Amendment 47: The right to work

... Or something like that. Normally i wouldn't vote, but now, with this piece of shit, i feel obligated. Am. 47 was voted in in Wyoming, and now the rank and file workers are making, on average, three dollars less per hour. If it comes here (colorado), we'll probably get hit harder dollar wise. This Am. also weakens union powers which inevitably puts workers in a capitalist society more at risk. Is this nation wide? Anyone else seen this amendment floating around? If it comes to your state, i urge you to tell everyone you know to vote this crap down.

http://www.elections.colorado.gov/WWW/default/Initiatives/Title%20Board%20Filings/2007-2008%20Filings/Final%20Text/final_text_41.PDF

Christ. If this sh!t passes I'm gonna be pissed. Damn. WTF.

It's like that game army of two, where they try to privatise the military.
I think the word privitise in that sense should be changed to 'pervatize'.

Damn, their must be some way to fight this (with out leaving my computer lol).

BOO DOWN WITH FACIST DECLARATION NUMBER 37 (the first ten were good and some of the others, but lets not get into specifics.) WE SHOULD BAND TOGETHER AND CHANGE IT TO MAKE IT 47th AMMENDMENT-Right to smoke weed or something and support our obviosly not Rastafarian culture my mon. I and I together can stop this. Ifen I stop this then I and I can live in a better world mon.
(The weird not making sense part is actually Rastafarian-Jamaican-.)

they snet us a copt of that down here in licnolnshire, my familt voted no

Unions have absolutly no power at all in Florida so it wont make a difference

Thats the point. It will be impossible for them to gain power (any were not just Florida) if this is passed.

ever since the reagan administration, unions have never been as powerful

What a crazy-ass amendment.

"You can be a part of a union, but we'll make sure that it won't get any money. And if you try to give it some, you'll be fined, asshole".

mononokifool wrote:

Unions have absolutly no power at all in Florida so it wont make a difference

No wonder you're makin shit wages (you specifically, but others down there too, i'm sure). That's weak.

All this amendment does is feed on working class people's belief that unions don't do shit for them. This is untrue, obviously, as those in Wyoming found out. People stopped giving to the unions and started getting screwed by the corporations since the workers no longer had any protection. Further, if people are withholding from their union then the unions can't function any longer, because they can't afford their workers. Smart politics from a bourgeios perspective, but from anyone else' perspective, it's just more abuse.

Virginia was founded by slave traders and tabaco companys. Not a good place for unions. "'The Virginan Comman Wealth Tobacco Distrubter's Guild', poisoning our country since the 1600's" and "The union of white biggots who sell people they kidnapp". Oh wait my bad the Freemasons. Never thought about them like that.

vote this shit down, right like the goverment will care if you tell them to vote it down.

Passing along this link to a site with information about Amendment 47:

http://www.voteno47.com

And, a site with info about Amendments 47, 49, and 54:

http://www.protectcoloradosfuture.org/

those two site were really boring to read

W8 that law sucks ass, we had this passed 40 years ago it's really inoing that we have to pay so much.

Eh, I dislike current unions for being overly capitalistic, but what the fuck, they serve their purposes. If not for them, a revolutionary union would have to deal with collective bargaining and everything as well. Let's hope this gets crushed.

Stos wrote:

Eh, I dislike current unions for being overly capitalistic, but what the I'M SORRY! I SHOULD NOT SWEAR! THE KGB CAN HEAR EVERYONE!, they serve their purposes. If not for them, a revolutionary union would have to deal with collective bargaining and everything as well. Let's hope this gets crushed.

lul
ofcourse they are capitalist they are trying to help.

mattabesta wrote:

lul
ofcourse they are capitalist they are trying to help.

You needs to learnz you a book, child. American unions are capitalist out the ass (heh, thanks stos), and they are the worst examples of how a union should be run. Compare them to the IWW, which is constantly unifying workers, organizing labour and events that promote solidarity. Nearly all the american laborers who are unionized have no idea what their money is being spent on.

The only reason Am. 47 should be voted down is because these shitty unions are the only thing standing between our ten dollars an hour, and our could be seven dollars an hour.

I agree more with BC here than I do with Stos over the nature of unions; that most of the ones that arose during the early labor movement - the AFL, the Knights of Labor, etc. - were highly reformist and conservative in nature, and didn't have very revolutionary aims. They didn't want Capitalists out, they wanted Capitalists to appease them.

But I wouldn't discredit them completely. If not for them, we wouldn't have a mandatory 8-hour work day - comparatively to the 12-hour one without breaks that they previously had - or a mandatory minimum wage, among other things. Do these things mean much? In a Capitalist society, no; these were pretty much given out by big Capitalists just to prevent class conflict. But I can't help but think that more radical action - the implementation of self-managed and autonomous work places, abolition of the wage slavery system, among many, many other things that I'd like to see - can't sort of ride on the backs of these reformist movements, and create real change.

Everything has to start somewhere. I would prefer that such movements come out from revolutionary circles, but if they start from reformist ones, well, I guess that's better than nothing at all.

WeiWuWei wrote:

I agree more with BC here than I do with Stos over the nature of unions; that most of the ones that arose during the early labor movement - the AFL, the Knights of Labor, etc. - were highly reformist and conservative in nature, and didn't have very revolutionary aims. They didn't want Capitalists out, they wanted Capitalists to appease them.

But I wouldn't discredit them completely. If not for them, we wouldn't have a mandatory 8-hour work day - comparatively to the 12-hour one without breaks that they previously had - or a mandatory minimum wage, among other things. Do these things mean much? In a Capitalist society, no; these were pretty much given out by big Capitalists just to prevent class conflict. But I can't help but think that more radical action - the implementation of self-managed and autonomous work places, abolition of the wage slavery system, among many, many other things that I'd like to see - can't sort of ride on the backs of these reformist movements, and create real change.

I'm one of them De Leonists. I'm for a revolutionary and democratic (with callbacks and such) industrial union, which would probably resemble or be the IWW, while the trade unions can go and take care of keeping capitalism bearable, and pissing off the so-called 'libertarians', in order to avoid distracting from the goal of the SIU (though if necessary, the SIU will perhaps have to help with the day-to-day struggles of workers too). Of course, I still dislike modern unions, they don't promote working class unity at all, and are often corrupt at the top and undemocratic.
Also, the AFL-CIO (The AFL at the time, now a pathetic capitalist prop), once had this in their constitution, "A struggle is going on in all the nations of the civilized world, a struggle between the capitalist and laborer, which grows in intensity from year to year, and will work disastrous results to the toiling millions if they are not combined for mutual protection...."

Kenzu wrote:

The lowest wage in Austria is very low. The worst paying full time jobs give you only 5 Euros, that's 7.5$ per hour.

For what age is that?(the lowest pay)

Kenzu wrote:

The right to work is a good thing, which would prevent people from being unemplyed. This right existed in all socialist countries and I wonder, why USA wants to pass such amendment.

You may have missed the point. "The right to work" is a pretty, but irrelevant name that the corporations who created and sponsor this bill (which was voted down) tagged it with. It has nothing to do with a right to work.

Quote :

It is a right, and it doesn't mean that trade unions cannot strike. If you are unhappy with the wage, you can always strike and request higher wages.

It's not that easy.

Quote :

The lowest wage in Austria is very low. The worst paying full time jobs give you only 5 Euros, that's 7.5$ per hour.

Ya, that's about minimum wage here. But here's the thing: You cannot live a dignified life on minimum wage. You cannot raise a family on minimum wage. You can barely even support yourself on minimum wage. And further, employers are not required to give you 40 hours a week. If you work only 25-30 hours a week, you'll barely be able to feed and shelter yourself. So it doesn't really matter what the minimum wage is, they'll just cut hours.

This reminds me. My liberal friend thinks there can be a minimum wage around 10-15 dollars an hour, haha. I explained the consequences of something that absurd and he just sat there in silence. I guess he doesn't understand the concept of imperialism, no matter how many times i explain it.

If your 16 here you can work at the super market, gets around 2.50 euro a hour...O.O

But for a grown up (21+ and 30+ etc) egts more..so...yar..

Mimumum wage laws increase unemployment. We should have the market decide on the equlibrium so that unemployment is reduced. Even if people get 2$ or 3$, at least everyone is employed or able to get employment.

calinis wrote:

Mimumum wage laws increase unemployment. We should have the market decide on the equlibrium so that unemployment is reduced. Even if people get 2$ or 3$, at least everyone is employed or able to get employment.

And what's the point of employment if the person will never be able to support themselves off of their pay?

Quote :

And what's the point of employment if the person will never be able to support themselves off of their pay?

2$ or 3$ is better than 0$. I guess these people will have less money to spend on pot....oh well...