Forum Post: Unions will taint Occupy Wall Street movement
Posted 12 years ago on Oct. 4, 2011, 11:31 p.m. EST by IndependentVoice
(19)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
They're too associated with the Democratic Party and are not independent. It's like corporations and the Republican Party co-opting the Tea Party movement.
Plus, public employee unions are part of the government and part of the problem with government.
Hahahahha. Forumworker, go look for a Sara Palin Rocks forum, troll off and most importantly, grow a brain. If it weren't for socialists, who started the unions in this country in the early 20th century, workers wouldn't have such "entitlements" as benefits, breaks, pensions and then social security, etc. Shoo.
Right, and now the things that unions demanded are guaranteed by law. So, why are they still needed?
To make sure they still remain law. Familiar with the Wisconsin protests???????
You're a repug if you're against unions. Troll off. Unions are of the people, by the people and for the people. If you really understood them or ever worked in one, you would understand.
You're totally missing the point if you don't realize Republicans and Democrats are both controlled and financed by the private cartel known as the Federal Reserve.
Jesus I thought I was alone. Maybe there is hope for this "democratic" movement.
I come from a big union family. I was a member of the UAW, as were my dad and my sister. So, save your solidarity crap. I am talking about public employee unions anyway.
union workers are the laziest, fattest most entitled snobs on earth they want 100k a year to do something a monkey could do
Don't you think workers in the richest country in the world deserve good wages? Why shouldn't we all have good wages?
Personally, I'm 54 and have been working 60 hour weeks since I was 16 but I'm beginning to question whether that's right. This is the richest country in the world and the rich have been getting MASSIVELY richer while we're fighting for scraps, like dogs under the table of the elite nobles.
Why?
You know, when you put down other workers, you're hurting yourself. Do you know how companies decide on the wages they will pay their employees? I happen to be an "executive" so I have some inside information on how this works. They hire companies to do surveys (or purchase them) that show the average salaries for the positions they're trying to fill in their area. If you succeed in lowering the wages or benefits of your fellow union workers, then the average salary and benefits go down. And your wages and benefits go down. And when your fellow union workers manage to negotiate higher salaries and benefits, the average goes up. And your salary and benefits go up.
So, please think about rethinking your position. Think about having the courage to engage in the paradigm shift I've been going through my whole life, and join us. We are your neighbors. We are your fellow workers. We are your peers. We are not your enemy. Join us.
Fucking disgruntled tea party infiltrators.
STOP THIS GROUP THINK
Democrats=Republicans and are subservient to the privately owned Federal Reserve. STAY FOCUSED PEOPLE!
I understand there are issues with the Federal Reserve but I'm unclear on exactly how we are "subservient" to them. Can you explain it in more detail?
Yep. The last President to challenge the Fed by issuing Executive Order 11110 was shot. That's what they do and have been doing for 50 years in this country: assassinating opposition.
I guess my question was more specific. Do you know exactly how the Fed make us subservient? For example: I know that they haven't allowed themselves to be audited so we're not entirely sure what they've been doing. But that isn't proof of anything specific. It's just mysterious and suspicious. I know they raise interest rates when inflation is a problem, to bring down inflation and I know they lower interest rates when the economy isn't growing to try to boost the economy, but I'm unclear on whether these tactics hurt us and, if so, how.
I also know that Alan Greenspan's philosophy was that they had to keep down the wages of the working class because workers with "too much" money are workers who tend to revolt against the "system". And revolts tend to get messy and Greenspan didn't want a messy society. He wanted an orderly, controlled society. But I'm unclear on exactly how he did this.
You know why they tell you they are adjusting interest rates. Let me help clear up some confusion:
National Debt as Socialism for Oligarchs
According to treasurydirect.gov, the United States privately held national debt as of July 14, 2010, is $8,639,660,769,988.28. Such an eye-popping figure, or even mere reference to the national debt in the abstract, often generates nods of agreement with the popular refrains: spending is out of control, too many welfare bums, government is inefficient, et cetera. This paper will address the money trail, how we got here, and where we might go.
Interest expenditures on the national debt from fiscal year 1988 through June of fiscal year 2010 amount to over $7.7 trillion1 according to treasurydirect.gov. Thus, the interest paid on the national debt in the last twenty-two years is just shy of ninety-percent of the privately held debt United States debt. How or why, then, is the government spending beyond its means if the debt is approximately equal to interest payments made?
The answer to how is the other component of national debt, that which is publicly held, with a nominal value over $4.5 trillion.1 There are many agencies and programs that hold this debt, with the largest single holder at about fifty-percent being the Social Security Trust Fund. Other major holders of this debt include programs for disability insurance, unemployment, hospitals, highways, and the postal service, or, to generalize in short, those programs which provide for the general welfare of the people. These programs are capable of purchasing United States debt because they are actuarially sound with revenues consistently exceeding expenditures.
The portion of the debt that is not a consequence of interest payments over the last two decades is easily accounted. According to Reuters, over $1 trillion has been spent directly on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.2 The TARP program of 2008 accounts for another $700 billion. The military receives approximately $700 billion a year.3 Hence, four or five years of military budgeting and just two misadventures of the last decade, in sum with interest payments made in recent history, account for the entirety of the national debt.
Given the outpouring of individual support for members of the military and their families in war time, it is not hard imagine the public could be convinced that taxes should be brought into balance with necessary expenditures on national security in the present rather than pay double over time through debt financing and interest payments. This leads directly to the conclusion that the national debt is not a consequence of resistance to higher taxes by the average citizen. Instead, the national debt serves a different, very specific purpose.
The Federal Reserve operates what is known as the “discount window.” According to the Fed’s website, “The discount rate charged for primary credit (the primary credit rate) is set above the usual level of short-term market interest rates.”4 This is a lie. The Federal Reserve primary discount window rate as of Feb 19, 2010 was 0.75% while 2, 5, and 10 year United States treasury bills had interest rates of 0.95%, 1.51%, and 2.48%5 respectively when interest rates were at unusually low levels due to a “flight to safety” of capital into treasury bills.6
Through the combined mechanisms of the Federal Reserve discount window and the interest payments made on treasury notes by the taxpayer, banks can borrow money from the Federal Reserve, purchase treasury notes, and profit almost without risk. This is the method of recapitalization of major banking institutions after periods of excessive risky lending, accomplished on the backs of the taxpayers behind a veil just thick enough to keep most unaware.
prove to me that is why JFK was shot.
go suck Rothschild cock
typical tinfoil hat response, if you have a theory you should be willing to provide support to that theory. if not then it is just speculation.
Public employee unions have been fighting the CEO's and corporations for years, and have done their best to hold them accountable when they screw up and kill jobs. One way the fight has been done is by governance actions of pension funds to reduce excess CEO pay. As a result, corps have paid millions to bad-mouth public employees & their pensions by using astro-turf groups. Don't let their divide-and-conquer win.
How have the public employee unions been fighting CEOs and corporations? If they did, they would be biting the hand that feeds them because CEOs and the rest of us pay public worker salaries and benefits.
Pension funds push corporations to do their jobs better via "corporate governance" efforts. Having CEO's do a good job, and a responsible job, produces better results for the investments and for us, "the economy".
There is a new tool called "Say on Pay" where stockholders like pension funds can vote against CEO excessive or undeserved pay. The 1% hates it. Just hates it. It's one of the reasons that they've funded attacks against pension funds and public employees.
It's unfortunate that the unions have become so associated with the Democratic party but we need the unions. They are the power of the working class and this is about the working class, not partisan politics.
Exactly! My father has been working for a union for 3 decades. I have never met a man that has worked harder at his job or harder to provide for his children. Granted, unions are not ideal---but it is the working class that we are trying to save. At one point in our nation's history, union workers made up more than a third of all American workers, and now only represent one-tenth of them. as with most else in our nation that was once rooted in good, unions have been infiltrated with evil. the core of their existence, though, is still what needs to be protected--the concept of fair pay, benefits, job protection, a voice for the worker, etc. whether given the title of "union" or not, all working individuals deserve these rights and more. let alone a job to begin with.
Unions have been targeted by governors all over this country. They have families to support and most are in 40s and 50s. They are inspired by you guys and want to help out. I think you should welcome them. They will bring in the numbers of bodies that can put this movement over the top.
i believe you nailed it.
Unions taint anything they touch due to the fact they are criminal organizations. There is a very good reason that JFK and RFK wanted to crush the unions.
There was a time that the unions got out of control. There is no doubt that there is always a delicate balance of powers in the world and we have to be constantly vigilant of these balances. But the balance has swung far, far away from the unions now. The vast majority of the power is in the hands of the corporations and the wealthy. We need to revivify the unions, not vilify them.
what part of the 100% do the kennedys represent?
Haha the Kennedy family's ties to the mob are well known. Even though they turned their backs on it after they were elected.
They wanted to crush unions because democracy in the workplace was bad for their corporate backers. Get real.
That's why RFK had the backing of Cesar Chavez and pretty much all non- organized crime based union support for his anticipated presidential bid. By the end of the California primary, he had stolen much of the union support McCarthy received because of the latter's endorsement by Johnson and the party establishment.
Please! Unions are nothing more than organized criminals extorting money from business owners and taxpayers.
Public workers had their pensions stolen by wall street. They are our brothers and sisters. Wise up.
We have no say about how much they are paid or what their benefits are. Their pensions are not in danger because taxpayers are required to pay what their contracts stipulate. They have more job security and much better health and retirement benefits than most people working in the private sector. Their interests are different than the average taxpayer's.
They have perks that all working people should have (though they are rapidly disappearing). The corporate thugs want to turn working people against each other. We can't let this happen. Private sector workers should fight for the same benefits instead of getting jealous. This is not to mention what happened in Wisconsin and Ohio where the public unions were stripped of bargaining rights.
I'm not jealous. I just don't want to pay for premium benefits and pay for people who work for the government while I and others like me have no job security or long-term health benefits.
So organize and try to get job security. Don't turn against working people. The enemy is corporate greed not fellow workers.
I'm turning on government workers because their pension benefits are robbing my state of funds needed for road maintenance, upkeep of parks, keeping libraries open.
My state union members offered to make concessions to balance the budget and John Lehmen Brothers and Koch brothers Kasich still blamed them for the (non-existent) budget crisis and went after bargaining rights.
Sorry, public sector unions are different. They represent the cops, jail-guards and others who screw members of their own class to protect the interests of the privileged. Where I come from, teachers would do most anything the state tells them (quite aside from teaching false history and fraudulent "civics" lessons that make it near impossible for the children of workers to ever learn their class interests - you guys would have been able to formulate a coherent platform, leaderless or otherwise, absent their tender interventions) to do. If the state wants your kids because you bucked the system, the teacher and the social worker are ready to lend a hand. Just like the cops, if there is no justifiable or legal reason for the apprehension, they'll make it up. Anything to save their jobs. Their financial parasitism on the wages of private sector unionized employees and non-unionized workers cannot be answered by, "Well you should have organized too." Those workers are in a more vulnerable position less able to press their demands and have received no help from the public sector unions.
They also represent firefighters, librarians, custodians, maintenance workers, college professors, emergency services, environmental/park workers etc.
I blame government and Wall Street for the financial debacle and the rip-off of American taxpayers. They are equally responsible.
Public sector unions should never have had collective bargaining "rights" in the first place (even FDR said so). If you're concerned about government corruption, you should be concerned about the influence of public sector unions on our government. The unions are fleecing us.
The unions are us. Public and private. There can be no hope for a middle class without organized labor.
LOL. That's not true. Look how much money lawyers, doctors, business people, etc. make. They're not unionized. Private sector unions are counterproductive. All they do is redirect resources to their greedy members while driving business bankrupt, and in process destroying jobs. The public sector unions use their political power to screw over taxpayers and restrict our freedoms.
The unions aren't us. They represent their members (about 13% of workers).
Then we need to ALL form unions so that they represent 100% of us.
But keep this in mind, when unions negotiate higher salaries and benefits, it drives up the average which causes non-union wages to go up as well.
Sure, unions have gotten out of control in our past. They are NOT out of control now. Sure, we need to be vigilant and maintain a balance of powers, but do not exclude the unions, because they are the only truly worker oriented source of power.
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2011/09/union_infographic.html That 13% of workers keeps wages higher for non union workers as well. Do you think non union auto manufacturers pay similarly to union manufacturers out of the goodness of their hearts?? Do your homework bro. Without unions wages would drop in a race to the bottom. I don't want to live in a sweatshop nation.
Your absolutely right. With out a unionized wage base, non union and minim wage salaries would be a race to the bottom. I feel all workers at all levels should be collective and negotiated.
LOL. Unions are driving jobs overseas. Look at what's happened to the heavily unionized states -- like Michigan. They all have especially bad economies, while the right-to-work states are flourishing. Do your homework, bro. http://www.mackinac.org/9422
Wages and living standards were rising rapidly before unions came into existence. In fact, banning unions would accelerate wage growth by stoking economic growth, and therefore tightening the labor market.
I'm guessing you're a union member. That would explain why you put the union royalty ahead of the common man.
No decent wages are what drives jobs overseas. Rich people prefer slave or slave-like labour conditions - yeah like those in the US before private sector unions worked to have them abolished. Google "Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire".
The "right-to-work-for-less-than-subsistence-wage" states have the highest rates of child poverty. Their workers collect food stamps at alarming rates.
"Wages and living standards were rising rapidly before unions came into existence." There was virtually no middle class in the US until unions forced concessions from greedy employers. Anyone who hasn't had their head up their ass for their entire life would understand it was post-war prosperity and unionization that raised the standard of living for the majority of Americans.
Unions have been banned in many countries around the world. Please give a single example of wages rising after unions are banned. There are no shortage of examples where wages rise when unionization is strong. Business publications complain about the general upward pressure on wages caused by unionization. Your contention is absurd.
I have never belonged to a union and do not like their politics, but I don't lie to the point where I would embarrass myself.
As I've said before, it's always a battle to balance the powers. If unions drive jobs overseas, then we need to balance that with taxes and tariffs. We must remain constantly vigilant to insure that we maintain the balance of powers. Right now, the unions have lost almost all of their power.
They've lost almost all of their power? Really? In 2008, 11 of the top 16 campaign contributors were unions : http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
Unions control our political system. It's ridiculous to say that they're powerless.
You have mis-interpreted the statistics on that site. That's the overall contributation rate from 1989 to 2012. Yes, Unions were powerful at one time but they are losing power rapidly.
Overall union membership fell from a high of 35% to 11.9% in 2010 and I know it dropped even further in 2011 but I don't recall the exact number.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/22/business/22union.html
Just a few examples: Labor unions were the 7th and 13th (last) largest contributors by sector to the Democratic and Republican parties respectively in 2010.
http://www.npr.org/2011/03/03/134209755/top-contributors-to-political-parties
The largest union contributors to the 2012 campaign so far have been 7th, 16th, 26th, 42nd, etc.
http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topcontribs.php?Bkdn=Source&Cycle=2012
In my home state of Colorado where we have excellent laws to track campaign contributions, Unions contributed 6% of the total funds.
http://www.followthemoney.org/press/ReportView.phtml?r=458
Legislation to crush unions has been introduced or passed this year in Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, Florida, Mississippi, Arizona, South Dakota, Idaho, Michigan, New Mexico, Montana, Iowa and those are just the ones I remember off the top of my head.
I've always been a big fan of Colorado -- beautiful state and very outdoorsy.
I'm actually not a union member. I simply believe that all workers should be organized. You can't speak seriously about democracy without democracy in the workplace.
Unions are trashing our country. Maybe that's why only 13% of nonunionized workers want to unionize and a large percentage of unionized workers want out of their unions. That "democracy in the workplace" stuff is silly. If you do a bad job, you should get fired.
also unions came into existence in the gilded age. wages were shit.
But wages were rising rapidly. They would have continued to rise without unions. Why do you think lawyers, doctors, etc make so much money without unionizing? It's because unions are unnecessary.
doctors and lawyers are not indicators of the average person. Factory and construction were/are the mainstays of the (lower)middle class.
That is pure crap. There is no hope for the middle class while the government gets bigger and bigger and more and more corporatist.
Like I said, private sector unions are fine. The corporations can negotiate with them. But we cannot negotiate with public sector workers who demand more and more from the politicians they offer their support to.
Uh, have you been paying attention to the Unions lately? The AFL-CIO is publicly disassociating itself with the Democratic party.
AFL-CIO head: Labor to ditch Democrats: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/62057.html
This is good but it is still important to keep #OWS focused on ideas, not groups. Bring out all the unionized workers, keep the banners at home, and push for real change like exposing the fact that the Fed is privately owned.
This is exactly right. Don't let the unions co-opt this movement or it will be over real quick. It will turn into a partisan shit storm, which I am afraid it already has. Toatally, 100% not productive.
But don't reject their help either. They are the power of the working class and this is about the working people, not partisan politics.
I agree. The media will do to the OWS movement what they did to the Tea Party. Check this out: http://www.reddit.com/r/occupywallstreet/comments/kyjo2/an_open_letter_and_warning_from_a_former_tea/
I hear ya. That's the best approach.
As if all the fucking Marxist haven't tainted this enough, now people want to bring in the organizational machine of the Democrap party.
Joe, you don't need to be so angry. Your enemy isn't those "Marxists". Because, you see, they aren't Marxists. I challenge you to find me ONE person down there on Wall Street who is actually a Marxist.
There's a reason they're calling it the "99%". It's because this is a movement of the working people against the elite "White Shirts" who sit around the pool drinking champagne, while waiting for the dividend checks to arrive and texting their billionaire buddies on cleverer and cleverer ways to screw us out of our hard earned money.
So what do you call people who are openly teaching Marx's works over there? I call them Marxist.
Marx actually had some very correct ideas about the problems with Capitalism. He just had the wrong solution. Just because somebody is teaching Marx's criticisms of Capitalism doesn't mean they would support his solution.
And of course, I'm not there so I readily admit that I could be wrong and there could be some actual Marxists there. But if there are, they are very few and far between. Keep in mind, there were some actual Nazis and Ku Klux Klan members at Tea Party rallies. That doesn't mean they were representative of the Tea Party.