Troubleshooting Some comments - Updated

It seems at least one person from the AUPE convention came to our blog, because we have a couple of comments.  Here they are, with some of the feedback that came from them.

Troubleshooter has left a new comment on your post "1000 Delegates-is that all?": 

Each delegate represents 100 fellow workers. Please, get your facts. That's like saying that Parliament is not representative of Canada because not every single Canadian is present. 

Posted by Troubleshooter to Artspace Under Siege at 17 October 2014 19:25

One of the first things reactions people had over this comment (besides, "so what?") was some version of, "you know that just makes it worse, right?"

Another typical response was some version of, AUPE is nothing like the federal government, and, the comparison also makes things look worse.

Here's a screen cap that accompanied the other post that was commented on.

The text with the photo says "over 1000 delegates."  For a three day event, for an organization with 83,000 members, that's still not much. [see update below]

That is a very small number of people making decisions for the entire membership.

The text says more than 1000 delegates, but let's just go with 1000.  Troubleshooter tells us that each of those delegates represented 100 people.  Based on that, Troubleshooter has just told us that there are 100,000 AUPE members, not the 83,000 there really are.  (A curious thing from a person accusing us of not getting our facts.)  Which would mean that only 1% got to participate in the convention, and the other 99% had no say, except by proxy.

We've had one person tell of going to three day conventions for decades, both as a participant and as a venue employee, and attendance would be around 3000 people; often closer to 5000.  However, these were all people who spent many hundreds of dollars for tickets, transportation, food and accommodation for the privilege to attend a major convention.

Which brought up the questions; did AUPE pay the way for these 1000 + people?  Did they pay for their hotels and transportation?  Just how much did all this cost AUPE members, most of whom were not even able to participate?

Just curious.

Then we have this other comment.

Troubleshooter has left a new comment on your post "In For the Long Haul": 

If you are so concerned about the situation, why do you use a moniker? Are you hiding something? I guess it is easier to spread misinformation and take comments out of context behind a mask. 

Posted by Troubleshooter to Artspace Under Siege at 17 October 2014 19:32

Which had quite a few people laughing.

Let's look at the first sentence.  What does the first half have to do with the second?  Is Troubleshooter suggesting that, in order to be concerned about something, people can't use a moniker?  Or if they are using a moniker, that means they aren't really concerned?

Neither of which is as funny as the fact that the person saying this is using an alias.

So tell us, Troubleshooter; if you're so concerned about the situation, why do you use a moniker?  Are you hiding something?  I guess it's easier to spread misinformation and take comments out of context behind a mask.

See how that works?

By the way, the definition of "moniker" is primarily, "a person's name."  It can also refer to a nickname.  Neither of which is used on this blog.

Let's start by explaining something that Troubleshooter should know, having taken the trouble to create a Blogger profile.

When creating a profile, you have to choose a name.  Some people use their real names.  Others use their blog names.  Lots of people have to come up with something creative, because the name they would like to use has already been chosen by someone else and they have to find an alternative.

Artspace Under Siege is a blog name.  Not a nickname or an alias.  A blog name.  Since the blog is not one person, it would not make sense to use a personal moniker of any kind.

Then Troubleshooter accuses us of misinformation and taking things out of context - but provides no examples of this misinformation.  The post in question is short and states our observations.  How is that misinformation?  If you're going to make an accusation, at least try to back it up with an example.  Then we could address it if it turns out we've made an error.

We do try to be accurate, so when we find out we've made an error, we correct it.  I would like to take this opportunity to correct one error we have been making.

We appear to be wrong about how many SAIL employees have actually been on the picket line since the beginning of the strike.

It seems that some of the people we thought were staff are actually former staff, including the woman who keeps bringing her two little kids.  She quit working for SAIL shortly before the strike started.  Since none of us are part of SAIL, we didn't know that she had quit her job so recently.

So it seems that even fewer SAIL employees have been out there than we thought.

Update: Oct. 24
According to a full page ad in the Edmonton Journal printed on Oct. 22, AUPE now has 85,000 members.