Occupy Wall Street better defend its identity

[Checkmite]

I personally know some union leaders, and know first-hand that they attend left-wing demonstrations (anti-trident etc) without doing so as an attempt to benefit their union. Therefore, I will require evidence that the unions are acting in self-interest.

The article says they're there to represent their unions. If that were not true, I would expect these extremely large unions to have released press statements to the effect that the individuals were there for personal reasons and did not represent their respective unions.

Making specific (and explicit) demands is the entire reason unions exist.

 

[maddog]

The protesters are a bunch of left-wing tools who don't realize that their hero Obama is in bed with all the Wall Streeters and Goldman Sachsers that they are there to protest.

Protest against the Bush-Obama bank bailouts and the Obama GM bailout? Sure. But what, exactly, do they hope to accomplish by having a drum beat-off and a campout?

 

[respect]

Cow cookies. The fight is betrween the parasite in the finacial sector who would destroy the whole ecconomic base of this country if doing sao would allow them to grab up what ever of value is left and those who do the actual work that makes the ecconomy function.

Stop trying to drive wedges between the different groups that have been screwed by the Wall Street vermin.

Considering all of the communists and Ron Paul fans involved in this nonsense it is safe to say that it is the education system that screwed them.

 

[respect]

The protesters are a bunch of left-wing tools who don't realize that their hero Obama is in bed with all the Wall Streeters and Goldman Sachsers that they are there to protest.

Protest against the Bush-Obama bank bailouts and the Obama GM bailout? Sure. But what, exactly, do they hope to accomplish by having a drum beat-off and a campout?

All of the "end the Fed" garbage and similar signs indicate that the Ron Paul retard flock is involved as well.

 

[respect]

The unions are actually capable of running the factories, if it comes to that.

Because, as society is currently structured, it takes capital, and a staggering amount of it at that.

How are they going to run factories if they are incapable of building them in the first place?

 

[stokes234]

The article says they're there to represent their unions. If that were not true, I would expect these extremely large unions to have released press statements to the effect that the individuals were there for personal reasons and did not represent their respective unions.

Making specific (and explicit) demands is the entire reason unions exist.

No, the primary reason unions exist is to get better working conditions for their members, but unions around the world also often join left-wing protests without seeking personal gain. They are often made up of mostly left-wing individuals, so it is no suprise that they use their union organisation to support left-wing interests.

If you have evidence that they intend to personally gain from it - perhaps an internal memo saying "lets do this because we'll get publicity etc" - then feel free to share. Until then you're just throwing around unfounded speculation.

 

[Checkmite]

No, the primary reason unions exist is to get better working conditions for their members

...by making demands. Come on, you really want to argue this? Really?

If you have evidence that they intend to personally gain from it - perhaps an internal memo saying "lets do this because we'll get publicity etc" - then feel free to share. Until then you're just throwing around unfounded speculation.

Of course. I think this is what Carl Sagan in "Demon-Haunted World" meant by "using the BDK as a rote alternative to thinking".

I'm sure "unions around the world" may join pointedly-pointless protests for no particular motivation with regularity. I'm unaware of it ever happening in this country until now.

Time will tell.

 

[Emperor_Gestahl]

No, the primary reason unions exist is to get better working conditions for their members, but unions around the world also often join left-wing protests without seeking personal gain.

Clearly these organizations believe that putting/keeping democrats in office will bring them "personal gain" or the large amount of money they spend doing just that would seem rather silly. There's an obvious motive for them to try and inject partisan union issues to the protests and assimilate the OWS movement into the DNC. They have a good chance of succeeding IMO, wielding all the money and influence that being a massive pillar of the establishment entails.

Unless of course the hippies remember that they don't like the establishment.. hippies aren't known for their excellent memories though.

 

[respect]

Enforcing the laws they already broke by imprisoning 1000s of them (like with Savings and Loan in the 90s) is the way to deter it from happening again. There's no way to "make sure", criminals will always dream up a new scam, or a new way of dressing up an old one.

Congress isn't helping by repealing things like Glass Steagal but the core problem is the SEC and Justice Department who refuse to bring criminal charges against a single banker. Even Madoff had to turn himself in, they certainly weren't going to stop him. Regulatory capture trumps anything you can do on the legislative side.. A law is just toilet paper if that's all the "police" are using it for.

Who exactly do you want arrested and what should they be charged with?

Serious question, I have seen a lot of vague claims about how assorted bank and financial employees should be thrown in prison but very little in terms of specific claims about who broke what laws.

 

[Emperor_Gestahl]

Who exactly do you want arrested and what should they be charged with?

Here's a good place to start.. Page 6 is very educational as to how this situation is able to continue.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-isnt-wall-street-in-jail-20110216

As for particular people, Fabrice Tourre. Anyone materially involved with the GS fraud against their clients involving John Paulson.. Hell, anyone involved in misrepresenting the quality of CMBS could be charged with fraud, when money is changing hands based on knowingly false or incomplete information the executive branch could make a case if they felt like it. They don't feel like it.

And hey how about the fraud shops where people were paid $10/hr to sign other people's names on mortgage documents? Good old fashioned forgery mills.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7361572n

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/01/60minutes/main20049646.shtml

How about anyone involved in setting up that outfit? How bout anyone who had knowledge of these felonies while they were being committed? Much like with a roach infestation these are just the criminals I can see crawling around out in the open, if the Justice Dept were brave enough to look behind the fridge we could likely get up to the several thousands of indictments we saw in the 1990s the last time banks decided laws were only for poor people. (edit) Turns out they were wrong.. that time.

 

[stokes234]

...by making demands. Come on, you really want to argue this? Really?

Trade unions negotiate. They represent a collection of labour force, and they explain what their labour force will work for. It's no more a "demand" than offering a certain price at a market for a potted plant is a "demand".

Of course. I think this is what Carl Sagan in "Demon-Haunted World" meant by "using the BDK as a rote alternative to thinking".

I'm sure "unions around the world" may join pointedly-pointless protests for no particular motivation with regularity. I'm unaware of it ever happening in this country until now.

Time will tell.

Why are you sure of this? Joining a protest with no motivation to do so would be silly. Joining a protest as part of an organisation because you're a member of that organisation and the structure is useful for transport and mutual support, while having the motivation to do so because you personally support the political agenda without anticipating gain for the organisation you attend with is a perfectly reasonable scenario. I don't really see why you're arguing with this.

As to pointless, protests may not often achieve the goals they set out to do, but in protesting they show that there is a motivated opposition to whatever it is they are protesting against. A government attempting to make 20% cuts to X public service, seeing no protest, may just go ahead and make 30% cuts. A government seeing a huge outcry may change course and make 10% cuts. If you insist, I can find you plenty of examples of protests that have succeeded, but I'm guessing it was just hyperbole.

 

[Stacko]

all of the "end the fed" garbage and similar signs indicate that the ron paul retard flock is paultards are involved as well.

ftfy.

 

[Neally]

As to pointless, protests may not often achieve the goals they set out to do, but in protesting they show that there is a motivated opposition to whatever it is they are protesting against.

And the current protest fails since they are all over the map with what they are protesting, other than "Wall street bad". Stay tuned next week when we will see Wall street responding by being less bad.

 

[leftysergeant]

The unions are not committing a crime being there. They have an obligation to be there. The class warfare being waged by the Koch roaches and their brethern on Wall Street will, if successful, take down union and non-union labor along with the small entrepreneurs who used to provide most of the jobs in this country.

The unions created the middle class in this country. They made it possible for a working man to rise above the station into which he was born. The fought for safer working conditions.

They forced the capitalists to treat workers like human beings rather than like expendible industrial equipment.

The banksters and the money-gamers have screwed people across the ecconomic spectrum. High-tech workers whose jobs have been sold to China and the carpenter who has been laid off because people can no longer afford to buy the homes they build have more in common with the unions than with slime who have taken billions in tax cuts on the fraudulent theory that they "create jobs."

Maybe half the people in the occupation have no idea how to fix the mess that this ecconomy is in, but they know where the people who caused the problem hang out.

The unions know what to do about it. The neophyte protestors need the advice that the unions can give them in regards to logistics and effective communications. They also know what wil fix the situation. The unions are fighting to fix the ecconomy by keeping jobs here, ensuring the safety of workers and the ability of their families to survive temporary setbacks, by ensuring that workers will have a dignified retirement and that a day's work will earn a worker a day's provisions.

That many workers do not get these benefits is hurting the other, non-union victims of the slow-down.

But, because the corporate media have so suppressed the truth and have so distorted what the unions have been fighting for, some people actually blame the unions. It is time to fight back.

The unions did not send the jobs off shore. The unions did not decide that an executive should make more money based on the price of a company's stock. The unions did not come up with the idea that you can make more money by putting factories out of business than by actually making anything.

The rotten little weasels on Wall Street did that.

The unions know how to fight them. The unions are the natural allies of all of those people whoi have seen their futures turn from dreams to nightmares while people who make nothing but money get richer than can possibly be good for America.

 

[Emperor_Gestahl]

Stay tuned next week when we will see Wall street responding by being less bad.

While this won't actually happen, I wouldn't be surprised if they used the opportunity to try some PR stunts.

 

[WildCat]

Not everyone thinks in terms of government influence. Perhaps the trade unions are protesting over a small percentage of society being in control of a huge proportion of its wealth, in which case there is no hypocrisy.

Did you read my links about how Chicago union bosses got a sweetheart pension law passed for labor bosses in return for union support? The other one showing Illinois' public pensions are underfunded by $80 billion, and the recent 66% tax increase went entirely to paying off pension benefits> How Gov. Quinn cut a deal with the unioins just prior to the election agreeing not to lay off any union worker until after 2012? And how the budget will have to be cut in other areas solely to keep unneeded union members on the payroll?

Public unions have so much influence over Springfield they received benefits the state simply cannot afford. Corporations are threatening to flee the state to avoid the tax hikes they anticipate coming to fund the $80 billion state pension deficit. Big companies are negotiating deals to stay, small companies just move with little fanfare or notice except to their few employees. Those that remain must pay the pension bills when they come due.

 

[Emperor_Gestahl]

The unions created the middle class in this country. They made it possible for a working man to rise above the station into which he was born. The fought for safer working conditions.

They forced the capitalists to treat workers like human beings rather than like expendible industrial equipment.

We're talking about public sector unions here, not the unions that created the middle class. While FDR and the unions were creating said middle class FDR was strongly opposed to the at-the-time-crazy notion of public employees being able to strike and collectively bargain. So let's keep that separate.

The public unions don't have problems with Wall Street, they have problems with republicans. The more influence they have within the OWS movement the more it will be about two-party politics and the nameless "rich" and the less it will be about Wall Street (which is a DNC ally). If they just want to be the wing of the DNC with the most drums and tie-dye shirts then by all means I encourage them to join arm-in-arm with these massive establishment political forces.

 

[Drachasor]

We're talking about public sector unions here, not the unions that created the middle class. While FDR and the unions were creating said middle class FDR was strongly opposed to the at-the-time-crazy notion of public employees being able to strike and collectively bargain. So let's keep that separate.

The public unions don't have problems with Wall Street, they have problems with republicans. The more influence they have within the OWS movement the more it will be about two-party politics and the nameless "rich" and the less it will be about Wall Street (which is a DNC ally). If they just want to be the wing of the DNC with the most drums and tie-dye shirts then by all means I encourage them to join arm-in-arm with these massive establishment political forces.

Really? So the financial problems that Wall Street caused THE COUNTRY isn't something anyone but a few people should have a problem with? Further, a lot of those unions mentioned do not seem to be public sector unions. Lastly, I don't see what's wrong with Public Sector Employees having a union.

Side note (I don't think this is an issue for you, Gestahl): I'm not saying unions are perfect. I am sure Lefty would agree unions have made mistakes, like every human organization, and there are likely some that aren't run well. Unions provide a vital balancing force, however.

 

[Mike!]

Yeah, it's basically:

Phase 1: Protest Wall Street
Phase 2: ????
Phase 3: Revolution!

And a prediction of my own: this will have blown over by November 2011 at the earliest.

I'm figuring by the time the weather turns to real crap, the thrill will be gone from standing in the streets.

 

[Emperor_Gestahl]

Side note (I don't think this is an issue for you, Gestahl): I'm not saying unions are perfect. I am sure Lefty would agree unions have made mistakes, like every human organization, and there are likely some that aren't run well. Unions provide a vital balancing force, however.

A balancing force.. against the pillars of partisan establishment supporting the republicans. I agree.

Really? So the financial problems that Wall Street caused THE COUNTRY isn't something anyone but a few people should have a problem with?

I'm sure most of the union's members do have a negative attitude toward Wall Street, damn near everyone does. The organization itself though is a powerhouse of two-party politics.. I don't have a problem with them "being there" I'm just saying that if this movement wants to remain an independent non-partisan political movement they had better not become too entangled.. Which could be difficult to do considering the sheer amount of resources the unions have available compared to the OWS protesters.

Further, a lot of those unions mentioned do not seem to be public sector unions.

My warning against becoming too involved with powerful political factions would still apply to the private unions at the OWS protests, though I have no objection to their collective bargaining or strikes.

Lastly, I don't see what's wrong with Public Sector Employees having a union.

The problem isn't that public servants have a union, it's that they have collective bargaining and in some cases the power to strike.

Here's FDR's take:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15445#axzz1a4B0f1DA

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government."