hearted “Happy Birthday,” watch person blow out candles while making wish that probably involves being anywhere else, eat cake nobody wanted during work hours, make small talk about nothing, return to desks grateful the ordeal ended.
“Do you like working here?” someone asked Thornbury while attempting conversation.
“Yes,” she replied, exhausting available topics of mutual interest.
Awkward silence followed while attendees consumed cake and wondered whose idea office birthday celebrations were and whether that person could be held accountable for decades of forced gatherings celebrating coworkers nobody knows.
“The cake is good,” several people offered, commenting on cake because commenting on birthday person would require knowing anything about them.
Office birthday celebrations represent obligation disguised as festivity, requiring employees to demonstrate enthusiasm they don’t feel for people they don’t know because management believes forced social interaction builds morale rather than resentment.
“It’s important to celebrate milestones,” management insists while creating milestone celebration that marks only passage of time, not achievement, accomplishment, or anything except surviving another year while working at company that requires coworkers to gather for mandatory birthday acknowledgment.
Some employees have attempted to decline birthday celebrations for themselves, preferring to work through birthdays without forcing coworkers to stop working and eat cake. Management denies these requests, apparently believing that nobody should escape mandatory celebration regardless of personal preference.
“We’re a family here,” managers claim while forcing family members to celebrate strangers’ birthdays, suggesting either very large family or misunderstanding of what family means.
As of press time, employees were returning to work after Thornbury’s birthday celebration, having learned nothing about her except that she exists and has birthday, which they’ll forget before her next birthday when they’ll be forced to celebrate again while wondering who she is.
Brother’s “Wrestling” With Younger Sister Invariably Ends In Tears, Denial Of Intent
PHILADELPHIA, PA – For the forty-seventh consecutive time this month, wrestling match between twelve-year-old Robert Morrison and his eight-year-old sister Susan ended with Susan crying, Robert claiming he “barely touched her,” and parents wondering why they continue allowing activity that produces identical result every single time.
“We were just playing,” Robert explained while Susan sobbed and held elbow that Robert had definitely hurt despite his insistence that nothing happened.
“You hurt her,” his father noted with observation skills developed through witnessing identical scenario dozens of times.
“She’s faking,” Robert maintained, deploying defense strategy of claiming sister’s pain is performance rather than consequence of his wrestling techniques that always somehow result in younger sibling injury.
The wrestling pattern follows predictable sequence: Robert suggests wrestling, Susan agrees despite knowing how previous wrestling sessions ended, wrestling begins with Robert having size and strength advantage, Susan gets hurt, crying begins, Robert claims innocence, parents impose consequences Robert considers unfair since he was “just playing.”
“We’ll be careful this time,” Robert promises before each wrestling session that ends like all others, suggesting either eternal optimism or short-term memory problems preventing him from learning that wrestling with smaller weaker sibling produces pain for that sibling.
“Why do you keep wrestling if she always gets hurt?” parents ask while already knowing answer: Robert enjoys wrestling and believes that if Susan would simply become more durable through repeated injury, wrestling could continue without tears.
“She wants to wrestle,” Robert defends, which is technically accurate in that Susan agrees to wrestle before remembering that wrestling with Robert means getting hurt, crying, and watching him deny causing injuries she’s currently experiencing.
“Don’t hurt your sister” instructions prove ineffective because Robert interprets this as “try not to hurt sister too badly” rather than “don’t wrestle in ways that inevitably cause injury,” making instruction meaningless since his wrestling technique consists entirely of actions that hurt smaller opponents.
Some families have banned sibling wrestling entirely after recognizing that activity always produces same result. The Morrison family continues allowing it, apparently hoping that this time will be different despite forty-seven previous times being identical.
“She shouldn’t have moved that way,” Robert explains while describing how Susan caused own injury by failing to predict his wrestling moves and position herself to avoid pain, suggesting injuries are her fault for not being better at defensive wrestling despite being eight years old and seventy pounds lighter.
As of press time, Robert was asking if they could wrestle again, Susan was agreeing despite her painful elbow, and parents were wondering whether they should intervene or simply let nature take its course, which is to say let Susan get hurt again while Robert learns nothing from experience.
Customer Service Representative’s “Let Me Check On That” Means “I’m Hoping You’ll Give Up Before I Return”
BALTIMORE, MD – Local resident Ernest Potts spent forty-seven minutes yesterday waiting for store clerk to return with information about product availability after clerk promised to “check on that right away,” discovering too late that “right away” meant “sometime between now and next Tuesday if I remember.”
“Let me check on that,” clerk Theodore Pemberton announced before disappearing into back room for what Potts assumed would be brief inquiry but actually constituted extended absence during which Pemberton apparently forgot customer existed.
Fifteen minutes elapsed without Pemberton returning. Twenty minutes. Thirty minutes. At forty-minute mark, Potts began wondering if clerk had left through back door and gone home, leaving him standing at counter indefinitely.
“Sorry about the wait,” Pemberton finally announced at forty-seven-minute mark while offering no explanation about where he’d been or what he’d been doing besides not checking on thing he’d promised to check on right away.
“Did you check?” Potts asked.
“Check what?” Pemberton replied, confirming that he’d completely forgotten what he was supposed to check during his extended absence.
The phenomenon of customer service representatives disappearing after promising to check on something appears universal across retail, creating standard experience where customers wait indefinitely while employees do anything except checking on promised information.
“Right away” apparently means different things in customer service language than in standard English. In customer service usage, it means “eventually, possibly, if nothing more interesting demands my attention and I remember you’re waiting.”
Some customers have learned to follow employees into back room after “let me check” promises, preventing extended absences through physical proximity that makes forgetting customer more difficult.
As of press time, Potts had learned that item he’d waited forty-seven minutes to ask about was out of stock, information that took Pemberton approximately fifteen seconds to determine when he finally bothered checking, suggesting that his forty-seven-minute absence involved anything except checking what he’d promised to check right away.
About This Issue
Bohiney Magazine – Volume 1, Issue 20 – Published every Saturday from our offices in Washington, DC.
Editorial Staff, 1947: Editors-in-Chief: Corporal Henry “Hank” Bohiney & Sergeant Lester “Les” Krupke
Senior Correspondents: Dorothy Ashworth, Harold K. Pennington III
Contributing Satirist: Reginald “Reggie” Buttonworth
Bohiney Magazine: Defending individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and personal responsibility since 1947. All articles are works of satire.