On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 18:21:18 GMT, "Stan de SD"
> wrote:

>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Michael Legel" >
>Newsgroups:
>rec.food.drink.coffee,alt.coffee,alt.society.labo r-unions,alt.fan.noam-choms
>ky,alt.activism,alt.anarchism,alt.society.anarc hy
>Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2004 7:09 AM
>Subject: Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

Michael Legel's posts are showing up here for some reason.

>> "Wm James" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > I said:
>> > Yep,they can organize all they want. And just like you aren't forced
>> > to participate in some group's activities, neither should people who
>> > own a business. If you want to start a union or a social club, go
>> > ahead. But recognize the business owner's right to tell you to
>> > participate in such things during your own time instead of his. If he
>> > doesn't want to negotiate with your union, then you and your union
>> > should advertise your labor for sale at whatever price you see fit
>> > while the former employer buys labor from someone else. If he's
>> > willing to negotiate, that's fine too. No problem. Just keep
>> > government out of the business of butting into either party's business
>> > and requiring participation. Fair enough?
>> >
>> > I stand by that.
>>
>> As has been stated very often ... the business owner has no right to quell
>> social interaction on the job to the extent you are speaking about.
>
>Yes he does - he has the right to control the interaction as he sees fit. If
>the employees think that it's excessive, they have the right to quit and
>seek work elsewhere. It's called the "free market", and it keeps both sides
>(management and labor) from becoming too dictatorial or unrealistic.
>Unfortunately, lefties such as yourself don't like the idea of freedom of
>choice, so you would rather impose your own prejudices on an employment
>situation...

Absolutely correct. If the employer doesn't want something on his
property, that's his right just like anyone else.

>> You seem
>> to think that Americans have absolutely NO rights when they enter the work
>> force.
>
>He didn't say that. Having read WJ for several years now, I'm sure that he
>agrees that employees have the right to be paid per their hiring agreement
>with their employer, the right not to be forced to commit illegal acts while
>at work, and the right to quit their jobs if they see their employment
>sutiation as being non-compensatory or their employer as unfair. I'm sure
>that WJ also would be opposed to forcing employees to contribute to
>political causes and candidates they didn't personally support, which is
>certainly a more enlightened position than many labor unions take..

Thanks, Stan. I agree with that 100%.

>> While it is true they have fewer rights than many EU countries, they
>> still maintain some meager right to be an American on the job. You keep
>> babbling about owner's rights that don't exist. Not in law or in the
>> constitution.

The constitution doesn't grant union members special rights to
infringe on the property rights of others. As an american I have the
right to trade or not to trade as I see fit. So does everyone else.
Trading requires two parties. Either can quite at any time for
whatever reasn they see fit, or for no reason if they choose.

William R,. James