A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

Foxfyre wrote:

I have worked for two unionized organizations in which you joined the union when hired or you didn't work. They took my money for dues, but there were no elections for the entire period I worked for either of them.

Just got off the phone with the Department of Labor. For unions covered by the Landrum Griffin Act, which is almost all private sector unions, the elections for the local leaders must occur every three years, for the national leadership every five years. If you worked at those union places less than three years then yes, you would not have gotten the chance to vote. But that is like moving to a town one year, moving out of town two years later, then complaining the town is undemocratic because you had to pay property taxes for the time you were there but never ONCE got to vote for Mayor or town representatives. Well guess what-the Mayor and town representatives have a four year term.

The union leaders for those firemen were elected to represent the interests of the firefighters who risked and lost their lives in the WTC attack, and the families who lost them. I trust their judgment on the situation about a thousand times more than I trust yours.

Any union leader who does not stick up for the rights and memories of his workers, especially those who have perished in the line of duty, is one pathetic excuse for a union leader. The readers of this thread may please note how the conservatives here run the leaders down for doing what they leaders SHOULD be doing-and the deceptive means the conservatives employ to do so.

Just got off the phone with the Department of Labor. For unions covered by the Landrum Griffin Act, which is almost all private sector unions, the elections for the local leaders must occur every three years, for the national leadership every five years. If you worked at those union places less than three years then yes, you would not have gotten the chance to vote. But that is like moving to a town one year, moving out of town two years later, then complaining the town is undemocratic because you had to pay property taxes for the time you were there but never ONCE got to vote for Mayor or town representatives. Well guess what-the Mayor and town representatives have a four year term.

kelticwizard wrote:

Just got off the phone with the Department of Labor. For unions covered by the Landrum Griffin Act, which is almost all private sector unions, the elections for the local leaders must occur every three years, for the national leadership every five years. If you worked at those union places less than three years then yes, you would not have gotten the chance to vote. But that is like moving to a town one year, moving out of town two years later, then complaining the town is undemocratic because you had to pay property taxes for the time you were there but never ONCE got to vote for Mayor or town representatives. Well guess what-the Mayor and town representatives have a four year term.

Good for you for factchecking the rhetoric and ignoring the silly "oversensitive gripes" jabs. Its not about oversensitivity, its about a simple yes or no contention that was being made: either union leaders are elected, or they are thrust upon unwilling workers. You factchecked it, and found they are elected. Dont expect an acknowledgement of that, but good on you.

Do you treat people in real life the way you treat people you disagree with here? If so, do you ever get tired of being you?

<sputter>

Foxfyre wrote:

Do you treat people in real life the way you treat people you disagree with here? If so, do you ever get tired of being you?

Considering Keltic is one of the few posters who still goes to great lengths to factcheck assertions and back up his arguments with lengths of documentation, stats etc (often taken from state or academic resources rather than his side's partisan columnists to boot), in a way that even I have long ago given up on, we could only hope that more people treated people they disagree with like he does. It would certainly benefit the honesty ad throoughness of debate here.

Foxfyre wrote:

Do you treat people in real life the way you treat people you disagree with here? If so, do you ever get tired of being you?

Considering Keltic is one of the few posters who still goes to great lengths to factcheck assertions and back up his arguments with lengths of documentation, stats etc (often taken from state or academic resources rather than his side's partisan columnists to boot), in a way that even I have long ago given up on, we could only hope that more people treated people they disagree with like he does. It would certainly benefit the honesty ad throoughness of debate here.

But to suggest that a union 'speaks for all its members' on any subject unrelated to negotiated contracts is ludicrous. That was my point in suggesting that a suit filed by the union bosses does not necessarily represent the feelings or beliefs or wishes of the firemen the union represents. Neither you nor Keltic seem to wish to acknowledge that however.

Unions presuming to speak the convictions, sentiments, politics, or preferred candidate of their members is quite something else again.

Foxfyre wrote:

But to suggest that a union 'speaks for all its members' on any subject unrelated to negotiated contracts is ludicrous. That was my point in suggesting that a suit filed by the union bosses does not necessarily represent the feelings or beliefs or wishes of the firemen the union represents. Neither you nor Keltic seem to wish to acknowledge that however.

That's an interesting argument, and most probably true.

Thinking loud: For how many Americans does a President, elected even without having a plurality of the popular vote, speak?

Having belonged to unions in the past--it was required, not a matter of choice--I can assure you the union did not speak for me nor did I choose the leadership....

Foxfyre wrote:

Having belonged to unions in the past--it was required, not a matter of choice--I can assure you the union did not speak for me nor did I choose the leadership....

I leave it to the readers to decide whether this statement was intended to imply that union leaders are not elected by the members or not.

Warning: impassioned explanations involving "context" have been spotted on the horizon.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

But to suggest that a union 'speaks for all its members' on any subject unrelated to negotiated contracts is ludicrous. That was my point in suggesting that a suit filed by the union bosses does not necessarily represent the feelings or beliefs or wishes of the firemen the union represents. Neither you nor Keltic seem to wish to acknowledge that however.

That's an interesting argument, and most probably true.

Thinking loud: For how many Americans does a President, elected even without having a plurality of the popular vote, speak?

Which is precisely Foxy's point, and damn near what I wrote in my post as well.

Foxy's also correct that no one disputed whether votes took place, and Nimh, the 'hypersensitive jab' is a correlation to the overemotional reaction about Giuliani's treatment of his ex-wife followed by this latest Earth-Shaker that probably isn't news to many. Clearly, Giuliani's candidacy worries KW a bit.

The real issue is the simple, predictable politics of the opposing party trying desperately to slow down Giuliani's epic rise in the polls by whatever means they can find.

Fine. Intelligent readers can certainly read what was said, and what was implied by those who wanted what was said to be something different than what was said.

I am saying that the union bosses do not necesarily speak for the firemen. The union bosses speak for the union bosses.

Having belonged to unions in the past--it was required, not a matter of choice--I can assure you the union did not speak for me nor did I choose the leadership....

Foxfyre wrote:

Fine. Intelligent readers can certainly read what was said, and what was implied by those who wanted what was said to be something different than what was said.

They certainly can. Intelligent readers can also interpret what Foxfyre implied in her post, and whether she was misinterpreted by subsequent posters or not.

Just for "context" fans, I'm going to include a message Foxfyre posted just before the one I quoted. Make up your own mind as to whether she implied that union leaders are not elected by the members.

Foxfyre wrote:

I am saying that the union bosses do not necesarily speak for the firemen. The union bosses speak for the union bosses.

Foxfyre wrote:

Having belonged to unions in the past--it was required, not a matter of choice--I can assure you the union did not speak for me nor did I choose the leadership....

All this because the firefighters union leader spoke out against cutting short the search for firefighter's bodies in the wreckage of the World Trade Center. Which any leader worth his salt would do-and do on behalf of the people who elected him.

I also belonged to the Teamsters while attending college, and our hourly rate of pay was over $8/hour, and this was back in the sixties.

I supported unions back then, and still support unions today, because that is the only way workers have a voice. It has also been shown that unions also help non-union workers. At least that's what we learned in economics 101.

Nimh, the 'hypersensitive jab' is a correlation to the overemotional reaction about Giuliani's treatment of his ex-wife followed by this latest Earth-Shaker that probably isn't news to many. Clearly, Giuliani's candidacy worries KW a bit.

The real issue is the simple, predictable politics of the opposing party trying desperately to slow down Giuliani's epic rise in the polls by whatever means they can find.