On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 21:46:44 GMT, "Michael Legel" >
wrote:

>
>"Stan de SD" > wrote in message
link.net...
>>
>> "Michael Legel" > wrote in message
>> s.com...
>> >
>> > "spenzdad" > wrote in message
>> > news:aahBc.19627$wS2.12242@okepread03...
>> > > **** the unions.......i hope Starbucks shoves your contract up your ass
>> and
>> > > give the jobs to the illegals.......like it takes skills to work at
>> > > Starbucks..........LMAO!!
>> >
>> > Laugh your ass off indeed. Please. You would be no more full of shit
>> without
>> > it. From what dim learning do you equate "skills" to some right of
>> passage to
>> > a decent wage?
>>
>> From what dim learning do you equate the right to a "decent wage" (however
>> you define it) regardless of having put in the effort to learn marketable
>> skills?
>
>Who says it is I who must make the effort to learn skills and not the
>employers responsibility to provide the means of acquiring those skills?.

It's your labor. If you want it to be of value, that's your business.
If you don't bother learning any valuable skills, then don't whine if
all anyone is willing to trade for it is 50 cents an hour. If you
can't make a decent living, it's your fault, not the buyer.

>And
>why, as a worker, should I not make a "decent wage" if I am a partner in a
>profitable operation?

What busines is it of yours if it's profitable? Did you invest in it?
Why does anyone owe you anything other than what they agree to trade
to you? If the store down the street decides to charge you extra for
your groceries because they think you are making a lot of money, how
would you respond? What if they formed a union and demanded that your
right to shop elsewhere for groceries be infringed?

>> > I'm sure you agree it is good that the owners and investors of
>> > Starbucks are profitable and well paid
>>
>> I'm sure they worked their asses off, took the necessary risks inherent in
>> starting a new business, and have been rewarded accordingly.
>>
>
>Worked their asses off? Right. And what risks might those be ... getting a
>paper cut or dieing of coronary failure from worrying too much? And you don't
>think workers take any risks on the job?

They invested their money. They took the risks. And every successful
business I've even seen was run for years by the owners working very
long hours with little or no pay, no benefits, and absolutely no
quarentees until it got started. Why don't you agree to work 80+
hours a week for nothing for a year or two and hoping for a good wage
later?

>> > why not extend that generosity to the workers as well?
>>
>> Starbucks offers employment and some semblance of advancement opportunities
>> in a semi-decent work environment to people with little or no skills -
>> certainly quite generous compared to the state-owned businesses in communist
>> countries that you left-wingers use as your business and economic model...
>
>That "generosity" is evidently not generous enough for those who are working
>there or they wouldn't want a union. I'm sure your definition of a
>"left-winger" is quite entertaining, but somewhat off the mark. I am probably
>somewhere in the middle of the road on most issues except human rights. There
>I am quite liberal. I am even willing to allow conservatives to have "some"
>rights. The Red Scare as an argument has been outdated by a few decades and
>you should drop that one pretty soon or people will think you are still living
>in the McCarthy - Dirksen age.

I think it's quite generous to pay more than you have to for
something. You can train a monkey to pour coffee. Why would anyone
pay more than couple of bucks an hour for that?

William R. James