Amazon Workers Unionize!

[Jay59]

The problem with your soak-rich-logic is that it never stops there. Only the very wealthy first paid federal income taxes after the 16th amendment was enacted. 50 years later only the very wealthy initially paid anything under the Alternative Minimum Tax (ATM). Your wealth tax ideas will start with the very rich, but they won’t end there.

You’re being lured in by a divide and conquer strategy (or perhaps just perpetrating one; there’s no way to be sure).

Why are you trying to talk sensible tax law in a Union thread? Valid points but out of place.

As a 15-year Steward, Unions in this country are in a sorry state. The leadership neither respects nor listens to the rank and file. The workers respond by not joining. Funny how that works.

 

[justabubba]

Why are you trying to talk sensible tax law in a Union thread? Valid points but out of place.

As a 15-year Steward, Unions in this country are in a sorry state. The leadership neither respects nor listens to the rank and file.

shame on the bargaining unit members who elected the wrong union officers. not at all unlike the citizenry electing the wrong politicians. in both instances: we elect the representatives we deserve

The workers respond by not joining. Funny how that works.

sometimes, the workers refuse to join because they are too cheap to pay the union dues. they often understand that they still remain eligible for the benefits the union is obligated by law to provide to ALL members of the bargaining unit. the only thing that bargaining unit members can do that non-dues paying, bargaining unit employees cannot, is vote for the union officers

other times, the employee believes that they will never need the safety net that the union provides. often that is true because they are the teacher's pet of management

and then others, not being familiar with what the union is about and how becoming involved with the union can potentially help them, other employees avoid what they have not been taugt to understand

and in the south, over a century and a half beyond the civil war, the word "union" still has negative connotations, especially in rural areas where relatively few people of color reside

the point being, the union - NOT the employees it represents - is responsible for educating the bargaining unit employees about the union and how it works for the workers
union leaders should not assume the employees understand how collective bargaining works

 

[Jay59]

shame on the bargaining unit members who elected the wrong union officers. not at all unlike the citizenry electing the wrong politicians. in both instances: we elect the representatives we deserve

Was that misuse of phrase?

The bargaining unit does not elect the officers. That's done nationwide.

sometimes, the workers refuse to join because they are too cheap to pay the union dues. they often understand that they still remain eligible for the benefits the union is obligated by law to provide to ALL members of the bargaining unit. the only thing that bargaining unit members can do that non-dues paying, bargaining unit employees cannot, is vote for the union officers other times, the employee believes that they will never need the safety net that the union provides. often that is true because they are the teacher's pet of management and then others, not being familiar with what the union is about and how becoming involved with the union can potentially help them, other employees avoid what they have not been taugt to understand and in the south, over a century and a half beyond the civil war, the word "union" still has negative connotations, especially in rural areas where relatively few people of color reside

While this is mostly true, it shows no insight. Can you tell us something we don't already know?

the point being, the union - NOT the employees it represents - is responsible for educating the bargaining unit employees about the union and how it works for the workers

They put out lots of posters, flyers, mailers, etc. It's politics. What else would you expect?

union leaders should not assume the employees understand how collective bargaining works

Every government should be more responsive. As with the regular government, leadership doesn't really care what the voters think, as long as they can manage the vote.

 

[justabubba]

Was that misuse of phrase?

The bargaining unit does not elect the officers. That's done nationwide.

in my experience the bargaining unit members elect the representatives of the Local
nationwide elections determine from the ranks of the Locals which bargaining unit employees will serve on the national council
in both instances, as federal law requires, ALL of the union representatives are democratically elected by the dues paying bargaining unit members

While this is mostly true, it shows no insight. Can you tell us something we don't already know?

that's why i shared those unique aspects of union membership avoidance, because you offered nothing in your posts to indicate you were aware of such realities with regard to unions and the bargaining unit employees

They put out lots of posters, flyers, mailers, etc. It's politics. What else would you expect ?

i would expect unionists with any significant experience to recognize issuing a bunch of flyers and posters is NOT the same thing as educating the union's membership. if you are like most, you fail to solicit the questions of your BU members. by seeking their inquiries, the union leader is made aware of issues that are important to the membership; and bogus information that needs to be addressed and refuted by the Local/Council

Every government should be more responsive. As with the regular government, leadership doesn't really care what the voters think, as long as they can manage the vote.

i cannot fault the validity of your observation that some leadership ignores the interests of the rank and file to instead politick to achieve their own pet projects. there is a clear distinction between a politician and a statesman. like our government, union leaders need to be more statesmanlike and less political. the individuals they serve would be better off with such a change of focus

 

[Jay59]

in my experience the bargaining unit members elect the representatives of the Local
nationwide elections determine from the ranks of the Locals which bargaining unit employees will serve on the national council
in both instances, as federal law requires, ALL of the union representatives are democratically elected by the dues paying bargaining unit members

The local does not elect leadership and you have detailed why this is the case. Is there a point here?

that's why i shared those unique aspects of union membership avoidance, because you offered nothing in your posts to indicate you were aware of such realities with regard to unions and the bargaining unit employees

OK. You still have not arrived at a point.

i would expect unionists with any significant experience to recognize issuing a bunch of flyers and posters is NOT the same thing as educating the union's membership. if you are like most, you fail to solicit the questions of your BU members. by seeking their inquiries, the union leader is made aware of issues that are important to the membership; and bogus information that needs to be addressed and refuted by the Local/Council

That's twisted. You seem to be claiming that people can be forced to think.

That's one up on me. I can lead someone to facts but I cannot make them think.

i cannot fault the validity of your observation that some leadership ignores the interests of the rank and file to instead politick to achieve their own pet projects. there is a clear distinction between a politician and a statesman. like our government, union leaders need to be more statesmanlike and less political. the individuals they serve would be better off with such a change of focus

Unfortunately, the divide is a bit wider than some leadership.

There is no clear distinction between a politician and a statesman. It often takes a generation to distinguish one from the other

We have quip in my family, should be and is are only cousins. They don't talk much. Wishing politicians were better people is not usually fruitful.

 

[Court Jester]

Organized workers are better able to negotiate good terms with employers.

Anyone who is unable to negotiate for themselves deserves to work at Amazon, or Walmart, or McDonald's....

 

[justabubba]

The local does not elect leadership and you have detailed why this is the case. Is there a point here?

i distinctly recall being elected Local president by the members of that Local. who else would be qualified to elect the Local union president?
federal law requires democratic elections of union leaders
your posts do not reveal a background that is well acquainted with internal union activities

OK. You still have not arrived at a point.

the point was you seemed not to understand the variety of reasons bargaining unit employees refuse to become dues-paying bargaining unit members

That's twisted. You seem to be claiming that people can be forced to think.

rather than talking at them the union can and should consider having a dialog WITH its members

That's one up on me. I can lead someone to facts but I cannot make them think.

the reason for that is starting to become obvious

Unfortunately, the divide is a bit wider than some leadership.

and that chasm between the leadership and the employees the union represents will remain if the union leaders fail to reach out and learn what is of interest to its membership

There is no clear distinction between a politician and a statesman. It often takes a generation to distinguish one from the other

to those of us capable of discerning the difference between the two approaches, the distinction is quite clear and evident

We have quip in my family, should be and is are only cousins. They don't talk much. Wishing politicians were better people is not usually fruitful.

you have an odd family saying

i'm curious; what did you personally accomplish while being active in your union?

 

[Jay59]

i distinctly recall being elected Local president by the members of that Local. who else would be qualified to elect the Local union president?

That sounds very possible but not very relevant.

I don't want to beat a minor point to death but you said that the national leadership was elected by a bargaining unit.

federal law requires democratic elections of union leaders
your posts do not reveal a background that is well acquainted with internal union activities
the point was you seemed not to understand the variety of reasons bargaining unit employees refuse to become dues-paying bargaining unit members

That's not much of a point. I was a Union officer for 15 years.

rather than talking at them the union can and should consider having a dialog WITH its members the reason for that is starting to become obvious

We are back to should be and no is.

and that chasm between the leadership and the employees the union represents will remain if the union leaders fail to reach out and learn what is of interest to its membership

So you acknowledge that the gap is a chasm.

to those of us capable of discerning the difference between the two approaches, the distinction is quite clear and evident

It's an illusion. The fullness of time may reveal Trump as a statesman but it will take decades.

you have an odd family saying

Granted but makes a valid point about wishful thinking.

i'm curious; what did you personally accomplish while being active in your union?

I was Steward for 15 years, elected treasurer, and was asked to run for President, though I declined to run. I was good friends with our regional representative.

 

[justabubba]

That sounds very possible but not very relevant.

it is absolutely relevant. it refutes your assertion about how union leaders are selected

I don't want to beat a minor point to death but you said that the national leadership was elected by a bargaining unit.

bargaining unit MEMBERS. dues-paying members, NOT to be confused to bargaining unit employees, who are the people who are represented by the union including those who pay dues and those who do not. only dues-paying MEMBERS are eligible to cast ballots for their union's leaders. THAT was the point being made. for someone who was in the union for at least 15 years, your lack of grasp of internal union operations is staggering

That's not much of a point. I was a Union officer for 15 years.

the point is, your understanding of union activities - based on what you have posted - only addresses the veneer

We are back to should be and no is.

another way to term that is a discussion about how to improve internal union relationships by and between union leaders and the bargaining unit employees. you were the one who noted the unwillingness of bargaining unit employees to become dues-paying bargaining unit members. i explained some of the reasons why those bargaining unit employees choose NOT to become union members, some of which reasons included union leadership shortcomings
it's as if you resent mention of those things the union could do better

So you acknowledge that the gap is a chasm.

when did i address it as being otherwise? please cut/paste your response

It's an illusion. The fullness of time may reveal Trump as a statesman but it will take decades.

there will NEVER be a time when tRump is viewed as a statesman. that you do not understand that reality is quite telling

Granted but makes a valid point about wishful thinking.

my family's expression was 'wish in one hand and shit in the other - then decide which fills up first'
again, you have no point
at least not one your posts reveal

I was Steward for 15 years, elected treasurer, and was asked to run for President, though I declined to run. I was good friends with our regional representative.

this is very telling. when asked what you accomplished you note that you held a union leadership position and you were buddies with someone who was a higher up union official. nothing you have posted indicates you accomplished a damned thing for the bargaining unit employees where you worked and served as an appointed steward and elected treasurer. in 15 ****ing years!!

 

[Jay59]

it is absolutely relevant. it refutes your assertion about how union leaders are selected

bargaining unit MEMBERS. dues-paying members, NOT to be confused to bargaining unit employees, who are the people who are represented by the union including those who pay dues and those who do not. only dues-paying MEMBERS are eligible to cast ballots for their union's leaders. THAT was the point being made. for someone who was in the union for at least 15 years, your lack of grasp of internal union operations is staggering

the point is, your understanding of union activities - based on what you have posted - only addresses the veneer

another way to term that is a discussion about how to improve internal union relationships by and between union leaders and the bargaining unit employees. you were the one who noted the unwillingness of bargaining unit employees to become dues-paying bargaining unit members. i explained some of the reasons why those bargaining unit employees choose NOT to become union members, some of which reasons included union leadership shortcomings
it's as if you resent mention of those things the union could do better when did i address it as being otherwise? please cut/paste your response

You are quibbling about the niceties of language to no real point.

there will NEVER be a time when tRump is viewed as a statesman. that you do not understand that reality is quite telling

That you don't understand that it's a possibility is telling.

The man's vile temperament is ephemeral. Accomplishments last and the Abrahamic Accords are a landmark.

my family's expression was 'wish in one hand and shit in the other - then decide which fills up first'
again, you have no point
at least not one your posts reveal

In plain language, then. You indulge in too much wishful thinking and too little harsh reality.

this is very telling. when asked what you accomplished you note that you held a union leadership position and you were buddies with someone who was a higher up union official. nothing you have posted indicates you accomplished a damned thing for the bargaining unit employees where you worked and served as an appointed steward and elected treasurer. in 15 ****ing years!!

Again, you focus on appearances. Did you want to hear that I drafted the language of basically all of our letters of settlement for over a decade?

 

[justabubba]

You are quibbling about the niceties of language to no real point.

i was disabusing any readers of your notion that union leaders were other than democratically elected

That you don't understand that it's a possibility is telling.

The man's vile temperament is ephemeral. Accomplishments last and the Abrahamic Accords are a landmark.

there is no way tRump will ever be considered to have been a statesman by historians
that you even contemplate the prospect is laughable and speaks to your powers of observation

In plain language, then. You indulge in too much wishful thinking and too little harsh reality.

what you term 'wishful thinking' would more accurately be described as identifying ways to solve a problem: better educating/informing rank and file bargaining unit employees so that they have reason to want to become active, dues-paying union members

Again, you focus on appearances. Did you want to hear that I drafted the language of basically all of our letters of settlement for over a decade?

after seeing how misinformed your posts were on this topic, i would prefer to avoid learning of the damage inflicted by your drafted settlement agreements. that said, there is nothing preventing your sharing whatever exists in which you have obvious pride of authorship

 

[Peacenik]

View attachment 67386787​

Management doesn't care about the workers. Management cares about profits. Workers are just an inconvenience that management has to put up with to get the profits.

 

[HangLow]

Management doesn't care about the workers.
Management cares about profits.
Workers are just an inconvenience that management has to put up with to get the profits.

I agree 100%
-Peace

​

 

[Peacenik]

Anyone who is unable to negotiate for themselves deserves to work at Amazon, or Walmart, or McDonald's....

Nobody deserves to have a lousy life. That's not the American dream.

 

[Peacenik]

shame on the bargaining unit members who elected the wrong union officers. not at all unlike the citizenry electing the wrong politicians. in both instances: we elect the representatives we deserve

sometimes, the workers refuse to join because they are too cheap to pay the union dues. they often understand that they still remain eligible for the benefits the union is obligated by law to provide to ALL members of the bargaining unit. the only thing that bargaining unit members can do that non-dues paying, bargaining unit employees cannot, is vote for the union officers

other times, the employee believes that they will never need the safety net that the union provides. often that is true because they are the teacher's pet of management

and then others, not being familiar with what the union is about and how becoming involved with the union can potentially help them, other employees avoid what they have not been taugt to understand

and in the south, over a century and a half beyond the civil war, the word "union" still has negative connotations, especially in rural areas where relatively few people of color reside

the point being, the union - NOT the employees it represents - is responsible for educating the bargaining unit employees about the union and how it works for the workers
union leaders should not assume the employees understand how collective bargaining works

A new union is of particular interest to other unions, which would reach out to the new union officials and offer them tips on how to organize and collectively bargain.