All things Union

[RGacky3]

Public Unions?

Trade vrs Industrial?

What different direct action tools are effective?

Strike as a weapon or last resort?

Major reformist unions? or only Radical Unions?

Are Union and Party alliances Positive?

Should Unions take political positions or fight political battles?

Should decisions be made by the shop? A Central body? Industry wide? And when and under what circumstances?

What economic reponsibilities should the union have?

How much negotiation?

Issues with modern Unions?

Lets talk everything union.

[danyboy27]

i think a dual system where half of the industries are controlled by union and the other half are controled by a democratic governement would be a good compromise for everyone.

People would be free to either work for the union (democratic workplace) or the governement (half democratic workplace).


it would also be easier to micromanage that way.

[RGacky3]

Your talking about system building here, I'm talking about union strategies and issues now.

For example one MAJOR reason unions fell in the US was, in my opinion, union weakness, they saw them selves as deal makers, and they saw strikes as the last last resort, which ment they allowed layoffs to happen, they did'nt try and stop it in the 1980s, they tried to work with manegemen, that was one factor that contributed, they did'nt put up a fight.

Another reason obviously was politics (the government refusing to enforce labor laws after reagen, and the democrats working for buisiness because the unions gave them unconditional support), and the huge surge of capital's power from the 70s on.

Thats on reason why I think Unions should always be on the offensive, especially when a company is trying to cut labor costs, US unions thought they had to play it safe so they did'nt have to loose it all, and juts made deals where they lost, as soon as they do that it essencailly means the buisiness class can strip more and more away until the unions are powerless.

Now the US labor movement is relatively weak, getting stronger, but still relatively weak, if it wants to gain power it has to be aggressive, pre-emptive strikes, sit ins, occupations everything, even for small gains. Unions need to think of it as class war not "hey, lets figure this out," because guess what the buisinesses are maximizing profits no matter what.

[danyboy27]

unions should seek to control the mean of production completely.

i think being in constant conflict with the bosses is rather unproductive.

organisations like the teamsters have been collecting a lot of money over the year, they should use it to purchase the industries in wich they work to gain complete autonomy instead of being constantly forced to bicker and fight with their bosses.

This perpetual stalemate where union confront bosses and bosses confront union in a never ending conflict have to be broken one day.

[RGacky3]

they should use it to purchase the industries in wich they work to gain complete autonomy instead of being constantly forced to bicker and fight with their bosses.


There is no way that is even close to ever being possible.


This perpetual stalemate where union confront bosses and bosses confront union in a never ending conflict have to be broken one day.

Its broken when the workers control the industry, you can't buy it, the day unions have that much disposable income they would all ready control the economy, plus you'd be buying stocks, which would make all of them purpetually go up, its pretty much impossible to have a controlling share and most likely the executives would drain the value well before a union gets controlling ownership, trying to buy industry is a rediculous idea.

The HAVE to be on the attack to get their wants. Bosses will always strip and strip away as much as they can unless unions continually push back.

You can talk flowers all you want, Buisiness men think of the bottom line only, Capitalists need to be faught head to toe in the economic battle, they have money and capital, we have labor.

[Bud Struggle]

It seems a current trend in union contracts these days is to have a "no strike" clause. Why even bother to have a union is you can't strike to get the things you want?

[ComradeMan]

It seems a current trend in union contracts these days is to have a "no strike" clause. Why even bother to have a union is you can't strike to get the things you want?

Yeah like the recent FIAT business too. It seems that unions have lost their punch much these days.

Why bother to have a union if you can't strike? Good point. You may as well have a navy with no ships.

[RGacky3]

It seems a current trend in union contracts these days is to have a "no strike" clause. Why even bother to have a union is you can't strike to get the things you want?


A lot of American unions made those deals thinking they were securing benefits, wages and jobs, but all they did was give the buisiness class time to dismantle them and gave them a unilateral disarment situtuation.

the FIAT "deal" was terrible, they are essencially going the same way as the American Unions in the 1980s.

They SHOULD be going the way of the French Unions, not giving an inch and fighting almost pre-emtivly.

German and Scandanaivan Unions can't really be used as an example because for much of their history the government has been very much a labor government.

Recently though IWW organizing starbucks is an awesome accomplishment, a tiny union takes on the coffee giant and wins, keep in mind starbucks is as aggressively anti-union as Walmart, if little IWW can take on starbucks and win, it just shows what its possible when a revolutionary syndalist attitude is taken.

Now I think is the testing times for European Unions, now the fights are national.

[RGacky3]

Any opinions on the AFLs brake with the democrats? They've really impressed me recently taking on system issues, really attacking corporate greed and splitting with the democrats (at least now making them work for support).

I'd also like to know anyones opinion on party allied unions, I don't mean social-democrat, or liberal parties, I mean Socialist and Communist parties. Many of these parties imo use the unions for political gains, many times selling out the economic interests of the workers to try and get political power, I am strongly suspicious of those alliances.

[RGacky3]

BTW, for the big American Unions, if you want to know how to beat corporate power, take a lesson from the IWW, this tiny radical union took on and BEAT ... Starbucks, with a union busting passion just as great as Walmart. Thats how you win, you don't wait till your strong to attack, you attack and gain strength.

Starbucks, the Coffee goliath, could not take out a bunch of poor young determined wobbly baristas. Why? Because they fought hard and made noise.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Congrats to the starbucks workers, but let's keep it all relative. There are like 7 stores that have IWW members (outside the us other unions exist). The gains are coming but it's not like they've revolutionized stabucks.

There is one argument against unionization I can't shake. Why should a Wal Mart employee in Abeliene TX join a union and pay dues that are most likely donated to a politician hes not going to vote for anyway?

[NoOneIsIllegal]

The major strategy that the SWU (Starbucks Workers Union a.k.a. IWW) is that they use Solidarity Unionism. In a leaked phone conversation from a major union-busting firm, they called this tactic "the Starbucks problem..."

Solidarity Unionism is a strategy to start the union and make demands from the employees themselves, rather than waiting for an outside union organizer to come in, inspect the situation, and then act from outside. I think, although it takes progress and time, this is a great way to start a new direction of unions. For too long, people have worked to gain union-recognition, just to be told from the large, bureaucratic unions that they are "unorganizable" because a lot of these employees work at low-economic jobs such as coffee shops, grocery stores, and restaurants. These small due-payments are not desireable to union bosses, thus the leading to this fairly newly idea. It seems to be gaining ground, as proven at Starbucks, and Jimmy Johns. I'm waiting to see if it works on a mass scale.

[danyboy27]

Congrats to the starbucks workers, but let's keep it all relative. There are like 7 stores that have IWW members (outside the us other unions exist). The gains are coming but it's not like they've revolutionized stabucks.

There is one argument against unionization I can't shake. Why should a Wal Mart employee in Abeliene TX join a union and pay dues that are most likely donated to a politician hes not going to vote for anyway?


beccause while he is working here, even tho its for a limited time, by paying his contribution the union will protect him.

You could turn the argument around for many public services you dont really use. why should i pay taxes for the fire departement if my house isnt in fire?

beccause you are not immune to fire.

has far has union goes in the service industry, its not like there isnt plenty of non-unionised places around people can go.

call me back when 80% of the service industry will be unionised.

[RGacky3]

Why should a Wal Mart employee in Abeliene TX join a union and pay dues that are most likely donated to a politician hes not going to vote for anyway?

THats a problem I have with mainstream unions as well, getting into politics gets really sticky.


call me back when 80% of the service industry will be unionised.

Nope, because you gotta organize and fight when you only have a small amount, so that you can GET a big amount, its a continous struggle.

[RGacky3]

The major strategy that the SWU (Starbucks Workers Union a.k.a. IWW) is that they use Solidarity Unionism. In a leaked phone conversation from a major union-busting firm, they called this tactic "the Starbucks problem..."

Solidarity Unionism is a strategy to start the union and make demands from the employees themselves, rather than waiting for an outside union organizer to come in, inspect the situation, and then act from outside. I think, although it takes progress and time, this is a great way to start a new direction of unions. For too long, people have worked to gain union-recognition, just to be told from the large, bureaucratic unions that they are "unorganizable" because a lot of these employees work at low-economic jobs such as coffee shops, grocery stores, and restaurants. These small due-payments are not desireable to union bosses, thus the leading to this fairly newly idea. It seems to be gaining ground, as proven at Starbucks, and Jimmy Johns. I'm waiting to see if it works on a mass scale.


I think that sort of strategy works really well, the idea of a union just being an arm of the workers is much better than the union being an outside power to protect the workers. Many times official status does'nt really help that much.

[Dean]

It seems a current trend in union contracts these days is to have a "no strike" clause. Why even bother to have a union is you can't strike to get the things you want?

This has always been a major problem in the capitalization of unions. The only justification for such a clause would have to involve trend-meeting amendments, which insure that health care and wages meet the inflation and changing environment, as well as other clauses which insure that the employer cannot arbitrarily change the conditions of labor.

Strikes and skilled labor are the fundamentals of the labor-side of collective bargaining - the employer, in owning all but the laborer himself, has all the other systems of power present at his disposal. Only by commensurately de-clawing the employer can no-strike clauses be justified.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

There are a few unions that have no strike clauses that make sense as well. Police and Firefighters are the most obvious examples. Some teachers unions have no strike clauses but that's more of a grey area.

Other unions are obligated by law to go through a ridiculous amount of steps before they're allowed to strike. As was pointed out in a thread about the Renzenberger drivers unionizing, Railroad workers are one of those groups in which it is pactically impossible to strike due to all the hoops they need to go thru beforehand.


THats a problem I have with mainstream unions as well, getting into politics gets really sticky.

Very true. It seems to me that theirs been a fundamental mix up in the process-- The Politicians should pander to the unions for votes, the unios should not pander to politicians. Unfortunately i our country it is much more important the $ contribution.


beccause while he is working here, even tho its for a limited time, by paying his contribution the union will protect him.

You could turn the argument around for many public services you dont really use. why should i pay taxes for the fire departement if my house isnt in fire?

beccause you are not immune to fire.

has far has union goes in the service industry, its not like there isnt plenty of non-unionised places around people can go.

call me back when 80% of the service industry will be unionised.

My point is that the union should give him legal protection regardless, however, the worker may question his membership when his hard earned pay is put into the coffers of politicians (and union bosses aka parasites) who he doesn't agree with. When the union proudly proclaims its giving $ to some democrat, for example, they are perhaps alienating workers who are against abortion or pro-gun or just conservative wherever.

The union should be above petty politicians and only support individual causes that are clearly for the benefit of the union's workers.

[RGacky3]

Other unions are obligated by law to go through a ridiculous amount of steps before they're allowed to strike. As was pointed out in a thread about the Renzenberger drivers unionizing, Railroad workers are one of those groups in which it is pactically impossible to strike due to all the hoops they need to go thru beforehand.


WHich is why wildcat strikes need to be a more common option.


The Politicians should pander to the unions for votes, the unios should not pander to politicians. Unfortunately i our country it is much more important the $ contribution.


Which is why I think the AFL is making a good move, but splitting with the democrats.


Only by commensurately de-clawing the employer can no-strike clauses be justified.

Apart from very few public unions (police and firement for example), I think a no-strike clause is never usefull, even if you hav a clause where the employer cannot change the conditions of labor, he could still try and brake the union some other way, maybe in a situation where you have a law like in germany where the Union actually sits on the board of directors it would be different, but I am totally against anti clause that weakens the unions future ability, even if the employer also gives up stuff.

[RGacky3]

BTW, in the US (if your not already), watch the low wage service sector grow, watch retail unions grow, watch fast food joints, watch unskilled workers start to unionize.

Also along with that watch unions take on a more syndicalist approach.

[danyboy27]

BTW, in the US (if your not already), watch the low wage service sector grow, watch retail unions grow, watch fast food joints, watch unskilled workers start to unionize.

Also along with that watch unions take on a more syndicalist approach.

i think unions in the service industry should be more about protecting the worker against the boss than farming large amount of money in order to pay retirement fund.

i am not saying there should be no retirement fund, just that basicly what people really want and what people would be really willing to pay for, has worker is immediate protection rather than retirement.

Retirement fund should be an option, if a worker want to contribute, he pays more, if he dosnt, his contribution will be limited to immediate protection.

In other industries like factories and transport, that another story, mainly beccause those are litteraly career job where many worker will active for many many many years.

[RGacky3]

I absolutely agree, but conditions at the low end service jobs are so bad that a retirement fund is pretty far off anyway. Just fighting for the basics and security is whats gonna be the big fight, hell just fighting to HAVE a union is a huge fight.

[danyboy27]

I absolutely agree, but conditions at the low end service jobs are so bad that a retirement fund is pretty far off anyway. Just fighting for the basics and security is whats gonna be the big fight, hell just fighting to HAVE a union is a huge fight.

i know but somehow i think its important to precise this.
Too many people think that unions are for people spending 10 or 50 year doing the same job.

Its also verry important to explain to people that there are a huuge variety of union and unionism out there.

man i wish my workplace would be unionised.

Sadly, anti-syndicalism and class division make it impossible where i work.

40% of the workplace salesman, 10% administration and the technical support get the rest.

getting the technical support to agree would be possible but salesmen will never agree, even tho their inequality level is even deeper than for the technical support, they would be affraid of loosing lot and lot of money, they are paid by commission

i am in the administration but one of my collegue is a staunch anti-syndicalist, there is no way that guy will agree.


That suck beccause unions laws in my province are relatively strong, we would be protected if only 60% of the staff would vote for forming a Union.

sometimes i talk about it but i am verry careful.

[RGacky3]

40% of the workplace salesman, 10% administration and the technical support get the rest.


For situatoins like that sometimes just organizing by a trade could work, if you can't get the salesmen for example.


i know but somehow i think its important to precise this.
Too many people think that unions are for people spending 10 or 50 year doing the same job.


Many of the established unions don't really care that much about those jobs, now things are starting to change as more syndicalist unions are poping up.

[RGacky3]

This douch bag cannot win this (http://www.thenation.com/blog/158522/dictator-governor-sets-out-cut-wages-slash-benefits-and-destroy-public-unions).

I'm sure everyone has allready heard about Scott Walker of Wisconsin trying destroy public sector unions, taking away their right to engage in collective bargaining, cutting pay, pensions and so on.

This is essencially banning unions, overall, once public sector unions go thats it, especially in Wisconsin a historically progressive state.

This is a major battle, and the right wing cannot win it.

[danyboy27]

For situatoins like that sometimes just organizing by a trade could work, if you can't get the salesmen for example.
.

trade what? sorry for my ignorance on the subject.





Many of the established unions don't really care that much about those jobs, now things are starting to change as more syndicalist unions are poping up.

Well, In Quebec, canada, Unions are seen has those big thing employing thousand of peoples, big pensions and all that.

Our unionised sector is pretty big, mainly beccause almost all the public sector is unionised.

Personally, i am not a fan of those big unions, and seriously, its their fault. They employed many questionnable methods in the past and their public relation are a train wreck.

[RGacky3]

trade what? sorry for my ignorance on the subject.


In trade unions they organize by trade, such as all plumbers, all machinists, all accountants or so on.

In industrial unions they organize by industry.


Personally, i am not a fan of those big unions, and seriously, its their fault. They employed many questionnable methods in the past and their public relation are a train wreck.

The WORST union is a million times more democratic than the best buisiness.

[danyboy27]

In trade unions they organize by trade, such as all plumbers, all machinists, all accountants or so on.

In industrial unions they organize by industry.
interesting.



The WORST union is a million times more democratic than the best buisiness.
yea i know but has i said big union of my province have a bad habit of being antagonist toward anyone else but their own members.

embarassing stuff like punching cameraman and coercing some of their member to participate in strike even if they still want to work.

[RGacky3]

Yeah that old school teamster style crap does'nt help. Trying to be a Union Tough Guy may make you feel tough, but it does'nt help.

[Bud Struggle]

The WORST union is a million times more democratic than the best buisiness.


Earth to Gacky: You are being a drama queen here. :rolleyes:

Just thought I'd point that out. :)

[Thug Lessons]

The WORST union is a million times more democratic than the best buisiness.

What about police unions?

[RGacky3]

Earth to Gacky: You are being a drama queen here. :rolleyes:

Just thought I'd point that out. :)

Am I wrong?

Btw, did you just say .... earth to Gacky?


What about police unions?

Still democratic in nature, considering they vote on actions and all representatives are directly accountable.

[Bud Struggle]

Am I wrong?

Btw, did you just say .... earth to Gacky?


Yea.

Preface
Three hundred and fifty unionists and civil libertarians, assembled in 1983 at the conference of the Association for Union Democracy, remained standing for a few moments in silent tribute to five who died in the battle for decency and democracy in unions. Moved by the gesture, Victor Reuther, veteran leader of the United Auto Workers, said that it was the first time in all his experience that union insurgents, killed for battling for union reform, were publicly honored by so many colleagues.
John Harold, once chief counsel for the Association of Catholic Trade Unionists, remembered John Acropolis, his friend and client, president of Teamsters Local 456 who had been murdered for resisting the mob at the Yonkers raceway and in Westchester County, New York.
Joe Rauh, the eminent civil rights and labor lawyer, spoke of his friend and client, Jock Yablonski, the insurgent miners leader, shot to death along with his wife and daughter at the command of a corrupt union president.
John Burton, former Congressman, recalled Dow Wilson and Lloyd Green, the two leaders of Painter locals in the San Francisco Bay Area, assassinated because they fought for union democracy and threatened to expose union officials and employers who were embezzling workers benefit funds.
Attorney Dan Siegel told of Roberto Flotte who had put together a caucus of white, black, and Mexican worker In Longshormen's Local 6. Murdered outside the union hall.
Just two years before the AUD conference, Gene Viernes and Silme Domingo were assassinated right in the hall of Cannery Local 36 in Seattle. As leaders of an insurgent caucus pledged to oust racketeers, they had just won the election, only to be murdered.
Sudden death made these few memorable. But there have been others, many others, unwept, unhonored, and unsung, who fought that same battle in the labor movement. And others who helped them.
In the last 40 years or more, certainly since the adoption of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, thousands of good, active, loyal unionists have fought within their unions, some to defend basic internal democratic rights; some, to end corruption; some, to eradicate organized crime; some, to fight for equality in job referrals; some, to do it all. For most, it required courage. Some were beaten, lost their jobs. A few were killed. I know about them because I worked with many of them, told their stories, and tried to help them defend their rights in their unions and in the courts.
Only a few were successful, and few of their efforts led to permanently organized oppositions. But in one union then in another, they were there, constituting a broad movement, affecting most major unions in the United States. The seeds were widely scattered and only a few sank hardy roots. But their species remains a hardy perennial. Their persistence up to this very day, is transforming our labor movement. It was the proliferation of these insurgent movements that validated dissent in unions. It was the 1991 Teamster reform victory which tipped the balance in the AFL-CIO. Forty years of broad rank and file reform activity provided both the moral legitimacy and the power that made possible Sweeney's insurgent quest for the AFL-CIO presidency in 1995.
For decades, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, one of the largest, richest, and most powerful labor unions, had been dominated by organized crime and expelled for corruption from the AFL-CIO. In all this time, no force in the labor movement, no coalition of labor leaders, with all their members and resources, had been able to shake this union --- or any other --- loose from racket control. This corrupted union remained so powerful that many AFL-CIO and independent unions, from right to left, continued to genuflect before it. And yet, beginning in 1972, a rank and file reform movement, without the material or moral support of a single top labor leader, by its own agitation, leaflets, demonstrations, and conferences built a force strong enough to rally around Ron Carey, then a local union president, and overthrow the racketeer infiltrated administration in 1991.



http://www.uniondemocracy.org/UDR/64...%20excerpt.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.uniondemocracy.org/UDR/64-Rebels%20excerpt.htm)

[Thug Lessons]

Still democratic in nature, considering they vote on actions and all representatives are directly accountable.

Internal democratic processes aside, police unions spend a great deal of money and effort defending crooked and racist cops, as well as lobbying lawmakers to give police preferential treatment, which is bad both for society generally and the larger democratic system specifically. It's at least as bad as most businesses.

[Bud Struggle]

There are lots of bad and corrupt union racketters out there.

Workers know that and on a regular basis VOTE DOWN union membership in lots of workplaces.

There are some good unions and some bad ones. There are some good companies and some bad ones. Nothing is black and white.

[danyboy27]

Internal democratic processes aside, police unions spend a great deal of money and effort defending crooked and racist cops, as well as lobbying lawmakers to give police preferential treatment, which is bad both for society generally and the larger democratic system specifically. It's at least as bad as most businesses.

police union precisely stop those things from happening, or at least happening less often.

A cop that is receiveing a good salary and a cop that dosnt have shit work condition is less likely to take bribe or acting like a complete assole.

that dosnt mean those things dosnt happen, i am just saying that having union within the police force help a great deal to somehow reduce those factors.

Police union, just like other unions will try to ditch the people that represent a liability for their group, including racist and crooked folks.

and just like in any other unions, police union will sometimes protect the bad guy, but this is hardly exceptionnal to the police force, its a problematic that is in every unions.

[Thug Lessons]

police union precisely stop those things from happening, or at least happening less often.

A cop that is receiveing a good salary and a cop that dosnt have shit work condition is less likely to take bribe or acting like a complete assole.

that dosnt mean those things dosnt happen, i am just saying that having union within the police force help a great deal to somehow reduce those factors.

Police union, just like other unions will try to ditch the people that represent a liability for their group, including racist and crooked folks.

and just like in any other unions, police union will sometimes protect the bad guy, but this is hardly exceptionnal to the police force, its a problematic that is in every unions.

Look at the stuff that the Fraternal Order of Police, the largest police union in the US, has up on their website (http://www.fop.net/publications/archives/legislation/index.shtml). They lobby in support of mandatory minimum sentencing, higher penalties for drug convictions, a constitutional amendment to make flag burning illegal, while they lobby against allowing felons to vote, increasing the evidence required to convict drug offenders, ending the embargo on Cuba and the Employee Fair Choice Act, which would make it easier for workers to unionize. If you look at some of the other material they've put up, they also have provided testimony before Congress that racial profiling isn't a problem, and they even have a page that lists the names of supporters of Mumia Abu Jamal. That's some slimy shit.

I don't have any problem with the idea of cops organizing for their rights, but police unions today, at least in the US, they're right-wing politically and serve as an impediment to desperately-needed reform of law enforcement.

[danyboy27]

Look at the stuff that the Fraternal Order of Police, the largest police union in the US, has up on their website (http://www.fop.net/publications/archives/legislation/index.shtml). They lobby in support of mandatory minimum sentencing, higher penalties for drug convictions, a constitutional amendment to make flag burning illegal, while they lobby against allowing felons to vote, increasing the evidence required to convict drug offenders, ending the embargo on Cuba and the Employee Fair Choice Act, which would make it easier for workers to unionize. If you look at some of the other material they've put up, they also have provided testimony before Congress that racial profiling isn't a problem, and they even have a page that lists the names of supporters of Mumia Abu Jamal. That's some slimy shit.

I don't have any problem with the idea of cops organizing for their rights, but police unions today, at least in the US, they're right-wing politically and serve as an impediment to desperately-needed reform of law enforcement.
Its not officially an union but a lobby group.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

The WORST union is a million times more democratic than the best buisiness.

Sorry gack, but there aren't that many mom and pop stores ordering assasinations and funding them with embezzled money from union members.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._A._Boyle#cite_note-1

[Thug Lessons]

Its not officially an union but a lobby group.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe they do engage in collective bargaining for police departments.

[danyboy27]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe they do engage in collective bargaining for police departments.

lobby group are doing things like that has well.

[Thug Lessons]

lobby group are doing things like that has well.

Well if they engage in collective bargaining then it's fair to call them a union. And while I'm not an expert on the topic, I haven't seen anything to indicate that other police unions are much better than the FOP, though it would certainly be a challenge to be any worse.

[danyboy27]

Well if they engage in collective bargaining then it's fair to call them a union. And while I'm not an expert on the topic, I haven't seen anything to indicate that other police unions are much better than the FOP, though it would certainly be a challenge to be any worse.

we got police union in my city and province, and they dont engage in things like lobby to make laws more severe.

they are too busy fighting for working conditions, equipements and salary.

Go figure.

[RGacky3]

I don't have any problem with the idea of cops organizing for their rights, but police unions today, at least in the US, they're right-wing politically and serve as an impediment to desperately-needed reform of law enforcement.

Your right, be they are still democratic, what they are not is class conscious, their interests don't align with the working class unfortunately.


Sorry gack, but there aren't that many mom and pop stores ordering assasinations and funding them with embezzled money from union members.



There are some good unions and some bad ones. There are some good companies and some bad ones. Nothing is black and white.

I said democratic, the very narrow sense of the word.

THat guy was corrupt, but in order to be corrupt he had to be secrative and .... corrupt, a buisiness, could juts do it (at least take the money), he does'nt have to answer to anyone.

A democratic president can be corrupt, and maybe a dictator can by nice, but that does'nt change the fact that one is democratically accountable and the other is not.

[RGacky3]

Thomm Hartmanns show today on RT was all about a passioned defense of Unions, Unions are the only force for democracy in the workplace, in my opinion they should be the primary organization of the left economically.

[Bud Struggle]

Thomm Hartmanns show today on RT was all about a passioned defense of Unions, Unions are the only force for democracy in the workplace, in my opinion they should be the primary organization of the left economically.

The Liberal Left. On the other hand for the most part they aren't Radical or Revolutionary.

[RGacky3]

The Liberal Left. On the other hand for the most part they aren't Radical or Revolutionary.

I'd say progressive left, that would be more accurate. But whatever, I don't care if they call themselves radical or revolutionary, its irrelivent, other than in your anti-anything-red narrative.

[danyboy27]

The Liberal Left. On the other hand for the most part they aren't Radical or Revolutionary.

by american standard today, they are.

Fucking hell, even conservative, has in, conservatives from the 40s and 50s could probably be considered revolutionary today.

those guy would be labelled Marxist by today conservative standards for all the social issues they fought for.

Initially, american conservative where for a small, yet verry efficient form of governement, and the democrat where for a more extensive form of governement.

By heisenower standards, the current gop look like a fascist movement who is anti-immigration, anti-gay, anti-left and anti-parlementary, pro buisness populist movement.

[Bud Struggle]

I'd say progressive left, that would be more accurate. But whatever, I don't care if they call themselves radical or revolutionary, its irrelivent, other than in your anti-anything-red narrative.

"Progressive" is fine with me. And I'm not anti-union. I'm not in a union and have no reason to be pro or anti union. I think unions did good things in the past. I think there are still some good unions out there. I think there are some corrupt unions in the workplace, too.

Unions for me are a mixed bag. I think that goes for most Americans. Unions get voted in to businesses on occasion and get voted out on occasion. And that's the way it should be.

[Bud Struggle]

by american standard today, they are.

Fucking hell, even conservative, has in, conservatives from the 40s and 50s could probably be considered revolutionary today. Yup,
I agree there. America has turned vastly to the Right.


those guy would be labelled Marxist by today conservative standards for all the social issues they fought for. Some of them were Marxists. :D The Left was making pretty good strides in America until WWII and then Joe Stalin came along to be a poster boy for everything anti American.


Initially, american conservative where for a small, yet verry efficient form of governement, and the democrat where for a more extensive form of governement. Initially the job of President was meant to be almost a part time job.


By heisenower standards, the current gop look like a fascist movement who is anti-immigration, anti-gay, anti-left and anti-parlementary, pro buisness populist movement. And they get voted in all the time and what's worse--the Democrats are following them.

[RGacky3]

Unions get voted in to businesses on occasion and get voted out on occasion.

But keep in mind the context, i.e. 30 to 40 years of the state and ruling class attacking, destroying and defaming unions.


Yup,
I agree there. America has turned vastly to the Right.


Not the people, just the establishment (due to lack of real democracy).


And they get voted in all the time and what's worse--the Democrats are following them.

Again, thats what happens with a Citizens United/Chamber of Commerse Government

[danyboy27]

Yup,
And they get voted in all the time and what's worse--the Democrats are following them.

yea well that what happen when you decide to switch from union and people based financing to corporation financing.

Democrat want to cut services beccause this is what they been paid for, republican want to do the same for a crypto-fascist ideal of free market, anti-immigration, all american pure society.

[Bud Struggle]

But keep in mind the context, i.e. 30 to 40 years of the state and ruling class attacking, destroying and defaming unions. Sure businesses don't want unions. But the unions could have counter attacked but instead they just hunkered down and became inbred.


Not the people, just the establishment (due to lack of real democracy). The essential point of our disagreement. You don't care about election results and I don't care about poll results. :)


Again, thats what happens with a Citizens United/Chamber of Commerse Government You are right. But remember all that Commie stuff about the Proletariat having the real power? It's bacause of how history constantly and consistantly turns out that I don't believe any of it.

[RGacky3]

Sure businesses don't want unions. But the unions could have counter attacked but instead they just hunkered down and became inbred.


Yup


The essential point of our disagreement. You don't care about election results and I don't care about poll results. :)


I care about accuracy and fact checking, you care about your narrative.


It's bacause of how history constantly and consistantly turns out that I don't believe any of it.

We don't have slavery any more :)