|
So what exactly does Dan Clore do for a living anyway?
"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 > > > news:prQxc.12808$Dr.11373@edtnps84... > > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message > > > > hlink.net... > > > > > > > > > > "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 > > > > > > $17 million last year, so scared of? The truth is Starbucks, > > > > > > with its poverty wages and rampant repetitive-stress > > > > > > dangers, resembles a sweatshop more than it does a decent > > > > > > place to work. > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, and all those 20-something college-age Americans are being > forced > > > to > > > > > work there against their will, right? I guess YOU would think it's a > > > > > sweatshop, given that you strike me as the type of feminized, > spoiled > > > > > cry-baby who has never held a real job one day in his life. > > > > > > > > > > Tell us, Dan Clore, self-appointed "voice" of the workers - > > > > > what in the hell do YOU do for a living? > > > > > > > > > Can't come up with a real argument so you want to shoot the messenger? > > > > > > Came up with an argument that when right over your little head. Nobody > is > > > being forced to work at Starbucks, McDonalds, Wal-Mart, or whatever > > > > And nobody is being forced to own & operate Starbucks, McDonalds, > > Wal-Mart. If the CEO's don't like unions they can find another job as > > well. > > The union didn't invest in the business - the owners did. A small point you > choose to overlook. > > Who overlooked it? We just don't agree that this investment in business gives them any special right to ignore the rights of their employees to unionize. |
So what exactly does Dan Clore do for a living anyway?
"Michael Legel" > wrote in message s.com... > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message > ink.net... > > > > "Xyzzy" > wrote in message > > om... > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message > > k.net>... > > > > "Alex Russell" > wrote in message > > > > news:prQxc.12808$Dr.11373@edtnps84... > > > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message > > > > > hlink.net... > > > > > > > > > > > > "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 > > > > > > > $17 million last year, so scared of? The truth is Starbucks, > > > > > > > with its poverty wages and rampant repetitive-stress > > > > > > > dangers, resembles a sweatshop more than it does a decent > > > > > > > place to work. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, and all those 20-something college-age Americans are being > > forced > > > > to > > > > > > work there against their will, right? I guess YOU would think it's a > > > > > > sweatshop, given that you strike me as the type of feminized, > > spoiled > > > > > > cry-baby who has never held a real job one day in his life. > > > > > > > > > > > > Tell us, Dan Clore, self-appointed "voice" of the workers - > > > > > > what in the hell do YOU do for a living? > > > > > > > > > > > Can't come up with a real argument so you want to shoot the messenger? > > > > > > > > Came up with an argument that when right over your little head. Nobody > > is > > > > being forced to work at Starbucks, McDonalds, Wal-Mart, or whatever > > > > > > And nobody is being forced to own & operate Starbucks, McDonalds, > > > Wal-Mart. If the CEO's don't like unions they can find another job as > > > well. > > > > The union didn't invest in the business - the owners did. A small point you > > choose to overlook. > > Who overlooked it? We just don't agree that this investment in business gives > them any special right to ignore the rights of their employees to unionize. Investment entails property rights. I know that's a concept that lefties don't care for, but those who invest in a business do have rights concerning their property, despite the ceaseless efforts of socialists to take them away... |
So what exactly does Dan Clore do for a living anyway?
"Michael Legel" > wrote in message s.com... > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message > ink.net... > > > > "Xyzzy" > wrote in message > > om... > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message > > k.net>... > > > > "Alex Russell" > wrote in message > > > > news:prQxc.12808$Dr.11373@edtnps84... > > > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message > > > > > hlink.net... > > > > > > > > > > > > "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. Investment entails property rights. I know that's a concept that lefties don't care for, but those who invest in a business do have rights concerning their property, despite the ceaseless efforts of socialists to take them away... |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
"Michael Legel" > wrote in message s.com... > > "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. And when one is forced to join a union to keep one's job? |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
"Michael Legel" > wrote in message s.com... > > "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. And when one is forced to join a union to keep one's job? |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
"Michael Legel" > wrote in message s.com... > > "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? No, individualism and collectivism are the choices - everything is a matter of degree along that spectrum. |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
"Michael Legel" > wrote in message s.com... > > "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? No, individualism and collectivism are the choices - everything is a matter of degree along that spectrum. |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
"Grain of Sand" > wrote in message ... > 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. Sorry, Cuba is starving because it's ruled by a geriatric dictator who refuses to learn. They can import from Canada, Mexico, and Europe - they simply have no money due to their failed economic system. > What is the US so afraid of, that maybe that the socialist state > will evolve and will work? Importing nukes in the 1960's, running drugs and supporting terrorists today probably have a lot to do with the continued embargo. > Can you show me one capitalist economy that has succeded? If you're posting from the USA, look around. |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
"Grain of Sand" > wrote in message ... > 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. Sorry, Cuba is starving because it's ruled by a geriatric dictator who refuses to learn. They can import from Canada, Mexico, and Europe - they simply have no money due to their failed economic system. > What is the US so afraid of, that maybe that the socialist state > will evolve and will work? Importing nukes in the 1960's, running drugs and supporting terrorists today probably have a lot to do with the continued embargo. > Can you show me one capitalist economy that has succeded? If you're posting from the USA, look around. |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
"Michael Legel" > wrote in message s.com... > > "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?. So you refuse to acknowledge any personal responsibility for learning new skills on your own? > And > why, as a worker, should I not make a "decent wage" if I am a partner in a > profitable operation? "Partners" and employees are two different entities. Unless you're putting up your own capital and assuming the risk/responsibilities of a principal, you're not a partner. > > > 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? You, like Mr. Clore, seem to be quite ignorant about the financial risks taken to start up a new business. > And you don't think workers take any risks on the job? I was referring to FINANCIAL RISKS, not physical risks, dimwit. If you choose to leave your job tomorrow, your employer is required by law to pay all money owed to you, even though you are cutting and running. Employees don't share the same financial risks as owners and investors, so they don't get the same benefits and compensation. > > > 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. Thanks for doing your best to avoid the issue. Sounds like you're merely another mindless union stooge... |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
"Michael Legel" > wrote in message s.com... > > "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?. So you refuse to acknowledge any personal responsibility for learning new skills on your own? > And > why, as a worker, should I not make a "decent wage" if I am a partner in a > profitable operation? "Partners" and employees are two different entities. Unless you're putting up your own capital and assuming the risk/responsibilities of a principal, you're not a partner. > > > 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? You, like Mr. Clore, seem to be quite ignorant about the financial risks taken to start up a new business. > And you don't think workers take any risks on the job? I was referring to FINANCIAL RISKS, not physical risks, dimwit. If you choose to leave your job tomorrow, your employer is required by law to pay all money owed to you, even though you are cutting and running. Employees don't share the same financial risks as owners and investors, so they don't get the same benefits and compensation. > > > 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. Thanks for doing your best to avoid the issue. Sounds like you're merely another mindless union stooge... |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
"Michael Legel" > wrote in message s.com... > > "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. Which people? The self-described "activists" who think they have some right to impose their wishes upon everyone else? |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
"Michael Legel" > wrote in message s.com... > > "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. Which people? The self-described "activists" who think they have some right to impose their wishes upon everyone else? |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
"Stan de SD" > wrote in message ink.net... > > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message > s.com... > > > > "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. > > And when one is forced to join a union to keep one's job? > > Sorry, that is illegal. You can't force someone to join a union. |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
"Stan de SD" > wrote in message ink.net... > > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message > s.com... > > > > "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. > > And when one is forced to join a union to keep one's job? > > Sorry, that is illegal. You can't force someone to join a union. |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
"Stan de SD" > wrote in message ink.net... > > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message > s.com... > > > > "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?. > > So you refuse to acknowledge any personal responsibility for learning new > skills on your own? I asked a question. I didn't say I refused to do anything. YOU say there is some personal responsibility to do this and I simply question why you believe this is so. Do you think the employer has NO responsibility in training employees? > > > And > > why, as a worker, should I not make a "decent wage" if I am a partner in a > > profitable operation? > > "Partners" and employees are two different entities. Unless you're putting > up your own capital and assuming the risk/responsibilities of a principal, > you're not a partner. So you have defined the word partner to exclude the employee? Yet you expect employees to act in a loyal manner, not like they were store bought dummies, yet you treat them like store bought dummies (or home grown dummies for that manner?) Whether you like it or not, employees can make or break a company. Treating them like chattel is foolish in my opinion. > > > > > 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? > > You, like Mr. Clore, seem to be quite ignorant about the financial risks > taken to start up a new business. I am not at all ignorant of these things. I just queston your assertion that these financial risks make employers somehow more equal than the employees. > > > And you don't think workers take any risks on the job? > > I was referring to FINANCIAL RISKS, not physical risks, dimwit. If you > choose to leave your job tomorrow, your employer is required by law to pay > all money owed to you, even though you are cutting and running. Employees > don't share the same financial risks as owners and investors, so they don't > get the same benefits and compensation. Now I'm a dimwit because I question you? You are right in a way because the employees have much more at risk due to unequal pay they receive. The business owner "might" lose his business, the employee his home. > > > > > 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. > > Thanks for doing your best to avoid the issue. Sounds like you're merely > another mindless union stooge... I answered each point specifically. You just don't like the answers from this "dimwit" "mindless union stooge". Your explanations aren't nearly as colorful as your attempted insults. So what is the issue I have avoided? |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
"Stan de SD" > wrote in message ink.net... > > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message > s.com... > > > > "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?. > > So you refuse to acknowledge any personal responsibility for learning new > skills on your own? I asked a question. I didn't say I refused to do anything. YOU say there is some personal responsibility to do this and I simply question why you believe this is so. Do you think the employer has NO responsibility in training employees? > > > And > > why, as a worker, should I not make a "decent wage" if I am a partner in a > > profitable operation? > > "Partners" and employees are two different entities. Unless you're putting > up your own capital and assuming the risk/responsibilities of a principal, > you're not a partner. So you have defined the word partner to exclude the employee? Yet you expect employees to act in a loyal manner, not like they were store bought dummies, yet you treat them like store bought dummies (or home grown dummies for that manner?) Whether you like it or not, employees can make or break a company. Treating them like chattel is foolish in my opinion. > > > > > 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? > > You, like Mr. Clore, seem to be quite ignorant about the financial risks > taken to start up a new business. I am not at all ignorant of these things. I just queston your assertion that these financial risks make employers somehow more equal than the employees. > > > And you don't think workers take any risks on the job? > > I was referring to FINANCIAL RISKS, not physical risks, dimwit. If you > choose to leave your job tomorrow, your employer is required by law to pay > all money owed to you, even though you are cutting and running. Employees > don't share the same financial risks as owners and investors, so they don't > get the same benefits and compensation. Now I'm a dimwit because I question you? You are right in a way because the employees have much more at risk due to unequal pay they receive. The business owner "might" lose his business, the employee his home. > > > > > 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. > > Thanks for doing your best to avoid the issue. Sounds like you're merely > another mindless union stooge... I answered each point specifically. You just don't like the answers from this "dimwit" "mindless union stooge". Your explanations aren't nearly as colorful as your attempted insults. So what is the issue I have avoided? |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
"Stan de SD" > wrote in message ink.net... > > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message > s.com... > > > > "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. > > Which people? The self-described "activists" who think they have some right > to impose their wishes upon everyone else? ALL people Stan. Even you. Imagine a world where people were ALWAYS more important than money. Hard to imagine and probably never attainable, but a nice thought. Ever have a nice thought about mankind Stan? |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
"Stan de SD" > wrote in message ink.net... > > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message > s.com... > > > > "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. > > Which people? The self-described "activists" who think they have some right > to impose their wishes upon everyone else? ALL people Stan. Even you. Imagine a world where people were ALWAYS more important than money. Hard to imagine and probably never attainable, but a nice thought. Ever have a nice thought about mankind Stan? |
So what exactly does Dan Clore do for a living anyway?
"Stan de SD" > wrote in message ink.net... > > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message > s.com... > > > > 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. > > Investment entails property rights. I know that's a concept that lefties > don't care for, but those who invest in a business do have rights concerning > their property, despite the ceaseless efforts of socialists to take them > away... Agreed. Investment entails property rights. Fortunately employees are not property. Employees have rights, even on business property. Imagine that. A country with rights for everyone in the business. |
So what exactly does Dan Clore do for a living anyway?
"Stan de SD" > wrote in message ink.net... > > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message > s.com... > > > > 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. > > Investment entails property rights. I know that's a concept that lefties > don't care for, but those who invest in a business do have rights concerning > their property, despite the ceaseless efforts of socialists to take them > away... Agreed. Investment entails property rights. Fortunately employees are not property. Employees have rights, even on business property. Imagine that. A country with rights for everyone in the business. |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
in article , Wm James at
wrote on 06/20/2004 3:58 AM: > However, like I said, there > have NEVER been atime when people weren't free to form or join alabor > union. It was a trick question. Tricky? C'mon, William! Even _YOU_ can do better than that. It is an undeniable fact of history that, for much of America's past, people were NOT free to form or join a labor union, IF in doing so they actually meant to try to agree with others concerning means by which they might better their wages, hours, or working conditions. If they tried to do so they found themselves locked up and branded as thugs who favored monopolies. Again, read the preamble to the NLRA, which I've posted. Now, I fully understand what you've said, that YOU: Don't care what the Republicans wanted; or, Don't care what the Democrats wanted; or, Hate unions; and, Hate people who join unions; and, Don't care what the hell the law is, or has been. Hey, _I_ happen to HATE the fact that the sun comes up in the East. But, sorry, it'll still keep on doing so. HH |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
in article , Wm James at
wrote on 06/20/2004 4:14 AM: > On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 00:42:20 +0000 (UTC), Hawth Hill > > wrote: > >> in article , Wm James at >> wrote on 06/17/2004 4:55 PM: >> >>>>> Business owners want the same rights as everyone else. They don't want >>>>> the government there infringing on their rights to benefit a group of >>>>> thugs. >>>> >>>> Read the law. Check the cases. >>>> >>>> The law imposes ONLY the simple burden of negotiation in good faith. >>> >>> And the employees don't have that burden at all. They can quit anytime >>> they like. If they don't like the offer they can say no thanks and >>> take their business elsewhere with no possibility of penalty. Why >>> shouldn't the business owner have the same rights? >> >> William, let me say it in words that are simple. . . . The National Labor >> Relations Act imposes EXACTLY the SAME obligation to "bargain in good faith" >> upon BOTH side. Jeez, it's right there in black and white. > > Nonsense. They have NEVER done so and can't bu definition. The > bisiness is the property of the employer. It's not equal sides. Any > worker can quiot without reason at any time. That's often not the case > with the employers. > >>>> If an employer does so, and still no agreement results, and if the employer >>>> chooses to continue his business by hiring permanent replacements for those >>>> who strike, the government will do NOTHING to him. >>> >>> Wanna bet? It's illegal. Not constittionally illegal, but illegal and >>> enforced none the less. William, that's simply pathetic. So, you admit that what I've said is "the law." Yet, you claim that it's, no matter what, just not what happens. Pitiful! >> >> That's a bet that I truly wish it were possible to take you up on. Because, >> if you have anything to lose, and if I have anything to lose, I'd be >> perfectly willing to make it a "winner take all" bet. Check the facts and >> the cases. Employers all across America have for many years, even decades, >> routinely managed to "bargain to impasse." And, having done so, they have >> for the same time been perfectly free to impose their last offer to the >> collective bargaining representative unilaterally. No ifs, ands, or buts. >> If the employer has offered it, and has bargained to impasse, he's >> absolutely free to impose it. Regardless of what the union wants. And >> without the necessity to reinstate any employees who have gone out on strike >> who have been permanently replaced. That's the law, and it's been the law >> for decades and decades. And it's been used over and over and over by >> employers. > > Then take me up on it because I know what of I speak. So called > "unfair labor practice" strikes do not allow the bums to be replaced > with workers. That's a fact. Not constitutional, but a fact of life. Again one of your alleged "real-world" pathetic claims. Even though thousands (literally) of cases, and thousands of lawyers (literally) easily and absolutely prove the precise opposite. I say again, if the employer bargains in good faith to impasse, he is absolutely free to impose the terms of his last offer unilaterally, and to permanently replace the workers who have gone out on strike and voluntarily chosen to withhold their services. . . . Period! If that isn't true, then many thousands of labor law specialists in the U.S. Who represent employers are guilty of legal malpractice and are gonna hafta pony up megabucks as damages to the employers they've represented and advised. . . . Ain't gonna happen. HH |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
in article , Wm James at
wrote on 06/20/2004 4:14 AM: > On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 00:42:20 +0000 (UTC), Hawth Hill > > wrote: > >> in article , Wm James at >> wrote on 06/17/2004 4:55 PM: >> >>>>> Business owners want the same rights as everyone else. They don't want >>>>> the government there infringing on their rights to benefit a group of >>>>> thugs. >>>> >>>> Read the law. Check the cases. >>>> >>>> The law imposes ONLY the simple burden of negotiation in good faith. >>> >>> And the employees don't have that burden at all. They can quit anytime >>> they like. If they don't like the offer they can say no thanks and >>> take their business elsewhere with no possibility of penalty. Why >>> shouldn't the business owner have the same rights? >> >> William, let me say it in words that are simple. . . . The National Labor >> Relations Act imposes EXACTLY the SAME obligation to "bargain in good faith" >> upon BOTH side. Jeez, it's right there in black and white. > > Nonsense. They have NEVER done so and can't bu definition. The > bisiness is the property of the employer. It's not equal sides. Any > worker can quiot without reason at any time. That's often not the case > with the employers. > >>>> If an employer does so, and still no agreement results, and if the employer >>>> chooses to continue his business by hiring permanent replacements for those >>>> who strike, the government will do NOTHING to him. >>> >>> Wanna bet? It's illegal. Not constittionally illegal, but illegal and >>> enforced none the less. William, that's simply pathetic. So, you admit that what I've said is "the law." Yet, you claim that it's, no matter what, just not what happens. Pitiful! >> >> That's a bet that I truly wish it were possible to take you up on. Because, >> if you have anything to lose, and if I have anything to lose, I'd be >> perfectly willing to make it a "winner take all" bet. Check the facts and >> the cases. Employers all across America have for many years, even decades, >> routinely managed to "bargain to impasse." And, having done so, they have >> for the same time been perfectly free to impose their last offer to the >> collective bargaining representative unilaterally. No ifs, ands, or buts. >> If the employer has offered it, and has bargained to impasse, he's >> absolutely free to impose it. Regardless of what the union wants. And >> without the necessity to reinstate any employees who have gone out on strike >> who have been permanently replaced. That's the law, and it's been the law >> for decades and decades. And it's been used over and over and over by >> employers. > > Then take me up on it because I know what of I speak. So called > "unfair labor practice" strikes do not allow the bums to be replaced > with workers. That's a fact. Not constitutional, but a fact of life. Again one of your alleged "real-world" pathetic claims. Even though thousands (literally) of cases, and thousands of lawyers (literally) easily and absolutely prove the precise opposite. I say again, if the employer bargains in good faith to impasse, he is absolutely free to impose the terms of his last offer unilaterally, and to permanently replace the workers who have gone out on strike and voluntarily chosen to withhold their services. . . . Period! If that isn't true, then many thousands of labor law specialists in the U.S. Who represent employers are guilty of legal malpractice and are gonna hafta pony up megabucks as damages to the employers they've represented and advised. . . . Ain't gonna happen. HH |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
in article , Wm James at
wrote on 06/20/2004 4:17 AM: >> As I've already observed, that statement marks you as a closed minded >> person. > > Interesting that people without any logical refutation seem so often > to rely on calling people close minded as a substitute. > >> One who doesn't give a hang for the democratic process that has led to the >> enactment of laws. Laws that have been enacted and enforced for decades and >> decades by both Republicans and Democrats alike. > > AKA socialists with no respect for the constitution. > >> As such, there's no point in further discussion with you. >> >> HH > > Apparently not, if you are unwilling to learn. O.K., William. Let's let it go at that. I'll continue to post here. I'll assume that you'll do the same. As is the choice of each of us. But, just don't, please, advance any claim that silence regarding any of your nonsensical postings is to be taken as assent or agreement. Let's just let it go that neither of us thinks that the other is worth the trouble. HH |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
in article , Wm James at
wrote on 06/20/2004 4:17 AM: >> As I've already observed, that statement marks you as a closed minded >> person. > > Interesting that people without any logical refutation seem so often > to rely on calling people close minded as a substitute. > >> One who doesn't give a hang for the democratic process that has led to the >> enactment of laws. Laws that have been enacted and enforced for decades and >> decades by both Republicans and Democrats alike. > > AKA socialists with no respect for the constitution. > >> As such, there's no point in further discussion with you. >> >> HH > > Apparently not, if you are unwilling to learn. O.K., William. Let's let it go at that. I'll continue to post here. I'll assume that you'll do the same. As is the choice of each of us. But, just don't, please, advance any claim that silence regarding any of your nonsensical postings is to be taken as assent or agreement. Let's just let it go that neither of us thinks that the other is worth the trouble. HH |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
in article , Wm James at
wrote on 06/20/2004 4:29 AM: > I have. And someday I hope we have a supreme court which respects the > constitution. Well, laddie, hate to tell ya, but according to Marbury v. Madison, it's the SC that determines just what's constitutional and what's not. Whether you, me, or the lamp post agrees with 'em. Now, THAT'S constitutional. . . Has been for nearly 200 years. HH |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
in article , Wm James at
wrote on 06/20/2004 4:29 AM: > I have. And someday I hope we have a supreme court which respects the > constitution. Well, laddie, hate to tell ya, but according to Marbury v. Madison, it's the SC that determines just what's constitutional and what's not. Whether you, me, or the lamp post agrees with 'em. Now, THAT'S constitutional. . . Has been for nearly 200 years. HH |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
in article , Wm James at
wrote on 06/20/2004 4:35 AM: > 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. Yep, that's the gist of what you "said". And the gist of what I said, and still say, is that the SC and ALL the circuit courts of appeal, and the Board, have decided that WORKERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN CERTAIN ORGANIZATIONAL ACTIVITIES DURING WORKING HOURS AND AT THE WORK PLACE. Over the past three decades the Board and the courts have refined and revised certain details of the law regarding the situation you go on about, but, without exception, each and every precedent has adhered to the principle that the NLRA grants and protects the rights of workers to engage in union or other protected, concerted activities in efforts to preserve or protect their wages, hour or working conditions. Each and every such precedent has also recognized the truth of the principle announced decades ago that "the workplace is a _PARTICULARLY_ appropriate place" for workers to conduct such activities. Go hire a lawyer. No matter which side he's on normally. He'll tell you the exact same thing. That's what the cases hold. No matter whether YOU, or ME, or the lamp post like it or not. It's hopeless to debate this with you, oh, closed minded one, but, that's the law. . . . Go ahead and take your point of view. You'll lose if you try to impose your viewpoint in any workplace that is unfortunate enough to be controlled by you. And, it'll cost you big-time. And you'll be saddled with a union that you possibly didn't need to be saddled with. Talk about playing right into the opposition's hands! Just plain dumb! HH |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
in article , Wm James at
wrote on 06/20/2004 4:35 AM: > 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. Yep, that's the gist of what you "said". And the gist of what I said, and still say, is that the SC and ALL the circuit courts of appeal, and the Board, have decided that WORKERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN CERTAIN ORGANIZATIONAL ACTIVITIES DURING WORKING HOURS AND AT THE WORK PLACE. Over the past three decades the Board and the courts have refined and revised certain details of the law regarding the situation you go on about, but, without exception, each and every precedent has adhered to the principle that the NLRA grants and protects the rights of workers to engage in union or other protected, concerted activities in efforts to preserve or protect their wages, hour or working conditions. Each and every such precedent has also recognized the truth of the principle announced decades ago that "the workplace is a _PARTICULARLY_ appropriate place" for workers to conduct such activities. Go hire a lawyer. No matter which side he's on normally. He'll tell you the exact same thing. That's what the cases hold. No matter whether YOU, or ME, or the lamp post like it or not. It's hopeless to debate this with you, oh, closed minded one, but, that's the law. . . . Go ahead and take your point of view. You'll lose if you try to impose your viewpoint in any workplace that is unfortunate enough to be controlled by you. And, it'll cost you big-time. And you'll be saddled with a union that you possibly didn't need to be saddled with. Talk about playing right into the opposition's hands! Just plain dumb! HH |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
in article , Michael Legel
at wrote on 06/20/2004 10:32 PM: > 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. Hear! Hear! Absolute truth! The NLRB and its employees don't give a hoot whether the employer or the union wins elections. But, both it and they give a BIG hoot whether the election is conducted in such a way that employees are, in fact, TRULY free to make the choices that the NLRA was passed to guarantee. . . . THEIR free choices. Read the Act. It says not a single word about the right to choose belonging to anyone other than the affected employees. . . . Like it or not, that's the law. HH |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
in article , Michael Legel
at wrote on 06/20/2004 10:32 PM: > 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. Hear! Hear! Absolute truth! The NLRB and its employees don't give a hoot whether the employer or the union wins elections. But, both it and they give a BIG hoot whether the election is conducted in such a way that employees are, in fact, TRULY free to make the choices that the NLRA was passed to guarantee. . . . THEIR free choices. Read the Act. It says not a single word about the right to choose belonging to anyone other than the affected employees. . . . Like it or not, that's the law. HH |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
G*rd*n wrote:
>>>>... > > > : > >>>>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. We might distinguish between two kinds of advantage: 1) Monopolistic advantage. When companies join into a cartel, they are trying to get a monopolistic advantage, improving their lot at the expense of the customer. 2) Efficiency advantage. When people join into a company, often the point of this is to be able to produce more product with the same effort, so they can sell more and make more money. This has the indirect effect of lowering prices and improving the lot of the customer along with the producer. Long story short, unions do not get their fame from making workers more efficient. |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
G*rd*n wrote:
>>>>... > > > : > >>>>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. We might distinguish between two kinds of advantage: 1) Monopolistic advantage. When companies join into a cartel, they are trying to get a monopolistic advantage, improving their lot at the expense of the customer. 2) Efficiency advantage. When people join into a company, often the point of this is to be able to produce more product with the same effort, so they can sell more and make more money. This has the indirect effect of lowering prices and improving the lot of the customer along with the producer. Long story short, unions do not get their fame from making workers more efficient. |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
"Ed Faith" > wrote in message .. . > G*rd*n wrote: > > >>>>... > > > > > > : > > > >>>>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. > > We might distinguish between two kinds of advantage: > > 1) Monopolistic advantage. When companies join into a cartel, they are > trying to get a monopolistic advantage, improving their lot at the > expense of the customer. > > 2) Efficiency advantage. When people join into a company, often the > point of this is to be able to produce more product with the same > effort, so they can sell more and make more money. This has the indirect > effect of lowering prices and improving the lot of the customer along > with the producer. > > Long story short, unions do not get their fame from making workers more > efficient. > No, but believe it or not, when employers and unions cooperate it makes the management of employees more efficient. |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
"Ed Faith" > wrote in message .. . > G*rd*n wrote: > > >>>>... > > > > > > : > > > >>>>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. > > We might distinguish between two kinds of advantage: > > 1) Monopolistic advantage. When companies join into a cartel, they are > trying to get a monopolistic advantage, improving their lot at the > expense of the customer. > > 2) Efficiency advantage. When people join into a company, often the > point of this is to be able to produce more product with the same > effort, so they can sell more and make more money. This has the indirect > effect of lowering prices and improving the lot of the customer along > with the producer. > > Long story short, unions do not get their fame from making workers more > efficient. > No, but believe it or not, when employers and unions cooperate it makes the management of employees more efficient. |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
Grain of Sand wrote:
> 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? The issue you are addressing is whether there's no future for communism. In the first sentence, you state explicitly that you agree, but then in the next two sentences you seem to be trying to argue that the statement (which you stated you agreed with) is wrong. Is that what you're doing? > Can you show me one capitalist economy that has succeded? The more capitalist an economy is, the better it does. Very capitalist: Hong Kong. Very uncapitalist: Cuba. |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
Grain of Sand wrote:
> 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? The issue you are addressing is whether there's no future for communism. In the first sentence, you state explicitly that you agree, but then in the next two sentences you seem to be trying to argue that the statement (which you stated you agreed with) is wrong. Is that what you're doing? > Can you show me one capitalist economy that has succeded? The more capitalist an economy is, the better it does. Very capitalist: Hong Kong. Very uncapitalist: Cuba. |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
:
>>>>> 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? "G*rd*n" >: >> Collective behavior is often advantageous. That's why >> corporations and partnerships exist. "Stan de SD" >: > And "collective behavior" is only just if you have the option of getting > out, something that most union types don't agree to. So you think families are unjust, for instance. They're a form of collectivity one has no choice about at birth. I suppose you could say the same thing about states, counties, towns, and neighborhoods. All "unjust". But in regard to unions, I don't see the problem. If you don't like the union, and it has a closed-shop contract with the employer, you quit the job, just as, if you don't like the corporation you quit the job. I don't know of anywhere in the U.S. where you can be compelled to work for or with either, unless you're a prisoner being rented out -- and maybe not then either. You still haven't answered my question about the liberal rights, by the way. Clearly, if you agree with wrjames, you don't think employees should have the rights of free speech, association, contract and representation. But we don't know what else you want to do away with. I would also like to hear from wrjames on the issue, since he was the one who said that unions are "inherently evil". -- (<><>) /*/ }"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{ { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:30 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter