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

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

The union leaders were elected by those brave firefighters who laid down their lives trying to save others [..]. Union members elect people to represent them.

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 nor did it have my best interest at heart. [T]o think that the union bosses speak for all the firemen or that even all the firemen chose the union bosses is really naive.

Please tell us the name of this union you belonged to which did not hold elections for the leaders. I certainly have not come across one-enlighten us.

Please tell me a name of a union that hands a ballot to every new hiree or even tells new hirees who the union bosses are. 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 [..] never ONCE got to vote for Mayor or town representatives. Well guess what-the Mayor and town representatives have a four year term.

Unions 'negotiating for workers benefit [etc] is one thing. Unions presuming to speak the convictions, sentiments, politics, or preferred candidate of their members is quite something else again.

This is not Luke Skywalker here," said Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), discussing his friend and Senate colleague John McCain's second run for the presidency. "This is a totally different campaign."

Graham was looking for a way to reassure his fellow conservatives that they no longer had anything to fear from McCain. His choice of metaphor is one of those windows into the fundamental cultural gap that separates hard-core conservatives from the rest of humanity. To most people, who think of Luke Skywalker as a hero battling an evil and immensely powerful empire, Graham's implication would be seen as an unmitigated insult. In the world of the GOP elite, though, it's a form of praise: No, no, don't worry, McCain's with the empire now.

Major balls? To leave it up to the readers to judge the implications involved in that sequence? What did Keltic quote out of context there?

Here, I'll add the rest of the context re: what the two of you have said about union representatives having been elected, or not.

Foxfyre wrote:

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

Kelticwizard wrote:

The union leaders were elected by those brave firefighters who laid down their lives trying to save others [..]. Union members elect people to represent them.

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 nor did it have my best interest at heart. [T]o think that the union bosses speak for all the firemen or that even all the firemen chose the union bosses is really naive.

Kelticwizard wrote:

Please tell us the name of this union you belonged to which did not hold elections for the leaders. I certainly have not come across one-enlighten us.

Foxfyre wrote:

Please tell me a name of a union that hands a ballot to every new hiree or even tells new hirees who the union bosses are. 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.

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 [..] never ONCE got to vote for Mayor or town representatives. Well guess what-the Mayor and town representatives have a four year term.

Foxfyre wrote:

Unions 'negotiating for workers benefit [etc] is one thing. Unions presuming to speak the convictions, sentiments, politics, or preferred candidate of their members is quite something else again.

Thats all.

Foxfyre wrote:
Please tell me a name of a union that hands a ballot to every new hiree or even tells new hirees who the union bosses are. 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.

Fine Cyclop. Good for you. But this is not responsive to what I said any more than Nimh or KW are being responsive to what I said. Of course they're doing that on purpose I think.

I would bet you a steak dinner, they didn't hand you a ballot at the interview or on the first day on the job. I bet you worked quite awhile before you had a meeting. In other words, the union would not have a clue what you felt about any issue unrelated to your union contract and might or might not agree with your views when the leadership takes a political or social position on anything.

If you disagree with that, then like Nimh and KW, you must believe that the President or Governor or Mayor or your company boss speaks for you when he or she says anything, right?

I would bet you a steak dinner, they didn't hand you a ballot at the interview.....

The boss doesn't speak for each and every member of the Union in person, but he does speak the official position of the Union as a whole. Depending on the structure, this position is probably calculated and formulated in committee, just as in our gov't.

Bush speaks for America, and the official position of America, even though he doesn't speak for me personally. My disagreement with his policies and ideas doesn't mean he isn't president and doesn't have the authority to do so. My union bosses were the same way.

Cycloptichorn

Foxfyre wrote:

I would bet you a steak dinner, they didn't hand you a ballot at the interview.....

So now the unions have to hand job applicants a ballot at the job interview or their representation is invalid?

This illustrates how far the conservatives will go to pound on the unions, to try to convince people the unions don't really represent the workers they do.

If you won't agree to that, could you at least admit that I have a point that the Union leaders do not necessarily represent the feelings and/or views of those they represent?

kelticwizard wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

I would bet you a steak dinner, they didn't hand you a ballot at the interview.....

So now the unions have to hand job applicants a ballot at the job interview or their representation is invalid?

This illustrates how far the conservatives will go to pound on the unions, to try to convince people the unions don't really represent the workers they do.

You're the one who insisted that the workers elect the union leadership and therefore the unions can speak for the workers, dear. I didn't. And you seem incapable of understanding the point that all workers did not vote for those union bosses and some, like me, never had a chance to vote for them.

I did not say anything about the representation not being valid if a ballot is not handed to somebody the first day on the job. This is a pure invention on your part and one the things you do that drives me nuts.

But according to what you seem to be insisting on, will you agree that President Bush speaks for you and reflects your views on everything he says? He is duly elected by the people of the United States. Will you agree that the President then accurately represents your feelings and views?

If you won't agree to that, could you at least admit that I have a point that the Union leaders do not necessarily represent the feelings and/or views of those they represent?

Foxfyre wrote:

kelticwizard wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

I would bet you a steak dinner, they didn't hand you a ballot at the interview.....

So now the unions have to hand job applicants a ballot at the job interview or their representation is invalid?

This illustrates how far the conservatives will go to pound on the unions, to try to convince people the unions don't really represent the workers they do.

You're the one who insisted that the workers elect the union leadership and therefore the unions can speak for the workers, dear. I didn't. And you seem incapable of understanding the point that all workers did not vote for those union bosses and some, like me, never had a chance to vote for them.

I did not say anything about the representation not being valid if a ballot is not handed to somebody the first day on the job. This is a pure invention on your part and one the things you do that drives me nuts.

But according to what you seem to be insisting on, will you agree that President Bush speaks for you and reflects your views on everything he says? He is duly elected by the people of the United States. Will you agree that the President then accurately represents your feelings and views?

If you won't agree to that, could you at least admit that I have a point that the Union leaders do not necessarily represent the feelings and/or views of those they represent?

You do understand that there's a difference between speaking on behalf of the union as a whole, and speaking on the behalf of individual members?

Cycloptichorn

Foxfyre wrote:

If you won't agree to that, could you at least admit that I have a point that the Union leaders do not necessarily represent the feelings and/or views of those they represent?

Even in so-called "democracies" where the leaders got elected with 99.998% those didn't necessessarily feelings and/or views of those they represented but they spoke nevertheless officially for them.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

If you won't agree to that, could you at least admit that I have a point that the Union leaders do not necessarily represent the feelings and/or views of those they represent?

Even in so-called "democracies" where the leaders got elected with 99.998% those didn't necessessarily feelings and/or views of those they represented but they spoke nevertheless officially for them.

They presumed to speak officially for what people think or feel or the political views they hold? In Nazi Germany maybe. But in no free country that I know of. I thnk that's what you meant though. Union bosses can certainly speak officially for the workers on matters related to the contracts the workers have signed. But they, no more than can a president, speak with authority on the workers feelings, emotions, sensibilities, or social or political views. At least they cannot do that ethically or with authority.

Foxfyre:

Unanimity is not required for a leader of an organization to speak on behalf of the members of that organization. Especially on issues dealing with the proper respect shown to the fallen members of that organization acting in the line of duty.

To maintain that unanimity is required is to show that you have no idea what representation or leadership is, or how it works.

You have been trying to claim that unions must not be considered as representing their membership, when in fact they are elected and represent their membership as much as any other elected leaders. And in the matter of showing respect for the members who died in the line of duty, they are expected to step up and speak for the organization and the members even more.

kelticwizard wrote:

Foxfyre:

Unanimity is not required for a leader of an organization to speak on behalf of the members of that organization. Especially on issues dealing with the proper respect shown to the fallen members of that organization acting in the line of duty.

To maintain that unanimity is required is to show that you have no idea what representation or leadership is, or how it works.

You have been trying to claim that unions must not be considered as representing their membership, when in fact they are elected and represent their membership as much as any other elected leaders. And in the matter of showing respect for the members who died in the line of duty, they are expected to step up and speak for the organization and the members even more.

I said nothing of the kind KW and I have been TRYING to say nothing of the kind. I have been pretty clear that Union leadership is elected to represent the membership in labor contracts and everything associated with those contracts.

The union membership is NOT elected to represent the feelings, sensibilities, opinions, personal preferences, or political view of the membership and they do not necessarily represent the membership when they presume to do that. Personally I think it is unethical for them to do that, but it is legal and therefore they can do it with impunity.

Now if that isn't good enough for you, I don't know how to explain it any better.

I guess that means you aren't going to answer the question of whether you agree that the duly elected President of the United States or the Governor or the Mayor or your union boss is authorized to speak your personal opinions, sensibilities, feelings, and/or political views. Most people would be able to see the analogy here. I don't have a clue if you do.

I'm so glad that you agree 100% with our President Cyclop. That's really unusual for any of us, but its nice to know tha tsomebody does.