Who to Elect?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
18 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Who to Elect?

A Rank and File Member

Would like to see "Rank and File Members" elected as Delegates and Executive Board Members.

Members who have the working man interest at heart, not their own personal gains and perks.

                            "We want Ball Busters not Ball Lickers"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Who to Elect?

Bill Lebo
That would be the RANK AND FILE TEAM. Mike and I have been fighting for memers rights and against corruption for years, even before it was popular. THE TIME FOR CHANGE IS NOW. If the members had elected MIKE BILELLO 12 years ago we wouldn't be in the mess we are now. Please for the sake of our union we ask for you to VOTE  for THE RANK AND FILE TEAM>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Who to Elect?

A Rank and File Member
          The Truth will always be the Truth even if You  DO NOT want to hear it!

                         Bryon Schuler IS NOT A "RANK AND FILE MEMBER".
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Who to Elect?

Robert Kwiecinski
Elections for the UBC in NYC is a waste of time. The delegates don't stand a chance against Mccaron. He will dissolve you asap into 395 for a huge paycut. Hope you like it. The only way to regain you voice and your vote is to decertify the UBC locking them out of NYC. At that point NYC will be mccaron free , its simple to do, so get educated.  www.newjerseycarpentersunited.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Who to Elect?

Bill Lebo
In reply to this post by A Rank and File Member
Sorry but I disagree, and I won't banter this back and forth anymore, I'll just ask the membership to VOTE FOR THE RANK AND FILE TEAM....MIKE BILELLO FOR EST...BILL LEBO FOR PRESIDENT... BYRON SCHULER FOR VICE PRESIDENT. Thankyou!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Who to Elect?

not buying the hype
When will Mike Billelo, and Byron Schuller speak for themselves? Just because Bill Lebo disagrees with the dictionary, and has a public relations campaign banner to wave, isn't sufficient enough to convince critical thinkers of their fitness for office.

At what point is safe for your colleagues crawl out of self imposed obscurity and join the wired rank-and-file in dialog appropriate for this day an age? Your "team" may just as soon die a pathetic death as Mike did in the 157 elections, for all your his nonchalant indifference...
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Who to Elect?

Bill Lebo
VOTE FOR CHANGE ..JOIN THE TEAM...VOTE FOR THE RANK AND FILE TEAM
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

DO NOT VOTE THE RANK AND FILE TEAM

A Rank and File Member
        The Truth will always be the Truth even if You  DO NOT want to hear it!

                         Bryon Schuler IS NOT A "RANK AND FILE MEMBER".

                              DO NOT VOTE THE RANK AND FILE TEAM

A Definition of "Rank And File Member"

"In politics and labor unions the rank and file are the individual members of an organization, exclusive of its leadership. The phrase originated in the military, denoting the horizontal "ranks" and vertical "files" of individual foot-soldiers, exclusive of the noncommissioned officers."

"Rank and File
    The membership of a union or similar organization as distinct from the organization's leadership, officers and/or staff."

Reference: http://clear.uhwo.hawaii.edu/Glossary.html

Webster's Dictionary:

   "1. the body of soldiers of an army, as distinguished from the officers

   2. the common people, as distinguished from leaders or officials; specif., the ordinary members of a labor union, political party, etc., as opposed to its leaders"

                                      WHAT PART IS NOT UNDERSTOOD?

                                Bryon Schuler IS NOT A "RANK AND FILE MEMBER".

                                DO NOT SUPPORT OR VOTE THE RANK AND FILE TEAM
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DO NOT VOTE THE RANK AND FILE TEAM

Ted
See also NLRB v. Henlopen Mfg. Co., 599 F.2d 26, 30, 31 n.1 (2d Cir. 1979) (concluding that a paid union organizer was an employee protected by the Act).

In NLRB v. Town & Country Electric, Inc., 516 U.S. 85, 98 (1995), the Supreme Court unanimously held that "salts," or paid union organizers, were "employees" under the Act; thus, the Act presumably protects salts' rights of self-organization and shields them from discrimination based on their union affiliation, as it protects and shields all other employees.

Let those capable of leading, lead. Regardless of how many people prove you wrong or the fact that the above is settled law, which you cannot grasp, you persist with the endless tirades and rants on this subject.

Get over it and move on. Failing that, call CAP's and get some Med's for your condition.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DO NOT VOTE THE RANK AND FILE TEAM

Manuel Labor
um... Ted, we observe since you're so tweaked on hatred over for the undocumented migrant worker, you missed the point: not everything boils down to case citations. We simply don't want DC employees, or Unity Team holdouts, in office, period. It doesn't have anything to do with whether they can legally run or not, or if we're discriminating against them for their six figure salaries. Oppressed DC employees can dual-card and run for office in their own staff organized union, as also provided by the law.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DO NOT VOTE THE RANK AND FILE TEAM

Daniel J. Franco
In reply to this post by Ted
Searched for "Unity Team" and "Byron Schuler" and found this - http://franco1.info/08-cv-06959/08-cv-06959_020_15.pdf

Read it and weep.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DO NOT VOTE THE RANK AND FILE TEAM

Ted
In reply to this post by Manuel Labor
Classic liberal spin and semantics. First, stay on the topic. Second - when you cannot deal with facts and the truth, the mantra from Democrats for a Socialist America (DSA) and every other liberal group in the country has always been to brand any person disputing the semantics, the spin, the outright lies as a racist or hate monger.

Fact. The USA is a sovereign nation which is built upon the rule of law. When the Federal government fails to enforce those laws - you get anarchy. Fact, they are not undocumented, they are criminals. When they come here and do not follow the law & jump ahead of those who are doing it the legal way, via waiting and via obtaining their visa's and work permits legally.

If an illegal alien conducts a home invasion on you and your's this evening, and were they to kill your wife or kids - you would be the first one crying wolf and you would switch hats and then feign outrage and disbelief wondering how this could happen. You would sue every local & state agency you could think of to blame and name in the suit - so please, stop the lies already.

No one has advocated for not allowing legal immigrants to obtain work permits or visa's and do it the right way. Aside from the std. Liberal modus operandi, the only other people benefitting from this are the Corporations who feign stupidity as to what the law requires and the immigration attorneys, churches & synagogues who teach them how to violate the laws.

Every day in America 25 U.S. Citizens are murdered - 12 directly and 13 via drunk driving accidents. You perhaps would call that collateral damage because it supports your known agenda of violating the rule of law; that is, until it hits home and your family or friends became one of the statistics.

BTW, your tag line, Manuel Labor is a direct reflection of your ignorance and attempt at humor by portraying the immigrant worker as only capable of "manual labor", and it is also a reflection of your hatred or fear of people with spanish names, re: your use of "Manuel".

The irony of your post is that when you ask those who came here and were naturalized the right way and who followed the rule of law - they agree with my position and that just makes you all the more angry.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DO NOT VOTE THE RANK AND FILE TEAM

Ted
In reply to this post by A Rank and File Member
U.S. Supreme Court

BROOKS v. LABOR BOARD, 348 U.S. 96 (1954)
348 U.S. 96
BROOKS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.
No. 21.
Argued October 18, 1954.
Decided December 6, 1954.

 MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of the Court. 

EXCERPT:
Under the original Wagner Act, the Labor Board was given the power to certify a union as the exclusive representative of the employees in a bargaining unit when it had determined, by election or "any other suitable method," that the union commanded majority support. 9 (c), 49 Stat. 453. In exercising this authority the Board evolved a number of working rules, of which the following are relevant to our purpose:
 
(a) A certification, if based on a Board-conducted election, must be honored for a "reasonable" period, ordinarily "one year," in the absence of "unusual circumstances." 1  
 
(b) "Unusual circumstances" were found in at least three situations: 2 (1) the certified union dissolved or became defunct; 3 (2) as a result of a schism, substantially all the members and officers of the certified union transferred their affiliation to a new local or international; 4   [348 U.S. 96, 99]  

(3) the size of the bargaining unit fluctuated radically within a short time. 5  
 
(c) Loss of majority support after the "reasonable" period could be questioned in two ways: (1) employer's refusal to bargain, or (2) petition by a rival union for a new election. 6  
 
(d) If the initial election resulted in a majority for "no union," the election - unlike a certification - did not bar a second election within a year.
 
The Board uniformly found an unfair labor practice where, during the so-called "certification year," an employer refused to bargain on the ground that the certified union no longer possessed a majority. While the courts in the main enforced the Board's decisions, 7 they did not commit themselves to one year as the determinate content of reasonableness. The Board and the courts proceeded along this line of reasoning:
 
(a) In the political and business spheres, the choice of the voters in an election binds them for a fixed time. This promotes a sense of responsibility in the electorate and needed coherence in administration. These considerations are equally relevant to healthy labor relations.
 
(b) Since an election is a solemn and costly occasion, conducted under safeguards to voluntary choice, revocation of authority should occur by a procedure no less solemn than that of the initial designation. A petition or a public meeting - in which those voting for and against unionism are disclosed to management, and in [348 U.S. 96, 100]   which the influences of mass psychology are present - is not comparable to the privacy and independence of the voting booth.

(c) A union should be given ample time for carrying out its mandate on behalf of its members, and should not be under exigent pressure to produce hothouse results or be turned out.
 
(d) It is scarcely conducive to bargaining in good faith for an employer to know that, if he dillydallies or subtly undermines, union strength may erode and thereby relieve him of his statutory duties at any time, while if he works conscientiously toward agreement, the rank and file may, at the last moment, repudiate their agent.

 {VERY INTERESTING, THE SUPREME COURT USING WHAT? "RANK & FILE"}

(e) In situations, not wholly rare, where unions are competing, raiding and strife will be minimized if elections are not at the hazard of informal and short-term recall.

{RAIDING & STRIFE - HEY DOUG, YOU READING THIS? SPARKETRICIANS, TAPERS & PAINTERS, INTERIOR SYSTEMS, STEALING LABORERS WORK, STEALING OPERATING ENGINEERS WORK, WELDERS WORK....WHAT'S NEXT A PLUMBING, HVAC, SPRINKLER & ELEVATOR CERT....MORE TRAINING CENTERS & ASSESSMENTS? AND YOU WONDER WHY YOU ARE THE SCOURGE OF ALL OF LABOR} 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Love Me, I'm a Liberal

Phil Ochs
In reply to this post by Ted
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u52Oz-54VYw&feature=related

Phil Ochs -- Love Me, I'm a Liberal

İ cried when they shot Medgar Evers
Tears ran down my spine
I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy
As though I'd lost a father of mine
But Malcolm X got what was coming
He got what he asked for this time
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I go to civil rights rallies
And I put down the old D.A.R.
I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
I hope every colored boy becomes a star
But don't talk about revolution
That's going a little bit too far
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I cheered when Humphrey was chosen
My faith in the system restored
I'm glad the commies were thrown out
of the A.F.L. C.I.O. board
I love Puerto Ricans and Negros
as long as they don't move next door
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

The people of old Mississippi
Should all hang their heads in shame
I can't understand how their minds work
What's the matter don't they watch Les Crain?
But if you ask me to bus my children
I hope the cops take down your name
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I read New republic and Nation
I've learned to take every view
You know, I've memorized Lerner and Golden
I feel like I'm almost a Jew
But when it comes to times like Korea
There's no one more red, white and blue
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I vote for the democratic party
They want the U.N. to be strong
I go to all the Pete Seeger concerts
He sure gets me singing those songs
I'll send all the money you ask for
But don't ask me to come on along
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

Once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns
But I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DO NOT VOTE THE RANK AND FILE TEAM

Ted
In reply to this post by Daniel J. Franco
And you wonder why they make you unload the trucks on every job, should you even last that long. Newsflash - when the Hall sends you to a job, both they and the Company expect you to show up on time and with your Tools. Get it?

You can't go to a job stoned, popping pills, drinking and expect to make it past roll call now can you? Crying wolf to the IG after the fact when your reputation is cemented and backed by factual evidence from competent mechanics, your fellow workers and the steward and foreman - and all of it is against you has apparently driven you off the cliff.

Call CAP's - get some help.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Anarchy & the Rule of Law

24t3g
In reply to this post by Ted
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1214894113898255184
Noam Chomsky debates William F. Buckley (1969)

Noam Chomsky, a libertarian socialist, and William F. Buckley, a conservative, debate foreign policy. The Greek Civil War, American supported terror, The Vietnam War, and other Cold War issues are addressed.
______
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WveI_vgmPz8
The Chomsky-Foucault Debate [excerpt, part 1/2]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=S0SaqrxgJvw
The Chomsky-Foucault Debate [excerpt, part 2/2]

http://www.chomsky.info/debates/1971xxxx.htm
Human Nature: Justice versus Power
Noam Chomsky debates with Michel Foucault
1971
(transcript)

Two of the twentieth century's most influential thinkers debate a perennial question.

In 1971, at the height of the Vietnam War and at a time of great political and social instability, two of the world's leading intellectuals, Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault, were invited by Dutch philosopher Fons Edlers to debate an age-old question: is there such a thing as "innate" human nature independent of our experiences and external influences?

The resulting dialogue is one of the most original, provocative, and spontaneous exchanges to have occurred between contemporary philosophers, and above all serves as a concise introduction to their basic theories. What begins as a philosophical argument rooted in linguistics (Chomsky) and the theory of knowledge (Foucault), soon evolves into a broader discussion encompassing a wide range of topics, from science, history, and behaviorism to creativity, freedom, and the struggle for justice in the realm of politics.

Noam Chomsky is Professor of Linguistics at MIT and a world-renowned political thinker and activist.

Michel Foucault (1926-84) held a chair in the History of Systems of Thought at the Collège de France.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Anarchy & the Rule of Law

Ted
Go teach a course to college students somewhere, try brainwashing someone else. You obviously do not belong in the Carpenters Union. Do you spout this nonsense throughout the day instead of working? Do you discuss this bullshit at coffee & lunch?

Newsflash - people like you are why we have "handpay" checks readily available. We want men & woman who come to work, to "work". Get it? I won't even waste the time or the money sending you for a drug test, here's the check, bye! Back to end of the list ya go.

K-mart, Walmart are hiring, so are the grocery stores, they always need baggers. The NYCDC will give you a great reference and be glad you are gone.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Anarchy & the Rule of Law

24t3g
Forced migration

Pervasive nationalism led forced migration on political grounds to rise sharply from the nineteenth century, first in Europe and later all over the world. This course was not easy: often the host country required papers issued only in the country the migrants had fled. In the case of Rudolf Rocker (1873-1958), a prominent anarcho-syndicalist who fled Germany and went to the United States in 1933, Albert Einstein offered (as he did for others) to sponsor his resident permit.

Letter to Rudolf Rocker
Albert Einstein
Princeton, 18 October 1934

http://www.iisg.nl/rebels/en/content/207-forced-migration
_____


Nationalism and Culture

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism_and_Culture

Nationalism and Culture is a nonfiction book by German anarcho-syndicalist writer Rudolf Rocker. In this book, Rocker's best known work,[1] he criticizes religion, statism, nationalism, and centralism from an anarchist perspective.

Background

The ideas expressed in the book, Rocker claimed, dated back to the time before World War I, when he was a leader in the Jewish anarchist labor movement in London. Over the years, many parts of Nationalism and Culture were published in various essays and lectures.[2] Rocker started working on the book around 1925, while he was still living in Germany. At first, he only planned a short book on nationalism, but over the years the material grew. At the time, Rocker was becoming more and more disillusioned as a wave of nationalism spread about Germany. This development culminated when the Nazi Party under Hitler came to power in 1933. Meanwhile, the German anarchist movement and the Free Workers' Union of Germany (FAUD), an anarcho-syndicalist trade union Rocker was active in, were waning. This led Rocker to even question whether Germans were at all capable of anarchist thought.[3]

Content

Part I

Rocker begins the first part of Nationalism and Culture with a chapter attacking the Insufficiency of Economic Materialism as it was called. Rocker maintained that there is a distinct difference between natural science and the humanities. While the former was concerned with "a causality of physical necessity", the latter with "a matter of a causality of human aims and ends". He criticizes Marxism for attempting to describe human interactions with scientific terms thus neglecting the will to power, a term borrowed from Friedrich Nietzsche, as a motor for historical development.[4]

The book continues by describing the emergence and development of religion. Rockers claims religion to enslave its very creator, man, since man submits himself to a mysterious power over which he has no control. He also applies this criticism to modern-day politics. According to Nationalism and Culture, man is submitted to an all-powerful state just as he is to an all-powerful god. "Thus", Rocker claims, "we arrive at the very foundations of every system of rulership and recognize that all politics is in the last instance religion, and as such tries to hold the spirit of man in the chains of dependence." He adds that nationalism is the ideology, which justifies man's coercion by the state, pointing to the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whose ideas greatly influenced the nationalist ideology. According to Rousseau, the citizen's freedom presupposes his submission under the common good embodies by the state.[5] The state claims to be the creator of culture, when in truth, according to Nationalism and Culture, it is quite the opposite. The Renaissance is considered a mixed blessing, because on the hand it was a period of high cultural productivity, but on the other hand the basis of the modern state. Similarly, Rocker gives Protestant Reformation the credit of having liberated the individual from the Catholic Church, but accuses it of having subdued it under the absolutist state. In his analysis of the Age of Enlightenment, Rocker distinguishes between liberal and democratic ideals. Liberalism reduced government to the night watchman state and thus contributed to individual liberty, while democracy is based on the general will and the collective rather than the individual and is therefore no more than a new form of despotism. This dichotomy between authoritarian democratic and libertarian ideas can also be seen in the history of the socialist movement, Rocker claims. While in Germany, Hegelian Marxism, which Rocker considers to be authoritarian, dominated the movement, the French socialists were influenced by the more liberal Proudhon. The consequence of Marx's authoritarian socialism is the Soviet regime, a twin evil of fascism, according to Rudolf Rocker.[6]

Part II

The second part of Nationalism and Culture begins by refuting the various justifications for the nation: namely, the nation as a community of ideals, as a community of language, and as a racial collective. He concludes: "The nation is not the cause, but the result, of the state", it is not a natural institution but trained unto man much like a religion: "one is a German, a Frenchman, an Italian, just as one is a Catholic, a Protestant, or a Jew." The book proceeds by championing the idea that power is essentially detrimental to cultural development and Ancient Greece is cited as one of many examples for this. One chapter is devoted to architecture, as the "most social of all arts". Rocker concludes by pointing to the rise of new dictatorships, Nazism and Soviet communism, which take the place of people's unconditional trust in the infallibility of the Church. This trust leads them to support the "rape of all human rights". Against this authoritarianism, Rocker advocates a "new humanitarian socialism".[7]

 Publication and reception

Nationalism and Culture was originally supposed to be published in Germany in 1933, but the Machtergreifung and Rocker's emigration intervened. It was not published until 1937, by the Spanish anarchist Diego Abad de Santillán and the publishing house Tierra y Libertad. Soon after the release, however, the Spanish Civil War made the book hard to sell. Alexander Berkman, one of Rocker's friends and also a well-known anarchist, started an English translation. Rocker, however, was unhappy with Berkman's work. With the help of anarchists he had met on a lecture tour in the United States, Rocker contacted Ray E. Chase, a professor at the University of California, who agreed to translate the book. This translation was published by the Rocker Publication Committee, which had been formed for this purpose, and the Covici-Friede publishing house in New York City, despite Emma Goldman having warned Rocker of Covici-Friede's bad reputation. Rocker's bad luck continued and the publishing house declared bankruptcy just a year after Nationalism and Culture was released. Nevertheless, the book was soon translated into Dutch, Swedish, Portuguese, French, and Japanese. It could not be published in Rocker's native Germany until 1949, after the end of World War II. There it was published under the title Die Entscheidung des Abendlandes (The Decision of the West).[8]

Nationalism and Culture was received very well in the anarchist movement. Many compared Rocker to the likes of Proudhon, Bakunin, and Kropotkin to underline the work's importance for anarchism. Augustin Souchy claimed Rocker deserved the Nobel Peace Prize for the book. It has some influence to this day. For example, Noam Chomsky was greatly influenced by Rocker and Nationalism and Culture in particular. In the socialist spectrum, the book was lauded by Willi Eicher and F. A. Ridley of the Socialist Leader. Lewis Mumford also expressed admiration for the book. The English socialist philosopher Bertrand Russel considered Nationalism and Culture an important contribution to political philosophy.[9]

Both Albert Einstein and Thomas Mann, despite disagreeing with Rocker on many points, considered the book significant and wished it be read by as many people as possible.[10] Solomon F. Bloom, reviewing the book in The New Republic considered the book "a most welcome contribution" and conceded that Rocker "supports his position with a wealth of information of encyclopedic range", but criticized that "[c]rucial concepts such as will, nation and religion are inadequately defined".[11] Hans Rothfels in the American Historical Review criticized that "[o]bvious misstatements and misinterpretations are not infrequent", but called it "a combative book, but [...] not one of rattling bones nor a mere rehash of enlightened misconceptions about dark ages or the great impostors" and attributed "a wealth of information not easily accessible, and a sharply focused insight into cultural dynamics, which too often has been obscured by conventional theories of progress or of an organic or any other sort of determinism" to it.[12] The American Sociological Review's recension is largely positive: "The book gives the historical and philosophical description of the problem. Its solution is still a challenge to the future", the reviewer C. R. Hoffer claims.[13] The American sociologist Pitirim Sorokin, although he disagreed with Rocker's condemnation of the state, conceded that Nationalism and Culture included some interesting ideas. T. S. Eliot's The Criterion compared Nationalism and Culture to Oswald Spengler's The Decline of the West. Rocker and Spengler agreed in that there are no "eternal truths" and both considered there to be an antagonism between culture and power. While Rocker affirmed the former, Spengler considered the Roman Empire's imperial power a model for modern society. Nationalism and Culture became one of very few anarchist works to be used by university professors; several American professors had students read it for discussions about nationalism.[14]