Why Would a Teachers Union Be So Anti-Israel???

[Eleanora1]

The person behind the resolution is, of course, Muslim.

Islamic obsession with Israel reminds one of a mental illness. Muslims would be far more credible members of the human race if they focused on all human rights rather than the rights of Palestinians to blow up their neighbors because they only got 98% of their demands met.

[chattypatty]

Originally Posted by burdell

As I'm not surprised to see the continuing inability (or is it refusal?) of rightists to discern the rather large difference between opposing the actions of a nation and hating those who practice a specific religion. Will you people never grasp the obvious?

Does anyone really fall for that line????

Here you go: When your criticisms of a nation are COMPLETELY UNFAIR, employ double standards which are not applied to other nations equally, then you can be said to have a nefarious bias against the people of that nation. Will you people never grasp the obvious?

[Gurbie]

[quote=maja;19462898]Well, not everyone in this mandatory Union is "proud" to be supporting this anti-semitic resolution. In fact, many members feel "duped" into it and are seeking legal counsel. Perhaps, YOU need to do some reading. Here, you can start with this additional link:

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/06/03/manzar-foroohar-the-california-faculty-association’s-secret-weapon/2/ (broken link)

Thanks, I read it. Didn't change my mind though!

AIPAC doesn't like it one bit when anyone uses the words Israel, Palistine, civilian deaths, and human rights in the same paragraph. So yeah, CFA can expect a little heat for their resolution, like from that Blaze article you linked in your OP.

Since the CFA is an association of California college professors, I dare say the vast majority are of the liberal persuasion, and in agreement with this resolution.

As to some members of the CFA not liking Fooroohar or the board's actions- that's undoubtedly true. So what? Have you ever belonged to a union? Did you always agree with everything the board said or did? You are describing a political issue within the union, and that is where it should be resolved. The disgruntled members can try to muster a majority to change the union by-laws, or elect board members who agree with their views.

Re "Mandatory membership"- the "closed shop". Yes, ALL unions SHOULD have mandatory membership. The tremendous power descrepancy between capital and labor demands it- "union" MEANS "one"- ALL employees, speaking with one voice.

Since the beginning of the labor movement, managers have employed a "divide and conquer" strategy against employees, to frighten them into not joining the union. That is why they like "open shops" (voluntary union membership), it gives them leverage over the workers.

[maja]

[quote=Gurbie;19504425]

Originally Posted by maja

Well, not everyone in this mandatory Union is "proud" to be supporting this anti-semitic resolution. In fact, many members feel "duped" into it and are seeking legal counsel. Perhaps, YOU need to do some reading. Here, you can start with this additional link:

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/06/03/m...cret-weapon/2/

Thanks, I read it. Didn't change my mind though!

AIPAC doesn't like it one bit when anyone uses the words Israel, Palistine, civilian deaths, and human rights in the same paragraph. So yeah, CFA can expect a little heat for their resolution, like from that Blaze article you linked in your OP.

Since the CFA is an association of California college professors, I dare say the vast majority are of the liberal persuasion, and in agreement with this resolution.

As to some members of the CFA not liking Fooroohar or the board's actions- that's undoubtedly true. So what? Have you ever belonged to a union? Did you always agree with everything the board said or did? You are describing a political issue within the union, and that is where it should be resolved. The disgruntled members can try to muster a majority to change the union by-laws, or elect board members who agree with their views.

Re "Mandatory membership"- the "closed shop". Yes, ALL unions SHOULD have mandatory membership. The tremendous power descrepancy between capital and labor demands it- "union" MEANS "one"- ALL employees, speaking with one voice.

Since the beginning of the labor movement, managers have employed a "divide and conquer" strategy against employees, to frighten them into not joining the union. That is why they like "open shops" (voluntary union membership), it gives them leverage over the workers.

Not just college professors and according to the ruling cited below, Unions cannot force a member to pay for "political actions with which he disagrees." So, I guess we'll have to see how this plays out. Unions may be doing some big refunds at minimal?

" A similar resolution has been passed by the California Federation of Teachers, which represents one hundred thousand teachers from kindergarten through the 12th grade, as well as lecturers and librarians at the ten campuses of the University of California."

"The resolutions by the California Faculty Association and the California Federation of Teachers are scurrilous. A small group of activist faculty have used the unions to disseminate their own political opinions. They have violated the mission of their union and coerced thousands through forced collection of dues to support views contrary to their conscience."

"However, the Supreme Court, in Communications Workers of America v Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988) and Lehnert v Ferns Faculty Association, 500 U.S. 507 (1991), ruled that under the First Amendment, no worker can be compelled to pay for political actions with which he disagrees."

American Thinker: California Faculty Association Coerces Members' Beliefs

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...sociation.html