Good for the workers at Starbucks. I don't know about them but my dues
are only $12 bucks a month. And, what do you have against a marxist
labor union? Although, in all honesty, one of the reasons I joined was
to irritate the anti-union folks. A lot of what I do is only to irritate
others. Socrates was my hero you see.

I go to Starbucks a great deal for coffee. The barristas are, almost
without exception, very courteous,pleasant, and refined in their
behavior which makes going to Starbucks such a pleasure.
They deserve the best in my opinion!

I go to Starbucks a great deal for coffee. The barristas are, almost
without exception, very courteous,pleasant, and refined in their
behavior which makes going to Starbucks such a pleasure.
They deserve the best in my opinion!

I FEEL SORRY FOR THESE STUPID PEOPLE, THEY WERE DUPED BY A MAXIST
LABOUR
UNION AND NOW WILL BE TURNING OVER LARGE PARTS OF WHAT THEY MAKE TO
A
BUNCH
OF FAT,LAZY WHITE HAIRED UNION BOSS'S WHO SIT ON THEIR ASS'S ALL DAY
MAKING
50-60,000 A YEAR


What is a "MAXIST" ? (sic) chuckle!

Stupid? The pot calling the kettle black.

Sorry, couldn't avoid it.

ernie

I FEEL SORRY FOR THESE STUPID PEOPLE, THEY WERE DUPED BY A MAXIST
LABOUR
UNION AND NOW WILL BE TURNING OVER LARGE PARTS OF WHAT THEY MAKE TO
A
BUNCH
OF FAT,LAZY WHITE HAIRED UNION BOSS'S WHO SIT ON THEIR ASS'S ALL DAY
MAKING
50-60,000 A YEAR


What is a "MAXIST" ? (sic) chuckle!

Stupid? The pot calling the kettle black.

Sorry, couldn't avoid it.

ernie

"G*rd*n" wrote in message
...
"rebelguy" :
I FEEL SORRY FOR THESE STUPID PEOPLE, THEY WERE DUPED BY A MAXIST
LABOUR
UNION AND NOW WILL BE TURNING OVER LARGE PARTS OF WHAT THEY MAKE TO
A BUNCH
OF FAT,LAZY WHITE HAIRED UNION BOSS'S WHO SIT ON THEIR ASS'S ALL DAY
MAKING
50-60,000 A YEAR

"G*rd*n":
Your cliché key is stuck.

"Stan de SD" :
Yet he's right. Starbucks jobs are for the most part "entry-level" - 90%
of
the people working there will move on to bigger and better things within
a
year or two. These people won't see a penny of the so-called "pension"
and
"retirement" schemes they will be forced into paying with their dues,
which
is exactly what the union bosses are hoping for.


How do you know? Do you have the particulars of the contract
and the union's management and financial affairs at hand?

Because unlike you, G*r*n, not everybody spends their entire life working in
the fast-food industry. Others are far more motivated than you...

"G*rd*n" wrote in message
...
"rebelguy" :
I FEEL SORRY FOR THESE STUPID PEOPLE, THEY WERE DUPED BY A MAXIST
LABOUR
UNION AND NOW WILL BE TURNING OVER LARGE PARTS OF WHAT THEY MAKE TO
A BUNCH
OF FAT,LAZY WHITE HAIRED UNION BOSS'S WHO SIT ON THEIR ASS'S ALL DAY
MAKING
50-60,000 A YEAR

"G*rd*n":
Your cliché key is stuck.

"Stan de SD" :
Yet he's right. Starbucks jobs are for the most part "entry-level" - 90%
of
the people working there will move on to bigger and better things within
a
year or two. These people won't see a penny of the so-called "pension"
and
"retirement" schemes they will be forced into paying with their dues,
which
is exactly what the union bosses are hoping for.


How do you know? Do you have the particulars of the contract
and the union's management and financial affairs at hand?

Because unlike you, G*r*n, not everybody spends their entire life working in
the fast-food industry. Others are far more motivated than you...

rebelguy" :
I FEEL SORRY FOR THESE STUPID PEOPLE, THEY WERE DUPED BY A MAXIST LABOUR
UNION AND NOW WILL BE TURNING OVER LARGE PARTS OF WHAT THEY MAKE TO A BUNCH
OF FAT,LAZY WHITE HAIRED UNION BOSS'S WHO SIT ON THEIR ASS'S ALL DAY MAKING
50-60,000 A YEAR

"G*rd*n":
Your cliché key is stuck.

"Stan de SD" :
Yet he's right. Starbucks jobs are for the most part "entry-level" - 90% of
the people working there will move on to bigger and better things within a
year or two. These people won't see a penny of the so-called "pension" and
"retirement" schemes they will be forced into paying with their dues, which
is exactly what the union bosses are hoping for.

"G*rd*n":
How do you know? Do you have the particulars of the contract
and the union's management and financial affairs at hand?

"Stan de SD" :
Because unlike you, G*r*n, not everybody spends their entire life working in
the fast-food industry. Others are far more motivated than you...


In other words, you don't know what you're talking about.
I'm just shocked.


--

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

rebelguy" :
I FEEL SORRY FOR THESE STUPID PEOPLE, THEY WERE DUPED BY A MAXIST LABOUR
UNION AND NOW WILL BE TURNING OVER LARGE PARTS OF WHAT THEY MAKE TO A BUNCH
OF FAT,LAZY WHITE HAIRED UNION BOSS'S WHO SIT ON THEIR ASS'S ALL DAY MAKING
50-60,000 A YEAR

"G*rd*n":
Your cliché key is stuck.

"Stan de SD" :
Yet he's right. Starbucks jobs are for the most part "entry-level" - 90% of
the people working there will move on to bigger and better things within a
year or two. These people won't see a penny of the so-called "pension" and
"retirement" schemes they will be forced into paying with their dues, which
is exactly what the union bosses are hoping for.

"G*rd*n":
How do you know? Do you have the particulars of the contract
and the union's management and financial affairs at hand?

"Stan de SD" :
Because unlike you, G*r*n, not everybody spends their entire life working in
the fast-food industry. Others are far more motivated than you...


In other words, you don't know what you're talking about.
I'm just shocked.


--

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

"Michael Legel" wrote in message ws.com...
"Stan de SD" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Michael Legel" wrote in message
s.com...

"Stan de SD" wrote in message
link.net...

"Dan Clore" wrote in message
...
G*rd*n wrote:
"rebelguy" :

I FEEL SORRY FOR THESE STUPID PEOPLE, THEY WERE DUPED BY A MAXIST
LABOUR
UNION AND NOW WILL BE TURNING OVER LARGE PARTS OF WHAT THEY MAKE TO
A
BUNCH
OF FAT,LAZY WHITE HAIRED UNION BOSS'S WHO SIT ON THEIR ASS'S ALL DAY
MAKING
50-60,000 A YEAR

Your cliché key is stuck.

Not only cliché, but also untrue. In fact, I would hardly
know where to begin to untangle all the falsehoods in this
single sentence. It might make a fun challenge to see who
can point out the most.

OK, Clore, tell us what they will get out of those union dues they will
soon
be forced to pay as a condition of working there. Retirement pensions?
How
many people are going to make a career of working at Starbucks? Health
benefits? How long will they have to work to obtain those?

Once again, the unions are trying to find a way of financing their Ponzi
scheme retirement plans by looking for new sources of union dues.
Suckering
in workers who won't even be around next year to collect any "benefits",
much less 20 years from now, is a racket that any neophyte hustler can
play... :O|



Stan your rant is typical, outdated and so ludicrous it would be sad if
not
for the fact that you probably actually believe it yourself. Do you have
any
clue as to how miniscule union dues are compared to the benefits received?

Once again, how are most individuals who are only going to work at Starbucks
for a year or two going to receive "benefits"?

In addition, if the benefits received are such to make the dues "miniscule",
who's paying for them?

Answer those questions before you lecture me about doing my "homework", OK?




I don't have to answer your questions. It would be pointless to do so anyway
... you are not going to be convinced by me. Thus I suggest you really
research these questions for yourself, only then will you realize the truth
that unions have provided far more benefit to employers, employees and
consumers than any other fraternal group in history. That is the fact that
you will not believe unless you read it for yourself.

In other words you can't find any evidence but you want him to.

I suspect you don't do the research because you simply WON'T believe
this is possible. You probably believe the eight hour work day,
overtime, child labor laws, sweat shop laws, etc. were all "given" to
workers out of the intrinsic goodness of employers?

The eight hour day was "given" because people stopped being prepared
to work longer. To get the best workers employers had to offer 8 hour
days. The fact that the union was there at the time had nothing to
do with it. Child labour laws were not given out of the goodness
of anyone's heart. They were brutal impositions on the lives of
children, forcing them back to the family home to work harder, longer
in worse conditions so that the elders didn't have to compete with
them.

We all paid for those benefits ... employer, employee and consumer
... and we all benefit because at some time in our lives we are
each employer, employee and consumer. So simple really.

Well no it's not. For a start I've never been an employer so you
are wrong. For a second thing I don't know any benefit of unions
to employers except that they can cripple opposition businesses,
which is hardly good for the consumer.

"Michael Legel" wrote in message ws.com...
"Stan de SD" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Michael Legel" wrote in message
s.com...

"Stan de SD" wrote in message
link.net...

"Dan Clore" wrote in message
...
G*rd*n wrote:
"rebelguy" :

I FEEL SORRY FOR THESE STUPID PEOPLE, THEY WERE DUPED BY A MAXIST
LABOUR
UNION AND NOW WILL BE TURNING OVER LARGE PARTS OF WHAT THEY MAKE TO
A
BUNCH
OF FAT,LAZY WHITE HAIRED UNION BOSS'S WHO SIT ON THEIR ASS'S ALL DAY
MAKING
50-60,000 A YEAR

Your cliché key is stuck.

Not only cliché, but also untrue. In fact, I would hardly
know where to begin to untangle all the falsehoods in this
single sentence. It might make a fun challenge to see who
can point out the most.

OK, Clore, tell us what they will get out of those union dues they will
soon
be forced to pay as a condition of working there. Retirement pensions?
How
many people are going to make a career of working at Starbucks? Health
benefits? How long will they have to work to obtain those?

Once again, the unions are trying to find a way of financing their Ponzi
scheme retirement plans by looking for new sources of union dues.
Suckering
in workers who won't even be around next year to collect any "benefits",
much less 20 years from now, is a racket that any neophyte hustler can
play... :O|



Stan your rant is typical, outdated and so ludicrous it would be sad if
not
for the fact that you probably actually believe it yourself. Do you have
any
clue as to how miniscule union dues are compared to the benefits received?

Once again, how are most individuals who are only going to work at Starbucks
for a year or two going to receive "benefits"?

In addition, if the benefits received are such to make the dues "miniscule",
who's paying for them?

Answer those questions before you lecture me about doing my "homework", OK?




I don't have to answer your questions. It would be pointless to do so anyway
... you are not going to be convinced by me. Thus I suggest you really
research these questions for yourself, only then will you realize the truth
that unions have provided far more benefit to employers, employees and
consumers than any other fraternal group in history. That is the fact that
you will not believe unless you read it for yourself.

In other words you can't find any evidence but you want him to.

I suspect you don't do the research because you simply WON'T believe
this is possible. You probably believe the eight hour work day,
overtime, child labor laws, sweat shop laws, etc. were all "given" to
workers out of the intrinsic goodness of employers?

The eight hour day was "given" because people stopped being prepared
to work longer. To get the best workers employers had to offer 8 hour
days. The fact that the union was there at the time had nothing to
do with it. Child labour laws were not given out of the goodness
of anyone's heart. They were brutal impositions on the lives of
children, forcing them back to the family home to work harder, longer
in worse conditions so that the elders didn't have to compete with
them.

We all paid for those benefits ... employer, employee and consumer
... and we all benefit because at some time in our lives we are
each employer, employee and consumer. So simple really.

Well no it's not. For a start I've never been an employer so you
are wrong. For a second thing I don't know any benefit of unions
to employers except that they can cripple opposition businesses,
which is hardly good for the consumer.

"michael price" wrote in message
om...
The eight hour day was "given" because people stopped being prepared
to work longer. To get the best workers employers had to offer 8 hour
days. The fact that the union was there at the time had nothing to
do with it. Child labour laws were not given out of the goodness
of anyone's heart. They were brutal impositions on the lives of
children, forcing them back to the family home to work harder, longer
in worse conditions so that the elders didn't have to compete with
them.


You really have no education of what child labor was like in America before
those laws. Your ignorance is astounding.

Well no it's not. For a start I've never been an employer so you
are wrong. For a second thing I don't know any benefit of unions
to employers except that they can cripple opposition businesses,
which is hardly good for the consumer.

I suspect you have never realized how many times you have directly employed
someone to mow your grass, deliver your paper, baby-sit your children, install
carpet, work on plumbing, put up siding, etc. It is indeed a rare person in
America who has not at some time "employed" someone else to do a service.

A union provides a huge benefit to employers by providing ONE point of
negotiation for all employees. No longer does the boss have to deal alone
with the barrage of complaint, grief and just plain whining of employees. The
union also helps to shoulder that burden and provides a convenient scapegoat
at times. At one time pattern bargaining also provided a level playing field
in wages, but with the demise of unions everybody now gets the same low wage.

Since you refuse to honestly research the facts of union history in America
you can't learn from the mistakes of the present economy. There is no
organization today with enough clout to represent the worker today and today
we call Wallymart, MickeyD, Harpees, etc. .... jobs. There was a time (that
I can remember) when one working person could bring home a paycheck large
enough to support one family of 7 people. Now two wage earners are hard
pressed to support a smaller family. This is not progress.

"michael price" wrote in message
om...
The eight hour day was "given" because people stopped being prepared
to work longer. To get the best workers employers had to offer 8 hour
days. The fact that the union was there at the time had nothing to
do with it. Child labour laws were not given out of the goodness
of anyone's heart. They were brutal impositions on the lives of
children, forcing them back to the family home to work harder, longer
in worse conditions so that the elders didn't have to compete with
them.


You really have no education of what child labor was like in America before
those laws. Your ignorance is astounding.

Well no it's not. For a start I've never been an employer so you
are wrong. For a second thing I don't know any benefit of unions
to employers except that they can cripple opposition businesses,
which is hardly good for the consumer.

I suspect you have never realized how many times you have directly employed
someone to mow your grass, deliver your paper, baby-sit your children, install
carpet, work on plumbing, put up siding, etc. It is indeed a rare person in
America who has not at some time "employed" someone else to do a service.

A union provides a huge benefit to employers by providing ONE point of
negotiation for all employees. No longer does the boss have to deal alone
with the barrage of complaint, grief and just plain whining of employees. The
union also helps to shoulder that burden and provides a convenient scapegoat
at times. At one time pattern bargaining also provided a level playing field
in wages, but with the demise of unions everybody now gets the same low wage.

Since you refuse to honestly research the facts of union history in America
you can't learn from the mistakes of the present economy. There is no
organization today with enough clout to represent the worker today and today
we call Wallymart, MickeyD, Harpees, etc. .... jobs. There was a time (that
I can remember) when one working person could bring home a paycheck large
enough to support one family of 7 people. Now two wage earners are hard
pressed to support a smaller family. This is not progress.

After a long battle with technology, "Michael Legel" , an earthling, wrote:
A union provides a huge benefit to employers by providing ONE point of
negotiation for all employees. No longer does the boss have to deal alone
with the barrage of complaint, grief and just plain whining of employees. The
union also helps to shoulder that burden and provides a convenient scapegoat
at times. At one time pattern bargaining also provided a level playing field
in wages, but with the demise of unions everybody now gets the same low wage.

I worked one place where unions provided their 'huge benefit' to the
employer by providing SEVENTEEN POINTS of negotiation spread across
the employees, thereby meaning that there were 17 sources of
grievances, where "agreement" requires that each of the (competing!)
unions decide to agree.

It was _not_ evident that it led to any diminishment of the "barrage"
of complaints.

I'd have to agree that the unions could use one another as scapegoats
when needed, though...
--
If this was helpful, http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=cbbrowne rate me
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/emacs.html
God is dead. -Nietszche
Nietszche is dead. -God

After a long battle with technology, "Michael Legel" , an earthling, wrote:
A union provides a huge benefit to employers by providing ONE point of
negotiation for all employees. No longer does the boss have to deal alone
with the barrage of complaint, grief and just plain whining of employees. The
union also helps to shoulder that burden and provides a convenient scapegoat
at times. At one time pattern bargaining also provided a level playing field
in wages, but with the demise of unions everybody now gets the same low wage.

I worked one place where unions provided their 'huge benefit' to the
employer by providing SEVENTEEN POINTS of negotiation spread across
the employees, thereby meaning that there were 17 sources of
grievances, where "agreement" requires that each of the (competing!)
unions decide to agree.

It was _not_ evident that it led to any diminishment of the "barrage"
of complaints.

I'd have to agree that the unions could use one another as scapegoats
when needed, though...
--
If this was helpful, http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=cbbrowne rate me
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/emacs.html
God is dead. -Nietszche
Nietszche is dead. -God