Thousands of demonstrators hit the streets of Times Square Thursday demanding not only higher pay but health benefits and better working conditions.
"We believe that the economy has to work for all of New York City not just for a handful of people," said Gary LaBarbera of the NYC Building Trades Council.
Monday, December 10, 2012
Thousands Gather In Times Square
4 comments:
I would ask that if you would like to leave a comment that you think of Local 157 Blogspot as your online meeting hall and that you wouldn’t say anything on this site that you wouldn’t, say at a union meeting. Constructive criticism is welcome, as we all benefit from such advice. Obnoxious comments are not welcome.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You guys just told all of the private developers to go non-union. Their money in Asia and the Middle East does not want to support the American welfare system any longer. Flintlock is getting labor from China now, and your services are no longer needed. Retire while you can and get a piece if the retirement pool before Foreign Exchange student Mr. Soetoro nationalizes it.
ReplyDelete4:40pm said: "You guys just told all of the private developers to go non-union." The bosses never want a union; organized labor has always been, and will be, at its core, a do-it-yourself ethic, strategy, and tactic. This is not about bogeyman for the right-wing Obama, any other politician, or party. Your private developers go non-union-- go-- we will bring the fight, and they'll beg their way back to the table. The boss needs us; we don't need the boss. And if it has to get worse before it gets better, then plan on a rough ride as the new union generation rises up from the ashes, cuts its teeth, and experiences growing pains-- you ass-kissing posers are going to soil your drawers.
ReplyDeletehttp://gawker.com/5967804
ReplyDeleteDo We Really Have to Condemn the Union Protestor Who Punched Fox News Comedian Steven Crowder?
Max Read
Good, serious progressives are supposed to condemn violence as a political tactic, because it's wrong and in many cases counterproductive. But do we really need to condemn the union protestor who socked Fox News comedian Steven Crowder in the jaw?
Steven Crowder, the frequent Fox News contributor and YouTube comedia behind videos like "MARIJUANA!! The Truth!" and "HOLLYWOOD BIGOTRY! (Jon Stewart Busted)," was in Michigan yesterday, to visit in the pro-union protests over the governor's shady signing of a union-busting "right to work" law.
He wanted to "provoke" people into "rational thought and civil debate," he told Fox & Friends this morning. Instead he ended up inserting himself in the middle of a tense argument between protestors and staffers of Americans for Prosperity, the anti-union group funded by libertarian billionaires Charles and David Koch. And then he got punched in the face, for reasons that have been edited out of the video. Below, two photos of his injuries, which he tweeted immediately:
Do We Really Have to Condemn the Union Protestor Who Punched Fox News Comedian Steven Crowder?
"I literally believe, Sean, that if I had defended myself at all, even flicked a small little jab, that they would have killed me where I stood," he told Sean Hannity later that night. This morning, understanding in some lizard-brain capacity that elaborate performances of masculinity are as important to Team Conservative as stereotypes of violent union "thugs," Crowder literally challenged his puncher to "a legal, sanctioned mixed martial arts bout" on Fox & Friends:
Tony, we know who you are, come forward. I am offering you an ultimatum right now. You come forward, I press charges, you will go to jail. Or — since you like to sucker punch people — I will allow you to face me in the people's octagon, in a legal, sanctioned mixed martial arts bout, where we can settle it man-to-man, one-on-one. And all of the money that's been raised to find you, I will match it if you beat me and give it to a union of your choice. It's your choice: jail or face me like a man. Send your answer on Twitter.
I have a third solution: Steven, stop whining, take your licks, and accept that getting hit in the face is a hazard of inserting yourself in the middle of an argument between billionaire-funded know-nothing ideologues and people whose livelihoods and stability are being threatened by the insatiable greed of the super-rich and the blind extremism of their wooden-headed political allies. In exchange, liberals will buy you a band-aid for the cut on your forehead and re-iterate that Punching Is Bad. Sound good? Send your answer on Twitter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur
ReplyDeleteAgent provocateur:
Traditionally, an agent provocateur (plural: agents provocateurs, French for "inciting agent(s)") is an agent employed by the police or other entity to act undercover to entice or provoke another person to commit an illegal act. More generally, the term may refer to a person or group that seeks to discredit or harm another by provoking them to commit a wrong or rash action.
As a known tool to prevent infiltration by agents provocateurs,[1] the organizers of large or controversial assemblies may deploy and coordinate demonstration marshals, also called stewards.[2][3]
Common usage
An agent provocateur may be a police officer or a secret agent of police who encourages suspects to carry out a crime under conditions where evidence can be obtained; or who suggests the commission of a crime to another, in hopes they will go along with the suggestion and be convicted of the crime.
A political organization or government may use agents provocateurs against political opponents. The provocateurs try to incite the opponent to do counter-productive or ineffective acts to foster public disdain—or provide a pretext for aggression against the opponent (see Red-baiting).
Historically, labor spies, hired to infiltrate, monitor, disrupt, or subvert union activities, have used agent provocateur tactics.
Agent provocateur activities raise ethical and legal issues. In common law jurisdictions, the legal concept of entrapment may apply if the main impetus for the crime was the provocateur.