View Single Post
  #39 (permalink)   Report Post  
Stan de SD
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Workers Join IWW


"Michael Legel" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> "Stan de SD" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> >
> > "Dan Clore" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > G*rd*n wrote:
> > > > "rebelguy" >:
> > >
> > > >>I FEEL SORRY FOR THESE STUPID PEOPLE, THEY WERE DUPED BY A MAXIST

LABOUR
> > > >>UNION AND NOW WILL BE TURNING OVER LARGE PARTS OF WHAT THEY MAKE TO

A
> > BUNCH
> > > >>OF FAT,LAZY WHITE HAIRED UNION BOSS'S WHO SIT ON THEIR ASS'S ALL DAY

> > MAKING
> > > >>50-60,000 A YEAR
> > > >>
> > > > Your cliché key is stuck.
> > >
> > > Not only cliché, but also untrue. In fact, I would hardly
> > > know where to begin to untangle all the falsehoods in this
> > > single sentence. It might make a fun challenge to see who
> > > can point out the most.

> >
> > OK, Clore, tell us what they will get out of those union dues they will

soon
> > be forced to pay as a condition of working there. Retirement pensions?

How
> > many people are going to make a career of working at Starbucks? Health
> > benefits? How long will they have to work to obtain those?
> >
> > Once again, the unions are trying to find a way of financing their Ponzi
> > scheme retirement plans by looking for new sources of union dues.

Suckering
> > in workers who won't even be around next year to collect any "benefits",
> > much less 20 years from now, is a racket that any neophyte hustler can
> > play... :O|
> >
> >

>
> Stan your rant is typical, outdated and so ludicrous it would be sad if

not
> for the fact that you probably actually believe it yourself. Do you have

any
> clue as to how miniscule union dues are compared to the benefits received?


Once again, how are most individuals who are only going to work at Starbucks
for a year or two going to receive "benefits"?

In addition, if the benefits received are such to make the dues "miniscule",
who's paying for them?

Answer those questions before you lecture me about doing my "homework", OK?