| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|||
|
|||
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
"Dan Clore" > wrote in message ... > Have you ever seen the phrase "We the people"? It only appears in Communist documents - Including the one you are alluding to. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
"Dan Clore" > wrote in message ... > Have you ever seen the phrase "We the people"? It only appears in Communist documents - Including the one you are alluding to. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
in article , Hawth Hill at
wrote on 06/21/2004 1:10 AM: > in article , Wm James at > wrote on 06/20/2004 4:35 AM: > >> But recognize the business owner's right to tell you to >> participate in such things during your own time instead of his. I repeat, there is no such right as you claim exists. I said earlier that I was a bit tired, and didn't feel like spending the time to do legal research to refute your claim that it is a "business owner's right to tell [workers] to participate in such thing during [their] own time instead of his." Here's a brief review of the law regarding the subject. Your claim is patently contrary to the law. Read below. The NLRB finds that the right of employees to organize for collective bargaining is a strong Section 7 right, "at the very core of the purpose for which the NLRB was enacted." New Process Co., 290 NLRB 704, 705 (1988). "In any litany of the ways in which employees organize themselves for collective bargaining, their day to day discussions and interchange of ideas surely ranks very high; for this reason it is regarded as protected activity. Thus, an employee¹s efforts to speak with, and convince others of the validity of his ideas and feelings about the cause of unionism, must generally be regarded as protected as well." Ibid at 716. The Supreme Court has weighed in on the very same subject, saying that the right of employees to communicate with each other concerning the desirability of organizing is one which is protected by Section 7 of the Act. For, the effectiveness of organization rights "depends in some measure on the ability of employees to learn the advantages and disadvantages of organization from others. Early in the history of the administration of the Act the Board recognized the importance of freedom of communication to the free exercise of organization rights." (Citation omitted.) Central Hardware v. N.L.R.B, 407 U.S. 539, 543; 92 S.Ct. 2238, 2241 (1972). ³Direct personal contact is the most truly effective means of communicating not only the option of collective bargaining, but the most compelling reasons for exercising that option.² Belcher Towing Company, 256 NLRB 666 (1981). Consequently, in seeking to discuss the desirability of selecting the Union as their bargaining representative, the employees exercise a right guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act. In further decisions by the Supreme Court, it was held that "No restriction may be placed on the employees' right to discuss self-organization among themselves, unless the employer can demonstrate that a restriction is necessary to maintain production or discipline.² (Citation omitted.) N.L.R.B. v. Babcock & Wilcox Company, 351 U.S. 105, 113; 76 S.Ct. 679 (1956). And that the facility where employees work has long been recognized as a "place uniquely appropriate" for exercise of that right of employees. Republic Aviation Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 324 U.S. 793, 801, n. 6; 65 S.Ct. 982 (1945). Thus, absent a valid rule, or special circumstances, employees are protected in such discussions. Hambre Hombre Enterprises, Inc., 228 NLRB 136 (1977). Through the years the Board has balanced the rights of employees to organize against the legitimate property right of employers to have their workplaces be as productive as possible. As a consequence, the Board's rule is that an employer may forbid employees to talk about a union during periods when the employees are supposed to be actively working, if that prohibition also extends to all other subjects not associated or connected with their work tasks. [See comment below regarding why I omit from this summary any lengthy discussion of the subject of precisely which rules are valid, and which are invalid, on the subject of workers' solicitation of one another to join or support a union during working time or while at the work place, or to distribute union authorization cards or literature while in the work place or during working time. That's a whole story in and of itself. One too long to trace here. . . . Yet, I truly hope that you may be moved to go and do a bit of research for yourself on that subject; if you do, you'll find, as I've said, that the law has long sought, as stated above, to balance the legitimate needs of employers to maintain productive workplaces, {which the law has no quarrel with}, with the right of employees to communicate concerning organization.] However, it us universally held that an employer violates Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA when employees are forbidden to discuss unionization, but are free to discuss other subjects unrelated to work, particularly then the prohibition is announced or enforced only in response to specific union activities in an organizational campaign. Orval Kent Food Co., 278 NLRB 402, 407 (1986). Where the record shows that an employer tolerates a wide variety of solicitation activities without imposing discipline on any employee involved, the employer may not legitimately prohibit employees from soliciting signatures to union authorization cards, much less prohibit them from merely talking about the union. K & M Electronics, Inc., 283 NLRB 279 (1987); F. Mullens Construction, Inc., 273 NLRB 1016 (1984). And, finally, in a situation where an employer disciplines or discharges [a] workers[s] for such activities, by disparately enforcing even a valid rule against solicitation, it violates not only Section 8(a)(1) but 8(a)(3) as well. The remedy will require that the employee[s] be fully reinstated, with all rights and privileges intact, that any reference to the discipline or discharge be expunged from their personnel records, that their action never be used against them in any way, and that they be reimbursed for lost wages, with interest. South Nassau Communities Hospital, 274 NLRB 1181, 1182 (1985). There, that's my short summation of the law regarding your claim. Naturally, I've left out a lot of details, and have kept the summary as short as possible; brevity demands that I purposely omit discussion of any of the various sub-topics that have arisen over the years, (notably, such as the law's evolution in its approach to rules promulgated by employers to govern their employees' activities in workplace solicitations or distributions for or against unions). By the way, lest you wonder why I've cited only cases that were decided by the Board and the Supreme Court, please read the Supreme Court's opinion in the Iowa Beef Packers case, (sorry, I don't have the citation handy at the moment, but I'm certain that you can easily find it), in which it was held that it is the Board, not the various Circuit Courts of Appeal, that has been entrusted by Congress to interpret and administer the nation's most basic labor law. Thus, notwithstanding that any particular Circuit Court has the power to withhold 'enforcement' from any single, particular, decision by the Board, the Supreme Court holds that it is the Board's announcements that are the labor law of the land, subject, of course, to anything that the Supreme Court itself may add, modify or reject. In any event, as shown above, regarding this particular claim that you've made, even you must see that the Board and the Supreme Court are in complete agreement, and have been so for many decades, through both Democratic administrations and Republican administrations, and through liberal Supreme Courts and through conservative Supreme Courts. Thus, the claim you keep making about what is the "right" of an employer is simply not true. . . . There "ain't" any such "right". Flat out. Pure and simple. No waffling. No hedging. Note, please, that I do not now claim, and have never claimed, that it isn't your right to advocate that the law SHOULD BE changed. That's your right, beyond doubt, and is even constitutionally protected. I don't happen to agree with you that the law _should_ be different. But, be assured, if you ever happen to succeed in getting the law changed so that it actually becomes what you claim that it already is, then I'll quickly concede that you've had that success. And, then, when the law is the way that you want it, I'll obey that law, just as I now obey the way the law is at this time, and as I have noted that it has been for many, many years. That is, after all, the only thing that I've asserted here, that is, that so long as the law is written in a particular way, all of us, even you, have to obey that law, even in cases where we disagree with the gist of the law. It's commonly referred to as "democracy" and as a big, big part of "The American Way." HH |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
in article , Hawth Hill at
wrote on 06/21/2004 1:10 AM: > in article , Wm James at > wrote on 06/20/2004 4:35 AM: > >> But recognize the business owner's right to tell you to >> participate in such things during your own time instead of his. I repeat, there is no such right as you claim exists. I said earlier that I was a bit tired, and didn't feel like spending the time to do legal research to refute your claim that it is a "business owner's right to tell [workers] to participate in such thing during [their] own time instead of his." Here's a brief review of the law regarding the subject. Your claim is patently contrary to the law. Read below. The NLRB finds that the right of employees to organize for collective bargaining is a strong Section 7 right, "at the very core of the purpose for which the NLRB was enacted." New Process Co., 290 NLRB 704, 705 (1988). "In any litany of the ways in which employees organize themselves for collective bargaining, their day to day discussions and interchange of ideas surely ranks very high; for this reason it is regarded as protected activity. Thus, an employee¹s efforts to speak with, and convince others of the validity of his ideas and feelings about the cause of unionism, must generally be regarded as protected as well." Ibid at 716. The Supreme Court has weighed in on the very same subject, saying that the right of employees to communicate with each other concerning the desirability of organizing is one which is protected by Section 7 of the Act. For, the effectiveness of organization rights "depends in some measure on the ability of employees to learn the advantages and disadvantages of organization from others. Early in the history of the administration of the Act the Board recognized the importance of freedom of communication to the free exercise of organization rights." (Citation omitted.) Central Hardware v. N.L.R.B, 407 U.S. 539, 543; 92 S.Ct. 2238, 2241 (1972). ³Direct personal contact is the most truly effective means of communicating not only the option of collective bargaining, but the most compelling reasons for exercising that option.² Belcher Towing Company, 256 NLRB 666 (1981). Consequently, in seeking to discuss the desirability of selecting the Union as their bargaining representative, the employees exercise a right guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act. In further decisions by the Supreme Court, it was held that "No restriction may be placed on the employees' right to discuss self-organization among themselves, unless the employer can demonstrate that a restriction is necessary to maintain production or discipline.² (Citation omitted.) N.L.R.B. v. Babcock & Wilcox Company, 351 U.S. 105, 113; 76 S.Ct. 679 (1956). And that the facility where employees work has long been recognized as a "place uniquely appropriate" for exercise of that right of employees. Republic Aviation Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 324 U.S. 793, 801, n. 6; 65 S.Ct. 982 (1945). Thus, absent a valid rule, or special circumstances, employees are protected in such discussions. Hambre Hombre Enterprises, Inc., 228 NLRB 136 (1977). Through the years the Board has balanced the rights of employees to organize against the legitimate property right of employers to have their workplaces be as productive as possible. As a consequence, the Board's rule is that an employer may forbid employees to talk about a union during periods when the employees are supposed to be actively working, if that prohibition also extends to all other subjects not associated or connected with their work tasks. [See comment below regarding why I omit from this summary any lengthy discussion of the subject of precisely which rules are valid, and which are invalid, on the subject of workers' solicitation of one another to join or support a union during working time or while at the work place, or to distribute union authorization cards or literature while in the work place or during working time. That's a whole story in and of itself. One too long to trace here. . . . Yet, I truly hope that you may be moved to go and do a bit of research for yourself on that subject; if you do, you'll find, as I've said, that the law has long sought, as stated above, to balance the legitimate needs of employers to maintain productive workplaces, {which the law has no quarrel with}, with the right of employees to communicate concerning organization.] However, it us universally held that an employer violates Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA when employees are forbidden to discuss unionization, but are free to discuss other subjects unrelated to work, particularly then the prohibition is announced or enforced only in response to specific union activities in an organizational campaign. Orval Kent Food Co., 278 NLRB 402, 407 (1986). Where the record shows that an employer tolerates a wide variety of solicitation activities without imposing discipline on any employee involved, the employer may not legitimately prohibit employees from soliciting signatures to union authorization cards, much less prohibit them from merely talking about the union. K & M Electronics, Inc., 283 NLRB 279 (1987); F. Mullens Construction, Inc., 273 NLRB 1016 (1984). And, finally, in a situation where an employer disciplines or discharges [a] workers[s] for such activities, by disparately enforcing even a valid rule against solicitation, it violates not only Section 8(a)(1) but 8(a)(3) as well. The remedy will require that the employee[s] be fully reinstated, with all rights and privileges intact, that any reference to the discipline or discharge be expunged from their personnel records, that their action never be used against them in any way, and that they be reimbursed for lost wages, with interest. South Nassau Communities Hospital, 274 NLRB 1181, 1182 (1985). There, that's my short summation of the law regarding your claim. Naturally, I've left out a lot of details, and have kept the summary as short as possible; brevity demands that I purposely omit discussion of any of the various sub-topics that have arisen over the years, (notably, such as the law's evolution in its approach to rules promulgated by employers to govern their employees' activities in workplace solicitations or distributions for or against unions). By the way, lest you wonder why I've cited only cases that were decided by the Board and the Supreme Court, please read the Supreme Court's opinion in the Iowa Beef Packers case, (sorry, I don't have the citation handy at the moment, but I'm certain that you can easily find it), in which it was held that it is the Board, not the various Circuit Courts of Appeal, that has been entrusted by Congress to interpret and administer the nation's most basic labor law. Thus, notwithstanding that any particular Circuit Court has the power to withhold 'enforcement' from any single, particular, decision by the Board, the Supreme Court holds that it is the Board's announcements that are the labor law of the land, subject, of course, to anything that the Supreme Court itself may add, modify or reject. In any event, as shown above, regarding this particular claim that you've made, even you must see that the Board and the Supreme Court are in complete agreement, and have been so for many decades, through both Democratic administrations and Republican administrations, and through liberal Supreme Courts and through conservative Supreme Courts. Thus, the claim you keep making about what is the "right" of an employer is simply not true. . . . There "ain't" any such "right". Flat out. Pure and simple. No waffling. No hedging. Note, please, that I do not now claim, and have never claimed, that it isn't your right to advocate that the law SHOULD BE changed. That's your right, beyond doubt, and is even constitutionally protected. I don't happen to agree with you that the law _should_ be different. But, be assured, if you ever happen to succeed in getting the law changed so that it actually becomes what you claim that it already is, then I'll quickly concede that you've had that success. And, then, when the law is the way that you want it, I'll obey that law, just as I now obey the way the law is at this time, and as I have noted that it has been for many, many years. That is, after all, the only thing that I've asserted here, that is, that so long as the law is written in a particular way, all of us, even you, have to obey that law, even in cases where we disagree with the gist of the law. It's commonly referred to as "democracy" and as a big, big part of "The American Way." HH |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
In article .net>,
"Stan de SD" > wrote: > "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. A sanctioned econmic system, no? > > > 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. Are you talking about the US or Cuba? BTW, do your history on the cuban missle crisis cause you are too simplistic. > > > Can you show me one capitalist economy that has succeded? > > If you're posting from the USA, look around. I did not say a state-capitalist country, cause we know that amerian busniesses LOVE government subsidies and tarriffs. So 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 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
In article .net>,
"Stan de SD" > wrote: > "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. A sanctioned econmic system, no? > > > 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. Are you talking about the US or Cuba? BTW, do your history on the cuban missle crisis cause you are too simplistic. > > > Can you show me one capitalist economy that has succeded? > > If you're posting from the USA, look around. I did not say a state-capitalist country, cause we know that amerian busniesses LOVE government subsidies and tarriffs. So 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 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
So what exactly does Dan Clore do for a living anyway?
"Stan de SD" > wrote in message link.net>...
> "Xyzzy" > wrote in message > om... > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message > k.net>... > > > "Alex Russell" > wrote in message > > > news  rQxc.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 > > > > > > $17 million last year, so scared of? The truth is Starbucks, > > > > > > with its poverty wages and rampant repetitive-stress > > > > > > dangers, resembles a sweatshop more than it does a decent > > > > > > place to work. > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, and all those 20-something college-age Americans are being > forced > to > > > > > work there against their will, right? I guess YOU would think it's a > > > > > sweatshop, given that you strike me as the type of feminized, > spoiled > > > > > cry-baby who has never held a real job one day in his life. > > > > > > > > > > Tell us, Dan Clore, self-appointed "voice" of the workers - > > > > > what in the hell do YOU do for a living? > > > > > > > > > Can't come up with a real argument so you want to shoot the messenger? > > > > > > Came up with an argument that when right over your little head. Nobody > is > > > being forced to work at Starbucks, McDonalds, Wal-Mart, or whatever > > > > And nobody is being forced to own & operate Starbucks, McDonalds, > > Wal-Mart. If the CEO's don't like unions they can find another job as > > well. > > The union didn't invest in the business - the owners did. The workers are the union. They invest their labor, the better part of their lives. > A small point you > choose to overlook. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
So what exactly does Dan Clore do for a living anyway?
"Stan de SD" > wrote in message link.net>...
> "Xyzzy" > wrote in message > om... > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message > k.net>... > > > "Alex Russell" > wrote in message > > > news rQxc.12808$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. The workers are the union. They invest their labor, the better part of their lives. > A small point you > choose to overlook. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
In article >,
Ed Faith > wrote: > 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. No. Some one brought up communism and gave an example of cuba. But communism is a cold war term that was used to describe communists states and does not describe cuba. There are several forms of 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? No. I am pointing out the difference of a communist dictatorship and communism. > > 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. Hon Kong is controled bu a government based on few people being able to vote. And they have near record unemployment right now. They also have a strong anti-corruption regime. (get rid of that and see what happens to capitalism) Can you show me one capitalist economy that has succeded? (note: i am not saying I can show you a socilaist country that has succeded) ---------------------------------------------- Anarchy: It's not what you think it is! http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
In article >,
Ed Faith > wrote: > 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. No. Some one brought up communism and gave an example of cuba. But communism is a cold war term that was used to describe communists states and does not describe cuba. There are several forms of 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? No. I am pointing out the difference of a communist dictatorship and communism. > > 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. Hon Kong is controled bu a government based on few people being able to vote. And they have near record unemployment right now. They also have a strong anti-corruption regime. (get rid of that and see what happens to capitalism) Can you show me one capitalist economy that has succeded? (note: i am not saying I can show you a socilaist country that has succeded) ---------------------------------------------- Anarchy: It's not what you think it is! http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
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... > > > > "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. > > Did I say they were? > > > Employees have rights, even on business property. > > As I said, they have the right to be paid, not to be physically abused or > forced to commit illegal acts, and the right to quit and find work > elsewhere.But they don't have the right to steal, vandalize, or approproate > assets they don't own. Who's in a better position to misappropriate assests than the assest managers? Nobody. > What part of that do you not understand? > > > Imagine that. A country with rights for everyone in the business. > > Businesses are NOT democracies. Those who do not own the business do not > have the same rights as those who do - plain and simple. Workers have the legal backing to organize. It's written into law. Yr not a scofflaw are you? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
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... > > > > "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. > > Did I say they were? > > > Employees have rights, even on business property. > > As I said, they have the right to be paid, not to be physically abused or > forced to commit illegal acts, and the right to quit and find work > elsewhere.But they don't have the right to steal, vandalize, or approproate > assets they don't own. Who's in a better position to misappropriate assests than the assest managers? Nobody. > What part of that do you not understand? > > > Imagine that. A country with rights for everyone in the business. > > Businesses are NOT democracies. Those who do not own the business do not > have the same rights as those who do - plain and simple. Workers have the legal backing to organize. It's written into law. Yr not a scofflaw are you? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
So what exactly does Dan Clore do for a living anyway?
in article , Xyzzy at
wrote on 06/21/2004 5:47 PM: >> Businesses are NOT democracies. Those who do not own the business do not >> have the same rights as those who do - plain and simple. And you are one hundred per cent, absolutely and positively correct in making the above statement. When one runs mentally through a list of respected writers on the subject, I can't think of a single, solitary authority in government, the judiciary, or in academe, who would disagree with you. Or has. But, workers DO have SOME rights. And they ARE to be exercised in ways that are democratic to their core. Sorry, but that's the law. As well as "mainstream" thought by all the major players. So, what's the point of stating the obvious? Who the heck is claiming that businesses ARE democracies? Or that property owners don't acquire certain rights simply by virtue of their being the owners? . . . Not me. And no one that I can think of that's not a kook. The capitalism of Dickens is dead, and ain't never comin' back. The communism and nihilism of the days of Marx and Lenin are equally dead, and also ain't never comin' back. Unions may or may not become strong. In my opinion, that depends entirely upon whether or not workers ever again come to feel so oppressed as they did during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. I happen to favor the way that things are now. We have relative economic and political stability, because, all in all, most folks don't feel particularly oppressed. But, push 'em too far, and the whole equation can change on a dime. And, that won't be good for those who now lay claim to the title of "conservatives." Witness what became of the Romanovs. HH |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
So what exactly does Dan Clore do for a living anyway?
in article , Xyzzy at
wrote on 06/21/2004 5:47 PM: >> Businesses are NOT democracies. Those who do not own the business do not >> have the same rights as those who do - plain and simple. And you are one hundred per cent, absolutely and positively correct in making the above statement. When one runs mentally through a list of respected writers on the subject, I can't think of a single, solitary authority in government, the judiciary, or in academe, who would disagree with you. Or has. But, workers DO have SOME rights. And they ARE to be exercised in ways that are democratic to their core. Sorry, but that's the law. As well as "mainstream" thought by all the major players. So, what's the point of stating the obvious? Who the heck is claiming that businesses ARE democracies? Or that property owners don't acquire certain rights simply by virtue of their being the owners? . . . Not me. And no one that I can think of that's not a kook. The capitalism of Dickens is dead, and ain't never comin' back. The communism and nihilism of the days of Marx and Lenin are equally dead, and also ain't never comin' back. Unions may or may not become strong. In my opinion, that depends entirely upon whether or not workers ever again come to feel so oppressed as they did during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. I happen to favor the way that things are now. We have relative economic and political stability, because, all in all, most folks don't feel particularly oppressed. But, push 'em too far, and the whole equation can change on a dime. And, that won't be good for those who now lay claim to the title of "conservatives." Witness what became of the Romanovs. HH |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
G*rd*n wrote:
> G*rd*n wrote: > >>... >> >>>But this really doesn't matter. If people have a right >>>to associate, make enforceable contracts, and appoint >>>representatives, they have a right to form unions. So far >>>only wrjames and Stan de SD have come out against these >>>rights (at least for employees). You all libertarians >>>are supposed to stand up for them -- but as usual you're >>>leaving me to do the job. > > > Ed Faith >: > >>It's obvious and goes without saying. If you want me to address that >>issue, people have the right to form unions. The only point interesting >>to me here is whether unions actually do much good in the long term, for >>workers, or the customers of workers - for anyone. And if they do, then why. >> >>In a market, things that create benefits tend to grow in size and/or >>number. Someone posted just a moment ago to this thread (I think) that >>unions are in decline. That suggests that they don't do all that much >>good, for anybody. > > > > I was much more excited by wrjames's and Stan's admissions > that they reject the liberal rights, and was hoping to get > some specifics from them on what they do believe in. But do they really? Let us suppose that they have expressed some hostility towards unions. That does not amount to a rejection of liberal rights as they apply to unions. To give just one example of why it does not, Michael Legel has stated that "the main reason unions are in decline is because our society no longer supports the right of an economic strike without the permanent replacement of economic strikers," which sounds to me as though unions operate effectively (as opposed to uselessly spinning their wheels) mainly by violating liberal rights (specifically, the right of the employer to fire workers who stop working*) either through direct violence or through the help of government intervention. Consequently, in voicing hostility towards unions (assuming they have - I am not keeping track of everything), WR and Stan may be expressing hostility towards those violations of liberal rights which Michael seems to be saying are central to the effectiveness of unions. *which he presumably has unless he has agreed otherwise in the employment contract - Michael says nothing about contracts and refers to the "right" not to be fired rather than an *agreement* that the worker will not be fired, so Michael seems not to be talking about any clause in any employment contract. > They > seemed to have become coy, however, for my questions have > thus far remained unanswered. > > As to the decline of unions in the U.S., I can only note that > the workplace and labor relations are heavily regulated by > the government, so that they do not really constitute a free > market. True, but there is a market, and a lot of industries survive even pretty heavy regulation. If unions do not, there could be a reason other than that they are regulated. Moreover most of the regulation that I have come across favors unions, so at a guess I would say that government regulation has tended to support unions. > It could be that the present set of regulations is > not to the advantage of unions. And this is what we should > expect, because the government of the U.S. is more plutocratic > than not, and plutocrats tend to be employers rather than > employees. It might be what you expect, but it is not what I have observed. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
G*rd*n wrote:
> G*rd*n wrote: > >>... >> >>>But this really doesn't matter. If people have a right >>>to associate, make enforceable contracts, and appoint >>>representatives, they have a right to form unions. So far >>>only wrjames and Stan de SD have come out against these >>>rights (at least for employees). You all libertarians >>>are supposed to stand up for them -- but as usual you're >>>leaving me to do the job. > > > Ed Faith >: > >>It's obvious and goes without saying. If you want me to address that >>issue, people have the right to form unions. The only point interesting >>to me here is whether unions actually do much good in the long term, for >>workers, or the customers of workers - for anyone. And if they do, then why. >> >>In a market, things that create benefits tend to grow in size and/or >>number. Someone posted just a moment ago to this thread (I think) that >>unions are in decline. That suggests that they don't do all that much >>good, for anybody. > > > > I was much more excited by wrjames's and Stan's admissions > that they reject the liberal rights, and was hoping to get > some specifics from them on what they do believe in. But do they really? Let us suppose that they have expressed some hostility towards unions. That does not amount to a rejection of liberal rights as they apply to unions. To give just one example of why it does not, Michael Legel has stated that "the main reason unions are in decline is because our society no longer supports the right of an economic strike without the permanent replacement of economic strikers," which sounds to me as though unions operate effectively (as opposed to uselessly spinning their wheels) mainly by violating liberal rights (specifically, the right of the employer to fire workers who stop working*) either through direct violence or through the help of government intervention. Consequently, in voicing hostility towards unions (assuming they have - I am not keeping track of everything), WR and Stan may be expressing hostility towards those violations of liberal rights which Michael seems to be saying are central to the effectiveness of unions. *which he presumably has unless he has agreed otherwise in the employment contract - Michael says nothing about contracts and refers to the "right" not to be fired rather than an *agreement* that the worker will not be fired, so Michael seems not to be talking about any clause in any employment contract. > They > seemed to have become coy, however, for my questions have > thus far remained unanswered. > > As to the decline of unions in the U.S., I can only note that > the workplace and labor relations are heavily regulated by > the government, so that they do not really constitute a free > market. True, but there is a market, and a lot of industries survive even pretty heavy regulation. If unions do not, there could be a reason other than that they are regulated. Moreover most of the regulation that I have come across favors unions, so at a guess I would say that government regulation has tended to support unions. > It could be that the present set of regulations is > not to the advantage of unions. And this is what we should > expect, because the government of the U.S. is more plutocratic > than not, and plutocrats tend to be employers rather than > employees. It might be what you expect, but it is not what I have observed. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
Grain of Sand wrote:
> In article >, > Ed Faith > wrote: > > >>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. > > > No. Some one brought up communism and gave an example of cuba. But > communism is a cold war term that was used to describe communists states > and does not describe cuba. > > There are several forms of 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? > > > No. I am pointing out the difference of a communist dictatorship and > communism. > > >>>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. > > > Hon Kong is controled bu a government based on few people being able to > vote. That has nothing directly to do with whether it is capitalist. By the way I am not sure whether you are talking about the Chinese communist government or the previous, British government. > And they have near record unemployment right now. They also have a > strong anti-corruption regime. (get rid of that and see what happens to > capitalism) "Right now" refers to the Chinese government. Hong Kong was made the success it became by the British government. I do not know what the situation is now, but they are now ruled by the Chinese communists. Hong Kong was a tremendous success at least under British rule. > Can you show me one capitalist economy that has succeded? I already did. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
Grain of Sand wrote:
> In article >, > Ed Faith > wrote: > > >>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. > > > No. Some one brought up communism and gave an example of cuba. But > communism is a cold war term that was used to describe communists states > and does not describe cuba. > > There are several forms of 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? > > > No. I am pointing out the difference of a communist dictatorship and > communism. > > >>>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. > > > Hon Kong is controled bu a government based on few people being able to > vote. That has nothing directly to do with whether it is capitalist. By the way I am not sure whether you are talking about the Chinese communist government or the previous, British government. > And they have near record unemployment right now. They also have a > strong anti-corruption regime. (get rid of that and see what happens to > capitalism) "Right now" refers to the Chinese government. Hong Kong was made the success it became by the British government. I do not know what the situation is now, but they are now ruled by the Chinese communists. Hong Kong was a tremendous success at least under British rule. > Can you show me one capitalist economy that has succeded? I already did. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
Hawth Hill wrote:
> in article , Hawth Hill at > wrote on 06/21/2004 1:10 AM: > > >>in article , Wm James at wrote on 06/20/2004 4:35 AM: >> >> >>>But recognize the business owner's right to tell you to >>>participate in such things during your own time instead of his. > > > I repeat, there is no such right as you claim exists. > > I said earlier that I was a bit tired, and didn't feel like spending the > time to do legal research to refute your claim that it is a "business > owner's right to tell [workers] to participate in such thing during [their] > own time instead of his." > > Here's a brief review of the law regarding the subject. Your claim is > patently contrary to the law. > > Read below. > > The NLRB finds that I take Wm James to be critiquing things like the NLRB from the standpoint of a libertarian view of rights. So your point that he is contradicting the views of the NLRB does not really answer his point. You are taking him as claiming that the NLRB agrees with him, and you are arguing against that claim. But I'm pretty sure he's not making any such claim, but rather talking about what is right and wrong regardless of what the NLRB says is right and wrong, and if the NLRB disagrees with him, then his comments simply amount to a criticism of the NLRB's position. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
Hawth Hill wrote:
> in article , Hawth Hill at > wrote on 06/21/2004 1:10 AM: > > >>in article , Wm James at wrote on 06/20/2004 4:35 AM: >> >> >>>But recognize the business owner's right to tell you to >>>participate in such things during your own time instead of his. > > > I repeat, there is no such right as you claim exists. > > I said earlier that I was a bit tired, and didn't feel like spending the > time to do legal research to refute your claim that it is a "business > owner's right to tell [workers] to participate in such thing during [their] > own time instead of his." > > Here's a brief review of the law regarding the subject. Your claim is > patently contrary to the law. > > Read below. > > The NLRB finds that I take Wm James to be critiquing things like the NLRB from the standpoint of a libertarian view of rights. So your point that he is contradicting the views of the NLRB does not really answer his point. You are taking him as claiming that the NLRB agrees with him, and you are arguing against that claim. But I'm pretty sure he's not making any such claim, but rather talking about what is right and wrong regardless of what the NLRB says is right and wrong, and if the NLRB disagrees with him, then his comments simply amount to a criticism of the NLRB's position. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
"Ed Faith" > wrote in message ... > But do they really? Let us suppose that they have expressed some > hostility towards unions. That does not amount to a rejection of liberal > rights as they apply to unions. To give just one example of why it does > not, Michael Legel has stated that "the main reason unions are in > decline is because our society no longer supports the right of an > economic strike without the permanent replacement of economic strikers," > which sounds to me as though unions operate effectively (as opposed to > uselessly spinning their wheels) mainly by violating liberal rights > (specifically, the right of the employer to fire workers who stop > working*) either through direct violence or through the help of > government intervention. Consequently, in voicing hostility towards > unions (assuming they have - I am not keeping track of everything), WR > and Stan may be expressing hostility towards those violations of liberal > rights which Michael seems to be saying are central to the effectiveness > of unions. > > > *which he presumably has unless he has agreed otherwise in the > employment contract - Michael says nothing about contracts and refers to > the "right" not to be fired rather than an *agreement* that the worker > will not be fired, so Michael seems not to be talking about any clause > in any employment contract. I would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth (yeck! ptooie!)! I did not "seem" to be saying any of the things you derived from my simple statement. Win or lose your arguments without extending your prejudice into my statements. Simply put, unions operated very effectively when society honored picket lines. I said nothing about violence or "liberal rights" whatever the hell you think those may be. If our society as a whole respected worker rights as they once did then the standard of living for the majority of Americans would be on the rise instead of on the decline. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
"Ed Faith" > wrote in message ... > But do they really? Let us suppose that they have expressed some > hostility towards unions. That does not amount to a rejection of liberal > rights as they apply to unions. To give just one example of why it does > not, Michael Legel has stated that "the main reason unions are in > decline is because our society no longer supports the right of an > economic strike without the permanent replacement of economic strikers," > which sounds to me as though unions operate effectively (as opposed to > uselessly spinning their wheels) mainly by violating liberal rights > (specifically, the right of the employer to fire workers who stop > working*) either through direct violence or through the help of > government intervention. Consequently, in voicing hostility towards > unions (assuming they have - I am not keeping track of everything), WR > and Stan may be expressing hostility towards those violations of liberal > rights which Michael seems to be saying are central to the effectiveness > of unions. > > > *which he presumably has unless he has agreed otherwise in the > employment contract - Michael says nothing about contracts and refers to > the "right" not to be fired rather than an *agreement* that the worker > will not be fired, so Michael seems not to be talking about any clause > in any employment contract. I would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth (yeck! ptooie!)! I did not "seem" to be saying any of the things you derived from my simple statement. Win or lose your arguments without extending your prejudice into my statements. Simply put, unions operated very effectively when society honored picket lines. I said nothing about violence or "liberal rights" whatever the hell you think those may be. If our society as a whole respected worker rights as they once did then the standard of living for the majority of Americans would be on the rise instead of on the decline. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
G*rd*n wrote:
> > I was much more excited by wrjames's and Stan's admissions > > that they reject the liberal rights, and was hoping to get > > some specifics from them on what they do believe in. Ed Faith >: > But do they really? Let us suppose that they have expressed some > hostility towards unions. That does not amount to a rejection of liberal > rights as they apply to unions. ... w.r. asserted that unions were "inherently evil". I have to think that this is because he believes the principles upon which they are founded (self-interest mediated by the liberal rights) are evil -- otherwise, how could their evil be "inherent"? Stan rejected liberalism _in_toto_. Of course, it's possible that both were merely using language shall we say loosely and did not mean what they seemed to be saying. Or they might have been raving. If so it would be very easy for them to clarify the matter, wouldn't it? But maybe they have, and I've just missed the messages up till now. > ... -- (<><>) /*/ }"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{ { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
G*rd*n wrote:
> > I was much more excited by wrjames's and Stan's admissions > > that they reject the liberal rights, and was hoping to get > > some specifics from them on what they do believe in. Ed Faith >: > But do they really? Let us suppose that they have expressed some > hostility towards unions. That does not amount to a rejection of liberal > rights as they apply to unions. ... w.r. asserted that unions were "inherently evil". I have to think that this is because he believes the principles upon which they are founded (self-interest mediated by the liberal rights) are evil -- otherwise, how could their evil be "inherent"? Stan rejected liberalism _in_toto_. Of course, it's possible that both were merely using language shall we say loosely and did not mean what they seemed to be saying. Or they might have been raving. If so it would be very easy for them to clarify the matter, wouldn't it? But maybe they have, and I've just missed the messages up till now. > ... -- (<><>) /*/ }"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{ { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
Michael Legel wrote:
> "Ed Faith" > wrote in message > ... > > >>But do they really? Let us suppose that they have expressed some >>hostility towards unions. That does not amount to a rejection of liberal >>rights as they apply to unions. To give just one example of why it does >>not, Michael Legel has stated that "the main reason unions are in >>decline is because our society no longer supports the right of an >>economic strike without the permanent replacement of economic strikers," >>which sounds to me as though unions operate effectively (as opposed to >>uselessly spinning their wheels) mainly by violating liberal rights >>(specifically, the right of the employer to fire workers who stop >>working*) either through direct violence or through the help of >>government intervention. Consequently, in voicing hostility towards >>unions (assuming they have - I am not keeping track of everything), WR >>and Stan may be expressing hostility towards those violations of liberal >>rights which Michael seems to be saying are central to the effectiveness >>of unions. >> >> >>*which he presumably has unless he has agreed otherwise in the >>employment contract - Michael says nothing about contracts and refers to >>the "right" not to be fired rather than an *agreement* that the worker >>will not be fired, so Michael seems not to be talking about any clause >>in any employment contract. > > > I would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth (yeck! ptooie!)! I quoted you. > I did > not "seem" to be saying any of the things you derived from my simple > statement. Yes you did. > Win or lose your arguments without extending your prejudice into > my statements. I am not doing that. I am not assigning my libertarian views to you. I am having a discussion with Gordon where he and I are taking libertarian ideas as a given and discussing where unions stand visavis those libertarian ideas. > Simply put, unions operated very effectively when society honored picket > lines. I said nothing about violence or "liberal rights" whatever the hell > you think those may be. You've just admitted that you don't know what I'm talking about. Since I was discussing something with Gordon and not with you, I'm not particularly inclined to enlighten you. > If our society as a whole respected worker rights as > they once did then the standard of living for the majority of Americans would > be on the rise instead of on the decline. So you assert. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
Michael Legel wrote:
> "Ed Faith" > wrote in message > ... > > >>But do they really? Let us suppose that they have expressed some >>hostility towards unions. That does not amount to a rejection of liberal >>rights as they apply to unions. To give just one example of why it does >>not, Michael Legel has stated that "the main reason unions are in >>decline is because our society no longer supports the right of an >>economic strike without the permanent replacement of economic strikers," >>which sounds to me as though unions operate effectively (as opposed to >>uselessly spinning their wheels) mainly by violating liberal rights >>(specifically, the right of the employer to fire workers who stop >>working*) either through direct violence or through the help of >>government intervention. Consequently, in voicing hostility towards >>unions (assuming they have - I am not keeping track of everything), WR >>and Stan may be expressing hostility towards those violations of liberal >>rights which Michael seems to be saying are central to the effectiveness >>of unions. >> >> >>*which he presumably has unless he has agreed otherwise in the >>employment contract - Michael says nothing about contracts and refers to >>the "right" not to be fired rather than an *agreement* that the worker >>will not be fired, so Michael seems not to be talking about any clause >>in any employment contract. > > > I would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth (yeck! ptooie!)! I quoted you. > I did > not "seem" to be saying any of the things you derived from my simple > statement. Yes you did. > Win or lose your arguments without extending your prejudice into > my statements. I am not doing that. I am not assigning my libertarian views to you. I am having a discussion with Gordon where he and I are taking libertarian ideas as a given and discussing where unions stand visavis those libertarian ideas. > Simply put, unions operated very effectively when society honored picket > lines. I said nothing about violence or "liberal rights" whatever the hell > you think those may be. You've just admitted that you don't know what I'm talking about. Since I was discussing something with Gordon and not with you, I'm not particularly inclined to enlighten you. > If our society as a whole respected worker rights as > they once did then the standard of living for the majority of Americans would > be on the rise instead of on the decline. So you assert. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
In article >,
Ed Faith > wrote: > Grain of Sand wrote: > > > In article >, > > Ed Faith > wrote: > > > > > >>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. > > > > > > No. Some one brought up communism and gave an example of cuba. But > > communism is a cold war term that was used to describe communists states > > and does not describe cuba. > > > > There are several forms of 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? > > > > > > No. I am pointing out the difference of a communist dictatorship and > > communism. > > > > > >>>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. > > > > > > Hon Kong is controled bu a government based on few people being able to > > vote. > > That has nothing directly to do with whether it is capitalist. Define capitalism for me. > By the > way I am not sure whether you are talking about the Chinese communist > government or the previous, British government. About the government...pick one. > > > And they have near record unemployment right now. They also have a > > strong anti-corruption regime. (get rid of that and see what happens to > > capitalism) > > "Right now" refers to the Chinese government. Hong Kong was made the > success it became by the British government. I do not know what the > situation is now, but they are now ruled by the Chinese communists. Hong > Kong was a tremendous success at least under British rule. Errr....nothing changed. > > > Can you show me one capitalist economy that has succeded? > > I already did. No, you showed me state-capitalism. ---------------------------------------------- Anarchy: It's not what you think it is! http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
In article >,
Ed Faith > wrote: > Grain of Sand wrote: > > > In article >, > > Ed Faith > wrote: > > > > > >>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. > > > > > > No. Some one brought up communism and gave an example of cuba. But > > communism is a cold war term that was used to describe communists states > > and does not describe cuba. > > > > There are several forms of 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? > > > > > > No. I am pointing out the difference of a communist dictatorship and > > communism. > > > > > >>>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. > > > > > > Hon Kong is controled bu a government based on few people being able to > > vote. > > That has nothing directly to do with whether it is capitalist. Define capitalism for me. > By the > way I am not sure whether you are talking about the Chinese communist > government or the previous, British government. About the government...pick one. > > > And they have near record unemployment right now. They also have a > > strong anti-corruption regime. (get rid of that and see what happens to > > capitalism) > > "Right now" refers to the Chinese government. Hong Kong was made the > success it became by the British government. I do not know what the > situation is now, but they are now ruled by the Chinese communists. Hong > Kong was a tremendous success at least under British rule. Errr....nothing changed. > > > Can you show me one capitalist economy that has succeded? > > I already did. No, you showed me state-capitalism. ---------------------------------------------- Anarchy: It's not what you think it is! http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
tell.....did you lose your last job cuz you couldnt figure out how to keep
from taping your hand to the shipping boxes? your right, you do need a union........who would hire such a ****in retard any other way!!! LMAO! "Michael Legel" > wrote in message s.com... > > "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
tell.....did you lose your last job cuz you couldnt figure out how to keep
from taping your hand to the shipping boxes? your right, you do need a union........who would hire such a ****in retard any other way!!! LMAO! "Michael Legel" > wrote in message s.com... > > "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
Grain of Sand wrote:
> In article >, > Ed Faith > wrote: > > >>Grain of Sand wrote: >> >> >>>In article >, >>> Ed Faith > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>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. >>> >>> >>>No. Some one brought up communism and gave an example of cuba. But >>>communism is a cold war term that was used to describe communists states >>>and does not describe cuba. >>> >>>There are several forms of 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? >>> >>> >>>No. I am pointing out the difference of a communist dictatorship and >>>communism. >>> >>> >>> >>>>>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. >>> >>> >>>Hon Kong is controled bu a government based on few people being able to >>>vote. >> >>That has nothing directly to do with whether it is capitalist. > > > Define capitalism for me. Webster: "An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market" Your mention of voting has to do with how democratic the government is, which is a separate issue from whether the economy is capitalist. >>By the >>way I am not sure whether you are talking about the Chinese communist >>government or the previous, British government. > > > > About the government...pick one. British. >>>And they have near record unemployment right now. They also have a >>>strong anti-corruption regime. (get rid of that and see what happens to >>>capitalism) >> >>"Right now" refers to the Chinese government. Hong Kong was made the >>success it became by the British government. I do not know what the >>situation is now, but they are now ruled by the Chinese communists. Hong >>Kong was a tremendous success at least under British rule. > > > Errr....nothing changed. Then it was also a tremendous success under Chinese rule. >>>Can you show me one capitalist economy that has succeded? >> >>I already did. > > > No, you showed me state-capitalism. What, Hong Kong is "state capitalist"? Stalin's Soviet Union has been called "state capitalist", I believe. So you're saying that the Hong Kong economy and Stalin's economy were both of the same type, "state capitalist"? OK, whatever. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
Grain of Sand wrote:
> In article >, > Ed Faith > wrote: > > >>Grain of Sand wrote: >> >> >>>In article >, >>> Ed Faith > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>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. >>> >>> >>>No. Some one brought up communism and gave an example of cuba. But >>>communism is a cold war term that was used to describe communists states >>>and does not describe cuba. >>> >>>There are several forms of 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? >>> >>> >>>No. I am pointing out the difference of a communist dictatorship and >>>communism. >>> >>> >>> >>>>>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. >>> >>> >>>Hon Kong is controled bu a government based on few people being able to >>>vote. >> >>That has nothing directly to do with whether it is capitalist. > > > Define capitalism for me. Webster: "An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market" Your mention of voting has to do with how democratic the government is, which is a separate issue from whether the economy is capitalist. >>By the >>way I am not sure whether you are talking about the Chinese communist >>government or the previous, British government. > > > > About the government...pick one. British. >>>And they have near record unemployment right now. They also have a >>>strong anti-corruption regime. (get rid of that and see what happens to >>>capitalism) >> >>"Right now" refers to the Chinese government. Hong Kong was made the >>success it became by the British government. I do not know what the >>situation is now, but they are now ruled by the Chinese communists. Hong >>Kong was a tremendous success at least under British rule. > > > Errr....nothing changed. Then it was also a tremendous success under Chinese rule. >>>Can you show me one capitalist economy that has succeded? >> >>I already did. > > > No, you showed me state-capitalism. What, Hong Kong is "state capitalist"? Stalin's Soviet Union has been called "state capitalist", I believe. So you're saying that the Hong Kong economy and Stalin's economy were both of the same type, "state capitalist"? OK, whatever. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
"geetarplyr" > wrote in message news:6ELBc.4336$rf7.1150@lakeread02... > tell.....did you lose your last job cuz you couldnt figure out how to keep > from taping your hand to the shipping boxes? > your right, you do need a union........who would hire such a ****in retard > any other way!!! > LMAO! > > Actually I retired at 48 with a good pension and benefits ... so go ahead and laugh your ass off on your way to work while I sit back and comfortably watch the grass grow. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
"geetarplyr" > wrote in message news:6ELBc.4336$rf7.1150@lakeread02... > tell.....did you lose your last job cuz you couldnt figure out how to keep > from taping your hand to the shipping boxes? > your right, you do need a union........who would hire such a ****in retard > any other way!!! > LMAO! > > Actually I retired at 48 with a good pension and benefits ... so go ahead and laugh your ass off on your way to work while I sit back and comfortably watch the grass grow. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
In article >,
Ed Faith > wrote: > Grain of Sand wrote: > > > In article >, > > Ed Faith > wrote: > > > > > >>Grain of Sand wrote: > >> > >> > >>>In article >, > >>> Ed Faith > wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>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. > >>> > >>> > >>>No. Some one brought up communism and gave an example of cuba. But > >>>communism is a cold war term that was used to describe communists states > >>>and does not describe cuba. > >>> > >>>There are several forms of 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? > >>> > >>> > >>>No. I am pointing out the difference of a communist dictatorship and > >>>communism. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>>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. > >>> > >>> > >>>Hon Kong is controled bu a government based on few people being able to > >>>vote. > >> > >>That has nothing directly to do with whether it is capitalist. > > > > > > Define capitalism for me. > > Webster: > > "An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of > capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, > and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are > determined mainly by competition in a free market" Thanks. > > Your mention of voting has to do with how democratic the government is, > which is a separate issue from whether the economy is capitalist. I see, you are correct. However, it does have "almost free" health care and extensive social services which help keep the people that run the economy alive, no? I think that is a heavy hand in business. http://www.ha.org.hk/hesd/nsapi/?MIv...ro=ha%5fview%5 ftemplate%26group%3dAHA But isn't the success of Hong Kong dependant on "low" capitalist countries like the US? > > >>>Can you show me one capitalist economy that has succeded? > >> > >>I already did. So you kind of did. But at what cost success? http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/top/sto...235140,00.html Hong Kong - suicide city Suicide rate highest in the world, says poll Middle-aged men with five or more credit cards most at risk Debt - from failed busin http://www.hkmj.org.hk/hkmj/resources/digest0312.html Trends of suicide in Hong Kong from 1981 to 2001 Hong Kong Med J 2003;9:419-425 A local study to analyze the epidemiological profile of suicide in Hong Kong from 1981 to 2001 revealed that, the total share of years of life lost attributing to suicide in Hong Kong has increased from 3.6% to 8.1% in 20 years, and is still increasing. The ranking of suicide among the leading causes of deaths in Hong Kong has gone up, from 9th in 1981 to 6th in 2001. Research results are published in December 2003 issue Hong Kong Medical Journal. From 1981 to 2001, the overall suicide rate in Hong Kong increased by 56.9%, from 9.65 to 15.14 per 100 000. By 2001, suicide has become the 6th leading cause of death overall, and the leading cause of death for teenagers. The suicide rate of the elderly has been decreasing slowly since 1997, while the rate for 25- to 59-year-old has increased by more than 30% since 1997. Unemployed people are overrepresented among those who committed suicide--about 48% of those the 25- to 59-year age group ---------------------------------------------- Anarchy: It's not what you think it is! http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
In article >,
Ed Faith > wrote: > Grain of Sand wrote: > > > In article >, > > Ed Faith > wrote: > > > > > >>Grain of Sand wrote: > >> > >> > >>>In article >, > >>> Ed Faith > wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>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. > >>> > >>> > >>>No. Some one brought up communism and gave an example of cuba. But > >>>communism is a cold war term that was used to describe communists states > >>>and does not describe cuba. > >>> > >>>There are several forms of 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? > >>> > >>> > >>>No. I am pointing out the difference of a communist dictatorship and > >>>communism. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>>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. > >>> > >>> > >>>Hon Kong is controled bu a government based on few people being able to > >>>vote. > >> > >>That has nothing directly to do with whether it is capitalist. > > > > > > Define capitalism for me. > > Webster: > > "An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of > capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, > and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are > determined mainly by competition in a free market" Thanks. > > Your mention of voting has to do with how democratic the government is, > which is a separate issue from whether the economy is capitalist. I see, you are correct. However, it does have "almost free" health care and extensive social services which help keep the people that run the economy alive, no? I think that is a heavy hand in business. http://www.ha.org.hk/hesd/nsapi/?MIv...ro=ha%5fview%5 ftemplate%26group%3dAHA But isn't the success of Hong Kong dependant on "low" capitalist countries like the US? > > >>>Can you show me one capitalist economy that has succeded? > >> > >>I already did. So you kind of did. But at what cost success? http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/top/sto...235140,00.html Hong Kong - suicide city Suicide rate highest in the world, says poll Middle-aged men with five or more credit cards most at risk Debt - from failed busin http://www.hkmj.org.hk/hkmj/resources/digest0312.html Trends of suicide in Hong Kong from 1981 to 2001 Hong Kong Med J 2003;9:419-425 A local study to analyze the epidemiological profile of suicide in Hong Kong from 1981 to 2001 revealed that, the total share of years of life lost attributing to suicide in Hong Kong has increased from 3.6% to 8.1% in 20 years, and is still increasing. The ranking of suicide among the leading causes of deaths in Hong Kong has gone up, from 9th in 1981 to 6th in 2001. Research results are published in December 2003 issue Hong Kong Medical Journal. From 1981 to 2001, the overall suicide rate in Hong Kong increased by 56.9%, from 9.65 to 15.14 per 100 000. By 2001, suicide has become the 6th leading cause of death overall, and the leading cause of death for teenagers. The suicide rate of the elderly has been decreasing slowly since 1997, while the rate for 25- to 59-year-old has increased by more than 30% since 1997. Unemployed people are overrepresented among those who committed suicide--about 48% of those the 25- to 59-year age group ---------------------------------------------- Anarchy: It's not what you think it is! http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
"Miguel O'Pastel" > wrote in message >...
> When unions lose the right to strike, they have to pick up the gun. > M Did I complain about their right to strike? I support their right to strike. However, if a strike does not have the desired impact (i.e. they get fired or make concessions), that's a reflection on the _real_ market value of their labor. My problem is when they want the government to stack the deck for them. And your attempt to justify violence _defies_logic_. But it does sound like the way the unions typically make their case: "If management doesn't give us what we want, they're responsible for whatever happens!" Thugs. JR |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
"Miguel O'Pastel" > wrote in message >...
> When unions lose the right to strike, they have to pick up the gun. > M Did I complain about their right to strike? I support their right to strike. However, if a strike does not have the desired impact (i.e. they get fired or make concessions), that's a reflection on the _real_ market value of their labor. My problem is when they want the government to stack the deck for them. And your attempt to justify violence _defies_logic_. But it does sound like the way the unions typically make their case: "If management doesn't give us what we want, they're responsible for whatever happens!" Thugs. JR |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
"JR" > wrote in message om... > "Miguel O'Pastel" > wrote in message >... > > > When unions lose the right to strike, they have to pick up the gun. > > M > > Did I complain about their right to strike? I support their right to > strike. However, if a strike does not have the desired impact (i.e. > they get fired or make concessions), that's a reflection on the _real_ > market value of their labor. > > My problem is when they want the government to stack the deck for > them. > > And your attempt to justify violence _defies_logic_. But it does > sound like the way the unions typically make their case: "If > management doesn't give us what we want, they're responsible for > whatever happens!" > > Thugs. > > JR But it's OK for management to use violence via private police or government to remove strikers from their property? I suspect violence is justified in the minds of most people when it comes to enforcing the law? So if the laws are pro-business and they use the law to use violence against workers ... ? |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Celebrating Six Months of IWW Starbucks Workers Union in the TwinCities | Coffee | |||
| Free Starbucks 4 U - Winner of Last Weeks $20 Starbucks Gift Card | Coffee | |||
| Free Starbucks 4 U - Winner of Last Weeks $20 Starbucks Gift Card | Recipes | |||
| JOIN THIS .... DON'T MISS IT.... ITS THE MUST JOIN STOCK MARKET CLUB. | Beer | |||
| JOIN THIS .... DON'T MISS IT.... ITS THE MUST JOIN STOCK MARKET CLUB. | Beer | |||
Linear Mode
