OCCUPY

[Michael Hardner]

Why is it a bad analogy, shouldn't somebody be able to teach in whatever school they like and not be forced to join something they don't believe in?

Do blacks "believe in" being black ? That's where the analogy fails, but anyway.

It's why religious beliefs are right up there in the human rights thing with race, or do you think race has priority?

If there were religious reasons why somebody couldn't join a union, then I would support this idea. Of course, they'd get the same wages as union folk, so it wouldn't matter that much.

There are limits to what exceptions your religious beliefs will allow you, though. These are balanced by the courts.

[blueblood]

Do blacks "believe in" being black ? That's where the analogy fails, but anyway.

If there were religious reasons why somebody couldn't join a union, then I would support this idea. Of course, they'd get the same wages as union folk, so it wouldn't matter that much.

There are limits to what exceptions your religious beliefs will allow you, though. These are balanced by the courts.

It doesn't fail because both groups the blacks and the non union people don't get the same access to things that everybody else (white and union people) do. Explain to me how is that fair. So it's all right for union people to oppress non union people and force them to join a union or be fired? That's evil, that's as evil as forcing blacks into segregated places.

[Michael Hardner]

It doesn't fail because both groups the blacks and the non union people don't get the same access to things that everybody else (white and union people) do. Explain to me how is that fair.

Because if you choose not to be in a union, then you can't work somewhere where they have union labour.

Make a choice and live with it.

So it's all right for union people to oppress non union people and force them to join a union or be fired? That's evil, that's as evil as forcing blacks into segregated places.

Not logical.

[blueblood]

Because if you choose not to be in a union, then you can't work somewhere where they have union labour.

Make a choice and live with it.

Not logical.

Nice double standard there. Minority rights for some and not others. So people can't work wherever they want?

Make a choice and live with it, right, perhaps gay people should have chose to stay in the closet when it was the norm to discriminate against them. Outstanding.

Except it is logical, one group gets to oppress others and one can't. Let's see some consistency here.

[Michael Hardner]

Nice double standard there. Minority rights for some and not others. So people can't work wherever they want?

That's right, and the courts figured that out decades ago.

Make a choice and live with it, right, perhaps gay people should have chose to stay in the closet when it was the norm to discriminate against them. Outstanding.

You can't choose to be gay/straight either.

Except it is logical, one group gets to oppress others and one can't. Let's see some consistency here.

It's totally illogical, and our economies and societies have been built on it, so your ideas are fringe - accept that. You can't decide you're part of a self-defined "group" and mandate yourself equal rights in some way.

Let's have a less silly discussion.

[blueblood]

That's right, and the courts figured that out decades ago.

You can't choose to be gay/straight either.

It's totally illogical, and our economies and societies have been built on it, so your ideas are fringe - accept that. You can't decide you're part of a self-defined "group" and mandate yourself equal rights in some way.

Let's have a less silly discussion.

And courts decided that Jim crow and discrimination was perfectly acceptable for a long period of time and changed, what's to say the courts won't change on this? Courts have a history of changing with the times.

But you can choose to be in the closet or not. Just like the black people down in the jim crow south could choose to go to segregated places or stay home. This isn't about categories of minorities, it's about minority rights. Forcing somebody to join a union or go work somewhere else is also like forcing somebody to be Christian on the job site or go work somewhere else.

This isn't a silly discussion, we have non-union people working in union jobs because it's the only jobs they can get and are actively persecuted for it.

[Michael Hardner]

And courts decided that Jim crow and discrimination was perfectly acceptable for a long period of time and changed, what's to say the courts won't change on this? Courts have a history of changing with the times.

Ok, fine. I don't accept your argument that being against unions is analogous to being black, gay or religious.

[Rick]

Like I said black people in the old south were free to go to their own black schools, restaurants, etc. If they wanted those things that was their choice.

You'd have preferred that wouldn't you....

[Rick]

we have non-union people working in union jobs because it's the only jobs they can get and are actively persecuted for it.

Nobody's holding a gun to their head and forcing them to work there. If the scabs don't like the working conditions they're free to f off and go find work somewhere's else.

Or at least that's the argument you corporate ass kissing right wingers use when you defend the piss poor wages being paid to the working class by the rich.

[bush_cheney2004]

Black people in the South weren't free to go to their black schools; black people in the South were legislated to go to their black schools. It wasn't a choice. Jim Crow laws forced racism on business owners and customers alike.

Not true..."black people" were not forced to attend black schools. A better analogy would be forcing "aboriginal" children to attend residential schools in Canada, which was on a federal level.

[Rocky Road]

Truth and Reconciliation Commission

Speaking of which the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is trying to heal the pain

created by the Residential School System.

[jacee]

Like I said black people in the old south were free to go to their own black schools, restaurants, etc. If they wanted those things that was their choice.

You're being disrespectful and ridiculous.

No one's stopping anyone from working where they choose: Low paid private schools with no unions and no benefits, or the better working conditions in public schools due to unions and collective bargaining.

What they can't do - and most conservative anti-union union member whiners want - is have the benefit of union collective bargaining without paying the costs of having someone negotiate that.

They're just basically tightwad cheapskate whiners no matter what their situation, and a very small minority, the first at the trough, first to complain, last to take any responsibility for themselves, or make any choices that improve their situation, like working elsewhere.

They'd be whining cheapskates no matter where they work.

[jacee]

This isn't a silly discussion, we have non-union people working in union jobs because it's the only jobs they can get and are actively persecuted for it.

No, silly is too kind. It's disgusting.

I think this is where I say 'They should be happy to have a job', and a GOOD one at that, because of the union contracts.

How 'bout this example: You are free to invest yourself, or pay Kevin O'Leary's fees for his help. What you can't do is invest yourself and demand the same returns as his clients, without paying him.

Unions provide a service that costs money. If you want the benefit of collectively negotiated contracts, you pay for the service. If you don't want to pay, you look elsewhere for work.

No one is FORCED to work in a union environment.

Usually they choose to because of better pay and benefits. They don't get those 'returns' for free.

Ask Kevin O'Leary if he'll invest your money for free.

[Rocky Road]

It seems to me Winter may be discouraging this movement some in North America,

perhaps we will see it pick up again in the Spring.

[jacee]

Truth and Reconciliation Commission

Speaking of which the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is trying to heal the pain

created by the Residential School System.

How 'bout starting a thread for that then.

[Rocky Road]

How 'bout starting a thread for that then.

ok.

[jacee]

Or govt got so big and had so much influence for sale to those contributors because of picking winners and losers through onerous regulations.

How about talking more about this, bb.

It's related to the topic ... in fact it's the core of the reason for the OCCUPY movement, the corruption of government and law to serve the 1%, wealthy political 'contributors'.

Please share more info about how this works - ie, how smaller businesses are tied up in red tape designed to benefit wealthy political financiers.

How does it work? Give us an example ...

[cybercoma]

Not true..."black people" were not forced to attend black schools. A better analogy would be forcing "aboriginal" children to attend residential schools in Canada, which was on a federal level.

The difference between racism in the South and in Canada during the Jim Crow era was the fact that segregation was legislated. As a business owner, you had to be racist, there was no choice. In Canada, business owners made the choice not to serve blacks and there was no law against it. In the US discriminating was the law. In that way, you could consider racism in Canada worse as it wasn't forced on people by legislation, instead they mad ethe choice to be racist. So yeah, black people were forced to be segregated because the law required it in the South and forced to be segregated in many places in Canada because society demanded without it being legislated.

[bush_cheney2004]

... So yeah, black people were forced to be segregated because the law required it in the South and forced to be segregated in many places in Canada because society demanded without it being legislated.

No, you are missing the point of the analogy. "Black people" were not forced to attend schools, theatres, or restaurants, while "aboriginal" children were forcibly removed to residential schools, often to die there. This was on a federal, not regional level.

As is my custom, I only bring it up because stories of the American "South" flow so freely from the Canadian psyche, while there is/are readily available example(s) right at home.

[cybercoma]

The only reason you're bringing it up is because it's a non sequitor that allows you to criticize Canada. That's why you bring it up, again adding nothing to the discussion.

[Rocky Road]

Racism against First Nations people is not only Canadian.

Let's not forget the Massacre at Wounded Knee, which is a tell-tale episode of US white hegemony

in Native American history.

Wounded Knee Massacre

"By the time it was over, at least 150 men, women, and children of the Lakota Sioux had been killed and 51 wounded (4 men, 47 women and children, some of whom died later); some estimates placed the number of dead at 300. "

Some reserves are doing better than others.

Look at Six Nations.

http://www.sixnations.ca/

[cybercoma]

It's entirely beside the point.

[jacee]

Racism against First Nations people is not only Canadian.

This topic deserves discussion RR.

Please start a new thread for it as it's just a 'derail' in this thread.

Ah ... I see you did

here

Edited October 30, 2011 by jacee

[bush_cheney2004]

Racism against First Nations people is not only Canadian.

Let's not forget the Massacre at Wounded Knee, which is a tell-tale episode of US white hegemony

in Native American history.

Correct...and Americans refer to it as such. They do not look across the border for examples in order to hide their complicity in such matters. Just sayin' ....

[bush_cheney2004]

This topic deserves discussion RR.

Please start a new thread for it as it's just a 'derail' in this thread.

No...OCCUPY is also about the greatest "occupation" of all. Do not try to marginalize these oppressed peoples yet again while you fight with other "whites" for the wealth of the "1%". For shame! ')