Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

CWA Backs Human Rights Dec. 10

Union activists and their allies among civil rights, community and religious
groups are gearing up to celebrate International Human Rights Day on Dec. 10;
the anniversary of the ratification of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights in 1948, which includes the freedom to form unions, reports the AFL-CIO.

The activists will shine a spotlight on the tactics unscrupulous employers use
to harass and intimidate workers who try to exercise their right to have a
voice on the job.

American Rights at Work (ARAW), a research and advocacy group aimed at
improving the climate in which workers can exercise their rights in the
workplace, will launch a ticker on its website (www.americanrightsatwork.org)
tracking the number of workers who are fired or discriminated against for
trying to form unions and bargain collectively.

Visitors to the site can send a letter to President George W. Bush urging him
take action to end the human rights crisis in American workplaces.

On Dec. 11, a coalition of unions, human rights groups and religious
organizations are sponsoring a daylong conference in Boston on workers' rights,
featuring ARAW Chair David Bonoir and Cornell University Lecturer Lance Compa,
author of Unfair Advantage: Workers' Freedom of Association in the United
States Under International Human Rights Standards.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

Wdivekw wrote:
> The activists will shine a spotlight

While they are at it, they can shine a spotlight on unions like the CWA
that have repeatedly violated the Beck Ruling and unions that try to
coerce people into joining the union as a conditiuon of employment

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

Osama Bin Kerry wrote:
> Wdivekw wrote:
>
>> The activists will shine a spotlight
>
>
> While they are at it, they can shine a spotlight on unions like the CWA
> that have repeatedly violated the Beck Ruling and unions that try to
> coerce people into joining the union as a conditiuon of employment

What the AFL-CIO means by protecting human rights, is allowing illegal
aliens, and especially illegal Mexicans to be protected by labor laws
that are for citizens of this country. These laws are not just for
unions, but for non-union workers. They are Not for people in this
country illegally.

The AFL-CIO does not speak for me, a thirty year IBEW member.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

>From: "johnny@." johnny@.

>
>Osama Bin Kerry wrote:
>> Wdivekw wrote:
>>
>>> The activists will shine a spotlight
>>
>>
>> While they are at it, they can shine a spotlight on unions like the CWA
>> that have repeatedly violated the Beck Ruling and unions that try to
>> coerce people into joining the union as a conditiuon of employment
>
>What the AFL-CIO means by protecting human rights, is allowing illegal
>aliens, and especially illegal Mexicans to be protected by labor laws
>that are for citizens of this country. These laws are not just for
>unions, but for non-union workers. They are Not for people in this
>country illegally.
>
>The AFL-CIO does not speak for me, a thirty year IBEW member.
>

Nor I, a 16 year member IBEW
HaHaHa@aol.com

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

If anyone had bothered to read what I posted it concerned Human Rights as it
pertained to being allowed to collectively bargain, and form unions. No where
did it mention any illegal aliens.

I'm proud of this stand as a retired member of CWA after 26 year.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

Wdivekw wrote:
> If anyone had bothered to read what I posted it concerned Human Rights as it
> pertained to being allowed to collectively bargain, and form unions. No where
> did it mention any illegal aliens.
>
> I'm proud of this stand as a retired member of CWA after 26 year.
And what about protecting the rights of those who do not want to
collectively bargain? The CWA has a well-documented record of repeatedly
violating the Beck ruling, forcing employees to join a union.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

>From: Osama Bin Kerry obk@osama.net

>And what about protecting the rights of those who do not want to
>collectively bargain?

They have the right to not seek employment in a shop full of workers who have
agreed to bargain collectively.

> The CWA has a well-documented record of repeatedly
>violating the Beck ruling, forcing employees to join a union.

And those "violations" couldn't hold a candle to all of the well-documented
worker's rights violations by unrepresented workers.
HaHaHa@aol.com

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

HaHaHa wrote:
> They have the right to not seek employment in a shop full of workers who have
> agreed to bargain collectively.

They should have the right to work wherever they please and screw the
union.
>
> And those "violations" couldn't hold a candle to all of the well-documented
> worker's rights violations by unrepresented workers.

So it's ok for the CWA to be a criminal operation because there's other
criminals elsewhere. Great logic. Screw the CWA.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

Osama Bin Kerry wrote:
> HaHaHa wrote:
>
>> They have the right to not seek employment in a shop full of workers
>> who have
>> agreed to bargain collectively.
>
>
> They should have the right to work wherever they please and screw the
> union.
>
>>
>> And those "violations" couldn't hold a candle to all of the
>> well-documented
>> worker's rights violations by unrepresented workers.
>
>
> So it's ok for the CWA to be a criminal operation because there's other
> criminals elsewhere. Great logic. Screw the CWA.

That is the same logic, you use to defend Bush's lies.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

>From: Osama Bin Kerry obk@osama.net

>
>HaHaHa wrote:
>> They have the right to not seek employment in a shop full of workers who
>have
>> agreed to bargain collectively.

>
>They should have the right to work wherever they please and screw the
>union.


Should they? Do you? Does *anybody* have the "right to work" wherever they
please? Absolutely not.

Go apply for a job at XYZ Co. Inc. They'll most assuredly tell you the terms of
employment. Terms like "shift starts at XX:XX am. You need to prove you're a
H.S. graduate. You need to dress appropriately. And in this case, this is a
union shop and if that's not to your likeing, or if XX:XX is too early for you,
or if you need a 45 minute lunch and our's is only 30 minutes, or if you demand
an assigned parking space and we can't accomdate that - then the terms are
unacceptable and you do not take the job.

Now, if you agree to all of the terms, except the assigned parking thing
because you don't want any dings in your quarterpanels, then your rights have
not been violated because the employer's offer is not acceptable to you. It was
your choice to not take the job and accept the terms.

Why do you feel your rights are being violated because a union employer cannot
accomodate your need to not have union representation?

There's no difference.

>>
>> And those "violations" couldn't hold a candle to all of the well-documented
>> worker's rights violations by unrepresented workers.
>

>So it's ok for the CWA to be a criminal operation because there's other
>criminals elsewhere. Great logic. Screw the CWA.

Sometimes it's not simply a matter of right or wrong... black or white... good
or evil...

It's the lesser of 2 evils.

The law allows for a closed union shop if more than 50% of the workers vote a
union in.

What about the other 49% who voted no? You cannot have it both ways, so the
courts have held that it's fair and just that the closed union shop remain
union and may require union membership and financial support from ALL, because
the rights of the majority outweigh the rights of the minority within that
shop.


HaHaHa@aol.com

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

johnny@. wrote:
>
> That is the same logic, you use to defend Bush's lies.

I never claimed Bush was a criminal. The unions though, yeah, they are
criminals.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

HaHaHa wrote:
>
> Why do you feel your rights are being violated because a union employer cannot
> accomodate your need to not have union representation?

Because I don't think I should be required to pay extortion money to a
bunch of thugs, criminals and goons who won't do a thing in return to
guarantee my job, my pay or my benefits.
>
> Sometimes it's not simply a matter of right or wrong... black or white... good
> or evil...
>
> It's the lesser of 2 evils.

True, and the unions are the greater evil.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

>From: Osama Bin Kerry obk@osama.net

>
>HaHaHa wrote:
>>
>> Why do you feel your rights are being violated because a union employer
>cannot
>> accomodate your need to not have union representation?

>
>Because I don't think I should be required to pay extortion money to a
>bunch of thugs, criminals and goons who won't do a thing in return to
>guarantee my job, my pay or my benefits.

But you're not required to pay anything. Just don't accept the job!

>> Sometimes it's not simply a matter of right or wrong... black or white...
>good
>> or evil...
>>
>> It's the lesser of 2 evils.
>
>True, and the unions are the greater evil.

You're entitled to have that opinion. But you can't claim your "rights to work
nonunion" are being violated if you voluntarily accept employment with a union
shop.

HaHaHa@aol.com

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

HaHaHa wrote:
> But you're not required to pay anything. Just don't accept the job!
>

Yeah, right. Unions protecting people's jobs. Like hell. More like
extorting money from people so they can have a job. That sounds like one
of the old mafia tricks. Wait. Unions and mafia do have a history together.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

>From: Osama Bin Kerry obk@osama.net

>
>HaHaHa wrote:
>> But you're not required to pay anything. Just don't accept the job!
>>
>
>Yeah, right. Unions protecting people's jobs. Like hell. More like
>extorting money from people so they can have a job.

Try to stay on point.
How are your "rights" to work nonunion violated if you knowingly and willingly
accept employment in a union shop?

I see you cannot answer that with logic, so you change the subject.

That's pathetic.

> That sounds like one
>of the old mafia tricks. Wait. Unions and mafia do have a history together.

There's only one way for unions to succomb to organized crime, and that is if
the employers are corrupt and in collusion with the mafia.

In any mob-dominated union, it is the companies and the mob who end up
profiting from the crimes via rigged bids, no-show jobs, etc. Not the rank &
file.

At any rate, most mafia operations inolve illegal gambling, drug running and
protection and money laundering and prostitution and extortion and car theft
rings. All nonunion.
HaHaHa@aol.com

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

HaHaHa wrote:
>
> Try to stay on point.
> How are your "rights" to work nonunion violated if you knowingly and willingly
> accept employment in a union shop?

Because the unions insist I pay them extortion money to have a job.
>
> There's only one way for unions to succomb to organized crime, and that is if
> the employers are corrupt and in collusion with the mafia.

More to the point, the Teamsters have a long record of mafia involvement.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

>From: Osama Bin Kerry obk@osama.net

>
>HaHaHa wrote:
>>
>> Try to stay on point.
>> How are your "rights" to work nonunion violated if you knowingly and
>willingly
>> accept employment in a union shop?
>
>Because the unions insist I pay them extortion money to have a job.

The union legally requires you to financially support it only *if* you choose
to remain in employed there.

>> There's only one way for unions to succomb to organized crime, and that is
>if
>> the employers are corrupt and in collusion with the mafia.
>
>More to the point, the Teamsters have a long record of mafia involvement.

Even more on point, the mafia has a longer record of construction business
involvment.

HaHaHa@aol.com

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

HaHaHa wrote:
>
>
> The union legally requires you to financially support it only *if* you choose
> to remain in employed there.

Thta's why more states should adopt right to work laws, so that when a
union tries to extort money from an employee, said employee can tell the
union to go to hell.
>
> Even more on point, the mafia has a longer record of construction business
> involvment.

Yeah, the mafia has a stake in the construction unions too. Thanks for
pointing that out.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged