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..

**** a union
just kidding
stop having children
and rewild ourselves.
for anarchy, not industry.

**** a union
just kidding
stop having children
and rewild ourselves.
for anarchy, not industry.

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 08:25:16 GMT, (M J Carley)
wrote:

>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?

Of course not! If the buyer doesn't want to talk to some third party
he shouldn't have to. When you are buying something, do you think
some potential seller has some silly "right" to make you negotiate
with someone else? Why should there be any negotiation unless the
buyer agrees to it anyway? If I'm buying something and set a price,
those unwilling to accept that price can go somewhere else. If I can't
get what I want for that price, I might choose to do without or rasie
it. I have no interest in some bozo telling me his client accepts the
deal but demands something more.

If you want to join a union, fine! If you want to join any other
club, fine. Who cares? But if I'm your employer, why should that
have anything to do with me unless I choose to join it, deal with it,
or otherwise freely choose to associate in some manner with it?

William R. James

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 08:25:16 GMT, (M J Carley)
wrote:

>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?

Of course not! If the buyer doesn't want to talk to some third party
he shouldn't have to. When you are buying something, do you think
some potential seller has some silly "right" to make you negotiate
with someone else? Why should there be any negotiation unless the
buyer agrees to it anyway? If I'm buying something and set a price,
those unwilling to accept that price can go somewhere else. If I can't
get what I want for that price, I might choose to do without or rasie
it. I have no interest in some bozo telling me his client accepts the
deal but demands something more.

If you want to join a union, fine! If you want to join any other
club, fine. Who cares? But if I'm your employer, why should that
have anything to do with me unless I choose to join it, deal with it,
or otherwise freely choose to associate in some manner with it?

William R. James

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:38:56 GMT, Howard > wrote:

>"Politics in America" ,microsoft> wrote:
>
>>Life is not a race or competitive struggle.
>
>What color is the sky on *your* planet?
>

>http://www.ryze.com/go/HowardH

Well said.

William R. James

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:38:56 GMT, Howard > wrote:

>"Politics in America" ,microsoft> wrote:
>
>>Life is not a race or competitive struggle.
>
>What color is the sky on *your* planet?
>

>http://www.ryze.com/go/HowardH

Well said.

William R. James

On 11 Jun 2004 09:49:09 -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.
>
>"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.

I'm not intimately familiar with every union so cannot say that every
union is run by criminals. However I can say that I have never seen
or heard of a labor union that wasn't either run by criminals,
supporting criminals, and or specifically directing their members to
support criminals. Certialy, the only "action" they have at their
disposal to attempt to force companies to meet their demands requires
criminal acts to be effective. Ever cross a picket line? I have
crossed more than a few. They attempt to use violence, threats,
extortion, and vandalism to prevent decent people from exercising
their rights to work and shop. They go out of their way to encourage
jury duty specificaly to get their cohorts off the hook if they get
arrested for perpetrating such crimes as well. Even work slowdowns are
theft, and employers should have the legal right to answer them with
matching pay slowdowns.

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

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

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

William R. James

On 11 Jun 2004 09:49:09 -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.
>
>"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.

I'm not intimately familiar with every union so cannot say that every
union is run by criminals. However I can say that I have never seen
or heard of a labor union that wasn't either run by criminals,
supporting criminals, and or specifically directing their members to
support criminals. Certialy, the only "action" they have at their
disposal to attempt to force companies to meet their demands requires
criminal acts to be effective. Ever cross a picket line? I have
crossed more than a few. They attempt to use violence, threats,
extortion, and vandalism to prevent decent people from exercising
their rights to work and shop. They go out of their way to encourage
jury duty specificaly to get their cohorts off the hook if they get
arrested for perpetrating such crimes as well. Even work slowdowns are
theft, and employers should have the legal right to answer them with
matching pay slowdowns.

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

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

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

William R. James

On 11 Jun 2004 09:51:46 -0400, (G*rd*n) wrote:

>> ...
>
:
>> 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.

Of course it is. So? Are you and your neighbors not free to choose
not to shop at the local market for bread until they lower the price?
Why should it be any different for people buying anything else,
including labor?

William R. James

On 11 Jun 2004 09:51:46 -0400, (G*rd*n) wrote:

>> ...
>
:
>> 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.

Of course it is. So? Are you and your neighbors not free to choose
not to shop at the local market for bread until they lower the price?
Why should it be any different for people buying anything else,
including labor?

William R. James

In alt.coffee Michael Legel > wrote:
> I have no use for employers who abuse their employees.

Then don't see the movie -"The Corporation"..
You will have so much fuel for your argument
that you will over-flow..

colin "leaning somewhat to the left" newell

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
www.coffeecrew.com Colin Newell's Daily Grind
rnewell AT vcn DOT bc DOT ca
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

In alt.coffee Michael Legel > wrote:
> I have no use for employers who abuse their employees.

Then don't see the movie -"The Corporation"..
You will have so much fuel for your argument
that you will over-flow..

colin "leaning somewhat to the left" newell

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
www.coffeecrew.com Colin Newell's Daily Grind
rnewell AT vcn DOT bc DOT ca
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

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


Generally only the owner of a property can make contracts regarding the
property, but in the case of a "closed shop", it is an association of
employees imposing their contract on all employees of the owner's property.

Employees and the owner do not have the option of working outside of the
union contract except for management jobs. To me this does interfere with
the normal right of individuals to work where they want, under conditions
mutually agreed on by them and the owner. I have not heard of this happening
without government intervention.

It would give employees and the employer more freedom if employees could
choose to join the union, or make their own deal with the owner. I do
understand that in practise owners of large properties have abused their
position as owners and the "closed shop" is meant to even out the real life
balance of power.


--
Alex Russell

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


Generally only the owner of a property can make contracts regarding the
property, but in the case of a "closed shop", it is an association of
employees imposing their contract on all employees of the owner's property.

Employees and the owner do not have the option of working outside of the
union contract except for management jobs. To me this does interfere with
the normal right of individuals to work where they want, under conditions
mutually agreed on by them and the owner. I have not heard of this happening
without government intervention.

It would give employees and the employer more freedom if employees could
choose to join the union, or make their own deal with the owner. I do
understand that in practise owners of large properties have abused their
position as owners and the "closed shop" is meant to even out the real life
balance of power.


--
Alex Russell

"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.
> > > ...

"G*rd*n" >:
> > 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.

"Alex Russell" >:
> Generally only the owner of a property can make contracts regarding the
> property, but in the case of a "closed shop", it is an association of
> employees imposing their contract on all employees of the owner's property.
> ...


Actually, when a union obtains a closed-shop contract with an
employer, it is simply dealing with the employer. Many
contracts may disadvantageously affect hypothetical third
parties, such as marriage, but in liberalism, which is our
frame of reference when we're talking about unions, that
isn't usually held to be an impediment to contracts.

The union members also contract with one another to form an
organization (the union). It is hard to imagine an effective
organization of any size which had to obtain the consent of
every single one of its members to do anything. Hence it
seems to me that the complaint about the use of dues (or
anything else the union does) being against the wishes of some
of its members is hardly valid.

--

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

"G*rd*n" >:
> > 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.

"Alex Russell" >:
> Generally only the owner of a property can make contracts regarding the
> property, but in the case of a "closed shop", it is an association of
> employees imposing their contract on all employees of the owner's property.
> ...


Actually, when a union obtains a closed-shop contract with an
employer, it is simply dealing with the employer. Many
contracts may disadvantageously affect hypothetical third
parties, such as marriage, but in liberalism, which is our
frame of reference when we're talking about unions, that
isn't usually held to be an impediment to contracts.

The union members also contract with one another to form an
organization (the union). It is hard to imagine an effective
organization of any size which had to obtain the consent of
every single one of its members to do anything. Hence it
seems to me that the complaint about the use of dues (or
anything else the union does) being against the wishes of some
of its members is hardly valid.

--

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

"Stan de SD" > wrote in message thlink.net>...
> "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.
>
....
....
....
Well ya know...I was in a Starbucks in Manhattan
recently...somewhere to get out of the sun...and I chanced a small
coffee. I got it in about 5 minutes and there were nine people behind
the counter. Nine! We opertate a shop with comprable rushes with one
at the most two people behind the bar and everyone is taken care of
quickly and curtiously...there is absolutely no need for nine
people...even four people to be working at the same time behind the
counter unless they really are that inept that they can't possibly
work the automatic espresso machine and a blender at the same time.
Whats lacking here is training and efficiency(and possibly the desire
to work). No wonder they don't get much...with that kind of over
staffing I can't see how they could swing more.....does a button
puisher deserve more?
well....anyhow...if Starbucks is a sweatshop it is only because of all
that extra body heat being thrown off by the hord of PBTCs.
-Chris Deferio
-May your coffee be deep-

"Stan de SD" > wrote in message thlink.net>...
> "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.
>
....
....
....
Well ya know...I was in a Starbucks in Manhattan
recently...somewhere to get out of the sun...and I chanced a small
coffee. I got it in about 5 minutes and there were nine people behind
the counter. Nine! We opertate a shop with comprable rushes with one
at the most two people behind the bar and everyone is taken care of
quickly and curtiously...there is absolutely no need for nine
people...even four people to be working at the same time behind the
counter unless they really are that inept that they can't possibly
work the automatic espresso machine and a blender at the same time.
Whats lacking here is training and efficiency(and possibly the desire
to work). No wonder they don't get much...with that kind of over
staffing I can't see how they could swing more.....does a button
puisher deserve more?
well....anyhow...if Starbucks is a sweatshop it is only because of all
that extra body heat being thrown off by the hord of PBTCs.
-Chris Deferio
-May your coffee be deep-

<Alan > wrote in message
...
> On 10 Jun 2004 16:41:19 -0500, Wm James
> > wrote:
>
> >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. Jam
>
>
> No, I'm saying that being able to bargain as a group got us better
> salary and working conditions than if we had to deal with management
> on an individual basis.
>
> As for the "open market", I have no desire to free-lance, and being in
> a union has meant that I could continue to work at the organization I
> work at -- because I want to work for that organization.
>

Huh. Sounds like you work for Disney.....people want to work there, but
without a decent union, the working conditions can be horrible.....I'm
referring to WDW, in particular.

<Alan > wrote in message
...
> On 10 Jun 2004 16:41:19 -0500, Wm James
> > wrote:
>
> >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. Jam
>
>
> No, I'm saying that being able to bargain as a group got us better
> salary and working conditions than if we had to deal with management
> on an individual basis.
>
> As for the "open market", I have no desire to free-lance, and being in
> a union has meant that I could continue to work at the organization I
> work at -- because I want to work for that organization.
>

Huh. Sounds like you work for Disney.....people want to work there, but
without a decent union, the working conditions can be horrible.....I'm
referring to WDW, in particular.

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 08:49:47 -0500, Alan wrote:

>On 11 Jun 2004 21:29:16 -0500, Wm James
> wrote:
>
>>On 11 Jun 2004 09:51:46 -0400, (G*rd*n) wrote:
>>
>>>> ...
>>>
:
>>>> 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.
>>
>>Of course it is. So? Are you and your neighbors not free to choose
>>not to shop at the local market for bread until they lower the price?
>>Why should it be any different for people buying anything else,
>>including labor?
>>
>>William R. James
>
>They wouldn't lower the price......

Then they wouldn't sell anything, unless you didn't have popular
support, would they?

William R. James

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 08:49:47 -0500, Alan wrote:

>On 11 Jun 2004 21:29:16 -0500, Wm James
> wrote:
>
>>On 11 Jun 2004 09:51:46 -0400, (G*rd*n) wrote:
>>
>>>> ...
>>>
:
>>>> 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.
>>
>>Of course it is. So? Are you and your neighbors not free to choose
>>not to shop at the local market for bread until they lower the price?
>>Why should it be any different for people buying anything else,
>>including labor?
>>
>>William R. James
>
>They wouldn't lower the price......

Then they wouldn't sell anything, unless you didn't have popular
support, would they?

William R. James

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 08:49:05 -0500, Alan wrote:

>On 10 Jun 2004 16:41:19 -0500, Wm James
> wrote:
>
>>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. Jam
>
>
>No, I'm saying that being able to bargain as a group got us better
>salary and working conditions than if we had to deal with management
>on an individual basis.
>
>As for the "open market", I have no desire to free-lance, and being in
>a union has meant that I could continue to work at the organization I
>work at -- because I want to work for that organization.
>

Fine. And if th business desides that that organization is too
expensive and buys labor elsewhere, then what? Are you prepared and
or willing to compete on the open market? Do you seriously think that
union is interested in your well being instead of their own? If you
could take a 10% cut or lose your job, what would you choose? Before
you answer, if you can save 10% on something YOU buy by shopping
somewhere else, what would you choose?

William R. James

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 08:49:05 -0500, Alan wrote:

>On 10 Jun 2004 16:41:19 -0500, Wm James
> wrote:
>
>>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. Jam
>
>
>No, I'm saying that being able to bargain as a group got us better
>salary and working conditions than if we had to deal with management
>on an individual basis.
>
>As for the "open market", I have no desire to free-lance, and being in
>a union has meant that I could continue to work at the organization I
>work at -- because I want to work for that organization.
>

Fine. And if th business desides that that organization is too
expensive and buys labor elsewhere, then what? Are you prepared and
or willing to compete on the open market? Do you seriously think that
union is interested in your well being instead of their own? If you
could take a 10% cut or lose your job, what would you choose? Before
you answer, if you can save 10% on something YOU buy by shopping
somewhere else, what would you choose?

William R. James

In the referenced article, writes:
>On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 08:25:16 GMT, (M J Carley)
>wrote:

>>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?

>Of course not! If the buyer doesn't want to talk to some third party
>he shouldn't have to. When you are buying something, do you think
>some potential seller has some silly "right" to make you negotiate
>with someone else? Why should there be any negotiation unless the
>buyer agrees to it anyway? If I'm buying something and set a price,
>those unwilling to accept that price can go somewhere else. If I can't
>get what I want for that price, I might choose to do without or rasie
>it. I have no interest in some bozo telling me his client accepts the
>deal but demands something more.


If I, personally, enter a negotiation (to buy a house, say), I can
choose a lawyer to represent me; if I sell a house, I can choose an
estate agent to represent me. If my employer negotiates a contract, he
can choose a third party to represent him (my employer is a subscriber
to just such an organization). In each case, someone is hiring an
expert who knows the law and can get a good deal. Why is it
illegitimate for me, in my capacity as an employee, to choose someone
to represent me in such a negotation?

>If you want to join a union, fine! If you want to join any other
>club, fine. Who cares? But if I'm your employer, why should that
>have anything to do with me unless I choose to join it, deal with it,
>or otherwise freely choose to associate in some manner with it?

Because I have the right to choose who will represent me.
--
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:
>On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 08:25:16 GMT, (M J Carley)
>wrote:

>>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?

>Of course not! If the buyer doesn't want to talk to some third party
>he shouldn't have to. When you are buying something, do you think
>some potential seller has some silly "right" to make you negotiate
>with someone else? Why should there be any negotiation unless the
>buyer agrees to it anyway? If I'm buying something and set a price,
>those unwilling to accept that price can go somewhere else. If I can't
>get what I want for that price, I might choose to do without or rasie
>it. I have no interest in some bozo telling me his client accepts the
>deal but demands something more.


If I, personally, enter a negotiation (to buy a house, say), I can
choose a lawyer to represent me; if I sell a house, I can choose an
estate agent to represent me. If my employer negotiates a contract, he
can choose a third party to represent him (my employer is a subscriber
to just such an organization). In each case, someone is hiring an
expert who knows the law and can get a good deal. Why is it
illegitimate for me, in my capacity as an employee, to choose someone
to represent me in such a negotation?

>If you want to join a union, fine! If you want to join any other
>club, fine. Who cares? But if I'm your employer, why should that
>have anything to do with me unless I choose to join it, deal with it,
>or otherwise freely choose to associate in some manner with it?

Because I have the right to choose who will represent me.
--
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

"Wm James" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 08:49:05 -0500, Alan wrote:
>
> If you
> could take a 10% cut or lose your job, what would you choose? Before
> you answer, if you can save 10% on something YOU buy by shopping
> somewhere else, what would you choose?
>
> William R. James
>

I would and did fight to keep my job and get a raise in the bargain. I
couldn't have done that without a union. You assume that an employer has some
right to set pay and working conditions at a whim ... it is only so if society
allows it.

Setting aside all your "open market" gibberish aside ... let's set something
straight. Simply because you have no moral principle other than dollar value
don't impugn that restriction on the rest of society. I won't buy ANYTHING
from Wal-mart, in fact I wouldn't take the time to go pick up something they
were giving away. There are some costs in life beside the dollar cost and I
will not support that anti-American company and many others. Yes, it does
cost me more money at times and some times we do without altogether, but it's
the only way we can eventually rid ourselves of the leeches.

"Wm James" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 08:49:05 -0500, Alan wrote:
>
> If you
> could take a 10% cut or lose your job, what would you choose? Before
> you answer, if you can save 10% on something YOU buy by shopping
> somewhere else, what would you choose?
>
> William R. James
>

I would and did fight to keep my job and get a raise in the bargain. I
couldn't have done that without a union. You assume that an employer has some
right to set pay and working conditions at a whim ... it is only so if society
allows it.

Setting aside all your "open market" gibberish aside ... let's set something
straight. Simply because you have no moral principle other than dollar value
don't impugn that restriction on the rest of society. I won't buy ANYTHING
from Wal-mart, in fact I wouldn't take the time to go pick up something they
were giving away. There are some costs in life beside the dollar cost and I
will not support that anti-American company and many others. Yes, it does
cost me more money at times and some times we do without altogether, but it's
the only way we can eventually rid ourselves of the leeches.

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

:
> Wrong. The companies' right to NOT associate with them is not
> respected. When (former) workers fail to show up for work and walk
> around blocking the gate instead, the employers are not allowed to
> shop for labor elsewhere and replace them with decent people who are
> willing to show up and do the work.
>
> You want freedom of association? Great! So do I. Get government out
> of it and respect the rights of the business owner to associate with
> whom he pleases too.


So if you agree that unions are, in principle, legitimate
organizations, why don't you go off and whine about
something else?

--

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

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

:
> Wrong. The companies' right to NOT associate with them is not
> respected. When (former) workers fail to show up for work and walk
> around blocking the gate instead, the employers are not allowed to
> shop for labor elsewhere and replace them with decent people who are
> willing to show up and do the work.
>
> You want freedom of association? Great! So do I. Get government out
> of it and respect the rights of the business owner to associate with
> whom he pleases too.


So if you agree that unions are, in principle, legitimate
organizations, why don't you go off and whine about
something else?

--

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

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 08:55:40 GMT, (M J Carley)
wrote:

>In the referenced article, writes:
>>On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 08:25:16 GMT, (M J Carley)
>>wrote:
>
>>>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?
>
>>Of course not! If the buyer doesn't want to talk to some third party
>>he shouldn't have to. When you are buying something, do you think
>>some potential seller has some silly "right" to make you negotiate
>>with someone else? Why should there be any negotiation unless the
>>buyer agrees to it anyway? If I'm buying something and set a price,
>>those unwilling to accept that price can go somewhere else. If I can't
>>get what I want for that price, I might choose to do without or rasie
>>it. I have no interest in some bozo telling me his client accepts the
>>deal but demands something more.
>
>
>If I, personally, enter a negotiation (to buy a house, say), I can
>choose a lawyer to represent me; if I sell a house, I can choose an
>estate agent to represent me. If my employer negotiates a contract, he
>can choose a third party to represent him (my employer is a subscriber
>to just such an organization). In each case, someone is hiring an
>expert who knows the law and can get a good deal. Why is it
>illegitimate for me, in my capacity as an employee, to choose someone
>to represent me in such a negotation?

It's only illegitimate to presume the right to make someone else
negotiate in such a manner. If you are buying a house and the seller
refuses to talk to your agent, well, he loses the sale. The sale
doesn't happen. No trade occurs. You don't have any "right" to whine
to the government and have them make the seller negotiate. Why sould
it be any different for someone buying or selling labor?

>>If you want to join a union, fine! If you want to join any other
>>club, fine. Who cares? But if I'm your employer, why should that
>>have anything to do with me unless I choose to join it, deal with it,
>>or otherwise freely choose to associate in some manner with it?
>
>Because I have the right to choose who will represent me.

And if I say no? Then what? Do I not have the right to shop for
labor elsewhere if I choose?

William R. James

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 08:55:40 GMT, (M J Carley)
wrote:

>In the referenced article, writes:
>>On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 08:25:16 GMT, (M J Carley)
>>wrote:
>
>>>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?
>
>>Of course not! If the buyer doesn't want to talk to some third party
>>he shouldn't have to. When you are buying something, do you think
>>some potential seller has some silly "right" to make you negotiate
>>with someone else? Why should there be any negotiation unless the
>>buyer agrees to it anyway? If I'm buying something and set a price,
>>those unwilling to accept that price can go somewhere else. If I can't
>>get what I want for that price, I might choose to do without or rasie
>>it. I have no interest in some bozo telling me his client accepts the
>>deal but demands something more.
>
>
>If I, personally, enter a negotiation (to buy a house, say), I can
>choose a lawyer to represent me; if I sell a house, I can choose an
>estate agent to represent me. If my employer negotiates a contract, he
>can choose a third party to represent him (my employer is a subscriber
>to just such an organization). In each case, someone is hiring an
>expert who knows the law and can get a good deal. Why is it
>illegitimate for me, in my capacity as an employee, to choose someone
>to represent me in such a negotation?

It's only illegitimate to presume the right to make someone else
negotiate in such a manner. If you are buying a house and the seller
refuses to talk to your agent, well, he loses the sale. The sale
doesn't happen. No trade occurs. You don't have any "right" to whine
to the government and have them make the seller negotiate. Why sould
it be any different for someone buying or selling labor?

>>If you want to join a union, fine! If you want to join any other
>>club, fine. Who cares? But if I'm your employer, why should that
>>have anything to do with me unless I choose to join it, deal with it,
>>or otherwise freely choose to associate in some manner with it?
>
>Because I have the right to choose who will represent me.

And if I say no? Then what? Do I not have the right to shop for
labor elsewhere if I choose?

William R. James

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 12:51:41 GMT, "Michael Legel" >
wrote:

>
>"Wm James" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 08:49:05 -0500, Alan wrote:
>>
>> If you
>> could take a 10% cut or lose your job, what would you choose? Before
>> you answer, if you can save 10% on something YOU buy by shopping
>> somewhere else, what would you choose?
>>
>> William R. James
>>
>
>I would and did fight to keep my job and get a raise in the bargain. I
>couldn't have done that without a union. You assume that an employer has some
>right to set pay and working conditions at a whim ... it is only so if society
>allows it.

In a free society, no one is forced to trade with someone if they
don't like the terms. If your employer doesn't want to buy your labor
anymore, you have no more right to demand that he does than the cable
company has to demand that you keep buying what they are selling. If
he was paying $20 an hour for labor last week, and for whatever reason
he sees fit, he decides he's no longing willing to pay more then $10,
he still has to pay you the previous price for work you performed
under that agreement, but he's no more obligated to force you to
continue the previous arrangement than you are. You can stop selling
your labor to him anytime you please, and he can stop buying it
anytime he pleases. ANYONE bying anything has the right to decide
what they are willing to pay. ANYONE trading has the right to decide
how much they are willing to trade and for what.

>Setting aside all your "open market" gibberish aside ...

Rights are gibberish, huh? No wonder you need a union.

>let's set something
>straight. Simply because you have no moral principle other than dollar value
>don't impugn that restriction on the rest of society. I won't buy ANYTHING
>from Wal-mart, in fact I wouldn't take the time to go pick up something they
>were giving away. There are some costs in life beside the dollar cost and I
>will not support that anti-American company and many others. Yes, it does
>cost me more money at times and some times we do without altogether, but it's
>the only way we can eventually rid ourselves of the leeches.
>

No problem. You aren'y obligated to buy from them. No one is
obligated to buy from you either. Live with it.

William R. James

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 12:51:41 GMT, "Michael Legel" >
wrote:

>
>"Wm James" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 08:49:05 -0500, Alan wrote:
>>
>> If you
>> could take a 10% cut or lose your job, what would you choose? Before
>> you answer, if you can save 10% on something YOU buy by shopping
>> somewhere else, what would you choose?
>>
>> William R. James
>>
>
>I would and did fight to keep my job and get a raise in the bargain. I
>couldn't have done that without a union. You assume that an employer has some
>right to set pay and working conditions at a whim ... it is only so if society
>allows it.

In a free society, no one is forced to trade with someone if they
don't like the terms. If your employer doesn't want to buy your labor
anymore, you have no more right to demand that he does than the cable
company has to demand that you keep buying what they are selling. If
he was paying $20 an hour for labor last week, and for whatever reason
he sees fit, he decides he's no longing willing to pay more then $10,
he still has to pay you the previous price for work you performed
under that agreement, but he's no more obligated to force you to
continue the previous arrangement than you are. You can stop selling
your labor to him anytime you please, and he can stop buying it
anytime he pleases. ANYONE bying anything has the right to decide
what they are willing to pay. ANYONE trading has the right to decide
how much they are willing to trade and for what.

>Setting aside all your "open market" gibberish aside ...

Rights are gibberish, huh? No wonder you need a union.

>let's set something
>straight. Simply because you have no moral principle other than dollar value
>don't impugn that restriction on the rest of society. I won't buy ANYTHING
>from Wal-mart, in fact I wouldn't take the time to go pick up something they
>were giving away. There are some costs in life beside the dollar cost and I
>will not support that anti-American company and many others. Yes, it does
>cost me more money at times and some times we do without altogether, but it's
>the only way we can eventually rid ourselves of the leeches.
>

No problem. You aren'y obligated to buy from them. No one is
obligated to buy from you either. Live with it.

William R. James

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 11:14:58 -0500, Alan wrote:

>>Fine. And if th business desides that that organization is too
>>expensive and buys labor elsewhere, then what? Are you prepared and
>>or willing to compete on the open market? Do you seriously think that
>>union is interested in your well being instead of their own? If you
>>could take a 10% cut or lose your job, what would you choose? Before
>>you answer, if you can save 10% on something YOU buy by shopping
>>somewhere else, what would you choose?
>>
>>William R. James
>
>If it comes to that, I'll cope.
>
>There are a lot of "ifs" in life, and they don't necessarily prove a
>point, you know.

With employment, it's often not if but when. There was a time when
jobs were considered lifetime connections to companies. That's rare
today. Anyone who goes to work for a company thinking they have a job
for life is making very foolish assumptions in the modern world. The
product or service you are making or doing may not even exist in 10
years.

William R. James

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 11:14:58 -0500, Alan wrote:

>>Fine. And if th business desides that that organization is too
>>expensive and buys labor elsewhere, then what? Are you prepared and
>>or willing to compete on the open market? Do you seriously think that
>>union is interested in your well being instead of their own? If you
>>could take a 10% cut or lose your job, what would you choose? Before
>>you answer, if you can save 10% on something YOU buy by shopping
>>somewhere else, what would you choose?
>>
>>William R. James
>
>If it comes to that, I'll cope.
>
>There are a lot of "ifs" in life, and they don't necessarily prove a
>point, you know.

With employment, it's often not if but when. There was a time when
jobs were considered lifetime connections to companies. That's rare
today. Anyone who goes to work for a company thinking they have a job
for life is making very foolish assumptions in the modern world. The
product or service you are making or doing may not even exist in 10
years.

William R. James

"Wm James" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 12:51:41 GMT, "Michael Legel" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> In a free society, no one is forced to trade with someone if they
> don't like the terms. If your employer doesn't want to buy your labor
> anymore, you have no more right to demand that he does than the cable
> company has to demand that you keep buying what they are selling. If
> he was paying $20 an hour for labor last week, and for whatever reason
> he sees fit, he decides he's no longing willing to pay more then $10,
> he still has to pay you the previous price for work you performed
> under that agreement, but he's no more obligated to force you to
> continue the previous arrangement than you are. You can stop selling
> your labor to him anytime you please, and he can stop buying it
> anytime he pleases. ANYONE bying anything has the right to decide
> what they are willing to pay. ANYONE trading has the right to decide
> how much they are willing to trade and for what.
>

I had assumed you were living in the U.S. My mistake. The U.S., where I
live, is not "a free society". There are numerous laws which prevent an
employer from going outside a union contract to fire an employee. My employer
is not "free" to fire anyone on a whim ... it is not an "open market" ... both
sides have agreed to abide by a contract under law which clearly states how
and why people are hired and fired.

> >Setting aside all your "open market" gibberish aside ...
>
> Rights are gibberish, huh? No wonder you need a union.

Again, in the U.S. there is no such thing as a "right" to an "open market".
Almost everything we do is regulated by law with licenses and permits required
to do business under specific terms. There is no such "right" in my country.
Where do you live?

>
> >let's set something
> >straight. Simply because you have no moral principle other than dollar
value
> >don't impugn that restriction on the rest of society. I won't buy ANYTHING
> >from Wal-mart, in fact I wouldn't take the time to go pick up something
they
> >were giving away. There are some costs in life beside the dollar cost and
I
> >will not support that anti-American company and many others. Yes, it does
> >cost me more money at times and some times we do without altogether, but
it's
> >the only way we can eventually rid ourselves of the leeches.
> >
>
> No problem. You aren'y obligated to buy from them. No one is
> obligated to buy from you either. Live with it.

I do "live with it" quite nicely. Why shouldn't I?


>
> William R. James
>

"Wm James" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 12:51:41 GMT, "Michael Legel" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> In a free society, no one is forced to trade with someone if they
> don't like the terms. If your employer doesn't want to buy your labor
> anymore, you have no more right to demand that he does than the cable
> company has to demand that you keep buying what they are selling. If
> he was paying $20 an hour for labor last week, and for whatever reason
> he sees fit, he decides he's no longing willing to pay more then $10,
> he still has to pay you the previous price for work you performed
> under that agreement, but he's no more obligated to force you to
> continue the previous arrangement than you are. You can stop selling
> your labor to him anytime you please, and he can stop buying it
> anytime he pleases. ANYONE bying anything has the right to decide
> what they are willing to pay. ANYONE trading has the right to decide
> how much they are willing to trade and for what.
>

I had assumed you were living in the U.S. My mistake. The U.S., where I
live, is not "a free society". There are numerous laws which prevent an
employer from going outside a union contract to fire an employee. My employer
is not "free" to fire anyone on a whim ... it is not an "open market" ... both
sides have agreed to abide by a contract under law which clearly states how
and why people are hired and fired.

> >Setting aside all your "open market" gibberish aside ...
>
> Rights are gibberish, huh? No wonder you need a union.

Again, in the U.S. there is no such thing as a "right" to an "open market".
Almost everything we do is regulated by law with licenses and permits required
to do business under specific terms. There is no such "right" in my country.
Where do you live?

>
> >let's set something
> >straight. Simply because you have no moral principle other than dollar
value
> >don't impugn that restriction on the rest of society. I won't buy ANYTHING
> >from Wal-mart, in fact I wouldn't take the time to go pick up something
they
> >were giving away. There are some costs in life beside the dollar cost and
I
> >will not support that anti-American company and many others. Yes, it does
> >cost me more money at times and some times we do without altogether, but
it's
> >the only way we can eventually rid ourselves of the leeches.
> >
>
> No problem. You aren'y obligated to buy from them. No one is
> obligated to buy from you either. Live with it.

I do "live with it" quite nicely. Why shouldn't I?


>
> William R. James
>

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 00:33:20 GMT, "Michael Legel" >
wrote:

>
>"Wm James" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 12:51:41 GMT, "Michael Legel" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> In a free society, no one is forced to trade with someone if they
>> don't like the terms. If your employer doesn't want to buy your labor
>> anymore, you have no more right to demand that he does than the cable
>> company has to demand that you keep buying what they are selling. If
>> he was paying $20 an hour for labor last week, and for whatever reason
>> he sees fit, he decides he's no longing willing to pay more then $10,
>> he still has to pay you the previous price for work you performed
>> under that agreement, but he's no more obligated to force you to
>> continue the previous arrangement than you are. You can stop selling
>> your labor to him anytime you please, and he can stop buying it
>> anytime he pleases. ANYONE bying anything has the right to decide
>> what they are willing to pay. ANYONE trading has the right to decide
>> how much they are willing to trade and for what.
>>
>
>I had assumed you were living in the U.S. My mistake. The U.S., where I
>live, is not "a free society". There are numerous laws which prevent an
>employer from going outside a union contract to fire an employee. My employer
>is not "free" to fire anyone on a whim ... it is not an "open market" ... both
>sides have agreed to abide by a contract under law which clearly states how
>and why people are hired and fired.

I am in the US. Well... Mississippi if that's close enough.

Contracts are another matter. Of course if you agree to the terms,
then you are obligated. Mut the employer shouldn't be compelled by
law to negotiate with the union or sign any contract. In the US they
are, which is clearly a violation of the business owner's
constitutional rights even though it continues. If you sign a
contract under duress, extortion, etc, is that binding? No, it isn't.
But we will have to wait for a decent court to fix that.

>> >Setting aside all your "open market" gibberish aside ...
>>
>> Rights are gibberish, huh? No wonder you need a union.
>
>Again, in the U.S. there is no such thing as a "right" to an "open market".
>Almost everything we do is regulated by law with licenses and permits required
>to do business under specific terms. There is no such "right" in my country.
>Where do you live?

I live in the US where propert rights exist. You are free to trade or
not to trade. You don't lose your rights when you decide to trade
money for labor. But you would be correct to say that the rights of
business owners are regularly infringed upon with the consent of the
courts who have had little regard for the constitution since FDR
stacked the USSC with socialists.

>> >let's set something
>> >straight. Simply because you have no moral principle other than dollar
>value
>> >don't impugn that restriction on the rest of society. I won't buy ANYTHING
>> >from Wal-mart, in fact I wouldn't take the time to go pick up something
>they
>> >were giving away. There are some costs in life beside the dollar cost and
>I
>> >will not support that anti-American company and many others. Yes, it does
>> >cost me more money at times and some times we do without altogether, but
>it's
>> >the only way we can eventually rid ourselves of the leeches.
>> >
>>
>> No problem. You aren'y obligated to buy from them. No one is
>> obligated to buy from you either. Live with it.
>
>I do "live with it" quite nicely. Why shouldn't I?

You said you couldn't have kept your job or gotten a raise without the
union. Why is that? Is your labor worth less than you are getting?
Is your employer only paying you more to avoid vandalism or other
attacks from thugs? I'd be ashamed to say that. I'd hate to think
I couldn't get someone to buy my labor without them facing threats.
Everyone I work for pays me because they feel they are getting what
they want for the price. I have worked in unionized shops, and
invariably, those who weren't willing to give the company their
money's worth tried to get me to join the union with the same
arguments claiming I needed the union. But they couldn't tell me why.
The union couldn't get me anything that I couldn't get for myself.
Even the flat tires they gave me for refusing to join would have been
trivial enough for me to accomplish on my own. Fortunately, the
idiots didn't know I keep a compressor in the vehicle so it only
wasted a couple of minutes. But why would I need to associate with
cowards, thugs, extortionists, and lazy mealy mouthed bums for
handouts when my labor has enough value to negotiate on my own behalf?

I'm not afraid of a company treating me poorly or not paying me
enough. If I don't like the pay of the conditions, I quit and sell my
labor elsewhere. Problem solved. The employer is the customer of the
employee. Like anyone else, if you give bad service, you shouldn't
expect the customer to keep shopping with you. If the customer doesn't
pay the bill, you stop giving them service. It's that simple.

William R. James