Defending The Indefensible

Typical parrot, that responds to a request for evidence with the same request. You lack originality.

“but the EGT has a contract with the Port saying it doesn’t HAVE to hire local or union workers.”

Common sense says that if such a statement is true, proof exists. It’s not left wing to ask to see it…. unless, you know, wanting to see the truth is left wing.

“Where’s your proof that EGT has a contract stating it doesn’t have to hire union workers?”

The obvious fact that the ILWU didn’t go to court and get an immediate injunction against EGT.  That’s the easy first step.  For that matter, EGT went to court and sued the Port of Longview, contending that it didn’t have to follow the Port’s contract.

The ILWU has a long and violent history of labor actions, and has resisted the use of labor-saving machinery at ports under their control.  They basically have a monopoly on grain shipping on the west coast.  They’re so far out of bounds on this one that even the Obama administration’s pet National Labor Relations Board has weighed in against the ILWU in court.

Another interesting little twist, from the Wall Street Journal: “EGT says it sought an accommodation with the union during the
construction phase of the terminal, but that talks foundered over a
demand by the union for a surcharge to fund its pension plan and other
obstacles.”  In other words, the union wanted to charge even MORE than they normally would, because their pension fund is in trouble, but the company didn’t go for it.

OK, so you are saying a company should kow-tow to thugs and avoid their turf?

Your cut and paste comes doesn’t prove anything except you are lazy and lack reading comprehension.

The port says it had a working agreement.  There is nothing on paper presented to this point in time that I am aware of and your links show nothing of the kind either.  So your accusations of me lying are false, malicious, and an attempt to defame me publicly.  Wanna go to Court?

First off, you are quoting from a labor backed source, not an independent reporting organization.  It also reported that the security guards weren’t “held hostage” but just intimidated for their own safety and stayed in the cop shack for their own “comfort.”  

“According to Port Management” they SAY EGT knew about their “working agreement” – SO WHAT?  How can Port Management be so sure they “knew?”  And just what is it they “knew?”  Perhaps the feckless Port had a handshake agreement with a wink and a nod with the local labor union that can’t stand up to a day in court (which is why the union is so bent on violent tactics since they know they CAN’T win in court?) They release any memos, letters, tapes, agendas to back up that this means that EGT was obligated?  Anywhere but in the figments of their imaginations?  Not yet!

What’s on paper signed by all parties involved in contract law trumps all.

When you call someone a liar, it’s a good idea to not include a quote which shows that your own point is invalid.

This is the important part, not the bit you emphasize:

“However, EGT said the lease gives it the option not to hire union
workers. In its lawsuit against the port, EGT wrote, “The lease did not
impose any obligation whatsoever upon EGT to utilize union labor at the
terminal, much less obligate EGT to utilize persons who are represented
by Local 21 of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union.”

Note that a “working agreement with the union” isn’t binding, if the Port signed an agreement that said otherwise.  If the union had a leg to stand on, they wouldn’t have to be resorting to violence and threats to try and get EGT to cave into their demands.

…then they should easily be able to point to the part of the actual, physical contract that obligates the Port to require that all tenants must hire union workers ONLY from that one union. 

Except they know they can’t, and “Port Management” is certainly just saying vaguely supportive (and legally nonbinding) things to keep their offices from being burned to the ground by union thugs.

Once again – it’s a simple matter of contract law.  If the contract in question said what the union is claiming, then the court would have come down on their side pretty quickly – instead of having to keep issuing restraining orders against the ILWU for breaking the law and ignoring OTHER court orders.

For that matter, it’ll be really interesting if the parties in question don’t file some RICO charges against the ILWU – there’s certainly enough evidence for it.

Howard, the Port has to side with the Union, cause they are local too and they don’t want their homes torched.  The Port wrote crappy contracts with loopholes the size of grain elevators, and the company used them.  There were many assumptions made, but no written agreements.  Which means the company is doing what companies do – trying to minimize costs and maximize profits.  

Howard, the union is violent.  The leaders sanctioned ignoring multiple court injunctions.  They are responsible.  They have intimidated and threatened individuals.  They have destroyed property.  The locals know who has done what.  They’re just afraid that arresting anyone else at this point will escalate the violence they can not control.

Neither you nor Bob live or work here.  I do.  So stop talking through your asshats and quoting union propaganda sites as “proof.”  It makes you look even stupider than you are.

Bob, tossing around “liar” was the hallmark of someone we don’t talk about around here… because of the damage he caused before he was finally shown the door.

There’s obviously a dispute about the particular circumstances of the various contracts. In most cases, the parties would go to court to settle the matter. If it was as clear-cut as you insist it was, then the union would have a slam-dunk case. Instead, they resorted to violence and (legally) terrorist acts to get their way. That says, to me, that they don’t think they have that strong a case.

Finally, Epador’s a long-time, valued commenter here. I don’t like someone going all L__ W___ on him. Keep acting like him, expect to get banned like him.

J.

You most certainly generalized. “yet
another example of violence, threats of more violence, destruction of
property, theft, and a whole host of other criminal acts by union
workers in response to what should be a legal issue handled peacefully
in the courts.”

This is a generalization. If you make a habit of repeatedly singling out union violence, you are perpetuating a generalization that unions are violent. That seems fairly clear. If I said to you “yet another example of a black man stealing my wallet” would it be clearer?

The original post cherry picked that issue, and you’re right, I would have preferred something more substantial. Your comments had more substance.

Though why are you still talking about the tax breaks for depressed areas? I stated quite simply “My fault in assuming it was like the tax advantage we participate in for building distribution centers in depressed areas.” Perhaps I need to be more clear, it was my fault for interpreting the original wording in the article as a tax break typically given to spur development in depressed areas that I am familiar with. After that statement, I simply found what I copied interesting, no relation between the two.

My response is a comment on a blog post. Frankly I really don’t care about opinions on it, as it is my opinion. It’s a comment about a blog post that has a poor tone, and very little details. More information is provided in these comments than was in the original post, and there’s a lot more to this issue than union violence. If you want to grasp at staws and nitpick my comments, feel free. It doesn’t change that I find the original blog post poor.

Why?
Would you listen? Sorry if I’ve confused you, but I’ve obfuscated
nothing. This is a poor post that shows up on news searches and it’s
hardly news. Put as much as you like in “quotes”, it seems to be what
some people use in place of facts.

From the news snippets I’ve seen, I don’t like this union’s members,
but I have no idea what’s actually happening in this town. Until it’s
proven violence is organized at the top level an not rogue elements
within the organization, I believe in innocent until proven guilty as
should everyone. For all anyone knows the union could actually be run
by the mob, or facility could have damaged their own equipment in an
attempt to bust the union. I don’t know the truth, so I’m not going to
make judgments until then, as it’s all speculation. But if you like
speculation, like assuming the union has 0 rights to work at this
facility before the courts rule, like assuming their outrage is over
entitlement instead of a contract they may have thought they had, like
assuming their outrage is over some other union treading on their
turf… when it may just as well be space aliens as the who doesn’t
matter, like assuming the entire union is a group of thugs that would
sooner slit your throat than lose a days wages… All of this, if you
enjoy assuming these things, because you flat out just hate unions,
then I can see why you’d enjoy this blog post. A post that should have
been in the comments section of a more informative post.

Honestly, if you wanted to rip apart that article, all you have to do is point out the glaring omission after this paragraph:

“Early this morning, hundreds of ILWU members and their supporters reportedly
stormed the EGT terminal at the Port of Longview, broke down the gates,
overpowered security guards, damaged railroad cars, and dumped grain,
according to Longview Police Chief Jim Duscha. Initial reports
indicated no one was hurt and nobody has been arrested. After a few
hours, the protesters returned to their union hall.”

And how it goes immediately to:

“So that’s where we stand, as of this writing.
To sum up: a taxpayer-subsidized international conglomerate, which
is operating on public property, is suing the public so it can avoid
paying the area’s standard wages and undercut its competitors that do.
Then, it exacerbated tensions with the local labor community by
importing union workers from another jurisdiction to cross the picket
lines.”

Where the hell is the comment on this violence?!? You could point that
out, or point out that nobody knows what the wages being paid actually
are, or that the port has stated they WANT this to go to court. There’s
plenty of meat there to pick at.

So let me get this straight:  you start off by nitpicking (Jay didn’t put any focus on EGT’s tax breaks and Gasp! put “rights” in scare quotes) and grasping at straws (since we all “know” the reason for the tax breaks was to create jobs for “THAT” area) and then get all smug when criticism has a way of coming back around to you?

Got it.

Here’s what you don’t get.  I know that the majority of union members are honest hard working people.  And so do others here.  But in a discussion about a growing trend of violence and aggression, hearing from putz’s like you criticize everything that’s said, or not said, and anyone who says it, or doesn’t, just kinda makes you seem petty.

This is just me, but when I step into someones livingroom, I don’t start off by making assumptions about their character and criticizing their choice of furniture and then expect to be treated to extra cupcakes.  But that’s just me.