Government employees union paying Occupy DC's rent

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/dc-news/2012/05/union-obama-ties-rents-offices-occupy-dc/588636

Tue, 2012-05-08 19:50 A labor union with strong ties to President Obama is helping make the Occupy Wall Street movement a more permanent fixture in the nation's capital, moving Occupy DC into office space the group can use to organize and grow through the presidential election.

The Service Employees International Union, one of Obama's most vocal supporters among labor groups, is paying $4,000 a month for three offices the Occupy protesters will use for at least the next six months to plan future demonstrations, organize and host workshops.

The offices are at the Institute for Policy Studies, a nonprofit progressive group headquartered at 16th and L streets NW, amid the major law firms, trade groups and lobbying shops that Occupiers have spent the past seven months denouncing. The offices are just a short distance from the tent city Occupy DC established in McPherson Square in October.

Occupiers moved into their new digs Monday. The SEIU will pay the rent for six months, said John Cavanagh, director of the Institute for Policy Studies.

SEIU representatives did not return calls seeking comment, but Cavanagh and Occupiers confirmed the union's role in helping Occupy establish a headquarters of sorts in Washington.

Like its counterparts at the AFL-CIO and other major labor unions, the SEIU has long been supportive of the Occupy protests, though relations between the protesters and labor haven't always been smooth. Occupiers distanced themselves from the SEIU in the past, saying they were uncomfortable with the union's vocal support for Obama.

Occupiers said they don't want to be associated with either major political party and chafed at the unions' adoption of Occupy slogans and rhetoric like "We are the 99 percent."

The SEIU contributed millions of dollars and thousands of volunteers to help elect Obama in 2008 and was among the first to endorse his reelection this year. Former SEIU President Andy Stern was once the Obama White House's most frequent guest, logging nearly two dozen visits, and served on Obama's deficit reduction commission.

The Occupiers' lease will run right up to Election Day this fall, though Occupiers insist they're aren't organizing on behalf of Obama.

Protester Sam Jewler said Occupiers still don't agree with the SEIU's support of Obama, who embraced the Occupy movement early on but has said little about it since Occupiers and police clashed in New York, Oakland, Calif., San Francisco and elsewhere.

Still, Jewler said Occupiers recognize they have common interests with labor unions, like fighting income inequality, on which they can work together. Occupiers said they view the union's backing as a donation with no strings attached.

"We've got full control of how we allocate space, time, resources, access," said protester John Zangas. "Nobody's telling us what to do. We still have our own brand name. We continue with unbridled decision making."

Cavanagh said the union offered months ago to rent space for Occupy, which chose a suite of offices at the institute in part because the peace group was a long-established presence at Occupy. The institute has been hosting discussions in McPherson Square for months and has been allowing Occupiers to use its empty offices on Sundays and in rainy weather.

"We've known these people for five months," Cavanagh said. "It's great to have them."

**mattyrm**

Bloody Unions.. dont even start me on them. Like the bastard Mafia.

I thought you guys were mercifully free of them?!

**kronk**

mattyrm wrote:Bloody Unions.. dont even start me on them. Like the bastard Mafia.

I thought you guys were mercifully free of them?!

No way, man. They're all over the place here.

I've worked in 4 manufacturing plants. 2 were union, 2 were not. I'll give you 2 guesses which 2 plants were the most efficiently run, well maintained, and safest to work in, and which 2 were filled with grumpy ___s that griped whenever they were asked do get off their duffs in the break room and do some work.

**Archaeo**

Wisconson is having a recall election on their Governor due to Unions and all that collective bargaining bru-ha-ha they had last year.

**sirlynchmob**

Arizona made it illegal to do collective bargaining. so no more unions there.

**Melissia**

sirlynchmob wrote:Arizona made it illegal to do collective bargaining. so no more unions there.

Although it's still effectively legal for companies to do it, just not employees.

**Relapse**

I had a friend that did an engineering internship at a major airplane manufacturer. One day he moved a metal sheet out of his work area and leaned it on a table 6 feet away. A complaint immediatly went to the shop steward that he was taking a union members job when he moved the sheet.
Another fun fact is what a friend who works for the postal service told me about a postal employee got into her second accident while driving drunk on the job. The union wouldn't allow her firing.

**Kovnik Obama**

Another fun fact is what a friend who works for the postal service told me about a postal employee got into her second accident while driving drunk on the job. The union wouldn't allow her firing.

A Union cannot ''un-allow'' a firing. They can put in a request for a work court to examine the case, and work as a defense in those cases. You have no idea how horrible things were here for the workforce before Union laws.

**Relapse**

The guy's worked for the postal service for almost twenty years. He has a pretty good idea of what the union can allow to happen, and in this case, they prevented her from being fired.

**Kovnik Obama**

Let's play Spot the Sophism

''The guy's worked for the postal service for almost twenty years'' = Appeal to authority

'' He has a pretty good idea of what the union can allow to happen'' = Petition of principle

''they prevented her from being fired.'' = Repetition of contested argument

... try again?

**Relapse**

Kovnik Obama wrote:Let's play Spot the Sophism

''The guy's worked for the postal service for almost twenty years'' = Appeal to authority

'' He has a pretty good idea of what the union can allow to happen'' = Petition of principle

''they prevented her from being fired.'' = Repetition of contested argument

... try again?

Just telling what an employee that's been around long enough to know what's going on told me. How can you, who weren't there, better tell me than someone who works at that office and witnessed the situation unfold, how it is that a habitualy drunk at work employee, with several witnesses and police reports about her accidents kept her job?

**Kovnik Obama**

Just telling what an employee that's been around long enough to know what's going on told me. How can you, who weren't there, better tell me than someone who works at that office and witnessed the situation unfold, how it is that a habitualy drunk at work employee, with several witnesses and police reports about her accidents kept her job?

I can't tell you what unfolded better than a witness to an event, but I can tell you what legally can or should happen. I can do so because I have studied Labour and Union Law (which in Canada are somewhat intertwined), have written and red griefs, and my best friend and roommate was sitting until recently at the negotiation table for the Metallos (he upgraded to deputy advisor for the NDP).

If, somehow, the Union in question got the person off the hook by any other means than a fair representation at a work court trial (the name might be different in the States), then your Union isn't a Union, it's a group acting illegally. It cannot stop someone from being fired, it can only write a grief, which will be presented to said work court, which will then decide on the legality of the firing. If the judge decides the firing was illegal, then they will ask for either compensation or reintegration if possible. Again, it isn't the Union deciding anything, it's the judge (or arbiter, as they are called here).

Also, if everyone knew she was drunk, including her supervisor, then the accident's responsibility is that of the company, which might explain why they wouldn't have wanted to make wave by firing her. Just a hypothesis.

**Bromsy**

The highest argument in the land... Blow Jays.

**Frazzled**

Kovnik Obama wrote:Let's play Spot the Sophism

''The guy's worked for the postal service for almost twenty years'' = Appeal to authority

'' He has a pretty good idea of what the union can allow to happen'' = Petition of principle

''they prevented her from being fired.'' = Repetition of contested argument

... try again?

Quiet Canadian or we'll take over your country and force you to eat queso covered donuts.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kovnik Obama wrote:
Just telling what an employee that's been around long enough to know what's going on told me. How can you, who weren't there, better tell me than someone who works at that office and witnessed the situation unfold, how it is that a habitualy drunk at work employee, with several witnesses and police reports about her accidents kept her job?

I can't tell you what unfolded better than a witness to an event, but I can tell you what legally can or should happen. I can do so because I have studied Labour and Union Law (which in Canada are somewhat intertwined), have written and red griefs, and my best friend and roommate was sitting until recently at the negotiation table for the Metallos (he upgraded to deputy advisor for the NDP).

If, somehow, the Union in question got the person off the hook by any other means than a fair representation at a work court trial (the name might be different in the States), then your Union isn't a Union, it's a group acting illegally. It cannot stop someone from being fired, it can only write a grief, which will be presented to said work court, which will then decide on the legality of the firing. If the judge decides the firing was illegal, then they will ask for either compensation or reintegration if possible. Again, it isn't the Union deciding anything, it's the judge (or arbiter, as they are called here).

Also, if everyone knew she was drunk, including her supervisor, then the accident's responsibility is that of the company, which might explain why they wouldn't have wanted to make wave by firing her. Just a hypothesis.

No you studied Canadian law. Completely separate. YOUR appeal to authority

doesn't hold. Besides your spelled Labor wrong. Its Labor not Labour you!

**Kovnik Obama**

Quiet Canadian or we'll take over your country and force you to eat queso covered donuts.

you wouldn't dare!

No you studied Canadian law. Completely separate.

Same centrals (or most), same set of law (Common) to start with. I'll do a check up on this when I get home, but as far as I know, the differences between the US and Can. Unions are procedurals (the procedures being heavily in the favor of the constitution of an Union here).

Could it affect a lay-out? Possibly. In the way Relapse has explained it? Well, that would imply that no American lawyer, legislator, or judge has ever had a I.Q. higher than 70, really.

Besides your spelled Labor wrong. Its Labor not Labour you!

Canada Labour Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. L-2)
Available at http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/L-2/

**kronk**

It also depends on the agreement between the company and the union. Does their agreement say a person is entitled a peer review upon a lay-off? If so, then he would get one.

**d-usa**

Working at a federal job with one of those fancy federal unions, I find that the fault often is with management and not as much with the union. 9 out of 10 times the union is just better at following the rules.

We worked with a useless idiot that got away with everything for years. Our boss was useless and everytime she tried to do anything about him the union was able to nip it in the butt because she violated the number one rule of addressing employee performance in a union workplace:

Paper trail, paper trail, paper trail.

Every time she tried to do any kind of disciplinary action is was for something stupid like "bad employee, didn't do (insert something generic)", instead of documenting specific things and keeping track of them.

We started to keep a log of everything he did, when he did it, what we tried to do about it, etc. After delivering the stack of papers, the union encouraged him to resign because with that documentation there was nothing they could do.

Unions are not able to keep people from being fired, but they are able to force the employer to follow the rulebook that he employer agreed to follow when they signed the collective bargaining agreement.

Don't plane the union for actually reading the rulebook.

**Monster Rain**

Unions are a necessary evil.

They are just as crooked as management, but at least they make the pretense of being on your side.

**HonorHarrington**

Is anyone really shockered that SEIU is supporting the Occupy movement? I for one am not. They seem to be natural allies.

**AustonT**

mattyrm wrote:Bloody Unions.. dont even start me on them. Like the bastard Mafia.

I thought you guys were mercifully free of them?!

Maybe its a well kept secret but SOME unions have a great deal of power some are useless. Most (if not all) cops and firemen belong to a union, most are also very strong. FDNY's union is actually fairly week because the FDNY never strikes; they still get a lot of what they want though...they city cant afford to push them over the edge TO strike. My dad has worked a union job my whole life, Teamsters, which if the name rings any bells was associated with Jimmy Hoffa; who is pretty much a house hold name in America even if few people remember what for. Teamsters was a bloody useless union for his shop, they got minimum raises and gak for health care; they formed their own union and now are doing much better. My stepdad on the other hand stopped working his union job when we moved to Arizona, he was a butcher or more properly a Journeyman Meatcutter, in Montana he made a good wage and the union paid him for the fingers he lost on the job. In Arizona they offered him a quarter of the pay at a higher cost of living, and Montana has some of the lowest average wages in the country.

Unions serve a good and decent purpose, neither my dad or stepdad would have (or in me da's case will) get rich or have and easy life, but the unions made their risk and training equal their pay and benefits. Despite being an evil conservative I support most unions. My wife Linda makes less as a teacher in AZ than I did as a PFC in the Army, let alone what I made before I decided I needed to get an education; she has two masters and teaches at a college part time; because there is no union in AZ she has been pay frozen for 5 years and still makes what she did with a bachelors; the IT department all received hefty raises...as did the administration. Their career ladders are also not frozen.

Teachers unions in most states are too powerful, New jersey for example. But states without them get the kind of educators they deserve. Linda is looking for full time work at a college, uni, or public library to get away from the public education system; which is a pity she is an excellent teacher ( I am a little biased but it's also true)

TLDR: Unions can be good, but not always. Like the Force a balance must be achieved.