• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Occupy Protesters Have Blocked Access to Three West-Coast Ports

What is the cause then?
What do they plan to accomplish by blocking down the ports and preventing working class folks from making their deliveries?
What do they plan to accomplish by making a lower-middle class worker go without pay?


It's obvious enough. The OWS movement is driven by takers, and makers are their target. By “makers”, I mean anyone who has an honest job, and who seeks to make an honest living through honest work. This includes the workers who they are now, with this stunt, attempting to deprive of their honest livelihood.
 
It's obvious enough. The OWS movement is driven by takers, and makers are their target. By “makers”, I mean anyone who has an honest job, and who seeks to make an honest living through honest work. This includes the workers who they are now, with this stunt, attempting to deprive of their honest livelihood.

that's dishonest. OWS is targeting the shipping company and Goldman Sachs, not the longshoremen.
 
Gee whiz, cut Americans off from their cheaper than dirt imports, and disrupt Mal*Warts supply chain, OMG whatever will we do !

Those poor poor nations that rely on us consuming their uber cheap products are going to suffer now......see what you have gone and done.
 
are you saying these dock workers don't do work when they go to work??

what are you talking about??

No. I'm saying that if these workers were to show up and them allow themselves to be restrained from doing their jobs by a bunch of panty-waisted protestors that they could and should be fired for failing to do their jobs.
 
No. I'm saying that if these workers were to show up and them allow themselves to be restrained from doing their jobs by a bunch of panty-waisted protestors that they could and should be fired for failing to do their jobs.

could be? I doubt it.

should be? that's your opinion.
 
I would be seriously pissed if they prevented me from getting to work and getting paid. How preventing blue-collar workers from going to work is going to win friends and influence people....
 
I would be seriously pissed if they prevented me from getting to work and getting paid. How preventing blue-collar workers from going to work is going to win friends and influence people....

finally!!!

we had to wait all this time for a little common sense. thank you Goshin.
 
many of the dock workers support these actions. Goldman Sachs owns the shipping company.

But if many dock workers support the actions (which I do not doubt) why not go through the proper channels and get the union to support it? I am not sure exactly how the ILWU works, but I'm assuming they would have some type of vote. Why not work with the unions if they are supposedly in solidarity with the port workers?
 

This letter is signed by 5 truckers. If you read different articles about the shuttdown (which I have), you can easily find 5 articles in which different truckers express displeasure in the protesters action. And if the truckers were in solidarity, why did the protestors have to physically block the truckers?

I just think that the protesters should have worked with the longshoreman union, and they should have spent some time and talked to the non-unionized truckers and worked with them as well. If they are concerned about the truckers then they should have spent some time learning about their grievances, helped the truckers organize if they wanted to, and allowed the truckers and the longshoreman to lead this action, not the occupiers.

In the end, you should notice that no one sent any police in to stop them. Why? Because they knew that the protestors were shooting themselves in the foot, so why should they stop them? I am very sympathetic to OWS and I think this action was just stupid, so you can imagine what how people who are not already sympathetic feel.
 
Last edited:
got any evidence any dock workers will lose a day of pay?

Here there is:

"A small number of workers were able to get paid yesterday for at least part of the day, but most were not," said Craig Merrilees, the ILWU spokesman. "They were turned away and told to go back home by the employers and told that they would not be paid."
 
This letter is signed by 5 truckers. If you read different articles about the shuttdown (which I have), you can easily find 5 articles in which different truckers express displeasure in the protesters action. And if the truckers were in solidarity, why did the protestors have to physically block the truckers?

I found the ILWU's statement saying that it isn't vetted by their union. I think the rank and file are very divided on this issue, as I've heard and read conflicting stories about the extent of the support/opposition of this action by the truckers and longshoremen.

Anyways, I think it's important and telling of the state of the country and of unions nationwide that an essentially workerist action was undertaken by non-unionized workers and allies in an activist manner. FWIW I support the action on this basis but also recognize its limited scope and activist character. I think we're going to see a lot more activist and worker-activist actions in the next few months/years as rank-and-file union members, non-union workers and (perhaps more predominantly) other elements converge on economic and labor actions.
 
finally!!!

we had to wait all this time for a little common sense. thank you Goshin.

Ive been saying this **** across two threads....... :roll:
 
Here there is:

"A small number of workers were able to get paid yesterday for at least part of the day, but most were not," said Craig Merrilees, the ILWU spokesman. "They were turned away and told to go back home by the employers and told that they would not be paid."



Ahh yes, it was in one of the numerous threads on this nonsense, There it is right there for you to read, thunder. So sorry for you.
 
alrighty then, let's get back to the topic, shall we?
Whats left to discuss? Unemployed activist leftists pretend to 'stick it to the man' by further annoying and inconveniencing working folk. Once again...mindless ****heads miss their target by looking down the wrong end of the barrel. End thread.
 
Back
Top Bottom