"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. You seem
to think that Americans have absolutely NO rights when they enter the work
force. 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. Again, write your favorite representative and stress your
wishes, but your wishes are not yet realtiy.

>
> The courts may sometimes disagree with a business owner having
> constitutional rights, but that's another issue. That has little todo
> with what I said. I wasn't referring to union members talking on the
> job. I don't know where you got that silly idea. I was referring to
> the union being recognized by the company and the company negotiating
> with the union. In a free society, the employees can form a union if
> they want, and the employer is just as free to tell them to take a
> hike and or that the union's rules are meaninless in the workplace.
> They are free to quit, of course, if they don't like it.
>
> William R. James
>

Perhaps in your mythical society this is true. In America the law says
something quite different. Again you are confusing your wishes with reality.
The employer is bound by law to negotiate with any legally constituted union.
As is, the laws are tipped in favor of the employer too much already in my
opinion. And I work diligently to persuade people to be more pro-worker and
pro-American. Just because I wish fervently that something should be as I
want it be ... I do not have the ability to wave my hand and "Make it so."

"Stan de SD" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Notice that I never said that workers didn't have the right to join a union.
> However, you would deny the right of business owners to lock out a union if
> they chose to do so. If one party has the right to take such action, so does
> the other - a point you conveniently choose to ignore.
>

Of course one denies rights that don't exist. Business owners have no right
to lock workers in retaliation to union activity. It's not a point being
ignored but debated. In this case reality determines the current status of
"rights". Business owners already hold the upper hand in determining
employment in the US. That is reality. And unions are on the decline. That
is reality. We can debate why.

"Stan de SD" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Notice that I never said that workers didn't have the right to join a union.
> However, you would deny the right of business owners to lock out a union if
> they chose to do so. If one party has the right to take such action, so does
> the other - a point you conveniently choose to ignore.
>

Of course one denies rights that don't exist. Business owners have no right
to lock workers in retaliation to union activity. It's not a point being
ignored but debated. In this case reality determines the current status of
"rights". Business owners already hold the upper hand in determining
employment in the US. That is reality. And unions are on the decline. That
is reality. We can debate why.

**** 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!!
"Hawth Hill" > wrote in message
...
> in article , Wm James at
> wrote on 06/16/2004 12:23 AM:
>
> > But recognize the business owner's right to tell you to
> > participate in such things during your own time instead of his.
>
> Sad.
>
> Where the heck do you come up with such lame brained ideas regarding
> "rights?"
>
> The Supreme Court, (yes, that same bunch of Republican appointees), has
long
> recognized the rights of employees to engage in communications and to
engage
> in solicitations and to engage in distributions of literature while at
work.
>
> According to those dummies on the Supreme Court the employees are free to
> engage in such activities to the same extent that they routinely do so for
> other conversations, solicitations, and distributions.
>
> If an employer chooses to ban all such activity, he can do so. But, he
> can't pick and choose.
>
> If he, for example, allows employees to approach other employees to sell
> chances for their daughters' Girl Scout Cookie drives, then the courts say
> that he can scarcely claim that employees are not free to do the same sort
> of communicating just because the subject may happen to be whether or not
> they wish to engage in union activities.
>
> In other words, those Repubs on the court strike down efforts to
> discriminate. . . . Oh, what bad people they must be!
>
> Better move to a country that has laws, and judges, more to your liking.
>
> HH
>

**** 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!!
"Hawth Hill" > wrote in message
...
> in article , Wm James at
> wrote on 06/16/2004 12:23 AM:
>
> > But recognize the business owner's right to tell you to
> > participate in such things during your own time instead of his.
>
> Sad.
>
> Where the heck do you come up with such lame brained ideas regarding
> "rights?"
>
> The Supreme Court, (yes, that same bunch of Republican appointees), has
long
> recognized the rights of employees to engage in communications and to
engage
> in solicitations and to engage in distributions of literature while at
work.
>
> According to those dummies on the Supreme Court the employees are free to
> engage in such activities to the same extent that they routinely do so for
> other conversations, solicitations, and distributions.
>
> If an employer chooses to ban all such activity, he can do so. But, he
> can't pick and choose.
>
> If he, for example, allows employees to approach other employees to sell
> chances for their daughters' Girl Scout Cookie drives, then the courts say
> that he can scarcely claim that employees are not free to do the same sort
> of communicating just because the subject may happen to be whether or not
> they wish to engage in union activities.
>
> In other words, those Repubs on the court strike down efforts to
> discriminate. . . . Oh, what bad people they must be!
>
> Better move to a country that has laws, and judges, more to your liking.
>
> HH
>

"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? I'm sure you agree it is good that the owners and investors of
Starbucks are profitable and well paid ... why not extend that generosity to
the workers as well?

"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? I'm sure you agree it is good that the owners and investors of
Starbucks are profitable and well paid ... why not extend that generosity to
the workers as well?

"G*rd*n" > wrote in message
...
> > ...
>
> :
> > Labor unions are inherently evil. They are a group demanding control
> > over someone else's business. The union didn't invest in the company,
> > they didn't risk anything to start it or work 80 hour weeks building
> > it up. They are vendors selling something the company purches to make
> > their product. But they presume some strange right to exersixe control
> > over the business owner's right to buy labor.
>
>
> So you don't believe in the rights of association, contract
> and representation? Or in ownership of one's own labor?

If you own your labor, why do you need a union to represent you?

> Is
> that for everyone, or just certain classes of people? Because
> if labor unions are inherently evil, then liberalism is
> inherently evil.

Which it is...

"G*rd*n" > wrote in message
...
> > ...
>
> :
> > Labor unions are inherently evil. They are a group demanding control
> > over someone else's business. The union didn't invest in the company,
> > they didn't risk anything to start it or work 80 hour weeks building
> > it up. They are vendors selling something the company purches to make
> > their product. But they presume some strange right to exersixe control
> > over the business owner's right to buy labor.
>
>
> So you don't believe in the rights of association, contract
> and representation? Or in ownership of one's own labor?

If you own your labor, why do you need a union to represent you?

> Is
> that for everyone, or just certain classes of people? Because
> if labor unions are inherently evil, then liberalism is
> inherently evil.

Which it is...

"Grain of Sand" > wrote in message
...
> In article . net>,
> "Stan de SD" > wrote:
>
> > "Miguel O'Pastel" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > There is no future for capitalism.
> >
> > Yeah, yeah. The Russkies said that in 1917, and the Chinese in 1949 -
but
> > funny how both of them are reverting to more market-based economies. But
> > then again, for all their faults, Russians and Chinese are a hell of a
lot
> > smarter than you are.
>
> Like most capitalists you think short term. There is no future for
> capitalism.

Look at the shining 2 examples of communism left - Cuba and North Korea -
and it's clear there's no future for communism.

"Grain of Sand" > wrote in message
...
> In article . net>,
> "Stan de SD" > wrote:
>
> > "Miguel O'Pastel" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > There is no future for capitalism.
> >
> > Yeah, yeah. The Russkies said that in 1917, and the Chinese in 1949 -
but
> > funny how both of them are reverting to more market-based economies. But
> > then again, for all their faults, Russians and Chinese are a hell of a
lot
> > smarter than you are.
>
> Like most capitalists you think short term. There is no future for
> capitalism.

Look at the shining 2 examples of communism left - Cuba and North Korea -
and it's clear there's no future for communism.

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


>
> "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...

> 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..


> 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.

Which rights do you specifically contest?

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


>
> "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...

> 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..


> 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.

Which rights do you specifically contest?

"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?

> 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.

> 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...

"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?

> 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.

> 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...

"Michael Legel" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> "Stan de SD" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > Notice that I never said that workers didn't have the right to join a
union.
> > However, you would deny the right of business owners to lock out a union
if
> > they chose to do so. If one party has the right to take such action, so
does
> > the other - a point you conveniently choose to ignore.
> >
>
> Of course one denies rights that don't exist. Business owners have no
right
> to lock workers in retaliation to union activity.

Business owners have a right to hire and fire as they see fit, provided they
don't engage in racial or religious discrimination or violate any contracts
they have made with their workers regarding employment. Employees also have
the right to quit if they think they are getting a raw deal, and go
elsewhere to seek work...

"Michael Legel" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> "Stan de SD" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > Notice that I never said that workers didn't have the right to join a
union.
> > However, you would deny the right of business owners to lock out a union
if
> > they chose to do so. If one party has the right to take such action, so
does
> > the other - a point you conveniently choose to ignore.
> >
>
> Of course one denies rights that don't exist. Business owners have no
right
> to lock workers in retaliation to union activity.

Business owners have a right to hire and fire as they see fit, provided they
don't engage in racial or religious discrimination or violate any contracts
they have made with their workers regarding employment. Employees also have
the right to quit if they think they are getting a raw deal, and go
elsewhere to seek work...

> > > ...

:
> > > Labor unions are inherently evil. They are a group demanding control
> > > over someone else's business. The union didn't invest in the company,
> > > they didn't risk anything to start it or work 80 hour weeks building
> > > it up. They are vendors selling something the company purches to make
> > > their product. But they presume some strange right to exersixe control
> > > over the business owner's right to buy labor.

"G*rd*n" >:
> > So you don't believe in the rights of association, contract
> > and representation? Or in ownership of one's own labor?

"Stan de SD" >:
> If you own your labor, why do you need a union to represent you?


Collective behavior is often advantageous. That's why
corporations and partnerships exist.


"G*rd*n" >:
> > Is
> > that for everyone, or just certain classes of people? Because
> > if labor unions are inherently evil, then liberalism is
> > inherently evil.

"Stan de SD" >:
> Which it is...


Well, the U.S. Constitution is a liberal document. Besides
wiping out the Bill of Rights, what other changes would you
make, or would you just replace it altogether, and if so,
with what?

--

(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't

> > > ...

:
> > > Labor unions are inherently evil. They are a group demanding control
> > > over someone else's business. The union didn't invest in the company,
> > > they didn't risk anything to start it or work 80 hour weeks building
> > > it up. They are vendors selling something the company purches to make
> > > their product. But they presume some strange right to exersixe control
> > > over the business owner's right to buy labor.

"G*rd*n" >:
> > So you don't believe in the rights of association, contract
> > and representation? Or in ownership of one's own labor?

"Stan de SD" >:
> If you own your labor, why do you need a union to represent you?


Collective behavior is often advantageous. That's why
corporations and partnerships exist.


"G*rd*n" >:
> > Is
> > that for everyone, or just certain classes of people? Because
> > if labor unions are inherently evil, then liberalism is
> > inherently evil.

"Stan de SD" >:
> Which it is...


Well, the U.S. Constitution is a liberal document. Besides
wiping out the Bill of Rights, what other changes would you
make, or would you just replace it altogether, and if so,
with what?

--

(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't

"G*rd*n" > wrote in message
...
> > > > ...
>
> :
> > > > Labor unions are inherently evil. They are a group demanding
control
> > > > over someone else's business. The union didn't invest in the
company,
> > > > they didn't risk anything to start it or work 80 hour weeks building
> > > > it up. They are vendors selling something the company purches to
make
> > > > their product. But they presume some strange right to exersixe
control
> > > > over the business owner's right to buy labor.
>
> "G*rd*n" >:
> > > So you don't believe in the rights of association, contract
> > > and representation? Or in ownership of one's own labor?
>
> "Stan de SD" >:
> > If you own your labor, why do you need a union to represent you?
>
> Collective behavior is often advantageous. That's why
> corporations and partnerships exist.

And "collective behavior" is only just if you have the option of getting
out, something that most union types don't agree to.

"G*rd*n" > wrote in message
...
> > > > ...
>
> :
> > > > Labor unions are inherently evil. They are a group demanding
control
> > > > over someone else's business. The union didn't invest in the
company,
> > > > they didn't risk anything to start it or work 80 hour weeks building
> > > > it up. They are vendors selling something the company purches to
make
> > > > their product. But they presume some strange right to exersixe
control
> > > > over the business owner's right to buy labor.
>
> "G*rd*n" >:
> > > So you don't believe in the rights of association, contract
> > > and representation? Or in ownership of one's own labor?
>
> "Stan de SD" >:
> > If you own your labor, why do you need a union to represent you?
>
> Collective behavior is often advantageous. That's why
> corporations and partnerships exist.

And "collective behavior" is only just if you have the option of getting
out, something that most union types don't agree to.

"Politics in America" ,microsoft> wrote in message
...
> I would like to remind everyone, that we do not have an economy to be
served
> by the people, but rather we have an economy to serve the people. People
> come first. People are more important than money, machines, technology and
> quarterly returns.

WRONG. GOD comes first. And here in America GOD is MONEY.

"Politics in America" ,microsoft> wrote in message
...
> I would like to remind everyone, that we do not have an economy to be
served
> by the people, but rather we have an economy to serve the people. People
> come first. People are more important than money, machines, technology and
> quarterly returns.

WRONG. GOD comes first. And here in America GOD is MONEY.

"Stan de SD" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> >
> > "G*rd*n" >:
> > > > So you don't believe in the rights of association, contract
> > > > and representation? Or in ownership of one's own labor?
> >
> > "Stan de SD" >:
> > > If you own your labor, why do you need a union to represent you?
> >
> > Collective behavior is often advantageous. That's why
> > corporations and partnerships exist.
>
> And "collective behavior" is only just if you have the option of getting
> out, something that most union types don't agree to.
>
>

Sure we do. Don't "belong" if you don't want to. But you do have to pay the
dues if you collect the benefits.

"Stan de SD" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> >
> > "G*rd*n" >:
> > > > So you don't believe in the rights of association, contract
> > > > and representation? Or in ownership of one's own labor?
> >
> > "Stan de SD" >:
> > > If you own your labor, why do you need a union to represent you?
> >
> > Collective behavior is often advantageous. That's why
> > corporations and partnerships exist.
>
> And "collective behavior" is only just if you have the option of getting
> out, something that most union types don't agree to.
>
>

Sure we do. Don't "belong" if you don't want to. But you do have to pay the
dues if you collect the benefits.

"Stan de SD" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Grain of Sand" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article . net>,
> > "Stan de SD" > wrote:
> >
> > > "Miguel O'Pastel" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > There is no future for capitalism.
> > >
> > > Yeah, yeah. The Russkies said that in 1917, and the Chinese in 1949 -
> but
> > > funny how both of them are reverting to more market-based economies. But
> > > then again, for all their faults, Russians and Chinese are a hell of a
> lot
> > > smarter than you are.
> >
> > Like most capitalists you think short term. There is no future for
> > capitalism.
>
> Look at the shining 2 examples of communism left - Cuba and North Korea -
> and it's clear there's no future for communism.
>
>

So Capitalism and Communism are the only choices?

"Stan de SD" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Grain of Sand" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article . net>,
> > "Stan de SD" > wrote:
> >
> > > "Miguel O'Pastel" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > There is no future for capitalism.
> > >
> > > Yeah, yeah. The Russkies said that in 1917, and the Chinese in 1949 -
> but
> > > funny how both of them are reverting to more market-based economies. But
> > > then again, for all their faults, Russians and Chinese are a hell of a
> lot
> > > smarter than you are.
> >
> > Like most capitalists you think short term. There is no future for
> > capitalism.
>
> Look at the shining 2 examples of communism left - Cuba and North Korea -
> and it's clear there's no future for communism.
>
>

So Capitalism and Communism are the only choices?

"Xyzzy" > wrote in message
om...
> "Stan de SD" > wrote in message
k.net>...
> > "Alex Russell" > wrote in message
> > newsrQxc.12808$Dr.11373@edtnps84...
> > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message
> > > news > > > >
> > > > "Dan Clore" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
> > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
> > > > >
> > > > > Starbucks Obstructing First US Union Vote
> > > > > posted by IU/660 on Tuesday June 01 2004 @ 11:44AM PDT
> > > > > June 1, 2004
> > > > > Contact:
> > > > > Starbucks Obstructing First US Union Vote
> > > > >
> > > > > Workers to Schultz: What are you so scared of?
> > > > >
> > > > > New York, NY--The Starbucks Baristas Union and community
> > > > > members across the country have condemned repeated attempts
> > > > > by the company to deny workers a fair vote on the Union.
> > > > > While paying lip-service to respecting the choice of
> > > > > employees, Starbucks has deployed a variety of crude tactics
> > > > > in an effort to defeat the IWW IU/660, which would be the
> > > > > first union certified in the United States at the mammoth chain.
> > > > >
> > > > > Supporters around the country and internationally are
> > > > > contacting Starbucks demanding they live up to their
> > > > > rhetoric. If Starbucks really is a bastion of worker
> > > > > benefits, what is Chairman Howard Schultz, who raked in over
> > > > > $17 million last year, so scared of? The truth is Starbucks,
> > > > > with its poverty wages and rampant repetitive-stress
> > > > > dangers, resembles a sweatshop more than it does a decent
> > > > > place to work.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, and all those 20-something college-age Americans are being
forced
> > to
> > > > work there against their will, right? I guess YOU would think it's a
> > > > sweatshop, given that you strike me as the type of feminized,
spoiled
> > > > cry-baby who has never held a real job one day in his life.
> > > >
> > > > Tell us, Dan Clore, self-appointed "voice" of the workers -
> > > > what in the hell do YOU do for a living?
> > > >
> > > Can't come up with a real argument so you want to shoot the messenger?
> >
> > Came up with an argument that when right over your little head. Nobody
is
> > being forced to work at Starbucks, McDonalds, Wal-Mart, or whatever
>
> And nobody is being forced to own & operate Starbucks, McDonalds,
> Wal-Mart. If the CEO's don't like unions they can find another job as
> well.

The union didn't invest in the business - the owners did. A small point you
choose to overlook.

"Xyzzy" > wrote in message
om...
> "Stan de SD" > wrote in message
k.net>...
> > "Alex Russell" > wrote in message
> > newsrQxc.12808$Dr.11373@edtnps84...
> > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message
> > > news > > > >
> > > > "Dan Clore" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
> > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
> > > > >
> > > > > Starbucks Obstructing First US Union Vote
> > > > > posted by IU/660 on Tuesday June 01 2004 @ 11:44AM PDT
> > > > > June 1, 2004
> > > > > Contact:
> > > > > Starbucks Obstructing First US Union Vote
> > > > >
> > > > > Workers to Schultz: What are you so scared of?
> > > > >
> > > > > New York, NY--The Starbucks Baristas Union and community
> > > > > members across the country have condemned repeated attempts
> > > > > by the company to deny workers a fair vote on the Union.
> > > > > While paying lip-service to respecting the choice of
> > > > > employees, Starbucks has deployed a variety of crude tactics
> > > > > in an effort to defeat the IWW IU/660, which would be the
> > > > > first union certified in the United States at the mammoth chain.
> > > > >
> > > > > Supporters around the country and internationally are
> > > > > contacting Starbucks demanding they live up to their
> > > > > rhetoric. If Starbucks really is a bastion of worker
> > > > > benefits, what is Chairman Howard Schultz, who raked in over
> > > > > $17 million last year, so scared of? The truth is Starbucks,
> > > > > with its poverty wages and rampant repetitive-stress
> > > > > dangers, resembles a sweatshop more than it does a decent
> > > > > place to work.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, and all those 20-something college-age Americans are being
forced
> > to
> > > > work there against their will, right? I guess YOU would think it's a
> > > > sweatshop, given that you strike me as the type of feminized,
spoiled
> > > > cry-baby who has never held a real job one day in his life.
> > > >
> > > > Tell us, Dan Clore, self-appointed "voice" of the workers -
> > > > what in the hell do YOU do for a living?
> > > >
> > > Can't come up with a real argument so you want to shoot the messenger?
> >
> > Came up with an argument that when right over your little head. Nobody
is
> > being forced to work at Starbucks, McDonalds, Wal-Mart, or whatever
>
> And nobody is being forced to own & operate Starbucks, McDonalds,
> Wal-Mart. If the CEO's don't like unions they can find another job as
> well.

The union didn't invest in the business - the owners did. A small point you
choose to overlook.

"Alex Russell" > wrote in message
news:Ffbyc.2604$Qd.1655@clgrps13...
>
> "Stan de SD" > wrote in message
> .net...
> >
> > "Alex Russell" > wrote in message
> > newsrQxc.12808$Dr.11373@edtnps84...
> > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message
> > > news > > > >
> > > > "Dan Clore" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
> > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
> > > > >
> > > > > Starbucks Obstructing First US Union Vote
> > > > > posted by IU/660 on Tuesday June 01 2004 @ 11:44AM PDT
> > > > > June 1, 2004
> > > > > Contact:
> > > > > Starbucks Obstructing First US Union Vote
> > > > >
> > > > > Workers to Schultz: What are you so scared of?
> > > > >
> > > > > New York, NY--The Starbucks Baristas Union and community
> > > > > members across the country have condemned repeated attempts
> > > > > by the company to deny workers a fair vote on the Union.
> > > > > While paying lip-service to respecting the choice of
> > > > > employees, Starbucks has deployed a variety of crude tactics
> > > > > in an effort to defeat the IWW IU/660, which would be the
> > > > > first union certified in the United States at the mammoth chain.
> > > > >
> > > > > Supporters around the country and internationally are
> > > > > contacting Starbucks demanding they live up to their
> > > > > rhetoric. If Starbucks really is a bastion of worker
> > > > > benefits, what is Chairman Howard Schultz, who raked in over
> > > > > $17 million last year, so scared of? The truth is Starbucks,
> > > > > with its poverty wages and rampant repetitive-stress
> > > > > dangers, resembles a sweatshop more than it does a decent
> > > > > place to work.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, and all those 20-something college-age Americans are being
> forced
> > to
> > > > work there against their will, right? I guess YOU would think it's a
> > > > sweatshop, given that you strike me as the type of feminized,
spoiled
> > > > cry-baby who has never held a real job one day in his life.
> > > >
> > > > Tell us, Dan Clore, self-appointed "voice" of the workers -
> > > > what in the hell do YOU do for a living?
> > > >
> > > Can't come up with a real argument so you want to shoot the messenger?
> >
> > Came up with an argument that when right over your little head. Nobody
is
> > being forced to work at Starbucks, McDonalds, Wal-Mart, or whatever
> > corporate villian du juor that grabs the attention of Clore & Co. on a
> given
> > day. If you think the company sucks, quit and work somewhere else. If
you
> > think that all companies suck, start your OWN business and exploit
> yourself.
> >
> > All the people whining and crying about the afforementioned companies
act
> > like the people who work there are being deprived of alternatives
> somewhere
> > else, when they aren't. If they aren't pulling down $100K/year with
> > benefits, it's not because some retail/fast-food chain is holding them
> > hostage and keeping them from working at Microsoft - it's because they
> > simply lack the job skills to do better. Given that education is free
> until
> > 12th grade, and community colleges are ubiquitous and still relatively
> > cheap, whose damn fault is it when somebody refuses to take advantage of
> the
> > educational opportunities available in this country and can't do better
> than
> > flipping burgers and working a computerized cash register?
> >
> >
> So you think unions should be outlawed? Why shouldn't employees be allowed
> to unionize?

Where did I say that unions should be outlawed? Or are your trying to put
words in my mouth because you can't win the argument otherwise?

"Alex Russell" > wrote in message
news:Ffbyc.2604$Qd.1655@clgrps13...
>
> "Stan de SD" > wrote in message
> .net...
> >
> > "Alex Russell" > wrote in message
> > newsrQxc.12808$Dr.11373@edtnps84...
> > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message
> > > news > > > >
> > > > "Dan Clore" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
> > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
> > > > >
> > > > > Starbucks Obstructing First US Union Vote
> > > > > posted by IU/660 on Tuesday June 01 2004 @ 11:44AM PDT
> > > > > June 1, 2004
> > > > > Contact:
> > > > > Starbucks Obstructing First US Union Vote
> > > > >
> > > > > Workers to Schultz: What are you so scared of?
> > > > >
> > > > > New York, NY--The Starbucks Baristas Union and community
> > > > > members across the country have condemned repeated attempts
> > > > > by the company to deny workers a fair vote on the Union.
> > > > > While paying lip-service to respecting the choice of
> > > > > employees, Starbucks has deployed a variety of crude tactics
> > > > > in an effort to defeat the IWW IU/660, which would be the
> > > > > first union certified in the United States at the mammoth chain.
> > > > >
> > > > > Supporters around the country and internationally are
> > > > > contacting Starbucks demanding they live up to their
> > > > > rhetoric. If Starbucks really is a bastion of worker
> > > > > benefits, what is Chairman Howard Schultz, who raked in over
> > > > > $17 million last year, so scared of? The truth is Starbucks,
> > > > > with its poverty wages and rampant repetitive-stress
> > > > > dangers, resembles a sweatshop more than it does a decent
> > > > > place to work.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, and all those 20-something college-age Americans are being
> forced
> > to
> > > > work there against their will, right? I guess YOU would think it's a
> > > > sweatshop, given that you strike me as the type of feminized,
spoiled
> > > > cry-baby who has never held a real job one day in his life.
> > > >
> > > > Tell us, Dan Clore, self-appointed "voice" of the workers -
> > > > what in the hell do YOU do for a living?
> > > >
> > > Can't come up with a real argument so you want to shoot the messenger?
> >
> > Came up with an argument that when right over your little head. Nobody
is
> > being forced to work at Starbucks, McDonalds, Wal-Mart, or whatever
> > corporate villian du juor that grabs the attention of Clore & Co. on a
> given
> > day. If you think the company sucks, quit and work somewhere else. If
you
> > think that all companies suck, start your OWN business and exploit
> yourself.
> >
> > All the people whining and crying about the afforementioned companies
act
> > like the people who work there are being deprived of alternatives
> somewhere
> > else, when they aren't. If they aren't pulling down $100K/year with
> > benefits, it's not because some retail/fast-food chain is holding them
> > hostage and keeping them from working at Microsoft - it's because they
> > simply lack the job skills to do better. Given that education is free
> until
> > 12th grade, and community colleges are ubiquitous and still relatively
> > cheap, whose damn fault is it when somebody refuses to take advantage of
> the
> > educational opportunities available in this country and can't do better
> than
> > flipping burgers and working a computerized cash register?
> >
> >
> So you think unions should be outlawed? Why shouldn't employees be allowed
> to unionize?

Where did I say that unions should be outlawed? Or are your trying to put
words in my mouth because you can't win the argument otherwise?

"Stan de SD" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
>
>
> 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...
>
>
>
> Which rights do you specifically contest?
>
>

The right to restrict mutually supportive union behavior on company property.
The right to solicit and exchange in an equal manner with employees to the
extent that the employer does or is allowed by past practice. Fortunately for
us you and WJ don't write, judge or enforce the laws ... because you are both
completely wrong about what you THINK the laws are opposed to what they really
are. I ABSOLUTELY have the right to do those things, have risked my
employment to do so, have had NLRB charges filed in my behalf for those
actions and continue to exercise those rights today as a union member. An
employer does NOT have the right to control my activities as an American "as
he sees fit". Period.

"Stan de SD" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
>
>
> 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...
>
>
>
> Which rights do you specifically contest?
>
>

The right to restrict mutually supportive union behavior on company property.
The right to solicit and exchange in an equal manner with employees to the
extent that the employer does or is allowed by past practice. Fortunately for
us you and WJ don't write, judge or enforce the laws ... because you are both
completely wrong about what you THINK the laws are opposed to what they really
are. I ABSOLUTELY have the right to do those things, have risked my
employment to do so, have had NLRB charges filed in my behalf for those
actions and continue to exercise those rights today as a union member. An
employer does NOT have the right to control my activities as an American "as
he sees fit". Period.

In article . net>,
"Stan de SD" > wrote:

> "Grain of Sand" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article . net>,
> > "Stan de SD" > wrote:
> >
> > > "Miguel O'Pastel" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > There is no future for capitalism.
> > >
> > > Yeah, yeah. The Russkies said that in 1917, and the Chinese in 1949 -
> but
> > > funny how both of them are reverting to more market-based economies. But
> > > then again, for all their faults, Russians and Chinese are a hell of a
> lot
> > > smarter than you are.
> >
> > Like most capitalists you think short term. There is no future for
> > capitalism.
>
> Look at the shining 2 examples of communism left - Cuba and North Korea -
> and it's clear there's no future for communism.

Errr....first that's state communism, which under normal circumstance I
would agree with you that they would not last long. Second, there is
currently an embargo and sanctions on cuba and korea by a capitalist
nation. What is the US so afraid of, that maybe that the socialist state
will evolve and will work?

Can you show me one capitalist economy that has succeded?


----------------------------------------------
Anarchy: It's not what you think it is!
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html

In article . net>,
"Stan de SD" > wrote:

> "Grain of Sand" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article . net>,
> > "Stan de SD" > wrote:
> >
> > > "Miguel O'Pastel" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > There is no future for capitalism.
> > >
> > > Yeah, yeah. The Russkies said that in 1917, and the Chinese in 1949 -
> but
> > > funny how both of them are reverting to more market-based economies. But
> > > then again, for all their faults, Russians and Chinese are a hell of a
> lot
> > > smarter than you are.
> >
> > Like most capitalists you think short term. There is no future for
> > capitalism.
>
> Look at the shining 2 examples of communism left - Cuba and North Korea -
> and it's clear there's no future for communism.

Errr....first that's state communism, which under normal circumstance I
would agree with you that they would not last long. Second, there is
currently an embargo and sanctions on cuba and korea by a capitalist
nation. What is the US so afraid of, that maybe that the socialist state
will evolve and will work?

Can you show me one capitalist economy that has succeded?


----------------------------------------------
Anarchy: It's not what you think it is!
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html

"Stan de SD" > wrote in message
ink.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?. And
why, as a worker, should I not make a "decent wage" if I am a partner in a
profitable operation?
>
> > 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?

> > 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.

"Stan de SD" > wrote in message
ink.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?. And
why, as a worker, should I not make a "decent wage" if I am a partner in a
profitable operation?
>
> > 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?

> > 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.

"Vendicar Decarian" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Politics in America" ,microsoft> wrote in message
> ...
> > I would like to remind everyone, that we do not have an economy to be
> served
> > by the people, but rather we have an economy to serve the people. People
> > come first. People are more important than money, machines, technology and
> > quarterly returns.
>
> WRONG. GOD comes first. And here in America GOD is MONEY.
>
That is our reality. Wouldn't the dream of "people first" be something to
realize? Probably not in our lifetime.

"Vendicar Decarian" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Politics in America" ,microsoft> wrote in message
> ...
> > I would like to remind everyone, that we do not have an economy to be
> served
> > by the people, but rather we have an economy to serve the people. People
> > come first. People are more important than money, machines, technology and
> > quarterly returns.
>
> WRONG. GOD comes first. And here in America GOD is MONEY.
>
That is our reality. Wouldn't the dream of "people first" be something to
realize? Probably not in our lifetime.

"Stan de SD" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Xyzzy" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message
> k.net>...
> > > "Alex Russell" > wrote in message
> > > newsrQxc.12808$Dr.11373@edtnps84...
> > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message
> > > > news > > > > >
> > > > > "Dan Clore" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
> > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Starbucks Obstructing First US Union Vote
> > > > > > posted by IU/660 on Tuesday June 01 2004 @ 11:44AM PDT
> > > > > > June 1, 2004
> > > > > > Contact:
> > > > > > Starbucks Obstructing First US Union Vote
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Workers to Schultz: What are you so scared of?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > New York, NY--The Starbucks Baristas Union and community
> > > > > > members across the country have condemned repeated attempts
> > > > > > by the company to deny workers a fair vote on the Union.
> > > > > > While paying lip-service to respecting the choice of
> > > > > > employees, Starbucks has deployed a variety of crude tactics
> > > > > > in an effort to defeat the IWW IU/660, which would be the
> > > > > > first union certified in the United States at the mammoth chain.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Supporters around the country and internationally are
> > > > > > contacting Starbucks demanding they live up to their
> > > > > > rhetoric. If Starbucks really is a bastion of worker
> > > > > > benefits, what is Chairman Howard Schultz, who raked in over
> > > > > > $17 million last year, so scared of? The truth is Starbucks,
> > > > > > with its poverty wages and rampant repetitive-stress
> > > > > > dangers, resembles a sweatshop more than it does a decent
> > > > > > place to work.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah, and all those 20-something college-age Americans are being
> forced
> > > to
> > > > > work there against their will, right? I guess YOU would think it's a
> > > > > sweatshop, given that you strike me as the type of feminized,
> spoiled
> > > > > cry-baby who has never held a real job one day in his life.
> > > > >
> > > > > Tell us, Dan Clore, self-appointed "voice" of the workers -
> > > > > what in the hell do YOU do for a living?
> > > > >
> > > > Can't come up with a real argument so you want to shoot the messenger?
> > >
> > > Came up with an argument that when right over your little head. Nobody
> is
> > > being forced to work at Starbucks, McDonalds, Wal-Mart, or whatever
> >
> > And nobody is being forced to own & operate Starbucks, McDonalds,
> > Wal-Mart. If the CEO's don't like unions they can find another job as
> > well.
>
> The union didn't invest in the business - the owners did. A small point you
> choose to overlook.
>
>

Who overlooked it? We just don't agree that this investment in business gives
them any special right to ignore the rights of their employees to unionize.