NationStates Jolt Archive

Figured I would do this instead of hijacking the Rent a German thread.

Here in the US, our unions are so lazy that they rent homeless people and pay them to protest on their behalf.

http://www.nbc4.com/news/13749055/detail.html

The Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters hired homeless people to protest on behalf of the union.

They moved around downtown, often picketing one location in the morning and another in the afternoon. They were not members of the union whose signs they carried, and they were paid less by the union than the company that they were picketing pays its workers.

The protesters were paid about $8 an hour to march with signs and yell at the top of their lungs, they said. The Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters hired protesters to picket in front of buildings around Washington D.C. to pressure construction companies to hire union carpenters.

Most of the people hired were homeless or living in transitional housing, like Jawara King. He said he lives out of a self-storage locker and sleeps wherever he can.

King worked as a paid protester for 15 months. He wrote a book, which includes the story of how he was fired for being a whistle-blower.

"The deception is people think we're affiliated with the non-unionized companies working inside and we're part of their business structure when we're outsiders and have nothing to do with them," King said. "If you tried to ask a question they would be like, you know, you're not supposed to talk to them or it's the end of your job."

A union supervisor overseeing the protestors would not let the protestors talk to reporters. When asked why the protestors were not allowed to speak, the supervisor remained silent.

Maybe the homeless people welcome a bit of money for having some fun (as long as the cops don't get heavy). But if this gets more widespread, it'll devalue genuine protests. People already dismiss some protests, especially by religious groups, by calling it rentamob.

It's because no one gives a shit about the shit they give a shit about so they pull this shit so it makes it seem that more people give a shit about the shit they give a shit about...

...or something like that

Why are people complaining? We're already griping about how the homeless should get a job...

Why are people complaining? We're already griping about how the homeless should get a job...
Because it's deceptive. When someone yells "What do we want?", the listener expects that they're the ones to receive what's promised by the reply, "Fair wages!". To find out that they're just shilling for the carpenters that can't be bothered to protest for themselves is unexpected.

I mean, if the Mid Atlantic Carpenters aren't interested enough in fair wages to come protest a little, why should we be interested, either?

It does make for good TV, if anyone cared.

Why are people complaining? We're already griping about how the homeless should get a job...

Yes, and it gives the union such credibility to hire non-union homeless to do their protesting for them.

They can't be arsed to protest on their own behalf.

In this case, it's pretty funny, because employee-owned businesses can't be unionized. The employees are the owners.

But I guess you're saying...

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/FASCISM_NOT_US.jpg

There's that whole too busy working to protest thing.

There's that whole too busy working to protest thing.
First we have non-filibusters in Congress, now we have non-protests by unions, what's next, a non-strike? That's an interesting idea -- striking a company, but continuing to work...

This is....actually....genius! They could hire homeless people to protest while they go work at other jobs and still make an income, homeless get money and those who are on strike still earn money, everyone wins!

I fully support this idea! :D

Because it's deceptive. When someone yells "What do we want?", the listener expects that they're the ones to receive what's promised by the reply, "Fair wages!". To find out that they're just shilling for the carpenters that can't be bothered to protest for themselves is unexpected.

I mean, if the Mid Atlantic Carpenters aren't interested enough in fair wages to come protest a little, why should we be interested, either?

It does make for good TV, if anyone cared.

So, $8/h to protest isn't a fair wage given what their task is?

It's a fair wage plus it gives the people who are homeless money so they aren't begging.

Sure it's deceptive but maybe instead of whining, people should see it as proof that the homeless are willing to work instead of sitting on the corner waiting for handouts.

Outsourcing is the wave of the future. If companies can outsource to other nations, why not outsource to your own nation and give someone who otherwise relies on handouts a chance to earn their own money?

Yes, and it gives the union such credibility to hire non-union homeless to do their protesting for them.

They can't be arsed to protest on their own behalf.

In this case, it's pretty funny, because employee-owned businesses can't be unionized. The employees are the owners.

But I guess you're saying...

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/FASCISM_NOT_US.jpg

I'm saying that if they are being paid, we should be happy these people have some form of work even if it's not the most honest. Sure they're being paid to protest on someone else's behalf, but would you rather that these homeless people not earn their own income?

I'm surprised to hear capitalists complaining about people actually earning money instead of waiting on handouts from other people and the government.

Mind you, this doesn't mean I agree with what the union has done by hiring the homeless to stage these protests. I'm simply saying that I fail to see what the problem is if people are earning their money this way. At least they are doing something to actually earn it instead of sitting back collecting their welfare cheque and doing squat for it.

First we have non-filibusters in Congress, now we have non-protests by unions, what's next, a non-strike? That's an interesting idea -- striking a company, but continuing to work...Heh.
In all seriousness, it's absurd that most unions nowadays think of the strike as their only option to deal with an employer. It isn't. Work slowdowns are useful, as well, where employees can work, get paid, but less work gets done. Also, you can't engage in on the job sabotage unless you're on the job.

This is....actually....genius! They could hire homeless people to protest while they go work at other jobs and still make an income, homeless get money and those who are on strike still earn money, everyone wins!

I fully support this idea! :DIt's certainly an intriguing idea, that's for sure.

Heh.
In all seriousness, it's absurd that most unions nowadays think of the strike as their only option to deal with an employer. It isn't. Work slowdowns are useful, as well, where employees can work, get paid, but less work gets done. Also, you can't engage in on the job sabotage unless you're on the job.

It's certainly an intriguing idea, that's for sure.
I guess you haven't worked around too many unions. When the contract is due to expire, a strike is the first thing that is discussed. When the contract isn't renewed promptly, you can just about bet that there will be a strike. Just about any other sort of action -- slowdowns or sabotage -- will get you fired.

When they were concieved they were necesary, however I think labor unions are no longer necesary or important in today's economy. These days they seam more a part of the problem than a solution to it. All they do is strike and demand higher wages, more benefits and yadda yadda then raise thier dues so the union leaders are the only ones who truly benefit. Keeping that in mind I'm not at all surprised by the hypocrasy I see in this whole situation.

Because it's deceptive. When someone yells "What do we want?", the listener expects that they're the ones to receive what's promised by the reply, "Fair wages!". To find out that they're just shilling for the carpenters that can't be bothered to protest for themselves is unexpected.

I mean, if the Mid Atlantic Carpenters aren't interested enough in fair wages to come protest a little, why should we be interested, either?

It does make for good TV, if anyone cared.

awww, come on, it's free market at it's finest! don't wanna protest? hire someone else to do it! don't have a job? whine for someone too lazy to whine on their own!!

The Homeless guys should form a Union...:D

Figured I would do this instead of hijacking the Rent a German thread.

Here in the US, our unions are so lazy that they rent homeless people and pay them to protest on their behalf.

http://www.nbc4.com/news/13749055/detail.html

My day job is delivering mail for the USPS but hell, I wonder if I can get in on that action too (is it under the table/off the books?), to help me pay off my truck sooner. I'll protest all day, on days that I'm not working at my union job. :D

The Homeless guys should form a Union...:D

But who would they hire to protest?

I'm part of a union, and to be honest, it sucks. But I had to join in order to be hired. When filling out the employment paperwork there was an option to donate to the PAC - which, my manager said, was rather liberal. Needless to say, I didn't check off any of those boxes - not even $.01/hr. The only benefit is, short of sexual harrasment or murder, I can't really be fired after my first 60 days on the job. Even if my performance was so horrendous that they didn't schedule me for hours, I'd still get paid as if I did work.

Hahaha! Sounds kind of like a great idea, frankly. :p

Damn, I never got paid when I was involved in solidarity pickets. :(

But who would they hire to protest?

Illegals.

Ha, I can't believe I just used that word.

*throws up*

My dad said people we saw "protesting" the Iraq War early on in NYC were probably paid homeless. Not all the protests, but one that passed us.

Down with scab unionists!

I guess you haven't worked around too many unions. When the contract is due to expire, a strike is the first thing that is discussed. When the contract isn't renewed promptly, you can just about bet that there will be a strike. Just about any other sort of action -- slowdowns or sabotage -- will get you fired.Oh, I know, I'm saying that unions are too quick to strike. There are plenty of other options. Fortunately, certain unions <gestures towards sig> are willing to exercise them, when it seems strategic.

When they were concieved they were necesary, however I think labor unions are no longer necesary or important in today's economy. These days they seam more a part of the problem than a solution to it. All they do is strike and demand higher wages, more benefits and yadda yadda then raise thier dues so the union leaders are the only ones who truly benefit. Keeping that in mind I'm not at all surprised by the hypocrasy I see in this whole situation.If the union gets higher wages and more benefits for the workers then don't the workers in the union benefit?