- This topic has 570 replies, 33 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 2 months ago by
briansd1.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 5, 2010 at 12:10 PM #613867October 5, 2010 at 12:18 PM #612825
eavesdropper
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=eavesdropper][quote=Allan from Fallbrook] O’Donnell is a lunatic moron. [/quote]
There you go again, automatically jumping to conclusions. Do you have any facts to back up your statement? Just because she’s pretty doesn’t mean she’s not smart. Sarah Palin could tell you that.
Alan, you have to be more careful about saying these things. You’re not going to have anyone to defend you when you go before the death panels one day.[/quote]
Eavesdropper: I can only hope that you’re kidding about O’Donnell. As far as proof or facts, well, I’ll just let her keep speaking and that should suffice to make my point for me.
I know that there are plenty of whack-a-doos in office and from both parties, but she’s taking this to a whole new level. Palin is thick, of that there is no doubt, but its sort of a run-of-the-mill obtuseness. O’Donnell is bugshit crazy and throws out looney crap without surcease (I know you like a little literary porn with your nightly agitprop).
I was going to make an ungentlemanly comment about Palin, the death panels and corporal punishment, but I know you’re a lady, so I’ll aver.[/quote]
Alan, you wound me with your “only hope that you’re kidding” remark, but I can’t stay mad at you for long when you’re tossing off words like “surcease” and “agitprop”. In the words and tenor of J.P. Richardson, you know-ow-ow what I like.
Seriously, I agree with your evaluation of O’Donnell. Even more disturbing than the fact that tens of thousands of supposedly competent adults voted for her, and that millions of US citizens are avidly supporting her, is the way in which the media is treating her a like serious candidate. Yes, she is a serious candidate in that her name will be on the ballot and that she may well be the next United States senator from the State of Delaware. But to the journalists, publishers, pundits, and news editors out there: please, please, please, stop providing serious commentary on the crazy shit she is saying, and stop cutting her all kinds of slack for the crazy shit she is pulling. If Mike Castle or Joe Biden or even the dreaded Nancy Pelosi had ever come up with some of the stuff O’Donnell’s been passing out on the campaign trail, the ridicule by the media would have been…yes, without surcease. And her decision to cut herself off from the national media? Like Palin, she doesn’t have the basic skills and intelligence to deal with the media, but the media has given her a total break on this decision, and is even encouraging it (as seen by news editors’ treatment of Palin’s “Twits” like they were State of the Union addresses).
C’mon, you people in the media are SUPPOSED to be the “smart guys”. Please provide us with some evidence of that.
October 5, 2010 at 12:18 PM #612912Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=eavesdropper][quote=Allan from Fallbrook] O’Donnell is a lunatic moron. [/quote]
There you go again, automatically jumping to conclusions. Do you have any facts to back up your statement? Just because she’s pretty doesn’t mean she’s not smart. Sarah Palin could tell you that.
Alan, you have to be more careful about saying these things. You’re not going to have anyone to defend you when you go before the death panels one day.[/quote]
Eavesdropper: I can only hope that you’re kidding about O’Donnell. As far as proof or facts, well, I’ll just let her keep speaking and that should suffice to make my point for me.
I know that there are plenty of whack-a-doos in office and from both parties, but she’s taking this to a whole new level. Palin is thick, of that there is no doubt, but its sort of a run-of-the-mill obtuseness. O’Donnell is bugshit crazy and throws out looney crap without surcease (I know you like a little literary porn with your nightly agitprop).
I was going to make an ungentlemanly comment about Palin, the death panels and corporal punishment, but I know you’re a lady, so I’ll aver.[/quote]
Alan, you wound me with your “only hope that you’re kidding” remark, but I can’t stay mad at you for long when you’re tossing off words like “surcease” and “agitprop”. In the words and tenor of J.P. Richardson, you know-ow-ow what I like.
Seriously, I agree with your evaluation of O’Donnell. Even more disturbing than the fact that tens of thousands of supposedly competent adults voted for her, and that millions of US citizens are avidly supporting her, is the way in which the media is treating her a like serious candidate. Yes, she is a serious candidate in that her name will be on the ballot and that she may well be the next United States senator from the State of Delaware. But to the journalists, publishers, pundits, and news editors out there: please, please, please, stop providing serious commentary on the crazy shit she is saying, and stop cutting her all kinds of slack for the crazy shit she is pulling. If Mike Castle or Joe Biden or even the dreaded Nancy Pelosi had ever come up with some of the stuff O’Donnell’s been passing out on the campaign trail, the ridicule by the media would have been…yes, without surcease. And her decision to cut herself off from the national media? Like Palin, she doesn’t have the basic skills and intelligence to deal with the media, but the media has given her a total break on this decision, and is even encouraging it (as seen by news editors’ treatment of Palin’s “Twits” like they were State of the Union addresses).
C’mon, you people in the media are SUPPOSED to be the “smart guys”. Please provide us with some evidence of that.
October 5, 2010 at 12:18 PM #613464Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=eavesdropper][quote=Allan from Fallbrook] O’Donnell is a lunatic moron. [/quote]
There you go again, automatically jumping to conclusions. Do you have any facts to back up your statement? Just because she’s pretty doesn’t mean she’s not smart. Sarah Palin could tell you that.
Alan, you have to be more careful about saying these things. You’re not going to have anyone to defend you when you go before the death panels one day.[/quote]
Eavesdropper: I can only hope that you’re kidding about O’Donnell. As far as proof or facts, well, I’ll just let her keep speaking and that should suffice to make my point for me.
I know that there are plenty of whack-a-doos in office and from both parties, but she’s taking this to a whole new level. Palin is thick, of that there is no doubt, but its sort of a run-of-the-mill obtuseness. O’Donnell is bugshit crazy and throws out looney crap without surcease (I know you like a little literary porn with your nightly agitprop).
I was going to make an ungentlemanly comment about Palin, the death panels and corporal punishment, but I know you’re a lady, so I’ll aver.[/quote]
Alan, you wound me with your “only hope that you’re kidding” remark, but I can’t stay mad at you for long when you’re tossing off words like “surcease” and “agitprop”. In the words and tenor of J.P. Richardson, you know-ow-ow what I like.
Seriously, I agree with your evaluation of O’Donnell. Even more disturbing than the fact that tens of thousands of supposedly competent adults voted for her, and that millions of US citizens are avidly supporting her, is the way in which the media is treating her a like serious candidate. Yes, she is a serious candidate in that her name will be on the ballot and that she may well be the next United States senator from the State of Delaware. But to the journalists, publishers, pundits, and news editors out there: please, please, please, stop providing serious commentary on the crazy shit she is saying, and stop cutting her all kinds of slack for the crazy shit she is pulling. If Mike Castle or Joe Biden or even the dreaded Nancy Pelosi had ever come up with some of the stuff O’Donnell’s been passing out on the campaign trail, the ridicule by the media would have been…yes, without surcease. And her decision to cut herself off from the national media? Like Palin, she doesn’t have the basic skills and intelligence to deal with the media, but the media has given her a total break on this decision, and is even encouraging it (as seen by news editors’ treatment of Palin’s “Twits” like they were State of the Union addresses).
C’mon, you people in the media are SUPPOSED to be the “smart guys”. Please provide us with some evidence of that.
October 5, 2010 at 12:18 PM #613579Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=eavesdropper][quote=Allan from Fallbrook] O’Donnell is a lunatic moron. [/quote]
There you go again, automatically jumping to conclusions. Do you have any facts to back up your statement? Just because she’s pretty doesn’t mean she’s not smart. Sarah Palin could tell you that.
Alan, you have to be more careful about saying these things. You’re not going to have anyone to defend you when you go before the death panels one day.[/quote]
Eavesdropper: I can only hope that you’re kidding about O’Donnell. As far as proof or facts, well, I’ll just let her keep speaking and that should suffice to make my point for me.
I know that there are plenty of whack-a-doos in office and from both parties, but she’s taking this to a whole new level. Palin is thick, of that there is no doubt, but its sort of a run-of-the-mill obtuseness. O’Donnell is bugshit crazy and throws out looney crap without surcease (I know you like a little literary porn with your nightly agitprop).
I was going to make an ungentlemanly comment about Palin, the death panels and corporal punishment, but I know you’re a lady, so I’ll aver.[/quote]
Alan, you wound me with your “only hope that you’re kidding” remark, but I can’t stay mad at you for long when you’re tossing off words like “surcease” and “agitprop”. In the words and tenor of J.P. Richardson, you know-ow-ow what I like.
Seriously, I agree with your evaluation of O’Donnell. Even more disturbing than the fact that tens of thousands of supposedly competent adults voted for her, and that millions of US citizens are avidly supporting her, is the way in which the media is treating her a like serious candidate. Yes, she is a serious candidate in that her name will be on the ballot and that she may well be the next United States senator from the State of Delaware. But to the journalists, publishers, pundits, and news editors out there: please, please, please, stop providing serious commentary on the crazy shit she is saying, and stop cutting her all kinds of slack for the crazy shit she is pulling. If Mike Castle or Joe Biden or even the dreaded Nancy Pelosi had ever come up with some of the stuff O’Donnell’s been passing out on the campaign trail, the ridicule by the media would have been…yes, without surcease. And her decision to cut herself off from the national media? Like Palin, she doesn’t have the basic skills and intelligence to deal with the media, but the media has given her a total break on this decision, and is even encouraging it (as seen by news editors’ treatment of Palin’s “Twits” like they were State of the Union addresses).
C’mon, you people in the media are SUPPOSED to be the “smart guys”. Please provide us with some evidence of that.
October 5, 2010 at 12:18 PM #613895Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=eavesdropper][quote=Allan from Fallbrook] O’Donnell is a lunatic moron. [/quote]
There you go again, automatically jumping to conclusions. Do you have any facts to back up your statement? Just because she’s pretty doesn’t mean she’s not smart. Sarah Palin could tell you that.
Alan, you have to be more careful about saying these things. You’re not going to have anyone to defend you when you go before the death panels one day.[/quote]
Eavesdropper: I can only hope that you’re kidding about O’Donnell. As far as proof or facts, well, I’ll just let her keep speaking and that should suffice to make my point for me.
I know that there are plenty of whack-a-doos in office and from both parties, but she’s taking this to a whole new level. Palin is thick, of that there is no doubt, but its sort of a run-of-the-mill obtuseness. O’Donnell is bugshit crazy and throws out looney crap without surcease (I know you like a little literary porn with your nightly agitprop).
I was going to make an ungentlemanly comment about Palin, the death panels and corporal punishment, but I know you’re a lady, so I’ll aver.[/quote]
Alan, you wound me with your “only hope that you’re kidding” remark, but I can’t stay mad at you for long when you’re tossing off words like “surcease” and “agitprop”. In the words and tenor of J.P. Richardson, you know-ow-ow what I like.
Seriously, I agree with your evaluation of O’Donnell. Even more disturbing than the fact that tens of thousands of supposedly competent adults voted for her, and that millions of US citizens are avidly supporting her, is the way in which the media is treating her a like serious candidate. Yes, she is a serious candidate in that her name will be on the ballot and that she may well be the next United States senator from the State of Delaware. But to the journalists, publishers, pundits, and news editors out there: please, please, please, stop providing serious commentary on the crazy shit she is saying, and stop cutting her all kinds of slack for the crazy shit she is pulling. If Mike Castle or Joe Biden or even the dreaded Nancy Pelosi had ever come up with some of the stuff O’Donnell’s been passing out on the campaign trail, the ridicule by the media would have been…yes, without surcease. And her decision to cut herself off from the national media? Like Palin, she doesn’t have the basic skills and intelligence to deal with the media, but the media has given her a total break on this decision, and is even encouraging it (as seen by news editors’ treatment of Palin’s “Twits” like they were State of the Union addresses).
C’mon, you people in the media are SUPPOSED to be the “smart guys”. Please provide us with some evidence of that.
October 5, 2010 at 1:15 PM #612865enron_by_the_sea
Participant[quote=flu]
BTW: Do you know what the majority of those protestors that hold up the signs are actually protesting? Just curious…[/quote]I think I know this one. In sorrento valley, the proponents of “Shame on XYZ” are in dispute with a contractor(may be janitorial). The people behind the signs want the contractor to provide some benefits and the contractor refuses. So whereever the contractor provides services, the signs go up. (For example, if the contractor provides services to Qualcomm, the signs say “Shame on Qualcomm” giving the impression that somehow QC are a party to the dispute…)
October 5, 2010 at 1:15 PM #612951Participant[quote=flu]
BTW: Do you know what the majority of those protestors that hold up the signs are actually protesting? Just curious…[/quote]I think I know this one. In sorrento valley, the proponents of “Shame on XYZ” are in dispute with a contractor(may be janitorial). The people behind the signs want the contractor to provide some benefits and the contractor refuses. So whereever the contractor provides services, the signs go up. (For example, if the contractor provides services to Qualcomm, the signs say “Shame on Qualcomm” giving the impression that somehow QC are a party to the dispute…)
October 5, 2010 at 1:15 PM #613503Participant[quote=flu]
BTW: Do you know what the majority of those protestors that hold up the signs are actually protesting? Just curious…[/quote]I think I know this one. In sorrento valley, the proponents of “Shame on XYZ” are in dispute with a contractor(may be janitorial). The people behind the signs want the contractor to provide some benefits and the contractor refuses. So whereever the contractor provides services, the signs go up. (For example, if the contractor provides services to Qualcomm, the signs say “Shame on Qualcomm” giving the impression that somehow QC are a party to the dispute…)
October 5, 2010 at 1:15 PM #613619Participant[quote=flu]
BTW: Do you know what the majority of those protestors that hold up the signs are actually protesting? Just curious…[/quote]I think I know this one. In sorrento valley, the proponents of “Shame on XYZ” are in dispute with a contractor(may be janitorial). The people behind the signs want the contractor to provide some benefits and the contractor refuses. So whereever the contractor provides services, the signs go up. (For example, if the contractor provides services to Qualcomm, the signs say “Shame on Qualcomm” giving the impression that somehow QC are a party to the dispute…)
October 5, 2010 at 1:15 PM #613934Participant[quote=flu]
BTW: Do you know what the majority of those protestors that hold up the signs are actually protesting? Just curious…[/quote]I think I know this one. In sorrento valley, the proponents of “Shame on XYZ” are in dispute with a contractor(may be janitorial). The people behind the signs want the contractor to provide some benefits and the contractor refuses. So whereever the contractor provides services, the signs go up. (For example, if the contractor provides services to Qualcomm, the signs say “Shame on Qualcomm” giving the impression that somehow QC are a party to the dispute…)
October 5, 2010 at 1:18 PM #612870Participant[quote=flu][quote=eavesdropper]Thanks for bringing this to our attention, flu. I want YOUR job: y’know, the one that gives me enough time to watch The Daily Show.
Seriously, this pisses me off on a number of levels. Number one, once again I’m counting on the Daily Show for anything resembling actual news reporting. Never before in our nation’s history have there been so many “news” station and outlets, but the only stuff I’m getting from them is Sarah Palin’s latest Twitter feeds, and breaking news of Lindsay Lohan’s latest parole violation.
#2. Hiring people who are not members of the union to protest WalMart’s treatment of the union members??? Seriously, these people need to remove the “U” from UFCW. They violate the memories of tens of thousands who died, and millions more whose families sat through extended strikes, just to get basic human rights from employers 100 years ago. You want better pay and benefits and treatment? Get out there yourself and demand them!
#3. Then there’s the pay issue. Minimum wage is okay when it’s for workers who are out demanding YOUR right to higher than minimum pay. What the hell has happened to people in America that they can no longer see the disconnect. You know who I’m talking about: the nondisabled ultraconservative who’s pulling in $2K/month in SSI payments screaming that the government has to stop entitlement programs. The same people getting government-sponsored healthcare and cash benefits for their “disabled” children who are protesting government-sponsored healthcare for other people’s children. Union members receiving $50 or $60 an hour, protesting the government raising minimum wage for other Americans. And it goes on and on. We’ve become totally egocentric: I’ve got mine, but I’m going to keep you from getting yours. These people aren’t worried about the level of the debt in this country, or that their children and grandchildren are going to have to pay it (BTW, that is a phrase that I am really sick and tired of hearing. My grandchildren are, in all likelihood, going to be concerned with getting enough food and water for their families’ survival, thanks to the future effects of climate change. They’re going to be walking away from those government debts, just like we’re walking away from our underwater homes now). Americans today are simply worried about having more than their neighbors and friends.
I guess it’s possible that they simply don’t see the disconnect, the hypocrisy…and that possibility frightens me even more. Are we incapable of the minimal critical thinking it takes to put ourselves in the other guy’s shoes for a minute so that we can evaluate the effects of policy changes that we are demanding?[/quote]
Um let me respond when I have more time. But I’ll say this
1) You wouldn’t want my job. Chances are you wouldn’t be able to hack it…. (no offense)..
2) I’ve been fortunate enough to have those folks that hold up the labor dispute signs up several times in front of some of the offices I visited. And I’ve always was curious what the deal was…The funny thing is that about 8 times out of 10, when I tried to talk to those folks with those signs, none of them new what they were picketing about..I won’t even go into the direction as to which language I had to use to try to carry a conversation, because that would be heresy to discuss…..So…. That goes back to my original point…Obviously, someone was hired to sit in and picket…Frankly, I’m all for workers rights and all, but let’s face it unions have overstepped their powers…There’s a huge disconnect between maltreatment of workers and what the gist of original unions stood for and what it currently is right now.. The later is borderline legalized extortion….When there are rules to move a computer or 2 boxes by “union workers” only, and it takes two weeks to have the job done…..something is seriously wrong….It’s completely illogical.
And spare me the argument about being outsourced if unions weren’t around. I deal with the threat of outsourcing every day. And I can tell you that if software code could only be written by rules that it takes each person could only write 200 lines of code per hour without being paid overtime and that it takes a minimum of 10 people to write 10000 lines, with 4 shift supervisors, and that every bug that was found or fixed would be an additional per “bug” count extra pay, I guarantee three things would have happened
1) My wallets would be much fatter than what they are now in the short term.
2) innovation would come to a grinding halt
3) 90% of all work would find it’s way overseas in less than 2 years..BTW: Do you know what the majority of those protestors that hold up the signs are actually protesting? Just curious…[/quote]
Hell, no, I don’t know. What’s worse, neither do they, even when they ARE union workers. And that goes for most people protesting shit these days. Living here in the DC area, we get lots of opportunities to mingle with the masses at any number of protests. We ask people what the slogans on their signs mean, and they don’t have an answer. We ask them to provide us with an example of the violations they are claiming, and they don’t have an answer. We ask them how they would solve a problem that they claim has been ignored or exacerbated, and…they don’t have an answer. We ask them for evidence of actual skills and strengths and accomplishments by their chosen candidates, and guess what? They got nuthin’.
What they do have is a lot of piss and vinegar that’s been whipped up into a fine froth by politicians, pundits, talk radio hosts, and leaders of grass-roots-by-way-of- billionaire-businessmen organizations. What they’re quoting and what they’re carrying are little sound-bites that have been parceled out by their favorite “patriot”, not only can’t they understand and support it, but they don’t have the interest in making an effort to find out. So when some pesky “intellectectual elite” starts asking them questions, and popping off the stock sound bites doesn’t get them off your back, do you start asking some questions of your own, and maybe do some research? Nah, you simply walk away, and pretend that there aren’t any questions. That way, you can make sure you get to see who gets a rose tonight, or who gets thrown off the island, or who’s the surprise performer on “Dancing With the Stars”.
Does this bother them? Hell, no. After all, the newest political wildfire spreading across the plains is that education is overrated, and that the people with the education and the degrees and the experience aren’t really the smart guys after all.
You’re absolutely 100% correct, flu. There’s no resemblance to the unions of 100 years ago, and there hasn’t been for a very long time. When I grew up, I can’t tell you the number of families sat around without a paycheck, month after month, during prolonged strikes. Many of these were families with 5 or 7 or 10 kids. And they’d no sooner get a contract ratified, then they’d be out on strike again, and again. It wasn’t about better wages or working conditions. It was about petty power struggles by union leaders who couldn’t see the big picture (the effects of excessive labor costs and how they would eventually contribute to a mass exodus of manufacturing), or who simply didn’t care to (greed).
However, the human weaknesses that were responsible for the formation of the original unions are still alive and well, and the need for the unions is, also. However, I’m not at all sure that the union structure, as it stands today, is capable of doing the job they were set up to do. But you’re not going to be able to convince union members that they have to make some difficult choices in how their unions are structured, and what they need to be fighting for. There’s been too much emphasis in fighting for “now”, and pretty much none on the future. Again, it goes back to people just not caring enough to educate themselves about the choices they are making.
Today’s unions much more closely resemble today’s corporations. Watching the union guy on the Daily Show segment was illuminating: he was totally aware of what he was doing. He was simply shocked by the idea that, not only someone else had figured it out, but that they would call him on it.
You say that what unions do now is “borderline legalized extortion”. I think you are being generous. But if a need for change is not identified by the union members, and that change does not come from within, they’re in danger of losing everything.
October 5, 2010 at 1:18 PM #612956Participant[quote=flu][quote=eavesdropper]Thanks for bringing this to our attention, flu. I want YOUR job: y’know, the one that gives me enough time to watch The Daily Show.
Seriously, this pisses me off on a number of levels. Number one, once again I’m counting on the Daily Show for anything resembling actual news reporting. Never before in our nation’s history have there been so many “news” station and outlets, but the only stuff I’m getting from them is Sarah Palin’s latest Twitter feeds, and breaking news of Lindsay Lohan’s latest parole violation.
#2. Hiring people who are not members of the union to protest WalMart’s treatment of the union members??? Seriously, these people need to remove the “U” from UFCW. They violate the memories of tens of thousands who died, and millions more whose families sat through extended strikes, just to get basic human rights from employers 100 years ago. You want better pay and benefits and treatment? Get out there yourself and demand them!
#3. Then there’s the pay issue. Minimum wage is okay when it’s for workers who are out demanding YOUR right to higher than minimum pay. What the hell has happened to people in America that they can no longer see the disconnect. You know who I’m talking about: the nondisabled ultraconservative who’s pulling in $2K/month in SSI payments screaming that the government has to stop entitlement programs. The same people getting government-sponsored healthcare and cash benefits for their “disabled” children who are protesting government-sponsored healthcare for other people’s children. Union members receiving $50 or $60 an hour, protesting the government raising minimum wage for other Americans. And it goes on and on. We’ve become totally egocentric: I’ve got mine, but I’m going to keep you from getting yours. These people aren’t worried about the level of the debt in this country, or that their children and grandchildren are going to have to pay it (BTW, that is a phrase that I am really sick and tired of hearing. My grandchildren are, in all likelihood, going to be concerned with getting enough food and water for their families’ survival, thanks to the future effects of climate change. They’re going to be walking away from those government debts, just like we’re walking away from our underwater homes now). Americans today are simply worried about having more than their neighbors and friends.
I guess it’s possible that they simply don’t see the disconnect, the hypocrisy…and that possibility frightens me even more. Are we incapable of the minimal critical thinking it takes to put ourselves in the other guy’s shoes for a minute so that we can evaluate the effects of policy changes that we are demanding?[/quote]
Um let me respond when I have more time. But I’ll say this
1) You wouldn’t want my job. Chances are you wouldn’t be able to hack it…. (no offense)..
2) I’ve been fortunate enough to have those folks that hold up the labor dispute signs up several times in front of some of the offices I visited. And I’ve always was curious what the deal was…The funny thing is that about 8 times out of 10, when I tried to talk to those folks with those signs, none of them new what they were picketing about..I won’t even go into the direction as to which language I had to use to try to carry a conversation, because that would be heresy to discuss…..So…. That goes back to my original point…Obviously, someone was hired to sit in and picket…Frankly, I’m all for workers rights and all, but let’s face it unions have overstepped their powers…There’s a huge disconnect between maltreatment of workers and what the gist of original unions stood for and what it currently is right now.. The later is borderline legalized extortion….When there are rules to move a computer or 2 boxes by “union workers” only, and it takes two weeks to have the job done…..something is seriously wrong….It’s completely illogical.
And spare me the argument about being outsourced if unions weren’t around. I deal with the threat of outsourcing every day. And I can tell you that if software code could only be written by rules that it takes each person could only write 200 lines of code per hour without being paid overtime and that it takes a minimum of 10 people to write 10000 lines, with 4 shift supervisors, and that every bug that was found or fixed would be an additional per “bug” count extra pay, I guarantee three things would have happened
1) My wallets would be much fatter than what they are now in the short term.
2) innovation would come to a grinding halt
3) 90% of all work would find it’s way overseas in less than 2 years..BTW: Do you know what the majority of those protestors that hold up the signs are actually protesting? Just curious…[/quote]
Hell, no, I don’t know. What’s worse, neither do they, even when they ARE union workers. And that goes for most people protesting shit these days. Living here in the DC area, we get lots of opportunities to mingle with the masses at any number of protests. We ask people what the slogans on their signs mean, and they don’t have an answer. We ask them to provide us with an example of the violations they are claiming, and they don’t have an answer. We ask them how they would solve a problem that they claim has been ignored or exacerbated, and…they don’t have an answer. We ask them for evidence of actual skills and strengths and accomplishments by their chosen candidates, and guess what? They got nuthin’.
What they do have is a lot of piss and vinegar that’s been whipped up into a fine froth by politicians, pundits, talk radio hosts, and leaders of grass-roots-by-way-of- billionaire-businessmen organizations. What they’re quoting and what they’re carrying are little sound-bites that have been parceled out by their favorite “patriot”, not only can’t they understand and support it, but they don’t have the interest in making an effort to find out. So when some pesky “intellectectual elite” starts asking them questions, and popping off the stock sound bites doesn’t get them off your back, do you start asking some questions of your own, and maybe do some research? Nah, you simply walk away, and pretend that there aren’t any questions. That way, you can make sure you get to see who gets a rose tonight, or who gets thrown off the island, or who’s the surprise performer on “Dancing With the Stars”.
Does this bother them? Hell, no. After all, the newest political wildfire spreading across the plains is that education is overrated, and that the people with the education and the degrees and the experience aren’t really the smart guys after all.
You’re absolutely 100% correct, flu. There’s no resemblance to the unions of 100 years ago, and there hasn’t been for a very long time. When I grew up, I can’t tell you the number of families sat around without a paycheck, month after month, during prolonged strikes. Many of these were families with 5 or 7 or 10 kids. And they’d no sooner get a contract ratified, then they’d be out on strike again, and again. It wasn’t about better wages or working conditions. It was about petty power struggles by union leaders who couldn’t see the big picture (the effects of excessive labor costs and how they would eventually contribute to a mass exodus of manufacturing), or who simply didn’t care to (greed).
However, the human weaknesses that were responsible for the formation of the original unions are still alive and well, and the need for the unions is, also. However, I’m not at all sure that the union structure, as it stands today, is capable of doing the job they were set up to do. But you’re not going to be able to convince union members that they have to make some difficult choices in how their unions are structured, and what they need to be fighting for. There’s been too much emphasis in fighting for “now”, and pretty much none on the future. Again, it goes back to people just not caring enough to educate themselves about the choices they are making.
Today’s unions much more closely resemble today’s corporations. Watching the union guy on the Daily Show segment was illuminating: he was totally aware of what he was doing. He was simply shocked by the idea that, not only someone else had figured it out, but that they would call him on it.
You say that what unions do now is “borderline legalized extortion”. I think you are being generous. But if a need for change is not identified by the union members, and that change does not come from within, they’re in danger of losing everything.
October 5, 2010 at 1:18 PM #613508Participant[quote=flu][quote=eavesdropper]Thanks for bringing this to our attention, flu. I want YOUR job: y’know, the one that gives me enough time to watch The Daily Show.
Seriously, this pisses me off on a number of levels. Number one, once again I’m counting on the Daily Show for anything resembling actual news reporting. Never before in our nation’s history have there been so many “news” station and outlets, but the only stuff I’m getting from them is Sarah Palin’s latest Twitter feeds, and breaking news of Lindsay Lohan’s latest parole violation.
#2. Hiring people who are not members of the union to protest WalMart’s treatment of the union members??? Seriously, these people need to remove the “U” from UFCW. They violate the memories of tens of thousands who died, and millions more whose families sat through extended strikes, just to get basic human rights from employers 100 years ago. You want better pay and benefits and treatment? Get out there yourself and demand them!
#3. Then there’s the pay issue. Minimum wage is okay when it’s for workers who are out demanding YOUR right to higher than minimum pay. What the hell has happened to people in America that they can no longer see the disconnect. You know who I’m talking about: the nondisabled ultraconservative who’s pulling in $2K/month in SSI payments screaming that the government has to stop entitlement programs. The same people getting government-sponsored healthcare and cash benefits for their “disabled” children who are protesting government-sponsored healthcare for other people’s children. Union members receiving $50 or $60 an hour, protesting the government raising minimum wage for other Americans. And it goes on and on. We’ve become totally egocentric: I’ve got mine, but I’m going to keep you from getting yours. These people aren’t worried about the level of the debt in this country, or that their children and grandchildren are going to have to pay it (BTW, that is a phrase that I am really sick and tired of hearing. My grandchildren are, in all likelihood, going to be concerned with getting enough food and water for their families’ survival, thanks to the future effects of climate change. They’re going to be walking away from those government debts, just like we’re walking away from our underwater homes now). Americans today are simply worried about having more than their neighbors and friends.
I guess it’s possible that they simply don’t see the disconnect, the hypocrisy…and that possibility frightens me even more. Are we incapable of the minimal critical thinking it takes to put ourselves in the other guy’s shoes for a minute so that we can evaluate the effects of policy changes that we are demanding?[/quote]
Um let me respond when I have more time. But I’ll say this
1) You wouldn’t want my job. Chances are you wouldn’t be able to hack it…. (no offense)..
2) I’ve been fortunate enough to have those folks that hold up the labor dispute signs up several times in front of some of the offices I visited. And I’ve always was curious what the deal was…The funny thing is that about 8 times out of 10, when I tried to talk to those folks with those signs, none of them new what they were picketing about..I won’t even go into the direction as to which language I had to use to try to carry a conversation, because that would be heresy to discuss…..So…. That goes back to my original point…Obviously, someone was hired to sit in and picket…Frankly, I’m all for workers rights and all, but let’s face it unions have overstepped their powers…There’s a huge disconnect between maltreatment of workers and what the gist of original unions stood for and what it currently is right now.. The later is borderline legalized extortion….When there are rules to move a computer or 2 boxes by “union workers” only, and it takes two weeks to have the job done…..something is seriously wrong….It’s completely illogical.
And spare me the argument about being outsourced if unions weren’t around. I deal with the threat of outsourcing every day. And I can tell you that if software code could only be written by rules that it takes each person could only write 200 lines of code per hour without being paid overtime and that it takes a minimum of 10 people to write 10000 lines, with 4 shift supervisors, and that every bug that was found or fixed would be an additional per “bug” count extra pay, I guarantee three things would have happened
1) My wallets would be much fatter than what they are now in the short term.
2) innovation would come to a grinding halt
3) 90% of all work would find it’s way overseas in less than 2 years..BTW: Do you know what the majority of those protestors that hold up the signs are actually protesting? Just curious…[/quote]
Hell, no, I don’t know. What’s worse, neither do they, even when they ARE union workers. And that goes for most people protesting shit these days. Living here in the DC area, we get lots of opportunities to mingle with the masses at any number of protests. We ask people what the slogans on their signs mean, and they don’t have an answer. We ask them to provide us with an example of the violations they are claiming, and they don’t have an answer. We ask them how they would solve a problem that they claim has been ignored or exacerbated, and…they don’t have an answer. We ask them for evidence of actual skills and strengths and accomplishments by their chosen candidates, and guess what? They got nuthin’.
What they do have is a lot of piss and vinegar that’s been whipped up into a fine froth by politicians, pundits, talk radio hosts, and leaders of grass-roots-by-way-of- billionaire-businessmen organizations. What they’re quoting and what they’re carrying are little sound-bites that have been parceled out by their favorite “patriot”, not only can’t they understand and support it, but they don’t have the interest in making an effort to find out. So when some pesky “intellectectual elite” starts asking them questions, and popping off the stock sound bites doesn’t get them off your back, do you start asking some questions of your own, and maybe do some research? Nah, you simply walk away, and pretend that there aren’t any questions. That way, you can make sure you get to see who gets a rose tonight, or who gets thrown off the island, or who’s the surprise performer on “Dancing With the Stars”.
Does this bother them? Hell, no. After all, the newest political wildfire spreading across the plains is that education is overrated, and that the people with the education and the degrees and the experience aren’t really the smart guys after all.
You’re absolutely 100% correct, flu. There’s no resemblance to the unions of 100 years ago, and there hasn’t been for a very long time. When I grew up, I can’t tell you the number of families sat around without a paycheck, month after month, during prolonged strikes. Many of these were families with 5 or 7 or 10 kids. And they’d no sooner get a contract ratified, then they’d be out on strike again, and again. It wasn’t about better wages or working conditions. It was about petty power struggles by union leaders who couldn’t see the big picture (the effects of excessive labor costs and how they would eventually contribute to a mass exodus of manufacturing), or who simply didn’t care to (greed).
However, the human weaknesses that were responsible for the formation of the original unions are still alive and well, and the need for the unions is, also. However, I’m not at all sure that the union structure, as it stands today, is capable of doing the job they were set up to do. But you’re not going to be able to convince union members that they have to make some difficult choices in how their unions are structured, and what they need to be fighting for. There’s been too much emphasis in fighting for “now”, and pretty much none on the future. Again, it goes back to people just not caring enough to educate themselves about the choices they are making.
Today’s unions much more closely resemble today’s corporations. Watching the union guy on the Daily Show segment was illuminating: he was totally aware of what he was doing. He was simply shocked by the idea that, not only someone else had figured it out, but that they would call him on it.
You say that what unions do now is “borderline legalized extortion”. I think you are being generous. But if a need for change is not identified by the union members, and that change does not come from within, they’re in danger of losing everything.
October 5, 2010 at 1:18 PM #613624Participant[quote=flu][quote=eavesdropper]Thanks for bringing this to our attention, flu. I want YOUR job: y’know, the one that gives me enough time to watch The Daily Show.
Seriously, this pisses me off on a number of levels. Number one, once again I’m counting on the Daily Show for anything resembling actual news reporting. Never before in our nation’s history have there been so many “news” station and outlets, but the only stuff I’m getting from them is Sarah Palin’s latest Twitter feeds, and breaking news of Lindsay Lohan’s latest parole violation.
#2. Hiring people who are not members of the union to protest WalMart’s treatment of the union members??? Seriously, these people need to remove the “U” from UFCW. They violate the memories of tens of thousands who died, and millions more whose families sat through extended strikes, just to get basic human rights from employers 100 years ago. You want better pay and benefits and treatment? Get out there yourself and demand them!
#3. Then there’s the pay issue. Minimum wage is okay when it’s for workers who are out demanding YOUR right to higher than minimum pay. What the hell has happened to people in America that they can no longer see the disconnect. You know who I’m talking about: the nondisabled ultraconservative who’s pulling in $2K/month in SSI payments screaming that the government has to stop entitlement programs. The same people getting government-sponsored healthcare and cash benefits for their “disabled” children who are protesting government-sponsored healthcare for other people’s children. Union members receiving $50 or $60 an hour, protesting the government raising minimum wage for other Americans. And it goes on and on. We’ve become totally egocentric: I’ve got mine, but I’m going to keep you from getting yours. These people aren’t worried about the level of the debt in this country, or that their children and grandchildren are going to have to pay it (BTW, that is a phrase that I am really sick and tired of hearing. My grandchildren are, in all likelihood, going to be concerned with getting enough food and water for their families’ survival, thanks to the future effects of climate change. They’re going to be walking away from those government debts, just like we’re walking away from our underwater homes now). Americans today are simply worried about having more than their neighbors and friends.
I guess it’s possible that they simply don’t see the disconnect, the hypocrisy…and that possibility frightens me even more. Are we incapable of the minimal critical thinking it takes to put ourselves in the other guy’s shoes for a minute so that we can evaluate the effects of policy changes that we are demanding?[/quote]
Um let me respond when I have more time. But I’ll say this
1) You wouldn’t want my job. Chances are you wouldn’t be able to hack it…. (no offense)..
2) I’ve been fortunate enough to have those folks that hold up the labor dispute signs up several times in front of some of the offices I visited. And I’ve always was curious what the deal was…The funny thing is that about 8 times out of 10, when I tried to talk to those folks with those signs, none of them new what they were picketing about..I won’t even go into the direction as to which language I had to use to try to carry a conversation, because that would be heresy to discuss…..So…. That goes back to my original point…Obviously, someone was hired to sit in and picket…Frankly, I’m all for workers rights and all, but let’s face it unions have overstepped their powers…There’s a huge disconnect between maltreatment of workers and what the gist of original unions stood for and what it currently is right now.. The later is borderline legalized extortion….When there are rules to move a computer or 2 boxes by “union workers” only, and it takes two weeks to have the job done…..something is seriously wrong….It’s completely illogical.
And spare me the argument about being outsourced if unions weren’t around. I deal with the threat of outsourcing every day. And I can tell you that if software code could only be written by rules that it takes each person could only write 200 lines of code per hour without being paid overtime and that it takes a minimum of 10 people to write 10000 lines, with 4 shift supervisors, and that every bug that was found or fixed would be an additional per “bug” count extra pay, I guarantee three things would have happened
1) My wallets would be much fatter than what they are now in the short term.
2) innovation would come to a grinding halt
3) 90% of all work would find it’s way overseas in less than 2 years..BTW: Do you know what the majority of those protestors that hold up the signs are actually protesting? Just curious…[/quote]
Hell, no, I don’t know. What’s worse, neither do they, even when they ARE union workers. And that goes for most people protesting shit these days. Living here in the DC area, we get lots of opportunities to mingle with the masses at any number of protests. We ask people what the slogans on their signs mean, and they don’t have an answer. We ask them to provide us with an example of the violations they are claiming, and they don’t have an answer. We ask them how they would solve a problem that they claim has been ignored or exacerbated, and…they don’t have an answer. We ask them for evidence of actual skills and strengths and accomplishments by their chosen candidates, and guess what? They got nuthin’.
What they do have is a lot of piss and vinegar that’s been whipped up into a fine froth by politicians, pundits, talk radio hosts, and leaders of grass-roots-by-way-of- billionaire-businessmen organizations. What they’re quoting and what they’re carrying are little sound-bites that have been parceled out by their favorite “patriot”, not only can’t they understand and support it, but they don’t have the interest in making an effort to find out. So when some pesky “intellectectual elite” starts asking them questions, and popping off the stock sound bites doesn’t get them off your back, do you start asking some questions of your own, and maybe do some research? Nah, you simply walk away, and pretend that there aren’t any questions. That way, you can make sure you get to see who gets a rose tonight, or who gets thrown off the island, or who’s the surprise performer on “Dancing With the Stars”.
Does this bother them? Hell, no. After all, the newest political wildfire spreading across the plains is that education is overrated, and that the people with the education and the degrees and the experience aren’t really the smart guys after all.
You’re absolutely 100% correct, flu. There’s no resemblance to the unions of 100 years ago, and there hasn’t been for a very long time. When I grew up, I can’t tell you the number of families sat around without a paycheck, month after month, during prolonged strikes. Many of these were families with 5 or 7 or 10 kids. And they’d no sooner get a contract ratified, then they’d be out on strike again, and again. It wasn’t about better wages or working conditions. It was about petty power struggles by union leaders who couldn’t see the big picture (the effects of excessive labor costs and how they would eventually contribute to a mass exodus of manufacturing), or who simply didn’t care to (greed).
However, the human weaknesses that were responsible for the formation of the original unions are still alive and well, and the need for the unions is, also. However, I’m not at all sure that the union structure, as it stands today, is capable of doing the job they were set up to do. But you’re not going to be able to convince union members that they have to make some difficult choices in how their unions are structured, and what they need to be fighting for. There’s been too much emphasis in fighting for “now”, and pretty much none on the future. Again, it goes back to people just not caring enough to educate themselves about the choices they are making.
Today’s unions much more closely resemble today’s corporations. Watching the union guy on the Daily Show segment was illuminating: he was totally aware of what he was doing. He was simply shocked by the idea that, not only someone else had figured it out, but that they would call him on it.
You say that what unions do now is “borderline legalized extortion”. I think you are being generous. But if a need for change is not identified by the union members, and that change does not come from within, they’re in danger of losing everything.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.