In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
In the age of Youtube, America's secrets are being discovered. A union thug in Sacramento threatens and shoves an innocent counterpart, and we see it on YouTube in an hour. Joeblow average citizen is getting a lesson on the union scurge and how antithetical they are to a constitutional lifestyle...unions' days are numbered.
The internet age means these dirty secrets can no longer survive.
quote:Originally posted by nord
If I tally up the score correctly there are some trends that have begun to appear:
The gulf between unionists and non-unionists is so wide and deep that it probably cannot be bridged. Even when supplied with facts our union friends cannot (or refuse to) comprehend what we're trying to share.
Given the posts above I see a number of union members reconsidering their position with regard to membership. I believe it fair to say that for every post there must many more sharing doubt.
I've noted not a single post where non-union folks had softened their opinion and were moving toward the union side. Truthfully, after reading some of the pro-union propaganda, I can understand. They have no convincing argument when their bluff is called.
Perhaps most important is that I've noted not one call for the abolition of unions from any of us. From some of our pro-union friends it would seem that each opposing post called for such. All I see are calls for reform. Did I miss something?
Last and perhaps most humorous is the twisted language used by those on the left. The moment their cause is criticized the Jews and Nazis are brought up and we're labeled as Fascists or Nazis. Somehow they miss that the Nazi Party was more formally known as the National Socialist Party.
Certainly the Nazis were anti-communist and maybe that's the point of confusion on the left, but National Socialist says it all. Either system (Russian or German) took the path of socialism. They merely did it in a slightly different manner.
Interesting about how words can be twisted to suite their cause while totally ignoring historical facts.
"Perhaps most important is that I've noted not one call for the abolition of unions from any of us. From some of our pro-union friends it would seem that each opposing post called for such. All I see are calls for reform. Did I miss something?"
You didn't miss anything. That is my point. I am only trying to bring it to people's attention that the unions are supporting the move to socialism, knowingly or unknowingly, with their political behavior. It is my hope enough union members will realize the danger of this and move to reform themselves and get out of bed with the government. Unions operating in the free market without being propped up by the government is not, in itself, a bad thing.
However it is becoming obvious the possibility of enough union members becoming educated to these dangers and reforming themselves is slim. The unions can change themselves and prosper or they can continue backing the political push to socialism and it will become the duty of those that believe in liberty to change them. I do not see letting them help drive us to socialism as an option I will accept.
You unwittingly made my point. You will note that I stated that the Nazis infiltrated the unions. They did! Communist-leaning unions were destroyed. The Nazis became the union! If you'll look back on my comments you'll see that I opined the reverse here in the US. Some unions are attempting to become government. So I thank you for your observant comments.
When it comes to Russia there are many similarities to the Nazis. Unions controlled by government are stock in trade for communists. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I never saw a mass exodus from the US to the workers paradise of the Soviet Union. Maybe I missed it.
You seem to be unable to grasp the concept of a free people willingly putting on the yoke of slavery. Again, if one plays with words correctly it's possible to state that voluntary slavery is freedom and mediocrity success.
Please continue to delude yourself if you wish and accept my thanks. Your posts make my point very nicely.
Carry on!
You need to learn how to read pal...I said the nazis DESTROYED unions, not infiltrate! Read history, instead of trying to twist it support for sorry, twisted world view!
As far has workers going to russia....are you serious???
Again, study your history...the commies destroyed the unions in russia! And besides, we are all Americans, so who the hell would have wanted to live under the commie buzzards?
And the government has no control over my union, in any way shape or form. Please show proof of this.
My union seeking to control government? are you delusional? Wow, youre out there. you should seek help!
The Friday before Halloween, in response to requests from the public, the White House released records of the visitors it had received between January and July. George Clooney, Oprah Winfrey, and Serena Williams were among the famous names on the list. But the man who appeared most frequently is less well-known. His name is Andrew Stern, and during the first six months of Obama's tenure, he visited the White House 21 times - about three times per month. Most of these visits included an intimate meeting with the president or other senior officials. Among outsiders, Stern enjoys unrivaled access to the White House. And the more you know about him, the spookier that sounds.
Stern is president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), a federation of health-care, public-sector, and custodial workers that claims approximately 2 million members. Stern replaced former president John Sweeney in 1996, the year after Sweeney won a bitterly fought battle for control of the AFL-CIO. At the time, Sweeney's win was viewed as a victory for the left wing of the labor movement. Ramesh Ponnuru wrote in these pages: "Many of the people in [Sweeney's] camp have backgrounds in the New Left." Andrew Stern certainly fits that description.
Stern lacks the traditional blue-collar pedigree of a union boss. In a profile of him for The New Republic, Bradford Plumer wrote, "Stern was part of a generation of idealistic union leaders who came to organized labor from college, not the factory floor." He started at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton business school in the late '60s, dabbled in student radicalism, changed his major, bummed around Europe, came back to the States, and went to work as a welfare case officer in Pennsylvania. SEIU had just organized his shop, and he got active in the union. He ended up as one of Sweeney's prot?g?s, his successor, and, eventually, his b?te noire.
In the 1950s, the percentage of American workers who belonged to a union peaked at around 34 percent. Today, that number is closer to 12 percent - 7.6 if you're counting only private-sector jobs. Against this backdrop of declining union membership, Stern managed to double the size of SEIU in his first ten years as president. Other labor leaders stood in awe. In 2005, Stern engineered a break with the AFL-CIO over frustrations with Sweeney's leadership. Six other unions, including the Teamsters, followed Stern. The breakaways formed their own federation called Change to Win and adopted SEIU's one-two punch: intimidate businesses and, if that doesn't work, exploit their soft spot for corporate welfare.
On the intimidation front, SEIU has worked with the radical Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). The group once served as a valuable ally, but its reputation now lies in tatters thanks to a pair of amateur journalists who, costumed as pimp and hooker, filmed themselves obtaining advice from ACORN staffers on how best to shelter the proceeds of a child-prostitution ring from taxation.
SEIU did not sustain much damage from the scandal, even though, as a colleague of mine quipped, ACORN often acts as its paramilitary wing. SEIU's former political director, Patrick Gaspard, remains comfortably ensconced at the White House as political director - Obama's Karl Rove - and the connection does not appear to have hurt him.
The SEIU-ACORN link is deep and longstanding. At least one SEIU local, Chicago's Local 880, was organized by ACORN and run by it for 20 years. An SEIU official recently testified that the local had severed its ACORN ties, but Chris Berg, a former special assistant at the Office of Labor Management Standards, says, "I'm very skeptical." Keith Kelleher, who spent many years running ACORN in Chicago, is still the local's head organizer. "They've been wed together for so long, I don't think they can divorce," says Berg.
The local, which represents home health-care and child-care workers, attracted scrutiny when former governor Rod Blagojevich helped it secure a lucrative collective-bargaining agreement with the State of Illinois. Many cried foul, pointing to the $1.8 million that SEIU and ACORN had donated to Blagojevich's campaigns. This story surfaced again when Blagojevich concocted a scheme whereby he would appoint someone of Obama's choosing to Obama's old Senate seat in exchange for a six-figure sinecure at Change to Win. Obama and Stern are so close that Blagojevich thought a favor to one would be repaid by the other.
SEIU has given ACORN nearly $6 million since 2006 - including $250,000 this year - according to U.S. Department of Labor disclosures and the union's own statements. Some of this money took the form of grants, but ACORN also received significant sums for doing the SEIU's dirty work. In 2007, the SEIU paid ACORN $140,000 to harass a shopping-mall operator called General Growth Properties that would not let the union use the card-check process to organize the company's janitors (more on card check later). According to the company, ACORN's tactics included "making allegations and filing unsubstantiated claims with government agencies, then implying in handbills and press releases that the claims - before they are even investigated, let alone proved - are fact."
SEIU isn't above these tactics, but it reserves its full attention for bigger targets, such as Bank of America. It has repeatedly tried to unionize Bank of America's workforce, to no avail. The government bailouts, however, offered the perfect opportunity for SEIU to launch what's known as a "corporate campaign" against the bank. Paul Levy, the CEO of a Boston hospital that has been on the receiving end of an SEIU corporate campaign, has written that the tactic "consists of publicly denigrating the reputation of the targeted [company], its senior management, and its board of trustees in an attempt to put pressure on the [company] to agree to certain concessions in the union certification process."
Over the past year, SEIU has helped organize dozens of protests over the size of executive bonuses at Bank of America. Stern's was one of the loudest voices calling for the ouster of CEO Ken Lewis for the bank's role in the financial crisis, even though its acquisition of troubled firms Countrywide and Merrill Lynch probably prevented the crisis from deepening. After Lewis was ousted following an SEIU campaign to deluge shareholders with inflammatory talking points, the union sent a letter to executive-pay czar Kenneth Feinberg asking him to seize Lewis's pension. "I'm not a cheerleader for B of A," University of North Carolina-Charlotte finance professor Tony Plath told the Charlotte Business Journal at the time. "But let's be objective about this: These attacks are all about card check."
SEIU's corporate campaigns, however effective, are nothing new. Stern's real breakthrough came when he realized that labor could offer a carrot as well as a stick Around 50 percent of SEIU's members work in the health-care industry as nurses, hospital attendants, and lab techs. The facilities that employ such workers benefit from a number of government programs. SEIU's pitch was simple: Let us organize your workforce, and we'll use our lobbying power to push for increased government spending on health care.
It worked. Fred Siegel and Dan DiSalvo recently observed in The Weekly Standard that, "under the brilliant leadership of Dennis Rivera, [SEIU Local] 1199 built a top-notch political operation, and with the hospitals, which were barred from political activity, formed a partnership to maximize the flow of government revenue." The alliance has been so successful, they wrote, that New York now spends as much on Medicaid as California and Texas combined. Rivera now serves as the SEIU's point man on national health-care-reform legislation, with over 400 union staff members working full time at his disposal. Sen. Chuck Schumer called him "one of the few key players" shaping the final bill.
In pursuit of his vision, Stern has turned the SEIU into a massive grassroots army that can mobilize in behalf of candidates and legislation. The scope of its activities in 2008 was epic. Stern bragged that "we spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama - $60.7 million, to be exact - and we're proud of it." Ironically, SEIU spent so much in 2008 that it had to take out massive loans to keep operating, including $10 million from - you guessed it - Bank of America. The cash crunch also forced SEIU to implement a round of layoffs, leading to a surreal hall-of-mirrors moment when the Union of Union Representatives filed a complaint against SEIU with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
Undaunted, SEIU has set aside $85 million to spend over the next two years on political advocacy. The union started the year with three major objectives: a union-friendly stimulus, a union-friendly health-care bill, and a bill that would make it easier to organize workers into unions. It has brought its influence to bear on all three of these debates, with varying degrees of success.
Union-friendly stimulus: The stimulus bill was a top priority for SEIU because it contained massive bailouts for state governments and Medicaid. As mentioned above, states such as California, New York, and New Jersey have expanded their social-welfare systems beyond what they can afford, in response to pressures from SEIU and other public-sector unions. At the same time, their progressive income-tax structures have made them especially vulnerable to boom-and-bust cycles. When the credit bubble burst, these states were looking at massive deficits, layoffs, furloughs, and budget cuts. The stimulus bill included a $50 billion slush fund for state governments and $90 billion in Medicaid expansions, helping the states avoid a necessary round of belt-tightening and tax reform.
The Friday before Halloween, in response to requests from the public, the White House released records of the visitors it had received between January and July. George Clooney, Oprah Winfrey, and Serena Williams were among the famous names on the list. But the man who appeared most frequently is less well-known. His name is Andrew Stern, and during the first six months of Obama's tenure, he visited the White House 21 times - about three times per month. Most of these visits included an intimate meeting with the president or other senior officials. Among outsiders, Stern enjoys unrivaled access to the White House. And the more you know about him, the spookier that sounds.
Stern is president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), a federation of health-care, public-sector, and custodial workers that claims approximately 2 million members. Stern replaced former president John Sweeney in 1996, the year after Sweeney won a bitterly fought battle for control of the AFL-CIO. At the time, Sweeney's win was viewed as a victory for the left wing of the labor movement. Ramesh Ponnuru wrote in these pages: "Many of the people in [Sweeney's] camp have backgrounds in the New Left." Andrew Stern certainly fits that description.
Stern lacks the traditional blue-collar pedigree of a union boss. In a profile of him for The New Republic, Bradford Plumer wrote, "Stern was part of a generation of idealistic union leaders who came to organized labor from college, not the factory floor." He started at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton business school in the late '60s, dabbled in student radicalism, changed his major, bummed around Europe, came back to the States, and went to work as a welfare case officer in Pennsylvania. SEIU had just organized his shop, and he got active in the union. He ended up as one of Sweeney's prot?g?s, his successor, and, eventually, his b?te noire.
In the 1950s, the percentage of American workers who belonged to a union peaked at around 34 percent. Today, that number is closer to 12 percent - 7.6 if you're counting only private-sector jobs. Against this backdrop of declining union membership, Stern managed to double the size of SEIU in his first ten years as president. Other labor leaders stood in awe. In 2005, Stern engineered a break with the AFL-CIO over frustrations with Sweeney's leadership. Six other unions, including the Teamsters, followed Stern. The breakaways formed their own federation called Change to Win and adopted SEIU's one-two punch: intimidate businesses and, if that doesn't work, exploit their soft spot for corporate welfare.
On the intimidation front, SEIU has worked with the radical Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). The group once served as a valuable ally, but its reputation now lies in tatters thanks to a pair of amateur journalists who, costumed as pimp and hooker, filmed themselves obtaining advice from ACORN staffers on how best to shelter the proceeds of a child-prostitution ring from taxation.
SEIU did not sustain much damage from the scandal, even though, as a colleague of mine quipped, ACORN often acts as its paramilitary wing. SEIU's former political director, Patrick Gaspard, remains comfortably ensconced at the White House as political director - Obama's Karl Rove - and the connection does not appear to have hurt him.
The SEIU-ACORN link is deep and longstanding. At least one SEIU local, Chicago's Local 880, was organized by ACORN and run by it for 20 years. An SEIU official recently testified that the local had severed its ACORN ties, but Chris Berg, a former special assistant at the Office of Labor Management Standards, says, "I'm very skeptical." Keith Kelleher, who spent many years running ACORN in Chicago, is still the local's head organizer. "They've been wed together for so long, I don't think they can divorce," says Berg.
The local, which represents home health-care and child-care workers, attracted scrutiny when former governor Rod Blagojevich helped it secure a lucrative collective-bargaining agreement with the State of Illinois. Many cried foul, pointing to the $1.8 million that SEIU and ACORN had donated to Blagojevich's campaigns. This story surfaced again when Blagojevich concocted a scheme whereby he would appoint someone of Obama's choosing to Obama's old Senate seat in exchange for a six-figure sinecure at Change to Win. Obama and Stern are so close that Blagojevich thought a favor to one would be repaid by the other.
SEIU has given ACORN nearly $6 million since 2006 - including $250,000 this year - according to U.S. Department of Labor disclosures and the union's own statements. Some of this money took the form of grants, but ACORN also received significant sums for doing the SEIU's dirty work. In 2007, the SEIU paid ACORN $140,000 to harass a shopping-mall operator called General Growth Properties that would not let the union use the card-check process to organize the company's janitors (more on card check later). According to the company, ACORN's tactics included "making allegations and filing unsubstantiated claims with government agencies, then implying in handbills and press releases that the claims - before they are even investigated, let alone proved - are fact."
SEIU isn't above these tactics, but it reserves its full attention for bigger targets, such as Bank of America. It has repeatedly tried to unionize Bank of America's workforce, to no avail. The government bailouts, however, offered the perfect opportunity for SEIU to launch what's known as a "corporate campaign" against the bank. Paul Levy, the CEO of a Boston hospital that has been on the receiving end of an SEIU corporate campaign, has written that the tactic "consists of publicly denigrating the reputation of the targeted [company], its senior management, and its board of trustees in an attempt to put pressure on the [company] to agree to certain concessions in the union certification process."
Over the past year, SEIU has helped organize dozens of protests over the size of executive bonuses at Bank of America. Stern's was one of the loudest voices calling for the ouster of CEO Ken Lewis for the bank's role in the financial crisis, even though its acquisition of troubled firms Countrywide and Merrill Lynch probably prevented the crisis from deepening. After Lewis was ousted following an SEIU campaign to deluge shareholders with inflammatory talking points, the union sent a letter to executive-pay czar Kenneth Feinberg asking him to seize Lewis's pension. "I'm not a cheerleader for B of A," University of North Carolina-Charlotte finance professor Tony Plath told the Charlotte Business Journal at the time. "But let's be objective about this: These attacks are all about card check."
SEIU's corporate campaigns, however effective, are nothing new. Stern's real breakthrough came when he realized that labor could offer a carrot as well as a stick Around 50 percent of SEIU's members work in the health-care industry as nurses, hospital attendants, and lab techs. The facilities that employ such workers benefit from a number of government programs. SEIU's pitch was simple: Let us organize your workforce, and we'll use our lobbying power to push for increased government spending on health care.
It worked. Fred Siegel and Dan DiSalvo recently observed in The Weekly Standard that, "under the brilliant leadership of Dennis Rivera, [SEIU Local] 1199 built a top-notch political operation, and with the hospitals, which were barred from political activity, formed a partnership to maximize the flow of government revenue." The alliance has been so successful, they wrote, that New York now spends as much on Medicaid as California and Texas combined. Rivera now serves as the SEIU's point man on national health-care-reform legislation, with over 400 union staff members working full time at his disposal. Sen. Chuck Schumer called him "one of the few key players" shaping the final bill.
In pursuit of his vision, Stern has turned the SEIU into a massive grassroots army that can mobilize in behalf of candidates and legislation. The scope of its activities in 2008 was epic. Stern bragged that "we spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama - $60.7 million, to be exact - and we're proud of it." Ironically, SEIU spent so much in 2008 that it had to take out massive loans to keep operating, including $10 million from - you guessed it - Bank of America. The cash crunch also forced SEIU to implement a round of layoffs, leading to a surreal hall-of-mirrors moment when the Union of Union Representatives filed a complaint against SEIU with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
Undaunted, SEIU has set aside $85 million to spend over the next two years on political advocacy. The union started the year with three major objectives: a union-friendly stimulus, a union-friendly health-care bill, and a bill that would make it easier to organize workers into unions. It has brought its influence to bear on all three of these debates, with varying degrees of success.
Union-friendly stimulus: The stimulus bill was a top priority for SEIU because it contained massive bailouts for state governments and Medicaid. As mentioned above, states such as California, New York, and New Jersey have expanded their social-welfare systems beyond what they can afford, in response to pressures from SEIU and other public-sector unions. At the same time, their progressive income-tax structures have made them especially vulnerable to boom-and-bust cycles. When the credit bubble burst, these states were looking at massive deficits, layoffs, furloughs, and budget cuts. The stimulus bill included a $50 billion slush fund for state governments and $90 billion in Medicaid expansions, helping the states avoid a necessary round of belt-tightening and tax reform.
Perhaps you need another bucket to carry union water. You must be getting tired by now and the firestorm grows ever larger, not smaller.
And I again thank you for your astute replies, however I can read and I do know my history. You, sir, appear to be the one seeing what you wish and reading things that just aren't there. Allow me to clarify in simple terms I hope you may comprehend:
Nobody is picking on "your" union. Fact is I don't think you've bothered to share with us anything about your union. And contrary to your beliefs nobody here is attempting to destroy unions. Reform, yes! Destroy, no.
Apparently you've somehow over this entire thread been able to overlook the word "collective" as in collective bargaining. There's nothing basically wrong with collective bargaining, however there's everything wrong with it when used improperly.
Collective bargaining is a communal effort. Communal efforts are by their nature socialist, but not necessarily bad. They only become bad when improperly directed. Whether you agree or disagree, collective bargaining is a legal form of extortion. (We don't like to use that term in polite society, but that's what it is.)
In the private sector a union brings labor to the table... Labor being a commodity and of value to a company. The union uses the value of labor to negotiate better terms with the company. The company decides whether to accept or reject these terms and oft times a deal is struck. Other times not.
No matter, this is an adversarial relationship. It doesn't mean that the two sides need be enemies and is little different from any one of us negotiating for a new car. And just as with the offer to purchase a car, each party has the option to walk away.
But we haven't been discussing private business and unions. Our discussion has been about public unions. Unions which collect dues from members, then funnel huge amounts of money to political friends. Political friends who, once elected, act in favor of union interests rather than representing the public at large. Many of us see this as thievery in its worst form.
So once again... Unions have no business infiltrating government no matter how it might be done. No group (In this case maybe 10% of the total voters) has the right to enforce its agenda on the public in general. And no union has the right to position itself to place its hands in the pockets of the taxpayer.
You cannot support such actions and claim your allegiance to the United States and the Constitution. Please don't attempt to hide behind the flag and spew forth your rights as they were never in question. Those of us who believe in our system may oppose you, but we never advocate silencing you. This you may well do all by yourself as the general public slowly becomes aware of what's happening in this great nation.
Sir, I fully expect that you'll continue to support the unsupportable. Please do. By the tone of many of the posts above you've been able to turn a good many minds against that which you hold so dear. Just remember that for every post we see there are many like-minded who don't post. You my friend appear to be sadly in the minority and odds are it won't get better for you.
And now we breathlessly await your reply. Feel free to dig the hole deeper.
So, all the money pumped in to the Lobbyist, and campaign coffers buy all the big business has no influence on your politicians? Get real!
Also @ Wyatt Earp "tea Bagger" this is the term use by the local tea party itself in the local papers and news stories, their words not mine. If this is what they want to be known as locally then so be it.
quote:
Also @ Wyatt Earp "tea Bagger" this is the term use by the local tea party itself in the local papers and news stories, their words not mine. If this is what they want to be known as locally then so be it.
I doubt very seriously if any TEA Party group uses that term. It's about as likely as an illegal alien group calling themselves undocumented aliens. Didn't happen.
Perhaps you need another bucket to carry union water. You must be getting tired by now and the firestorm grows ever larger, not smaller.
And I again thank you for your astute replies, however I can read and I do know my history. You, sir, appear to be the one seeing what you wish and reading things that just aren't there. Allow me to clarify in simple terms I hope you may comprehend:
Nobody is picking on "your" union. Fact is I don't think you've bothered to share with us anything about your union. And contrary to your beliefs nobody here is attempting to destroy unions. Reform, yes! Destroy, no.
Apparently you've somehow over this entire thread been able to overlook the word "collective" as in collective bargaining. There's nothing basically wrong with collective bargaining, however there's everything wrong with it when used improperly.
Collective bargaining is a communal effort. Communal efforts are by their nature socialist, but not necessarily bad. They only become bad when improperly directed. Whether you agree or disagree, collective bargaining is a legal form of extortion. (We don't like to use that term in polite society, but that's what it is.)
In the private sector a union brings labor to the table... Labor being a commodity and of value to a company. The union uses the value of labor to negotiate better terms with the company. The company decides whether to accept or reject these terms and oft times a deal is struck. Other times not.
No matter, this is an adversarial relationship. It doesn't mean that the two sides need be enemies and is little different from any one of us negotiating for a new car. And just as with the offer to purchase a car, each party has the option to walk away.
But we haven't been discussing private business and unions. Our discussion has been about public unions. Unions which collect dues from members, then funnel huge amounts of money to political friends. Political friends who, once elected, act in favor of union interests rather than representing the public at large. Many of us see this as thievery in its worst form.
So once again... Unions have no business infiltrating government no matter how it might be done. No group (In this case maybe 10% of the total voters) has the right to enforce its agenda on the public in general. And no union has the right to position itself to place its hands in the pockets of the taxpayer.
You cannot support such actions and claim your allegiance to the United States and the Constitution. Please don't attempt to hide behind the flag and spew forth your rights as they were never in question. Those of us who believe in our system may oppose you, but we never advocate silencing you. This you may well do all by yourself as the general public slowly becomes aware of what's happening in this great nation.
Sir, I fully expect that you'll continue to support the unsupportable. Please do. By the tone of many of the posts above you've been able to turn a good many minds against that which you hold so dear. Just remember that for every post we see there are many like-minded who don't post. You my friend appear to be sadly in the minority and odds are it won't get better for you.
And now we breathlessly await your reply. Feel free to dig the hole deeper.
Best,
I read history alot. YOU are the one seeing what you wish...If I have posted facts that are wrong, post links or paste proof of that!
FACT. The Nazis destroyed the labor movement in Germany. They did this by killing labor leaders in Dachu! They did this because labor unions were opponents to Hitler and the Nazis...they did not infiltrate the unions, they crushed them altoghter.
FACT. There were no labor union in the soviet union under stalin or anyone else after him. The bolsheviks did infiltrate the unions (in russia, not germany)after the revolution and later destroyed them and threw the labor leaders into the gulag.
You can jibber jabber all you want, those are the facts.
You are the one who is digging deeper...
No one is "picking on unions"???
Do you think we union members are stupid?
We know whats going on out in WI, it will starting with the public unions, than all unions. We know the agenda of the far right. Its obvious, labor funds the democrats, so in order to eliminate that funding they have started a vicious lie and smear campaign in a attempt to make unions look like socialist, maxist or commies, to make the public hate unions. Add to that telling people things like "teachers make $70000+ a year plus bennies" which to a guy busting his hump (at a non-union workplace) for $30000 seems like sky high wages, thus making him jealous and adding to the hate! You see, the democrats are all that stands in the republicians/teas way, so once the union funds stop, because the unions are gone, the democrats wont have NEAR the money the republicans have to run elections, thus one party rule. Thats Un-American. and the best part is republicans preach freedom, but want to deny it to others! I dont like alot of what the democrats do, but I sure as hell dont want one party rule!!!
I have told you time and again, American unions are not socialist! Never have been. To say otherwise is a lie!
as far has union being in the pockets of tax payers, well you better check your facts on that one too! There are a lot of states in trouble, and some of those are down south, which dont allow public unions, so who you going to blame that on? And besides, in my state people elect a school board who deals with the teachers union on all matters contact related. If the taxpayers dont like what teachers are making, fire the school board that agreed to pay them that! VOTE them out!! Vote in members of a school board who will cut pay! Simple! Taking away collective bargining is destroying a union, despite any spin Walker may try to put on it. And collective bargining is a right all americans have no mmatter who they work for.
Unless you believe that "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"
I have already told on this post many things about my union, take the time to read them. Any questions just ask, Ill be gald to answer them.
Now to show all more truth
Collective bargaining is a process of negotiations between employers and the representatives of a unit of employees aimed at reaching agreements which regulate working conditions. Collective agreements usually set out wage scales, working hours, training, health and safety, overtime, grievance mechanisms and rights to participate in workplace or company affairs.[1]
The union may negotiate with a single employer (who is typically representing a company's shareholders) or may negotiate with a federation of businesses, depending on the country, to reach an industry wide agreement. A collective agreement functions as a labor contract between an employer and one or more unions. Collective bargaining consists of the process of negotiation between representatives of a union and employers (generally represented by management, in some countries[which?] by an employers' organization) in respect of the terms and conditions of employment of employees, such as wages, hours of work, working conditions and grievance-procedures, and about the rights and responsibilities of trade unions. The parties often refer to the result of the negotiation as a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) or as a collective employment agreement (CEA).
Collectivism definition....
Collectivism is any philosophic, political, economic or social outlook that emphasizes the interdependence of every human in some collective group and the priority of group goals over individual goals. Collectivists usually focus on community, society or nation. Collectivism has been widely used to refer to a number of different political and economic philosophies, ranging from communalism and democracy to totalitarian nationalism.
There is answerd it for ya!
I served proudly in the US Army, I did because I love my nation, and would die to defend it.
You do me proud! You have the facts, but you don't add them up well.
If we put everything else aside...
Why do you think Hitler destroyed unions? You don't suppose because many were communist backed, do you? And while you paint Hitler as destroying unions, he actually created one. His union was the Nazi Party and it controlled all facets of German life.
Russia? Tell me you have never heard Soviet propaganda about united workers. The entire history of communism is about uniting the masses. Communism (community-ism) is union through and through.
In both countries the unions were government created and government controlled. Do you not agree? Perhaps part of your misunderstanding of my words is due to the fact that you're thinking union in terms of the Teamsters or the like. I'm not. I see very little distinction between unions running government and government running unions. Neither is acceptable.
You throw your service around like a flag. And this makes you a great patriot? You note that states without unions are in financial trouble. Somehow you extrapolate that because of this unions could not possibly be the cause of problems, but they are! They are a cause just as certainly as money and power influence government and breed corruption. Never did I imply that your precious unions were THE cause. They're just one of many and all need to be addressed.
Please continue to thrash around in your quest for justification. I suspect that those interested will do some research on their own. They'll then decide who is more correct. Understand that this isn't a contest between us. It's a matter much deeper than a grudge match could ever be. We don't see things in the same light and probably never will. Believe it or not this is one of the benefits of freedom.
You do me proud! You have the facts, but you don't add them up well.
If we put everything else aside...
Why do you think Hitler destroyed unions? You don't suppose because many were communist backed, do you? And while you paint Hitler as destroying unions, he actually created one. His union was the Nazi Party and it controlled all facets of German life.
Russia? Tell me you have never heard Soviet propaganda about united workers. The entire history of communism is about uniting the masses. Communism (community-ism) is union through and through.
In both countries the unions were government created and government controlled. Do you not agree? Perhaps part of your misunderstanding of my words is due to the fact that you're thinking union in terms of the Teamsters or the like. I'm not. I see very little distinction between unions running government and government running unions. Neither is acceptable.
You throw your service around like a flag. And this makes you a great patriot? You note that states without unions are in financial trouble. Somehow you extrapolate that because of this unions could not possibly be the cause of problems, but they are! They are a cause just as certainly as money and power influence government and breed corruption. Never did I imply that your precious unions were THE cause. They're just one of many and all need to be addressed.
Please continue to thrash around in your quest for justification. I suspect that those interested will do some research on their own. They'll then decide who is more correct. Understand that this isn't a contest between us. It's a matter much deeper than a grudge match could ever be. We don't see things in the same light and probably never will. Believe it or not this is one of the benefits of freedom.
You have every right to be wrong.[;)]
Best,
Now the nazi party was a union?? Youre really diggin deep!
Ill agree with you about the soviets, they united all the workers, along with all other russian people, under boot!
Keep trying!
Of coarse I am talking about the teamsters, its a union! I have no idea what the hell your talking about, government runs unions or union run governerments, and the other thing....what ever! Clearly you are just grasping at straws!
I will agree that money and power corrupt, but a lot more money comes from corporations than our union dues....so which sides causes more corruption? It would be better to have all money out of politics, and eliminate all politicial partys....but thats not likely to happen any time soon.
I told you of my service to show you that I love my country, and when people like you say or imply that Im a socialist, or support socialism just because Im in a union, or otherwise question my patriotism, well it pisses me off!
I dont "throw" it around like a flag!
Youre right, it isnt a contest, you lost at the first word typed![:D][:D]
I feel as if I'm dealing with a petulant child. I stand behind what I've said and refuse to further deal with a fool such as yourself.
My guess is that you've about run your course here and I doubt it very much if your efforts have moved even so much as a single reader toward agreement with you.
I feel as if I'm dealing with a petulant child. I stand behind what I've said and refuse to further deal with a fool such as yourself.
My guess is that you've about run your course here and I doubt it very much if your efforts have moved even so much as a single reader toward agreement with you.
Go elsewhere and play. Your words are hollow.
Na, I haveing way too much fun playin with you[:D][:D]
Im not looking for converts, every one got their own opinion, this is just for fun, I like to argue![:)]
BHO is a socialist, this was common knowledge well before the election. All anyone had to do was read the man's own words, be is well documented in his beliefs. His actions, and what little voting record he had, clearly indicate his commitment to destroying liberty in this country and his desire for a socialist government. The unions threw tons of money, man hours, and votes behind him to help get him elected. The unions have been backing progressive, liberal, socialist candidates for decades.
This isn't new news for me, I've known it for years. With the recent all out push to socialism by BHO and his ilk it is now common knowledge for anyone willing to even remotely pay attention.
The health care bill was the biggest move toward socialism since FDR's "New Deal"
Now Middle, given this information how can you declare that unions do not back socialism? Jesus man, is your head buried in the sand past your ears?
quote:Originally posted by SCOUT5
BHO is a socialist, this was common knowledge well before the election. All anyone had to do was read the man's own words, be is well documented in his beliefs. His actions, and what little voting record he had, clearly indicate his commitment to destroying liberty in this country and his desire for a socialist government. The unions threw tons of money, man hours, and votes behind him to help get him elected. The unions have been backing progressive, liberal, socialist candidates for decades.
The health care bill was the biggest move toward socialism since FDR's "New Deal"
Now Middle, given this information how can you declare that unions do not back socialism? Jesus man, is your head buried in the sand past your ears?
I dont agree with what was done in the health careLESS bill, its chit!
I also dont like BHO, I voted for Mcain! I just wish he was The McCain of 2000, and had not put Palin on the ticket. If he hadnt put her on the ticket he would have won.
I dont feel as if my union backs socialism, that being said, when you only have two choices, one who has socialist leanings, and the other who says straight out he hates unions, and will do all you can to kill them, who were they supposed to back? Believe me, there was some noise made at the union hall over it, but at the end of the day, you pick the lesser of two evils, which unforunately was HBO. I curse the damn libs for ever letting him on the ticket, and Im not the only union member that does. Thats the bigger problem, a lot of unions have changed for the better over the last ten, but too many people go by long outdated sterotypes. If the republicans would back off union bashing a bit, they would get some union cash for their cause, but has it is now, with WI going on, and the hate the union smear campagin going on, i dont look for things to get any better for either side
quote:Originally posted by the middle
quote:Originally posted by SCOUT5
BHO is a socialist, this was common knowledge well before the election. All anyone had to do was read the man's own words, be is well documented in his beliefs. His actions, and what little voting record he had, clearly indicate his commitment to destroying liberty in this country and his desire for a socialist government. The unions threw tons of money, man hours, and votes behind him to help get him elected. The unions have been backing progressive, liberal, socialist candidates for decades.
The health care bill was the biggest move toward socialism since FDR's "New Deal"
Now Middle, given this information how can you declare that unions do not back socialism? Jesus man, is your head buried in the sand past your ears?
I dont agree with what was done in the health careLESS bill, its chit!
I also dont like BHO, I voted for Mcain! I just wish he was The McCain of 2000, and had not put Palin on the ticket. If he hadnt put her on the ticket he would have won.
I dont feel as if my union backs socialism, that being said, when you only have two choices, one who has socialist leanings, and the other who says straight out he hates unions, and will do all you can to kill them, who were they supposed to back? Believe me, there was some noise made at the union hall over it, but at the end of the day, you pick the lesser of two evils, which unforunately was HBO. I curse the damn libs for ever letting him on the ticket, and Im not the only union member that does. Thats the bigger problem, a lot of unions have changed for the better over the last ten, but too many people go by long outdated sterotypes. If the republicans would back off union bashing a bit, they would get some union cash for their cause, but has it is now, with WI going on, and the hate the union smear campagin going on, i dont look for things to get any better for either side
Just my thoughts
As much as I despise what BHO stands for we would not have been much better off with Mcain, maybe even worse. At least BHO and his crowd are causing people to open their eyes to the dangers, something that may not have happened had Mcain got elected.
Hopefully enough people will act before the scales tip, if they haven't already.
The McCain of 2000 and the McCain of 2008 are identical .
And he will be the same in 2012 and beyond .
Palin was nothing more than a lame * attempt to save his bacon .
And why would there be a lot of noise at the union hall about McCain and Obama ?
I could have told you what the Union's decision would have been 10 years ago .
I'm particularly interested in savage170's comments and data. He remains factual and level-headed about a very important issue. Savage, what town do you live in?
After reading EVERY word of these posts, perhaps we need a new house rule: Don't discuss religion, politics and unions. It creates discontent. [:D]
quote:Originally posted by trapguy2007
The McCain of 2000 and the McCain of 2008 are identical .
And he will be the same in 2012 and beyond .
Palin was nothing more than a lame * attempt to save his bacon .
And why would there be a lot of noise at the union hall about McCain and Obama ?
I could have told you what the Union's decision would have been 10 years ago .
10 years ago, yes there would have been no debate. But like what is happening everywere, the old guard is retireing out, and that includes union leaders. A younger generation is taking over. This generation is smarter than the old, not to say the old is stupid, just a little set in their ways. When I became a union memeber in 1994 there were zero republicans in the union, now its about 50/50.
Thats has an impact on how the union operates. We knew BHO was a piece of chit, but he didnt advance the fact that he hated us and wanted us gone as McCain had. There we two views in my local hall, the first was that although hes clearly a looney/lefty BHO would have a lot of resistance to his adgenda (and has thank god)and would not do has much damage to us a McCain could, so the leaders decided to endorse(spelling I know!) BHO. The second view was to endorce McCain and hope his adgenda got blocked, this was the camp I was in. Of coarse in the international there was no debate, its still run by the old guard, but not for too much longer. Now bear in mind thaty the unions must have your permisson to use your dues for politics, they never got mine! I know some of you dont believe me when I tell you that unions are changeing, for the better. It is drilled into our heads to be productive if we like being in a union, because if were not, its over. Most of the old lazy buzzards have retired and are gone. Its not all unions, but Im in a union of skilled craftman, who take pride in their work. I drive by buildings that I worked on and think with pride that that building will be there long after Im dead. This is the attitude of most of my coworkers has well.
Another thing you may not believe is that some companys like the unions. This is especialy in construction companys. Its expensive to kepp hundreds of worker on the books between jobs, but with a union they can get hundreds of skilled craftsman with a phone call. The beauty of this system is that if you get a lazy POS, you can lay him off, call the hall the next day and get another one! And not to many members or even a steward stick up of lazy POS anylonger. We all know who they are, they are always on the waiting for work book, because noone will have them. Times have changed and we know it. At least the smarter unions know it!
A union is made up of its members, we are a small part of the whole and we do have a voice and we use it. Im serious, if the republicians would give us some slack, they would get our help, its that close. Very few like the Democrats anymore. They have become nothing but the party for fags, lesbos, slackers, looters, bums, illegal undocumented aliens and whackos! They were for us at one time, now they take us for granted and I for one and sick of it. We are first and foremost Americans. I and others dont like the idea of endorceing leftest pinkos, but with the republician hate running the way it is, we dont have much choice.
10 years ago, yes there would have been no debate. But like what is happening everywhere, the old guard is retiring out, and that includes union leaders. A younger generation is taking over. This generation is smarter than the old, not to say the old is stupid, just a little set in their ways. When I became a union member in 1994 there were zero republicans in the union, now its about 50/50.
That has an impact on how the union operates. We knew BHO was a piece of chit, but he didn't advance the fact that he hated us and wanted us gone as McCain had. There we two views in my local hall, the first was that although hes clearly a loony/lefty BHO would have a lot of resistance to his agenda (and has thank god)and would not do has much damage to us a McCain could, so the leaders decided to endorse(spelling I know!) BHO. The second view was to endorse McCain and hope his agenda got blocked, this was the camp I was in. Of coarse in the international there was no debate, its still run by the old guard, but not for too much longer. Now bear in mind that the unions must have your permission to use your dues for politics, they never got mine! I know some of you don't believe me when I tell you that unions are changing, for the better. It is drilled into our heads to be productive if we like being in a union, because if were not, its over. Most of the old lazy buzzards have retired and are gone. Its not all unions, but I'm in a union of skilled craftsman, who take pride in their work. I drive by buildings that I worked on and think with pride that that building will be there long after I'm dead. This is the attitude of most of my coworkers has well.
Another thing you may not believe is that some companys like the unions. This is especialy in construction companys. Its expensive to kepp hundreds of worker on the books between jobs, but with a union they can get hundreds of skilled craftsman with a phone call. The beauty of this system is that if you get a lazy POS, you can lay him off, call the hall the next day and get another one! And not to many members or even a steward stick up of lazy POS anylonger. We all know who they are, they are always on the waiting for work book, because noone will have them. Times have changed and we know it. At least the smarter unions know it!
A union is made up of its members, we are a small part of the whole and we do have a voice and we use it. Im serious, if the republicians would give us some slack, they would get our help, its that close. Very few like the Democrats anymore. They have become nothing but the party for fags, lesbos, slackers, looters, bums, illegal undocumented aliens and whackos! They were for us at one time, now they take us for granted and I for one and sick of it. We are first and foremost Americans. I and others dont like the idea of endorceing leftest pinkos, but with the republician hate running the way it is, we dont have much choice.
We need a third party! or no partys!
I agree with a lot of what you say, the union/brotherhood(IBEW) I support believe we are the best trained and safety conscience of all the electrical field employees but many of us vote republican too we don't feel like we have to vote a certain way and are not going to let someone else tell us how to do that or anything else just because they said
many people hate unions and that is fine but all unions are not bad just like not all people are bad that's all I have tried to point out
quote:Originally posted by danielgage
quote:Originally posted by the middle
10 years ago, yes there would have been no debate. But like what is happening everywhere, the old guard is retiring out, and that includes union leaders. A younger generation is taking over. This generation is smarter than the old, not to say the old is stupid, just a little set in their ways. When I became a union member in 1994 there were zero republicans in the union, now its about 50/50.
That has an impact on how the union operates. We knew BHO was a piece of chit, but he didn't advance the fact that he hated us and wanted us gone as McCain had. There we two views in my local hall, the first was that although hes clearly a loony/lefty BHO would have a lot of resistance to his agenda (and has thank god)and would not do has much damage to us a McCain could, so the leaders decided to endorse(spelling I know!) BHO. The second view was to endorse McCain and hope his agenda got blocked, this was the camp I was in. Of coarse in the international there was no debate, its still run by the old guard, but not for too much longer. Now bear in mind that the unions must have your permission to use your dues for politics, they never got mine! I know some of you don't believe me when I tell you that unions are changing, for the better. It is drilled into our heads to be productive if we like being in a union, because if were not, its over. Most of the old lazy buzzards have retired and are gone. Its not all unions, but I'm in a union of skilled craftsman, who take pride in their work. I drive by buildings that I worked on and think with pride that that building will be there long after I'm dead. This is the attitude of most of my coworkers has well.
Another thing you may not believe is that some companys like the unions. This is especialy in construction companys. Its expensive to kepp hundreds of worker on the books between jobs, but with a union they can get hundreds of skilled craftsman with a phone call. The beauty of this system is that if you get a lazy POS, you can lay him off, call the hall the next day and get another one! And not to many members or even a steward stick up of lazy POS anylonger. We all know who they are, they are always on the waiting for work book, because noone will have them. Times have changed and we know it. At least the smarter unions know it!
A union is made up of its members, we are a small part of the whole and we do have a voice and we use it. Im serious, if the republicians would give us some slack, they would get our help, its that close. Very few like the Democrats anymore. They have become nothing but the party for fags, lesbos, slackers, looters, bums, illegal undocumented aliens and whackos! They were for us at one time, now they take us for granted and I for one and sick of it. We are first and foremost Americans. I and others dont like the idea of endorceing leftest pinkos, but with the republician hate running the way it is, we dont have much choice.
We need a third party! or no partys!
I agree with a lot of what you say, the union/brotherhood(IBEW) I support believe we are the best trained and safety conscience of all the electrical field employees but many of us vote republican too we don't feel like we have to vote a certain way and are not going to let someone else tell us how to do that or anything else just because they said
many people hate unions and that is fine but all unions are not bad just like not all people are bad that's all I have tried to point out
Comments
The internet age means these dirty secrets can no longer survive.
If I tally up the score correctly there are some trends that have begun to appear:
The gulf between unionists and non-unionists is so wide and deep that it probably cannot be bridged. Even when supplied with facts our union friends cannot (or refuse to) comprehend what we're trying to share.
Given the posts above I see a number of union members reconsidering their position with regard to membership. I believe it fair to say that for every post there must many more sharing doubt.
I've noted not a single post where non-union folks had softened their opinion and were moving toward the union side. Truthfully, after reading some of the pro-union propaganda, I can understand. They have no convincing argument when their bluff is called.
Perhaps most important is that I've noted not one call for the abolition of unions from any of us. From some of our pro-union friends it would seem that each opposing post called for such. All I see are calls for reform. Did I miss something?
Last and perhaps most humorous is the twisted language used by those on the left. The moment their cause is criticized the Jews and Nazis are brought up and we're labeled as Fascists or Nazis. Somehow they miss that the Nazi Party was more formally known as the National Socialist Party.
Certainly the Nazis were anti-communist and maybe that's the point of confusion on the left, but National Socialist says it all. Either system (Russian or German) took the path of socialism. They merely did it in a slightly different manner.
Interesting about how words can be twisted to suite their cause while totally ignoring historical facts.
"Perhaps most important is that I've noted not one call for the abolition of unions from any of us. From some of our pro-union friends it would seem that each opposing post called for such. All I see are calls for reform. Did I miss something?"
You didn't miss anything. That is my point. I am only trying to bring it to people's attention that the unions are supporting the move to socialism, knowingly or unknowingly, with their political behavior. It is my hope enough union members will realize the danger of this and move to reform themselves and get out of bed with the government. Unions operating in the free market without being propped up by the government is not, in itself, a bad thing.
However it is becoming obvious the possibility of enough union members becoming educated to these dangers and reforming themselves is slim. The unions can change themselves and prosper or they can continue backing the political push to socialism and it will become the duty of those that believe in liberty to change them. I do not see letting them help drive us to socialism as an option I will accept.
Middle,
You unwittingly made my point. You will note that I stated that the Nazis infiltrated the unions. They did! Communist-leaning unions were destroyed. The Nazis became the union! If you'll look back on my comments you'll see that I opined the reverse here in the US. Some unions are attempting to become government. So I thank you for your observant comments.
When it comes to Russia there are many similarities to the Nazis. Unions controlled by government are stock in trade for communists. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I never saw a mass exodus from the US to the workers paradise of the Soviet Union. Maybe I missed it.
You seem to be unable to grasp the concept of a free people willingly putting on the yoke of slavery. Again, if one plays with words correctly it's possible to state that voluntary slavery is freedom and mediocrity success.
Please continue to delude yourself if you wish and accept my thanks. Your posts make my point very nicely.
Carry on!
You need to learn how to read pal...I said the nazis DESTROYED unions, not infiltrate! Read history, instead of trying to twist it support for sorry, twisted world view!
As far has workers going to russia....are you serious???
Again, study your history...the commies destroyed the unions in russia! And besides, we are all Americans, so who the hell would have wanted to live under the commie buzzards?
And the government has no control over my union, in any way shape or form. Please show proof of this.
My union seeking to control government? are you delusional? Wow, youre out there. you should seek help!
The Friday before Halloween, in response to requests from the public, the White House released records of the visitors it had received between January and July. George Clooney, Oprah Winfrey, and Serena Williams were among the famous names on the list. But the man who appeared most frequently is less well-known. His name is Andrew Stern, and during the first six months of Obama's tenure, he visited the White House 21 times - about three times per month. Most of these visits included an intimate meeting with the president or other senior officials. Among outsiders, Stern enjoys unrivaled access to the White House. And the more you know about him, the spookier that sounds.
Stern is president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), a federation of health-care, public-sector, and custodial workers that claims approximately 2 million members. Stern replaced former president John Sweeney in 1996, the year after Sweeney won a bitterly fought battle for control of the AFL-CIO. At the time, Sweeney's win was viewed as a victory for the left wing of the labor movement. Ramesh Ponnuru wrote in these pages: "Many of the people in [Sweeney's] camp have backgrounds in the New Left." Andrew Stern certainly fits that description.
Stern lacks the traditional blue-collar pedigree of a union boss. In a profile of him for The New Republic, Bradford Plumer wrote, "Stern was part of a generation of idealistic union leaders who came to organized labor from college, not the factory floor." He started at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton business school in the late '60s, dabbled in student radicalism, changed his major, bummed around Europe, came back to the States, and went to work as a welfare case officer in Pennsylvania. SEIU had just organized his shop, and he got active in the union. He ended up as one of Sweeney's prot?g?s, his successor, and, eventually, his b?te noire.
In the 1950s, the percentage of American workers who belonged to a union peaked at around 34 percent. Today, that number is closer to 12 percent - 7.6 if you're counting only private-sector jobs. Against this backdrop of declining union membership, Stern managed to double the size of SEIU in his first ten years as president. Other labor leaders stood in awe. In 2005, Stern engineered a break with the AFL-CIO over frustrations with Sweeney's leadership. Six other unions, including the Teamsters, followed Stern. The breakaways formed their own federation called Change to Win and adopted SEIU's one-two punch: intimidate businesses and, if that doesn't work, exploit their soft spot for corporate welfare.
On the intimidation front, SEIU has worked with the radical Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). The group once served as a valuable ally, but its reputation now lies in tatters thanks to a pair of amateur journalists who, costumed as pimp and hooker, filmed themselves obtaining advice from ACORN staffers on how best to shelter the proceeds of a child-prostitution ring from taxation.
SEIU did not sustain much damage from the scandal, even though, as a colleague of mine quipped, ACORN often acts as its paramilitary wing. SEIU's former political director, Patrick Gaspard, remains comfortably ensconced at the White House as political director - Obama's Karl Rove - and the connection does not appear to have hurt him.
The SEIU-ACORN link is deep and longstanding. At least one SEIU local, Chicago's Local 880, was organized by ACORN and run by it for 20 years. An SEIU official recently testified that the local had severed its ACORN ties, but Chris Berg, a former special assistant at the Office of Labor Management Standards, says, "I'm very skeptical." Keith Kelleher, who spent many years running ACORN in Chicago, is still the local's head organizer. "They've been wed together for so long, I don't think they can divorce," says Berg.
The local, which represents home health-care and child-care workers, attracted scrutiny when former governor Rod Blagojevich helped it secure a lucrative collective-bargaining agreement with the State of Illinois. Many cried foul, pointing to the $1.8 million that SEIU and ACORN had donated to Blagojevich's campaigns. This story surfaced again when Blagojevich concocted a scheme whereby he would appoint someone of Obama's choosing to Obama's old Senate seat in exchange for a six-figure sinecure at Change to Win. Obama and Stern are so close that Blagojevich thought a favor to one would be repaid by the other.
SEIU has given ACORN nearly $6 million since 2006 - including $250,000 this year - according to U.S. Department of Labor disclosures and the union's own statements. Some of this money took the form of grants, but ACORN also received significant sums for doing the SEIU's dirty work. In 2007, the SEIU paid ACORN $140,000 to harass a shopping-mall operator called General Growth Properties that would not let the union use the card-check process to organize the company's janitors (more on card check later). According to the company, ACORN's tactics included "making allegations and filing unsubstantiated claims with government agencies, then implying in handbills and press releases that the claims - before they are even investigated, let alone proved - are fact."
SEIU isn't above these tactics, but it reserves its full attention for bigger targets, such as Bank of America. It has repeatedly tried to unionize Bank of America's workforce, to no avail. The government bailouts, however, offered the perfect opportunity for SEIU to launch what's known as a "corporate campaign" against the bank. Paul Levy, the CEO of a Boston hospital that has been on the receiving end of an SEIU corporate campaign, has written that the tactic "consists of publicly denigrating the reputation of the targeted [company], its senior management, and its board of trustees in an attempt to put pressure on the [company] to agree to certain concessions in the union certification process."
Over the past year, SEIU has helped organize dozens of protests over the size of executive bonuses at Bank of America. Stern's was one of the loudest voices calling for the ouster of CEO Ken Lewis for the bank's role in the financial crisis, even though its acquisition of troubled firms Countrywide and Merrill Lynch probably prevented the crisis from deepening. After Lewis was ousted following an SEIU campaign to deluge shareholders with inflammatory talking points, the union sent a letter to executive-pay czar Kenneth Feinberg asking him to seize Lewis's pension. "I'm not a cheerleader for B of A," University of North Carolina-Charlotte finance professor Tony Plath told the Charlotte Business Journal at the time. "But let's be objective about this: These attacks are all about card check."
SEIU's corporate campaigns, however effective, are nothing new. Stern's real breakthrough came when he realized that labor could offer a carrot as well as a stick Around 50 percent of SEIU's members work in the health-care industry as nurses, hospital attendants, and lab techs. The facilities that employ such workers benefit from a number of government programs. SEIU's pitch was simple: Let us organize your workforce, and we'll use our lobbying power to push for increased government spending on health care.
It worked. Fred Siegel and Dan DiSalvo recently observed in The Weekly Standard that, "under the brilliant leadership of Dennis Rivera, [SEIU Local] 1199 built a top-notch political operation, and with the hospitals, which were barred from political activity, formed a partnership to maximize the flow of government revenue." The alliance has been so successful, they wrote, that New York now spends as much on Medicaid as California and Texas combined. Rivera now serves as the SEIU's point man on national health-care-reform legislation, with over 400 union staff members working full time at his disposal. Sen. Chuck Schumer called him "one of the few key players" shaping the final bill.
In pursuit of his vision, Stern has turned the SEIU into a massive grassroots army that can mobilize in behalf of candidates and legislation. The scope of its activities in 2008 was epic. Stern bragged that "we spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama - $60.7 million, to be exact - and we're proud of it." Ironically, SEIU spent so much in 2008 that it had to take out massive loans to keep operating, including $10 million from - you guessed it - Bank of America. The cash crunch also forced SEIU to implement a round of layoffs, leading to a surreal hall-of-mirrors moment when the Union of Union Representatives filed a complaint against SEIU with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
Undaunted, SEIU has set aside $85 million to spend over the next two years on political advocacy. The union started the year with three major objectives: a union-friendly stimulus, a union-friendly health-care bill, and a bill that would make it easier to organize workers into unions. It has brought its influence to bear on all three of these debates, with varying degrees of success.
Union-friendly stimulus: The stimulus bill was a top priority for SEIU because it contained massive bailouts for state governments and Medicaid. As mentioned above, states such as California, New York, and New Jersey have expanded their social-welfare systems beyond what they can afford, in response to pressures from SEIU and other public-sector unions. At the same time, their progressive income-tax structures have made them especially vulnerable to boom-and-bust cycles. When the credit bubble burst, these states were looking at massive deficits, layoffs, furloughs, and budget cuts. The stimulus bill included a $50 billion slush fund for state governments and $90 billion in Medicaid expansions, helping the states avoid a necessary round of belt-tightening and tax reform.
The Friday before Halloween, in response to requests from the public, the White House released records of the visitors it had received between January and July. George Clooney, Oprah Winfrey, and Serena Williams were among the famous names on the list. But the man who appeared most frequently is less well-known. His name is Andrew Stern, and during the first six months of Obama's tenure, he visited the White House 21 times - about three times per month. Most of these visits included an intimate meeting with the president or other senior officials. Among outsiders, Stern enjoys unrivaled access to the White House. And the more you know about him, the spookier that sounds.
Stern is president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), a federation of health-care, public-sector, and custodial workers that claims approximately 2 million members. Stern replaced former president John Sweeney in 1996, the year after Sweeney won a bitterly fought battle for control of the AFL-CIO. At the time, Sweeney's win was viewed as a victory for the left wing of the labor movement. Ramesh Ponnuru wrote in these pages: "Many of the people in [Sweeney's] camp have backgrounds in the New Left." Andrew Stern certainly fits that description.
Stern lacks the traditional blue-collar pedigree of a union boss. In a profile of him for The New Republic, Bradford Plumer wrote, "Stern was part of a generation of idealistic union leaders who came to organized labor from college, not the factory floor." He started at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton business school in the late '60s, dabbled in student radicalism, changed his major, bummed around Europe, came back to the States, and went to work as a welfare case officer in Pennsylvania. SEIU had just organized his shop, and he got active in the union. He ended up as one of Sweeney's prot?g?s, his successor, and, eventually, his b?te noire.
In the 1950s, the percentage of American workers who belonged to a union peaked at around 34 percent. Today, that number is closer to 12 percent - 7.6 if you're counting only private-sector jobs. Against this backdrop of declining union membership, Stern managed to double the size of SEIU in his first ten years as president. Other labor leaders stood in awe. In 2005, Stern engineered a break with the AFL-CIO over frustrations with Sweeney's leadership. Six other unions, including the Teamsters, followed Stern. The breakaways formed their own federation called Change to Win and adopted SEIU's one-two punch: intimidate businesses and, if that doesn't work, exploit their soft spot for corporate welfare.
On the intimidation front, SEIU has worked with the radical Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). The group once served as a valuable ally, but its reputation now lies in tatters thanks to a pair of amateur journalists who, costumed as pimp and hooker, filmed themselves obtaining advice from ACORN staffers on how best to shelter the proceeds of a child-prostitution ring from taxation.
SEIU did not sustain much damage from the scandal, even though, as a colleague of mine quipped, ACORN often acts as its paramilitary wing. SEIU's former political director, Patrick Gaspard, remains comfortably ensconced at the White House as political director - Obama's Karl Rove - and the connection does not appear to have hurt him.
The SEIU-ACORN link is deep and longstanding. At least one SEIU local, Chicago's Local 880, was organized by ACORN and run by it for 20 years. An SEIU official recently testified that the local had severed its ACORN ties, but Chris Berg, a former special assistant at the Office of Labor Management Standards, says, "I'm very skeptical." Keith Kelleher, who spent many years running ACORN in Chicago, is still the local's head organizer. "They've been wed together for so long, I don't think they can divorce," says Berg.
The local, which represents home health-care and child-care workers, attracted scrutiny when former governor Rod Blagojevich helped it secure a lucrative collective-bargaining agreement with the State of Illinois. Many cried foul, pointing to the $1.8 million that SEIU and ACORN had donated to Blagojevich's campaigns. This story surfaced again when Blagojevich concocted a scheme whereby he would appoint someone of Obama's choosing to Obama's old Senate seat in exchange for a six-figure sinecure at Change to Win. Obama and Stern are so close that Blagojevich thought a favor to one would be repaid by the other.
SEIU has given ACORN nearly $6 million since 2006 - including $250,000 this year - according to U.S. Department of Labor disclosures and the union's own statements. Some of this money took the form of grants, but ACORN also received significant sums for doing the SEIU's dirty work. In 2007, the SEIU paid ACORN $140,000 to harass a shopping-mall operator called General Growth Properties that would not let the union use the card-check process to organize the company's janitors (more on card check later). According to the company, ACORN's tactics included "making allegations and filing unsubstantiated claims with government agencies, then implying in handbills and press releases that the claims - before they are even investigated, let alone proved - are fact."
SEIU isn't above these tactics, but it reserves its full attention for bigger targets, such as Bank of America. It has repeatedly tried to unionize Bank of America's workforce, to no avail. The government bailouts, however, offered the perfect opportunity for SEIU to launch what's known as a "corporate campaign" against the bank. Paul Levy, the CEO of a Boston hospital that has been on the receiving end of an SEIU corporate campaign, has written that the tactic "consists of publicly denigrating the reputation of the targeted [company], its senior management, and its board of trustees in an attempt to put pressure on the [company] to agree to certain concessions in the union certification process."
Over the past year, SEIU has helped organize dozens of protests over the size of executive bonuses at Bank of America. Stern's was one of the loudest voices calling for the ouster of CEO Ken Lewis for the bank's role in the financial crisis, even though its acquisition of troubled firms Countrywide and Merrill Lynch probably prevented the crisis from deepening. After Lewis was ousted following an SEIU campaign to deluge shareholders with inflammatory talking points, the union sent a letter to executive-pay czar Kenneth Feinberg asking him to seize Lewis's pension. "I'm not a cheerleader for B of A," University of North Carolina-Charlotte finance professor Tony Plath told the Charlotte Business Journal at the time. "But let's be objective about this: These attacks are all about card check."
SEIU's corporate campaigns, however effective, are nothing new. Stern's real breakthrough came when he realized that labor could offer a carrot as well as a stick Around 50 percent of SEIU's members work in the health-care industry as nurses, hospital attendants, and lab techs. The facilities that employ such workers benefit from a number of government programs. SEIU's pitch was simple: Let us organize your workforce, and we'll use our lobbying power to push for increased government spending on health care.
It worked. Fred Siegel and Dan DiSalvo recently observed in The Weekly Standard that, "under the brilliant leadership of Dennis Rivera, [SEIU Local] 1199 built a top-notch political operation, and with the hospitals, which were barred from political activity, formed a partnership to maximize the flow of government revenue." The alliance has been so successful, they wrote, that New York now spends as much on Medicaid as California and Texas combined. Rivera now serves as the SEIU's point man on national health-care-reform legislation, with over 400 union staff members working full time at his disposal. Sen. Chuck Schumer called him "one of the few key players" shaping the final bill.
In pursuit of his vision, Stern has turned the SEIU into a massive grassroots army that can mobilize in behalf of candidates and legislation. The scope of its activities in 2008 was epic. Stern bragged that "we spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama - $60.7 million, to be exact - and we're proud of it." Ironically, SEIU spent so much in 2008 that it had to take out massive loans to keep operating, including $10 million from - you guessed it - Bank of America. The cash crunch also forced SEIU to implement a round of layoffs, leading to a surreal hall-of-mirrors moment when the Union of Union Representatives filed a complaint against SEIU with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
Undaunted, SEIU has set aside $85 million to spend over the next two years on political advocacy. The union started the year with three major objectives: a union-friendly stimulus, a union-friendly health-care bill, and a bill that would make it easier to organize workers into unions. It has brought its influence to bear on all three of these debates, with varying degrees of success.
Union-friendly stimulus: The stimulus bill was a top priority for SEIU because it contained massive bailouts for state governments and Medicaid. As mentioned above, states such as California, New York, and New Jersey have expanded their social-welfare systems beyond what they can afford, in response to pressures from SEIU and other public-sector unions. At the same time, their progressive income-tax structures have made them especially vulnerable to boom-and-bust cycles. When the credit bubble burst, these states were looking at massive deficits, layoffs, furloughs, and budget cuts. The stimulus bill included a $50 billion slush fund for state governments and $90 billion in Medicaid expansions, helping the states avoid a necessary round of belt-tightening and tax reform.
Perhaps you need another bucket to carry union water. You must be getting tired by now and the firestorm grows ever larger, not smaller.
And I again thank you for your astute replies, however I can read and I do know my history. You, sir, appear to be the one seeing what you wish and reading things that just aren't there. Allow me to clarify in simple terms I hope you may comprehend:
Nobody is picking on "your" union. Fact is I don't think you've bothered to share with us anything about your union. And contrary to your beliefs nobody here is attempting to destroy unions. Reform, yes! Destroy, no.
Apparently you've somehow over this entire thread been able to overlook the word "collective" as in collective bargaining. There's nothing basically wrong with collective bargaining, however there's everything wrong with it when used improperly.
Collective bargaining is a communal effort. Communal efforts are by their nature socialist, but not necessarily bad. They only become bad when improperly directed. Whether you agree or disagree, collective bargaining is a legal form of extortion. (We don't like to use that term in polite society, but that's what it is.)
In the private sector a union brings labor to the table... Labor being a commodity and of value to a company. The union uses the value of labor to negotiate better terms with the company. The company decides whether to accept or reject these terms and oft times a deal is struck. Other times not.
No matter, this is an adversarial relationship. It doesn't mean that the two sides need be enemies and is little different from any one of us negotiating for a new car. And just as with the offer to purchase a car, each party has the option to walk away.
But we haven't been discussing private business and unions. Our discussion has been about public unions. Unions which collect dues from members, then funnel huge amounts of money to political friends. Political friends who, once elected, act in favor of union interests rather than representing the public at large. Many of us see this as thievery in its worst form.
So once again... Unions have no business infiltrating government no matter how it might be done. No group (In this case maybe 10% of the total voters) has the right to enforce its agenda on the public in general. And no union has the right to position itself to place its hands in the pockets of the taxpayer.
You cannot support such actions and claim your allegiance to the United States and the Constitution. Please don't attempt to hide behind the flag and spew forth your rights as they were never in question. Those of us who believe in our system may oppose you, but we never advocate silencing you. This you may well do all by yourself as the general public slowly becomes aware of what's happening in this great nation.
Sir, I fully expect that you'll continue to support the unsupportable. Please do. By the tone of many of the posts above you've been able to turn a good many minds against that which you hold so dear. Just remember that for every post we see there are many like-minded who don't post. You my friend appear to be sadly in the minority and odds are it won't get better for you.
And now we breathlessly await your reply. Feel free to dig the hole deeper.
Best,
Also @ Wyatt Earp "tea Bagger" this is the term use by the local tea party itself in the local papers and news stories, their words not mine. If this is what they want to be known as locally then so be it.
Also @ Wyatt Earp "tea Bagger" this is the term use by the local tea party itself in the local papers and news stories, their words not mine. If this is what they want to be known as locally then so be it.
I doubt very seriously if any TEA Party group uses that term. It's about as likely as an illegal alien group calling themselves undocumented aliens. Didn't happen.
Middle,
Perhaps you need another bucket to carry union water. You must be getting tired by now and the firestorm grows ever larger, not smaller.
And I again thank you for your astute replies, however I can read and I do know my history. You, sir, appear to be the one seeing what you wish and reading things that just aren't there. Allow me to clarify in simple terms I hope you may comprehend:
Nobody is picking on "your" union. Fact is I don't think you've bothered to share with us anything about your union. And contrary to your beliefs nobody here is attempting to destroy unions. Reform, yes! Destroy, no.
Apparently you've somehow over this entire thread been able to overlook the word "collective" as in collective bargaining. There's nothing basically wrong with collective bargaining, however there's everything wrong with it when used improperly.
Collective bargaining is a communal effort. Communal efforts are by their nature socialist, but not necessarily bad. They only become bad when improperly directed. Whether you agree or disagree, collective bargaining is a legal form of extortion. (We don't like to use that term in polite society, but that's what it is.)
In the private sector a union brings labor to the table... Labor being a commodity and of value to a company. The union uses the value of labor to negotiate better terms with the company. The company decides whether to accept or reject these terms and oft times a deal is struck. Other times not.
No matter, this is an adversarial relationship. It doesn't mean that the two sides need be enemies and is little different from any one of us negotiating for a new car. And just as with the offer to purchase a car, each party has the option to walk away.
But we haven't been discussing private business and unions. Our discussion has been about public unions. Unions which collect dues from members, then funnel huge amounts of money to political friends. Political friends who, once elected, act in favor of union interests rather than representing the public at large. Many of us see this as thievery in its worst form.
So once again... Unions have no business infiltrating government no matter how it might be done. No group (In this case maybe 10% of the total voters) has the right to enforce its agenda on the public in general. And no union has the right to position itself to place its hands in the pockets of the taxpayer.
You cannot support such actions and claim your allegiance to the United States and the Constitution. Please don't attempt to hide behind the flag and spew forth your rights as they were never in question. Those of us who believe in our system may oppose you, but we never advocate silencing you. This you may well do all by yourself as the general public slowly becomes aware of what's happening in this great nation.
Sir, I fully expect that you'll continue to support the unsupportable. Please do. By the tone of many of the posts above you've been able to turn a good many minds against that which you hold so dear. Just remember that for every post we see there are many like-minded who don't post. You my friend appear to be sadly in the minority and odds are it won't get better for you.
And now we breathlessly await your reply. Feel free to dig the hole deeper.
Best,
I read history alot. YOU are the one seeing what you wish...If I have posted facts that are wrong, post links or paste proof of that!
FACT. The Nazis destroyed the labor movement in Germany. They did this by killing labor leaders in Dachu! They did this because labor unions were opponents to Hitler and the Nazis...they did not infiltrate the unions, they crushed them altoghter.
FACT. There were no labor union in the soviet union under stalin or anyone else after him. The bolsheviks did infiltrate the unions (in russia, not germany)after the revolution and later destroyed them and threw the labor leaders into the gulag.
You can jibber jabber all you want, those are the facts.
You are the one who is digging deeper...
No one is "picking on unions"???
Do you think we union members are stupid?
We know whats going on out in WI, it will starting with the public unions, than all unions. We know the agenda of the far right. Its obvious, labor funds the democrats, so in order to eliminate that funding they have started a vicious lie and smear campaign in a attempt to make unions look like socialist, maxist or commies, to make the public hate unions. Add to that telling people things like "teachers make $70000+ a year plus bennies" which to a guy busting his hump (at a non-union workplace) for $30000 seems like sky high wages, thus making him jealous and adding to the hate! You see, the democrats are all that stands in the republicians/teas way, so once the union funds stop, because the unions are gone, the democrats wont have NEAR the money the republicans have to run elections, thus one party rule. Thats Un-American. and the best part is republicans preach freedom, but want to deny it to others! I dont like alot of what the democrats do, but I sure as hell dont want one party rule!!!
I have told you time and again, American unions are not socialist! Never have been. To say otherwise is a lie!
as far has union being in the pockets of tax payers, well you better check your facts on that one too! There are a lot of states in trouble, and some of those are down south, which dont allow public unions, so who you going to blame that on? And besides, in my state people elect a school board who deals with the teachers union on all matters contact related. If the taxpayers dont like what teachers are making, fire the school board that agreed to pay them that! VOTE them out!! Vote in members of a school board who will cut pay! Simple! Taking away collective bargining is destroying a union, despite any spin Walker may try to put on it. And collective bargining is a right all americans have no mmatter who they work for.
Unless you believe that "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"
I have already told on this post many things about my union, take the time to read them. Any questions just ask, Ill be gald to answer them.
Now to show all more truth
Collective bargaining is a process of negotiations between employers and the representatives of a unit of employees aimed at reaching agreements which regulate working conditions. Collective agreements usually set out wage scales, working hours, training, health and safety, overtime, grievance mechanisms and rights to participate in workplace or company affairs.[1]
The union may negotiate with a single employer (who is typically representing a company's shareholders) or may negotiate with a federation of businesses, depending on the country, to reach an industry wide agreement. A collective agreement functions as a labor contract between an employer and one or more unions. Collective bargaining consists of the process of negotiation between representatives of a union and employers (generally represented by management, in some countries[which?] by an employers' organization) in respect of the terms and conditions of employment of employees, such as wages, hours of work, working conditions and grievance-procedures, and about the rights and responsibilities of trade unions. The parties often refer to the result of the negotiation as a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) or as a collective employment agreement (CEA).
Collectivism definition....
Collectivism is any philosophic, political, economic or social outlook that emphasizes the interdependence of every human in some collective group and the priority of group goals over individual goals. Collectivists usually focus on community, society or nation. Collectivism has been widely used to refer to a number of different political and economic philosophies, ranging from communalism and democracy to totalitarian nationalism.
There is answerd it for ya!
I served proudly in the US Army, I did because I love my nation, and would die to defend it.
That is my loyalty to this nation.
What did you do for it??
You do me proud! You have the facts, but you don't add them up well.
If we put everything else aside...
Why do you think Hitler destroyed unions? You don't suppose because many were communist backed, do you? And while you paint Hitler as destroying unions, he actually created one. His union was the Nazi Party and it controlled all facets of German life.
Russia? Tell me you have never heard Soviet propaganda about united workers. The entire history of communism is about uniting the masses. Communism (community-ism) is union through and through.
In both countries the unions were government created and government controlled. Do you not agree? Perhaps part of your misunderstanding of my words is due to the fact that you're thinking union in terms of the Teamsters or the like. I'm not. I see very little distinction between unions running government and government running unions. Neither is acceptable.
You throw your service around like a flag. And this makes you a great patriot? You note that states without unions are in financial trouble. Somehow you extrapolate that because of this unions could not possibly be the cause of problems, but they are! They are a cause just as certainly as money and power influence government and breed corruption. Never did I imply that your precious unions were THE cause. They're just one of many and all need to be addressed.
Please continue to thrash around in your quest for justification. I suspect that those interested will do some research on their own. They'll then decide who is more correct. Understand that this isn't a contest between us. It's a matter much deeper than a grudge match could ever be. We don't see things in the same light and probably never will. Believe it or not this is one of the benefits of freedom.
You have every right to be wrong.[;)]
Best,
Middle,
You do me proud! You have the facts, but you don't add them up well.
If we put everything else aside...
Why do you think Hitler destroyed unions? You don't suppose because many were communist backed, do you? And while you paint Hitler as destroying unions, he actually created one. His union was the Nazi Party and it controlled all facets of German life.
Russia? Tell me you have never heard Soviet propaganda about united workers. The entire history of communism is about uniting the masses. Communism (community-ism) is union through and through.
In both countries the unions were government created and government controlled. Do you not agree? Perhaps part of your misunderstanding of my words is due to the fact that you're thinking union in terms of the Teamsters or the like. I'm not. I see very little distinction between unions running government and government running unions. Neither is acceptable.
You throw your service around like a flag. And this makes you a great patriot? You note that states without unions are in financial trouble. Somehow you extrapolate that because of this unions could not possibly be the cause of problems, but they are! They are a cause just as certainly as money and power influence government and breed corruption. Never did I imply that your precious unions were THE cause. They're just one of many and all need to be addressed.
Please continue to thrash around in your quest for justification. I suspect that those interested will do some research on their own. They'll then decide who is more correct. Understand that this isn't a contest between us. It's a matter much deeper than a grudge match could ever be. We don't see things in the same light and probably never will. Believe it or not this is one of the benefits of freedom.
You have every right to be wrong.[;)]
Best,
Now the nazi party was a union?? Youre really diggin deep!
Ill agree with you about the soviets, they united all the workers, along with all other russian people, under boot!
Keep trying!
Of coarse I am talking about the teamsters, its a union! I have no idea what the hell your talking about, government runs unions or union run governerments, and the other thing....what ever! Clearly you are just grasping at straws!
I will agree that money and power corrupt, but a lot more money comes from corporations than our union dues....so which sides causes more corruption? It would be better to have all money out of politics, and eliminate all politicial partys....but thats not likely to happen any time soon.
I told you of my service to show you that I love my country, and when people like you say or imply that Im a socialist, or support socialism just because Im in a union, or otherwise question my patriotism, well it pisses me off!
I dont "throw" it around like a flag!
Youre right, it isnt a contest, you lost at the first word typed![:D][:D]
I feel as if I'm dealing with a petulant child. I stand behind what I've said and refuse to further deal with a fool such as yourself.
My guess is that you've about run your course here and I doubt it very much if your efforts have moved even so much as a single reader toward agreement with you.
Go elsewhere and play. Your words are hollow.
Middle,
I feel as if I'm dealing with a petulant child. I stand behind what I've said and refuse to further deal with a fool such as yourself.
My guess is that you've about run your course here and I doubt it very much if your efforts have moved even so much as a single reader toward agreement with you.
Go elsewhere and play. Your words are hollow.
Na, I haveing way too much fun playin with you[:D][:D]
Im not looking for converts, every one got their own opinion, this is just for fun, I like to argue![:)]
really, is that all you got?
[:D]funny[:D]
This isn't new news for me, I've known it for years. With the recent all out push to socialism by BHO and his ilk it is now common knowledge for anyone willing to even remotely pay attention.
The health care bill was the biggest move toward socialism since FDR's "New Deal"
Now Middle, given this information how can you declare that unions do not back socialism? Jesus man, is your head buried in the sand past your ears?
BHO is a socialist, this was common knowledge well before the election. All anyone had to do was read the man's own words, be is well documented in his beliefs. His actions, and what little voting record he had, clearly indicate his commitment to destroying liberty in this country and his desire for a socialist government. The unions threw tons of money, man hours, and votes behind him to help get him elected. The unions have been backing progressive, liberal, socialist candidates for decades.
The health care bill was the biggest move toward socialism since FDR's "New Deal"
Now Middle, given this information how can you declare that unions do not back socialism? Jesus man, is your head buried in the sand past your ears?
I dont agree with what was done in the health careLESS bill, its chit!
I also dont like BHO, I voted for Mcain! I just wish he was The McCain of 2000, and had not put Palin on the ticket. If he hadnt put her on the ticket he would have won.
I dont feel as if my union backs socialism, that being said, when you only have two choices, one who has socialist leanings, and the other who says straight out he hates unions, and will do all you can to kill them, who were they supposed to back? Believe me, there was some noise made at the union hall over it, but at the end of the day, you pick the lesser of two evils, which unforunately was HBO. I curse the damn libs for ever letting him on the ticket, and Im not the only union member that does. Thats the bigger problem, a lot of unions have changed for the better over the last ten, but too many people go by long outdated sterotypes. If the republicans would back off union bashing a bit, they would get some union cash for their cause, but has it is now, with WI going on, and the hate the union smear campagin going on, i dont look for things to get any better for either side
Just my thoughts
quote:Originally posted by SCOUT5
BHO is a socialist, this was common knowledge well before the election. All anyone had to do was read the man's own words, be is well documented in his beliefs. His actions, and what little voting record he had, clearly indicate his commitment to destroying liberty in this country and his desire for a socialist government. The unions threw tons of money, man hours, and votes behind him to help get him elected. The unions have been backing progressive, liberal, socialist candidates for decades.
The health care bill was the biggest move toward socialism since FDR's "New Deal"
Now Middle, given this information how can you declare that unions do not back socialism? Jesus man, is your head buried in the sand past your ears?
I dont agree with what was done in the health careLESS bill, its chit!
I also dont like BHO, I voted for Mcain! I just wish he was The McCain of 2000, and had not put Palin on the ticket. If he hadnt put her on the ticket he would have won.
I dont feel as if my union backs socialism, that being said, when you only have two choices, one who has socialist leanings, and the other who says straight out he hates unions, and will do all you can to kill them, who were they supposed to back? Believe me, there was some noise made at the union hall over it, but at the end of the day, you pick the lesser of two evils, which unforunately was HBO. I curse the damn libs for ever letting him on the ticket, and Im not the only union member that does. Thats the bigger problem, a lot of unions have changed for the better over the last ten, but too many people go by long outdated sterotypes. If the republicans would back off union bashing a bit, they would get some union cash for their cause, but has it is now, with WI going on, and the hate the union smear campagin going on, i dont look for things to get any better for either side
Just my thoughts
As much as I despise what BHO stands for we would not have been much better off with Mcain, maybe even worse. At least BHO and his crowd are causing people to open their eyes to the dangers, something that may not have happened had Mcain got elected.
Hopefully enough people will act before the scales tip, if they haven't already.
And he will be the same in 2012 and beyond .
Palin was nothing more than a lame * attempt to save his bacon .
And why would there be a lot of noise at the union hall about McCain and Obama ?
I could have told you what the Union's decision would have been 10 years ago .
After reading EVERY word of these posts, perhaps we need a new house rule: Don't discuss religion, politics and unions. It creates discontent. [:D]
The McCain of 2000 and the McCain of 2008 are identical .
And he will be the same in 2012 and beyond .
Palin was nothing more than a lame * attempt to save his bacon .
And why would there be a lot of noise at the union hall about McCain and Obama ?
I could have told you what the Union's decision would have been 10 years ago .
10 years ago, yes there would have been no debate. But like what is happening everywere, the old guard is retireing out, and that includes union leaders. A younger generation is taking over. This generation is smarter than the old, not to say the old is stupid, just a little set in their ways. When I became a union memeber in 1994 there were zero republicans in the union, now its about 50/50.
Thats has an impact on how the union operates. We knew BHO was a piece of chit, but he didnt advance the fact that he hated us and wanted us gone as McCain had. There we two views in my local hall, the first was that although hes clearly a looney/lefty BHO would have a lot of resistance to his adgenda (and has thank god)and would not do has much damage to us a McCain could, so the leaders decided to endorse(spelling I know!) BHO. The second view was to endorce McCain and hope his adgenda got blocked, this was the camp I was in. Of coarse in the international there was no debate, its still run by the old guard, but not for too much longer. Now bear in mind thaty the unions must have your permisson to use your dues for politics, they never got mine! I know some of you dont believe me when I tell you that unions are changeing, for the better. It is drilled into our heads to be productive if we like being in a union, because if were not, its over. Most of the old lazy buzzards have retired and are gone. Its not all unions, but Im in a union of skilled craftman, who take pride in their work. I drive by buildings that I worked on and think with pride that that building will be there long after Im dead. This is the attitude of most of my coworkers has well.
Another thing you may not believe is that some companys like the unions. This is especialy in construction companys. Its expensive to kepp hundreds of worker on the books between jobs, but with a union they can get hundreds of skilled craftsman with a phone call. The beauty of this system is that if you get a lazy POS, you can lay him off, call the hall the next day and get another one! And not to many members or even a steward stick up of lazy POS anylonger. We all know who they are, they are always on the waiting for work book, because noone will have them. Times have changed and we know it. At least the smarter unions know it!
A union is made up of its members, we are a small part of the whole and we do have a voice and we use it. Im serious, if the republicians would give us some slack, they would get our help, its that close. Very few like the Democrats anymore. They have become nothing but the party for fags, lesbos, slackers, looters, bums, illegal undocumented aliens and whackos! They were for us at one time, now they take us for granted and I for one and sick of it. We are first and foremost Americans. I and others dont like the idea of endorceing leftest pinkos, but with the republician hate running the way it is, we dont have much choice.
We need a third party! or no partys!
10 years ago, yes there would have been no debate. But like what is happening everywhere, the old guard is retiring out, and that includes union leaders. A younger generation is taking over. This generation is smarter than the old, not to say the old is stupid, just a little set in their ways. When I became a union member in 1994 there were zero republicans in the union, now its about 50/50.
That has an impact on how the union operates. We knew BHO was a piece of chit, but he didn't advance the fact that he hated us and wanted us gone as McCain had. There we two views in my local hall, the first was that although hes clearly a loony/lefty BHO would have a lot of resistance to his agenda (and has thank god)and would not do has much damage to us a McCain could, so the leaders decided to endorse(spelling I know!) BHO. The second view was to endorse McCain and hope his agenda got blocked, this was the camp I was in. Of coarse in the international there was no debate, its still run by the old guard, but not for too much longer. Now bear in mind that the unions must have your permission to use your dues for politics, they never got mine! I know some of you don't believe me when I tell you that unions are changing, for the better. It is drilled into our heads to be productive if we like being in a union, because if were not, its over. Most of the old lazy buzzards have retired and are gone. Its not all unions, but I'm in a union of skilled craftsman, who take pride in their work. I drive by buildings that I worked on and think with pride that that building will be there long after I'm dead. This is the attitude of most of my coworkers has well.
Another thing you may not believe is that some companys like the unions. This is especialy in construction companys. Its expensive to kepp hundreds of worker on the books between jobs, but with a union they can get hundreds of skilled craftsman with a phone call. The beauty of this system is that if you get a lazy POS, you can lay him off, call the hall the next day and get another one! And not to many members or even a steward stick up of lazy POS anylonger. We all know who they are, they are always on the waiting for work book, because noone will have them. Times have changed and we know it. At least the smarter unions know it!
A union is made up of its members, we are a small part of the whole and we do have a voice and we use it. Im serious, if the republicians would give us some slack, they would get our help, its that close. Very few like the Democrats anymore. They have become nothing but the party for fags, lesbos, slackers, looters, bums, illegal undocumented aliens and whackos! They were for us at one time, now they take us for granted and I for one and sick of it. We are first and foremost Americans. I and others dont like the idea of endorceing leftest pinkos, but with the republician hate running the way it is, we dont have much choice.
We need a third party! or no partys!
I agree with a lot of what you say, the union/brotherhood(IBEW) I support believe we are the best trained and safety conscience of all the electrical field employees but many of us vote republican too we don't feel like we have to vote a certain way and are not going to let someone else tell us how to do that or anything else just because they said
many people hate unions and that is fine but all unions are not bad just like not all people are bad that's all I have tried to point out
quote:Originally posted by the middle
10 years ago, yes there would have been no debate. But like what is happening everywhere, the old guard is retiring out, and that includes union leaders. A younger generation is taking over. This generation is smarter than the old, not to say the old is stupid, just a little set in their ways. When I became a union member in 1994 there were zero republicans in the union, now its about 50/50.
That has an impact on how the union operates. We knew BHO was a piece of chit, but he didn't advance the fact that he hated us and wanted us gone as McCain had. There we two views in my local hall, the first was that although hes clearly a loony/lefty BHO would have a lot of resistance to his agenda (and has thank god)and would not do has much damage to us a McCain could, so the leaders decided to endorse(spelling I know!) BHO. The second view was to endorse McCain and hope his agenda got blocked, this was the camp I was in. Of coarse in the international there was no debate, its still run by the old guard, but not for too much longer. Now bear in mind that the unions must have your permission to use your dues for politics, they never got mine! I know some of you don't believe me when I tell you that unions are changing, for the better. It is drilled into our heads to be productive if we like being in a union, because if were not, its over. Most of the old lazy buzzards have retired and are gone. Its not all unions, but I'm in a union of skilled craftsman, who take pride in their work. I drive by buildings that I worked on and think with pride that that building will be there long after I'm dead. This is the attitude of most of my coworkers has well.
Another thing you may not believe is that some companys like the unions. This is especialy in construction companys. Its expensive to kepp hundreds of worker on the books between jobs, but with a union they can get hundreds of skilled craftsman with a phone call. The beauty of this system is that if you get a lazy POS, you can lay him off, call the hall the next day and get another one! And not to many members or even a steward stick up of lazy POS anylonger. We all know who they are, they are always on the waiting for work book, because noone will have them. Times have changed and we know it. At least the smarter unions know it!
A union is made up of its members, we are a small part of the whole and we do have a voice and we use it. Im serious, if the republicians would give us some slack, they would get our help, its that close. Very few like the Democrats anymore. They have become nothing but the party for fags, lesbos, slackers, looters, bums, illegal undocumented aliens and whackos! They were for us at one time, now they take us for granted and I for one and sick of it. We are first and foremost Americans. I and others dont like the idea of endorceing leftest pinkos, but with the republician hate running the way it is, we dont have much choice.
We need a third party! or no partys!
I agree with a lot of what you say, the union/brotherhood(IBEW) I support believe we are the best trained and safety conscience of all the electrical field employees but many of us vote republican too we don't feel like we have to vote a certain way and are not going to let someone else tell us how to do that or anything else just because they said
many people hate unions and that is fine but all unions are not bad just like not all people are bad that's all I have tried to point out
Hello to a fellow brother IBEW 459