On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:38:56 GMT, Howard wrote:

"Politics in America" ,microsoft wrote:

Life is not a race or competitive struggle.

What color is the sky on *your* planet?


http://www.ryze.com/go/HowardH

Well said.

William R. James

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:38:56 GMT, Howard wrote:

"Politics in America" ,microsoft wrote:

Life is not a race or competitive struggle.

What color is the sky on *your* planet?


http://www.ryze.com/go/HowardH

Well said.

William R. James

On 11 Jun 2004 09:49:09 -0400, (G*rd*n) wrote:

:
Why would any company want their employees following organized crime
thugs?
...

"G*rd*n" :
One modest regular payment to the OCTs, and, voilà!
Labor peace. Did you really need to ask?

"zztop8970" :
That's not an answer to the question he asked, but to a different
question - "what are the benefits of paying the union, once workers have
unionized".
But, thnaks for conceding that a union is nothing more than a "protection"
scam.

"G*rd*n" :
I simply answered wrjames's question directly. Although it
hardly seems possible, your reading skills have taken a turn
for the worse.

:
No you didn't. You answered why a company would want to pay off the
mob running the union. My question was why theu would want their
employees following a mob boss instead of the managers of the
business.

If you're trying to say that all unions are criminal
organizations, you'll have to provide a lot of evidence
presently missing. I suspected you meant this, but chose to
take your question in square mode for the sake of a little
humor. In fact, some business managers have liked to deal
with unions under the control of organized crime thugs, just
as they sometimes like to deal with other businesses under
the control of organized crime thugs, or governments under
the control of organized crime thugs. Usually, this is
because they are organized crime thugs themselves. I
don't find them or their situation very interesting.

I'm not intimately familiar with every union so cannot say that every
union is run by criminals. However I can say that I have never seen
or heard of a labor union that wasn't either run by criminals,
supporting criminals, and or specifically directing their members to
support criminals. Certialy, the only "action" they have at their
disposal to attempt to force companies to meet their demands requires
criminal acts to be effective. Ever cross a picket line? I have
crossed more than a few. They attempt to use violence, threats,
extortion, and vandalism to prevent decent people from exercising
their rights to work and shop. They go out of their way to encourage
jury duty specificaly to get their cohorts off the hook if they get
arrested for perpetrating such crimes as well. Even work slowdowns are
theft, and employers should have the legal right to answer them with
matching pay slowdowns.

As things stand, unions are simply one possible expression
of the rights of association, contract and representation
supposedly possessed by everyone, including employees. Like
other organizations, they may be occasionally captured or
subverted by organized crime thugs. They are hardly unique
in this regard.

Wrong. The companies' right to NOT associate with them is not
respected. When (former) workers fail to show up for work and walk
around blocking the gate instead, the employers are not allowed to
shop for labor elsewhere and replace them with decent people who are
willing to show up and do the work.

You want freedom of association? Great! So do I. Get government out
of it and respect the rights of the business owner to associate with
whom he pleases too.

William R. James

On 11 Jun 2004 09:49:09 -0400, (G*rd*n) wrote:

:
Why would any company want their employees following organized crime
thugs?
...

"G*rd*n" :
One modest regular payment to the OCTs, and, voilà!
Labor peace. Did you really need to ask?

"zztop8970" :
That's not an answer to the question he asked, but to a different
question - "what are the benefits of paying the union, once workers have
unionized".
But, thnaks for conceding that a union is nothing more than a "protection"
scam.

"G*rd*n" :
I simply answered wrjames's question directly. Although it
hardly seems possible, your reading skills have taken a turn
for the worse.

:
No you didn't. You answered why a company would want to pay off the
mob running the union. My question was why theu would want their
employees following a mob boss instead of the managers of the
business.

If you're trying to say that all unions are criminal
organizations, you'll have to provide a lot of evidence
presently missing. I suspected you meant this, but chose to
take your question in square mode for the sake of a little
humor. In fact, some business managers have liked to deal
with unions under the control of organized crime thugs, just
as they sometimes like to deal with other businesses under
the control of organized crime thugs, or governments under
the control of organized crime thugs. Usually, this is
because they are organized crime thugs themselves. I
don't find them or their situation very interesting.

I'm not intimately familiar with every union so cannot say that every
union is run by criminals. However I can say that I have never seen
or heard of a labor union that wasn't either run by criminals,
supporting criminals, and or specifically directing their members to
support criminals. Certialy, the only "action" they have at their
disposal to attempt to force companies to meet their demands requires
criminal acts to be effective. Ever cross a picket line? I have
crossed more than a few. They attempt to use violence, threats,
extortion, and vandalism to prevent decent people from exercising
their rights to work and shop. They go out of their way to encourage
jury duty specificaly to get their cohorts off the hook if they get
arrested for perpetrating such crimes as well. Even work slowdowns are
theft, and employers should have the legal right to answer them with
matching pay slowdowns.

As things stand, unions are simply one possible expression
of the rights of association, contract and representation
supposedly possessed by everyone, including employees. Like
other organizations, they may be occasionally captured or
subverted by organized crime thugs. They are hardly unique
in this regard.

Wrong. The companies' right to NOT associate with them is not
respected. When (former) workers fail to show up for work and walk
around blocking the gate instead, the employers are not allowed to
shop for labor elsewhere and replace them with decent people who are
willing to show up and do the work.

You want freedom of association? Great! So do I. Get government out
of it and respect the rights of the business owner to associate with
whom he pleases too.

William R. James

On 11 Jun 2004 09:51:46 -0400, (G*rd*n) wrote:

...

:
Are you saying that youcan't get a better price for your labor on the
open market, and that you need a thug organization to keep your price
artificially high?


A truly open market is open to the possibility of cabals --
contracts between suppliers to limit or regulate the supply,
and thus regulate the price. In itself, there is nothing
thuggish about such an arrangement. In some cases the
overall price may actually be lowered by such an
arrangement. Anecdote on request.

Of course it is. So? Are you and your neighbors not free to choose
not to shop at the local market for bread until they lower the price?
Why should it be any different for people buying anything else,
including labor?

William R. James

On 11 Jun 2004 09:51:46 -0400, (G*rd*n) wrote:

...

:
Are you saying that youcan't get a better price for your labor on the
open market, and that you need a thug organization to keep your price
artificially high?


A truly open market is open to the possibility of cabals --
contracts between suppliers to limit or regulate the supply,
and thus regulate the price. In itself, there is nothing
thuggish about such an arrangement. In some cases the
overall price may actually be lowered by such an
arrangement. Anecdote on request.

Of course it is. So? Are you and your neighbors not free to choose
not to shop at the local market for bread until they lower the price?
Why should it be any different for people buying anything else,
including labor?

William R. James

In alt.coffee Michael Legel wrote:
I have no use for employers who abuse their employees.

Then don't see the movie -"The Corporation"..
You will have so much fuel for your argument
that you will over-flow..

colin "leaning somewhat to the left" newell

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
www.coffeecrew.com Colin Newell's Daily Grind
rnewell AT vcn DOT bc DOT ca
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

In alt.coffee Michael Legel wrote:
I have no use for employers who abuse their employees.

Then don't see the movie -"The Corporation"..
You will have so much fuel for your argument
that you will over-flow..

colin "leaning somewhat to the left" newell

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
www.coffeecrew.com Colin Newell's Daily Grind
rnewell AT vcn DOT bc DOT ca
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

"G*rd*n" wrote in message
...
"Alex Russell" :
...
The only problem I have with unions are the "closed shop" rules, but of
course the unions wouldn't have much power without those rules.

I don't like the closed shop rules as they infringe a lot on a person's
right to enter into contracts. I also don't like having unions use
members
dues to promote policies that many members disagree with, eg political
contributions.
...


A closed shop is the outcome of the normal use of the rights
of association and contract. It is not the closed shop
which infringes on the rights of contract, but laws against
the closed shop.


--

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


Generally only the owner of a property can make contracts regarding the
property, but in the case of a "closed shop", it is an association of
employees imposing their contract on all employees of the owner's property.

Employees and the owner do not have the option of working outside of the
union contract except for management jobs. To me this does interfere with
the normal right of individuals to work where they want, under conditions
mutually agreed on by them and the owner. I have not heard of this happening
without government intervention.

It would give employees and the employer more freedom if employees could
choose to join the union, or make their own deal with the owner. I do
understand that in practise owners of large properties have abused their
position as owners and the "closed shop" is meant to even out the real life
balance of power.


--
Alex Russell

"G*rd*n" wrote in message
...
"Alex Russell" :
...
The only problem I have with unions are the "closed shop" rules, but of
course the unions wouldn't have much power without those rules.

I don't like the closed shop rules as they infringe a lot on a person's
right to enter into contracts. I also don't like having unions use
members
dues to promote policies that many members disagree with, eg political
contributions.
...


A closed shop is the outcome of the normal use of the rights
of association and contract. It is not the closed shop
which infringes on the rights of contract, but laws against
the closed shop.


--

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


Generally only the owner of a property can make contracts regarding the
property, but in the case of a "closed shop", it is an association of
employees imposing their contract on all employees of the owner's property.

Employees and the owner do not have the option of working outside of the
union contract except for management jobs. To me this does interfere with
the normal right of individuals to work where they want, under conditions
mutually agreed on by them and the owner. I have not heard of this happening
without government intervention.

It would give employees and the employer more freedom if employees could
choose to join the union, or make their own deal with the owner. I do
understand that in practise owners of large properties have abused their
position as owners and the "closed shop" is meant to even out the real life
balance of power.


--
Alex Russell

"Alex Russell" :
...
The only problem I have with unions are the "closed shop" rules, but of
course the unions wouldn't have much power without those rules.

I don't like the closed shop rules as they infringe a lot on a person's
right to enter into contracts. I also don't like having unions use members
dues to promote policies that many members disagree with, eg political
contributions.
...

"G*rd*n" :
A closed shop is the outcome of the normal use of the rights
of association and contract. It is not the closed shop
which infringes on the rights of contract, but laws against
the closed shop.

"Alex Russell" :
Generally only the owner of a property can make contracts regarding the
property, but in the case of a "closed shop", it is an association of
employees imposing their contract on all employees of the owner's property.
...


Actually, when a union obtains a closed-shop contract with an
employer, it is simply dealing with the employer. Many
contracts may disadvantageously affect hypothetical third
parties, such as marriage, but in liberalism, which is our
frame of reference when we're talking about unions, that
isn't usually held to be an impediment to contracts.

The union members also contract with one another to form an
organization (the union). It is hard to imagine an effective
organization of any size which had to obtain the consent of
every single one of its members to do anything. Hence it
seems to me that the complaint about the use of dues (or
anything else the union does) being against the wishes of some
of its members is hardly valid.

--

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

"Alex Russell" :
...
The only problem I have with unions are the "closed shop" rules, but of
course the unions wouldn't have much power without those rules.

I don't like the closed shop rules as they infringe a lot on a person's
right to enter into contracts. I also don't like having unions use members
dues to promote policies that many members disagree with, eg political
contributions.
...

"G*rd*n" :
A closed shop is the outcome of the normal use of the rights
of association and contract. It is not the closed shop
which infringes on the rights of contract, but laws against
the closed shop.

"Alex Russell" :
Generally only the owner of a property can make contracts regarding the
property, but in the case of a "closed shop", it is an association of
employees imposing their contract on all employees of the owner's property.
...


Actually, when a union obtains a closed-shop contract with an
employer, it is simply dealing with the employer. Many
contracts may disadvantageously affect hypothetical third
parties, such as marriage, but in liberalism, which is our
frame of reference when we're talking about unions, that
isn't usually held to be an impediment to contracts.

The union members also contract with one another to form an
organization (the union). It is hard to imagine an effective
organization of any size which had to obtain the consent of
every single one of its members to do anything. Hence it
seems to me that the complaint about the use of dues (or
anything else the union does) being against the wishes of some
of its members is hardly valid.

--

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

"Stan de SD" wrote in message thlink.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.

....
....
....
Well ya know...I was in a Starbucks in Manhattan
recently...somewhere to get out of the sun...and I chanced a small
coffee. I got it in about 5 minutes and there were nine people behind
the counter. Nine! We opertate a shop with comprable rushes with one
at the most two people behind the bar and everyone is taken care of
quickly and curtiously...there is absolutely no need for nine
people...even four people to be working at the same time behind the
counter unless they really are that inept that they can't possibly
work the automatic espresso machine and a blender at the same time.
Whats lacking here is training and efficiency(and possibly the desire
to work). No wonder they don't get much...with that kind of over
staffing I can't see how they could swing more.....does a button
puisher deserve more?
well....anyhow...if Starbucks is a sweatshop it is only because of all
that extra body heat being thrown off by the hord of PBTCs.
-Chris Deferio
-May your coffee be deep-

"Stan de SD" wrote in message thlink.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.

....
....
....
Well ya know...I was in a Starbucks in Manhattan
recently...somewhere to get out of the sun...and I chanced a small
coffee. I got it in about 5 minutes and there were nine people behind
the counter. Nine! We opertate a shop with comprable rushes with one
at the most two people behind the bar and everyone is taken care of
quickly and curtiously...there is absolutely no need for nine
people...even four people to be working at the same time behind the
counter unless they really are that inept that they can't possibly
work the automatic espresso machine and a blender at the same time.
Whats lacking here is training and efficiency(and possibly the desire
to work). No wonder they don't get much...with that kind of over
staffing I can't see how they could swing more.....does a button
puisher deserve more?
well....anyhow...if Starbucks is a sweatshop it is only because of all
that extra body heat being thrown off by the hord of PBTCs.
-Chris Deferio
-May your coffee be deep-

Alan wrote in message
...
On 10 Jun 2004 16:41:19 -0500, Wm James
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 08:32:44 -0500, Alan wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 05:06:17 GMT, "zztop8970" wrote:


"G*rd*n" wrote in message
...
...


:
Why would any company want their employees following organized
crime
thugs?
...

One modest regular payment to the OCTs, and, voilà!
Labor peace. Did you really need to ask?

That's not an answer to the question he asked, but to a different
question - "what are the benefits of paying the union, once workers
have
unionized".
But, thnaks for conceding that a union is nothing more than a
"protection"
scam.


I've been in a union for 25 years, and I know that, without it, my
salary would have been lower, the working conditions worse (lots of
uncompensated overtime, for example) and I would either be dead from
the stress and/or unemployed by now!

They aren't all bad, and the situations vary as to whether or not a
union is needed and is effective. In my case it was both needed and
effective.



Are you saying that youcan't get a better price for your labor on the
open market, and that you need a thug organization to keep your price
artificially high?

William R. Jam


No, I'm saying that being able to bargain as a group got us better
salary and working conditions than if we had to deal with management
on an individual basis.

As for the "open market", I have no desire to free-lance, and being in
a union has meant that I could continue to work at the organization I
work at -- because I want to work for that organization.


Huh. Sounds like you work for Disney.....people want to work there, but
without a decent union, the working conditions can be horrible.....I'm
referring to WDW, in particular.