Forum Post: I Agree With OWS On Every Point Except One. Unions Suck. They Are Just Another Lobby. Get The Money Out Of Politics.
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 5, 2011, 10:31 a.m. EST by SirPoeticJustice
(628)
from New York, NY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
You have to be consistent ethically. Otherwise you send the message of selfishness and wanting something for nothing. I am talking specifically about LABOR UNIONS. What we have here is a Non-Violent Revolution.
The American Revolution And Civil War were Violent Revolutions.
Organized labor is wonderful as long as it is not allowed to politically lobby. THERE SHOULD BE NO LOBBYS. Unions are intended to exist for economic reasons NOT political ones. The moment you confuse economics with politics you justify your inconsistency with your ideals. Ideals are noble. Ethical inconsistency is not.
MY FATHER worked long years on a factory floor. He was a supervisor and not allowed to join the union. His pension was taken from him and GIVEN TO the union BY THE GOVERNMENT. Is that fair and ethical??? All I am saying is unions should not be allowed to politically lobby.
Make yourselves look good. Be Ethical.
We Are Talking Secular Ethics On All Levels!
It doesn't matter what system you have, political or economic, if there are no ethics taught to its citizens. If Ethics are regarded as quaint or as secondary to Law, the empire begins to crumble.
Corruption Must Be Brought to Its Knees.
The Concept of Right and Wrong... That corporations have the same legal power as flesh and blood citizens. That our government has been bought by lobbyists and campaign financiers. That a ball player makes a thousand times what an early childhood education teacher makes. That the banks are, as we speak, planning a "solution" to our grievances in the form of a new global federal reserve (central bank) to make global monetary policy (slavery). That Protestors are looting and vandalizing, seeking retribution. etc. etc. etc.
The most basic and primary ethic is honesty. The Truth.
The root of greed is the economic principles of "limited resources" and "unlimited wants" encroaching on the psyche of man. The assumption that "there is not enough to go around" is insane, and causes man to try to snatch what resources are left before someone else does. This is self-fulfilling as it causes the principle to become fact. A true reformation of society must necessarily BEGIN in the heart, where love is the currency and grow to be reflected in our Law and Economy.
The money system we have is evil, centrally controlled, and does not hold the value of community or the word of the individual. But money COULD be designed to reflect generosity and reciprocity instead of scarcity...
This allows for layers of meaning and function. While "limited resources" is an ecological fact - there simply aren't enough resources for everyone to have everything they want, if you factor in recycling, repurposing and reuse, and change both behaviors and assumptions, such as using limited NEEDS as an economic cornerstone rather then unlimited WANTS, and leverage both primitive and advanced technology, developing a true sense of community and belonging, resources could become, functionally speaking, unlimited, and man will be more fulfilled, naturally wanting less. Add to this the practice of looking within oneself for fulfillment instead of looking to "things" for fulfillment, and our problems as a species are suddenly solved.
It Is TIme For Generosity To Be Born In The Heart Of Man...
This World Is One Dysfunctional Family Built On Mountains Of Misunderstanding...
HEALERS, THIS IS YOUR TIME... USE PLAIN LANGUAGE TO FACILITATE MEDIATION...
Could we craft an updated Constitution: A document that is not the work of a handful of politicians, but written on the internet and edited by everyone with proposed changes seen in a different color with number of votes for a proposed change. The constituent’s meetings are streamed on-line, and citizens can send their comments and suggestions, witnessing the document as it takes shape.
While many causes for the financial crisis have been suggested, with varying weight assigned by experts,[9] the United States Senate issuing the Levin–Coburn Report found "that the crisis was not a natural disaster, but the result of high risk, complex financial products; undisclosed conflicts of interest; and the failure of regulators, the credit rating agencies, and the market itself to rein in the excesses of Wall Street."
The 1%, Who Mostly Inherited Their Wealth, See The Poor & Middle Class As Lazy Freeloaders. They Claim We Have Entitlement Issues AND THE FACT They Never Examine Their Own Entitlement Shows They Are Wrong... The Bailouts Were White Collar Socialism... How is that NOT Entitlement? And If We Are Lazy, How did OWS Become A Global Grassroots Movement?
We SHOULD take a lesson from Iceland:
Sorry, but your rights exist because of unions fighting for you.
Unions are a lobby. Part of problem.
An organized,(or unorganized) group, attempting to influence elected officials= a lobby. Therefore OWS is a lobby.
We are not attempting to influence them. We are attempting to IMPEACH and RECALL them.
Well, on the impeach, thing, if you mean impeach, as in discredit, you can do that. If you mean impeach and remove from office, that requires the cooperation of other politicians.
Not this time.
We must lobby for the above reforms
and the end the use of the war machine as reasonable force
What we are doing is not lobbying.
What we are doing is non-violent revolution.
create a parallel direct democracy voting system then ?
On second thought yes. But The system must be well-designed. If you have a website I will critically evaluate it.
Exactly.
Political donations should come from registered voters only. That means no donations from corporations or PACs or unions or buildings or trees or rocks. Only the voters, actual human beings, would be able to give money (and only upto the $1000 limit).
BTW, a proposal well on the way (239k signatures): http://www.getmoneyout.com/
Disagree. The poor cannot afford $1000 dollars, and they should not be disenfranchised simply for being poor. See my proposal at http://occupywallst.org/forum/we-the-people-in-order-to-a-proposal/ . This proposal not only removes money from politics, it ALSO breaks down the two-party system that provides us clones who differ only in their support of one wedge issue or another, none of which ever actually come to be in any case.
so union lobby ok - corporate lobby not ok? hahaha! talk about hypocracy
What? I never said any such thing ! I want ALL money out.
Then they can donate 50. Or 10. It doesn't matter... they point is to eliminate the $35,000 contributions from non-humans like Microsoft or AFL-CIO.
P.S. It always bugs me when people say the "poor can't afford". They afford their ~$1000 a year cablteTV bill. They afford their ~$1000 cellphone bill. They afford their alcohol, cigarettes, or candybar habit.
(shrug). Reduce the limit to 100 dollars then. I don't care. I'd sooner have the election be funded by the Citizens, then by the Congress who would write the rules in order to block 3rd parties from getting funds. (They've already done such things.)
Why is everyone quibbling over the word limit? IT'S a LIMIT! Limit means no more than, not no less than.
Jeez.
So basically third parties would receive zero funds, and would be locked-out of the elections. In fact 1 million voters exceeds the population of most House of Representatives districts. They'd be locked-out by the current Republicrat duopoly.
Not if we use the netherlands as a model for our districting.
http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/2011/10/2011-occupy-america-peoples-official.html
Congress will never do that. They will never give-up the power to gerrymand their districts to ensure they keep winning.
You're right, it's hopeless. We should just give up.
No. But if you're thinking Congress will setup a fair election system that provides money to the Greens and LP, then you're naive. It is wiser to put the power in the hands of the People to fund whatever party they want. (via donations)
They Have No Choice. If They Want To Keep Their Seat THEY WILL COMPLY.
so naive'. What are you going to do if Congressmen/women refuse to pass the Netherlands Districting model? Probably the same thing you did in 2008/09 when they stole 1.5 trillion from taxpayers. Or in 2010 when they failed to pass the net neutrality bill.
__ (that represents powerlessness)
This time it's different because the 99% have woken up. Watch the live streams. We are gaining force. This movement is now five million in the united states.
You didn't answer the question. What will you do? 80% of Americans were against the bailout bills and still Congress passed them. What will you do to force them to adopt Netherlands districting, if they simply choose to ignore you?
Use the national guard to REMOVE them from office.
LOL ! You're right.
I was thinking of presidential elections, and 1 million is less than 1% of registered voters in 2010. It's probably best to simply say "The top 7" or something.
Good catch... Thanks !
It really doesn't matter. Whatever rules we create, Congress will pervert into their OWN rules that benefit the D's and R's and lock-out any third parties from getting Federal election funds. That's how it works
Just last night I saw a report where a PA Democrat almost lost the election. So he reworked the district to eliminate the republican suburbs and add more democrat urban neighborhoods, thus ensuring he will win in 2012. Now the district looks like a half-erect penis.
These people are corrupt and will do whatever it takes to keep the Dems and Reps in power, while locking-out any Green or LP candidates from the ballot (or getting Federal election funds). Nice idea. Too easily fixed.
I still prefer private donations from registered voters. Eliminate all funds from lobbyists.
Yes. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[Removed]
The union isn't the problem, it's the politics that allow unions to affect political outcomes.
Getting the big money out of politics, out of campaigns means getting union money out of there too.
[Removed]
Now you're getting it.
Any opening for exploitation can and will be taken advantage of, which we've witnessed over these past several decades.
With each new opening paving the way for successive openings to be exploited.
The OWS has taken the old saying 'Hit them where it hurts' to heart. Wall Street represents the money and the money is what is used to influence the government, via the elected officials.
We need Glass/Stegal back and improved upon to eliminate union influence over government as well.
Wall Street (as a euphemism) and unions (the same) are the beast as in the phrase, You can't change the nature of the beast.
[Removed]
evidently you totally missed the works eliminate union influence and the reference to unions being the same 'beast' as 'Wall Street'. I ignored nothing.
[Removed]
No support for Scott Walker here and I'm from Minnesota where WI policy affect us.
Walker is a union buster, I don't want the unions gone, I want the unions to do what they were designed to do, negotiate wages and benefits with the employing body. Even when the employing body is the state.
Union monies need NOT be in the political process.
[Removed]
No Walker is a union buster period. So much for hypocrisy.
By your logic then all other groups which donate large sums to political campaigns should be broken up also.
It's pretty simple, no corporate, no bank, no union. Private citizens only.
You neglected to note that I specified what I accepted unions for, and it makes no difference who the employer is, a contract is a contract. Both signing parties agree to adhere to it.
Except in the case of public unions, the person signing on behalf of the taxpayer's money is not responsible for that money. His re-election comes from the people he is granting gifts from the taxpayer coffers. Unions were NEVER meant to apply to the government, and Walker has never taken an action against private sector unions.
You are unknowingly protecting a special interest. Good Job.
Unions were formed to financially counter management.
Their political activities are "perpetrated" for the same reason.
Corporations & unions serve their purpose well - when they stay out of government.
We need to pick an issue that is simple - that is popular - how about an issue
that 83% of Americans agree on -
that 56% of TP agree on -
that will bring together the people in OWS with the people outside of OWS
Our only goal should be to pass a constitutional amendment to counter Supreme Court decisions Citizens United (2010) & Buckley v. Valeo (1976), that enable unlimited amounts of anonymous money to flood into our political system.
It will be as short and concise as possible, a legally constructed
“corporations and other organizations are not a persons and have no personhood rights”
and
“money is not free speech”.
We don’t have to explain or persuade people to accept our position – we have to persuade them to ACT based on their own position. Pursuing this goal will prove to the world that we, at OWS, are a serious realistic Movement, with serious realistic goals. Achieving this goal will make virtually every other goal – from jobs, to taxes, to infrastructure , to Medicare – much easier to achieve –
by disarming our greatest enemy – GREED.
THE SUCCESS STORY OF THE AMENDING PROCESS The Prohibition movement started as a disjointed effort by conservative teetotalers who thought the consumption of alcohol was immoral. They ransacked saloons and garnered press coverage here and there for a few years. Then they began to gain support from the liberals because many considered alcohol partially responsible for spousal and child abuse, among other social ills. This odd alliance, after many years of failing to influence change consistently across jurisdictions, decided to concentrate on one issue nationally—a constitutional amendment. They pressured all politicians on every level to sign a pledge to support the amendment. Any who did not, they defeated easily at the ballot box since they controlled a huge number of liberal, and conservative and independent swing votes in every election. By being a single-issue constituency attacking from all sides of the political spectrum, they very quickly amassed enough votes (2/3) to pass the amendment in Congress. And, using the same tactics, within just 17 months they were successful in getting ¾ of the state legislatures to ratify the constitutional amendment into law. (Other amendments were ratified even faster: Eight—the 7th, 12th, 13th, 15th, 17th, 20th, 21st and 26th—took less than a year. The 26th, granting 18-year-olds the right to vote, took just three months and eight days.)
If they could tie the left and right into a success -
WHY CAN'T WE??????????
I feel that we should stay with this simple text to overturn CU:
”corporations are not people” and “money is not free speech”
for four simple reasons and one – not so simple:
1
83% of Americans have already opposed CU in the ABC/Washington post poll and the above
IS THEIR POSITION ALREADY.
2
We don’t have to work to convince people on the validity of our position.
3
Simple is almost always better.
4
This simple Amendment is REQUIRED to overturn CU.
And all other electoral reform can be passed through the normal legislative process.
5
OWS and these pages are chock full of ( mostly ) excellent ideas to improve our country. All of them have strong advocates – and some have strong opposition. None of them has been “pre-approved” by 83% of Americans ! Pursuing this goal – without additional specifics is exactly what Americans want. What do we want? Look at that almost endless list of demands – goals - aims.
Tax the rich. End the Fed. Jobs for all, Medicare for all. So easy to state. Can you imagine how hard it would be to formulate a “sales pitch” for any of these to convince your Republican friends to vote for any of them.
83% of Americans have ALREADY “voted” against CU. And 76% of the Rs did too.
All we have to do ask Americans is to pressure their representatives – by letters - emails – petitions.
Wanna take your family on vacation? Convince the 7 year old and the 10 year old to go to Mt Rushmore. Then try to convince them to go to Disneyland.
Prioritizing this goal will introduce us to the world – not as a bunch of hippie radical anarchist socialist commie rabblerousers – but as a responsible, mature movement that is fighting for what America wants.
I feel that using the tactics of the NRA, the AARP an the TP – who all represent a minority – who have successfully used their voting power to achieve their minority goals - plus the Prohibition Amendment tactics – bringing all sides together - is a straight path for us to success that cannot fail to enable us to create and complete one MAJORITY task.
I would agree with this
Unions shouldn't be able to lobby in so much as corporations shouldn't be able to lobby...You want to get the money out that's good..But I have to admit we are beating the f*ck out of this dead horse political system, not noticing the flies, maggots and general decomposition of this body politic...We need to get a new freaking horse.
Buried! Organized labor's money is peanuts compared to corps and the Koch Brothers. That's a fact!
1.The 40 hour work week restriction (Except for the Financial Sector) 2.Minimum wage laws (Except for the Financial Sector) 3.Child labor laws (Except for the Financial Sector) 4.Vacations, (Except for the Financial Sector)
and all that other crap that the unions have thrust upon us, making the working class well off enough to own a home and have a decent life and which also prevents us from competing directly with the low cost labor of China and other Free Trade Freehole countries..Yea Unions suck..
Unions saved this country once. They took a wrong turn. You are will help get them back on track because you and I are the 99%. Don't forget. When they started unions were OWS.
Well said.
Thanks. I knew you would agree.
To bad so many of us have forgotten, (or never learned) the history of this issue.
OWS needs a lobby
OWS is a non registered lobby which is being effective
and a union.
Laughing Quietly To Myself
The unions have joined OWS to bring it into the fold of the Democratic Party. The numerous ex-left groups that push the unions play this role as well. These are deeply anti-working class organizations.
US automakers to cash in from new UAW contracts http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/nov2011/auto-n01.shtml
UAW imposes contract on Chrysler workers http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/oct2011/chry-o27.shtml
Occupy Wall Street: The ISO promotes the unions against workers’ interests http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/oct2011/unio-o28.shtml
ISO covers for unions’ betrayal of Verizon strike http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/aug2011/sust-a23.shtml
This is a history of the degeneration of the unions in the US:
Thirty years since the PATCO strike http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/aug2011/pat1-a03.shtml
Obama has certainly been no help to OWS. He didn't start it. It's intellectual origins lie far to his left. And he certainly hasn't helped it. Organized labor has come to the aid of OWS largely because Obama stabbed it in the back and wouldn't even consider pushing the Employee Free Choice Act, much less abolishing Taft-Hartley.
Agreed. No money in politics, no exceptions. Unions should negotiate contracts and organize strikes. Period. No lobbying.
More than that, where would OWS be without organized labor. It was they, after all, who stood with us and faced down the probability of a police shut down of Zuccotti Plaza. The UFT loan of its space for storage has been invaluable and those are only two of the more obvious things that organized labor has done for us OWS, not just their own members or working people as a whole.
You Mean Where Would We Be Without Obama's Help??
I'm all for a government that is OUR government and not a government of the corporations. Meanwhile it is suicidal to ask that corporate government to regulate OUR organizations. That's our job.
Without unions, there wouldn't be a middle class in this country; there would be the rich and those they subjugate. Without my grandfather's pension, fought for and won by his union, my grandmother would have starved to death on Social Security.
I applaud your statement. He did the right thing.
I am simply saying unions should not be allowed to POLITICALLY Lobby.
"Allowed" by whom? We live in a corporate state. We have few organizations of our own. Of those labor unions are the best organized. We may want our organizations to do this or that. To lobby or not to lobby for example. But are you seriously suggesting that we "allow" the corporate state to have ANY authority over OUR organizations, inadequate as they might be for our needs?
I don't have a problem with people lobbying, that's inherant in the right to free speech. Everyone should be able to petition their government for the redress of grievances. What they shouldn't be able to do is donate money to political campaigns...there's a difference.
NO no no no no.
Only individual flesh and blood citizens should be able to lobby. Not ANY organizations whatsoever.
and yes, I agree about political campaigns.
By your logic, OWS shouldn't be allowed to exist. It's only through the "collective" efforts of many people that attention has been brought to this issue. Alone, you're weak.
OWS is not a union working for a corporation. This is a revolution of many individual voices
there is a difference.
There's no difference. OWS is a collection of individuals united in common cause. A union, labor or otherwise, is nothing different.
There is a HUGE difference. Labor Unions are about fair wages.
This is about reforming a political system.
Economics vs Politics.
Get the money out of politics.
What they ask for may indeed be different, why and how they organize is not. They both serve the same funtion, they simply seek different ends.
this is not true. government passes laws to control workers in favor of corporations. they have more need to lobby than any other. do you want everyone to become part time workers with no benefits? that is what corporations do when there is no union to stop them just look at walmart
You missed his point.
He's saying that Both corporate and union lobbies drown-out the voice of the people back home. And he's right. I am non-union which means my voice gets drowned-out by Apple (and other corps) plus the ALF-CIO (and other unions).
I might as well not even bother emailing or calling my Congressman. Te lobbyists are the only thing he hears.
I know the difference between a progressive people's organization fighting for the 99% and a corporation. Often our organizations aren't as democratic as they should be or could be and often they don't fight for our interests as effectively as they might, but it is up to us to change them, not to rely on a state run by the 1% to regulate them.
Let's make a government that represents US rather then another lobbying group.
We need to control our organizations. If we think that OUR organizations, including OUR unions, shouldn't lobby, then it's up to us to change the policies of our organizations, but that should not be the business of a state that is a wholly owned subsidiary of the 1%.
Of course we need to seize all corporate assets and reorganize them democratically from below in the interest of everyone rather than in the interest of a tiny group of share holders. Until then, any effort to merely "control" corporations is bound to fail, as it has time after time, for the past 100 years. Until then, we the 99% need to be organized and one of the few organizations we have are labor unions. And we should demand that no regulation of OUR organizations is appropriate. If we think OUR organizations shouldn't lobby, then it's up to US to regulate OUR organizations, not the state.
Do you work on the weekend? Do you get paid overtime? Do your children have to work in a factory? Only if they're Chinese, right?
Some unions are good, some not so much. One union hired a lawyer to get me reinstated after being fired illegally and another union couldn't ever get common sense safety rule enforced on the shop floor. It comes down to the members to make the union, Join, participate!
I would disagree that unions, environmental organizations, civil rights groups and civil liberties organizations should get out of the lobbying business, especially in the absence of a mass party that genuinely represents the will of the 99% which would vitiate the need for progressive groups to lobby. On the other hand, it is a reasonable point for discussion. But to say that unions should be illegal is to ask the state to intervene and smash one of the only institutions that working people have fighting for them in this culture. More, at their best, unions are the collective expression of the most politically sophisticated sector of the 99% to ask the state to regulate them is to do the bidding of the 1%.
LOL so you pick and choose which lobbyists are okay? Hypocritical at best.
One is for the many, one is for the very few. Think about it.
Doesn't matter,you're condoning what you're protesting against.
I'm not protesting, too much influence by the working people. I have a problem with too much influence by the very wealthy. Lobbying does not have to mean bribery. It can mean bringing ideas to the attention of the elected.
Sure, get unions out of lobbying. There should be no lobbyists AT ALL.
With that said, workers should have an absolute blanket right to collectively bargain and the government should have nothing to say regarding strikes, etc. Government's only role should be to protect workers' right to bargain in the first place.
Agreed
Where would OWS be without organized labor? At the very least a lot more marginalized than it is. Maybe dead. Labor came to our assistance when we were very nearly over run by the NYPD. That's just a very immediate thing for our movement right now. What are the roots of our movement? Part of those roots lie in the defense of public sector unions through direct action in Wisconsin last winter. True, there is some corruption in unions and they need to be much more democratic, but ultimately, right now, they are literally the only organizations we have on our side, on the side of the working class. More importantly, at their best, they are our organizations.
Where would the country be without organized labor. Child labor, sweatshops, slave wages, unsafe working conditions. Look to the way things were in the Robber Baron Era.
Hey. Take a look around. It's the 21st Century. You can stop beating this horse now.
What horse would that be.
The dead horse that says that because unions served a useful purpose in the 19th and early 20th century, that we must consent to their abuse of power, their heavy handed tactics and their bribery of government officials in the 21st.
I don't consent to abuse of power etc. But I don't think the concept of organized labor is obsolete either. In fact, it is more needed now than it has been for a long time imo. If you are in favor of the abolition of unions, that puts you directly in line with the Koch bros and their extreme right lackeys in the Republican party. Is that where you stand?
Sure unions lobby. So do civil rights organizations. And environmental organizations and all manner of other progressive organizations. The difference is, and it's monumental, they are OUR lobbies, they are people's lobbies, they are progressive lobbies, they lobby on behalf of the vast majority. They lobby on behalf of the 99%. There is a vast difference between them and corporate power.
This is UNETHICAL. What we need is a government WITHOUT Lobbying. A People's Government, Run For the People, By The People.
For Us To Lobby and tell the 1% They can't lobby IS INCONSISTENT.
From a purely immediate tactical stand point, the OWS encampment at Zuccotti Square would literally not exist were it not for the support of organized labor, nor would the Oakland general strike have been nearly as effective as it was without the active support of organized labor.
All you are saying
is the 99% should be in charge
and the 1% should be stripped of everything.
You are confusing economics with politics.
The only difference between Libertarians and Marxists are their opinions about what drives progress. Libertarians believe in Free Markets. (Greed or Fear drives progress)
Marxists believe in shared ownership. (Love drives progress)
Organized labor is wonderful as long s it is not allowed to politically lobby.
Unions are intended to exist for economic reasons not political ones.
The moment you confuse economics with politics you justify your inconsistency with your ideals.
Ideals are noble.
Ethical inconsistency is not.
Confusing economics with politics? They will never be separate. You are naive to think otherwise.
Unlike western Europe, for example, bad and inadequate as they are, labor unions are literally the only institutions that working people have to defend their rights in this society. Certainly we need a mass party of the working class and many other mass working class institutions. And certainly we need to be part of the struggle to democratize labor unions, but until more working class institutions are developed, labor unions, week as they are, are the only institutions that working people have to defend their rights.
You couldn't be MORE wrong. We need a government that represents the people accurately. A People who are part of government. All unions do is make the problem worse by engaging in lobbying.
That is not consistent. How can we expect the 1% to take us seriously if we are engaging in the same behaviors we claim to stand against?
You are wrong, my friend.
Indeed someone is wrong, but I don't think it's the other gentleman. My Constitution tells me the way I'm supposed to effect change in government is by petitioning it for the redress of grievances-by lobbying it for change-to be done specifically through my right to assemble with people of like-mind and through our combined strength, get the change we desire. You know, like OWS is doing right now. What it does not say, and where we've gone wrong, is that we should be able to pool our money and, through a system of quid pro qou, buy the change we want.
We need not seek the approval of the one percent. They need to seek the approval of the 99.
Your arrogance is your defeat.
Touche'
All I am saying is maybe there is a system that would be better for EVERYONE.
On that I can agree. But the majority should, I believe, have a greater say than a tiny privileged majority.
This is not 1920. Unions are worthless nowadays and only stand in the way of businesses doing the right thing.
Ask boeing how the unions are to work with.
Unions are organized gangsters. They claim to give the workers power vs their evil employers yet most of the time it's the unions that make it so that the employer has to do the things they're against.
Unions say "we have to be paid at least 72 dollars an hour to watch this computer make a car" that's bullshit, and it only serves to make the cars ridiculously expensive.
Unions are a finger on the arm that extends from the big govt that you guys apparently hate. And you have no idea.
In fact, in many respects it IS 1920 today. As a proportion of the work force organized labor is in about the same weak position as it was in 1920. Most of the labor law that was used to build the labor movement in the 30s and 40s has been circumvented. It is true that in the 1950s a handful of unions were mob dominated. But largely because of Landrum Griffin and a relatively strong union democracy movement that is no longer the case though it is true that the vast majority of unions do tend to be extremely bureaucratic and fairly politically conservative, expecially in comparison to their European counterparts, which partially explains why there is no labor party in the United States.
I would absolutely agree that unions as a whole do not fight as effectively for workers rights as they might, but ineffective as they are, they are also all we have, especially in the absence of a labor party, except, perhaps, fortunately for the emergence of OWS, for which most of organized labor is extremely grateful, to the point of coming to our defense at very crucial moments and providing us with very necessary storage space. Weak and bureaucratic as they are unions are really about the only organizations we have to defend us in this corporate dominated society.
They find themselves in the same weak position because they expect the most with the least to give. Any Joe Schmoe that knows how to run electrical wire or weld can get a job somewhere without a union.
Unions are fairly politically conservative? LOL You are out of your mind if you don't see the unions for what they are. They're left wing pawns, that act as money launderers for Democrats. They say they want to help the workers, yet they make it so that it's impossible for companies to make a profit if they go union.
Unions are a cancer in America. They demand things that make being profitible or even competative almost impossible. I'll never join a union, and I'll never ever support one.
If you think your rights are being trampled on by a company, GET A JOB SOMEWHERE ELSE. That makes companies compete for workers, thus automatically driving up wages and working conditions.
Get a grip people.
Unions are not all that easy to join. According to most surveys, most people would join a union if they had the opportunity to do so, but they don't have that opportunity. The United States has the most complicated set of labor laws of any industrialized democracy in the world. Labor unions in the United States (organizations of the 99%) are considerably more regulated than are corporations.
Electrical work and plumbing is not all that easy. If it was most of the 99% would not hire electricians or plumbers. They would do it themselves. I find it really offensive that anyone identified with OWS would trivialize the highly skilled labor of the 99%. But there is also a vast difference between craft unions, which are often job trusts, and industrial unions in which everyone in a particular industry is organized, though even that is not absolute. After all, National Nurses United has been one of the strongest supporters of OWS and has staffed many of the medical tents of occupations around the nation.
Obviously one of the greatest weaknesses of the American labor movement is the fact that, unlike its European counterparts, it has not organized a political party of its own. That failure has tended to make it an appendage of the Democratic Party, though that subordination has gotten labor very little, which it is gradually coming to realize. It was not even able to get the Obama administration to get to take seriously the Employee Free Choice Act, much less recinding Taft Hartley.
While American labor unions are extremely bureaucratic, at their best (or unfortunately even at their best) they are probably the most democratic institutions in American society.
Inadequate as they are, they are virtually the only organizations that exist for the 99% to fight corporate power.
They have also been of direct support to OWS. It is not unreasonable to suggest that labor unions may well be responsible for the continued existence of OWS. It was labor, after all that came out and faced down the NYPD when they were about to dismantle OWS. It is the UFT that supplies OWS with storage space. It is National Nurses United that staffs Occupation medical tents throughout the nation. An attack on labor unions in an unconscionable attack on the only institutions that the 990% have to defend them in this corporate dominated culture. Solidarity forever!
I Agree !!!!!!!!!!!!
The unions are hardened and still angry from getting bombed (literally) during the coal strikes of yesteryear.
But I believe they are essentially people movements who will come to join with OWS, so I will put up with them and understand them
Unions functions should be to protect their workers from unfair treatment not bribe politicians. When you look at how much money is paid by unions to finance campaigns it is just as much if not more than corporations. For instance, look how much the Am Fed of Teachers has put towards campaign funding, well above many corporations, yet they are huge supporters of OWS.