On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 15:28:53 -0600, Stu wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 13:52:49 -0500, blake murphy
> > wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 13:44:59 -0500, brooklyn1 wrote:
>>
>>> Nonsense, one can always find space for non-perishables... no law says
>>> a 24 pack of TP can't be opened and spread about... I always keep a
>>> roll in my car, I 'rearly' use it but sure is handy when you gotta
>>> pull off at the side of the road and head into the woods... and I'd
>>> think females would keep like 2-3 rolls in their car, and a 24 pack in
>>> the trunk! LOL My mom never went anywhere without he rroll of TP in
>>> her handbag... in fact she'd remove the 3/4 used rolls from the
>>> bathroom because they more easily fit in her handbags.
>>
>>so you and your mom are cheap-ass people who likely to shit just about
>>anywhere.
>>
>>somehow this pretty much fits the mental picture i have of you.
>>
>>blake
>
> Thanks, was drinking coffee and now have to clean my monitor. Damn
> that was funny.

murph's miracle screen-cleaner„¢ is available by the case at all the finer
big-lot stores.

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 18:33:18 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> "Bogbrush" > wrote
>> What killed the mom and pop stores was the car and corrupt politicians
>> allowing the opening of these monstrosities every 50km or so.
>
> OK, I'll agree with you there. The Communist Party should determine where
> we can shop and the prices we pay.

<derisive snort>

since even mild-mannered liberals don't seem to be able to determine
*anything* in this country, i'm not going to worry about communists
dictating anything anytime soon.

your pal,
barry

On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 19:18:14 -0500, Dave Smith wrote:

> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>> "Bogbrush" > wrote
>>> What killed the mom and pop stores was the car and corrupt politicians
>>> allowing the opening of these monstrosities every 50km or so.
>>
>> OK, I'll agree with you there. The Communist Party should determine
>> where we can shop and the prices we pay.
>
> Yep... and there have never been cases of corporations fixing prices.

but big-money capitalists banding together is truth, justice and the
american way. everybody else is a filthy commie.

your pal,
blake

On 2/22/2010 9:23 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> On 2/21/2010 9:44 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>>
>> "sf" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 09:36:13 -0500, Goomba >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why should they be forced to pay more than the mom & pop store down the
>>>> road pays their unskilled labor? These aren't high paying jobs no
>>>> matter
>>>> where they are.... why do we blame Wallyworld for that?
>>>
>>> What I don't understand is how a supposed health care professional
>>> fails to grasp the importance of health insurance.
>>>
>> http://wakeupwalmart.com/facts/
>>>
>>
>> It is not just Wal-Mart, but most other retailers, especially the M & P
>> stores that offer no benefits. My grandson is working for a car dealer
>> and gets minimum wage for the state (higher than the Federal) and had
>> less benefits than even WM offers. Better jobs are non-existent right
>> now. When business dropped, he was laid off from a retail store that was
>> just as bad with zero benefits. At least now he has Sunday off.
>>
>> Take a look at this from the web site you noted:
>>
>> Your local Wal-Mart costs your community up to $420,000 per year
>>
>> These costs come in the form of many public assistance programs. A 2004
>> study found that one Wal-Mart store cost taxpayers $108,000/year for
>> children's health care and $42,000 per year for low-income housing
>> assistance. ["How Wal-Mart Has Used Public Money in Your State," Good
>> Jobs First 2007]
>>
>>
>> If those people did not work at WM, where would they be working and how
>> much would it cost the community? Perhaps even more if they don't have
>> any jobs at all. Perhaps something would be done if people stopped
>> focusing on one store and are oblivious to what else is going on around
>> them.
>
> And how much does that Wal-Mart that "costs" 420K a year _pay_ in taxes?
> In CT if it does 7 million dollars a year it pays that back in sales
> tax, then there's property tax, and various other taxes. The average
> Wal-Mart sells more than 40 million a year so that 420,000 is paid back
> many times over.

A retailer doesn't pay sales taxes the purchaser does and they do it
whether it is wally or mom & pop. At least in PA walmart is a total
mooch. They get us to acquire and develop the land for them including
paying for stuff like access roads and traffic signals. They also get a
nine year tax exemption. When the nine years are up they simply move
across the street and we do it all over again for them.

>
>> Fact is, business have no incentive to pay higher wages because they
>> have plenty of people willing to work for what is now being offered. How
>> many people here are tipping wait staff over 15% just to be sure they
>> make a decent living? And some of these same people cheer on sports
>> figures and the $100 million contracts.
>
> Entertainment "stars" too. I mean what has Will Smith done that makes
> him worth 80 million dollars a year? Yeah, he can act a bit, but so can
> a lot of other people who work hard at it all their lives and never see
> more than union scale.
>

On 2/22/2010 10:02 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> On 2/21/2010 10:10 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>>
>> "J. Clarke" > wrote in
>>
>>>
>>> After the war when they became aware that their goods were identified
>>> as low quality junk they formed an industry cooperative and government
>>> agency to turn that image around, and they did.
>>>
>>> The question is whether the Chinese will do the same thing.
>>
>> They made junk because we bought junk. Then they wanted to make good
>> stuff and the Americans taught them how do to it. They listened, we
>> didn't. Statistical Process Control works.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming
>
> So how did they make the best fighter aircraft in the world, torpedoes
> that did things that American military experts were sure could not be
> done, the most powerful battleship ever built, a fleet of aircraft
> carriers, and other little surprises for the US military more than a
> decade before Deming imparted his wonderful expertise?
>
> Sorry, but the notion that the Japanese were incapable of making high
> quality goods before Deming taught them is not consistent with history.
> He taught them to do something they were already good at _better_.
>
> And if the reason they made "junk" was because "we bought junk" then why
> did they want to stop making what sold?
>
> You try to make high quality goods in a pile of burnt-out radioactive
> rubble that used to be a factory and get back to us on how you make out.
>
> The quality of their goods improved because they rebuilt their
> infrastructure, not because Deming gave a few lectures. Sure, they used
> what they learned from him, and what they learned from the Gilbreths a
> couple of decades earlier, and what they learned from any other source
> they could find. But none of that would have made a difference if they
> didn't already have a perfectionistic attitude. They didn't just listen,
> they took the ideas and ran with them.

Thats pretty accurate. I am a interested in Japanese history, have a
number of good friends there and have been there numerous times. They
certainly weren't a bunch of incapable clueless folks until Deming came
along.

On 2/22/2010 12:15 PM, gloria.p wrote:
> Janet Wilder wrote:
>> sf wrote:
>>> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 15:00:48 -0700, "<RJ>" > wrote:
>>>> It's interesting to read all the WalMart bashing.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Think about this: A worldwide chain that has *one* store the size of
>>> three football fields and takes in $70,000,000 a year can afford to
>>> offer it's *own* branded health care to employees and they could use
>>> Kaiser Permante as a model.
>>>
>>
>> There was a time when employers used good benefits packages to entice
>> the best workers. Today there fewer jobs and many workers for each
>> job. They can afford to offer a self-insured healthcare plan, but they
>> don't have any incentive to do so, so they don't.
>>
>
>
> Doesn't ANYONE do things for humanitarian reasons now?
>
> gloria P

Why should they? Folks who buy at walmart have agreed they like cheap no
matter how it is done.

On 2/21/2010 8:10 PM, brooklyn1 wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 17:32:00 -0500, >
> wrote:
>
>> On 2/21/2010 4:31 PM, brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> You got stock in Walmart ED?
>>>>>
>>>>> When walmart has a lawnmower for $99.00 made in China, and the local
>>>>> hardware store has an American made lawmower for $122.00 his lowest
>>>>> price, because he can't sell for less and stay in business, who do you
>>>>> think the consumer will buy from? So your Walmart didn't do it is
>>>>> completly wrong, and this wrong is happening all over the USA. They
>>>>> sell chinese products to Joe Lunchbox, and main street USA is dieing
>>>>> because of it. Go to Walmart and see how many USA products they
>>>>> actually sell, I bet 10% max., where 20 years ago it was 10% imports.
>>>>> One other thing, try to get a union into a Walmart, they'd rather
>>>>> close a store than allow it. Why you ask, it's simple ED they don't
>>>>> want to pay a wage people can live on.
>>>
>>> Huh? Yo, shit for brains, get an education, learn a trade... then ya
>>> can get paid a living wage. Yer not supposed get paid a living wage
>>> when all ya are is a 40 year old stock BOY pothead living home in
>>> mommy n' daddy's basement. The vast majority of Walmart type jobs
>>> are supposed to be part time, seasonal, and minimum wage... ya think a
>>> guy who just retrieves shopping carts from the parking lot should be
>>> paid enough to own a big house in the good part of town, support 3.5
>>> kids, have two Irish setters (with no legs), and attract a stay at
>>> home wife with big tits... yer mentally ill. LOL-LOL
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> You apparently don't realize (as usual) how out of touch you are with
>> reality. Not that long ago we had a manufacturing base which provided
>> good jobs for folks with a wide range of skills. Plus there were
>> numerous other businesses that provided support for those manufacturing
>> companies (machine shop, hydraulics, automation etc). A very large
>> percentage of those companies are *gone*.
>>
>> I recently drove around in an industrial park that is about an hour from
>> here that probably represented 6,000 jobs and there are practically no
>> businesses in operation. The site of the former premier business in that
>> park has been turned into a logistics center (fancy word for warehouse).
>> This is not all unusual. Stop and look around sometime. This is just
>> like your view of NYC that reflects what was a quarter century ago.
>> Times have changed..
>
> Obviously you don't work, you have no marketable skills, and your
> bitch has tiny tits.

In other words you totally agree on my observation?

On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 12:33:30 -0800, sf wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 09:36:13 -0500, Goomba >
> wrote:
>
>> Why should they be forced to pay more than the mom & pop store down the
>> road pays their unskilled labor? These aren't high paying jobs no matter
>> where they are.... why do we blame Wallyworld for that?
>
> What I don't understand is how a supposed health care professional
> fails to grasp the importance of health insurance.
>
> http://wakeupwalmart.com/facts/

pretty impressive/depressing set of facts they've collected there, sf.

your pal,
blake

On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 09:23:55 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:

> On 2/21/2010 9:44 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>>
>> "sf" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 09:36:13 -0500, Goomba >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why should they be forced to pay more than the mom & pop store down the
>>>> road pays their unskilled labor? These aren't high paying jobs no matter
>>>> where they are.... why do we blame Wallyworld for that?
>>>
>>> What I don't understand is how a supposed health care professional
>>> fails to grasp the importance of health insurance.
>>>
>> http://wakeupwalmart.com/facts/
>>>
>>
>> It is not just Wal-Mart, but most other retailers, especially the M & P
>> stores that offer no benefits. My grandson is working for a car dealer
>> and gets minimum wage for the state (higher than the Federal) and had
>> less benefits than even WM offers. Better jobs are non-existent right
>> now. When business dropped, he was laid off from a retail store that was
>> just as bad with zero benefits. At least now he has Sunday off.
>>
>> Take a look at this from the web site you noted:
>>
>> Your local Wal-Mart costs your community up to $420,000 per year
>>
>> These costs come in the form of many public assistance programs. A 2004
>> study found that one Wal-Mart store cost taxpayers $108,000/year for
>> children's health care and $42,000 per year for low-income housing
>> assistance. ["How Wal-Mart Has Used Public Money in Your State," Good
>> Jobs First 2007]
>>
>>
>> If those people did not work at WM, where would they be working and how
>> much would it cost the community? Perhaps even more if they don't have
>> any jobs at all. Perhaps something would be done if people stopped
>> focusing on one store and are oblivious to what else is going on around
>> them.
>
> And how much does that Wal-Mart that "costs" 420K a year _pay_ in taxes?
> In CT if it does 7 million dollars a year it pays that back in sales
> tax, then there's property tax, and various other taxes. The average
> Wal-Mart sells more than 40 million a year so that 420,000 is paid back
> many times over.

i find that unpersuasive. the $42,000 cited above is for children's health
care and ... low-income housing assistance. how about costs for
infrastructure, police and fire coverage, etc.? and should working people
be paid so little (or with such poor benefits) that they need assistance
with their children's health care and housing?

blake

blake murphy wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 12:33:30 -0800, sf wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 09:36:13 -0500, Goomba >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Why should they be forced to pay more than the mom & pop store down
>>> the road pays their unskilled labor? These aren't high paying jobs
>>> no matter where they are.... why do we blame Wallyworld for that?
>>
>> What I don't understand is how a supposed health care professional
>> fails to grasp the importance of health insurance.
>>
>> http://wakeupwalmart.com/facts/
>
> pretty impressive/depressing set of facts they've collected there, sf.

Given that the website is a product of the United Food and Commercial
Workers Union, I can see there would be no bias or self-serving agenda
whatsoever.
--
Dave
What is best in life? "To crush your enemies, see them driven before
you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan

Nancy wrote:

> I never seem to be at Costco when they have seafood, I'm going to
> have to make an effort to get those crab legs, it's been a while.
> You know, since you gave me a craving and all.

Gotta scrutinize it a bit: Lin noticed that some of the seafood was from
Vietnam or China. (I don't think crab would come from either of those
places, but it's best to check anyway.)

For dinner tonight Lin cooked mussels in a Thai broth, with black bean
butter sauce dolloped on at the table, and served over buckwheat noodles.
Life is good.

Bob

sf wrote:

> Heh. That kind of thinking isn't just the Walmart mentality. I knew
> someone who would brag about buying x number of steaks (for instance)
> for xx price and I'd always have to say "yeah but how many pounds was
> that?" She'd have absolutely *no* idea. It would always turn out
> that her steaks were shoeleather thin. They probably chewed like
> shoeleather too.

Properly prepared, thin steaks can be very good indeed. Steak Diane is a
fairly well-known example.

In the case of your acquaintance, it's likely that she had the idea that one
steak equals one serving, regardless of the size of the steak, so there
*was* some economy going on.

Bob

gloria.p wrote:
> Janet Wilder wrote:
>> sf wrote:
>>> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 15:00:48 -0700, "<RJ>" > wrote:
>>>> It's interesting to read all the WalMart bashing.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Think about this: A worldwide chain that has *one* store the size of
>>> three football fields and takes in $70,000,000 a year can afford to
>>> offer it's *own* branded health care to employees and they could use
>>> Kaiser Permante as a model.
>>>
>>
>> There was a time when employers used good benefits packages to entice
>> the best workers. Today there fewer jobs and many workers for each
>> job. They can afford to offer a self-insured healthcare plan, but they
>> don't have any incentive to do so, so they don't.
>>
>
>
> Doesn't ANYONE do things for humanitarian reasons now?
>
> gloria P

Most large corporations do have charitable foundations, but most do not
consider worker benefits as a part of their charitable giving programs.

--
Janet Wilder
Way-the-heck-south Texas
Spelling doesn't count. Cooking does.

sf wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 10:15:41 -0700, "gloria.p" >
> wrote:
>
>> Janet Wilder wrote:
>>> sf wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 15:00:48 -0700, "<RJ>" > wrote:
>>>>> It's interesting to read all the WalMart bashing.
>>>>>
>>>> Think about this: A worldwide chain that has *one* store the size of
>>>> three football fields and takes in $70,000,000 a year can afford to
>>>> offer it's *own* branded health care to employees and they could use
>>>> Kaiser Permante as a model.
>>>>
>>> There was a time when employers used good benefits packages to entice
>>> the best workers. Today there fewer jobs and many workers for each job.
>>> They can afford to offer a self-insured healthcare plan, but they don't
>>> have any incentive to do so, so they don't.
>>>
>> Doesn't ANYONE do things for humanitarian reasons now?
>>
> Frankly, I never considered offering healthcare plans "humanitarian" -
> just a good business practice if for any business that wants healthy
> workers who show up on time. I pointed out that if Walmart doesn't
> want to pay another company to manage employee healthcare, they're big
> enough to form their own nonprofit, restricting it to employees and
> their families.
>
>
I think this would be a wonderful thing to do, but it ain't gonna happen

--
Janet Wilder
Way-the-heck-south Texas
Spelling doesn't count. Cooking does.

Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
> Dan Abel wrote:
> > Janet Wilder > wrote:
> >
> > I have to wonder, though. After WWII, the Japanese were desperate to
> > sell stuff. Anything. They had no time for development or quality
> > control. "Made in Japan" was synonymous with "crap". Things are
> > different now. My son bought a kitchen knife recently. US$200. Made
> > in Japan.
>
> Total quality management is a slow process, but it's as certain as can
> be.

And now, it's formalized. There are books on how to write
procedures and train workers to follow quality manufacturing
standards like ISO 9002, and you can hire consultants to write
the procedures and train the workers if you can't do it yourself.
And the ISO people send auditors to make sure you are implementing
adequate quality controls. The hard part is finding workers who
have been trained in this stuff. China has a long way to go in
this regard. It's easier to staff up a semiconductor plant in the
Philippines than in mainland China. But events could change quickly.
If they reunified with Taiwan, they would have a technical workforce
about equal to the U.S.

> > The Chinese have come a *long* way in a *short* time. What will Chinese
> > products be like in ten years? Fifty?
>
> On the one hand they have the resources to out-Japanese the Japanese,
> and labor price competition from India. On the other hand they have a
> one child policy and are going to be facing a huge labor shortage very
> soon.

They have much worse problems than that. They have an environmental
crisis, an energy crisis, and above all a water crisis. China looks
robust and abundant today, before the crises hit. 5 or 10 years
from now, we could be looking at country similar to Russia after
the fall of the Soviet Union.

On 2/22/2010 5:34 PM, George wrote:
> On 2/22/2010 9:23 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On 2/21/2010 9:44 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "sf" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 09:36:13 -0500, Goomba >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Why should they be forced to pay more than the mom & pop store down
>>>>> the
>>>>> road pays their unskilled labor? These aren't high paying jobs no
>>>>> matter
>>>>> where they are.... why do we blame Wallyworld for that?
>>>>
>>>> What I don't understand is how a supposed health care professional
>>>> fails to grasp the importance of health insurance.
>>>>
>>> http://wakeupwalmart.com/facts/
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is not just Wal-Mart, but most other retailers, especially the M & P
>>> stores that offer no benefits. My grandson is working for a car dealer
>>> and gets minimum wage for the state (higher than the Federal) and had
>>> less benefits than even WM offers. Better jobs are non-existent right
>>> now. When business dropped, he was laid off from a retail store that was
>>> just as bad with zero benefits. At least now he has Sunday off.
>>>
>>> Take a look at this from the web site you noted:
>>>
>>> Your local Wal-Mart costs your community up to $420,000 per year
>>>
>>> These costs come in the form of many public assistance programs. A 2004
>>> study found that one Wal-Mart store cost taxpayers $108,000/year for
>>> children's health care and $42,000 per year for low-income housing
>>> assistance. ["How Wal-Mart Has Used Public Money in Your State," Good
>>> Jobs First 2007]
>>>
>>>
>>> If those people did not work at WM, where would they be working and how
>>> much would it cost the community? Perhaps even more if they don't have
>>> any jobs at all. Perhaps something would be done if people stopped
>>> focusing on one store and are oblivious to what else is going on around
>>> them.
>>
>> And how much does that Wal-Mart that "costs" 420K a year _pay_ in taxes?
>> In CT if it does 7 million dollars a year it pays that back in sales
>> tax, then there's property tax, and various other taxes. The average
>> Wal-Mart sells more than 40 million a year so that 420,000 is paid back
>> many times over.
>
> A retailer doesn't pay sales taxes the purchaser does and they do it
> whether it is wally or mom & pop.

So what? Would mom&pop be doing 40 million a year in sales?

> At least in PA walmart is a total
> mooch. They get us to acquire and develop the land for them including
> paying for stuff like access roads and traffic signals. They also get a
> nine year tax exemption. When the nine years are up they simply move
> across the street and we do it all over again for them.

Your problem is not with Wal-Mart, it is with your government. But it's
easier to blame the evil corporation than the totally wonderful elected
government, isn't it?

>>> Fact is, business have no incentive to pay higher wages because they
>>> have plenty of people willing to work for what is now being offered. How
>>> many people here are tipping wait staff over 15% just to be sure they
>>> make a decent living? And some of these same people cheer on sports
>>> figures and the $100 million contracts.
>>
>> Entertainment "stars" too. I mean what has Will Smith done that makes
>> him worth 80 million dollars a year? Yeah, he can act a bit, but so can
>> a lot of other people who work hard at it all their lives and never see
>> more than union scale.
>>
>

On Feb 22, 5:49*pm, blake murphy > wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 09:23:55 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
> > On 2/21/2010 9:44 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> >> "sf" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >>> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 09:36:13 -0500, Goomba >
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> Why should they be forced to pay more than the mom & pop store down the
> >>>> road pays their unskilled labor? These aren't high paying jobs no matter
> >>>> where they are.... why do we blame Wallyworld for that?
>
> >>> What I don't understand is how a supposed health care professional
> >>> fails to grasp the importance of health insurance.
>
> >>http://wakeupwalmart.com/facts/
>
> >> It is not just Wal-Mart, but most other retailers, especially the M & P
> >> stores that offer no benefits. My grandson is working for a car dealer
> >> and gets minimum wage for the state (higher than the Federal) and had
> >> less benefits than even WM offers. Better jobs are non-existent right
> >> now. When business dropped, he was laid off from a retail store that was
> >> just as bad with zero benefits. At least now he has Sunday off.
>
> >> Take a look at this from the web site you noted:
>
> >> Your local Wal-Mart costs your community up to $420,000 per year
>
> >> These costs come in the form of many public assistance programs. A 2004
> >> study found that one Wal-Mart store cost taxpayers $108,000/year for
> >> children's health care and $42,000 per year for low-income housing
> >> assistance. ["How Wal-Mart Has Used Public Money in Your State," Good
> >> Jobs First 2007]
>
> >> If those people did not work at WM, where would they be working and how
> >> much would it cost the community? Perhaps even more if they don't have
> >> any jobs at all. Perhaps something would be done if people stopped
> >> focusing on one store and are oblivious to what else is going on around
> >> them.
>
> > And how much does that Wal-Mart that "costs" 420K a year _pay_ in taxes?
> > * In CT if it does 7 million dollars a year it pays that back in sales
> > tax, then there's property tax, and various other taxes. *The average
> > Wal-Mart sells more than 40 million a year so that 420,000 is paid back
> > many times over.
>
> i find that unpersuasive. *the $42,000 cited above is for children's health
> care and ... low-income housing assistance. *how about costs for
> infrastructure, police and fire coverage, etc.? *and should working people
> be paid so little (or with such poor benefits) that they need assistance
> with their children's health care and housing?

The folks that WalMart screws are not the sort who have access to
small airplanes to crash into the Bentonville HQ.
>
> blake

--Bryan

On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 22:27:38 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> wrote:

> Your problem is not with Wal-Mart, it is with your government. But it's
> easier to blame the evil corporation than the totally wonderful elected
> government, isn't it?

The government needs tax dollars because voters are always voting in
more ways to spend tax dollars without voting in a tax raise. They
can't have it both ways, so Walmart takes full advantage of the
situation.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

"blake murphy" > wrote
> i find that unpersuasive. the $42,000 cited above is for children's
> health
> care and ... low-income housing assistance. how about costs for
> infrastructure, police and fire coverage, etc.? and should working people
> be paid so little (or with such poor benefits) that they need assistance
> with their children's health care and housing?

This goes back to the chicken and egg theory. Which came first, low wages or
low prices? We all want to make big wages, but we don't want to pay big
prices. How many here are willing to buy a US made computer or TV made in
the USA with a minimum labor rate of $18 an hour? Could you afford it?

I used the example of Whole Foods. They pay better than most, but I've
often heard complaints here about their high prices. How about all
supermarkets follow that same wage-price plan? Would you mind the extra
$50+ a week for groceries so your neighbor can get healthcare or take a
vacation?

On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 19:42:59 +0000 (UTC),
(Steve Pope) wrote:

> sf > wrote:
>
> >Your idea is fine if they only want to attract neighborhood people to
> >shop downtown, but if they want to attract the wider public for
> >destination shopping - they need to provide more off street public
> >parking, improve public transportation (provide on and off shuttles
> >for one thing) and increase taxi availability. Same goes for every
> >other city center.
>
> So you can't wrap your mind around the idea of a city of millions
> of people who is able to shop without driving private motor
> vehicles?

How are you going to deal with out of towners? That's what I'm
talking about. If you want them to come (and we want the revenue),
you need to warehouse their automobiles somewhere while they get
around on public transit.
>
> It's not like it's never happened, and it is a close description
> of quite a few cities even today, in the age of the automobile.
>
The only thing that has happened in big cities is one street has been
closed for a few blocks. Nothing earth shattering. Even San
Francisco has one of those. It's called Maiden Lane.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 20:47:47 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
> wrote:

> So they can wait until enough places downtown go bust that they have
> plenty of room for parking structures. Lots of shoppers will wait until
> that's true. I watched it happen in Los Angeles in the 1980s and 1990s.
> Now I live in Chicago metro and for the moment it's not happening
> because the train system is so much better.

Chicago was pretty bleak in the '60s and '70s.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 20:45:09 -0600, Janet Wilder
> wrote:
>
>
> Most large corporations do have charitable foundations, but most do not
> consider worker benefits as a part of their charitable giving programs.

I wasn't thinking they'd lose money. It would be a nonprofit, not a
charity. I don't think Kaiser is funded by deep pockets.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

In article >,
sf > wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 20:47:47 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
> > wrote:
>
> > So they can wait until enough places downtown go bust that they have
> > plenty of room for parking structures. Lots of shoppers will wait until
> > that's true. I watched it happen in Los Angeles in the 1980s and 1990s.
> > Now I live in Chicago metro and for the moment it's not happening
> > because the train system is so much better.
>
> Chicago was pretty bleak in the '60s and '70s.

??? Not (assuming you mean downtown, the Loop, whatever...) during
the mid-60s. It is possible that things took a dive in the late 60s
or 70s (though I have not seen any indication of that). I was in
Hyde Park from 63-67, and despite some issues on the South Side
[and rather less there than had been the case in the late 50s to
early 60s], downtown was quite vibrant and public transportation
(the L and ICC) was a good way to get there.

On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 23:26:01 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski"
> wrote:

> I used the example of Whole Foods. They pay better than most, but I've
> often heard complaints here about their high prices.

Whole Foods isn't hurting for customers either. People complain that
Trader Joe's isn't a full service grocery store too. Both sets of
whiners are just whining.

> How about all
> supermarkets follow that same wage-price plan? Would you mind the extra
> $50+ a week for groceries so your neighbor can get healthcare or take a
> vacation?

I'm paying for it either way. I can pay directly through my purchase
or through taxes - which is less cost effective because they are using
the emergency room for healthcare and food stamps to eat.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 21:21:13 -0800, Michael Siemon
> wrote:

> In article >,
> sf > wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 20:47:47 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > So they can wait until enough places downtown go bust that they have
> > > plenty of room for parking structures. Lots of shoppers will wait until
> > > that's true. I watched it happen in Los Angeles in the 1980s and 1990s.
> > > Now I live in Chicago metro and for the moment it's not happening
> > > because the train system is so much better.
> >
> > Chicago was pretty bleak in the '60s and '70s.
>
> ??? Not (assuming you mean downtown, the Loop, whatever...) during
> the mid-60s. It is possible that things took a dive in the late 60s
> or 70s (though I have not seen any indication of that). I was in
> Hyde Park from 63-67, and despite some issues on the South Side
> [and rather less there than had been the case in the late 50s to
> early 60s], downtown was quite vibrant and public transportation
> (the L and ICC) was a good way to get there.

Yes, I'm talking about that time period. Slums came up to one block
off Lakeshore Drive back then and I'm talking about the Gold Coast
part of it.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Feb 22, 8:26*pm, "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote:
> "blake murphy" > wrote
>
> > i find that unpersuasive. *the $42,000 cited above is for children's
> > health
> > care and ... low-income housing assistance. *how about costs for
> > infrastructure, police and fire coverage, etc.? *and should working people
> > be paid so little (or with such poor benefits) that they need assistance
> > with their children's health care and housing?
>
> This goes back to the chicken and egg theory. Which came first, low wages or
> low prices? We all want to make big wages, but we don't want to pay big
> prices. *How many here are willing to buy a US made computer or TV made in
> the USA with a minimum labor rate of $18 an hour? * *Could you afford it?
>
> I used the example of Whole Foods. * They pay better than most, but I've
> often heard complaints here about their high prices. *How about all
> supermarkets follow that same wage-price plan? *Would you mind the extra
> $50+ a week for groceries so your neighbor can get healthcare or take a
> vacation?

Strangely, most of the grocery stores in my area have the same
contract and wages. But they do have very different prices. So, it
isn't all based on wages.

Yes, Walmart is a lot cheaper with lower wages and benefits, but here,
Safeway, QFC, Fred Meyer, and similar stores all have the same basic
wages. We are all in the same union, so our wage system is the same.

> wrote
> . We are all in the same union, so our wage system is the same.
>

Does the union provide real benefits to the member? Or does it just take
your dues and make the union leaders fat cats?

On 2/22/2010 10:27 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> On 2/22/2010 5:34 PM, George wrote:
>> On 2/22/2010 9:23 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On 2/21/2010 9:44 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "sf" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 09:36:13 -0500, Goomba >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Why should they be forced to pay more than the mom & pop store down
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> road pays their unskilled labor? These aren't high paying jobs no
>>>>>> matter
>>>>>> where they are.... why do we blame Wallyworld for that?
>>>>>
>>>>> What I don't understand is how a supposed health care professional
>>>>> fails to grasp the importance of health insurance.
>>>>>
>>>> http://wakeupwalmart.com/facts/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is not just Wal-Mart, but most other retailers, especially the M & P
>>>> stores that offer no benefits. My grandson is working for a car dealer
>>>> and gets minimum wage for the state (higher than the Federal) and had
>>>> less benefits than even WM offers. Better jobs are non-existent right
>>>> now. When business dropped, he was laid off from a retail store that
>>>> was
>>>> just as bad with zero benefits. At least now he has Sunday off.
>>>>
>>>> Take a look at this from the web site you noted:
>>>>
>>>> Your local Wal-Mart costs your community up to $420,000 per year
>>>>
>>>> These costs come in the form of many public assistance programs. A 2004
>>>> study found that one Wal-Mart store cost taxpayers $108,000/year for
>>>> children's health care and $42,000 per year for low-income housing
>>>> assistance. ["How Wal-Mart Has Used Public Money in Your State," Good
>>>> Jobs First 2007]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If those people did not work at WM, where would they be working and how
>>>> much would it cost the community? Perhaps even more if they don't have
>>>> any jobs at all. Perhaps something would be done if people stopped
>>>> focusing on one store and are oblivious to what else is going on around
>>>> them.
>>>
>>> And how much does that Wal-Mart that "costs" 420K a year _pay_ in taxes?
>>> In CT if it does 7 million dollars a year it pays that back in sales
>>> tax, then there's property tax, and various other taxes. The average
>>> Wal-Mart sells more than 40 million a year so that 420,000 is paid back
>>> many times over.
>>
>> A retailer doesn't pay sales taxes the purchaser does and they do it
>> whether it is wally or mom & pop.
>
> So what? Would mom&pop be doing 40 million a year in sales?


You seem to be dazzled by walmart for some reason. If walmart didn't
exist folks would simply buy their stuff from other stores and *they*
would pay the sales tax just like they do now and in addition the local
governments would be further ahead because the wouldn't be giving
walmart the free ride they get.

>
>> At least in PA walmart is a total
>> mooch. They get us to acquire and develop the land for them including
>> paying for stuff like access roads and traffic signals. They also get a
>> nine year tax exemption. When the nine years are up they simply move
>> across the street and we do it all over again for them.
>
> Your problem is not with Wal-Mart, it is with your government. But it's
> easier to blame the evil corporation than the totally wonderful elected
> government, isn't it?


I like the idea of capitalism. I just don't care for owners that don't
have a moral compass.

>
>>>> Fact is, business have no incentive to pay higher wages because they
>>>> have plenty of people willing to work for what is now being offered.
>>>> How
>>>> many people here are tipping wait staff over 15% just to be sure they
>>>> make a decent living? And some of these same people cheer on sports
>>>> figures and the $100 million contracts.
>>>
>>> Entertainment "stars" too. I mean what has Will Smith done that makes
>>> him worth 80 million dollars a year? Yeah, he can act a bit, but so can
>>> a lot of other people who work hard at it all their lives and never see
>>> more than union scale.
>>>
>>
>

On 2/22/2010 11:26 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
>
> "blake murphy" > wrote
>> i find that unpersuasive. the $42,000 cited above is for children's
>> health
>> care and ... low-income housing assistance. how about costs for
>> infrastructure, police and fire coverage, etc.? and should working people
>> be paid so little (or with such poor benefits) that they need assistance
>> with their children's health care and housing?
>
> This goes back to the chicken and egg theory. Which came first, low
> wages or low prices? We all want to make big wages, but we don't want to
> pay big prices. How many here are willing to buy a US made computer or
> TV made in the USA with a minimum labor rate of $18 an hour? Could you
> afford it?
>
> I used the example of Whole Foods. They pay better than most, but I've
> often heard complaints here about their high prices. How about all
> supermarkets follow that same wage-price plan? Would you mind the extra
> $50+ a week for groceries so your neighbor can get healthcare or take a
> vacation?

Not everything needs to be black and white as you describe.

On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 02:27:04 -0800 (PST), "
> wrote:


>
>I can't imagine many companies changing the products just to sell to
>Walmart. It wouldn't be cost effective to change the production
>process unless it was an expensive item.

But they do. Every single one of my clients sells to WalMart and each
of them tailors products and/or packaging to them. WM accounts for
about 40% of their sales (this across consumer goods, OTC
pharmaceuticals, food and paper goods).

WalMart dictates to them quite a bit, but few can do without it as an
outlet. I cannot fault WM as causing the end of civilization as we
know it, but its effects on pricing and general quality of goods so to
severe cost cutting measures is immense. Whether that is ultimately
for good or bad cannot as yet be judged.

Costco, too, often has its own versions of products. In electronics it
may mean an extra accessory, such as a memory card for a camera, or a
case, but the model itself could be the same as elsewhere.

I went to Office Depot to look at calculators as someone
lightheartedly teased me about having a Casio made in China. It was
recommended I get a good American brand like Texas Instruments. TIs
are all made in China, too, these days and one could also see the same
TI calculator on the shelf next to the Office Depot branded
absolutely identical twin - both from China. It was amusing.
Sometimes the branded one was cheaper, sometimes the Office Depot
version was cheaper.
>
>I buy canned Fancy Feast for my cats. The grocery store has it for 65
>cents a can, and Walmart has the same size cans for 48 cents a can.
>That's a difference of 17 cents a can. I serve 4 cans a day, so that
>saves me $20 a month. They don't sell the dry food I buy or the kitty
>litter that I use, so I shop elsewhere for that.
>
>I have learned that the meat products *are* different at stores like
>Walmart and Winco. They add a solution of salt water, which helps to
>get the meat looking fresher longer and most noticeably makes it
>heavier, so they can put a cheaper looking price on it. So, I stick
>with regular groceries and Costco for meat and seafood. I do prefer to
>buy my fish at Costco, as it is usually quite fresh and consistently
>at a better price.

WalMart likes to sell packaged meat in same size packs and has
encouraged adding brine to make sure the packs are all similar to
items such as chicken. Again, this is direct from clients, not
blog-bog anecdote.

I see the sales records. I see the new brand forecasting. I see the
info from WalMart vs what info comes out of other stores.
>
>I also have one product that only Walmart seems to carry in my area.
>It is a hand cleaner called Goop. I did see it once at a dollar store,
>but haven't found it there again. The website for goop lists a bunch
>of stores, but Walmart is the only local store listed. I use it for
>bathing my cat for cat shows, so I go through a good amount of it. I
>buy several tubs every couple months.
>
>Stores are like tools. Use the right one for the right job.

This is true, and WalMarts vary from place to place in the country,
too, just as Costcos do. Not every store carries all the same items.

On 2/22/2010 7:27 AM, The Cook wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 19:47:19 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> > wrote:
>
>> On 2/21/2010 7:12 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>>> George wrote:
>>>> It doesn't have to be that black and white. Capitalism is a good thing
>>>> as long as the folks running enterprises have a moral compass. I think
>>>> walmart is indefensible.
>>>
>>> Capitalism makes some good things happen. WalMart is another matter. I
>>> will not shop there. I am less interested in saving a few dollars per
>>> week than I am in living in a Wally world. Sure you save a few bucks on
>>> their dumbed down products. Then you have to replace them, so you end up
>>> spending more. You are better off to pay a little more for a quality
>>> product that does not wear out as quickly.
>>
>> Would you care to give us some examples of these "dumbed down" products?
>>
>>
> I am not sure that "dumbing down" is the correct term for this, but
> when I looked at a chuck roast in Walmart, it had an ingredients
> list. Chuck roast does not have ingredients. In this case it was
> bouillon added.
>
> I also decided to check the prices of toilet paper and paper towels
> around here. In all cases Walmart rolls were a number of sheets
> shorter than the others. Brawny Pic a Size Walmart had 110
> sheets/roll, 3 roll/package, $3.12/package. The grocery stores had
> 147 sheets/roll, 6 roll/package and priced between $6.98 and
> $8.20/package. Cottonelle toilet paper, Walmart 308 sheets/roll and
> the grocery stores 351. One of the grocery stores was higher than WM
> but the other one lower. The rolls were not enough smaller to be
> obvious just by looking. You had to actually figure it out and most
> people do not bother to do it. Maybe not an exhaustive search, but
> these are product we use.
>
> I am sure that there are many more examples if one really looks and
> does comparisons.
>
>
>
I told this story before. Our neighbor retired from a management
position at a local paper company. Employees and former employees can
buy so many cases/month at a big discount (typically it is product with
a slight flaw such as there is a little too much glue on the first wrap
or the plastic wrapper is crooked etc. There is only two of them so he
would often give us a case. When I pulled the case out of his trunk it
was heavy. Then at some point they started running product for walmart
on occasion. The cases were noticeably lighter. A few years ago they
decided that the local plant would run "Sams best" all of the time. I
don't think you could possibly fluff it up or make it any thinner than
it is now because if you left a case out in the driveway I think the
wind could blow it away.

On 2/22/2010 11:16 PM, sf wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 22:27:38 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> > wrote:
>
>> Your problem is not with Wal-Mart, it is with your government. But it's
>> easier to blame the evil corporation than the totally wonderful elected
>> government, isn't it?
>
> The government needs tax dollars because voters are always voting in
> more ways to spend tax dollars without voting in a tax raise. They
> can't have it both ways, so Walmart takes full advantage of the
> situation.

So you're saying that the voters held a referendum to make the
government provide the assistance to Wal-Mart for which you are berating
Wal-Mart? And this is Wal-Mart's fault how? You're dangerously close
to tinfoil hat territory if you try to sell the notion that Wal-Mart
controls the minds of a majority of the electorate you know.

By the way, the local Wal-Mart is adjacent to a 12-screen multiplex
cinema--the access roads and whatnot were built for the cinema, not for
Wal-Mart. So happens a competing theater chain opened one in a shopping
mall one exit down the highway. After a while a sequence of
acquisitions led to the same theater chain owing both theaters and they
closed the one by Wal-Mart. But Wal-Mart is still there. So who's the
EEEEEVILLLL business in that scenario, Wal-Mart or the theater chain?

"friesian" wrote:
>
>I can't imagine many companies changing the products just to sell to
>Walmart.

EVERY company will literally suck ass for the opportunity to sell to
Walmart, you moron.

On which planet do you live... you probably never purchased a custom
made suit.... you obviously dress in schmatahs off the rack at
Walmart. Typical business practices are obviously beyond the
comprehension of your simplistic pea brain.

ALL major manufacturers tailor products to suit their major customers,
whether it's Whirlpool producing appliances to satisfy the whims of
Sears Kenmore or P & G producing toothpaste under various chain store
names (and even generic), or electronic equipment. Often it's the
exact same product in different clothing but can also be a minimally
reengineered product to shave off a few pennies to make it more
competitive, and can just as likely be gussied up at minimal
manufactuing expense to further increase volume and bring much greater
profits, which is more typical at the small local mom n' pop appliance
stores and stores of that ilk. In manufacturing volume is the name of
the game, the more volume the less costly the raw materials and in
turn lower volume price to the big chasins, but more importantly the
less costly the skilled labor... toolmakers get paid the same $45/hr
and work the same number of hours whether GM sells one million units
or ten million units... but without that staff of toolmakers GM sells
zero units... actually that's why the US auto industry is dying, and
the ONLY reason, they don't have enough toolmakers. There aren't
nearly enough toolmakers in the US, and toolmakers can't be trained in
a day (a year or even five years) like they do burger flippers... in
fact without toolmakers there'd be no burger flippers... there'd be no
flippers, there'd be nothing to flip onto, there'd be no burgers
because there'd be no ground meat... without Toolmakers there'd be
nothing, zero, nada... society as we know it would cease to exist.
People are misinformed about what's the oldest profession, the
Toolmaker is the world's oldest profession... politicians are the
whores. Since the dawn of time the Politician has been deathly afraid
of the Toolmaker, the Toolmaker i sth eonly occupation that produces
something, politcos only produce talk... that's why the Politicians
invented religions, more talkm fear monngering talk in support of the
do nothings. There's good reason that the US grubbermint is ascared
to implement real skilled trades apprenticeship programs and instead
rather channel resourses to the impotent dummies like you, friesian. A
real skilled trade apprenticeship program on a National level would
EASILY solve the present economic disaster, but politicians are not
concerned with economics and the future, they are only concerned with
the here and now and a population explosion of dummy voters... whores
aren't nearly so concerned with the value of assses as how many they
****... in a society where every vote is equal it's much more
advantageous for the whoring politicos to have lots of stupid voters.

Business spends a great deal of money studying people's buying habits.
Most folks are very poor consumers and easily led by Madison Avenue...
everyone who watches TV is pretty much a consumer zombie... they will
typically buy far more product than they need or will ever use; like
folks who go to a small camera store where the receive the hard sell,
whre they're suckered into spending megabucks on a top of the line
professional product with features way beyond their capability, and
even if they then make their purchase at a discount store they will
still be buying far more product than they need or can even use...
like how folks with more dollars than brain cells buy a Porche but
will never drive over the speed limit. Chain retailers like Walmart
do the typical consumer a great service by selling them products more
suitable to their needs and with the commisserate monetary savings.
Hardly anyone uses even 10% of the features on any digicam, most folks
just leave it on Auto... and as with all electronics they go obsolete
while you're carrying it home. Walmart collaborates with all the
manufactures they buy from to produce products more suitable for the
average consumer. Walmart does the research that the consumer can't,
to minimize the consumer's costs while at the same time maximizing
their profits through volume... and of course the loss-leader products
like pared down electronics attracts customers who will once in the
store buy other products, this increases volume for all products,
which in turn increases employment for every profession... it's a
win-win situation all around. And if the retailer wasn't named
Walmart it would be a different name but operate likwise... Walmart is
good for everyone, but especially for the dummies with no real
marketable skills, like you friesian.

brooklyn1 > wrote:

>Toolmaker is the world's oldest profession...

Define "toolmaker"

Do you mean someone who makes carbide tipped machine
tools?

George wrote:
> wrote:
>
>> I also have one product that only Walmart seems to carry in my area.
>> It is a hand cleaner called Goop. I did see it once at a dollar store,
>> but haven't found it there again. The website for goop lists a bunch
>> of stores, but Walmart is the only local store listed. I use it for
>> bathing my cat for cat shows, so I go through a good amount of it. I
>> buy several tubs every couple months.
>
> Goop has been on the shelves in auto parts stores for as long as I can
> remember.

Maybe it's a case of the same product having different brand names on
different coasts - On the east coast it's Hellman's Mayo. On the west
coast it's Best Foods Mayo. Exact same product except for the label and
where it gets shipped.

I remember seeing Goop on the west coast. When I tried it it seemed
identical to a different brand name in the east.

sf wrote:
> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote:
>
>> I used the example of Whole Foods. They pay better than most, but I've
>> often heard complaints here about their high prices.
>
> Whole Foods isn't hurting for customers either. People complain that
> Trader Joe's isn't a full service grocery store too. Both sets of
> whiners are just whining.

Chortle. Who complains about the high prices at "Whole Paycheck"? The
folks with a trunk filled with bags of their products. When I want
fancy stuff I go there. If I complain about the prices I guess it's
just to fit into their culture. ;^)

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
>friesian wrote:
>>
>> We are all in the same union, so our wage system is the same.
>
>Does the union provide real benefits to the member? Or does it just take
>your dues and make the union leaders fat cats?

The primary function of labor unions is to ensure that a responsible
productive worker doesn't get canned because the boss's drug dealing
idiot BIL is being released from prison and needs to prove employment
to his parole officer. The power of labor unions is not to hijack
companys for exorbitant wages (no factory worker is getting rich),
they are primarily to ensure job security, or everyone would be at
risk of being summarilly terminated for no cause simply because the
bosses got a bug up their asses because they didn't get laid in
months. Trade unions are a good thing, without them everything would
cost more and be of inferior quality, plus unskilled workers would be
paid even lower wages, and even management would be paid far less...
in fact were workers not unionized there'd be no need for management
positions... who needs management to baby sit when bosses can fire at
will. The most powerful unions are the AMA and ABA, how come no one
is bitching about their wages??? And far worse, what about the NBA,
NFL, and that ilk, paying millions upon millions for kicking a
friggin' ball about... folks can't afford medical care for one reason
and one reason only, doctors charge way too much and lawyers sue way
too much, so they can have lots of money and time off to drive their
beemers to watch NBA and NFL pinhead no IQ low morality douchebags
play in the sand box from the 'spensive seats. If doctors and lawyers
can belong to their exclusive club why can't other talented workers
have their guilds/unions? When you hire a plumber for $200 to install
your new terlit you don't sign a release form in case they get a
little water on your floor and track schmutz into your house, then why
do you need to sign a release form for a cardiologist to repair your
plumbing when you are paying $200,000... wtf are you releasing them
from, really... you are paying $200,000 and then releasing them from
****ing up... something is very wrong with this system. From what I
hear about shyster release forms we'd be better off hiring the $200
plumber to repair our tickers.

On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:39:32 -0500, brooklyn1
> wrote:

>. The power of labor unions is not to hijack
>companys for exorbitant wages (no factory worker is getting rich),
>they are primarily to ensure job security, or everyone would be at
>risk of being summarilly terminated for no cause simply because the
>bosses got a bug up their asses because they didn't get laid in
>months. The most powerful unions are the AMA and ABA, how come no one
>is bitching about their wages???
>
>
Beg to differ....
The most powerful unions are AFSME, and the Teachers unions.

And both can squeeze their escalating benefits
out of the taxpayer under penalty of law.

The motto in government, ( and school boards )
seems to be; . "Don't make waves"
We can always get more from the taxpayer.

On 2/23/2010 4:27 PM, Stu wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 12:40:56 -0600, wrote:
>
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Toolmaker is the world's oldest profession...
>>
>> Define "toolmaker"
>>
>> Do you mean someone who makes carbide tipped machine
>> tools?
>
> Toolmakers are prostitutes??

Nahh, prostitutes didn't exist until somebody was hunting enough extra
food to be able to pay them with it, and that didn't happen until
weapons were available and that didn't happen until toolmakers were around.

Hey, chief, much good ficky-fick half a mammoth steak.

"brooklyn1" > wrote in message
...
> "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
>>friesian wrote:
>>>
>>> We are all in the same union, so our wage system is the same.
>>
>>Does the union provide real benefits to the member? Or does it just take
>>your dues and make the union leaders fat cats?
>
> The primary function of labor unions is to ensure that a responsible
> productive worker doesn't get canned because the boss's drug dealing
> idiot BIL is being released from prison and needs to prove employment
> to his parole officer. The power of labor unions is not to hijack
> companys for exorbitant wages (no factory worker is getting rich),
> they are primarily to ensure job security, or everyone would be at
> risk of being summarilly terminated for no cause simply because the
> bosses got a bug up their asses because they didn't get laid in
> months. Trade unions are a good thing, without them everything would
> cost more and be of inferior quality, plus unskilled workers would be
> paid even lower wages, and even management would be paid far less...

That is true of some unions. Others are a bunch of thugs. Where I worked
years ago, the main purpose of the union was to collect funds for the
"health and welfare" that was never paid to anyone but was a good source of
revenue for the union. The local rep would drive up in his big Caddy and
tell the guys how he was going to negotiate big raises for them. Truth is,
he already met with the owners and told them what he needed for the union,
what he was going to ask for, what they would settle for. We also paid the
workers more than the union scale. It was a matter of supply and demand
for workers. If we did not pay a decent wage and offer good benefits, they
went elsewhere.

Some of the better trade unions are setting up apprenticeship programs to
train new workers in construction. They realize that unions and management
have to work together to get the job done. They too will go out of business
if they lose members.