Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Longshore lock out resumes
The lockout of the dockworkers resumes. My spouse and my son (members of Local 10, ILWU) report for picket duty tomorrow.
The lockout of the West Coast dockworkers resumes. My spouse and my son (members of Local 10, ILWU) report for picket duty tomorrow.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Folks are being asked to show up at 6 AM,,,
If George Bush is willing to send troops half way round the world to invade Iraq, then we must wonder whether he is not also willing to send troops to Oakland (or Portland, Seattle, etc.) to load the ships. This is the only thing that makes sense to me as far as why the PMA would pull this lock-out. Maybe I'm wrong, but we should be prepared for this. And if he does this, what will be our response?
As a union carpenter for 30 years (presently expelled by the International for helping lead a wildcat strike), I think that it is vitally important that the rest of the labor movement gets involved in this struggle in a REAL way. This means more than a few top union leaders coming out to rallies and getting up and speechifying about how many thousand workers they represent (none of whom are present). It means a real, mass mobilization of the memberhsip of the rest of organized labor, and in fact of all workers.
Will the AFL-CIO leadership do this? Not a chance in hell. They won't mobilize to defend their own union, so why should we think they will for the ILWU? What is needed is a campaign aimed directly at the rank and file of the other unions, from the ILWU. If it's not done by the ILWU officially, then we need a rank and file committed to do so. Go onto the construction sites, the union hiring halls, the city work yards, the post offices, go to the clerks in the grocery stores -- wherever workers are - with a strong, hard hitting leaflet explaining that the ILWU is really serious about reversing these attacks on workers. This would be an inspiration.
I, personally, would love to take a group of ILWU members onto construction sites and into Carpenter union hiring halls to do this. A knock-down, drag-out battle on the waterfront would be the best thing that's happened in this country since the civil rights movement.
As a union carpenter for 30 years (presently expelled by the International for helping lead a wildcat strike), I think that it is vitally important that the rest of the labor movement gets involved in this struggle in a REAL way. This means more than a few top union leaders coming out to rallies and getting up and speechifying about how many thousand workers they represent (none of whom are present). It means a real, mass mobilization of the memberhsip of the rest of organized labor, and in fact of all workers.
Will the AFL-CIO leadership do this? Not a chance in hell. They won't mobilize to defend their own union, so why should we think they will for the ILWU? What is needed is a campaign aimed directly at the rank and file of the other unions, from the ILWU. If it's not done by the ILWU officially, then we need a rank and file committed to do so. Go onto the construction sites, the union hiring halls, the city work yards, the post offices, go to the clerks in the grocery stores -- wherever workers are - with a strong, hard hitting leaflet explaining that the ILWU is really serious about reversing these attacks on workers. This would be an inspiration.
I, personally, would love to take a group of ILWU members onto construction sites and into Carpenter union hiring halls to do this. A knock-down, drag-out battle on the waterfront would be the best thing that's happened in this country since the civil rights movement.
For more information:
http://www.laborsmilitantvoice.com
If you really think that a replay of militant labor is going to happen on the docks of the west coast in 2002, you are stumbling around in a strategic never-never land.
Labor organizations do not move towards resistance in the United States. They move towards management, they move towards labor pimping, and they move towards docility.
But they certainly don't move towards violent self-defense of worker rights.
Admit, you've been hoodwinked.
Labor organizations do not move towards resistance in the United States. They move towards management, they move towards labor pimping, and they move towards docility.
But they certainly don't move towards violent self-defense of worker rights.
Admit, you've been hoodwinked.
From what I've heard, the sticking point in negotiations is that the Union does not want cargo loading/unloading to be automated. As someone who has the misfortune of being forced to be in a Union to have my job, I see on a daily basis how Unions in America resist technology any way they can. This is one reason for labor's decline. Unions are trying to keep us back in an era that no longer exists. If a computer can unload cargo faster and more cheaply than a person (without calling in sick, going on strike, taking days off, etc.) then so be it. In my career, I've lost two jobs because my skills became obsolete due to improvements in technology. SO I WENT OUT AND LEARNED HOW TO DO SOMETHING NEW. Union people seem to think they have some "right" to lifetime employment paid for by everyone else. Why should people pay more for goods in stores so that a person can unload them when they can get a much better bargain if those same goods are unloaded by machine?
I agree that labor should not 'turn away' from improvements in technology.
However, they also should not ignore what some of these improvements mean in reality.
More often than not, these improvements which simplify the tasks, etc., which need to by done by a human, in effect further reduce the role of the human to a more replacable cog in the machinery. And history has shown, when the human loses their relative skill advantage, they become less valuable to their employers, and thus much less able to control the conditions of their work. Unions must recognize this.
When the improvements in technology are not used to improve the working conditions that people face, but instead simply are used to improve the bottom line, most everyone but those who own the enterprise lose.
I don't think that most people are afraid to learn something new, if that is what must be done. That should not be confused with the fear of losing a good paying job which in all likelihood you will not be able to replace.
However, they also should not ignore what some of these improvements mean in reality.
More often than not, these improvements which simplify the tasks, etc., which need to by done by a human, in effect further reduce the role of the human to a more replacable cog in the machinery. And history has shown, when the human loses their relative skill advantage, they become less valuable to their employers, and thus much less able to control the conditions of their work. Unions must recognize this.
When the improvements in technology are not used to improve the working conditions that people face, but instead simply are used to improve the bottom line, most everyone but those who own the enterprise lose.
I don't think that most people are afraid to learn something new, if that is what must be done. That should not be confused with the fear of losing a good paying job which in all likelihood you will not be able to replace.
I think you're full of shit -- by that I mean don't believe you're a union worker who's innocently given these matters some thought and come to the conclusion enunciated above. I say that as someone who thinks institutional unions are largely inept, fumbling, and anachronistic and as someone that doesn't automatically dismiss workers who criticize unions as stooges. But there's something not right about your post -- it doesn't hit upon ANY any of the gripes that workers (as workers) have of unions today. It sounds, instead, like an ideological defense of capitalism straight out of an economics text-book. It sounds, in other words, like you're well-practised at knocking down straw-men and erecting infallible market models.
Your refer to being happily automated out of jobs. Since you're a management kiss-ass, and thus have no reason to fear retaliation, why not give some more specifics. What jobs? When? How many workers lost work with you? Were the prices of the commodities you helped produce lowered because of automation? What sort of training did you happily consent to after losing your job? Did most of the workers that got automated out of a job find work that paid as much as the previous one? Why do you keep returning to the union if you are so unambiguously opposed to its protections?
My two cents is that if unions and workers sought to amass their social power on behalf of the working class as a whole instead of simply trying to maintain conditions for dues-payers in the immediate term, then the question of technological innovation wouldn't appear so pressing.
Like John suggests above, dockworkers possess this social power. For this reason, if they want support they must radicalize their demands and make them relevant to all wage-workers.
Your refer to being happily automated out of jobs. Since you're a management kiss-ass, and thus have no reason to fear retaliation, why not give some more specifics. What jobs? When? How many workers lost work with you? Were the prices of the commodities you helped produce lowered because of automation? What sort of training did you happily consent to after losing your job? Did most of the workers that got automated out of a job find work that paid as much as the previous one? Why do you keep returning to the union if you are so unambiguously opposed to its protections?
My two cents is that if unions and workers sought to amass their social power on behalf of the working class as a whole instead of simply trying to maintain conditions for dues-payers in the immediate term, then the question of technological innovation wouldn't appear so pressing.
Like John suggests above, dockworkers possess this social power. For this reason, if they want support they must radicalize their demands and make them relevant to all wage-workers.
There is nothing written in stone about the 40 hour work week. It's not in the Bible, the Koran, or anywhere else that I know of. In past periods, workers worked far longer hours; they had to fight for a reduction to the 40 hour work week (combined with no loss in pay).
Nowadays, unfortunately, many workers have in practice lost the 40 hour week. Either because of the bosses' mandates or due to economic necessity, they have to work 50 or more hours just to survive (or to keep their job). Meanwhile, new technology has vastly increased productivity in all industries. There is every justification for a new sharp reduction in the work week with no loss in pay.
Of course, this will cut into the bosses' profits, but why should we care? They don't care about whether we have time to spend with our families, or whether we can even afford to HAVE a family.
It is most unfortunate that the ILWU leadership has conceded on this issue and has agreed to a further reduction in jobs, due to introduction of new technology. It would be much better if they said: "no loss in jobs. Reduce the work week, with the same weekly pay. Make this the start of a generalized campaign to reduce the work week." It would be much better if they used this to inspire workers from the rest of the labor movement, unorganized workers, the unemployed and the youth, to come out and join their battle with a promise (in deeds, not just words) to reciprocate.
This would really set the bosses and their regime back on their heels.
John Reimann
PS. for more on this subject, check out our web site.
Nowadays, unfortunately, many workers have in practice lost the 40 hour week. Either because of the bosses' mandates or due to economic necessity, they have to work 50 or more hours just to survive (or to keep their job). Meanwhile, new technology has vastly increased productivity in all industries. There is every justification for a new sharp reduction in the work week with no loss in pay.
Of course, this will cut into the bosses' profits, but why should we care? They don't care about whether we have time to spend with our families, or whether we can even afford to HAVE a family.
It is most unfortunate that the ILWU leadership has conceded on this issue and has agreed to a further reduction in jobs, due to introduction of new technology. It would be much better if they said: "no loss in jobs. Reduce the work week, with the same weekly pay. Make this the start of a generalized campaign to reduce the work week." It would be much better if they used this to inspire workers from the rest of the labor movement, unorganized workers, the unemployed and the youth, to come out and join their battle with a promise (in deeds, not just words) to reciprocate.
This would really set the bosses and their regime back on their heels.
John Reimann
PS. for more on this subject, check out our web site.
For more information:
http://www.laborsmilitantvoice.com
There is nothing written in stone about the 40 hour work week. It's not in the Bible, the Koran, or anywhere else that I know of. In past periods, workers worked far longer hours; they had to fight for a reduction to the 40 hour work week (combined with no loss in pay).
Nowadays, unfortunately, many workers have in practice lost the 40 hour week. Either because of the bosses' mandates or due to economic necessity, they have to work 50 or more hours just to survive (or to keep their job). Meanwhile, new technology has vastly increased productivity in all industries. There is every justification for a new sharp reduction in the work week with no loss in pay.
Of course, this will cut into the bosses' profits, but why should we care? They don't care about whether we have time to spend with our families, or whether we can even afford to HAVE a family.
It is most unfortunate that the ILWU leadership has conceded on this issue and has agreed to a further reduction in jobs, due to introduction of new technology. It would be much better if they said: "no loss in jobs. Reduce the work week, with the same weekly pay. Make this the start of a generalized campaign to reduce the work week." It would be much better if they used this to inspire workers from the rest of the labor movement, unorganized workers, the unemployed and the youth, to come out and join their battle with a promise (in deeds, not just words) to reciprocate.
This would really set the bosses and their regime back on their heels.
John Reimann
PS. for more on this subject, check out our web site.
Nowadays, unfortunately, many workers have in practice lost the 40 hour week. Either because of the bosses' mandates or due to economic necessity, they have to work 50 or more hours just to survive (or to keep their job). Meanwhile, new technology has vastly increased productivity in all industries. There is every justification for a new sharp reduction in the work week with no loss in pay.
Of course, this will cut into the bosses' profits, but why should we care? They don't care about whether we have time to spend with our families, or whether we can even afford to HAVE a family.
It is most unfortunate that the ILWU leadership has conceded on this issue and has agreed to a further reduction in jobs, due to introduction of new technology. It would be much better if they said: "no loss in jobs. Reduce the work week, with the same weekly pay. Make this the start of a generalized campaign to reduce the work week." It would be much better if they used this to inspire workers from the rest of the labor movement, unorganized workers, the unemployed and the youth, to come out and join their battle with a promise (in deeds, not just words) to reciprocate.
This would really set the bosses and their regime back on their heels.
John Reimann
PS. for more on this subject, check out our web site.
For more information:
http://www.laborsmilitantvoice.com
>>> Your refer to being happily automated out of jobs. Since you're a management kiss-ass, and thus have no reason to fear retaliation, why not give some more specifics. What jobs? When? How many workers lost work with you? <<<
I was a typesetter for 10 years. The introduction of the PC made this business almost obsolete. The company I worked for (50 employees) shut down, and most other typesetting businesses are gone now, too.
>>> Were the prices of the commodities you helped produce lowered because of automation? <<<
Yes, to the benefit of everyone. Now, everyone can publish anything they want for little or no cost. In the past, there was the expense of printing, typesetting, etc. Economics 101: Mass production makes things cheaper.
>>> What sort of training did you happily consent to after losing your job? <<<
I went back to college on my own dime and learned computer programming
>>> Did most of the workers that got automated out of a job find work that paid as much as the previous one? <<<
I have no idea. I make a lot more now than I did then, though. I assume those who were ambitious and learned a new skill are also doing well, and those who were lazy probably aren't.
>>> Why do you keep returning to the union if you are so unambiguously opposed to its protections? <<<
It is required, i.e., I'm required to pay dues because my current job is considered a "Union position". So, I can either take the representation and pay the dues, or simply pay the dues and get nothing (I actually feel like I get nothing either way)
My biggest gripe with Unions is that they reward mediocrity. There is no benefit to those who do a better job. We have people who sit around all day doing nothing and those who work very hard. Everyone gets the same money regardless. Even if there are layoffs, they are based on seniority and not performance.
I was a typesetter for 10 years. The introduction of the PC made this business almost obsolete. The company I worked for (50 employees) shut down, and most other typesetting businesses are gone now, too.
>>> Were the prices of the commodities you helped produce lowered because of automation? <<<
Yes, to the benefit of everyone. Now, everyone can publish anything they want for little or no cost. In the past, there was the expense of printing, typesetting, etc. Economics 101: Mass production makes things cheaper.
>>> What sort of training did you happily consent to after losing your job? <<<
I went back to college on my own dime and learned computer programming
>>> Did most of the workers that got automated out of a job find work that paid as much as the previous one? <<<
I have no idea. I make a lot more now than I did then, though. I assume those who were ambitious and learned a new skill are also doing well, and those who were lazy probably aren't.
>>> Why do you keep returning to the union if you are so unambiguously opposed to its protections? <<<
It is required, i.e., I'm required to pay dues because my current job is considered a "Union position". So, I can either take the representation and pay the dues, or simply pay the dues and get nothing (I actually feel like I get nothing either way)
My biggest gripe with Unions is that they reward mediocrity. There is no benefit to those who do a better job. We have people who sit around all day doing nothing and those who work very hard. Everyone gets the same money regardless. Even if there are layoffs, they are based on seniority and not performance.
it's because to the bosses, we're nothing but livestock.
Have to agree with Futurist--
The major stumbling block with the ILWU is the resistance to progress because it means a reduction in the workforce.
Interestingly enough, about 40 years ago the same fight took place over the introduction of cranes at the dockyards. The ILWU was only willing to agree to the use of cranes if it could keep all of its workers, even those who would be made redundant by the cranes!!! Nowadays, the union wants to keep all the workers including those made redundant by computer scanning equimpent and other upgrades in technology.
The ILWU may win this battle but they will lose the war. The manufacturing and transportation industries will continue to progress far faster than the ILWU can tolerate. We are on the threshold of nano-manufacturing and probably only two to three decades away from a major shift away from massive global production centers towards the birth of many local re-configurable and mostly-automated production centers -- greatly reducing the need of international shipping.
Over time, the ILWU knows that it is inevitable that it's workforce will shrink. Go ahead and support the union if it makes you feel good. In the long-run, it won't make much of a difference.
The major stumbling block with the ILWU is the resistance to progress because it means a reduction in the workforce.
Interestingly enough, about 40 years ago the same fight took place over the introduction of cranes at the dockyards. The ILWU was only willing to agree to the use of cranes if it could keep all of its workers, even those who would be made redundant by the cranes!!! Nowadays, the union wants to keep all the workers including those made redundant by computer scanning equimpent and other upgrades in technology.
The ILWU may win this battle but they will lose the war. The manufacturing and transportation industries will continue to progress far faster than the ILWU can tolerate. We are on the threshold of nano-manufacturing and probably only two to three decades away from a major shift away from massive global production centers towards the birth of many local re-configurable and mostly-automated production centers -- greatly reducing the need of international shipping.
Over time, the ILWU knows that it is inevitable that it's workforce will shrink. Go ahead and support the union if it makes you feel good. In the long-run, it won't make much of a difference.
To the "futurist":
Thanks for the response.
I tend to agree that unions today encourage mediocrity. I don't think, however, this is because unions suppress market excellence -- as you imply -- but because they fail to challenge the capitalist productive process in any fundamental way. Unions today are in the business of selling lumps of labor to capital and freezing into place gains for their dues-payers. They explicitly work within the framework of capitalism and, in a real sense, are reliant upon it. Hence the Toxic Materials Union -- at its best -- seeks to ratchet up conditions for Toxic Materials workers but is disinclined to question the production of said materials. Once a contract is signed, in fact, the TMU is structurally prone to favor such production.
In view of the fact that union's don't challenge capitalist production or social relations, I can sympathize with your frustration with their tendency to suppress "meritocracy" on the job. I guess if we're gonna play this asinine game we might as well have clear and internally logical rules...
The thing that you seem to ignore is that mediocrity is endemic to mass production capitalism. Mediocrity is the best description I can think of for capital's mass produced culture(go to a movie and tell me that's not the case), housing (take a look at the shoddy materials and design of these $750,000 McMansions!), consumer products (most are uninventive flimsy garbage), "cities" (go to the suburbs and tell me capitalism produces excellence!), health care (astronomical -- and rising -- prices, for largely slipshod treatment), computer programs (Microsoft), food (McDonalds, Burger King, Taco Bell...)........
So, yes, I would agree that unions encourage -- or at least fail to combat -- mediocrity.
Thanks for the response.
I tend to agree that unions today encourage mediocrity. I don't think, however, this is because unions suppress market excellence -- as you imply -- but because they fail to challenge the capitalist productive process in any fundamental way. Unions today are in the business of selling lumps of labor to capital and freezing into place gains for their dues-payers. They explicitly work within the framework of capitalism and, in a real sense, are reliant upon it. Hence the Toxic Materials Union -- at its best -- seeks to ratchet up conditions for Toxic Materials workers but is disinclined to question the production of said materials. Once a contract is signed, in fact, the TMU is structurally prone to favor such production.
In view of the fact that union's don't challenge capitalist production or social relations, I can sympathize with your frustration with their tendency to suppress "meritocracy" on the job. I guess if we're gonna play this asinine game we might as well have clear and internally logical rules...
The thing that you seem to ignore is that mediocrity is endemic to mass production capitalism. Mediocrity is the best description I can think of for capital's mass produced culture(go to a movie and tell me that's not the case), housing (take a look at the shoddy materials and design of these $750,000 McMansions!), consumer products (most are uninventive flimsy garbage), "cities" (go to the suburbs and tell me capitalism produces excellence!), health care (astronomical -- and rising -- prices, for largely slipshod treatment), computer programs (Microsoft), food (McDonalds, Burger King, Taco Bell...)........
So, yes, I would agree that unions encourage -- or at least fail to combat -- mediocrity.
Why settle for a bigger piece of the pie? Take the oven.
Unions are Management?
That's what drove United Airlines into bankruptcy. The dockworkers see their jobs being eliminated by automation, and rather than prepare for it, they depend on their union. Unions make life cozy for as few members as possible, creating monopoly power through the selective allocation of labor. Somehow exempt from the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Its time has come to break the monopoly!
That's what drove United Airlines into bankruptcy. The dockworkers see their jobs being eliminated by automation, and rather than prepare for it, they depend on their union. Unions make life cozy for as few members as possible, creating monopoly power through the selective allocation of labor. Somehow exempt from the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Its time has come to break the monopoly!
Funny there's no mention by any pro-unionists about organized crime and their control within the unions. Income drops and some union leaders and militant workers who are holding up agreements start losing family members to the grim reaper. Kapeche!?!
<p>The reason nobody has mentioned organized crime is becaiuse the notion that the ILWu has any involvement in organized crime or the mob is pure horseshit.</p>
<p>Even the PMA doesn't stoop so low.</p>
<p>The conservative and pro-capitalist leadership of some locals of the <i>east coast</i> Longshore union, the ILA, has Mafia ties, butrank & file members have been fighting like hell to kick these bums out.</p>
<p>The ILWU is the <i>west coast</i> Longshore union (it was formed as a radical reform caucus within the old ILA in the 1930s and eventually was kicked out of the ILA for being too democratic). The ILWU is Mafia free and has a strong, democratic rank & file structure. Of course, it doesn't go far enough, and many radicals within the union are working to change that, but the current issue is fighting the PMA who are truely worse than organized crime.</p>
<p>Before you make broad sweeping generalizations that have no basis in fact, please know what you're talking about.</p>
<p>Here is some background information:</p>
<ul>
<li>Kimmeldorf, Howard -<u> Reds or Rackets</u>, 1988: University of California Press</li>
<li>Kimmeldorf, Howard - <u>Battling for American Labor</u>, 1999: University of California Press</li>
<li>Association for Union Democracy</li>
</ul>
<p>Please, get a clue, if you value your weekends, retirement pay, and social security.</p>
<p>Even the PMA doesn't stoop so low.</p>
<p>The conservative and pro-capitalist leadership of some locals of the <i>east coast</i> Longshore union, the ILA, has Mafia ties, butrank & file members have been fighting like hell to kick these bums out.</p>
<p>The ILWU is the <i>west coast</i> Longshore union (it was formed as a radical reform caucus within the old ILA in the 1930s and eventually was kicked out of the ILA for being too democratic). The ILWU is Mafia free and has a strong, democratic rank & file structure. Of course, it doesn't go far enough, and many radicals within the union are working to change that, but the current issue is fighting the PMA who are truely worse than organized crime.</p>
<p>Before you make broad sweeping generalizations that have no basis in fact, please know what you're talking about.</p>
<p>Here is some background information:</p>
<ul>
<li>Kimmeldorf, Howard -<u> Reds or Rackets</u>, 1988: University of California Press</li>
<li>Kimmeldorf, Howard - <u>Battling for American Labor</u>, 1999: University of California Press</li>
<li>Association for Union Democracy</li>
</ul>
<p>Please, get a clue, if you value your weekends, retirement pay, and social security.</p>
The reason nobody has mentioned organized crime is becaiuse the notion that the ILWu has any involvement in organized crime or the mob is pure horseshit.
Even the PMA doesn't stoop so low.
The conservative and pro-capitalist leadership of some locals of the east coast Longshore union, the ILA, has Mafia ties, butrank & file members have been fighting like hell to kick these bums out.
The ILWU is the west coast Longshore union (it was formed as a radical reform caucus within the old ILA in the 1930s and eventually was kicked out of the ILA for being too democratic). The ILWU is Mafia free and has a strong, democratic rank & file structure. Of course, it doesn't go far enough, and many radicals within the union are working to change that, but the current issue is fighting the PMA who are truely worse than organized crime.
Before you make broad sweeping generalizations that have no basis in fact, please know what you're talking about.
Here is some background information:
- Kimmeldorf, Howard - Reds or Rackets, 1988: University of California Press
- Kimmeldorf, Howard - Battling for American Labor, 1999: University of California Press
- Association for Union Democracy
Please, get a clue, if you value your weekends, retirement pay, and social security.
Bullshit. PMA and the Mob are in bed. The Mob is everywhere the unions are.
I might try to break that picket line since I have been unemployed for months, and I actually would like to work. I'm not in a union, and that probably works in my favor since I won't go crying to some suit who's only purpose is to collect dues from me so I can endanger my job.
If the workers(union) could only see that the technology would increase the economy of all involved. Increase productivity, increase pay, and also increase jobs. It is a win win situation. Why be bull headed and step on the American people who want to work? You are shutting down plants, farmers, and the livelihood of hard working citizens who cannot survive with this strife. Go Back to work and be thankful and proud you are an American with all the luxuries the USA has to offer. And not living in a 3rd world country in poverty.
If the workers(union) could only see that the technology would increase the economy of all involved. Increase productivity, increase pay, and also increase jobs. It is a win win situation. Why be bull headed and step on the American people who want to work? You are shutting down plants, farmers, and the livelihood of hard working citizens who cannot survive with this strife. Go Back to work and be thankful and proud you are an American with all the luxuries the USA has to offer. And not living in a 3rd world country in poverty.
Hey all you pathetic scabs--cross a picket at the threat of grievous bodily harm. It's shameful that people who do work are so brainwashed into arguing against what's best for them and those in the same condition and end up arguing for their class enemies and the system that keeps them enslaved. Scabs should all be KILLED!
The Saint
The Saint
technology is here to stay, and working for a living, I mean 40 hours/wk "doing", not just "showing up" is life. technology is here to stay, and if computers are eliminating jobs, how about asking your union to develop a plan that integrates technology training! dah!
you people are too much.
you people are too much.
You're talking about people with the mentality to conduct in "kneecapping". What makes you think they'll ever know how to work a computer?
Having seen unions at "work" for decades I have no sympathy for their stupidity, their rampant crime, or their their blatant undemocratic behavior.
Now we have a bunch of overpaid longshoremen - who qualify as "The Rich" by any standard, whining like the babies they are because their outrageous wages naturally caused management to look for cost cutting measures. Duh.
Can their being anyone in this country as stupid as unions?
Fortunately, this country has come to realize that the laws giving unions special rights are unethical and eventually they will be taken off the books, no matter how much bones unions threaten to break. It's time that unions learn the real meaning of democracy. Thank God, we have the National Right to Work Foundation to fight and expose illegal union behavior.
"Scabs" are the real heros for having the guts to stand up for themselves and the right to work for their families in the face of union goons who never heard of the law, much less give a damn for it or the rights of mankind.
Now we have a bunch of overpaid longshoremen - who qualify as "The Rich" by any standard, whining like the babies they are because their outrageous wages naturally caused management to look for cost cutting measures. Duh.
Can their being anyone in this country as stupid as unions?
Fortunately, this country has come to realize that the laws giving unions special rights are unethical and eventually they will be taken off the books, no matter how much bones unions threaten to break. It's time that unions learn the real meaning of democracy. Thank God, we have the National Right to Work Foundation to fight and expose illegal union behavior.
"Scabs" are the real heros for having the guts to stand up for themselves and the right to work for their families in the face of union goons who never heard of the law, much less give a damn for it or the rights of mankind.
The union just turned down a contract wherein the avg worker would be paid $114,000 a year -- that's well over $50 per hour.
'nuff said
'nuff said
So longshoremen are rich? Why do they bother even showing up for work or demanding better, safer working conditions? If they are de facto members of the ruling class because making more than $100K a years makes them rich, why don't they stop doing such fucking dangerour work and just go golfing with Bill Gates, go to the Caymen Islands to count all their money with the former execs of Enron, Worldcom, Aldephia and LTCM? Or they could just live on yachts moored off the Frech Riveria.
A recent Oakland Tribune article showed that hundreds of Oakland cops and firefighters milk overtime to make over $200K a year. Following the reactionary logic of others posting here, why don't the pigs--excuse me--cops just hang up their guns and badges, stop doing such dangerour work and go party with the "lazy" longshoremen and corporate execs?
On the 29th of May the New York Times said that the median housing price in the greater Bay Area is $402K . Doesn't make those longshoremen, cops or fire fighters so rich any more. Should we all be "unselfish", make concessions over our wages and working conditions so that the REAL ruling class can afford such expensive homes?
If longshoremen, who've won high wages--yet still not so safe conditions with 5 deaths on the waterfront this year--with struggles going back to the SF General Strike of 1934 are "greedy" and "selfish", does that mean the homeless guy or woman looking for a bite to eat or a quarter or two to survive--hopefully--a little less miserably are "greedy" and "selfish" too? What does that make the capitalists who rape the planet, exploit all of us who work? Altruists? Your world, where good is bad and bad is good is FUCKED UP!
Start thinking and stop regurgitating what you read in the newspaper or hear on the evening news. They are, as the great SF poet Kenneth Rexroth called them, SOCIAL LIES. What makes you more human is reading between the lines to find the truth. Please try it and you won't come off as anti-worker fascists anymore.
The Saint
A recent Oakland Tribune article showed that hundreds of Oakland cops and firefighters milk overtime to make over $200K a year. Following the reactionary logic of others posting here, why don't the pigs--excuse me--cops just hang up their guns and badges, stop doing such dangerour work and go party with the "lazy" longshoremen and corporate execs?
On the 29th of May the New York Times said that the median housing price in the greater Bay Area is $402K . Doesn't make those longshoremen, cops or fire fighters so rich any more. Should we all be "unselfish", make concessions over our wages and working conditions so that the REAL ruling class can afford such expensive homes?
If longshoremen, who've won high wages--yet still not so safe conditions with 5 deaths on the waterfront this year--with struggles going back to the SF General Strike of 1934 are "greedy" and "selfish", does that mean the homeless guy or woman looking for a bite to eat or a quarter or two to survive--hopefully--a little less miserably are "greedy" and "selfish" too? What does that make the capitalists who rape the planet, exploit all of us who work? Altruists? Your world, where good is bad and bad is good is FUCKED UP!
Start thinking and stop regurgitating what you read in the newspaper or hear on the evening news. They are, as the great SF poet Kenneth Rexroth called them, SOCIAL LIES. What makes you more human is reading between the lines to find the truth. Please try it and you won't come off as anti-worker fascists anymore.
The Saint
When ILWU demanding jobs for life for all its workers, that's called greed -- this isn't the Soviet Union you know.
Why should management pay dockworkers who make $114,000 a year to LEARN to become tech workers when they can just go ahead and hire qualified tech workers between $60-$100 a year, SAVE MONEY, and have a MORE PRODUCTIVE labor force?
Makes about as much sense as Intel, with it's own hypothetical-port, being prevented from hiring highly skilled dockworkers because it's high-tech employees threaten to strike unless the dockworkers positions are "theirs" to fill.
A union isn't any more or less liable to institutional greed than anyone else.
Why should management pay dockworkers who make $114,000 a year to LEARN to become tech workers when they can just go ahead and hire qualified tech workers between $60-$100 a year, SAVE MONEY, and have a MORE PRODUCTIVE labor force?
Makes about as much sense as Intel, with it's own hypothetical-port, being prevented from hiring highly skilled dockworkers because it's high-tech employees threaten to strike unless the dockworkers positions are "theirs" to fill.
A union isn't any more or less liable to institutional greed than anyone else.
the right-wing ass-kisser's are against "greed".
Sorta like Bush's concern for human rights in Iraq.
Sorta like Bush's concern for human rights in Iraq.
Shutdown of West Coast Ports Shows America’s Economy Is Held Hostage
By Forced Unionism
Irrational federal labor policy enables union officials to wreak
havoc
FOR RELEASE: October 2, 2002
Washington, D.C. (October 2, 2002) – The National Right to Work
Foundation today blasted officials of the International Longshore and
Warehouse Union (ILWU) for exploiting America’s economic crisis and
concerns over national security to increase their power by forcing
the shutdown of all West Coast shipping ports.
Using a variety of work slowdown tactics, including deliberately
understaffing key operations and sending workers to jobs for which
they were not qualified, ILWU officials made it impossible for the
ports to function. Experts have estimated that the shutdown of West
Coast ports will cost the American economy $1 billion each day.
“With actions taken directly from the union playbook used during
other periods of crisis, ILWU officials have chosen to use their
increased leverage to make unreasonable demands,” stated Stefan
Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense
Foundation. “This is a perfect example of why workers should be freed
from government-backed forced unionism which gives union bosses a
virtual stranglehold over workers’ jobs and America’s economy.”
Resulting from the many union coercive powers created by federal
labor law, ILWU officials have been empowered to interfere with the
ability of thousands of workers to support their families. For
example, union officials may lawfully deny employees any opportunity
to vote on their employer’s contract offer. Meanwhile, few employees
dare to object to the union’s tactics. Workers who disagree with
union demands often face hefty fines, harassment, and union violence.
Union officials have a long history of using national crises to
expand their power and influence. During the Second World War, Big
Labor used strikes and work stoppages to impose forced unionism on
hundreds of thousands of workers. In the most notorious of these
strikes, union officials were able to shut down vital iron mines and
ultimately persuaded the federal government to mandate that all
mining employees pay union dues as a condition of employment.
By the end of World War II, more than 78 percent of unionized
employees were governed by contracts that required them to pay union
dues as a condition of employment, a fourfold increase.
The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a nonprofit,
charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose
human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism
abuses. The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at
1-800-336-3600, is assisting thousands of employees in more than 300
cases nationwide.
http://www.nrtw.org/b/nr.php3?id=149
By Forced Unionism
Irrational federal labor policy enables union officials to wreak
havoc
FOR RELEASE: October 2, 2002
Washington, D.C. (October 2, 2002) – The National Right to Work
Foundation today blasted officials of the International Longshore and
Warehouse Union (ILWU) for exploiting America’s economic crisis and
concerns over national security to increase their power by forcing
the shutdown of all West Coast shipping ports.
Using a variety of work slowdown tactics, including deliberately
understaffing key operations and sending workers to jobs for which
they were not qualified, ILWU officials made it impossible for the
ports to function. Experts have estimated that the shutdown of West
Coast ports will cost the American economy $1 billion each day.
“With actions taken directly from the union playbook used during
other periods of crisis, ILWU officials have chosen to use their
increased leverage to make unreasonable demands,” stated Stefan
Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense
Foundation. “This is a perfect example of why workers should be freed
from government-backed forced unionism which gives union bosses a
virtual stranglehold over workers’ jobs and America’s economy.”
Resulting from the many union coercive powers created by federal
labor law, ILWU officials have been empowered to interfere with the
ability of thousands of workers to support their families. For
example, union officials may lawfully deny employees any opportunity
to vote on their employer’s contract offer. Meanwhile, few employees
dare to object to the union’s tactics. Workers who disagree with
union demands often face hefty fines, harassment, and union violence.
Union officials have a long history of using national crises to
expand their power and influence. During the Second World War, Big
Labor used strikes and work stoppages to impose forced unionism on
hundreds of thousands of workers. In the most notorious of these
strikes, union officials were able to shut down vital iron mines and
ultimately persuaded the federal government to mandate that all
mining employees pay union dues as a condition of employment.
By the end of World War II, more than 78 percent of unionized
employees were governed by contracts that required them to pay union
dues as a condition of employment, a fourfold increase.
The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a nonprofit,
charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose
human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism
abuses. The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at
1-800-336-3600, is assisting thousands of employees in more than 300
cases nationwide.
http://www.nrtw.org/b/nr.php3?id=149
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$75.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network