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
  #228 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-06-2004, 09:21 PM
G*rd*n
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

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


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

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


(G*rd*n):
So if you agree that unions are, in principle, legitimate
organizations, why don't you go off and whine about
something else?


:
I'll make you a deal. You get government out of it, and I'll stop
pointing out the facts. Until them, since you apparently don't thing
businesses are legitimate organizations, why don't you keep whining
about that?



How can I get the government out of labor relations, when
almost all my fellow citizens, including the business managers
and owners you love so dearly, desire it to be there?

--

() /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{
}"{
{
http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 -adv't
  #229 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-06-2004, 09:21 PM
G*rd*n
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

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


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

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


(G*rd*n):
So if you agree that unions are, in principle, legitimate
organizations, why don't you go off and whine about
something else?


:
I'll make you a deal. You get government out of it, and I'll stop
pointing out the facts. Until them, since you apparently don't thing
businesses are legitimate organizations, why don't you keep whining
about that?



How can I get the government out of labor relations, when
almost all my fellow citizens, including the business managers
and owners you love so dearly, desire it to be there?

--

() /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{
}"{
{
http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 -adv't
  #230 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-06-2004, 09:57 PM
Martin
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

Wm James wrote in message . ..
Before
you answer, if you can save 10% on something YOU buy by shopping
somewhere else, what would you choose?


There are many who make socially responsible purchases instead of
opting for the 10% bargain. And we do not cross a picket line even if
the inconvenience is considerable. Clearly Mr. James (any relation to
the great pragmatist philosopher? hard to believe) cannot imagine a
sincere or democratic (read non-socialist, I suppose) motive for
responsible action.

Given the structure of the corporate world in which thousands or more
individuals collectively support a single management team that
represents an entity with the considerable status and rights (in many
important respects) of an individual, workers similarly organize to
act as one in their bargaining. Seems fair enough. Power-to-power.
The American way. That workers win as infrequently as they do simply
shows that it's easier to buy power than to organize for it.
Martin


  #231 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-06-2004, 09:57 PM
Martin
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

Wm James wrote in message . ..
Before
you answer, if you can save 10% on something YOU buy by shopping
somewhere else, what would you choose?


There are many who make socially responsible purchases instead of
opting for the 10% bargain. And we do not cross a picket line even if
the inconvenience is considerable. Clearly Mr. James (any relation to
the great pragmatist philosopher? hard to believe) cannot imagine a
sincere or democratic (read non-socialist, I suppose) motive for
responsible action.

Given the structure of the corporate world in which thousands or more
individuals collectively support a single management team that
represents an entity with the considerable status and rights (in many
important respects) of an individual, workers similarly organize to
act as one in their bargaining. Seems fair enough. Power-to-power.
The American way. That workers win as infrequently as they do simply
shows that it's easier to buy power than to organize for it.
Martin
  #234 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-06-2004, 12:23 AM
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On 15 Jun 2004 13:57:22 -0700, (Martin) wrote:

Wm James wrote in message . ..
Before
you answer, if you can save 10% on something YOU buy by shopping
somewhere else, what would you choose?


There are many who make socially responsible purchases instead of
opting for the 10% bargain. And we do not cross a picket line even if
the inconvenience is considerable. Clearly Mr. James (any relation to
the great pragmatist philosopher? hard to believe)


No, But I am related to Jesse James, President Davis, President Tyler,
David Duke, and Deputy Cecil Price of the the "Mississippi Burning"
insident. Want to poke fun at that? Go ahead. I'm fromMississippi,
I'm used to people substitutiong insults for discussion.

cannot imagine a
sincere or democratic (read non-socialist, I suppose) motive for
responsible action.


I do not see anything "responsible" in supporting thugs harassing
people. If they want to sell their labor they are free to do so. If
they don't then no one is forcing them. If they don't want to shop
somewhere, they don't have to, if they do, that's their business too.
When they act to prevent by force or intimidation or even
inconvenience to attempt to prevent others from exercising their
rights to work or shop, that are not acting responsibly, they are just
two bit thugs undeserving of respect or consideration.

Given the structure of the corporate world in which thousands or more
individuals collectively support a single management team that
represents an entity with the considerable status and rights (in many
important respects) of an individual, workers similarly organize to
act as one in their bargaining. Seems fair enough. Power-to-power.
The American way. That workers win as infrequently as they do simply
shows that it's easier to buy power than to organize for it.
Martin


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 peoblem. Just keep
government out of the business of butting into either party's business
and requiring participation. Fair enough?

William R. James

  #235 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-06-2004, 12:23 AM
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On 15 Jun 2004 13:57:22 -0700, (Martin) wrote:

Wm James wrote in message . ..
Before
you answer, if you can save 10% on something YOU buy by shopping
somewhere else, what would you choose?


There are many who make socially responsible purchases instead of
opting for the 10% bargain. And we do not cross a picket line even if
the inconvenience is considerable. Clearly Mr. James (any relation to
the great pragmatist philosopher? hard to believe)


No, But I am related to Jesse James, President Davis, President Tyler,
David Duke, and Deputy Cecil Price of the the "Mississippi Burning"
insident. Want to poke fun at that? Go ahead. I'm fromMississippi,
I'm used to people substitutiong insults for discussion.

cannot imagine a
sincere or democratic (read non-socialist, I suppose) motive for
responsible action.


I do not see anything "responsible" in supporting thugs harassing
people. If they want to sell their labor they are free to do so. If
they don't then no one is forcing them. If they don't want to shop
somewhere, they don't have to, if they do, that's their business too.
When they act to prevent by force or intimidation or even
inconvenience to attempt to prevent others from exercising their
rights to work or shop, that are not acting responsibly, they are just
two bit thugs undeserving of respect or consideration.

Given the structure of the corporate world in which thousands or more
individuals collectively support a single management team that
represents an entity with the considerable status and rights (in many
important respects) of an individual, workers similarly organize to
act as one in their bargaining. Seems fair enough. Power-to-power.
The American way. That workers win as infrequently as they do simply
shows that it's easier to buy power than to organize for it.
Martin


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 peoblem. Just keep
government out of the business of butting into either party's business
and requiring participation. Fair enough?

William R. James



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 12:42 AM
Free Starbucks 4 U - Winner of Last Weeks $20 Starbucks Gift Card [email protected] Coffee 0 12-12-2006 08:12 PM
Free Starbucks 4 U - Winner of Last Weeks $20 Starbucks Gift Card [email protected] Recipes 0 12-12-2006 08:11 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 05:44 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017