the question is.....why should Starbucks pay more for retards in a
union...when they can just go hire retards down the street for 1/2 the way
and who will have 2x the performance and motivation and really appreciate
the job......or illegal aliens or greencarders.....anything but the genetic
defect union mongers

"G*rd*n" > wrote in message
...
> "Michael Legel" >:
> > ...
> > 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?. And
> > why, as a worker, should I not make a "decent wage" if I am a partner in
a
> > profitable operation?
> > ...
>
> These questions don't reflect either the ideology or the
> actuality of liberalism and capitalism, especially in the
> United States. In lib-cap, the influence of any assumed social
> contract is extremely weak and is mostly brought out only when
> the elites need someone to do their fighting for them.
> Otherwise, you have only what you literally own or are owed
> under contract. The ruling class _may_ impart various benefits,
> but these are not won or owned, and may be withdrawn at any
> time. Hence, although "we" are supposedly much richer now
> than fifty years ago, "we" can no longer afford Welfare,
> unemployment insurance, free public education, public health,
> public housing, job health and safety, job training, day
> care, environmental protection, and so forth. These goodies
> began to be withdrawn in the 1980s -- about the same time as
> it became apparent that the last major competitor of lib-cap,
> Communism, was on the wane. It is true that some individual
> employers may be "enlightened", but they maintain such
> enlightenment as they have against the way of the world.
> --
>
> (<><>) /*/
> }"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{
> { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't