"Michael Legel" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> "Stan de SD" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > > Stan your rant is typical, outdated and so ludicrous it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?
>
> I don't have to answer your questions.

Because you can't, right?

> It would be pointless to do so anyway
> ... you are not going to be convinced by me.

Given that you can't answer my questions.

> Thus I suggest you really
> research these questions for yourself,

I have researched them myself, and it appears that union dues paid by people
who don't draw benefits go to subsidize somebody else. That's a no-brainer.

> only then will you realize the truth
> that unions have provided far more benefit to employers, employees and
> consumers than any other fraternal group in history.

Proof?

> That is the fact that
> you will not believe unless you read it for yourself.

I'm asking for proof, not a bunch of pro-union rhetoric.

> I suspect you don't do
> the research because you simply WON'T believe this is possible. You
probably
> believe the eight hour work day, overtime, child labor laws, sweat shop
laws,
> etc. were all "given" to workers out of the intrinsic goodness of
employers?

Unions can't give away what isn't made possible by a higher standard of
living brought on by increasing wealth and technological development.