"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?

"Stan de SD" > wrote in message k.net>...
> "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

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

In the USA people have the right to form a board of representatives on
either side of the field.

"Stan de SD" > wrote in message k.net>...
> "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

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

In the USA people have the right to form a board of representatives on
either side of the field.

> 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?
>

<sound of can 'o worms opening> :-)

When I see Mexican immigrants come to this country, with not even
pocket change, and they start a landscaping company or a restaurant
and within a decade are flourishing business owners employing many
other people, and then I see people born in this country who are
second and third generation welfare addicts, I scratch me head,
thinking, "Now I *know* things are much worse off in Mexico. Why
was that guy able to come over here and make a great living, and he
didn't even speak the language at first?"

Not a dis to anyone. It just shows what can happen with the right
motivation.


-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

> 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?
>

<sound of can 'o worms opening> :-)

When I see Mexican immigrants come to this country, with not even
pocket change, and they start a landscaping company or a restaurant
and within a decade are flourishing business owners employing many
other people, and then I see people born in this country who are
second and third generation welfare addicts, I scratch me head,
thinking, "Now I *know* things are much worse off in Mexico. Why
was that guy able to come over here and make a great living, and he
didn't even speak the language at first?"

Not a dis to anyone. It just shows what can happen with the right
motivation.


-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

"-MIKE-" > wrote in message
...
> > 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?
> >
>
> <sound of can 'o worms opening> :-)
>
> When I see Mexican immigrants come to this country, with not even
> pocket change, and they start a landscaping company or a restaurant
> and within a decade are flourishing business owners employing many
> other people, and then I see people born in this country who are
> second and third generation welfare addicts, I scratch me head,
> thinking, "Now I *know* things are much worse off in Mexico. Why
> was that guy able to come over here and make a great living, and he
> didn't even speak the language at first?"
>
> Not a dis to anyone. It just shows what can happen with the right
> motivation.
>
>
> -MIKE-
>
> "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
> --Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
> --
> http://mikedrums.com
>
> ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

And you admire these role models who profit by the poverty wages paid to their
fellow countrymen and enjoying the benefits supplied by tax paying Americans?
It's not about the few who profit, but about HOW they acquire those profits.
I have no use for employers who abuse their employees.

"-MIKE-" > wrote in message
...
> > 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?
> >
>
> <sound of can 'o worms opening> :-)
>
> When I see Mexican immigrants come to this country, with not even
> pocket change, and they start a landscaping company or a restaurant
> and within a decade are flourishing business owners employing many
> other people, and then I see people born in this country who are
> second and third generation welfare addicts, I scratch me head,
> thinking, "Now I *know* things are much worse off in Mexico. Why
> was that guy able to come over here and make a great living, and he
> didn't even speak the language at first?"
>
> Not a dis to anyone. It just shows what can happen with the right
> motivation.
>
>
> -MIKE-
>
> "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
> --Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
> --
> http://mikedrums.com
>
> ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

And you admire these role models who profit by the poverty wages paid to their
fellow countrymen and enjoying the benefits supplied by tax paying Americans?
It's not about the few who profit, but about HOW they acquire those profits.
I have no use for employers who abuse their employees.

"Michael Legel" > wrote:

> And you admire these role models who profit by the poverty wages paid to
> their fellow countrymen and enjoying the benefits supplied by tax paying
> Americans? It's not about the few who profit, but about HOW they acquire
> those profits. I have no use for employers who abuse their employees.
>

Neither do I.

Show me where I referred to anything illegal. Where I live, company
payrolls are easily inspected and construction companies are bonded
and have to pay into workers' comp and fica and the rest. Nowhere
in my post did I even imply references to illegal immigrants and
slave labor.

The "abused" employees who are taken advantage of by those "few" who
are profiting, to which I am referring, often send a few months
salary back to their families in Mexico, with which they buy a house
and land.

Thanks you for jumping to negative conclusions, though. It's so
refreshing. :-)


-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

"Michael Legel" > wrote:

> And you admire these role models who profit by the poverty wages paid to
> their fellow countrymen and enjoying the benefits supplied by tax paying
> Americans? It's not about the few who profit, but about HOW they acquire
> those profits. I have no use for employers who abuse their employees.
>

Neither do I.

Show me where I referred to anything illegal. Where I live, company
payrolls are easily inspected and construction companies are bonded
and have to pay into workers' comp and fica and the rest. Nowhere
in my post did I even imply references to illegal immigrants and
slave labor.

The "abused" employees who are taken advantage of by those "few" who
are profiting, to which I am referring, often send a few months
salary back to their families in Mexico, with which they buy a house
and land.

Thanks you for jumping to negative conclusions, though. It's so
refreshing. :-)


-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

"-MIKE-" > wrote in message
...
> "Michael Legel" > wrote:
>
> > And you admire these role models who profit by the poverty wages paid to
> > their fellow countrymen and enjoying the benefits supplied by tax paying
> > Americans? It's not about the few who profit, but about HOW they acquire
> > those profits. I have no use for employers who abuse their employees.
> >
>
> Neither do I.
>
> Show me where I referred to anything illegal. Where I live, company
> payrolls are easily inspected and construction companies are bonded
> and have to pay into workers' comp and fica and the rest. Nowhere
> in my post did I even imply references to illegal immigrants and
> slave labor.
>
> The "abused" employees who are taken advantage of by those "few" who
> are profiting, to which I am referring, often send a few months
> salary back to their families in Mexico, with which they buy a house
> and land.
>
> Thanks you for jumping to negative conclusions, though. It's so
> refreshing. :-)
>
>
> -MIKE-
>
> "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
> --Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
> --
> http://mikedrums.com
>
> ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
>

It is your contention then that ALL of these wonderful immigrant "companies"
employ only properly documented people and do not take advantage of their
workers poverty? And you have checked them all out and can vouch for that?
Right. And I am jumping to conclusions. Take a reality check. And nowhere
have we even discussed the American workers who used to do such jobs and are
not able to do so unless they too agree to work for minimum wage or less. Get
real.

"-MIKE-" > wrote in message
...
> "Michael Legel" > wrote:
>
> > And you admire these role models who profit by the poverty wages paid to
> > their fellow countrymen and enjoying the benefits supplied by tax paying
> > Americans? It's not about the few who profit, but about HOW they acquire
> > those profits. I have no use for employers who abuse their employees.
> >
>
> Neither do I.
>
> Show me where I referred to anything illegal. Where I live, company
> payrolls are easily inspected and construction companies are bonded
> and have to pay into workers' comp and fica and the rest. Nowhere
> in my post did I even imply references to illegal immigrants and
> slave labor.
>
> The "abused" employees who are taken advantage of by those "few" who
> are profiting, to which I am referring, often send a few months
> salary back to their families in Mexico, with which they buy a house
> and land.
>
> Thanks you for jumping to negative conclusions, though. It's so
> refreshing. :-)
>
>
> -MIKE-
>
> "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
> --Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
> --
> http://mikedrums.com
>
> ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
>

It is your contention then that ALL of these wonderful immigrant "companies"
employ only properly documented people and do not take advantage of their
workers poverty? And you have checked them all out and can vouch for that?
Right. And I am jumping to conclusions. Take a reality check. And nowhere
have we even discussed the American workers who used to do such jobs and are
not able to do so unless they too agree to work for minimum wage or less. Get
real.

"Michael Legel" > wrote:

> It is your contention then that ALL of these wonderful immigrant
> "companies" employ only properly documented people and do not take
> advantage of their workers poverty?
>

Again, show me where I wrote or implied that.

My original reply was in response to someone suggesting that there
is ample opportunity to move up the ladder in this country. He's
right. I was specking to it being somewhat a matter of being
motivated and working hard.


> And you have checked them all out and
> can vouch for that? Right. And I am jumping to conclusions.
> Take a reality check.
>

Do you realize that the legal population of Hispanics has reached or
surpassed that of African-Americans, as of the last US census? Are
you going to then question the legality of Blacks in this country?
Are you going to just presume the worst about them?

Sure, there are illegal Mexican immigrants. There are also many,
many times more Mexican Americans who are working hard, who have the
same documentation of citizenship as you and I, who are paying their
taxes and social security, who own businesses and employ all types
of people-- complete above board, who even go to college and get
degrees, who even become council members, mayors, and congressmen.

I suppose until I check with all them and vouch for it, you'll
continue to assume the worst.


> And nowhere have we even discussed the American workers
> who used to do such jobs and are not able to do so unless they too agree
> to work for minimum wage or less. Get real.
>

American workers? Just the white ones, or the Mexican, Black,
Korean, Russian, and Iranian American workers, too?


-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

"Michael Legel" > wrote:

> It is your contention then that ALL of these wonderful immigrant
> "companies" employ only properly documented people and do not take
> advantage of their workers poverty?
>

Again, show me where I wrote or implied that.

My original reply was in response to someone suggesting that there
is ample opportunity to move up the ladder in this country. He's
right. I was specking to it being somewhat a matter of being
motivated and working hard.


> And you have checked them all out and
> can vouch for that? Right. And I am jumping to conclusions.
> Take a reality check.
>

Do you realize that the legal population of Hispanics has reached or
surpassed that of African-Americans, as of the last US census? Are
you going to then question the legality of Blacks in this country?
Are you going to just presume the worst about them?

Sure, there are illegal Mexican immigrants. There are also many,
many times more Mexican Americans who are working hard, who have the
same documentation of citizenship as you and I, who are paying their
taxes and social security, who own businesses and employ all types
of people-- complete above board, who even go to college and get
degrees, who even become council members, mayors, and congressmen.

I suppose until I check with all them and vouch for it, you'll
continue to assume the worst.


> And nowhere have we even discussed the American workers
> who used to do such jobs and are not able to do so unless they too agree
> to work for minimum wage or less. Get real.
>

American workers? Just the white ones, or the Mexican, Black,
Korean, Russian, and Iranian American workers, too?


-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 5 Jun 2004 08:40:09 -0400, (G*rd*n) wrote:

>> > > ...
>
:
>> > > 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.


No you didn't. You answered why a company would want to pay off the
mob running the union. My question was why theu would want their
employees following a mob boss instead of the managers of the
business.

William R. James

On 5 Jun 2004 08:40:09 -0400, (G*rd*n) wrote:

>> > > ...
>
:
>> > > 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.


No you didn't. You answered why a company would want to pay off the
mob running the union. My question was why theu would want their
employees following a mob boss instead of the managers of the
business.

William R. James

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 10:58:08 -0700, Dan Clore
> wrote:

>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.


Nonsense. It's precisely about unionizing.

William R. James

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 10:58:08 -0700, Dan Clore
> wrote:

>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.


Nonsense. It's precisely about unionizing.

William R. James

On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 16:51:21 GMT, "Alex Russell"
> wrote:

>"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?

Refuse to participate in dues checkoff. And also refuse to sign any
contract which requires you to honor a picket line. Have you ever
been in on union negotiation when a union first gets into a company?
If not, ask someone who has. The FIRST thing on the table in dues
check off. They want that before they discuss anything else. Wanna
guess why? And every union contract with the members gives them the
authority to fine you for crosing a picket line.

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

No one cares if you join a club. People like me object to government
telling people they have to do business with the union. If I hire
someone to do something, that's an agreement between be and the person
to whom I and trading my money for the labor. If he wants to join a
labor union, the boy scouts, the NAACP or the KKK, that's his
business, not mine. If He sends a representitive to me to negotiate a
contract, I reserve the right to tell them to take a hike, and to tell
hiom to take a hike if he doesn't do the work. If he stands in frnt
of the business carrying a silly sign instead of showing up for work,
I reserve the right to cease buying labor from him and hire someone
willing to show up.

Why do the union nuts think it's ok for one party in the trade to
terminate the relationship at aly time for whetever reason he sees fit
but not the other? If the employee can quit whenever he wants, whay
shouldn't the eployer have the same right?

>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?

Supply and demand. If you can get people to cut the labor supply to
drive the price up, fine! Go for it! Just don't demand that
government participate by telling the people they can't take the jobs
the strikers abandoned to walkthe picket lines. And don't block the
drive and otherwise illegally attempt to keep those willing to work
for a living from going to work.

>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.

Just don't sell your rights to criminals. It's that simple. If your
labor has value, you don't need a union to get the best price. You
only need a union if you are overpaid.

>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")?

Depends on how you define it. There are few examples of where
monopolies breaking up didn't result in higher prices. The reason is
apparently simple efficency. The monpolies got that way by heavy
streamlining, cost cutting and underpricing all the competetion.
Imagine Walmart, for example, taking over all the retail housewares
business. They would have to do that by underpricing everyone else
even more than they already do. They do that by buying in huge bulk
amounts that small businesses can't. If they because a monopoly, that
effect would be even greater. All the wholesalers would only have one
customer to deal with making their operations more efficient as well.

Not that monopolies are good, it's beste toi have competetion for a
lot of reasons. But prices aren't the issue. For the consumer,
monopolies are better at keeping the prices down.

William R. James

On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 16:51:21 GMT, "Alex Russell"
> wrote:

>"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?

Refuse to participate in dues checkoff. And also refuse to sign any
contract which requires you to honor a picket line. Have you ever
been in on union negotiation when a union first gets into a company?
If not, ask someone who has. The FIRST thing on the table in dues
check off. They want that before they discuss anything else. Wanna
guess why? And every union contract with the members gives them the
authority to fine you for crosing a picket line.

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

No one cares if you join a club. People like me object to government
telling people they have to do business with the union. If I hire
someone to do something, that's an agreement between be and the person
to whom I and trading my money for the labor. If he wants to join a
labor union, the boy scouts, the NAACP or the KKK, that's his
business, not mine. If He sends a representitive to me to negotiate a
contract, I reserve the right to tell them to take a hike, and to tell
hiom to take a hike if he doesn't do the work. If he stands in frnt
of the business carrying a silly sign instead of showing up for work,
I reserve the right to cease buying labor from him and hire someone
willing to show up.

Why do the union nuts think it's ok for one party in the trade to
terminate the relationship at aly time for whetever reason he sees fit
but not the other? If the employee can quit whenever he wants, whay
shouldn't the eployer have the same right?

>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?

Supply and demand. If you can get people to cut the labor supply to
drive the price up, fine! Go for it! Just don't demand that
government participate by telling the people they can't take the jobs
the strikers abandoned to walkthe picket lines. And don't block the
drive and otherwise illegally attempt to keep those willing to work
for a living from going to work.

>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.

Just don't sell your rights to criminals. It's that simple. If your
labor has value, you don't need a union to get the best price. You
only need a union if you are overpaid.

>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")?

Depends on how you define it. There are few examples of where
monopolies breaking up didn't result in higher prices. The reason is
apparently simple efficency. The monpolies got that way by heavy
streamlining, cost cutting and underpricing all the competetion.
Imagine Walmart, for example, taking over all the retail housewares
business. They would have to do that by underpricing everyone else
even more than they already do. They do that by buying in huge bulk
amounts that small businesses can't. If they because a monopoly, that
effect would be even greater. All the wholesalers would only have one
customer to deal with making their operations more efficient as well.

Not that monopolies are good, it's beste toi have competetion for a
lot of reasons. But prices aren't the issue. For the consumer,
monopolies are better at keeping the prices down.

William R. James

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 08:32:44 -0500, Alan wrote:

>On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 05:06:17 GMT, "zztop8970" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"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.
>>
>>
>I've been in a union for 25 years, and I know that, without it, my
>salary would have been lower, the working conditions worse (lots of
>uncompensated overtime, for example) and I would either be dead from
>the stress and/or unemployed by now!
>
>They aren't all bad, and the situations vary as to whether or not a
>union is needed and is effective. In my case it was both needed and
>effective.
>


Are you saying that youcan't get a better price for your labor on the
open market, and that you need a thug organization to keep your price
artificially high?

William R. James

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 08:32:44 -0500, Alan wrote:

>On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 05:06:17 GMT, "zztop8970" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"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.
>>
>>
>I've been in a union for 25 years, and I know that, without it, my
>salary would have been lower, the working conditions worse (lots of
>uncompensated overtime, for example) and I would either be dead from
>the stress and/or unemployed by now!
>
>They aren't all bad, and the situations vary as to whether or not a
>union is needed and is effective. In my case it was both needed and
>effective.
>


Are you saying that youcan't get a better price for your labor on the
open market, and that you need a thug organization to keep your price
artificially high?

William R. James

"Wm James" > wrote in message
...
> Supply and demand. If you can get people to cut the labor supply to
> drive the price up, fine! Go for it! Just don't demand that
> government participate by telling the people they can't take the jobs
> the strikers abandoned to walkthe picket lines. And don't block the
> drive and otherwise illegally attempt to keep those willing to work
> for a living from going to work.
>

Interesting that you are all for the government protecting those willing to
work for less but don't want any government protections for those wishing to
collectively bargain. There must be balance in our system of law or there is
not law but legalized anarchy by those controlling the law. That is the
essence of capitalism in America today. Slowly but surely business is
strangling the good out of America to profit by it. When major cartels
control the costs of labor, labor will work for poverty wages because that is
all that is available. I suspect you find yourself in what you believe is
some safe haven from this legalized anarchy. Only time will tell, but I doubt
it. If not you, then your children or grandchildren will pay the price for
this short term frenzy of greed.

"Wm James" > wrote in message
...
> Supply and demand. If you can get people to cut the labor supply to
> drive the price up, fine! Go for it! Just don't demand that
> government participate by telling the people they can't take the jobs
> the strikers abandoned to walkthe picket lines. And don't block the
> drive and otherwise illegally attempt to keep those willing to work
> for a living from going to work.
>

Interesting that you are all for the government protecting those willing to
work for less but don't want any government protections for those wishing to
collectively bargain. There must be balance in our system of law or there is
not law but legalized anarchy by those controlling the law. That is the
essence of capitalism in America today. Slowly but surely business is
strangling the good out of America to profit by it. When major cartels
control the costs of labor, labor will work for poverty wages because that is
all that is available. I suspect you find yourself in what you believe is
some safe haven from this legalized anarchy. Only time will tell, but I doubt
it. If not you, then your children or grandchildren will pay the price for
this short term frenzy of greed.

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 01:55:18 GMT, "Michael Legel" >
wrote:

>
>"Wm James" > wrote in message
.. .
>> Supply and demand. If you can get people to cut the labor supply to
>> drive the price up, fine! Go for it! Just don't demand that
>> government participate by telling the people they can't take the jobs
>> the strikers abandoned to walkthe picket lines. And don't block the
>> drive and otherwise illegally attempt to keep those willing to work
>> for a living from going to work.
>>
>
>Interesting that you are all for the government protecting those willing to
>work for less but don't want any government protections for those wishing to
>collectively bargain. There must be balance in our system of law or there is
>not law but legalized anarchy by those controlling the law. That is the
>essence of capitalism in America today. Slowly but surely business is
>strangling the good out of America to profit by it. When major cartels
>control the costs of labor, labor will work for poverty wages because that is
>all that is available. I suspect you find yourself in what you believe is
>some safe haven from this legalized anarchy. Only time will tell, but I doubt
>it. If not you, then your children or grandchildren will pay the price for
>this short term frenzy of greed.

What a crock! I want government to protect all people's freedom to
trade. That includes the workers' right to trade their labor for
whatever they want, whether more or les than what you or a union or a
company think is enough. It also includes those joining unions right
to only trade their labor collectively. It also includes a company's
right NOT to trade with those who insist on trading their labor
collectively.

I hope my children and grandchildren develop valuable skills and work
ethics and thus have no use for unions. If your kids are picking the
pockets of businesses and people who actually work for a living, then
the businesses will have more money to spend buying labor from my
kids.

William R. James

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 01:55:18 GMT, "Michael Legel" >
wrote:

>
>"Wm James" > wrote in message
.. .
>> Supply and demand. If you can get people to cut the labor supply to
>> drive the price up, fine! Go for it! Just don't demand that
>> government participate by telling the people they can't take the jobs
>> the strikers abandoned to walkthe picket lines. And don't block the
>> drive and otherwise illegally attempt to keep those willing to work
>> for a living from going to work.
>>
>
>Interesting that you are all for the government protecting those willing to
>work for less but don't want any government protections for those wishing to
>collectively bargain. There must be balance in our system of law or there is
>not law but legalized anarchy by those controlling the law. That is the
>essence of capitalism in America today. Slowly but surely business is
>strangling the good out of America to profit by it. When major cartels
>control the costs of labor, labor will work for poverty wages because that is
>all that is available. I suspect you find yourself in what you believe is
>some safe haven from this legalized anarchy. Only time will tell, but I doubt
>it. If not you, then your children or grandchildren will pay the price for
>this short term frenzy of greed.

What a crock! I want government to protect all people's freedom to
trade. That includes the workers' right to trade their labor for
whatever they want, whether more or les than what you or a union or a
company think is enough. It also includes those joining unions right
to only trade their labor collectively. It also includes a company's
right NOT to trade with those who insist on trading their labor
collectively.

I hope my children and grandchildren develop valuable skills and work
ethics and thus have no use for unions. If your kids are picking the
pockets of businesses and people who actually work for a living, then
the businesses will have more money to spend buying labor from my
kids.

William R. James

"Stan de SD" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> "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?
>
>
So you think unions should be outlawed? Why shouldn't employees be allowed
to unionize?

The only problem I have with unions are the "closed shop" rules, but of
course the unions wouldn't have much power without those rules.

I don't like the closed shop rules as they infringe a lot on a person's
right to enter into contracts. I also don't like having unions use members
dues to promote policies that many members disagree with, eg political
contributions.

And I still fail to see how insulting Dan furthers your own arguments. It is
possible for people to hold different opinions, and yet respect each other.

--
Alex Russell

"Stan de SD" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> "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?
>
>
So you think unions should be outlawed? Why shouldn't employees be allowed
to unionize?

The only problem I have with unions are the "closed shop" rules, but of
course the unions wouldn't have much power without those rules.

I don't like the closed shop rules as they infringe a lot on a person's
right to enter into contracts. I also don't like having unions use members
dues to promote policies that many members disagree with, eg political
contributions.

And I still fail to see how insulting Dan furthers your own arguments. It is
possible for people to hold different opinions, and yet respect each other.

--
Alex Russell

"Michael Legel" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> "Wm James" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Supply and demand. If you can get people to cut the labor supply to
> > drive the price up, fine! Go for it!

I would like to remind everyone, that we do not have an economy to be served
by the people, but rather we have an economy to serve the people. People
come first. People are more important than money, machines, technology and
quarterly returns.

The idea of people competing against one another for lower wages, or less
health care is extremely foolish.

This type of competition has been tried before, and it always results in
failure. When left unchecked, it often results in wars. Greater competition
between nations led to WWI, WWII and almost to WWIII.

It is a foolish notion to suggest people should compete for a limited amount
of goods instead of sharing what was available and working together with
good morals to create more.

Life is not a race or competitive struggle. People are not animals who must
compete against each other for everything from money, jobs and women. Books
that teach this should be thrown in the garbage can and banned from all
school systems in America as being "anti-social".

Civilized people use common sense and forgiveness to solve problems.
Civilized people know that cooperation creates far more happiness for
everyone and reduces social problems dramatically.

Countries who have seen too much war already, like Germany and Japan, should
put all their funding in the American democratic party. The Republican
party's platform is one that is heading towards war.

Whichever nations want to see a calmer, more peaceful America, and a more
peaceful world, should support Kerry and the democrats 100%.

The stripping of American worker benefits and shipping of good American jobs
overseas is destabilizing America to a point which will not benefit other
nations of the world. It is creating a dangerous, unstable environment in a
nation that has 30,000 nuclear warheads.

Vote Democrat for a return of jobs to America
http://www.johnkerry.com/

Good Social programs needed in America
http://members.fcc.net/workgroup5/social/social.html

"Michael Legel" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> "Wm James" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Supply and demand. If you can get people to cut the labor supply to
> > drive the price up, fine! Go for it!

I would like to remind everyone, that we do not have an economy to be served
by the people, but rather we have an economy to serve the people. People
come first. People are more important than money, machines, technology and
quarterly returns.

The idea of people competing against one another for lower wages, or less
health care is extremely foolish.

This type of competition has been tried before, and it always results in
failure. When left unchecked, it often results in wars. Greater competition
between nations led to WWI, WWII and almost to WWIII.

It is a foolish notion to suggest people should compete for a limited amount
of goods instead of sharing what was available and working together with
good morals to create more.

Life is not a race or competitive struggle. People are not animals who must
compete against each other for everything from money, jobs and women. Books
that teach this should be thrown in the garbage can and banned from all
school systems in America as being "anti-social".

Civilized people use common sense and forgiveness to solve problems.
Civilized people know that cooperation creates far more happiness for
everyone and reduces social problems dramatically.

Countries who have seen too much war already, like Germany and Japan, should
put all their funding in the American democratic party. The Republican
party's platform is one that is heading towards war.

Whichever nations want to see a calmer, more peaceful America, and a more
peaceful world, should support Kerry and the democrats 100%.

The stripping of American worker benefits and shipping of good American jobs
overseas is destabilizing America to a point which will not benefit other
nations of the world. It is creating a dangerous, unstable environment in a
nation that has 30,000 nuclear warheads.

Vote Democrat for a return of jobs to America
http://www.johnkerry.com/

Good Social programs needed in America
http://members.fcc.net/workgroup5/social/social.html

In the referenced article, writes:

>What a crock! I want government to protect all people's freedom to
>trade. That includes the workers' right to trade their labor for
>whatever they want, whether more or les than what you or a union or a
>company think is enough. It also includes those joining unions right
>to only trade their labor collectively. It also includes a company's
>right NOT to trade with those who insist on trading their labor
>collectively.

So you believe that a company's workers do not have (or should not
have) the right to decide who will represent them in a negotiation?
--
E' la storia di un pasticciere, trotzkista, un pasticciere trotzkista
nell'Italia degli anni '50. E' un film musicale.

No MS attachments: http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html

In the referenced article, writes:

>What a crock! I want government to protect all people's freedom to
>trade. That includes the workers' right to trade their labor for
>whatever they want, whether more or les than what you or a union or a
>company think is enough. It also includes those joining unions right
>to only trade their labor collectively. It also includes a company's
>right NOT to trade with those who insist on trading their labor
>collectively.

So you believe that a company's workers do not have (or should not
have) the right to decide who will represent them in a negotiation?
--
E' la storia di un pasticciere, trotzkista, un pasticciere trotzkista
nell'Italia degli anni '50. E' un film musicale.

No MS attachments: http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html

"Alex Russell" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> The only problem I have with unions are the "closed shop" rules, but of
> course the unions wouldn't have much power without those rules.
>
> I don't like the closed shop rules as they infringe a lot on a person's
> right to enter into contracts. I also don't like having unions use members
> dues to promote policies that many members disagree with, eg political
> contributions.
>
> And I still fail to see how insulting Dan furthers your own arguments. It is
> possible for people to hold different opinions, and yet respect each other.
>
> --
> Alex Russell
>
>
>

There are not "closed shops" in American union contracts. They are illegal.
There are, however, union shops which is quite different. It is not often
that unions stray too far with union dues in the political arena because of
the controversy possible. By far most of the political money is from
voluntary contributions separate from dues. If, however, a union member
wishes to relinquish union membership he/she can do so and not pay any dues
toward political ends. I think this is foolish myself, when unions are more
worker friendly than other organizations and provide more return for the
dollar.

Insulting Dan was a natural response to his insults. It doesn't really
further the argument, but it ****es Dan off and that's OK too. Dan has shown
great disrespect to most of us by assuming he is the only person here who
"works" for living and has any grasp on "the real world" where he assumes he
lives. Read through a few of his inane blatherings and you will see why he
invites the same invective in return.

You on the other hand seem to have a civil disposition. Thank you.

"Alex Russell" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> The only problem I have with unions are the "closed shop" rules, but of
> course the unions wouldn't have much power without those rules.
>
> I don't like the closed shop rules as they infringe a lot on a person's
> right to enter into contracts. I also don't like having unions use members
> dues to promote policies that many members disagree with, eg political
> contributions.
>
> And I still fail to see how insulting Dan furthers your own arguments. It is
> possible for people to hold different opinions, and yet respect each other.
>
> --
> Alex Russell
>
>
>

There are not "closed shops" in American union contracts. They are illegal.
There are, however, union shops which is quite different. It is not often
that unions stray too far with union dues in the political arena because of
the controversy possible. By far most of the political money is from
voluntary contributions separate from dues. If, however, a union member
wishes to relinquish union membership he/she can do so and not pay any dues
toward political ends. I think this is foolish myself, when unions are more
worker friendly than other organizations and provide more return for the
dollar.

Insulting Dan was a natural response to his insults. It doesn't really
further the argument, but it ****es Dan off and that's OK too. Dan has shown
great disrespect to most of us by assuming he is the only person here who
"works" for living and has any grasp on "the real world" where he assumes he
lives. Read through a few of his inane blatherings and you will see why he
invites the same invective in return.

You on the other hand seem to have a civil disposition. Thank you.

:
>>>>> 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.

"G*rd*n" >:
>>I simply answered wrjames's question directly. Although it
>>hardly seems possible, your reading skills have taken a turn
>>for the worse.

:
> No you didn't. You answered why a company would want to pay off the
> mob running the union. My question was why theu would want their
> employees following a mob boss instead of the managers of the
> business.

If you're trying to say that all unions are criminal
organizations, you'll have to provide a lot of evidence
presently missing. I suspected you meant this, but chose to
take your question in square mode for the sake of a little
humor. In fact, some business managers have liked to deal
with unions under the control of organized crime thugs, just
as they sometimes like to deal with other businesses under
the control of organized crime thugs, or governments under
the control of organized crime thugs. Usually, this is
because they are organized crime thugs themselves. I
don't find them or their situation very interesting.

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

--

(<><>) /*/
}"{ 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.

"G*rd*n" >:
>>I simply answered wrjames's question directly. Although it
>>hardly seems possible, your reading skills have taken a turn
>>for the worse.

:
> No you didn't. You answered why a company would want to pay off the
> mob running the union. My question was why theu would want their
> employees following a mob boss instead of the managers of the
> business.

If you're trying to say that all unions are criminal
organizations, you'll have to provide a lot of evidence
presently missing. I suspected you meant this, but chose to
take your question in square mode for the sake of a little
humor. In fact, some business managers have liked to deal
with unions under the control of organized crime thugs, just
as they sometimes like to deal with other businesses under
the control of organized crime thugs, or governments under
the control of organized crime thugs. Usually, this is
because they are organized crime thugs themselves. I
don't find them or their situation very interesting.

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

--

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

> ...

:
> Are you saying that youcan't get a better price for your labor on the
> open market, and that you need a thug organization to keep your price
> artificially high?


A truly open market is open to the possibility of cabals --
contracts between suppliers to limit or regulate the supply,
and thus regulate the price. In itself, there is nothing
thuggish about such an arrangement. In some cases the
overall price may actually be lowered by such an
arrangement. Anecdote on request.

--

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

> ...

:
> Are you saying that youcan't get a better price for your labor on the
> open market, and that you need a thug organization to keep your price
> artificially high?


A truly open market is open to the possibility of cabals --
contracts between suppliers to limit or regulate the supply,
and thus regulate the price. In itself, there is nothing
thuggish about such an arrangement. In some cases the
overall price may actually be lowered by such an
arrangement. Anecdote on request.

--

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

"Alex Russell" >:
> ...
> The only problem I have with unions are the "closed shop" rules, but of
> course the unions wouldn't have much power without those rules.
>
> I don't like the closed shop rules as they infringe a lot on a person's
> right to enter into contracts. I also don't like having unions use members
> dues to promote policies that many members disagree with, eg political
> contributions.
> ...


A closed shop is the outcome of the normal use of the rights
of association and contract. It is not the closed shop
which infringes on the rights of contract, but laws against
the closed shop.


--

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

"Alex Russell" >:
> ...
> The only problem I have with unions are the "closed shop" rules, but of
> course the unions wouldn't have much power without those rules.
>
> I don't like the closed shop rules as they infringe a lot on a person's
> right to enter into contracts. I also don't like having unions use members
> dues to promote policies that many members disagree with, eg political
> contributions.
> ...


A closed shop is the outcome of the normal use of the rights
of association and contract. It is not the closed shop
which infringes on the rights of contract, but laws against
the closed shop.


--

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

In alt.coffee Xyzzy > wrote:
> In the USA people have the right to form a board of representatives on
> either side of the field.

The Patriot act might change that..
Hello corporate rule..
goodbye to the rights of the person..