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

Foxfyre wrote:

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.

I don't agree with him 100%, but he does represent me politically when dealing with other governments.

And you too, and every other American.

Cycloptichorn

Really. So glad to know that. I'm happy that we won't be seeing any more criticism of the President from you Cyclop. That will be a refreshing new thing.

Really. So glad to know that. I'm happy that we won't be seeing any more criticism of the President from you Cyclop. That will be a refreshing new thing.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

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.

I don't agree with him 100%, but he does represent me politically when dealing with other governments.

And you too, and every other American.

Cycloptichorn

Foxfyre wrote:

Really. So glad to know that. I'm happy that we won't be seeing any more criticism of the President from you Cyclop. That will be a refreshing new thing.

Could you please tell what you had for breakfast/lunch? I want to avoid that.

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......

I'm sure that's all from your point of view. Did you leave anything out?

Foxfyre wrote:

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......

Contracts and only contracts? Where did you get THAT idea?

The leader of a union is just that-a leader-and there are times for him to go far beyond contracts. The head of any organization at all understands that there are time a leader must speak out on behalf of the members.

Suppose a TV movie was made where the NYC firefighters were portrayed as a bunch of bumbling idiots who lollygagged around in their rescue efforts and who looked for as many ways as possible not to go into the flaming buildings.

Would the union leader have to take a vote of unanimity before he makes a speech condemning such a portrayal? No, he would not. Not only that, but he would be a pathetic excuse for a leader if he did not make such a speech, make it quickly, and make it on behalf of the union membership.

Foxfyre, I have never seen anyone try to put forth such a false view of leadership in my life as you have put forth here.

I want an answer to this question. It can be answered with a yes, no, or sometimes but not always. I do not want the answer to a different question.

Foxfyre wrote:

I want an answer to this question. It can be answered with a yes, no, or sometimes but not always. I do not want the answer to a different question.

Lookit, this discussion is getting ridiculous. I'm tired of the diversions and obfuscations.

Union representatives are elected by their members. As a result, as KW said, they represent their membership as much as any other elected leaders represent their voters.

Do I understand correctly that you are agreeing with this now?

OK, now that leaves issue #2: what subjects are union representatives elected to speak out on?

Are they only authorised to negotiate on contracts and contract-related affairs, or were they elected to defend the interests of their union's members on other counts as well?

Your position here seems to be, right now, that they are not elected to speak on issues not directly related to contracts. But before you accuse me of misassigning positions to you, can you confirm this?

If that is your position, of course, it is a rather quaint one. Is there any law, or any union regulation, that limits the role of the union to only that? Or is it just your personal opinion that that's all that unions can speak out on with authority?

OK, then going back to the original question that made you protest the role of unions in the first place: the question of the NY firefighters.

The union spoke up and protested, for years, about there not having been enough of an effort to recover the remains of firefighters who laid down their lives on 9/11.

Do you think that this is a subject they should speak up about? Or or do you not think that unions should speak up about an issue like this?

The issue is about recovering the remains of the firefighters who perished

What issues a union leader can properly speak for his membership is a matter for them to decide. In practice local union leaders are most interested in their own local constituency and retaining their local allegiance.. The leadership of national unions is a different matter. They are far removed from the interests of their members and generally far more interested in the union itself, and the political power it can command.

Both, in my experience, tend to focus on matters for which the union can take credit as opposed to the long-term interest of the workers themselves -- which are often very different. Thus unions stubbornly cling to outmoded and uneconomic work rules that ultimately make the industries they serve uncompetitive, costing everyone his/her job.

The legal structure supporting unions recognizes only two kinds of activities by union stewards and managers; (1) representing their workers in contract and work-related matters; and (2) Organizing the expansion of the union to other employers. The extensive political activities of Unions have come under scruting, and weekly enforced provisions of the law now require unions to disclose their political activities and contributions to their membership and to allow members to withold the portion of their dues associated with them. This is against the self-interest of unions and an administrative headache for employers who must do the accounting and collect the money for the union -- it is only rarely enforced.

My experience with unions (extensive) has taught me that most union leaders view their members as units of revenue. Generally the closer one gets to observing the action, the more it resembles the Mafia.

My experience with unions (extensive) has taught me that most union leaders view their members as units of revenue. Generally the closer one gets to observing the action, the more it resembles the Mafia.

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.

Which here again is Foxy's original point... which was; the fire fighters union's position may or may not have reflected the views of the fireman. Some were no doubt ready for closure (while I personally doubt many were, any more than the family's of the 2,000 or so MIA/POW's in SE Asia were ready to declare their loved ones lost forever.)

How long is long enough to spend sifting through wreckage to find bits and pieces of decomposing human tissue that may or may not be identifiable? Is this really a major consideration in assessing Giuliani's credentials? Or is it a predictable way for the left to counter the "Giuliani was a hero on 9-11" mantra? Does anyone think if Giuliani were running as a Democrat (which really isn't that far fetched), the left and right wouldn't switch sides and argue the exact same points? From where I'm sitting; this is as predictable as it is mundane... and the piling on Foxy for slightly inconsistent tangential points that have no bearing on the issue at hand is silly... but predictable as well.