| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|||
|
|||
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 ... ? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
thats rich....this idiot misspelled retired......you meant retarded dont
you!!!! lmfao!!!!!!!!! well that works.....you should be qualified to work at Starbucks!!!! LMFAO!!!! well that is until the dump the union and are no longer forced to hire the retards like yourself, and can hire the good workers.....you know.....the immigrants? the ones who really appreciate what hard work means!!!!! retired........GUFFFFAAWWWWWWWW.......stop it!....my stomach hurts from laughing! lmfao!!!!!! "Michael Legel" > wrote in message s.com... > > "geetarplyr" > wrote in message > news:6ELBc.4336$rf7.1150@lakeread02... > > tell.....did you lose your last job cuz you couldnt figure out how to keep > > from taping your hand to the shipping boxes? > > your right, you do need a union........who would hire such a ****in retard > > any other way!!! > > LMAO! > > > > > > Actually I retired at 48 with a good pension and benefits ... so go ahead and > laugh your ass off on your way to work while I sit back and comfortably watch > the grass grow. > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
thats rich....this idiot misspelled retired......you meant retarded dont
you!!!! lmfao!!!!!!!!! well that works.....you should be qualified to work at Starbucks!!!! LMFAO!!!! well that is until the dump the union and are no longer forced to hire the retards like yourself, and can hire the good workers.....you know.....the immigrants? the ones who really appreciate what hard work means!!!!! retired........GUFFFFAAWWWWWWWW.......stop it!....my stomach hurts from laughing! lmfao!!!!!! "Michael Legel" > wrote in message s.com... > > "geetarplyr" > wrote in message > news:6ELBc.4336$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
You might consider having your medications reviewed. I think you may not be
taking them properly. Or maybe too much caffeine? "geetarplyr" > wrote in message news:EF6Cc.20091$wS2.2898@okepread03... > thats rich....this idiot misspelled retired......you meant retarded dont > you!!!! > lmfao!!!!!!!!! > > well that works.....you should be qualified to work at Starbucks!!!! > LMFAO!!!! > > well that is until the dump the union and are no longer forced to hire the > retards like yourself, and can hire the good workers.....you know.....the > immigrants? the ones who really appreciate what hard work means!!!!! > > > retired........GUFFFFAAWWWWWWWW.......stop it!....my stomach hurts from > laughing! > > lmfao!!!!!! > > > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message > s.com... > > > > "geetarplyr" > wrote in message > > news:6ELBc.4336$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
You might consider having your medications reviewed. I think you may not be
taking them properly. Or maybe too much caffeine? "geetarplyr" > wrote in message news:EF6Cc.20091$wS2.2898@okepread03... > thats rich....this idiot misspelled retired......you meant retarded dont > you!!!! > lmfao!!!!!!!!! > > well that works.....you should be qualified to work at Starbucks!!!! > LMFAO!!!! > > well that is until the dump the union and are no longer forced to hire the > retards like yourself, and can hire the good workers.....you know.....the > immigrants? the ones who really appreciate what hard work means!!!!! > > > retired........GUFFFFAAWWWWWWWW.......stop it!....my stomach hurts from > laughing! > > lmfao!!!!!! > > > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message > s.com... > > > > "geetarplyr" > wrote in message > > news:6ELBc.4336$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. > > > > > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
So what exactly does Dan Clore do for a living anyway?
(Xyzzy) wrote in message om>...
> "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. No they aren't any more than the voters are the government. > They invest their labor, the better part of their lives. > No they sell it, there's a difference. In a sale you start with something, exchange it for money and end up with money and without the thing you sold. In an investment you start with something, put it into a project and receive part of the proceeds of the project when (and if) it produces such. > > A small point you choose to overlook. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
In article >,
Ed Faith > wrote: > G*rd*n wrote: > > >>>>... > > > > > > : > > > >>>>Labor unions are inherently evil. They are a group demanding control > >>>>over someone else's business. The union didn't invest in the company, > >>>>they didn't risk anything to start it or work 80 hour weeks building > >>>>it up. They are vendors selling something the company purches to make > >>>>their product. But they presume some strange right to exersixe control > >>>>over the business owner's right to buy labor. > > > > > > "G*rd*n" >: > > > >>>So you don't believe in the rights of association, contract > >>>and representation? Or in ownership of one's own labor? > > > > > > "Stan de SD" >: > > > >>If you own your labor, why do you need a union to represent you? > > > > > > > > Collective behavior is often advantageous. That's why > > corporations and partnerships exist. > > We might distinguish between two kinds of advantage: > > 1) Monopolistic advantage. When companies join into a cartel, they are > trying to get a monopolistic advantage, improving their lot at the > expense of the customer. > > 2) Efficiency advantage. When people join into a company, often the > point of this is to be able to produce more product with the same > effort, so they can sell more and make more money. This has the indirect > effect of lowering prices and improving the lot of the customer along > with the producer. > > Long story short, unions do not get their fame from making workers more > efficient. No, they just kept my grandfather alive in the coal mines of pennsylvania. ---------------------------------------------- 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: > G*rd*n wrote: > > >>>>... > > > > > > : > > > >>>>Labor unions are inherently evil. They are a group demanding control > >>>>over someone else's business. The union didn't invest in the company, > >>>>they didn't risk anything to start it or work 80 hour weeks building > >>>>it up. They are vendors selling something the company purches to make > >>>>their product. But they presume some strange right to exersixe control > >>>>over the business owner's right to buy labor. > > > > > > "G*rd*n" >: > > > >>>So you don't believe in the rights of association, contract > >>>and representation? Or in ownership of one's own labor? > > > > > > "Stan de SD" >: > > > >>If you own your labor, why do you need a union to represent you? > > > > > > > > Collective behavior is often advantageous. That's why > > corporations and partnerships exist. > > We might distinguish between two kinds of advantage: > > 1) Monopolistic advantage. When companies join into a cartel, they are > trying to get a monopolistic advantage, improving their lot at the > expense of the customer. > > 2) Efficiency advantage. When people join into a company, often the > point of this is to be able to produce more product with the same > effort, so they can sell more and make more money. This has the indirect > effect of lowering prices and improving the lot of the customer along > with the producer. > > Long story short, unions do not get their fame from making workers more > efficient. No, they just kept my grandfather alive in the coal mines of pennsylvania. ---------------------------------------------- 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: > Michael Legel wrote: > > > "Ed Faith" > wrote in message > > .. . > > > >>Michael Legel wrote: > >> > >> > >>But to my libertarian eyes that looks like a privilege enjoyed by > >>unions. Unless I have misunderstood, you've just argued that unions > >>cannot survive in a free market, because they require government > >>intervention. > >> > > > > > > "Free market" and "government" are determined by those who rule. > > A free market is defined by those thinkers who have proposed and > defended free markets, such as Adam Smith. Not by those who rule. Dude, you haven't read Wealth of Nations have you? See, unlike most libertarians, I have. Adam Smith knew and spoke of the dangers of corporations (If he saw wal mart her would puke). Smiths free market was amoung artisans. I mean a first hit on a google searrch for smith and corporations shows: http://www.pcdf.org/corprule/betrayal.htm Class is over, now do your homework. ---------------------------------------------- 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: > Michael Legel wrote: > > > "Ed Faith" > wrote in message > > .. . > > > >>Michael Legel wrote: > >> > >> > >>But to my libertarian eyes that looks like a privilege enjoyed by > >>unions. Unless I have misunderstood, you've just argued that unions > >>cannot survive in a free market, because they require government > >>intervention. > >> > > > > > > "Free market" and "government" are determined by those who rule. > > A free market is defined by those thinkers who have proposed and > defended free markets, such as Adam Smith. Not by those who rule. Dude, you haven't read Wealth of Nations have you? See, unlike most libertarians, I have. Adam Smith knew and spoke of the dangers of corporations (If he saw wal mart her would puke). Smiths free market was amoung artisans. I mean a first hit on a google searrch for smith and corporations shows: http://www.pcdf.org/corprule/betrayal.htm Class is over, now do your homework. ---------------------------------------------- Anarchy: It's not what you think it is! http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
"Michael Legel" > wrote in message ws.com>...
> > But it's OK for management to use violence via private police or government to > remove strikers from their property? Good point. THEIR property. I know there are exceptions, but when police ask people to leave, and they do it peacefully, the police do not respond with violence. If they don't, then they're treated like any other trespassers. Police should use only "reasonable force" to remove them. > 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 ... ? I do not equate the use of "reasonable force" with "violence". You think the laws are pro-business?. What do you think the unions are? At the top levels, they're businesses, plain and simple. They (at the top levels) clearly have a vested interest in perpetuating the discontent of their members. The more discontent they can foment, the stronger they become. Yes, at the local levels, they may really be on the side of the rank-and-file members. The way I see it, unions are losing strength around the country, and it seems they want the government to step in and make them important by giving them more power. JR |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
"Michael Legel" > wrote in message ws.com>...
> > But it's OK for management to use violence via private police or government to > remove strikers from their property? Good point. THEIR property. I know there are exceptions, but when police ask people to leave, and they do it peacefully, the police do not respond with violence. If they don't, then they're treated like any other trespassers. Police should use only "reasonable force" to remove them. > 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 ... ? I do not equate the use of "reasonable force" with "violence". You think the laws are pro-business?. What do you think the unions are? At the top levels, they're businesses, plain and simple. They (at the top levels) clearly have a vested interest in perpetuating the discontent of their members. The more discontent they can foment, the stronger they become. Yes, at the local levels, they may really be on the side of the rank-and-file members. The way I see it, unions are losing strength around the country, and it seems they want the government to step in and make them important by giving them more power. JR |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
So what exactly does Dan Clore do for a living anyway?
In article et>,
"Stan de SD" > wrote: > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message > s.com... > > 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. HEHE! I love when the corporate capitalists get caught on this one. If you would not live uunder a totalitarian state, why live under a totalitarian corporation? Yes but, they say, you are free to leave at any time! Tell that to a wal mart employee when they realize that wal mart is the only business left in town. ---------------------------------------------- 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?
In article et>,
"Stan de SD" > wrote: > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message > s.com... > > 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. HEHE! I love when the corporate capitalists get caught on this one. If you would not live uunder a totalitarian state, why live under a totalitarian corporation? Yes but, they say, you are free to leave at any time! Tell that to a wal mart employee when they realize that wal mart is the only business left in town. ---------------------------------------------- Anarchy: It's not what you think it is! http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
LMFAO!......retired!.....guuuufaaawww....HE MEANT RETARDED!!!!
LMFAO! "Michael Legel" > wrote in message s.com... > You might consider having your medications reviewed. I think you may not be > taking them properly. Or maybe too much caffeine? > > > "geetarplyr" > wrote in message > news:EF6Cc.20091$wS2.2898@okepread03... > > thats rich....this idiot misspelled retired......you meant retarded dont > > you!!!! > > lmfao!!!!!!!!! > > > > well that works.....you should be qualified to work at Starbucks!!!! > > LMFAO!!!! > > > > well that is until the dump the union and are no longer forced to hire the > > retards like yourself, and can hire the good workers.....you know.....the > > immigrants? the ones who really appreciate what hard work means!!!!! > > > > > > retired........GUFFFFAAWWWWWWWW.......stop it!....my stomach hurts from > > laughing! > > > > lmfao!!!!!! > > > > > > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message > > s.com... > > > > > > "geetarplyr" > wrote in message > > > news:6ELBc.4336$rf7.1150@lakeread02... > > > > tell.....did you lose your last job cuz you couldnt figure out how to > > keep > > > > from taping your hand to the shipping boxes? > > > > your right, you do need a union........who would hire such a ****in > > retard > > > > any other way!!! > > > > LMAO! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually I retired at 48 with a good pension and benefits ... so go ahead > > and > > > laugh your ass off on your way to work while I sit back and comfortably > > watch > > > the grass grow. > > > > > > > > > > > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
LMFAO!......retired!.....guuuufaaawww....HE MEANT RETARDED!!!!
LMFAO! "Michael Legel" > wrote in message s.com... > You might consider having your medications reviewed. I think you may not be > taking them properly. Or maybe too much caffeine? > > > "geetarplyr" > wrote in message > news:EF6Cc.20091$wS2.2898@okepread03... > > thats rich....this idiot misspelled retired......you meant retarded dont > > you!!!! > > lmfao!!!!!!!!! > > > > well that works.....you should be qualified to work at Starbucks!!!! > > LMFAO!!!! > > > > well that is until the dump the union and are no longer forced to hire the > > retards like yourself, and can hire the good workers.....you know.....the > > immigrants? the ones who really appreciate what hard work means!!!!! > > > > > > retired........GUFFFFAAWWWWWWWW.......stop it!....my stomach hurts from > > laughing! > > > > lmfao!!!!!! > > > > > > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message > > s.com... > > > > > > "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" >:
> LMFAO!......retired!.....guuuufaaawww....HE MEANT RETARDED!!!! > LMFAO! Just as a gentle reminder: This thread is being posted to several newsgroups where people generally use actual human language and try to make coherent statements. Now, there's nothing _wrong_ with what you're doing, but there are other newsgroups where it might be much better appreciated. -- (<><>) /*/ }"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{ { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
"geetarplyr" >:
> LMFAO!......retired!.....guuuufaaawww....HE MEANT RETARDED!!!! > LMFAO! Just as a gentle reminder: This thread is being posted to several newsgroups where people generally use actual human language and try to make coherent statements. Now, there's nothing _wrong_ with what you're doing, but there are other newsgroups where it might be much better appreciated. -- (<><>) /*/ }"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{ { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
nope..this would be the only newsgroup...........
you must work at Starbucks too! What!...is the requirement to work at Starbucks to be 1/2 gene short of a full deck! You make the union proud! LMFAO! "G*rd*n" > wrote in message ... > "geetarplyr" >: > > LMFAO!......retired!.....guuuufaaawww....HE MEANT RETARDED!!!! > > LMFAO! > > > Just as a gentle reminder: This thread is being posted to > several newsgroups where people generally use actual human > language and try to make coherent statements. Now, there's > nothing _wrong_ with what you're doing, but there are other > newsgroups where it might be much better appreciated. > > -- > > (<><>) /*/ > }"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{ > { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
nope..this would be the only newsgroup...........
you must work at Starbucks too! What!...is the requirement to work at Starbucks to be 1/2 gene short of a full deck! You make the union proud! LMFAO! "G*rd*n" > wrote in message ... > "geetarplyr" >: > > LMFAO!......retired!.....guuuufaaawww....HE MEANT RETARDED!!!! > > LMFAO! > > > Just as a gentle reminder: This thread is being posted to > several newsgroups where people generally use actual human > language and try to make coherent statements. Now, there's > nothing _wrong_ with what you're doing, but there are other > newsgroups where it might be much better appreciated. > > -- > > (<><>) /*/ > }"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{ > { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
"geetarplyr" >:
> nope..this would be the only newsgroup........... > > you must work at Starbucks too! > > What!...is the requirement to work at Starbucks to be 1/2 gene short of a > full deck! > > You make the union proud! > > LMFAO! You're doing better -- I can see three or so sentences up there, although you might want to look at an article on punctuation. -- (<><>) /*/ }"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{ { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
"geetarplyr" >:
> nope..this would be the only newsgroup........... > > you must work at Starbucks too! > > What!...is the requirement to work at Starbucks to be 1/2 gene short of a > full deck! > > You make the union proud! > > LMFAO! You're doing better -- I can see three or so sentences up there, although you might want to look at an article on punctuation. -- (<><>) /*/ }"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{ { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
So what exactly does Dan Clore do for a living anyway?
(michael price) wrote in message . com>...
> (Xyzzy) wrote in message om>... > > "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. > > No they aren't any more than the voters are the government. Union workers have considerably more influence than any voters. At any rate, voting is the only reliable way to make decisions for the group. > > > They invest their labor, the better part of their lives. > > > No they sell it, there's a difference. In a sale you start with > something, exchange it for money and end up with money and without > the thing you sold. In an investment you start with something, like yr talent for box-packing > put it into a project for eight hours, five days a week > and receive part of the proceeds of the project on Friday > when (and if) it produces such. > > > > A small point you choose to overlook. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
So what exactly does Dan Clore do for a living anyway?
(michael price) wrote in message . com>...
> (Xyzzy) wrote in message om>... > > "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. > > No they aren't any more than the voters are the government. Union workers have considerably more influence than any voters. At any rate, voting is the only reliable way to make decisions for the group. > > > They invest their labor, the better part of their lives. > > > No they sell it, there's a difference. In a sale you start with > something, exchange it for money and end up with money and without > the thing you sold. In an investment you start with something, like yr talent for box-packing > put it into a project for eight hours, five days a week > and receive part of the proceeds of the project on Friday > when (and if) it produces such. > > > > A small point you choose to overlook. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
oooouuuuuuuuu.....you regularly post articles.........your mommie must be
real proud.! You must mean that you throw articles on peoples driveways in plastic bag with a little rock inside? I can still see why your mama would be proud.....you know...you being 1/2 gene shy of a full deck and all....but hey.....you qualify to work at Starsucks.....at least they have a good program for the retarded...uhhh....i mean retired.....uhhhh......well.....really retarded. LMFAO!!!! "Dan Clore" > wrote in message ... > Stan de SD wrote: > > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message > > s.com... > >>"spenzdad" > wrote in message > >>news:aahBc.19627$wS2.12242@okepread03... > > > 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... > > I regularly post articles on subjects like workers > cooperatives, articles to which Stain regularly responds, > and yet Stain still cannot see any possible alternative > business model to the standard old capitalist corporation > and state-capitalist nationalized company. Perhaps someday > he will learn to count as high as three. > > -- > Dan Clore > > Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_ > http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...edanclorenecro > Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page: > http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/ > News & Views for Anarchists & Activists: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo > > "It's a political statement -- or, rather, an > *anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!" > -- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in > _Detective Comics_ #608 > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
oooouuuuuuuuu.....you regularly post articles.........your mommie must be
real proud.! You must mean that you throw articles on peoples driveways in plastic bag with a little rock inside? I can still see why your mama would be proud.....you know...you being 1/2 gene shy of a full deck and all....but hey.....you qualify to work at Starsucks.....at least they have a good program for the retarded...uhhh....i mean retired.....uhhhh......well.....really retarded. LMFAO!!!! "Dan Clore" > wrote in message ... > Stan de SD wrote: > > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message > > s.com... > >>"spenzdad" > wrote in message > >>news:aahBc.19627$wS2.12242@okepread03... > > > 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... > > I regularly post articles on subjects like workers > cooperatives, articles to which Stain regularly responds, > and yet Stain still cannot see any possible alternative > business model to the standard old capitalist corporation > and state-capitalist nationalized company. Perhaps someday > he will learn to count as high as three. > > -- > Dan Clore > > Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_ > http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...edanclorenecro > Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page: > http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/ > News & Views for Anarchists & Activists: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo > > "It's a political statement -- or, rather, an > *anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!" > -- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in > _Detective Comics_ #608 > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 23:46:53 +0000 (UTC), Hawth Hill
> wrote: >in article , Wm James at wrote on 06/20/2004 3:58 AM: > >> However, like I said, there >> have NEVER been atime when people weren't free to form or join alabor >> union. It was a trick question. > >Tricky? > >C'mon, William! Even _YOU_ can do better than that. > >It is an undeniable fact of history that, for much of America's past, people >were NOT free to form or join a labor union, IF in doing so they actually >meant to try to agree with others concerning means by which they might >better their wages, hours, or working conditions. If they tried to do so >they found themselves locked up and branded as thugs who favored monopolies. Wrong. No one was ever locked up for joining a club. They were sometimes locked up for disorderly conduct, vandalism, disturbing the peace, murder, assault, extortion, etc. >Again, read the preamble to the NLRA, which I've posted. It's irrelevant. >Now, I fully understand what you've said, that YOU: >Don't care what the Republicans wanted; or, >Don't care what the Democrats wanted; or, >Hate unions; and, >Hate people who join unions; and, >Don't care what the hell the law is, or has been. > >Hey, _I_ happen to HATE the fact that the sun comes up in the East. > >But, sorry, it'll still keep on doing so. > >HH > Apparently you don't understand. Otherwise you wouldn't have used "or" so much but "and". I don't care what either socialist party thinks or wants, nor am I the least bit interested in the wants and desires of the unions, the thugs, or the people who get suckered into joining them. I care what the law is, but mostly I care that we get a supreme court who respects the constitution and overturns them when they violate constitutional rights. Free people have the right to trade or refuse to trade on their own terms. You don't lose that right when you happen to be trading money for labor. William R. James |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 23:46:53 +0000 (UTC), Hawth Hill
> wrote: >in article , Wm James at wrote on 06/20/2004 3:58 AM: > >> However, like I said, there >> have NEVER been atime when people weren't free to form or join alabor >> union. It was a trick question. > >Tricky? > >C'mon, William! Even _YOU_ can do better than that. > >It is an undeniable fact of history that, for much of America's past, people >were NOT free to form or join a labor union, IF in doing so they actually >meant to try to agree with others concerning means by which they might >better their wages, hours, or working conditions. If they tried to do so >they found themselves locked up and branded as thugs who favored monopolies. Wrong. No one was ever locked up for joining a club. They were sometimes locked up for disorderly conduct, vandalism, disturbing the peace, murder, assault, extortion, etc. >Again, read the preamble to the NLRA, which I've posted. It's irrelevant. >Now, I fully understand what you've said, that YOU: >Don't care what the Republicans wanted; or, >Don't care what the Democrats wanted; or, >Hate unions; and, >Hate people who join unions; and, >Don't care what the hell the law is, or has been. > >Hey, _I_ happen to HATE the fact that the sun comes up in the East. > >But, sorry, it'll still keep on doing so. > >HH > Apparently you don't understand. Otherwise you wouldn't have used "or" so much but "and". I don't care what either socialist party thinks or wants, nor am I the least bit interested in the wants and desires of the unions, the thugs, or the people who get suckered into joining them. I care what the law is, but mostly I care that we get a supreme court who respects the constitution and overturns them when they violate constitutional rights. Free people have the right to trade or refuse to trade on their own terms. You don't lose that right when you happen to be trading money for labor. William R. James |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 23:54:47 +0000 (UTC), Hawth Hill
> wrote: >in article , Wm James at wrote on 06/20/2004 4:14 AM: > >> On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 00:42:20 +0000 (UTC), Hawth Hill >> > wrote: >> >>> in article , Wm James at >>> wrote on 06/17/2004 4:55 PM: >>> >>>>>> Business owners want the same rights as everyone else. They don't want >>>>>> the government there infringing on their rights to benefit a group of >>>>>> thugs. >>>>> >>>>> Read the law. Check the cases. >>>>> >>>>> The law imposes ONLY the simple burden of negotiation in good faith. >>>> >>>> And the employees don't have that burden at all. They can quit anytime >>>> they like. If they don't like the offer they can say no thanks and >>>> take their business elsewhere with no possibility of penalty. Why >>>> shouldn't the business owner have the same rights? >>> >>> William, let me say it in words that are simple. . . . The National Labor >>> Relations Act imposes EXACTLY the SAME obligation to "bargain in good faith" >>> upon BOTH side. Jeez, it's right there in black and white. >> >> Nonsense. They have NEVER done so and can't bu definition. The >> bisiness is the property of the employer. It's not equal sides. Any >> worker can quiot without reason at any time. That's often not the case >> with the employers. >> >>>>> If an employer does so, and still no agreement results, and if the employer >>>>> chooses to continue his business by hiring permanent replacements for those >>>>> who strike, the government will do NOTHING to him. >>>> >>>> Wanna bet? It's illegal. Not constittionally illegal, but illegal and >>>> enforced none the less. > >William, that's simply pathetic. So, you admit that what I've said is "the >law." Yet, you claim that it's, no matter what, just not what happens. > >Pitiful! What's pitiful is that you intentionally refuse to even comprehend what I said. >>> That's a bet that I truly wish it were possible to take you up on. Because, >>> if you have anything to lose, and if I have anything to lose, I'd be >>> perfectly willing to make it a "winner take all" bet. Check the facts and >>> the cases. Employers all across America have for many years, even decades, >>> routinely managed to "bargain to impasse." And, having done so, they have >>> for the same time been perfectly free to impose their last offer to the >>> collective bargaining representative unilaterally. No ifs, ands, or buts. >>> If the employer has offered it, and has bargained to impasse, he's >>> absolutely free to impose it. Regardless of what the union wants. And >>> without the necessity to reinstate any employees who have gone out on strike >>> who have been permanently replaced. That's the law, and it's been the law >>> for decades and decades. And it's been used over and over and over by >>> employers. >> >> Then take me up on it because I know what of I speak. So called >> "unfair labor practice" strikes do not allow the bums to be replaced >> with workers. That's a fact. Not constitutional, but a fact of life. > >Again one of your alleged "real-world" pathetic claims. Even though >thousands (literally) of cases, and thousands of lawyers (literally) easily >and absolutely prove the precise opposite. Name one. You can't. I know it, you know it, and you know I know it, so quit shoveling BS and name one. >I say again, if the employer bargains in good faith to impasse, he is >absolutely free to impose the terms of his last offer unilaterally, and to >permanently replace the workers who have gone out on strike and voluntarily >chosen to withhold their services. . . . Period! You insist that the owner of the property, the owner of the money, the party purchasing the labor, is obligated to bargin collectively to make a purchase rather than purchase elsewhere. That's the point which you continue to act like you don't understand and can't comprehend. Or are you really that dense? "Good faith" can mean the buyer simply stating his position honestly and saying there's nothing to negotiate. You and I both know the buyer's constitutional rights would never be respected in such a case. If you are working for me and you form a union and I say "That's nice, but I'm not interested in buying bulk labor. You can sell it to some other company if you wish, but there's nothing to negotiate here.", and you go on strike, we both know what would happen if I hired some people who wanted to work and mailed you your pink slips after you failed to show up for work. >If that isn't true, then many thousands of labor law specialists in the U.S. >Who represent employers are guilty of legal malpractice and are gonna hafta >pony up megabucks as damages to the employers they've represented and >advised. . . . Ain't gonna happen. > >HH Unless and until we get a Supreme Court which respects the constitution, everyone's rights are subject to infringment, not just business owners. William R. James |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 23:54:47 +0000 (UTC), Hawth Hill
> wrote: >in article , Wm James at wrote on 06/20/2004 4:14 AM: > >> On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 00:42:20 +0000 (UTC), Hawth Hill >> > wrote: >> >>> in article , Wm James at >>> wrote on 06/17/2004 4:55 PM: >>> >>>>>> Business owners want the same rights as everyone else. They don't want >>>>>> the government there infringing on their rights to benefit a group of >>>>>> thugs. >>>>> >>>>> Read the law. Check the cases. >>>>> >>>>> The law imposes ONLY the simple burden of negotiation in good faith. >>>> >>>> And the employees don't have that burden at all. They can quit anytime >>>> they like. If they don't like the offer they can say no thanks and >>>> take their business elsewhere with no possibility of penalty. Why >>>> shouldn't the business owner have the same rights? >>> >>> William, let me say it in words that are simple. . . . The National Labor >>> Relations Act imposes EXACTLY the SAME obligation to "bargain in good faith" >>> upon BOTH side. Jeez, it's right there in black and white. >> >> Nonsense. They have NEVER done so and can't bu definition. The >> bisiness is the property of the employer. It's not equal sides. Any >> worker can quiot without reason at any time. That's often not the case >> with the employers. >> >>>>> If an employer does so, and still no agreement results, and if the employer >>>>> chooses to continue his business by hiring permanent replacements for those >>>>> who strike, the government will do NOTHING to him. >>>> >>>> Wanna bet? It's illegal. Not constittionally illegal, but illegal and >>>> enforced none the less. > >William, that's simply pathetic. So, you admit that what I've said is "the >law." Yet, you claim that it's, no matter what, just not what happens. > >Pitiful! What's pitiful is that you intentionally refuse to even comprehend what I said. >>> That's a bet that I truly wish it were possible to take you up on. Because, >>> if you have anything to lose, and if I have anything to lose, I'd be >>> perfectly willing to make it a "winner take all" bet. Check the facts and >>> the cases. Employers all across America have for many years, even decades, >>> routinely managed to "bargain to impasse." And, having done so, they have >>> for the same time been perfectly free to impose their last offer to the >>> collective bargaining representative unilaterally. No ifs, ands, or buts. >>> If the employer has offered it, and has bargained to impasse, he's >>> absolutely free to impose it. Regardless of what the union wants. And >>> without the necessity to reinstate any employees who have gone out on strike >>> who have been permanently replaced. That's the law, and it's been the law >>> for decades and decades. And it's been used over and over and over by >>> employers. >> >> Then take me up on it because I know what of I speak. So called >> "unfair labor practice" strikes do not allow the bums to be replaced >> with workers. That's a fact. Not constitutional, but a fact of life. > >Again one of your alleged "real-world" pathetic claims. Even though >thousands (literally) of cases, and thousands of lawyers (literally) easily >and absolutely prove the precise opposite. Name one. You can't. I know it, you know it, and you know I know it, so quit shoveling BS and name one. >I say again, if the employer bargains in good faith to impasse, he is >absolutely free to impose the terms of his last offer unilaterally, and to >permanently replace the workers who have gone out on strike and voluntarily >chosen to withhold their services. . . . Period! You insist that the owner of the property, the owner of the money, the party purchasing the labor, is obligated to bargin collectively to make a purchase rather than purchase elsewhere. That's the point which you continue to act like you don't understand and can't comprehend. Or are you really that dense? "Good faith" can mean the buyer simply stating his position honestly and saying there's nothing to negotiate. You and I both know the buyer's constitutional rights would never be respected in such a case. If you are working for me and you form a union and I say "That's nice, but I'm not interested in buying bulk labor. You can sell it to some other company if you wish, but there's nothing to negotiate here.", and you go on strike, we both know what would happen if I hired some people who wanted to work and mailed you your pink slips after you failed to show up for work. >If that isn't true, then many thousands of labor law specialists in the U.S. >Who represent employers are guilty of legal malpractice and are gonna hafta >pony up megabucks as damages to the employers they've represented and >advised. . . . Ain't gonna happen. > >HH Unless and until we get a Supreme Court which respects the constitution, everyone's rights are subject to infringment, not just business owners. William R. James |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 23:57:56 +0000 (UTC), Hawth Hill
> wrote: >in article , Wm James at wrote on 06/20/2004 4:17 AM: > >>> As I've already observed, that statement marks you as a closed minded >>> person. >> >> Interesting that people without any logical refutation seem so often >> to rely on calling people close minded as a substitute. >> >>> One who doesn't give a hang for the democratic process that has led to the >>> enactment of laws. Laws that have been enacted and enforced for decades and >>> decades by both Republicans and Democrats alike. >> >> AKA socialists with no respect for the constitution. >> >>> As such, there's no point in further discussion with you. >>> >>> HH >> >> Apparently not, if you are unwilling to learn. > > >O.K., William. > >Let's let it go at that. > >I'll continue to post here. I'll assume that you'll do the same. As is the >choice of each of us. > >But, just don't, please, advance any claim that silence regarding any of >your nonsensical postings is to be taken as assent or agreement. > >Let's just let it go that neither of us thinks that the other is worth the >trouble. > >HH Socialists never really are.  William R. James |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 23:57:56 +0000 (UTC), Hawth Hill
> wrote: >in article , Wm James at wrote on 06/20/2004 4:17 AM: > >>> As I've already observed, that statement marks you as a closed minded >>> person. >> >> Interesting that people without any logical refutation seem so often >> to rely on calling people close minded as a substitute. >> >>> One who doesn't give a hang for the democratic process that has led to the >>> enactment of laws. Laws that have been enacted and enforced for decades and >>> decades by both Republicans and Democrats alike. >> >> AKA socialists with no respect for the constitution. >> >>> As such, there's no point in further discussion with you. >>> >>> HH >> >> Apparently not, if you are unwilling to learn. > > >O.K., William. > >Let's let it go at that. > >I'll continue to post here. I'll assume that you'll do the same. As is the >choice of each of us. > >But, just don't, please, advance any claim that silence regarding any of >your nonsensical postings is to be taken as assent or agreement. > >Let's just let it go that neither of us thinks that the other is worth the >trouble. > >HH Socialists never really are. William R. James |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 14:49:29 GMT, (M J Carley)
wrote: >In the referenced article, writes: > >>I quite myself from above here, ok?: " That's the purpose of a picket >>line. Otherwise strikers would walk around in FRONT of a building in >>public view to express their message instead of blocking the gates of >>a plant around back where employees enter. Strikes are primarialy >>acts of terrorism, attempts at intimidation using threats and >>violence. Otherwise there's no purpose to a picket line." > >The reason for having a picket line where the workers go in is to try >to convince workers not to go in (and to ask workers who are not >involved to refuse to take on the work of those who are). There is no >point in talking to the public when it's other workers you want to >convince. You misspelled "coerce". The workers already know there's a strike. The public may not. So why are they carrying those silly signs around back instead of the front where they can be seen? Why not have them carry signs more alligned with their actions and intentions? How about "We will vandalize your car and home while you are at work" and "Your pets will be dead when you get home" or perhaps "Beware of snipers". That's what they want to say, after all. And why block the drive if they are interested in the rights of other people? It's simple. If they don't like the terms, they don't have to sell. Why hang around the drive bothering people who do like the terms and are selling? Let them go home. William R. James |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 14:49:29 GMT, (M J Carley)
wrote: >In the referenced article, writes: > >>I quite myself from above here, ok?: " That's the purpose of a picket >>line. Otherwise strikers would walk around in FRONT of a building in >>public view to express their message instead of blocking the gates of >>a plant around back where employees enter. Strikes are primarialy >>acts of terrorism, attempts at intimidation using threats and >>violence. Otherwise there's no purpose to a picket line." > >The reason for having a picket line where the workers go in is to try >to convince workers not to go in (and to ask workers who are not >involved to refuse to take on the work of those who are). There is no >point in talking to the public when it's other workers you want to >convince. You misspelled "coerce". The workers already know there's a strike. The public may not. So why are they carrying those silly signs around back instead of the front where they can be seen? Why not have them carry signs more alligned with their actions and intentions? How about "We will vandalize your car and home while you are at work" and "Your pets will be dead when you get home" or perhaps "Beware of snipers". That's what they want to say, after all. And why block the drive if they are interested in the rights of other people? It's simple. If they don't like the terms, they don't have to sell. Why hang around the drive bothering people who do like the terms and are selling? Let them go home. William R. James |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 00:00:13 +0000 (UTC), Hawth Hill
> wrote: >in article , Wm James at wrote on 06/20/2004 4:29 AM: > >> I have. And someday I hope we have a supreme court which respects the >> constitution. > >Well, laddie, hate to tell ya, but according to Marbury v. Madison, it's the >SC that determines just what's constitutional and what's not. Whether you, >me, or the lamp post agrees with 'em. > >Now, THAT'S constitutional. . . Has been for nearly 200 years. > >HH Like I said, And someday I hope we have a supreme court which respects the constitution. Until then we have to live with our rights being infringed upon. William R. James |
| 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
