UAW Bosses--Keeping it Classy

[guido911]

But...but...but...it's those tea partiers out there being disrespectful and mean (language warning):

[FOTD]

BFD...Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.

Why do you want to shut down the voices of the laborer and yet raise the ire of the corporation?

[we vs us]

So:  A whole bunch of people are pissed at the UAW guy, he's trying to calm the crowd, one of them insults his mom vehemently and he tells the guy to eff off.  Looks like a "come April 1, we'll all be fired" kinda conversation to me.

This is relevant to the Teabaggers how?

[guido911]

So:  A whole bunch of people are pissed at the UAW guy, he's trying to calm the crowd, one of them insults his mom vehemently and he tells the guy to eff off.  Looks like a "come April 1, we'll all be fired" kinda conversation to me.

This is relevant to the Teabaggers how?

It figures you wouldn't find the relevance. But hey, still using that tired and lame tea baggers again? Maybe we should call union folks "motherf%ckers". I mean, after all, they started it?

[Ed W]

It's safe to say you've never been in a union meeting, Anthony.  This one was a little more raucous than most, but only by a little.  The rank and file doesn't trust company management, and they (or we, since I'm a union member) have similar trust issues with union officers.  The union and it's members have both common interests and diverging ones, so any reasonably intelligent member remains skeptical of the officers and their positions. 

[Red Arrow]

It's safe to say you've never been in a union meeting, Anthony.  This one was a little more raucous than most, but only by a little.  The rank and file doesn't trust company management, and they (or we, since I'm a union member) have similar trust issues with union officers.  The union and it's members have both common interests and diverging ones, so any reasonably intelligent member remains skeptical of the officers and their positions. 

Unions are a big business supposedly to take care of the interests of the worker.  I think sometimes the unions are in the business of self-preservation of the union.

In the days of Samuel Gompers etc, I probably would have been a union guy.  There are still some companies that deserve to have unions.  A well run company will not cause the workers to need a union.

I suffer the disadvantage (union-wise) of being an engineer where my personal performance can make a difference.  I might think differently if I never had a chance to be something better than another cog in the gear.