Coffee (rec.drink.coffee) Discussing coffee. This includes selection of brands, methods of making coffee, etc. Discussion about coffee in other forms (e.g. desserts) is acceptable.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #562 (permalink)   Report Post  
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 18:21:18 GMT, "Stan de SD"
> wrote:

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


Michael Legel's posts are showing up here for some reason.

>> "Wm James" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > I said:
>> > Yep,they can organize all they want. And just like you aren't forced
>> > to participate in some group's activities, neither should people who
>> > own a business. If you want to start a union or a social club, go
>> > ahead. But recognize the business owner's right to tell you to
>> > participate in such things during your own time instead of his. If he
>> > doesn't want to negotiate with your union, then you and your union
>> > should advertise your labor for sale at whatever price you see fit
>> > while the former employer buys labor from someone else. If he's
>> > willing to negotiate, that's fine too. No problem. Just keep
>> > government out of the business of butting into either party's business
>> > and requiring participation. Fair enough?
>> >
>> > I stand by that.

>>
>> As has been stated very often ... the business owner has no right to quell
>> social interaction on the job to the extent you are speaking about.

>
>Yes he does - he has the right to control the interaction as he sees fit. If
>the employees think that it's excessive, they have the right to quit and
>seek work elsewhere. It's called the "free market", and it keeps both sides
>(management and labor) from becoming too dictatorial or unrealistic.
>Unfortunately, lefties such as yourself don't like the idea of freedom of
>choice, so you would rather impose your own prejudices on an employment
>situation...


Absolutely correct. If the employer doesn't want something on his
property, that's his right just like anyone else.

>> You seem
>> to think that Americans have absolutely NO rights when they enter the work
>> force.

>
>He didn't say that. Having read WJ for several years now, I'm sure that he
>agrees that employees have the right to be paid per their hiring agreement
>with their employer, the right not to be forced to commit illegal acts while
>at work, and the right to quit their jobs if they see their employment
>sutiation as being non-compensatory or their employer as unfair. I'm sure
>that WJ also would be opposed to forcing employees to contribute to
>political causes and candidates they didn't personally support, which is
>certainly a more enlightened position than many labor unions take..


Thanks, Stan. I agree with that 100%.

>> While it is true they have fewer rights than many EU countries, they
>> still maintain some meager right to be an American on the job. You keep
>> babbling about owner's rights that don't exist. Not in law or in the
>> constitution.


The constitution doesn't grant union members special rights to
infringe on the property rights of others. As an american I have the
right to trade or not to trade as I see fit. So does everyone else.
Trading requires two parties. Either can quite at any time for
whatever reasn they see fit, or for no reason if they choose.

William R,. James

  #563 (permalink)   Report Post  
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 18:21:18 GMT, "Stan de SD"
> wrote:

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


Michael Legel's posts are showing up here for some reason.

>> "Wm James" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > I said:
>> > Yep,they can organize all they want. And just like you aren't forced
>> > to participate in some group's activities, neither should people who
>> > own a business. If you want to start a union or a social club, go
>> > ahead. But recognize the business owner's right to tell you to
>> > participate in such things during your own time instead of his. If he
>> > doesn't want to negotiate with your union, then you and your union
>> > should advertise your labor for sale at whatever price you see fit
>> > while the former employer buys labor from someone else. If he's
>> > willing to negotiate, that's fine too. No problem. Just keep
>> > government out of the business of butting into either party's business
>> > and requiring participation. Fair enough?
>> >
>> > I stand by that.

>>
>> As has been stated very often ... the business owner has no right to quell
>> social interaction on the job to the extent you are speaking about.

>
>Yes he does - he has the right to control the interaction as he sees fit. If
>the employees think that it's excessive, they have the right to quit and
>seek work elsewhere. It's called the "free market", and it keeps both sides
>(management and labor) from becoming too dictatorial or unrealistic.
>Unfortunately, lefties such as yourself don't like the idea of freedom of
>choice, so you would rather impose your own prejudices on an employment
>situation...


Absolutely correct. If the employer doesn't want something on his
property, that's his right just like anyone else.

>> You seem
>> to think that Americans have absolutely NO rights when they enter the work
>> force.

>
>He didn't say that. Having read WJ for several years now, I'm sure that he
>agrees that employees have the right to be paid per their hiring agreement
>with their employer, the right not to be forced to commit illegal acts while
>at work, and the right to quit their jobs if they see their employment
>sutiation as being non-compensatory or their employer as unfair. I'm sure
>that WJ also would be opposed to forcing employees to contribute to
>political causes and candidates they didn't personally support, which is
>certainly a more enlightened position than many labor unions take..


Thanks, Stan. I agree with that 100%.

>> While it is true they have fewer rights than many EU countries, they
>> still maintain some meager right to be an American on the job. You keep
>> babbling about owner's rights that don't exist. Not in law or in the
>> constitution.


The constitution doesn't grant union members special rights to
infringe on the property rights of others. As an american I have the
right to trade or not to trade as I see fit. So does everyone else.
Trading requires two parties. Either can quite at any time for
whatever reasn they see fit, or for no reason if they choose.

William R,. James

  #564 (permalink)   Report Post  
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 21:32:28 GMT, "Michael Legel" >
wrote:

>
>"Stan de SD" > wrote in message
link.net...
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes he does - he has the right to control the interaction as he sees fit. If
>> the employees think that it's excessive, they have the right to quit and
>> seek work elsewhere. It's called the "free market", and it keeps both sides
>> (management and labor) from becoming too dictatorial or unrealistic.
>> Unfortunately, lefties such as yourself don't like the idea of freedom of
>> choice, so you would rather impose your own prejudices on an employment
>> situation...
>>
>>
>>
>> Which rights do you specifically contest?
>>
>>

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


He has the right to stop trading with you as he sees fit just as you
have the right to stop trading with him. If we had courts who didn't
trat the constitution as toilet paper, the rights of your employer
would be respected.

William R. James

  #565 (permalink)   Report Post  
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 21:32:28 GMT, "Michael Legel" >
wrote:

>
>"Stan de SD" > wrote in message
link.net...
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes he does - he has the right to control the interaction as he sees fit. If
>> the employees think that it's excessive, they have the right to quit and
>> seek work elsewhere. It's called the "free market", and it keeps both sides
>> (management and labor) from becoming too dictatorial or unrealistic.
>> Unfortunately, lefties such as yourself don't like the idea of freedom of
>> choice, so you would rather impose your own prejudices on an employment
>> situation...
>>
>>
>>
>> Which rights do you specifically contest?
>>
>>

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


He has the right to stop trading with you as he sees fit just as you
have the right to stop trading with him. If we had courts who didn't
trat the constitution as toilet paper, the rights of your employer
would be respected.

William R. James



  #568 (permalink)   Report Post  
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 03:14:22 -0700, Dan Clore
> wrote:

>Stan de SD wrote:
>
>>>As has been stated very often ... the business owner has no right to quell
>>>social interaction on the job to the extent you are speaking about.

>>
>> Yes he does - he has the right to control the interaction as he sees fit. If
>> the employees think that it's excessive, they have the right to quit and
>> seek work elsewhere. It's called the "free market", and it keeps both sides
>> (management and labor) from becoming too dictatorial or unrealistic.
>> Unfortunately, lefties such as yourself don't like the idea of freedom of
>> choice, so you would rather impose your own prejudices on an employment
>> situation...

>
>And there you have it: according to Stain, "freedom of
>choice" means giving the boss complete control over the
>workers, and this prevents management from becoming "too
>dictatorial". If workers find such total, arbitrary rule
>"excessive", why, they can look for another master who will
>again have total, arbitrary control over them. Freedom means
>more than a choice of masters.


Nonsense. The boss has complete control over his property. He has
complete control over what is his to trade, it's HIS money. It's HIS
job, not the vendor's job. The employees have complete control over
their property, and what they have to trade as well. Neither party
should have to trade if they choose not to. Either party is free to
trade elsewhere. and either party if free to set the rules regarding
activities allowed on their property.

William R. James

  #569 (permalink)   Report Post  
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 03:14:22 -0700, Dan Clore
> wrote:

>Stan de SD wrote:
>
>>>As has been stated very often ... the business owner has no right to quell
>>>social interaction on the job to the extent you are speaking about.

>>
>> Yes he does - he has the right to control the interaction as he sees fit. If
>> the employees think that it's excessive, they have the right to quit and
>> seek work elsewhere. It's called the "free market", and it keeps both sides
>> (management and labor) from becoming too dictatorial or unrealistic.
>> Unfortunately, lefties such as yourself don't like the idea of freedom of
>> choice, so you would rather impose your own prejudices on an employment
>> situation...

>
>And there you have it: according to Stain, "freedom of
>choice" means giving the boss complete control over the
>workers, and this prevents management from becoming "too
>dictatorial". If workers find such total, arbitrary rule
>"excessive", why, they can look for another master who will
>again have total, arbitrary control over them. Freedom means
>more than a choice of masters.


Nonsense. The boss has complete control over his property. He has
complete control over what is his to trade, it's HIS money. It's HIS
job, not the vendor's job. The employees have complete control over
their property, and what they have to trade as well. Neither party
should have to trade if they choose not to. Either party is free to
trade elsewhere. and either party if free to set the rules regarding
activities allowed on their property.

William R. James

  #570 (permalink)   Report Post  
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 00:10:18 +0000 (UTC), Hawth Hill
> wrote:

>in article , Wm James at
wrote on 06/20/2004 4:35 AM:
>
>> Yep,they can organize all they want. And just like you aren't forced
>> to participate in some group's activities, neither should people who
>> own a business. If you want to start a union or a social club, go
>> ahead. But recognize the business owner's right to tell you to
>> participate in such things during your own time instead of his.

>
>Yep, that's the gist of what you "said". And the gist of what I said, and
>still say, is that the SC and ALL the circuit courts of appeal, and the
>Board, have decided that WORKERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN CERTAIN
>ORGANIZATIONAL ACTIVITIES DURING WORKING HOURS AND AT THE WORK PLACE.
>
>Over the past three decades the Board and the courts have refined and
>revised certain details of the law regarding the situation you go on about,
>but, without exception, each and every precedent has adhered to the
>principle that the NLRA grants and protects the rights of workers to engage
>in union or other protected, concerted activities in efforts to preserve or
>protect their wages, hour or working conditions. Each and every such
>precedent has also recognized the truth of the principle announced decades
>ago that "the workplace is a _PARTICULARLY_ appropriate place" for workers
>to conduct such activities.
>
>Go hire a lawyer. No matter which side he's on normally. He'll tell you the
>exact same thing. That's what the cases hold. No matter whether YOU, or
>ME, or the lamp post like it or not.
>
>It's hopeless to debate this with you, oh, closed minded one, but, that's
>the law. . . . Go ahead and take your point of view. You'll lose if you try
>to impose your viewpoint in any workplace that is unfortunate enough to be
>controlled by you. And, it'll cost you big-time. And you'll be saddled
>with a union that you possibly didn't need to be saddled with.
>
>Talk about playing right into the opposition's hands!
>
>Just plain dumb!
>
>HH


Want to discuss dumb? How many times does one have to point out the
fact that we are discussing rights, actul constitutional rights, and
what is right vs wrong, and not necessarily what is enforced as
"legal" even via a court which doesn't respect the constitution, bor
you to comprehend it? This is alt.activism, not
alt.what-the-supreme-court-says-is-what-we-must-parrot-without-thinking.

OK, there are other groups crossposted in the thread, but the point is
your inability to discuss what is right and what rights people have,
and your apparent position that the courts cannot be disagrred with or
considered less than gods unles perhhaps if you disagree with them.

William R. James



  #571 (permalink)   Report Post  
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 00:10:18 +0000 (UTC), Hawth Hill
> wrote:

>in article , Wm James at
wrote on 06/20/2004 4:35 AM:
>
>> Yep,they can organize all they want. And just like you aren't forced
>> to participate in some group's activities, neither should people who
>> own a business. If you want to start a union or a social club, go
>> ahead. But recognize the business owner's right to tell you to
>> participate in such things during your own time instead of his.

>
>Yep, that's the gist of what you "said". And the gist of what I said, and
>still say, is that the SC and ALL the circuit courts of appeal, and the
>Board, have decided that WORKERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN CERTAIN
>ORGANIZATIONAL ACTIVITIES DURING WORKING HOURS AND AT THE WORK PLACE.
>
>Over the past three decades the Board and the courts have refined and
>revised certain details of the law regarding the situation you go on about,
>but, without exception, each and every precedent has adhered to the
>principle that the NLRA grants and protects the rights of workers to engage
>in union or other protected, concerted activities in efforts to preserve or
>protect their wages, hour or working conditions. Each and every such
>precedent has also recognized the truth of the principle announced decades
>ago that "the workplace is a _PARTICULARLY_ appropriate place" for workers
>to conduct such activities.
>
>Go hire a lawyer. No matter which side he's on normally. He'll tell you the
>exact same thing. That's what the cases hold. No matter whether YOU, or
>ME, or the lamp post like it or not.
>
>It's hopeless to debate this with you, oh, closed minded one, but, that's
>the law. . . . Go ahead and take your point of view. You'll lose if you try
>to impose your viewpoint in any workplace that is unfortunate enough to be
>controlled by you. And, it'll cost you big-time. And you'll be saddled
>with a union that you possibly didn't need to be saddled with.
>
>Talk about playing right into the opposition's hands!
>
>Just plain dumb!
>
>HH


Want to discuss dumb? How many times does one have to point out the
fact that we are discussing rights, actul constitutional rights, and
what is right vs wrong, and not necessarily what is enforced as
"legal" even via a court which doesn't respect the constitution, bor
you to comprehend it? This is alt.activism, not
alt.what-the-supreme-court-says-is-what-we-must-parrot-without-thinking.

OK, there are other groups crossposted in the thread, but the point is
your inability to discuss what is right and what rights people have,
and your apparent position that the courts cannot be disagrred with or
considered less than gods unles perhhaps if you disagree with them.

William R. James

  #572 (permalink)   Report Post  
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 15:12:08 +0000 (UTC), Hawth Hill
> wrote:

>>> 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.


Read the constitution. Take your time. Look up the big words if you
have too. Then tell me where in there it says you or anyone else has
the right to force someone else to trade with you or allow you to
remain on their property.

William R. James

  #573 (permalink)   Report Post  
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 15:12:08 +0000 (UTC), Hawth Hill
> wrote:

>>> 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.


Read the constitution. Take your time. Look up the big words if you
have too. Then tell me where in there it says you or anyone else has
the right to force someone else to trade with you or allow you to
remain on their property.

William R. James

  #574 (permalink)   Report Post  
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 18:46:14 GMT, Ed Faith > wrote:

>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.


Hit the nail right on the head. Thanks.

William R. James


  #575 (permalink)   Report Post  
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 18:46:14 GMT, Ed Faith > wrote:

>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.


Hit the nail right on the head. Thanks.

William R. James




  #576 (permalink)   Report Post  
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 21:46:44 GMT, "Michael Legel" >
wrote:

>
>"Stan de SD" > wrote in message
link.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?.


It's your labor. If you want it to be of value, that's your business.
If you don't bother learning any valuable skills, then don't whine if
all anyone is willing to trade for it is 50 cents an hour. If you
can't make a decent living, it's your fault, not the buyer.

>And
>why, as a worker, should I not make a "decent wage" if I am a partner in a
>profitable operation?


What busines is it of yours if it's profitable? Did you invest in it?
Why does anyone owe you anything other than what they agree to trade
to you? If the store down the street decides to charge you extra for
your groceries because they think you are making a lot of money, how
would you respond? What if they formed a union and demanded that your
right to shop elsewhere for groceries be infringed?

>> > I'm sure you agree it is good that the owners and investors of
>> > Starbucks are profitable and well paid

>>
>> I'm sure they worked their asses off, took the necessary risks inherent in
>> starting a new business, and have been rewarded accordingly.
>>

>
>Worked their asses off? Right. And what risks might those be ... getting a
>paper cut or dieing of coronary failure from worrying too much? And you don't
>think workers take any risks on the job?


They invested their money. They took the risks. And every successful
business I've even seen was run for years by the owners working very
long hours with little or no pay, no benefits, and absolutely no
quarentees until it got started. Why don't you agree to work 80+
hours a week for nothing for a year or two and hoping for a good wage
later?

>> > 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.


I think it's quite generous to pay more than you have to for
something. You can train a monkey to pour coffee. Why would anyone
pay more than couple of bucks an hour for that?

William R. James

  #577 (permalink)   Report Post  
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 21:46:44 GMT, "Michael Legel" >
wrote:

>
>"Stan de SD" > wrote in message
link.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?.


It's your labor. If you want it to be of value, that's your business.
If you don't bother learning any valuable skills, then don't whine if
all anyone is willing to trade for it is 50 cents an hour. If you
can't make a decent living, it's your fault, not the buyer.

>And
>why, as a worker, should I not make a "decent wage" if I am a partner in a
>profitable operation?


What busines is it of yours if it's profitable? Did you invest in it?
Why does anyone owe you anything other than what they agree to trade
to you? If the store down the street decides to charge you extra for
your groceries because they think you are making a lot of money, how
would you respond? What if they formed a union and demanded that your
right to shop elsewhere for groceries be infringed?

>> > I'm sure you agree it is good that the owners and investors of
>> > Starbucks are profitable and well paid

>>
>> I'm sure they worked their asses off, took the necessary risks inherent in
>> starting a new business, and have been rewarded accordingly.
>>

>
>Worked their asses off? Right. And what risks might those be ... getting a
>paper cut or dieing of coronary failure from worrying too much? And you don't
>think workers take any risks on the job?


They invested their money. They took the risks. And every successful
business I've even seen was run for years by the owners working very
long hours with little or no pay, no benefits, and absolutely no
quarentees until it got started. Why don't you agree to work 80+
hours a week for nothing for a year or two and hoping for a good wage
later?

>> > 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.


I think it's quite generous to pay more than you have to for
something. You can train a monkey to pour coffee. Why would anyone
pay more than couple of bucks an hour for that?

William R. James

  #578 (permalink)   Report Post  
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 22:19:46 GMT, "Stan de SD"
> wrote:

>Thanks for doing your best to avoid the issue. Sounds like you're merely
>another mindless union stooge...
>


Is there another kind?

William R. James

  #579 (permalink)   Report Post  
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 22:19:46 GMT, "Stan de SD"
> wrote:

>Thanks for doing your best to avoid the issue. Sounds like you're merely
>another mindless union stooge...
>


Is there another kind?

William R. James

  #580 (permalink)   Report Post  
Michael Legel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

You two are really quite hilarious. It almost reminds of the Abbot and
Costello bit "Who's on First!" Enjoy your lives and pray you are never sued
for harassing an employee according to these fictional "rights" you think you
possess. Reality will bite you hard at that point. Good bye.



"Wm James" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 22:19:46 GMT, "Stan de SD"
> > wrote:
>
> >Thanks for doing your best to avoid the issue. Sounds like you're merely
> >another mindless union stooge...
> >

>
> Is there another kind?
>
> William R. James
>





  #581 (permalink)   Report Post  
Michael Legel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

You two are really quite hilarious. It almost reminds of the Abbot and
Costello bit "Who's on First!" Enjoy your lives and pray you are never sued
for harassing an employee according to these fictional "rights" you think you
possess. Reality will bite you hard at that point. Good bye.



"Wm James" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 22:19:46 GMT, "Stan de SD"
> > wrote:
>
> >Thanks for doing your best to avoid the issue. Sounds like you're merely
> >another mindless union stooge...
> >

>
> Is there another kind?
>
> William R. James
>



  #582 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dan Clore
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

Wm James wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 03:14:22 -0700, Dan Clore
> > wrote:
>>Stan de SD wrote:


>>>>As has been stated very often ... the business owner has no right to quell
>>>>social interaction on the job to the extent you are speaking about.
>>>
>>>Yes he does - he has the right to control the interaction as he sees fit. If
>>>the employees think that it's excessive, they have the right to quit and
>>>seek work elsewhere. It's called the "free market", and it keeps both sides
>>>(management and labor) from becoming too dictatorial or unrealistic.
>>>Unfortunately, lefties such as yourself don't like the idea of freedom of
>>>choice, so you would rather impose your own prejudices on an employment
>>>situation...

>>
>>And there you have it: according to Stain, "freedom of
>>choice" means giving the boss complete control over the
>>workers, and this prevents management from becoming "too
>>dictatorial". If workers find such total, arbitrary rule
>>"excessive", why, they can look for another master who will
>>again have total, arbitrary control over them. Freedom means
>>more than a choice of masters.

>
> Nonsense. The boss has complete control over his property. He has
> complete control over what is his to trade, it's HIS money. It's HIS
> job, not the vendor's job. The employees have complete control over
> their property, and what they have to trade as well. Neither party
> should have to trade if they choose not to. Either party is free to
> trade elsewhere. and either party if free to set the rules regarding
> activities allowed on their property.


And there you have it: according to Wm James, "freedom of
choice" means giving the boss complete control over the
workers, and this prevents management from becoming "too
dictatorial". If workers find such total, arbitrary rule
"excessive", why, they can look for another master who will
again have total, arbitrary control over them. Freedom means
more than a choice of masters.

It almost seems like I'm repeating myself.

--
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

  #583 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dan Clore
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

Wm James wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 03:14:22 -0700, Dan Clore
> > wrote:
>>Stan de SD wrote:


>>>>As has been stated very often ... the business owner has no right to quell
>>>>social interaction on the job to the extent you are speaking about.
>>>
>>>Yes he does - he has the right to control the interaction as he sees fit. If
>>>the employees think that it's excessive, they have the right to quit and
>>>seek work elsewhere. It's called the "free market", and it keeps both sides
>>>(management and labor) from becoming too dictatorial or unrealistic.
>>>Unfortunately, lefties such as yourself don't like the idea of freedom of
>>>choice, so you would rather impose your own prejudices on an employment
>>>situation...

>>
>>And there you have it: according to Stain, "freedom of
>>choice" means giving the boss complete control over the
>>workers, and this prevents management from becoming "too
>>dictatorial". If workers find such total, arbitrary rule
>>"excessive", why, they can look for another master who will
>>again have total, arbitrary control over them. Freedom means
>>more than a choice of masters.

>
> Nonsense. The boss has complete control over his property. He has
> complete control over what is his to trade, it's HIS money. It's HIS
> job, not the vendor's job. The employees have complete control over
> their property, and what they have to trade as well. Neither party
> should have to trade if they choose not to. Either party is free to
> trade elsewhere. and either party if free to set the rules regarding
> activities allowed on their property.


And there you have it: according to Wm James, "freedom of
choice" means giving the boss complete control over the
workers, and this prevents management from becoming "too
dictatorial". If workers find such total, arbitrary rule
"excessive", why, they can look for another master who will
again have total, arbitrary control over them. Freedom means
more than a choice of masters.

It almost seems like I'm repeating myself.

--
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

  #584 (permalink)   Report Post  
G*rd*n
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

>
> >> ...


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


(G*rd*n):
> >So you don't believe in the rights of association, contract
> >and representation? Or in ownership of one's own labor? Is
> >that for everyone, or just certain classes of people? Because
> >if labor unions are inherently evil, then liberalism is
> >inherently evil. One seldom observes a non-liberal on the
> >Net, so I find this very interesting. You might also want to
> >tell us about the good against which this evil is defined --
> >to articulate a positive statement of your beliefs.


:
> What have you been attempting and failing to read? Where have I EVER
> said such a thing? EVERYONE has the right to associate freely and
> the right to trade their labor or anything else they have on whatever
> terms they see fit. That include those buying labor. If you forma
> union and the employer doesn't like the terms ofthe bulk labor, he's
> free to purchase it elsewhere and tell you to get off his property. Or
> do you not feel he has the right to associate and trade freely as
> well?



Since unions are an expression of self-interest mediated
by certain liberal rights, such as association, contract,
representation and expression, to say that they are
_inherently_ evil is to say that self-interest and one
or more of these rights is evil, since the combination
inherently produces evil. As I suggest above, you may
think that self-interest and the named rights are all
right for some people (employers) but not for others
(employees) but I don't think you've made that clear.


> Unions are evil because they are powerless if they respect the rights
> of others. If they were prevented from using violence, threats,
> intimidation, vandalism, and were not allowed to impose themselves on
> unwilling trade partners, the unions would have virtually no ability
> to function.


So you say, but you don't show why. Collective behavior
is obviously advantageous under many circumstances, and one
of them seems to be in acting collectively to sell labor.
If it is advantageous, we can expect to observe people
trying to do it, and we do.



--

(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{
}"{
{
http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't
  #585 (permalink)   Report Post  
G*rd*n
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

>
> >> ...


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


(G*rd*n):
> >So you don't believe in the rights of association, contract
> >and representation? Or in ownership of one's own labor? Is
> >that for everyone, or just certain classes of people? Because
> >if labor unions are inherently evil, then liberalism is
> >inherently evil. One seldom observes a non-liberal on the
> >Net, so I find this very interesting. You might also want to
> >tell us about the good against which this evil is defined --
> >to articulate a positive statement of your beliefs.


:
> What have you been attempting and failing to read? Where have I EVER
> said such a thing? EVERYONE has the right to associate freely and
> the right to trade their labor or anything else they have on whatever
> terms they see fit. That include those buying labor. If you forma
> union and the employer doesn't like the terms ofthe bulk labor, he's
> free to purchase it elsewhere and tell you to get off his property. Or
> do you not feel he has the right to associate and trade freely as
> well?



Since unions are an expression of self-interest mediated
by certain liberal rights, such as association, contract,
representation and expression, to say that they are
_inherently_ evil is to say that self-interest and one
or more of these rights is evil, since the combination
inherently produces evil. As I suggest above, you may
think that self-interest and the named rights are all
right for some people (employers) but not for others
(employees) but I don't think you've made that clear.


> Unions are evil because they are powerless if they respect the rights
> of others. If they were prevented from using violence, threats,
> intimidation, vandalism, and were not allowed to impose themselves on
> unwilling trade partners, the unions would have virtually no ability
> to function.


So you say, but you don't show why. Collective behavior
is obviously advantageous under many circumstances, and one
of them seems to be in acting collectively to sell labor.
If it is advantageous, we can expect to observe people
trying to do it, and we do.



--

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


  #586 (permalink)   Report Post  
G*rd*n
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

"Michael Legel" >:
> ...
> Who says it is I who must make the effort to learn skills and not the
> employers responsibility to provide the means of acquiring those skills?. And
> why, as a worker, should I not make a "decent wage" if I am a partner in a
> profitable operation?
> ...


These questions don't reflect either the ideology or the
actuality of liberalism and capitalism, especially in the
United States. In lib-cap, the influence of any assumed social
contract is extremely weak and is mostly brought out only when
the elites need someone to do their fighting for them.
Otherwise, you have only what you literally own or are owed
under contract. The ruling class _may_ impart various benefits,
but these are not won or owned, and may be withdrawn at any
time. Hence, although "we" are supposedly much richer now
than fifty years ago, "we" can no longer afford Welfare,
unemployment insurance, free public education, public health,
public housing, job health and safety, job training, day
care, environmental protection, and so forth. These goodies
began to be withdrawn in the 1980s -- about the same time as
it became apparent that the last major competitor of lib-cap,
Communism, was on the wane. It is true that some individual
employers may be "enlightened", but they maintain such
enlightenment as they have against the way of the world.
--

(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{
{
http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't
  #587 (permalink)   Report Post  
G*rd*n
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

"Michael Legel" >:
> ...
> Who says it is I who must make the effort to learn skills and not the
> employers responsibility to provide the means of acquiring those skills?. And
> why, as a worker, should I not make a "decent wage" if I am a partner in a
> profitable operation?
> ...


These questions don't reflect either the ideology or the
actuality of liberalism and capitalism, especially in the
United States. In lib-cap, the influence of any assumed social
contract is extremely weak and is mostly brought out only when
the elites need someone to do their fighting for them.
Otherwise, you have only what you literally own or are owed
under contract. The ruling class _may_ impart various benefits,
but these are not won or owned, and may be withdrawn at any
time. Hence, although "we" are supposedly much richer now
than fifty years ago, "we" can no longer afford Welfare,
unemployment insurance, free public education, public health,
public housing, job health and safety, job training, day
care, environmental protection, and so forth. These goodies
began to be withdrawn in the 1980s -- about the same time as
it became apparent that the last major competitor of lib-cap,
Communism, was on the wane. It is true that some individual
employers may be "enlightened", but they maintain such
enlightenment as they have against the way of the world.
--

(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{
{
http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't
  #588 (permalink)   Report Post  
geetarplyr
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

the question is.....why should Starbucks pay more for retards in a
union...when they can just go hire retards down the street for 1/2 the way
and who will have 2x the performance and motivation and really appreciate
the job......or illegal aliens or greencarders.....anything but the genetic
defect union mongers

"G*rd*n" > wrote in message
...
> "Michael Legel" >:
> > ...
> > Who says it is I who must make the effort to learn skills and not the
> > employers responsibility to provide the means of acquiring those

skills?. And
> > why, as a worker, should I not make a "decent wage" if I am a partner in

a
> > profitable operation?
> > ...

>
> These questions don't reflect either the ideology or the
> actuality of liberalism and capitalism, especially in the
> United States. In lib-cap, the influence of any assumed social
> contract is extremely weak and is mostly brought out only when
> the elites need someone to do their fighting for them.
> Otherwise, you have only what you literally own or are owed
> under contract. The ruling class _may_ impart various benefits,
> but these are not won or owned, and may be withdrawn at any
> time. Hence, although "we" are supposedly much richer now
> than fifty years ago, "we" can no longer afford Welfare,
> unemployment insurance, free public education, public health,
> public housing, job health and safety, job training, day
> care, environmental protection, and so forth. These goodies
> began to be withdrawn in the 1980s -- about the same time as
> it became apparent that the last major competitor of lib-cap,
> Communism, was on the wane. It is true that some individual
> employers may be "enlightened", but they maintain such
> enlightenment as they have against the way of the world.
> --
>
> (<><>) /*/
> }"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{
> {
http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't



  #589 (permalink)   Report Post  
geetarplyr
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

the question is.....why should Starbucks pay more for retards in a
union...when they can just go hire retards down the street for 1/2 the way
and who will have 2x the performance and motivation and really appreciate
the job......or illegal aliens or greencarders.....anything but the genetic
defect union mongers

"G*rd*n" > wrote in message
...
> "Michael Legel" >:
> > ...
> > Who says it is I who must make the effort to learn skills and not the
> > employers responsibility to provide the means of acquiring those

skills?. And
> > why, as a worker, should I not make a "decent wage" if I am a partner in

a
> > profitable operation?
> > ...

>
> These questions don't reflect either the ideology or the
> actuality of liberalism and capitalism, especially in the
> United States. In lib-cap, the influence of any assumed social
> contract is extremely weak and is mostly brought out only when
> the elites need someone to do their fighting for them.
> Otherwise, you have only what you literally own or are owed
> under contract. The ruling class _may_ impart various benefits,
> but these are not won or owned, and may be withdrawn at any
> time. Hence, although "we" are supposedly much richer now
> than fifty years ago, "we" can no longer afford Welfare,
> unemployment insurance, free public education, public health,
> public housing, job health and safety, job training, day
> care, environmental protection, and so forth. These goodies
> began to be withdrawn in the 1980s -- about the same time as
> it became apparent that the last major competitor of lib-cap,
> Communism, was on the wane. It is true that some individual
> employers may be "enlightened", but they maintain such
> enlightenment as they have against the way of the world.
> --
>
> (<><>) /*/
> }"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{
> {
http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't



  #590 (permalink)   Report Post  
sjk
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

In article <xbiDc.15294$rh.13313@okepread02>, geetarplyr wrote:
> the question is.....why should Starbucks pay more for retards in a
> union...when they can just go hire retards down the street for 1/2 the way
> and who will have 2x the performance and motivation and really appreciate
> the job......or illegal aliens or greencarders.....anything but the genetic
> defect union mongers


True enough; then, why shouldn't a comapny hire 8 year olds at say $.75/hr,
or 12 year olds to mine their coal -- after all in a free labor market all
is fair right? Wrong. We have a number of labor laws to protect worker
safety and conditions -- including wages. By law the employees at Starbucks
have the right to organize and seek collective barganing -- Starbucks has
the right to not recognize the union and risk a strike. Starbucks does not
have the right to interfere with the efforts of employees to organize; they
may, of course, point out why a union may not serve the interests of the
employees, but only mannor which contributes to the debate.

--sjk

--
-------- Aude Sepere -------

http://www.dredel.com
---- Audax et Cautus -------



  #591 (permalink)   Report Post  
sjk
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

In article <xbiDc.15294$rh.13313@okepread02>, geetarplyr wrote:
> the question is.....why should Starbucks pay more for retards in a
> union...when they can just go hire retards down the street for 1/2 the way
> and who will have 2x the performance and motivation and really appreciate
> the job......or illegal aliens or greencarders.....anything but the genetic
> defect union mongers


True enough; then, why shouldn't a comapny hire 8 year olds at say $.75/hr,
or 12 year olds to mine their coal -- after all in a free labor market all
is fair right? Wrong. We have a number of labor laws to protect worker
safety and conditions -- including wages. By law the employees at Starbucks
have the right to organize and seek collective barganing -- Starbucks has
the right to not recognize the union and risk a strike. Starbucks does not
have the right to interfere with the efforts of employees to organize; they
may, of course, point out why a union may not serve the interests of the
employees, but only mannor which contributes to the debate.

--sjk

--
-------- Aude Sepere -------

http://www.dredel.com
---- Audax et Cautus -------

  #592 (permalink)   Report Post  
bulba
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On 26 Jun 2004 12:46:36 -0400, (G*rd*n) wrote:

>time. Hence, although "we" are supposedly much richer now
>than fifty years ago, "we" can no longer afford Welfare,
>unemployment insurance, free public education, public health,
>public housing, job health and safety, job training, day
>care, environmental protection, and so forth.


This is tyranny. Not to mention economic waste.

Oh sure, people love all those things - they sound
so nice and promise pleasant things for free,
or at least at the cost of rich people. Or at least
at the cost of us all. Or at least they may work.
Or at least we believe in them and we like them.
Or at least it is not absolutely certain they are
not completely useless. Or at least it is not
absolutely certain they demolish purchasing
power of wages and employment of young people.
Who are fewer and fewer, because who can
afford having kids when your wages have been
reduced to level of serf by all those taxes necessary
to support those wonderful goodies.

>These goodies
>began to be withdrawn in the 1980s


These are not "goodies". They are degeneration. This is
the reason why life in Europe looks grimier and grimier.

>-- about the same time as
>it became apparent that the last major competitor of lib-cap,
>Communism, was on the wane. It is true that some individual
>employers may be "enlightened", but they maintain such
>enlightenment as they have against the way of the world.


You're fighting shadows.

There is no employer or employee class. There is no "struggle"
to "win" anything "from" "ruling class". There is no "people's
class", no "ruling class", no "rich class". There are only
individuals in various positions and coming from various
backgrounds trying to exploit others through governnment
and taxation, calling it "right" to something, whatever they
would please them to have.

There are only stupid individuals believing in something-for-nothing
and that governments can deliver that and governments duly trying
and invariably failing.



--
I love the smell of napalm in the morning.
  #593 (permalink)   Report Post  
bulba
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On 26 Jun 2004 12:46:36 -0400, (G*rd*n) wrote:

>time. Hence, although "we" are supposedly much richer now
>than fifty years ago, "we" can no longer afford Welfare,
>unemployment insurance, free public education, public health,
>public housing, job health and safety, job training, day
>care, environmental protection, and so forth.


This is tyranny. Not to mention economic waste.

Oh sure, people love all those things - they sound
so nice and promise pleasant things for free,
or at least at the cost of rich people. Or at least
at the cost of us all. Or at least they may work.
Or at least we believe in them and we like them.
Or at least it is not absolutely certain they are
not completely useless. Or at least it is not
absolutely certain they demolish purchasing
power of wages and employment of young people.
Who are fewer and fewer, because who can
afford having kids when your wages have been
reduced to level of serf by all those taxes necessary
to support those wonderful goodies.

>These goodies
>began to be withdrawn in the 1980s


These are not "goodies". They are degeneration. This is
the reason why life in Europe looks grimier and grimier.

>-- about the same time as
>it became apparent that the last major competitor of lib-cap,
>Communism, was on the wane. It is true that some individual
>employers may be "enlightened", but they maintain such
>enlightenment as they have against the way of the world.


You're fighting shadows.

There is no employer or employee class. There is no "struggle"
to "win" anything "from" "ruling class". There is no "people's
class", no "ruling class", no "rich class". There are only
individuals in various positions and coming from various
backgrounds trying to exploit others through governnment
and taxation, calling it "right" to something, whatever they
would please them to have.

There are only stupid individuals believing in something-for-nothing
and that governments can deliver that and governments duly trying
and invariably failing.



--
I love the smell of napalm in the morning.
  #594 (permalink)   Report Post  
Constantinople
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

bulba > wrote in news:etqtd09j1rmj62fetqebkuc3q72877jli6
@4ax.com:

> On 26 Jun 2004 12:46:36 -0400, (G*rd*n) wrote:
>
>>time. Hence, although "we" are supposedly much richer now
>>than fifty years ago, "we" can no longer afford Welfare,
>>unemployment insurance, free public education, public health,
>>public housing, job health and safety, job training, day
>>care, environmental protection, and so forth.

>
> This is tyranny. Not to mention economic waste.


We can afford all the goods that Gordon mentions; what we cannot afford
is the waste involved in trying to get government to deliver them. For
example, the good in public education is education. We can afford
education. It's cheap. What we cannot so easily afford is public
education - i.e., it's expensive, and wasteful, to use the government to
deliver education. It costs a lot and delivers a poor education. The
good in public health is health. We could afford better health care, if
only the provision of that good were not made artificially sky-high-
expensive by government intervention. In a world where outrageous
computer technology is getting cheaper and cheaper, medical technology
is getting outrageously expensive. I cannot help but feel that if the
market in health care were truly open, e.g., if there were no licensing
and if there were no FDA and if all medications could be had at any drug
store by anyone (i.e. without a prescription), then prices would drop
tremendously. Medicine, like computers, is a field where improvements
are driven by technological advance, and so, like computers, one might
expect prices to plummet from year to year. They do not plummet, but the
"market" in medicine is far from free, the government is heavily
involved - this may explain it.

The logic of government expenditures is not the same as the logic of the
expenditures of private companies. There is a vast gulf of
unaccountability separating government expenditure from the satisfaction
of the government's "customers". The result is that the government takes
the maximum that it can without causing a taxpayer revolt, and
regardless of whether it "needs" the money for anything. So if tomorrow
everyone got ten times as rich, then the government would take probably
about ten times as much. And then it would spend it on the same stuff,
meaning, that in all likelihood, schools would get much more money. And
where would it go? If history is any indication, most of it would go
into the pockets of non-teachers - i.e., the vast bureaucracy that
public school systems have. In short, it would be wasted, or more
precisely, it would be used as a kind of makework welfare, or workfare I
suppose, for public school bureaucrats. A lot would no doubt be grabbed
by teachers' unions to pump up teachers' salaries. A lot would no doubt
be used to build a lot of ugly new buildings with tiny windows that
won't open.



  #595 (permalink)   Report Post  
Constantinople
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

bulba > wrote in news:etqtd09j1rmj62fetqebkuc3q72877jli6
@4ax.com:

> On 26 Jun 2004 12:46:36 -0400, (G*rd*n) wrote:
>
>>time. Hence, although "we" are supposedly much richer now
>>than fifty years ago, "we" can no longer afford Welfare,
>>unemployment insurance, free public education, public health,
>>public housing, job health and safety, job training, day
>>care, environmental protection, and so forth.

>
> This is tyranny. Not to mention economic waste.


We can afford all the goods that Gordon mentions; what we cannot afford
is the waste involved in trying to get government to deliver them. For
example, the good in public education is education. We can afford
education. It's cheap. What we cannot so easily afford is public
education - i.e., it's expensive, and wasteful, to use the government to
deliver education. It costs a lot and delivers a poor education. The
good in public health is health. We could afford better health care, if
only the provision of that good were not made artificially sky-high-
expensive by government intervention. In a world where outrageous
computer technology is getting cheaper and cheaper, medical technology
is getting outrageously expensive. I cannot help but feel that if the
market in health care were truly open, e.g., if there were no licensing
and if there were no FDA and if all medications could be had at any drug
store by anyone (i.e. without a prescription), then prices would drop
tremendously. Medicine, like computers, is a field where improvements
are driven by technological advance, and so, like computers, one might
expect prices to plummet from year to year. They do not plummet, but the
"market" in medicine is far from free, the government is heavily
involved - this may explain it.

The logic of government expenditures is not the same as the logic of the
expenditures of private companies. There is a vast gulf of
unaccountability separating government expenditure from the satisfaction
of the government's "customers". The result is that the government takes
the maximum that it can without causing a taxpayer revolt, and
regardless of whether it "needs" the money for anything. So if tomorrow
everyone got ten times as rich, then the government would take probably
about ten times as much. And then it would spend it on the same stuff,
meaning, that in all likelihood, schools would get much more money. And
where would it go? If history is any indication, most of it would go
into the pockets of non-teachers - i.e., the vast bureaucracy that
public school systems have. In short, it would be wasted, or more
precisely, it would be used as a kind of makework welfare, or workfare I
suppose, for public school bureaucrats. A lot would no doubt be grabbed
by teachers' unions to pump up teachers' salaries. A lot would no doubt
be used to build a lot of ugly new buildings with tiny windows that
won't open.





  #596 (permalink)   Report Post  
geetarplyr
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

the answer is.....why should Starbucks pay more for union retards...when
they can just go hire retards down the street for 1/2 the wage
and who will have 2x the performance and motivation and really appreciate
the job......or illegal aliens or greencarders.....anything but the genetic
defect union mongers who need a union to keep a job

"bulba" > wrote in message
...
> On 26 Jun 2004 12:46:36 -0400, (G*rd*n) wrote:
>
> >time. Hence, although "we" are supposedly much richer now
> >than fifty years ago, "we" can no longer afford Welfare,
> >unemployment insurance, free public education, public health,
> >public housing, job health and safety, job training, day
> >care, environmental protection, and so forth.

>
> This is tyranny. Not to mention economic waste.
>
> Oh sure, people love all those things - they sound
> so nice and promise pleasant things for free,
> or at least at the cost of rich people. Or at least
> at the cost of us all. Or at least they may work.
> Or at least we believe in them and we like them.
> Or at least it is not absolutely certain they are
> not completely useless. Or at least it is not
> absolutely certain they demolish purchasing
> power of wages and employment of young people.
> Who are fewer and fewer, because who can
> afford having kids when your wages have been
> reduced to level of serf by all those taxes necessary
> to support those wonderful goodies.
>
> >These goodies
> >began to be withdrawn in the 1980s

>
> These are not "goodies". They are degeneration. This is
> the reason why life in Europe looks grimier and grimier.
>
> >-- about the same time as
> >it became apparent that the last major competitor of lib-cap,
> >Communism, was on the wane. It is true that some individual
> >employers may be "enlightened", but they maintain such
> >enlightenment as they have against the way of the world.

>
> You're fighting shadows.
>
> There is no employer or employee class. There is no "struggle"
> to "win" anything "from" "ruling class". There is no "people's
> class", no "ruling class", no "rich class". There are only
> individuals in various positions and coming from various
> backgrounds trying to exploit others through governnment
> and taxation, calling it "right" to something, whatever they
> would please them to have.
>
> There are only stupid individuals believing in something-for-nothing
> and that governments can deliver that and governments duly trying
> and invariably failing.
>
>
>
> --
> I love the smell of napalm in the morning.



  #597 (permalink)   Report Post  
geetarplyr
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

the answer is.....why should Starbucks pay more for union retards...when
they can just go hire retards down the street for 1/2 the wage
and who will have 2x the performance and motivation and really appreciate
the job......or illegal aliens or greencarders.....anything but the genetic
defect union mongers who need a union to keep a job

"bulba" > wrote in message
...
> On 26 Jun 2004 12:46:36 -0400, (G*rd*n) wrote:
>
> >time. Hence, although "we" are supposedly much richer now
> >than fifty years ago, "we" can no longer afford Welfare,
> >unemployment insurance, free public education, public health,
> >public housing, job health and safety, job training, day
> >care, environmental protection, and so forth.

>
> This is tyranny. Not to mention economic waste.
>
> Oh sure, people love all those things - they sound
> so nice and promise pleasant things for free,
> or at least at the cost of rich people. Or at least
> at the cost of us all. Or at least they may work.
> Or at least we believe in them and we like them.
> Or at least it is not absolutely certain they are
> not completely useless. Or at least it is not
> absolutely certain they demolish purchasing
> power of wages and employment of young people.
> Who are fewer and fewer, because who can
> afford having kids when your wages have been
> reduced to level of serf by all those taxes necessary
> to support those wonderful goodies.
>
> >These goodies
> >began to be withdrawn in the 1980s

>
> These are not "goodies". They are degeneration. This is
> the reason why life in Europe looks grimier and grimier.
>
> >-- about the same time as
> >it became apparent that the last major competitor of lib-cap,
> >Communism, was on the wane. It is true that some individual
> >employers may be "enlightened", but they maintain such
> >enlightenment as they have against the way of the world.

>
> You're fighting shadows.
>
> There is no employer or employee class. There is no "struggle"
> to "win" anything "from" "ruling class". There is no "people's
> class", no "ruling class", no "rich class". There are only
> individuals in various positions and coming from various
> backgrounds trying to exploit others through governnment
> and taxation, calling it "right" to something, whatever they
> would please them to have.
>
> There are only stupid individuals believing in something-for-nothing
> and that governments can deliver that and governments duly trying
> and invariably failing.
>
>
>
> --
> I love the smell of napalm in the morning.



  #598 (permalink)   Report Post  
Stan de SD
 
Posts: n/a
Default Michael Legel's Rules of Debate...


"Michael Legel" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> "Stan de SD" > wrote in message
> nk.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?


Evasion noted, Michael...

> > > 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. What part of that do you not understand?

>
> Now you lecture to me about things irrelevant to what I said.


You're discussing employee rights, and I'm naming them for you. How is that
"irrelevant" to what you said?

> I understand
> that you are incapable of admitting that employees have rights in the work
> place.


Nice try, Michael. Look what you tried to pull off:

ML: Mentions that employees have rights.
SdSD: Acknowledges the specific rights that employees have.
ML: Says that SdSD is lecturing him about things irrelevant to what ML has
said, THEN proceeds to accuse SdSD of being incapable of acknowledging that
which he just posted.

That crap may work with specimens such as Clore, but it won't fly for those
who are used to your type of games...

> > > 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.

>
> They most certainly do.


How is that? Laws? Legal precedents? Sources to back up your claims?

> Again, where does it say that if I buy or build a
> business I accrue more rights by doing so.


We're discussing PROPERTY RIGHTS regarding the ownership of the BUSINESS.
Being the lefty you are, I don't doubt that you are quite confused by the
concept, as it contradicts the Marxist/socialist worldview that you have
been indoctrinated with. Nobody accrues more rights by opening a business,
but they don't lose them merely because you think they should. Get a clue...

> Or that if I opt to be "merely" an
> employee I forfeit any that I was born with?


You have right to sell and market your time and labor as you see fit, the
right to get paid per any voluntary contract you enter into with your
employer, and the right to leave and seek work elsewhere if you think you're
getting a raw deal. That's as far as it goes, despite your wishful thinking
otherwise...


  #599 (permalink)   Report Post  
Stan de SD
 
Posts: n/a
Default Michael Legel's Rules of Debate...


"Michael Legel" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> "Stan de SD" > wrote in message
> nk.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?


Evasion noted, Michael...

> > > 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. What part of that do you not understand?

>
> Now you lecture to me about things irrelevant to what I said.


You're discussing employee rights, and I'm naming them for you. How is that
"irrelevant" to what you said?

> I understand
> that you are incapable of admitting that employees have rights in the work
> place.


Nice try, Michael. Look what you tried to pull off:

ML: Mentions that employees have rights.
SdSD: Acknowledges the specific rights that employees have.
ML: Says that SdSD is lecturing him about things irrelevant to what ML has
said, THEN proceeds to accuse SdSD of being incapable of acknowledging that
which he just posted.

That crap may work with specimens such as Clore, but it won't fly for those
who are used to your type of games...

> > > 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.

>
> They most certainly do.


How is that? Laws? Legal precedents? Sources to back up your claims?

> Again, where does it say that if I buy or build a
> business I accrue more rights by doing so.


We're discussing PROPERTY RIGHTS regarding the ownership of the BUSINESS.
Being the lefty you are, I don't doubt that you are quite confused by the
concept, as it contradicts the Marxist/socialist worldview that you have
been indoctrinated with. Nobody accrues more rights by opening a business,
but they don't lose them merely because you think they should. Get a clue...

> Or that if I opt to be "merely" an
> employee I forfeit any that I was born with?


You have right to sell and market your time and labor as you see fit, the
right to get paid per any voluntary contract you enter into with your
employer, and the right to leave and seek work elsewhere if you think you're
getting a raw deal. That's as far as it goes, despite your wishful thinking
otherwise...


  #600 (permalink)   Report Post  
Stan de SD
 
Posts: n/a
Default So what exactly does Dan Clore do for a living anyway?


"Xyzzy" > wrote in message
m...
> "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
> > > > newsrQxc.12808$Dr.11373@edtnps84...
> > > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in

message
> > > > > news > > > > > >
> > > > > > "Dan Clore" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
> > > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Starbucks Obstructing First US Union Vote
> > > > > > > posted by IU/660 on Tuesday June 01 2004 @ 11:44AM PDT
> > > > > > > June 1, 2004
> > > > > > > Contact:
> > > > > > > Starbucks Obstructing First US Union Vote
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Workers to Schultz: What are you so scared of?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > New York, NY--The Starbucks Baristas Union and community
> > > > > > > members across the country have condemned repeated attempts
> > > > > > > by the company to deny workers a fair vote on the Union.
> > > > > > > While paying lip-service to respecting the choice of
> > > > > > > employees, Starbucks has deployed a variety of crude tactics
> > > > > > > in an effort to defeat the IWW IU/660, which would be the
> > > > > > > first union certified in the United States at the mammoth

chain.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Supporters around the country and internationally are
> > > > > > > contacting Starbucks demanding they live up to their
> > > > > > > rhetoric. If Starbucks really is a bastion of worker
> > > > > > > benefits, what is Chairman Howard Schultz, who raked in over
> > > > > > > $17 million last year, so scared of? The truth is Starbucks,
> > > > > > > with its poverty wages and rampant repetitive-stress
> > > > > > > dangers, resembles a sweatshop more than it does a decent
> > > > > > > place to work.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yeah, and all those 20-something college-age Americans are being

> > forced
> > to
> > > > > > work there against their will, right? I guess YOU would think

it's a
> > > > > > sweatshop, given that you strike me as the type of feminized,

> > spoiled
> > > > > > cry-baby who has never held a real job one day in his life.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tell us, Dan Clore, self-appointed "voice" of the workers -
> > > > > > what in the hell do YOU do for a living?
> > > > > >
> > > > > Can't come up with a real argument so you want to shoot the

messenger?
> > > >
> > > > Came up with an argument that when right over your little head.

Nobody
> > is
> > > > being forced to work at Starbucks, McDonalds, Wal-Mart, or whatever
> > >
> > > And nobody is being forced to own & operate Starbucks, McDonalds,
> > > Wal-Mart. If the CEO's don't like unions they can find another job as
> > > well.

> >
> > The union didn't invest in the business - the owners did.

>
> The workers are the union. They invest their labor, the better part of

their lives.

No, the union may "represent" the workers, but the workers and union are
separate entities. In addition, the workers are pretty much guaranteed to
get paid for their "investment" of labor, while owners and investors have no
such guarantees that they will ever get paid off. With risks of failure come
the benfits of success - if union types are unwilling to assume the former,
why should they get the latter?

>
> > A small point you
> > choose to overlook.



Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Celebrating Six Months of IWW Starbucks Workers Union in the TwinCities Dan Clore Coffee 1 12-02-2009 01:42 AM
Free Starbucks 4 U - Winner of Last Weeks $20 Starbucks Gift Card [email protected] Coffee 0 12-12-2006 09:12 PM
Free Starbucks 4 U - Winner of Last Weeks $20 Starbucks Gift Card [email protected] Recipes 0 12-12-2006 09:11 PM
JOIN THIS .... DON'T MISS IT.... ITS THE MUST JOIN STOCK MARKET CLUB. Ram Beer 0 30-04-2006 11:43 AM
JOIN THIS .... DON'T MISS IT.... ITS THE MUST JOIN STOCK MARKET CLUB. Ram Beer 0 30-04-2006 11:43 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:41 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"