The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Politics and our Unions
If you are a professional FF and are part of a union you may find an article titled "A Tangled Web Indeed!" interesting.
you can find it here; http://www.firefightersforfreedom.blogspot.com
Anyone up for such a discussion?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Vic Silverfish on
-
Captain, you are a far wiser man than I will ever be!
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
That means any all money that the IAFF gives to the AFL CIO comes from us. You skirt the issue by confusing the point
Yeah so? Just like taxes, break down the amount you are paying in dues and divide by everything you get to understand how much one really is paying. Just like taxes money will go towards programs, interests, etc that one doesn't personally agree with. This is why we elect officials, both politically as well as union. I'm not skirting the issue, I'm not sure everything is understood on the part of the blog. Take this for example from the link.....
The AFL CIO takes the dues we pay and conducts its business with no real input from us. Our only form of input is through our Local Leaders who elect our regional leaders, who elect our national leaders, who would then elect guys like Trumka. Do you even know who is above your Local President?
So how is this unlike taxes? However, you (or blogger) is/are wrong about the input. Yes, you do have input and do have a say, it takes getting involved as well though instead of just blogging and complaining. Just like individual unions there is the business meeting and those who don't show seem to be the biggest complainers. The meetings are where business gets taken care of and decisions made, but it takes involvement as well. So there is more than just the local president, in fact within the IAFF there is the District VP and up the chain to Harold. The chain is clearly defined on the IAFF site as well as in the publication every union member receives, if there are issues, it doesn't take much to follow the path. Asking if one knows the leadership above the local president is a cop out excuse of BS.
Then to further go on from the blog is this....
With that in mind, do we really have any input on what the AFL CIO does with our money? The obvious answer is no, and that is the crux of the matter. The problem is our national union leaders know this, and use our money for things that would blow your mind.
Now if you have an issue about where and how dues money is spent, you have a voice and can bring forth a resolution. Such a resolution will go to committee and can thus be taken up at the business meeting (convention). However, just like taxes and just like politics, this doesn't mean the majority will agree with your decision and doesn't mean your resolution will proceed, but you do have a voice, make no mistake about that. So like the leadership issue, the obvious answer of having no say about where money goes is also absolutely incorrect.
Its a simple choice between good and evil
Is that like "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists" mantra? As I already pointed out, if you have an issue with the union, bring it up through the channels.
Yes they have told you, that you have come under attack, and you must support us or your screwed.
For the most part, we are under attack. The public sector is being blamed for the economic woes and fingers pointed at pensions and benefits as being too costly etc. Much of the finger pointing perpetuated by the real cause of the economic woes in Wall St etc and they want to get their hands on public pensions, etc. With any type of attack, it is better to fight together vs seperate and yes, that is what you are seeing today. Besides attacks on benefits, there is attacks on unions in general to bust them down, because unions are the biggest supporters of democrats and you are seeing measures being taken to limit that support to the dems.
What we need, as I explain in other blog post, is a return of the stock market to levels that most experts agree is not likely
Are you referring to regulations? If so, then yes, however, it is unlikely since a big chunk of political funding is coming from the very source of such regulations would target. IE, follow the money. However, the stock market is really one aspect of the economy, the bigger issue for unions is decent wages and benefits for workers. Afterall, the stock market does not drive the economy, people do. Case in point is look at the stock market at the time of the recession and then how it bounced back, yet unemployment and wages remained stagnant. Yes, there was money being made, but typically to the wealthy, not the avg workers. Instead when wages are decent and people have more take home pay, is when you see the economy working. Whereas the wealthy may spend money on luxuries or overseas, the avg worker would take a vacation to like Disney etc, spending money along the way. This in turn helps the local economies, thus spurring jobs etc.
-
Permalink Reply by RsqRog on
-
I did not say anything about wanting a bigger pension. This is about using our money to support the enemies of the United States, and the American people. And You were correct the Muslim Brotherhood was formed in 1928, but it was in the 1970's student movements that created a "revolution" in the middle east , in Egypt they were defeated and kept under wraps by a tyrannical government, and in Iran they won. However, once again thats not the point. This discussion is not about being ant-union as some here will try to make it. There is no personal agenda as another suggested, this is not a popular discussion to be having.
What the post clearly demonstrates is a connection of OUR Union LEADERSHIP working with the enemies of our country. Haven worn the uniform of my country in service of it for my fellow Americans, I can not now sit by and watch them do it with out trying to do something about it.
-
-
Thanks again for the effort you put into the discussion. I understand full well how the IAFF is designed, The point of the statement about knowing who is above your local president, is when most guys read it, how many do you think can answer it. Should I infer then from your post that you do not mind your tax dollars you pay in whatever state you live in going to pay for something in another state that you do not agree with and had no input or vote on the matter. What makes you think I have not brought this up in my Locals meetings. Yeah your voice is heard as long its singing what you have been told to sing, which is most of what you have written above, and once again you skirt the issue by bring up all these little points.
The post I linked clearly shows Trumka the President of the AFL CIO through a secondary organization that he is the secretary treasurer of working with the enemies of the United States. that is the issue I am looking to discuss. I am not okay with it, are you saying that you are? I am well involved with my union sir, which is why I feel this important.
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
That's not completely accurate and frankly you're inserting red herrings into the discussion.
SOME of the citizens of Wisconsin disagree. The majority elected the Governor and the Legislators who made the decisions that led to the protests.
The Wisconsin protests were not about public safety pensions, which were not on the table.
They were about pensions and benefits for teachers and other non public safety employees. The fact that public safety unions protested in support of other public unions does not change the fact that the protests had nothing to do with public safety pensions.
Then there's the further issue of how state and local governments have anything to do with union dues supporting union officials who in turn, support anti-U.S. organizations.
-
-
"I think your provided link(s) are inflammatory and do nothing to serve the FFN community."
I have to disagree with you on this one, Mike. We shouldn't duck questions about how union money is spent just because it may be a hot-button topic for some.
With several of FFN's most frequent posters being union members, it is a topic of interest for FFN members, especially given that a union member was the original poste.
-
-
On further review, how is this a rant against organized labor?
This is about how organized labor leaders spend union dues money and with whom they ally themselves. I didn't see anything in there that complained about the existance of organized labor or their aims at the local level where the dues are paid.
-
-
The citizens of Wisconson disagree. Government pensions and benefits are a massive liabiltiy, especially for state and municiple governments. This was the foundation of the protests in Wisconson earlier this year.
No, benefits and pension was not the reason for the protests. The reasoning was the stripping of collective bargaining and union busting as the foundation for protests. The governor never once campaigned as this was the course of action to take. The governor, before being sworn in, threw a tantrum when a tentative agreement was made between state employees and the outgoing governor. When this went to the senate, an outgoing dem (lost his seat in the election) cast the deciding vote to not accept the agreement, thus giving the new gov a chance to "negotiate". That said dem is also on the new governors cabinet, which leads to speculation of payoff or some shady type of deal.
After that, came the budget repair bill which stripped bargaining, as well as contained many other aspects reducing checks and balances, for instance giving power solely to the gov to sell state assests without legislature approval etc. Let's not forget the fake Koch brother call where the governor was quite candid with his intentions.
The governor wanted employees to pay more in healthcare and towards pensions, when employees agreed to the terms to keep bargaining, the gov said no. This goes well beyond pension and benefits as reasoning for protests.
-
-
SOME of the citizens of Wisconsin disagree. The majority elected the Governor and the Legislators who made the decisions that led to the protests.
And it should also be noted that the governor never campaigned on doing this either. The public perception has changed as well. While polls can be swayed and by no means are always accurate, many polls show if the election was done today after knowing this, the governor would has lost by a big margin.
In fact the budget repair bill, being held up in courts because of an open meetings violation, could have easily been mitigated by another revote. Since there hasn't been a revote, it leads to believe the GOP is scared that the outcome would not be the same. Instead depending the course the case takes at the supreme court level, the GOP is ready to cram the conditions into the budget.
The Wisconsin protests were not about public safety pensions, which were not on the table.
They were about pensions and benefits for teachers and other non public safety employees. The fact that public safety unions protested in support of other public unions does not change the fact that the protests had nothing to do with public safety pensions.
At that point. The term "divide and conquer" come to mind. First pit middle class against each other with classifying as "haves" and "have nots", which is being done and continues. Then pit union against union, take benefits from some, but not others, which was done. What didn't happen was the dividing of unions, public safety marched alongside other protestors despite not being included in the bill. However, conditions affecting public safety has been submitted for the state budget making new hires pay more and also limits the conditions for bargaining. To say that public safety isn't affected is fallicy. Again, pensions is not the issue at hand either.
-
-
Should I infer then from your post that you do not mind your tax dollars you pay in whatever state you live in going to pay for something in another state that you do not agree with and had no input or vote on the matter.
Not you should not infer. I am simply stating that like taxes, money goes towards entities and places I would prefer it not to. However, just because I may not personally agree doesn't mean I have a say in what happens unless I contact my elected officials. If I want to see funding reduced to subsidies given to oil companies, I can contact my reps about it. I can lobby on behalf of getting a bill introduced etc. Same thing on the union side, you can contact your reps and even draft a resolution and take it up at the convention. The point is you still have a say, whether others agree with you or not is the difference.
What makes you think I have not brought this up in my Locals meetings
I didn't. Just going off of other like minded issues. I hear many complaints and opinions around the kitchen table when it comes to the union, yet never see the faces at the meeting to which the issue can get addressed.
Yeah your voice is heard as long its singing what you have been told to sing, which is most of what you have written above, and once again you skirt the issue by bring up all these little points.
No, you are just admitting defeat now by inferring the only voices heard are those that agree. Not so. Instead, I pointed out the actions to take to have your voice heard. One can have a different view and still bring it up to get changes made, the road to do so isn't easy. It doesn't mean you give up because you have a predetermined outcome.
The post I linked clearly shows Trumka the President of the AFL CIO through a secondary organization that he is the secretary treasurer of working with the enemies of the United States. that is the issue I am looking to discuss
You are also lumping the IAFF in with those issues. Like an individual union member, there are many other voices. When it comes to the AFL-CIO, there are also many other unions. If your beef is with the AFL-CIO president, then making your case about the IAFF is also moot. Yes, you can bring forth a resolution and have your voice heard through the IAFF. However, you are still affiliated with the AFL-CIO and can make your case there as well. I will say though that you have better chance of getting something done by being cordial and polite. Here you have lumped the IAFF president into the same as the AFL-CIO, how do you think that bodes for other members to see your view? You use the Bush mantra of "You're either with us, or against us" aspect and even your last sentence of "I am not okay with it, are you saying that you are?"....all you doing is pitting on ultimatums vs trying to sell your points.
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Schlags (Captain Busy) Retd on
-
I just look at this type of post as being pretty much black and white Ben. If the individual is not happy with his union, then he always has the option of quitting the local so his dues cannot be used in ways he does not approve of... However, with that said, all the wage and benefits negotiated by his union brothers and sisters certainly won't be turned down...
Like I stated above, you can't piecemeal your union membership. You have to go along with the membership and the folks you vote for to represent you. Having a union member attempt to garner support for his personal agenda in my opinion is inflammatory when he simply can walk away. In these fiscally tough times, what we don't need is shit stirrers pushing their causes. What we do need is solidarity...
-
-
That's actually a pretty good back-door argument for open shops.
Closed shops force the minority to financially support causes with which they disagree. In a closed shop, the union member does NOT have the option to simply walk away, unless he wants to end his FD employment.
I see this as black and white, too. However, it's black and white at a level that exceeds union membership. This is a black and white issue of freedom of speech. The union members don't give that up when they join the union. Constitutional rights trump someone's opinion of either perceived solidarity or perveived sh** stirring.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
