|
Starbucks Workers Join IWW
"Paragon" > wrote in message hlink.net... > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message > link.net... > > > > "Dan Clore" > wrote in message > > ... > > > G*rd*n wrote: > > > > "rebelguy" >: > > > > > > >>I FEEL SORRY FOR THESE STUPID PEOPLE, THEY WERE DUPED BY A MAXIST > LABOUR > > > >>UNION AND NOW WILL BE TURNING OVER LARGE PARTS OF WHAT THEY MAKE TO A > > BUNCH > > > >>OF FAT,LAZY WHITE HAIRED UNION BOSS'S WHO SIT ON THEIR ASS'S ALL DAY > > MAKING > > > >>50-60,000 A YEAR > > > >> > > > > Your cliché key is stuck. > > > > > > Not only cliché, but also untrue. In fact, I would hardly > > > know where to begin to untangle all the falsehoods in this > > > single sentence. It might make a fun challenge to see who > > > can point out the most. > > > > OK, Clore, tell us what they will get out of those union dues they will > soon > > be forced to pay as a condition of working there. Retirement pensions? How > > many people are going to make a career of working at Starbucks? Health > > benefits? How long will they have to work to obtain those? > > > > Once again, the unions are trying to find a way of financing their Ponzi > > scheme retirement plans by looking for new sources of union dues. > Suckering > > in workers who won't even be around next year to collect any "benefits", > > much less 20 years from now, is a racket that any neophyte hustler can > > play... :O| > > Hmmmm......what do I get out my union...? Let me think: regular raises not > based on favortism, recognized seniority for schedule picks and vacations, > overtime (no, it not all covered by the Federal law), better working > conditions, paid holidays, > health benefits (after I finished my probationary period of 90 days), jury > duty pay, bereavement pay, a grievance procedure for when the boss screws me > over (and he will), meal periods (no, the state and federal law don't really > touch that, either), report pay (so they don't call me in for 20 minutes of > work after a 30 minute drive), premium pay for certain jobs, transfer > guidelines, protection against managers doing my work and taking my hours, > guidelines for drug testing....... I'm currently self-employed, and even with a lukewarm economy, my monthly income is 3-4 times what I earned at the only union job I ever worked. Again, the same question applies - given that benefits are aimed towards long-term career employees, how will the average college-age student benefit when he or she is going to move down the road in a year or two? |
Starbucks Workers Join IWW
"Stan de SD" > wrote in message ink.net... > > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message > s.com... > > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message > > link.net... > > > > > > "Dan Clore" > wrote in message > > > ... > > > > G*rd*n wrote: > > > > > "rebelguy" >: > > > > > > > > >>I FEEL SORRY FOR THESE STUPID PEOPLE, THEY WERE DUPED BY A MAXIST > LABOUR > > > > >>UNION AND NOW WILL BE TURNING OVER LARGE PARTS OF WHAT THEY MAKE TO > A > > > BUNCH > > > > >>OF FAT,LAZY WHITE HAIRED UNION BOSS'S WHO SIT ON THEIR ASS'S ALL DAY > > > MAKING > > > > >>50-60,000 A YEAR > > > > >> > > > > > Your cliché key is stuck. > > > > > > > > Not only cliché, but also untrue. In fact, I would hardly > > > > know where to begin to untangle all the falsehoods in this > > > > single sentence. It might make a fun challenge to see who > > > > can point out the most. > > > > > > OK, Clore, tell us what they will get out of those union dues they will > soon > > > be forced to pay as a condition of working there. Retirement pensions? > How > > > many people are going to make a career of working at Starbucks? Health > > > benefits? How long will they have to work to obtain those? > > > > > > Once again, the unions are trying to find a way of financing their Ponzi > > > scheme retirement plans by looking for new sources of union dues. > Suckering > > > in workers who won't even be around next year to collect any "benefits", > > > much less 20 years from now, is a racket that any neophyte hustler can > > > play... :O| > > > > > > > > > > Stan your rant is typical, outdated and so ludicrous it would be sad if > not > > for the fact that you probably actually believe it yourself. Do you have > any > > clue as to how miniscule union dues are compared to the benefits received? > > Once again, how are most individuals who are only going to work at Starbucks > for a year or two going to receive "benefits"? > > In addition, if the benefits received are such to make the dues "miniscule", > who's paying for them? > > Answer those questions before you lecture me about doing my "homework", OK? > > > I don't have to answer your questions. It would be pointless to do so anyway .... you are not going to be convinced by me. Thus I suggest you really research these questions for yourself, only then will you realize the truth that unions have provided far more benefit to employers, employees and consumers than any other fraternal group in history. That is the fact that you will not believe unless you read it for yourself. I suspect you don't do the research because you simply WON'T believe this is possible. You probably believe the eight hour work day, overtime, child labor laws, sweat shop laws, etc. were all "given" to workers out of the intrinsic goodness of employers? We all paid for those benefits ... employer, employee and consumer ... and we all benefit because at some time in our lives we are each employer, employee and consumer. So simple really. |
Starbucks Workers Join IWW
"Stan de SD" > wrote in message ink.net... > > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message > s.com... > > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message > > link.net... > > > > > > "Dan Clore" > wrote in message > > > ... > > > > G*rd*n wrote: > > > > > "rebelguy" >: > > > > > > > > >>I FEEL SORRY FOR THESE STUPID PEOPLE, THEY WERE DUPED BY A MAXIST > LABOUR > > > > >>UNION AND NOW WILL BE TURNING OVER LARGE PARTS OF WHAT THEY MAKE TO > A > > > BUNCH > > > > >>OF FAT,LAZY WHITE HAIRED UNION BOSS'S WHO SIT ON THEIR ASS'S ALL DAY > > > MAKING > > > > >>50-60,000 A YEAR > > > > >> > > > > > Your cliché key is stuck. > > > > > > > > Not only cliché, but also untrue. In fact, I would hardly > > > > know where to begin to untangle all the falsehoods in this > > > > single sentence. It might make a fun challenge to see who > > > > can point out the most. > > > > > > OK, Clore, tell us what they will get out of those union dues they will > soon > > > be forced to pay as a condition of working there. Retirement pensions? > How > > > many people are going to make a career of working at Starbucks? Health > > > benefits? How long will they have to work to obtain those? > > > > > > Once again, the unions are trying to find a way of financing their Ponzi > > > scheme retirement plans by looking for new sources of union dues. > Suckering > > > in workers who won't even be around next year to collect any "benefits", > > > much less 20 years from now, is a racket that any neophyte hustler can > > > play... :O| > > > > > > > > > > Stan your rant is typical, outdated and so ludicrous it would be sad if > not > > for the fact that you probably actually believe it yourself. Do you have > any > > clue as to how miniscule union dues are compared to the benefits received? > > Once again, how are most individuals who are only going to work at Starbucks > for a year or two going to receive "benefits"? > > In addition, if the benefits received are such to make the dues "miniscule", > who's paying for them? > > Answer those questions before you lecture me about doing my "homework", OK? > > > I don't have to answer your questions. It would be pointless to do so anyway .... you are not going to be convinced by me. Thus I suggest you really research these questions for yourself, only then will you realize the truth that unions have provided far more benefit to employers, employees and consumers than any other fraternal group in history. That is the fact that you will not believe unless you read it for yourself. I suspect you don't do the research because you simply WON'T believe this is possible. You probably believe the eight hour work day, overtime, child labor laws, sweat shop laws, etc. were all "given" to workers out of the intrinsic goodness of employers? We all paid for those benefits ... employer, employee and consumer ... and we all benefit because at some time in our lives we are each employer, employee and consumer. So simple really. |
Starbucks Workers Join IWW
"rebelguy" >:
> > > I FEEL SORRY FOR THESE STUPID PEOPLE, THEY WERE DUPED BY A MAXIST LABOUR > > > UNION AND NOW WILL BE TURNING OVER LARGE PARTS OF WHAT THEY MAKE TO A BUNCH > > > OF FAT,LAZY WHITE HAIRED UNION BOSS'S WHO SIT ON THEIR ASS'S ALL DAY MAKING > > > 50-60,000 A YEAR "G*rd*n": > > Your cliché key is stuck. "Stan de SD" >: > Yet he's right. Starbucks jobs are for the most part "entry-level" - 90% of > the people working there will move on to bigger and better things within a > year or two. These people won't see a penny of the so-called "pension" and > "retirement" schemes they will be forced into paying with their dues, which > is exactly what the union bosses are hoping for. How do you know? Do you have the particulars of the contract and the union's management and financial affairs at hand? -- (<><>) /*/ }"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{ { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't |
Starbucks Workers Join IWW
"rebelguy" >:
> > > I FEEL SORRY FOR THESE STUPID PEOPLE, THEY WERE DUPED BY A MAXIST LABOUR > > > UNION AND NOW WILL BE TURNING OVER LARGE PARTS OF WHAT THEY MAKE TO A BUNCH > > > OF FAT,LAZY WHITE HAIRED UNION BOSS'S WHO SIT ON THEIR ASS'S ALL DAY MAKING > > > 50-60,000 A YEAR "G*rd*n": > > Your cliché key is stuck. "Stan de SD" >: > Yet he's right. Starbucks jobs are for the most part "entry-level" - 90% of > the people working there will move on to bigger and better things within a > year or two. These people won't see a penny of the so-called "pension" and > "retirement" schemes they will be forced into paying with their dues, which > is exactly what the union bosses are hoping for. How do you know? Do you have the particulars of the contract and the union's management and financial affairs at hand? -- (<><>) /*/ }"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{ { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't |
Starbucks Workers Join IWW
In article m>, Michael Legel wrote:
"You probably believe the eight hour work day, overtime, child labor laws, sweat shop laws, etc. were all "given" to workers out of the intrinsic goodness of employers?" The 'eight hour day' was an invention of Henry Ford. He instituted it, along with unprecedented high wages, because he needed to eliminate the rampant absenteeism and turnover in his plants. A stable, happy workforce was absolutely key in the success of Ford. Unions had zero to do with it, desire for profits everything. BB |
Starbucks Workers Join IWW
In article m>, Michael Legel wrote:
"You probably believe the eight hour work day, overtime, child labor laws, sweat shop laws, etc. were all "given" to workers out of the intrinsic goodness of employers?" The 'eight hour day' was an invention of Henry Ford. He instituted it, along with unprecedented high wages, because he needed to eliminate the rampant absenteeism and turnover in his plants. A stable, happy workforce was absolutely key in the success of Ford. Unions had zero to do with it, desire for profits everything. BB |
Starbucks Workers Join IWW
Barnacle Bill wrote:
> In article m>, Michael Legel wrote: > > "You probably believe the eight hour work day, overtime, child labor laws, > sweat shop laws, etc. were all "given" to workers out of the intrinsic > goodness of employers?" > > The 'eight hour day' was an invention of Henry Ford. He instituted it, > along with unprecedented high wages, because he needed to eliminate the > rampant absenteeism and turnover in his plants. A stable, happy workforce > was absolutely key in the success of Ford. Unions had zero to do with it, > desire for profits everything. He instituted the eight hour workday only after labor activists had been fighting for it for decades. -- Dan Clore Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_ http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...edanclorenecro Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page: http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/ News & Views for Anarchists & Activists: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo "It's a political statement -- or, rather, an *anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!" -- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in _Detective Comics_ #608 |
Starbucks Workers Join IWW
Barnacle Bill wrote:
> In article m>, Michael Legel wrote: > > "You probably believe the eight hour work day, overtime, child labor laws, > sweat shop laws, etc. were all "given" to workers out of the intrinsic > goodness of employers?" > > The 'eight hour day' was an invention of Henry Ford. He instituted it, > along with unprecedented high wages, because he needed to eliminate the > rampant absenteeism and turnover in his plants. A stable, happy workforce > was absolutely key in the success of Ford. Unions had zero to do with it, > desire for profits everything. He instituted the eight hour workday only after labor activists had been fighting for it for decades. -- Dan Clore Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_ http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...edanclorenecro Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page: http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/ News & Views for Anarchists & Activists: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo "It's a political statement -- or, rather, an *anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!" -- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in _Detective Comics_ #608 |
Starbucks Workers Join IWW
Stan de SD wrote:
> Once again, how are most individuals who are only going to work at Starbucks > for a year or two going to receive "benefits"? Hmmm... let's see...I know! 13 days after the contract, Suzie goes to the doctor and uses her medical card (*DING*) and gets a prescription, goes to the drug store and pays a $5 co-pay (*DING*) instead of $47. A couple days later Jimmy goes to the dentist for an semi-annual check-up (*DING*). Paulie opened up a 401k account (transferrable to his next job) and he explained the plan to Kathy on their 30 minute break one Saturday (*DING*), when they were both working a time and one half pay (*DING*). She would have opened her account Monday, but she was called in and ASKED to work (*DING*) an extra shift, since Lew needed to take a personal day 'cause his kid was sick (*DING*). Mary missed this all, tho', 'cause she was on a two week paid vacation (*DING*). "Benefits" are a LOT more than retirement accounts. > > In addition, if the benefits received are such to make the dues "miniscule", > who's paying for them? The IWW is not the sort of union that runs it's own pension funds or medical plans (those unions are usually in the construction field or other industries were employees often work for a number of different employers). If a contract is signed with Starbucks, Starbucks would pay for the benefits. > > Answer those questions before you lecture me about doing my "homework", OK? Well, you really should do some homework on what the IWW is before you use your cliche arguments against it. Your replies are particularly amusing to those who know the IWW... > > > |
Starbucks Workers Join IWW
Stan de SD wrote:
> Once again, how are most individuals who are only going to work at Starbucks > for a year or two going to receive "benefits"? Hmmm... let's see...I know! 13 days after the contract, Suzie goes to the doctor and uses her medical card (*DING*) and gets a prescription, goes to the drug store and pays a $5 co-pay (*DING*) instead of $47. A couple days later Jimmy goes to the dentist for an semi-annual check-up (*DING*). Paulie opened up a 401k account (transferrable to his next job) and he explained the plan to Kathy on their 30 minute break one Saturday (*DING*), when they were both working a time and one half pay (*DING*). She would have opened her account Monday, but she was called in and ASKED to work (*DING*) an extra shift, since Lew needed to take a personal day 'cause his kid was sick (*DING*). Mary missed this all, tho', 'cause she was on a two week paid vacation (*DING*). "Benefits" are a LOT more than retirement accounts. > > In addition, if the benefits received are such to make the dues "miniscule", > who's paying for them? The IWW is not the sort of union that runs it's own pension funds or medical plans (those unions are usually in the construction field or other industries were employees often work for a number of different employers). If a contract is signed with Starbucks, Starbucks would pay for the benefits. > > Answer those questions before you lecture me about doing my "homework", OK? Well, you really should do some homework on what the IWW is before you use your cliche arguments against it. Your replies are particularly amusing to those who know the IWW... > > > |
Starbucks Workers Join IWW
Stan de SD wrote:
> "Dan Clore" > wrote in message > ... >>G*rd*n wrote: >>>"rebelguy" >: >> >>>>I FEEL SORRY FOR THESE STUPID PEOPLE, THEY WERE DUPED BY A MAXIST LABOUR >>>>UNION AND NOW WILL BE TURNING OVER LARGE PARTS OF WHAT THEY MAKE TO A > BUNCH >>>>OF FAT,LAZY WHITE HAIRED UNION BOSS'S WHO SIT ON THEIR ASS'S ALL DAY > MAKING >>>>50-60,000 A YEAR >>>> >>>Your cliché key is stuck. >> >>Not only cliché, but also untrue. In fact, I would hardly >>know where to begin to untangle all the falsehoods in this >>single sentence. It might make a fun challenge to see who >>can point out the most. > > OK, Clore, tell us what they will get out of those union dues they will soon > be forced to pay as a condition of working there. Retirement pensions? How > many people are going to make a career of working at Starbucks? Health > benefits? How long will they have to work to obtain those? > > Once again, the unions are trying to find a way of financing their Ponzi > scheme retirement plans by looking for new sources of union dues. Suckering > in workers who won't even be around next year to collect any "benefits", > much less 20 years from now, is a racket that any neophyte hustler can > play... :O| I'm afraid we'll have to disqualify Stain's entry in the contest. The challenge was to find as many falsehoods as possible in rebelguy's post, not to brainlessly repeat some of them. Come on, people: I'll bet there's at least ten distinct falsehoods in there. -- Dan Clore Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_ http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...edanclorenecro Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page: http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/ News & Views for Anarchists & Activists: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo "It's a political statement -- or, rather, an *anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!" -- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in _Detective Comics_ #608 |
Starbucks Workers Join IWW
Stan de SD wrote:
> "Dan Clore" > wrote in message > ... >>G*rd*n wrote: >>>"rebelguy" >: >> >>>>I FEEL SORRY FOR THESE STUPID PEOPLE, THEY WERE DUPED BY A MAXIST LABOUR >>>>UNION AND NOW WILL BE TURNING OVER LARGE PARTS OF WHAT THEY MAKE TO A > BUNCH >>>>OF FAT,LAZY WHITE HAIRED UNION BOSS'S WHO SIT ON THEIR ASS'S ALL DAY > MAKING >>>>50-60,000 A YEAR >>>> >>>Your cliché key is stuck. >> >>Not only cliché, but also untrue. In fact, I would hardly >>know where to begin to untangle all the falsehoods in this >>single sentence. It might make a fun challenge to see who >>can point out the most. > > OK, Clore, tell us what they will get out of those union dues they will soon > be forced to pay as a condition of working there. Retirement pensions? How > many people are going to make a career of working at Starbucks? Health > benefits? How long will they have to work to obtain those? > > Once again, the unions are trying to find a way of financing their Ponzi > scheme retirement plans by looking for new sources of union dues. Suckering > in workers who won't even be around next year to collect any "benefits", > much less 20 years from now, is a racket that any neophyte hustler can > play... :O| I'm afraid we'll have to disqualify Stain's entry in the contest. The challenge was to find as many falsehoods as possible in rebelguy's post, not to brainlessly repeat some of them. Come on, people: I'll bet there's at least ten distinct falsehoods in there. -- Dan Clore Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_ http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...edanclorenecro Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page: http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/ News & Views for Anarchists & Activists: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo "It's a political statement -- or, rather, an *anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!" -- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in _Detective Comics_ #608 |
Starbucks Workers Join IWW
"Michael Legel" > wrote in message
s.com... > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message > ink.net... > > > Stan your rant is typical, outdated and so ludicrous it > > > would be sad if not for the fact that you probably > > > actually believe it yourself. Do you have any clue > > > as to how miniscule union dues are compared to the > > > benefits received? > > > > Once again, how are most individuals who are only going to work at Starbucks > > for a year or two going to receive "benefits"? > > > > In addition, if the benefits received are such to make the dues "miniscule", > > who's paying for them? > > > > Answer those questions before you lecture me about doing my "homework", OK? > > I don't have to answer your questions. Because you can't, right? > It would be pointless to do so anyway > ... you are not going to be convinced by me. Given that you can't answer my questions. > Thus I suggest you really > research these questions for yourself, I have researched them myself, and it appears that union dues paid by people who don't draw benefits go to subsidize somebody else. That's a no-brainer. > only then will you realize the truth > that unions have provided far more benefit to employers, employees and > consumers than any other fraternal group in history. Proof? > That is the fact that > you will not believe unless you read it for yourself. I'm asking for proof, not a bunch of pro-union rhetoric. > I suspect you don't do > the research because you simply WON'T believe this is possible. You probably > believe the eight hour work day, overtime, child labor laws, sweat shop laws, > etc. were all "given" to workers out of the intrinsic goodness of employers? Unions can't give away what isn't made possible by a higher standard of living brought on by increasing wealth and technological development. |
Starbucks Workers Join IWW
"Michael Legel" > wrote in message
s.com... > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message > ink.net... > > > Stan your rant is typical, outdated and so ludicrous it > > > would be sad if not for the fact that you probably > > > actually believe it yourself. Do you have any clue > > > as to how miniscule union dues are compared to the > > > benefits received? > > > > Once again, how are most individuals who are only going to work at Starbucks > > for a year or two going to receive "benefits"? > > > > In addition, if the benefits received are such to make the dues "miniscule", > > who's paying for them? > > > > Answer those questions before you lecture me about doing my "homework", OK? > > I don't have to answer your questions. Because you can't, right? > It would be pointless to do so anyway > ... you are not going to be convinced by me. Given that you can't answer my questions. > Thus I suggest you really > research these questions for yourself, I have researched them myself, and it appears that union dues paid by people who don't draw benefits go to subsidize somebody else. That's a no-brainer. > only then will you realize the truth > that unions have provided far more benefit to employers, employees and > consumers than any other fraternal group in history. Proof? > That is the fact that > you will not believe unless you read it for yourself. I'm asking for proof, not a bunch of pro-union rhetoric. > I suspect you don't do > the research because you simply WON'T believe this is possible. You probably > believe the eight hour work day, overtime, child labor laws, sweat shop laws, > etc. were all "given" to workers out of the intrinsic goodness of employers? Unions can't give away what isn't made possible by a higher standard of living brought on by increasing wealth and technological development. |
Starbucks Workers Join IWW
>>>> Stan your rant is typical, outdated and so ludicrous it
>>>> would be sad if not for the fact that you probably >>>> actually believe it yourself. Do you have any clue >>>> as to how miniscule union dues are compared to the >>>> benefits received? "Stan de SD" >: >>> Once again, how are most individuals who are only going to work at Starbucks >>> for a year or two going to receive "benefits"? >>> >>> In addition, if the benefits received are such to make the dues "miniscule", >>> who's paying for them? >>> Answer those questions before you lecture me about doing my "homework", OK? "Michael Legel" >: >> I don't have to answer your questions. "Stan de SD" >: > Because you can't, right? No, because someone else answered the questions. It's truly sad to see someone of even limited intelligence wasting precious electrons like this. Why don't you get together with Barnacle Bill and at least read the relevant material? Get a few facts? BB seems to be in even worse shape than you. You could help each other. Then, when you wanted to abuse the lower classes, you could do it with a little style, anyway. > ... -- (<><>) /*/ }"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{ { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't |
Starbucks Workers Join IWW
>>>> Stan your rant is typical, outdated and so ludicrous it
>>>> would be sad if not for the fact that you probably >>>> actually believe it yourself. Do you have any clue >>>> as to how miniscule union dues are compared to the >>>> benefits received? "Stan de SD" >: >>> Once again, how are most individuals who are only going to work at Starbucks >>> for a year or two going to receive "benefits"? >>> >>> In addition, if the benefits received are such to make the dues "miniscule", >>> who's paying for them? >>> Answer those questions before you lecture me about doing my "homework", OK? "Michael Legel" >: >> I don't have to answer your questions. "Stan de SD" >: > Because you can't, right? No, because someone else answered the questions. It's truly sad to see someone of even limited intelligence wasting precious electrons like this. Why don't you get together with Barnacle Bill and at least read the relevant material? Get a few facts? BB seems to be in even worse shape than you. You could help each other. Then, when you wanted to abuse the lower classes, you could do it with a little style, anyway. > ... -- (<><>) /*/ }"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{ { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't |
Starbucks Workers Join IWW
"Stan de SD" > wrote in message ink.net... > > "Paragon" > wrote in message > hlink.net... > > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message > > link.net... > > > > > > "Dan Clore" > wrote in message > > > ... > > > > G*rd*n wrote: > > > > > "rebelguy" >: > > > > > > > > >>I FEEL SORRY FOR THESE STUPID PEOPLE, THEY WERE DUPED BY A MAXIST > > LABOUR > > > > >>UNION AND NOW WILL BE TURNING OVER LARGE PARTS OF WHAT THEY MAKE TO > A > > > BUNCH > > > > >>OF FAT,LAZY WHITE HAIRED UNION BOSS'S WHO SIT ON THEIR ASS'S ALL DAY > > > MAKING > > > > >>50-60,000 A YEAR > > > > >> > > > > > Your cliché key is stuck. > > > > > > > > Not only cliché, but also untrue. In fact, I would hardly > > > > know where to begin to untangle all the falsehoods in this > > > > single sentence. It might make a fun challenge to see who > > > > can point out the most. > > > > > > OK, Clore, tell us what they will get out of those union dues they will > > soon > > > be forced to pay as a condition of working there. Retirement pensions? > How > > > many people are going to make a career of working at Starbucks? Health > > > benefits? How long will they have to work to obtain those? > > > > > > Once again, the unions are trying to find a way of financing their Ponzi > > > scheme retirement plans by looking for new sources of union dues. > > Suckering > > > in workers who won't even be around next year to collect any "benefits", > > > much less 20 years from now, is a racket that any neophyte hustler can > > > play... :O| > > > > Hmmmm......what do I get out my union...? Let me think: regular raises > not > > based on favortism, recognized seniority for schedule picks and vacations, > > overtime (no, it not all covered by the Federal law), better working > > conditions, paid holidays, > > health benefits (after I finished my probationary period of 90 days), jury > > duty pay, bereavement pay, a grievance procedure for when the boss screws > me > > over (and he will), meal periods (no, the state and federal law don't > really > > touch that, either), report pay (so they don't call me in for 20 minutes > of > > work after a 30 minute drive), premium pay for certain jobs, transfer > > guidelines, protection against managers doing my work and taking my hours, > > guidelines for drug testing....... > > I'm currently self-employed, and even with a lukewarm economy, my monthly > income is 3-4 times what I earned at the only union job I ever worked. > Again, the same question applies - given that benefits are aimed towards > long-term career employees, how will the average college-age student benefit > when he or she is going to move down the road in a year or two? Better working conditions, breaks, regular raises, sick pay, paid holidays.....My company has a lot of college-age people, and they do benefit from those things, even in the short term. I would like to know exactly what brought on the desire for a union in this NY Starbucks. I doubt someone woke up one day and said "hey, let's organize." Many times, it not the unions who go in to try to organize, it's the employees who make the first contact after putting up with all sorts of abuse from the employer. Anyone know what precipitated this particular push? |
Starbucks Workers Join IWW
"Stan de SD" > wrote in message ink.net... > > "Paragon" > wrote in message > hlink.net... > > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message > > link.net... > > > > > > "Dan Clore" > wrote in message > > > ... > > > > G*rd*n wrote: > > > > > "rebelguy" >: > > > > > > > > >>I FEEL SORRY FOR THESE STUPID PEOPLE, THEY WERE DUPED BY A MAXIST > > LABOUR > > > > >>UNION AND NOW WILL BE TURNING OVER LARGE PARTS OF WHAT THEY MAKE TO > A > > > BUNCH > > > > >>OF FAT,LAZY WHITE HAIRED UNION BOSS'S WHO SIT ON THEIR ASS'S ALL DAY > > > MAKING > > > > >>50-60,000 A YEAR > > > > >> > > > > > Your cliché key is stuck. > > > > > > > > Not only cliché, but also untrue. In fact, I would hardly > > > > know where to begin to untangle all the falsehoods in this > > > > single sentence. It might make a fun challenge to see who > > > > can point out the most. > > > > > > OK, Clore, tell us what they will get out of those union dues they will > > soon > > > be forced to pay as a condition of working there. Retirement pensions? > How > > > many people are going to make a career of working at Starbucks? Health > > > benefits? How long will they have to work to obtain those? > > > > > > Once again, the unions are trying to find a way of financing their Ponzi > > > scheme retirement plans by looking for new sources of union dues. > > Suckering > > > in workers who won't even be around next year to collect any "benefits", > > > much less 20 years from now, is a racket that any neophyte hustler can > > > play... :O| > > > > Hmmmm......what do I get out my union...? Let me think: regular raises > not > > based on favortism, recognized seniority for schedule picks and vacations, > > overtime (no, it not all covered by the Federal law), better working > > conditions, paid holidays, > > health benefits (after I finished my probationary period of 90 days), jury > > duty pay, bereavement pay, a grievance procedure for when the boss screws > me > > over (and he will), meal periods (no, the state and federal law don't > really > > touch that, either), report pay (so they don't call me in for 20 minutes > of > > work after a 30 minute drive), premium pay for certain jobs, transfer > > guidelines, protection against managers doing my work and taking my hours, > > guidelines for drug testing....... > > I'm currently self-employed, and even with a lukewarm economy, my monthly > income is 3-4 times what I earned at the only union job I ever worked. > Again, the same question applies - given that benefits are aimed towards > long-term career employees, how will the average college-age student benefit > when he or she is going to move down the road in a year or two? Better working conditions, breaks, regular raises, sick pay, paid holidays.....My company has a lot of college-age people, and they do benefit from those things, even in the short term. I would like to know exactly what brought on the desire for a union in this NY Starbucks. I doubt someone woke up one day and said "hey, let's organize." Many times, it not the unions who go in to try to organize, it's the employees who make the first contact after putting up with all sorts of abuse from the employer. Anyone know what precipitated this particular push? |
Starbucks Workers Join IWW
Good for the workers at Starbucks. I don't know about them but my dues
are only $12 bucks a month. And, what do you have against a marxist labor union? Although, in all honesty, one of the reasons I joined was to irritate the anti-union folks. A lot of what I do is only to irritate others. Socrates was my hero you see. |
Starbucks Workers Join IWW
Good for the workers at Starbucks. I don't know about them but my dues
are only $12 bucks a month. And, what do you have against a marxist labor union? Although, in all honesty, one of the reasons I joined was to irritate the anti-union folks. A lot of what I do is only to irritate others. Socrates was my hero you see. |
Starbucks Workers Join IWW
I go to Starbucks a great deal for coffee. The barristas are, almost
without exception, very courteous,pleasant, and refined in their behavior which makes going to Starbucks such a pleasure. They deserve the best in my opinion! |
Starbucks Workers Join IWW
I go to Starbucks a great deal for coffee. The barristas are, almost
without exception, very courteous,pleasant, and refined in their behavior which makes going to Starbucks such a pleasure. They deserve the best in my opinion! |
Starbucks Workers Join IWW
> > > > > > >>I FEEL SORRY FOR THESE STUPID PEOPLE, THEY WERE DUPED BY A MAXIST > LABOUR > > > >>UNION AND NOW WILL BE TURNING OVER LARGE PARTS OF WHAT THEY MAKE TO A > > BUNCH > > > >>OF FAT,LAZY WHITE HAIRED UNION BOSS'S WHO SIT ON THEIR ASS'S ALL DAY > > MAKING > > > >>50-60,000 A YEAR What is a "MAXIST" ? (sic) chuckle! Stupid? The pot calling the kettle black. Sorry, couldn't avoid it. ernie |
Starbucks Workers Join IWW
> > > > > > >>I FEEL SORRY FOR THESE STUPID PEOPLE, THEY WERE DUPED BY A MAXIST > LABOUR > > > >>UNION AND NOW WILL BE TURNING OVER LARGE PARTS OF WHAT THEY MAKE TO A > > BUNCH > > > >>OF FAT,LAZY WHITE HAIRED UNION BOSS'S WHO SIT ON THEIR ASS'S ALL DAY > > MAKING > > > >>50-60,000 A YEAR What is a "MAXIST" ? (sic) chuckle! Stupid? The pot calling the kettle black. Sorry, couldn't avoid it. ernie |
Starbucks Workers Join IWW
"G*rd*n" > wrote in message ... > "rebelguy" >: > > > > I FEEL SORRY FOR THESE STUPID PEOPLE, THEY WERE DUPED BY A MAXIST LABOUR > > > > UNION AND NOW WILL BE TURNING OVER LARGE PARTS OF WHAT THEY MAKE TO A BUNCH > > > > OF FAT,LAZY WHITE HAIRED UNION BOSS'S WHO SIT ON THEIR ASS'S ALL DAY MAKING > > > > 50-60,000 A YEAR > > "G*rd*n": > > > Your cliché key is stuck. > > "Stan de SD" >: > > Yet he's right. Starbucks jobs are for the most part "entry-level" - 90% of > > the people working there will move on to bigger and better things within a > > year or two. These people won't see a penny of the so-called "pension" and > > "retirement" schemes they will be forced into paying with their dues, which > > is exactly what the union bosses are hoping for. > > > How do you know? Do you have the particulars of the contract > and the union's management and financial affairs at hand? Because unlike you, G*r*n, not everybody spends their entire life working in the fast-food industry. Others are far more motivated than you... |
Starbucks Workers Join IWW
"G*rd*n" > wrote in message ... > "rebelguy" >: > > > > I FEEL SORRY FOR THESE STUPID PEOPLE, THEY WERE DUPED BY A MAXIST LABOUR > > > > UNION AND NOW WILL BE TURNING OVER LARGE PARTS OF WHAT THEY MAKE TO A BUNCH > > > > OF FAT,LAZY WHITE HAIRED UNION BOSS'S WHO SIT ON THEIR ASS'S ALL DAY MAKING > > > > 50-60,000 A YEAR > > "G*rd*n": > > > Your cliché key is stuck. > > "Stan de SD" >: > > Yet he's right. Starbucks jobs are for the most part "entry-level" - 90% of > > the people working there will move on to bigger and better things within a > > year or two. These people won't see a penny of the so-called "pension" and > > "retirement" schemes they will be forced into paying with their dues, which > > is exactly what the union bosses are hoping for. > > > How do you know? Do you have the particulars of the contract > and the union's management and financial affairs at hand? Because unlike you, G*r*n, not everybody spends their entire life working in the fast-food industry. Others are far more motivated than you... |
Starbucks Workers Join IWW
rebelguy" >:
>>>>> I FEEL SORRY FOR THESE STUPID PEOPLE, THEY WERE DUPED BY A MAXIST LABOUR >>>>> UNION AND NOW WILL BE TURNING OVER LARGE PARTS OF WHAT THEY MAKE TO A BUNCH >>>>> OF FAT,LAZY WHITE HAIRED UNION BOSS'S WHO SIT ON THEIR ASS'S ALL DAY MAKING >>>>> 50-60,000 A YEAR "G*rd*n": >>>> Your cliché key is stuck. "Stan de SD" >: >>> Yet he's right. Starbucks jobs are for the most part "entry-level" - 90% of >>> the people working there will move on to bigger and better things within a >>> year or two. These people won't see a penny of the so-called "pension" and >>> "retirement" schemes they will be forced into paying with their dues, which >>> is exactly what the union bosses are hoping for. "G*rd*n": >> How do you know? Do you have the particulars of the contract >> and the union's management and financial affairs at hand? "Stan de SD" >: > Because unlike you, G*r*n, not everybody spends their entire life working in > the fast-food industry. Others are far more motivated than you... In other words, you don't know what you're talking about. I'm just shocked. -- (<><>) /*/ }"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{ { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't |
Starbucks Workers Join IWW
rebelguy" >:
>>>>> I FEEL SORRY FOR THESE STUPID PEOPLE, THEY WERE DUPED BY A MAXIST LABOUR >>>>> UNION AND NOW WILL BE TURNING OVER LARGE PARTS OF WHAT THEY MAKE TO A BUNCH >>>>> OF FAT,LAZY WHITE HAIRED UNION BOSS'S WHO SIT ON THEIR ASS'S ALL DAY MAKING >>>>> 50-60,000 A YEAR "G*rd*n": >>>> Your cliché key is stuck. "Stan de SD" >: >>> Yet he's right. Starbucks jobs are for the most part "entry-level" - 90% of >>> the people working there will move on to bigger and better things within a >>> year or two. These people won't see a penny of the so-called "pension" and >>> "retirement" schemes they will be forced into paying with their dues, which >>> is exactly what the union bosses are hoping for. "G*rd*n": >> How do you know? Do you have the particulars of the contract >> and the union's management and financial affairs at hand? "Stan de SD" >: > Because unlike you, G*r*n, not everybody spends their entire life working in > the fast-food industry. Others are far more motivated than you... In other words, you don't know what you're talking about. I'm just shocked. -- (<><>) /*/ }"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{ { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't |
Starbucks Workers Join IWW
"Michael Legel" > wrote in message ws.com>...
> "Stan de SD" > wrote in message > ink.net... > > > > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message > > s.com... > > > > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message > > > link.net... > > > > > > > > "Dan Clore" > wrote in message > > > > ... > > > > > G*rd*n wrote: > > > > > > "rebelguy" >: > > > > > > >>I FEEL SORRY FOR THESE STUPID PEOPLE, THEY WERE DUPED BY A MAXIST > LABOUR > > > > > >>UNION AND NOW WILL BE TURNING OVER LARGE PARTS OF WHAT THEY MAKE TO > A > BUNCH > > > > > >>OF FAT,LAZY WHITE HAIRED UNION BOSS'S WHO SIT ON THEIR ASS'S ALL DAY > MAKING > > > > > >>50-60,000 A YEAR > > > > > >> > > > > > > Your cliché key is stuck. > > > > > > > > > > Not only cliché, but also untrue. In fact, I would hardly > > > > > know where to begin to untangle all the falsehoods in this > > > > > single sentence. It might make a fun challenge to see who > > > > > can point out the most. > > > > > > > > OK, Clore, tell us what they will get out of those union dues they will > soon > > > > be forced to pay as a condition of working there. Retirement pensions? > How > > > > many people are going to make a career of working at Starbucks? Health > > > > benefits? How long will they have to work to obtain those? > > > > > > > > Once again, the unions are trying to find a way of financing their Ponzi > > > > scheme retirement plans by looking for new sources of union dues. > Suckering > > > > in workers who won't even be around next year to collect any "benefits", > > > > much less 20 years from now, is a racket that any neophyte hustler can > > > > play... :O| > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Stan your rant is typical, outdated and so ludicrous it would be sad if > not > > > for the fact that you probably actually believe it yourself. Do you have > any > > > clue as to how miniscule union dues are compared to the benefits received? > > > > Once again, how are most individuals who are only going to work at Starbucks > > for a year or two going to receive "benefits"? > > > > In addition, if the benefits received are such to make the dues "miniscule", > > who's paying for them? > > > > Answer those questions before you lecture me about doing my "homework", OK? > > > > > > > > I don't have to answer your questions. It would be pointless to do so anyway > ... you are not going to be convinced by me. Thus I suggest you really > research these questions for yourself, only then will you realize the truth > that unions have provided far more benefit to employers, employees and > consumers than any other fraternal group in history. That is the fact that > you will not believe unless you read it for yourself. In other words you can't find any evidence but you want him to. > I suspect you don't do the research because you simply WON'T believe > this is possible. You probably believe the eight hour work day, > overtime, child labor laws, sweat shop laws, etc. were all "given" to > workers out of the intrinsic goodness of employers? The eight hour day was "given" because people stopped being prepared to work longer. To get the best workers employers had to offer 8 hour days. The fact that the union was there at the time had nothing to do with it. Child labour laws were not given out of the goodness of anyone's heart. They were brutal impositions on the lives of children, forcing them back to the family home to work harder, longer in worse conditions so that the elders didn't have to compete with them. > We all paid for those benefits ... employer, employee and consumer > ... and we all benefit because at some time in our lives we are > each employer, employee and consumer. So simple really. Well no it's not. For a start I've never been an employer so you are wrong. For a second thing I don't know any benefit of unions to employers except that they can cripple opposition businesses, which is hardly good for the consumer. |
Starbucks Workers Join IWW
"Michael Legel" > wrote in message ws.com>...
> "Stan de SD" > wrote in message > ink.net... > > > > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message > > s.com... > > > > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message > > > link.net... > > > > > > > > "Dan Clore" > wrote in message > > > > ... > > > > > G*rd*n wrote: > > > > > > "rebelguy" >: > > > > > > >>I FEEL SORRY FOR THESE STUPID PEOPLE, THEY WERE DUPED BY A MAXIST > LABOUR > > > > > >>UNION AND NOW WILL BE TURNING OVER LARGE PARTS OF WHAT THEY MAKE TO > A > BUNCH > > > > > >>OF FAT,LAZY WHITE HAIRED UNION BOSS'S WHO SIT ON THEIR ASS'S ALL DAY > MAKING > > > > > >>50-60,000 A YEAR > > > > > >> > > > > > > Your cliché key is stuck. > > > > > > > > > > Not only cliché, but also untrue. In fact, I would hardly > > > > > know where to begin to untangle all the falsehoods in this > > > > > single sentence. It might make a fun challenge to see who > > > > > can point out the most. > > > > > > > > OK, Clore, tell us what they will get out of those union dues they will > soon > > > > be forced to pay as a condition of working there. Retirement pensions? > How > > > > many people are going to make a career of working at Starbucks? Health > > > > benefits? How long will they have to work to obtain those? > > > > > > > > Once again, the unions are trying to find a way of financing their Ponzi > > > > scheme retirement plans by looking for new sources of union dues. > Suckering > > > > in workers who won't even be around next year to collect any "benefits", > > > > much less 20 years from now, is a racket that any neophyte hustler can > > > > play... :O| > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Stan your rant is typical, outdated and so ludicrous it would be sad if > not > > > for the fact that you probably actually believe it yourself. Do you have > any > > > clue as to how miniscule union dues are compared to the benefits received? > > > > Once again, how are most individuals who are only going to work at Starbucks > > for a year or two going to receive "benefits"? > > > > In addition, if the benefits received are such to make the dues "miniscule", > > who's paying for them? > > > > Answer those questions before you lecture me about doing my "homework", OK? > > > > > > > > I don't have to answer your questions. It would be pointless to do so anyway > ... you are not going to be convinced by me. Thus I suggest you really > research these questions for yourself, only then will you realize the truth > that unions have provided far more benefit to employers, employees and > consumers than any other fraternal group in history. That is the fact that > you will not believe unless you read it for yourself. In other words you can't find any evidence but you want him to. > I suspect you don't do the research because you simply WON'T believe > this is possible. You probably believe the eight hour work day, > overtime, child labor laws, sweat shop laws, etc. were all "given" to > workers out of the intrinsic goodness of employers? The eight hour day was "given" because people stopped being prepared to work longer. To get the best workers employers had to offer 8 hour days. The fact that the union was there at the time had nothing to do with it. Child labour laws were not given out of the goodness of anyone's heart. They were brutal impositions on the lives of children, forcing them back to the family home to work harder, longer in worse conditions so that the elders didn't have to compete with them. > We all paid for those benefits ... employer, employee and consumer > ... and we all benefit because at some time in our lives we are > each employer, employee and consumer. So simple really. Well no it's not. For a start I've never been an employer so you are wrong. For a second thing I don't know any benefit of unions to employers except that they can cripple opposition businesses, which is hardly good for the consumer. |
Starbucks Workers Join IWW
"michael price" > wrote in message om... > The eight hour day was "given" because people stopped being prepared > to work longer. To get the best workers employers had to offer 8 hour > days. The fact that the union was there at the time had nothing to > do with it. Child labour laws were not given out of the goodness > of anyone's heart. They were brutal impositions on the lives of > children, forcing them back to the family home to work harder, longer > in worse conditions so that the elders didn't have to compete with > them. > You really have no education of what child labor was like in America before those laws. Your ignorance is astounding. > Well no it's not. For a start I've never been an employer so you > are wrong. For a second thing I don't know any benefit of unions > to employers except that they can cripple opposition businesses, > which is hardly good for the consumer. I suspect you have never realized how many times you have directly employed someone to mow your grass, deliver your paper, baby-sit your children, install carpet, work on plumbing, put up siding, etc. It is indeed a rare person in America who has not at some time "employed" someone else to do a service. A union provides a huge benefit to employers by providing ONE point of negotiation for all employees. No longer does the boss have to deal alone with the barrage of complaint, grief and just plain whining of employees. The union also helps to shoulder that burden and provides a convenient scapegoat at times. At one time pattern bargaining also provided a level playing field in wages, but with the demise of unions everybody now gets the same low wage. Since you refuse to honestly research the facts of union history in America you can't learn from the mistakes of the present economy. There is no organization today with enough clout to represent the worker today and today we call Wallymart, MickeyD, Harpees, etc. .... jobs. There was a time (that I can remember) when one working person could bring home a paycheck large enough to support one family of 7 people. Now two wage earners are hard pressed to support a smaller family. This is not progress. |
Starbucks Workers Join IWW
"michael price" > wrote in message om... > The eight hour day was "given" because people stopped being prepared > to work longer. To get the best workers employers had to offer 8 hour > days. The fact that the union was there at the time had nothing to > do with it. Child labour laws were not given out of the goodness > of anyone's heart. They were brutal impositions on the lives of > children, forcing them back to the family home to work harder, longer > in worse conditions so that the elders didn't have to compete with > them. > You really have no education of what child labor was like in America before those laws. Your ignorance is astounding. > Well no it's not. For a start I've never been an employer so you > are wrong. For a second thing I don't know any benefit of unions > to employers except that they can cripple opposition businesses, > which is hardly good for the consumer. I suspect you have never realized how many times you have directly employed someone to mow your grass, deliver your paper, baby-sit your children, install carpet, work on plumbing, put up siding, etc. It is indeed a rare person in America who has not at some time "employed" someone else to do a service. A union provides a huge benefit to employers by providing ONE point of negotiation for all employees. No longer does the boss have to deal alone with the barrage of complaint, grief and just plain whining of employees. The union also helps to shoulder that burden and provides a convenient scapegoat at times. At one time pattern bargaining also provided a level playing field in wages, but with the demise of unions everybody now gets the same low wage. Since you refuse to honestly research the facts of union history in America you can't learn from the mistakes of the present economy. There is no organization today with enough clout to represent the worker today and today we call Wallymart, MickeyD, Harpees, etc. .... jobs. There was a time (that I can remember) when one working person could bring home a paycheck large enough to support one family of 7 people. Now two wage earners are hard pressed to support a smaller family. This is not progress. |
Starbucks Workers Join IWW
After a long battle with technology, "Michael Legel" >, an earthling, wrote:
> A union provides a huge benefit to employers by providing ONE point of > negotiation for all employees. No longer does the boss have to deal alone > with the barrage of complaint, grief and just plain whining of employees. The > union also helps to shoulder that burden and provides a convenient scapegoat > at times. At one time pattern bargaining also provided a level playing field > in wages, but with the demise of unions everybody now gets the same low wage. I worked one place where unions provided their 'huge benefit' to the employer by providing SEVENTEEN POINTS of negotiation spread across the employees, thereby meaning that there were 17 sources of grievances, where "agreement" requires that each of the (competing!) unions decide to agree. It was _not_ evident that it led to any diminishment of the "barrage" of complaints. I'd have to agree that the unions could use one another as scapegoats when needed, though... -- If this was helpful, <http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=cbbrowne> rate me http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/emacs.html God is dead. -Nietszche Nietszche is dead. -God |
Starbucks Workers Join IWW
After a long battle with technology, "Michael Legel" >, an earthling, wrote:
> A union provides a huge benefit to employers by providing ONE point of > negotiation for all employees. No longer does the boss have to deal alone > with the barrage of complaint, grief and just plain whining of employees. The > union also helps to shoulder that burden and provides a convenient scapegoat > at times. At one time pattern bargaining also provided a level playing field > in wages, but with the demise of unions everybody now gets the same low wage. I worked one place where unions provided their 'huge benefit' to the employer by providing SEVENTEEN POINTS of negotiation spread across the employees, thereby meaning that there were 17 sources of grievances, where "agreement" requires that each of the (competing!) unions decide to agree. It was _not_ evident that it led to any diminishment of the "barrage" of complaints. I'd have to agree that the unions could use one another as scapegoats when needed, though... -- If this was helpful, <http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=cbbrowne> rate me http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/emacs.html God is dead. -Nietszche Nietszche is dead. -God |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
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. The IWW released today the text they obtained of a voice mail Howard Schultz sent to employees around the company regarding the Union which Schultz calls, "very disappointing and disturbing." "What we have here is classic union busting plain and simple," said Benjamin Ferguson, an IWW member working on the campaign. "They are using the same down and dirty tricks we see time and time again from highly successful corporations unwilling to give their workers a fair shake." One the legal front, Starbucks has hired corporate law firm Akin Gump to argue that the workers in the store aren't entitled to a vote. Mr. Shultz is fond of saying the Starbucks Mission Statement requires respect and dignity for employees but apparently that does not include exercising the right to form a union. The IWW will face off with Starbucks on June 2 at a formal hearing at the National Labor Relations Board. "Single stores within retail chains have long been presumed appropriate bargaining units," said Stuart Lichten of Kennedy, Schwartz, and Cure, the firm representing the Union. "We are confident we will prevail on the merits." The company is also using scare tactics to intimidate workers. Management has been interrogating certain workers about the union while spreading misinformation about joining. At the same time, senior executives are in and out of the store constantly making sure workers feel the heat. Starbucks earned a record $268 million last year on revenues of more than $4 billion. The company admits that Baristas add tremendous value to the enterprise yet refuses to pay them a wage that would bring them out of poverty. Starbucks workers in New York City announced last month that they had formed a union with the IWW IU/660. The IWW is a union for all workers, dedicated to organizing on the job and in the community. IU/660 represents retail workers. ### Text of Voicemail Sent by Howard Schultz, Wednesday 5/19 Hello partners, this is Howard Schultz with a message for all of you. I wanted to take a moment and reach out to you regarding information that the company recently received. A local union in New York claims that some of our partners at the 36th and Madison location in New York City have expressed an interest in being represented by them. While I recognize that this is related to only one store, this news is very disappointing and disturbing. Over the last 25 years, we have worked together to build a great company based on our core values and as a result have built great trust in one another. We always strive to live by our mission statement and guiding principles. And when we wrote the guiding principles, we very deliberately put creating a great work environment and treating everyone with dignity and respect as our highest priority. Back in the earliest days of Starbucks, we did what others said could not be done -- together we built a profitable company while integrating a social conscience into everything we do. We began offering comprehensive health care coverage and ownership in the company in the form of Bean Stock to full- and part-time partners. Those decisions were landmark events in our company history and our compassion for one another truly differentiates us. We have succeeded beyond everyone's wildest expectations. Today, we employ more than 80,000 partners around the world. And our commitment to our core values is as strong today as it was in those very early days of our company. Because of the way we work together, we receive many accolades from the outside world for what we do -- we're on the Fortune 100 Best Places to work list, the Most Admired Companies list, and much more. That recognition is great, but what's more important is that we have a caring and supportive culture. So please, if you ever have any concerns about our company, reach out to your local leadership, write to Mission Review, or use any of the many means we have to discuss and resolve issues and create a comfortable culture for everyone. I want to conclude by simply thanking you for everything you do each day, and for being the real heart and soul of Starbucks. Thank you. Related at Infoshop: http://www.infoshop.org/octo/matrix/index.php/Starbucks -- Dan Clore Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_ http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...edanclorenecro Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page: http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/ News & Views for Anarchists & Activists: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo "It's a political statement -- or, rather, an *anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!" -- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in _Detective Comics_ #608 |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
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. The IWW released today the text they obtained of a voice mail Howard Schultz sent to employees around the company regarding the Union which Schultz calls, "very disappointing and disturbing." "What we have here is classic union busting plain and simple," said Benjamin Ferguson, an IWW member working on the campaign. "They are using the same down and dirty tricks we see time and time again from highly successful corporations unwilling to give their workers a fair shake." One the legal front, Starbucks has hired corporate law firm Akin Gump to argue that the workers in the store aren't entitled to a vote. Mr. Shultz is fond of saying the Starbucks Mission Statement requires respect and dignity for employees but apparently that does not include exercising the right to form a union. The IWW will face off with Starbucks on June 2 at a formal hearing at the National Labor Relations Board. "Single stores within retail chains have long been presumed appropriate bargaining units," said Stuart Lichten of Kennedy, Schwartz, and Cure, the firm representing the Union. "We are confident we will prevail on the merits." The company is also using scare tactics to intimidate workers. Management has been interrogating certain workers about the union while spreading misinformation about joining. At the same time, senior executives are in and out of the store constantly making sure workers feel the heat. Starbucks earned a record $268 million last year on revenues of more than $4 billion. The company admits that Baristas add tremendous value to the enterprise yet refuses to pay them a wage that would bring them out of poverty. Starbucks workers in New York City announced last month that they had formed a union with the IWW IU/660. The IWW is a union for all workers, dedicated to organizing on the job and in the community. IU/660 represents retail workers. ### Text of Voicemail Sent by Howard Schultz, Wednesday 5/19 Hello partners, this is Howard Schultz with a message for all of you. I wanted to take a moment and reach out to you regarding information that the company recently received. A local union in New York claims that some of our partners at the 36th and Madison location in New York City have expressed an interest in being represented by them. While I recognize that this is related to only one store, this news is very disappointing and disturbing. Over the last 25 years, we have worked together to build a great company based on our core values and as a result have built great trust in one another. We always strive to live by our mission statement and guiding principles. And when we wrote the guiding principles, we very deliberately put creating a great work environment and treating everyone with dignity and respect as our highest priority. Back in the earliest days of Starbucks, we did what others said could not be done -- together we built a profitable company while integrating a social conscience into everything we do. We began offering comprehensive health care coverage and ownership in the company in the form of Bean Stock to full- and part-time partners. Those decisions were landmark events in our company history and our compassion for one another truly differentiates us. We have succeeded beyond everyone's wildest expectations. Today, we employ more than 80,000 partners around the world. And our commitment to our core values is as strong today as it was in those very early days of our company. Because of the way we work together, we receive many accolades from the outside world for what we do -- we're on the Fortune 100 Best Places to work list, the Most Admired Companies list, and much more. That recognition is great, but what's more important is that we have a caring and supportive culture. So please, if you ever have any concerns about our company, reach out to your local leadership, write to Mission Review, or use any of the many means we have to discuss and resolve issues and create a comfortable culture for everyone. I want to conclude by simply thanking you for everything you do each day, and for being the real heart and soul of Starbucks. Thank you. Related at Infoshop: http://www.infoshop.org/octo/matrix/index.php/Starbucks -- Dan Clore Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_ http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...edanclorenecro Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page: http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/ News & Views for Anarchists & Activists: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo "It's a political statement -- or, rather, an *anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!" -- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in _Detective Comics_ #608 |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 02:02:29 -0700, Dan Clore
> wrote: >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. Why would any company want their employees following organized crime thugs? >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. Hey, here's an idea.... DON'T WORK THERE! If it's a bad job, sell your labor elsewhere! I know that's a difficult concept for morons to grasp, but if you can't find a sucker willing to pay you better then just mayby you arealready overpaid and you should be happy to get it. >The IWW released today the text they obtained of a voice >mail Howard Schultz sent to employees around the company >regarding the Union which Schultz calls, "very disappointing >and disturbing." > >"What we have here is classic union busting plain and >simple," said Benjamin Ferguson, an IWW member working on >the campaign. "They are using the same down and dirty tricks >we see time and time again from highly successful >corporations unwilling to give their workers a fair shake." For example? >One the legal front, Starbucks has hired corporate law firm >Akin Gump to argue that the workers in the store aren't >entitled to a vote. Mr. Shultz is fond of saying the >Starbucks Mission Statement requires respect and dignity for >employees but apparently that does not include exercising >the right to form a union. The IWW will face off with >Starbucks on June 2 at a formal hearing at the National >Labor Relations Board. You can make or join whatever private club you want. In a free society, the employer shouldn't have to associate with it. What if the bread makers union wanted to force you to pay more for bread and demanded that you couldn't stop buying it or shop elsewhere? >"Single stores within retail chains have long been presumed >appropriate bargaining units," said Stuart Lichten of >Kennedy, Schwartz, and Cure, the firm representing the >Union. "We are confident we will prevail on the merits." ROTFLMAO! Lawyers and unions talking about "merits"? That's funny! >The company is also using scare tactics to intimidate >workers. Management has been interrogating certain workers >about the union while spreading misinformation about >joining. At the same time, senior executives are in and out >of the store constantly making sure workers feel the heat. Having been an employee where a union was attempting to infiltrate, I can tell you the attempts at intimidation are virtually unisersally on the part of the crime bosses sheep trying to organize a union. The company has it's hands tired by the goofy regulations. If a union threatens the company to the poit that they will have to close the doors if the thungs get in, they aren't even allowed to tell the employees. >Starbucks earned a record $268 million last year on revenues >of more than $4 billion. The company admits that Baristas >add tremendous value to the enterprise yet refuses to pay >them a wage that would bring them out of poverty. So what? When you buy something, is it your responsibility to take care of the seller's family? >Starbucks workers in New York City announced last month that >they had formed a union with the IWW IU/660. The IWW is a >union for all workers, dedicated to organizing on the job >and in the community. IU/660 represents retail workers. Ynions represent the crime boss, not the sheep. >### > >Text of Voicemail Sent by Howard Schultz, Wednesday 5/19 > >Hello partners, this is Howard Schultz with a message for >all of you. I wanted to take a moment and reach out to you >regarding information that the company recently received. A >local union in New York claims that some of our partners at >the 36th and Madison location in New York City have >expressed an interest in being represented by them. > >While I recognize that this is related to only one store, >this news is very disappointing and disturbing. Over the >last 25 years, we have worked together to build a great >company based on our core values and as a result have built >great trust in one another. We always strive to live by our >mission statement and guiding principles. And when we wrote >the guiding principles, we very deliberately put creating a >great work environment and treating everyone with dignity >and respect as our highest priority. > >Back in the earliest days of Starbucks, we did what others >said could not be done -- together we built a profitable >company while integrating a social conscience into >everything we do. We began offering comprehensive health >care coverage and ownership in the company in the form of >Bean Stock to full- and part-time partners. Those decisions >were landmark events in our company history and our >compassion for one another truly differentiates us. We have >succeeded beyond everyone's wildest expectations. Today, we >employ more than 80,000 partners around the world. And our >commitment to our core values is as strong today as it was >in those very early days of our company. > >Because of the way we work together, we receive many >accolades from the outside world for what we do -- we're on >the Fortune 100 Best Places to work list, the Most Admired >Companies list, and much more. That recognition is great, >but what's more important is that we have a caring and >supportive culture. So please, if you ever have any concerns >about our company, reach out to your local leadership, write >to Mission Review, or use any of the many means we have to >discuss and resolve issues and create a comfortable culture >for everyone. > >I want to conclude by simply thanking you for everything you >do each day, and for being the real heart and soul of >Starbucks. Thank you. > >Related at Infoshop: >http://www.infoshop.org/octo/matrix/index.php/Starbucks He sounds reasonable. William R. James |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 02:02:29 -0700, Dan Clore
> wrote: >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. Why would any company want their employees following organized crime thugs? >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. Hey, here's an idea.... DON'T WORK THERE! If it's a bad job, sell your labor elsewhere! I know that's a difficult concept for morons to grasp, but if you can't find a sucker willing to pay you better then just mayby you arealready overpaid and you should be happy to get it. >The IWW released today the text they obtained of a voice >mail Howard Schultz sent to employees around the company >regarding the Union which Schultz calls, "very disappointing >and disturbing." > >"What we have here is classic union busting plain and >simple," said Benjamin Ferguson, an IWW member working on >the campaign. "They are using the same down and dirty tricks >we see time and time again from highly successful >corporations unwilling to give their workers a fair shake." For example? >One the legal front, Starbucks has hired corporate law firm >Akin Gump to argue that the workers in the store aren't >entitled to a vote. Mr. Shultz is fond of saying the >Starbucks Mission Statement requires respect and dignity for >employees but apparently that does not include exercising >the right to form a union. The IWW will face off with >Starbucks on June 2 at a formal hearing at the National >Labor Relations Board. You can make or join whatever private club you want. In a free society, the employer shouldn't have to associate with it. What if the bread makers union wanted to force you to pay more for bread and demanded that you couldn't stop buying it or shop elsewhere? >"Single stores within retail chains have long been presumed >appropriate bargaining units," said Stuart Lichten of >Kennedy, Schwartz, and Cure, the firm representing the >Union. "We are confident we will prevail on the merits." ROTFLMAO! Lawyers and unions talking about "merits"? That's funny! >The company is also using scare tactics to intimidate >workers. Management has been interrogating certain workers >about the union while spreading misinformation about >joining. At the same time, senior executives are in and out >of the store constantly making sure workers feel the heat. Having been an employee where a union was attempting to infiltrate, I can tell you the attempts at intimidation are virtually unisersally on the part of the crime bosses sheep trying to organize a union. The company has it's hands tired by the goofy regulations. If a union threatens the company to the poit that they will have to close the doors if the thungs get in, they aren't even allowed to tell the employees. >Starbucks earned a record $268 million last year on revenues >of more than $4 billion. The company admits that Baristas >add tremendous value to the enterprise yet refuses to pay >them a wage that would bring them out of poverty. So what? When you buy something, is it your responsibility to take care of the seller's family? >Starbucks workers in New York City announced last month that >they had formed a union with the IWW IU/660. The IWW is a >union for all workers, dedicated to organizing on the job >and in the community. IU/660 represents retail workers. Ynions represent the crime boss, not the sheep. >### > >Text of Voicemail Sent by Howard Schultz, Wednesday 5/19 > >Hello partners, this is Howard Schultz with a message for >all of you. I wanted to take a moment and reach out to you >regarding information that the company recently received. A >local union in New York claims that some of our partners at >the 36th and Madison location in New York City have >expressed an interest in being represented by them. > >While I recognize that this is related to only one store, >this news is very disappointing and disturbing. Over the >last 25 years, we have worked together to build a great >company based on our core values and as a result have built >great trust in one another. We always strive to live by our >mission statement and guiding principles. And when we wrote >the guiding principles, we very deliberately put creating a >great work environment and treating everyone with dignity >and respect as our highest priority. > >Back in the earliest days of Starbucks, we did what others >said could not be done -- together we built a profitable >company while integrating a social conscience into >everything we do. We began offering comprehensive health >care coverage and ownership in the company in the form of >Bean Stock to full- and part-time partners. Those decisions >were landmark events in our company history and our >compassion for one another truly differentiates us. We have >succeeded beyond everyone's wildest expectations. Today, we >employ more than 80,000 partners around the world. And our >commitment to our core values is as strong today as it was >in those very early days of our company. > >Because of the way we work together, we receive many >accolades from the outside world for what we do -- we're on >the Fortune 100 Best Places to work list, the Most Admired >Companies list, and much more. That recognition is great, >but what's more important is that we have a caring and >supportive culture. So please, if you ever have any concerns >about our company, reach out to your local leadership, write >to Mission Review, or use any of the many means we have to >discuss and resolve issues and create a comfortable culture >for everyone. > >I want to conclude by simply thanking you for everything you >do each day, and for being the real heart and soul of >Starbucks. Thank you. > >Related at Infoshop: >http://www.infoshop.org/octo/matrix/index.php/Starbucks He sounds reasonable. William R. James |
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
> ...
: > Why would any company want their employees following organized crime > thugs? > ... One modest regular payment to the OCTs, and, voilà! Labor peace. Did you really need to ask? I don't think this has much to do with the subject at hand, however. -- (<><>) /*/ }"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{ { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:13 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter