Tea baggers love feudalism.

TroncoChe said:
Wrong, some don't even vote on the union president. It's run just like a communist, with a inner and outter circle.
At least I know the uaw is
Click to expand...

Citations please

Bob King (labor leader)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
[TABLE="class: infobox biography vcard, width: 22"]
[TR]
[TH="colspan: 2, align: center"]Bob King
[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"]
King at the World Economic Forum annual meeting in Davos, 2012
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="align: left"]Born
[/TH]
[TD]Robert T. King
(1946-08-18) August 18, 1946 (age 66)
Michigan, U.S.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="align: left"]Nationality
[/TH]
[TD="class: category"]American
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="align: left"]Occupation
[/TH]
[TD="class: role"]Lawyer; Labor leader
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="align: left"]Known for
[/TH]
[TD]President, United Auto Workers
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Robert T. "Bob" King (born August 18, 1946)[SUP][1][/SUP] is an American lawyer and labor union activist and leader. He was elected President of the United Auto Workers (UAW) on June 15, 2010

On December 10, 2009, just a month after the Ford contract was rejected, King announced he would run for the presidency of the UAW.[SUP][70][/SUP] There were some concerns voiced in the press about King's viability as a candidate, since the UAW had lost 40 percent of its membership in the past eight years (18 percent since 2008),[SUP][7][/SUP][SUP][8][/SUP] and had seen its assets shrink by $69 million (5.8 percent) since 2008.[SUP][8][/SUP] Although the rules of the political caucus that nominated King require union officers to retire after reaching the age of 65, the 63-year-old King ran anyway even though this meant he could serve only a single term.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP]
King was opposed by Gary Walkowicz, a member from King's former Local 600.[SUP][24][/SUP][SUP][71][/SUP] It was the first time since 1992 that there had been a contest for the presidency of the UAW.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][24][/SUP][SUP][72][/SUP]
Bob King won the race for President of the UAW on June 15, 2010.[SUP][2][/SUP] The vote was 2,115 to 74, giving King a winning margin of 97 percent of the vote.[SUP][24][/SUP][SUP][73][/SUP]
One newspaper reporter described King as an effective organizer and a "fiery" public speaker.[SUP][74][/SUP] King said he would pursue an agenda of "equality of gain" under which financially recovered automakers would share their economic gains with workers.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][75][/SUP] The UAW's contracts the Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors all expire in 2011.[SUP][2][/SUP] King also said he would seek to roll back some of the concessions the union had made in the past four years, and engage in extensive organizing to rebuild the union's membership.[SUP][2][/SUP] According to Bernie Ricke, president of Local 600, King is a firm believer in Social Movement Unionism,[SUP][2][/SUP] a philosophy that argues unions should form and promote broad coalitions to seek greater social and economic justice.
 
GOD HERE said:
Most of you conservatives could be easily turned around by taking a basic sociology class, and learning why money gets easier to accumulate when you already have a lot of it, and the effect that has on the community. Hence why the inner cities are shitholes populated mostly by minorities.
Click to expand...

uhh huh... because economics is exactly the same as sociology.

economics explains why having money makes getting more money easier. once you have some, if you manage it right it can grow into more through capital investment, or purchasing education.

sociology studies why and how groups of people interact, it has only a tangential relationship to economics, based primarily of the flawed "Labour Theroy" and the assumption that all human interactions are ultimately based on economics. this is of course untrue, and was only a macguffin to help explain why his theories worked (despite all the evidence to the contrary).

marx's focus solely on economics as the impetus and driving force behind social interaction ignores the vast evidence that humans are in fact social by nature, and will form groups even with NO economic purpose.

this fallacy has greatly retarded the advance of sociology and political discourse of every society where marx's ideas take root.
 
ChesusRice said:
Citations please

Bob King (labor leader)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
[TABLE="class: infobox biography vcard, width: 22"]
[TR]
[TH="colspan: 2, align: center"]Bob King[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"]
King at the World Economic Forum annual meeting in Davos, 2012[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="align: left"]Born[/TH]
[TD]Robert T. King
(1946-08-18) August 18, 1946 (age 66)
Michigan, U.S.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="align: left"]Nationality[/TH]
[TD="class: category"]American[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="align: left"]Occupation[/TH]
[TD="class: role"]Lawyer; Labor leader[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="align: left"]Known for[/TH]
[TD]President, United Auto Workers[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Robert T. "Bob" King (born August 18, 1946)[SUP][1][/SUP] is an American lawyer and labor union activist and leader. He was elected President of the United Auto Workers (UAW) on June 15, 2010

On December 10, 2009, just a month after the Ford contract was rejected, King announced he would run for the presidency of the UAW.[SUP][70][/SUP] There were some concerns voiced in the press about King's viability as a candidate, since the UAW had lost 40 percent of its membership in the past eight years (18 percent since 2008),[SUP][7][/SUP][SUP][8][/SUP] and had seen its assets shrink by $69 million (5.8 percent) since 2008.[SUP][8][/SUP] Although the rules of the political caucus that nominated King require union officers to retire after reaching the age of 65, the 63-year-old King ran anyway even though this meant he could serve only a single term.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP]
King was opposed by Gary Walkowicz, a member from King's former Local 600.[SUP][24][/SUP][SUP][71][/SUP] It was the first time since 1992 that there had been a contest for the presidency of the UAW.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][24][/SUP][SUP][72][/SUP]
Bob King won the race for President of the UAW on June 15, 2010.[SUP][2][/SUP] The vote was 2,115 to 74, giving King a winning margin of 97 percent of the vote.[SUP][24][/SUP][SUP][73][/SUP]
One newspaper reporter described King as an effective organizer and a "fiery" public speaker.[SUP][74][/SUP] King said he would pursue an agenda of "equality of gain" under which financially recovered automakers would share their economic gains with workers.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][75][/SUP] The UAW's contracts the Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors all expire in 2011.[SUP][2][/SUP] King also said he would seek to roll back some of the concessions the union had made in the past four years, and engage in extensive organizing to rebuild the union's membership.[SUP][2][/SUP] According to Bernie Ricke, president of Local 600, King is a firm believer in Social Movement Unionism,[SUP][2][/SUP] a philosophy that argues unions should form and promote broad coalitions to seek greater social and economic justice.
Click to expand...

cheesie, examine your own citation.

"It was the first time since 1992 that there had been a contest for the presidency of the UAW."
This sentence itself indicates that presidency of the UAW was essentially an appointed position, with only the candidate approved by the Locals being able to run.


"The vote was 2,115 to 74, giving King a winning margin of 97 percent of the vote."
Unless the entire membership of the UAW consists of 2,189 people, or turnout was truely abysmal, these numbers make no sense.
In fact, the election was voted on solely by electors representing the Locals, and thus the Local bosses still selected the guy they thought was best, and thus it really was no contest.
Democracy in unions is a farce.
 
Kynes is correct. The shit king was elected at a convention, which the title escapes me. The people who elect him are mostly from the international. They have separate pay and have two pensions. One thru uaw and the other thru gm. Membership never elects him. If you'd really like to know, you can read the uaw constitution. It lays it all out on how it works.

I must say that calling these organizations unions, is really a discredit to the word union. For a union to allow people less pay for doing the same job as others is bull shit. Then they complain about right to work and talk about how it's "right to work for less". I guess only the union can cut someones pay. Until they actually act like a union, I will be a non dues paying member and proud of it.
 
TroncoChe said:
Kynes is correct. The shit king was elected at a convention, which the title escapes me. The people who elect him are mostly from the international. They have separate pay and have two pensions. One thru uaw and the other thru gm. Membership never elects him. If you'd really like to know, you can read the uaw constitution. It lays it all out on how it works.

I must say that calling these organizations unions, is really a discredit to the word union. For a union to allow people less pay for doing the same job as others is bull shit. Then they complain about right to work and talk about how it's "right to work for less". I guess only the union can cut someones pay. Until they actually act like a union, I will be a non dues paying member and proud of it.
Click to expand...

just say you are wrong you neo bircher tea billie piece of shit
 
ChesusRice said:
just say you are wrong you neo bircher tea billie piece of shit
Click to expand...

so youre intimating that the UAW selecting a lawyer as their union head rather than a member in good standing from UAW Local 600 is somehow proof that the elections are done by the membership, despite the fact that only 2189 votes were cast from a union of tens of thousands nationwide?

the establishment candidate won by a 97% margin, and it was the first time in 20 years that a second candidate was even on the ballot?

and you think this is proof of the democracy in the UAW?
 
sync0s said:
What is not free about getting offered money in exchange for your labor and having a choice to accept or not? Do you pay attention to the things that you say? How do you define freedom?

You assail entrepreneur's for inventing things that make our life easier, creating jobs for poor African miners, and making a profit themselves off of it.

You fail to realize the enemy is government, not an economic system or a simple corporate entity. You should have noticed while invoking the Ludlow Massacre that the Colorado National Guard is government. You should have also realized that people stand up for themselves without paying big union bosses who intern fund political figures for kickbacks.

Your point about the fire department makes no sense at all.. neither does the mentioning of the CIA.. where in the world did that come from?
Click to expand...

Lol at creating jobs for poor Africans. The fire dept thing was an analogy. The CIA thing is an example of the fact that the state is acting in the interest of capital. This negates your conclusion, that the state is the enemy. The state is an apparatus to be wielded. You are using anti-state rhetoric to appeal to anarchists, but you clearly wish to replace it with a neofeudalist model. It is absolutely applicable to mention the case of resources and workers in a poor country, their misery is attributable to the opulence of a tiny elite. They CAN'T nationalize resources or unionize labor or anything of the sort because the US empire will not let them. You probably think massive amounts of aid go to such countries, but it isn't massive and it only goes to our puppet regimes. There is no way the masters of corporation who control the US would ever let them enjoy the fruits of their labor and pay a reasonable price for the resources they have to sell.

To answer the bolded question:

It does not in the slightest bit describe a situation of liberty that a hereditary owning class holds the vast majority of the population in subjugation by use of a market. What would be free about a market where a small class controls supply and a large class must purchase commodities necessary for survival from them. In order to make such purchases, they have no choice but to sell thier labor to them. All that the owner has to do is benefit from the work of others. The state exists to protect private property. Protecting private property is an act of aggression, it is saying that a human being does not have the right to the resources of the earth, that it is the right of some individual to profit and bequeath them to his children, that they may have privilege. In such a system, the word property becomes synonymous with liberty. What you clearly advocate, is that some men should have MORE liberty than other men.

Did you not read the OP?

Private ownership of means of production and resources, the central tenet of capitalism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

To put a wall around an area, and say, "we may benefit from this land and it's product, but you may not trespass", is no different than to say, "LET THEM EAT CAKE".

3405563640_1bc163fb26_z.jpg
 
sync0s said:
Are you lost? I feel like you might be..

Under a libertarian government, you and your socialist friends can live in your commune. Completely free to control your own economy however you choose to do so. Libertarians really wouldn't care as long as you don't force it on others. That's were socialists and communists tend to fall out of line and is the reason the two ideologies can't coexist.
Click to expand...

Socialists don't have communes. Keep it coming asshat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
 
Dr Kynes said:
and you obviously have still not read the Communist Manifesto.

communism is classless, true, and thats the only part you got right.

Socialsim is intended to be an imperfect, unfair, TEMPORARY authoritarian system which allows the de-radicalization of the proles, the disarmament of the revolutionary vanguard and the re-education of the masses into the virtues and nature of Communist thought so that the Socialist society can eventually evolve into classless Utopian Communism of the Worker's Paradise.


youre so poorly educated on the very system you claim to support i have to wonder what you really believe.

i suspect you simply believe what youre told by whoever has the Talking Stick at your drum circle.
Click to expand...

I'll take you seriously when you move out of you're moms basement and start taking your Thorazine again.
 
GOD HERE said:
I'll take you seriously when you move out of you're moms basement and start taking your Thorazine again.
Click to expand...

you cannot argue the issue, and instead resort to whimpering cries, stale ad hominems and accusations of psychosis.

but you still do not know anything about the socialist, capitalist or communist systems save what you read on wikipedia.

so laughable.

at least abandonconflict defends (albeit inexpertly) his misconceptions and mischracterizations.

you dont even bother to assert that youre correct, you simply insist that everybody else is wrong (despite their citations p;roving the contrary) and smugly declare victory.

what a cunt.
 
lifegoesonbrah said:
LOL. Its pretty bad when you are a socialist and have never heard of a socialist commune.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commune_(socialism)
Click to expand...

It's pretty bad when somebody who knows nothing about socialism tries to tell a socialist what is and isn't in socialism. Also called "being an ignorant ass".

You'll notice in your link that the word "revolutionary" is present before the word "socialist". I'm not a revolutionary socialist. I'm a democratic socialist. It's like comparing east and west. Those are two VERY different systems. But you're too dumb to be bothered with details..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top