General Discussion

quiller4

(2,467 posts)

16. That is true. Most do. However even without a no-strike clause ILWU members who have no dispute

Tue Dec 13, 2011, 07:15 PM

Dec 2011

with their employers lack an incentive to strike. Most of the Longshore locals on the West Coast were at least sympathetic to the Occupy Movement until yesterday. When some of the occupy protestors expressed a willingness to cost the ILWU workers roughly 20% of their week's wages, they changed that overnight. It isn't just union officials who resent Occupy's port closure tactics. The rank-and-file members of local 19 in Seattle who lost the opportunity to work the second or third shift are the workers who can least afford a day without pay. Those with the most seniority work first shift. The C and D list longshoremen who lost a day's pay are part of the 99% and they suffered for the day's closure. The major shipping line weren't impacted a bit.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

129 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Occupy Oakland damages itself more than ports [View all] hack89 Dec 2011 OP

Actually, it didn't. Anyone who was there witnessed the support from the rank & file. Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #1

No, it reveals that OWS is flaming out. TheWraith Dec 2011 #3

You wish. Matariki Dec 2011 #5

This message was self-deleted by its author Tesha Dec 2011 #10

No, I accurately predict. TheWraith Dec 2011 #82

I imagine we all think our own guesses and prognostications LanternWaste Dec 2011 #111

0 for 10 GeorgeGist Dec 2011 #126

You are right. The Oakland activity was offputting even to some Occupy activists let alone to quiller4 Dec 2011 #11

um, no. tavalon Dec 2011 #67

In other news, the only "acceptable" news about OWS is from OWS. TheWraith Dec 2011 #83

Oh, that's funny!! sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #74

... up twinkles ... FirstLight Dec 2011 #80

Thank you! sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #99

Protests that hit ten thousand plus at their height are now down to a few hundred at a time. TheWraith Dec 2011 #84

I am thrilled with the progress of this movement. It's now in over 2,000 cities worldwide sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #98

So glad to hear this, Sabrina! onlyadream Dec 2011 #120

Lol, yes, I noticed my bull has sunk but didn't think of the symbolism. sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #123

You also have to remember rbixby Dec 2011 #118

this is why I wish DU3 had like buttons , nt onlyadream Dec 2011 #121

One of the most laughable propositions regarding OWS... randome Dec 2011 #6

I'd like you to introduce me nadinbrzezinski Dec 2011 #14

The union leadershp does not support it FarCenter Dec 2011 #18

As explained several times already, union leadership has no-strike contracts to deal with. backscatter712 Dec 2011 #29

Union leadership works to benefit their members, not some fuzzy social goals FarCenter Dec 2011 #40

Their current contract is quite specific nadinbrzezinski Dec 2011 #55

The union leaders DO support them. This has been explained over and over again. sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #76

So happy to see you on DU3, Sabrina! (n/t) Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #92

This message was self-deleted by its author femrap Dec 2011 #81

I believe that the unions have NO STRIKE clauses in their contracts. Vincardog Dec 2011 #2

Thread winner nadinbrzezinski Dec 2011 #13

That is true. Most do. However even without a no-strike clause ILWU members who have no dispute quiller4 Dec 2011 #16

You really believe no one was impacted a bit except the longshoremen? LooseWilly Dec 2011 #48

The blockage began at 3:00 pm. Most freight is moved between 5 am and 10 am. quiller4 Dec 2011 #58

Wrong, it started at six in the morning. nadinbrzezinski Dec 2011 #73

�The man who moves a mountain begins by carrying away small stones.� ― Confucius LooseWilly Dec 2011 #78

So to inconvenience Walmart by a barely noticible amount, they screwed the port workers out of pay. TheWraith Dec 2011 #85

Walmart operates on barely noticeable marginal amounts... multiplied over vast numbers of margins. LooseWilly Dec 2011 #91

Put another way, Walmart makes a few thousand dollars less profit out of a $15 billion dollar year. TheWraith Dec 2011 #94

You fail to acknowledge the "mass" in mass production/sales... LooseWilly Dec 2011 #97

OK what action are YOU proposing to have the impact you desire? Vincardog Dec 2011 #122

I actually think you may be mistaken about ILWU workers losing a day of pay. If coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #53

Jaysus nadinbrzezinski Dec 2011 #57

Unions like no strike contracts, no need for strike benefits. julian09 Dec 2011 #50

I think a no strike clause makes for a very weak union. tavalon Dec 2011 #68

The movement is not perfect, but we need to support it to our fullest ability.... Scuba Dec 2011 #4

I agree with you Liberal_in_LA Dec 2011 #37

I'm union first. pintobean Dec 2011 #45

I got not problem with that!! n/t Scuba Dec 2011 #47

But when they make poor choices we need to voice our displeasure hack89 Dec 2011 #62

Agreed. n/t Scuba Dec 2011 #106

And yet, you seem to feel the opposite about the Democratic Party. TheWraith Dec 2011 #86

"Reviled, cursed and denied any support".... Scuba Dec 2011 #107

So we are supposed to blindly and uncritically HappyMe Dec 2011 #114

Again, putting words in my mouth.... Scuba Dec 2011 #117

Funny that all the "union opposition" Union Scribe Dec 2011 #7

Kick Fire Walk With Me Dec 2011 #8

ROFL! Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #9

Change location and year nadinbrzezinski Dec 2011 #12

Some union leaders seem to be siding with the 1% in attempting to marginalize OWS... AntiFascist Dec 2011 #15

No strike clause nadinbrzezinski Dec 2011 #19

Walk in to a Longshore Hall and ask around. If you check in at Local 19 or 123 you'll find quiller4 Dec 2011 #21

This is a good example of why consensus is crucial... AntiFascist Dec 2011 #27

I don't know about Seattle but in Tacoma the answer is "yes" and that is at least in part why there quiller4 Dec 2011 #59

It couldn't be because they simply don't AGREE with OWS' tactics. randome Dec 2011 #28

More likely that union leaders feel threatened... AntiFascist Dec 2011 #35

I agree wholeheartedly that its potential is enormous. randome Dec 2011 #39

The way I view the movement at this point... AntiFascist Dec 2011 #61

Appreciate the response. randome Dec 2011 #63

A leader will bububle up when the organization needs one tavalon Dec 2011 #69

I agree, leaders have appeared from time to time, even addressing the media... AntiFascist Dec 2011 #71

There is supposed to be a convention tavalon Dec 2011 #79

So now OWS is going to secede from America? randome Dec 2011 #103

Yeah, that's exactly how it's going to happen. tavalon Dec 2011 #129

When OWS screws over the people they're supposedly fighting for... TheWraith Dec 2011 #87

It's more like OWS is stepping up to the plate to do what the unions should be doing. Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2011 #17

Do you think publicly showing up the unions is a wise move? How does this grow the movement? nt hack89 Dec 2011 #20

If the unions don't want to be "shown up" they should be out there picketing. Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2011 #24

So deliberately antagonizing the unions is a good thing for OWS? OK. nt hack89 Dec 2011 #26

Or, vice versa? Is it a "good thing" for the unions to try to break a strike? Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2011 #31

I would put my money on the unions - I am very pro-union. nt hack89 Dec 2011 #32

The union leadership tried to stop us from striking in '71 and Nixon called in the troops. Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2011 #36

There is no strike at the Port of Seattle, Neither is there a strike in Tacoma. Were contract quiller4 Dec 2011 #60

Actually, the shutdown was supported by many unions, but keep going, I'm enjoying this CreekDog Dec 2011 #22

The union rank-and-file are strongly supporting OWS actions. backscatter712 Dec 2011 #25

Glad I could make your holidays merrier. nt hack89 Dec 2011 #30

Your concern is noted... n/t backscatter712 Dec 2011 #23

Post removed Post removed Dec 2011 #113

I'm not happy about the direction of OWS taught_me_patience Dec 2011 #33

Well then, I'll tell you what I tell every other SomethingFishy Dec 2011 #34

Not all of us have that luxury - life gets in the way hack89 Dec 2011 #41

So when you went to "Occupy" SomethingFishy Dec 2011 #49

So OWS only represents special 99 percenters? It is not a global movement? Got it. nt hack89 Dec 2011 #51

Exactly! tavalon Dec 2011 #70

THIS was a post from Occupy Seattle Matariki Dec 2011 #38

This appears to be a coordinated message being sent Mnpaul Dec 2011 #42

Right. DU is against OWS. randome Dec 2011 #52

I don't think DU is against OWS. a simple pattern Dec 2011 #64

I was being sarcastic. randome Dec 2011 #66

From my point of view, too many DUers are negative about OWS a simple pattern Dec 2011 #72

It's called concern trolling. U4ikLefty Dec 2011 #75

So anyone who doesn't have the luxury of traveling to OWS in Oakland, California should shut up? TheWraith Dec 2011 #89

Where did I tell anyone to shut up? U4ikLefty Dec 2011 #95

The only strawman is your insinuation that I have a motive other than accuracy. TheWraith Dec 2011 #96

You misunderstand the structures and focus of OWS eilen Dec 2011 #115

No, it's called making suggestions on a discussion forum. randome Dec 2011 #102

I think you are confusing OWS with someone's presidential campaign... AntiFascist Dec 2011 #104

Another conspiracy? randome Dec 2011 #105

Whenever I feel that I may have a problem with the movement... AntiFascist Dec 2011 #108

well of course it is Warren Stupidity Dec 2011 #110

Post removed Post removed Dec 2011 #43

It certainly occurs to me... n/t backscatter712 Dec 2011 #46

I can't reply to the hidden post, so I'll reply to yours! a simple pattern Dec 2011 #65

Oh hey, a place for my thread on Occupy Oakland. Starry Messenger Dec 2011 #44

Typical dismissive condescending MSM perspective. robertpaulsen Dec 2011 #54

Your concern is duly noted AnOhioan Dec 2011 #56

Just a few months ago themadstork Dec 2011 #77

OWS isn't the "general populace." TheWraith Dec 2011 #90

What a strange thing to take issue with themadstork Dec 2011 #93

'We are the 99%' implies that they speak for most of the population. randome Dec 2011 #101

It implies that they are in the bottom 99% of wealth. themadstork Dec 2011 #128

Great post. Kaleko Dec 2011 #100

And Here's Chip... From Just A Couple Days Ago... WillyT Dec 2011 #88

There were union and non-union supporters of #OWS Oakland, It is a shame so many are ignoring it. unapatriciated Dec 2011 #109

No. Iggo Dec 2011 #112

Chip Johnson and SF Gate writers in general are not good sources of factual information about mulsh Dec 2011 #116

+1 Starry Messenger Dec 2011 #119

Is there any way to link to your DU2 thread KamaAina Dec 2011 #124

Good idea KamaAina: here it is-- Starry Messenger Dec 2011 #127

A-yup. As soon as I saw that headline, KamaAina Dec 2011 #125