THIS WAS THE DARK AGES.
Terms like Moving Forward and Back to the Future are all corporate propaganda. Clinton neo-liberals are not moving America forward----they are taking us back to the Dark Ages. Bringing the brutal past back to the future. Republican states are crazy about all this----neo-conservative Johns Hopkins has left Baltimore in the Dark Ages for too long. If we think of politics today in this way---we understand the goals and do not fall for BAltimore Sun articles that call all of this 'grassroots' and 'small business local economy'. It is not progressive to have a goal of taking a first world nation back to the Dark Ages. This is to what US international labor union leaders are moving----TRADE GUILDS---- no doubt making themselves wealthy as Wall Street buys them off----but handing a century of American progressive labor gains to Wall Street----leaving US labor in a position of Trade Guild poverty with no rights as citizens.
As you see below Trade Guilds are businesses----the Master Craftsmen usually have a comfortable life while the 99% toil in poverty.
Think of the history folks-----the 1600-1700s brought mass revolutions by the 99% against this aristocratic corporate rule installing Magna Carte and creating Constitutions and governments of WE THE PEOPLE with a SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE giving us the Age of Enlightenment and people living as citizens with freedom and ability to accumulate wealth. TRADE GUILDS DIED because they worked for those rich now having no power. If TRADE GUILD policy is coming back----it is because the rich want to rebuild that Dark Ages structure and US national labor leaders are being bought to do that.
There is nothing wrong with people having talent being Master Craftsmen and artisans-----the problem is eliminating the entire modern structure of Constitutional law and Equal Protection of citizens living a life with some wealth to get there.
THIS IS WHAT THE GOAL OF BOTH CLINTON/OBAMA NEO-LIBERALS AND BUSH NEO-CONS ARE BECAUSE THEY ARE REPUBLICANS WORKING FOR WEALTH AND CORPORATE PROFIT----NOT SMALL BUSINESS AND FAMILIES.
An association of persons with a particular skill or trade. For example, the electricians in an area may form a guild for mutual support, to route business to each other, or for other reasons. A guild contrasts with a union primarily because it includes both employers and employees; it is based on trade, rather than class. Guilds were most common in medieval Europe, but still exist and have a great deal of sway in some industries, notably filmmaking. Bar associations of lawyers and realtor groups may also be considered guilds.
So, as Clinton neo-liberals were busting unions and killing the middle-class---they worked with Republicans to make unions into banks moving them to working for the union against the labor members. This is why US labor unions are silent and not educating against all this neo-liberalism ----while European unions are still working for their members and labor in general.
NEo-LIBERALS AND REPUBLICANS MAKE LABOR UNIONS INTO BANKS WORKING FOR THE STOCK MARKET GAINS----KILLING WHAT LABOR UNIONS IN THE US MEAN---INSTEAD THEY ARE ACTING AS TRADE GUILDS.
Neo-conservative Johns Hopkins in Baltimore and Maryland corporate pols are proud to now call MECU and SECU banks having them on development corporation boards with all pubblic worker money placed in International Economic Zone corporate projects. State and city workers are getting killed----these labor union leaders are driving Cadillacs. THIS IS WHAT MOVING LABOR UNIONS TO TRADE GUILDS LOOKS LIKE. Eventually there will be no public workers---that's why AFSCME public union was given rights to organize private trade workers.
When credit unions become banks
By Claes Bell, CFA · Bankrate.com
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Posted: 11 am ET
What if your credit union decided it didn't want to be a credit union anymore? Rachel Witkowski at American Banker has a great story this month on one credit union's push to become a bank:
Har-co Maryland Federal Credit Union in Bel Air recently notified its members that it plans to convert to a mutual thrift to expand its customer base. It would be the first such conversion since Coastway Credit Union's in July 2009.
Though the switches can strengthen rivals, banks have long encouraged more credit unions to convert and compete on even terms as tax-paying financial institutions.
Such conversions are rare and nearly ceased during the financial crisis. Formidable obstacles remain even though conditions have improved.
"There's a lot of opposition in the credit union world to this" kind of conversion, said Kip Weissman, a partner at Luse, Gorman, Pomerenk and Schick.
Credit unions often convert to banks to free themselves of federally mandated constraints on how credit unions can do business. For one, credit union membership is restricted to certain categories of people, say employees of a certain utility or residents of a certain city. Such restrictions stymie credit unions' ability to recruit new members/customers and essentially limits their growth.
Another major restriction is on business lending, where credit unions are only allowed to have 12.25 percent of their assets invested. Taken together, these restrictions can be enough to push some credit unions to convert to banks in search of larger market share and higher profits.
It should also be noted that credit unions' management has a major financial incentive to push for conversion. Credit union board members are volunteers, whereas banks pay their boards generous salaries.
But while credit union conversion can be a good deal for the institutions themselves, it's not always great for credit union members. Credit unions that convert to thrifts have to act more like banks -- they pay their management more than credit unions do, they pay corporate income taxes and they are for-profit rather than not-for-profit entities -- and so they can't offer the same relatively low fees, high savings rates and low mortgage rates their members were used to.
On the other hand, in a credit union conversion, it's possible members, especially those with big deposit accounts, could get a one-time payoff for their stake in the credit union if it eventually converts to a stock entity, which many former credit unions eventually do.
If you're a member of a credit union and you'd like it to stay that way, keep in mind that converting isn't easy. First, thrift wannabes must get approval to convert from the National Credit Union Administration and the Office of Thrift Supervision. Also, a majority of members who participate in a member ballot on the issue must vote yes.
In such a ballot, it seems the question comes down to a one-time windfall versus years of higher interest rates on deposits and lower ones on loans. What do you think? Would you vote yes?
For more info on conversions and an interesting look at the issues involved, check out this report, a PDF, from the Haas School of Business at the University of California at Berkeley.
Remember, when WE THE PEOPLE used revolution to take power from the rich TRADE GUILDS were replaced by labor unions in Europe, UK, and US. Trade Guilds die in the 1700s------people with rights as citizens accumulating wealth fought to create LABOR UNIONS to protect them from corporate power-----fighting for wages and workplace safety by moving some corporate profit to workers. That is the opposite of TRADE GUILDS working for patron rich subjecting most guild workers to extreme poverty with no rights that harmed corporations and the rich.
So, in the 1800 and 1900s-----citizens wanting labor rights organizated LABOR UNIONS WORKING FOR LABOR. Over a century gave way to this list below-----the mantra of today's unions. Notice that Clinton neo-liberals/Republicans are killing all of this even as US International Labor Union leaders support Clinton neo-liberals every election. Killing the people's Labor Unions to rebuild Dark Ages TRADE GUILDS. The AFL-CIO Trumka leads in this.
36 reasons why you should thank a union
Show your support for the labor movement! If for some reason you can't join a union, but want to support your fellow working Americans and fight for good jobs and a just economy, join Working America at www.WorkingAmerica.org.
When you join Working America - or if you're already a union member -- you are automatically eligible for Union Plus discounts and benefits at www.UnionPlus.org - including legal services, health savings, financial services and discounts on everything from AT&T wireless, car rentals and other travel, auto insurance, flowers, entertainment, movies and much more! Union members are also eligible for their union's Union Plus benefits!
Did you know that labor unions made the following 36 things possible?
- Weekends without work
- All breaks at work, including your lunch breaks
- Paid vacation
- Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
- Sick leave
- Social Security
- Minimum wage
- Civil Rights Act/Title VII - prohibits employer discrimination
- 8-hour work day
- Overtime pay
- Child labor laws
- Occupational Safety & Health Act (OSHA)
- 40-hour work week
- Workers' compensation (workers' comp)
- Unemployment insurance
- Workplace safety standards and regulations
- Employer health care insurance
- Collective bargaining rights for employees
- Wrongful termination laws
- Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA)
- Whistleblower protection laws
- Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA) - prohibits employers from using a lie detector test on an employee
- Veteran's Employment and Training Services (VETS)
- Compensation increases and evaluations (i.e. raises)
- Sexual harassment laws
- Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
- Holiday pay
- Employer dental, life, and vision insurance
- Privacy rights
- Pregnancy and parental leave
- Military leave
- The right to strike
- Public education for children
- Equal Pay Acts of 1963 & 2011 - requires employers pay men and women equally for the same amount of work
- Laws ending sweatshops in the United States
This is for which US international trade unions work------the ITUC ----and it is no coincidence that this ITUC is tied to the Clinton Intiative and Foundation and all of the global corporate tribunal structures----THEY ARE CLOSER TO TRADE GUILDS THAN THEY ARE LABOR UNIONS FOLKS.
Organizing the world's poor-----building structures that are Trade GUILDS where a few Master Craftsmen earn a decent living and 99% toil in poverty. These are the deal s Clinton and the global corporate tribunals are making with US international labor union leaders----AND THEY ARE TAKING THESE DEALS.
RATHER THAN FIGHT TO ELECT SOCIAL DEMOCRATS WHO WOULD BRING GLOBAL CORPORATIONS DOWN TO SIZE AND REBUILD WEALTH EQUITY FOR UNION AND LABOR MEMBERS----THEY ARE GOING DARK AGES ON WE THE PEOPLE.
This is who the US citizens see in Democratic primary elections running as Democrats serving as Clinton neo-liberals---claiming to be working for labor and justice. If we know the public policy on a national and international level ----we know what pols are doing on the local level.
The International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) is the global voice of the world’s working people.
The ITUC’s primary mission is the promotion and defence of workers’ rights and interests, through international cooperation between trade unions, global campaigning and advocacy within the major global institutions.
Its main areas of activity include the following: trade union and human rights; economy, society and the workplace; equality and non-discrimination; and international solidarity.
The ITUC adheres to the principles of trade union democracy and independence. It is governed by four-yearly world congresses, a General Council and an Executive Bureau.
The ITUC regional organisations are the Asia-Pacific Regional Organisation (ITUC-AP), the African Regional Organisation (ITUC-AF) and the American Regional Organisation (TUCA). It cooperates with the European Trade Union Confederation, including through the Pan-European Regional Council.
The ITUC has close relations with the Global Union Federations and the Trade Union Advisory Committee to the OECD (TUAC). It works closely with the International Labour Organisation and with several other UN Specialised Agencies.
As you see below----labor unions in the UK and Europe are not as captured as US international labor leaders and they have been more successful fighting off Trans Atlantic Trade Pact and other global corporate trade deals moving the developed nations back to the Dark Ages. US Congressional pols and Obama are pushing them as hard as they can with US national labor leaders backing them although pretending to be fighting them. You can shout against TPP and then support Hillary as a neo-liberal for President? REALLY????
Unions say planned international trade deal poses threat to NHS
Transatlantic trade and investment partnership may make the outsourcing of national health services in Britain permanent
US multinationals will be allowed to deliver crucial NHS services under the terms of the transatlantic trade and investment partnership (TTIP). Photograph: Dominic Lipinski/PA
Sunday 7 September 2014 15.58 EDT Last modified on Monday 8 September 2014 07.49 EDT
British trade unions are this week expected to lend their support to a growing campaign opposed to a new international trade deal which critics claim threatens to make the privatisation of the health service irreversible.
Three of the UK's biggest unions have tabled motions at the Trade Union Congress in Liverpool outlining their opposition to the transatlantic trade and investment partnership (TTIP), a huge trade deal being negotiated behind closed doors at the European commission between EU bureaucrats and delegates from the US.
Critics say the TTIP threatens to make the outsourcing of health services in Britain permanent by allowing US multinationals, or any firm with American investors, to sue any future UK government if it attempts to take privatised health services back into public ownership, jeopardising their profits. Critics say it will also water down environmental standards and banking regulations.
Len McCluskey, general secretary of Unite, one of the unions that have tabled motions, called on David Cameron to use his veto to ensure the NHS is not included in the deal.
"It is time he put the people's concerns above the interests of a handful of US companies and Wall Street investors which want to profit from our NHS. The movement against including our NHS in this trade deal is growing and the Tories simply cannot afford to ignore it."
Efforts by the trade union movement to raise awareness of the potential consequences of the trade deal have gathered pace across Europe in recent weeks, with a coalition of environmentalists, trade unions and leftwing parties voicing their opposition.
Last week almost 10,000 people took part in more than 600 events in the UK organised by campaign group 38 degrees to leaflet and talk to people about the potential consequences of the deal. And 170,000 people have signed a petition calling on the UK to either fix or scrap TTIP.
McCluskey said: "The government and bureaucrats from Brussels thought that they could tie this deal up behind closed doors without any fuss, but ordinary people who care about the NHS recognise this danger and are making their opposition clear."
Last week the government moved to rebut accusations that the deal was being driven by the interests of big transnational companies which variously want to deregulate markets, make NHS privatisation irreversible, and water down regulations on food standards and banking.
AdvertisementTrade minister Lord Livingston argued that the TTIP could add as much as £10bn to the UK economy a year. He said consumers stood to gain from more choice and cheaper goods, workers would benefit from higher wages as manufacturing makes gains and small companies would be able to break into export markets.
He added that the deal, which seeks to cut remaining trade tariffs and simplify regulatory rules, will not change anything for the NHS. "The NHS and how it chooses to operate will not be impacted by TTIP."
But Andy Burnham, the shadow health secretary, said the NHS must be exempted from a deal which he said threatened the fabric of a publicly run, free-at-the-point-of-use NHS.
Burnham said: "In the EU-US trade treaty, we want designation for healthcare so that we can exempt it from contract law, from competition law. The market is not the answer to 21st century healthcare. The demands of 21st century care require integration; markets deliver fragmentation."
THIS IS WHY IN THE US-----WE SEE OUR LOCAL LABOR UNIONS BACKING BERNIE SANDERS WHILE US INTERNATIONAL LABOR UNION LEADERS ARE BACKING HILLARY AND CLINTON NEO-LIBERALS.
I have spoken of this before---but I would like folks to think of these policies in the context of TRADE GUILDS vs labor unions.
Knowing Obama is a raging global corporate neo-liberal working as hard as he can to install TPP and International Economic Zone policies to bring the US back to the DARK AGES----when I read national media that has US Labor Boards making rulings called 'labor-friendly'----I get suspicious. What Obama's Labor board has done these several years is make policy taking labor unions to Wall Street financial entities and now TRADE GUILD structure. As I stated earlier----micro-union policy would be good if it was not tied to simply allowing existing US international trade unions create local branches as if they were grassroots labor organizing---AND THAT IS WHAT THIS NEO-LIBERAL MICRO-UNION POLICY DOES.
So, we are watching international trade unions coming back to communities building trade businesses as co-ops WHICH IS SIMPLY A TRADE GUILD FORMAT----it has nothing to do with rebuilding our US labor unions as domestic, locally controlled labor unions. We must have US labor members breaking from these international labor unions----a rebuilding our unions with leaders that fight for social democratic platforms----and not working for Clinton neo-liberalism and wealth and corporations!
IF WE THE PEOPLE ALLOW OUR CURRENT LABOR LEADERS TO CONTINUE TO PARTNER WITH BACK TO THE DARK AGES NEO-LIBERALS----WE WILL BE BACK TO TOILING IN MEDIEVAL TRADE GUILD WORKSHOPS.
The reason corporate pols like the German union model is that it didn't stray far from this TRADE GUILD structure---German unions work for corporations and as it says below---German unions are the ones under attack now with this niche union as Trade GUILD structure.
Know how American labor unions started? Workers with a passion for labor rights fought for free giving thousands of hours towards labor justice----they were not paid like a CEO with benefits as US national labor leaders are----that is how you know whether a labor union is real.
'Strikes may be orderly affairs with cake and corporate clout, but the rise of niche unions in Germany is threatening their power'
It is also why Trumka and other US international trade leaders call this a win for labor unions while in Europe labor unions call these niche union laws a threat!
“Micro Unions” and Minority Unions
Posted on January 2, 2014 by Benjamin Sachs
As a complement to Andrew Strom’s guest post today (“Do Unions Speak for Too Few or Too Many”), we’re moving this post (from August) back up to the front:
As the Wall Street Journal reports, the sixth circuit recently affirmed (I should say reaffirmed) the Board’s authority to determine the appropriate scope of bargaining units. [NB: The “bargaining unit” is the union polity: it is the group of workers that votes whether or not to have a union, and, if the vote is yes, then it is the group of workers covered by a collective bargaining agreement and represented by the union going forward.]
The Board’s decision in this case, Specialty Healthcare, is itself unremarkable. The union petitioned for a bargaining unit consisting of all the Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) at a Kindred nursing home in Alabama, and the Board agreed that the unit was an “appropriate” one under 29 U.S.C. § 159(b). The basic test for bargaining unit appropriateness is whether the workers “share a community of interests,” NLRB v. Action Automotive, Inc., 469 U.S. 490, 494 (1984), and the CNAs at a nursing home clearly do. Under extensive Supreme Court and circuit court precedent, moreover, the Board need choose an appropriate unit, not the most appropriate unit (if such a thing could be identified) and the Board met its responsibility here.
The employer’s argument was that the Board should have included more workers in the unit along with the CNAs. Kindred wanted to add the social services assistant, the staffing coordinator, the maintenance assistance, cooks, dietary aides, the medical-records clerk, the data-entry clerk, a business office clerical, and a receptionist (among others) to the unit. Whether or not Kindred’s unit would also have been an appropriate one, its clear that the hodge-podge of employees that Kindred proposed was not the only appropriate unit. Because the CNAs were an appropriate unit, the sixth circuit was right to affirm the Board’s decision.
But the Specialty Healthcare case has generated quite a lot of attention because it has come to symbolize the largely-invented issue of “micro unions.” The idea is that the Board is moving to permit workers to organize into teeny-tiny unions that will undermine management’s ability to operate coherent workplaces. Indeed, several pieces of legislation have now been introduced to prohibit these units, or what the bills’ sponsors call “job-destroying micro-unions.”
Several points are worth making about these developments. First, the easy ones. There is nothing new in what the Board did in Specialty Healthcare, or in what the sixth circuit did in enforcing the Board’s decision. There is also no reason to believe that the case will lead to a proliferation of smaller – or “micro” – bargaining units. As Fred Feinstein pointed out in his testimony before the House Education and Workforce Committee, bargaining unit sizes have actually increased slightly since the decision. In fact, as Feinstein pointed out, the average size of a bargaining unit found to be appropriate by the Board prior to Specialty Healthcare was 24 employees. That means that the unit in Specialty Healthcare was more than twice as large as the average unit; hardly micro. There is, in the end, nothing to the idea of a “micro union,” at least not if a micro-union is the type of unit at issue in Specialty Healthcare: fifty-three CNAs in a nursing home who quite obviously share a community of interest.
Second, there is something ironic about those who malign “big labor” – for being big and out-of-touch – now going on the attack about, well, “small labor.” If anything, employees in smaller units would enjoy more responsiveness from their union; less agency slack, if you will.
Now the more complicated point. There is some confusion about the relationship between “micro unions” and the conceptually distinct “minority unions.” “Micro union” refers to a traditional union in a relatively small bargaining unit. Micro unions are still exclusive bargaining representatives in a system governed by majority rule: there is an election in which all bargaining unit members can vote, and, if the union wins, all employees in the unit – including those who voted ‘no’ – are represented by the union, covered by the collective bargaining agreement, and can be – at least in non-right to work states – required to pay dues. That is, a micro union refers to a small traditional union.
Minority unions are quite different. Minority unions represent only those employees who affirmatively decide to join them. They do not operate on a majority-rule basis: there’s no election and no one who opposes the union’s existence will be represented by it, or covered by its collective bargaining agreement, or required to pay dues. In principle, minority unions can be tiny, mid-sized, or huge. In fact, minority unions might actually represent the majority of the employees in a bargaining unit; at the extreme, they could represent 100% of a workforce. The key is that they represent only their members – only those employees who affirmatively desire to bargain through the union. Thus, minority unions are also often called (more accurately, I think) “members only unions.”
While the micro-union idea is an empty one, members-only unionism is quite an important concept, one that could substantially alter the landscape of U.S. unionism. (For a book-length treatment of the subject, see Charles Morris, The Blue Eagle at Work; a summary here.) This is true for the very basic reason that members-only unions can come into existence, and assert collective bargaining rights, even before they reach majority status. If, say, 20% of the employees in a workforce want to bargain collectively, they could form a members-only union and demand bargaining. This fact has not been lost on unions and workers who have found it impossible to reach majority status. Wal-Mart stands as the most important exemplar of this potential, as Josh Eidelson reported last year.
Under current law, however, employers need not recognize or bargain with minority unions, and there are some good reasons to be hesitant about minority unionism. For example, the Board’s general counsel worries that minority unionism would allow employers to play unions off one another and subvert the very purpose of collective bargaining. Management is rightly concerned that a proliferation of minority unions within a single firm could impose prohibitively high bargaining costs. On the other hand, granting rights to minority unions would enable many employees – those who are currently stifled by the majority rule requirement – to gain a collective voice at work, what our labor law is meant to facilitate.
This is not the place to resolve the debate about minority unionism. It is, however, the place to distinguish “micro unions” from “minority unions.” Minority unionism is a real idea worthy of a real debate; micro unionism is not.
As Clinton/Obama/Bush work hard over these few decades to create Trans Pacific Trade Pact with a goal of ending US sovereignty and our US Constitutional rights as citizens----and as Clinton and Obama used the Federalism Act to say---we are not going to enforce Federal laws especially all those Equal Protection laws protecting labor, women, disabled, vets, and people of color----these international union leaders traveled all over the world with Clinton Intiative toting Clinton neo-liberalism to developing nations in exchange for organizing rights in International Economic Zones as are being built in the US now under TPP.
So, if they are best buds all over the world----is Trumka and international labor leaders really against TPP? Of course not. Eliminating all US Constitutional rights and bringing developed nations to third world status fits right with Dark Ages TRADE GUILDS----THE OPPOSITE OF SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC LABOR UNIONS!
American international labor leaders are making the Clinton's and neo-liberal international economic zones look progressive!
Asian and Latin American workers have never experienced the European Dark Ages----but they are being groomed for this! Wealth inequity in all Asian and Latin American nations creates this same Medici as wealthy merchant model for labor complete with TRADE GUILDS
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton Meets with Cambodian Women Unionists, Defends Worker Rights
This is a cross-post from the AFL-CIO Solidarity Center.
During her tour of Southeast Asia, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton urged the greater protection of worker rights, improvement of labor standards and the empowerment of women following a private meeting in Cambodia with union leaders and labor activists.
Clinton met privately in Siem Rep, Cambodia, with 12 female union leaders—independent union representatives from every major industry in Cambodia, labor lawyers and activists—as well as the Solidarity Center country program director, David Welsh. Friday’s two-hour roundtable, organized jointly by the Solidarity Center and the U.S. Department of State, was devoted to union and worker rights issues. Participating in the discussion were Melanne Verveer, U.S. ambassador-at-large for global women's issues; Barbara Shailor, special representative for international labor affairs at the U.S. Department of State; U.S. Ambassador to Cambodia William Todd; and U.S. Agency for International Development Mission Director Flynn Fuller.
Sign up to receive AFL-CIO Now blog alerts>>
At the meeting, Clinton heard of the challenges faced by trade unionists in Cambodia and, in particular, the challenges of women workers and women union leaders. The discussion also focused on the enormous progress made by both Cambodia and the young, independent Cambodian labor movement over the past decade, as well as the potential opportunities to advance both women's and workers' rights under Cambodia's prospective Trade Union law.
“Trade union rights in Cambodia were the dominant component of discussions,” the Solidarity Center’s Welsh told The Phnom Penh Post. “The U.S. delegation was clear that justice must be delivered for victims [of labor abuses].”
The secretary pledged the continued support of the U.S. government to both the Cambodian independent trade union movement and the work of the Solidarity Center before delivering the closing address to the Lower Mekong Initiative on Women s Gender Equality and Empowerment.
In the address, Clinton commended the new trade union law, saying it “could be a model for the region. It would extend rights and protection to domestic workers. It would allow people to join unions. And if this law is passed and enforced, it will set a very strong standard for the rest of the region.”
She also emphasized the link between the promotion of trade union and worker rights with economic growth.
“The international community and international law recognize that workers everywhere, regardless of income or status, are entitled to certain universal rights, including the right to form and join a union and to bargain collectively. Child labor, forced labor, discrimination based on gender, race, ethnicity, religion, or other factors, should be universally prohibited,” she said in a speech following the meeting. “So defending these labor rights and improving working conditions is a smart economic investment, but it’s also a very important value.”
This is just wide generalization but let's look at some professions never having left the TRADE GUILD structure in the US. We have our artists------musicians, stage and Hollywood actor's GUILDS. The arts have always depended on the rich for patronage------and it is true today. Who are the major GUILD members involved in global corporate control of the US-----THE MEDIA----A TRADE GUILD in places like Maryland filled with fraternity and sorority members----a double connection to TRADE GUILDS..
Next, we have a growing LAWYER'S GUILD. Now, who are most politicians today? Who worked hand and hand with Wall Street in moving all this financial fraud over these few decades? Almost every pol in Maryland is a lawyer and almost no public justice exists in a massive sea of fraud.
Finally, we have a growing REAL ESTATE GUILD---yes, all those real estate corporations playing with the subprime mortgage frauds and homes to anyone with a pulse----are TRADE GUILD members.
LOTS OF SECRET HAND SHAKES AND GROWING FREE MASONS IN MARYLAND AND BALTIMORE WITH ALL THESE GROUPS CLOSELY ALIGNED TO THE MASSIVE VISIGOTH LOOTING OF THE US TREASURY AND PEOPLE'S POCKETS.
Of course not all people in these groups are in guilds----or involved in an organized conspiracy to defraud America into a third world status.
IF YOU THINK WHO IS CONNECTED TO THE OUTSOURCING OF ALL PUBLIC WORK AND THEN LOOK AT HOW THIS OUTSOURCING OF PUBLIC WORK MOVES HIGHER AND HIGHER TO GLOBAL CORPORATIONS---YOU SEE THE TRADE GUILD AND CORPORATION AND WEALTH CONNECTION.
No doubt these international labor union leaders were part of this conspiracy to defraud as they sock away millions or trillions of dollars to come back to the US as this niche union as TRADE GUILD model.
Please take a look at what DARK AGES TRADE GUILDS looked like----then think of the peasants who could not get into these trade guilds and how they lived. THAT IS THE NEW WORLD ORDER. Take a look at the book below!
Nothing is more neo-conservative and Libertarian than the DARK AGES complete with the 1% vs the 99%----complete with no rights as citizens and corporations ruling with no legal boundaries----naked capitalism folks!
Wage labor & guilds in medieval Europe
Type: Book; English
Publisher:Chapel Hill : University of North Carolina Press, ©1991.
Teacher Lesson Ideas
Were the Medieval Guilds Predecessors to the Labor Unions in the United States?
After explaining the structure and history of guilds in Medieval Europe and labor unions in the United States, the teacher divides sixth grade students into a group of guild members and a group of union members, with each student playing the role of a different member of the guild or union (such as journeyman, master, or union president). The students then write and perform a one-act play based on primary and secondary descriptions of these two labor groups.
Charleston County School of the Arts, SC
2004 Lowcountry Institute