Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 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 |
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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, voilą! > >>>> 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, voilą! > >>>> 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, voilą! >>>>> 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, voilą! >>>>> 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 |
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. ![]() 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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Celebrating Six Months of IWW Starbucks Workers Union in the TwinCities | Coffee | |||
Free Starbucks 4 U - Winner of Last Weeks $20 Starbucks Gift Card | Coffee | |||
Free Starbucks 4 U - Winner of Last Weeks $20 Starbucks Gift Card | Recipes | |||
JOIN THIS .... DON'T MISS IT.... ITS THE MUST JOIN STOCK MARKET CLUB. | Beer | |||
JOIN THIS .... DON'T MISS IT.... ITS THE MUST JOIN STOCK MARKET CLUB. | Beer |