union as a civil right

Damocles said:
Again you are repeating something that isn't true. No unions were banned. Private unions were simply migrated into government unions when the government took over ownership.

The unions were never "outlawed" or "banned" as you keep saying. It didn't happen.

Let's see how this conversation progressed.

First Nigel says that unions were "outlawed" by all totalitarian and dictatorial regimes. Damo says they weren't, gives the history of the union disputes in the Soviet Union, talks about Trotsky and actual events, shows that unions not only weren't "outlawed" but were mandatory. Points out that Hitler also didn't outlaw unions. Then Nigel says they were government tools.

So, now we've come to, Nigel insisting that Totalitarian and Dictatorial regimes use Unions as a form of control.

I agree. Totalitarian and Dictatorial regimes use unions as a tool to control people. They do not "outlaw" them.
Click to expand...


The glitch in your argument is that the "unions" used by totalitarian and dictatorial regimes aren't really unions.

I think you have a problem understanding that slapping a label on an organization doesn't mean that the label accurately reflects what the organization is. (Actually, I'm just being generous to you here. I don't think you really have a problem understanding the concept, but the alternative does not paint a very good picture of you and your values).
 
NigelTufnel said:
Damo: Your experience, to the extent it is to be believed, is not universal. Don't pretend it is. It's like a person voting at one polling place in one county in the United States claiming that elections in Egypt are on the up and up because his experience was a pleasant one.
Click to expand...

Total Rubbish. I compare my experience to the experience of others controlled by the same laws in the same nation.



No, it doesn't.
Click to expand...
Yes, it does. And even if, as you insist, it only "can", one thing that I know is that card check cannot. I watched as they coerced people into signing the cards, nobody coerced votes. In fact, nobody was even forced to vote at all.


You can speak for the process at your particular workplace. That's it.
Click to expand...
Which is what I said. I can't imagine it going very much differently elsewhere. In order to hold the vote we had to have the government lawyer present that made sure all of those conditions were met.
 
Damocles said:
No. It isn't. The unions were not outlawed, you are just making crap up that you want to be true. It. Didn't. Happen.

Again, We've gone from Nigel saying that they were "outlawed" by every Dictatorial and totalitarian regime, only to find out they weren't and in fact were made mandatory. Then Nigel insisting that Unions are a government tool used to control people by totalitarian and dictatorial regimes.

The two are not equal. The unions were not outlawed.
Click to expand...


Unions were outlawed. "Unions" were not. I'm sure you understand the difference. Why you resort to sophist bullshit in support of repressive regimes is pretty baffling, really. What gives?
 
NigelTufnel said:
The glitch in your argument is that the "unions" used by totalitarian and dictatorial regimes aren't really unions.

I think you have a problem understanding that slapping a label on an organization doesn't mean that the label accurately reflects what the organization is. (Actually, I'm just being generous to you here. I don't think you really have a problem understanding the concept, but the alternative does not paint a very good picture of you and your values).
Click to expand...
Wow, you can pretend that unions aren't really unions all you want. They were unions as much as the public unions are unions in Wisconsin.

They weren't outlawed. Trotsky attempted to use them as a means to gain control over the government and lost to the Lenin/Stalin camp who convinced them through persuasion to join their camp. From there many of the union leadership took positions in government and the unions grew in strength and, of course, membership due to the fact that they were required.

They weren't the same thing as the Party, they were unions.

I'm sorry your original assertion crashed headlong into the wall of truth, but it wasn't a very good one and isn't supported by actual history.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Unions were outlawed. "Unions" were not. I'm sure you understand the difference. Why you resort to sophist bullshit in support of repressive regimes is pretty baffling, really. What gives?
Click to expand...
Do you actually "hear" yourself speak? It's flat disingenuous nonsense.

The "unions" weren't really "unions" because they were "unions"....

Guh...

Your assertion was flat inaccurate and untrue, and the attempt to continue it after you were schooled by actual history is embarrassing.
 
Damocles said:
Wow, you can pretend that unions aren't really unions all you want. They were unions as much as the public unions are unions in Wisconsin.

They weren't outlawed. Trotsky attempted to use them as a means to gain control over the government and lost to the Lenin/Stalin camp who convinced them through persuasion to join their camp. From there many of the union leadership took positions in government and the unions grew in strength and, of course, membership due to the fact that they were required.

They weren't the same thing as the Party, they were unions.

I'm sorry your original assertion crashed headlong into the wall of truth, but it wasn't a very good one and isn't supported by actual history.
Click to expand...


Right on, Damo. I'm sure that if, instead of eliminating collective bargaining and all the rest, Walker kept the unions, eliminated their leadership and appointed his henchmen to the leadership positions and had them impose the government's will on the workers and crushed any attempt by the workers to create alternative organizations through assassination and imprisonment there would be no uproar. After all, the unions still exist.

You're a sad case.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Right on, Damo. I'm sure that if, instead of eliminating collective bargaining and all the rest, Walker kept the unions, eliminated their leadership and appointed his henchmen to the leadership positions and had them impose the government's will on the workers and crushed any attempt by the workers to create alternative organizations through assassination and imprisonment there would be no uproar. After all, the unions still exist.

You're a sad case.
Click to expand...
So. You mean that instead of giving them the same power that Federal Employees Unions have, and better benefits, he instead took ownership of everything and made all unions like that and then forced everybody to join them I might think differently?

Um... No.

Unions weren't outlawed by dictatorial regimes, they were used as a tool of control. It's good to know what history says or we'd have all been happily sitting around playing in the muck pretending that unions didn't exist in the Soviet Union.

It's total ideological nonsense, you want it to be true that Totalitarians get rid of unions, but it isn't so you then try to say that they weren't really unions....

The unions were not outlawed in the Soviet Union. And it went the other way, the union leadership got positions in government to pay them for leaving Trotsky in the lurch as well as their increase in power because those same people also got the government to enforce membership...

The unions were a strong force in the government, not "outlawed"...
 
Damocles said:
So. You mean that instead of giving them the same power that Federal Employees Unions have, and better benefits, he instead took ownership of everything and made all unions like that and then forced everybody to join them I might think differently?

Um... No.

Unions weren't outlawed by dictatorial regimes, they were used as a tool of control. It's good to know what history says or we'd have all been happily sitting around playing in the muck pretending that unions didn't exist in the Soviet Union.

It's total ideological nonsense, you want it to be true that Totalitarians get rid of unions, but it isn't so you then try to say that they weren't really unions....

The unions were not outlawed in the Soviet Union. And it went the other way, the union leadership got positions in government to pay them for leaving Trotsky in the lurch as well as their increase in power because those same people also got the government to enforce membership...

The unions were a strong force in the government, not "outlawed"...
Click to expand...


Your shamelessness is quite remarkable.
 
Rana said:
First they came for the public sector unions, and then they came for the private sector unions...

It is just the beginning of their plan for America.
Click to expand...
You can tell they've been listening to Faux News and Rush Limbaugh and the right wing spin machine in trying to rationalize this irrational difference between private and public sector unions. It's any empty circular argument based on a false premise.

It does trap them though into admiting the legitimacy of private sector unions and the reality is that public sector unions are legitimate for the same reasonss that private sector unions are legitimate.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You can tell they've been listening to Faux News and Rush Limbaugh and the right wing spin machine in trying to rationalize this irrational difference between private and public sector unions. It's any empty circular argument based on a false premise.

It does trap them though into admiting the legitimacy of private sector unions and the reality is that public sector unions are legitimate for the same reasonss that private sector unions are legitimate.
Click to expand...

It is the look over here plan, like I said. They objective is to pit us against each other and while we are fighting they take away more rights and more money and give it all to the other guys, some of them not even made in the USA!

http://businesstaxdeductions.net/arent-the-big-oil-companies-owned-by-non-american-entities.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top