Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT : Indiana: First "Right to Work" State in a Decade
12 views
Skip to first unread message
mo_ntresor
Jan 26, 2012, 10:27:20 AM1/26/12
to
cbs headline reads, "Indiana on the cusp of union ban ..." wait! that's
the google aggregator headline. the cbs headline is,
"Indiana-poised-to-pass-anti-union-bill". that's better! sounds
horrible, so let's dig in and see what indiana's ACTUALLY DOING:
"(AP) INDIANAPOLIS - In another blow to organized labor in the
traditionally union heavy Midwest, Indiana is poised to become the first
right-to-work state in more than a decade after Republican lawmakers
cleared the way on Wednesday to ban unions from collecting mandatory fees
from workers."
they're not banning unions.
they're not even "anti-union".
they're ANTI-MANDATORY-UNION.
fuck are you leftwingers idiots. imagine allowing people the right to opt
out of dues to a goddamn union. IMAGINE!
mo_ntresor
________________________________________________________________________
the google aggregator headline. the cbs headline is,
"Indiana-poised-to-pass-anti-union-bill". that's better! sounds
horrible, so let's dig in and see what indiana's ACTUALLY DOING:
"(AP) INDIANAPOLIS - In another blow to organized labor in the
traditionally union heavy Midwest, Indiana is poised to become the first
right-to-work state in more than a decade after Republican lawmakers
cleared the way on Wednesday to ban unions from collecting mandatory fees
from workers."
they're not banning unions.
they're not even "anti-union".
they're ANTI-MANDATORY-UNION.
fuck are you leftwingers idiots. imagine allowing people the right to opt
out of dues to a goddamn union. IMAGINE!
mo_ntresor
________________________________________________________________________
mo_ntresor
Jan 26, 2012, 10:29:41 AM1/26/12
to
On Jan 26 2012 8:27 AM, mo_ntresor wrote:
>google news aggregator headline is:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&btnmeta_news_search=1&q=indiana&oq=indiana&aq=f&aqi=d1g-z1g8d-o1&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=2618l3308l0l3500l7l5l0l0l0l0l139l457l4.1l5l0
>the cbs headline is:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57366391/indiana-poised-to-pass-anti-union-bill/
mo_ntresor
----
>google news aggregator headline is:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&btnmeta_news_search=1&q=indiana&oq=indiana&aq=f&aqi=d1g-z1g8d-o1&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=2618l3308l0l3500l7l5l0l0l0l0l139l457l4.1l5l0
>the cbs headline is:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57366391/indiana-poised-to-pass-anti-union-bill/
mo_ntresor
----
Alim Nassor
Jan 26, 2012, 12:20:39 PM1/26/12
to
On Jan 26, 9:27 am, "mo_ntresor" <amontilladofortun...@gmail.com>
wrote:
HOW DARE THEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Never been in a union, never will be.
wrote:
Never been in a union, never will be.
Bea Foroni
Jan 26, 2012, 1:21:17 PM1/26/12
to
On Jan 26, 7:27 am, "mo_ntresor" <amontilladofortun...@gmail.com>
wrote:
You can't have a union unless the workers are all union. Otherwise it
is not a union. We could go back to the time when you didn't join the
goons would make a visit. Close shop laws stopped that practice. Now
there is movement to rid us of those civilizing laws.
Doesn't matter anyway. All those jobs will be outsourced. No way
Americans can work for $0.37 an hour, twelve hours a day, six days a
week. Like in China. No way a company can compete against companies
that discard toxic waste directly into the air and water. Like in
China.
Forming a labor union in China is punishable by imprisonment for up
to twelve years.
Unions don't work unless all the workers belong. Don't want to join?
Work someplace that doesn't have unions. But to pull the teeth out of
unions and say, "See we have freedom", is a lie.
But as I say, it doesn't matter. Protection of the American middle
class, protection of the American worker, has been sold to the highest
bidder.
wrote:
is not a union. We could go back to the time when you didn't join the
goons would make a visit. Close shop laws stopped that practice. Now
there is movement to rid us of those civilizing laws.
Doesn't matter anyway. All those jobs will be outsourced. No way
Americans can work for $0.37 an hour, twelve hours a day, six days a
week. Like in China. No way a company can compete against companies
that discard toxic waste directly into the air and water. Like in
China.
Forming a labor union in China is punishable by imprisonment for up
to twelve years.
Unions don't work unless all the workers belong. Don't want to join?
Work someplace that doesn't have unions. But to pull the teeth out of
unions and say, "See we have freedom", is a lie.
But as I say, it doesn't matter. Protection of the American middle
class, protection of the American worker, has been sold to the highest
bidder.
mo_ntresor
Jan 26, 2012, 1:33:21 PM1/26/12
to
On Jan 26 2012 11:21 AM, Bea Foroni wrote:
> On Jan 26, 7:27 am, "mo_ntresor" <amontilladofortun...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > cbs headline reads, "Indiana on the cusp of union ban ..." wait! that's
> > the google aggregator headline. the cbs headline is,
> > "Indiana-poised-to-pass-anti-union-bill". that's better! sounds
> > horrible, so let's dig in and see what indiana's ACTUALLY DOING:
> >
> > "(AP) INDIANAPOLIS - In another blow to organized labor in the
> > traditionally union heavy Midwest, Indiana is poised to become the first
> > right-to-work state in more than a decade after Republican lawmakers
> > cleared the way on Wednesday to ban unions from collecting mandatory fees
> > from workers."
> >
> > they're not banning unions.
> > they're not even "anti-union".
> > they're ANTI-MANDATORY-UNION.
> >
> > fuck are you leftwingers idiots. imagine allowing people the right to opt
> > out of dues to a goddamn union. IMAGINE!
>
> On Jan 26, 7:27 am, "mo_ntresor" <amontilladofortun...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > cbs headline reads, "Indiana on the cusp of union ban ..." wait! that's
> > the google aggregator headline. the cbs headline is,
> > "Indiana-poised-to-pass-anti-union-bill". that's better! sounds
> > horrible, so let's dig in and see what indiana's ACTUALLY DOING:
> >
> > "(AP) INDIANAPOLIS - In another blow to organized labor in the
> > traditionally union heavy Midwest, Indiana is poised to become the first
> > right-to-work state in more than a decade after Republican lawmakers
> > cleared the way on Wednesday to ban unions from collecting mandatory fees
> > from workers."
> >
> > they're not banning unions.
> > they're not even "anti-union".
> > they're ANTI-MANDATORY-UNION.
> >
> > fuck are you leftwingers idiots. imagine allowing people the right to opt
> > out of dues to a goddamn union. IMAGINE!
>
> You can't have a union unless the workers are all union. Otherwise it
> is not a union. We could go back to the time when you didn't join the
> goons would make a visit. Close shop laws stopped that practice. Now
> there is movement to rid us of those civilizing laws.
>
> Doesn't matter anyway. All those jobs will be outsourced. No way
> Americans can work for $0.37 an hour, twelve hours a day, six days a
> week. Like in China. No way a company can compete against companies
> that discard toxic waste directly into the air and water. Like in
> China.
>
> Forming a labor union in China is punishable by imprisonment for up
> to twelve years.
>
> Unions don't work unless all the workers belong. Don't want to join?
> Work someplace that doesn't have unions. But to pull the teeth out of
> unions and say, "See we have freedom", is a lie.
>
> But as I say, it doesn't matter. Protection of the American middle
> class, protection of the American worker, has been sold to the highest
> bidder.
we're losing our silk-screening industry!
> is not a union. We could go back to the time when you didn't join the
> goons would make a visit. Close shop laws stopped that practice. Now
> there is movement to rid us of those civilizing laws.
>
> Doesn't matter anyway. All those jobs will be outsourced. No way
> Americans can work for $0.37 an hour, twelve hours a day, six days a
> week. Like in China. No way a company can compete against companies
> that discard toxic waste directly into the air and water. Like in
> China.
>
> Forming a labor union in China is punishable by imprisonment for up
> to twelve years.
>
> Unions don't work unless all the workers belong. Don't want to join?
> Work someplace that doesn't have unions. But to pull the teeth out of
> unions and say, "See we have freedom", is a lie.
>
> But as I say, it doesn't matter. Protection of the American middle
> class, protection of the American worker, has been sold to the highest
> bidder.
mo_ntresor
----
Bea Foroni
Jan 26, 2012, 2:06:30 PM1/26/12
to
On Jan 26, 10:33 am, "mo_ntresor" <amontilladofortun...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Isn't silk-screening one of the first processes to building circuit
boards?
wrote:
.
>
> we're losing our silk-screening industry!
>
We are losing our manifacturing jobs. Silk-screening is part of that.
>
> we're losing our silk-screening industry!
>
Isn't silk-screening one of the first processes to building circuit
boards?
Mossingen
Jan 26, 2012, 10:42:40 AM1/26/12
to
"mo_ntresor" <amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ov78v8x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
> fuck are you leftwingers idiots. imagine allowing people the right to opt
> out of dues to a goddamn union. IMAGINE!
Appears to be a rational piece of legislation. That's probably why no one
here has much of an opinion on it one way or another, other than yourself.
news:ov78v8x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
> fuck are you leftwingers idiots. imagine allowing people the right to opt
> out of dues to a goddamn union. IMAGINE!
here has much of an opinion on it one way or another, other than yourself.
Mossingen
Jan 26, 2012, 12:57:57 PM1/26/12
to
"Alim Nassor" <alimn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1f3395c0-ee83-435a...@y10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
>Never been in a union, never will be.
Never is a long time. I suspect you've never been in a union because it's
not in your personal interests to do so. If there ever arose a situation
where union membership was beneficial to you personally, I suspect you'd
reconsider.
news:1f3395c0-ee83-435a...@y10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
>Never been in a union, never will be.
not in your personal interests to do so. If there ever arose a situation
where union membership was beneficial to you personally, I suspect you'd
reconsider.
popinjay999
Jan 26, 2012, 2:35:20 PM1/26/12
to
On Jan 26, 9:57 am, "Mossingen" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:
> "Alim Nassor" <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Is there such a thing as principle? I wouldn't join a union if you
put a gun to my head. And that's what they do.
Legalized extortion!
> "Alim Nassor" <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
put a gun to my head. And that's what they do.
Legalized extortion!
mo_ntresor
Jan 26, 2012, 2:36:52 PM1/26/12
to
On Jan 26 2012 8:42 AM, Mossingen wrote:
> > fuck are you leftwingers idiots. imagine allowing people the right to opt
> > out of dues to a goddamn union. IMAGINE!
>
> Appears to be a rational piece of legislation. That's probably why no one
> here has much of an opinion on it one way or another, other than yourself.
i posted the media headlines. did they at all resemble the "rational"
> > fuck are you leftwingers idiots. imagine allowing people the right to opt
> > out of dues to a goddamn union. IMAGINE!
>
> Appears to be a rational piece of legislation. That's probably why no one
> here has much of an opinion on it one way or another, other than yourself.
legislation's aims?
mo_ntresor
----
mo_ntresor
Jan 26, 2012, 2:34:37 PM1/26/12
to
On Jan 26 2012 12:06 PM, Bea Foroni wrote:
> > we're losing our silk-screening industry!
>
> We are losing our manifacturing jobs. Silk-screening is part of that.
>
> Isn't silk-screening one of the first processes to building circuit
> boards?
the best way to keep those important manufacturing jobs is to enforce
> > we're losing our silk-screening industry!
>
> We are losing our manifacturing jobs. Silk-screening is part of that.
>
> Isn't silk-screening one of the first processes to building circuit
> boards?
union membership, prevent companies from hiring outside union areas, and
pay wages twice what the rest of the planet thinks the jobs merit.
that'll make those jobs very desirable, and lots and lots of them will
start to appear.
mo_ntresor
---
Bea Foroni
Jan 26, 2012, 2:53:43 PM1/26/12
to
On Jan 26, 11:34 am, "mo_ntresor" <amontilladofortun...@gmail.com>
wrote:
That's exactly what Henry Ford said. Pay your workers well, they will
spend and then you'll have customers. An upward spiral.
Pay the workers less, they spend less and the company has less
customers. A downward spiral.
wrote:
spend and then you'll have customers. An upward spiral.
Pay the workers less, they spend less and the company has less
customers. A downward spiral.
mo_ntresor
Jan 26, 2012, 3:12:01 PM1/26/12
to
On Jan 26 2012 12:53 PM, Bea Foroni wrote:
> > the best way to keep those important manufacturing jobs is to enforce
> > union membership, prevent companies from hiring outside union areas, and
> > pay wages twice what the rest of the planet thinks the jobs merit.
> > that'll make those jobs very desirable, and lots and lots of them will
> > start to appear.
>
> > the best way to keep those important manufacturing jobs is to enforce
> > union membership, prevent companies from hiring outside union areas, and
> > pay wages twice what the rest of the planet thinks the jobs merit.
> > that'll make those jobs very desirable, and lots and lots of them will
> > start to appear.
>
> That's exactly what Henry Ford said. Pay your workers well, they will
> spend and then you'll have customers. An upward spiral.
>
> Pay the workers less, they spend less and the company has less
> customers. A downward spiral.
i missed the part where ford supported unions. why don't you show us that
> spend and then you'll have customers. An upward spiral.
>
> Pay the workers less, they spend less and the company has less
> customers. A downward spiral.
little piece of history, start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Ford
"Ford was adamantly against labor unions."
mo_ntresor
------
Alim Nassor
Jan 26, 2012, 4:09:11 PM1/26/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh bullshit. The GM plant in Arlington, Texas has a UAW union, but
you are free to join, or not.
Alim Nassor
Jan 26, 2012, 4:10:18 PM1/26/12
to
On Jan 26, 11:57 am, "Mossingen" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:
> "Alim Nassor" <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
I suspect not.
> "Alim Nassor" <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
popinjay999
Jan 26, 2012, 4:17:24 PM1/26/12
to
On Jan 26, 1:09 pm, Alim Nassor <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Oh bullshit. The GM plant in Arlington, Texas has a UAW union, but
> you are free to join, or not.
Funny how liberal scumbags like Bea and Clave are all pro-choice when
>
> Oh bullshit. The GM plant in Arlington, Texas has a UAW union, but
> you are free to join, or not.
it comes to killing babies but it's like NO-choice when it comes to
ramming this union shit down people's throats.
VegasJerry
Jan 26, 2012, 4:46:12 PM1/26/12
to
fired, then comes crying to the union about how unfair he was treated.
Stupid people (and tightwads) take longer to see the light because they
are: Stupid.
Jerry 'n Vegas
------
Alim Nassor
Jan 26, 2012, 4:49:22 PM1/26/12
to
moron. I never will.
VegasJerry
Jan 26, 2012, 4:48:19 PM1/26/12
to
On Jan 26 2012 11:53 AM, Bea Foroni wrote:
> On Jan 26, 11:34 am, "mo_ntresor" <amontilladofortun...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Jan 26 2012 12:06 PM, Bea Foroni wrote:
> >
> > > > we're losing our silk-screening industry!
> >
> > > We are losing our manifacturing jobs. Silk-screening is part of that..
> On Jan 26, 11:34 am, "mo_ntresor" <amontilladofortun...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Jan 26 2012 12:06 PM, Bea Foroni wrote:
> >
> > > > we're losing our silk-screening industry!
> >
> >
> > > Isn't silk-screening one of the first processes to building circuit
> > > boards?
> >
> > the best way to keep those important manufacturing jobs is to enforce
> > union membership, prevent companies from hiring outside union areas, and
> > pay wages twice what the rest of the planet thinks the jobs merit.
> > that'll make those jobs very desirable, and lots and lots of them will
> > start to appear.
> >
> > mo_ntresor
> >
> > ---
>
> That's exactly what Henry Ford said. Pay your workers well, they will
> spend and then you'll have customers. An upward spiral.
>
> Pay the workers less, they spend less and the company has less
> customers. A downward spiral.
Tell it to Wal-Mart; because you support their employees when they go to
> > > Isn't silk-screening one of the first processes to building circuit
> > > boards?
> >
> > the best way to keep those important manufacturing jobs is to enforce
> > union membership, prevent companies from hiring outside union areas, and
> > pay wages twice what the rest of the planet thinks the jobs merit.
> > that'll make those jobs very desirable, and lots and lots of them will
> > start to appear.
> >
> > mo_ntresor
> >
> > ---
>
> That's exactly what Henry Ford said. Pay your workers well, they will
> spend and then you'll have customers. An upward spiral.
>
> Pay the workers less, they spend less and the company has less
> customers. A downward spiral.
the hospital or get food stamps or other social services.
Jerry
____________________________________________________________________
VegasJerry
Jan 26, 2012, 4:50:07 PM1/26/12
to
much, or management fires them.
Jerry
____________________________________________________________________
Alim Nassor
Jan 26, 2012, 5:03:34 PM1/26/12
to
portions of the country, there are NO unions in the factories to go
crying to? From the time I was 16, I worked in a supermarket, a
cotton mill, and 3 electronics manufacturing firms in 2 states and
there was NO union to go crying to, nor was it needed?
Mossingen
Jan 26, 2012, 5:35:40 PM1/26/12
to
"Alim Nassor" <alimn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:96a666fb-87ce-463f...@o14g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
gets a plumb wage and doesn't have to deal with much flack from management.
If you're not that skilled, the jobs are labor intensive, and your kids are
hungry, it's mostly a good idea to approach management as a group and demand
a decent wage.
mo_ntresor
Jan 26, 2012, 5:36:49 PM1/26/12
to
On Jan 26 2012 3:03 PM, Alim Nassor wrote:
> > Funny how losers come crying to join the union when they don't get paid as
> > much, or management fires them.
>
> > Funny how losers come crying to join the union when they don't get paid as
> > much, or management fires them.
>
> Are you even aware, in your advanced state of senility, that in large
> portions of the country, there are NO unions in the factories to go
> crying to? From the time I was 16, I worked in a supermarket, a
> cotton mill, and 3 electronics manufacturing firms in 2 states and
> there was NO union to go crying to, nor was it needed?
keep listenering to managments as they feed you that line about your wages
> portions of the country, there are NO unions in the factories to go
> crying to? From the time I was 16, I worked in a supermarket, a
> cotton mill, and 3 electronics manufacturing firms in 2 states and
> there was NO union to go crying to, nor was it needed?
and lack of health insurers. see who saves you from your yellow and black
smiley faced smock at the local wallmarkets.
mo_ntresor
--------
Mossingen
Jan 26, 2012, 5:37:51 PM1/26/12
to
"popinjay999" <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:e7052dab-4bd1-4f44...@m4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
______________________________
Ah, the ol' abortion-analogy-to-unions attack. I knew there was some reason
why I still read RGP. paul, you are one very creative person.
news:e7052dab-4bd1-4f44...@m4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
Ah, the ol' abortion-analogy-to-unions attack. I knew there was some reason
why I still read RGP. paul, you are one very creative person.
popinjay999
Jan 26, 2012, 5:40:12 PM1/26/12
to
On Jan 26, 1:50 pm, "VegasJerry" <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> Funny how losers come crying to join the union when they don't get paid as
> much, or management fires them.
>
You're right, Jerry, anyone who goes crying to a union IS a loser.
>
> Funny how losers come crying to join the union when they don't get paid as
> much, or management fires them.
>
You're absolutely right.
mo_ntresor
Jan 26, 2012, 5:47:43 PM1/26/12
to
On Jan 26 2012 3:35 PM, Mossingen wrote:
> > Never is a long time. I suspect you've never been in a union because it's
> > not in your personal interests to do so. If there ever arose a situation
> > where union membership was beneficial to you personally, I suspect you'd
> > reconsider.
> >
> >I suspect not.
>
> Easy enough to do when you're a highly skilled independent contractor who
> gets a plumb wage and doesn't have to deal with much flack from management.
> If you're not that skilled, the jobs are labor intensive, and your kids are
> hungry, it's mostly a good idea to approach management as a group and demand
> a decent wage.
maybe try asking first.
> > Never is a long time. I suspect you've never been in a union because it's
> > not in your personal interests to do so. If there ever arose a situation
> > where union membership was beneficial to you personally, I suspect you'd
> > reconsider.
> >
> >I suspect not.
>
> Easy enough to do when you're a highly skilled independent contractor who
> gets a plumb wage and doesn't have to deal with much flack from management.
> If you're not that skilled, the jobs are labor intensive, and your kids are
> hungry, it's mostly a good idea to approach management as a group and demand
> a decent wage.
mo_ntresor
---
Clave
Jan 26, 2012, 6:20:11 PM1/26/12
to
"Mossingen" <jhan...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:jfskfn$8i0$1...@dont-email.me...
<...>
> Easy enough to do when you're a highly skilled independent contractor who
> gets a plumb wage and doesn't have to deal with much flack from
> management. If you're not that skilled, the jobs are labor intensive, and
> your kids are hungry, it's mostly a good idea to approach management as a
> group and demand a decent wage.
No question about it IMO.
Management is organized, and generally speaking, labor is screwing itself if
it doesn't organize as well.
Jim
news:jfskfn$8i0$1...@dont-email.me...
<...>
> Easy enough to do when you're a highly skilled independent contractor who
> gets a plumb wage and doesn't have to deal with much flack from
> management. If you're not that skilled, the jobs are labor intensive, and
> your kids are hungry, it's mostly a good idea to approach management as a
> group and demand a decent wage.
Management is organized, and generally speaking, labor is screwing itself if
it doesn't organize as well.
Jim
DDawgster
Jan 26, 2012, 6:39:47 PM1/26/12
to
of their jobs , but he would NEVER join a union
and evidently he forgot about being in a Police Union ?
> Apparently I see no reason for Perry to have lied well over a year ago..
Another gem from Alim Nassor
------
popinjay999
Jan 26, 2012, 5:43:29 PM1/26/12
to
On Jan 26, 2:35 pm, "Mossingen" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:
> If you're not that skilled, the jobs are labor intensive, and your kids are
> hungry, it's mostly a good idea to approach management as a group and demand
> a decent wage.
"Demand"? Sounds a little ungrateful, doesn't it? What if you were
> If you're not that skilled, the jobs are labor intensive, and your kids are
> hungry, it's mostly a good idea to approach management as a group and demand
> a decent wage.
to hire someone, James, and that person came to you later and DEMANDED
that you give them this and that? They didn't ask you, they DEMANDED
from you. What would you do? Give them what they demand? I know
what I'd give them.
Dutch
Jan 26, 2012, 7:11:10 PM1/26/12
to
> cbs headline reads, "Indiana on the cusp of union ban ..." wait! that's
> the google aggregator headline. the cbs headline is,
> "Indiana-poised-to-pass-anti-union-bill". that's better! sounds
> horrible, so let's dig in and see what indiana's ACTUALLY DOING:
>
> "(AP) INDIANAPOLIS - In another blow to organized labor in the
> traditionally union heavy Midwest, Indiana is poised to become the first
> right-to-work state in more than a decade after Republican lawmakers
> cleared the way on Wednesday to ban unions from collecting mandatory fees
> from workers."
>
>
> they're not banning unions.
> they're not even "anti-union".
> they're ANTI-MANDATORY-UNION.
>
> fuck are you leftwingers idiots. imagine allowing people the right to opt
> out of dues to a goddamn union. IMAGINE!
They opt out of paying dues, they never want to opt out of the collectively
> the google aggregator headline. the cbs headline is,
> "Indiana-poised-to-pass-anti-union-bill". that's better! sounds
> horrible, so let's dig in and see what indiana's ACTUALLY DOING:
>
> "(AP) INDIANAPOLIS - In another blow to organized labor in the
> traditionally union heavy Midwest, Indiana is poised to become the first
> right-to-work state in more than a decade after Republican lawmakers
> cleared the way on Wednesday to ban unions from collecting mandatory fees
> from workers."
>
>
> they're not banning unions.
> they're not even "anti-union".
> they're ANTI-MANDATORY-UNION.
>
> fuck are you leftwingers idiots. imagine allowing people the right to opt
> out of dues to a goddamn union. IMAGINE!
bargained pay and benefits. "Right to work" is a thinly veiled attempt to
destroy the union.
Dutch
Jan 26, 2012, 7:12:21 PM1/26/12
to
news:jfrs4u$jjk$1...@dont-email.me...
You want to work for 10 bucks an hour beside a guy doing the exact same job
for 20?
for 20?
Clave
Jan 26, 2012, 7:26:29 PM1/26/12
to
popinjay999
Jan 26, 2012, 9:55:54 PM1/26/12
to
On Jan 26, 3:20 pm, "Clave" <clav...@the.monastery.com> wrote:
>
> No question about it IMO.
>
> Management is organized, and generally speaking, labor is screwing itself if
> it doesn't organize as well.
>
> Jim
What if labor screws itself right out of a job? What if rather than
>
> No question about it IMO.
>
> Management is organized, and generally speaking, labor is screwing itself if
> it doesn't organize as well.
>
> Jim
be held hostage, I, as the employer, just close the whole fucking
plant down and you all can hit the skids, eh Eugene?
Clave
Jan 26, 2012, 10:08:11 PM1/26/12
to
"popinjay999" <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:347259c9-2df5-49bf...@nf9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 26, 3:20 pm, "Clave" <clav...@the.monastery.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> No question about it IMO.
>>
>> Management is organized, and generally speaking, labor is screwing itself
>> if
>> it doesn't organize as well.
>
>
>>
>> No question about it IMO.
>>
>> Management is organized, and generally speaking, labor is screwing itself
>> if
>> it doesn't organize as well.
>
> What if labor screws itself right out of a job? What if rather than
> be held hostage, I, as the employer, just close the whole fucking
> plant down and you all can hit the skids, eh Eugene?
Right -- that's all unions exist for is to make demands so unreasonable that
> be held hostage, I, as the employer, just close the whole fucking
> plant down and you all can hit the skids, eh Eugene?
no one makes any money.
Idiot.
popinjay999
Jan 26, 2012, 10:15:48 PM1/26/12
to
On Jan 26, 7:08 pm, "Clave" <clav...@the.monastery.com> wrote:
>
> Right -- that's all unions exist for is to make demands so unreasonable that
> no one makes any money.
>
> Idiot.
You must have missed where I asked about property rights, fuckface?
>
> Right -- that's all unions exist for is to make demands so unreasonable that
> no one makes any money.
>
> Idiot.
What about principle? I know that is probably a foreign concept to a
scumbag like you. What if it is YOUR business? Do you like someone
DEMANDING of you and TELLING you how to run YOUR BUSINESS? It's YOUR
PROPERTY!
And by the way, the scenario that you just denied ever exists, are you
trying to say unions have NEVER been so "unreasonable" that they PRICE
themselves right out of a job?
Who's the idiot now, bigger-idiot?
BillB
Jan 26, 2012, 10:31:00 PM1/26/12
to
On 1/26/2012 6:55 PM, popinjay999 wrote:
> What if labor screws itself right out of a job? What if rather than
> be held hostage, I, as the employer, just close the whole fucking
> plant down and you all can hit the skids, eh Eugene?
Labor's job is to take you right to that line without ever crossing it.
> What if labor screws itself right out of a job? What if rather than
> be held hostage, I, as the employer, just close the whole fucking
> plant down and you all can hit the skids, eh Eugene?
Don't you ever watch The Price is Right?
popinjay999
Jan 26, 2012, 10:33:12 PM1/26/12
to
are, is Marxist theory.
Clave
Jan 26, 2012, 10:40:35 PM1/26/12
to
"popinjay999" <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:062f7231-f603-405f...@y5g2000pbk.googlegroups.com...
Says someone who's obviously never been party to a contract negotiation.
BillB
Jan 26, 2012, 10:40:16 PM1/26/12
to
On 1/26/2012 7:33 PM, popinjay999 wrote:
> Management and labor are NOT opposing forces.
Then why did you slit their tires?
> Management and labor are NOT opposing forces.
Clave
Jan 26, 2012, 10:48:41 PM1/26/12
to
"BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message
news:x0pUq.452$0C4...@newsfe05.iad...
the middle of the table
there is a plate with a dozen cookies on it. The CEO reaches across and
takes 11 cookies, looks at
the Tea Partier and says: "Look out for that union guy, he wants a piece of
your cookie."
news:x0pUq.452$0C4...@newsfe05.iad...
> On 1/26/2012 7:33 PM, popinjay999 wrote:
>
>> Management and labor are NOT opposing forces.
>
> Then why did you slit their tires?
A union worker, a Tea Partier and a corporate CEO are sitting at a table. In
>
>> Management and labor are NOT opposing forces.
>
> Then why did you slit their tires?
the middle of the table
there is a plate with a dozen cookies on it. The CEO reaches across and
takes 11 cookies, looks at
the Tea Partier and says: "Look out for that union guy, he wants a piece of
your cookie."
Mossingen
Jan 26, 2012, 9:54:24 PM1/26/12
to
"popinjay999" <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:437e0777-dd70-436e...@lr19g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
You think the CEO is going to don a hardhat and stand on a conveyor belt for
8 hours making the widgets?
popinjay999
Jan 27, 2012, 12:45:59 AM1/27/12
to
On Jan 26, 6:54 pm, "Mossingen" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> You think the CEO is going to don a hardhat and stand on a conveyor belt for
> 8 hours making the widgets?
How is that pertinent? James, I asked you, I ask you, put yourself in
>
> You think the CEO is going to don a hardhat and stand on a conveyor belt for
> 8 hours making the widgets?
the shoes of an employer, and don't you think you are providing
opportunity for people by employing them? When you hire someone, do
you consider it exploitation? Because I will stand by my statement
forever, that management and labor are NOT, or should not be, opposing
forces. Everything depends on the business owner. The business owner
does not have to start a business in the first place. So, if you do
people a favor by hiring them, how should you feel if they turn around
and make demands of you or even go so far as to picket you? Wouldn't
that be a slap in your face? Unionism is socialistic, and immoral.
It is thuggery, it is mob-think. Are we individuals? Or are we part
of the group?
Alim Nassor
Jan 27, 2012, 1:21:24 AM1/27/12
to
On Jan 26, 4:35 pm, "Mossingen" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:
> "Alim Nassor" <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:96a666fb-87ce-463f...@o14g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 26, 11:57 am, "Mossingen" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > "Alim Nassor" <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:1f3395c0-ee83-435a...@y10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >Never been in a union, never will be.
>
> > Never is a long time. I suspect you've never been in a union because it's
> > not in your personal interests to do so. If there ever arose a situation
> > where union membership was beneficial to you personally, I suspect you'd
> > reconsider.
> >I suspect not.
>
> Easy enough to do when you're a highly skilled independent contractor who
> gets a plumb wage and doesn't have to deal with much flack from management.
> If you're not that skilled, the jobs are labor intensive, and your kids are
> hungry, it's mostly a good idea to approach management as a group and demand
> a decent wage.
I guess so James, but where I live, I can't think of any unions in
> "Alim Nassor" <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:96a666fb-87ce-463f...@o14g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 26, 11:57 am, "Mossingen" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > "Alim Nassor" <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:1f3395c0-ee83-435a...@y10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >Never been in a union, never will be.
>
> > Never is a long time. I suspect you've never been in a union because it's
> > not in your personal interests to do so. If there ever arose a situation
> > where union membership was beneficial to you personally, I suspect you'd
> > reconsider.
> >I suspect not.
>
> Easy enough to do when you're a highly skilled independent contractor who
> gets a plumb wage and doesn't have to deal with much flack from management.
> If you're not that skilled, the jobs are labor intensive, and your kids are
> hungry, it's mostly a good idea to approach management as a group and demand
> a decent wage.
any of the factories, and people here do ok. There may be a union
somewhere, but I don't know of it, and I've lived and worked in the
area my whole life.
Alim Nassor
Jan 27, 2012, 1:23:06 AM1/27/12
to
On Jan 26, 5:20 pm, "Clave" <clav...@the.monastery.com> wrote:
> "Mossingen" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote in message
I don't think i would want to work in an adversarial environment. The
companies I have worked for have all had pretty fair management.
> "Mossingen" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote in message
companies I have worked for have all had pretty fair management.
Alim Nassor
Jan 27, 2012, 1:21:55 AM1/27/12
to
Alim Nassor
Jan 27, 2012, 1:26:25 AM1/27/12
to
struck once too often, Oscar Meyer fired em all. Hired a whole new
work force, paid em the wage that was in place before the last
strike. About a year later Oscar Meyer closed the factory. YEAH
UNION!!!!
Alim Nassor
Jan 27, 2012, 1:27:48 AM1/27/12
to
On Jan 26, 8:54 pm, "Mossingen" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:
> "popinjay999" <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
WHy should he? If the guy wearing the hardhat and making widgets
wants more money, learn how to do something more valuable.
> "popinjay999" <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
wants more money, learn how to do something more valuable.
Alim Nassor
Jan 27, 2012, 1:29:13 AM1/27/12
to
On Jan 26, 8:54 pm, "Mossingen" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:
> "popinjay999" <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
WHy should he? If the guy wearing the hardhat and making widgets
wants more money, learn how to do something more valuable. The CEO
did.
Alim Nassor
Jan 27, 2012, 1:23:47 AM1/27/12
to
fffurken
Jan 27, 2012, 5:26:11 AM1/27/12
to
On Jan 27, 3:31 am, BillB <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:
> Labor's job is to take you right to that line without ever crossing it.
> Don't you ever watch The Price is Right?
Very good. POTD in fact.
> Labor's job is to take you right to that line without ever crossing it.
> Don't you ever watch The Price is Right?
And lucky for you, keeps my signature off the boycott sheet! It was
touch 'n go there for a second...
bratt
Jan 27, 2012, 7:20:12 AM1/27/12
to
bake them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Nov 8 2011 2:11 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
Jerry (almonst worthless) 'n Vegas
_______________________________________________________________________
chandler
Jan 27, 2012, 7:32:56 AM1/27/12
to
On Jan 26 2012 12:20 PM, Alim Nassor wrote:
> On Jan 26, 9:27 am, "mo_ntresor" <amontilladofortun...@gmail.com>
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________________
>
> HOW DARE THEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MOD or POD or whatever it was you were talking about a while back? Own
stock? Belonged to a farmers cooperative? Business or professional
association? Quite aside from petty political positioning, a union is
just a group of people who want to leverage what they have (labor, skills,
money etc.) to achieve a better expectation for everyone in the union.
Capital of all kinds organizes to work together all the time.
Chandler
_______________________________________________________________________
> On Jan 26, 9:27 am, "mo_ntresor" <amontilladofortun...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > cbs headline reads, "Indiana on the cusp of union ban ..." wait! that's
> > the google aggregator headline. the cbs headline is,
> > "Indiana-poised-to-pass-anti-union-bill". that's better! sounds
> > horrible, so let's dig in and see what indiana's ACTUALLY DOING:
> >
> > "(AP) INDIANAPOLIS - In another blow to organized labor in the
> > traditionally union heavy Midwest, Indiana is poised to become the first
> > right-to-work state in more than a decade after Republican lawmakers
> > cleared the way on Wednesday to ban unions from collecting mandatory fees
> > from workers."
> >
> > they're not banning unions.
> > they're not even "anti-union".
> > they're ANTI-MANDATORY-UNION.
> >
> > fuck are you leftwingers idiots. imagine allowing people the right to opt
> > out of dues to a goddamn union. IMAGINE!
> >
> > mo_ntresor
> > cbs headline reads, "Indiana on the cusp of union ban ..." wait! that's
> > the google aggregator headline. the cbs headline is,
> > "Indiana-poised-to-pass-anti-union-bill". that's better! sounds
> > horrible, so let's dig in and see what indiana's ACTUALLY DOING:
> >
> > "(AP) INDIANAPOLIS - In another blow to organized labor in the
> > traditionally union heavy Midwest, Indiana is poised to become the first
> > right-to-work state in more than a decade after Republican lawmakers
> > cleared the way on Wednesday to ban unions from collecting mandatory fees
> > from workers."
> >
> > they're not banning unions.
> > they're not even "anti-union".
> > they're ANTI-MANDATORY-UNION.
> >
> > fuck are you leftwingers idiots. imagine allowing people the right to opt
> > out of dues to a goddamn union. IMAGINE!
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________________
>
> HOW DARE THEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Never been in a union, never will be.
I'd be surprised if you are not unionized already. What about that MAG or
> Never been in a union, never will be.
MOD or POD or whatever it was you were talking about a while back? Own
stock? Belonged to a farmers cooperative? Business or professional
association? Quite aside from petty political positioning, a union is
just a group of people who want to leverage what they have (labor, skills,
money etc.) to achieve a better expectation for everyone in the union.
Capital of all kinds organizes to work together all the time.
Chandler
_______________________________________________________________________
Alim Nassor
Jan 27, 2012, 7:39:56 AM1/27/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
You really think I wouldn't know if I was union or not?
A MAG is a mutual aid group, in case of natural or other disaster
and is just myself and some like minded people. I am not a member of
any business association. I am simply an hourly worker for a local
company, A company that is not now, nor ever has been unionized.
fffurken
Jan 27, 2012, 7:51:26 AM1/27/12
to
On Jan 27, 12:20 pm, "bratt" <a890...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> On Jan 26 2012 9:48 PM, Clave wrote:
>
> > "BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message
> >news:x0pUq.452$0C4...@newsfe05.iad...
> > > On 1/26/2012 7:33 PM, popinjay999 wrote:
>
> > >> Management and labor are NOT opposing forces.
>
> > > Then why did you slit their tires?
>
> > A union worker, a Tea Partier and a corporate CEO are sitting at a table. In
> > the middle of the table
> > there is a plate with a dozen cookies on it. The CEO reaches across and
> > takes 11 cookies, looks at
> > the Tea Partier and says: "Look out for that union guy, he wants a piece of
> > your cookie."
>
> There would not even be a cookie if not for the CEO employeeing people to
> bake them.
Where does the misplaced gratefulness come from?
> On Jan 26 2012 9:48 PM, Clave wrote:
>
> > "BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message
> >news:x0pUq.452$0C4...@newsfe05.iad...
> > > On 1/26/2012 7:33 PM, popinjay999 wrote:
>
> > >> Management and labor are NOT opposing forces.
>
> > > Then why did you slit their tires?
>
> > A union worker, a Tea Partier and a corporate CEO are sitting at a table. In
> > the middle of the table
> > there is a plate with a dozen cookies on it. The CEO reaches across and
> > takes 11 cookies, looks at
> > the Tea Partier and says: "Look out for that union guy, he wants a piece of
> > your cookie."
>
> There would not even be a cookie if not for the CEO employeeing people to
> bake them.
Next thing you'll be saying employers hire employees as a "favour"!
lol, you couldn't make this shit up.
Employers hire employees to make money from their labour and they
frequently tend to want to lower that cost as much as they do anything
else.
I can understand criticism of unions or unions becoming too powerful,
sure, but what's the alternative, no unionisation? Do you want to set
workers back a fucking century or something!?
BillB
Jan 27, 2012, 8:14:06 AM1/27/12
to
On 1/27/2012 4:51 AM, fffurken wrote:
> I can understand criticism of unions or unions becoming too powerful,
> sure, but what's the alternative, no unionisation? Do you want to set
> workers back a fucking century or something!?
susan is worried her employees might unionize and demand $5/hr and daily
> I can understand criticism of unions or unions becoming too powerful,
> sure, but what's the alternative, no unionisation? Do you want to set
> workers back a fucking century or something!?
bathroom breaks. Do you have any idea what a hassle it would be to have
to break in a whole new crew of migrant restaurant workers?
bub
Jan 27, 2012, 9:06:35 AM1/27/12
to
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 04:51:26 -0800 (PST), fffurken
<fffu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Employers hire employees to make money from their labour and they
>frequently tend to want to lower that cost as much as they do anything
>else.
so you are saying a company shouldn't try and make a profit for their
<fffu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Employers hire employees to make money from their labour and they
>frequently tend to want to lower that cost as much as they do anything
>else.
shareholders and owners? they should be there just to provide jobs and
benefits for employees?
"don't cut costs where you can and hopefully break even"
da pickle
Jan 27, 2012, 9:19:46 AM1/27/12
to
On 1/27/2012 6:51 AM, fffurken wrote:
> I can understand criticism of unions or unions becoming too powerful,
> sure, but what's the alternative, no unionisation? Do you want to set
> workers back a fucking century or something!?
The alternative is NOT no unionization. Right to work means that you do
> I can understand criticism of unions or unions becoming too powerful,
> sure, but what's the alternative, no unionisation? Do you want to set
> workers back a fucking century or something!?
not have to join the union to work. The alternative to FORCED
unionization is not allowing FORCED unionization.
bratt
Jan 27, 2012, 9:19:41 AM1/27/12
to
things.
Sad try B-BillB
fffurken
Jan 27, 2012, 9:22:22 AM1/27/12
to
On Jan 27, 2:06 pm, bub <b...@plottus.com> wrote:
> so you are saying a company shouldn't try and make a profit for their
> shareholders and owners? they should be there just to provide jobs and
> benefits for employees?
No, that wasn't what I was saying. A company doesn't exist for very
> so you are saying a company shouldn't try and make a profit for their
> shareholders and owners? they should be there just to provide jobs and
> benefits for employees?
long if it doesn't make a profit.
popinjay999
Jan 27, 2012, 9:57:14 AM1/27/12
to
On Jan 27, 4:32 am, "chandler" <a5a7...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> Quite aside from petty political positioning, a union is
> just a group of people who want to leverage what they have (labor, skills,
> money etc.) to achieve a better expectation for everyone in the union.
> Capital of all kinds organizes to work together all the time.
>
Leverage? Like picketing, popping tires, shouting threats, destroying
> Quite aside from petty political positioning, a union is
> just a group of people who want to leverage what they have (labor, skills,
> money etc.) to achieve a better expectation for everyone in the union.
> Capital of all kinds organizes to work together all the time.
>
property, yeah I guess you could call that leverage. I prefer the
term 'extortion'.
Mossingen
Jan 27, 2012, 10:02:28 AM1/27/12
to
"popinjay999" <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:347259c9-2df5-49bf...@nf9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 26, 3:20 pm, "Clave" <clav...@the.monastery.com> wrote:
>
> No question about it IMO.
>
> Management is organized, and generally speaking, labor is screwing itself
> if
> it doesn't organize as well.
>
> Jim
What if labor screws itself right out of a job? What if rather than
be held hostage, I, as the employer, just close the whole fucking
plant down and you all can hit the skids, eh Eugene?
__________________________________________________
>
> No question about it IMO.
>
> Management is organized, and generally speaking, labor is screwing itself
> if
> it doesn't organize as well.
>
> Jim
What if labor screws itself right out of a job? What if rather than
be held hostage, I, as the employer, just close the whole fucking
plant down and you all can hit the skids, eh Eugene?
You would take steps to avoid that because you, as an employer, have a lot
to lose, too. That's why these things are negotiated.
mo_ntresor
Jan 27, 2012, 10:12:57 AM1/27/12
to
On Jan 27 2012 8:02 AM, Mossingen wrote:
> What if labor screws itself right out of a job? What if rather than
> be held hostage, I, as the employer, just close the whole fucking
> plant down and you all can hit the skids, eh Eugene?
> __________________________________________________
>
> You would take steps to avoid that because you, as an employer, have a lot
> to lose, too. That's why these things are negotiated.
ford would have done that if his wife hadn't urged him not to. most
> What if labor screws itself right out of a job? What if rather than
> be held hostage, I, as the employer, just close the whole fucking
> plant down and you all can hit the skids, eh Eugene?
> __________________________________________________
>
> You would take steps to avoid that because you, as an employer, have a lot
> to lose, too. That's why these things are negotiated.
executives can live without more money or the enterprise.
mo_ntresor
______________________________________________________________________
Alim Nassor
Jan 27, 2012, 10:07:06 AM1/27/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
I forgot, I am a member of the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers
> - Show quoted text -
Association. But that is not in any way like a union.
Mossingen
Jan 27, 2012, 10:20:13 AM1/27/12
to
news:d3fce658-7a80-4ea8...@b4g2000pbi.googlegroups.com...
That is what happens, but that happy result is incidental to the motive of
the employer. His motive is to make as much money as he can at his
business.
Exploitation is a word that describes this, but that word has negative
overtones to it that I think do not apply. Yes, the employer is seeking to
exploit labor and resources in any (legal, hopefully) way he can to make a
profit. That's not a bad thing.
I don't know where you get this idea that an employer is some beneficent,
old likeable codger who just sits around thinking of ways that he can help
out the kids by giving them jobs. His goal is to make a profit, which
usually includes paying the kids as little as possible to increase profits.
Same dynamic as always.
>Because I will stand by my statement
>forever, that management and labor are NOT, or should not be, opposing
>forces.
Then you're just wrong. They are two entities who have things of value
(labor vs. means of production), each wanting the thing of value that the
other possesses. You don't consider them opposing forces because you don't
view workers as having anything of equal value to the employer.
>Everything depends on the business owner.
That is simply not true.
>The business owner does not have to start a business in the first place.
>So, if you do
>people a favor by hiring them, how should you feel if they turn around
>and make demands of you or even go so far as to picket you? Wouldn't
>that be a slap in your face? Unionism is socialistic, and immoral.
>It is thuggery, it is mob-think. Are we individuals? Or are we part
>of the group?
There you go again with the "doing them a favor" rubbish. You continue to
attribute altruistic motives to businessmen. Why isn't the laborer doing
the businessman a favor by allowing him to make more money than he could if
he did all the work himself? You don't see things that way because you
discount what labor has to offer, while placing great value on the property
rights of the employer.
Do you think a property-owning employer is the only person entitled to make
as much money as he possibly can?
On Jan 26, 6:54 pm, "Mossingen" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> You think the CEO is going to don a hardhat and stand on a conveyor belt
> for
> 8 hours making the widgets?
>How is that pertinent? James, I asked you, I ask you, put yourself in
>the shoes of an employer, and don't you think you are providing
>opportunity for people by employing them? When you hire someone, do
>you consider it exploitation?
You act like the motive of an employer is to help people by employing them.
>
> You think the CEO is going to don a hardhat and stand on a conveyor belt
> for
> 8 hours making the widgets?
>How is that pertinent? James, I asked you, I ask you, put yourself in
>the shoes of an employer, and don't you think you are providing
>opportunity for people by employing them? When you hire someone, do
>you consider it exploitation?
That is what happens, but that happy result is incidental to the motive of
the employer. His motive is to make as much money as he can at his
business.
Exploitation is a word that describes this, but that word has negative
overtones to it that I think do not apply. Yes, the employer is seeking to
exploit labor and resources in any (legal, hopefully) way he can to make a
profit. That's not a bad thing.
I don't know where you get this idea that an employer is some beneficent,
old likeable codger who just sits around thinking of ways that he can help
out the kids by giving them jobs. His goal is to make a profit, which
usually includes paying the kids as little as possible to increase profits.
Same dynamic as always.
>Because I will stand by my statement
>forever, that management and labor are NOT, or should not be, opposing
>forces.
(labor vs. means of production), each wanting the thing of value that the
other possesses. You don't consider them opposing forces because you don't
view workers as having anything of equal value to the employer.
>Everything depends on the business owner.
>The business owner does not have to start a business in the first place.
>So, if you do
>people a favor by hiring them, how should you feel if they turn around
>and make demands of you or even go so far as to picket you? Wouldn't
>that be a slap in your face? Unionism is socialistic, and immoral.
>It is thuggery, it is mob-think. Are we individuals? Or are we part
>of the group?
attribute altruistic motives to businessmen. Why isn't the laborer doing
the businessman a favor by allowing him to make more money than he could if
he did all the work himself? You don't see things that way because you
discount what labor has to offer, while placing great value on the property
rights of the employer.
Do you think a property-owning employer is the only person entitled to make
as much money as he possibly can?
mo_ntresor
Jan 27, 2012, 10:45:06 AM1/27/12
to
they were doing; it had almost nothing to do with money. employees
should max pay, and a major approach to this is shopping talents in a free
(mobile) jobs market. employers invest in employees and lose value when
they depart (important employees also carry trade secrets with them etc.).
the gripe is about MANDATED MEMBERSHIP and laws PREVENTING non-union labor
(what percent of government contracts require union labor and WHY?).
mo_ntresor
____________________________________________________________________
popinjay999
Jan 27, 2012, 10:52:36 AM1/27/12
to
On Jan 27, 7:20 am, "Mossingen" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> You act like the motive of an employer is to help people by employing them.
> That is what happens, but that happy result is incidental to the motive of
> the employer. His motive is to make as much money as he can at his
> business.
>
> Exploitation is a word that describes this, but that word has negative
> overtones to it that I think do not apply. Yes, the employer is seeking to
> exploit labor and resources in any (legal, hopefully) way he can to make a
> profit. That's not a bad thing.
>
> I don't know where you get this idea that an employer is some beneficent,
> old likeable codger who just sits around thinking of ways that he can help
> out the kids by giving them jobs. His goal is to make a profit, which
> usually includes paying the kids as little as possible to increase profits.
> Same dynamic as always.
>
I think you're putting words in my mouth, thoughts in my head. Why
>
> You act like the motive of an employer is to help people by employing them.
> That is what happens, but that happy result is incidental to the motive of
> the employer. His motive is to make as much money as he can at his
> business.
>
> Exploitation is a word that describes this, but that word has negative
> overtones to it that I think do not apply. Yes, the employer is seeking to
> exploit labor and resources in any (legal, hopefully) way he can to make a
> profit. That's not a bad thing.
>
> I don't know where you get this idea that an employer is some beneficent,
> old likeable codger who just sits around thinking of ways that he can help
> out the kids by giving them jobs. His goal is to make a profit, which
> usually includes paying the kids as little as possible to increase profits.
> Same dynamic as always.
>
would I think that employers exist because they want to help the
workers? That's pretty silly. But as you agreed, that is a result.
> >Because I will stand by my statement
> >forever, that management and labor are NOT, or should not be, opposing
> >forces.
>
> Then you're just wrong. They are two entities who have things of value
> (labor vs. means of production), each wanting the thing of value that the
> other possesses. You don't consider them opposing forces because you don't
> view workers as having anything of equal value to the employer.
>
and demand? What happens when there is a shortage of labor? What
SHOULD happen when there is a shortage of labor? I'm speaking about
in a free economy, a free country, of course.
> >Everything depends on the business owner.
>
> That is simply not true.
>
have to start a business to survive? Running a business is usually a
lot of work. Does the business owner have to start a business to
eat? Does the worker need a JOB to eat? I am right. Workers need
employers, employers don't need workers. Workers should count their
lucky stars that someone wants to employ them. They should be
grateful. And loyal, or at least not be pushy.
>
> There you go again with the "doing them a favor" rubbish. You continue to
> attribute altruistic motives to businessmen. Why isn't the laborer doing
> the businessman a favor by allowing him to make more money than he could if
> he did all the work himself? You don't see things that way because you
> discount what labor has to offer, while placing great value on the property
> rights of the employer.
>
> Do you think a property-owning employer is the only person entitled to make
> as much money as he possibly can?
the market place? The demand for the worker's labor should be the
driving factor behind higher wages and better benefits and
conditions. And when the worker threatens his employer with a work
slowdown or work stoppage, that's nothing but extortion, and it is
immoral. Period.
fffurken
Jan 27, 2012, 11:12:08 AM1/27/12
to
On Jan 27, 3:52 pm, popinjay999 <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I am right. Workers need
> employers, employers don't need workers.
Is that the same as saying employers don't need employees?
> I am right. Workers need
> employers, employers don't need workers.
I only ask because you might see how patently ridiculous a thing that
would be to say.
I presume what you were trying to say is that employers don't have to
become employers. They can just choose instead to flip burgers or just
be a bum or maybe the assumption is that they're rich enough already
that they don't have to bother owning a business and can sit around on
their arse all day doing nothing for the rest of their lives.
Whatever way you cut it, your argument is like Swiss cheese, full of
holes.
chandler
Jan 27, 2012, 11:49:08 AM1/27/12
to
want to belong to a union, that you probably belong to associations that
exist for similar purposes and do similar things. They are just not
called "union." These associations are natural and, if they are doing
what they are supposed to be doing, work to a mutual benefit. The word
"union" just happens to be charged with a whole lot of stupid from all
sides.
>
> A MAG is a mutual aid group, in case of natural or other disaster
> and is just myself and some like minded people. I am not a member of
> any business association. I am simply an hourly worker for a local
> company, A company that is not now, nor ever has been unionized.
apocalypse ;-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaSnwgJ_xQM
Chandler
----
mo_ntresor
Jan 27, 2012, 11:53:49 AM1/27/12
to
On Jan 27 2012 9:49 AM, chandler wrote:
> > You really think I wouldn't know if I was union or not?
>
> Yes, that is it exactly. My point is that while you may not like or ever
> want to belong to a union, that you probably belong to associations that
> exist for similar purposes and do similar things. They are just not
> called "union." These associations are natural and, if they are doing
> what they are supposed to be doing, work to a mutual benefit. The word
> "union" just happens to be charged with a whole lot of stupid from all
> sides.
>
> > A MAG is a mutual aid group, in case of natural or other disaster
> > and is just myself and some like minded people. I am not a member of
> > any business association. I am simply an hourly worker for a local
> > company, A company that is not now, nor ever has been unionized.
>
> Got it. Just a lonesome cowpoke on the range. A lone rider of the
> apocalypse ;-)
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaSnwgJ_xQM
nobody has a problem with voluntary associations. enforced membership and
> > You really think I wouldn't know if I was union or not?
>
> Yes, that is it exactly. My point is that while you may not like or ever
> want to belong to a union, that you probably belong to associations that
> exist for similar purposes and do similar things. They are just not
> called "union." These associations are natural and, if they are doing
> what they are supposed to be doing, work to a mutual benefit. The word
> "union" just happens to be charged with a whole lot of stupid from all
> sides.
>
> > A MAG is a mutual aid group, in case of natural or other disaster
> > and is just myself and some like minded people. I am not a member of
> > any business association. I am simply an hourly worker for a local
> > company, A company that is not now, nor ever has been unionized.
>
> Got it. Just a lonesome cowpoke on the range. A lone rider of the
> apocalypse ;-)
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaSnwgJ_xQM
government discrimination against unaffiliated parties is what's being
changed ... and for the better. free and mobile job markets are good for
workers and employers.
mo_ntresor
________________________________________________________________________
chandler
Jan 27, 2012, 11:54:49 AM1/27/12
to
them first), ruins the environment (killing the poor animals) and unions
are all good. Who am I to believe? It's a complicated world.
Chandler
_______________________________________________________________________
popinjay999
Jan 27, 2012, 12:33:34 PM1/27/12
to
On Jan 27, 8:54 am, "chandler" <a5a7...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> It's a complicated world.
>
It's a simple world. Right and wrong.
> It's a complicated world.
>
popinjay999
Jan 27, 2012, 12:38:52 PM1/27/12
to
On Jan 27, 8:12 am, fffurken <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Whatever way you cut it, your argument is like Swiss cheese, full of
> holes.
I guess you don't want to be Ass.Coordinator anymore. A lot of guff.
>
> Whatever way you cut it, your argument is like Swiss cheese, full of
> holes.
phlash74
Jan 27, 2012, 12:54:56 PM1/27/12
to
doing a better job than Opie (low bar and all that), but I missed this
announcement.
Michael
-----------------
"> phlash
On your circle jerk k00l kidz email list. Should be disqualified for
that, but I'll give him a pass because he is smart." - ramashiva,
8/22/2010
"Hitler has already been forgiven, but you have not." - Reptillian AKA
Igotskillz, 4/6/2011
_____________________________________________________________________
fffurken
Jan 27, 2012, 1:02:47 PM1/27/12
to
On Jan 27, 5:54 pm, "phlash74" <a102...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> What the fff? When did that happen? No offense fffurken, I'm sure you're
> doing a better job than Opie (low bar and all that), but I missed this
> announcement.
It was an aspiration once upon a time, I was never anointed.
> What the fff? When did that happen? No offense fffurken, I'm sure you're
> doing a better job than Opie (low bar and all that), but I missed this
> announcement.
fffurken
Jan 27, 2012, 1:05:01 PM1/27/12
to
On Jan 27, 5:38 pm, popinjay999 <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I guess you don't want to be Ass.Coordinator anymore. A lot of guff.
Meh.
> I guess you don't want to be Ass.Coordinator anymore. A lot of guff.
fffurken,
Director of Operations, RGP.
fffurken
Jan 27, 2012, 1:14:38 PM1/27/12
to
popinjay999
Jan 27, 2012, 1:14:23 PM1/27/12
to
On Jan 27, 9:54 am, "phlash74" <a102...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
> What the fff? When did that happen? No offense fffurken, I'm sure you're
> doing a better job than Opie (low bar and all that), but I missed this
> announcement.
>
No, I guess I didn't say that right. Fffurken is not Ass.Coordinator,
>
> What the fff? When did that happen? No offense fffurken, I'm sure you're
> doing a better job than Opie (low bar and all that), but I missed this
> announcement.
>
but he WANTED to apply for the position. I think he knows, though,
that with all the ankle-biting, all the sassing, all the guff he has
been giving me, I think he knows that he doesn't stand a chance of
landing the job. Oh, sure, he'll say he didn't want it anyway, but
how could he not want it?
The thing is, I need to know my employees are loyal to me. I'm just
not going to hire someone I can't trust to be a team player.
popinjay999
Jan 27, 2012, 1:19:25 PM1/27/12
to
On Jan 27, 10:02 am, fffurken <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> It was an aspiration once upon a time, I was never anointed.
You've made it quite clear that you agree with James, and that somehow
>
> It was an aspiration once upon a time, I was never anointed.
you would be entitled as my employee. I'm just not seeing the
gratitude here. I'm not feeling the love.
VegasJerry
Jan 27, 2012, 4:02:30 PM1/27/12
to
On Jan 26 2012 1:49 PM, Alim Nassor wrote:
> On Jan 26, 3:46 pm, "VegasJerry" <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Jan 26 2012 1:10 PM, Alim Nassor wrote:
> >
> > > On Jan 26, 11:57 am, "Mossingen" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > > "Alim Nassor" <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> > >
>news:1f3395c0-ee83-435a...@y10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com....
it's
> > > > not in your personal interests to do so. If there ever arose a
situation
> > > > where union membership was beneficial to you personally, I suspect
you'd
> > > > reconsider.
> >
> > > I suspect not.
> >
> > I've seen it more than once, where some anti-union tightwad get fucked or
> > fired, then comes crying to the union about how unfair he was treated.
> > Stupid people (and tightwads) take longer to see the light because they
> > are: Stupid.
> >
> > Jerry 'n Vegas
> >
> > ------
>
> I've never even worked in a place that had a union, you fucking
> moron. I never will.
That statement alone, and all it encounters, makes you the fucking moron.
-------
> On Jan 26, 3:46 pm, "VegasJerry" <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Jan 26 2012 1:10 PM, Alim Nassor wrote:
> >
> > > On Jan 26, 11:57 am, "Mossingen" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > > "Alim Nassor" <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> > >
>news:1f3395c0-ee83-435a...@y10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com....
> >
> > > > >Never been in a union, never will be.
> >
> > > > Never is a long time. I suspect you've never been in a union because
> > > > >Never been in a union, never will be.
> >
it's
> > > > not in your personal interests to do so. If there ever arose a
situation
> > > > where union membership was beneficial to you personally, I suspect
you'd
> > > > reconsider.
> >
> > > I suspect not.
> >
> > I've seen it more than once, where some anti-union tightwad get fucked or
> > fired, then comes crying to the union about how unfair he was treated.
> > Stupid people (and tightwads) take longer to see the light because they
> > are: Stupid.
> >
> > Jerry 'n Vegas
> >
> > ------
>
> I've never even worked in a place that had a union, you fucking
> moron. I never will.
That statement alone, and all it encounters, makes you the fucking moron.
-------
mo_ntresor
Jan 27, 2012, 4:04:07 PM1/27/12
to
On Jan 27 2012 2:02 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
> > I've never even worked in a place that had a union, you fucking
> > moron. I never will.
>
> That statement alone, and all it encounters, makes you the fucking moron.
LOL. classic. who's the genius behind jerry? please, OUT.
> > I've never even worked in a place that had a union, you fucking
> > moron. I never will.
>
> That statement alone, and all it encounters, makes you the fucking moron.
mo_ntresor
____________________________________________________________________
Alim Nassor
Jan 27, 2012, 4:15:25 PM1/27/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Exactly He could be my twin brother. LOL
> - Show quoted text -
VegasJerry
Jan 27, 2012, 4:17:19 PM1/27/12
to
On Jan 26 2012 2:03 PM, Alim Nassor wrote:
> On Jan 26, 3:50 pm, "VegasJerry" <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Jan 26 2012 1:17 PM, popinjay999 wrote:
> >
> > > On Jan 26, 1:09 pm, Alim Nassor <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Oh bullshit. The GM plant in Arlington, Texas has a UAW union, but
> > > > you are free to join, or not.
> >
> > > Funny how liberal scumbags like Bea and Clave are all pro-choice when
> > > it comes to killing babies but it's like NO-choice when it comes to
> > > ramming this union shit down people's throats.
> >
> > Funny how losers come crying to join the union when they don't get paid as
> > much, or management fires them.
> >
> > Jerry
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________________
>
> Are you even aware, in your advanced state of senility, that in large
> portions of the country, there are NO unions in the factories to go
> crying to?
Yes. Are you in your advanced state of senility to think I wouldn't?
The only thing noticed is your inability to argue the point.
Jerry 'n Vegas
From the time I was 16, I worked in a supermarket, a
> cotton mill, and 3 electronics manufacturing firms in 2 states and
> there was NO union to go crying to, nor was it needed?
_______________________________________________________________________
> On Jan 26, 3:50 pm, "VegasJerry" <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Jan 26 2012 1:17 PM, popinjay999 wrote:
> >
> > > On Jan 26, 1:09 pm, Alim Nassor <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Oh bullshit. The GM plant in Arlington, Texas has a UAW union, but
> > > > you are free to join, or not.
> >
> > > Funny how liberal scumbags like Bea and Clave are all pro-choice when
> > > it comes to killing babies but it's like NO-choice when it comes to
> > > ramming this union shit down people's throats.
> >
> > Funny how losers come crying to join the union when they don't get paid as
> > much, or management fires them.
> >
> > Jerry
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________________
>
> Are you even aware, in your advanced state of senility, that in large
> portions of the country, there are NO unions in the factories to go
> crying to?
Yes. Are you in your advanced state of senility to think I wouldn't?
The only thing noticed is your inability to argue the point.
Jerry 'n Vegas
From the time I was 16, I worked in a supermarket, a
> cotton mill, and 3 electronics manufacturing firms in 2 states and
> there was NO union to go crying to, nor was it needed?
_______________________________________________________________________
Alim Nassor
Jan 27, 2012, 4:17:59 PM1/27/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
All it encounters? <snort>
> - Show quoted text -
VegasJerry
Jan 27, 2012, 4:19:40 PM1/27/12
to
On Jan 26 2012 4:11 PM, Dutch wrote:
> "mo_ntresor" <amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ov78v8x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
> bargained pay and benefits. "Right to work" is a thinly veiled attempt to
> destroy the union.
It's why it was invented.
_____________________________________________________________________
> "mo_ntresor" <amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ov78v8x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
> > cbs headline reads, "Indiana on the cusp of union ban ..." wait! that's
> > the google aggregator headline. the cbs headline is,
> > "Indiana-poised-to-pass-anti-union-bill". that's better! sounds
> > horrible, so let's dig in and see what indiana's ACTUALLY DOING:
> >
> > "(AP) INDIANAPOLIS - In another blow to organized labor in the
> > traditionally union heavy Midwest, Indiana is poised to become the first
> > right-to-work state in more than a decade after Republican lawmakers
> > cleared the way on Wednesday to ban unions from collecting mandatory fees
> > from workers."
> >
> >
> > they're not banning unions.
> > they're not even "anti-union".
> > they're ANTI-MANDATORY-UNION.
> >
> > fuck are you leftwingers idiots. imagine allowing people the right to opt
> > out of dues to a goddamn union. IMAGINE!
>
> They opt out of paying dues, they never want to opt out of the collectively
> > the google aggregator headline. the cbs headline is,
> > "Indiana-poised-to-pass-anti-union-bill". that's better! sounds
> > horrible, so let's dig in and see what indiana's ACTUALLY DOING:
> >
> > "(AP) INDIANAPOLIS - In another blow to organized labor in the
> > traditionally union heavy Midwest, Indiana is poised to become the first
> > right-to-work state in more than a decade after Republican lawmakers
> > cleared the way on Wednesday to ban unions from collecting mandatory fees
> > from workers."
> >
> >
> > they're not banning unions.
> > they're not even "anti-union".
> > they're ANTI-MANDATORY-UNION.
> >
> > fuck are you leftwingers idiots. imagine allowing people the right to opt
> > out of dues to a goddamn union. IMAGINE!
>
> bargained pay and benefits. "Right to work" is a thinly veiled attempt to
> destroy the union.
It's why it was invented.
_____________________________________________________________________
VegasJerry
Jan 27, 2012, 4:18:21 PM1/27/12
to
On Jan 26 2012 2:40 PM, popinjay999 wrote:
> On Jan 26, 1:50 pm, "VegasJerry" <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > Funny how losers come crying to join the union when they don't get paid as
> > much, or management fires them.
> >
>
>
>
> You're right, Jerry, anyone who goes crying to a union IS a loser.
> You're absolutely right.
I know. It's why I stated it.
________________________________________________________________________
> On Jan 26, 1:50 pm, "VegasJerry" <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > Funny how losers come crying to join the union when they don't get paid as
> > much, or management fires them.
> >
>
>
>
> You're absolutely right.
I know. It's why I stated it.
________________________________________________________________________
Alim Nassor
Jan 27, 2012, 4:35:52 PM1/27/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
LOL Jerry, please, take your meds.
> - Show quoted text -
Alim Nassor
Jan 27, 2012, 4:36:46 PM1/27/12
to
On Jan 27, 3:19 pm, "VegasJerry" <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Jan 26 2012 4:11 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "mo_ntresor" <amontilladofortun...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> On Jan 26 2012 4:11 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> _____________________________________________________________________ - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
LOL nope it's about freedom, something you have no clue about. Why
>
> - Show quoted text -
don't go grab some guy in jail and play the harp?
Alim Nassor
Jan 27, 2012, 4:36:59 PM1/27/12
to
Dutch
Jan 27, 2012, 7:29:41 PM1/27/12
to
"Alim Nassor" <alimn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9ada52c0-e780-41c0...@v14g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
no job security or benefits and accepts 40% lower wages. Show me the person
prepared to accept that deal and I'll show you someone who stands behind his
convictions.
Wilhelm Kuhlmann
Jan 27, 2012, 9:17:37 PM1/27/12
to
On Jan 26, 4:11 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> They opt out of paying dues, they never want to opt out of the collectively
> bargained pay and benefits. "Right to work" is a thinly veiled attempt to
> destroy the union.
So true. The decline of unions in this country has resulted in a
> They opt out of paying dues, they never want to opt out of the collectively
> bargained pay and benefits. "Right to work" is a thinly veiled attempt to
> destroy the union.
decline of the middle class and an increase in income inequality.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Clave
Jan 27, 2012, 10:19:51 PM1/27/12
to
"Wilhelm Kuhlmann" <ramas...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2106721c-abe8-49fd...@g27g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
They've certainly coincided, but I don't believe one is clearly the cause of
the other. I *do* believe they have the same causes though.
Jim
news:2106721c-abe8-49fd...@g27g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
the other. I *do* believe they have the same causes though.
Jim
Wilhelm Kuhlmann
Jan 27, 2012, 11:21:04 PM1/27/12
to
On Jan 27, 7:19 pm, "Clave" <clav...@the.monastery.com> wrote:
> "Wilhelm Kuhlmann" <ramashiv...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2106721c-abe8-49fd...@g27g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> > So true. The decline of unions in this country has resulted in a
> > decline of the middle class and an increase in income inequality.
> They've certainly coincided, but I don't believe one is clearly the cause of
> the other. I *do* believe they have the same causes though.
Causation seems pretty obvious to me. Here is an article by Kevin
Drum which argues that the decline of labor unions has caused
increased income inequality --
"Why Screwing Unions Screws the Entire Middle Class"
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-labor-union-decline
William Coleman (ramashiva)
> "Wilhelm Kuhlmann" <ramashiv...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2106721c-abe8-49fd...@g27g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> > So true. The decline of unions in this country has resulted in a
> > decline of the middle class and an increase in income inequality.
> They've certainly coincided, but I don't believe one is clearly the cause of
> the other. I *do* believe they have the same causes though.
Drum which argues that the decline of labor unions has caused
increased income inequality --
"Why Screwing Unions Screws the Entire Middle Class"
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-labor-union-decline
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Clave
Jan 28, 2012, 12:00:36 AM1/28/12
to
"Wilhelm Kuhlmann" <ramas...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:637e5c2d-340b-4fe8...@n12g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
<...>
> Causation seems pretty obvious to me. Here is an article by Kevin
> Drum which argues that the decline of labor unions has caused
> increased income inequality --
>
> "Why Screwing Unions Screws the Entire Middle Class"
>
> http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-labor-union-decline
reading KD for longer than I remember), but I don't share the post hoc ergo
propter hoc you draw from it.
There are also liberal pundits who point to Reaganomics as the initiation of
the war on the middle class, and I don't buy that for the same reasons.
Union-busting has been a big part of the war on the middle class, but
there's a lot more to it than that.
Jim
Wilhelm Kuhlmann
Jan 28, 2012, 12:29:19 AM1/28/12
to
On Jan 27, 9:00 pm, "Clave" <clav...@the.monastery.com> wrote:
> "Wilhelm Kuhlmann" <ramashiv...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:637e5c2d-340b-4fe8...@n12g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> > Causation seems pretty obvious to me. Here is an article by Kevin
> > Drum which argues that the decline of labor unions has caused
> > increased income inequality --
> > "Why Screwing Unions Screws the Entire Middle Class"
> >http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-labor-union...
> It's a nice, persuasive op-ed, and I agree with a lot of it (I've been
> reading KD for longer than I remember), but I don't share the post hoc ergo
> propter hoc you draw from it.
The entire article is an argument that the decline in labor unions has
CAUSED an increase in income inequality, but I have drawn a post hoc
ergo propter hoc conclusion???
GTFO.
This is why I seldom respond to your posts. You are just an
argumentative asshole who likes to argue. IOW, you are an internet
K00K.
I guess you missed this sentence --
"If unions had remained strong and Democrats had continued to
vigorously press for more equitable economic policies, middle-class
wages over the past three decades likely would have grown at about the
same rate as the overall economy—just as they had in the postwar era."
The causative link between the decline of unions and the increase in
income inequality is immediate and obvious. Only an argumentative
asshole would argue otherwise.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
> "Wilhelm Kuhlmann" <ramashiv...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:637e5c2d-340b-4fe8...@n12g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> > Causation seems pretty obvious to me. Here is an article by Kevin
> > Drum which argues that the decline of labor unions has caused
> > increased income inequality --
> > "Why Screwing Unions Screws the Entire Middle Class"
> It's a nice, persuasive op-ed, and I agree with a lot of it (I've been
> reading KD for longer than I remember), but I don't share the post hoc ergo
> propter hoc you draw from it.
CAUSED an increase in income inequality, but I have drawn a post hoc
ergo propter hoc conclusion???
GTFO.
This is why I seldom respond to your posts. You are just an
argumentative asshole who likes to argue. IOW, you are an internet
K00K.
I guess you missed this sentence --
"If unions had remained strong and Democrats had continued to
vigorously press for more equitable economic policies, middle-class
wages over the past three decades likely would have grown at about the
same rate as the overall economy—just as they had in the postwar era."
The causative link between the decline of unions and the increase in
income inequality is immediate and obvious. Only an argumentative
asshole would argue otherwise.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Clave
Jan 28, 2012, 12:50:05 AM1/28/12
to
"Wilhelm Kuhlmann" <ramas...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:572ca029-7c60-4189...@q8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 27, 9:00 pm, "Clave" <clav...@the.monastery.com> wrote:
>
>> "Wilhelm Kuhlmann" <ramashiv...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:637e5c2d-340b-4fe8...@n12g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
>> > Causation seems pretty obvious to me. Here is an article by Kevin
>> > Drum which argues that the decline of labor unions has caused
>> > increased income inequality --
>
>> > "Why Screwing Unions Screws the Entire Middle Class"
>
>> >http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-labor-union...
>
>> It's a nice, persuasive op-ed, and I agree with a lot of it (I've been
>> reading KD for longer than I remember), but I don't share the post hoc
>> ergo
>> propter hoc you draw from it.
>
> The entire article is an argument that the decline in labor unions has
> CAUSED an increase in income inequality, but I have drawn a post hoc
> ergo propter hoc conclusion???
The entire article is an argument that the decline in labor unions has
been *A* cause of an increase in income inequality, which I have not denied.
>
>> "Wilhelm Kuhlmann" <ramashiv...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:637e5c2d-340b-4fe8...@n12g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
>> > Causation seems pretty obvious to me. Here is an article by Kevin
>> > Drum which argues that the decline of labor unions has caused
>> > increased income inequality --
>
>> > "Why Screwing Unions Screws the Entire Middle Class"
>
>> >http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-labor-union...
>
>> It's a nice, persuasive op-ed, and I agree with a lot of it (I've been
>> reading KD for longer than I remember), but I don't share the post hoc
>> ergo
>> propter hoc you draw from it.
>
> The entire article is an argument that the decline in labor unions has
> CAUSED an increase in income inequality, but I have drawn a post hoc
> ergo propter hoc conclusion???
The entire article is an argument that the decline in labor unions has
You want to draw union busting as THE cause of the decline of the middle
class? KD doesn't say that, probably because that'd be a pretty god-damned
stupid hill to die on.
Get over yourself.
Jim
Wilhelm Kuhlmann
Jan 28, 2012, 2:05:05 AM1/28/12
to
On Jan 27, 9:50 pm, "Clave" <clav...@the.monastery.com> wrote:
> The entire article is an argument that the decline in labor unions has
> been *A* cause of an increase in income inequality, which I have not denied.
> You want to draw union busting as THE cause of the decline of the middle
> class?
No, and nothing I have said can be so construed.
> The entire article is an argument that the decline in labor unions has
> been *A* cause of an increase in income inequality, which I have not denied.
> You want to draw union busting as THE cause of the decline of the middle
> class?
> KD doesn't say that,
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Clave
Jan 28, 2012, 3:12:14 AM1/28/12
to
"Pepe Papon" <hitme...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
<...>
> What if they can't learn something more valuable. Not everyone has
> the intelligence to become a CEO. If they can't become a CEO, why
> should they not attempt to gain as much negotiating leverage as they
> can"? The CEO does.
But the CEO operates at the behest of a BENEVOLENT BOARD OF DIRECTORS, all
of whom have labor's best iterests at heart, right?
No need for labor to organize with that kind of management structure.
Jim
<...>
> What if they can't learn something more valuable. Not everyone has
> the intelligence to become a CEO. If they can't become a CEO, why
> should they not attempt to gain as much negotiating leverage as they
> can"? The CEO does.
But the CEO operates at the behest of a BENEVOLENT BOARD OF DIRECTORS, all
of whom have labor's best iterests at heart, right?
No need for labor to organize with that kind of management structure.
Jim
Wilhelm Kuhlmann
Jan 28, 2012, 3:08:28 AM1/28/12
to
On Jan 28, 12:02 am, Pepe Papon <hitmeis...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> What if they can't learn something more valuable. Not everyone has
> the intelligence to become a CEO. If they can't become a CEO, why
> should they not attempt to gain as much negotiating leverage as they
> can"? The CEO does.
Seth, in Google Groups, all your posts are being flagged with this
> What if they can't learn something more valuable. Not everyone has
> the intelligence to become a CEO. If they can't become a CEO, why
> should they not attempt to gain as much negotiating leverage as they
> can"? The CEO does.
message --
"Note: The author of this message requested that it not be archived.
This message will be removed from Groups in 6 days"
William Coleman (ramashiva)
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages