• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

OWS shuts down Oakland port. 150 workers sent home without pay.

Status
Not open for further replies.

_Xenon_

Banned
This OWS thing has turned into a joke. I totally changed my opinion of it.

They should have addressed their concerns to the white house on day 1 because that's where the problem is. Yet after 3 months all they can do is picking some easy targets such as those longshoremen who are nowhere close to the top 1%.

This is just what will happen when you give too much rights to ignorant fools.
 

Kapura

Banned
This OWS thing has turned into a joke. I totally changed my opinion of it.

They should have addressed their concerns to the white house on day 1 because that's where the problem is. Yet after 3 months all they can do is picking some easy targets such as those longshoremen who are nowhere close to the top 1%.

This is just what will happen when you give too much rights to ignorant fools.
I agree with everything that you have written, and I have always said that I thought it should have been occupy DC. It takes a big man to change his opinion based on the facts instead of mindlessly defending. Well done and
z3Z2d.jpg
 
Go back and read my posts, then see how many times I defended Westboro. Go back and see what my argument was. Look at the similarities I pointed out. And for fucks sake, stop insulting people who you don't agree with. It's not classy.

Guess you aren't familiar with Joates' argument style. Check the marijuana news threads.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
I agree with everything that you have written, and I have always said that I thought it should have been occupy DC. It takes a big man to change his opinion based on the facts instead of mindlessly defending. Well done and

You agree that they have too many rights?

Goddamn...
 
This OWS thing has turned into a joke. I totally changed my opinion of it.

They should have addressed their concerns to the white house on day 1 because that's where the problem is. Yet after 3 months all they can do is picking some easy targets such as those longshoremen who are nowhere close to the top 1%.

This is just what will happen when you give too much rights to ignorant fools.



Complaining at the White House is like complaining to the McDonald's cashier that your burger tastes like shit. Who pays the cashier? who pays the White House?

I guess we'll keep having to go down before people realise what protestors mean by the divide of the 99% to 1%; I can't wait for people to describe video games as a hobby for the upper middle classes, and dining at McDonalds a treat only the 'wealthy' can afford.
 

akira28

Member
Eh, this will rub some people the wrong way. OK. This just goes to show, these aren't all one mass movement, these are small armies of protesters, protesting what they think needs to be protested.


^^Also one of the Conservative think tanks did put out a study that more people have refrigerators and tvs and gaming systems as evidence that the concept of poverty in America was over-exaggerated. If they have a Xbox, I guess they can't be too poor, can they?
 

Kapura

Banned
Complaining at the White House is like complaining to the McDonald's cashier that your burger tastes like shit. Who pays the cashier? who pays the White House?

I guess we'll keep having to go down before people realise what protestors mean by the divide of the 99% to 1%; I can't wait for people to describe video games as a hobby for the upper middle classes, and dining at McDonalds a treat only the 'wealthy' can afford.
the taxpayers
 

_Xenon_

Banned
Complaining at the White House is like complaining to the McDonald's cashier that your burger tastes like shit. Who pays the cashier? who pays the White House?

I guess we'll keep having to go down before people realise what protestors mean by the divide of the 99% to 1%; I can't wait for people to describe video games as a hobby for the upper middle classes, and dining at McDonalds a treat only the 'wealthy' can afford.

Who elected the government? You. The 100%.
What are they supposed to do? To be responsible for the people.
What are they doing now? Elected by the 100% yet making laws only protect those 1%.

Who elected those CEOs? Share holders. The 1%.
What are they supposed to do? To be responsible for the 1%.
What are they doing now? To be responsible for the 1% by using the 100%'s tax money and everything is protected by the law that is indirectly made by the 100%.

So tell me which organization can be directly affected by the voters and tax payers, aka the people?

Those OWS can go all bananas, starving and suffering and whatever on the street during this winter but they are not going to change anything because the enemy they are against are protected by the laws made by lawmakers who are elected by the 99% (or 100%).

This shit is like a circle. People protesting things that are protected by the very people themselves. How is it going to work?
 

The whole thing should be quoted:

We are the front-line workers who haul container rigs full of imported and exported goods to and from the docks and warehouses every day.

We have been elected by committees of our co-workers at the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, Seattle, Tacoma, New York and New Jersey to tell our collective story. We have accepted the honor to speak up for our brothers and sisters about our working conditions despite the risk of retaliation we face. One of us is a mother, the rest of us fathers. Between the five of us we have 11children and one more baby on the way. We have a combined 46 years of experience driving cargo from our shores for America’s stores.

We are inspired that a non-violent democratic movement that insists on basic economic fairness is capturing the hearts and minds of so many working people. Thank you “99 Percenters” for hearing our call for justice. We are humbled and overwhelmed by recent attention. Normally we are invisible.

Today’s demonstrations will impact us. While we cannot officially speak for every worker who shares our occupation, we can use this opportunity to reveal what it’s like to walk a day in our shoes for the 110,000 of us in America whose job it is to be a port truck driver. It may be tempting for media to ask questions about whether we support a shutdown, but there are no easy answers. Instead, we ask you, are you willing to listen and learn why a one-word response is impossible?

We love being behind the wheel. We are proud of the work we do to keep America’s economy moving. But we feel humiliated when we receive paychecks that suggest we work part time at a fast-food counter. Especially when we work an average of 60 or more hours a week, away from our families.

There is so much at stake in our industry. It is one of the nation’s most dangerous occupations. We don’t think truck driving should be a dead-end road in America. It should be a good job with a middle-class paycheck like it used to be decades ago.

We desperately want to drive clean and safe vehicles. Rigs that do not fill our lungs with deadly toxins, or dirty the air in the communities we haul in.

Poverty and pollution are like a plague at the ports. Our economic conditions are what led to the environmental crisis.

You, the public, have paid a severe price along with us.

Why? Just like Wall Street doesn’t have to abide by rules, our industry isn’t bound to regulation. So the market is run by con artists. The companies we work for call us independent contractors, as if we were our own bosses, but they boss us around. We receive Third World wages and drive sweatshops on wheels. We cannot negotiate our rates. (Usually we are not allowed to even see them.) We are paid by the load, not by the hour. So when we sit in those long lines at the terminals, or if we are stuck in traffic, we become volunteers who basically donate our time to the trucking and shipping companies. That’s the nice way to put it. We have all heard the words “modern-day slaves” at the lunch stops.

There are no restrooms for drivers. We keep empty bottles in our cabs. Plastic bags too. We feel like dogs. An Oakland driver was recently banned from the terminal because he was spied relieving himself behind a container. Neither the port, nor the terminal operators or anyone in the industry thinks it is their responsibility to provide humane and hygienic facilities for us. It is absolutely horrible for drivers who are women, who risk infection when they try to hold it until they can find a place to go.

The companies demand we cut corners to compete. It makes our roads less safe. When we try to blow the whistle about skipped inspections, faulty equipment, or falsified logs, then we are “starved out.” That means we are either fired outright, or more likely, we never get dispatched to haul a load again.

It may be difficult to comprehend the complex issues and nature of our employment. For us too. When businesses disguise workers like us as contractors, the Department of Labor calls it misclassification. We call it illegal. Those who profit from global trade and goods movement are getting away with it because everyone is doing it. One journalist took the time to talk to us this week and she explains it very well to outsiders. We hope you will read the enclosed article “How Goldman Sachs and Other Companies Exploit Port Truck Drivers.”

But the short answer to the question: Why are companies like SSA Marine, the Seattle-based global terminal operator that runs one of the West Coast’s major trucking carriers, Shippers’ Transport Express, doing this? Why would mega-rich Maersk, a huge Danish shipping and trucking conglomerate that wants to drill for more oil with Exxon Mobil in the Gulf Coast conduct business this way too?

To cheat on taxes, drive down business costs, and deny us the right to belong to a union, that’s why.

The typical arrangement works like this: Everything comes out of our pockets or is deducted from our paychecks. The truck or lease, fuel, insurance, registration, you name it. Our employers do not have to pay the costs of meeting emissions-compliant regulations; that is our financial burden to bear. Clean trucks cost about four to five times more than what we take home in a year. A few of us haul our company’s trucks for a tiny fraction of what the shippers pay per load instead of an hourly wage. They still call us independent owner-operators and give us a 1099 rather than a W-2.

We have never recovered from losing our basic rights as employees in America. Every year it literally goes from bad to worse to the unimaginable. We were ground zero for the government’s first major experiment into letting big business call the shots. Since it worked so well for the CEOs in transportation, why not the mortgage and banking industry too?

Even the few of us who are hired as legitimate employees are routinely denied our legal rights under this system. Just ask our co-workers who haul clothing brands like Guess?, Under Armour, and Ralph Lauren’s Polo. The carrier they work for in Los Angeles is called Toll Group and is headquartered in Australia. At the busiest time of the holiday shopping season, 26 drivers were axed after wearing Teamster T-shirts to work. They were protesting the lack of access to clean, indoor restrooms with running water. The company hired an anti-union consultant to intimidate the drivers. Down Under, the same company bargains with 12,000 of our counterparts in good faith.

Despite our great hardships, many of us cannot — or refuse to, as some of the most well-intentioned suggest — “just quit.” First, we want to work and do not have a safety net. Many of us are tied to one-sided leases. But more importantly, why should we have to leave? Truck driving is what we do, and we do it well.

We are the skilled, specially-licensed professionals who guarantee that Target, Best Buy, and Wal-Mart are all stocked with just-in-time delivery for consumers. Take a look at all the stuff in your house. The things you see advertised on TV. Chances are a port truck driver brought that special holiday gift to the store you bought it.

We would rather stick together and transform our industry from within. We deserve to be fairly rewarded and valued. That is why we have united to stage convoys, park our trucks, marched on the boss, and even shut down these ports.

It’s like our hero Dutch Prior, a Shipper’s/SSA Marine driver, told CBS Early Morning this month: “If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.”

The more underwater we are, the more our restlessness grows. We are being thoughtful about how best to organize ourselves and do what is needed to win dignity, respect, and justice.

Nowadays greedy corporations are treated as “people” while the politicians they bankroll cast union members who try to improve their workplaces as “thugs.”

But we believe in the power and potential behind a truly united 99%. We admire the strength and perseverance of the longshoremen. We are fighting like mad to overcome our exploitation, so please, stick by us long after December 12. Our friends in the Coalition for Clean & Safe Ports created a pledge you can sign to support us here.

We drivers have a saying, “We may not have a union yet, but no one can stop us from acting like one.”

The brothers and sisters of the Teamsters have our backs. They help us make our voices heard. But we need your help too so we can achieve the day where we raise our fists and together declare: “No one could stop us from forming a union.”

Thank you.

In solidarity,

Leonardo Mejia
SSA Marine/Shippers Transport Express
Port of Long Beach
10-year driver

Yemane Berhane
Ports of Seattle & Tacoma
6-year port driver

Xiomara Perez
Toll Group
Port of Los Angeles
8-year driver

Abdul Khan
Port of Oakland
7-year port driver

Ramiro Gotay
Ports of New York & New Jersey
15-year port driver

Looks like the argument in the OP is totally bunk. OWS is shutting down these ports because their workers are being abused. Many of the workers support it. Focusing on the fact that 150 workers missed one day of pay while making no mention of the heinous corruption and exploitation being committed by their employers is the height of intellectual dishonesty.
 

Moppet13

Member
The open letter was a good read and I can't say I disagree with much of it. Did find one part kind of funny.



Sorry, but you're a truck driver. Your job is considered unskilled labor.
Every single job on the planet requires some form of training. Even the school bus driver went through training as did the deep fryer at Mcdonalds. I just don't consider those to be skilled positions.

I assure you my job is unskilled labor and pays as such. So by your standard welding isn't really skilled labor is it? I mean how many college graduates go to welding classes?
Edit: I'm not a welder if I made it sound that way.
 

El Sloth

Banned
Shouldn't they be occupying the white collar sections...like financial areas with lots of people who create NOTHING of value but still make well into 6 figures minimum?

Im sure this has been asked before, but have OWS ever given a good reason why they never occupied where Wall Street as its known actually operates? Other than it would be hard.
 

rCIZZLE

Member
I assure you my job is unskilled labor and pays as such. So by your standard welding isn't really skilled labor is it? I mean how many college graduates go to welding classes?
Edit: I'm not a welder if I made it sound that way.

I know welding is offered at trade schools which I'd consider a giant step up from learning how to make fast food.
 
Im sure this has been asked before, but have OWS ever given a good reason why they never occupied where Wall Street as its known actually operates? Other than it would be hard.

On the first day of the movement, OWS went to Liberty Square/Zucotti Park as a back-up site. Their original occupation targets were more ambitious, but the police where well prepared and OWS didn't have the numbers yet.
 

El Sloth

Banned
On the first day of the movement, OWS went to Liberty Square/Zucotti Park as a back-up site. Their original occupation targets were more ambitious, but the police where well prepared and OWS didn't have the numbers yet.

Fair enough. But now that they do have the numbers? Is there still a heavy police presence in that area just in case? Im never down by the financial district so I wouldn't know.
 

Moppet13

Member
I know welding is offered at trade schools which I'd consider a giant step up from learning how to make fast food.

Oops, wrong quote, I meant to quote the one about being a truck driver. I also took a bunch of welding classes, I won't be certified anytime soon.
 
Fuck that, I am in support of people getting out into primaries and changing the parties from the inside. Become delegates at the local and county conventions. Find a candidate for whom you believe represents your values, and work your ass off for them. Shutting down a port is only going to alienate unionized workers, who vote and contribute a lot more to the political process. Also, make us look like loons.

I'm sure this will be an effective strategy, even in light of the fact that both the democrat party and the republican party are bought and paid for by the same corporations. All you have to do is a run a candidate with the strength of her convictions, and all that systemic corruption and bribery will be washed away, right? Unfortunately, the reality is that candidates who actually have a pro-regulation, pro-working class agenda almost never make it to congress. They receive no funding, endorsements, or other forms of support from the party establishment while their pro-corporate competitors are backed heavily. And if they do manage to push through all that internal obstruction, they get to be ignored and mocked by corporate owned media. Changing the system from the inside doesn't work when the inside is rotten.

In March, 2008, The Los Angeles Times published an article with the headline “Democrats are darlings of Wall St“, which reported that both Obama and Clinton “are benefiting handsomely from Wall Street donations, easily surpassing Republican John McCain in campaign contributions." In June, 2008, Reuters published an article entitled “Wall Street puts its money behind Obama”; it detailed that Obama had almost twice as much in contributions from “the securities and investment industry” and that “Democrats garnered 57 percent of the contributions from” that industry. When the financial collapse exploded, then-candidate Obama became an outspoken supporter of the Wall Street bailout.

After Obama’s election, the Democratic Party controlled the White House, the Senate and the House for the first two years, and the White House and Senate for the ten months after that. During this time, unemployment and home foreclosures were painfully high, while Wall Street and corporate profits exploded, along with income inequality. In July, 2009, The New York Times dubbed JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon “Obama’s favorite banker” because of his close relationship with, and heavy influence on, leading Democrats, including the President. In February, 2010, President Obama defended Dimon’s $17 million bonus and the $9 million bonus to Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein — both of whose firms received substantial taxpayer bailouts — as fair and reasonable.

The key Senate fundraiser for the Party is Chuck Schumer, whom the New York Times profiled — in an article headlined “Champion of Wall Street Reaps the Benefits” — as someone who repeatedly supported “measures now blamed for contributing to the financial crisis” and who “took other steps to protect industry players from government oversight and tougher rules” and thus “became a magnet for campaign donations from wealthy industry executives, including Jamie Dimon, now the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase; John J. Mack, the chief executive at Morgan Stanley; and Charles O. Prince III, the former chief executive of Citigroup.” That servitude to Wall Street is what consolidated Schumer’s power in the Party:

As a result, [Schumer] has collected over his career more in campaign contributions from the securities and investment industry than any of his peers in Congress, with the exception of Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts . . . In the last two-year election cycle, he helped raise more than $120 million for the Democrats’ Senate campaign committee, drawing nearly four times as much money from Wall Street as the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Donors often mention his “pro-business message” and record of addressing their concerns.

When Rahm Emanuel — who had made $16 million in three years as an investment banker after leaving the Clinton White House — left as Obama’s Chief of Staff to run for Mayor of Chicago, Obama chose as his replacement Bill Daley, who at the time was serving as JP Morgan’s Midwest Chairman and a director of Boeing. Shortly after Obama’s star director of Office of Management and Budget, Peter Orszag, left the administration, he became a top executive at Citigroup. The DCCC, recently headed by Emanuel and now feigning support for the protests, is characterized by little other than a strategy of supporting corporatist, Wall-Street-revering “Blue Dog” Democrats as a way of consolidating power.

One of the most significant aspects of the Obama administration is the lack of criminal prosecutions for leading Wall Street executives for the 2008 financial crisis. Obama recently opined — even while there are supposedly ongoing DOJ investigations — that Wall Street’s corruption was, in general, not illegal. The New York Times recently reported that top Obama officials are heavily pressuring New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman to join a woefully inadequate settlement agreement that would end all investigations and litigations against Wall Street firms for pervasive mortgage fraud.

http://politics.salon.com/2011/10/11/can_ows_be_turned_into_a_democratic_party_movement/
 

Mael

Member
Who elected the government? You. The 100%.
What are they supposed to do? To be responsible for the people.
What are they doing now? Elected by the 100% yet making laws only protect those 1%.

Who elected those CEOs? Share holders. The 1%.
What are they supposed to do? To be responsible for the 1%.
What are they doing now? To be responsible for the 1% by using the 100%'s tax money and everything is protected by the law that is indirectly made by the 100%.

So tell me which organization can be directly affected by the voters and tax payers, aka the people?

Those OWS can go all bananas, starving and suffering and whatever on the street during this winter but they are not going to change anything because the enemy they are against are protected by the laws made by lawmakers who are elected by the 99% (or 100%).

This shit is like a circle. People protesting things that are protected by the very people themselves. How is it going to work?

This can't be quoted enough. Seriously that's basically the only way of improving the situation.
And kame's post explains so much...
Makes you wonder if the republicans are so much worse or not on principle....I mean from an outsider perspective.
 
Thanks.

Fair enough. But now that they do have the numbers? Is there still a heavy police presence in that area just in case? Im never down by the financial district so I wouldn't know.

Speculating based on what I've seen on the news; major demonstrations require letting people know where demonstrations are being held a long time in advance. That gives the police more than enough time to prepare and set up barricades. When you're dealing with a non-violent movement, all the protesters can do is march until they're stopped by police. They're not going to push cops over, so all the police have to do is a form a solid line of defense. Hopefully OWS will get a bit more clever - while remaining non-violent - and succeed in occupying more high value locations. The Oakland ports are a pretty good start.
 

Joe

Member
I'm super generalizing right now but i cant help but feel like some people are way angrier at the protest causing 150 workers missing a days pay than at the financial industry that caused a global economic meltdown. Just the vibe I'm picking up.
 

Slavik81

Member
I'm super generalizing right now but i cant help but feel like some people are way angrier at the protest causing 150 workers missing a days pay than at the financial industry that caused a global economic meltdown. Just the vibe I'm picking up.

This afternoon I was sitting in my living room when some kid threw a baseball through my window. I was pretty upset about it, and told him off. Then, I started picking up the pieces. As I was installing a new, shatter-proof window, I saw some new kid running by, chasing after the other one. Trying to scare the other kid, he kicked my car to set the alarm off.

When I yelled at him to stop that, he just looked up at me confused. "But, I'm trying to help. Why are you upset with me when that guy smashed your window?"
 

sphagnum

Banned
Who elected the government? You. The 100%.
What are they supposed to do? To be responsible for the people.
What are they doing now? Elected by the 100% yet making laws only protect those 1%.

Who elected those CEOs? Share holders. The 1%.
What are they supposed to do? To be responsible for the 1%.
What are they doing now? To be responsible for the 1% by using the 100%'s tax money and everything is protected by the law that is indirectly made by the 100%.

So tell me which organization can be directly affected by the voters and tax payers, aka the people?

Those OWS can go all bananas, starving and suffering and whatever on the street during this winter but they are not going to change anything because the enemy they are against are protected by the laws made by lawmakers who are elected by the 99% (or 100%).

This shit is like a circle. People protesting things that are protected by the very people themselves. How is it going to work?

You're missing the point here, which is that it doesn't matter in the slightest that the voters have the theoretical power to reign in their elected officials, because they don't have the MONEY to control them. Only the rich have the money to truly influence representatives.

The rich fund the candidates, so the candidates kowtow to them. Then the people elect from the two financially-chosen candidates who inevitably don't reflect the interests of the people. To solve the problem, you must stop it at its source - corporate money.
 

Gaborn

Member
This OWS thing has turned into a joke. I totally changed my opinion of it.

They should have addressed their concerns to the white house on day 1 because that's where the problem is. Yet after 3 months all they can do is picking some easy targets such as those longshoremen who are nowhere close to the top 1%.

This is just what will happen when you give too much rights to ignorant fools.

They won't admit it but I don't think you'll see that happen as long as Obama is President. I pretty much GUARANTEE that you'd see it if Bush was still in the White House though. For me, that's the biggest problem I have with OWS. The tea party, for all it's flaws at least challenged some Republicans. I don't see the same willingness from OWS.
 

Gaborn

Member
So why weren't they paid? Assuming the employers could afford it.

Employees are paid to do a job, if they're unable to do the job they're not going to get paid. It's not a question of "afford." Most people could "afford" to give $20 to every homeless person they saw but you're never going to see that happen either.

I should also add if they saw that letter (and I don't know if they did or did not) you could hardly blame the employer. This was according to the letter a deliberate disruption. Should employers pay employees for playing hackey sack rather than working?
 

Mael

Member
You're missing the point here, which is that it doesn't matter in the slightest that the voters have the theoretical power to reign in their elected officials, because they don't have the MONEY to control them. Only the rich have the money to truly influence representatives.

The rich fund the candidates, so the candidates kowtow to them. Then the people elect from the two financially-chosen candidates who inevitably don't reflect the interests of the people. To solve the problem, you must stop it at its source - corporate money.

If you're unwilling to have elected officials to stop corporate money from flooding the candidates/politicians you have nothing to stop the flood since the money is actually protected and will not stop short of a total revolution that we all know is never coming.

It's kinda like here, there's 2 ways to stop a law you disagree that has the backing of the majority party in the parliament :
- go down the street and protest in hoping that the country will be locked long enough that the officials will change their minds
- have 10 deputes go to the constitutional chamber to ask whether or not the law is valid.

Guess which one is used more often and guess which one actually works.
PROTIP : the answer to one is not the answer to the other.

Protesting is all fine and good but in the end if nothing change it serves no purpose.

Employees are paid to do a job, if they're unable to do the job they're not going to get paid. It's not a question of "afford." Most people could "afford" to give $20 to every homeless person they saw but you're never going to see that happen either.

I should also add if they saw that letter (and I don't know if they did or did not) you could hardly blame the employer. This was according to the letter a deliberate disruption. Should employers pay employees for playing hackey sack rather than working?

We don't agree often but seriously there's not exactly much that the employers could have done anyway.
 

Baraka in the White House

2-Terms of Kombat
They won't admit it but I don't think you'll see that happen as long as Obama is President. I pretty much GUARANTEE that you'd see it if Bush was still in the White House though. For me, that's the biggest problem I have with OWS. The tea party, for all it's flaws at least challenged some Republicans. I don't see the same willingness from OWS.

OWS won't be able to primary anyone without the kind of money and orqnizational support the Tea Party was given. Considering the tone of OWS message(s)I don't see much support from either side of the isle heading their way.
 

nib95

Banned
Employees are paid to do a job, if they're unable to do the job they're not going to get paid. It's not a question of "afford." Most people could "afford" to give $20 to every homeless person they saw but you're never going to see that happen either.

Just feel like part of the responsibility lies with the employers too. At least half pay or something. I dunno man, doesn't seem right.
 

Mael

Member
Just feel like part of the responsibility lies with the employers too. At least half pay or something. I dunno man, doesn't seem right.

Why? If their contracts doesn't cover such situations they can't be paid.
Heck they wouldn't have been paid either if the port took fire and they couldn't go to work.
It's not exactly the employers fault that the port was closed either.
 

Slayven

Member
This afternoon I was sitting in my living room when some kid threw a baseball through my window. I was pretty upset about it, and told him off. Then, I started picking up the pieces. As I was installing a new, shatter-proof window, I saw some new kid running by, chasing after the other one. Trying to scare the other kid, he kicked my car to set the alarm off.

When I yelled at him to stop that, he just looked up at me confused. "But, I'm trying to help. Why are you upset with me when that guy smashed your window?"
Subtle but smooth.
 

Gaborn

Member
Just feel like part of the responsibility lies with the employers too. At least half pay or something. I dunno man, doesn't seem right.

People are paid to do a job. They're not giving them money just for the hell of it, they're being paid to do a job, because of this protest (which apparently was aided by some of the employees, which is just sad since it hurts all of them) they were unable to do the job and therefore unable to get paid.
 

Wazzim

Banned
I'm super generalizing right now but i cant help but feel like some people are way angrier at the protest causing 150 workers missing a days pay than at the financial industry that caused a global economic meltdown. Just the vibe I'm picking up.
Protesters don't have day in day out propagand- oh err commercials acting like they are the second coming of Christ, ready to help you.

*Truck drivers note*
Oh wow.
 

zomaha

Member
Looks like the argument in the OP is totally bunk. OWS is shutting down these ports because their workers are being abused. Many of the workers support it. Focusing on the fact that 150 workers missed one day of pay while making no mention of the heinous corruption and exploitation being committed by their employers is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

Oh..
 

Wazzim

Banned
Do I have to become their leader or something? Seriously, the lack of leadership is staggering and is truly hurting this movement.

Sure you can be the leader. Just prepare to be locked up for an infinite time when congress passes Patriot Act 2.0
 

nib95

Banned
The whole thing should be quoted:

Looks like the argument in the OP is totally bunk. OWS is shutting down these ports because their workers are being abused. Many of the workers support it. Focusing on the fact that 150 workers missed one day of pay while making no mention of the heinous corruption and exploitation being committed by their employers is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

Puts it in perspective. Basically then the article in the OP is largely anti OWS propaganda or crap.
 

gondwana

Member
I'm super generalizing right now but i cant help but feel like some people are way angrier at the protest causing 150 workers missing a days pay than at the financial industry that caused a global economic meltdown. Just the vibe I'm picking up.
most americans didn't like those uppity negroes who used non-cooperation and disobedience for civil rights either
 
]Complaining at the White House is like complaining to the McDonald's cashier that your burger tastes like shit. Who pays the cashier? who pays the White House?[/B]

I guess we'll keep having to go down before people realise what protestors mean by the divide of the 99% to 1%; I can't wait for people to describe video games as a hobby for the upper middle classes, and dining at McDonalds a treat only the 'wealthy' can afford.

Dear Christ, THIS. All of it. The office of the President is the middleman.

If your burger sucks, you don't go to the cashier. You don't go to the assistant manager. If there's a fundamental flaw in how the burger is made you gotta go to the corporate/franchise owner.

OWS protests are a failure due to a lack of leadership. I know they wanted it that way, but it just didn't help them. It hurt. Bad. "Let's go block a port!!"....um, no....

People are already talking about gamers like that. Specifically, that people on welfare still spend money on xbox....
 

Wazzim

Banned
most americans didn't like those uppity negroes who used non-cooperation and disobedience for civil rights either

Most Americans just don't like protests period.
Many (many others are still very skeptical about their leaders, mind you) have officially become mindless puppets against their own interest. It seem that this is possible even without a totalitarian regime.

That's the feeling I'm getting from the US reactions all over the Internet. There was a 10.000+ rally against poverty here last week (organized by the left opposition) and nobody complained because well, POVERTY IS BAD.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom