Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: why i no longer occupy

Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 18, 2011, 1:36 p.m. EST by monahan (272)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

  1. Unions buy politicians like corporations 2.you suppress views that are not your own3.your communists at the core I am not.

144 Comments

144 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 13 years ago
  1. when it's said we want to remove the money from Washington that includes unions.
  2. When we suppress views that are not our own it's usually because it's some political B.S that does nothing but cloud the real issues.
  3. were not communists but there are communists that support the OWS movement.
[-] 1 points by monahan (272) 13 years ago

So why not support publicly funded campaigns

[-] 2 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 13 years ago

Misunderstood what you said at first. Tired, my brain isn't working. =)

I do support publicly funded campaigns and so do most of the OWS protesters.

[-] 0 points by monahan (272) 13 years ago

Then why are there links all over to a site supporting $100 campaign contributions all over here the unions would love that.

[-] 1 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 13 years ago

I don't know... I wouldn't donate 1 penny online though. Who knows where the money is going. If you want to donate, do it directly at your local Occupy movement. I would also donate supplies, blankets or food instead of money.

[-] 1 points by monahan (272) 13 years ago

I'm talkin about unions supporting $100 campaign contributions we need publicly funded campaigns

[-] 0 points by monahan (272) 13 years ago

The core the organizers are communists obama is there dictator bought and paid for buy the unions

[-] 2 points by Nicolas (258) from Québec, QC 13 years ago

The joining of the unions is the same as the eventual joining of politicians. They join because if they don't they will loose their constituents. Their hierarchy does not transfer and holds no power in the #OWS movement.

It would be absurd to exclude people who are members of worker unions to join the movement, and it's only natural that the unions will declare support if their members massively support the movement. Will it mean there will be resistance and debate within the movement when the time comes to confront union financial donations to political campaigns? Sure. But the "union bosses" will not have a privileged soap box in that discussion, and I don't believe there will be fierce resistance from the members. No donations to political campaigns means less individual member contributions, and they will not seem so necessary if the whole campaign process is not a gigantic auction anymore.

[-] 1 points by monahan (272) 13 years ago

OWS has not allied with union members but unions themselves.

[-] 2 points by Nicolas (258) from Québec, QC 13 years ago

You got that backwards. Unions have allied with #OWS. #OWS is dominant in this relationship. There just isn't a power structure in the movement that would allow the union hierarchy to dictate anything to #OWS as a whole.

[-] 2 points by Meeky (186) from Los Angeles, CA 13 years ago

Unions buy politicians like corporations

  • We'll deal with them when their time comes.

Suppress views that are not your own.

  • We need to make a focused set of demands. Of course we will have to trim the fat. We can all discuss those other views at another time.

your communists at the core I am not.

  • We are many things and we have no core.
[-] 0 points by monahan (272) 13 years ago

Your in la come too zucati and meet your core the time to deal with unions are now

[-] 1 points by bron020 (12) 13 years ago

Actually I Think that the movement has done a good job in keeping the unions out of our key message. the problem now is that the Conservatives are trying to hijack our movement.

[-] 1 points by monahan (272) 13 years ago

Thanks to the right being alienated by union hats

[-] 1 points by monahan (272) 13 years ago

No the problem is your not the 99 without the right

[-] 1 points by ezeqruiel (2) 13 years ago

Adopting a focus demand would be like arguing with a five year old child that they did something wrong. The 1%'ers understand the spirit of the deal. No need to argue over semantics or split hairs

[-] 1 points by ezeqruiel (2) 13 years ago

Adopting a focus demand would be like arguing with a five year old child that they did something wrong. The 1%'ers understand the spirit of the deal. No need to argue over semantics or split hairs

[-] 1 points by AnneRidley (73) from New York, NY 13 years ago

Then they understand more than I do, and I'm one of the 99%. Semantics are pretty damn important to me, and you better believe no one is going to respond to you if they can't even tell what you're asking for.

[-] 1 points by monahan (272) 13 years ago

Any comments

[-] 1 points by pw1539 (24) 13 years ago

if everyone does not work together, who will stop the 1%? http://occupywallst.org/forum/this-cannot-be-a-republican-or-democratic-movement/

[-] 1 points by monahan (272) 13 years ago

OWS is a union protest

[-] 1 points by monahan (272) 13 years ago

Throw the union hats out

[-] 1 points by laoccupier (5) 13 years ago

I think that the whole concept of "occupying" any place and refusing to leave is so negative, despite the good intentions of this movement to bring about "economic justice".

We should be FREEING our country of political corruption, of policies which don't work, freeing our citizens of enslavement to financial institutions and capitalist practices which don't work, freeing the populace of its misery and its lack of employment with new job opportunities...it's much more positive, and the whole focus of the protests being "what's wrong with america" is difficult to fathom, for many people. Its the constructive solutions that we need to come up with, the "bridging the gap", that we are missing at this point. ("Where there is no vision, the people perish.") ancient proverb

[-] 1 points by monahan (272) 13 years ago

Agreed nomoneypolitics.com a meetup group on meetup.com

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 13 years ago

Agreed.

Communists and anarchists are putting the protest in jeopardy because they don't want a set of demands that go against their political agenda.

Its been one month. It should be clear to everyone that this aimless protest will dissolve eventually.

[-] 1 points by monahan (272) 13 years ago

Agreed

[-] 1 points by Macrocosm (7) from Santa Maria, CA 13 years ago

calling people communists and neo mccarthyism is not going to do much good. unions have had swiftly dwindling power since the thirties. these suggestions do address solution to the injury, the injury is obvious. i ahve read some many lists of grievances, it is solutions that elude us. but next time i see good list i will post it here. i think the ORDER is important. i am no expert, but i see that a priority list needs to form, and that the first three are essential in first place.

1 Money out of politics 2 Direct vote, shorten election window 3 troops come home, at least ones in all non essential posts, reduce or convert military for peaceful use. Disband Homeland Security and Patriot act.

imagine what those three on their own might accomplish. then think of the next three to follow.

4 nationalize banks that are too big to fail who took bailout money, reinstate glass steagall or similar regulations and safeguards. break up monopolies. renegotiate loans.

5 Convert NASA to Apollo Project for green energy, nationalize salvageable failed green energy companies, and align schools to prepare for the transition towards a green relocalized future.

6 Student Loans forgive, OR, at least deductible for 20 years like capital losses are (?) with no interest.

there are many other good ones that can follow here, but these are first and second stage ones that could get economy back on track with jobs, and going in right direction.

[-] 1 points by monahan (272) 13 years ago

How do you propose getting the money out of politics with union hats in the park

[-] 1 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 13 years ago

When the economy collapses, it will be too late.

[-] 1 points by monahan (272) 13 years ago

That's what the communists want

[-] 1 points by Avoice (81) 13 years ago

Sounds like a Tea Party Platform right there.

[-] 1 points by monahan (272) 13 years ago

No I don't follow you nor do I follow unions

[-] 1 points by thebeastchasingitstail (1912) 13 years ago

Copying because I think it's good.

Avoice 2 points 23 seconds ago

I belong to a union and I'm also self employed. I pay union dues and MTA employer tax. I proudly belong to an organization that some would compare to a communist work structure and yet I'm a fiscal conservative republican who is a moderate on social issues. Unions fight for wages, benefits and working conditions of employees. aka The middle class and lower class worker. Unions also donate money to both political parties and some will endorse a candidate while other unions choose not to endorse any candidate. The main reason that unions give money to politicians is that you have to pay to get any access even at the state level. Most union members believe that it is a waste of money but until the rules of the game are changed things will stay the same. If anyone thinks that unions come even close to that of corporations and are part of the cause of the economic collapse must also believe any statements by think tanks like the Manhattan Institute which are funded by the Koch brothers.

[-] 1 points by monahan (272) 13 years ago

So why not public funded campaigns not in union intrests huh

[-] 1 points by Avoice (81) 13 years ago

No one said unions are against publicly funded campaigns. I would rather not have union PAC funds (Political Actions Committee) wasted on trying to get access to the democratic process, As the game stands now, money is the key to access and as long as generations of Americans chose not to be a voice in the democratic process and realize the power of their single vote it will be business as usual with corporations making slight adjustments to comfortably remain in power.

[-] 1 points by monahan (272) 13 years ago

I agree unions quite all our voices

[-] 1 points by Avoice (81) 13 years ago

You may not like it but a gathering of people who organize and set up a Constitution with the mission of better standards of living and working conditions for the working class isn't a bad idea. A union hasn't silenced my voice. It made my voice louder.

[-] 1 points by copywallstreet (2) 13 years ago

if you look at this video you will never more occupy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjOii-ICWDs

[-] 1 points by monahan (272) 13 years ago

I won't till they throw out the union hats

[-] 1 points by thenextsteps (21) 13 years ago

communism is against protesting and freedom of speech lol So you support facism? Interesting how people who call others communist typically support it lol

[-] 1 points by ChicagoT (54) 13 years ago

I'm not sure that I agree that anything needs to go...per se... some things may... I think many things need to be put back in their place.... their influence on the government law making body has to stop.... all influence that corrupts government must be curtailed... this will only come from the politicians... no one is going to put themselves at a competitive disadvantage by volunteering to be first.... doesn't happen that way...

[-] 1 points by monahan (272) 13 years ago

Publicly funded campaigns

[-] 1 points by anotherone773 (734) from Carlyle, IL 13 years ago

"Unions buy politicians like corporations " - So? Almost all of us are against no campaign contribution from anyone but individual people. Some are against unions, including me. Unions should not exist. It is the govt job to make sure businesses behave not another corrupt entity that acts EXACTLY like a corporation but has people as its goods.

".you suppress views that are not your own"- No we suppress trolls and people who insult.

"your communists at the core I am not"- who told you that? i see very few communists on here and im on here a good portion of the day reading and answering post.

[-] 1 points by monahan (272) 13 years ago

No we need publicly funded campaigns

[-] 1 points by anotherone773 (734) from Carlyle, IL 13 years ago

If you mean individual only campaign contributions then yes that is one of the goals that seems to be popular.

[-] 1 points by monahan (272) 13 years ago

No those are unions supporting that think about it

[-] 1 points by anotherone773 (734) from Carlyle, IL 13 years ago

what are you talking about? unions contribute money as a group not as individuals.

[-] 1 points by monahan (272) 13 years ago

They will have there members donate tell them where to put there money

[-] 1 points by anotherone773 (734) from Carlyle, IL 13 years ago

So?If you are dumb enough to do what some lackey wanna be politician tells you instead of making your own choices, you already have some serious problems.

Unions need to be outlawed anyway. They are doing the govt job which the govt cannot do because they are to busy writing laws to make the corps richer.

[-] 0 points by monahan (272) 13 years ago

The unions lead to bailouts

[-] 1 points by superman22x (188) 13 years ago

Unions donate the most to any campaign - truth.

[-] 1 points by monahan (272) 13 years ago

All the unions together you are right

[-] 1 points by ChicagoT (54) 13 years ago

Are we talking socialism or communism? redistribution of wealth is a socialistic agenda... working in government owned businesses is a communistic agenda.... I don't think anyone is advocating the government take over everything...are they? ;-)

[-] 1 points by monahan (272) 13 years ago

Yes they are in ny

[-] 1 points by vostek (8) 13 years ago

I though smaller government was the way to go. I know for a fact that many in OWS are Ron Paul supporters, and he is all about smaller government.

[-] 1 points by monahan (272) 13 years ago

Not the core the organizers

[-] 1 points by SanityScribe (452) 13 years ago

"Unions buy politicians like corporations •We'll deal with them when their time comes."

Perhaps it's that time?

Lobbyists..

Top 10 Heavy Hitters:

ActBlue..... $55,745,059

AT&T Inc..... $47,571,779

American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees.... $46,167,658

National Assn of Realtors..... $40,718,176

Service Employees International Union......$37,634,367

National Education Assn.......$37,051,378

Goldman Sachs........ $35,790,579

American Assn for Justice.......$34,715,804

Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers......... $34,292,471

Laborers Union........ $31,876,950

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/index.php

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.php

[-] 1 points by itsall1 (6) 13 years ago

housing bubble crisis parody..how wall street got greedy!. RAGE AGAINST THE CORPORATE MACHINE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zj_9lTp-2k

[-] 0 points by monahan (272) 13 years ago

And the unions that helped cause the crisis

[-] 1 points by Mcc (542) 13 years ago

Don't fall for this psychological crap from any one percent goon. It's an obvious attempt to discredit our cause and break our will. Don't fall for it. Just follow the law and keep protesting no matter what the one percent goons say or do. Our message is vital. Below is my two cents:

We have been mislead by Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama, and nearly every other public figure. Economic growth, job creation, and actual prosperity are not necessarily a package deal. In fact, the first two are horribly misunderstood. Economic growth/loss (GDP) is little more than a measure of wealth changing hands. A transfer of currency from one party to another. The rate at which it is traded. This was up until mid ’07′ however, has never been a measure of actual prosperity. Neither has job creation. The phrase itself has been thrown around so often, and in such a generic political manner, that it has come to mean nothing. Of course, we need to have certain things done for the benefit of society as a whole. We need farmers, builders, manufacturers, transporters, teachers, cops, firefighters, soldiers, mechanics, sanitation workers, doctors, managers, and visionaries. Their work is vital. I’ll even go out on a limb and say that we need politicians, attorneys, bankers, investors, and entertainers. In order to keep them productive, we must provide reasonable incentives. We need to compensate each by a fair measure for their actual contributions to society. We need to provide a reasonable scale of income opportunity for every independent adult, every provider, and share responsibility for those who have a legitimate need for aid. In order to achieve and sustain this, we must also address the cost of living and the distribution of wealth. Here, we have failed miserably. The majority have already lost their home equity, their financial security, and their relative buying power. The middle class have actually lost much of their ability to make ends meet, re-pay loans, pay taxes, and support their own economy. The lower class have gone nearly bankrupt. In all, its a multi-trillion dollar loss taken over about 30 years. Millions are under the impression that we need to create more jobs simply to provide more opportunity. as if that would solve the problem. It won’t. Not by a longshot. Jobs don’t necessarily create wealth. In fact, they almost never do. For the mostpart, they only transfer wealth from one party to another. A gain here. A loss there. Appreciation in one community. Depreciation in another. In order to create net wealth, you must harvest a new resource or make more efficient use of one. Either way you must have a reliable and ethical system in place to distribute that newly created wealth in order to benefit society as a whole and prevent a lagging downside. The ‘free market’ just doesn’t cut it. Its a farce. Many of the jobs created are nothing but filler. The promises empty. Sure, unemployment reached an all-time low under Bush. GDP reached an all-time high. But those are both shallow and misleading indicators. In order to gauge actual prosperity, you must consider the economy in human terms. As of ’08′ the average American was working more hours than the previous generation with far less equity to show for it. Consumer debt, forclosure, and bankruptcy were also at all-time highs. As of ’08′, every major American city was riddled with depressed communities, neglected neighborhoods, failing infrastructures, lost revenue, and gang activity. All of this has coincided with massive economic growth and job creation. Meanwhile, the rich have been getting richer and richer and richer even after taxes. Our nation’s wealth has been concentrated. Again, this represents a multi-trillion dollar loss taken by the majority. Its an absolute deal breaker. Bottom line: With or without economic growth or job creation, you must have a system in place to prevent too much wealth from being concentrated at the top. Unfortunately, we don’t. Our economy has become nothing but a giant game of Monopoly. The richest one percent already own nearly 1/2 of all United States wealth. More than double their share before Reagan took office. Still, they want more. They absolutely will not stop. Now, our society as a whole is in serious jeapordy. Greed kills.

[-] 1 points by joewealthyhaha (152) 13 years ago

dude, you talk about "distributing wealth" and that "the free market doesnt work anymore"... the marxist society you want has been tried...and failed miserably. read your history books. Our system is not perfect and can stand some improvement and tweeking, but scrapping it for marxism as you suggest is taking a step 100 years backwards.

[-] 1 points by Mcc (542) 13 years ago

I'm not a Marxist. I'm a modest capitalist. I want reasonable limits and/or policies designed to prevent a heavy concentration of wealth. That's not Marxism.

[-] 1 points by joewealthyhaha (152) 13 years ago

so you want to prevent people from being too successful? how do you do that? and what counter incentives would that create? so i want to be a professional football player but im too slow, should we make the other pros wear ankle weights or heavy boots so the playing field is fair? the problem is not that others are too rich or successful, the problem is that you are not, and the remedy is not to penalize others but for you to find a way to achieve your goals, by yourself and without momma government helping you. so go do it and stop whining that the system is holding you back

[-] 1 points by Mcc (542) 13 years ago

You are making way too many outrageous assumptions. C'mon already. Check your history. We had policies to prevent concentration of wealth from the '40's to the late '70's. None of them had anything to do with ankle weights. They had more to do with tax policy. In fact, those policies were put in place specifically to reverse the obscene concentration of wealth that took place in the years leading up to the Great Depression. They worked. Unfortunately, some die hard right wing wacko Hollywood actor turned politician did away with them in the '80's. They were wittled away further and further by another right wing wacko in the early part of this century. Throw in a Democratic party that has sold out as far as the Republicans have along with an entire culture obsessed with getting rich and you can see the problem. All of that wealth has been concentrated all over again. What I am calling for is cultural behavior and/or government policies to reverse the trend and put the lion's share of United States wealth back where it belongs. With the lower 90 percent who by the way are sharing less than 10 percent of United States wealth as we speak. No. The problem is not that I'm not rich. I don't want to be. But I do want some reasonable distribution so that so many of my fellow citizens don't have to struggle. Yup.

[-] 1 points by joewealthyhaha (152) 13 years ago

what planet are you on? you confuse taxing income with redistribution of wealth. we already have a very progressive tax system. and if you want to redistribute wealth you are talking about revolution, stealing, class warfare, etc, all of which have been tried (Marxism, 100 years ago). your arguments are unfocused and all over the place, not based on facts or accurate history. you are so typical of the OWS movement -- bunch of generation Ws (for Whining). just go away, your 15 minutes are up. you sicken me

[-] 1 points by Mcc (542) 13 years ago

No. I'm not confusing anything. Those policies along with WW II did in fact, cause a redistribution of wealth. Damn right it did. Otherwise, there never would have been a recovery. And no. After you account for all taxes and fees (state, local, federal), our system isn't very progressive at all. The rate is within 3 percentages points. This is why all those misleading claims that the rich pay a higher rate always refer to federal income tax. Not all taxes and fees combined. If you think I'm a Marxist, then you don't know what Marxism is. I'm not a Marxist. I'm a modest capitalist. 15 minutes? Try 6 years and counting. I'm not going anywhere and chumps like you will never intimidate me. Now get out of my face. I have work to do.

[-] 1 points by kevinsutavee (209) 13 years ago

stopped reading this diatribe the moment the writer called the poster a "goon" ... for seemingly having a different opionion

[-] 0 points by monahan (272) 13 years ago

The unions are greedy I live below the poverty level

[-] -1 points by monahan (272) 13 years ago

Yes unions and occupiers are greedy

[-] 2 points by Hellomynameis (243) from Aptos, CA 13 years ago

Oh I responded to you honestly down below..... turns out you are just a troll.

"They see me trollllinnnnnn....."

[-] 0 points by monahan (272) 13 years ago

No I'm not a pawn for unions

[-] 2 points by Hellomynameis (243) from Aptos, CA 13 years ago

You are a pawn for someone.... apparently :)

[-] 0 points by monahan (272) 13 years ago

We all are if we don't get to nomoneypolitics

[-] 1 points by Hellomynameis (243) from Aptos, CA 13 years ago

I agree with that :)

[-] 1 points by monahan (272) 13 years ago

So throw the union hats out we can't get that now

[-] 1 points by Hellomynameis (243) from Aptos, CA 13 years ago

But that's just our opinion of what we want for the movement.... not necessarily the views of the entire movement.

[-] 1 points by monahan (272) 13 years ago

That's what many union individuals in zucotti want it the only American concensus.

[-] 1 points by Joey789 (34) 13 years ago

Totally agree. Thats why we need a focus demand that unite both left and right. Thats the true 99%

http://occupywallst.org/forum/our-1st-demand-needs-to-be/

[-] 2 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3360) from New York, NY 13 years ago

Unions buy politicians so that the 99% can get paid living wages in a safe working environment.

Corporations buy politicians for the exact opposite reasons.

[-] 1 points by Joey789 (34) 13 years ago

Exactly, the corporation influence on the politicians will not benefit the general public

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3360) from New York, NY 13 years ago

But the union influence on the politicians is something that will benefit a portion of the general public.

So that is why the person who made this post is wrong

[-] 1 points by Joey789 (34) 13 years ago

There's many ways that can benefit the public.

The focus of the demand is to ban federal campaign contributions by the corporations.

In turns, it will benefit the general public.

[-] 1 points by monahan (272) 13 years ago

Agreed you need to throw the union hats out first

[-] 1 points by monahan (272) 13 years ago

I have a meetup.com group nomoneypolitics.com

[-] -1 points by MikeyD (581) from Alameda, CA 13 years ago

That just isn't happening. There are/were a LOT of reasonable voices on this forum that have been basically shouted down by Union supporting Obama zealots who want to preserve the status quo. Look at the "Best Quotes of the Day" if you need proof of that.

I was optimistic, at first, that a narrowly defined set of goals could actually make this movement representative of 99% of the people who are pissed off at our leadership in Washington for being corporate stooges, but this group cant even build a consensus to march on Washinton for fear of hurting Obama politically.

Its not just sad, its pathetic.

[-] 1 points by Joey789 (34) 13 years ago

It would not be easy to bring everyone to a consensus.

But it seem that the demand can be a common goal for the general public.

If we can just keep trying to spread this message across to the 99% of the people.

[-] 0 points by MikeyD (581) from Alameda, CA 13 years ago

Yeah, what is that message?

[-] 1 points by Joey789 (34) 13 years ago

The demand to ban federal campaign contributions by anyone other than an individual, thus to cut the influence of big corporation on our politicians.

[-] 0 points by MikeyD (581) from Alameda, CA 13 years ago

Been their, done that. Where do you think we got 527 groups from, like the makers of Fahrenheit 9-11, Hillary the Movie, the Swift Boat Vets for truth, etc,etc,etc,etc,etc.

They don't contribute to any campaign, they just place their own ads. What, you gonna ask for them to be silenced?

[-] 1 points by Joey789 (34) 13 years ago

No one need to be silenced, except the big corporation. We as an individual need our voice heard.

If we don't ban the contributions from the big corporation, our voice will never be as loud as the big corporation, since the funding from the individuals can never compete.

Most of all, the request of big corporation is seldom benefitial to the general public, not to say harmful.

[-] 0 points by MikeyD (581) from Alameda, CA 13 years ago

So you want to ban Union contributions as well, right?

How are you going to get Corporations to quit paying for their own political advertisements around election time?

[-] 0 points by YuckFouHippies (189) 13 years ago

If you cut the unions from the occupy crowd you'd have like 23 supporters. Oh and the 60-odd bums that already live there. I think OWS has failed to clearly articulate a plan is they have thrown pasta at a wall and are looking for anything that will stick. Pick a voice, announce your true message and see what % you really represent. The proof will be in the pudding if this survives thanksgiving when the college crowd goes home and has to look dad in the eye and explain how he spent the last 2 months. He won't be back after thanksgiving.....

[-] 1 points by Macrocosm (7) from Santa Maria, CA 13 years ago

I am really scratching my head over your willful ignorance. it is really hard to grasp. since late september i have had full transcript of their positions and it is impressive. regardless, it is quite obvious what the positions are, you have to be stubborn and blind not to see.

[-] 1 points by monahan (272) 13 years ago

Your right

[-] 0 points by ChicagoT (54) 13 years ago

I find it interesting that some people think the Unions are different from other major corporations. If you take an objective look you will see that they aren't. They just represent a different product line (unskilled and semi-skilled labor). Remember that airline pilots are unionized too, so don't think unions only represent the little guy. No one gets wealthy working for someone else. Never has happened in the history of man, never will. You can make millions, but it will always just be a portion of the amount made by the business owner. A lot of simple economic reasons for that.... don't try to rewrite history because you don't like the story....

Back to the Unions, just like businesses they must generate revenue to stay in business. No entity can be self sustaining without generating a profit. Profit is nothing more than savings in the form of unused revenue. The product unions sell is increased prosperity for their members. For that promise the member contribute to the union (this is the revenue). Because they are non-profit, their "profit" is call reserve... which rank and file call their "war chest'. It allows them to weather tough times, just like profit does for a for-profit business.

One of the risks in a movement is that the members won't acknowledge basic facts and therefor look either ill-informed or misinformed. To continue to have relevance you must not look stupid or ignorant. (both have specific definitions) Once you do your opinion becomes irrelevant.... don't become irrelevant... it hurts the cause....

[-] 1 points by monahan (272) 13 years ago

Be coherant

[-] 0 points by kaylamint (12) from Canton, TX 13 years ago

amen brother

[-] -1 points by monahan (272) 13 years ago

The unions need to go

[-] 3 points by Hellomynameis (243) from Aptos, CA 13 years ago

The union support needs to go from OWS? Or they need to disappear from America all together? My problem is.... this anti-union sentiment (and from what I've researched, some of it is justified) can be traced straight back to corporate influence. As much as I hate the stories of unions demanding to be over paid, we all owe our 5 day, 40 hour work week to them.

I'm a future history teacher, and am fully aware of the problems unions and tenure cause within our public education system. I, however, would rather have a union who is (at least partially) responsible to it's members rather than a company responsible only to it's share holders setting the standard for how many hours a week I should be working.

[-] 0 points by TakeAmericaBack (39) 13 years ago

Unions have their function at certain times in an abusive economy - TODAY - Unions simply cause inefficiency and over market labor issues. Time and place...

[-] 2 points by Hellomynameis (243) from Aptos, CA 13 years ago

Who is to say my "standard work week" won't be intensified slowly after Unions disappear? Again... why would I want the standard work day/week to be set by a corporation who is only responsible to its' shareholders?

[-] 1 points by TakeAmericaBack (39) 13 years ago

This is true in principle -but market equillibrium is a natural force and it will find it's level place. Our rates and productivity MUST be competitive on a global scale to compete with foreign labor markets - this cannot be avoided. Our labor market must adjust and it's going downward this time. Unions need to let the labor rates drop naturally to demand. Or go out of business.

[-] 1 points by Hellomynameis (243) from Aptos, CA 13 years ago

This is where I lose you... because I thought the unions doing the most damage were through government salaries? Your concept only applies to factory labor, which China will always beat us with their willingness to employ child labor at 3 dollars an hour. Are we supposed to take 3$ an hour, 14 hours a day to compete?

[-] 1 points by TakeAmericaBack (39) 13 years ago

No absolutely not, agreed there, and yes my comments are geared more towards labor for lower end manufacturing. I have been on construction jobs with unions and it was more than a joke in how inefficient and slow these guys were, all these non-productive rules were just killers. That cannot complete in the long term. We have to become efficient with our labor.

I think unions did a great job in times past, but there is a law of diminishing returns when talking about labor rates.

[-] 1 points by Hellomynameis (243) from Aptos, CA 13 years ago

"I think unions did a great job in times past, but there is a law of diminishing returns when talking about labor rates."

Very well said!

[-] 0 points by monahan (272) 13 years ago

You buy our votes

[-] 2 points by Hellomynameis (243) from Aptos, CA 13 years ago

How do I do that?

[-] 0 points by monahan (272) 13 years ago

Throw the hats out of the park

[-] 2 points by Hellomynameis (243) from Aptos, CA 13 years ago

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying..

[-] 1 points by Avoice (81) 13 years ago

You have no vote to buy. Corporations are not going to relinquish their power over you until you take one small step into a voting booth and pull the lever.

[-] 1 points by monahan (272) 13 years ago

I have no representation

[-] 1 points by Avoice (81) 13 years ago

That is one statement I do agree with you on in regard to your choice not to vote in the democratic process. I'm still amazed at the power of the vote. I was always fascinated by it.

[-] 2 points by Avoice (81) 13 years ago

I belong to a union and I'm also self employed. I pay union dues and MTA employer tax. I proudly belong to an organization that some would compare to a communist work structure and yet I'm a fiscal conservative republican who is a moderate on social issues. Unions fight for wages, benefits and working conditions of employees. aka The middle class and lower class worker. Unions also donate money to both political parties and some will endorse a candidate while other unions choose not to endorse any candidate. The main reason that unions give money to politicians is that you have to pay to get any access even at the state level. Most union members believe that it is a waste of money but until the rules of the game are changed things will stay the same. If anyone thinks that unions come even close to that of corporations and are part of the cause of the economic collapse must also believe any statements by think tanks like the Manhattan Institute which are funded by the Koch brothers.

[-] -1 points by thisplaceissilly (6) 13 years ago

Because you're smarter than the dirty hippy people shitting in a park because they don't have a job?

[-] 1 points by monahan (272) 13 years ago

I don't have a job either am still dirty but yes probably better informed

[-] 1 points by thisplaceissilly (6) 13 years ago

Only you can answer if you are dirty or not. Having a job is no indication of cleanliness, being a hippy that shits in a park for days on end is a good indication.

[-] 1 points by monahan (272) 13 years ago

I'm no hippie I look like a marine

[-] -1 points by Occula (2) 13 years ago

Why don't you all just go home. Everyone else in society, people I talk to, are laughing at you. You are wasting your time. No one will listen to you. and if you turn violent, you will be dealt with.

[-] 1 points by MyHeartSpits (448) 13 years ago

"It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford

If they are laughing, it's because they don't understand.

[-] 0 points by Occula (2) 13 years ago

I understand economics more than all of you combined. You need to go back to school because you are very very very ignorant, as well as stupid. If you don't understand that, then you should just move to Cuba where you will get all the handouts you want.

[-] 1 points by MyHeartSpits (448) 13 years ago

Oh okay, you know more than Henry Ford. Sure.

[-] -1 points by ArrestAllCEOS (115) 13 years ago

Oh look another right wing scumbag

[-] 2 points by pissedoffconstructionworker (602) 13 years ago

Not new, this guy has been posting variations on this same theme over and over.

[-] 1 points by SanityScribe (452) 13 years ago

Lobbyists..

Top 10 Heavy Hitters:

ActBlue..... $55,745,059

AT&T Inc..... $47,571,779

American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees.... $46,167,658

National Assn of Realtors..... $40,718,176

Service Employees International Union......$37,634,367

National Education Assn.......$37,051,378

Goldman Sachs........ $35,790,579

American Assn for Justice.......$34,715,804

Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers......... $34,292,471

Laborers Union........ $31,876,950

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/index.php

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.php

[-] 1 points by meep (233) 13 years ago

"scumbag" is exactly the kind of talk that keeps us from reason. Don't lower yourself to hate rhetoric. You don't have to be PC but if you see your political opponents as the enemy they you only contribute to our paralysis as a nation.

[-] 1 points by monahan (272) 13 years ago

No I live in poverty I thought that's what this was about not right or left