I don't know how you can say such a thing about gender. The mutually beneficial links between the women's movement and the trade union movement in this country is practically legendary and has enriched political struggles of all types in Canada. This is a special feature of our country and one that we ought to be rightly proud of. I am. And I ain't no woman.
Another Epic Failure From Canada's Unions
Thu, 2011-03-10 21:33
#52
N.Beltov
Thu, 2011-03-10 21:51
#53
It's a wonderful life with unions in Bananada. So who needs the NDP?
Thu, 2011-03-10 21:57
#54
Unions get in the way.
Fuckin' right, we do. And we shall not be moved.
Thu, 2011-03-10 22:21
#55
And the rest of us non-unionized slobs are worthless and weak. We know.
Thu, 2011-03-10 22:27
#56
RevolutionPlease
Heh, Fidel. Love you brother.
Solidarity. For. Real!!!
Fri, 2011-03-11 09:32
#57
Fighting for an understanding of what we are collectively doing to Earth can never be "fighting for someone else." It is fighting for all the species, and all of our own.
Fri, 2011-03-11 11:05
#58
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
I don't know how you can say such a thing about gender. The mutually beneficial links between the women's movement and the trade union movement in this country is practically legendary and has enriched political struggles of all types in Canada. This is a special feature of our country and one that we ought to be rightly proud of. I am. And I ain't no woman.
Perhaps I wasn't clear - my point was simply that the women's movement came first, and had its own momentum; it did not spring forth out of the unions.
Fri, 2011-03-11 11:59
#59
Some might argue it began before this, but not with greater force:
E. Sylvia Pankhurst: The Suffragettes in 1912
E. Syvia Pankhurst's accounts of events taking place in the Suffrage Movement during 1912. The arson campaign is detailed and an account of the very lax ...
Fri, 2011-03-11 12:46
#60
I am less concerned about electric cars given the destruction of the middle class. I think we should be more focussed on the creation of new, renewable forms of electricity with greater priority given that again would have more multiplier effects (create more jobs across the board, lessen the demand for plants generating electricity from coal, decentralizing the energy grid).
I am not waiting for the four main political parties to address why cheaper oil is more progressive, I am waiting from the people here who were so incensed by my criticism of CAW prez Lewenza to explain why cheaper oil is 'progressive' and why the Tar Sands are ok.
Mon, 2011-03-14 01:15
#61
[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23620]"Class and Conflict" at the "Neoliberal" University[/url]
SEIU Local 2 Settles at McMaster University
McMaster University (located in Hamilton, Ontario) food service workers, represented by Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 2, recently made their voices heard in this hostile labour environment. Representatives for the 173 unionized workers walked away from the bargaining table on January 7th. It was their only way to display their opposition to the university's efforts to force wage and benefit concessions on the local. A week-long strike ensued. In the final settlement, service workers were able to claim some successes, but also at the cost of concessions in other areas of their contract...
Mon, 2011-03-14 12:22
#62
N.Beltov
Interesting and useful, F. We're going to see a lot more of that as the neoliberal university, indistinguishable from the worst private corporations, tries divide and conquer against the entire array of workers in that sector ... and not just in Ontario. We have a demo in Victoria on Wednesday.
Mon, 2011-03-14 12:47
#63
Unions don't lead on such issues as gender equality or gay rights, but once these kinds of issues come to the forefront, they are useful in moving the agenda forward.
We don't do nearly enough. But my particular union had bargained same-sex benefits in several collective agreements well before the Ontario NDP government refused to whip its caucus on that legislation, and allowed it to go down to defeat instead.
So while the impetus came from the LGBTQ movement, we at least got the message. And that's not easy, when everything you negotiate is subject to membership ratification. We need to do a lot of education. Imagine putting human rights legislation to a referendum every time (like decriminalizing "sodomy" in 1969), and you'll get a feeling for the challenge.
Mon, 2011-03-14 14:59
#64
Yeah, the provincial minister of labour at the time, a Steelworker, also found it difficult in the middle of the first post-war Great Recession to move forward on the abolishment of capital. But he got some legislation through before labour turned on him:
"Bob MacKenzie, NDP MPP for Hamilton East and labour minister, 1990-95, died Jan. 17, age 82.
He brought in a law banning replacement workers during strikes, and a host of other progressive labour laws: pay equity for nurses and childcare attendants, extended unionization rights to farm workers, raised the minimum wage and introduced wage protection legislation...most of them rolled back by the Mike Harris government. MacKenzie held the Hamilton riding frmo 1975 to 1995."
Mon, 2011-03-14 15:10
#65
See, my view is that the unions didn't do nearly enough.
George's view is apparently that the NDP did too much, and so went down to defeat. And they didn't abandon labour - oh, no - labour abandoned them!
With thinking like that, it will be several more generations before the ONDP needs to think about how to govern. Unions, on the other hand, can't survive on bullshit and press releases. We need to deliver the goods every single day. That's why we make so many mistakes.
Mon, 2011-03-14 15:27
#66
Take my tongue out with tweezers if you ever catch me saying the NDP did "too much" in 90-95. But anyone arguing that "Rae days" didn't turn labour against the New Democrats and helped bring about the defeat of people like Bob McKenzie has been smokin' out back again. As for their recognition of little incidents like severe recession....well. That comes after the elevation of the Jimmy Flaherty of motor city to finance minister and the suddenly decimation of offices at Queen's Park.
It was ever thus.
Mon, 2011-03-14 15:33
#67
But anyone arguing that "Rae days" didn't turn labour against the New Democrats and helped bring about the defeat of people like Bob McKenzie has been smokin' out back again.
Of course that's correct. You know the saying, "this'll hurt me more than it hurts you?" Workers were so badly hurt that they hit back. The "lesser of evils" and "shooting yourself in the foot" slogans didn't matter any more. The only question is, did the ONDP learn its lesson - or did it only learn that workers are unreliable robot soldiers?
In the meantime, back to the topic of this thread, we need to see the NDP, while in power, raising the environmental stakes - and while in opposition, we need to see them doing risky things like saying, "we'll prop up your government, Mr. Harper, if you enforce the environmental legislation which the House has already passed" (and I don't just mean the latest fiasco). When that happens - either one - then I'll listen to criticism of the unions for not governing Canada as well as they could.
Mon, 2011-03-14 15:57
#68
N.Beltov
meh. If George has a specific criticism, fine. The very idea of criticizing unions, as a social institution, begs the question: what OTHER institution did you have in mind as BETTER than unions over the long haul? There's little to compare. Certainly not any "liberal" institution. lol.
Mon, 2011-03-14 19:23
#69
NB, you know damned well that the traditional labour/social democratic union came unstuck for the reasons observed in the early 90s in this province. Union people thought that they could get a better deal in that case...only to find the "Rae days" become "no days" for a great many. The New Democratic Party has to find votes out there among workers who are NOT unioniized and whom Tweedledee and Tweedledum are playing like violins in holding up the benefits enjoyed by union workers that they do NOT have. You chaps want social democracy to ignore that reality, even while trying to maintain a voice for the unemployed and those on social assistance.
Find some other excuse for the inaction and false consciousness of those who - for the time being - have it made in the relative shade. Ask them about their FEAR and the need to vote for a party/person who can "manage" their savings and the Canadian economy. That was the mantra of workers in the Buzz Hargrove (Liberal) camp...that still managed to elect the treasurer to look after them, time after time. The thought of social change scares the shit out of them.
This social democrat grew up in a union household. His experience on strike, in the winter of 1968-69...a handful of UE stewards came out, along with a lot of students attempting to reproduce events in Paris and that was it, brother. And '95, in the middle of recession, was just more of the same. When the New Democrats try to balance the books without layoffs, the Cons lay on a "common sense revolution" that means cutting welfare payments by 21 per cent and playing the wedge game with teachers and anyone else with a half-decent income.
The mainstreet masses are waiting for the call to revolution of another sort ?You folks just don't want to talk about reality, which is that the Chicago School stacked the deck back in the 1970s, and together with Globalization, has decimated unions everywhere. I hope to hell that public service unions can survive what is coming at them, but if you blame social democrats for their plight you are ignoring the real world of the past third of a century and looking for excuses for the inability/lack of effort to educate people about political economy and history. Including yourselves.
Mon, 2011-03-14 19:28
#70
N.Beltov
Criticizing unions from the left (or ultra left) for not being "revolutionary" enough is also wrong headed in my view, George.
Mon, 2011-03-14 19:52
#71
NB, my criticism is for those who can ignore the vast, sweeping changes brought about in the workplace and in the organizing of people and their political affiliation by events of historic proportion, while dogmatically saying that "Criticizing unions from the left (or ultra left) for not being "revolutionary" enough is also wrong headed..."
Dammit, man, it's time to raise the sights. The bloody enemy is out there. And if you aren't up to understanding the forces of change - even to counter them in discussion like this - then heaven help the rank and file.
Tue, 2011-03-15 01:55
#72
N.Beltov
I'm just trying to suggest some boundaries for expectations of trade unions. And I would still stick to a view that put unions at the heart of any fightback.
Unions are typically or commonly the first organization in which most working people learn how to fight on their own behalf as members of their social class or group. To paraphrase one V. I. Lenin they are schools for the working class. In this sense they are never wrong because they simply represent the members and the members are always right. [sidebar: so too the NDP is where most class conscious workers politically gravitate to, at least initially. and why, even from a critical point of view, someone partisan for working people can never "write off" such parties. They, too, are schools.]
But there are also higher institutions. And one should always graduate as well, eh? :)
Tue, 2011-03-15 02:24
#73
You know what I kow about Kenny boy? When he was representing the Casino workers in Windsor on contract nagoiations, some years ago He bartered some sellout deal with the Casino management and then brought it to the memebership. They booed him and he was in shock.
He actually thought the workers in Windsor were so dumb.
unfortunately for the workers the fix was in.this guy and the rest of the CAW had been for years slowly eroding the strength of the working class. the sell out of the auto industry over the last few years wasn't able to happen if they were not being sold out for the last 30 years.
While the banks of the world were getting trillion dollars bail outs, the auto workers were forced to take wage cuts.
A hand full of rich men were able to force the whole of the worlds working class to take a wage cut. and to top it all off, these capitalists over that last two years have raised the price of every single product out there.
que in George so that he can tell us how we have not made enough consessions to the rich guys and that the NDP and Union leadership needs our support. You know , cause they're looking out for the little guy.
Oh ya, maybe we should give weight to Irving and every other nut brain Conservate, as some would suggest, cause they got us all figured out.
Tue, 2011-03-15 02:30
#74
Unions don't lead on such issues as gender equality or gay rights, but once these kinds of issues come to the forefront, they are useful in moving the agenda forward.
We don't do nearly enough. But my particular union had bargained same-sex benefits in several collective agreements well before the Ontario NDP government refused to whip its caucus on that legislation, and allowed it to go down to defeat instead.
Teachers unions in Ontario will be backing the McGuinty Liberals next election. Nobody's perfect as they say. This is in a province that elected conservatives for 50 years with very few true majorities.
The ONDP has made the case that they are at least better than either of the two Bay Street options. In my view, anyone who carries a lunchpail or brown paper bag to work every day has no business voting for either of those two parties. They are voting against their own interests. And non-voters and those jaded by a dysfunctional electoral system and the governments it produces work against themselves by allowing other people to speak for them on election day.
In conclusion, Ontarians are not demanding perfection on every issue. Not even close. We vote out of fear of electing another bunch of neoliberals. With the Liberal Party, we have Mike Harris lites. Ontarians are not demanding perfection for sure. We're not even demanding modern democratic reforms. A bad voting system produces bad results. The ONDP has to work within the bad electoral system like their federal counterparts, and like unions do.
Teachers unions are not choosing to support the best political option for all Ontarians. They are only worried about their own funding. What does it say about that particular group of unionized workers in Ontario? There is little solidarity here for the common cause.
Tue, 2011-03-15 02:31
#75
Fidel, I really like you but as an Ontario resedent,I am demanding perfection. The sell out NDP and their Rae Days can stay home. Cause last time I checked they soldout the TTC workers a few years ago by voting with the Liberals to end their strike.
Perfection, how about the slightest of workers rights? The ONDP will never deliver. It's better to jsut start teaching your neighbours about Socialism, run a candidate to intervien in the bourgeois elections and build from the ground up becoming ready for when they will fall. Cause fall they will, Marx's Capitalist theories predict it.
Tue, 2011-03-15 20:08
#76
Criticizing unions from the left (or ultra left) for not being "revolutionary" enough is also wrong headed in my view, George.
At one point does criticism become unacceptable or coversely acceptable? My original point was that the CAW statement was wrong to ask for cheaper oil and not address the need to develop renewable energy.
Tue, 2011-03-15 21:48
#77
Criticizing unions from the left (or ultra left) for not being "revolutionary" enough is also wrong headed in my view, George.
At one point does criticism become unacceptable or coversely acceptable?
Criticism is always acceptable, if it's from a progressive viewpoint. Yours obviously is.
My original point was that the CAW statement was wrong to ask for cheaper oil and not address the need to develop renewable energy.
And if that statement stood alone, I would agree with you. It's not easy or obvious for a union to see past the immediate needs of its members - so we get it really wrong, lots of the time. I find it both encouraging and discouraging that anyone would expect a union to show leadership on issues like the environment. Encouraging, because it means people see the potential in the strength of workers, if only they adopt these causes as their own. Discouraging, because unions are expected to fill the void left by political parties which, when they are not harmful, are generally useless.
Tue, 2011-03-15 22:27
#78
I agree. Those parties which sold the environment and Canadian oil to Exxon-Imperial and fossil fuel industry are worse than useless. They are traitors not only to Canadians but the rest of the world. Canada really is [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/30/canada-tar..."a corrupt petro state".[/url]
Liberals and Tories were advised by OECD to create a sovereign wealth fund. Not just because our anemic CPP and "Heritage" Fund are laughing stocks of the oil exporting world, but doing so would help out Canada's mainly foreign owned and controlled manufacturing sector by bringing down the high dollar.
But our corrupt stooges and their backups, that alternate pro corporate welfare party, the Liberals, would have none of it. They've been tripping over one another to prove which of the two very similar parties will most sabotage the environment, domestic energy reserves as well as sacrificing Canadian jobs for the sake of ideology fueled by corruption. It's clear by their track records in Ottawa that Canada's two old line parties are an ongoing liability for Canadian workers and the environment.
Tue, 2011-03-15 23:58
#79
M. Spector
Discouraging, because unions are expected to fill the void left by political parties which, when they are not harmful, are generally useless.
I don't find that discouraging at all. A healthy, vibrant, militant, activist labour movement would be challenging and pushing the politicians to take pro-labour and progressive positions as a condition of their support. Labour should be leading the politicians, not following them.
Wed, 2011-03-16 01:21
#80
N.Beltov
A healthy, vibrant, militant, activist labour movement would be challenging and pushing the politicians to take pro-labour and progressive positions as a condition of their support. Labour should be leading the politicians, not following them.
And those "politicians" who take the point of view of the movement as a whole ... what is their role, exactly? And where do they fit in your scheme?
I think it's just the poor quality of politicians in this country that makes your comment SEEM correct. But the political leaders SHOULD lead.
Wed, 2011-03-16 02:51
#81
M. Spector
Parliamentary politicians in a bourgeois democracy are of necessity conservative in their outlook. They live in a world of compromise and adaptation to the bourgeois class power structure. They circulate easily among people of influence and privilege. They inevitably come to believe that power lies in parliament, not in the masses. They are easily disconnected from the struggles of labour and the social movements, and need constant reminding of their demands and concerns. Their feet must constantly be held to the fire. They must be pushed to the left. It is futile to look to them for leadership; they don't lead, they follow. And what they follow is usually the line of least resistance. Hence their essential conservatism.
Unfortunately, the bureaucratic caste that forms the top layers of the labour movement shares much of the same characteristics as the parliamentary left. They, too, must be constantly pushed to the left or they will drift to the right.
When the labour movement is in a long-term strategic retreat, as it is at present, both the labour "leaders" and the parliamentary left are drawn to the right. A renewed upsurge of labour militancy is a precondition to any significant leftward move on the part of the political and bureaucratic castes.
Wed, 2011-03-16 09:28
#82
Discouraging, because unions are expected to fill the void left by political parties which, when they are not harmful, are generally useless.
I don't find that discouraging at all. A healthy, vibrant, militant, activist labour movement would be challenging and pushing the politicians to take pro-labour and progressive positions as a condition of their support. Labour should be leading the politicians, not following them.
The unions do lead, M. Spector, on every front I can imagine - and they do it best when in alliance with other social forces which are also leading from outside the union structure (women, peace, LGBTQ, indigenous, etc. etc.). None of them "wait" for some party to engage the struggle so that we can meekly follow. The problem is that the politicians don't follow - and that we don't adequately and powerfully hold them to account. Take any issue you like, and show me where any party (including the NDP) takes a more progressive stand, even in words, than the unions. Or, even when they do take the same stand (like doubling CPP/QPP benefits), they don't use the power they have in a minority government situation to make it stick. But the fact that the NDP even raised seniors' security as a condition for supporting the budget was due, indisputably, to the massive campaign led by the CLC and other labour centrals on this front.
The problem isn't that someone other than the unions is leading, or that the unions are following. The problem is much deeper than that. I hesitate to vulgarize it by saying that the unions "aren't fighting hard enough", or "keep getting distracted by the need to defend against the latest attack", or "don't hold parties to account", or I don't know what else - it's all of that. I don't have the expertise in sociology or economics or whatever to explain why this is the case. All I know is that when someone condemns a union for forgetting to mention "getting off oil" when protesting increasing burden on workers, it's far better and more effective when that critique comes from inside the workers' ranks.
ETA: Anyway, the more I think about this, the more I find myself agreeing with both M. Spector and N.Beltov. Is that bad??
Wed, 2011-03-16 23:54
#83
@ M Spector Post #80
You summed it up perfectly. I am 100% behind these thoughts.
Thu, 2011-03-17 01:18
#84
N.Beltov
Yea, well, there's a problem with Spector's formulation. Other bourgeois democracies successfully elect political leaders of the kind we would like to see - or many, many more of them - and therefore all this discussion that would lead someone to conclude that such people cannot get elected or are "doomed" once they become part of these institutions is just wrong-headed. I just don't think it's helpful to write off our current bourgeois political institutions as useless if for no other reason that the level of political consciousness - class consciousness if you like - of most people doesn't rise above those institutions. You go where people are at.
Of course, we could also say that we get the political leaders we deserve ... and there would be some truth in that as well.
Thu, 2011-03-17 01:51
#85
M. Spector
Other bourgeois democracies successfully elect political leaders of the kind we would like to see...
Like Venezuela and Bolivia, for example.
You go where people are at.
Which is another way of saying politicians don't lead, they follow.
Of course, we could also say that we get the political leaders we deserve ... and there would be some truth in that as well.
Only if you believe we have a perfect democracy. In reality, political leaders are thrust upon us by the controlling elites.
Thu, 2011-03-17 02:34
#86
Venezuela has mixed member proportional voting similar to what the NDP says Canada needs. Proportional rep would make coalitions of the left more likely. Right now all you have on the left in Ottawa is the NDP. And then there is the separatist Bloc fighting for table scraps for Quebec. We need a united front on the left, and PR would make that more feasible.
One Canadian should equal one vote. That's not the case in Canada today. The handful few English speaking countries should all get rid of their obsolete and mathematically absurd electoral systems.
Thu, 2011-03-17 13:03
#87
N.Beltov
See now I would lean more towards Spector's view - or at least the way I've characterized it - and note the institutional limitations of the Canadian NDP. The NDP has been far too successful at purging left elements over the years, it has a history of pathological anti-communism, and in general Spector's observations of what I shall call Parliamentary cretinism (a borrowed term) is pretty well bang on. In place of actually leading the mass movements the NDP is much better as a brake on the mass movements. In that regard the NDP does a service for the status quo. Genuine left politcal leadership might come from something larger that the NDP is a part of - but by itself I don't see it. A coalition in Parliament - something the NDP actively worked for and should be credited for supporting - is in marked contrast to a general coalition, outside Parliament, that could push politics to the left in Canada and from which organizations like the NPD might conceivably benefit from ... is something the NDP never works for. It's a good question to ask why this is the case. Edited to add: coalitions are not just for INSIDE the Parliamentary institutions. Fidel's observation here is good but somewhat beside the point.
The NDP does not offer anything more than a watered down Kenysianism, at best, and fails rather badly on foreign policy over and over again. These can hardly be described as accidents or anything like that. They are institutional limitations of the party and will never go away.
Fri, 2011-03-18 17:18
#88
All I know is that when someone condemns a union for forgetting to mention "getting off oil" when protesting increasing burden on workers, it's far better and more effective when that critique comes from inside the workers' ranks.
So as I non-union member, I am not allowed to talk about how a union operates or how it makes its public statments?
As a non-member of the Green Party, does that also mean I have no right to criticize the Green Party's behavior?
When can I wait for a CAW member to criticize the news release with which this thread started?
Fri, 2011-03-18 18:21
#89
I have a big problem with Proportional Representation. Though it sounds logical and more fair, the issue I see is that it's just a way of reforming our bourgeois democracy. And that right there is the problem; reforming.
The first problem we confront is a political system designed by some rich white guys. It's designed to maintain their class. To me reform will not change this fact.
The second problem we then face is how to make that system more fair. Since replacing it seems so daunting, we devise a way that will make it seem more representative. But this will not work.
Why? Because it is based on someone else representing your interests for a specified amount of time. It's a system were you elect to give up your rights to someone else.
You can never reform that, it must be replaced.
Fri, 2011-03-18 18:37
#90
The working class must put forth it's own ideas of government.
Its been discovered that humans can only maintain a social structure of 150 people. Any group larger then this the human brain can not control social norms so a hierarchical structure is designed to do so.
So the idea that humans can rid themselves of Government is not an option.
Currently the structure in place maintains the rule of the Capitalist class. Every aspect of it is designed from this point of view. If new social norms such as a Socialism Economy is to be put in place a new form of government must be developed to do so.
Over that past 100+ yeas we have witnessed the working class attempt to take control by using many elements of a Bourgeois democracy. They have all failed as Capitalism is still a world wide economic system. Things like elected representatives, political parties, security forces, laws, court systems etc all must be rebuilt not reformed.
Every new economic system needs a new philosophy and a new form of government.
Fri, 2011-03-18 18:47
#91
If you ever wondered why Socialism has not be established as of yet, it's because a new Governmental sructure has not been developed to maintian its philosophy and its human relationships.
If you want the productive forces to be socialsy owned, socialy controlled. If you want the means of production socially owned and controlled. You must figure out a heirarchal structure that will maintain the human relations that will emerge in this new environment.
Fri, 2011-03-18 20:16
#92
M. Spector
We need a united front on the left...
That's true, and the NDP could have been that united front, had it not set itself on a course of purging those who don't hold closely to the party establishment's political line.
Now, if there is ever to be a united front on the left, it won't include the NDP, which can't stand to make accommodation with anyone other than the Liberals and Tories.
Fri, 2011-03-18 21:14
#93
That's true, and the NDP could have been that united front, had it not set itself on a course of purging those who don't hold closely to the party establishment's political line. Now, if there is ever to be a united front on the left, it won't include the NDP, which can't stand to make accommodation with anyone other than the Liberals and Tories.
The party line is to try and get themselves elected, and the center is where the bulk of the voter action is, even if they have to support international aggression and occupation every now and again.
Fri, 2011-03-18 21:46
#94
Why? Because it is based on someone else representing your interests for a specified amount of time. It's a system were you elect to give up your rights to someone else. You can never reform that, it must be replaced.
Would that it were true. In most aspects, rights and interests should be respected by the community representative as that which is held in common by those who lend their trust. Owing to the difficulty of being everywhere at once, there should be no issue with someone exercising a legitimate proxy. Certainly what exists now can't be reformed, but that is not to say every instance of representative democracy is a fraud, or that it would be impossible to sustain once realized. It's always been a matter of finding ways to overcome the obstacles.
Fri, 2011-03-18 23:58
#95
All I know is that when someone condemns a union for forgetting to mention "getting off oil" when protesting increasing burden on workers, it's far better and more effective when that critique comes from inside the workers' ranks.
So as I non-union member, I am not allowed to talk about how a union operates or how it makes its public statments?
Ummm, maybe you're speedreading and didn't see me say this, to you, [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/environmental-justice/another-epic-failure-canad... days ago[/url]:
Criticism is always acceptable, if it's from a progressive viewpoint. Yours obviously is.
Of course, if you prefer to complain that someone is stopping you from talking, fill your boots. [That's an expression we unionists use. It's not rude.]
Sat, 2011-03-19 17:30
#96
Ok, mea culpa,; then where do we go from here? How do we get unions and environmental groups to actually work together seriously?
Sun, 2011-03-20 09:19
#97
[reprinted below in order to bury the dirty little spammer]
Sun, 2011-03-20 09:20
#98
@2dawall:
Now you're talking. First, we don't attack each other. We look for common ground. We dig deep, and find out something amazing: Neither of us has a stake in the pillaging of the environment. And neither of us has a stake in the exploitation of human beings by other human beings. Then we reject the efforts to divide us by those who would pit economic security against environmental sustainability. Then, one day, we wake up and realize that it is the same forces that we are both fighting. And then, the day after, we look at each other, and realize that we were the same people all along.
Sun, 2011-03-20 23:12
#99
In my opinion, if environmentalist and Unionist want to co-operate, which I would assume would happen naturally, they would have to figure out the comment fight.
What are the Unions trying to do? What are the Environmentalist trying to do?
One answer would be, make life better for every one. Another answer would be, to stop the Capitalists form exploitation.
So you find the common fight and then you co-operate on those grounds.
Mon, 2011-03-21 16:18
#100
Uh I am looking for something more specific. What will get them into the room to discuss a specific platform, agenda?
Mon, 2011-03-21 23:44
#101
Thats the problem. Unions now a days think and act as seperate entitie from one another. So you would have to approach each one. At the same time they have narrowed their focus. So you would have to show them how your einveronmental issues will help them maintain their social status and help out the very spacific workers they want to represent.