Forum Post: Lose their hearts you lose thier minds. lose their minds you lose the fight
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 6, 2011, 1:37 p.m. EST by Rob
(881)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
The vast majority of Americans do not approve of unions, yet many of us are willing to bring the union in to the fold. Most of you state that the "corporation is not the individual", yet by allowing the union to advertise that they are in league with us you accept the union as the whole, not the individual. Because of the lack of any leadership this movement will be co-opted by organized labor, a corporation unto itself. Those willing to support the union joining in as a whole, not individual, will allow this grass roots movement to fail as we will lose the 99% and lose the fight. Think.
The main reason people don't agree with unions is because of propaganda in the mainstream media painting them as a legalized mob. Who do you think is behind that propaganda?
I have personally dealt with them on a business level. They are a legalized mob. But, back to the point of bringing in the corporation instead of the individual; Occupy will become nothing more than what they are fighting against. Will Occupy start accepting corporate sponsorships to have the official drink of Occupy? Occupy is already allowing free advertizment to the unions.
Why don't you describe how the union is a legalized mob? Dialogue is wanted here.
justify this http://www.realnewsreporter.com/?p=7922
Sounds like radical tactics. I don't agree with them.
I'd say that's oversimplifying many people's less than favorable opinion of some union activities. I've not been a big union fan most of my life, and I don't agree with your opinion. Everyone who disagrees with something you hold dear should not be dismissed as victims of propaganda. Much as I assume you don't want people just dismissing you as a lazy misguided immature hell raiser.
That being said, I'm attempting to become more open minded about many things. I'd encourage you to do the same.
lol Victims of propaganda. I like that.
I used to think Unions were the bad guys until I actually looked into it. They do have some bad policies, such as tenure for teachers and sometimes forcing people to join, but that is the fault of politics, not unions as institutions.
I agree that many workplaces do not need unions but also many do. Depending on the situation, unions can be blessing or a curse.
Agreed. Not every union is going to do everything perfectly but, the corps want them demonized. Forget what conditions were like before unions.."look over there! another movie star is drinking! Another crisis!" People are not being told the truth about union workers and why they were important to begin with. Anyone wanting to see unions demolished will get a rude awakening when the 1 percent make you work like a Chinese factory worker does. And they are doing it with impunity to others and they WILL do it to you.
Funny. Everyone that I know who works a Union job... likes their Union job. The only ones who DON'T like the Unions are the CEO's and 1% Elite who can't stand to pay the higher wages. So, even though I don't work in a Union shop, it doesn't take much to figure out WHO the Unions are in favor of. Right?
In case you have not noticed there is a huge push back against unions in this country. The majority are against them and that is a cold hard fact. the vast majority are non union and prefer to stay that way, so when you align yourself with something the people disagree with you will lose the argument. I do not like unions and I am not the 1%.
Another good example of Unions... Hollywood. The Actors Unions, the Camera Crew and Set Designers unions, and the Writers Unions all support the people that make up the Entertainment industry. Also, the Transportation industry is filled with unions (the Airline industry, Train industry, Subway/Transit industry, etc...). It seems to me that there are a hell-uv-a lot of people that are benefiting from unions. Right?
Have you downloaded music, movies, software etc that you had no legal right to? If so you are hurting the union by the fact that you felt the product was over priced and did not feel you should have to pay for it. just saying.
Actually, I've NEVER done that. The only thing I'm guilty of is waiting until a movie/DVD is out for a few months... and then I can buy it a lot cheaper off the shelves.
Well, like I said. I am not in a Union shop. But, the people that I know who work in Union shops seem to be quite happy... quite well-paid... and their benefits (both short-term and long-term) are protected. If you want specifics, I have friends who work for Ryder (union shop), Yellow Freight & ABF (union shops) not to mention the many Trade unions that train and support their workers. Most union shops also support the concept of American Made and they file law suits against the companies that try to transfer American jobs to overseas sweatshops. If the majority of America is against Unions... I'd have to research WHY that might be?
Yes, I have noticed a huge push back against unions, but it isn't by workers! The reason most people don't belong to unions any more is because they can't. Only certain professions are even unionized anymore and the ones that exist are being dumped with the burden of the companies mismanagement by forced negotiations over equally horrible options - pay cuts/pension cuts/health care cuts. Freelance unions are on the rise as well, as any working person gets the basis of a union. Are they perfect? No. But they've played a huge role in creating just worker protections that would never be there otherwise.
I don't know for a fact that the majority of people in this country are against unions. Where are you getting your information?
If it is a fact, then I would have to ask if the "majority" understand what their working lives would be like if there hadn't been any unions?
In addition, do they not like them because they think that union workers are overpaid? Because union workers have better pensions? If that is the case they might want to consider that it isn't that union workers have too much it is that they as non-union workers have too little. One would think they would want to rise to the more equitable pay and pension than pull the union workers down to theirs.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.t05.htm Please note that union membership is in decline. last I checked we have freedom of choice and can choose whether or not we can join a union. With that said I will share a personal story. my Uncle, a very successful man in Chicago owned a a non-unionized corrugated manufacturing company. his employees came to him and stated they wanted to unionize and he warned them that if they moved forward he would close up the business, he could afford to. The employer has freedom of choice as well, if they do not want a union shop and the union moves in, he has the right to close. Who is the winner? Look at the history of Eastern Airlines.
Union membership is in decline as much because the corporate elite and the republican party has put their money and political power behind choking them off as anything else. You don't have the freedom of choice to join a union if there aren't any available. You are right, employers have the right to close their business if employees want to unionize. However, a smart employer should ask himself what conditions exist that are pushing his employees to feel that one is necessary. I have worked in several union shops and been a union rep., and I have worked in non-union positions. They both have their drawbacks. However, I without a doubt, if you work in a large corporation or government institution a union is absolutely necessary for non-supervisory level workers. Without one they have the bureaucratic foot on their necks.
After review, I agree with Rob.
Occupy can welcome union members, just as occupy should welcome all concerned citizens. Occupy should not be hijacked by any union, occupied should not become a union occupation, hey, I like that.
Occupy to be effective would need to be a brotherhood of union and non-union alike. Of course, unions I assume may find a desire to infiltrate, take over, and even may want to tell occupy what to do. And, as I understand occupy claims to be leaderless, it would seem to be ripe for some heavy handed union influence to run it over. Then, you're just doomed to be another union, which Rob is pointing out are very much on the decline, but I'm not going to engage in arguments with union members who seem to want to tell me how wonderful unions are in every way.
Put it this way - I ain't in the 1% contrary to what most of the union folks would like to say, not even close. But, I've been very successful in my career for 24 years, I've never been union affiliated, I've been paid well and treated fairly by my employers, and noone I've every worked with has been in a union and the vast majority have a similar story to mine. Unions aren't the be all to end all for people to need to earn a living. And, it is not necessary to hear the counterargument which I'm sure is to come that all I've enjoyed I owe to some union person from decades long gone.
So, in summary, Rob is right. If Occupy becomes just an extension and mouthpiece for the union movement, it is doomed from that day forward.
Thank you, that is all I am trying to say, but some people just do not understand simple logic.
The unions are corporations that literally operate under an exemption to anti - trust law.
Look it up.
Unions, like corporations, like occupy, like democrats, like republicans, like conservatives, like liberals, like rich folk, like bums, all screw up. All human, all prone to mistakes and periods of great stupidity. Additionally, all have the opportunity to demonstrate good and exhibit periods of greatness. Occupy should try to bring everyone into the fold. Occupy should seek the greater good for all. Make enemies of none, friends of all. Be careful with your discourse and above reproach in your actions. Win over the hearts of your countrymen, not their wallets.
In theory we all are part of a union. It's called the union of 50 states. Consider your goal to continue to form a more perfect union. Can't recall exactly where I heard that before.
I am not against unions. They aren't perfect but, what is? I would rather have them and try to improve them than not have them at all.
They've already lost.
Why?
Because of comments like this. Comments designed to further divide, not as a matter of policy or belief, but as a matter of shallow affiliation, and the broad misconception that "the union" is comprised of a single, central group of leaders.
The people who marched with protesters yesterday, are not "union institutions". They're regular people, organised under a common banner. Union workers were the "grassroots" LONG before you ever even heard the word.
When you broadly paint a "group of groups" with the same broad brush, you lose the support of ALL of them. The CWA, TWU, Teamsters, etc... are NOT all the same. And if you start singling out specific groups from the whole, the ENTIRE whole will take a walk.
You'd be wise to learn that its the MESSAGE that matters, NOT the messenger.
agreed
"When you broadly paint a "group of groups" with the same broad brush, you lose the support of ALL of them. The CWA, TWU, Teamsters, etc... are NOT all the same". You are painting all corporations with a broad brush. You are painting all 1% with a broad brush. You are trying to justify what is happening to the movement because a group agrees with you. Tell them to take off the union garb and march as an individual not representing anyone else that probably has an agenda.
Their strength is in their unity, dumbass.
And you know it. And thats why you want them to strip themselves of it. GTFO with this provocateur bullshit. I saw your "example" from the NBC news article. And its ONE example of the wrong way of doing things. Were there union reps there? Was it all reps and no workers? You also failed to mentioned that the whole incident was over a corporation that pitted two unions against each other.
If that's the best you can do to paint "all" unions as inherently bad, then you truly are an imbecile, who this movement does not need "helping" with your illiterate, misinformed "suggestions".
Do you know how many people you lose instantaneously with language like that? You should strongly consider cleaning up your act. You will hurt the movement with such behavior magnitudes more than you will further its cause, no matter how just you believe it to be.
If your movement is good, it can stand on its own merits and does not need to resort to demeaning the people you so desperately need. And, whether or not you want to admit it, you need all the help you can get.
Not really.
I'm not the one trying to "exclude" anyone. That's what Rob is trying to achieve. The exclusion of an organisation (or a group of organisations) with a grievance in common with the protesters, based solely upon his ideology of being anti-union.
I encourage you to take a higher road and present your arguments in a less offensive manner. Seek common ground with Rob and everyone else and try not to assume Rob is your enemy even if he doesn't agree with everything you hold dear.
Crossing my fingers that you give it a try.
Oh, and if you are humbled enough to give it a whirl, and find it works better for you, as I suspect it might, then I suggest you tell a friend or two to do the same.
Pay It Forward my friend
I've seen this tactic from both ends of the political spectrum for a good many years. I recognized it the second I read his original post.
He assumes that the protest is being "co-opted", because he assumes that the people on the ground are incapable of keeping their message focused and at the forefront. He then uses "comparative measures" and loosely defined "circumstances" of an article he read, to paint unions with a broad accusatory brush.
I learned many years ago, that there's no "common ground" to be found with people who partake in such practices. How can I tell what his real motivations are? I asked him a number of key questions, designed to either find the common ground, or expose his ideology. Look at my replies to him. You'll find the questions within. Know what you won't find? His answers. But what you will find, is a quick and subtle change of subject, and an ignorance to see the entire picture when placing blame in his own example, typical to extremist ideology.
I have ZERO tolerance for that kind of nonsense.
I'm sorry to hear you feel that way, and will continue to hold hope you will consider what I am saying.
Zero tolerance isn't going to work for you. Regardless of the nonsense.
When you resort to name calling, you lose. There are years upon years of examples like this. They did this representing the union and you are attempting to justify it by blaming the corporation. your attitude is exactly why violence will erupt from a peaceful demonstration as you have justified damage to private property. you are wrong and you know it. Strength in numbers does not come with a t-shirt
I didn't justify anything. Nor did I "promote violence".
My "attitude", is simply representative of what I see as an apparent and obvious effort to draw a line of division between the protesters and other, established organisations who can push this movement forward, on a much grander scale, as long as the message doesn't get lost. Keeping the message focused is the job of the protesters themselves. Not any given group or spokesperson.
Keep posting. Your obviousness as an extreme anti-union, right-winger becomes more and more apparent with every comment.
You did not denounce the action, instead you implied that it was the corporations fault and they deserved what they got by not saying the union was wrong. 2 unions fighting, bloods and crips.
I guess you missed the point.
Which is that there was a force at work BEHIND the action.
Or do you consider the corporation that created the environment, and put these two unions at odds with each other to be completely blameless, and free of any responsibility?
The people who did the damage are the only ones who deserve blame. Whether or not you agree with the company is not the point, people freely CHOSE to destroy. "they made me do it" is not a valid reason for this.
Yeah. As I figured. The point was lost on you.
Now go back and find where I explicitly "promoted" or endorsed the violent outcome. Just because I didn't denounce it, doesn't mean I agreed with it.
However, class dismissed. Since you can't see the situation in its entirety, and hold those responsible for creating the environment that spurred the violence to an equal level of responsibility, any additional effort is henceforth, a waste of time. You are NOT a 99'er. You have been exposed as a "pro-1%'er". And I am hereby finished with you.
I see it all too clear.the issue here is that you are blaming the action on the corporation, not the people who did it. You are implying that the unions were forced to take this action because they "created the environment". That is a slippery slope as you can look for anything that "created the environment". Gee, that girl deserved to get raped because she dressed in such a way that created the environment of animalistic behavior (this is an example, not a comparison). Sorry I do not fit your definition of the 99% club. You are so quick to label and make personal attacks. I have never attacked you. If there are more like you then this is doomed for failure as you do not want anyone who is to the right of you involved.
Yes, I am anti union, but I had thought that my opinion counted as well. All I am saying is that when you introduce separate factions then splinter groups will form and others may become disenchanted and leave. Are you implying that anti union has no room, or voice under the umbrella? What if a group like the KKK wanted to join in because they agree as well ( they are part of the 99% too!!)? Would they be allowed to wear their robes and advertise that they support us as well? My point is that accepting one group and not accepting another will divide. accepting the individual will allow for success.
And now you want to compare unions to the KKK as some sort of "moral equalizer" to prove a point you do not have? Do you REALLY not understand the difference between offensive and non-offensive? I hate to break this to you, but there are those you might think shouldn't be there, already in attendance. To think otherwise is simply.... foolish. The key is holding the message at the forefront, and not allowing it to be lost in the noise surrounding it.
Anti-union is not "unwelcome". But to suggest that it is "more welcome" than "pro-union", and then using that premise as grounds for removing unified union participation isn't exactly what the message is all about, now is it?
That's a pretty old and effective right-wing division tactic.
Apparently you do not understand the difference between comparison and example. i used the KKK as an example of a polarizing force. So how about GLAD, or NAMBLA, or some other fringe group that has a polarizing effect. What I am trying to express here is that as soon as people start wearing different shirts and waving different banners there will be people that will be turned off. That is the point you do not understand. You keep refering to me as "right wing" and yes, i do have more conservative leanings than you, but you do not seem to grasp the fact that perhaps I might agree with this. You attitude is what will cause this to fail as you believe in the 99%, except for those who lean to the right.
No. You used them as a "comparative measure", without ANY regard to the offensiveness of those you were comparing unions to.
Tell me, how is the KKK, or any of the others you mentioned, an "example" of what unions are, or what they stand for?
And again, you "assume" that which you do not know. I have no issue with "people" who "lean right". But I DO take issue with people who lean extremely right trying to impress their views upon me.
Which incidentally, EXACTLY what you are trying to do here, no matter how much you try to deny it. You're trying to muddy up the message with extreme ideology from the far-right wing, using the typical rhetoric and noise I've witnessed from BOTH political parties for 3 decades now.
Look at the obvious before you. See the main page of this site? It says: #ows Takes Foley Square With Union Brothers And Sisters.... you have the right to deny them as YOUR "brothers and sisters" with a common grievance, but you do not have the right to demand they be excluded based on your ideology.
And with that, I'm finished with you. Because its obvious that you're so ingrained and consumed by the extreme right-wing nonsense, that there will be no common ground with you.
Perhaps I should try a simpler approach. OK, here goes. "Welcome the the island (OWS), just don't plant your flag (union)". Unfortunately because of the lack of any leadership (clear, opaque, implied, whatever) the union has been allowed to plant their flag. Care to guess what happens when a flag is planted? The planter stakes a claim and is defacto owner. This movement, like it or not ( I do not) is now a union organization. As difficult as it may be for you to grasp there are those 99%ers do not want to be affiliated with a union.
And therein lies your problem.
Your own failure to notice that the union reps have gone home, and only those actually aggrieved remain. No "flags" have been planted, and no union reps are on site trying to guide the movement into any specific direction.
The other thing you fail to realize, is that this movement has MANY messages. Not just one. And as long as people are saying its about one specific message or another, the longer and more widespread the conversation becomes.
Your anti-union ideology clouds your view of the obvious. The fact is this:
The movement welcomes the unions. But they won't welcome any attempts to hijack the movement into a specific direction on a single issue. By ANYONE. Because this movement carries MANY flags, from MANY different organisations. Union and non-union alike. Left AND right. Republican AND democrat. Students, teachers, construction workers, nurses, firefighters..... THOUSANDS of fields.
If you can't understand and accept that simple fact, then you clearly have no idea what any of this is about.
couldn't agree more