It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Angry Unions Sever Ties With Democrats, Obama (ALF-CIO!!)

page: 1
16
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 05:48 AM
link   

In a huge public blow to the electoral fortunes of both President Obama and the Democratic Party, the president of the AFL-CIO said Thursday that organized labor is preparing to ditch Democrats and go it alone in building up its own grassroots structure. Specifically, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka told reporters that the nation’s largest labor federation will scale back their involvement with the Democratic Party in advance of the 2012 elections.

While Trumka had nothing but scathing words for the tea party movement, he laid out a scenario that very much mirrored the tea party’s grassroots structure and its clout in the GOP. The vision is for big labor to wield the clout that it once had inside the Democratic Party and on the liberal end of the spectrum in American politics.

Trumka made it clear that his plan will cost the Democrats both contributions and labor volunteers in many districts almost immediately. That would cripple key Democratic get-out-the-vote efforts in many swing districts on Election Day. “We’re going to use a lot of our money to build structures that work for working people” Trumka said, according to Politico.“You’re going to see us give less money to build structures for others, and more of our money will be used to build our own structure.”


Source: www.newsmax.com...

This is HUGE folks. Maybe not so much for the Republicans-as turning it to their gain, but to the Obama Machine. This could cripple ANY chance Obama has/had.

Obama screwed them over too. This is just TOO Freaking funny. Obama is now destroying his own party supporters-and dare I say intimidators.

Man, the 2012 Election just got a whole lot more interesting. Lets see what Obama does to try and keep them in his ranks. I bet he will try to wrestle away some big corporation (like he did with the auto companies) and give it to the unions.




posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 06:29 AM
link   
At one time they were huge supporters of Hillary Clinton, she needs to challenge Obama for the nomination.

If not, we may see the unions push for an actual democratic socialist third party, a real Worker's Party.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 06:33 AM
link   
Meh, they are just playing the game, they will still support Democrats in the same way the Tea Party supports Republicans. It's just about re-branding themselves to try and make them look fresh to the disenfranchised voter. I'm sure at the end of the day they will support Obama.
edit on 26-8-2011 by The_Phantom because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by The_Phantom
 


If the economy really tanks in the next few years, Weimar style, I think we will see this Tea Party and a Workers Party break away from its parent parties and before long they will be in the streets trying to tear out each others throats, just like the fascists and communists clashed in the Weimar republic during the Great Depression.

The future isn't looking too bright. Weimar 2.0?



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 06:47 AM
link   
I think the same as The_Phantom here. They will build a new party that becomes an arm of another party (Democrats probably). Just new paint on an old barn, it looks new, but it is still just the same old barn.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by MichiganSwampBuck
 


Plausable but I think they have taken a huge step in the right direction-getting away from the Dem/Obama-publically.

I think with the recent unions "losses" in Wisconsin, Ohio, New Jersey etc have made them re-think whos post they have their wagon hitched to.

If they are truly out for the best interest on their members, then it shouldn't matter what party they belong to IF that party is doing something for them.

Now-a-days, the Dems don't seem to be able to come through when needed-on critical issues for the Unions.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by The_Phantom
 

Yes but the Tea Party has had a significant effect on the Repubs, in a positive manner IMHO. This new 'branch' of the Dem party could have the clout to sway the Dems in an even more socialist direction. Congress would have 2 major parties with 2 major sub-factions which I believe would be good for the country.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 07:18 AM
link   
I too see it as rebranding. I would not doubt that it was even planned out in the WH. The unions have a better stab at organizing a Tea Party like movement than a bunch of angry collage kids. And they're better funded as well.

There are going to be a lot of angry election cycle commercials for the next year and a half.

And if the GOP tries to extend its hand in peace, I guarantee you it will get bitten. They best leave that dog lie.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by The_Phantom
 


If the economy really tanks in the next few years, Weimar style, I think we will see this Tea Party and a Workers Party break away from its parent parties and before long they will be in the streets trying to tear out each others throats, just like the fascists and communists clashed in the Weimar republic during the Great Depression.

The future isn't looking too bright. Weimar 2.0?



and Weimar 2.0 will = martial law.

and probably public/govt takeovers of much private property,
then owned/managed by new real estate trusts.

much private "foreclosed" property is going to be sold off in lump groups to big real estate corporations.

the govt holding tanks like Freddie/Fannie are stuck and are making a deal with the banks on a lump sum settlement to transfer the foreclosed properties !!!!

that eliminates the lawsuits and individual transactions.

the new real estate outfits will reap big profits from rent and balance sheet accounting.

the banks will loosen up the loans to those new outfits for "repairs and improvements".
that's why the banks are tight on individual loans now, they are waiting for the "green light".

the average person loses out from all directions !



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by anon72
 


I was just going to post this article. Glad you got to it first!!

This development is quite amusing when you consider that Trumka is on the frequent visitor list to the WH and is known to have Obama's personal ear available at the ready.

Scare tactics? Perhaps. Will the AFL-CIO be the ones to force a democratic primary that will pit radical vs. a say anything Obama?

Get your popcorn ready


It really shines a light on the Unions and their fear of becoming obsolete in the coming era of strict govt. cutbacks.

Glad all of the forced collected dues is being put to such good use by the big labor union elite. Sorry working class you've been punked again



Trumka’s remarks came after the news earlier this week that the AFL-CIO will set up a so-called super PAC to spend unlimited amounts of money on political activity for next year’s elections and beyond. Trumka confirmed Thursday that the union is moving forward with plans to create the PAC.

Unlimited amounts of money collected from those forced to give it...Sounds fair

www.newsmax.com...



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by TDawgRex
I too see it as rebranding. I would not doubt that it was even planned out in the WH. The unions have a better stab at organizing a Tea Party like movement than a bunch of angry collage kids. And they're better funded as well.

There are going to be a lot of angry election cycle commercials for the next year and a half.

And if the GOP tries to extend its hand in peace, I guarantee you it will get bitten. They best leave that dog lie.





[color=limegreen]I would not doubt that it was even planned out in the WH


All it will take is one or two new legislations and/or exec orders, and the unions will re-kindle support.

It is all planned.

these guys don't do anything without a multi-level approach.

Problem is, the unions will still continue to suffer wage decreases and layoffs and "downsizing".

Many new contracts are having members actually voting in wage decreases !!!!!!
all in the name of "save the company" and "save the city" from backruptcy !!!!
what a scam !!
but it's working.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


I was talking to a guy here in Ohio yesterday and he remarked that the steel company he worked for used to employ 15,000 people ten years ago. They have since downsized to 3000 people and modernized their plants and have doubled their output.

He tells me that they are expanding now using the same tech and are hoping to rehire/call back those who were laid off. But after ten years, he doesn't think there will be many takers.

He also told me that even though they are union, most members are vehemently anti-union and back the company.

I think it's the economy talking though and they are thankful to have jobs. It's just common sense.

I don't see a grass-roots pro-union type organization working though, unless they hire outside the union. Which has been done before.

What I find funny though is they hire outside help for protests, but do not pay union wages...



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 07:55 AM
link   
While unions and their members have the right to do as they see fit politically, the question is should they.
While in the past what unions have done for the country, the contributions and the new laws that were passed for everyone can not be argued or disputed. But as time went on, they started to have more effects on the political process and started to become a political organization more so than one that would represent workers rights and that brings us to today.

The moment that the unions go into politics, they cease to be the workers means to turn when there are valid problems and should be disbanded for that every reason. Unions can not have it both ways, where they are working to protect and represent workers at the bargaining table, taking dues from members and strong arming businesses and in the political arena fully.

Union shops have control over who is hired and fired to a degree, and the one thing that comes to mind, would they invalidate any vote by being so heavily involved in politics where they would threaten and force people to vote the way that they want? Unions have been through their fair share of corruption and dishonest practices even today.

Any politician or group that was associated with the Unions that heavily involved, there would always be questions as to how honest or well meaning they would be, it would not be good and people may or may not stand for such a person being in a position of political power. And what then if the person gets into office and does not toe the union line? And who would be their boss, the people who vote, or the unions? Those are only just a few of the questions that would come up. Then there is the matter of the money that would be used to get a person into office, would it solely come from the unions shorting them if a group decides to strike? Too many questions with answers that would be disastrous to think about.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by sdcigarpig
 


I have said for some time that the Unions have morphed into the very thing they once fought against.

I blame the leadership, not the workers. But the leadership has the workers by the shorthairs now.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 08:02 AM
link   
This article and others say nothing about the unions "severing ties with democrats".

It simply says they are going to focus on using their money to develop their super pac structure instead of giving it directly to the DNC. They are doing this so they have more freedom with how it's spent...not because they don't support democrats anymore.

Keep on dreaming though.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Ummmm, does "cut" mean severed? Check the first paragraph.

But, I know what you are saying.

Are you saying there "isn't" a problem between the AFL-CIO? Now that would be dreaming.

Obama's worst nightmare is about to become reality-in politics.

How he singled handedly ruined the Democratic Party.

Now, I will say, I think the ALF-CIO will jump on any bandwagon pulled by the DNC-except Obama. Obama has failed the unions in many ways as described in the article. And, honestly, they have a legit point. What has Obama did to help them? curious...



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by anon72
 


great thread,anon72!
The unions want to set up their own version of the Tea Party Movement:


In a huge public blow to the electoral fortunes of both President Obama and the Democratic Party, the president of the AFL-CIO said Thursday that organized labor is preparing to ditch Democrats and go it alone in building up its own grassroots structure.

Trumka’s remarks came after the news earlier this week that the AFL-CIO will set up a so-called super PAC to spend unlimited amounts of money on political activity for next year’s elections and beyond. Trumka confirmed Thursday that the union is moving forward with plans to create the PAC.


They benefited greatly from the graft money Obama gave them from the stimulus, but now that money is all gone. And with unemployment up, and 'dues' colections down, they wanted favorable legislation that didn't happen:



Big labor’s problems with the Obama administration include outstanding issues like the failure to pass a union-backed card check bill that would ease organizing, as well as the administration’s support for free-trade agreements with Colombia, South Korea and Panama.


The Card Check bill was defeated largely from the efforts of grassroots organizations such as the TPM. And of course the unions are the opposing force behind the Boeing's effort to build a new, open-shop facility in S. Carolina.

I see the unions slowly but surely losing their grip on American labor. And that's a good thing.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 




They benefited greatly from the graft money Obama gave them from the stimulus, but now that money is all gone. And with unemployment up, and 'dues' colections down, they wanted favorable legislation that didn't happen:


Excellent point and right on.

That would account for the report I saw yesterday that indicated Obama planned on boosting Construction jobs in his Speech on much needed job ideas......NEXT MONTH



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by anon72
 



reply to post by mishigas



They benefited greatly from the graft money Obama gave them from the stimulus, but now that money is all gone. And with unemployment up, and 'dues' colections down, they wanted favorable legislation that didn't happen:




Excellent point and right on.

That would account for the report I saw yesterday that indicated Obama planned on boosting Construction jobs in his Speech on much needed job ideas......NEXT MONTH


Yep. Since none of those wonderful "green jobs" ever materialized, he will defintely repeat his mantras on "rebuilding the infrastructure" and "high-speed rail systems".



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Yessssssss contra-tea partiers, this is the best news in a year!



new topics

top topics



 
16
<<   2 >>

log in

join