"Michael Legel" > wrote in message ws.com>...
> "Stan de SD" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "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 Stan your rant is typical, outdated and so ludicrous it would be sad if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?
> >
> >
> >
>
> I don't have to answer your questions. It would be pointless to do so anyway
> ... you are not going to be convinced by me. Thus I suggest you really
> research these questions for yourself, 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. That is the fact that
> you will not believe unless you read it for yourself.

In other words you can't find any evidence but you want him to.

> 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?

The eight hour day was "given" because people stopped being prepared
to work longer. To get the best workers employers had to offer 8 hour
days. The fact that the union was there at the time had nothing to
do with it. Child labour laws were not given out of the goodness
of anyone's heart. They were brutal impositions on the lives of
children, forcing them back to the family home to work harder, longer
in worse conditions so that the elders didn't have to compete with
them.

> We all paid for those benefits ... employer, employee and consumer
> ... and we all benefit because at some time in our lives we are
> each employer, employee and consumer. So simple really.

Well no it's not. For a start I've never been an employer so you
are wrong. For a second thing I don't know any benefit of unions
to employers except that they can cripple opposition businesses,
which is hardly good for the consumer.