babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
NB Babble's terms of use specify that this board and forum are for worker-friendly discussion -- not union-bashing, nor denigrating public sector workers or the great unwashed.
triciamarie,
Lamenting North American unions' retreat from their societal mission -and from their own duties towards their members as Bluemerry has shown- is not "bashing" or being "unfriendly" to unions.
When was the last general strike in Canada or the USA? Where is the Canadian national pro-workers newspaper? Unions cannot afford it?
Whether you believe or not, I am not what you think I am. Please let us move away from witch-hunts and focus on the topic. Thank you.
mahmud, we get your point, but triciamarie is right. I probably should have cut this off earlier, but I'm doing so now. Public sector workers are workers, and they have every right to unionize. This is a labour-friendly forum, and bashing workers isn't allowed here. You could claim that every worker in North America is somehow propping up the capitalist system (and we probably all are) simply by working for capitalists or for the capitalist state. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to unionize.
The end.
My only problem was with Merryblue saying this:
Mahmud said, "I fully agree with Merryblue". Did mahmud "fully agree" with the above quote? If so, then no discussion is possible.
I have no problem debating with mahmud as to whether North American unions should be launching general strikes (as if that's a principle rather than a tactic) or the challenges involved in workers' media.
unionist,
No I do not agree on the vocabulary. For example, rather than "ignorant", I would say unions' educational task has a long shot to go. Rather than "self sentered" I woud say unions relonquished their societal mandate. Rather than "apathetic" I would say unions and their members need to re-examine their priorities, rather than "brainwashed", I would mention "the challenges involved in workers' media" to borrow your nicely put conceptualization (thank you!)
When I read I get the idea behind the vocabulary. I focus on what an author thinks, not how she/he feels. In spite of her/his choice of words, Bluemerry is clearly not anti-union or union bashing, nor am I.
Sorry to say this, folks, but this reminds me of "Happy genocide day" or "F** Canada Day" being interpreted as anti-Canada!
Hate to be a stickler, mahmud, but you still don't get it. Merryblue was attacking TODAY'S WORKING CLASS in that sentence. Not unions. Not even unionized workers. TODAY'S WORKING CLASS. Hard to read "behind" the words in that case. That was absolutely the only sentence in Merryblue's post that I objected to. I'm a worker, my friend, and words are for communicating in my world.
If Merryblue wants to talk about the working class in those insulting terms, s/he should do so elsewhere - or what's next? Today's women? Today's indigenous people?
There still seems to be some resistance to the notion that attacking and insulting workers (not unions - workers) is as unacceptable as doing so to other subsets of humanity. I (and others) will keep repeating, boringly, this point until you get it.