Unions see chance at Wal-Mart
Steve Dufour
By Tom Ramstack
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Unions are planning a multimillion-dollar campaign to organize
Wal-Mart employees as the nation's largest retailer deals with an
increasingly turbulent work force.
Union leaders say their chances for organizing Wal-Mart workers
shot up this week when a federal judge in San Francisco said 1.6
million current and former employees could sue the retailer for sex
discrimination in a class-action lawsuit.
The case "is an inspiration for all other Wal-Mart workers that
acting together, they, too, can bring change to the workplace," said
Joe Hansen, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers, which
has taken the lead in efforts to organize Wal-Mart employees.
The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) this week
announced a $1 million organizing effort at the retail chain. Other
unions are contributing additional but unspecified amounts that could
add millions of dollars more to the effort.
Wal-Mart's business practices "lead the way in corporations' drive
to lower pay and benefit standards everywhere," SEIU President Andrew
Stern said. "We are underwriting this effort to create a network of
workers and communities united to bring Wal-Mart's standards up
instead of having Wal-Mart bring our standards down."
Unions associated with the AFL-CIO national labor federation, for
years, have tried to organize Wal-Mart's 1.2 million U.S. employees at
3,500 stores into a union, but always ran afoul of management
resistance.
The class-action lawsuit is one of the few times that Wal-Mart
employees have joined to oppose the company. Female employees accuse
Wal-Mart of overlooking them for promotions and paying them less than
it pays male workers.
"I don't know of any other big case against the company," said Joe
Sellers, attorney for the employees in the lawsuit. "There have been
wage-and-hour cases, but they tend to be limited to certain states."
Organized-labor leaders hope the frustration of employees in the
lawsuit will motivate them to seek union representation for other
grievances.
"It may have helped them in the sense it permitted the plaintiffs
to put together evidence," Mr. Sellers said. "Unions could argue they
could do a better job of representing them in the future."
Unions say the success of Wal-Mart, the nation's largest private
employer, threatens their viability.
With many Wal-Mart full-time employees earning about $9 per hour,
competitors are forced to cut pay and benefits if they want to stay in
business. Federal minimum wage is $5.15 per hour.
In addition, the company buys many of its products from the
lowest-wage foreign suppliers, meaning many U.S. producers must reduce
wages and other expenses or get pushed aside, according to union
leaders.
Competition from Wal-Mart was a contributing issue in Giant's and
Safeway's labor troubles earlier this year.
When the grocers demanded during contract negotiations to cut back
wages and benefits of the least experienced employees to stay
competitive with nonunion shops, their unions threatened to strike. A
shutdown of 325 stores in the Washington and Baltimore areas was
averted by an agreement on March 30 that did not completely satisfy
either side.
Wal-Mart says it has remained nonunion as a preference of
employees and management.
"Our associates value the relationship that they have with their
managers and have rejected the union time and time again," said
Christi Davis Gallagher, Wal-Mart spokeswoman. "We simply do not
believe that unionization is right for Wal-Mart."
However, management consultants say Wal-Mart's policies are
effective in keeping unions out.
"Their experience in containing the entry of unionized labor into
any of their stores begins with their recruiting practices, training
and labor guidelines," said Doug MacDonald, spokesman for AT Kearney,
a management consulting firm.
Opinions of job candidates about unions are a consideration in
whether to hire them, Mr. MacDonald said. Even after they are hired,
management tells employees that their job opportunities would
disappear if they unionize, he said.
George Whalin, president of San Marcos, Calif., Retail Management
Consultants, said unions have failed at Wal-Mart so far because most
employees lack better alternatives.
"By and large, Wal-Mart treats their people pretty well," Mr.
Whalin said. "They don't pay them very well, but they can't."
A union would provide little improvement for employees, he said.
"Let's say the union comes in and gets their wages bumped up by 30
percent," Mr. Whalin said. "Some portion of those people will lose
their jobs."
James A. Chamblee
----------
In article <744cc401.04062...@posting.google.com>,
stevej...@yahoo.com (Steve Dufour) wrote:
> Unions see chance at Wal-Mart
>
>
> By Tom Ramstack
> THE WASHINGTON TIMES
>
>
> Unions are planning a multimillion-dollar campaign to organize
> Wal-Mart employees as the nation's largest retailer deals with an
> increasingly turbulent work force.
Good. the latest lawsuits against Wal-Mart by women will help.
This corporation silently destroys the communities it purports to serve.
Stan de SD
"Steve Dufour" <stevej...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:744cc401.04062...@posting.google.com...
> Unions see chance at Wal-Mart
>
>
> By Tom Ramstack
> THE WASHINGTON TIMES
>
>
> Unions are planning a multimillion-dollar campaign to organize
> Wal-Mart employees as the nation's largest retailer deals with an
> increasingly turbulent work force.
> Union leaders say their chances for organizing Wal-Mart workers
> shot up this week when a federal judge in San Francisco said 1.6
> million current and former employees could sue the retailer for sex
> discrimination in a class-action lawsuit.
So the unions will get their foot in the door, force huge wage and benefit
increases on people with little or no skills, Wal-Mart will lose sales and
many of these people will lose their jobs. Only stupid Lefty Liberals would
consider that an improvement.
James A. Chamblee
"Stan de SD" <standesd_DI...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> So the unions will get their foot in the door, force huge wage and benefit
> increases on people with little or no skills,
Union retail workers are awarded a fair living wage, not the sub-survival
wage that prevents Wal-Mart employees from having a living wage.
Most of the Wal-Mart grievances are not pay-related anyway. They have their
origins in the abuse of employees and the flouting of labor laws by
Wal-Mart.
>Wal-Mart will lose sales and
> many of these people will lose their jobs.
And some other company will gain jobs. That's the way it works. If you
need to employ someone, you should pay them a living wage.
>Only stupid Lefty Liberals would
> consider that an improvement.
There ar no stupid lefty liberals.
Godzilla Pimp
"James A. Chamblee" <jim-ch...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:LMnDc.29485$Y3....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
If you don't like Walmart, don't work there or shop there. Oh, I forgot,
you're a Commie and don't believe in Freedom.
GP
(Wayne)
less stores. Some stores are Union--the Teamsters--the company Costco.
The labor cost for this company is less than Wal-Mart. Yes some Wal-Mart
workers would lose jobs. You could not pay Union pay to some of these
people the way they work.
Yes I am a retired Teamster. If you are happy without a Union I am happy
for you.
Wayne
(Wayne)
.
.
Much of corporate America is driven today by the belief that to be
competitive, companies must cut their employees' wages and benefits.
Nowhere is this creed held more devoutly than among the supermarket
chains that are enduring a strike and have locked out their workers in
Southern and Central California. A new kind of labor agreement that cuts
pay and sharply slashes employer contributions to health benefits is
imperative, declares Steven Burd, chief executive of Safeway Inc., "if
we're going to stay in business."
Jim Sinegal sees things much differently.
The chief executive of Costco Wholesale Corp., a warehouse club retailer
with 430 stores, likes to boast of his company's relatively high pay and
benefits for its 92,000 employees.
"We pay better than the supermarkets, and we pay much better than
Wal-Mart," Sinegal says. "That's not altruism," he continues. "It's good
business."
The numbers seem to back him up. Costco's labor costs amount to 7% of
its $42 billion in annual sales, a key industry yardstick. By
comparison, Wal-Mart Stores Inc.'s cost of labor stands at about 12% of
its $244 billion in revenue, while the same figure for the supermarket
firms comes in at about 16%.
How can Costco—where a full-time clerk or warehouse worker earns more
than $41,000 annually after four years, compared with $37,232 at the
supermarkets—pay more and have lower labor costs?
One factor is Costco's warehouse format, which drives employee
productivity.
Consider, for instance, the way it peddles peaches. Unlike supermarkets
that carry a large variety of the fruit—sliced, halved, diced—Costco
keeps things stunningly simple: It offers a No. 10 can of peaches for
the restaurant trade and a six-pack of smaller cans for household
customers. Says Chief Financial Officer Richard Galanti: "The savings on
handling and inventory are sizable."
Another big reason for Costco's low labor expenses is that workers tend
to stay with the company. Employee turnover, at less than 20%, is
one-third the retail industry average.
And that kind of loyalty can mean big money. Roger Laverty, who once ran
the Smart & Final Inc. chain and now heads Diedrich Coffee Inc. in
Irvine, calculates that a 10% reduction in employee turnover can yield a
20% savings on labor costs.
At Costco, Laverty says, "they believe people are an asset of the
company. They have an employee culture."
Interestingly, 56 of Costco's stores are unionized. The company picked
up these outlets when it bought the Price Club chain in 1993. The
workers there draw about the same paycheck as their nonunion
counterparts, though their pensions are structured differently.
The company "pays well and the health plan is good," says Rone Aloise of
the Teamsters union. "The Costco agreement is probably the best as far
as the retail industry goes."
Unlike the supermarket workers, Costco employees have always paid a
portion of their health insurance. The co-payment is now 4.5%, or $500
to $1,000 a year. That will rise to 8% in the next four years, to keep
up with soaring insurance costs.
But the benefit package that Costco employees get in return is
particularly rich. The company chips in $12,000 to $19,000 per employee
(depending on whether they are full- or part-time). In the end, Costco's
contribution is at least a third higher than that made by supermarket
employers to their workers' health benefit plan.
Nor is Costco about to embrace another fad sweeping corporate America:
offshoring. "We have a call-center operation here," Sinegal says,
gesturing across the firm's Issaquah, Wash., headquarters complex. "We
could move it to Bangladesh or somewhere. But what kind of a message
would that send to our employees? Not a good one, I think."
Costco doesn't simply depend on happy workers for its success. It is so
adroit at moving goods quickly that it often sells products before it
has to pay suppliers for them.
"Sometimes we sell items twice before paying," chortles Sinegal, who
left San Diego State University to work for 19 years for Sol Price's
Fed-Mart and Price Club. He went on to found Costco in 1981 with Seattle
entrepreneur Jeffrey Brotman, who is Costco's chairman.
Growth has been rapid. A decade ago, Costco's annual sales were $15
billion. This year, they could exceed $50 billion.
If Costco has a weak spot, it is on the bottom line. The company earns
about 1.7 cents for each dollar of sales, compared with 2.5 cents or
more for the supermarket chains and 3.5 cents for Wal-Mart.
Wall Street contends that one reason for this shoddy showing is Costco's
generosity to its employees. The stock, which closed Friday on Nasdaq at
$37.61, is down sharply from more than $60 in 2000.
Costco executives dispute that enlightened labor practices are
responsible for profit margins narrowing. Rather, they blame expansion
into new markets in Texas, the Southeast and Midwest - a situation that
should improve with time.
Meanwhile, Costco has received a boost from the labor dispute at the
California supermarkets. Galanti reckons that Costco is picking up an
extra $40 million a month in sales because of the pickets in front of
Ralphs, Albertsons, Vons and Pavilions stores.
Above all, as Costco executives have watched the turmoil at the grocery
chains, they have been reminded about all that they are doing right.
"I don't see what's wrong," Sinegal says, "with an employee earning
enough to be able to buy a house or having a health plan for the family.
"We're trying to build a company that will be here 50 years from now.
.
.
.
That good Union worker will do it everytime.
We just got a Costco they opened next door to a super Wal-Mart.
Wayne
(Wayne)
In the world of retailing, Wal-Mart is the unstoppable, insatiable
force. With $247 billion in revenues—and growing 15% a year—it
reduces downtown shop owners to quivering jelly and once-formidable
competitors, like Kmart, to bankruptcy. Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott rules the
commercial strip the way Julius Caesar once ruled the Roman republic.
Except, that is, for a solitary rebel-held province where a company 20%
the size of Wal-Mart has made a monkey of the 800-pound gorilla. In the
retail niche of warehouse clubs, the irresistible force is an irresolute
flailer. During the past ten years Wal-Mart has gone through five CEOs
and countless stratagems at Sam's Club trying to assume its customary
command. All have been thwarted by Costco Wholesale, the master of the
cavernous space.
Consider some figures. Sam's Club has 71% more U.S. stores than Costco
(532 to 312), yet for the year ended Aug. 31, Costco had 5% more sales
($34.4 billion vs. an estimated $32.9 billion). The average Costco store
generates nearly double the revenue of a Sam's Club ($112 million vs.
$63 million). Costco is the U.S.'s biggest seller of fine wines ($600
million a year) and baster of poultry (55,000 rotisserie chickens a
day). Last year it sold 45 million hot dogs at $1.50 each and 60,000
carats of diamonds at up to $100,000. Chef Julia Child buys meat at
Costco. Yuppies seek the latest gadgets there. Even people who don't
have to pinch pennies shop at Costco. "I like bargain securities," says
Berkshire Hathaway vice chairman Charlie Munger, a Costco shopper,
investor, and director. "Why shouldn't I like bargain golf balls?"
The one man Wal-Mart fears doesn't seem fearsome in person. At 66, he
has hair as thin as his company's margins, and he seems more like a
twinkle-eyed grandfather (which he is, eight times over) than a killer
retailer. His office in suburban Seattle overlooks the parking lot of
the Costco next door. The folding chairs for visitors bear Los Angeles
Lakers logos. The lamp on his desk is festooned with old nametags. One
wall has two Swiffer mops leaning against
.
.
Wayne
Stan de SD
"James A. Chamblee" <jim-ch...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:LMnDc.29485$Y3....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>
>
> > So the unions will get their foot in the door, force huge wage and
benefit
> > increases on people with little or no skills,
>
> Union retail workers are awarded a fair living wage,
Define "fair living wage"
> not the sub-survival wage that prevents Wal-Mart employees from having a
living wage.
If these people were capable of making $15-20/hour elsewhere, but being
forced at gunpoint to work at Wal-Mart, you might have a case. The sad fact
is that the vast majority of people working there do so because they are
unskilled or barely skilled, and nobody is out there offering them more.
> Most of the Wal-Mart grievances are not pay-related anyway. They have
their
> origins in the abuse of employees and the flouting of labor laws by
> Wal-Mart.
Again, nobody is holding a gun to their head and forcing them to work there.
If it's that bad, they need to quit and move on...
> >Only stupid Lefty Liberals would
> > consider that an improvement.
>
> There ar no stupid lefty liberals.
Go look in the mirror....
James A. Chamblee
"Godzilla Pimp" wrote:
> If you don't like Walmart, don't work there or shop there. Oh, I forgot,
> you're a Commie and don't believe in Freedom.
Check your IQ dipstick.
You're a quart low.
MrPepper11
> > So the unions will get their foot in the door, force huge wage and benefit
> > increases on people with little or no skills,
>
> Union retail workers are awarded a fair living wage, not the sub-survival
> wage that prevents Wal-Mart employees from having a living wage.
>
> Most of the Wal-Mart grievances are not pay-related anyway. They have their
> origins in the abuse of employees and the flouting of labor laws by
> Wal-Mart.
If Bush gets his way again this November, he and his big-business
lapdogs in Congress will try to weaken the unions into absolute
irrelevance.
After all, the President is an M.B.A. - "Mush for Brain Asshole."
Godzilla Pimp
IQ: 138
SATs 1500
GP
Lance Lamboy
That is an insult to Mush and Assholes.
--
Lance Lamboy
"I tell them the truth and they think it's hell." ~ Harry S. Truman
Stan de SD
"MrPepper11" <MrPep...@go.com> wrote in message
news:57cfd534.04062...@posting.google.com...
Sorry, but the unions have already done it to themselves. When push comes to
shove, the only place that unions have been able to hold in is in
government-controlled sectors of the economy (public education, transit,
medicine) because their inability to understand the private sector has
resulted in destruction of their own member's jobs...
hc23hc
Yeah, really. He's running interference for
Red China's biggest retail outlet but you're
supposed to be the commie ?
Crikey. Fuck Wal-Mart to hell.
.
.
.
James A. Chamblee
"Stan de SD" <standesd_DI...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Sorry, but the unions have already done it to themselves.
No they havn't. Employers have done it to them by increasing pay &
benefits to non-union workers so that the advantages of unionization are not
cost beneficial to employees.
So the people that management has convinced that unions are bad are heavily
in debt to unions for their current salary and benefits.
You are probably one of them.
> When push comes to
> shove, the only place that unions have been able to hold in is in
> government-controlled sectors of the economy (public education, transit,
> medicine) because their inability to understand the private sector has
> resulted in destruction of their own member's jobs...
Nonsense.
Firstly, government controls no sector of the economy. Second, unions
understand the private sector just fine. Take a look at the academics
employed by unions to help them.
Stan de SD
>
>
> "Stan de SD" <standesd_DI...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> > Sorry, but the unions have already done it to themselves.
>
> No they havn't. Employers have done it to them by increasing pay &
> benefits to non-union workers so that the advantages of unionization are
not
> cost beneficial to employees.
And when unions make demands, they are usually geared more towards
perpetuating their political power than geared toward the best interests of
the workers they claim to represent...
> So the people that management has convinced that unions are bad are
heavily
> in debt to unions for their current salary and benefits.
>
> You are probably one of them.
Hardly - I'm self-employed and run my own business. Union pukes don't have
the balls to do that, because they would have to accept the fact that they
are full of shit on their economic views...
> > When push comes to
> > shove, the only place that unions have been able to hold in is in
> > government-controlled sectors of the economy (public education, transit,
> > medicine) because their inability to understand the private sector has
> > resulted in destruction of their own member's jobs...
>
> Nonsense.
>
> Firstly, government controls no sector of the economy.
You don't think that there is any government involvement in health care or
education? What planet are you from?
Roger
"Steve Dufour" <stevej...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:744cc401.04062...@posting.google.com...
> Unions see chance at Wal-Mart
>
>
> By Tom Ramstack
> THE WASHINGTON TIMES
<snip>
Roger
news:%hnDc.2102$lh4...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
You're just pretending to be this stupid, right? Please?
James A. Chamblee
"Stan de SD" <standesd_DI...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> And when unions make demands, they are usually geared more towards
> perpetuating their political power than geared toward the best interests of
> the workers they claim to represent...
You have no idea what you are talking about. Political power IS PART OF
what the best interests of the members are.
> I'm self-employed and run my own business. Union pukes don't have
> the balls to do that, because they would have to accept the fact that they
> are full of shit on their economic views...
If you've convinced yourself that you're a better person than union men
because you "run your own business", then you are deluding yourself. While
not many people are able to do that for many reasons, the major reason for
their success is good fortune, not anything else.
>> Firstly, government controls no sector of the economy.
>
> You don't think that there is any government involvement in health care or
> education? What planet are you from?
Government involvement is not control. In both education & health care,
government has a strong interest, and they use a carrot/no carrot approach
with no strong control. Public eduction is controlled by local school
boards, nobody else. Health care is heavily regulated without control at
the State level. In Maryland, the State limits the construction of hospital
beds and medical equipment to keep costs lower. That's not control.
Stan de SD
>
> "Stan de SD" <standesd_DI...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> > And when unions make demands, they are usually geared more towards
> > perpetuating their political power than geared toward the best interests
of
> > the workers they claim to represent...
>
> You have no idea what you are talking about. Political power IS PART OF
> what the best interests of the members are.
Political power for the union does NOT necesarily transfer to what is best
for the workers.
> > I'm self-employed and run my own business. Union pukes don't have
> > the balls to do that, because they would have to accept the fact that
they
> > are full of shit on their economic views...
>
> If you've convinced yourself that you're a better person than union men
> because you "run your own business", then you are deluding yourself.
While
> not many people are able to do that for many reasons, the major reason for
> their success is good fortune, not anything else.
Typical ignorance of business economics and related skills as exhibited by
the blind adherents of the union party line.
Roger
news:cHKDc.3357$lh4....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "James A. Chamblee" <jim-ch...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:msKDc.30790$Y3....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Stan de SD" <standesd_DI...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > And when unions make demands, they are usually geared more towards
> > > perpetuating their political power than geared toward the best
interests
> of
> > > the workers they claim to represent...
> >
> > You have no idea what you are talking about. Political power IS PART OF
> > what the best interests of the members are.
>
> Political power for the union does NOT necesarily transfer to what is best
> for the workers.
What? What?
Do you even know what "political power" is?
Check it out. Don't be so ignorant.
James A. Chamblee
>> You have no idea what you are talking about. Political power IS PART OF
>> what the best interests of the members are.
>
> Political power for the union does NOT necesarily transfer to what is best
> for the workers.
Neither does anything else. Your Point?
>
>> > I'm self-employed and run my own business. Union pukes don't have
>> > the balls to do that, because they would have to accept the fact that
> they
>> > are full of shit on their economic views...
>>
>> If you've convinced yourself that you're a better person than union men
>> because you "run your own business", then you are deluding yourself.
>> While not many people are able to do that for many reasons, the major reason
>> for their success is good fortune, not anything else.
>
> Typical ignorance of business economics and related skills as exhibited by
> the blind adherents of the union party line.
I didn't adhere to any "line". And I've run several small businesses of my
own, some great, some not-so-great.
Small business failure rates are extremely high. Luck, trnslated any way
you want, is the greatest cause of success or failure. You don't wanna
hear that; but it's true.
You think Bill Gates' initial success with MS DOS was anything but luck?
The Pervert
What? Proper planning and hard work don't count any more? When did that
happen?
> You think Bill Gates' initial success with MS DOS was anything but luck?
Absolutely.
Roger
news:i1GEc.5418$XM6.3122@attbi_s53...
Like?
Billzz
news:XSNEc.81170$iK4....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
> "The Pervert" <perv...@spambad.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:i1GEc.5418$XM6.3122@attbi_s53...
> >
> > "James A. Chamblee" <jim-ch...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > news:HETDc.31216$Y3....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > > "Stan de SD" wrote:
-another bad snip-
> > > You think Bill Gates' initial success with MS DOS was anything but
luck?
> >
> > Absolutely.
>
> Like?
"In 1980, IBM first approached Bill Gates and Microsoft, to discuss the
state of home computers and Microsoft products. Gates gave IBM a few ideas
on what would make a great home computer, among them to have Basic written
into the ROM chip. Microsoft had already produced several versions of Basic
for different computer systems beguinning with the Altair, so Gates was more
than happy to write a version for IBM."
"As for an operating sytem (OS) for the new computers, since Microsoft had
never written an operation system before, Gates had suggested that IBM
investigate an OS called CP/M (Control Program for Microcomputers) written
by Gary Kildall of Digital Research. Kildall had his PhD in computers, and
had written the most successful operating sytem of that time, selling over
600,000 copies of CP/M. His OS set the standard at that time."
"IBM tried to contact Kimball for a meeting, executives met with Mrs.
Kimball who refused to sign a non-disclosure agreement. IBM soon returned
to Bill Gates and gave Microsoft the contract to write the new operating
system, one that would eventually wipe Kildall's CP/M out of common use."
As an aside I heard from someone that Gary Kildall (now deceased) was
actually up in a tree, communing with nature, when the IBM people came to
call. His wife did not know what to do, and neither did they, and so they
returned to Bill Gates. Another aside is that I have a sealed copy of
Digital Research's DR DOS 6.0, the last CP/M operating system. It is
covered with stories (some above) from the people who were there at the
time. The box has a Clearance tag saying that it is marked down from $69.99
to $39.00. When I bought it I knew that it was worthless, but I thought
maybe the Kildall family would get something.
Why didn't he get out of that tree?
Roger
news:OFOEc.15470$J82....@fe25.usenetserver.com...
I know the story.
It wasn't Gates doing some great job, besides lying about something he
didn't own.
IBM blew it, big time. Not something they did very often in those days.
Luck.
The Pervert
> news:i1GEc.5418$XM6.3122@attbi_s53...
> > > Small business failure rates are extremely high. Luck, trnslated any
> way
> > > you want, is the greatest cause of success or failure. You don't
wanna
> > > hear that; but it's true.
> >
> > What? Proper planning and hard work don't count any more? When did
that
> > happen?
> >
> > > You think Bill Gates' initial success with MS DOS was anything but
luck?
> >
> > Absolutely.
>
> Like?
There is a saying. "Luck is the result of hard work." If you prefer
believing that people are helpless and that everything is left up to the
capricious whims of the gods, knock yourself out. I'll continue to work
for, and earn my successes. My guess is (according to your own words) that
you won't.
Billzz
And that's only the first part of the story. After IBM came back (from
Kildall) to Bill Gates he went to Seattle Computer Products and bought their
OS (QDOS - Quick and Dirty Operating System) for $50K - without telling them
of the deal with IBM (that he would provide an OS to IBM -PC-DOS) and sell
independently to other hardware makers (MS-DOS.) QDDOS was written by Tim
Patterson for their prototype Intel 8086 computer. QDOS was based on a
rewrite of Gary Kildall's CP/M operating system (written in assembly code,
later called DR-DOS.) When Gates and Allen had all the rights, they rewote
it in Basic (which was their language) and that seems to have protected them
from copyright infringement. In 1981 Tim Patterson quit Seattle Computer
Products and found employment at Microsoft.
These are some of the stories I had collected in computer newgroups back
when I had something to do with computers. I've assumed that the writer was
honest in recollection, but who knows. Kildall, in a tree, communing with
nature, seems a little far out. But Gates sent IBM to Kildall, and being
rebuffed, they came back to Gates. Having worked on big software projects I
know that if the customer is stuck and desparate, that is the time to drop
everything and get the job (contract.) The seller is never in a better
position than when the buyer is desparate. Gates was very lucky that IBM
came back, and Gates was astute enought to pick up the ball and run.
Roger
I was talking about the specific. Now you talk about the general.
Logic failure on your part.
The Pervert
Those are your words.
I answered, "What? Proper planning and hard work don't count any more?
When did that happen?"
So... who failed what?
Roger
No, they aren't.
hc23hc
"James A. Chamblee" wrote:
>
> You think Bill Gates' initial success with MS DOS was anything but luck?
Insatiable greed may have played a role then,
as later and hitherto.
Windows is the Wal-Mart of operating systems.
.
.
.
The Pervert
Really? I copied them from your post. They're still at the very top of this
post. Go ahead. Take a look. Are you now denying what you wrote?
I ask again. (See below.) Who failed what?
Roger
I didn't write it.
I was quoting, pinhead.
The Pervert
There being no quote marks nor attributions, one would reasonably assume you
wrote it as an original though. I should have known you couldn't come up
with an original thought. And you have still not said where you came up
with that alleged quote. Don't you believe in giving an author credit for
his or her own thoughts you seem quite willing to quote? You merely stole
his or her words. How many other times have you stolen somebody else's
words and not bothered to give them proper credit and allow the impression
that they were your own? Thus, you are now shown to merely be either
misleading or a liar. What a surprise. Being charitable, I'll opt for you
to be merely intentionally misleading.
Anyway you look at it, you're still dishonest. No surprise there, of
course.
As for being a pinhead, seems you deserve that far more than anybody else.
Kay XOX
health care issues..it's called FUNDING...yes the schools are run on
state funding as well.. but last I knew the state was government too..so
you've lost key issues in your debate on those facts alone. Nice try
tho.
hc23hc
The Perjurous Pervert puffed, panted and back-paedalled :
>
> There being no quote marks nor attributions, one would reasonably assume you
> wrote it as an original though. I should have known you couldn't come up
> with an original thought. And you have still not said where you came up
> with that alleged quote.
He doesn't owe you an explanation. You fucked up. Either apologize
like a man, or eat what you are - dog-food - if not what you should,
which is humble pie, fatso. You are such a useless, pompous wank to
be calling everybody else a liar and dishonest (then, like, denying
that you do this all the time, when you do it all the time. Liar).
> Don't you believe in giving an author credit for
Sure do, more than you know. Here's your credit, Fatty:
You wrote the attributed stuff (for lack of a better word).
It is a bunch of bumbling girlyman twaddle and your reward
goes justly as follows:
+++ one free sex change @ the downtown Los Angeles meat district +++
Just ask for Julio,. He's expecting you, knows to look out for
a fat, lardy, pale, sweaty, nervous, ugly, mouthbreathing first
degree, second-rate liar - which would be you.
I'll make sure they don't anaesthetize since you're such a big
tougb guy, Pervo. They know exactly how to deal with cowardly
Perverts like you. You don't have any cojones anyway so it'll
be a fairly short operation, although probably not a quiet one.
> his or her own thoughts you seem quite willing to quote? You merely stole
> his or her words. How many other times have you stolen somebody else's
Jeeze-us. Do you ever read the shite you write, Pervert ? But do go on...
> words and not bothered to give them proper credit and allow the impression
> that they were your own? Thus, you are now shown to merely be either
> misleading or a liar. What a surprise. Being charitable
(only according to the George W Bush definition, i.e. not so, at all)
> I'll opt for you
You'd steal his lunch too if you could, but - you can't do that, either.
> to be merely intentionally misleading.
Not "misleading" Fatty. You're lying, plain and simple.
You'll be having extra lies with that ?
> Anyway you look at it, you're still dishonest. No surprise there, of
> course.
Fat-ass liar, Pervert. Your pantyhose is on fire. Maybe Stain de STD
will gaily piss-ant you, if you'll have his love-child for just dessert.
.
.
.
Asmodeus
> Your pantyhose is on fire
ROTFLMAO!
Seriously, take your meds. And change your diapers while you're at it.
--
"A moral compass needle needs a butt end. Whatever direction France
is pointing--toward collaboration with Nazis, accommodation with
communists, existentialism, Jerry Lewis, or UN resolution veto--we
can go the other way with a quiet conscience."
--P.J. O'Rourke
Kay XOX
without resorting to name calling and being insulting. And what's up
with all the copying the post onto the response crap?? It makes the post
harder to follow and drags it out wayyy to much. The post is there,
people can go back to reread it if they can't remember what was said.
(Wayne)
Is WM 90 day return?
Wayne