Ralph Nader: Union Buster

[wyldwolf]

Ralph talks big about democracy and even unions. But when his own workers at one of his magazines, Multinational Monitor, got fed up with cruel working conditions and started agitating for a union of their own, Nader busted the union with all of the hardball techniques used by corporate owners across America. Workers at Public Citizen, another Nader group, also tried to form a union because of 60 to 80 hour work weeks, salaries that ranged from $13,000 down, and other difficult working conditions and were blocked by Nader, who remains unapologetic to this day.
Nader says "I don't think there is a role for unions in small nonprofit 'cause' organizations any more than ... within a monastery or within a union."


...more

http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm#antiunion

[wellstone_democrat]

1. Yeah, cause he's on a holy mission

and you should WORSHIP him...

seriously, can you Nader drones defend this action?

[wyldwolf]

4. no, they can't defend it...

http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm

Nor can they defend him profiting from Haliburton and Enron.

http://www.bushwatch.net/nader2000.htm

[girl gone mad]

10. I tried to verify this report through the listed sources..

but the only one that seems to exist is an email from a fired employee. It certainly doesn't seem like enough to base an opinion on, and definitely not enough to bring Nader down.

What would be the argument for non-profits being unionized? I tend to think of non-profits as largely volunteer-based, though I know many are not well-run and those at the top often profit heavily. Mayybe more regulation is what's needed, not unions. I think a lot of small NPOs tthat are well run and do do good work really could not survive.

[wyldwolf]

16. Greenwich Village Gazette, Washington Post

obviously the articles have been removed from online..

So I guess that is enough to convince you it didn't happen.

And I don't think it will "bring Nader down..."

[barbaraann]

2. There's something weird about his organizations, too.

I called up several times to try to volunteer with one of them and never could get a call back or talk to someone who could help me. It was very strange.

[lcordero]

3. again, more stone-throwing in a glass house

[wyldwolf]

5. Nader is the one preaching "change" and that dems and repubs are the same.

He's a hypocrit.

And you can't defend this very UNDEMOCRATIC practice.

But since Nader isn't a democrat - and his supporters obviously aren't either...

[lcordero]

6. there is sure a lot of glass being broken

The Democratic Party has NO RIGHT to call Nader a hypocrite when they are acting very much pro-NAFTA and pro-corporate.

[wyldwolf]

7. Nader is the one preaching "change" and that dems and repubs are the same.

Can any Nader supporter demonstrate how he if for "change" based on his actions?

[lcordero]

18. you tell me, what difference is there between them?

I recollect 17 senate democrats and 63 house democrats voting for the partial birth abortion ban.

I recollect 81 house democrats and 29 senate democrats voting for the IWR.

I call what has happened in the last 24 years in government a BIPARTISAN FUCKING IN THE ASS OF ORDINARY PEOPLE...not so much as a smidgen of KY mind you.

[wyldwolf]

23. two issues among many

Just because members of both parties agree on something doesn't make that something a bad thing.

You'll find similarities across many different party lines.

But as official party platforms:

GOP is:

anti-gay
pro-religion in schools
anti-woman's right to choose
anti-gun control
anti-labor union
... among other things.

All things typical democrats are traditionally against.

I don't define my party allegiace on two issues.

You seem to, though.

[lcordero]

26. seems that the GOP is entrenched in both Parties then

"All things typical democrats are traditionally against."

That statement is not accurate. The Democrats have only given lip service to the causes that you have mentioned and nothing more.

BTW...I am EXTREMELY pro-gun rights, just as I am completely Pro-Rights and that includes Pro-Gay Rights.

[spooky3]

28. not so--empirical studies of Senate and House voting records show that

you can classify people almost perfectly as Dem vs. Rep. if you know what their votes were on some key bills.

It is extremely rare in social science research to be able to classify people so cleanly.

There are huge differences in the parties' positions as reflected in their ACTIONS (voting records)--in general--even though there are individual differences within each party.

[wyldwolf]

30. good answer!

[wyldwolf]

29. That statement is very accurate

Do you want to define dems as voting memebers of congress, as you did in the above post on IWR and partial birth abortions, or the voting public, as you are doing now?

The Democrats have only given lip service to the causes that you have mentioned and nothing more.

A misguided opinion. For example, democrats have held the anti-choice crowd at bay for 30 years.

Democrats are very labor union intensive. On and on...

BTW...I am EXTREMELY pro-gun rights, just as I am completely Pro-Rights and that includes Pro-Gay Rights.

Perhaps you're having a difficult time distinguishing what "typical" means.

You seem to be defining the typical democrat based upon YOUR beliefs and not traditional policy positions of the DNC and polling data on democratic beliefs.

[lcordero]

31. How "labor intensive" are Democrats?

With union participation on the decline, with the establishment of pro-globalization agreements that are designed to benefit corporations and the ruling class and ONLY the corporations and ruling class, with the Taft-Hartley Act STILL being on the books, with the passing of anti-worker legislation which they could have easily filibustered...how are they "labor intensive"?

A misguided opinion. For example, democrats have held the anti-choice crowd at bay for 30 years.

Nixon appointed three Supreme Court Justices that supported Roe vs Wade. The courts and the women's movement were the only people keeping the anti-choice crowd at bay.

I will not support any compromise whatsoever and I will not support the traitors that vote for the "partial birth" abortion ban.


http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45c/061.html

[wyldwolf]

33. you keep dealing with exceptions to the rule... isolated incidents...

We are discussing "on average" - and you keep avoiding the questions.

Post #7: Can any Nader supporter demonstrate how he if for "change" based on his actions?

Post #29: Do you want to define dems as voting memebers of congress, as you did in the above post on IWR and partial birth abortions, or the voting public, as you are doing now?

And respond to post #28: empirical studies of Senate and House voting records show that you can classify people almost perfectly as Dem vs. Rep. if you know what their votes were on some key bills.

It is extremely rare in social science research to be able to classify people so cleanly.

There are huge differences in the parties' positions as reflected in their ACTIONS (voting records)--in general--even though there are individual differences within each party.

With union participation on the decline...

And this has what to do with democrats being pro-union?

In fact, what did ANY of your last post have to do with the issue at hand?

[lcordero]

35. I view these "exceptions" a lot differently than you do

I view these "exceptions" as the showing of true colors.

Post #7: Can any Nader supporter demonstrate how he if for "change" based on his actions?

He has a PROVEN track record for consumer protection and people protection in general. I view him as better than Bush or Kerry but definitely not my first choice. I would rather put in a protest vote and help build an actual OPPOSITION party.

Post #29: Do you want to define dems as voting memebers of congress, as you did in the above post on IWR and partial birth abortions, or the voting public, as you are doing now?

I am not defining them as democrat or republican. I am defining them as people that I reserve the right to oppose, vote against and help campaign against.

And respond to post #28: empirical studies of Senate and House voting records show that you can classify people almost perfectly as Dem vs. Rep. if you know what their votes were on some key bills.

There is NOTHING that is more "key" than civil liberties, equal rights, women's rights, worker rights, education, and environmental considerations. All of these issues are issues that "democrats" have found themselves on the wrong side of.

And this has what to do with democrats being pro-union?

Are they pro-union? I really wonder since the Taft-Hartley Act was passed on the 23rd of June of 1947, close to 60 years ago and has not been repealed by democrats. Even as a minority party, democrats (with the GOP being more than happy to be accomplices) can still ram through a complete repeal of all globalization legislature...but they don't.

[Blue_Roses]

19. we have all the rights in the world

it's called the 1st amendment. Nader is a wrinkled up opportunist who's sole purpose is to stir the pot. He's gross too. Does he ever wash his hair or iron his clothes :puke:

[BeatleBoot]

8. No Glass Houses Here

Bush is a threat to me, my wife and my kids.

Ralph is doing his best to help Bush.

Therefore, Ralph is a threat to me, my wife and my kids.

And he was too stupid to get it. Dumb.

[Legate]

9. ...

All the good that nader may have done with his life has been forfeit as far as I am concerned.

[newyawker99]

37. Hi Legate!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[girl gone mad]

11. Nader isn't the threat.

Blaming a third party for the Democratic candidate's failure to attract voters is an eercise in futility.

[wyldwolf]

12. Nah...

Do the math...

Removing Bush is most important.

Dem gets 9 votes
Rep gets 10 votes
Third party (members of which would have voted dem) gets 3 votes

No third party, dem gets 12 votes. Wins.

[BeatleBoot]

15. Let me be crystal clear...

Who do you think I'll fight for in November?

Bush is a threat to me, my wife and my kids.

Ralph is doing his best to help Bush.

Therefore, Ralph is a threat to me, my wife and my kids.

Who do you think I'll fight for in November?

[Tinoire]

24. Yeah but the pro-war DLC & its supporters would rather do anything but

address the real cause of their failure to attract voters.

We must all line up and rubber-stamp their bush-enabling candidate so that the occupation, wars & corporate globalization can go on, their portfolios remain safe thanks to corporations cutting costs with exporting more and more jobs overseas in true Kerry/NAFTA tradition, and their eyes remain blissfully closed to addressing the real problems in this country.

DLC, DLC, DLC, rah, rah, rah

[wellstone_democrat]

13. Amen

that says it all as neatly as possible!

[wyldwolf]

14. Will some Nader person PLEASE say Union busting is a good thing?

[cryofan]

17. Nader running causing Bush to win 2004 could be good for liberalism

You can make an argument that liberalism is dead in the water. Maybe what we need is a hard swing to the right to awaken liberalism. Then in 2008 or 2012, a huge liberal uprising would be ripe.

Maybe it can't get better until it gets a lot worse.

[Doomsayer13]

20. I for one

am not going to allow this country to go to hell in a handbasket for Ralph Nader and his ideas of "it needs to get much worse before it gets better". Fuck that. I'm sorry, but my children and I will have to pay off Bush's 7 trillion dollar deficit, they'll have shit public schools to go to which are literally falling apart, the environment is close to be shot, and all for what? "Because it needs to get worse before it gets better"? It's the most selfish excuse I've ever heard. Democrats losing is not good for liberalism, its good for Bush and Ralph knows it.

[BeatleBoot]

21. You Rock!

Thank you for that post.

I'm just looking out for my family (as you are) and now its clear that Ralph isn't.

[wellstone_democrat]

25. Yeah, this isn't just a philosophical exercise

it isn't a matter of ideology or idealism its survival.
You can go on forever about how debate and purity is "good" for politics and I don't disagree that they are admirable goals. Nader could do a lot to stimulate discussion and to rally people to think. But, he doesn't fund a think tank or MoveOn or start his own movement, what he does is parasitically graft himself into the election cycle for his own selfish reasons.

Hey Ralph and friends: those unemployed, underinsured and scared---as well as the rest of us who could find ourselves in that position don't have time for some sort of "teach-in" on virtue. Those of us facing the draft or whose children are don't need it either. Its survival.

[cryofan]

27. we do not know how to haggle politically

If you walk into a car lot and buy the car at the sticker price, you are a fool.

What we need to do is fund Nader and give him the power to negotiate with the Dems at the convention in order to get us some of the modern conveniences of modern nations, such as universal health care.

[philosophie_en_rose]

32. Screw Nader. "We" don't need him.

First of all, there are already people that are pulling the discourse to the left. (Kucinich, Dean)

Second, any person that is involved with or supports a candidate will have more leverage than Nader. The only result of your suggestion is that Nader can blackmail and control candidates, without actually having to work on his own.

[Jen72]

36. In the meantime Bush has a mandate this time and

invades Iran and Syria. The environment has to four more years of damage and the UN is dismantled. The world will never forgive America if they allow this to happen and Liberial politics will mean nothing.
It will not just get worse for America, the fate of the whole world rests on this election.

[Deja Q]

22. Nader's a hypcrote and a total nutter

I no longer care how great he was in the 1970s. He's changed. WTF is he doing trying to run for office anyway?! He sounds like another *, for real...

[ScreamingMeemie]

34. With the overtime vote passing (Grrrrrrrr, Edwards and Kerry should

have shown up and voted) are unions going to matter anymore? I'm voting Dem in November but even so, the future isn't looking very rosy in my household. They were already effectively busted with that vote.