| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|||
|
|||
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 > > > > news  rQxc.12808$Dr.11373@edtnps84...> > > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message > > > > > news
> > > > > >> > > > > > "Dan Clore" > wrote in message > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > News & Views for Anarchists & Activists: > > > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Starbucks Obstructing First US Union Vote > > > > > > > posted by IU/660 on Tuesday June 01 2004 @ 11:44AM PDT > > > > > > > June 1, 2004 > > > > > > > Contact: > > > > > > > Starbucks Obstructing First US Union Vote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Workers to Schultz: What are you so scared of? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > New York, NY--The Starbucks Baristas Union and community > > > > > > > members across the country have condemned repeated attempts > > > > > > > by the company to deny workers a fair vote on the Union. > > > > > > > While paying lip-service to respecting the choice of > > > > > > > employees, Starbucks has deployed a variety of crude tactics > > > > > > > in an effort to defeat the IWW IU/660, which would be the > > > > > > > first union certified in the United States at the mammoth chain. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Supporters around the country and internationally are > > > > > > > contacting Starbucks demanding they live up to their > > > > > > > rhetoric. If Starbucks really is a bastion of worker > > > > > > > benefits, what is Chairman Howard Schultz, who raked in over > > > > > > > $17 million last year, so scared of? The truth is Starbucks, > > > > > > > with its poverty wages and rampant repetitive-stress > > > > > > > dangers, resembles a sweatshop more than it does a decent > > > > > > > place to work. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, and all those 20-something college-age Americans are being > > forced > > to > > > > > > work there against their will, right? I guess YOU would think it's a > > > > > > sweatshop, given that you strike me as the type of feminized, > > spoiled > > > > > > cry-baby who has never held a real job one day in his life. > > > > > > > > > > > > Tell us, Dan Clore, self-appointed "voice" of the workers - > > > > > > what in the hell do YOU do for a living? > > > > > > > > > > > Can't come up with a real argument so you want to shoot the messenger? > > > > > > > > Came up with an argument that when right over your little head. Nobody > > is > > > > being forced to work at Starbucks, McDonalds, Wal-Mart, or whatever > > > > > > And nobody is being forced to own & operate Starbucks, McDonalds, > > > Wal-Mart. If the CEO's don't like unions they can find another job as > > > well. > > > > The union didn't invest in the business - the owners did. > > The workers are the union. They invest their labor, the better part of their lives. 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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stan de SD's Ignorance
"Stan de SD" > wrote in message link.net... > > > 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... > > You have the right to spout this ignorant nonsense ... even the right to believe it. But that doesn't make it so. Your ignorance regarding employee "rights" and labor law is very profound. As I said before, you run the risk of serious loss in a law suit if you treat employees in the manor you describe. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stan de SD's Ignorance
"Stan de SD" > wrote in message link.net... > > > 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... > > You have the right to spout this ignorant nonsense ... even the right to believe it. But that doesn't make it so. Your ignorance regarding employee "rights" and labor law is very profound. As I said before, you run the risk of serious loss in a law suit if you treat employees in the manor you describe. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
So what exactly does Dan Clore do for a living anyway?
"Grain of Sand" > wrote in message ... > 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. How is anyone "caught"? It happens to be the truth... > If > you would not live uunder a totalitarian state, why live under a > totalitarian corporation? Once again, your complete cluelessness shows. Businesses may be authoritarian by necessity, but they are HARDLY totalitarian. You are free to quit and go elsewhere if you don't think you are getting a fair deal. There are no guard dogs, barbed wire, or electrical fences keeping you in, and the EXIT door is pretty well marked by law. Try doing that (leaving) in a totalitarian state, and see how far you get... > 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. Name a town where Wal-Mart is the only business, and tell me what prevents you from moving (or at least seeking work in another town)... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
So what exactly does Dan Clore do for a living anyway?
"Grain of Sand" > wrote in message ... > 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. How is anyone "caught"? It happens to be the truth... > If > you would not live uunder a totalitarian state, why live under a > totalitarian corporation? Once again, your complete cluelessness shows. Businesses may be authoritarian by necessity, but they are HARDLY totalitarian. You are free to quit and go elsewhere if you don't think you are getting a fair deal. There are no guard dogs, barbed wire, or electrical fences keeping you in, and the EXIT door is pretty well marked by law. Try doing that (leaving) in a totalitarian state, and see how far you get... > 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. Name a town where Wal-Mart is the only business, and tell me what prevents you from moving (or at least seeking work in another town)... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cut the crap, Michael...
"Michael Legel" > wrote in message s.com... > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message > link.net... > > > > > > 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... > > You have the right to spout this ignorant nonsense ... even the right to > believe it. But that doesn't make it so. Your ignorance regarding employee > "rights" and labor law is very profound. As I said before, you run the risk > of serious loss in a law suit if you treat employees in the manor you > describe. Point out anything above that is factually incorrect... if you can. Also, show us your sources substantiating your assertion that the workplace is a "democracy" before lecturing others about being "ignorant", OK? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cut the crap, Michael...
"Michael Legel" > wrote in message s.com... > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message > link.net... > > > > > > 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... > > You have the right to spout this ignorant nonsense ... even the right to > believe it. But that doesn't make it so. Your ignorance regarding employee > "rights" and labor law is very profound. As I said before, you run the risk > of serious loss in a law suit if you treat employees in the manor you > describe. Point out anything above that is factually incorrect... if you can. Also, show us your sources substantiating your assertion that the workplace is a "democracy" before lecturing others about being "ignorant", OK? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
You're full of crap, Stan
"Stan de SD" > wrote in message ink.net... > > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message > s.com... > > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message > > link.net... > > > > > > > > > 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... > > > > You have the right to spout this ignorant nonsense ... even the right to > > believe it. But that doesn't make it so. Your ignorance regarding > employee > > "rights" and labor law is very profound. As I said before, you run the > risk > > of serious loss in a law suit if you treat employees in the manor you > > describe. > > Point out anything above that is factually incorrect... if you can. Also, > show us your sources substantiating your assertion that the workplace is a > "democracy" before lecturing others about being "ignorant", OK? You say "that's as far as it goes" and you are wrong. I have the right to belong to a union in my workplace. I have the right to have that union negotiate in good faith with my employer and my employer must by law negotiate with my union in good faith. I have the right to support my union both verbally and in my attire both at work and away. I have the right to hold and attend union meetings at my work place whether my employer likes it or not. I have the right to strike for both economic and unfair labor practice. I can not be permanently replaced or "fired" if I am striking against my employers unfair labor practices. I have the right to work in a safe environment and to be provided with the proper safety equipment required. I have the right to equal employment and pay regardless my race, religion, age, or gender. I have the right to be paid the minimum wage as legislated by my city, state, and federal governments. I have specific job rights even though I may be disabled. Those are just of few of the more prominent "rights" workers have and there are more depending on contractual agreements and other state and local laws. I never said anything about workplaces being democracies ... but the workplace is governed by our democratic republic and it is neither as simplistic or absolute as you believe it is. Again, your ignorance is deep but not total. If you would care to spend some time learning your ignorance may be relieved. As it stands you run the risk of seeming stupid as well as ignorant. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
You're full of crap, Stan
"Stan de SD" > wrote in message ink.net... > > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message > s.com... > > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message > > link.net... > > > > > > > > > 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... > > > > You have the right to spout this ignorant nonsense ... even the right to > > believe it. But that doesn't make it so. Your ignorance regarding > employee > > "rights" and labor law is very profound. As I said before, you run the > risk > > of serious loss in a law suit if you treat employees in the manor you > > describe. > > Point out anything above that is factually incorrect... if you can. Also, > show us your sources substantiating your assertion that the workplace is a > "democracy" before lecturing others about being "ignorant", OK? You say "that's as far as it goes" and you are wrong. I have the right to belong to a union in my workplace. I have the right to have that union negotiate in good faith with my employer and my employer must by law negotiate with my union in good faith. I have the right to support my union both verbally and in my attire both at work and away. I have the right to hold and attend union meetings at my work place whether my employer likes it or not. I have the right to strike for both economic and unfair labor practice. I can not be permanently replaced or "fired" if I am striking against my employers unfair labor practices. I have the right to work in a safe environment and to be provided with the proper safety equipment required. I have the right to equal employment and pay regardless my race, religion, age, or gender. I have the right to be paid the minimum wage as legislated by my city, state, and federal governments. I have specific job rights even though I may be disabled. Those are just of few of the more prominent "rights" workers have and there are more depending on contractual agreements and other state and local laws. I never said anything about workplaces being democracies ... but the workplace is governed by our democratic republic and it is neither as simplistic or absolute as you believe it is. Again, your ignorance is deep but not total. If you would care to spend some time learning your ignorance may be relieved. As it stands you run the risk of seeming stupid as well as ignorant. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
So what exactly does Dan Clore do for a living anyway?
In article k.net>,
"Stan de SD" > wrote: > "Grain of Sand" > wrote in message > ... > > 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. > > How is anyone "caught"? It happens to be the truth... Caught admitting the type of govenment they really want. > > > If > > you would not live uunder a totalitarian state, why live under a > > totalitarian corporation? > > Once again, your complete cluelessness shows. Businesses may be > authoritarian by necessity, but they are HARDLY totalitarian. You are free > to quit and go elsewhere if you don't think you are getting a fair deal. The "freedom to move" is an assumption and not true for most of the working poor. > There are no guard dogs, barbed wire, or electrical fences keeping you in, > and the EXIT door is pretty well marked by law. Try doing that (leaving) in > a totalitarian state, and see how far you get... I could go along and show you why most corporations at some time resembled a totalitarian government (IBM in the 50's) but let's focus on your admission that businesses are authoritarian. So, who would want to live under an authoritarian government? http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Authoritarian > > > 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. > > Name a town where Wal-Mart is the only business, Yes, you are correct. I was dramatic. But wal mart does cause busniesses to close and has a huge effect on the working poor: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...5001_mz001.htm THE WAL-MART EFFECT Lately, there's a new name for the downward pressure on wages: the so-called Wal-Martization of the economy. Most recently, the dynamic played out starkly in the five-month Southern California supermarket strike that ended in February. The three chains involved, Safeway (SWY ), Albertson's (ABS ), and Kroger (KR ), said they had no choice but to cut pay and benefits drastically now that 40 Wal-Mart Stores (WMT ) supercenters would be opening up in the area. The reason: Wal-Mart pays its full-time hourly workers an average of $9.64, about a third of the level of the union chains. It also shoulders much less of its workers' annual health insurance costs than rivals, leaving 53% of its 1.2 million employees uncovered by the company plan. Now, after the strike, new hires will have lower wages and bear a much higher share of health costs than current union members, making health insurance too pricey for many of them, too. Eventually, many grocery jobs could wind up paying poverty-level wages, just like Wal-Mart's. "I used to load workers into my truck to take them down to United Way," says Jon Lehman, a former manager of a Louisville Wal-Mart who now works for the United Food & Commercial Workers Union. In his 17 years with Wal-Mart, he kept a Rolodex with numbers for homeless shelters, food banks, and soup kitchens. "They couldn't make it on their paychecks." It's a prospect that deeply worries workers like Sherry Kovas. Over 26 years, she worked her way up to $17.90 an hour as a cashier at Ralph's Grocery Co. (KR ) store in the posh California enclave of Indian Wells. To Kovas, the Medici-like lifestyles of her customers -- the personal chefs, the necklaces that would pay her yearly salary -- never seemed so much an emblem of inequality as a symbol of what was possible. Now, though, after the banks foreclosed on some strikers' homes and the repo men hauled away their cars, there's already talk of grocery store closings in the area because of the new Wal-Mart supercenter up the road. "They say Wal-Mart's going to kill us," says Kovas, who fears losing the three-bedroom modular home that she, her five-year-old son, husband, and mother-in-law share. "But I'm 44 years old. I'm too old to start over." > and tell me what prevents > you from moving (or at least seeking work in another town)... These thing could: Transportation costs Health Family obligations cost Have you ever read Nickle and Dimed? http://www.worldvision.org/appalachia ---------------------------------------------- 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 k.net>,
"Stan de SD" > wrote: > "Grain of Sand" > wrote in message > ... > > 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. > > How is anyone "caught"? It happens to be the truth... Caught admitting the type of govenment they really want. > > > If > > you would not live uunder a totalitarian state, why live under a > > totalitarian corporation? > > Once again, your complete cluelessness shows. Businesses may be > authoritarian by necessity, but they are HARDLY totalitarian. You are free > to quit and go elsewhere if you don't think you are getting a fair deal. The "freedom to move" is an assumption and not true for most of the working poor. > There are no guard dogs, barbed wire, or electrical fences keeping you in, > and the EXIT door is pretty well marked by law. Try doing that (leaving) in > a totalitarian state, and see how far you get... I could go along and show you why most corporations at some time resembled a totalitarian government (IBM in the 50's) but let's focus on your admission that businesses are authoritarian. So, who would want to live under an authoritarian government? http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Authoritarian > > > 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. > > Name a town where Wal-Mart is the only business, Yes, you are correct. I was dramatic. But wal mart does cause busniesses to close and has a huge effect on the working poor: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...5001_mz001.htm THE WAL-MART EFFECT Lately, there's a new name for the downward pressure on wages: the so-called Wal-Martization of the economy. Most recently, the dynamic played out starkly in the five-month Southern California supermarket strike that ended in February. The three chains involved, Safeway (SWY ), Albertson's (ABS ), and Kroger (KR ), said they had no choice but to cut pay and benefits drastically now that 40 Wal-Mart Stores (WMT ) supercenters would be opening up in the area. The reason: Wal-Mart pays its full-time hourly workers an average of $9.64, about a third of the level of the union chains. It also shoulders much less of its workers' annual health insurance costs than rivals, leaving 53% of its 1.2 million employees uncovered by the company plan. Now, after the strike, new hires will have lower wages and bear a much higher share of health costs than current union members, making health insurance too pricey for many of them, too. Eventually, many grocery jobs could wind up paying poverty-level wages, just like Wal-Mart's. "I used to load workers into my truck to take them down to United Way," says Jon Lehman, a former manager of a Louisville Wal-Mart who now works for the United Food & Commercial Workers Union. In his 17 years with Wal-Mart, he kept a Rolodex with numbers for homeless shelters, food banks, and soup kitchens. "They couldn't make it on their paychecks." It's a prospect that deeply worries workers like Sherry Kovas. Over 26 years, she worked her way up to $17.90 an hour as a cashier at Ralph's Grocery Co. (KR ) store in the posh California enclave of Indian Wells. To Kovas, the Medici-like lifestyles of her customers -- the personal chefs, the necklaces that would pay her yearly salary -- never seemed so much an emblem of inequality as a symbol of what was possible. Now, though, after the banks foreclosed on some strikers' homes and the repo men hauled away their cars, there's already talk of grocery store closings in the area because of the new Wal-Mart supercenter up the road. "They say Wal-Mart's going to kill us," says Kovas, who fears losing the three-bedroom modular home that she, her five-year-old son, husband, and mother-in-law share. "But I'm 44 years old. I'm too old to start over." > and tell me what prevents > you from moving (or at least seeking work in another town)... These thing could: Transportation costs Health Family obligations cost Have you ever read Nickle and Dimed? http://www.worldvision.org/appalachia ---------------------------------------------- Anarchy: It's not what you think it is! http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
You're full of crap, Stan
"Michael Legel" > wrote in message s.com... > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message > ink.net... > > > > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message > > s.com... > > > > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message > > > link.net... > > > > > > > > > > > > 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... > > > > > > You have the right to spout this ignorant nonsense ... even the right to > > > believe it. But that doesn't make it so. Your ignorance regarding > > employee > > > "rights" and labor law is very profound. As I said before, you run the > > risk > > > of serious loss in a law suit if you treat employees in the manor you > > > describe. > > > > Point out anything above that is factually incorrect... if you can. Also, > > show us your sources substantiating your assertion that the workplace is a > > "democracy" before lecturing others about being "ignorant", OK? > > You say "that's as far as it goes" and you are wrong. I have the right to > belong to a union in my workplace. I have the right to have that union > negotiate in good faith with my employer and my employer must by law negotiate > with my union in good faith. I have the right to support my union both > verbally and in my attire both at work and away. I have the right to hold and > attend union meetings at my work place whether my employer likes it or not. You can have your union meetings off-site during your off hours... > I have the right to strike for both economic and unfair labor practice. OK... > I can > not be permanently replaced or "fired" if I am striking against my employers > unfair labor practices. And there's where you're wrong. If your demands are reasonable and you're worth what you're asking, odd are you will get what you asked for. If they are out of line, you will probably be locked out and lose your job. Do you submit that you have the right to strike for $100/hour and be guaranteed of not being replaced when your demands are totally out of line with reality? That's what you are in effect saying... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
You're full of crap, Stan
"Michael Legel" > wrote in message s.com... > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message > ink.net... > > > > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message > > s.com... > > > > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message > > > link.net... > > > > > > > > > > > > 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... > > > > > > You have the right to spout this ignorant nonsense ... even the right to > > > believe it. But that doesn't make it so. Your ignorance regarding > > employee > > > "rights" and labor law is very profound. As I said before, you run the > > risk > > > of serious loss in a law suit if you treat employees in the manor you > > > describe. > > > > Point out anything above that is factually incorrect... if you can. Also, > > show us your sources substantiating your assertion that the workplace is a > > "democracy" before lecturing others about being "ignorant", OK? > > You say "that's as far as it goes" and you are wrong. I have the right to > belong to a union in my workplace. I have the right to have that union > negotiate in good faith with my employer and my employer must by law negotiate > with my union in good faith. I have the right to support my union both > verbally and in my attire both at work and away. I have the right to hold and > attend union meetings at my work place whether my employer likes it or not. You can have your union meetings off-site during your off hours... > I have the right to strike for both economic and unfair labor practice. OK... > I can > not be permanently replaced or "fired" if I am striking against my employers > unfair labor practices. And there's where you're wrong. If your demands are reasonable and you're worth what you're asking, odd are you will get what you asked for. If they are out of line, you will probably be locked out and lose your job. Do you submit that you have the right to strike for $100/hour and be guaranteed of not being replaced when your demands are totally out of line with reality? That's what you are in effect saying... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
yeah, whatever
"Michael Legel" > wrote in message s.com... > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message > ink.net... > > > > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message > > s.com... > > > > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message > > > link.net... > > > > > > > > > > > > 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... > > > > > > You have the right to spout this ignorant nonsense ... even the right to > > > believe it. But that doesn't make it so. Your ignorance regarding > > employee > > > "rights" and labor law is very profound. As I said before, you run the > > risk > > > of serious loss in a law suit if you treat employees in the manor you > > > describe. > > > > Point out anything above that is factually incorrect... if you can. Also, > > show us your sources substantiating your assertion that the workplace is a > > "democracy" before lecturing others about being "ignorant", OK? > > You say "that's as far as it goes" and you are wrong. I have the right to > belong to a union in my workplace. I have the right to have that union > negotiate in good faith with my employer and my employer must by law negotiate > with my union in good faith. I have the right to support my union both > verbally and in my attire both at work and away. I have the right to hold and > attend union meetings at my work place whether my employer likes it or not. You can have your union meetings off-site during your off hours... > I have the right to strike for both economic and unfair labor practice. OK... > I can > not be permanently replaced or "fired" if I am striking against my employers > unfair labor practices. And there's where you're wrong. If your demands are reasonable and you're worth what you're asking, odd are you will get what you asked for. If they are out of line, you will probably be locked out and lose your job. Do you submit that you have the right to strike for $100/hour and be guaranteed of not being replaced when your demands are totally out of line with reality? That's what you are in effect saying... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
yeah, whatever
"Michael Legel" > wrote in message s.com... > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message > ink.net... > > > > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message > > s.com... > > > > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message > > > link.net... > > > > > > > > > > > > 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... > > > > > > You have the right to spout this ignorant nonsense ... even the right to > > > believe it. But that doesn't make it so. Your ignorance regarding > > employee > > > "rights" and labor law is very profound. As I said before, you run the > > risk > > > of serious loss in a law suit if you treat employees in the manor you > > > describe. > > > > Point out anything above that is factually incorrect... if you can. Also, > > show us your sources substantiating your assertion that the workplace is a > > "democracy" before lecturing others about being "ignorant", OK? > > You say "that's as far as it goes" and you are wrong. I have the right to > belong to a union in my workplace. I have the right to have that union > negotiate in good faith with my employer and my employer must by law negotiate > with my union in good faith. I have the right to support my union both > verbally and in my attire both at work and away. I have the right to hold and > attend union meetings at my work place whether my employer likes it or not. You can have your union meetings off-site during your off hours... > I have the right to strike for both economic and unfair labor practice. OK... > I can > not be permanently replaced or "fired" if I am striking against my employers > unfair labor practices. And there's where you're wrong. If your demands are reasonable and you're worth what you're asking, odd are you will get what you asked for. If they are out of line, you will probably be locked out and lose your job. Do you submit that you have the right to strike for $100/hour and be guaranteed of not being replaced when your demands are totally out of line with reality? That's what you are in effect saying... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
yeah, whatever
"Stan de SD" > wrote in message link.net... > > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message > s.com... > > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message > > ink.net... > > > > > > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message > > > s.com... > > > > > > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message > > > > link.net... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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... > > > > > > > > You have the right to spout this ignorant nonsense ... even the right > to > > > > believe it. But that doesn't make it so. Your ignorance regarding > > > employee > > > > "rights" and labor law is very profound. As I said before, you run > the > > > risk > > > > of serious loss in a law suit if you treat employees in the manor you > > > > describe. > > > > > > Point out anything above that is factually incorrect... if you can. > Also, > > > show us your sources substantiating your assertion that the workplace is > a > > > "democracy" before lecturing others about being "ignorant", OK? > > > > You say "that's as far as it goes" and you are wrong. I have the right to > > belong to a union in my workplace. I have the right to have that union > > negotiate in good faith with my employer and my employer must by law > negotiate > > with my union in good faith. I have the right to support my union both > > verbally and in my attire both at work and away. I have the right to hold > and > > attend union meetings at my work place whether my employer likes it or > not. > > You can have your union meetings off-site during your off hours... > I CAN and HAVE had union meetings on site. Although I was arrested for it once, all charges were dropped. The law protects that right. > > I have the right to strike for both economic and unfair labor practice. > > OK... > > > I can > > not be permanently replaced or "fired" if I am striking against my > employers > > unfair labor practices. > > And there's where you're wrong. No, that's where I am right. I have done it. I participated in a ULP strike against Caterpillar for over a year and a half and they did not permanently replace me. Again reality differs from your beliefs. It happens. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
yeah, whatever
"Stan de SD" > wrote in message link.net... > > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message > s.com... > > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message > > ink.net... > > > > > > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message > > > s.com... > > > > > > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message > > > > link.net... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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... > > > > > > > > You have the right to spout this ignorant nonsense ... even the right > to > > > > believe it. But that doesn't make it so. Your ignorance regarding > > > employee > > > > "rights" and labor law is very profound. As I said before, you run > the > > > risk > > > > of serious loss in a law suit if you treat employees in the manor you > > > > describe. > > > > > > Point out anything above that is factually incorrect... if you can. > Also, > > > show us your sources substantiating your assertion that the workplace is > a > > > "democracy" before lecturing others about being "ignorant", OK? > > > > You say "that's as far as it goes" and you are wrong. I have the right to > > belong to a union in my workplace. I have the right to have that union > > negotiate in good faith with my employer and my employer must by law > negotiate > > with my union in good faith. I have the right to support my union both > > verbally and in my attire both at work and away. I have the right to hold > and > > attend union meetings at my work place whether my employer likes it or > not. > > You can have your union meetings off-site during your off hours... > I CAN and HAVE had union meetings on site. Although I was arrested for it once, all charges were dropped. The law protects that right. > > I have the right to strike for both economic and unfair labor practice. > > OK... > > > I can > > not be permanently replaced or "fired" if I am striking against my > employers > > unfair labor practices. > > And there's where you're wrong. No, that's where I am right. I have done it. I participated in a ULP strike against Caterpillar for over a year and a half and they did not permanently replace me. Again reality differs from your beliefs. It happens. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
You're full of crap, Stan
"Stan de SD" > wrote in message link.net... > > And there's where you're wrong. If your demands are reasonable and you're > worth what you're asking, odd are you will get what you asked for. If they > are out of line, you will probably be locked out and lose your job. Do you > submit that you have the right to strike for $100/hour and be guaranteed of > not being replaced when your demands are totally out of line with reality? > That's what you are in effect saying... > No Stan, I said in effect what I said. I said both the company and the union must bargain in good faith. The union and company should only demand a realistic return for a realistic value. I never said I had the same job rights for an economic strike. Only that I had the right to strike for economic reasons. I said I could not be permanently replaced for striking against Unfair Labor Practices. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
You're full of crap, Stan
"Stan de SD" > wrote in message link.net... > > And there's where you're wrong. If your demands are reasonable and you're > worth what you're asking, odd are you will get what you asked for. If they > are out of line, you will probably be locked out and lose your job. Do you > submit that you have the right to strike for $100/hour and be guaranteed of > not being replaced when your demands are totally out of line with reality? > That's what you are in effect saying... > No Stan, I said in effect what I said. I said both the company and the union must bargain in good faith. The union and company should only demand a realistic return for a realistic value. I never said I had the same job rights for an economic strike. Only that I had the right to strike for economic reasons. I said I could not be permanently replaced for striking against Unfair Labor Practices. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
You're full of crap, Stan
"Michael Legel" > wrote in message s.com... > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message > link.net... > > > > And there's where you're wrong. If your demands are reasonable and you're > > worth what you're asking, odd are you will get what you asked for. If they > > are out of line, you will probably be locked out and lose your job. Do you > > submit that you have the right to strike for $100/hour and be guaranteed of > > not being replaced when your demands are totally out of line with reality? > > That's what you are in effect saying... > > > > No Stan, I said in effect what I said. I said both the company and the union > must bargain in good faith. The union and company should only demand a > realistic return for a realistic value. I never said I had the same job > rights for an economic strike. Only that I had the right to strike for > economic reasons. > > I said I could not be permanently replaced for striking against Unfair Labor > Practices. Yes, you can. You can be replaced if the company decides that your demands are out of line. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
You're full of crap, Stan
"Michael Legel" > wrote in message s.com... > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message > link.net... > > > > And there's where you're wrong. If your demands are reasonable and you're > > worth what you're asking, odd are you will get what you asked for. If they > > are out of line, you will probably be locked out and lose your job. Do you > > submit that you have the right to strike for $100/hour and be guaranteed of > > not being replaced when your demands are totally out of line with reality? > > That's what you are in effect saying... > > > > No Stan, I said in effect what I said. I said both the company and the union > must bargain in good faith. The union and company should only demand a > realistic return for a realistic value. I never said I had the same job > rights for an economic strike. Only that I had the right to strike for > economic reasons. > > I said I could not be permanently replaced for striking against Unfair Labor > Practices. Yes, you can. You can be replaced if the company decides that your demands are out of line. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
yeah, whatever
"Michael Legel" > wrote in message s.com... > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message > link.net... > > > > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message > > s.com... > > > > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message > > > ink.net... > > > > > > > > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message > > > > s.com... > > > > > > > > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message > > > > > link.net... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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... > > > > > > > > > > You have the right to spout this ignorant nonsense ... even the right > > to > > > > > believe it. But that doesn't make it so. Your ignorance regarding > > > > employee > > > > > "rights" and labor law is very profound. As I said before, you run > > the > > > > risk > > > > > of serious loss in a law suit if you treat employees in the manor you > > > > > describe. > > > > > > > > Point out anything above that is factually incorrect... if you can. > > Also, > > > > show us your sources substantiating your assertion that the workplace is > > a > > > > "democracy" before lecturing others about being "ignorant", OK? > > > > > > You say "that's as far as it goes" and you are wrong. I have the right to > > > belong to a union in my workplace. I have the right to have that union > > > negotiate in good faith with my employer and my employer must by law > > negotiate > > > with my union in good faith. I have the right to support my union both > > > verbally and in my attire both at work and away. I have the right to hold > > and > > > attend union meetings at my work place whether my employer likes it or > > not. > > > > You can have your union meetings off-site during your off hours... > > > > I CAN and HAVE had union meetings on site. Although I was arrested for it > once, all charges were dropped. The law protects that right. > > > > I have the right to strike for both economic and unfair labor practice. > > > > OK... > > > > > I can > > > not be permanently replaced or "fired" if I am striking against my > > employers > > > unfair labor practices. > > > > And there's where you're wrong. > > No, that's where I am right. I have done it. I participated in a ULP strike > against Caterpillar for over a year and a half and they did not permanently > replace me. Again reality differs from your beliefs. It happens. That does not apply to all cases. So what's it like to be so incapable of keeping a job on your own merits that you have to force a company to keep you employed? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
yeah, whatever
"Michael Legel" > wrote in message s.com... > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message > link.net... > > > > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message > > s.com... > > > > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message > > > ink.net... > > > > > > > > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message > > > > s.com... > > > > > > > > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message > > > > > link.net... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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... > > > > > > > > > > You have the right to spout this ignorant nonsense ... even the right > > to > > > > > believe it. But that doesn't make it so. Your ignorance regarding > > > > employee > > > > > "rights" and labor law is very profound. As I said before, you run > > the > > > > risk > > > > > of serious loss in a law suit if you treat employees in the manor you > > > > > describe. > > > > > > > > Point out anything above that is factually incorrect... if you can. > > Also, > > > > show us your sources substantiating your assertion that the workplace is > > a > > > > "democracy" before lecturing others about being "ignorant", OK? > > > > > > You say "that's as far as it goes" and you are wrong. I have the right to > > > belong to a union in my workplace. I have the right to have that union > > > negotiate in good faith with my employer and my employer must by law > > negotiate > > > with my union in good faith. I have the right to support my union both > > > verbally and in my attire both at work and away. I have the right to hold > > and > > > attend union meetings at my work place whether my employer likes it or > > not. > > > > You can have your union meetings off-site during your off hours... > > > > I CAN and HAVE had union meetings on site. Although I was arrested for it > once, all charges were dropped. The law protects that right. > > > > I have the right to strike for both economic and unfair labor practice. > > > > OK... > > > > > I can > > > not be permanently replaced or "fired" if I am striking against my > > employers > > > unfair labor practices. > > > > And there's where you're wrong. > > No, that's where I am right. I have done it. I participated in a ULP strike > against Caterpillar for over a year and a half and they did not permanently > replace me. Again reality differs from your beliefs. It happens. That does not apply to all cases. So what's it like to be so incapable of keeping a job on your own merits that you have to force a company to keep you employed? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
So what exactly does Dan Clore do for a living anyway?
"Grain of Sand" > wrote in message ... > In article k.net>, > "Stan de SD" > wrote: > > > "Grain of Sand" > wrote in message > > ... > > > 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. > > > > How is anyone "caught"? It happens to be the truth... > > Caught admitting the type of govenment they really want. Governments and businesses are not the same, nor is it ideal for them to be the same type of organization, since they exist for different purposes. > > > If > > > you would not live uunder a totalitarian state, why live under a > > > totalitarian corporation? > > > > Once again, your complete cluelessness shows. Businesses may be > > authoritarian by necessity, but they are HARDLY totalitarian. You are free > > to quit and go elsewhere if you don't think you are getting a fair deal. > > The "freedom to move" is an assumption and not true for most of the > working poor. Try telling that to millions of Mexican immigrants (legal and otherwise) who are able to relocate to find work... > > There are no guard dogs, barbed wire, or electrical fences keeping you in, > > and the EXIT door is pretty well marked by law. Try doing that (leaving) in > > a totalitarian state, and see how far you get... > > I could go along and show you why most corporations at some time > resembled a totalitarian government (IBM in the 50's) but let's focus on > your admission that businesses are authoritarian. > > So, who would want to live under an authoritarian government? We're referring to businesses, NOT governments. Are you seriously telling me that you can't discern the difference between the two? > http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Authoritarian > > > > > > 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. > > > > Name a town where Wal-Mart is the only business, > > Yes, you are correct. I was dramatic. But wal mart does cause busniesses > to close and has a huge effect on the working poor: Wal-Mart does cause inefficient businesses to close, which is a good thing. It also allows other small businesses (who buy from and sell products to Wal-Mart) to prosper. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
So what exactly does Dan Clore do for a living anyway?
"Grain of Sand" > wrote in message ... > In article k.net>, > "Stan de SD" > wrote: > > > "Grain of Sand" > wrote in message > > ... > > > 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. > > > > How is anyone "caught"? It happens to be the truth... > > Caught admitting the type of govenment they really want. Governments and businesses are not the same, nor is it ideal for them to be the same type of organization, since they exist for different purposes. > > > If > > > you would not live uunder a totalitarian state, why live under a > > > totalitarian corporation? > > > > Once again, your complete cluelessness shows. Businesses may be > > authoritarian by necessity, but they are HARDLY totalitarian. You are free > > to quit and go elsewhere if you don't think you are getting a fair deal. > > The "freedom to move" is an assumption and not true for most of the > working poor. Try telling that to millions of Mexican immigrants (legal and otherwise) who are able to relocate to find work... > > There are no guard dogs, barbed wire, or electrical fences keeping you in, > > and the EXIT door is pretty well marked by law. Try doing that (leaving) in > > a totalitarian state, and see how far you get... > > I could go along and show you why most corporations at some time > resembled a totalitarian government (IBM in the 50's) but let's focus on > your admission that businesses are authoritarian. > > So, who would want to live under an authoritarian government? We're referring to businesses, NOT governments. Are you seriously telling me that you can't discern the difference between the two? > http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Authoritarian > > > > > > 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. > > > > Name a town where Wal-Mart is the only business, > > Yes, you are correct. I was dramatic. But wal mart does cause busniesses > to close and has a huge effect on the working poor: Wal-Mart does cause inefficient businesses to close, which is a good thing. It also allows other small businesses (who buy from and sell products to Wal-Mart) to prosper. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
(G*rd*n) wrote:
> >>... 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. bulba >: > > This is tyranny. Not to mention economic waste. Constantinople >: > 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. ... I think you're missing the point here. "We" means "they"; "afford" means "feel like paying for". Way back when, the working class became restless because they saw that much was being produced and they didn't think they were getting enough of it. Agitators told them they should take power or at least take over their own lives and livelihoods. Armies followed them. Serious trouble was brewing. Anarchism, socialism and fascism reared their illiberal, anti-capitalist heads. The capitalist ruling class became worried. They decided to cut a deal with the workers, especially after some of those armies succeeded in defeating some capitalist armies. "Don't worry about power or autonomy", said the r.c., "instead, we'll give you lots of goodies and take care of you." Thus the social-democratic State was born. It was, indeed, a sort of tyranny, but it was a soft, _nice_ tyranny. And it worked. Eventually, the agitators and the armies of the anti-capitalists were defeated, or at least sank back into the shadows. So then the capitalist ruling class said, "Hey! The problem has been solved. We don't need this 'nice' stuff any more." Besides, a lot of the lower orders didn't like it any more, either. So they started getting rid of it. That's all I'm talking about above. "We" (they) can perfectly well afford the waste in getting the government to deliver the goods and services in the literal sense of "afford" -- "manage to pay for" -- but "we" (they) don't need to, so why bother? However, I think if we (the real we this time) start to see a lot of autonomous behavior, the bennies and concomitant regulation will return. -- (<><>) /*/ }"{ 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?
"Stan de SD" > wrote in message hlink.net>...
> "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 > > > > > news rQxc.12808$Dr.11373@edtnps84...> > > > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in > message > > > > > > news
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > "Dan Clore" > wrote in message > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > News & Views for Anarchists & Activists: > > > > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Starbucks Obstructing First US Union Vote > > > > > > > > posted by IU/660 on Tuesday June 01 2004 @ 11:44AM PDT > > > > > > > > June 1, 2004 > > > > > > > > Contact: > > > > > > > > Starbucks Obstructing First US Union Vote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Workers to Schultz: What are you so scared of? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > New York, NY--The Starbucks Baristas Union and community > > > > > > > > members across the country have condemned repeated attempts > > > > > > > > by the company to deny workers a fair vote on the Union. > > > > > > > > While paying lip-service to respecting the choice of > > > > > > > > employees, Starbucks has deployed a variety of crude tactics > > > > > > > > in an effort to defeat the IWW IU/660, which would be the > > > > > > > > first union certified in the United States at the mammoth > chain. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Supporters around the country and internationally are > > > > > > > > contacting Starbucks demanding they live up to their > > > > > > > > rhetoric. If Starbucks really is a bastion of worker > > > > > > > > benefits, what is Chairman Howard Schultz, who raked in over > > > > > > > > $17 million last year, so scared of? The truth is Starbucks, > > > > > > > > with its poverty wages and rampant repetitive-stress > > > > > > > > dangers, resembles a sweatshop more than it does a decent > > > > > > > > place to work. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, and all those 20-something college-age Americans are being > > > forced > > > to > > > > > > > work there against their will, right? I guess YOU would think > it's a > > > > > > > sweatshop, given that you strike me as the type of feminized, > spoiled > > > > > > > cry-baby who has never held a real job one day in his life. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tell us, Dan Clore, self-appointed "voice" of the workers - > > > > > > > what in the hell do YOU do for a living? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can't come up with a real argument so you want to shoot the > messenger? > > > > > > > > > > Came up with an argument that when right over your little head. > Nobody > is > > > > > being forced to work at Starbucks, McDonalds, Wal-Mart, or whatever > > > > > > > > And nobody is being forced to own & operate Starbucks, McDonalds, > > > > Wal-Mart. If the CEO's don't like unions they can find another job as > > > > well. > > > > > > The union didn't invest in the business - the owners did. > > > > The workers are the union. They invest their labor, the better part of > their lives. > > No, the union may "represent" the workers, but the workers and union are > separate entities. In the Steelworkers' union, for instance, the workers and a union lawyer sit on the bargaining committee to negotiate a contract. The workers negotiate directly with management. > In addition, the workers are pretty much guaranteed to > get paid for their "investment" of labor, Without a contract there are no guarantees. At-will employees can quit or be fired or demoted with no notice or explaination. > while owners and investors have no > such guarantees that they will ever get paid off. What do underwriters do? What is insurance for? Bankruptcy law? Investors sign all kinds of contracts, demand security. > With risks of failure come > the benfits of success - if union types are unwilling to assume the former, When workers support a union effort they they risk retailiation by the company, they risk losing their jobs. > why should they get the latter? > > > > > > A small point you > > > choose to overlook. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
So what exactly does Dan Clore do for a living anyway?
"Stan de SD" > wrote in message hlink.net>...
> "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 > > > > > news rQxc.12808$Dr.11373@edtnps84...> > > > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in > message > > > > > > news
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > "Dan Clore" > wrote in message > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > News & Views for Anarchists & Activists: > > > > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Starbucks Obstructing First US Union Vote > > > > > > > > posted by IU/660 on Tuesday June 01 2004 @ 11:44AM PDT > > > > > > > > June 1, 2004 > > > > > > > > Contact: > > > > > > > > Starbucks Obstructing First US Union Vote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Workers to Schultz: What are you so scared of? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > New York, NY--The Starbucks Baristas Union and community > > > > > > > > members across the country have condemned repeated attempts > > > > > > > > by the company to deny workers a fair vote on the Union. > > > > > > > > While paying lip-service to respecting the choice of > > > > > > > > employees, Starbucks has deployed a variety of crude tactics > > > > > > > > in an effort to defeat the IWW IU/660, which would be the > > > > > > > > first union certified in the United States at the mammoth > chain. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Supporters around the country and internationally are > > > > > > > > contacting Starbucks demanding they live up to their > > > > > > > > rhetoric. If Starbucks really is a bastion of worker > > > > > > > > benefits, what is Chairman Howard Schultz, who raked in over > > > > > > > > $17 million last year, so scared of? The truth is Starbucks, > > > > > > > > with its poverty wages and rampant repetitive-stress > > > > > > > > dangers, resembles a sweatshop more than it does a decent > > > > > > > > place to work. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, and all those 20-something college-age Americans are being > > > forced > > > to > > > > > > > work there against their will, right? I guess YOU would think > it's a > > > > > > > sweatshop, given that you strike me as the type of feminized, > spoiled > > > > > > > cry-baby who has never held a real job one day in his life. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tell us, Dan Clore, self-appointed "voice" of the workers - > > > > > > > what in the hell do YOU do for a living? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can't come up with a real argument so you want to shoot the > messenger? > > > > > > > > > > Came up with an argument that when right over your little head. > Nobody > is > > > > > being forced to work at Starbucks, McDonalds, Wal-Mart, or whatever > > > > > > > > And nobody is being forced to own & operate Starbucks, McDonalds, > > > > Wal-Mart. If the CEO's don't like unions they can find another job as > > > > well. > > > > > > The union didn't invest in the business - the owners did. > > > > The workers are the union. They invest their labor, the better part of > their lives. > > No, the union may "represent" the workers, but the workers and union are > separate entities. In the Steelworkers' union, for instance, the workers and a union lawyer sit on the bargaining committee to negotiate a contract. The workers negotiate directly with management. > In addition, the workers are pretty much guaranteed to > get paid for their "investment" of labor, Without a contract there are no guarantees. At-will employees can quit or be fired or demoted with no notice or explaination. > while owners and investors have no > such guarantees that they will ever get paid off. What do underwriters do? What is insurance for? Bankruptcy law? Investors sign all kinds of contracts, demand security. > With risks of failure come > the benfits of success - if union types are unwilling to assume the former, When workers support a union effort they they risk retailiation by the company, they risk losing their jobs. > why should they get the latter? > > > > > > A small point you > > > choose to overlook. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
So what exactly does Dan Clore do for a living anyway?
In article k.net>,
"Stan de SD" > wrote: > "Grain of Sand" > wrote in message > ... > > In article k.net>, > > "Stan de SD" > wrote: > > > > > "Grain of Sand" > wrote in message > > > ... > > > > 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. > > > > > > How is anyone "caught"? It happens to be the truth... > > > > Caught admitting the type of govenment they really want. > > Governments and businesses are not the same, nor is it ideal for them to be > the same type of organization, since they exist for different purposes. > > > > > If > > > > you would not live uunder a totalitarian state, why live under a > > > > totalitarian corporation? > > > > > > Once again, your complete cluelessness shows. Businesses may be > > > authoritarian by necessity, but they are HARDLY totalitarian. You are > free > > > to quit and go elsewhere if you don't think you are getting a fair deal. > > > > The "freedom to move" is an assumption and not true for most of the > > working poor. > > Try telling that to millions of Mexican immigrants (legal and otherwise) who > are able to relocate to find work... Oh, I thought we were talking about legal us citizens. The wage and social disparity from Mexico to the US is HUGE. In the US there is not a dramatic change for the working poor when moving from one city to another. For a mexican family, they can send half their salary home and feed their families. They separate from their families for years for this opporitunity. I do not see how that would help our society. > > > > There are no guard dogs, barbed wire, or electrical fences keeping you > in, > > > and the EXIT door is pretty well marked by law. Try doing that (leaving) > in > > > a totalitarian state, and see how far you get... > > > > I could go along and show you why most corporations at some time > > resembled a totalitarian government (IBM in the 50's) but let's focus on > > your admission that businesses are authoritarian. > > > > So, who would want to live under an authoritarian government? > > We're referring to businesses, NOT governments. Are you seriously telling me > that you can't discern the difference between the two? So, who would want to live under an authoritarian corporation? > > > http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Authoritarian > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > Name a town where Wal-Mart is the only business, > > > > Yes, you are correct. I was dramatic. But wal mart does cause busniesses > > to close and has a huge effect on the working poor: > > Wal-Mart does cause inefficient businesses to close, which is a good thing. > It also allows other small businesses (who buy from and sell products to > Wal-Mart) to prosper. wal mart lowers wages in the area, forces stores to close (it buys from larger companies, not small ones), limits choice based on beleif, not customer need (MAXXUUM), and treats it's employees poorly. I gues if that what you want, fine. ---------------------------------------------- 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 k.net>,
"Stan de SD" > wrote: > "Grain of Sand" > wrote in message > ... > > In article k.net>, > > "Stan de SD" > wrote: > > > > > "Grain of Sand" > wrote in message > > > ... > > > > 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. > > > > > > How is anyone "caught"? It happens to be the truth... > > > > Caught admitting the type of govenment they really want. > > Governments and businesses are not the same, nor is it ideal for them to be > the same type of organization, since they exist for different purposes. > > > > > If > > > > you would not live uunder a totalitarian state, why live under a > > > > totalitarian corporation? > > > > > > Once again, your complete cluelessness shows. Businesses may be > > > authoritarian by necessity, but they are HARDLY totalitarian. You are > free > > > to quit and go elsewhere if you don't think you are getting a fair deal. > > > > The "freedom to move" is an assumption and not true for most of the > > working poor. > > Try telling that to millions of Mexican immigrants (legal and otherwise) who > are able to relocate to find work... Oh, I thought we were talking about legal us citizens. The wage and social disparity from Mexico to the US is HUGE. In the US there is not a dramatic change for the working poor when moving from one city to another. For a mexican family, they can send half their salary home and feed their families. They separate from their families for years for this opporitunity. I do not see how that would help our society. > > > > There are no guard dogs, barbed wire, or electrical fences keeping you > in, > > > and the EXIT door is pretty well marked by law. Try doing that (leaving) > in > > > a totalitarian state, and see how far you get... > > > > I could go along and show you why most corporations at some time > > resembled a totalitarian government (IBM in the 50's) but let's focus on > > your admission that businesses are authoritarian. > > > > So, who would want to live under an authoritarian government? > > We're referring to businesses, NOT governments. Are you seriously telling me > that you can't discern the difference between the two? So, who would want to live under an authoritarian corporation? > > > http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Authoritarian > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > Name a town where Wal-Mart is the only business, > > > > Yes, you are correct. I was dramatic. But wal mart does cause busniesses > > to close and has a huge effect on the working poor: > > Wal-Mart does cause inefficient businesses to close, which is a good thing. > It also allows other small businesses (who buy from and sell products to > Wal-Mart) to prosper. wal mart lowers wages in the area, forces stores to close (it buys from larger companies, not small ones), limits choice based on beleif, not customer need (MAXXUUM), and treats it's employees poorly. I gues if that what you want, fine. ---------------------------------------------- Anarchy: It's not what you think it is! http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
yeah, whatever
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
yeah, whatever
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
In article >,
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. Actually, for all the grief that that decicison has caused for the last 200 years, the conclusion was inescapable. Leaving aside the fact that the Federalist Papers make it quite clear that this was the expected behavior, the courts are sworn to uphold the Constitution. If a law violates the Constitution, than an order enforcing that law also violates it. It would be theoretically possible, I suppose, to try a weaker form, in which the court would simply refrain from issuing orders, rather than ordering action consistent with the C, but this would be inherently one-sided . . . hawk -- Richard E. Hawkins, Asst. Prof. of Economics /"\ ASCII ribbon campaign 111 Hiller (814) 375-4846 \ / against HTML mail These opinions will not be those of X and postings. Penn State until it pays my retainer. / \ |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
In article >,
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. Actually, for all the grief that that decicison has caused for the last 200 years, the conclusion was inescapable. Leaving aside the fact that the Federalist Papers make it quite clear that this was the expected behavior, the courts are sworn to uphold the Constitution. If a law violates the Constitution, than an order enforcing that law also violates it. It would be theoretically possible, I suppose, to try a weaker form, in which the court would simply refrain from issuing orders, rather than ordering action consistent with the C, but this would be inherently one-sided . . . hawk -- Richard E. Hawkins, Asst. Prof. of Economics /"\ ASCII ribbon campaign 111 Hiller (814) 375-4846 \ / against HTML mail These opinions will not be those of X and postings. Penn State until it pays my retainer. / \ |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
yea......."you" means retarded.....like all Starsucks employees
"Constantinople" > wrote in message ... > 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. > > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
yea......."you" means retarded.....like all Starsucks employees
"Constantinople" > wrote in message ... > 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. > > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 09:40:20 -0700, Dan Clore
> wrote: >> 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. Instead of repeating yourself, why don't you read what I wrote before attempting to tell people what I said? That might help you avoid maing a fool of yourself next time. 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
