99% Spring: An Anatomy of Destruction
#1
Posted 13 April 2012 - 04:07 PM
The establishment left’s weeklong protest training, deemed the 99% Spring or Shareholder Spring, is an effort to train 100,000 activists in civil disobedience to achieve “social and economic justice” from the 1%. The goal of these left-wing activists is to attain their idea of justice through destruction of America’s social fabric by perpetuating social and economic class warfare.
The protesters’ target will be “the shareholder meetings of over forty corporations, including but not limited to Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Exxon Mobil, and Chevron.” In order to destroy America’s “unjust” economy, they seek to tarnish the reputations of the very corporations that create jobs Americans need and desperately want.
According to the 99% Spring website, its mission is to stop “the deliberate manipulation of our democracy and our economy by a tiny minority in the 1%, by those who amass ever more wealth and power at our expense.” This is an ironic stated aim; Big Labor sponsors of the 99% Spring such as the United Auto Workers (UAW), AFL-CIO, and Service Employee International Union are creating the very same problems they claim to be solving.
Big Labor contributions to President Obama’s 2008 campaign totaled over $400 million. Yet, UAW President Bob King stoked the class warfare rhetoric in The Detroit News, “You only get what you are willing to accept,” in anticipation of the 99% Spring last week. He goes on, “We have a choice to make: a government that can be bought by the highest bidder or a democracy that is truly of the people, by the people and for the people.”
More
http://www.openmarke...of-destruction/
#3
Posted 13 April 2012 - 04:45 PM
How are union leaders able to plead for an American government that cannot be bought by the highest bidder when Big Labor outspends corporate America every election cycle? When Big Labor is currently putting on a nationwide political grassroots protest, costing millions, to influence the upcoming election? But if corporations perform these activities, they are manipulating our democracy and economy against our will.
#4
Posted 13 April 2012 - 04:51 PM
#5
Posted 13 April 2012 - 04:55 PM
the sidewalk kids have set up shop outside my window. nice peaceful polite bunch, getting lots of foot traffic, maybe evenmore than in the park. people stopping to listen to discuss things with them, no yelling or threats.
i think they could use some baby wipes though.
#7
Posted 13 April 2012 - 05:14 PM
What a shocker. The group livin' off the gubmint teat gave back to the govt. ranking 3rd off the dollars confiscated by the govt. to supply the means to pay state/federal/municipal wages.
The ironing is so delicious, I can not even begin....
#8
Posted 13 April 2012 - 05:18 PM
#9
Posted 13 April 2012 - 09:37 PM
#12
Posted 13 April 2012 - 11:47 PM
In one union I was getting 6 weeks vacation a year, another 15 paid sick days along with 3-5 personal days a year, time and a half for holidays and there'd be days where I wouldn't even show up to work and got paid, never mind all the partying we did on the clock. All on the taxpayers dime.
It's great if you're in with the in crowd but the vast majority aren't.
I'm really looking forward to seeing how that Wahlberg project plays out
#13
Posted 14 April 2012 - 12:24 AM
#14
Posted 14 April 2012 - 01:08 AM
Perhaps in some cases this is indicative of poor union stewardship and company management. Too bad that large groups all too often seem to end up with an element of corruption in their midst.
#16
Posted 14 April 2012 - 06:58 PM
I'm not saying all unions are bad/corrupt but public unions which contain, I believe, only about 7% of the working population, take from everyone that pays taxes. The money they collect in dues from those taxes, is then used to back the Democratic party which in turn raises all our taxes to pay for more union perks and the cycle continues. It's good for the 7% in the union and for the Democratic party but for everyone else it's a drain on funds that could be put to better use on projects that benefit more taxpayers.My Family were and are union Iron Workers for the last 60 plus years, I was a union Iron Worker for 10 years. 20 years ago I would agree with the corruption in the larger cities and yes there was a lot of nepotism, unfortunatley there is coruption in all walks of life.. Corporations in this country are clean? To climb the corporate ladder is not being in the "in crowd", it sure the hell is, Tabbooma see's it everyday. The guys I worked with while Iron Working were professionals trying to make a living, not sitting around partying on the tax payers dime.. Not sure what union you were in but that would not fly today nor with me or my old associates
#18
Posted 14 April 2012 - 08:16 PM
I'm not saying all unions are bad/corrupt but public unions which contain, I believe, only about 7% of the working population, take from everyone that pays taxes. The money they collect in dues from those taxes, is then used to back the Democratic party which in turn raises all our taxes to pay for more union perks and the cycle continues. It's good for the 7% in the union and for the Democratic party but for everyone else it's a drain on funds that could be put to better use on projects that benefit more taxpayers.
Either you're lying, or just really confused. What you said above doesn't even make sense in its present form.
Unions collecting dues from taxes?? Wait --- What??
#19
Posted 14 April 2012 - 11:55 PM
I'm not saying all unions are bad/corrupt but public unions which contain, I believe, only about 7% of the working population, take from everyone that pays taxes. The money they collect in dues from those taxes, is then used to back the Democratic party which in turn raises all our taxes to pay for more union perks and the cycle continues. It's good for the 7% in the union and for the Democratic party but for everyone else it's a drain on funds that could be put to better use on projects that benefit more taxpayers.
#20
Posted 15 April 2012 - 12:13 AM
that's wrong. Once the money is assigned to payroll, it is no longer tax dollars. That money belongs to the employee who worked for it, not the taxpayer.
your argument is like saying the water from your faucet is the same as what you flush down the toilet... not quite.
#23
Posted 15 April 2012 - 01:46 PM
It's a tough call. I believe some services like firefighters do deserve certain benefits that others don't get. But, at least around here, if one union gets something then all unions try to get the same thing in their contracts at the next bargaining session. I know when we were negotiating that was what we did and it was pretty successful because the city could just raise taxes in order to raise the additional revenue to cover it or ask the state for more help and then they could raise taxes on a statewide level, then they could then go to the government for more aid and they could do the same.
Now it might be different in smaller towns but in the big cities it's all about keeping the political machine in place, that's one of the reasons most public employees vote Democrat, they know who butters their bread.
I found this, it doesn't seem to differentiate between municipal and federal workers other than the part I bolded about "local government"
UNION MEMBERS -- 2011
In 2011, the union membership rate--the percent of wage and salary workers who
were members of a union--was 11.8 percent, essentially unchanged from 11.9
percent in 2010, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The number
of wage and salary workers belonging to unions, at 14.8 million, also showed
little movement over the year. In 1983, the first year for which comparable union
data are available, the union membership rate was 20.1 percent and there were
17.7 million union workers.
The data on union membership were collected as part of the Current Population
Survey (CPS), a monthly sample survey of about 60,000 households that obtains
information on employment and unemployment among the nation's civilian
noninstitutional population age 16 and over. For more information, see the
Technical Note.
Highlights from the 2011 data:
--Public-sector workers had a union membership rate (37.0 percent) more
than five times higher than that of private-sector workers (6.9
percent). (See table 3.)
--Workers in education, training, and library occupations had the
highest unionization rate, at 36.8 percent, while the lowest rate
occurred in sales and related occupations (3.0 percent). (See
table 3.)
--Black workers were more likely to be union members than were white,
Asian, or Hispanic workers. (See table 1.)
--Among states, New York continued to have the highest union membership
rate (24.1 percent) and North Carolina again had the lowest rate
(2.9 percent). (See table 5.)
Industry and Occupation of Union Members
In 2011, 7.6 million employees in the public sector belonged to a
union, compared with 7.2 million union workers in the private sector.
The union membership rate for public-sector workers (37.0 percent) was
substantially higher than the rate for private-sector workers (6.9
percent). Within the public sector, local government workers had the
highest union membership rate, 43.2 percent. This group includes
workers in heavily unionized occupations, such as teachers, police
officers, and firefighters. Private-sector industries with high
unionization rates included transportation and utilities (21.1
percent) and construction (14.0 percent), while low unionization rates
occurred in agriculture and related industries (1.4 percent) and in
financial activities (1.6 percent). (See table 3.)
More
http://www.bls.gov/n.../union2.nr0.htm
#24
Posted 16 April 2012 - 12:30 PM
I do have a problem with my local Fire Fighter Union complaining that they should still recieve 28 paid sick days a year and not the 12 days being proposed in the new contract, not sure who would use 28 days...
If you're refering to the town I think, they are arguing against it being retro active back to 2010 not the decrease in paid sick days going forward.











