Well during my infusion, after a shit ton of channel flipping because basic cable is still full of mostly unwatchable shit. Settled on C-SPAN where the house was voting on the reauthorization of Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. Surprising no one, no actual republican voted in favor of it. The clown they had come up to talk about why she was opposed, used the horseshit about unions not representing workers and then got into some stupid ass spiel about the left, so I didn't finish listening to her bullshit, partly because my infusion had finished at that point. The GOP was also butthurt that all their bullshit amendments got voted down.
So unless someone convinces two dumbasses to kill the filibuster, it probably doesn't get out of the senate. With unions coming back though, expect to see lots of horseshit where the right tries to make unions and workers two separate things.
We know how the right will react to a resurgent labor movement - a mix of screeching and whining, repressive legislation, and, if necessary, violence.
I am curious how the Democratic Party will react to this movement if it continues to gain momentum. Ignore it? Try to ally with it and/or coopt it? Aim for corporate support by opposing it? Realistically some mix of the three, since they don't have unified positions?
Well during my infusion, after a shit ton of channel flipping because basic cable is still full of mostly unwatchable shit. Settled on C-SPAN where the house was voting on the reauthorization of Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. Surprising no one, no actual republican voted in favor of it. The clown they had come up to talk about why she was opposed, used the horseshit about unions not representing workers and then got into some stupid ass spiel about the left, so I didn't finish listening to her bullshit, partly because my infusion had finished at that point. The GOP was also butthurt that all their bullshit amendments got voted down.
So unless someone convinces two dumbasses to kill the filibuster, it probably doesn't get out of the senate. With unions coming back though, expect to see lots of horseshit where the right tries to make unions and workers two separate things.
We know how the right will react to a resurgent labor movement - a mix of screeching and whining, repressive legislation, and, if necessary, violence.
I am curious how the Democratic Party will react to this movement if it continues to gain momentum. Ignore it? Try to ally with it and/or coopt it? Aim for corporate support by opposing it? Realistically some mix of the three, since they don't have unified positions?
I'm hoping for "ignore it."
The Democratic party is already intimately tied to the Labour movement. The question imo is how newly emerging service unions will mesh with the older existing unions and their relationship with the democratic party.
Well during my infusion, after a shit ton of channel flipping because basic cable is still full of mostly unwatchable shit. Settled on C-SPAN where the house was voting on the reauthorization of Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. Surprising no one, no actual republican voted in favor of it. The clown they had come up to talk about why she was opposed, used the horseshit about unions not representing workers and then got into some stupid ass spiel about the left, so I didn't finish listening to her bullshit, partly because my infusion had finished at that point. The GOP was also butthurt that all their bullshit amendments got voted down.
So unless someone convinces two dumbasses to kill the filibuster, it probably doesn't get out of the senate. With unions coming back though, expect to see lots of horseshit where the right tries to make unions and workers two separate things.
We know how the right will react to a resurgent labor movement - a mix of screeching and whining, repressive legislation, and, if necessary, violence.
I am curious how the Democratic Party will react to this movement if it continues to gain momentum. Ignore it? Try to ally with it and/or coopt it? Aim for corporate support by opposing it? Realistically some mix of the three, since they don't have unified positions?
I'm hoping for "ignore it."
The Democratic party is already intimately tied to the Labour movement. The question imo is how newly emerging service unions will mesh with the older existing unions and their relationship with the democratic party.
I'm of course aware of the relationship between the legacy unions and the party, your question is basically just rephrasing what I was asking. Our political economy is very different now than when the links you refer to were formed, so it's far from a given that the relationships between the new labor movement and the current Democratic Party will take a similar shape. And it depends in large part on how the Democrats react, which is what I've been wondering about.
Well during my infusion, after a shit ton of channel flipping because basic cable is still full of mostly unwatchable shit. Settled on C-SPAN where the house was voting on the reauthorization of Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. Surprising no one, no actual republican voted in favor of it. The clown they had come up to talk about why she was opposed, used the horseshit about unions not representing workers and then got into some stupid ass spiel about the left, so I didn't finish listening to her bullshit, partly because my infusion had finished at that point. The GOP was also butthurt that all their bullshit amendments got voted down.
So unless someone convinces two dumbasses to kill the filibuster, it probably doesn't get out of the senate. With unions coming back though, expect to see lots of horseshit where the right tries to make unions and workers two separate things.
We know how the right will react to a resurgent labor movement - a mix of screeching and whining, repressive legislation, and, if necessary, violence.
I am curious how the Democratic Party will react to this movement if it continues to gain momentum. Ignore it? Try to ally with it and/or coopt it? Aim for corporate support by opposing it? Realistically some mix of the three, since they don't have unified positions?
I'm hoping for "ignore it."
The Democratic party is already intimately tied to the Labour movement. The question imo is how newly emerging service unions will mesh with the older existing unions and their relationship with the democratic party.
I'm of course aware of the relationship between the legacy unions and the party, your question is basically just rephrasing what I was asking. Our political economy is very different now than when the links you refer to were formed, so it's far from a given that the relationships between the new labor movement and the current Democratic Party will take a similar shape. And it depends in large part on how the Democrats react, which is what I've been wondering about.
New labor is a better mesh for the Democratic party than most of traditional old labor unions. Unionism vs Raceism/Nativism has always been a sort of push pull, and right now white identity politics in winning in a lot of previously core union areas(MI, PA, OH)
I had a bigger post on this in one of the old threads but search is trash so....
the whole union=Dems thing doesn't really hold true in younger groups. And that is probably underselling it in some ways as my instinct would be the public sector dem support has remained strong and private sector union support has actually eroded much more.
Well during my infusion, after a shit ton of channel flipping because basic cable is still full of mostly unwatchable shit. Settled on C-SPAN where the house was voting on the reauthorization of Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. Surprising no one, no actual republican voted in favor of it. The clown they had come up to talk about why she was opposed, used the horseshit about unions not representing workers and then got into some stupid ass spiel about the left, so I didn't finish listening to her bullshit, partly because my infusion had finished at that point. The GOP was also butthurt that all their bullshit amendments got voted down.
So unless someone convinces two dumbasses to kill the filibuster, it probably doesn't get out of the senate. With unions coming back though, expect to see lots of horseshit where the right tries to make unions and workers two separate things.
We know how the right will react to a resurgent labor movement - a mix of screeching and whining, repressive legislation, and, if necessary, violence.
I am curious how the Democratic Party will react to this movement if it continues to gain momentum. Ignore it? Try to ally with it and/or coopt it? Aim for corporate support by opposing it? Realistically some mix of the three, since they don't have unified positions?
I'm hoping for "ignore it."
The Democratic party is already intimately tied to the Labour movement. The question imo is how newly emerging service unions will mesh with the older existing unions and their relationship with the democratic party.
I'm of course aware of the relationship between the legacy unions and the party, your question is basically just rephrasing what I was asking. Our political economy is very different now than when the links you refer to were formed, so it's far from a given that the relationships between the new labor movement and the current Democratic Party will take a similar shape. And it depends in large part on how the Democrats react, which is what I've been wondering about.
New labor is a better mesh for the Democratic party than most of traditional old labor unions. Unionism vs Raceism/Nativism has always been a sort of push pull, and right now white identity politics in winning in a lot of previously core union areas(MI, PA, OH)
I had a bigger post on this in one of the old threads but search is trash so....
Basically, the hardhats (socially conservative union members) have always been one of the biggest parts of the collapse of American unionism, as they were happy to attack their natural allies and ally with the people who were looking to break them all over social issues.
Well during my infusion, after a shit ton of channel flipping because basic cable is still full of mostly unwatchable shit. Settled on C-SPAN where the house was voting on the reauthorization of Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. Surprising no one, no actual republican voted in favor of it. The clown they had come up to talk about why she was opposed, used the horseshit about unions not representing workers and then got into some stupid ass spiel about the left, so I didn't finish listening to her bullshit, partly because my infusion had finished at that point. The GOP was also butthurt that all their bullshit amendments got voted down.
So unless someone convinces two dumbasses to kill the filibuster, it probably doesn't get out of the senate. With unions coming back though, expect to see lots of horseshit where the right tries to make unions and workers two separate things.
We know how the right will react to a resurgent labor movement - a mix of screeching and whining, repressive legislation, and, if necessary, violence.
I am curious how the Democratic Party will react to this movement if it continues to gain momentum. Ignore it? Try to ally with it and/or coopt it? Aim for corporate support by opposing it? Realistically some mix of the three, since they don't have unified positions?
I'm hoping for "ignore it."
The Democratic party is already intimately tied to the Labour movement. The question imo is how newly emerging service unions will mesh with the older existing unions and their relationship with the democratic party.
I'm of course aware of the relationship between the legacy unions and the party, your question is basically just rephrasing what I was asking. Our political economy is very different now than when the links you refer to were formed, so it's far from a given that the relationships between the new labor movement and the current Democratic Party will take a similar shape. And it depends in large part on how the Democrats react, which is what I've been wondering about.
New labor is a better mesh for the Democratic party than most of traditional old labor unions. Unionism vs Raceism/Nativism has always been a sort of push pull, and right now white identity politics in winning in a lot of previously core union areas(MI, PA, OH)
I had a bigger post on this in one of the old threads but search is trash so....
Basically, the hardhats (socially conservative union members) have always been one of the biggest parts of the collapse of American unionism, as they were happy to attack their natural allies and ally with the people who were looking to break them all over social issues.
Purging all the socialists and communists from the major unions after WWII didn't help with that. Turns out once you expel the left, what remains are much more conservative institutions.
edit -which isn't intended to wholly disagree with you; it is in some ways an aspect of what you describe. But pressure from the state really shouldn't be ignore here. I mean Taft-Hartley literally mandated that no union officer could be a communist.
Its only "new labor" because the politically connected leadership at the top of the org chart has been derelict in its duties for decades.
Yes, because many of those leaders were hardhats - as I've said before, one of the people most responsible for the collapse of unionism in the US was hardhat union boss George Meany.
I think if you want to put the entire collapse of American unionization down to racists mad about the civil rights movement you have a lot more lifting to for that claim.
I guess my issue with the "they failed because they were socially conservative" take is that, while there is a lot of truth in it, it ignores the role the state played in repeatedly purging left-wing factions from the movement, which by design gradually pushes those movements in a more conservative direction. This was the goal. Then those conservative union organizations fail and the response is to say "they failed because the workers were socially and culturally right-wing." I don't want to absolve the white working class of allowing its own racism (or the male working class of its own sexism) to be one of the things that broke it, because that was a factor and these tactics would not have worked if these bigotries were not present to begin with. But I also think that state-mandated ideological conformity with capitalism and nationalism among trade union leaders is pretty much guaranteed to produce a conservative union movement.
Edit - and also it ignores economic/structural reasons entirely which is never good
I suspect the issue boils down to:
-Socialist and communists got kicked out, leaving mostly the racists and the mostly institutionalists as the big blocks or at least the ones that could command attention.
-Racists were all to happy to cut off their noses to spit minorities.
-Those that were mostly institutionalists were more interested in amassing power and since they weren't communists or socialists, they had an easier time of navigating our bullshit political system, that lets people buy power.
-This has resulted in union membership withering, since the institutionalist had little interest in trying to bring in younger and more racially diverse groups. Given that systemic racism increased the odds of the latter not having much income and those in the former that would want to unionize likely didn't have much money spar either if they were working non-unionized industries and shops. So institutionalists wrote both groups off because sadly money plays an outsized role in our system. It's pretty damn dumb though because even if the low income crowd of the inner city can't pony up the money some fuckers from the country club can, they still have a fuck ton of votes that can decide elections.
-Don't think I have to cover racists, but those fuckers don't want non-whites in their unions and likely has some really stupid dumbass views on various industries.
Given the GOP is a white supremacist party that also pushes for maintaining an oligarchy that exploits everyone. It's not surprising that they are super hostile to union because unionization could pose a real threat to them on many levels. The obvious one is that workers who unionize are going to have a better shot at not being fucking raped by their corporate overlords. If the top is not able to rake in less money, that's going to mean they have to tighten their belts and those parasites don't like the idea that they may not be able to keep buying politicians as easily because they don't have the funds for it. Thing is also that the only real expansion opportunities for unions, is to go into the service industry and other industries that have remained ununionized. This also means union leadership needs to give a damn about minorities. So with the GOP hostile to them by default, that leaves the democrats and a good union can do a few things on the political front. One they can donate, endorse and even campaign for candidates they support. Hell, they can even remind the workforce to go out to vote and I'll point out that IIRC, everyone election thread I've participated in on this thread has either had a poster personally mention how their jackass boss found some excuse to not allow people to arrive late or leave early to get their vote in or stories about shitty employers fucking with people's voting rights. A good union isn't going to stand for that shit and that reminder probably gets a few more butts to arrive at the polls. So a good union, is liable to greatly reduce the money advantage that the wealthy parasites currently have because while money let's them buy power, which should be possible, the only thing that fucking matters in an election at poll close, is who has the most votes. So in a city election, if 60% of the workforce were unionized, loved the leadership or felt that the union was working for them and the union hated a specific party because said party constantly sided with fucking the workforce. Well that is a scenario where the union endorsement might decide the election and it won't matter how much more money the anti-labor part dumps into the election.
Well during my infusion, after a shit ton of channel flipping because basic cable is still full of mostly unwatchable shit. Settled on C-SPAN where the house was voting on the reauthorization of Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. Surprising no one, no actual republican voted in favor of it. The clown they had come up to talk about why she was opposed, used the horseshit about unions not representing workers and then got into some stupid ass spiel about the left, so I didn't finish listening to her bullshit, partly because my infusion had finished at that point. The GOP was also butthurt that all their bullshit amendments got voted down.
So unless someone convinces two dumbasses to kill the filibuster, it probably doesn't get out of the senate. With unions coming back though, expect to see lots of horseshit where the right tries to make unions and workers two separate things.
We know how the right will react to a resurgent labor movement - a mix of screeching and whining, repressive legislation, and, if necessary, violence.
I am curious how the Democratic Party will react to this movement if it continues to gain momentum. Ignore it? Try to ally with it and/or coopt it? Aim for corporate support by opposing it? Realistically some mix of the three, since they don't have unified positions?
I'm hoping for "ignore it."
The Democratic party is already intimately tied to the Labour movement. The question imo is how newly emerging service unions will mesh with the older existing unions and their relationship with the democratic party.
I'm of course aware of the relationship between the legacy unions and the party, your question is basically just rephrasing what I was asking. Our political economy is very different now than when the links you refer to were formed, so it's far from a given that the relationships between the new labor movement and the current Democratic Party will take a similar shape. And it depends in large part on how the Democrats react, which is what I've been wondering about.
New labor is a better mesh for the Democratic party than most of traditional old labor unions. Unionism vs Raceism/Nativism has always been a sort of push pull, and right now white identity politics in winning in a lot of previously core union areas(MI, PA, OH)
I had a bigger post on this in one of the old threads but search is trash so....
the whole union=Dems thing doesn't really hold true in younger groups. And that is probably underselling it in some ways as my instinct would be the public sector dem support has remained strong and private sector union support has actually eroded much more.
The big thing is that this relationship is not true for leadership. As much as their are complaints about the leadership of the major old school unions, and some of those complaints are valid, they were the ones mostly backing Clinton/Biden while a lot of their membership wanted to back Trump.
Old school union leadership became pretty enmeshed in federal politics, in large part by necessity. It'll be interesting to see if new unions follow that. I suspect their first instincts will be to remain as smaller-scale independent political groups. Not sure where it goes from there though.
ANN confirmed with multiple industry sources familiar with Crunchyroll's dubbing procedure that the company is focusing on casting Texas-based talent in its dubs. This season's dub cast list has half as many actors outside the Lone Star State.
Actors in Los Angeles are still battling with getting paid as employees - A CODIFIED LAW IN CALIFORNIA FOR ALMOST A DECADE NOW - because studios keep using terminology meant for *musicians* to continue paying actors as 1099 independent contractors.
They're *violating labor law*.
"So why don't you just tell them to stop?"
Because we really enjoy what we do, and are still trying to figure out how to successfully convince some of the biggest names in casting/dubbing to stop screwing us over on taxes while there's THOUSANDS of actor options who *won't* ask.
Some context: shits been bad for a bit with the dub industry regarding unionization, with a heavy union/non-union split between the folks in LA and the folks in Texas, which has been heating up ever since Sony became the largest company in the business, now owning both Crunchyroll and FUNImation.
There’s been some rumbling that it feels like there’s efforts to drive a wedge between the union and non-union folks, and with this deal it definitely feels like there’s an effort to basically screw the union folks and disincentivize the non-union talent concentrated in Texas to reject the recent efforts at getting them to join the union
Well during my infusion, after a shit ton of channel flipping because basic cable is still full of mostly unwatchable shit. Settled on C-SPAN where the house was voting on the reauthorization of Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. Surprising no one, no actual republican voted in favor of it. The clown they had come up to talk about why she was opposed, used the horseshit about unions not representing workers and then got into some stupid ass spiel about the left, so I didn't finish listening to her bullshit, partly because my infusion had finished at that point. The GOP was also butthurt that all their bullshit amendments got voted down.
So unless someone convinces two dumbasses to kill the filibuster, it probably doesn't get out of the senate. With unions coming back though, expect to see lots of horseshit where the right tries to make unions and workers two separate things.
We know how the right will react to a resurgent labor movement - a mix of screeching and whining, repressive legislation, and, if necessary, violence.
I am curious how the Democratic Party will react to this movement if it continues to gain momentum. Ignore it? Try to ally with it and/or coopt it? Aim for corporate support by opposing it? Realistically some mix of the three, since they don't have unified positions?
I'm hoping for "ignore it."
The Democratic party is already intimately tied to the Labour movement. The question imo is how newly emerging service unions will mesh with the older existing unions and their relationship with the democratic party.
Running away from, sabotaging, and selling out are not what I would consider to be intimate ties.
I think if you want to put the entire collapse of American unionization down to racists mad about the civil rights movement you have a lot more lifting to for that claim.
Given that a major reason the CIO came into being was the racism of the AFL, I disagree. The hardhats undercut union solidarity, drove wedges between unions and other left factions, and led unions to support those who would break them over social issues.
In my experience, entirely too many U.S. union members think they have more in common with an American billionaire than a foreign union worker. When I assure you the reverse* is not true.
*converse? inverse? Logic help please!
+3
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
In my experience, entirely too many U.S. union members think they have more in common with an American billionaire than a foreign union worker. When I assure you the reverse* is not true.
*converse? inverse? Logic help please!
You can go back like 70 years and find US films depicting this same attitude. It's possibly the most successful lie ever peddled by Capitalism, and that shit is deeply entrenched for absolutely no good fucking reason.
In my experience, entirely too many U.S. union members think they have more in common with an American billionaire than a foreign union worker. When I assure you the reverse* is not true.
*converse? inverse? Logic help please!
You can go back like 70 years and find US films depicting this same attitude. It's possibly the most successful lie ever peddled by Capitalism, and that shit is deeply entrenched for absolutely no good fucking reason.
Something something all just temporarily embarassed million/billionaires. Absolute load of tripe and I'd probably blow a wish on a lamp to lay it to rest.
"Go down, kick ass, and set yourselves up as gods, that's our Prime Directive!"
In my experience, entirely too many U.S. union members think they have more in common with an American billionaire than a foreign union worker. When I assure you the reverse* is not true.
*converse? inverse? Logic help please!
They have at least one thing in common, but that one thing is VERY important to them.
In my experience, entirely too many U.S. union members think they have more in common with an American billionaire than a foreign union worker. When I assure you the reverse* is not true.
*converse? inverse? Logic help please!
You can go back like 70 years and find US films depicting this same attitude. It's possibly the most successful lie ever peddled by Capitalism, and that shit is deeply entrenched for absolutely no good fucking reason.
It's embedded for what I would call very good reasons.
First a rags to riches is a standard trope that almost everyone loves. Underdogs are hard not to cheer for.
Second are immigrants who have been primed for this "American Dream" of ours that of course it's better here and by better we mean you can make it big by the sweat of your brow alone. Unlike most everywhere else where the entrenched gentry aren't going to let that happen. Got to remember that early US propaganda about there being no aristocrats getting in the way of people rising through society.
And finally, the biggest reason is because if that message wasn't pumped out 24/7 the fight wouldn't have ended in 1865. Hell, it nearly didn't end in 1781. Remember the Whiskey Riots? That tax started a second rebellion that was swiftly and decidedly shut down and helped make several anti-federalists switch to being federalists when it came time to rewrite the Articles of Confederation into our current Constitution.
That shit is so deeply embedded thanks to combination of history, greed, and a need to differentiate the US on the world stage.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
Well during my infusion, after a shit ton of channel flipping because basic cable is still full of mostly unwatchable shit. Settled on C-SPAN where the house was voting on the reauthorization of Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. Surprising no one, no actual republican voted in favor of it. The clown they had come up to talk about why she was opposed, used the horseshit about unions not representing workers and then got into some stupid ass spiel about the left, so I didn't finish listening to her bullshit, partly because my infusion had finished at that point. The GOP was also butthurt that all their bullshit amendments got voted down.
So unless someone convinces two dumbasses to kill the filibuster, it probably doesn't get out of the senate. With unions coming back though, expect to see lots of horseshit where the right tries to make unions and workers two separate things.
We know how the right will react to a resurgent labor movement - a mix of screeching and whining, repressive legislation, and, if necessary, violence.
I am curious how the Democratic Party will react to this movement if it continues to gain momentum. Ignore it? Try to ally with it and/or coopt it? Aim for corporate support by opposing it? Realistically some mix of the three, since they don't have unified positions?
I'm hoping for "ignore it."
The Democratic party is already intimately tied to the Labour movement. The question imo is how newly emerging service unions will mesh with the older existing unions and their relationship with the democratic party.
Running away from, sabotaging, and selling out are not what I would consider to be intimate ties.
Nah, this is bullshit. It's the kind of thing that sounds truthy but doesn't actually match reality. Unions are some of the biggest interests groups in Democratic party politics and spend money and exert political influence accordingly.
Well during my infusion, after a shit ton of channel flipping because basic cable is still full of mostly unwatchable shit. Settled on C-SPAN where the house was voting on the reauthorization of Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. Surprising no one, no actual republican voted in favor of it. The clown they had come up to talk about why she was opposed, used the horseshit about unions not representing workers and then got into some stupid ass spiel about the left, so I didn't finish listening to her bullshit, partly because my infusion had finished at that point. The GOP was also butthurt that all their bullshit amendments got voted down.
So unless someone convinces two dumbasses to kill the filibuster, it probably doesn't get out of the senate. With unions coming back though, expect to see lots of horseshit where the right tries to make unions and workers two separate things.
We know how the right will react to a resurgent labor movement - a mix of screeching and whining, repressive legislation, and, if necessary, violence.
I am curious how the Democratic Party will react to this movement if it continues to gain momentum. Ignore it? Try to ally with it and/or coopt it? Aim for corporate support by opposing it? Realistically some mix of the three, since they don't have unified positions?
I'm hoping for "ignore it."
The Democratic party is already intimately tied to the Labour movement. The question imo is how newly emerging service unions will mesh with the older existing unions and their relationship with the democratic party.
Running away from, sabotaging, and selling out are not what I would consider to be intimate ties.
Nah, this is bullshit. It's the kind of thing that sounds truthy but doesn't actually match reality. Unions are some of the biggest interests groups in Democratic party politics and spend money and exert political influence accordingly.
They are tied to the remaining unions. They are not tied to Labor. This isnt interchangeable and youre seeing this in the wave of wild cat strikes that arent particularly concerned about the Democrats.
In my experience, entirely too many U.S. union members think they have more in common with an American billionaire than a foreign union worker. When I assure you the reverse* is not true.
*converse? inverse? Logic help please!
Yeah, you're describing the triumph of nationalism over class consciousness. Which has indeed always been a major problem, and not just in the US. WW1 is a tragic example, in that European socialist parties and labor unions generally rallied around their flags rather than unite with the working classes and socialist organizations of other countries (with the exception of the Bolsheviks).
Well during my infusion, after a shit ton of channel flipping because basic cable is still full of mostly unwatchable shit. Settled on C-SPAN where the house was voting on the reauthorization of Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. Surprising no one, no actual republican voted in favor of it. The clown they had come up to talk about why she was opposed, used the horseshit about unions not representing workers and then got into some stupid ass spiel about the left, so I didn't finish listening to her bullshit, partly because my infusion had finished at that point. The GOP was also butthurt that all their bullshit amendments got voted down.
So unless someone convinces two dumbasses to kill the filibuster, it probably doesn't get out of the senate. With unions coming back though, expect to see lots of horseshit where the right tries to make unions and workers two separate things.
We know how the right will react to a resurgent labor movement - a mix of screeching and whining, repressive legislation, and, if necessary, violence.
I am curious how the Democratic Party will react to this movement if it continues to gain momentum. Ignore it? Try to ally with it and/or coopt it? Aim for corporate support by opposing it? Realistically some mix of the three, since they don't have unified positions?
I'm hoping for "ignore it."
The Democratic party is already intimately tied to the Labour movement. The question imo is how newly emerging service unions will mesh with the older existing unions and their relationship with the democratic party.
Running away from, sabotaging, and selling out are not what I would consider to be intimate ties.
Nah, this is bullshit. It's the kind of thing that sounds truthy but doesn't actually match reality. Unions are some of the biggest interests groups in Democratic party politics and spend money and exert political influence accordingly.
How many of the recent strikes have been supported or funded by the Democratic party? Existing unions are tied to the Democratic party in the same way that African Americans are, because the other option is a party that wants them to die. Clinton's economic plan was free trade and exporting jobs.
OWS, BLM, unions forming in response to corporations, these are things happening not because of the Democrats, but in spite of them.
I think this means unions have separated from conventional politics
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Well during my infusion, after a shit ton of channel flipping because basic cable is still full of mostly unwatchable shit. Settled on C-SPAN where the house was voting on the reauthorization of Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. Surprising no one, no actual republican voted in favor of it. The clown they had come up to talk about why she was opposed, used the horseshit about unions not representing workers and then got into some stupid ass spiel about the left, so I didn't finish listening to her bullshit, partly because my infusion had finished at that point. The GOP was also butthurt that all their bullshit amendments got voted down.
So unless someone convinces two dumbasses to kill the filibuster, it probably doesn't get out of the senate. With unions coming back though, expect to see lots of horseshit where the right tries to make unions and workers two separate things.
We know how the right will react to a resurgent labor movement - a mix of screeching and whining, repressive legislation, and, if necessary, violence.
I am curious how the Democratic Party will react to this movement if it continues to gain momentum. Ignore it? Try to ally with it and/or coopt it? Aim for corporate support by opposing it? Realistically some mix of the three, since they don't have unified positions?
I'm hoping for "ignore it."
The Democratic party is already intimately tied to the Labour movement. The question imo is how newly emerging service unions will mesh with the older existing unions and their relationship with the democratic party.
Running away from, sabotaging, and selling out are not what I would consider to be intimate ties.
Nah, this is bullshit. It's the kind of thing that sounds truthy but doesn't actually match reality. Unions are some of the biggest interests groups in Democratic party politics and spend money and exert political influence accordingly.
How many of the recent strikes have been supported or funded by the Democratic party? Existing unions are tied to the Democratic party in the same way that African Americans are, because the other option is a party that wants them to die. Clinton's economic plan was free trade and exporting jobs.
OWS, BLM, unions forming in response to corporations, these are things happening not because of the Democrats, but in spite of them.
OWS, BLM, and new unions forming now shouldn't be conflated with the major unions which do have established and long standing links with the Democratic Party (or with each other, really). You are right that even those unions don't/didn't get what they want much of the time, though. By Clinton's era they were severely weakened and couldn't resist the policy desired by capital.
Well during my infusion, after a shit ton of channel flipping because basic cable is still full of mostly unwatchable shit. Settled on C-SPAN where the house was voting on the reauthorization of Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. Surprising no one, no actual republican voted in favor of it. The clown they had come up to talk about why she was opposed, used the horseshit about unions not representing workers and then got into some stupid ass spiel about the left, so I didn't finish listening to her bullshit, partly because my infusion had finished at that point. The GOP was also butthurt that all their bullshit amendments got voted down.
So unless someone convinces two dumbasses to kill the filibuster, it probably doesn't get out of the senate. With unions coming back though, expect to see lots of horseshit where the right tries to make unions and workers two separate things.
We know how the right will react to a resurgent labor movement - a mix of screeching and whining, repressive legislation, and, if necessary, violence.
I am curious how the Democratic Party will react to this movement if it continues to gain momentum. Ignore it? Try to ally with it and/or coopt it? Aim for corporate support by opposing it? Realistically some mix of the three, since they don't have unified positions?
I'm hoping for "ignore it."
The Democratic party is already intimately tied to the Labour movement. The question imo is how newly emerging service unions will mesh with the older existing unions and their relationship with the democratic party.
Running away from, sabotaging, and selling out are not what I would consider to be intimate ties.
Nah, this is bullshit. It's the kind of thing that sounds truthy but doesn't actually match reality. Unions are some of the biggest interests groups in Democratic party politics and spend money and exert political influence accordingly.
How many of the recent strikes have been supported or funded by the Democratic party? Existing unions are tied to the Democratic party in the same way that African Americans are, because the other option is a party that wants them to die. Clinton's economic plan was free trade and exporting jobs.
OWS, BLM, unions forming in response to corporations, these are things happening not because of the Democrats, but in spite of them.
Which recent strikes are you thinking about? Cause I've seen plenty of Democratic party politicians supporting recent strikes I can think of.
Again, you are ignoring how much unions are tied into the political process. Cause they aren't stupid and having influence on the political is important. That's why they spend a lot of time and money on it.
And I'm not sure what you think like OWS has to do with any of this. It's such a weird segue.
I think this means unions Democrats have separated from conventional politics
They've increasingly lost touch with their base, relying on not being fucking Nazis to get them the votes they need.
I consider conventional politics as you back candidates to vote for. Since unions, OWS, and BLM don't have political candidates, I'd consider them as separated from conventional politics
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Well during my infusion, after a shit ton of channel flipping because basic cable is still full of mostly unwatchable shit. Settled on C-SPAN where the house was voting on the reauthorization of Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. Surprising no one, no actual republican voted in favor of it. The clown they had come up to talk about why she was opposed, used the horseshit about unions not representing workers and then got into some stupid ass spiel about the left, so I didn't finish listening to her bullshit, partly because my infusion had finished at that point. The GOP was also butthurt that all their bullshit amendments got voted down.
So unless someone convinces two dumbasses to kill the filibuster, it probably doesn't get out of the senate. With unions coming back though, expect to see lots of horseshit where the right tries to make unions and workers two separate things.
We know how the right will react to a resurgent labor movement - a mix of screeching and whining, repressive legislation, and, if necessary, violence.
I am curious how the Democratic Party will react to this movement if it continues to gain momentum. Ignore it? Try to ally with it and/or coopt it? Aim for corporate support by opposing it? Realistically some mix of the three, since they don't have unified positions?
I'm hoping for "ignore it."
The Democratic party is already intimately tied to the Labour movement. The question imo is how newly emerging service unions will mesh with the older existing unions and their relationship with the democratic party.
Running away from, sabotaging, and selling out are not what I would consider to be intimate ties.
Nah, this is bullshit. It's the kind of thing that sounds truthy but doesn't actually match reality. Unions are some of the biggest interests groups in Democratic party politics and spend money and exert political influence accordingly.
How many of the recent strikes have been supported or funded by the Democratic party? Existing unions are tied to the Democratic party in the same way that African Americans are, because the other option is a party that wants them to die. Clinton's economic plan was free trade and exporting jobs. .
Workers of the World* Unite!
*Except you foreigners, no jobs for you.
0
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
edited May 2022
I don't have the data immediately to hand, but more jobs in the 90s were lost to robots than NAFTA.
Well during my infusion, after a shit ton of channel flipping because basic cable is still full of mostly unwatchable shit. Settled on C-SPAN where the house was voting on the reauthorization of Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. Surprising no one, no actual republican voted in favor of it. The clown they had come up to talk about why she was opposed, used the horseshit about unions not representing workers and then got into some stupid ass spiel about the left, so I didn't finish listening to her bullshit, partly because my infusion had finished at that point. The GOP was also butthurt that all their bullshit amendments got voted down.
So unless someone convinces two dumbasses to kill the filibuster, it probably doesn't get out of the senate. With unions coming back though, expect to see lots of horseshit where the right tries to make unions and workers two separate things.
We know how the right will react to a resurgent labor movement - a mix of screeching and whining, repressive legislation, and, if necessary, violence.
I am curious how the Democratic Party will react to this movement if it continues to gain momentum. Ignore it? Try to ally with it and/or coopt it? Aim for corporate support by opposing it? Realistically some mix of the three, since they don't have unified positions?
I'm hoping for "ignore it."
The Democratic party is already intimately tied to the Labour movement. The question imo is how newly emerging service unions will mesh with the older existing unions and their relationship with the democratic party.
Running away from, sabotaging, and selling out are not what I would consider to be intimate ties.
Nah, this is bullshit. It's the kind of thing that sounds truthy but doesn't actually match reality. Unions are some of the biggest interests groups in Democratic party politics and spend money and exert political influence accordingly.
How many of the recent strikes have been supported or funded by the Democratic party? Existing unions are tied to the Democratic party in the same way that African Americans are, because the other option is a party that wants them to die. Clinton's economic plan was free trade and exporting jobs. .
Workers of the World* Unite!
*Except you foreigners, no jobs for you.
These jobs get exported not out of an internationalist solidarity of labor, but because the countries they operate in have little to no labor rights protections. Often this is the case with their governments fervently backing the forces of capital against local labor, creating a situation where millions of workers around the globe are exploited in near slave to slave labor conditions. These repressive regimes are more than happy to put down any form of resistance by the workers with state violence.
So congratulations: you said something extremely fucking stupid, short sighted and displaying a complete lack of empathy and awareness of even the most basic facts regarding the topic to try and create a clever burn! All in the most insulting ways possible to every group involved in the matter!
Well during my infusion, after a shit ton of channel flipping because basic cable is still full of mostly unwatchable shit. Settled on C-SPAN where the house was voting on the reauthorization of Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. Surprising no one, no actual republican voted in favor of it. The clown they had come up to talk about why she was opposed, used the horseshit about unions not representing workers and then got into some stupid ass spiel about the left, so I didn't finish listening to her bullshit, partly because my infusion had finished at that point. The GOP was also butthurt that all their bullshit amendments got voted down.
So unless someone convinces two dumbasses to kill the filibuster, it probably doesn't get out of the senate. With unions coming back though, expect to see lots of horseshit where the right tries to make unions and workers two separate things.
We know how the right will react to a resurgent labor movement - a mix of screeching and whining, repressive legislation, and, if necessary, violence.
I am curious how the Democratic Party will react to this movement if it continues to gain momentum. Ignore it? Try to ally with it and/or coopt it? Aim for corporate support by opposing it? Realistically some mix of the three, since they don't have unified positions?
I'm hoping for "ignore it."
The Democratic party is already intimately tied to the Labour movement. The question imo is how newly emerging service unions will mesh with the older existing unions and their relationship with the democratic party.
Running away from, sabotaging, and selling out are not what I would consider to be intimate ties.
Nah, this is bullshit. It's the kind of thing that sounds truthy but doesn't actually match reality. Unions are some of the biggest interests groups in Democratic party politics and spend money and exert political influence accordingly.
How many of the recent strikes have been supported or funded by the Democratic party? Existing unions are tied to the Democratic party in the same way that African Americans are, because the other option is a party that wants them to die. Clinton's economic plan was free trade and exporting jobs. .
Workers of the World* Unite!
*Except you foreigners, no jobs for you.
These jobs get exported not out of an internationalist solidarity of labor, but because the countries they operate in have little to no labor rights protections. Often this is the case with their governments fervently backing the forces of capital against local labor, creating a situation where millions of workers around the globe are exploited in near slave to slave labor conditions. These repressive regimes are more than happy to put down any form of resistance by the workers with state violence.
So congratulations: you said something extremely fucking stupid, short sighted and displaying a complete lack of empathy and awareness of even the most basic facts regarding the topic to try and create a clever burn! All in the most insulting ways possible to every group involved in the matter!
Not only that they got exported to countries with weak labor practices, but domestically workers had to give up protections in order to keep pace with the race to the bottom.
Because that's what unfettered capitalism is, a race to the bottom.
@Lanz if you choose to post in memes or whatever, can you take a moment to explain it to those if us not in on the reference?
I.e. what the f is "wooden shoes sounds" supposed to mean? A reference to the Dutch????
Smrtnik on
+5
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
@Lanz if you choose to post in memes or whatever, can you take a moment to explain it to those if us not in on the reference?
I.e. what the f is "wooden shoes sounds" supposed to mean? A reference to the Dutch????
Not a meme: a piece of labor apocrypha. The throwing of wooden shoes into the gears of machinery which replaced laborers/craftsmen in 19th century Belgium, rendering the workers desperate and impoverished. The wooden shoes were called sabots, hence the term "sabotage".
Posts
I am curious how the Democratic Party will react to this movement if it continues to gain momentum. Ignore it? Try to ally with it and/or coopt it? Aim for corporate support by opposing it? Realistically some mix of the three, since they don't have unified positions?
I'm hoping for "ignore it."
The Democratic party is already intimately tied to the Labour movement. The question imo is how newly emerging service unions will mesh with the older existing unions and their relationship with the democratic party.
New labor is a better mesh for the Democratic party than most of traditional old labor unions. Unionism vs Raceism/Nativism has always been a sort of push pull, and right now white identity politics in winning in a lot of previously core union areas(MI, PA, OH)
I had a bigger post on this in one of the old threads but search is trash so....
the whole union=Dems thing doesn't really hold true in younger groups. And that is probably underselling it in some ways as my instinct would be the public sector dem support has remained strong and private sector union support has actually eroded much more.
Basically, the hardhats (socially conservative union members) have always been one of the biggest parts of the collapse of American unionism, as they were happy to attack their natural allies and ally with the people who were looking to break them all over social issues.
edit -which isn't intended to wholly disagree with you; it is in some ways an aspect of what you describe. But pressure from the state really shouldn't be ignore here. I mean Taft-Hartley literally mandated that no union officer could be a communist.
Yes, because many of those leaders were hardhats - as I've said before, one of the people most responsible for the collapse of unionism in the US was hardhat union boss George Meany.
Edit - and also it ignores economic/structural reasons entirely which is never good
-Socialist and communists got kicked out, leaving mostly the racists and the mostly institutionalists as the big blocks or at least the ones that could command attention.
-Racists were all to happy to cut off their noses to spit minorities.
-Those that were mostly institutionalists were more interested in amassing power and since they weren't communists or socialists, they had an easier time of navigating our bullshit political system, that lets people buy power.
-This has resulted in union membership withering, since the institutionalist had little interest in trying to bring in younger and more racially diverse groups. Given that systemic racism increased the odds of the latter not having much income and those in the former that would want to unionize likely didn't have much money spar either if they were working non-unionized industries and shops. So institutionalists wrote both groups off because sadly money plays an outsized role in our system. It's pretty damn dumb though because even if the low income crowd of the inner city can't pony up the money some fuckers from the country club can, they still have a fuck ton of votes that can decide elections.
-Don't think I have to cover racists, but those fuckers don't want non-whites in their unions and likely has some really stupid dumbass views on various industries.
Given the GOP is a white supremacist party that also pushes for maintaining an oligarchy that exploits everyone. It's not surprising that they are super hostile to union because unionization could pose a real threat to them on many levels. The obvious one is that workers who unionize are going to have a better shot at not being fucking raped by their corporate overlords. If the top is not able to rake in less money, that's going to mean they have to tighten their belts and those parasites don't like the idea that they may not be able to keep buying politicians as easily because they don't have the funds for it. Thing is also that the only real expansion opportunities for unions, is to go into the service industry and other industries that have remained ununionized. This also means union leadership needs to give a damn about minorities. So with the GOP hostile to them by default, that leaves the democrats and a good union can do a few things on the political front. One they can donate, endorse and even campaign for candidates they support. Hell, they can even remind the workforce to go out to vote and I'll point out that IIRC, everyone election thread I've participated in on this thread has either had a poster personally mention how their jackass boss found some excuse to not allow people to arrive late or leave early to get their vote in or stories about shitty employers fucking with people's voting rights. A good union isn't going to stand for that shit and that reminder probably gets a few more butts to arrive at the polls. So a good union, is liable to greatly reduce the money advantage that the wealthy parasites currently have because while money let's them buy power, which should be possible, the only thing that fucking matters in an election at poll close, is who has the most votes. So in a city election, if 60% of the workforce were unionized, loved the leadership or felt that the union was working for them and the union hated a specific party because said party constantly sided with fucking the workforce. Well that is a scenario where the union endorsement might decide the election and it won't matter how much more money the anti-labor part dumps into the election.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
The big thing is that this relationship is not true for leadership. As much as their are complaints about the leadership of the major old school unions, and some of those complaints are valid, they were the ones mostly backing Clinton/Biden while a lot of their membership wanted to back Trump.
Old school union leadership became pretty enmeshed in federal politics, in large part by necessity. It'll be interesting to see if new unions follow that. I suspect their first instincts will be to remain as smaller-scale independent political groups. Not sure where it goes from there though.
Some context: shits been bad for a bit with the dub industry regarding unionization, with a heavy union/non-union split between the folks in LA and the folks in Texas, which has been heating up ever since Sony became the largest company in the business, now owning both Crunchyroll and FUNImation.
There’s been some rumbling that it feels like there’s efforts to drive a wedge between the union and non-union folks, and with this deal it definitely feels like there’s an effort to basically screw the union folks and disincentivize the non-union talent concentrated in Texas to reject the recent efforts at getting them to join the union
Running away from, sabotaging, and selling out are not what I would consider to be intimate ties.
Given that a major reason the CIO came into being was the racism of the AFL, I disagree. The hardhats undercut union solidarity, drove wedges between unions and other left factions, and led unions to support those who would break them over social issues.
*converse? inverse? Logic help please!
You can go back like 70 years and find US films depicting this same attitude. It's possibly the most successful lie ever peddled by Capitalism, and that shit is deeply entrenched for absolutely no good fucking reason.
Something something all just temporarily embarassed million/billionaires. Absolute load of tripe and I'd probably blow a wish on a lamp to lay it to rest.
They have at least one thing in common, but that one thing is VERY important to them.
It's embedded for what I would call very good reasons.
First a rags to riches is a standard trope that almost everyone loves. Underdogs are hard not to cheer for.
Second are immigrants who have been primed for this "American Dream" of ours that of course it's better here and by better we mean you can make it big by the sweat of your brow alone. Unlike most everywhere else where the entrenched gentry aren't going to let that happen. Got to remember that early US propaganda about there being no aristocrats getting in the way of people rising through society.
And finally, the biggest reason is because if that message wasn't pumped out 24/7 the fight wouldn't have ended in 1865. Hell, it nearly didn't end in 1781. Remember the Whiskey Riots? That tax started a second rebellion that was swiftly and decidedly shut down and helped make several anti-federalists switch to being federalists when it came time to rewrite the Articles of Confederation into our current Constitution.
That shit is so deeply embedded thanks to combination of history, greed, and a need to differentiate the US on the world stage.
Nah, this is bullshit. It's the kind of thing that sounds truthy but doesn't actually match reality. Unions are some of the biggest interests groups in Democratic party politics and spend money and exert political influence accordingly.
They are tied to the remaining unions. They are not tied to Labor. This isnt interchangeable and youre seeing this in the wave of wild cat strikes that arent particularly concerned about the Democrats.
How many of the recent strikes have been supported or funded by the Democratic party? Existing unions are tied to the Democratic party in the same way that African Americans are, because the other option is a party that wants them to die. Clinton's economic plan was free trade and exporting jobs.
OWS, BLM, unions forming in response to corporations, these are things happening not because of the Democrats, but in spite of them.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Because neither party is doing a good job courting them.
They've increasingly lost touch with their base, relying on not being fucking Nazis to get them the votes they need.
Which recent strikes are you thinking about? Cause I've seen plenty of Democratic party politicians supporting recent strikes I can think of.
Again, you are ignoring how much unions are tied into the political process. Cause they aren't stupid and having influence on the political is important. That's why they spend a lot of time and money on it.
And I'm not sure what you think like OWS has to do with any of this. It's such a weird segue.
I consider conventional politics as you back candidates to vote for. Since unions, OWS, and BLM don't have political candidates, I'd consider them as separated from conventional politics
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Workers of the World* Unite!
*Except you foreigners, no jobs for you.
These jobs get exported not out of an internationalist solidarity of labor, but because the countries they operate in have little to no labor rights protections. Often this is the case with their governments fervently backing the forces of capital against local labor, creating a situation where millions of workers around the globe are exploited in near slave to slave labor conditions. These repressive regimes are more than happy to put down any form of resistance by the workers with state violence.
So congratulations: you said something extremely fucking stupid, short sighted and displaying a complete lack of empathy and awareness of even the most basic facts regarding the topic to try and create a clever burn! All in the most insulting ways possible to every group involved in the matter!
[the sounds of thousands of wooden shoes intensifies]
Not only that they got exported to countries with weak labor practices, but domestically workers had to give up protections in order to keep pace with the race to the bottom.
Because that's what unfettered capitalism is, a race to the bottom.
Worker productivity increased, but worker wages stayed flat or barely kept pace with inflation.
That is a problem with domestic policy and not trade agreements.
NAFTA is a big 'ol red herring for labour and is mostly used in the US to disparage Mexico and blame them for the blue collar loss of standing.
MWO: Adamski
I.e. what the f is "wooden shoes sounds" supposed to mean? A reference to the Dutch????
Not a meme: a piece of labor apocrypha. The throwing of wooden shoes into the gears of machinery which replaced laborers/craftsmen in 19th century Belgium, rendering the workers desperate and impoverished. The wooden shoes were called sabots, hence the term "sabotage".