Where does NYC get its water from? What is the expenses to residents outside NYC for said water to flow to NYC?
Not a single penny actually. NYC owns the land around the resevoirs and pays taxes to NYS for that land. NYC also employs people upstate to work at the resevoirs. Good luck with work Joel. You probably made the right move.
In reply to this post by 5 borough guy
All of southern nassau county is local 45 region, all the way out to jones beach.
In reply to this post by BKLYN
So all of the houses that are being flooded by the failing pipe that runs to NYC... Those are owned by the city too???
How about the people that pay inflated prices to ride the Metro North, they are not subsidizing MTA? Have you heard of the MTA payroll tax?
Honestly BKLYN, I agree in principle with closing the local off to people outside the 5 Burroughs. The problem is, how do you address the people who are currently working in the city who have become dependent on their city income? Is it just a too bad so sad kind of thing?
I also think that any attempt to further divide a clearly divided membership will have negative consequences. Now is the time for everyone to fight this fight together.
I guess I have mixed feelings on this, I grew up in The Bronx. Joined the Marine Corps, got out, went through my apprenticeship in FL. Moved to upstate NY with every intention of moving to Brooklyn (which was prevented by the bottom falling out of the economy) now I am back in FL but again, I plan to come back to NYC when things pick up.
I just think there is a huge fight that needs to be had and if we are distracted with in fighting we are not keeping our eyes on the bigger problem.
Joel, I'm not sure where you get your info but there is no leaking pipe upstate flooding homes. Just not true. And, as I have said repeatedly, all the excess monies collected on all NYC bridges and tunnels (you know, above operating cost) goes to SUBSIDIZE METRO NORTH and the LIRR. FACT! Get yours straight please brother. I have a friend who lives in Suffolk county who complained when his fare went up tp 300 a month for a 70 mile ride. I live 8 miles from Penn and my monthly is 220. So don't tell me about travel costs. Please check your facts about subsidies, you'll be surprised and awakened to yet one more inequity heaped upon NYC residents. Take care.
In reply to this post by Joel Cook
Yeah Joel, there are all kinds of issues associated with it that I don't have the knowledge or training to deal with, like the accounting issues that would develop. And Joel, you're fighting this from Florida? The point is that the dust will settle here someday and then we'll have some things to answer, so how is it a negative to start these discussions now and get smart guys working on the things that matter? There are a lot of smart people who read this stuff, and its good to get things in the open to let each other know what is important to us. Thats how you bargain. This whole consolidation kick is a crock, and people need to do what you did, join the local in their area.
In reply to this post by member
Yeah, I never did understand that.
In reply to this post by BKLYN
Who is paying for tunnel #3?
Again... Division is the problem and solidarity is the solution. Just to reiterate, I understand why NYCDCC members would want to be in control of who works through in the city. Again I ask how you deal with this issue, do you just kick those members out who have been paying dues for so long and have become dependent on working in the city? I just don’t think it’s as simple as saying GTFO....
St. Martin's Hall Meeting, London, 1864
Following the January Uprising in Poland in 1863 French and British workers started to discuss developing a closer working relationship. Henri Tolain, Perrachon, and Limousin visited London in July 1863, attending a meeting held in St. James’ Hall in honour of the Polish uprising. Here there was discussion of the need for an international organisation, which would, amongst other things, prevent the import of foreign workers to break strikes. In September, 1864, some French delegates again visited London with the concrete aim of setting up a special committee for the exchange of information upon matters of interest to the workers of all lands.
On September 28, a great international meeting for the reception of the French delegates took place in St. Martin’s Hall, and the positivist, Professor Edward Spencer Beesly, was in the chair. His speech pilloried the violent proceedings of the governments and referred to their flagrant breaches of international law and advocated a union of the workers of the world for the realisation of justice on earth.
George Odger, Secretary of the General Trades Council, read a speech calling for international co-operation, to which Tolain responded. The meeting unanimously decided to found an international organisation of workers. The centre was to be in London, with a committee of 21 elected members. It was instructed to draft rules and constitution. Most of the British members of the committee were drawn from the Universal League for the Material Elevation of the Industrious Classes and were noted trade-union leaders like Odger, George Howell (the secretary of the London Trades Council (LTC) which itself declined affiliation to the IWA (although remaining close to it)), Osborne, and Lucraft and included Owenites and Chartists. The French members were Denoual, Victor Le Lubez, and Bosquet. Italy was represented by Fontana. Other members were: Louis Wolff, Johann Eccarius, and at the foot of the list, Karl Marx. Marx participated in his individual capacity, and did not speak during the meeting.
On October 5, the General Council was formed with co-opted additional members representing other nationalities. It was based at the headquarters of the Universal League for the Material Elevation of the Industrious Classes at 18 Greek Street. Different groups offered proposals for the organisation: Louis Wolff (Mazzini's secretary) offered a proposal based on the rules and constitution of the Italian Workingmen’s Association (a Mazzinist organisation) and John Weston, an Owenite, also tabled a programme. Wolff left for Italy, and Lubez rewrote it in a way which appalled Marx. Through deft manipulation of the sub-committee Marx was left with all the papers, and set about writing the Address to the Working Classes to which was attached a simplified set of rules.
At its founding, the International Workingmen's Association was an alliance of people from diverse groups, including French Mutualists, Blanquists, English Owenites, Italian republicans, such American proponents of individualist anarchism as Stephen Pearl Andrews and William B. Greene, followers of Mazzini, and other socialists of various persuasions. Over its short life it grew into a major movement, with local federations in many countries developing strong bases of working class activism. Karl Marx was a constant, and leading, figure from the start—he was elected to every succeeding General Council of the association.
Due to the wide variety of philosophies present in the First International, there was conflict from the start. The first objections to Marx's came from the Mutualists who opposed communism and statism. However, shortly after Mikhail Bakunin and his followers (called Collectivists while in the International) joined in 1868, the First International became polarised into two camps, with Marx and Bakunin as their respective figureheads. Perhaps the clearest differences between the groups emerged over their proposed strategies for achieving their visions of socialism. The anarchists grouped around Bakunin favoured (in Kropotkin's words) "direct economical struggle against capitalism, without interfering in the political parliamentary agitation." Marxist thinking, at that time, focused on parliamentary activity. For example, when the new German Empire of 1871 introduced male suffrage, many German socialists became active in the Marxist Social Democratic Party of Germany.
The Hague Congress, 1872
After the Paris Commune (1871), Bakunin characterised Marx's ideas as authoritarian, and predicted that if a Marxist party came to power its leaders would end up as bad as the ruling class they had fought against (notably in his Statism and Anarchy). In 1872, the conflict in the First International climaxed with a final split between the two groups at the Hague Congress. This clash is often cited as the origin of the long-running conflict between anarchists and Marxists. From then on, the Marxist and anarchist currents of socialism had distinct organisations, at various points including rival "internationals".
This split is sometimes called the "red" and "black" divide, red referring to the Marxists and black referring to the anarchists. Otto von Bismarck remarked, upon hearing of the split at the First International "Crowned heads, wealth and privilege may well tremble should ever again the Black and Red unite!"
In 1872, the organization was relocated to New York City. The First International disbanded four years later, at the 1876 Philadelphia conference. Attempts to revive the organization over the next five years failed. However, the Second International was established in 1889 as its successor. Meanwhile, the anarchists continued to consider that they were unfairly ejected from the IWA, and in 1872 held a new congress at Saint-Imier over two days, September 15 and 16, 1872, to establish the International Working People's Association. Later, after both rival internationals had collapsed, the anarcho-syndicalists decided to re-found the "First International" in a congress held at Berlin in 1922 as the International Workers Association. The IWA still exists.
In reply to this post by anonymous
Peter J. McGuire (1852 - 1906)
The "father" of Labor Day and of May Day, as well as the founder of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Peter J. McGuire was one of the most remarkable figures in the history of the American labor movement. McGuire probably did more than anyone else to convince skeptical, locally minded union activists around the country that a national labor federation was not only necessary but also possible. Without his tireless enthusiasm and practical example, the creation of the AFL and its survival through its early years are practically inconceivable.
Born in New York City into a poor Irish Catholic family, McGuire quit school at 11 to work when his father went off to fight in the Union Army. While working at odd jobs, McGuire attended the free night classes at Cooper Union, where he met Samuel Gompers and other young firebrands. Apprenticed to a piano maker in 1867 at the age of 15, McGuire was active in labor and radical circles, including the New York branch of the International Workingmen's Association.
McGuire was a notorious and effective agitator. In 1873, in the midst of a severe economic depression, a mass meeting of radicals and unionists at Cooper Union formed a Committee of Public Safety to press the local authorities to provide economic assistance to the unemployed. Though only 21 years old, McGuire was elected to serve on the committee, and he quickly become its best-known public spokesperson and chief negotiator. After the city refused to grant a permit for a protest parade, McGuire led a sit-in at the office of the police commissioner and secured permission to hold a mass meeting in Tompkins Square Park. But permission was withdrawn at the last minute, and squads of armed and mounted police attacked the gathering to disperse the crowd. Gompers remembered the police charge as "an orgy of brutality" that led to "a reign of terror" during which the New York police broke up even private gatherings called to protest the police's actions and to defend freedom of assembly.
Convinced of the futility of reformist measures, in May 1874 McGuire helped form the Social Democratic party (later the Socialist Labor party) and spent the next five years organizing chapters throughout New England, the West, the Southwest and the Midwest. Wherever he went, he urged workers to organize themselves, abolish the wage system and institute a universal system of cooperative production and distribution.
Moving to St. Louis, Mo., in 1877, McGuire helped win the Missouri legislature's support for one of the first Bureaus of Labor Statistics in the United States. Still in his 20s, McGuire was appointed deputy commissioner of the new bureau but resigned in 1879 to organize a union of carpenters. McGuire had come to see trade unions as indispensable to his socialist vision and to believe he should turn his energies to organizing and building a labor movement.
Within two years, McGuire had organized St. Louis carpenters thoroughly and won such impressive wage gains for them that it attracted the attention of carpenters everywhere. McGuire then issued a call for a national meeting of carpenters' unions in Chicago. The 1881 meeting resulted in the formation of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters (UBC). McGuire was elected UBC secretary, the organization's chief administrative officer. That same year, McGuire wrote the convention call for the national conference of labor unions that established the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions (FOTLU), the organizational forerunner of the American Federation of Labor.
McGuire moved the headquarters of the UBC to New York in 1882, where he became involved in the eight-hour-day movement. At an 1882 meeting of the New York Central Labor Union, he introduced a resolution calling for workers to lead a "festive parade through the streets of the city" on the first Monday of September. More than 30,000 marchers participated in the event. In 1883, thousands again lined the parade route, and the New York group decided to urge other central labor bodies around the country to sponsor simultaneous celebrations the following year. Only a handful of cities joined the celebration in 1884, but in 1885 turnout again was broad and official support for the holiday followed. In 1887, Oregon became the first state to recognize the day. The U.S. Congress followed suit in 1894.
McGuire was also the founder of May Day, the international Labor Day. Congress had passed a largely ignored eight-hour law in 1868 that President Chester A. Arthur refused to enforce. McGuire, concluding the only way for workers to get an effective eight-hour law was to enforce it themselves, declared, "We want an enactment by the workingmen themselves that on a given day eight hours shall constitute a day's work, and they ought to enforce it themselves." In 1884, the UBC delegation to the FOTLU convention introduced a resolution establishing May 1, 1886, as the day on which the workers would institute the eight-hour day. Thousands of workers responded to the call and joined local unions in large numbers. When the day arrived, about 350,000 workers struck more than 11,000 establishments across the country. Unfortunately, a bomb thrown at an anarchist rally called in support of strikers at the McCormick works in Chicago created a backlash against the movement, much as had happened in the wake of the Tompkins Square police riot in New York 13 years earlier, and most of the gains won were erased. But the day itself became fixed in the institutional memory of the labor movement.
When the FOTLU reorganized as the American Federation of Labor in 1886, McGuire was elected the new federation's first secretary. In 1888, the AFL called for another national eight—hour strike by a single union-the UBC-to occur in 1890. McGuire directed the movement personally, hopping tirelessly from one strike point to the next. The strike resulted in one of the most impressive victories for trade union solidarity in the 19th century. More than 23,000 carpenters in 36 cities gained the eight-hour day, and some 32,000 more in 234 cities gained the nine-hour day.
To devote himself full-time to the Carpenters, McGuire resigned as secretary of the AFL in 1889, but he continued to work closely with Gompers as an AFL vice president. He built the UBC into the AFL's largest affiliate.
The Carpenters continued to expand throughout the 1890s until it was too much for any one man to administer. Increasingly, paid "business agents," an organizational innovation pioneered by the Carpenters, took over the work of running the union's locals, and they pressed for greater power at the national level. For years McGuire resisted their efforts, fearing they would lead the organization away from what he saw as one of its most important missions—to be a nursery of socialist ideals and industrial cooperation.
Ill health and alcoholism forced McGuire to resign from the AFL in 1900, and growing opposition to his leadership of the UBC led to his expulsion in 1902 on the basis of trumped-up embezzlement charges. McGuire died on Feb. 18, 1906, in Camden, N.J., where he is buried.
The Haymarket affair (also known as the Haymarket massacre or Haymarket riot) was a demonstration and unrest that took place on Tuesday May 4, 1886, at the Haymarket Square in Chicago. It began as a rally in support of striking workers. An unknown person threw a dynamite bomb at police as they dispersed the public meeting. The bomb blast and ensuing gunfire resulted in the deaths of eight police officers, mostly from friendly fire, and an unknown number of civilians. In the internationally publicized legal proceedings that followed, eight anarchists were tried for murder. Four men were convicted and executed, and one committed suicide in prison, although the prosecution conceded none of the defendants had thrown the bomb.
The Haymarket affair is generally considered significant for the origin of international May Day observances for workers. In popular literature, this event inspired the caricature of "a bomb-throwing anarchist." The causes of the incident are still controversial. The deeply polarized attitudes separating business and working class people in late 19th-century Chicago are generally acknowledged as having precipitated the tragedy and its aftermath. The site of the incident was designated a Chicago Landmark on March 25, 1992. The Haymarket Martyrs' Monument in nearby Forest Park was listed on the National Register of Historic Places and designated a National Historic Landmark on February 18, 1997...
Trial, executions and pardons
Eight people connected directly or indirectly with the rally and its anarchist organizers were arrested afterward and charged with Degan's murder: August Spies, Albert Parsons, Adolph Fischer, George Engel, Louis Lingg, Michael Schwab, Samuel Fielden and Oscar Neebe. Five (Spies, Fischer, Engel, Lingg and Schwab) were German immigrants and a sixth, Neebe, was a U.S. citizen of German descent. The other men, Parsons and Fielden, were born in the U.S. and England, respectively. Two other individuals, William Seliger and Rudolph Schnaubelt, were indicted, but never brought to trial. Seliger turned state's evidence and testified for the prosecution, and Schnaubelt fled the country before he could be brought to trial.
Louis Lingg (September 9, 1864 – November 10, 1887) was a German anarchist who committed suicide while in jail, after being arrested as an agitator during the Haymarket Square bombing...
Lingg became an apprentice carpenter from 1869 to 1882. He then took a job in Strasbourg, in Alsace, then moved on to Fribourg, Germany where he joined the Working Men's Educational Society, a socialist organization...
In July 1885, Lingg arrived in New York City then departed for Chicago where he joined the International Carpenters and Joiners' Union...
On May 4, 1886, Lingg was not present at Haymarket Square for what would be known as the Haymarket Riot. A bomb was thrown into the crowd of policemen by an unidentified person. Seven men were arrested the next day with no evidence in connection with the bombing. Lingg himself was discovered in his hiding place on May 14 and fought with the police officer before being finally subdued by his landlord...
There was no evidence that any of the men arrested had participated in the bombing, but they were all charged on June 21 with criminal conspiracy, on the theory that their anarchistic writings incited the bomber. Lingg and six others were convicted and sentenced to death. Oscar Neebe was sentenced to fifteen years in prison. Lingg commented when he heard of the court's decision, "I die happy on the gallows, so confident am I that the hundreds and thousands to whom I have spoken will remember my words. When you shall have hanged us, then they WILL do the bombthrowing! In this hope do I say to you: I despise you, I despise your order, your laws, your force propped authority. Hang me for it."
On November 6, 1887, four bombs were discovered in Lingg's cell, causing fear of an escape or attack on Chicago by the defendants and causing serious harm to the defendants' public opinion and support.
Lingg, the youngest of those sentenced to death, took his own life four days later, on November 10, the day before he was scheduled to hang.  He used a small bomb (a blasting cap smuggled to him by a fellow prisoner). He put it in his mouth and lit it at 9AM; it blew off his lower jaw and destroyed a large portion of his face. He survived in agony for another 6 hours, until his death at around 3PM. It was believed by many that he didn't want his fate to be in the hands of the oppressors and would rather be a martyr for the cause, by his own volition.
Lingg was buried, in a plot marked since 1893 by the Haymarket Martyrs Monument, in the Waldheim Cemetery (now Forest Home Cemetery) in Forest Park, Chicago.
Who threw the bomb?
While admitting none of the defendants was involved in the bombing, the prosecution made a weak argument that Lingg had built the bomb and two prosecution witnesses (Harry Gilmer and Malvern Thompson) tried to imply the bomb thrower was helped by Spies, Fischer and Schwab. The defendants claimed they had no knowledge of the bomber at all.
Several activists, including Dyer Lum, Voltairine de Cleyre and Robert Reitzel, later hinted they knew who the bomber was. Writers and other commentators have speculated about many possible suspects:
... An agent provocateur was suggested by some members of the anarchist movement. Albert Parsons believed the bomber was a member of the police or the Pinkertons trying to undermine the labor movement. However, this contradicts the statements of several activists who said the bomber was one of their own. Lucy Parsons and Johann Most rejected this notion. Dyer Lum said it was "puerile" to ascribe "the Haymarket bomb to a Pinkerton."
From James Green's Death in the Haymarket: a story of Chicago, the first labor movement and the bombing that divided gilded age America:
"The most decisive moment in Albert Parsons's political transformation came in March of 1876, when the charismatic socialist Peter J. McGuire came to speak in Chicago. Born of Irish parents in New York's Hell's Kitchen, McGuire was converted to a passionate brand of radicalism when police attacked a peaceful demonstration of the unemployed at Tomkins Square Park two years earlier. He then embarked on a career that would make him the most effective socialist agitator and union organizer of the late nineteenth century. McGuire, a captivating orator, told his Chicago audience of the socialist program of the Workingman's Party of America and how it would lead to the creation of a cooperative commonwealth to replace monopoly capitalism. When the speaker finished, Parsons sharply questioned him. Would such a communistic society, he asked, become a "loafer's paradise" in which the "parasite" would live "at the expense of the industrious worker"? McGuire responded that under the socialist system there would be true freedom of opportunity in which individual producers would receive the full product of their efforts, depending on time and energy expended. Parson's was satisfied. He signed up with McGuire's party, along with several other workers..."
This is the question. Are you for full mobility NJ & LI ?
No: I am against full mobility NJ & NY. This is the question: should this issue be used to turn rank and file carpenters against each other, or should it be used by rank and file carpenters to organize?
In reply to this post by Rev Al
The point I've been trying to make is that dividing workers, in one way or another, actually serves the interests of the bosses, and is an age old tactic of theirs'.
For instance; from an above post about French and British workers meeting in 1874:
"Here there was discussion of the need for an international organisation, which would, amongst other things, prevent the import of foreign workers to break strikes."
The question in this forum is similar, but differs as we discuss members of the same union living in a region of the same nation.
It follows that if we want to improve the conditions of the rank and file, organizing together is a more effective strategy than alone.
From the UBC Constitution:
"We recognize that the interests of labor are identical regardless of occupation, sex, nationality, or color, for a wrong done to one is a wrong done to all."
"1. Municipal service wholly divorced from partisan politics."
As NY Carpenters we need to connect and network with NJ, Upstate, and other rank and file Carpenters, and organize through our shared interests.
The actual wording from the UBC Constitution:
"We recognize the interests of all labor are identical regardless of occupation, sex, nationality, religion or color, for a wrong done to one is a wrong done to all."
Although its a bit idealistic I think its what we should strive for.
"Preamble to the IWW Constitution
The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things of life.
Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the means of production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the Earth.
We find that the centering of the management of industries into fewer and fewer hands makes the trade unions unable to cope with the ever growing power of the employing class. The trade unions foster a state of affairs which allows one set of workers to be pitted against another set of workers in the same industry, thereby helping defeat one another in wage wars. Moreover, the trade unions aid the employing class to mislead the workers into the belief that the working class have interests in common with their employers.
These conditions can be changed and the interest of the working class upheld only by an organization formed in such a way that all its members in any one industry, or in all industries if necessary, cease work whenever a strike or lockout is on in any department thereof, thus making an injury to one an injury to all.
Instead of the conservative motto, "A fair day's wage for a fair day's work," we must inscribe on our banner the revolutionary watchword, "Abolition of the wage system."
It is the historic mission of the working class to do away with capitalism. The army of production must be organized, not only for everyday struggle with capitalists, but also to carry on production when capitalism shall have been overthrown. By organizing industrially we are forming the structure of the new society within the shell of the old."
I paid another 100.00 in local tax this week. Did you ?
In reply to this post by Joel Cook
No Joel, not gtfo. There are many differing opinions on this but over time the change needs to be made. Humans hate fast change, and to change the rule at the drop of a hat would be irresponsible and negligent to the extreme. But at some point members should be told to join their locals. This cannot adversely affect a members vesting priveleges or pension or annuity money already earned as per ERISA. But this was the beginning of mobility, only DM wants to take it to the extreme and let just anyone raid our work and not use our members. I can't find it in me to be for NJ and others working here before NY'ers just as I can't find it in me to be for a guy from Iowa working here before a guy from Queens. There can't be a wink and a nod to some and stopping others. Either you're for full mobility or not. And again, this idea has to be hashed out and phased in over years. Immediacy would be counterproductive. We get to a point where potential members are told to join the council and local where they live. This whole idea of taking people into a local from anywhere was about greedy corrupt BA's signing anybody so their dues roll would increase. Plain and simple. And Joel, the wobblies were a failed concept as they buried themselves in getting people elected to public office (sound familiar) and trying to influence politics instead of securing work for their members. In fact at the end they were mostly about national politics and had pretty much left the worker to his own devices. Again! Is history repeating itself? The question is how do we leave the Union better than we found it? So endeth the lesson.
|Free forum by Nabble||Edit this page|