<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Talking Union</title>
	<atom:link href="http://talkingunion.wordpress.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://talkingunion.wordpress.com</link>
	<description>A forum for discussing labor issues sponsored by the DSA Labor Network</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Dec 2009 16:39:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on An open letter to workers at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital by SEIU Fails to Sabotage Calfornia Hospital Organizing Victory &#171; Talking Union</title>
		<link>http://talkingunion.wordpress.com/2009/12/08/an-open-letter-to-workers-at-santa-rosa-memorial-hosptial/#comment-2837</link>
		<dc:creator>SEIU Fails to Sabotage Calfornia Hospital Organizing Victory &#171; Talking Union</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Dec 2009 16:39:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://talkingunion.wordpress.com/?p=4990#comment-2837</guid>
		<description>[...] the Santa Rosa Memorial caregivers in the lurch. Former SEIU organizer Fred Ross Jr. wrote an open letter describing this history that recently appeared on Talking [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] the Santa Rosa Memorial caregivers in the lurch. Former SEIU organizer Fred Ross Jr. wrote an open letter describing this history that recently appeared on Talking [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Oct. 9 Sacramento Progressive Forum Features Fletcher, Bacon by Duane Campbell</title>
		<link>http://talkingunion.wordpress.com/2008/09/26/progressive-forum-sacramento-oct9/#comment-2834</link>
		<dc:creator>Duane Campbell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Dec 2009 03:37:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://talkingunion.wordpress.com/?p=921#comment-2834</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the question.

This post has been updated. See the post at:
from &#039;In These Times&#039;

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/5309/seius_civil_war/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the question.</p>
<p>This post has been updated. See the post at:<br />
from &#8216;In These Times&#8217;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/5309/seius_civil_war/" rel="nofollow">http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/5309/seius_civil_war/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Green Mountain Mustering for the War at Home or Abroad? by Gregory A. Butler</title>
		<link>http://talkingunion.wordpress.com/2009/12/20/green-mountain-mustering-for-the-war-at-home-or-abroad/#comment-2831</link>
		<dc:creator>Gregory A. Butler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 16:02:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://talkingunion.wordpress.com/?p=5070#comment-2831</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve always been uncomfortable with the &quot;money for jobs, not for war&quot; antiwar argument.

Basically, it says that the writer does not have a problem with imperialist wars per se, but they have a problem with how expensive they are and how that money could be used for better purposes to provide social services for the domestic population of the imperialist country waging the war.

In plain terms, its kinda like a German person in 1939 opposing the invasion of Poland because the money used to pay for the blitzkrieg could be used to pay higher welfare benefits to unemployed Germans!

A pretty morally bankrupt argument, in other words.

I&#039;m against ALL imperialist wars waged by this country&#039;s government, on general principle.

Including the ones waged &quot;on the cheap&quot; with no American soldiers directly involved.

Not everybody in the antiwar movement feels the same way, of course - I&#039;m sure Brother Early is old enough to remember how the antiwar movement of the 1960&#039;s disintegrated once President Nixon pulled out all the American ground troops and had South Vietnamese soldiers doing all the fighting and dying.

It was a lot cheaper - and there were no American boys coming home in flag draped coffins (just South Vietnamese boys - but they don&#039;t count, cause their men of color in a Third World country).

As for the Vermont National Guard soldiers - honestly, they made their choice when their raised their right arms and swore an oath to the Commander-in-Chief.

They signed a contract to be national guard soldiers for a certain number of years - and part of being a national guard soldier is the reality that, at any time, the Commander-in-Chief (that&#039;s the President to us civilians) can federalize their unit and send them anywhere in the world to kill and die for US imperialism.

They signed a contract - and they made their choice when they signed on the dotted line.

This silly idea that I hear that somehow national guard soldiers should not be used for foreign wars is simply amazing - they are SOLDIERS in a military reserve force, and, like every other soldier in US imperialism&#039;s armed forces, it is their JOB to carry out military missions for the US government - and yes, that includes foreign combat.

End of story.

I&#039;m against the imperialist wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - and the imperialist proxy wars that Israel and it&#039;s brutal Israeli Defense Forces wage on US imperialism&#039;s behalf - on general principle, because I&#039;m against all imperialist wars.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve always been uncomfortable with the &#8220;money for jobs, not for war&#8221; antiwar argument.</p>
<p>Basically, it says that the writer does not have a problem with imperialist wars per se, but they have a problem with how expensive they are and how that money could be used for better purposes to provide social services for the domestic population of the imperialist country waging the war.</p>
<p>In plain terms, its kinda like a German person in 1939 opposing the invasion of Poland because the money used to pay for the blitzkrieg could be used to pay higher welfare benefits to unemployed Germans!</p>
<p>A pretty morally bankrupt argument, in other words.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m against ALL imperialist wars waged by this country&#8217;s government, on general principle.</p>
<p>Including the ones waged &#8220;on the cheap&#8221; with no American soldiers directly involved.</p>
<p>Not everybody in the antiwar movement feels the same way, of course &#8211; I&#8217;m sure Brother Early is old enough to remember how the antiwar movement of the 1960&#8217;s disintegrated once President Nixon pulled out all the American ground troops and had South Vietnamese soldiers doing all the fighting and dying.</p>
<p>It was a lot cheaper &#8211; and there were no American boys coming home in flag draped coffins (just South Vietnamese boys &#8211; but they don&#8217;t count, cause their men of color in a Third World country).</p>
<p>As for the Vermont National Guard soldiers &#8211; honestly, they made their choice when their raised their right arms and swore an oath to the Commander-in-Chief.</p>
<p>They signed a contract to be national guard soldiers for a certain number of years &#8211; and part of being a national guard soldier is the reality that, at any time, the Commander-in-Chief (that&#8217;s the President to us civilians) can federalize their unit and send them anywhere in the world to kill and die for US imperialism.</p>
<p>They signed a contract &#8211; and they made their choice when they signed on the dotted line.</p>
<p>This silly idea that I hear that somehow national guard soldiers should not be used for foreign wars is simply amazing &#8211; they are SOLDIERS in a military reserve force, and, like every other soldier in US imperialism&#8217;s armed forces, it is their JOB to carry out military missions for the US government &#8211; and yes, that includes foreign combat.</p>
<p>End of story.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m against the imperialist wars in Iraq and Afghanistan &#8211; and the imperialist proxy wars that Israel and it&#8217;s brutal Israeli Defense Forces wage on US imperialism&#8217;s behalf &#8211; on general principle, because I&#8217;m against all imperialist wars.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Labor’s Next Best Hope: NLRB Rulemaking by Bill Johnston</title>
		<link>http://talkingunion.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/labor%e2%80%99s-next-best-hope-nlrb-rulemaking/#comment-2830</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill Johnston</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 06:31:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://talkingunion.wordpress.com/?p=5038#comment-2830</guid>
		<description>Labor is given nothing by the government.  Power has to be taken.  Capitalism needs order to function and if the workforce is in the streets it cannot function.

The only reason labor got the National Labor Relations Act was because workers were beating the cops and the national guard in pitched battles in the street.

Keep the gawd damned lawyers and courts out of labor relations.  That is how it was originally intended and the more the lawyers have been allowed to slime into the system the worse it has got!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Labor is given nothing by the government.  Power has to be taken.  Capitalism needs order to function and if the workforce is in the streets it cannot function.</p>
<p>The only reason labor got the National Labor Relations Act was because workers were beating the cops and the national guard in pitched battles in the street.</p>
<p>Keep the gawd damned lawyers and courts out of labor relations.  That is how it was originally intended and the more the lawyers have been allowed to slime into the system the worse it has got!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Oct. 9 Sacramento Progressive Forum Features Fletcher, Bacon by Andrew Pelt</title>
		<link>http://talkingunion.wordpress.com/2008/09/26/progressive-forum-sacramento-oct9/#comment-2826</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Pelt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Dec 2009 09:03:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://talkingunion.wordpress.com/?p=921#comment-2826</guid>
		<description>Nice blog.  You&#039;re article was spot on.  Will you be following up on this?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice blog.  You&#8217;re article was spot on.  Will you be following up on this?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Should Labor Defend Undocumented Workers? by Gregory A. Butler</title>
		<link>http://talkingunion.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/defend/#comment-2823</link>
		<dc:creator>Gregory A. Butler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Dec 2009 02:07:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://talkingunion.wordpress.com/?p=4943#comment-2823</guid>
		<description>Brother,

Your ancestors, like mine, and Brother Bacon&#039;s, were immigrants - and, at the time they came to this country, they came in basically the same way the Mexicans did - with no visas or passports - all they had was a boat ticket.

So, by the legal standards of today, all our ancestors were &quot;illegal immigrants&quot;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Brother,</p>
<p>Your ancestors, like mine, and Brother Bacon&#8217;s, were immigrants &#8211; and, at the time they came to this country, they came in basically the same way the Mexicans did &#8211; with no visas or passports &#8211; all they had was a boat ticket.</p>
<p>So, by the legal standards of today, all our ancestors were &#8220;illegal immigrants&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Should Labor Defend Undocumented Workers? by Gregory A. Butler</title>
		<link>http://talkingunion.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/defend/#comment-2822</link>
		<dc:creator>Gregory A. Butler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Dec 2009 02:05:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://talkingunion.wordpress.com/?p=4943#comment-2822</guid>
		<description>Brother,

Do you have any idea what&#039;s involved in deporting 12 million people?

Just go online and study the mass deportations of the 20th century - President Roosevelt&#039;s deportation of 1 million Mexicans in 1934, the Nazi mass deportation of 7 million Poles in occupied Poland during WW II, the Soviet deportation of 3 million ethnic Germans in Europe after WW II, President Eisenhower&#039;s mass deportation of 2 million Mexicans in 1955, the Nigerian government&#039;s deportation of 500,000 Ghanians, Togolese and Beninois in 1983, Bulgaria&#039;s mass deportation of 1 million Muslim Bulgarians to Turkey in 1984, the various mass deportations of Serbs, Croats and Bosnians during the breakup of Yugoslavia ect.

These mass deportations all have one thing in common - lots of brutality, including murders and rapes, lots of abuse of power, and lots of loss of freedom for ALL people in the effected areas.

So, brother, if you want to see an American police state, then go right ahead and support the mass deportation of the Mexicans - cause your freedom will be going across the border with them!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Brother,</p>
<p>Do you have any idea what&#8217;s involved in deporting 12 million people?</p>
<p>Just go online and study the mass deportations of the 20th century &#8211; President Roosevelt&#8217;s deportation of 1 million Mexicans in 1934, the Nazi mass deportation of 7 million Poles in occupied Poland during WW II, the Soviet deportation of 3 million ethnic Germans in Europe after WW II, President Eisenhower&#8217;s mass deportation of 2 million Mexicans in 1955, the Nigerian government&#8217;s deportation of 500,000 Ghanians, Togolese and Beninois in 1983, Bulgaria&#8217;s mass deportation of 1 million Muslim Bulgarians to Turkey in 1984, the various mass deportations of Serbs, Croats and Bosnians during the breakup of Yugoslavia ect.</p>
<p>These mass deportations all have one thing in common &#8211; lots of brutality, including murders and rapes, lots of abuse of power, and lots of loss of freedom for ALL people in the effected areas.</p>
<p>So, brother, if you want to see an American police state, then go right ahead and support the mass deportation of the Mexicans &#8211; cause your freedom will be going across the border with them!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Should Labor Defend Undocumented Workers? by Gregory A. Butler</title>
		<link>http://talkingunion.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/defend/#comment-2821</link>
		<dc:creator>Gregory A. Butler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Dec 2009 01:59:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://talkingunion.wordpress.com/?p=4943#comment-2821</guid>
		<description>Brother, I&#039;m in the trades too - Carpenters local 608 on the Westside of Manhattan in New York City.

And, you do have a point about falling wages and contractors using cheap immigrant labor.

But what&#039;s your solution?

The government is NOT going to deport the Mexicans - and if they did, it would be a horrificly brutal atrocity, with martial law, mass arrests, and lots of Americans who &quot;look Mexican&quot; forced south of the border at gunpoint 

Just go to google and look up the last two mass deportations of Mexicans from the US - in 1934 under President Roosevelt and 1955 under President Eisenhower.

The real answer is UNIONIZE THE MEXICANS - and, brother, believe it or not, those workers would be willing to organize and fight - if the leaders of our unions were brave enough to organize them and lead them in struggle.

Ask your BA what has he done to unionize the Mexican worker - because, the reality is, they aren&#039;t going anywhere, and we have to force the bosses to pay them our wage scale or we will be forced to work for their pay!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Brother, I&#8217;m in the trades too &#8211; Carpenters local 608 on the Westside of Manhattan in New York City.</p>
<p>And, you do have a point about falling wages and contractors using cheap immigrant labor.</p>
<p>But what&#8217;s your solution?</p>
<p>The government is NOT going to deport the Mexicans &#8211; and if they did, it would be a horrificly brutal atrocity, with martial law, mass arrests, and lots of Americans who &#8220;look Mexican&#8221; forced south of the border at gunpoint </p>
<p>Just go to google and look up the last two mass deportations of Mexicans from the US &#8211; in 1934 under President Roosevelt and 1955 under President Eisenhower.</p>
<p>The real answer is UNIONIZE THE MEXICANS &#8211; and, brother, believe it or not, those workers would be willing to organize and fight &#8211; if the leaders of our unions were brave enough to organize them and lead them in struggle.</p>
<p>Ask your BA what has he done to unionize the Mexican worker &#8211; because, the reality is, they aren&#8217;t going anywhere, and we have to force the bosses to pay them our wage scale or we will be forced to work for their pay!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Should Labor Defend Undocumented Workers? by Keith Swinney</title>
		<link>http://talkingunion.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/defend/#comment-2820</link>
		<dc:creator>Keith Swinney</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 03:40:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://talkingunion.wordpress.com/?p=4943#comment-2820</guid>
		<description>Mike,
I totaly agree with you. Check out Numbers.org and help support thouse who think as we do, that illegals need to be kicked out, and our borders need to be defended. If our Unions are going to turn on us so they can gain more illegals on their per capata rolls, then we need to go to work electing new leadership who will represent OUR best intrest much like the Tea Party is doing for the Congress and Senate. The Union has forgotten that they work for US, NOT the other way around!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mike,<br />
I totaly agree with you. Check out Numbers.org and help support thouse who think as we do, that illegals need to be kicked out, and our borders need to be defended. If our Unions are going to turn on us so they can gain more illegals on their per capata rolls, then we need to go to work electing new leadership who will represent OUR best intrest much like the Tea Party is doing for the Congress and Senate. The Union has forgotten that they work for US, NOT the other way around!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Labor’s Next Best Hope: NLRB Rulemaking by Phil Mortensen</title>
		<link>http://talkingunion.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/labor%e2%80%99s-next-best-hope-nlrb-rulemaking/#comment-2815</link>
		<dc:creator>Phil Mortensen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Dec 2009 17:15:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://talkingunion.wordpress.com/?p=5038#comment-2815</guid>
		<description>I find it interesting that labor &quot;needs&quot; EFCA because of the &quot;delays&quot; in holding elections (currently, the median time that passes from an election petition and the holding of the election is less than 1-1/2 months)and the &quot;cumbersome pre-election procedures&quot; employed by employers (again, think 1-1/2 months).  The real reason organized labor &quot;needs&quot; EFCA is that they realize that, if the employer has the opportunity to educate the electorate, that is, allow employees to actually weigh the pros and cons of unionism, employees will time and again vote against union representation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I find it interesting that labor &#8220;needs&#8221; EFCA because of the &#8220;delays&#8221; in holding elections (currently, the median time that passes from an election petition and the holding of the election is less than 1-1/2 months)and the &#8220;cumbersome pre-election procedures&#8221; employed by employers (again, think 1-1/2 months).  The real reason organized labor &#8220;needs&#8221; EFCA is that they realize that, if the employer has the opportunity to educate the electorate, that is, allow employees to actually weigh the pros and cons of unionism, employees will time and again vote against union representation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
