Wednesday, June 13, 2012

AFl--CIO To Divert Funding Away From President Obama's 2012 Reelection Campaign...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny



The AFL-CIO, America's largest labor union has just announced it is "redeploying" union campaign funds away from President Obama's reelection campaign. Officially the reason given for this 'redeployment of funds' is, "to start investing our funds in our own infrastructure and advocacy."

The rationale makes sense from a union viewpoint, especially after the horrendous drubbing (read rejection) the union received in Wisconsin. After spending over 21 million dollars the union failed resoundingly in its effort to recall Wisconsin's Governor Walker.

President Obama, who some believe is firmly in the hip pocket of the "banksters", failed to spend time in Wisconsin "campaigning" for the Governors recall. Not that the outcome would have been any different if he had.

So, what does the AFL-CIO "redeployment" really mean. Reading between the lines... The union is going to 'invest' its members money in candidates that are more decidedly left than even President Obama. AFL-CIO leadership has essentially determined the way to strengthen union influence it to financially support candidates across the board that espouse the most leftist pro union agenda in the nation. It's really is as simple as that.

Admittedly the preceding is only conjuncture, an opinion born out of many years dealing with, and negotiating on behalf of  the company's interest with the local unions. That is not to say the folks that belong to unions are not honest, trustworthy, ethical, and hard working people. Not at all. Most just want a decent wage, a reasonable health insurance and benefit package, and a feeling of being part of the company they support through their efforts to make a profit for themselves as well as the company they work for.

Most people really do, after all is said and done, realize that companies need to make a reasonable profit to make it worthwhile to stay in business.

In my experience most do not the support the radical agenda of their union leadership (bosses), often I hear "what the he*l does the union really do for me anyway? Except take my money and then stick it up my a**"

Most union members I have known over the years, and there have been many, realize that unions today are really a business, and like all businesses have an agenda. The agenda? To perpetuate themselves so the leadership, business agents, and all others employees of the union can prosper. Somebody is certainly making money off union pension plans.

Get prepared for more union militancy. Class warfare is likely to hit a fever pitch and attain new highs. Meanwhile the working stiff will continue to tread water and hope that someday, somebody finally gets in office that actually has a clue.

Via: Memeorandum

14 comments:

  1. i would not classify unions along the same lines as a business. i would classify them as a dictatorship who perpetuate themselves by promoting themselves as being a democracy by creating the delusion of being a bottoms up organization where the members are the bosses and the leaders are their servants.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I understand your point Griper. In the conventional sense you are quite correct. However, my view of unions, as well as other businessmen I have discussed the issue with generally agree that unions are "ran like a business" albeit a non profit one supposedly.

      I do agree with the "allusion" or "delusion" you describe,

      Delete
  2. Is it just me, Les, or does Ed Schultz seem to be in even more of a need for a rubber-room since that Wisconsin fiasco (the fact that he's become even more shrill and foaming at the mouth, etc.)?

    ReplyDelete
  3. now you have me curious, Les. just how would you define business so as to liken a union to business.

    i know i have never taken a business class that would lead me to that idea nor have i ever spoken to a business colleague that would make that comparison. those businessmen you talked to must have a very Marxist idea of the meaning of business.

    everyone i know would say that the use of "force" is the defining difference between a business of any type and an union. business is an act of free will.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "... that unions are "ran like a business" albeit a non profit one supposedly."

      1) I am "thinking outside the box", as were the other business people I refer to. Obviously unions are not a business in that they do not make a thing, or provide a service. Other than representing the membership. Or at lest they are supposed to.

      2) In structure they are much like a bushiness in the sense they have a hierarchy and well defined roles for individuals who perform individual tasks. They "manage", "invest", pay "salaries", "lobby congress", hold "conventions", maintain a "payroll", and other activities that are perceived to be in the union's rational self interest.

      3) In fact unions are COLLECTIVES. Perhaps one of the best examples of how a business in a 100% collectivized society and culture might be operated.

      4) Socialism (Marxism as you brought it up), as you know advocates state control (ownership) of the means of production. Ultimately that is what the "business" of union leadership (AFL-CIO) is are really all about. Isn't it?

      Just to be crystal clear, That is NOT what this site is advocating. As anyone who has followed my posts should understand.

      Delete
  4. Unions make nothing, in many cases take money from people even if they choose not to pay, provide minimum services for the payers, reward the leadership with outrageous salary and benefits and have little to no accountability to it's members.

    Sounds more like Congress than a business.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Les,
    let's take your points one by one.
    point 1
    that is the most foundational definition of a businness and why we do not define, governments, charities, religions as businesses. and it is why we shouldn't see unions in terms of a business.

    point 2
    thinking outside of the box, as you say, this can be applied to any organization, even to the smallest of collectives, the well run family.

    point 3
    every organization is a collective, Les, even a business. as i said in a previous post of yours, the smallest of collectives is called a family.

    point4
    this point makes my point, Les. it is the decription of an anti-business. the intent, purpose, and goals is just the opposite of what a business is.

    Capitalism is about business and in order for a business to exist requires private ownership not public ownership.

    in economic terms public ownership is called a monopoly. politically it would be called a dictatorship.

    so, unless you are willing to liken the individual unto the collective then the same has to be said of business and unions.

    the ultimate implicit intent of any union is to destroy business by eating into their profits until that business can no longer be self-sustaining.

    unions are a self-destructive collective and it can only be sustained by destroying that which supports it.

    there is no comparison between business and unions just as you cannot make comparisons between the collective and the individual or compare force with free will. they are opposites even at their most basic foundations of existance.

    comparing business and unions serve but one purpose, Les. its implicit purpose is to mislead people to the idea that socialism is a much kinder form of economics thus more moral form of economics than Capitalism

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps you fail to understand my point. I shall not be labor it because of all people I understand capitalism (as it ought to be not as it should be as I am an Advocate of, and supporter of Randian Objectivism), and I have dealt successfully with unions for years. Nuff said?

      Delete
  6. don't associate disagreement with lack of understanding, my friend. i understand your point very well.
    what you fail to understand is the reason of my disagreement.
    what you are doing when you present such a conclusion as that with the supporting premises to it that you gave is unintentionally aiding and abetting in the liberal cause.

    if i was a liberal instead of your ally and friend i'd take everything you said and use it in a post as proof of why the liberal cause was the morally superior cause and that Capitalism is an immoral and corrupt system.

    remember, Les, in politics there is no better strategy than to take your opponents words and use them against him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "don't associate disagreement with lack of understanding, my friend. i understand your point very well."

      Fair enough...

      "what you fail to understand is the reason of my disagreement."

      Not at all, I understand your point perfectly well. I simply disagree with it in this specific.

      "what you are doing when you present such a conclusion as that with the supporting premises to it that you gave is unintentionally aiding and abetting in the liberal cause."

      What cause? Other than right? Reason is reason irrespective of ideology.

      "if i was a liberal instead of your ally and friend i'd take everything you said and use it in a post as proof of why the liberal cause was the morally superior cause and that Capitalism is an immoral and corrupt system."

      I welcome the "liberals" to use this if they so chose. I stand ready to "bitch slap" them when they attempt to twist my premise to advance they collectivist agenda. I assume you have read enough of my positions to realize I stands prepared.

      "remember, Les, in politics there is no better strategy than to take your opponents words and use them against him."

      True. However, I do not care. Why? Because correct principles trump hide bound ideology every time. There is more than meets the eye.

      Wise men understand the complexities, yet at the same time the simplicities of a cohesive and closed philosophy.

      Delete
  7. don't confuse principles with good arguments. principles are to be lived by but it is a good argument that convinces people to change those principles. and it is the ability to present a good argument that makes a person look wise or foolish not the adherance to good or bad principles.

    everyone believes that they abide by good principles. and very few people will acknowledge the probability that they hold to bad principles especially if they are a deeply held.

    as for being bitched slapped, Les, you'd have to able to get past my defenses first. and you've seen me argue enough to know i'll defend any argument i make to the last question.

    and if you ever took a class in debate and was a member of a debate team then you already know that a good argument can usually be made for both sides of any or every issue of discussion including the issues of principles.

    its not principles that are flawed but arguments that are flawed. and every argument contains flaws. and some flaws are very deeply embedded and very hard to ascertain but they are still there to find and to be revealed or exploited depending on whether you are revealing a flaw to an ally so that he may present a better argument next time or exploiting one to the enemy to convince him he holds to bad principles.
    the choice is yours as to why i say your argument is flawed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Griper,

      1) I have no idea what defenses have to do with the issue of this post.
      2) With respect to being "bitch slapped", I suggest you re-read my comment. I was referring specifically to liberals who might use my post misrepresenting it to support their erroneous positions, if indeed they were to misunderstand.
      3) Yes, a good argument can be made for either side of a position (rationalization in the case of one side). Done that, been there, and I can do it with the best of them. Should I feel the urge. However, only one side can be logically and ethically right.
      4) There is in fact flawed principles. Those are principles held to be valid when in fact they are based on flawed arguments, ie contradictions with ones premise. In fact you acknowledged above that "it is the ability to present a good argument that makes a person look wise or foolish not the adherance to good or bad principles."

      You contradict your own argument. Check...

      Delete
  8. Thanks tο my father who shared ωіth mе about this weblog,
    this websіte iѕ trulу remаrkable.
    Feel free to visit my website :: loans for bad credit

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.