It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


The Role of Labor Unions in the NWO

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 04:16 AM
Here's a thought I want to put out there. In most cases Unions historically have lead to the death of all Republics, or at least had a helping hand in it. Now look at today and Greece, they have become heavily unionized and in debt imagine that.

America is following those same footsteps. Except the Unions here are not merely as strong as they are elsewhere. And in America when corporations can not hire union people because they get paid too much what happens? Those jobs get shipped overseas.

So what is a union for anyway? Is it to protect the middle class? Does somebody else really care that much about YOU that they are willing to go to bat for you and negotiate a higher wage and better hours? Or is there more to it? Don't just say its for the people by the people, the Unions are government sponsored big brothers and Richard Trumpka even admitted that Unions are for transforming society, not so much for the benefit of society and the workers.

On the contrary, Union Salaries sky rocket while middle class america suffers and the unions exploit the middle class. What for?

Well under a socialist window, in which the utopian socialist dream would be realized, the elite know that they need everyday people to do the work that they are not willing or able to do that is necessary for any society to survive and benefit. Thats what the unions are for. Today they make ridiculous wages, but tomorrow they are no more than slaves to serve their NWO overlords.


posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 04:32 AM
I'm not really sure how the unions operate in the US, but from my experience in the UK, the union my father belonged to protected his working conditions for well over 30 years. He worked for a private company , but they had a strong union, that ensured their working conditions remained, while others in the same industry saw their conditions continually deteriorate. So from that perspective, I believe strong unions are beneficial to the working classes especially in maintaining living and working conditions.

posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 04:39 AM
reply to post by woodwardjnr

Thats a good answer. I don't know what they are like their either. But here they target the left and minority groups. All in all most of the people that work for them are not bad, they just seek better opportunities like anyone else. But I can say that here, they do in fact hurt the middle class.

posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 04:42 AM
I doubt it considering most republicans are against labor unions and are constantly trying to break them apart.

edit on 4-1-2012 by LongbottomLeaf because: wertyuiop

posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 04:43 AM
reply to post by LongbottomLeaf

Whats wrong with republicans? They are people too.

posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 04:44 AM
reply to post by thehoneycomb

I actually think we need stronger unions in the UK to protect British workers against the cheap labor being offered by eastern European workers. How can you protect your workers conditions if they are continually being undermined by cheap immigrant labour.

posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 04:45 AM
reply to post by thehoneycomb

The NWO isnt headed by liberals or liberal ideas...

posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 04:46 AM
reply to post by woodwardjnr

Thats the nature of the Beast though. Communist China pays prison wages. Here they want labor unions for prisoners. That was the point in this thread though.

The labor unions, whether good for the worker or not, help to carry out the plans and the work for the elite.

posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 04:48 AM
reply to post by LongbottomLeaf

You might want to go and see what Nazi Germany was all about. You know before they started killing people by the millions.

posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 04:54 AM
reply to post by thehoneycomb

They were about helping the common man of Nordic blood. Hitler said Germany would be better off without non Germans. He said anyone that wasn't born of Germanic tribal blood had to go. Not quite the same thing.......

posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 04:56 AM
reply to post by thehoneycomb

I think there is a big difference between liberalism and Nazism, again maybe that's just me not understanding how these terms are used in the US

posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 05:02 AM
reply to post by LongbottomLeaf'_Party_of_Germany

The Socialist Workers' Party of Germany (German: Sozialistische Arbeiterpartei Deutschlands, SAPD) was a political party in Germany. It was formed by a left-wing party with around 20,000 members which split off from the SPD in the autumn of 1931. In 1931 the remnants of USPD merged into the party, and in 1932 some Communist Party dissenters joined the group too, as well as a part from Communist Party Opposition. Nevertheless, its membership remained small. From 1933, the group's members worked illegally against National Socialism.

Thats the way it started out, but then it devolved.

posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 05:04 AM
NWO guy : Go kill them people
Union guy: Im on my lunch break
NWO guy:go kill them people
Union guy: were on strike

posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 05:05 AM
reply to post by woodwardjnr

You're correct and I don't want to turn this thread into one about Nazi Germany, Liberalism or Fascism.

The basis of this thread is that the unions carry out the wants and needs of the elite. If there were a war or another holocaust let's say, and there are only so many people left on earth. The Unions could become the slaves to the elite to carry out their work. During this point in time, they are carrying out their work.

The basis of this thread is that, that is their soul purpose. To carry out the dreams of the socialist fabian window.

posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 05:07 AM
reply to post by LongbottomLeaf

I like your since of humor. But thats today.

Who's to say what tomorrow will bring?

posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 05:11 AM
reply to post by thehoneycomb

It started out that way and ended that way what am I missing? I dont fear tomorrow or unions Im just not making the connection between unions and nwo slaves. Socialist and the elites are 2 different things
edit on 4-1-2012 by LongbottomLeaf because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 05:15 AM
reply to post by thehoneycomb

You talk of socialist utopia in your OP. In which case the unions would not be needed as the workers would own the means of production, i.e the business's and the tools. The problem is the elites own everything, the means of production, but maybe more importantly the "cognitive map". i.e, the way we think.

Just look at the how powerful CORPORATE media and money is in American politics for example.

posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 08:27 AM
The elite class has consistently fought against labour unions, especially in the United States. Noam Chomsky has done a great job documenting this struggle starting at the turn of the 20th century - Union busting on a national scale. There's a reason 'socialist' is a derogatory term almost exclusively in the US - it's how the NWO engineered it. In fact, many Americans equate socialism with communism!

Here's how the Rockefellers dealt with unions:

...America when corporations can not hire union people because they get paid too much what happens? Those jobs get shipped overseas.

That is exactly the kind of rhetoric the elite class uses to justify moving jobs overseas.

I think you'll find that strongly unionized industries such as auto workers and airlines are also the greatest recipients of corporate welfare, that is, they are heavily subsidized.

Retailers who are unable to transfer jobs overseas like McDonald's and Walmart* are notorious union bashers, going so far as closing shop rather than let any sort of collective bargaining take place.

The NWO wants you to think that the lost of the American industrial sector is the fault of labour unions. Some rightist libertarians even blame minimum salary legislations or even child labour laws for the lost of industry.

"Free trade" isn't free in the long run, as we can plainly see today. The same people who bust unions also fight any sort of protectionist tariffs. 'Laissez-faire' means 'laisse'(let) us 'faire'(do) whatever we want, or else!

*I'm referring to the greeters, stockers and sales clerks as Walmart's manufacturing is mostly done in Asia.

posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 01:59 PM
reply to post by ConspiracyNut23

Though I don't doubt Rockefeller's involvement, can you point out how Rockefeller wished to sabotage the union and what his involvement was?


Also this being the end result. I seriously find it hard to believe Rockefeller wasn't involved. But I digress, what operations did Rockefeller and his clan take part in the attacks?

Despite attempts to suppress union activity, secret organizing by the UMWA continued in the years leading up to 1913. Eventually, the union presented a list of seven demands on behalf of the miners:
Recognition of the union as bargaining agent
An increase in tonnage rates (equivalent to a 10% wage increase)
Enforcement of the eight-hour work day law
Payment for "dead work" (laying track, timbering, handling impurities, etc.)
Weight-checkmen elected by the workers (to keep company weightmen honest)
The right to use any store, and choose their boarding houses and doctors
Strict enforcement of Colorado's laws (such as mine safety rules, abolition of scrip), and an end to the company guard system
The major coal companies rejected the demands and in September 1913, the UMWA called a strike. Those who went on strike were promptly evicted from their company homes, and they moved to tent villages prepared by the UMWA. The tents were built on wood platforms and furnished with cast iron stoves on land leased by the union in preparation for a strike.

I see he was a bog part of the aftermath.

This conflict, called the Colorado Coalfield War, was the most violent labor conflict in US history; the reported death toll ranged from 69 in the Colorado government report to 199 in an investigation ordered by John D. Rockefeller, Jr.
The UMWA finally ran out of money, and called off the strike on December 10, 1914.
In the end, the strikers failed to obtain their demands, the union did not obtain recognition, and many striking workers were replaced by new workers. Over 400 strikers were arrested, 332 of whom were indicted for murder. Only one man, John Lawson, leader of the strike, was convicted of murder, and that verdict was eventually overturned by the Colorado Supreme Court. Twenty-two National Guardsmen, including 10 officers, were court martialed. All were acquitted, except Lt. Linderfelt, who was found guilty of assault for his attack on Louis Tikas. However, he was given only a light reprimand.

And Rockefeller was even instrumental in creation of the Unions.

Although the UMWA failed to win recognition by the company, the strike had a lasting impact both on conditions at the Colorado mines and on labor relations nationally. John D. Rockefeller, Jr. engaged labor relations experts and future Canadian Prime Minister W. L. Mackenzie King to help him develop reforms for the mines and towns, which included paved roads and recreational facilities, as well as worker representation on committees dealing with working conditions, safety, health, and recreation. There was to be no discrimination against workers who had belonged to unions, and the establishment of a company union. The Rockefeller plan was accepted by the miners in a vote.

edit on 4-1-2012 by thehoneycomb because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 10:47 PM
Ok well anyways moving on. I have noticed that when there are unions on strike, there often times is violence.
These angry Union workers stormed the port holding workers hostage.

Violence seems to be a commonality among union members of all kinds. Violence and intimidation.

Unions are not about workers, they have an agenda.

Unions need their dues to fund the democratic party, they are not concerned about ones right to work, they are concerned with their dues.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in