The productive question is, what do Ben & Jerry's and the Wall Street protesters want to do about the issues they are concerned about?
I'm not against the protesters, and feel they have some valid concerns.
But this protest pretty perfectly illustrates what I'm always saying about the liberal passion for self flattering poses.
This protest is all about why somebody else is bad, Bad, BAD, and the protesters are good, Good, GOOD. The protesters are energetically addressing their real number one priority, posing themselves as being higher moral beings than somebody else.
And that's it. That's all there is to it.
The protesters seem to almost pride themselves on their inability to offer any specific constructive solution which might then be rationally analyzed by the rest of us who are open to hearing what they have to say.
This same empty headed pose-centric form of political dialogue has plagued national security discussions for decades, and now we're bringing this same process to economic issues.
occupying wall street - will it do any good
-
Arising_uk
- Posts: 12259
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: occupying wall street - will it do any good
Have any of your own thoughts and opinions about the situation Bill?
-
Bill Wiltrack
- Posts: 5456
- Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:52 pm
- Location: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
- Contact:
Re: occupying wall street - will it do any good
.
As I mentioned earlier I have had my own battle waging, my own take upon a Occupying Wall Street theme.
Below is a copy of the letter that I have sent to the Department of Labor.
During the Obama administration I was contacted and relayed the fact that the best interests of anyone is profit. I get that.
I totally accept that fact. In addition, I question why there cannot be room for my perception of what may be in my best interests, namely, union affiliated companies that are based in America.
I have argued, and I still maintain, that the contracts and concepts of Organized Labor are in the best interests of EVERYONE.
As odd as it initially sounds, Organized Labor is my religion.
Organized Labor is the world's first Meta-religion.
Phyllis C.Borzi February 11, 2010
AssistantSecretary
Department of Labor
Employee Benefits Security Administration
200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Ste S-2524
Washington, DC 20210
Dear Ms. Borzi,
My name is Bill Wiltrack, I am a Financial Trustee of the Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local #33 in Cleveland, Ohio. I am also a Delegate for my Local with the North Shore Federation of Labor AFL-CIO.
On behalf of myself and all other union members I am challenging the past practices and logic of the present ERISA interpretations in reference to the Code of Federal Regulations Pertaining to U.S. Department of Labor Pension and Welfare Benefits.
Below is a portion of the interpretive bulletin relating to the code of Federal regulations pertaining to the U.S. Department of Labor pension and welfare benefits that I am challenging.
U.S. Department of Labor
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations Pertaining to U.S. Department of Labor
Title 29
Labor
Chapter XXV
Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration, Department of Labor
Part 2509
Interpretive Bulletins Relating to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
In addition, section 406(a) of ERISA specifically prohibits a
fiduciary with respect to a plan from causing the plan to engage in a
transaction if he knows or should know that such transaction constitutes, inter alia, a direct or indirect:
furnishing of goods, services or facilities between the plan and a party
in interest (section 406(a)(1)(C)); or transfer to, or use by or for the
benefit of, a party in interest of any assets of the plan (section
406(a)(1)(D)). Section 406(b)(2) of ERISA prohibits a plan fiduciary
from acting in any transaction involving the plan on behalf of a party,
or representing a party, whose interests are adverse to the interests of
the plan or of its participants or beneficiaries.
As a member of Organized Labor, and as a participant and beneficiary therein, I argue that to invest ERISA funds in any company or corporation that is not a signatory preceptor within an AFL-CIO recognized and currently binding agreement is adverse, in every definition of the term, to my interests, the plans participants and to the beneficiaries.
With this in mind I forward the argument that any financial group of any union’s annuity plan needs to have a based in America, union corporation fund as an option, if not the default plan, for its participating investors.
As an American and as a union member, I believe in the concepts and contracts of recognized Organized Labor agreements and their importance upon a healthy liberal democracy. For me, my life, my spiritual freedom and Organized Labor are inseparably entwined.
Contractors, companies and corporations that have followed the stringent social and economic responsibilities that are part and parcel of all parties that are joined in a recognized Organized Labor agreement have fared no worse than companies that have chosen not to be part of an Organized Labor agreement.
In addition, I argue that the very companies that are not members of a recognized Organized Labor agreement are the very companies that have caused, through unregulated greed, the overleveraged chaos that has destroyed my present, my future and America’s economic stability.
My present retirement mutual fund account has lost 43.70% cash flow over the past year. If there ever was a moment that an argument for an exclusively union based, American corporation fund could be forwarded, the time is now.
The fact that union investment in retirement accounts makes up the majority of bundled retirement accounts in the United States should have, in itself, already demanded that this type of mutual fund exist.
I have 13 investment options in my XXXX XXXXXX retirement account and NONE of them are reflective of what I believe in nor do they support the concepts or contracts of an Organized Labor agreement – the very opportunity that allowed me to invest in the first place.
Union corporations located in the United States need to be an option for any and all union members participating in a retirement program. For this type of account not to be an option is in fact a violation of the very Employee Retirement Income Security Act ERISA act of 1974, Section 406 (b)(2) that we are mandated, as a union, to follow.
If a member of an Organized Labor agreement chooses to invest in what they believe in, they should be allowed that option.
Pension and Welfare Benefits and Employee Retirement Income Security capital, earned under an Organized Labor agreement should be allowed the opportunity to be invested in labor and in material objects that are part of an Organized Labor agreement.
All Americans, especially those who are members of Organized Labor, need to be able to have the option to invest in socially and economically responsible institutions that are partners in free, independent Organized Labor agreements. To not be given that option is, by its nature, a violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
A more sound argument could be made that as members of Organized Labor we are losing 100% of our ERISA invested funds if our representative trustees are not investing in 100% union represented companies.
My best interest as a member of Organized Labor is NOT TO CHASE AFTER PROFIT half way around the world. My best interest, as an American and as a union member, is to work to support union affiliated organizations that are based in America.
With the January 21, 2010 Supreme Court decision CITIZENS UNITED, APPELLANT v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Americans need a clearer definition in reference to our goals and what we choose to investment in.
I request that ERISA require any participating ERISA Mutual Fund Company provide a portfolio for investing in American based corporations that are exclusively part of an Organized Labor agreement as an option for all union members of all union retirement accounts based in America.
As stated in ERISA’s mission statement directive this type of American union –based initiative would develop policies and regulations that encourage the growth of employment-based benefits.
That's why Secretary Solis has made it a priority at the Labor Department to protect workers - your safety, your benefits, your right to organize and bargain collectively. It's why some of the first executive orders I issued overturned the previous administration's attempts to stifle organized labor.
~~~President Barack Obama ~~~
In his speech to the AFL-CIO
Delivered Monday September 7, 2009
By not having a Union made in America option we are undermining our ability to protect our safety, our benefits, and our right to organize and bargain collectively as American Union workers.
We cannot have a strong middle class without strong labor unions. We need to level the playing field for workers and the unions that represent their interests.
President Barack Obama
Friday, January 30, 2009
Regards,
Bill Wiltrack
.
As I mentioned earlier I have had my own battle waging, my own take upon a Occupying Wall Street theme.
Below is a copy of the letter that I have sent to the Department of Labor.
During the Obama administration I was contacted and relayed the fact that the best interests of anyone is profit. I get that.
I totally accept that fact. In addition, I question why there cannot be room for my perception of what may be in my best interests, namely, union affiliated companies that are based in America.
I have argued, and I still maintain, that the contracts and concepts of Organized Labor are in the best interests of EVERYONE.
As odd as it initially sounds, Organized Labor is my religion.
Organized Labor is the world's first Meta-religion.
Phyllis C.Borzi February 11, 2010
AssistantSecretary
Department of Labor
Employee Benefits Security Administration
200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Ste S-2524
Washington, DC 20210
Dear Ms. Borzi,
My name is Bill Wiltrack, I am a Financial Trustee of the Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local #33 in Cleveland, Ohio. I am also a Delegate for my Local with the North Shore Federation of Labor AFL-CIO.
On behalf of myself and all other union members I am challenging the past practices and logic of the present ERISA interpretations in reference to the Code of Federal Regulations Pertaining to U.S. Department of Labor Pension and Welfare Benefits.
Below is a portion of the interpretive bulletin relating to the code of Federal regulations pertaining to the U.S. Department of Labor pension and welfare benefits that I am challenging.
U.S. Department of Labor
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations Pertaining to U.S. Department of Labor
Title 29
Labor
Chapter XXV
Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration, Department of Labor
Part 2509
Interpretive Bulletins Relating to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
In addition, section 406(a) of ERISA specifically prohibits a
fiduciary with respect to a plan from causing the plan to engage in a
transaction if he knows or should know that such transaction constitutes, inter alia, a direct or indirect:
furnishing of goods, services or facilities between the plan and a party
in interest (section 406(a)(1)(C)); or transfer to, or use by or for the
benefit of, a party in interest of any assets of the plan (section
406(a)(1)(D)). Section 406(b)(2) of ERISA prohibits a plan fiduciary
from acting in any transaction involving the plan on behalf of a party,
or representing a party, whose interests are adverse to the interests of
the plan or of its participants or beneficiaries.
As a member of Organized Labor, and as a participant and beneficiary therein, I argue that to invest ERISA funds in any company or corporation that is not a signatory preceptor within an AFL-CIO recognized and currently binding agreement is adverse, in every definition of the term, to my interests, the plans participants and to the beneficiaries.
With this in mind I forward the argument that any financial group of any union’s annuity plan needs to have a based in America, union corporation fund as an option, if not the default plan, for its participating investors.
As an American and as a union member, I believe in the concepts and contracts of recognized Organized Labor agreements and their importance upon a healthy liberal democracy. For me, my life, my spiritual freedom and Organized Labor are inseparably entwined.
Contractors, companies and corporations that have followed the stringent social and economic responsibilities that are part and parcel of all parties that are joined in a recognized Organized Labor agreement have fared no worse than companies that have chosen not to be part of an Organized Labor agreement.
In addition, I argue that the very companies that are not members of a recognized Organized Labor agreement are the very companies that have caused, through unregulated greed, the overleveraged chaos that has destroyed my present, my future and America’s economic stability.
My present retirement mutual fund account has lost 43.70% cash flow over the past year. If there ever was a moment that an argument for an exclusively union based, American corporation fund could be forwarded, the time is now.
The fact that union investment in retirement accounts makes up the majority of bundled retirement accounts in the United States should have, in itself, already demanded that this type of mutual fund exist.
I have 13 investment options in my XXXX XXXXXX retirement account and NONE of them are reflective of what I believe in nor do they support the concepts or contracts of an Organized Labor agreement – the very opportunity that allowed me to invest in the first place.
Union corporations located in the United States need to be an option for any and all union members participating in a retirement program. For this type of account not to be an option is in fact a violation of the very Employee Retirement Income Security Act ERISA act of 1974, Section 406 (b)(2) that we are mandated, as a union, to follow.
If a member of an Organized Labor agreement chooses to invest in what they believe in, they should be allowed that option.
Pension and Welfare Benefits and Employee Retirement Income Security capital, earned under an Organized Labor agreement should be allowed the opportunity to be invested in labor and in material objects that are part of an Organized Labor agreement.
All Americans, especially those who are members of Organized Labor, need to be able to have the option to invest in socially and economically responsible institutions that are partners in free, independent Organized Labor agreements. To not be given that option is, by its nature, a violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
A more sound argument could be made that as members of Organized Labor we are losing 100% of our ERISA invested funds if our representative trustees are not investing in 100% union represented companies.
My best interest as a member of Organized Labor is NOT TO CHASE AFTER PROFIT half way around the world. My best interest, as an American and as a union member, is to work to support union affiliated organizations that are based in America.
With the January 21, 2010 Supreme Court decision CITIZENS UNITED, APPELLANT v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Americans need a clearer definition in reference to our goals and what we choose to investment in.
I request that ERISA require any participating ERISA Mutual Fund Company provide a portfolio for investing in American based corporations that are exclusively part of an Organized Labor agreement as an option for all union members of all union retirement accounts based in America.
As stated in ERISA’s mission statement directive this type of American union –based initiative would develop policies and regulations that encourage the growth of employment-based benefits.
That's why Secretary Solis has made it a priority at the Labor Department to protect workers - your safety, your benefits, your right to organize and bargain collectively. It's why some of the first executive orders I issued overturned the previous administration's attempts to stifle organized labor.
~~~President Barack Obama ~~~
In his speech to the AFL-CIO
Delivered Monday September 7, 2009
By not having a Union made in America option we are undermining our ability to protect our safety, our benefits, and our right to organize and bargain collectively as American Union workers.
We cannot have a strong middle class without strong labor unions. We need to level the playing field for workers and the unions that represent their interests.
President Barack Obama
Friday, January 30, 2009
Regards,
Bill Wiltrack
.
Last edited by Bill Wiltrack on Tue Oct 11, 2011 10:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: occupying wall street - will it do any good
Bill, one place I eagerly agree with you is in regards to governments trying to regulate who can unionize and who can't.
It seems to me we have freedom of association, and this implies no limit upon the right to organize.
The government can regulate how a union might go about making it's case. If the union members are blocking traffic with their demonstration, then the state has a right, indeed an obligation, to clear the streets.
But if the workers wish to go out on strike, and simply stay home, I don't why governments have a right to regulate that choice.
And yes, this includes workers in the public sector.
If we don't want the police going out on strike, perhaps we should pay them better? They are risking their lives for us after all. Same for fireman, nurses and teachers etc. We should be paying fair market value for these services, and it's not a fair market if one side can't negotiate.
It seems to me we have freedom of association, and this implies no limit upon the right to organize.
The government can regulate how a union might go about making it's case. If the union members are blocking traffic with their demonstration, then the state has a right, indeed an obligation, to clear the streets.
But if the workers wish to go out on strike, and simply stay home, I don't why governments have a right to regulate that choice.
And yes, this includes workers in the public sector.
If we don't want the police going out on strike, perhaps we should pay them better? They are risking their lives for us after all. Same for fireman, nurses and teachers etc. We should be paying fair market value for these services, and it's not a fair market if one side can't negotiate.
-
Bill Wiltrack
- Posts: 5456
- Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:52 pm
- Location: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
- Contact:
-
Bill Wiltrack
- Posts: 5456
- Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:52 pm
- Location: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
- Contact:
Re: occupying wall street - will it do any good
.
Ripped from the Daily Kos
Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 10:39 PM PDT
Glenn Beck calls for the extermination of OWS crowd+*
by nokona
The title says it all.
Today, Glenn finally shed the "proto" in the "proto-fascist" tag that many have given him and his followers. From his radio show:
Saying that the only thing that could control the movement would be a forceful crushing from "the top," he added, "It will be the Night of Long Knives. It will be a purging of this country." This was a seeming reference to the political murders carried out by the Nazis in 1934.
For those that don't know, The Knight of the Long Knives saw a massive consolidation of power by Hitler. This putsch killed many leftist members of the party as well as moderates. Several power brokers in the party were assassinated. After being jailed in the putsch, George Strasser (explicitly anti-capitalist, but still a Nazi) was shot and killed in his cell. The operation was the first major testing ground for the Gestapo as thousands were imprisoned.
What Glenn Beck has called for here is unequivocally a complete and utter disgrace. There is no dancing around it, he has called for mass murders of American people. This isn't one of his cute metaphors which he can deflect into multiple meanings. He wants American people dead.
He has now become a modern Father Coughlin.
I shudder to think of what is to come if this movement fails.
...............................
.
Ripped from the Daily Kos
Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 10:39 PM PDT
Glenn Beck calls for the extermination of OWS crowd+*
by nokona
The title says it all.
Today, Glenn finally shed the "proto" in the "proto-fascist" tag that many have given him and his followers. From his radio show:
Saying that the only thing that could control the movement would be a forceful crushing from "the top," he added, "It will be the Night of Long Knives. It will be a purging of this country." This was a seeming reference to the political murders carried out by the Nazis in 1934.
For those that don't know, The Knight of the Long Knives saw a massive consolidation of power by Hitler. This putsch killed many leftist members of the party as well as moderates. Several power brokers in the party were assassinated. After being jailed in the putsch, George Strasser (explicitly anti-capitalist, but still a Nazi) was shot and killed in his cell. The operation was the first major testing ground for the Gestapo as thousands were imprisoned.
What Glenn Beck has called for here is unequivocally a complete and utter disgrace. There is no dancing around it, he has called for mass murders of American people. This isn't one of his cute metaphors which he can deflect into multiple meanings. He wants American people dead.
He has now become a modern Father Coughlin.
I shudder to think of what is to come if this movement fails.
...............................
.
-
Arising_uk
- Posts: 12259
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: occupying wall street - will it do any good
What was their reply Bill?
I think its "losing" not "loosing".
I think its "losing" not "loosing".
-
Bill Wiltrack
- Posts: 5456
- Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:52 pm
- Location: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
- Contact:
Re: occupying wall street - will it do any good
.
As I mentioned earlier I have had my own battle waging, my own take upon a Occupying Wall Street theme.
During the Obama administration I was contacted and relayed the fact that the best interests of anyone is profit. I get that.
I totally accept that fact. In addition, I question why there cannot be room for my perception of what may be in my best interests, namely, union affiliated companies that are based in America.
I have argued, and I still maintain, that the contracts and concepts of Organized Labor are in the best interests of EVERYONE.
Actually, I am having talks with a representative of the AFL-CIO.
All of us on earth are in the same boat now. No one looks past the profit margins. No one cares about anything other than the next quarterly reports. Profit is our God. Money is God.
....................................
We are all so blind that we are following the elusive dollar like a butterfly that coxes us over a cliff.
loosing?
.
As I mentioned earlier I have had my own battle waging, my own take upon a Occupying Wall Street theme.
During the Obama administration I was contacted and relayed the fact that the best interests of anyone is profit. I get that.
I totally accept that fact. In addition, I question why there cannot be room for my perception of what may be in my best interests, namely, union affiliated companies that are based in America.
I have argued, and I still maintain, that the contracts and concepts of Organized Labor are in the best interests of EVERYONE.
Actually, I am having talks with a representative of the AFL-CIO.
All of us on earth are in the same boat now. No one looks past the profit margins. No one cares about anything other than the next quarterly reports. Profit is our God. Money is God.
....................................
We are all so blind that we are following the elusive dollar like a butterfly that coxes us over a cliff.
loosing?
.
-
Arising_uk
- Posts: 12259
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: occupying wall street - will it do any good
In your letter your spelt "losing" loosing.
Did you get a reply?
Did your union agree to you writing in their name?
I ask because I'm confused as to the role of this agency in your union investments? How is it they have a say in such things?
Did you get a reply?
Did your union agree to you writing in their name?
I ask because I'm confused as to the role of this agency in your union investments? How is it they have a say in such things?
-
Bill Wiltrack
- Posts: 5456
- Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:52 pm
- Location: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
- Contact:
Re: occupying wall street - will it do any good
.
.........................................
I was contacted and relayed the fact that the best interests of anyone is profit.
I thought I was writing in my own name, on my own behalf...
Good eye! I spotted the misspelling. Thank you.
I used variations of this basic letter during the Bush pResidency and only received a form letter from the Department of Labor.
The representatives from the Obama administration were very nice to me and spent a lot of time speaking to me and yet no one was able to tell me how anyone would attempt to change the direction ALL OF US are headed in.
How do you change the structure of what retirement annuities were initially set-up to do?
I still don't know.
Will occupying wall street do any good?
I still don't know.
We will see, as I continue in my efforts and the OWS people continue their occupation.
..........................................
...........................................
.
.........................................
I was contacted and relayed the fact that the best interests of anyone is profit.
I thought I was writing in my own name, on my own behalf...
Good eye! I spotted the misspelling. Thank you.
I used variations of this basic letter during the Bush pResidency and only received a form letter from the Department of Labor.
The representatives from the Obama administration were very nice to me and spent a lot of time speaking to me and yet no one was able to tell me how anyone would attempt to change the direction ALL OF US are headed in.
How do you change the structure of what retirement annuities were initially set-up to do?
I still don't know.
Will occupying wall street do any good?
I still don't know.
We will see, as I continue in my efforts and the OWS people continue their occupation.
..........................................
...........................................
.
-
bobevenson
- Posts: 7346
- Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
- Contact:
Re: occupying wall street - will it do any good
Unions are the ruination of this country and Evensonomics the salvation.
-
Arising_uk
- Posts: 12259
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: occupying wall street - will it do any good
Not sure how unions can be blamed for the ruination of your country bob, especially since they have so little membership? I'd look at the industrial-military combine thats been running since WWII for that.
-
bobevenson
- Posts: 7346
- Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
- Contact:
Re: occupying wall street - will it do any good
I'm talking about unions all over the world (from your favorite anti-capitalist: “Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains.”).
-
Arising_uk
- Posts: 12259
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: occupying wall street - will it do any good
I don't think Karl Marx was 'anti-capitalist' he just described its structure and mechanisms and the contradictions and inequities in its system. He also thought that we have to pass through it. Unions allowed a fairer share of the profits to go to those who actually did the labour thereby increasing the market size for goods.
He also described himself not a 'Marxist'.
I seriously doubt you've read the Communist Manifesto nor any of Das Capital.
How like the disney capitalist to try to shift the blame for the current crisis unto the workers back.
He also described himself not a 'Marxist'.
I seriously doubt you've read the Communist Manifesto nor any of Das Capital.
How like the disney capitalist to try to shift the blame for the current crisis unto the workers back.
-
bobevenson
- Posts: 7346
- Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
- Contact:
Re: occupying wall street - will it do any good
You, like so many of the hoi polloi, think that only people who do back-breaking work contribute to production, that people who make a lot of money don't really do anything productive at all, that they just steal money from the people actually doing the work. You need to study economics, but I doubt that will cure your profound ignorance of the subject.