> ...


:
> 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

"G*rd*n" > wrote in message
...
> > ...
>
>
> :
> > 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?

That's not an answer to the question he asked, but to a different
question - "what are the benefits of paying the union, once workers have
unionized".
But, thnaks for conceding that a union is nothing more than a "protection"
scam.

"G*rd*n" > wrote in message
...
> > ...
>
>
> :
> > 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?

That's not an answer to the question he asked, but to a different
question - "what are the benefits of paying the union, once workers have
unionized".
But, thnaks for conceding that a union is nothing more than a "protection"
scam.

> > > ...

:
> > > Why would any company want their employees following organized crime
> > > thugs?
> > > ...

"G*rd*n" >:
> > One modest regular payment to the OCTs, and, voilà!
> > Labor peace. Did you really need to ask?

"zztop8970" >:
> That's not an answer to the question he asked, but to a different
> question - "what are the benefits of paying the union, once workers have
> unionized".
> But, thnaks for conceding that a union is nothing more than a "protection"
> scam.


I simply answered wrjames's question directly. Although it
hardly seems possible, your reading skills have taken a turn
for the worse.


--

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

> > > ...

:
> > > Why would any company want their employees following organized crime
> > > thugs?
> > > ...

"G*rd*n" >:
> > One modest regular payment to the OCTs, and, voilà!
> > Labor peace. Did you really need to ask?

"zztop8970" >:
> That's not an answer to the question he asked, but to a different
> question - "what are the benefits of paying the union, once workers have
> unionized".
> But, thnaks for conceding that a union is nothing more than a "protection"
> scam.


I simply answered wrjames's question directly. Although it
hardly seems possible, your reading skills have taken a turn
for the worse.


--

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

Wm James wrote:
> 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?

I don't know. Hopefully Starbucks will issue a directive to
their employees to stop paying taxes and boycott itself and
similar corporations.

--
Dan Clore

Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...edanclorenecro
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

"It's a political statement -- or, rather, an
*anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!"
-- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in
_Detective Comics_ #608

Wm James wrote:
> 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?

I don't know. Hopefully Starbucks will issue a directive to
their employees to stop paying taxes and boycott itself and
similar corporations.

--
Dan Clore

Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...edanclorenecro
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

"It's a political statement -- or, rather, an
*anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!"
-- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in
_Detective Comics_ #608

"G*rd*n" > wrote in message
...
> > > > ...
>
> :
> > > > Why would any company want their employees following organized crime
> > > > thugs?
> > > > ...
>
> "G*rd*n" >:
> > > One modest regular payment to the OCTs, and, voilà!
> > > Labor peace. Did you really need to ask?
>
> "zztop8970" >:
> > That's not an answer to the question he asked, but to a different
> > question - "what are the benefits of paying the union, once workers have
> > unionized".
> > But, thnaks for conceding that a union is nothing more than a
"protection"
> > scam.
>
>
> I simply answered wrjames's question directly.

No , you didn't. The question was why wold a company want thier employees to
unionize. Your answer is not a response to that question. Your reading
skills leave much to be desired.

"G*rd*n" > wrote in message
...
> > > > ...
>
> :
> > > > Why would any company want their employees following organized crime
> > > > thugs?
> > > > ...
>
> "G*rd*n" >:
> > > One modest regular payment to the OCTs, and, voilà!
> > > Labor peace. Did you really need to ask?
>
> "zztop8970" >:
> > That's not an answer to the question he asked, but to a different
> > question - "what are the benefits of paying the union, once workers have
> > unionized".
> > But, thnaks for conceding that a union is nothing more than a
"protection"
> > scam.
>
>
> I simply answered wrjames's question directly.

No , you didn't. The question was why wold a company want thier employees to
unionize. Your answer is not a response to that question. Your reading
skills leave much to be desired.

zztop8970 wrote:
> "G*rd*n" > wrote in message
> ...
:
>>
>>>>>Why would any company want their employees following organized crime
>>>>>thugs?

>>"G*rd*n" >:
>>
>>>>One modest regular payment to the OCTs, and, voilà!
>>>>Labor peace. Did you really need to ask?
>>
>>"zztop8970" >:
>>
>>>That's not an answer to the question he asked, but to a different
>>>question - "what are the benefits of paying the union, once workers have
>>>unionized".
>>>But, thnaks for conceding that a union is nothing more than a
> "protection"
>>>scam.
>>
>>I simply answered wrjames's question directly.
>
> No , you didn't. The question was why wold a company want thier employees to
> unionize. Your answer is not a response to that question. Your reading
> skills leave much to be desired.

No, the question was "Why would any company want their
employees following organized crime thugs?"

On its face, this has nothing at all to do with unionizing.

--
Dan Clore

Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...edanclorenecro
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

"It's a political statement -- or, rather, an
*anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!"
-- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in
_Detective Comics_ #608

zztop8970 wrote:
> "G*rd*n" > wrote in message
> ...
:
>>
>>>>>Why would any company want their employees following organized crime
>>>>>thugs?

>>"G*rd*n" >:
>>
>>>>One modest regular payment to the OCTs, and, voilà!
>>>>Labor peace. Did you really need to ask?
>>
>>"zztop8970" >:
>>
>>>That's not an answer to the question he asked, but to a different
>>>question - "what are the benefits of paying the union, once workers have
>>>unionized".
>>>But, thnaks for conceding that a union is nothing more than a
> "protection"
>>>scam.
>>
>>I simply answered wrjames's question directly.
>
> No , you didn't. The question was why wold a company want thier employees to
> unionize. Your answer is not a response to that question. Your reading
> skills leave much to be desired.

No, the question was "Why would any company want their
employees following organized crime thugs?"

On its face, this has nothing at all to do with unionizing.

--
Dan Clore

Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...edanclorenecro
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

"It's a political statement -- or, rather, an
*anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!"
-- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in
_Detective Comics_ #608

"Dan Clore" > wrote in message
...
> zztop8970 wrote:
> > "G*rd*n" > wrote in message
> > ...
> :
> >>
> >>>>>Why would any company want their employees following organized crime
> >>>>>thugs?
>
> >>"G*rd*n" >:
> >>
> >>>>One modest regular payment to the OCTs, and, voilà!
> >>>>Labor peace. Did you really need to ask?
> >>
> >>"zztop8970" >:
> >>
> >>>That's not an answer to the question he asked, but to a different
> >>>question - "what are the benefits of paying the union, once workers
have
> >>>unionized".
> >>>But, thnaks for conceding that a union is nothing more than a
> > "protection"
> >>>scam.
> >>
> >>I simply answered wrjames's question directly.
> >
> > No , you didn't. The question was why wold a company want thier
employees to
> > unionize. Your answer is not a response to that question. Your reading
> > skills leave much to be desired.
>
> No, the question was "Why would any company want their
> employees following organized crime thugs?"
>
> On its face, this has nothing at all to do with unionizing.

In the context, it is obvious that WmJames was referring to unions as
"organized crime thugs".
This usage of context to infer meanings is usually mastered by 6th grade. It
is never too late to take a class in remedial reading.

"Dan Clore" > wrote in message
...
> zztop8970 wrote:
> > "G*rd*n" > wrote in message
> > ...
> :
> >>
> >>>>>Why would any company want their employees following organized crime
> >>>>>thugs?
>
> >>"G*rd*n" >:
> >>
> >>>>One modest regular payment to the OCTs, and, voilà!
> >>>>Labor peace. Did you really need to ask?
> >>
> >>"zztop8970" >:
> >>
> >>>That's not an answer to the question he asked, but to a different
> >>>question - "what are the benefits of paying the union, once workers
have
> >>>unionized".
> >>>But, thnaks for conceding that a union is nothing more than a
> > "protection"
> >>>scam.
> >>
> >>I simply answered wrjames's question directly.
> >
> > No , you didn't. The question was why wold a company want thier
employees to
> > unionize. Your answer is not a response to that question. Your reading
> > skills leave much to be desired.
>
> No, the question was "Why would any company want their
> employees following organized crime thugs?"
>
> On its face, this has nothing at all to do with unionizing.

In the context, it is obvious that WmJames was referring to unions as
"organized crime thugs".
This usage of context to infer meanings is usually mastered by 6th grade. It
is never too late to take a class in remedial reading.

"zztop8970" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> "Dan Clore" > wrote in message
> ...
> > zztop8970 wrote:
> > > "G*rd*n" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > :
> > >>
> > >>>>>Why would any company want their employees following organized
crime
> > >>>>>thugs?
> >
> > >>"G*rd*n" >:
> > >>
> > >>>>One modest regular payment to the OCTs, and, voilà!
> > >>>>Labor peace. Did you really need to ask?
> > >>
> > >>"zztop8970" >:
> > >>
> > >>>That's not an answer to the question he asked, but to a different
> > >>>question - "what are the benefits of paying the union, once workers
> have
> > >>>unionized".
> > >>>But, thnaks for conceding that a union is nothing more than a
> > > "protection"
> > >>>scam.
> > >>
> > >>I simply answered wrjames's question directly.
> > >
> > > No , you didn't. The question was why wold a company want thier
> employees to
> > > unionize. Your answer is not a response to that question. Your reading
> > > skills leave much to be desired.
> >
> > No, the question was "Why would any company want their
> > employees following organized crime thugs?"
> >
> > On its face, this has nothing at all to do with unionizing.
>
> In the context, it is obvious that WmJames was referring to unions as
> "organized crime thugs".
> This usage of context to infer meanings is usually mastered by 6th grade.
It
> is never too late to take a class in remedial reading.
>
>
My, My, My, but did the IQ of this thread ever drop quickly.

But within the juvenile mudslinging there are a few important points being
brought out:

1.
If I decide that my best interests are served by joining a union how do I
make sure I am not joining a corrupt union that will simply steal my dues?

2.
Why are freedom loving capitalists so against unions? Couldn't have anything
to do with higher wages and improved benifits eating into profits?

3.
Why do freedom loving capitalists NOT rise up against cartels and monoplies
that distort the "natural" operation of the free market? Couldn't have
anything to do with artifically driving prices and profits up?

I would answer that plain old greed is the answer to 2 and 3. And the
answer to 1 is a bit of due diligence.

A new question: are there situations where a monoply makes sense for the
average citizen (I'll puke the next time someone refers to me as a
"consumer")?

--
Alex Russell

"zztop8970" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> "Dan Clore" > wrote in message
> ...
> > zztop8970 wrote:
> > > "G*rd*n" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > :
> > >>
> > >>>>>Why would any company want their employees following organized
crime
> > >>>>>thugs?
> >
> > >>"G*rd*n" >:
> > >>
> > >>>>One modest regular payment to the OCTs, and, voilà!
> > >>>>Labor peace. Did you really need to ask?
> > >>
> > >>"zztop8970" >:
> > >>
> > >>>That's not an answer to the question he asked, but to a different
> > >>>question - "what are the benefits of paying the union, once workers
> have
> > >>>unionized".
> > >>>But, thnaks for conceding that a union is nothing more than a
> > > "protection"
> > >>>scam.
> > >>
> > >>I simply answered wrjames's question directly.
> > >
> > > No , you didn't. The question was why wold a company want thier
> employees to
> > > unionize. Your answer is not a response to that question. Your reading
> > > skills leave much to be desired.
> >
> > No, the question was "Why would any company want their
> > employees following organized crime thugs?"
> >
> > On its face, this has nothing at all to do with unionizing.
>
> In the context, it is obvious that WmJames was referring to unions as
> "organized crime thugs".
> This usage of context to infer meanings is usually mastered by 6th grade.
It
> is never too late to take a class in remedial reading.
>
>
My, My, My, but did the IQ of this thread ever drop quickly.

But within the juvenile mudslinging there are a few important points being
brought out:

1.
If I decide that my best interests are served by joining a union how do I
make sure I am not joining a corrupt union that will simply steal my dues?

2.
Why are freedom loving capitalists so against unions? Couldn't have anything
to do with higher wages and improved benifits eating into profits?

3.
Why do freedom loving capitalists NOT rise up against cartels and monoplies
that distort the "natural" operation of the free market? Couldn't have
anything to do with artifically driving prices and profits up?

I would answer that plain old greed is the answer to 2 and 3. And the
answer to 1 is a bit of due diligence.

A new question: are there situations where a monoply makes sense for the
average citizen (I'll puke the next time someone refers to me as a
"consumer")?

--
Alex Russell

"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?

"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?

"Wm James" > wrote in message
...
>
> 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.

Dan and his fellow commie-totalitarians aren't into choice, because people
who are allowed to make their own economic decisions might tell him to go
screw himself.

> 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?

Again, you're making that "free markets, free choices" argument to a guy who
thinks that Castro's Cuba is the ideal economic model...

"Wm James" > wrote in message
...
>
> 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.

Dan and his fellow commie-totalitarians aren't into choice, because people
who are allowed to make their own economic decisions might tell him to go
screw himself.

> 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?

Again, you're making that "free markets, free choices" argument to a guy who
thinks that Castro's Cuba is the ideal economic model...

"zztop8970" > wrote in message
om...
>
> "G*rd*n" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > ...
> >
> >
> > :
> > > 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?
>
> That's not an answer to the question he asked, but to a different
> question - "what are the benefits of paying the union, once workers have
> unionized".
> But, thnaks for conceding that a union is nothing more than a "protection"
> scam.

Not that G*r*n is bright enough to figure that out...

"zztop8970" > wrote in message
om...
>
> "G*rd*n" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > ...
> >
> >
> > :
> > > 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?
>
> That's not an answer to the question he asked, but to a different
> question - "what are the benefits of paying the union, once workers have
> unionized".
> But, thnaks for conceding that a union is nothing more than a "protection"
> scam.

Not that G*r*n is bright enough to figure that out...

"Dan Clore" > wrote in message
...
> zztop8970 wrote:
> > "G*rd*n" > wrote in message
> > ...
> :
> >>
> >>>>>Why would any company want their employees following organized crime
> >>>>>thugs?
>
> >>"G*rd*n" >:
> >>
> >>>>One modest regular payment to the OCTs, and, voilà!
> >>>>Labor peace. Did you really need to ask?
> >>
> >>"zztop8970" >:
> >>
> >>>That's not an answer to the question he asked, but to a different
> >>>question - "what are the benefits of paying the union, once workers
have
> >>>unionized".
> >>>But, thnaks for conceding that a union is nothing more than a
> > "protection"
> >>>scam.
> >>
> >>I simply answered wrjames's question directly.
> >
> > No , you didn't. The question was why wold a company want thier
employees to
> > unionize. Your answer is not a response to that question. Your reading
> > skills leave much to be desired.
>
> No, the question was "Why would any company want their
> employees following organized crime thugs?"

Same difference...

"Dan Clore" > wrote in message
...
> zztop8970 wrote:
> > "G*rd*n" > wrote in message
> > ...
> :
> >>
> >>>>>Why would any company want their employees following organized crime
> >>>>>thugs?
>
> >>"G*rd*n" >:
> >>
> >>>>One modest regular payment to the OCTs, and, voilà!
> >>>>Labor peace. Did you really need to ask?
> >>
> >>"zztop8970" >:
> >>
> >>>That's not an answer to the question he asked, but to a different
> >>>question - "what are the benefits of paying the union, once workers
have
> >>>unionized".
> >>>But, thnaks for conceding that a union is nothing more than a
> > "protection"
> >>>scam.
> >>
> >>I simply answered wrjames's question directly.
> >
> > No , you didn't. The question was why wold a company want thier
employees to
> > unionize. Your answer is not a response to that question. Your reading
> > skills leave much to be desired.
>
> No, the question was "Why would any company want their
> employees following organized crime thugs?"

Same difference...

"Stan de SD" > wrote in message
news
>
> "Dan Clore" > wrote in message
> ...
> > News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
> >
> Tell us, Dan Clore, self-appointed "voice" of the workers - what in the hell
> do YOU do for a living?
>
>

So tell us, Stan boy, self-appointed "voice" for Starbucks - what in the hell
do YOU do for a living?

"Stan de SD" > wrote in message
news
>
> "Dan Clore" > wrote in message
> ...
> > News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
> >
> Tell us, Dan Clore, self-appointed "voice" of the workers - what in the hell
> do YOU do for a living?
>
>

So tell us, Stan boy, self-appointed "voice" for Starbucks - what in the hell
do YOU do for a living?

> ...

"Stan de SD" > wrote in message
> > Tell us, Dan Clore, self-appointed "voice" of the workers - what in the hell
> > do YOU do for a living?

"Michael Legel" >:
> So tell us, Stan boy, self-appointed "voice" for Starbucks - what in the hell
> do YOU do for a living?


Stan runs an ad-hominem factory. And you?


--

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

> ...

"Stan de SD" > wrote in message
> > Tell us, Dan Clore, self-appointed "voice" of the workers - what in the hell
> > do YOU do for a living?

"Michael Legel" >:
> So tell us, Stan boy, self-appointed "voice" for Starbucks - what in the hell
> do YOU do for a living?


Stan runs an ad-hominem factory. And you?


--

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

"G*rd*n" > wrote in message
...
> > ...
>
> "Stan de SD" > wrote in message
> > > Tell us, Dan Clore, self-appointed "voice" of the workers - what in the
hell
> > > do YOU do for a living?
>
> "Michael Legel" >:
> > So tell us, Stan boy, self-appointed "voice" for Starbucks - what in the
hell
> > do YOU do for a living?
>
>
> Stan runs an ad-hominem factory. And you?
>
>
> --
>
> (<><>) /*/
> }"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{
> { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't



I am living nicely on my UAW retirement plan. I am one of those poor guys so
abused by unions I had to wait until I was 48 to retire with pay and benefits.

"G*rd*n" > wrote in message
...
> > ...
>
> "Stan de SD" > wrote in message
> > > Tell us, Dan Clore, self-appointed "voice" of the workers - what in the
hell
> > > do YOU do for a living?
>
> "Michael Legel" >:
> > So tell us, Stan boy, self-appointed "voice" for Starbucks - what in the
hell
> > do YOU do for a living?
>
>
> Stan runs an ad-hominem factory. And you?
>
>
> --
>
> (<><>) /*/
> }"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{
> { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't



I am living nicely on my UAW retirement plan. I am one of those poor guys so
abused by unions I had to wait until I was 48 to retire with pay and benefits.

Stan de SD wrote:
> "Wm James" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>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.
>
> Dan and his fellow commie-totalitarians aren't into choice,

Odd, but I and my fellow anarchists aren't the one arguing
that workers should not be allowed the choice of joining a
union.

> because people
> who are allowed to make their own economic decisions might tell him to go
> screw himself.

Fine with me if they do, just as it's fine if they tell you
guys to go screw yourselves if they want to join a union.

>>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?
>
> Again, you're making that "free markets, free choices" argument to a guy who
> thinks that Castro's Cuba is the ideal economic model...

A typical lie from Stain. I consider Castro's Cuba is a
typical state-capitalist totalitarian hellhole.

--
Dan Clore

Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...edanclorenecro
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

"It's a political statement -- or, rather, an
*anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!"
-- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in
_Detective Comics_ #608

Stan de SD wrote:
> "Wm James" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>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.
>
> Dan and his fellow commie-totalitarians aren't into choice,

Odd, but I and my fellow anarchists aren't the one arguing
that workers should not be allowed the choice of joining a
union.

> because people
> who are allowed to make their own economic decisions might tell him to go
> screw himself.

Fine with me if they do, just as it's fine if they tell you
guys to go screw yourselves if they want to join a union.

>>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?
>
> Again, you're making that "free markets, free choices" argument to a guy who
> thinks that Castro's Cuba is the ideal economic model...

A typical lie from Stain. I consider Castro's Cuba is a
typical state-capitalist totalitarian hellhole.

--
Dan Clore

Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...edanclorenecro
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

"It's a political statement -- or, rather, an
*anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!"
-- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in
_Detective Comics_ #608

Stan de SD wrote:
> "Dan Clore" > wrote in message
> ...

> Tell us, Dan Clore, self-appointed "voice" of the workers

I've never claimed to speak for anyone but myself.

> - what in the hell do YOU do for a living?

I haven't been able to work regularly due to chronic illness
since I was a teen-ager. Before that I did some janitorial
work while attending college (which I started full-time when
I was seventeen). Since then I've concentrated on free-lance
writing (link to get my book in my sigfile, and a fuller
bibliography on my website, with many more future
publications in the works), and occasionally worked
part-time hosting a website.

Not that I see what any of this matters.

--
Dan Clore

Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...edanclorenecro
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

"It's a political statement -- or, rather, an
*anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!"
-- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in
_Detective Comics_ #608

Stan de SD wrote:
> "Dan Clore" > wrote in message
> ...

> Tell us, Dan Clore, self-appointed "voice" of the workers

I've never claimed to speak for anyone but myself.

> - what in the hell do YOU do for a living?

I haven't been able to work regularly due to chronic illness
since I was a teen-ager. Before that I did some janitorial
work while attending college (which I started full-time when
I was seventeen). Since then I've concentrated on free-lance
writing (link to get my book in my sigfile, and a fuller
bibliography on my website, with many more future
publications in the works), and occasionally worked
part-time hosting a website.

Not that I see what any of this matters.

--
Dan Clore

Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...edanclorenecro
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

"It's a political statement -- or, rather, an
*anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!"
-- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in
_Detective Comics_ #608

"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?

--
Alex Russell

"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?

--
Alex Russell

"Michael Legel" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> "Stan de SD" > wrote in message
> news
> >
> > "Dan Clore" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
> > >
> > Tell us, Dan Clore, self-appointed "voice" of the workers - what in the
hell
> > do YOU do for a living?
> >
> >
>
> So tell us, Stan boy, self-appointed "voice" for Starbucks - what in the
hell
> do YOU do for a living?

Work and run my own business. And you?

"Michael Legel" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> "Stan de SD" > wrote in message
> news
> >
> > "Dan Clore" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
> > >
> > Tell us, Dan Clore, self-appointed "voice" of the workers - what in the
hell
> > do YOU do for a living?
> >
> >
>
> So tell us, Stan boy, self-appointed "voice" for Starbucks - what in the
hell
> do YOU do for a living?

Work and run my own business. And you?

"Dan Clore" > wrote in message
...
> Stan de SD wrote:
> > "Dan Clore" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> > Tell us, Dan Clore, self-appointed "voice" of the workers
>
> I've never claimed to speak for anyone but myself.
>
> > - what in the hell do YOU do for a living?
>
> I haven't been able to work regularly due to chronic illness
> since I was a teen-ager.

Lemme guess - your pussy hurts, right?

Figures... :O|

"Dan Clore" > wrote in message
...
> Stan de SD wrote:
> > "Dan Clore" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> > Tell us, Dan Clore, self-appointed "voice" of the workers
>
> I've never claimed to speak for anyone but myself.
>
> > - what in the hell do YOU do for a living?
>
> I haven't been able to work regularly due to chronic illness
> since I was a teen-ager.

Lemme guess - your pussy hurts, right?

Figures... :O|

"Alex Russell" > wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> "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
corporate villian du juor that grabs the attention of Clore & Co. on a given
day. If you think the company sucks, quit and work somewhere else. If you
think that all companies suck, start your OWN business and exploit yourself.

All the people whining and crying about the afforementioned companies act
like the people who work there are being deprived of alternatives somewhere
else, when they aren't. If they aren't pulling down $100K/year with
benefits, it's not because some retail/fast-food chain is holding them
hostage and keeping them from working at Microsoft - it's because they
simply lack the job skills to do better. Given that education is free until
12th grade, and community colleges are ubiquitous and still relatively
cheap, whose damn fault is it when somebody refuses to take advantage of the
educational opportunities available in this country and can't do better than
flipping burgers and working a computerized cash register?