Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Occupy Oakland damages itself more than ports [View all]Starry Messenger
(32,380 posts)127. Good idea KamaAina: here it is--
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2437405
"There are some misconceptions about whether ILWU supports
The December 12th West Coast Port Shutdown.
ILWU national leadership released a statement saying they "don't endorse" the December 12th Shutdown.
This is exactly how it was done on November 2nd as well. They participated in and supported it just as much then as they do now.
Here's how it works:
We block the gates to the docks, the arbitrator comes and declares it unsafe for the longshoremen to go to work, and the longshoremen then go home- with pay.
ILWU has to officially say that they don't "endorse" the shutdown, this is the only way that they will be able to claim that the blockade is a safety hazard for longshoremen.
If they endorsed it, there would be no safety hazard. How could there be a safety hazard from an action that they endorse? It would be a "strike", no pay for longshoremen that day, and ILWU would be liable for a lawsuit in the millions.
Do not believe the rumor that this means the longshoremen rank-and-file, and the President of the locals don't individually support us. They do. ILWU just can't officially do it as an organization.
This action is in support of Longshoremen in Longview, WA who are militantly fighting union-busting activities by the grain company EGT. The actions of the rank-and-file there are not officially endorsed by ILWU either. These are technicalities for legal reasons, not a measure of support in this case.
Here's what ILWU Local 21 President Dan Coffman said to Occupy Oakland last week at a public rally: "You can't believe what you people have done for my people!"
ILWU Local 10 Executive Board member Clarence Thomas said publicly: "These Ports are public. People have a right to come to the Port and protest. The ILWU has historically honored picket lines at the Port.
The ILWU has always honored community pickets. They understand solidarity. This is all part of how it works.
They supported the November 2nd shutdown under the exact same circumstances. The longshoremen support this one too.
Please let folks know about this. The details of this action have caused some confusion among people that need to be clear about their support.
The December 12th West Coast Port Shutdown.
Let's do this."
via Boots Riley: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=520078663
He intended this as a public message to be shared around, so I don't think it needs to be cut down to four paragraphs.
"There are some misconceptions about whether ILWU supports
The December 12th West Coast Port Shutdown.
ILWU national leadership released a statement saying they "don't endorse" the December 12th Shutdown.
This is exactly how it was done on November 2nd as well. They participated in and supported it just as much then as they do now.
Here's how it works:
We block the gates to the docks, the arbitrator comes and declares it unsafe for the longshoremen to go to work, and the longshoremen then go home- with pay.
ILWU has to officially say that they don't "endorse" the shutdown, this is the only way that they will be able to claim that the blockade is a safety hazard for longshoremen.
If they endorsed it, there would be no safety hazard. How could there be a safety hazard from an action that they endorse? It would be a "strike", no pay for longshoremen that day, and ILWU would be liable for a lawsuit in the millions.
Do not believe the rumor that this means the longshoremen rank-and-file, and the President of the locals don't individually support us. They do. ILWU just can't officially do it as an organization.
This action is in support of Longshoremen in Longview, WA who are militantly fighting union-busting activities by the grain company EGT. The actions of the rank-and-file there are not officially endorsed by ILWU either. These are technicalities for legal reasons, not a measure of support in this case.
Here's what ILWU Local 21 President Dan Coffman said to Occupy Oakland last week at a public rally: "You can't believe what you people have done for my people!"
ILWU Local 10 Executive Board member Clarence Thomas said publicly: "These Ports are public. People have a right to come to the Port and protest. The ILWU has historically honored picket lines at the Port.
The ILWU has always honored community pickets. They understand solidarity. This is all part of how it works.
They supported the November 2nd shutdown under the exact same circumstances. The longshoremen support this one too.
Please let folks know about this. The details of this action have caused some confusion among people that need to be clear about their support.
The December 12th West Coast Port Shutdown.
Let's do this."
via Boots Riley: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=520078663
He intended this as a public message to be shared around, so I don't think it needs to be cut down to four paragraphs.
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:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Actually, it didn't. Anyone who was there witnessed the support from the rank & file.
Luminous Animal
Dec 2011
#1
You are right. The Oakland activity was offputting even to some Occupy activists let alone to
quiller4
Dec 2011
#11
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
As explained several times already, union leadership has no-strike contracts to deal with.
backscatter712
Dec 2011
#29
The union leaders DO support them. This has been explained over and over again.
sabrina 1
Dec 2011
#76
That is true. Most do. However even without a no-strike clause ILWU members who have no dispute
quiller4
Dec 2011
#16
“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
I actually think you may be mistaken about ILWU workers losing a day of pay. If
coalition_unwilling
Dec 2011
#53
Some union leaders seem to be siding with the 1% in attempting to marginalize OWS...
AntiFascist
Dec 2011
#15
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
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
I agree, leaders have appeared from time to time, even addressing the media...
AntiFascist
Dec 2011
#71
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
Or, vice versa? Is it a "good thing" for the unions to try to break a strike?
Tierra_y_Libertad
Dec 2011
#31
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
So OWS only represents special 99 percenters? It is not a global movement? Got it. nt
hack89
Dec 2011
#51
So anyone who doesn't have the luxury of traveling to OWS in Oakland, California should shut up?
TheWraith
Dec 2011
#89
The only strawman is your insinuation that I have a motive other than accuracy.
TheWraith
Dec 2011
#96
There were union and non-union supporters of #OWS Oakland, It is a shame so many are ignoring it.
unapatriciated
Dec 2011
#109