Coffee (rec.drink.coffee) Discussing coffee. This includes selection of brands, methods of making coffee, etc. Discussion about coffee in other forms (e.g. desserts) is acceptable.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #322 (permalink)   Report Post  
Constantinople
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

(G*rd*n) wrote in message >...
> > > > > > ...

>
> I.
>
(G*rd*n) wrote:
> >>>>>>>> If you knew any business owners you might be disappointed
> >>>>>>>> at the degree to which they resemble the rest of their
> >>>>>>>> fellow citizens.

>
> II.
>
:
> >>>>>>> I am a business owner.

>
> III.
> "G*rd*n" >
> >>>>>> So are the guys who pick up deposit cans out of the gutter.

>
> IV.
> "zztop8970" >:
> >>>> So is it your contention that the guys who pick up deposit cans out of the
> >>>> gutter do not resemble your fellow citizens who do not pick up deposit cans
> >>>> out of the gutter ?

>
>
(G*rd*n):
> > > >> Not at all.

>
>
(zztop8970-):
> > > > Then your previous post seems like a non-sequitur.
> > > > ...

>
>
(G*rd*n):
> > > It does, doesn't it?

>
> "zztop8970" >:
> > Do you have a point, then? Are business owners like other citizens, or are
> > they not?

>
>
> Let's review. In (I.) I suggest to wrjames (apropos of prior
> discussion) that he doesn't know something about business
> owners ("If you knew...." is a contrary-to-fact subjunctive
> construction) and that if he did he might have different
> opinions.
>
> In (II.) wrjames states that he is a business owner. This is
> a non-sequitur, as I pointed out previously for the case of
> rocks. He may have meant to add, "and I know something about
> myself",


He did not need to add that, as it goes without saying and only a
lunatic or a clown would even think to dispute it.
  #323 (permalink)   Report Post  
Constantinople
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

(G*rd*n) wrote in message >...
> > > > > > ...

>
> I.
>
(G*rd*n) wrote:
> >>>>>>>> If you knew any business owners you might be disappointed
> >>>>>>>> at the degree to which they resemble the rest of their
> >>>>>>>> fellow citizens.

>
> II.
>
:
> >>>>>>> I am a business owner.

>
> III.
> "G*rd*n" >
> >>>>>> So are the guys who pick up deposit cans out of the gutter.

>
> IV.
> "zztop8970" >:
> >>>> So is it your contention that the guys who pick up deposit cans out of the
> >>>> gutter do not resemble your fellow citizens who do not pick up deposit cans
> >>>> out of the gutter ?

>
>
(G*rd*n):
> > > >> Not at all.

>
>
(zztop8970-):
> > > > Then your previous post seems like a non-sequitur.
> > > > ...

>
>
(G*rd*n):
> > > It does, doesn't it?

>
> "zztop8970" >:
> > Do you have a point, then? Are business owners like other citizens, or are
> > they not?

>
>
> Let's review. In (I.) I suggest to wrjames (apropos of prior
> discussion) that he doesn't know something about business
> owners ("If you knew...." is a contrary-to-fact subjunctive
> construction) and that if he did he might have different
> opinions.
>
> In (II.) wrjames states that he is a business owner. This is
> a non-sequitur, as I pointed out previously for the case of
> rocks. He may have meant to add, "and I know something about
> myself",


He did not need to add that, as it goes without saying and only a
lunatic or a clown would even think to dispute it.
  #326 (permalink)   Report Post  
zztop8970-
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

(G*rd*n) wrote in message >...
> > > > > > > > ...
> > >
> > > I.
> > >
(G*rd*n) wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>> If you knew any business owners you might be disappointed
> > > >>>>>>>> at the degree to which they resemble the rest of their
> > > >>>>>>>> fellow citizens.
> > >
> > > II.
> > >
:
> > > >>>>>>> I am a business owner.
> > >
> > > III.
> > > "G*rd*n" >
> > > >>>>>> So are the guys who pick up deposit cans out of the gutter.
> > >
> > > IV.
> > > "zztop8970" >:
> > > >>>> So is it your contention that the guys who pick up deposit cans out

> of the
> > > >>>> gutter do not resemble your fellow citizens who do not pick up

> deposit cans
> > > >>>> out of the gutter ?

>
>
(G*rd*n):
> > > > > >> Not at all.

>
>
(zztop8970-):
> > > > > > Then your previous post seems like a non-sequitur.
> > > > > > ...
> > >

>
(G*rd*n):
> > > > > It does, doesn't it?

>
> "zztop8970" >:
> > > > Do you have a point, then? Are business owners like other citizens, or

> are
> > > > they not?

>
>
(G*rd*n):
> > > Let's review. In (I.) I suggest to wrjames (apropos of prior
> > > discussion) that he doesn't know something about business
> > > owners ("If you knew...." is a contrary-to-fact subjunctive
> > > construction) and that if he did he might have different
> > > opinions.

>
> "zztop8970" >:
> > You actually suggested 3 things. One is that he doesn't know something about
> > business owners , the second is that business owners want more rights than
> > others, and the third is that this is becuase they are not like non-business
> > owning citizens.
> >
> > I am much less interested in the first of these things, for the simple
> > reason that WrJames' level of knowledge is of no particular interest to me,
> > and I would imagine, to most ng participants (I will indulge you somewhat ,
> > though, if only to expound on your lack of familiarity with Gricean
> > Maxims.).
> > I am interested in your opinion on business owners' inherent difference from
> > other citizens. If you don't wish to provide any evidence to support the
> > notion that they are different, that's fine (i've seen you walk away from
> > even more ludicrous suggestions in the past).

>
>
> I.3 there ("that this is because they are not like non-business
> owning citizens") is incorrect. As I recall -- hazily -- I
> had gotten the idea that wrjames thought business owners were
> _unlike_ other citizens.



If your memory of things posted a day or two ago is hazy, there are
specialists you can see who can treat that problem. Until then,
there's a web site, groups.google.com, where articles are archived,
and you can refersh your hazy memory.

Gratuitous fun at your expense aside, what WrJames posted was
"Business owners want the same rights as everyone else. " To me, this
suggests that he thinks business owners are the same as everyone else.
How you got from that to the notion that he thinks the are different
than everyone else is for your shrink to explain. Projection probably
comes into play.

> Perhaps I thought he was portraying
> them as unusually virtuous,



He siad they want the same things as everyone else. Is your reading
comprehension that deficient, or is this the best back pedaling you
can come up with?

<snip>
> "zztop8970" >:
> > You asserted that to be the case for rocks, but it was false then as it is
> > with regards to WrJames. If he is a business owner, Grice provides that it
> > is reasonable for us to assume he knows what he his without this being
> > stated explicitly.

>
>
> I wouldn't make that assumption. If people automatically knew
> what they were, then Socrates would not have advised them to
> know themselves (because it would have been superfluous).


The fact the _some_ people may not know who they are ( a doubtful
proposition in itself, even if Socrates said so) does not alter the
default assumption that most people do know who they are, and that
when one retorts with "I am X" to the charge that he knows nothign
about X, that Gricean principles dictate we assume the ommitted ("and
thus I know about X")

> Nor would Robert Burns have written "O wad some pow'r the
> giftie gie us / To see oursels as others see us" which is
> surely an important component of self-knowledge.


Poppycock. While knowing how others see us is importnat, it has
nothing to do with what we know of ourselves. A negro may know he is a
human being equal in rights to his white slave owner. The fact that
all slave owners see him as a piece of property does not change what
he knows of himself an iota.

> Moreover,
> even if wrjames does know what he is as an individual, his
> sample is exceedingly small for the drawing of statistically
> valid conclusions for the whole population of business owners.


True, but is a different argument altogether. Had you resppnded to him
highlighting the anecdotal nature of his evidence, I probably would
not have bothered to intervene. But since you chose to respond with
non sequitur, I thought I might enjoy exposing you for the weasel you
are.
  #327 (permalink)   Report Post  
zztop8970-
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

(G*rd*n) wrote in message >...
> > > > > > > > ...
> > >
> > > I.
> > >
(G*rd*n) wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>> If you knew any business owners you might be disappointed
> > > >>>>>>>> at the degree to which they resemble the rest of their
> > > >>>>>>>> fellow citizens.
> > >
> > > II.
> > >
:
> > > >>>>>>> I am a business owner.
> > >
> > > III.
> > > "G*rd*n" >
> > > >>>>>> So are the guys who pick up deposit cans out of the gutter.
> > >
> > > IV.
> > > "zztop8970" >:
> > > >>>> So is it your contention that the guys who pick up deposit cans out

> of the
> > > >>>> gutter do not resemble your fellow citizens who do not pick up

> deposit cans
> > > >>>> out of the gutter ?

>
>
(G*rd*n):
> > > > > >> Not at all.

>
>
(zztop8970-):
> > > > > > Then your previous post seems like a non-sequitur.
> > > > > > ...
> > >

>
(G*rd*n):
> > > > > It does, doesn't it?

>
> "zztop8970" >:
> > > > Do you have a point, then? Are business owners like other citizens, or

> are
> > > > they not?

>
>
(G*rd*n):
> > > Let's review. In (I.) I suggest to wrjames (apropos of prior
> > > discussion) that he doesn't know something about business
> > > owners ("If you knew...." is a contrary-to-fact subjunctive
> > > construction) and that if he did he might have different
> > > opinions.

>
> "zztop8970" >:
> > You actually suggested 3 things. One is that he doesn't know something about
> > business owners , the second is that business owners want more rights than
> > others, and the third is that this is becuase they are not like non-business
> > owning citizens.
> >
> > I am much less interested in the first of these things, for the simple
> > reason that WrJames' level of knowledge is of no particular interest to me,
> > and I would imagine, to most ng participants (I will indulge you somewhat ,
> > though, if only to expound on your lack of familiarity with Gricean
> > Maxims.).
> > I am interested in your opinion on business owners' inherent difference from
> > other citizens. If you don't wish to provide any evidence to support the
> > notion that they are different, that's fine (i've seen you walk away from
> > even more ludicrous suggestions in the past).

>
>
> I.3 there ("that this is because they are not like non-business
> owning citizens") is incorrect. As I recall -- hazily -- I
> had gotten the idea that wrjames thought business owners were
> _unlike_ other citizens.



If your memory of things posted a day or two ago is hazy, there are
specialists you can see who can treat that problem. Until then,
there's a web site, groups.google.com, where articles are archived,
and you can refersh your hazy memory.

Gratuitous fun at your expense aside, what WrJames posted was
"Business owners want the same rights as everyone else. " To me, this
suggests that he thinks business owners are the same as everyone else.
How you got from that to the notion that he thinks the are different
than everyone else is for your shrink to explain. Projection probably
comes into play.

> Perhaps I thought he was portraying
> them as unusually virtuous,



He siad they want the same things as everyone else. Is your reading
comprehension that deficient, or is this the best back pedaling you
can come up with?

<snip>
> "zztop8970" >:
> > You asserted that to be the case for rocks, but it was false then as it is
> > with regards to WrJames. If he is a business owner, Grice provides that it
> > is reasonable for us to assume he knows what he his without this being
> > stated explicitly.

>
>
> I wouldn't make that assumption. If people automatically knew
> what they were, then Socrates would not have advised them to
> know themselves (because it would have been superfluous).


The fact the _some_ people may not know who they are ( a doubtful
proposition in itself, even if Socrates said so) does not alter the
default assumption that most people do know who they are, and that
when one retorts with "I am X" to the charge that he knows nothign
about X, that Gricean principles dictate we assume the ommitted ("and
thus I know about X")

> Nor would Robert Burns have written "O wad some pow'r the
> giftie gie us / To see oursels as others see us" which is
> surely an important component of self-knowledge.


Poppycock. While knowing how others see us is importnat, it has
nothing to do with what we know of ourselves. A negro may know he is a
human being equal in rights to his white slave owner. The fact that
all slave owners see him as a piece of property does not change what
he knows of himself an iota.

> Moreover,
> even if wrjames does know what he is as an individual, his
> sample is exceedingly small for the drawing of statistically
> valid conclusions for the whole population of business owners.


True, but is a different argument altogether. Had you resppnded to him
highlighting the anecdotal nature of his evidence, I probably would
not have bothered to intervene. But since you chose to respond with
non sequitur, I thought I might enjoy exposing you for the weasel you
are.
  #330 (permalink)   Report Post  
James A. Donald
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 00:28:29 +0000 (UTC), Hawth Hill
> If you read the history of them you'll see that they were
> vigorously enforced against people who were accused of
> "colluding to restrain free trade."


No, they were not accused of that. The anti trust laws were
created on the theory that businessman collude to restrain free
trade, but such prosecutions are extraordinarily rare, perhaps
entirely nonexistent. Instead all prosecutions are for non
collusive acts, typically cutting prices "unfairly", as
Standard oil and Walmart did, or giving away free stuff, for
example the Microsoft browser.

It is rather as if, on the theory that witches curse people,
one issues a series of laws banning cursing, causing cows milk
to dry up, and possession of black cats, but the only charges
ever brought are for possession of black cats.


  #331 (permalink)   Report Post  
James A. Donald
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 00:28:29 +0000 (UTC), Hawth Hill
> If you read the history of them you'll see that they were
> vigorously enforced against people who were accused of
> "colluding to restrain free trade."


No, they were not accused of that. The anti trust laws were
created on the theory that businessman collude to restrain free
trade, but such prosecutions are extraordinarily rare, perhaps
entirely nonexistent. Instead all prosecutions are for non
collusive acts, typically cutting prices "unfairly", as
Standard oil and Walmart did, or giving away free stuff, for
example the Microsoft browser.

It is rather as if, on the theory that witches curse people,
one issues a series of laws banning cursing, causing cows milk
to dry up, and possession of black cats, but the only charges
ever brought are for possession of black cats.
  #334 (permalink)   Report Post  
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 12:38:55 -0700, "Miguel O'Pastel"
> wrote:

>When unions lose the right to strike, they have to pick up the gun.
>M


They have the right to strike. An employer has the right to cease
buying their labor too. But strikers picking up guns? No, those too
lazy to work are too lazy to fight.

William R. James

  #335 (permalink)   Report Post  
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 12:38:55 -0700, "Miguel O'Pastel"
> wrote:

>When unions lose the right to strike, they have to pick up the gun.
>M


They have the right to strike. An employer has the right to cease
buying their labor too. But strikers picking up guns? No, those too
lazy to work are too lazy to fight.

William R. James



  #338 (permalink)   Report Post  
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 00:28:29 +0000 (UTC), Hawth Hill
> wrote:

>in article , Wm James at
wrote on 06/17/2004 4:46 PM:
>
>> Forbidding? Restricting? For example? There has never been a time in
>> US history when anyone was not allowed to form or join a labor union.
>>
>>> If you knew any business owners you might be disappointed
>>> at the degree to which they resemble the rest of their
>>> fellow citizens.

>>
>> I am a business owner.

>
>Sorry, William.
>
>There are several statutes that were passed in the U.S. concerning the
>general subject of "anti-trust."


Irrelevant. See below.

>Check out the Sherman Antitrust Act. Check out the Clayton Act.
>
>If you read the history of them you'll see that they were vigorously
>enforced against people who were accused of "colluding to restrain free
>trade." It was generally conceded at the time that such laws had been aimed
>at curtailing the rampant excesses of capitalism, in which certain people
>and certain corporations, were thought to have been engaged in activities
>and agreements to not only "restrain" free trade, but to absolutely end it.
>Pay the price demanded, or go without, from _ANY_ source.
>
>Throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries the U.S. government, and
>it's Attorney Generals, found such laws to be convenient weapons to use
>against even small groups (half a dozen men, or even less in a number of the
>reported cases) who dared to get together to discuss the possibility that,
>if they hung together, they might have a chance to better their wages,
>hours, or working conditions. You may not be willing to concede it, but the
>history books are replete with examples of people who were put in jail for
>having the temerity to even discuss such ideas with their neighbor.
>
>It's quite easy to read the "legislative history" of the statutes I've
>cited. After all, since the beginning of the nation, Congress has not only
>passed laws, but has also preserved the "legislative history" of each of
>it's important actions. There, in black and white, is the actual debate,
>word by word, spoken at the time by the men who debated the issues in
>Congress. Revealing what their intent was, and what it wasn't.
>
>So that we don¹t have to guess at what the people who were passing laws
>meant when they did so.
>
>The legislative history of the Sherman and Clayton acts reveals no intent at
>all that they should be used against ordinary, humble workers. . . . But,
>they were, again and again and again.
>
>Don¹t believe me. Well, go to it, and read the legislative histories of the
>statutes. And read the cases decided by the Supreme Court that refer to and
>cite those legislative histories.
>
>Ultimately, the abuse of those laws led to the enactment of the
>Norris-LaGuardia Act, and ultimately the Wagner Act, forbidding such abuses,
>and giving working men and women the right to get together and discuss ways
>in which they might better themselves.
>
>Sounds pretty democratic to me. Just like Washington, Jefferson, et al,
>thought it up. And wrote it down in what we call the Constitution.
>
>HH


Yes there have been abuses of laws, and unconstitutional laws some of
which the USC still refuses to overthrow. However, like I said, there
have NEVER been atime when people weren't free to form or join alabor
union. It was a trick question. The point you missed is that forming
a union and having it mean anything to apotential or current employer
are two different issues. In a free society (let's ignore the
unconstitutional laws for a moment) the employees of a company can
start whatever club they want. They can all get together and decide
they are unwilling to work for less than X dollars. They are free to
communicate that demand to the company who is just as free to tell
them all to take a hike, fire them even because the owner of the
company doesn't like their discussing it in their off time or for
whetever reason, and hire a new workforce. No one is forces to trade
with anyone else, even for labor. If he can't find anyone else
willing to work for less than X dollars, he's stuck. He still has the
choice of trading or not and with whom, just like those in the union,
and those potential workers not in the union.

Now let's address the abuses. Most of the abuses in such cases have
resulted from violance and vandalism, and threats by unions and union
members trying to illegally prevent others from trading with the
company. Like I mentioned elsewhere in the thread, the strikers don't
gather in front of the building to cary their signs and spread
theirmessage, but around back where the employees enter. What message
are they trying to send? That there is a strike? As if the working
employes aren'talready aware? No, they are attemptngtoblockthe drive
and intimidate workers into not crossing the line. I fail to see how
any rational human couldn't consider it a proper termination offense
for any employee to A) not show up for work, and B) try to prevent
others from showing up for work.

William R. James

  #339 (permalink)   Report Post  
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 00:28:29 +0000 (UTC), Hawth Hill
> wrote:

>in article , Wm James at
wrote on 06/17/2004 4:46 PM:
>
>> Forbidding? Restricting? For example? There has never been a time in
>> US history when anyone was not allowed to form or join a labor union.
>>
>>> If you knew any business owners you might be disappointed
>>> at the degree to which they resemble the rest of their
>>> fellow citizens.

>>
>> I am a business owner.

>
>Sorry, William.
>
>There are several statutes that were passed in the U.S. concerning the
>general subject of "anti-trust."


Irrelevant. See below.

>Check out the Sherman Antitrust Act. Check out the Clayton Act.
>
>If you read the history of them you'll see that they were vigorously
>enforced against people who were accused of "colluding to restrain free
>trade." It was generally conceded at the time that such laws had been aimed
>at curtailing the rampant excesses of capitalism, in which certain people
>and certain corporations, were thought to have been engaged in activities
>and agreements to not only "restrain" free trade, but to absolutely end it.
>Pay the price demanded, or go without, from _ANY_ source.
>
>Throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries the U.S. government, and
>it's Attorney Generals, found such laws to be convenient weapons to use
>against even small groups (half a dozen men, or even less in a number of the
>reported cases) who dared to get together to discuss the possibility that,
>if they hung together, they might have a chance to better their wages,
>hours, or working conditions. You may not be willing to concede it, but the
>history books are replete with examples of people who were put in jail for
>having the temerity to even discuss such ideas with their neighbor.
>
>It's quite easy to read the "legislative history" of the statutes I've
>cited. After all, since the beginning of the nation, Congress has not only
>passed laws, but has also preserved the "legislative history" of each of
>it's important actions. There, in black and white, is the actual debate,
>word by word, spoken at the time by the men who debated the issues in
>Congress. Revealing what their intent was, and what it wasn't.
>
>So that we don¹t have to guess at what the people who were passing laws
>meant when they did so.
>
>The legislative history of the Sherman and Clayton acts reveals no intent at
>all that they should be used against ordinary, humble workers. . . . But,
>they were, again and again and again.
>
>Don¹t believe me. Well, go to it, and read the legislative histories of the
>statutes. And read the cases decided by the Supreme Court that refer to and
>cite those legislative histories.
>
>Ultimately, the abuse of those laws led to the enactment of the
>Norris-LaGuardia Act, and ultimately the Wagner Act, forbidding such abuses,
>and giving working men and women the right to get together and discuss ways
>in which they might better themselves.
>
>Sounds pretty democratic to me. Just like Washington, Jefferson, et al,
>thought it up. And wrote it down in what we call the Constitution.
>
>HH


Yes there have been abuses of laws, and unconstitutional laws some of
which the USC still refuses to overthrow. However, like I said, there
have NEVER been atime when people weren't free to form or join alabor
union. It was a trick question. The point you missed is that forming
a union and having it mean anything to apotential or current employer
are two different issues. In a free society (let's ignore the
unconstitutional laws for a moment) the employees of a company can
start whatever club they want. They can all get together and decide
they are unwilling to work for less than X dollars. They are free to
communicate that demand to the company who is just as free to tell
them all to take a hike, fire them even because the owner of the
company doesn't like their discussing it in their off time or for
whetever reason, and hire a new workforce. No one is forces to trade
with anyone else, even for labor. If he can't find anyone else
willing to work for less than X dollars, he's stuck. He still has the
choice of trading or not and with whom, just like those in the union,
and those potential workers not in the union.

Now let's address the abuses. Most of the abuses in such cases have
resulted from violance and vandalism, and threats by unions and union
members trying to illegally prevent others from trading with the
company. Like I mentioned elsewhere in the thread, the strikers don't
gather in front of the building to cary their signs and spread
theirmessage, but around back where the employees enter. What message
are they trying to send? That there is a strike? As if the working
employes aren'talready aware? No, they are attemptngtoblockthe drive
and intimidate workers into not crossing the line. I fail to see how
any rational human couldn't consider it a proper termination offense
for any employee to A) not show up for work, and B) try to prevent
others from showing up for work.

William R. James

  #340 (permalink)   Report Post  
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 00:42:20 +0000 (UTC), Hawth Hill
> wrote:

>in article , Wm James at
wrote on 06/17/2004 4:55 PM:
>
>>>> Business owners want the same rights as everyone else. They don't want
>>>> the government there infringing on their rights to benefit a group of
>>>> thugs.
>>>
>>> Read the law. Check the cases.
>>>
>>> The law imposes ONLY the simple burden of negotiation in good faith.

>>
>> And the employees don't have that burden at all. They can quit anytime
>> they like. If they don't like the offer they can say no thanks and
>> take their business elsewhere with no possibility of penalty. Why
>> shouldn't the business owner have the same rights?

>
>William, let me say it in words that are simple. . . . The National Labor
>Relations Act imposes EXACTLY the SAME obligation to "bargain in good faith"
>upon BOTH side. Jeez, it's right there in black and white.


Nonsense. They have NEVER done so and can't bu definition. The
bisiness is the property of the employer. It's not equal sides. Any
worker can quiot without reason at any time. That's often not the case
with the employers.

>>> If an employer does so, and still no agreement results, and if the employer
>>> chooses to continue his business by hiring permanent replacements for those
>>> who strike, the government will do NOTHING to him.

>>
>> Wanna bet? It's illegal. Not constittionally illegal, but illegal and
>> enforced none the less.

>
>That's a bet that I truly wish it were possible to take you up on. Because,
>if you have anything to lose, and if I have anything to lose, I'd be
>perfectly willing to make it a "winner take all" bet. Check the facts and
>the cases. Employers all across America have for many years, even decades,
>routinely managed to "bargain to impasse." And, having done so, they have
>for the same time been perfectly free to impose their last offer to the
>collective bargaining representative unilaterally. No ifs, ands, or buts.
>If the employer has offered it, and has bargained to impasse, he's
>absolutely free to impose it. Regardless of what the union wants. And
>without the necessity to reinstate any employees who have gone out on strike
>who have been permanently replaced. That's the law, and it's been the law
>for decades and decades. And it's been used over and over and over by
>employers.


Then take me up on it because I know what of I speak. So called
"unfair labor practice" strikes do not allow the bums to be replaced
with workers. That's a fact. Not constitutional, but a fact of life.

>>> So long as he refrains from violating the law. And so long as his own
>>> actions don't cause or prolong the strike. . . . Of course, I see it as a
>>> good thing that an employer is thus compelled to exercise good faith. To be
>>> sincere. To be honest. To try.
>>>
>>> HH

>>
>> Wrong. By who's definition of "good faith" do you mean? Suppose I
>> own a company and have a hundren employees. They want to form a union
>> and meet during their off hours. Fine, no problem. But they want me
>> to bargin with them collectively. I say "No thanks, I don't do
>> business like that, I don't believe in it. Some employees are better
>> than others, some give more for the money and deserve better raises,
>> etc. I choose to buy labor a la cart." Good faith? I think so. I'm
>> entirely up front and honest. They are all free people. They can
>> continue selling to me a la cart, or they can take their business
>> elsewhere to some other employer who prefers to buy bulk. What's the
>> problem? But government would step in and force me to negotiate with
>> them to accept a contract of some sort. If they walked out on strike,
>> they would label it as an "unfair labor practice" stike and government
>> would refuse to respevct my right to fire those who refused to work
>> and hire replacements who wanted the jobs.

>
>The definition of "good faith" is indeed a deep subject.


Not really. It's only complicated by they fact that some want to
twist the concept and assume from the start that the business is
obligated to sign some sort of contract and give in on some demands.
In reality, "good faith" includes a business taking the position that
he doesn't believe in contracting for labor or buying labor in bulk so
there's really nothing to discuss or negotiate. But doing that would
mean an automatic ruling against him by the NLRB.

>Suffice it now to
>say that it's been debated, discussed, and decided in hundreds, even
>thousands of cases decides by the Board, the Circuit Courts of Appeal, and
>the Supreme Court.


See above.

>At the moment, I'm tired and am about to turn in, but
>I'll be more than happy to cite some of them to you another time, as well as
>the precise language showing the reasoning they employed to reach their
>decision as to what does or doesn't constitute "good faith." . . . You're
>WAY off the deep end here. . . .


Not at all. Like I said the NLRB is a union support group.

>So, you ask, "by who's [sic] definition"?
>Well, in our democracy, by the definition of our courts.


Wrong. We have no democracy. We have a constitutional republic where
even the minority has rights, even business owners. We just need USSC
appointees who respect the constitution.

>Over decades and
>decades. And in many, many courts. Most notably the Supreme one. . . . As
>I've already said, quite naturally both the feuding sides try to 'label' the
>nature of the strike with the term that suits their economic purpose; no
>harm in that. But, it's the Board (the body set up by statute to do so) and
>the Courts that ultimately decide which is correct.


That's the problem. The courts put their own agendas over the
constitution. If I have x dollars, whether I choose to buy someone's
labor with it or not is my own business and mine alone.

>Sorry democracy displeases you so.
>
>HH


It does, that's why I choose not to live in one.

William R. James



  #341 (permalink)   Report Post  
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 00:42:20 +0000 (UTC), Hawth Hill
> wrote:

>in article , Wm James at
wrote on 06/17/2004 4:55 PM:
>
>>>> Business owners want the same rights as everyone else. They don't want
>>>> the government there infringing on their rights to benefit a group of
>>>> thugs.
>>>
>>> Read the law. Check the cases.
>>>
>>> The law imposes ONLY the simple burden of negotiation in good faith.

>>
>> And the employees don't have that burden at all. They can quit anytime
>> they like. If they don't like the offer they can say no thanks and
>> take their business elsewhere with no possibility of penalty. Why
>> shouldn't the business owner have the same rights?

>
>William, let me say it in words that are simple. . . . The National Labor
>Relations Act imposes EXACTLY the SAME obligation to "bargain in good faith"
>upon BOTH side. Jeez, it's right there in black and white.


Nonsense. They have NEVER done so and can't bu definition. The
bisiness is the property of the employer. It's not equal sides. Any
worker can quiot without reason at any time. That's often not the case
with the employers.

>>> If an employer does so, and still no agreement results, and if the employer
>>> chooses to continue his business by hiring permanent replacements for those
>>> who strike, the government will do NOTHING to him.

>>
>> Wanna bet? It's illegal. Not constittionally illegal, but illegal and
>> enforced none the less.

>
>That's a bet that I truly wish it were possible to take you up on. Because,
>if you have anything to lose, and if I have anything to lose, I'd be
>perfectly willing to make it a "winner take all" bet. Check the facts and
>the cases. Employers all across America have for many years, even decades,
>routinely managed to "bargain to impasse." And, having done so, they have
>for the same time been perfectly free to impose their last offer to the
>collective bargaining representative unilaterally. No ifs, ands, or buts.
>If the employer has offered it, and has bargained to impasse, he's
>absolutely free to impose it. Regardless of what the union wants. And
>without the necessity to reinstate any employees who have gone out on strike
>who have been permanently replaced. That's the law, and it's been the law
>for decades and decades. And it's been used over and over and over by
>employers.


Then take me up on it because I know what of I speak. So called
"unfair labor practice" strikes do not allow the bums to be replaced
with workers. That's a fact. Not constitutional, but a fact of life.

>>> So long as he refrains from violating the law. And so long as his own
>>> actions don't cause or prolong the strike. . . . Of course, I see it as a
>>> good thing that an employer is thus compelled to exercise good faith. To be
>>> sincere. To be honest. To try.
>>>
>>> HH

>>
>> Wrong. By who's definition of "good faith" do you mean? Suppose I
>> own a company and have a hundren employees. They want to form a union
>> and meet during their off hours. Fine, no problem. But they want me
>> to bargin with them collectively. I say "No thanks, I don't do
>> business like that, I don't believe in it. Some employees are better
>> than others, some give more for the money and deserve better raises,
>> etc. I choose to buy labor a la cart." Good faith? I think so. I'm
>> entirely up front and honest. They are all free people. They can
>> continue selling to me a la cart, or they can take their business
>> elsewhere to some other employer who prefers to buy bulk. What's the
>> problem? But government would step in and force me to negotiate with
>> them to accept a contract of some sort. If they walked out on strike,
>> they would label it as an "unfair labor practice" stike and government
>> would refuse to respevct my right to fire those who refused to work
>> and hire replacements who wanted the jobs.

>
>The definition of "good faith" is indeed a deep subject.


Not really. It's only complicated by they fact that some want to
twist the concept and assume from the start that the business is
obligated to sign some sort of contract and give in on some demands.
In reality, "good faith" includes a business taking the position that
he doesn't believe in contracting for labor or buying labor in bulk so
there's really nothing to discuss or negotiate. But doing that would
mean an automatic ruling against him by the NLRB.

>Suffice it now to
>say that it's been debated, discussed, and decided in hundreds, even
>thousands of cases decides by the Board, the Circuit Courts of Appeal, and
>the Supreme Court.


See above.

>At the moment, I'm tired and am about to turn in, but
>I'll be more than happy to cite some of them to you another time, as well as
>the precise language showing the reasoning they employed to reach their
>decision as to what does or doesn't constitute "good faith." . . . You're
>WAY off the deep end here. . . .


Not at all. Like I said the NLRB is a union support group.

>So, you ask, "by who's [sic] definition"?
>Well, in our democracy, by the definition of our courts.


Wrong. We have no democracy. We have a constitutional republic where
even the minority has rights, even business owners. We just need USSC
appointees who respect the constitution.

>Over decades and
>decades. And in many, many courts. Most notably the Supreme one. . . . As
>I've already said, quite naturally both the feuding sides try to 'label' the
>nature of the strike with the term that suits their economic purpose; no
>harm in that. But, it's the Board (the body set up by statute to do so) and
>the Courts that ultimately decide which is correct.


That's the problem. The courts put their own agendas over the
constitution. If I have x dollars, whether I choose to buy someone's
labor with it or not is my own business and mine alone.

>Sorry democracy displeases you so.
>
>HH


It does, that's why I choose not to live in one.

William R. James

  #344 (permalink)   Report Post  
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 00:49:46 +0000 (UTC), Hawth Hill
> wrote:

>in article , Wm James at
wrote on 06/17/2004 5:01 PM:
>
>> On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 00:35:22 +0000 (UTC), Hawth Hill
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> in article
, Wm James at
>>>
wrote on 06/15/2004 2:17 PM:
>>>
>>>> That's the purpose of a picket line. Otherwise strikers would walk
>>>> around in FRONT of a building in public view to express their message
>>>> instead of blocking the gates of a plant around back where employees
>>>> enter. Strikes are primarialy acts of terrorism, attempts at
>>>> intimidation using threats and violence. Otherwise there's no purpose
>>>> to a picket line.
>>>
>>>
>>> In the case of Thornhill vs. Alabama the Supreme Court held that there is a
>>> First Amendment right to publicize a dispute between workers and their
>>> employer. The fact that they do so in a way that you, a bigot and
>>> ignoramus, don't approve of is of no moment.
>>>
>>> Workers have a constitutional right to both publicize their grievances,
>>> their dispute with their employer, and to appeal for the support of others.
>>>
>>> If you don't like that, go to a country with a different constitution.
>>>
>>> HH

>>
>> Perhaps you should have someone without a comprehension problem read
>> usenet posts to you and explain them before you make such a fool of
>> yourself by replying.
>>
>> Have them read and explain what I wrote to you. Then see if you want
>> to try a different whine.

>
>Oh, my, William! You poor misunderstood fellow.
>
>Tell me where I need to have it explained that you _didn't_ say, "Strikes
>are primarialy [sic] acts of terrorism, attempts at intimidation using
>threats and violence. Otherwise there's no purpose to a picket line."
>
>Are you saying that you DIDN'T say that? If you didn't I'll apologize.
>
>In direct response I cited the Supreme Court's case that decided precisely
>the opposite.
>
>C'mon, now, William. No weasel words now. No waffling.
>
>HH
>


Let's try again. I really don't think you can be as slow as youare
apearing here. What part of the following paragraph is it that leads
you to imagine that I was saying anything derrogatory about,
chastizing in any way, or denouncing the right os ANYONE to carry a
sign picketing, or otherwise telling the public anything they like?:

I quite myself from above here, ok?:
" That's the purpose of a picket line. Otherwise strikers would walk
around in FRONT of a building in public view to express their message
instead of blocking the gates of a plant around back where employees
enter. Strikes are primarialy acts of terrorism, attempts at
intimidation using threats and violence. Otherwise there's no purpose
to a picket line."

Note that's not a trick question or anything. I made myself quite
clear and as another poster already said, it went right over your head
and you posted a reply pretty much backing me up and onbiously
thinking you were argusing with what I said. Read it again. Have
someone elseread it to youand explain the big words. Then try again.

Wiliam R. James

  #345 (permalink)   Report Post  
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 00:49:46 +0000 (UTC), Hawth Hill
> wrote:

>in article , Wm James at
wrote on 06/17/2004 5:01 PM:
>
>> On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 00:35:22 +0000 (UTC), Hawth Hill
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> in article
, Wm James at
>>>
wrote on 06/15/2004 2:17 PM:
>>>
>>>> That's the purpose of a picket line. Otherwise strikers would walk
>>>> around in FRONT of a building in public view to express their message
>>>> instead of blocking the gates of a plant around back where employees
>>>> enter. Strikes are primarialy acts of terrorism, attempts at
>>>> intimidation using threats and violence. Otherwise there's no purpose
>>>> to a picket line.
>>>
>>>
>>> In the case of Thornhill vs. Alabama the Supreme Court held that there is a
>>> First Amendment right to publicize a dispute between workers and their
>>> employer. The fact that they do so in a way that you, a bigot and
>>> ignoramus, don't approve of is of no moment.
>>>
>>> Workers have a constitutional right to both publicize their grievances,
>>> their dispute with their employer, and to appeal for the support of others.
>>>
>>> If you don't like that, go to a country with a different constitution.
>>>
>>> HH

>>
>> Perhaps you should have someone without a comprehension problem read
>> usenet posts to you and explain them before you make such a fool of
>> yourself by replying.
>>
>> Have them read and explain what I wrote to you. Then see if you want
>> to try a different whine.

>
>Oh, my, William! You poor misunderstood fellow.
>
>Tell me where I need to have it explained that you _didn't_ say, "Strikes
>are primarialy [sic] acts of terrorism, attempts at intimidation using
>threats and violence. Otherwise there's no purpose to a picket line."
>
>Are you saying that you DIDN'T say that? If you didn't I'll apologize.
>
>In direct response I cited the Supreme Court's case that decided precisely
>the opposite.
>
>C'mon, now, William. No weasel words now. No waffling.
>
>HH
>


Let's try again. I really don't think you can be as slow as youare
apearing here. What part of the following paragraph is it that leads
you to imagine that I was saying anything derrogatory about,
chastizing in any way, or denouncing the right os ANYONE to carry a
sign picketing, or otherwise telling the public anything they like?:

I quite myself from above here, ok?:
" That's the purpose of a picket line. Otherwise strikers would walk
around in FRONT of a building in public view to express their message
instead of blocking the gates of a plant around back where employees
enter. Strikes are primarialy acts of terrorism, attempts at
intimidation using threats and violence. Otherwise there's no purpose
to a picket line."

Note that's not a trick question or anything. I made myself quite
clear and as another poster already said, it went right over your head
and you posted a reply pretty much backing me up and onbiously
thinking you were argusing with what I said. Read it again. Have
someone elseread it to youand explain the big words. Then try again.

Wiliam R. James



  #346 (permalink)   Report Post  
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 01:04:09 +0000 (UTC), Hawth Hill
> wrote:

>There ya go, William.


I was referring to actual constitutional rights.

>Like it or not, that's the law.


I was not referring to unconstitutional laws.

>Has been for seventy years.
>
>Hate it all you want. Write your congressman.
>
>HH


I have. And someday I hope we have a supreme court which respects the
constitution.

William R. James

  #347 (permalink)   Report Post  
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 01:04:09 +0000 (UTC), Hawth Hill
> wrote:

>There ya go, William.


I was referring to actual constitutional rights.

>Like it or not, that's the law.


I was not referring to unconstitutional laws.

>Has been for seventy years.
>
>Hate it all you want. Write your congressman.
>
>HH


I have. And someday I hope we have a supreme court which respects the
constitution.

William R. James

  #348 (permalink)   Report Post  
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 01:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Hawth Hill
> wrote:

>in article , Wm James at
wrote on 06/17/2004 5:24 PM:
>
>> On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 01:10:52 +0000 (UTC), Hawth Hill
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> in article
, Wm James at
>>>
wrote on 06/16/2004 12:23 AM:
>>>
>>>> But recognize the business owner's right to tell you to
>>>> participate in such things during your own time instead of his.
>>>
>>> Sad.
>>>
>>> Where the heck do you come up with such lame brained ideas regarding
>>> "rights?"
>>>
>>> The Supreme Court, (yes, that same bunch of Republican appointees), has long
>>> recognized the rights of employees to engage in communications and to engage
>>> in solicitations and to engage in distributions of literature while at work.
>>>
>>> According to those dummies on the Supreme Court the employees are free to
>>> engage in such activities to the same extent that they routinely do so for
>>> other conversations, solicitations, and distributions.
>>>
>>> If an employer chooses to ban all such activity, he can do so. But, he
>>> can't pick and choose.
>>>
>>> If he, for example, allows employees to approach other employees to sell
>>> chances for their daughters' Girl Scout Cookie drives, then the courts say
>>> that he can scarcely claim that employees are not free to do the same sort
>>> of communicating just because the subject may happen to be whether or not
>>> they wish to engage in union activities.
>>>
>>> In other words, those Repubs on the court strike down efforts to
>>> discriminate. . . . Oh, what bad people they must be!
>>>
>>> Better move to a country that has laws, and judges, more to your liking.
>>>
>>> HH

>>
>>
>> What are you talking about? Again, please try to address the post you
>> are answering if you are attempting to make any sense.

>
>Read your words quoted above. You said, "But recognize the business owner's
>right to tell you to participate in such things during your own time instead
>of his."
>
>Well, I simply responded and told you that you're absolutely wrong to engage
>in the assumption that any such right as you cite exists.
>
>The Board, the intermediate courts of appeal, and the Supreme Court all say
>so. And have said so for many, many years. Over and over and over and
>over.
>
>HH



Did you just read a part of a sentence and base your replies on
assumptions of the rest?

I said:
Yep,they can organize all they want. And just like you aren't forced
to participate in some group's activities, neither should people who
own a business. If you want to start a union or a social club, go
ahead. But recognize the business owner's right to tell you to
participate in such things during your own time instead of his. If he
doesn't want to negotiate with your union, then you and your union
should advertise your labor for sale at whatever price you see fit
while the former employer buys labor from someone else. If he's
willing to negotiate, that's fine too. No problem. Just keep
government out of the business of butting into either party's business
and requiring participation. Fair enough?

I stand by that.

The courts may sometimes disagree with a business owner having
constitutional rights, but that's another issue. That has little todo
with what I said. I wasn't referring to union members talking on the
job. I don't know where you got that silly idea. I was referring to
the union being recognized by the company and the company negotiating
with the union. In a free society, the employees can form a union if
they want, and the employer is just as free to tell them to take a
hike and or that the union's rules are meaninless in the workplace.
They are free to quit, of course, if they don't like it.

William R. James

  #349 (permalink)   Report Post  
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 01:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Hawth Hill
> wrote:

>in article , Wm James at
wrote on 06/17/2004 5:24 PM:
>
>> On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 01:10:52 +0000 (UTC), Hawth Hill
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> in article
, Wm James at
>>>
wrote on 06/16/2004 12:23 AM:
>>>
>>>> But recognize the business owner's right to tell you to
>>>> participate in such things during your own time instead of his.
>>>
>>> Sad.
>>>
>>> Where the heck do you come up with such lame brained ideas regarding
>>> "rights?"
>>>
>>> The Supreme Court, (yes, that same bunch of Republican appointees), has long
>>> recognized the rights of employees to engage in communications and to engage
>>> in solicitations and to engage in distributions of literature while at work.
>>>
>>> According to those dummies on the Supreme Court the employees are free to
>>> engage in such activities to the same extent that they routinely do so for
>>> other conversations, solicitations, and distributions.
>>>
>>> If an employer chooses to ban all such activity, he can do so. But, he
>>> can't pick and choose.
>>>
>>> If he, for example, allows employees to approach other employees to sell
>>> chances for their daughters' Girl Scout Cookie drives, then the courts say
>>> that he can scarcely claim that employees are not free to do the same sort
>>> of communicating just because the subject may happen to be whether or not
>>> they wish to engage in union activities.
>>>
>>> In other words, those Repubs on the court strike down efforts to
>>> discriminate. . . . Oh, what bad people they must be!
>>>
>>> Better move to a country that has laws, and judges, more to your liking.
>>>
>>> HH

>>
>>
>> What are you talking about? Again, please try to address the post you
>> are answering if you are attempting to make any sense.

>
>Read your words quoted above. You said, "But recognize the business owner's
>right to tell you to participate in such things during your own time instead
>of his."
>
>Well, I simply responded and told you that you're absolutely wrong to engage
>in the assumption that any such right as you cite exists.
>
>The Board, the intermediate courts of appeal, and the Supreme Court all say
>so. And have said so for many, many years. Over and over and over and
>over.
>
>HH



Did you just read a part of a sentence and base your replies on
assumptions of the rest?

I said:
Yep,they can organize all they want. And just like you aren't forced
to participate in some group's activities, neither should people who
own a business. If you want to start a union or a social club, go
ahead. But recognize the business owner's right to tell you to
participate in such things during your own time instead of his. If he
doesn't want to negotiate with your union, then you and your union
should advertise your labor for sale at whatever price you see fit
while the former employer buys labor from someone else. If he's
willing to negotiate, that's fine too. No problem. Just keep
government out of the business of butting into either party's business
and requiring participation. Fair enough?

I stand by that.

The courts may sometimes disagree with a business owner having
constitutional rights, but that's another issue. That has little todo
with what I said. I wasn't referring to union members talking on the
job. I don't know where you got that silly idea. I was referring to
the union being recognized by the company and the company negotiating
with the union. In a free society, the employees can form a union if
they want, and the employer is just as free to tell them to take a
hike and or that the union's rules are meaninless in the workplace.
They are free to quit, of course, if they don't like it.

William R. James

  #350 (permalink)   Report Post  
Stan de SD
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote


"Dan Clore" > wrote in message
...
> Stan de SD wrote:
> > "Wm James" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Hey, here's an idea.... DON'T WORK THERE! If it's a bad job, sell
> >>your labor elsewhere! I know that's a difficult concept for morons to
> >>grasp, but if you can't find a sucker willing to pay you better then
> >>just mayby you arealready overpaid and you should be happy to get it.

> >
> > Dan and his fellow commie-totalitarians aren't into choice,

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


Notice that I never said that workers didn't have the right to join a union.
However, you would deny the right of business owners to lock out a union if
they chose to do so. If one party has the right to take such action, so does
the other - a point you conveniently choose to ignore.

> > because people
> > who are allowed to make their own economic decisions might tell him to

go
> > screw himself.

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


Who is "you guys"?

> >>You can make or join whatever private club you want. In a free
> >>society, the employer shouldn't have to associate with it. What if the
> >>bread makers union wanted to force you to pay more for bread and
> >>demanded that you couldn't stop buying it or shop elsewhere?

> >
> > Again, you're making that "free markets, free choices" argument to a guy

who
> > thinks that Castro's Cuba is the ideal economic model...

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


A typical lie from Clore - calling a communist society "capitalist" to avoid
the fact that communism was responsible for its failure... :O|




  #351 (permalink)   Report Post  
Stan de SD
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote


"Dan Clore" > wrote in message
...
> Stan de SD wrote:
> > "Wm James" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Hey, here's an idea.... DON'T WORK THERE! If it's a bad job, sell
> >>your labor elsewhere! I know that's a difficult concept for morons to
> >>grasp, but if you can't find a sucker willing to pay you better then
> >>just mayby you arealready overpaid and you should be happy to get it.

> >
> > Dan and his fellow commie-totalitarians aren't into choice,

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


Notice that I never said that workers didn't have the right to join a union.
However, you would deny the right of business owners to lock out a union if
they chose to do so. If one party has the right to take such action, so does
the other - a point you conveniently choose to ignore.

> > because people
> > who are allowed to make their own economic decisions might tell him to

go
> > screw himself.

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


Who is "you guys"?

> >>You can make or join whatever private club you want. In a free
> >>society, the employer shouldn't have to associate with it. What if the
> >>bread makers union wanted to force you to pay more for bread and
> >>demanded that you couldn't stop buying it or shop elsewhere?

> >
> > Again, you're making that "free markets, free choices" argument to a guy

who
> > thinks that Castro's Cuba is the ideal economic model...

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


A typical lie from Clore - calling a communist society "capitalist" to avoid
the fact that communism was responsible for its failure... :O|


  #352 (permalink)   Report Post  
Stan de SD
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote


"Miguel O'Pastel" > wrote in message
...
>
> There is no future for capitalism.


Yeah, yeah. The Russkies said that in 1917, and the Chinese in 1949 - but
funny how both of them are reverting to more market-based economies. But
then again, for all their faults, Russians and Chinese are a hell of a lot
smarter than you are.


  #353 (permalink)   Report Post  
Stan de SD
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote


"Miguel O'Pastel" > wrote in message
...
>
> There is no future for capitalism.


Yeah, yeah. The Russkies said that in 1917, and the Chinese in 1949 - but
funny how both of them are reverting to more market-based economies. But
then again, for all their faults, Russians and Chinese are a hell of a lot
smarter than you are.


  #354 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dan Clore
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

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


>>>>You can make or join whatever private club you want. In a free
>>>>society, the employer shouldn't have to associate with it. What if the
>>>>bread makers union wanted to force you to pay more for bread and
>>>>demanded that you couldn't stop buying it or shop elsewhere?
>>>
>>>Again, you're making that "free markets, free choices" argument to a guy

> who
>>>thinks that Castro's Cuba is the ideal economic model...

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

>
> A typical lie from Clore - calling a communist society "capitalist" to avoid
> the fact that communism was responsible for its failure... :O|


Another typical Stain plow: caught in one lie, spew another
one. Readers will note that Stain considers it a "lie" to
refer to Cuban society by a factually-accurate term,
preferring instead to insist upon Stalinist Newspeak. Most
remarkably, Stain is even more dishonest than Fidel:

From an interview with Castro by Mexican capitalists
(adapted from _Proceso_, a Mexican left-wing weekly,
December 4 [1988]; noted and translated by Sam Farber):

Q: "What guarantees do you have that Cuba will not
expropriate our businesses?"

A: "Well, what guarantees did you have in Mexico to prevent
the expropriation of oil, and what guarantees did you have
to prevent the expropriation of the banks?

"The guarantee that Cuba offers is that it is a strong
country with a strong government. We are interested in the
development of industry and tourism. We will open up and
become 50% partners. We will do things well. We will not
charge taxes for profits. Besides, you'll have a simpler and
more attractive tax system than the Mexican."

Q: "Why don't you allow Cubans to invest in their own country?"

A: "Well, that would mean changing the system. We are
capitalists, but state capitalists. We are not private
capitalists. For now, we are not interested in changing the
system, but we do want you to come and invest . . ."

--
Dan Clore

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

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

  #355 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dan Clore
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

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


>>>>You can make or join whatever private club you want. In a free
>>>>society, the employer shouldn't have to associate with it. What if the
>>>>bread makers union wanted to force you to pay more for bread and
>>>>demanded that you couldn't stop buying it or shop elsewhere?
>>>
>>>Again, you're making that "free markets, free choices" argument to a guy

> who
>>>thinks that Castro's Cuba is the ideal economic model...

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

>
> A typical lie from Clore - calling a communist society "capitalist" to avoid
> the fact that communism was responsible for its failure... :O|


Another typical Stain plow: caught in one lie, spew another
one. Readers will note that Stain considers it a "lie" to
refer to Cuban society by a factually-accurate term,
preferring instead to insist upon Stalinist Newspeak. Most
remarkably, Stain is even more dishonest than Fidel:

From an interview with Castro by Mexican capitalists
(adapted from _Proceso_, a Mexican left-wing weekly,
December 4 [1988]; noted and translated by Sam Farber):

Q: "What guarantees do you have that Cuba will not
expropriate our businesses?"

A: "Well, what guarantees did you have in Mexico to prevent
the expropriation of oil, and what guarantees did you have
to prevent the expropriation of the banks?

"The guarantee that Cuba offers is that it is a strong
country with a strong government. We are interested in the
development of industry and tourism. We will open up and
become 50% partners. We will do things well. We will not
charge taxes for profits. Besides, you'll have a simpler and
more attractive tax system than the Mexican."

Q: "Why don't you allow Cubans to invest in their own country?"

A: "Well, that would mean changing the system. We are
capitalists, but state capitalists. We are not private
capitalists. For now, we are not interested in changing the
system, but we do want you to come and invest . . ."

--
Dan Clore

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

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



  #358 (permalink)   Report Post  
Grain of Sand
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

In article . net>,
"Stan de SD" > wrote:

> "Miguel O'Pastel" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > There is no future for capitalism.

>
> Yeah, yeah. The Russkies said that in 1917, and the Chinese in 1949 - but
> funny how both of them are reverting to more market-based economies. But
> then again, for all their faults, Russians and Chinese are a hell of a lot
> smarter than you are.
>
>


Like most capitalists you think short term. There is no future for
capitalism.


----------------------------------------------
Anarchy: It's not what you think it is!
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html
  #359 (permalink)   Report Post  
Grain of Sand
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

In article . net>,
"Stan de SD" > wrote:

> "Miguel O'Pastel" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > There is no future for capitalism.

>
> Yeah, yeah. The Russkies said that in 1917, and the Chinese in 1949 - but
> funny how both of them are reverting to more market-based economies. But
> then again, for all their faults, Russians and Chinese are a hell of a lot
> smarter than you are.
>
>


Like most capitalists you think short term. There is no future for
capitalism.


----------------------------------------------
Anarchy: It's not what you think it is!
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html
  #360 (permalink)   Report Post  
Michael Legel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote


"Wm James" > wrote in message
...
> I said:
> Yep,they can organize all they want. And just like you aren't forced
> to participate in some group's activities, neither should people who
> own a business. If you want to start a union or a social club, go
> ahead. But recognize the business owner's right to tell you to
> participate in such things during your own time instead of his. If he
> doesn't want to negotiate with your union, then you and your union
> should advertise your labor for sale at whatever price you see fit
> while the former employer buys labor from someone else. If he's
> willing to negotiate, that's fine too. No problem. Just keep
> government out of the business of butting into either party's business
> and requiring participation. Fair enough?
>
> I stand by that.


As has been stated very often ... the business owner has no right to quell
social interaction on the job to the extent you are speaking about. You seem
to think that Americans have absolutely NO rights when they enter the work
force. While it is true they have fewer rights than many EU countries, they
still maintain some meager right to be an American on the job. You keep
babbling about owner's rights that don't exist. Not in law or in the
constitution. Again, write your favorite representative and stress your
wishes, but your wishes are not yet realtiy.

>
> The courts may sometimes disagree with a business owner having
> constitutional rights, but that's another issue. That has little todo
> with what I said. I wasn't referring to union members talking on the
> job. I don't know where you got that silly idea. I was referring to
> the union being recognized by the company and the company negotiating
> with the union. In a free society, the employees can form a union if
> they want, and the employer is just as free to tell them to take a
> hike and or that the union's rules are meaninless in the workplace.
> They are free to quit, of course, if they don't like it.
>
> William R. James
>


Perhaps in your mythical society this is true. In America the law says
something quite different. Again you are confusing your wishes with reality.
The employer is bound by law to negotiate with any legally constituted union.
As is, the laws are tipped in favor of the employer too much already in my
opinion. And I work diligently to persuade people to be more pro-worker and
pro-American. Just because I wish fervently that something should be as I
want it be ... I do not have the ability to wave my hand and "Make it so."


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Celebrating Six Months of IWW Starbucks Workers Union in the TwinCities Dan Clore Coffee 1 12-02-2009 01:42 AM
Free Starbucks 4 U - Winner of Last Weeks $20 Starbucks Gift Card [email protected] Coffee 0 12-12-2006 09:12 PM
Free Starbucks 4 U - Winner of Last Weeks $20 Starbucks Gift Card [email protected] Recipes 0 12-12-2006 09:11 PM
JOIN THIS .... DON'T MISS IT.... ITS THE MUST JOIN STOCK MARKET CLUB. Ram Beer 0 30-04-2006 11:43 AM
JOIN THIS .... DON'T MISS IT.... ITS THE MUST JOIN STOCK MARKET CLUB. Ram Beer 0 30-04-2006 11:43 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:12 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"