Why aren't UAW members occuping Repube senate offices *right now*

[villager]

...and refusing to be budged?

Just thought I'd ask...

[TheWraith]

1. Most of the UAW members are in Michigan?

You're right though, they should.

[villager]

2. They should be en route to D.C.. already....

n/t

[Idealism]

3. Repukes would have them arrested

Then make themselves out to be the victims. Think of the headlines "ANGRY UNION MEMBERS TAKE GOP SENATORS HOSTAGE"

[villager]

4. Let them arrest them! It will be labor's "Selma!"

n/t

[ogneopasno]

5. Why aren't you?

[villager]

7. Not a UAW member. How about you?

n/t

[ogneopasno]

9. Then what would you know about what they should do?

Just asking.

[villager]

13. right -- like you, I will *only comment on strategies and tactics that fit my exact demographic*

Since, of course, I couldn't possible have an interest in anyone else's plight, or want a discussion on how certain tactics might fit another group!

[ogneopasno]

15. The problem is, when you do,

you just make yourself look like a keyboard quarterback. If the UAW should be occupying senators' offices in Washington, and they're not, and you have an interest in their plight, why not do it yourself?

[villager]

16. "keyboard quaterback" says the oh-so-helpful queen of chatboard snark?

have you said one helpful or constructive thing in this thread?

[ogneopasno]

17. I'm just trying to figure out how the answers you seem to have might be viable or valid in any way.

[villager]

18. I'm just suggesting a ratcheting up of tactics, as a point of discussion

in the face of today's news about Mitch McConnell, etc.

It would seem to me it might be worth it for the UAW to go more high profile, if their very means of support is about to collapse underneath them.

*that's* what I was suggesting.

What do you suggest, not in terms of a rejoinder, but in terms of this discussion of possible tactics?

[ColbertWatcher]

24. I was just about to ask the same thing. n/t

[Better Believe It]

6. Because they'd have to also occupy some Democratic Senate offices?

Perhaps beginning with Harry Reid.

The good Senator Reid, a conservative Mormon, has never been a strong union advocate. In fact, he represents a so-called "right-to-work" anti-labor state!

[villager]

8. Let the Reid occpancy begin!

n/t

[Better Believe It]

10. Oh we can't picket all of our "friends" in the Senate!

Remember .... the Republican Party represents big business and Wall Street and the Democratic Party represents the working class!

Now everyone knows that.

[Freddie Stubbs]

12. What specifically has Reid done anti-labor? What has he done to promote "right to work" laws?

:shrug:

[PVnRT]

40. Reid voted No so he could move to reconsider

It was a procedural thing to keep the bill on life support.

[Freddie Stubbs]

11. Perhaps they are too busy working at thier jobs

[villager]

14. The ones they won't have, if the GOP blocks the bailout?

n/t

[Greyhound]

19. Good question. n/t

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

20. Uh, because they have jobs?

Maybe?

[leftstreet]

21. Yes, they should wait until they're unemployed

:eyes:

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

25. Yes, I can see how occupying Republican offices (and then getting arrested)

...would prevent that. Good plan.

[leftstreet]

26. Yeah, Labor has always gotten ahead through peaceful means

[Occam Bandage]

28. Different tactics for different times.

Digging a trench and fortifying it was a great idea in 1914. It wouldn't work very well today, now would it?

[leftstreet]

29. LOL occupying Congressional offices = "digging a trench" ?

Thanks for playing

[Occam Bandage]

30. No.

The latter was a successful, but now highly dated, strategy for field combat in World War I. The former is a proposed stunt that is more based on a romanticized view of past struggles than of analysis of the modern situation.

[leftstreet]

31. Labor solidarity is NEVER a stunt

There is no "romanticized view" of Class War.

It's real and it's now.

The OP's question is valid.

[Occam Bandage]

32. Sure, it can be.

Occupying offices and marching in protest are effective ways for marginalized, voiceless, powerless groups to force an oblivious majority to pay attention to their message. That's not at all what's going on today. The UAW is an enormous, wealthy, influential union; they have plenty of lawyers and lobbyists, and I'd wager they have near-100% identity recognition among the general public. It's entirely unclear what the UAW would hope to achieve by bringing in footsoldiers and telling them to occupy offices by force. It isn't the 19th century any more; acting like it is sounds great to the few souls who already buy into that orthodox mindset, but people who live in this century just see a strange, anachronistic, almost ritual display.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

33. Unless you're suggesting that they burn down the Republican offices...

...I haven't heard anything in this thread that could be classified as anything other than "peaceful means." However I fail to see how being a minor annoyance to people who already hate unions to begin with is going to accomplish much.

[Hannah Bell]

22. uh, that's why unions have strike funds.

[Hannah Bell]

23. now that you've heard from the management team, i'll tell you why.

uaw = partner of management.

go back 30 years, see if you can find any serious strike or pressure action.

they "negotiate" to find "compromise".

company union.

[readmoreoften]

41. NYU strike 2005-2006 from renegade UAW local 2110 in NYC.

Of course, they took our union president off the campaign and set up UNITE HERE people to run it into the ground.

[Hannah Bell]

44. "renegade local" being the key phrase.

uaw national does symbolic 3-day strikes, then caves.

which is why in the last 3 yrs alone, they're down 60,000 members.

[readmoreoften]

45. We probably would've lost on our own.

But the national really crushed our spirit and corroded our solidarity.

[Hannah Bell]

46. that's their job, crushing workers' spirits & destroying solidarity.

[readmoreoften]

48. It pushed me further left.

But it left me dazed and confused for sure. And their jobs paid a lot better than my local union president (who was dedicated to workers struggle.)

[Hannah Bell]

49. I can understand why, & why you'll find even union guys saying their union

is corrupt, etc.

That's why real unions (e.g. UE, the union that ran the occupation of Republic Doors & Windows) cap their reps' salaries to the top wage of their workers.

And that's why AFL-CIO kicked out UE, which was the biggest union in CIO at the time, & which had been the driving force in the Flint Sit-Down Strike.

[Occam Bandage]

27. They're in MI, and have jobs. nt

[villager]

34. after the vote tonight, they might not. nt

[villager]

35. apparently, it's "not:"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7975495

Guess there'll be a lot of free time on worker hands to visit GOP offices, eh?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

36. Because That Would Require Effort.

Ok ok, bad joke, bad timing, but the door you left open was HUGE!

:hide:

[derby378]

37. Because DHS would become the new "Law & Order League?"

I dunno. Just grasping at straws at this point.

[we can do it]

38. They Might Be At Work?

[newtothegame]

39. Too be honest why would they?

Republicans don't owe them anything. Unions haven't exactly voted for Republicans. The partisanship of unions made this virtually a risk free move; there are no Republican votes to lose in Detroit. Outside some donations from corporate, Repubs had very little to lose politically.

Political revenge maybe.

[readmoreoften]

42. No wildcat clauses in their contracts.

When you settle, you usually promise not to wildcat strike with other unions or locals.

[RandomThoughts]

43. Without comment on the idea itself, but on the larger point of service, as I sometimes see it.

The comments on in the thread were interesting.

Guy brings up idea,

other poster says why don't you do it.


This is an interesting point, leading from the front or the rear. Is one better? Having ideas are great, but many times people do not realize they have the power to implement them. One person starts to call or talk to neighbors seeing if they have the same ideas. Then just one person does something to turn the discussion into action.

most people say, 'somebody should do something' few people do things.

Its like someone on the side of the road bleeding, and everyone walking by wondering why nobody will help.

Reminds me of a story I heard.

A man seeing others in strife asks God, "why don't you help the suffering people?"
And the person gets the reply "how should I help"
The person says, "send someone to help them"
The reply "Who should I send"
The person says, "Someone who sees their plight and wants to help"
The reply, "Ok, Will you go?"

and a song that I think is so powerfully that talks of a few people that did those things.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IUSZyjiYuY

Note how the people in the video led from the front, but the singers and video producers lead from the back to show others of the problem, and to show they could do something.

People in the video showed how a single person can change the world. The singers in the video, and the makers of the video tell us all just how they feel. Teaching us we all have the power to do the same thing, and also change the world.

[gizmo1979]

47. Buy my ticket to Washington

and I'm so there.The only problem is I'd punch them in their face.

[tomreedtoon]

50. Because they're cowards.

I repeat the phrase I've been saying all week: it's been a long time since River Rouge.

If the UAW was anything more than a paper tiger, they'd arm and prepare their rank and file for physical violence. But UAW would rather go into the ground, taking the country with them, than stand up and FIGHT for anything.

[Skidmore]

51. And where are the Teamsters and other unions to support them.