Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
God love 'em! Maybe they aren't as dumb as I thought. Video at link.
In what is being reported as a surprise move, the 40,000 members of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) announced that they have formally ended their association with the AFL-CIO, one of the nation's largest private sector unions. The Longshoremen citied Obamacare and immigration reform as two important causes of their disaffiliation. Citing Obamacare, 40,000 Longshoremen Quit the AFL-CIO
Looked at trlhiker's link, and found that Obamacare was not the main reason for the split. It hardly was, the main motivation was jurisdiction issues with the AFL-CIO, nothing more, nothing less.
You also need to improve your English reading comprehension (this is assuming you aren't pursuing an agenda), because there is a huge, huge, difference between a headline reading "....two important causes of their disaffiliation" and "being the most important causes of their disaffiliation". Do you know what the difference is? Did you bother finding out why Obamacare was cited as one of the reasons? it was because the ILWU supported single-payer, not Obamacare I slap my head anymore I'm gonna end up knocking my brain out of my ears
What, you don't like my link? Is it because it doesn't fit your agenda?
Your link clearly stated they were agains't obamacare and the afl-cio was in lockstep with it and they were also against the cadilac tax of 40% on their health benefits. 40% is a freaking lot of theft by Obama.So yes I read your link.
The ILWU President made it clear they are for a single-payer, nationalized healthcare policy and are upset with the AFL-CIO for going along with Obama on the confiscatory tax on their “Cadillac” healthcare plan.
Looked at trlhiker's link, and found that Obamacare was not the main reason for the split. It hardly was, the main motivation was jurisdiction issues with the AFL-CIO, nothing more, nothing less.
You also need to improve your English reading comprehension (this is assuming you aren't pursuing an agenda), because there is a huge, huge, difference between a headline reading "....two important causes of their disaffiliation" and "being the most important causes of their disaffiliation". Do you know what the difference is? Did you bother finding out why Obamacare was cited as one of the reasons? it was because the ILWU supported single-payer, not Obamacare I slap my head anymore I'm gonna end up knocking my brain out of my ears
What do the 47%ers care, they gettin free health care so they think.
Did anyone bother to read their letter? They're mad that the AFL-CIO didn't demand single payer vs. Obama care, and they're mad that the AFL-CIO hasn't pushed harder for immigration reform. They think the AFL-CIO is too conservative. I agree with them over their concerns on the tax for Cadillac plans, but that's something that could be fixed in the bill by Congress, if they can ever get their act together. Before you get too excited, remember that SEIU (the FAVORITE group of conservatives ) also left the AFL-CIO (a coalition of unions--not a union itself) over similar concerns--that the AFL-CIO is too moderate politically.
I find it helpful to seek out the source of the story, rather than multiple links to articles (i.e., interpretations) of the story. In this particular case, the source of the story is a letter from the ILWU to the AFL-CIO -- see: http://www.longshoreshippingnews.com...-8-29-2013.pdf
The letter mentions many very specific reasons for the action by the ILWU, including Obamacare. To single out one reason and use that reason in the title of an article, as if that reason is the sole reason for the action, is disingenuous at best, and more likely a deliberate attempt to mislead the reader. The article's title could have started with "Citing Immigration Reform, 40,000 Longshoremen ...", "Citing Interference By Other Unions, 40,000 Longshoremen ...", "Citing Labor Law Reform, 40,000 Longshoremen ...", and so on.
Here is everything the letter had to say about Obamacare:
Quote:
President Obama ran on a platform that he would not tax medical plans and at the 2009 AFL-CIO Convention, you [AFL-CIO President Trumka] stated that labor would not stand for a tax on our benefits. Yet the Federation later lobbied affiliates to support a bill that taxed our health care plans.
To cite in the title of an article, as if it were the central theme, the topic of 2 sentences in a 3-page letter, is either lazy reporting or extremely biased reporting.
God love 'em! Maybe they aren't as dumb as I thought. Video at link.
I thought that too when I saw the headline. But when you read the details, you see that the reasoning isn't because they realize immigration reform and Obamacare are bad ideas, but because they didn't think they go far enough. They want even more government involvement in healthcare and want even more welcome arms to illegals.
And if you watch the video Trumka pulls a Pelosi "we need to pass the bill to see what's in it". Asked about possible solutions to pension problems his answer is he doesn't know because they haven't finished the reforms yet. Way to represent the middle class - instead of soliciting their opinions on their pensions, you tell them you'll let them know what your plans for their future are once you've finished deciding what they'll be.
I find it helpful to seek out the source of the story, rather than multiple links to articles (i.e., interpretations) of the story. In this particular case, the source of the story is a letter from the ILWU to the AFL-CIO -- see: http://www.longshoreshippingnews.com...-8-29-2013.pdf
The letter mentions many very specific reasons for the action by the ILWU, including Obamacare. To single out one reason and use that reason in the title of an article, as if that reason is the sole reason for the action, is disingenuous at best, and more likely a deliberate attempt to mislead the reader. The article's title could have started with "Citing Immigration Reform, 40,000 Longshoremen ...", "Citing Interference By Other Unions, 40,000 Longshoremen ...", "Citing Labor Law Reform, 40,000 Longshoremen ...", and so on.
Here is everything the letter had to say about Obamacare:
To cite in the title of an article, as if it were the central theme, the topic of 2 sentences in a 3-page letter, is either lazy reporting or extremely biased reporting.
It's funny to see this. I remember the huge outcry on this forum from liberals citing how racist Justice Scalia was for saying that voting was an entitlement for blacks. Threads went on for literally 100+ messages about it.
Only thing is, he never said it. But the liberals just jumped on the headlines instead of actually reading what he actually said.
But of course now that someone posts about a rift on the left side things, it's important to dig deep for the specifics and find accurate quotes before going off half-cocked and you find the same liberals rushing to provide clarification.
Hypocritical partisanship.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) also left the AFL-CIO (a coalition of unions--not a union itself) over similar concerns--that the AFL-CIO is too moderate politically.
