Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, December 13, 2011
Occupy ILWU: Workers Will Not Be Paid for Lost Shift at Terminal 18
Posted by Goldy on Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:43 AM
Occupy Seattle's account of yesterday's port protest is an interesting read, and I can't dispute that many truckers and longshoremen sympathize with their cause and support their actions. But I can correct them on a couple of facts:
At 5pm, reports came through that the union arbitrator had ruled in favor of protesters, deeming the picket too dangerous to cross. The shipping company called off work at Terminal 18 for the evening. In accordance with union contract, dispatched longshore workers were nonetheless paid for their time.
According to a spokesman for International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) Local 19, the night shift at Terminal 18 (6 pm to 2 am) was canceled by the operators ahead of the contractual deadline, meaning the 60 to 80 longshoremen, foremen, and clerks scheduled for the shift last night will not be paid. I know that wasn't the Occupiers' intention, but that's what happened.
The crowd of Terminal 18 dissipated and joined Terminal 5. After two hours of picketing, the union arbitrator once again ruled in favor of protesters, calling off work at the terminal.
Work was disrupted at Terminal 5, but not canceled, so the ILWU dispatched work orders "through completion." However, ILWU says that the shipper, American President Lines, is refusing to pay workers for the disrupted shift, a contractual dispute that will ultimately be worked out between the shipper and the union. "It's being discussed," the union says.
Considering the scope of yesterday's west coast port protests, I'd have to call shutting down all or parts of four ports a bit of a success. But when they're impacting the livelihoods of fellow members of the 99 Percent, Occupiers need to honestly own up to the consequences of their actions, even if they're unintended.
So here's a free PR tip to the Occupy Seattle media team: It's more effective to spin the facts than to ignore them.
1
I repeat: Occupy is an attack on the 99%.
You think Goldman Sachs gives a shit if you shut the port for a day? But ordinary people who are struggling to make ends meet do -- not just the port drivers but the people who work in the stores that sell the goods that trade brings, and the people who buy them (i.e., everyone).
You think Goldman Sachs gives a shit if you shut the port for a day? But ordinary people who are struggling to make ends meet do -- not just the port drivers but the people who work in the stores that sell the goods that trade brings, and the people who buy them (i.e., everyone).
2
One of the problems with the movement is that not everyone gets informed immediately of what goes on or sometimes releases faulty information before it's been corrected. We had a short GA at Terminal 5 after the arbitrator suspended operations and during that time it WAS announced that the longshoremen wouldn't be paid. It's unfortunate, so many of us showed up this morning and picketed.
Longshoremen stood by and, in proud union tradition, refused to cross our line. Then, when it was apparent that we didn't have enough people show up (we started picketing at 6:30AM, so many either didn't know or couldn't make it that early) to actually shut down the port, they warned us for trespassing and we left.
TO THE APPLAUSE, HUGS, AND HANDSHAKES of the Longshoremen.
Video of the event is archived on our Livestream here:
http://bit.ly/rXbtUl
Longshoremen stood by and, in proud union tradition, refused to cross our line. Then, when it was apparent that we didn't have enough people show up (we started picketing at 6:30AM, so many either didn't know or couldn't make it that early) to actually shut down the port, they warned us for trespassing and we left.
TO THE APPLAUSE, HUGS, AND HANDSHAKES of the Longshoremen.
Video of the event is archived on our Livestream here:
http://bit.ly/rXbtUl
3
goldy, this is no different than when they shut down the bridges and fucked up the commute for a whole pack of other 99%ers. What's the difference? Why were you so vociferous in your defense in that instance, and now all of a sudden not? Logic fail.
4
I'm sure Occupy figures gaining its brief spotlight yesterday was well worth making workers lose pay as we head into the holiday season. They have no problem making strangers pay for their publicity.
5
The consequences may have been unintended, but they were not unpredictable.
The logic behind this escapes me. I read one of the OWS-Seattle "leaders" rationalize this blockade by saying something to the effect of, "hey, it was worth it, by delaying delivery of these goods, we prevented some fuel being burned and every little bit helps in the fight against global warming." The problem there is that the fuel burn was not prevented, it was just time-shifted. The goods are still going to ship, the products are still going to be bought/sold, the energy is still going to be expended.
Reminds me of a few years ago when gas prices were spiking, there was an online movement to boycott gas stations for a day. "That'll teach 'em! We won't buy their product, they'll have to lower their prices!" Uh, no - unless you also cease to drive on that day, the total gas need is going to remain the same. You're just time-shifting your purchase.
This port blockade is going to prove to be a PR blunder on the part of OWS. Up to now, it was okay for them to not have any stated goals. But they have to be able to justify these sorts of actions, ESPECIALLY when the biggest impact is to the labor working the ports. Otherwise, they just end up confirming the stereotypes thrown about by Faux News.
The logic behind this escapes me. I read one of the OWS-Seattle "leaders" rationalize this blockade by saying something to the effect of, "hey, it was worth it, by delaying delivery of these goods, we prevented some fuel being burned and every little bit helps in the fight against global warming." The problem there is that the fuel burn was not prevented, it was just time-shifted. The goods are still going to ship, the products are still going to be bought/sold, the energy is still going to be expended.
Reminds me of a few years ago when gas prices were spiking, there was an online movement to boycott gas stations for a day. "That'll teach 'em! We won't buy their product, they'll have to lower their prices!" Uh, no - unless you also cease to drive on that day, the total gas need is going to remain the same. You're just time-shifting your purchase.
This port blockade is going to prove to be a PR blunder on the part of OWS. Up to now, it was okay for them to not have any stated goals. But they have to be able to justify these sorts of actions, ESPECIALLY when the biggest impact is to the labor working the ports. Otherwise, they just end up confirming the stereotypes thrown about by Faux News.
6
Wow...talk about winning the hearts and minds of the 99%!! And I'm sure those folks who work and live paycheck to paycheck will enjoy losing a days wages during the winter months.
AWESOME!!!
AWESOME!!!
7
@1: Fnarf, c'mon man. That's as inane as saying gays attack traditional marriage. You aren't painting a barn, put down the broad brush.
8
Bullshit. Of course it was their intent.
I know that wasn't the Occupiers' intention, but that's what happened.
Bullshit. Of course it was their intent.
9
@2 Ian Arseome
One of the problems with your occupy bowel movement is that most of you are a bunch of naive white Seattle libtard drug addicts. How's Jennifer Fox and her boils and slaughtered fetuses BTW?
"couldn't make it that early". .... Yeah. Because they had a lot of important drugs to do.
One of the problems with your occupy bowel movement is that most of you are a bunch of naive white Seattle libtard drug addicts. How's Jennifer Fox and her boils and slaughtered fetuses BTW?
"couldn't make it that early". .... Yeah. Because they had a lot of important drugs to do.
10
Trade in tangible goods is precisely the sort of thing we want investment banks funding. What a dumb protest.
11
@8 It's actually a breach of contract for them to not be paid due to a work suspension caused by a picket. We had no way to anticipate that. So unless YOU were on some planning meeting with Tactical where we evil Occupiers rubbed our hands gleefully thinking about canceled Christmas, quit with the grandstanding.
But of course you weren't. You'd rather troll than take action. Have fun with that!
But of course you weren't. You'd rather troll than take action. Have fun with that!
12
is OWS offering to reimburse workers for their lost wages? They've got some serious $$$ (not Goldman Sachs $$$ but still) and could conceivably do this. They'd be better off building bridges while shutting down ports than shifting focus from unfair labor practices to "well-intentioned" movements.
13
#5 ftw. Spin it all you want as protest theater, but claims of any actual economic damage from yesterday's port closure are completely unsupportable and entirely suspect.
14
@10, moreover, it's not even Goldman's money in that fund Occupy keeps going on about. You know, the one that owns a minority in SSA's parent but Occupy prefers to claim "Goldman owns SSA" or "Goldman owns the Port". Goldman just administers the fund it dreamed up, raking in fees. The fund itself is all subscribed by major institutional investors, like union pension funds, investing to support rank and file retirements.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/0…
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg…
So Occupy ran a protest against a company minority-owned by union retirement money, and Occupy's blocking also took some cash out of the same rank and file's next paycheck. They got 'em coming and going, today and tomorrow. Brilliant.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/0…
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg…
So Occupy ran a protest against a company minority-owned by union retirement money, and Occupy's blocking also took some cash out of the same rank and file's next paycheck. They got 'em coming and going, today and tomorrow. Brilliant.
15
To Goldman Sachs, this will be nothing but a write off, or insurance claim. They won't suffer the least bit. The workers lost a day's pay. Poorly thought out stunts like this hurt the 99%. You're not helping.
16
@1 I agree. The radicals who can't wait to start trouble for everyone have taken over. Whether this is a move by provocateurs or just stupidity by OWS, I don't care, they've failed. Stop attacking the 99%!
17
The thing is, Occupy knows it's messy and is going to get egg on its face. Sure that press release they sent out was glowing, but they're not kidding themselves.
What did they accomplish? They moved focus to the port. They're making people think about the massive amounts of money flowing in and out of the port. So popular opinion vilifies them, paints Occupy as the bad guys who are harming the 99%--yeah, that happens. Too bad for everyone. Like jp@13 says, it's political theater, and even if the 1%'s profits don't take a dent, they're getting people to realize how entrenched those profits are in the ports of the west coast.
What did they accomplish? They moved focus to the port. They're making people think about the massive amounts of money flowing in and out of the port. So popular opinion vilifies them, paints Occupy as the bad guys who are harming the 99%--yeah, that happens. Too bad for everyone. Like jp@13 says, it's political theater, and even if the 1%'s profits don't take a dent, they're getting people to realize how entrenched those profits are in the ports of the west coast.
19
@3: You misread me. Or rather, read something into this post that is not there.
In general, I support the the port action, and was quite impressed by its degree of success. Quietly, off the record, a lot of longshoremen support the Occupiers too.
I'm just setting the record straight, and encouraging the Occupy media team to be a little more careful with their presentation of the facts. It's easy to lose credibility, not so easy to earn it back.
This post is intended as constructive criticism. I want them to succeed.
In general, I support the the port action, and was quite impressed by its degree of success. Quietly, off the record, a lot of longshoremen support the Occupiers too.
I'm just setting the record straight, and encouraging the Occupy media team to be a little more careful with their presentation of the facts. It's easy to lose credibility, not so easy to earn it back.
This post is intended as constructive criticism. I want them to succeed.
20
What exactly does too big to fail mean? It's basically saying that the banks are able to collect blackmail capital and insurance through an implicit threat to crash the global capitalist system if Uncle Sam doesn't foot the bill for their failures.
The port action served a valuable purpose. It helped implicitly express that port workers, truckers, hell most of the 99% are just as important to America's economic livelihood, and have serious bargaining power when united. If we're going to stop the next financial collapse from being yet another siphoning of wealth to the top, actions like this need to continue. It sucks that our political system has come to this, but it has.
The port action served a valuable purpose. It helped implicitly express that port workers, truckers, hell most of the 99% are just as important to America's economic livelihood, and have serious bargaining power when united. If we're going to stop the next financial collapse from being yet another siphoning of wealth to the top, actions like this need to continue. It sucks that our political system has come to this, but it has.
21
It would be in all parties interests to give the bottom rung a significant salary increase. We can now afford it with all the money printed into the system and it would be those people most likely to circulate it back into the retail economy. Win-win-win.
22
@17:
What the fuck does that even mean? Entrenched profits? Yes, they are profit-making businesses. That's how the world works. The port is good for everyone. If you don't understand that, you should be locked away in your room reading a book or something, not out shitting on your neighbors like this.
Kill Occupy. Kill it now.
they're getting people to realize how entrenched those profits are in the ports of the west coast
What the fuck does that even mean? Entrenched profits? Yes, they are profit-making businesses. That's how the world works. The port is good for everyone. If you don't understand that, you should be locked away in your room reading a book or something, not out shitting on your neighbors like this.
Kill Occupy. Kill it now.
23
"The port is good for everyone."
It's a hell of a lot better for a guy like Tay Yoshitani than it is for any one of the long haul truckers. You read the letter from the six truck drivers that was posted yesterday, right? Sanitary facilities, safe vehicles, just being paid for your time, not your load: there's a few things that would make the port good for the drivers. And I don't think Yoshitani, Maersk, or SSA would all the sudden stop benefiting.
And look! People are mad at Occupy because they're getting in the way of the truck drivers! (Never mind if individual members of the ILWU and drivers support the action.) It's easy to forget whose backs are carrying the goods we all buy. If the truck drivers are on the 11 o'clock news at the expense of Occupy, so be it. That visibility will do more good for the profession than no cameras at all.
It's a hell of a lot better for a guy like Tay Yoshitani than it is for any one of the long haul truckers. You read the letter from the six truck drivers that was posted yesterday, right? Sanitary facilities, safe vehicles, just being paid for your time, not your load: there's a few things that would make the port good for the drivers. And I don't think Yoshitani, Maersk, or SSA would all the sudden stop benefiting.
And look! People are mad at Occupy because they're getting in the way of the truck drivers! (Never mind if individual members of the ILWU and drivers support the action.) It's easy to forget whose backs are carrying the goods we all buy. If the truck drivers are on the 11 o'clock news at the expense of Occupy, so be it. That visibility will do more good for the profession than no cameras at all.
24
@23, so you put in toilets and got them better wages? Wow, I thought you just built a barricade and threw rebar and bricks at cops. My bad.
Fuck you people.
Fuck you people.
25
In the future, OWS, you should choose a protest that is comprehensible without a specious treatise on its purpose. You may groupthink yourself into believing everyone will get it, but clearly here they didn't. So instead, you get even more bad press.
There's a reason successful campaigns use focus groups. Surprising an entity that refers to itself as "Tactical" employs no such tactics. I know, I know: focus groups are a tool of The Man. But they sometimes prevent The Man from looking like an asshole.
Your approach to gaining the support of the 99% has become as misguided as Critical Mass's approach to gaining empathy from drivers. Like CM, you've been seduced by the power your numbers provide you and lost focus on your original message. "Hey - we can block traffic! We can prevent tourists from entering their hotel! We can block the ports!" It's bewildering to those of us outside of your bubble.
There's a reason successful campaigns use focus groups. Surprising an entity that refers to itself as "Tactical" employs no such tactics. I know, I know: focus groups are a tool of The Man. But they sometimes prevent The Man from looking like an asshole.
Your approach to gaining the support of the 99% has become as misguided as Critical Mass's approach to gaining empathy from drivers. Like CM, you've been seduced by the power your numbers provide you and lost focus on your original message. "Hey - we can block traffic! We can prevent tourists from entering their hotel! We can block the ports!" It's bewildering to those of us outside of your bubble.
26
@25
I believe the knee-jerk response to that is "well why don't you come down to the GA and join us in our bubble, then." Which is part of the problem.
I believe the knee-jerk response to that is "well why don't you come down to the GA and join us in our bubble, then." Which is part of the problem.
27
@26 - Yes, apparently you have to attend their meetings to get the point of their thuggish behavior.
28
Goldy, you can't credibly cite ILWU leadership because they can't tell the truth. The truth is they support #Hiphop Occupies and #Occupy the Ports' West Coast Port Shut Down.
You can't believe anything that isn't being disseminated by us.
You can't believe anything that isn't being disseminated by us.
29
I would love to see how this crowd would react the original Boston Tea Party if they were around for it.
"The Indian costumes completely distract from the message!"
"They're just going to make hard-working people in the tea business upset!"
"Don't they know the only way to change things is through the political system?!"
"The Indian costumes completely distract from the message!"
"They're just going to make hard-working people in the tea business upset!"
"Don't they know the only way to change things is through the political system?!"
30
@29, the Boston Tea Party was for a specific purpose: to establish the form of government Occupy says isn't worth having any more. Think about that a sec.
31
@30 Keep arguing with the straw man version of myself that wants America to be something other than a constitutional republic.
32
Okay, Fnarf, what's your solution? I mean, I think you agree that how corporations have disrupted and polluted our political process is a problem. Please to correct if I'm wrong.
So, what's your solution?
So, what's your solution?
33
@31, yeah, I went overbroad, but it was a great line, I couldn't help it. Still, the trope so many Occupiers trot out about democracy being so corrupted it's irredeemable, that we may as well burn the whole thing down, gets my goat every time. It's a mob mentality I absolutely despise, as it is the opposite of a democratically expressed political will.
34
@33 Here's why I'm in the streets, balancing time between Occupy and keeping a small business afloat:
The one thing that needed to be done in the aftermath of the financial meltdown, breaking up the banks so they were no longer a systemic threat, was never a serious option to the political elite. Instead, our government has been steadily funneling trillions in interest free loans to keep said banks afloat AFTER the bailouts. Obama, the guy who came out against the Patriot Act, looks poised to sign a Defense Authorization Bill that allows indefinite detention of American citizens by the army. I'm genuinely not seeing how anyone voted into this political system is going to fix it.
So yeah, I do feel like without some serious, sustained popular agitation, we are screwed. As to why I feel this particular kind of action makes a difference? See post 20.
The one thing that needed to be done in the aftermath of the financial meltdown, breaking up the banks so they were no longer a systemic threat, was never a serious option to the political elite. Instead, our government has been steadily funneling trillions in interest free loans to keep said banks afloat AFTER the bailouts. Obama, the guy who came out against the Patriot Act, looks poised to sign a Defense Authorization Bill that allows indefinite detention of American citizens by the army. I'm genuinely not seeing how anyone voted into this political system is going to fix it.
So yeah, I do feel like without some serious, sustained popular agitation, we are screwed. As to why I feel this particular kind of action makes a difference? See post 20.
35
@34, none of those loans and credit facilities was interest free, they were paid back plus interest, in most cases immediately. And I am sure your anger is not keeping you from reading, so I hope it is not long before you read that from a source you trust. Here is one I trust.
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2011/1…
I'm sure with you on the awfulness of the national security trap the President has put us deeper into, but I don't share your worries that a more vigorously participatory democracy is not the answer. It is. It is the answer to everything.
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2011/1…
I'm sure with you on the awfulness of the national security trap the President has put us deeper into, but I don't share your worries that a more vigorously participatory democracy is not the answer. It is. It is the answer to everything.
36
If we're going to stop the next financial collapse from being yet another siphoning of wealth to the top, actions like this need to continue.
There is as much evidence that "actions like this" will have any effect on the siphoning of wealth to the top as there is that Rick Perry's prayer rally will end the drought in Texas.
There is as much evidence that "actions like this" will have any effect on the siphoning of wealth to the top as there is that Rick Perry's prayer rally will end the drought in Texas.
37
When people say that we were harming the 99% by blockading the port--since their wages were hurt for a day--doesn't this same logic prevent workers from ever striking? From ever occupying workplaces? Because when we workers fight back the 1% WILL hurt us -- and then they get people like you all to say we were really hurting each other. If any of you have read media reports of the early strikes in this country, especially the general strike in '19 or the one in '34 which created the ILWU, you will see these SAME arguments--these strikers are JUST HURTING the workers, it's pointless. Was it then?
So I'm unclear about what you people want? We never fight back? We never strike or blockade lines of commerce? We just lie down and take it?
And directly to Goldy:
The line of info we had last night in declaring 18 shut down by an arbitrator was actually coming from longshoremen with the local as well -- there was early miscommunication on their side about what was even going on. It's really unfortunate, I agree, but it's not like we were declaring things randomly with no source for the information. We were talking to longshoremen the entire time to get the best info possible at a moment's notice -- some of that info was wrong, and that is really too bad.
So I'm unclear about what you people want? We never fight back? We never strike or blockade lines of commerce? We just lie down and take it?
And directly to Goldy:
The line of info we had last night in declaring 18 shut down by an arbitrator was actually coming from longshoremen with the local as well -- there was early miscommunication on their side about what was even going on. It's really unfortunate, I agree, but it's not like we were declaring things randomly with no source for the information. We were talking to longshoremen the entire time to get the best info possible at a moment's notice -- some of that info was wrong, and that is really too bad.
38
@35 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28…
"The Fed didn’t tell anyone which banks were in trouble so deep they required a combined $1.2 trillion on Dec. 5, 2008, their single neediest day. Bankers didn’t mention that they took tens of billions of dollars in emergency loans at the same time they were assuring investors their firms were healthy. And no one calculated until now that banks reaped an estimated $13 billion of income by taking advantage of the Fed’s below-market rates, Bloomberg Markets magazine reports in its January issue."
"During the crisis, Fed loans were among the cheapest around, with funding available for as low as 0.01 percent in December 2008"
It was 0.01%, not 0.00%. My mistake.
Please people, read about the history of popular movements challenging entrenched interests, and how they achieved their goals. I can't think of one that worked exclusively in the political system.
"The Fed didn’t tell anyone which banks were in trouble so deep they required a combined $1.2 trillion on Dec. 5, 2008, their single neediest day. Bankers didn’t mention that they took tens of billions of dollars in emergency loans at the same time they were assuring investors their firms were healthy. And no one calculated until now that banks reaped an estimated $13 billion of income by taking advantage of the Fed’s below-market rates, Bloomberg Markets magazine reports in its January issue."
"During the crisis, Fed loans were among the cheapest around, with funding available for as low as 0.01 percent in December 2008"
It was 0.01%, not 0.00%. My mistake.
Please people, read about the history of popular movements challenging entrenched interests, and how they achieved their goals. I can't think of one that worked exclusively in the political system.
39
Funny how many people are simply mad at Occupy for fighting for something, even if that something doesn't seem to be much. That's not what Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia did, is it? Knuckle under to the empire because it is too powerful?
And Gods forbid you should get dirty-going down the trash compactor in the first movie was just a cautionary tale for those pampered elites who would rather quit in advance and try to get some Empire frequent shopper points and work their way up to assistant to the assistant to the regional district submanager.
And Gods forbid you should get dirty-going down the trash compactor in the first movie was just a cautionary tale for those pampered elites who would rather quit in advance and try to get some Empire frequent shopper points and work their way up to assistant to the assistant to the regional district submanager.
41
"Please people, read about the history of popular movements challenging entrenched interests, and how they achieved their goals. I can't think of one that worked exclusively in the political system. "
It's not my fault you can't think. Perhaps you've heard of this tibetan guy that goes by 'his holiness'? PFLAG and the entire gay rights movement? Coprenicus & Galileo? Women's suffrage? The Women of Liberia Mass Action for Peace that ended an entire civil war? Lysistrata & La huelga de las piernas cruzadas ? you might also want to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid#N…
also mainly political: The fall of the iron curtain?? The end of slavery in Trinidad 1834? Hong Kong's liberation from british colony status? The unification of Scotland and Britain (arguably popular)? the 1943 Danish 'negotiation under protest'? The Free Lanka bill of 1945?
The mistake here is to think that ONLY the political system would yield results - that's as ridiculous as thinking ONLY violence would yield a group's achieved goals.
But violence and/or blockades ARE not necessary to get popular movments past entrenched interests: the Mayflower pilgrims managed to find a peaceful solution to persecution. And then there's that lawyer guy in 1922/1934 India that was so skinny. Mother Teresa? Martin Luther King? ...ffs "put your sword back in it's place" - Matt.26:52
Ok, so can you think of one of your 'popular uprisings' that didn't end in senseless and often bigoted violence?? French Revolution anyone? Civil war? Korean war?
It's not my fault you can't think. Perhaps you've heard of this tibetan guy that goes by 'his holiness'? PFLAG and the entire gay rights movement? Coprenicus & Galileo? Women's suffrage? The Women of Liberia Mass Action for Peace that ended an entire civil war? Lysistrata & La huelga de las piernas cruzadas ? you might also want to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid#N…
also mainly political: The fall of the iron curtain?? The end of slavery in Trinidad 1834? Hong Kong's liberation from british colony status? The unification of Scotland and Britain (arguably popular)? the 1943 Danish 'negotiation under protest'? The Free Lanka bill of 1945?
The mistake here is to think that ONLY the political system would yield results - that's as ridiculous as thinking ONLY violence would yield a group's achieved goals.
But violence and/or blockades ARE not necessary to get popular movments past entrenched interests: the Mayflower pilgrims managed to find a peaceful solution to persecution. And then there's that lawyer guy in 1922/1934 India that was so skinny. Mother Teresa? Martin Luther King? ...ffs "put your sword back in it's place" - Matt.26:52
Ok, so can you think of one of your 'popular uprisings' that didn't end in senseless and often bigoted violence?? French Revolution anyone? Civil war? Korean war?
42
The Longshoremen not getting paid isn't a consequence of the blockade, it's a consequence of the shithead bosses DECIDING not to pay them. The bosses came up with a bullshit reason not to pay folks as a divide and conquer tactic. If they were so inclined, they could have easily cooked up a justification for full pay. But that's not the way capitalism works.
Yes, I agree that the Occupy movement needs to improve tactics that directly meet the needs of the 99% - occupying foreclosed homes is great example of this. But disrupting the flow of capital is an essential part of weakening the 1%. It can be messy and inconvenient, but extra traffic isn't an "attack on the 99%."
Also, the Occupy movement is, in large part, trying to make visible the EVERYDAY violence of the current economic system. That includes poverty, criminalization of poor folks and people of color, police brutality, lack of health care or access to healthy food, etc. It's easy to criticize the occupiers for taking action, but a lot harder to recognize and name the way the 99% are getting screwed every single day.
Yes, I agree that the Occupy movement needs to improve tactics that directly meet the needs of the 99% - occupying foreclosed homes is great example of this. But disrupting the flow of capital is an essential part of weakening the 1%. It can be messy and inconvenient, but extra traffic isn't an "attack on the 99%."
Also, the Occupy movement is, in large part, trying to make visible the EVERYDAY violence of the current economic system. That includes poverty, criminalization of poor folks and people of color, police brutality, lack of health care or access to healthy food, etc. It's easy to criticize the occupiers for taking action, but a lot harder to recognize and name the way the 99% are getting screwed every single day.
44
for people that don't get it: shutting down the port is about THE MOST effective method of making a point to the 1 percent that control the economy. and without direct action targeted at the engines of commerce, the 1 percent will continue to ignore the 30 million or so unemployed people in this country. If you think this action took place in an exclusive bubble to the rest of the world, perhaps you should take account of how the REST OF THE WORLD fights back against austerity measures: via general strikes and economic blockades.
take your shitty , city hall campout, politician-ass-kissing, bank loving actions and shove em up your ass. this is direct action and its not about to go away as long as conditions continue to deteriorate in this country for us.
take your shitty , city hall campout, politician-ass-kissing, bank loving actions and shove em up your ass. this is direct action and its not about to go away as long as conditions continue to deteriorate in this country for us.
45
@43: It's ILWU policy - when workers can work because of a picket, they get paid.
Also, ever heard of sick days? Vacation days? Pay for unforeseen closures? Hell, even salaried positions? All disconnect pay from actual work done, to one extent or another. The difference is in this case, the bosses went against policy. See #11.
Also, ever heard of sick days? Vacation days? Pay for unforeseen closures? Hell, even salaried positions? All disconnect pay from actual work done, to one extent or another. The difference is in this case, the bosses went against policy. See #11.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (45) RSS