Terror Campaign Will Shut Down West Coast Ports On May 1, 2008

[LTC8K6]

Don't see any mention of shutting down the ports at the ilwu site.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
You guys are dense if you think this port shutdown is aimed at directly bringing troops home.

The purpose of this action is to get a dialog started; get media coverage; bring the issue of Iraq back to the forefront.

I think it will succeed at that goal. Every news agency in the country will be wondering why our biggest Pacific ports (that are responsible for a lion's share of our nation's imports/exports to/from Asia), are shut down for a day.

Yeah, I agree. They'll get that.

Every news show will run a segment on it.

Fern

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Perknose
Unlike any of us here, they will be putting their money where their mouth is, losing a day's pay to take a principled stand.

And you want to dismiss that as a holiday?

Please stop being so obtuse.

Where do you get that from?

Losing pay, that is.

Moreover, if the union tells them to do it, in all cases I've seen the union pays (strike pay).

Otherwise, I'm self-employed. I don't make any money when I don't work either (whether sick, holiday whatever). So, I'm natuarally gonna feel different about than someone who's an employee.

I still think it significant that they chose the "International Worker Day" holiday to stage this. I woulda chose the aniversary of the Iraq invasion.

Fern

Strike pay never equals full pay. They are putting their money where their mouth is to make a principled point.

And you writing earlier that they would all be in bars, well, I would have expected better from you.

Oh, and perhaps they chose "International Worker Day" because . . . they are workers? :shocked:

 

[palehorse]

LOL! nice title!

what a tool...

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
LOL! nice title!

what a tool...

I didn't get much from your post.

 

[Fern]

Again, I think it's the title.

Why not "Anti War" campaign?

Union campaign or strike etc.

It's misleading or deceptive, IMO.

Fern

 

[RY62]

Another example of unions holding back productivity.
Unions had their time in history, today it's just a bunch of boneheads disrupting productivity and free market trade with strongarm tactics. I can't wait for the day they've finally destroyed themselves.

 

[palehorse]

Unions finding some sort of bullsh*t way to get more time off work?

SHOCKER!

:roll:

 

[Utterman]

I would like their bluff to be called (if there is any real impact). How about terminating anyone of the union members who don't show up in support of this resolution? A la Reagan vs. the air traffic controllers

 

[Deeko]

I hate unions. I hope every single one of them gets fired and a result loses their home.

....change? got any spare change?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: Skoorb
That 90,000 number you gave is highly conservative.

But more realistic than the inflated numbers that usually get tossed around.

Got proof? The largest, most thorough studies say you're wrong; I'd post links, but you are not interested in facts, as we both know.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Walking off a private job to protest a government policy? These ass holes got some nerve if they do this, and should be fired accordingly.

Because it's not as if we live in one society, where the government and the private sector have any connection, where private sector actions can put pressure on the government.

Why, it's just like those Boston Tea Party guys, who really just wanted to have a costume party and vandalize for fun, and some tried to say there was a political message.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: Skoorb
That 90,000 number you gave is highly conservative.

But more realistic than the inflated numbers that usually get tossed around.

Got proof? The largest, most thorough studies say you're wrong; I'd post links, but you are not interested in facts, as we both know.

The "largest, most thorough" study, to date, done by the WHO and relaesed in January 2008, has the number at roughly 151,000 deaths between 2003 and 2006.

Using that figure, and adjusting downward for the much lower death toll in 2007, the latest rough estimates are around 165,000.

Still too many, for sure... but, if you were planning to post a higher number than that, you'd be entirely full of sh*t.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Nice that they're keeping up their history of organized attempted extortion.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Deeko
I hate unions. I hope every single one of them gets fired and a result loses their home.

....change? got any spare change?

What a petty little man

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Deeko
I hate unions. I hope every single one of them gets fired and a result loses their home.

....change? got any spare change?

What a petty little man

Can't agree, you called him a 'man'. How about male.

 

[Fern]

In a major step for the U.S. labor movement, the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) has announced that it will shut down West Coast ports on May 1, to demand an immediate end to the war and occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan and the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the Middle East. In a February 22 letter to AFL-CIO president John Sweeney, ILWU International president Robert McEllrath reported that at a recent coast-wide union meeting, ?One of the resolutions adopted by caucus delegates called on longshore workers to stop work during the day shift on May 1, 2008 to express their opposition to the war in Iraq.?

This is the first time in decades that an American union has decided to undertake industrial action against a U.S. war. It is doubly important that this mobilization of labor?s power is to take place on May Day, the international workers day, which is not honored in the U.S. Moreover, the resolution voted by the ILWU delegates opposes not only the hugely unpopular war in Iraq, but also the war and occupation of Afghanistan (which Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and Republican John McCain all want to expand). The motion to shut down the ports also demands the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the entire region, including the oil sheikdoms of the strategically important Persian/Arab Gulf.

That "major step" should be moving damned closer to having their non-profit status stripped IMO.

I hear all kinds of complaints around here when other non-profits get involved in politics.

I see no connection whatsoever with a union's authorised purpose and butting into foreign policy here and military deployment. It doesn't affect the workers condition, the improvement of the product and sure as heck does nothing for their efficiency.

See bolded belwo for official IRS rules.

(a) The organizations contemplated by section 501(c)(5) as entitled to exemption from income taxation are those which:

(1) Have no net earnings inuring to the benefit of any member, and

(2) Have as their objects the betterment of the conditions of those engaged in such pursuits, the improvement of the grade of their products, and the development of a higher degree of efficiency in their respective occupations.

If the worker/citizens wanna do it on their own, great. But this is not a unions place nor authorised function.

Fern

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
In response to GWB's terror campaign that has claimed 90,000 Iraqi civilian lives, nearly 4,000 US soldiers lives, physically and mentally injuring untold numbers on both sides, and burdened two nations with trillions in costs...the ILWU will shut down west coast ports on May 1, 2008.

Text

In a major step for the U.S. labor movement, the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) has announced that it will shut down West Coast ports on May 1, to demand an immediate end to the war and occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan and the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the Middle East. In a February 22 letter to AFL-CIO president John Sweeney, ILWU International president Robert McEllrath reported that at a recent coast-wide union meeting, ?One of the resolutions adopted by caucus delegates called on longshore workers to stop work during the day shift on May 1, 2008 to express their opposition to the war in Iraq.?

This is the first time in decades that an American union has decided to undertake industrial action against a U.S. war. It is doubly important that this mobilization of labor?s power is to take place on May Day, the international workers day, which is not honored in the U.S. Moreover, the resolution voted by the ILWU delegates opposes not only the hugely unpopular war in Iraq, but also the war and occupation of Afghanistan (which Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and Republican John McCain all want to expand). The motion to shut down the ports also demands the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the entire region, including the oil sheikdoms of the strategically important Persian/Arab Gulf.

Union finally figured out how to get another day off huh?

 

[Nebor]

Another sign that there's nothing as anti-american as unions.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Nebor
Another sign that there's nothing as anti-american as unions.

Actually if you're against it then it's truly American

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

In a major step for the U.S. labor movement, the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) has announced that it will shut down West Coast ports on May 1, to demand an immediate end to the war and occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan and the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the Middle East. In a February 22 letter to AFL-CIO president John Sweeney, ILWU International president Robert McEllrath reported that at a recent coast-wide union meeting, ?One of the resolutions adopted by caucus delegates called on longshore workers to stop work during the day shift on May 1, 2008 to express their opposition to the war in Iraq.?

This is the first time in decades that an American union has decided to undertake industrial action against a U.S. war. It is doubly important that this mobilization of labor?s power is to take place on May Day, the international workers day, which is not honored in the U.S. Moreover, the resolution voted by the ILWU delegates opposes not only the hugely unpopular war in Iraq, but also the war and occupation of Afghanistan (which Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and Republican John McCain all want to expand). The motion to shut down the ports also demands the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the entire region, including the oil sheikdoms of the strategically important Persian/Arab Gulf.

That "major step" should be moving damned closer to having their non-profit status stripped IMO.

I hear all kinds of complaints around here when other non-profits get involved in politics.

I see no connection whatsoever with a union's authorised purpose and butting into foreign policy here and military deployment. It doesn't affect the workers condition, the improvement of the product and sure as heck does nothing for their efficiency.

See bolded belwo for official IRS rules.

(a) The organizations contemplated by section 501(c)(5) as entitled to exemption from income taxation are those which:

(1) Have no net earnings inuring to the benefit of any member, and

(2) Have as their objects the betterment of the conditions of those engaged in such pursuits, the improvement of the grade of their products, and the development of a higher degree of efficiency in their respective occupations.

If the worker/citizens wanna do it on their own, great. But this is not a unions place nor authorised function.

Fern

Uhmm, non profits can make political statements all they want, they just have to endorse policies, not parties. This is how churches are anti-abortion but keep their nonprofit status. It's a war that looks to cost the US about $3 trillion in public funds. That affects us all.

It's amazing how few complaints I hear when churches flagrantly violate their nonprofit status, but as soon as a union takes a political stand everyone jumps at another reason to attack them. If you look into the past unions used to do this sort of thing all the time, I'm glad they are getting back to asserting themselves... America has sorely missed them the last 20 years or so.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

Uhmm, non profits can make political statements all they want, they just have to endorse policies, not parties. This is how churches are anti-abortion but keep their nonprofit status. It's a war that looks to cost the US about $3 trillion in public funds. That affects us all.

It's amazing how few complaints I hear when churches flagrantly violate their nonprofit status, but as soon as a union takes a political stand everyone jumps at another reason to attack them. If you look into the past unions used to do this sort of thing all the time, I'm glad they are getting back to asserting themselves... America has sorely missed them the last 20 years or so.

Of course they can. And I've said nothing to the contrary.

But your lobbying needs to be in accordance with your "official" purpose. A union has every right to lobby Congress etc for improved worker right legislation etc.

But we have other IRS code sections for groups that wanna lobby foreign policy/military matters. It ain't section 501(c)(5).

That is unrelated to their purpose.

I hear plenty of critism if churches wander off into lobbying for a candidate etc. Obama's church (IIRC) is now under IRS investigation in fact.

But like other non-profits, churches have every right to lobby IF it's in accord with their NP purpose.

My point is simply that this union has wondered far afield from it's intended NP purpose.

Fern

 

[spacejamz]

Vote for the most fvcked up thread title of the year (and we are still in March)...

How one goes from 'ILWU to Shut Down West Coast Ports May 1 Demanding End to War in Iraq, Afghanistan' to 'Terror Campaign Will Shut Down West Coast Ports On May 1, 2008' is beyond me...