Tea Party - Unions?

A different spin on a tired topic, perhaps, but lately I was browsing the news and caught a glimpse of the Bay Area Transit strike.

A tentative deal between representatives of the San Francisco Bay Area's rail transit system and its striking unions has been reached, ending a four-day strike that left commuters scrambling for alternative transportation and caused massive gridlock on the area's highways.

www.foxnews.com...

My thoughts were these. . .

Why didn't the administration claim that the union workers were hostage takers or terrorists?

Why did the San Fran City negotiate with the striking union workers?

Didn't the union "hold a gun" to management?

The Tea Party recently has been under fire for basically "striking" for going on strike against the current administration.

Now liberals, democrats have always been pro-union and I'm sure I could find sources that would support this, but why is it that when the Tea Party representatives "went on strike" they were vilified?

Doesn't this expose a gross hypocrisy?

Just a few thoughts to start the day.

Cheers,

beez

reply to post by beezzer


the dock workers are not legally allowed to strike,
are the politicians less important?

xploder

XPLodER
reply to post by beezzer

 

the dock workers are not legally allowed to strike,
are the politicians less important?

xploder

It was mass transit workers, not dock workers. So it's an issue of the "legality" of a strike?

If we're going to play "word pretzel", I'm getting the mustard!

reply to post by beezzer


I see Unions as a form of political power within the democratic party. They go hand in fist. Unions will occasionally demonize their allies, but it's usually to tell them that they are straying from previously made deals. And those stories get buried rather quickly as a new deal is struck or the pols are made to toe the line. They don't want to lose part of their base after all.

Now that I think about it, they are similar to the Tea Party faction within the GOP, but have even more power. Both occasionally cause rifts within their own parties.

reply to post by TDawgRex


What was ironic was a man, a community organiser, stated that he would not negotiate. Someone who spend his whole life supporting unions, negotiations, and the people that they represented, did a 180 on his supposed beliefs.

Hypocrite!

reply to post by beezzer


beezzer, you didn't get the memo?

I dont have a link but I can scan it and load it later if you want.

Basically it states:

Dear world -- Please remember it's only the Tea Party members whom are terrorists. Al-qaeda are our friends until they aren't our friends, but we will keep you updated on their status. But again, the Tea Party will allows be referred to as 'terrorists' going forward. You can also begin calling them the Terrorist Party as needed.

--End

It's on letterhead and is very official-looking

six67seven
reply to post by beezzer

 

beezzer, you didn't get the memo?

I dont have a link but I can scan it and load it later if you want.

Basically it states:

Dear world -- Please remember it's only the Tea Party members whom are terrorists. Al-qaeda are our friends until they aren't our friends, but we will keep you updated on their status. But again, the Tea Party will allows be referred to as 'terrorists' going forward. You can also begin calling them the Terrorist Party as needed.

--End

It's on letterhead and is very official-looking

Apologies. Just checked my Spam folder. It was titled "Marching Orders".

My bad.

Just wanted to give this a bump, it hasn't gotten much play. . . .

beezzer
Just wanted to give this a bump, it hasn't gotten much play. . . .

Not much conversation, but plenty of flags. Hmmmm, I think that peoples attention is being diverted elsewhere. The ACA fiasco for the most part it seems.

Oops! I almost forgot.

*in my best scary voice* CLooooowaaaaaaard....Piiiiiiiveeeeeeen.

TDawgRex


Oops! I almost forgot.

*in my best scary voice* CLooooowaaaaaaard....Piiiiiiiveeeeeeen.

AAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

Great, another Tea Party circle jerk.

I'm union and proud of it. Both SAG and IATSE

www.sagaftra.org... www.iatse-intl.org...


Without union representation, I would have no retirement, healthcare, recourse if hurt on the job, and no access to auditions and the resulting roles=$$$.

I'm happy to belong to the same union as Ronald Reagan, Clint Eastwood, Tim Allen, Pat Boone and my friend [RIP]Dennis Hopper and many other Hollywood conservatives.

Even your messiah's Rush and Beck are union.


rationalwiki.org...:Hollywood_conservatives

I know it's great fun to label all actors and movie people as libs, but it just shows your ignorance.

olaru12
Great, another Tea Party circle jerk.

Oh real nice. My invitation must have been lost in the mail... Beezzer!!!

Without union representation, I would have no retirement, healthcare

Keep holding to that thought, after the state and federal workers pensions get sucked dry they're coming for yours (and everyone else too.)

Hey Beezz, don't you know that the unions are a protected sub-species under Obamanation? Tea Party members (those dirty terrorist American Talibanians) are open season with no bag limit.

reply to post by beezzer


Are you comparing a labor strike to paying the national debt?

One of these things, is not like the other.

~Tenth

Bah..

What's good for the goose, is none of your damn business, now get back to work... but not too fast.

See? I can't even say the word Unions without sounding hostile.

So edit S,F, and bump.

tothetenthpower
reply to post by beezzer

 

Are you comparing a labor strike to paying the national debt?

One of these things, is not like the other.

~Tenth

Not at all. I'm just saying that negotiations are all good and well, unless you're a Tea Party member. Then negotiations are considered "hostage taking", "gun to the head", "terrorist" issues.

Unions can go on strike and hold "hostage" commuters, or anyone they wish. But when the Tea Party decides to "collectively bargain" then they are considered enemies of the state.

olaru12
Great, another Tea Party circle jerk.

I'm union and proud of it. Both SAG and IATSE

www.sagaftra.org... www.iatse-intl.org...


Without union representation, I would have no retirement, healthcare, recourse if hurt on the job, and no access to auditions and the resulting roles=$$$.

I'm happy to belong to the same union as Ronald Reagan, Clint Eastwood, Tim Allen, Pat Boone and my friend [RIP]Dennis Hopper and many other Hollywood conservatives.

Even your messiah's Rush and Beck are union.


rationalwiki.org...:Hollywood_conservatives

I know it's great fun to label all actors and movie people as libs, but it just shows your ignorance.

edit on 22-10-2013 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)

Why is it then, when unions strike in order to force a negotiation, it is considered to be a representation for the needs of its members, but when the Tea Party representatives hold steady for the people they represent, it is considered terrorism?

Why is it then, when unions strike in order to force a negotiation, it is considered to be a representation for the needs of its members, but when the Tea Party representatives hold steady for the people they represent, it is considered terrorism?

Because Union workers are just your average working Jamies (it used to be "working Joes" till that plumber guy came along; it has since been changed to a much more suitable, less mysoginistic, gender-neutral "Jamie') trying to keep their heads above water and feed their families. They are the backbone of the American economy and pillars of their communities and paragons of virtue and true patriots and when they strike they are fearlessly going toe to toe with the evil greedy super rich bankster oil baron reptilian overlords. They are the good guys.
Teabaggers are just a bunch of stupid redneck inbred brain-washed christian gun-toting bitter-clinger warmongering baby-killers unless they are protesting abortion in which case they're women-killers with too little sense and too much Fox News. They have no appreciation of the value of compromise or of working together; always running around accusing good Democrats of being Communists even though most baggers don't even know what communism really is because they're just a bunch of
far-right fascist nazi wingnut extremists and we'd be better off without them.

Hypocrisy knows no bounds because hypocrites have ways of looking at the world that blind them to their own hypocrisy.

Tsurugi

Why is it then, when unions strike in order to force a negotiation, it is considered to be a representation for the needs of its members, but when the Tea Party representatives hold steady for the people they represent, it is considered terrorism?

Because Union workers are just your average working Jamies (it used to be "working Joes" till that plumber guy came along; it has since been changed to a much more suitable, less mysoginistic, gender-neutral "Jamie') trying to keep their heads above water and feed their families. They are the backbone of the American economy and pillars of their communities and paragons of virtue and true patriots and when they strike they are fearlessly going toe to toe with the evil greedy super rich bankster oil baron reptilian overlords. They are the good guys.
Teabaggers are just a bunch of stupid redneck inbred brain-washed christian gun-toting bitter-clinger warmongering baby-killers unless they are protesting abortion in which case they're women-killers with too little sense and too much Fox News. They have no appreciation of the value of compromise or of working together; always running around accusing good Democrats of being Communists even though most baggers don't even know what communism really is because they're just a bunch of
far-right fascist nazi wingnut extremists and we'd be better off without them.

Hypocrisy knows no bounds because hypocrites have ways of looking at the world that blind them to their own hypocrisy.

There you have it people!

Because Progressives are Hypocrites.

That's your answer...straight from the garbage can.

reply to post by beezzer


no..

It's not at all the same thing.

The buses not running, is not like the country not paying it's bills.

So any comparison to how atrocious the behavior is doesn't make any sense. Of course the Tea Party are being idiots when they shut down the government. Of course you can't compare that to a petty non public union dispute at the local or even national level.

That's not negotiating and it's not 'striking'. If they wanted to strike then all of them could take unpaid leave and sit outside our doorsteps or local businesses, requesting that we support their cause. Like the Unions you compare them to would do.

These two things are so far removed from each other.

~Tenth

reply to post by tothetenthpower


When transportation unions strike, they hold hostage every single person that relies on the public transportation system. But they wanted something.

When the Tea Party stalled government, they too, wanted something.