On 15 Jun 2011 01:05:41 GMT, notbob > wrote:

> On 2011-06-15, Goomba > wrote:
>
> > This business with Boeing and South Carolina vs. the unions just makes
> > my blood boil! Damn straight the company has the right to put their
> > factory where ever they want it.
>
> Jes as the workers have a right to form a union to protect themselves.
>
> You sound like someone who has never been screwed outta your rightful
> earnings by your employer. It happens. It's happened to me often
> enough to appreciate the value of a good union. I'll be the first to
> admit unions can become just as bad for the rank and file as
> corporations, but each case must be judged on its own merits.
>
> Passing laws that give either the corporations or the union an edge
> over the other is bad politics.
>
AS if nurses don't have unions. She could be one of the cheapskates
that doesn't "join" her union, but reaps the benefits. To bad unions
don't negotiate just for their members. Instead those who opt out
reap the benefits of union negotiations and can pretend to be
anti-union on usenet.


--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On 15 Jun 2011 00:47:38 GMT, notbob > wrote:

> On 2011-06-15, sf > wrote:
>
> > with no prior warning, so get_out_now." They might as well leave the
> > food on the table.....
>
> Not without a refund!! Otherwise, better call the cops, cuz if I
> paid for it, I'm damn sure gonna finish it.
>
I've been to Marie Callendar's twice and each time I paid for my food
*after* I ate it, not before.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On 2011-06-15, sf > wrote:

> I've been to Marie Callendar's twice and each time I paid for my food
> *after* I ate it, not before.

I've never eaten at MC's so can't say. There are plenty of places
where yuu pay first.

nb

--
vi ...the root of evil

On 15 Jun 2011 01:34:24 GMT, notbob > wrote:

>On 2011-06-15, sf > wrote:
>
>> I've been to Marie Callendar's twice and each time I paid for my food
>> *after* I ate it, not before.
>
>I've never eaten at MC's so can't say. There are plenty of places
>where yuu pay first.

You must eat a lot of fast food.

Lou

"notbob" > wrote
>
> You sound like someone who has never been screwed outta your rightful
> earnings by your employer. It happens. It's happened to me often
> enough to appreciate the value of a good union. I'll be the first to
> admit unions can become just as bad for the rank and file as
> corporations, but each case must be judged on its own merits.

I worked for two companies that had unions. I did not belong. In the first,
the dues were reasonable as were working conditions. Employees were treated
fairly, etc. The advantage of a union was with 800 employees, you
negotiated one set of rules for the lot.

Second company was what really turned me off to unions. The unions had high
dues, high initiation fee and did nothing for the workers. As for the union
negotiated wages, that was a joke. In order to be competitive in the labor
market, we paid about $1 an hour above the "contract" wage. Every month a
fat check went to the union for dues and the alleged health and welfare
benefits and not one employee ever benefited in the 11 years I was there.
The union guy from the local drove a big Caddy though.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 18:50:28 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> "sf" > wrote
>> > You GO Bryan! That sums it up very nicely and it's the reason why
>> > labor unions exist. Read "Meet You in Hell" by Les Standiford -
>> > about the partnership of Andrew Carnegie and Henry Clay Frick.
>> >
>>
>> I'll take my chances rather than give my money to the union thugs.
>> Most have outlived their usefulness years ago.
>
> You go right ahead and take your chances. There are plenty of people
> who need union protection and are willing to contribute to have it.

It is was still the 1930's, I'd probably be a union organizer. Unions were
needed and were instrumental in getting some nasty conditions changed for
the better. In my working lifetime starting in the 1960's, a union would
have been a hindrance.

On 15 Jun 2011 01:34:24 GMT, notbob > wrote:

> On 2011-06-15, sf > wrote:
>
> > I've been to Marie Callendar's twice and each time I paid for my food
> > *after* I ate it, not before.
>
> I've never eaten at MC's so can't say. There are plenty of places
> where yuu pay first.
>
Better known as Fast Food.

Marie Callendar's was a chain of the Applebee's, Elephant Bar, Olive
Garden, Chevy's variety.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 23:11:08 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
> wrote:

>
> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 18:50:28 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "sf" > wrote
> >> > You GO Bryan! That sums it up very nicely and it's the reason why
> >> > labor unions exist. Read "Meet You in Hell" by Les Standiford -
> >> > about the partnership of Andrew Carnegie and Henry Clay Frick.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I'll take my chances rather than give my money to the union thugs.
> >> Most have outlived their usefulness years ago.
> >
> > You go right ahead and take your chances. There are plenty of people
> > who need union protection and are willing to contribute to have it.
>
> It is was still the 1930's, I'd probably be a union organizer. Unions were
> needed and were instrumental in getting some nasty conditions changed for
> the better. In my working lifetime starting in the 1960's, a union would
> have been a hindrance.

Good for you, you're Mr. Success - but that doesn't mean we don't need
unions. You've never ever been pro-labor, so we need unions to
protect ourselves from people like you.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Jun 14, 7:43*pm, Lou Decruss > wrote:
> On 15 Jun 2011 01:34:24 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>
> >On 2011-06-15, sf > wrote:
>
> >> I've been to Marie Callendar's twice and each time I paid for my food
> >> *after* I ate it, not before.
>
> >I've never eaten at MC's so can't say. *There are plenty of places
> >where yuu pay first.
>
> You must eat a lot of fast food. *
>

Ah, Lou, there are a fair number of order-at-the-counter and they'll
bring the food to you joints.

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 22:00:04 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888
> wrote:

> On Jun 14, 7:43*pm, Lou Decruss > wrote:
> > On 15 Jun 2011 01:34:24 GMT, notbob > wrote:
> >
> > >On 2011-06-15, sf > wrote:
> >
> > >> I've been to Marie Callendar's twice and each time I paid for my food
> > >> *after* I ate it, not before.
> >
> > >I've never eaten at MC's so can't say. *There are plenty of places
> > >where yuu pay first.
> >
> > You must eat a lot of fast food. *
> >
>
> Ah, Lou, there are a fair number of order-at-the-counter and they'll
> bring the food to you joints.

Really? I can name Chipotle and that's it.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 22:00:04 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888
> > wrote:
>
>> On Jun 14, 7:43 pm, Lou Decruss > wrote:
>> > On 15 Jun 2011 01:34:24 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>> >
>> > >On 2011-06-15, sf > wrote:
>> >
>> > >> I've been to Marie Callendar's twice and each time I paid for my
>> > >> food
>> > >> *after* I ate it, not before.
>> >
>> > >I've never eaten at MC's so can't say. There are plenty of places
>> > >where yuu pay first.
>> >
>> > You must eat a lot of fast food.
>> >
>>
>> Ah, Lou, there are a fair number of order-at-the-counter and they'll
>> bring the food to you joints.
>
> Really? I can name Chipotle and that's it.

Here we have Taco Time. They bring you your food. Dairy Queen does as
well.

On Jun 14, 10:03*pm, sf > wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 22:00:04 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Jun 14, 7:43 pm, Lou Decruss > wrote:
> > > On 15 Jun 2011 01:34:24 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>
> > > >On 2011-06-15, sf > wrote:
>
> > > >> I've been to Marie Callendar's twice and each time I paid for my food
> > > >> *after* I ate it, not before.
>
> > > >I've never eaten at MC's so can't say. There are plenty of places
> > > >where yuu pay first.
>
> > > You must eat a lot of fast food.
>
> > Ah, Lou, there are a fair number of order-at-the-counter and they'll
> > bring the food to you joints.
>
> Really? *I can name Chipotle and that's it.

Here are the first 50 that yelp turns up for San Francisco. No
Chipotle among them. The claim is that there are 4180 but I don't have
time to verify each one. They include the ones where they call out
your name when ready, but that falls into the category Lou specified.



1. Mama's
Category: Breakfast & Brunch
Neighborhood: North Beach/Telegraph Hill
4.0 star rating
1639 reviews
1701 Stockton St
San Francisco, CA 94133
(415) 362-6421
Photo of Stephanie L.
want to order before you step foot into the restaurant/cafe, because
you're basically waiting in line to order and pay at the register. In
addition, they accept debit and cash, but not credit cards
2. Ike's Place
Category: Sandwiches
Neighborhood: Castro
4.5 star rating
3356 reviews
3489 16th St
San Francisco, CA 94114
(415) 553-6888
Photo of Nils G.
people in line in front of us and we hungrily waited 15-20 minutes to
get to the register to place our order. We ordered an Elvis Kieth, a
Sanchez Elementary, and a Diet Pepsi. The woman at the register
3. Naan-N-Curry
Categories: Indian, Pakistani
Neighborhood: Inner Sunset
3.0 star rating
884 reviews
642 Irving St
San Francisco, CA 94122
(415) 664-7225
Photo of Nikki P.
without getting naan. It will go with any dish you order. A few dishes
plus 2 naan should serve 2. As for service, you order at the
register right at the cash register and you grab your own table. From
4. Crepevine
Categories: Creperies, American (New)
Neighborhood: Inner Sunset
4.0 star rating
687 reviews
624 Irving St
San Francisco, CA 94122
(415) 681-5858
Photo of David Y.
provided. The guy that was working the register there was very
friendly and gave a nice "family" feeling to us as he took our order.
As we enjoyed the delicious crepe's we ordered with fresh strawberries
5. Cafe Flore
Categories: American (New), Breakfast & Brunch
Neighborhood: Castro
3.5 star rating
470 reviews
2298 Market St
San Francisco, CA 94114
(415) 621-8579
Photo of Alex S.
register and placing your order while knowing the food will be served
rather quickly. It's also nice having the option of sitting outside
which I'm quick to exercise. I ordered a flank steak salad and it
6. Firewood Cafe
Category: Italian
Neighborhood: Castro
Special Offer
3.5 star rating
171 reviews
4248 18th St
San Francisco, CA 94114
(415) 252-0999
Photo of Julia S.
tried to kill it with the towel he had in his hand but then lost it
and then looked at us to take our order - ummm....no thanks. We left
immediately...despite the fact that we called in our order 15
7. Cafe Bellini
Categories: Coffee & Tea, Lounges
Neighborhood: Union Square
3.0 star rating
6 reviews
17 Powell St
San Francisco, CA 94102
Photo of Olivia Vanessa R.
staff looks ****ed, they are mostly friendly but it's not spectacular
service, if anything it's no service. You look over the menu, order at
the register and that's it, they'll bring you your food
8. Cafe Chaat
Categories: Indian, Pakistani
Neighborhood: SOMA
Special Offer
3.5 star rating
382 reviews
320 3rd St
San Francisco, CA 94107
(415) 979-9946
Photo of Darius T.
them?) After I politely tell them, I get my food shortly thereafter.
It's like you're almost better off not ordering at the register and
going to sit down and ordering when they notice you've been
9. Pluto's
Categories: American (New), Sandwiches
Neighborhood: Marina/Cow Hollow
4.0 star rating
419 reviews
3258 Scott St
San Francisco, CA 94123
(415) 775-8867
Photo of Yui K.
it up. Add some meat if you'd like. Afterwards, carry along past the
sandwich orderers and proceed to pay at the register. Order some
sides.. garlic fries are pretty great or some spuds. whatevs. They
10. Luca Cucina Italiana
Category: Italian
3.5 star rating
32 reviews

11. Darwin Cafe
Categories: Tapas/Small Plates, Sandwiches
Neighborhood: SOMA
4.5 star rating
87 reviews
212 Ritch St
San Francisco, CA 94107
(415) 800-8668
Photo of S R.
or so. you order at the register but the atmosphere is of a sit down
restaurant with some class. vintage cash register, exposed brick i
think, etc. very limited selection, which doesnt bother me. got
12. Rosamunde Sausage Grill
Categories: Hot Dogs, Bars
Neighborhood: Mission
Special Offer
4.0 star rating
358 reviews
2832 Mission St
San Francisco, CA 94110
(415) 970-9015
Photo of Evan P.
9:04pm: order a chicken cherry with grilled onions and sweet cherries
to go. 9:09pm?: watch a guy get yelled at for talking on his cell
phone near the pickup spot. talking on the cell while
13. Honey Honey Cafe & Crepery
Category: Breakfast & Brunch
Neighborhoods: Civic Center/Tenderloin, Union Square
Special Offer
3.5 star rating
437 reviews
599 Post St
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 351-2423
Photo of Xav V.
making my mimosa for me while I was still in line waiting to place my
food order. Atta boy, nicely done. Unfortunately the gal running the
register and taking food orders was about as nice as
14. La Taqueria
Category: Mexican
Neighborhood: Mission
4.0 star rating
1204 reviews
2889 Mission St
San Francisco, CA 94110
(415) 285-7117
Photo of Sarah Z.
for n00bs like me: you order at the register, claim your table, then
wait for your number to be called. In addition to a carnitas taco, I
ordered a carne asada taco. No cheese or guac, which I'm
15. Dos Piñas
Category: Mexican
Neighborhood: SOMA
3.5 star rating
381 reviews
251 Rhode Island St
San Francisco, CA 94103
(415) 252-8220
Photo of Alex R.
The food here is a notch above swill and the atmosphere is unbearable.
It's the K Mart of burrito joints. Dual registers to order and an
annoying loud speaker constantly yelling out order numbers, so
16. Pakwan
Categories: Indian, Pakistani
Neighborhood: Mission
4.0 star rating
786 reviews
3180-82 16th St
San Francisco, CA 94103
(415) 255-2440
Photo of Isao K.
right in front of you kinda place. After I ordered, I went back up to
the guy at the register, and asked him to make it comically spicy. He
heard un-commonly spicy, as in there is a hot for those who
17. HRD Coffee Shop
Categories: Coffee & Tea, Korean
Neighborhood: SOMA
4.5 star rating
268 reviews
521 3rd St
San Francisco, CA 94107
(415) 543-2355
Photo of Anna P.
was pretty long and it was jam packed shoulder to shoulder! For as
long as the line was, it actually didn't take that long for me to
place my order at the register. As I was placing an order for my
18. Gott's Roadside
Category: Burgers
Neighborhood: Embarcadero
3.5 star rating
1298 reviews
1 Ferry Bldg
San Francisco, CA 94111
(866) 328-3663
Photo of nelle a.
albeit the staff taking the order was in a daze with a flat affect,
which was inadequate to have that mood to be working at the cash
register. so with the menu in hand, i started to get excited what
19. Auntie April's Chicken, Waffles & Soul Food
Category: Soul Food
Neighborhood: Bayview/Hunters Point
4.0 star rating
214 reviews
4618 3rd St
San Francisco, CA 94124
(415) 643-4983
Photo of Chris S.
to ask if they came to us or if I had to order at the register. Turns
out that they come and take your order. So she followed me back to the
table and took our order. Okay that's normal, but before
20. Sally's Restaurant
Categories: Bakeries, Breakfast & Brunch, Delis
Neighborhood: Potrero Hill
3.5 star rating
221 reviews


21. Starbucks Coffee
Category: Coffee & Tea
Neighborhoods: Civic Center/Tenderloin, SOMA
3.0 star rating
19 reviews
1231 Market St
San Francisco, CA 94103
(415) 522-1438
Photo of Jen C.
order at the register if it's someone who's used to making your latte
each morning. The ones that usually make the coffee aren't great at
the registers, so that's when you have to check the price they
22. Tartine Bakery
Categories: Bakeries, Sandwiches
Neighborhood: Mission
4.0 star rating
2909 reviews
600 Guerrero St
San Francisco, CA 94110
(415) 487-2600
Photo of Anna d.
even more because the register where you order is all the way to the
end of all the yummy pastries in their glass shelves. By the time you
get to the front, your order meets you at the register, pay
23. La Boulange
Categories: Bakeries, Sandwiches
Neighborhoods: Russian Hill, Nob Hill
4.0 star rating
344 reviews
2300 Polk St
San Francisco, CA 94109
(415) 345-1107
Photo of Thomas J.
high quality deliciousness! This place is new favorite. order and
pay at the register and try and find a table.
24. Squat & Gobble Cafe
Categories: Breakfast & Brunch, American (Traditional), Creperies
Neighborhood: West Portal
3.5 star rating
441 reviews
1 W Portal Ave
San Francisco, CA 94127
(415) 665-9900
Photo of Jennifer Y.
with payment at the front register. Too bad this happened, since it
seems others have had better luck with great service and taste here.
25. Roam Artisan Burgers
Category: Burgers
Neighborhood: Marina/Cow Hollow
4.0 star rating
390 reviews
1785 Union St
San Francisco, CA 94123
(415) 440-7626
Photo of Godot -.
was then we realized that we'd forgotten to order fries. Off to the
register sheepishly... was there any way they could do 1 order of
fries? She says, "don't worry about... they're on the house
26. Broken Record
Categories: Dive Bars, Burgers
Neighborhood: Crocker-Amazon
4.5 star rating
521 reviews
1166 Geneva Ave
San Francisco, CA 94112
(415) 963-1713
Photo of Elaine L.
is minimal - you order and pay for your food at the register next to
the open kitchen in the back, and you order your drinks from the
bartender in the front. Then find a place to sit or shoot some pool
while
27. Squat & Gobble Cafe 2
Categories: Breakfast & Brunch, American (Traditional), Creperies
Neighborhood: Haight-Ashbury
4.0 star rating
333 reviews
1428 Haight St
San Francisco, CA 94117
(415) 864-8484
Photo of Logan H.
and you don't have a cashier hovering at the register making you want
to rush and order. The cashier was friendly enough, it wasn't her
fault, it's just that I don't like this style of ordering. We
28. Philz Coffee
Category: Coffee & Tea
Neighborhood: Civic Center/Tenderloin
4.5 star rating
484 reviews
748 Van Ness Ave
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 292-7660
Photo of she q.
the register. The barista asked the guy on the register what I was
having. He told the barista my order and then said some comment which
the guy at a table close to the register said something in
29. Nick's Crispy Tacos
Category: Mexican
Neighborhood: Nob Hill
4.0 star rating
1810 reviews
1500 Broadway
San Francisco, CA 94109
(415) 409-8226
Photo of Archie G.
has real value, as the only use the best ingredients. The menu is
limited, so it's easy to order. I'll make it even easier for you. Just
walk up to the register and order two tacos "Nick's Way
30. Lime Tree Southeast Asian Kitchen
Categories: Singaporean, Malaysian, Indonesian
Neighborhood: Inner Sunset
4.0 star rating
699 reviews


31. Sing Sing Sandwich Shop
Categories: Sandwiches, Vietnamese
Neighborhood: Civic Center/Tenderloin
4.0 star rating
63 reviews
309 Hyde Street
San Francisco, CA 94109
(415) 885-5159
Photo of Mike W.
ordering at the register. What's the proper protocol for placing an
order in this place? *I don't know*. I've come here three times and
I'm still trying to figure it out. I've settled on ordering my
32. Ironside
Categories: American (New), Caterers
Neighborhood: SOMA
3.5 star rating
296 reviews
680 2nd St
San Francisco, CA 94107
(415) 896-1127
Photo of carolina S.
day- then you're out of luck. The sandwiches are a good size and they
make orders to go. I love their tuna conserva, although I'm never a
big fan of any place that gives you standard greens as a side
33. Chutney
Categories: Indian, Pakistani
Neighborhood: Civic Center/Tenderloin
4.0 star rating
604 reviews
511 Jones St
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 931-5541
Photo of Josh K.
Kind of dirty, but that's to be expected with the order-at-the-
register-then-sit-down-then-they- bring-the-food-then-go-ba ck-to-the-
register-and-pay-there model of South Asian restaurant. More
34. Green Chile Kitchen
Category: Mexican
Neighborhood: Western Addition/NOPA
4.0 star rating
641 reviews
1801 McAllister St
San Francisco, CA 94117
(415) 440-9411
Photo of Randall F.
and were sorely disappointed. There is no table service, so you order
at the register then they give you a number and somebody brings it
out. Getting a table cleared off is a real hassle, then their
Guacamole
35. Queen's Louisiana Po-Boy Cafe
Category: Cajun/Creole
Neighborhood: Portola
4.0 star rating
156 reviews
3030 San Bruno Ave
San Francisco, CA 94134
(415) 656-0711
Photo of Shirley N.
starchy. Everything is cooked to order. You order at the register;
given a number; then pick up at the counter.
36. Naan 'N' Chutney
Categories: Indian, Pakistani
Neighborhood: Lower Haight
3.5 star rating
224 reviews
525 Haight St
San Francisco, CA 94117
(415) 255-1625
Photo of Josh K.
100% good enough, standard cheap indian/pakistani fare. up until
recently, they were using that order-at-the-register-then-eat-then-go-
back-to -the-register-then-pay format and it worked fine, but now
37. Brickhouse Cafe
Categories: American (Traditional), Breakfast & Brunch, Bars
Neighborhood: SOMA
3.5 star rating
627 reviews
426 Brannan St
San Francisco, CA 94107
(415) 369-0222
Photo of La C.
to the back register and place your order, the menu is pretty
overwhelming, lots to choose from. We ordered the Hog&Wild (pulled
pork sandwich) and the Mexican burger, fries and onion rings. The
sauce
38. Shalimar
Categories: Indian, Pakistani
Neighborhood: Nob Hill
3.5 star rating
402 reviews
1409 Polk St
San Francisco, CA 94109
(415) 776-4642
Photo of Gloria H.
3.5 stars it's cafeteria style. Order at the register and grab a
table either inside or the outside terrace. The menu is like
newspaper and it's stacked next to the register. We got: Chicken
39. M & L Market
Category: Sandwiches
Neighborhood: Castro
4.5 star rating
143 reviews
691 14th St
San Francisco, CA 94114
(415) 431-7044
Photo of Leanne K.
kind" It isn't that she's being mean, she's just being efficient in
the way that she wants people to order, in order to make things go
faster. The older lady at the cash register is adorable, reminds me
40. Jamba Juice
Category: Juice Bars & Smoothies
Neighborhood: Financial District
3.5 star rating
34 reviews
41. Asqew Grill
Category: Barbeque
Neighborhood: Haight-Ashbury
3.5 star rating
321 reviews
1607 Haight St
San Francisco, CA 94117
(415) 701-9301
Photo of Matt P.
I am so upset about this place. It used to be good, and the guy
taking orders at the register is alway polite. But, they totally
screw up take out orders--well at least twice. The quality
42. Specialty's Cafe & Bakery
Categories: Bakeries, Caterers, Sandwiches
Neighborhood: SOMA
3.5 star rating
314 reviews
101 New Montgomery St
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 362-2052
Photo of Vidya R.
(they may have put the slowest person at the register). Another person
is standing at another register and I ask if she takes orders and she
says no. She is just standing there chatting with another
43. Tokyo-Express
Categories: Sushi Bars, Japanese
Neighborhood: SOMA
4.0 star rating
64 reviews
814 Mission St
San Francisco, CA 94103
(415) 222-9933
Photo of Jef y.
I think Tokyo Express works out to something like 3.6 stars. Here's be
breakdown. Service: It's nice, but there's not much to begin with.
Walk up to the counter to order, pour your own tea. Waiter
44. Heart
Categories: Wine Bars, American (New)
Neighborhood: Mission
3.5 star rating
202 reviews
1270 Valencia St
San Francisco, CA 94110
(415) 285-1200
Photo of Nitya V.
I was quite excited about the Spaghetti dinner offered on Sunday
evenings. Salad, garlic bread and what promised to be delicious
spaghetti, made to order. And the food lived up to the promise
45. Sam's Chinese Restaurant
Category: Chinese
Neighborhood: Nob Hill
3.5 star rating
36 reviews
1718 Polk St
San Francisco, CA 94109
(415) 563-6847
Photo of Janina U.
I checked this place out tonight and ordered the BBQ pork chow mein
and the restaurant's special General Tso's Chicken to-go. The lady
taking our order at the register wasn't friendly at all. Maybe
46. Peet's Coffee & Tea
Category: Coffee & Tea
Neighborhood: Financial District
4.0 star rating
68 reviews
2 Embarcadero Ctr
San Francisco, CA 94111
(415) 869-1744
Photo of Dan G.
slightly different than most, I find it is best to order twice here,
first tell the Barista how you want your coffee and then order/pay for
it at the register. And let me tell you, know-it-all
47. Papalote Mexican Grill
Category: Mexican
Neighborhood: Mission
4.0 star rating
1374 reviews
3409 24th St
San Francisco, CA 94110
(415) 970-8815
Photo of Steven R.
myself to brunch somewhere. If the dedicated "Phone Order" register
isn't a clue, I'd definitely make calling ahead part of your plan if
you are coming here to grab a burrito to go.
48. The Plant Café Organic
Categories: Vegetarian, Juice Bars & Smoothies, Coffee & Tea
Neighborhood: Marina/Cow Hollow
4.0 star rating
386 reviews
3352 Steiner St
San Francisco, CA 94123
(415) 931-2777
Photo of Whitney H.
also mention another experience a few weekends ago. My friends and I
had waited 15 minutes in line just to order. When I finally got to
the register, I order my ... you guessed it, quinoa bowl
49. The Grove Cafe Yerba Buena
Categories: Coffee & Tea, Sandwiches
Neighborhood: SOMA
3.5 star rating
326 reviews
690 Mission St
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 957-0558
Photo of Joyce W.
it's efficient to to stand in a line to order at a register, then go
stand in another line to pay for your food.. esp. during rush lunch
hours tried the Moroccan salad today and was pleasantly
50. El Farolito
Category: Mexican
Neighborhood: Mission
4.5 star rating
1739 reviews

"sf" > wrote
>
> Good for you, you're Mr. Success - but that doesn't mean we don't need
> unions. You've never ever been pro-labor, so we need unions to
> protect ourselves from people like you.
>

Wrong. I'm actually very pro labor. No matter how high up on the food
chain you think you are, the little guy plugging away is what makes the
company successful. I've reprimanded supervisors for not treating workers
with the respect they deserve.

Rather then protect people from the likes of me, you should wish everyone
was treated like my workers. Fairly paid, good working conditions, good
benefits, etc. Oh yes, very good health care plan too and a 401(k) with 50%
contribution. The same benefits go right down from the president to the
part time cleaning lady.

I don't know of a union shop that meets our pay and benefit scale.

On 2011-06-15, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> Rather then protect people from the likes of me, you should wish everyone
> was treated like my workers. Fairly paid, good working conditions, good
> benefits, etc. Oh yes, very good health care plan too and a 401(k) with 50%
> contribution. The same benefits go right down from the president to the
> part time cleaning lady.

That's the problem with the tradtional adversarial business model.
It's them against us (choose whichever fits you). I worked for a
company like you describe and for almost a decade the place was a
utopian situation for perm hires. Unfortunately, it was mostly due to
the high skillset required from workers that made the mgt so generous.
On the darker side, temps were the rule rather than the exception and
they would be screwed on a daily basis.

As things in the industry took a turn for the worse (dot com boom
collapse), even the company workers began to get screwed. The
industry got the R governor to change overtime laws so we, the
workers, lost hundreds of dollars a week. Fortunately, the next
administration corrected that unfortunate law, but that was after I
retired. That's what I meant about bad politics.

I've had about equal share of bad companies and bad unions. Sometimes
they cancel each other out and the rank and file can do their job,
unabused.

nb

On 2011-06-15, sf > wrote:

> Better known as Fast Food.
>
> Marie Callendar's was a chain of the Applebee's, Elephant Bar, Olive
> Garden, Chevy's variety.

Better known as crap food.

nb

On 15 Jun 2011 10:20:59 GMT, notbob > wrote:

> On 2011-06-15, sf > wrote:
>
> > Better known as Fast Food.
> >
> > Marie Callendar's was a chain of the Applebee's, Elephant Bar, Olive
> > Garden, Chevy's variety.
>
> Better known as crap food.
>
Isn't that the point of this thread?


--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 22:38:53 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888
> wrote:

> Here are the first 50 that yelp turns up for San Francisco. No
> Chipotle among them. The claim is that there are 4180 but I don't have
> time to verify each one. They include the ones where they call out
> your name when ready, but that falls into the category Lou specified.

I thought we were talking about chains and no, I haven't been to a
Starbucks that calls names. They hand it to you at the counter.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 22:00:04 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888
> wrote:

>On Jun 14, 7:43*pm, Lou Decruss > wrote:
>> On 15 Jun 2011 01:34:24 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>>
>> >On 2011-06-15, sf > wrote:
>>
>> >> I've been to Marie Callendar's twice and each time I paid for my food
>> >> *after* I ate it, not before.
>>
>> >I've never eaten at MC's so can't say. *There are plenty of places
>> >where yuu pay first.
>>
>> You must eat a lot of fast food. *
>>
>
>Ah, Lou, there are a fair number of order-at-the-counter and they'll
>bring the food to you joints.

I think most would be considered fast food. Culver's and chik-fil-a
come to mind. I'm sure there's others.

Lou

> AS if nurses don't have unions. She could be one of the cheapskates
> that doesn't "join" her union, but reaps the benefits. To bad unions
> don't negotiate just for their members. Instead those who opt out
> reap the benefits of union negotiations and can pretend to be
> anti-union on usenet.
>
Actually, there are very few nurses in unions in the south. I do speak
to nurses from all over the country on all types of work issues. In
comparison to those in unions I am well recompensed for my work, often
bringing home more than they do. My patient load is no worse than they
have. Patient care issues are no different, and the union hospitals have
the same problems. Why should I pay some union if I feel I am being
treated as well as the union nurses?
So if you think I'm a "cheapskate" for not joining a non-existent union
here, perhaps you're one of those greedy union thugs?

"notbob" > wrote
>
> That's the problem with the tradtional adversarial business model.
> It's them against us (choose whichever fits you). I worked for a
> company like you describe and for almost a decade the place was a
> utopian situation for perm hires. Unfortunately, it was mostly due to
> the high skillset required from workers that made the mgt so generous.
> On the darker side, temps were the rule rather than the exception and
> they would be screwed on a daily basis.


Like everything in life, there are good companies and bad. Most are in the
middle and are reasonable places to work. What gets me is the people that
think every company makes huge profits and screws the worker and customer to
do so. Businesses must make a profit in order to stay in business and
provide jobs. They must remain profitable in order to support their
customers. They must have reserves to get past the lean times, like now.

Everyone is fairly paid where I work. In a good year, we get a bonus. In
really good years, we get really good bonuses. We get profit sharing and
everyone knows that a reject part or wasted material takes away from our
profit sharing. That gets people to co-operate and do things with care.

More companies have been enlightened to treat people fairly, thus the drop
in unions. Good companies don't need them.

As for the place that pulled the fire alarm, that was a nasty trick. OTOH,
I'd bet that many of the workers could do a lot of damage in a few
revengeful minutes if given a warning of impending job loss. A few mouse
clicks and that server is gone, files deleted. But it still could have been
done better.
..

>
> I've had about equal share of bad companies and bad unions. Sometimes
> they cancel each other out and the rank and file can do their job,
> unabused.

Good point. Most people really do want to do a good job. You have to let
them.

On 2011-06-16, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> Like everything in life, there are good companies and bad.

That was pretty much my point.

nb

On Jun 15, 9:33*pm, "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote:
> "notbob" > wrote
>
>
>
> > That's the problem with the tradtional adversarial business model.
> > It's them against us (choose whichever fits you). *I worked for a
> > company like you describe and for almost a decade the place was a
> > utopian situation for perm hires. *Unfortunately, it was mostly due to
> > the high skillset required from workers that made the mgt so generous.
> > On the darker side, temps were the rule rather than the exception and
> > they would be screwed on a daily basis.
>
> Like everything in life, there are good companies and bad. *Most are in the
> middle and are reasonable places to work. *What gets me is the people that
> think every company makes huge profits and screws the worker and customer to
> do so. *Businesses must make a profit in order to stay in business and
> provide jobs. *They must remain profitable in order to support their
> customers. *They must have reserves to get past the lean times, like now.
>
> Everyone *is fairly paid where I work. *In a good year, we get a bonus. *In
> really good years, we get really good bonuses. *We get profit sharing and
> everyone knows that a reject part or wasted material takes away from our
> profit sharing. *That gets *people to co-operate and do things with care.
>
> More companies have been enlightened to treat people fairly, thus the drop
> in unions. *Good companies don't need them.
>
> As for the place that pulled the fire alarm, that was a nasty trick. OTOH,
> I'd bet that many of the workers could do a lot of damage in a few
> revengeful minutes if given a warning of impending job loss. * A few mouse
> clicks and that server is gone, files deleted. *But it still could have been
> done better.
> .
>
>
>
> > I've had about equal share of bad companies and bad unions. *Sometimes
> > they cancel each other out and the rank and file can do their job,
> > unabused.
>
> Good point. *Most people really do want to do a good job. *You have to let
> them.

These days it is those who work in finance and those who merely invest
for a living who are screwing everyone else. Proprietary businesses
where the ownership is hands on are more often focusing on long term
value, rather than stock price and dividends.

--Bryan

On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 22:33:02 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
> wrote:

>
>"notbob" > wrote
>>
>> That's the problem with the tradtional adversarial business model.
>> It's them against us (choose whichever fits you). I worked for a
>> company like you describe and for almost a decade the place was a
>> utopian situation for perm hires. Unfortunately, it was mostly due to
>> the high skillset required from workers that made the mgt so generous.
>> On the darker side, temps were the rule rather than the exception and
>> they would be screwed on a daily basis.
>
>
>Like everything in life, there are good companies and bad. Most are in the
>middle and are reasonable places to work. What gets me is the people that
>think every company makes huge profits and screws the worker and customer to
>do so. Businesses must make a profit in order to stay in business and
>provide jobs. They must remain profitable in order to support their
>customers. They must have reserves to get past the lean times, like now.
>
>Everyone is fairly paid where I work. In a good year, we get a bonus. In
>really good years, we get really good bonuses. We get profit sharing and
>everyone knows that a reject part or wasted material takes away from our
>profit sharing. That gets people to co-operate and do things with care.

Then where you work is the exception. Most companys still practice
nepotism and descrimination is very alive and well... naturally
management never addresses these points because they are who promote
this unfairness... to think management is fair is fantasy. In
manufacturing they never take the good workers off the bench, the
least capable workers with the loudest mouths and brownest noses are
who gets promoted to management positions.

>More companies have been enlightened to treat people fairly, thus the drop
>in unions. Good companies don't need them.

Very few employers treat people fairly, most folks don't treat each
other fairly, it's human nature to be competitive and agressive. If
not for unions there'd be no 40 hour work week, no sick leave, no
personal days, few holidays, no vacations, no health insurance, no
pension plans, no paid lunch/coffee breaks, there'd be no OSHA, and
pay would be the pits... and there'd be no seniority, soon as workers
accrued better benefits and/or neared retirement they'd get fired for
no cause. Too soon we forget the history behind why there are unions.
Unions began in Europe with the trade guilds when apprentices were
indentured slaves. There are fewer unions today because there are far
fewer skilled workers. Without unions US workers would have the same
rights as Chinese workers.

On Jun 16, 9:19*am, Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 22:33:02 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
>
> >"notbob" > wrote
>
> >> That's the problem with the tradtional adversarial business model.
> >> It's them against us (choose whichever fits you). *I worked for a
> >> company like you describe and for almost a decade the place was a
> >> utopian situation for perm hires. *Unfortunately, it was mostly due to
> >> the high skillset required from workers that made the mgt so generous.
> >> On the darker side, temps were the rule rather than the exception and
> >> they would be screwed on a daily basis.
>
> >Like everything in life, there are good companies and bad. *Most are in the
> >middle and are reasonable places to work. *What gets me is the people that
> >think every company makes huge profits and screws the worker and customer to
> >do so. *Businesses must make a profit in order to stay in business and
> >provide jobs. *They must remain profitable in order to support their
> >customers. *They must have reserves to get past the lean times, like now.
>
> >Everyone *is fairly paid where I work. *In a good year, we get a bonus. *In
> >really good years, we get really good bonuses. *We get profit sharing and
> >everyone knows that a reject part or wasted material takes away from our
> >profit sharing. *That gets *people to co-operate and do things with care.
>
> Then where you work is the exception. *Most companys still practice
> nepotism and descrimination is very alive and well... naturally
> management never addresses these points because they are who promote
> this unfairness... to think management is fair is fantasy. *In
> manufacturing they never take the good workers off the bench, the
> least capable workers with the loudest mouths and brownest noses are
> who gets promoted to management positions.
>
> >More companies have been enlightened to treat people fairly, thus the drop
> >in unions. *Good companies don't need them.
>
> Very few employers treat people fairly, most folks don't treat each
> other fairly, it's human nature to be competitive and agressive. *If
> not for unions there'd be no 40 hour work week, no sick leave, no
> personal days, few holidays, no vacations, no health insurance, no
> pension plans, no paid lunch/coffee breaks, there'd be no OSHA, and
> pay would be the pits... and there'd be no seniority, soon as workers
> accrued better benefits and/or neared retirement they'd get fired for
> no cause. *Too soon we forget the history behind why there are unions.
> Unions began in Europe with the trade guilds when apprentices were
> indentured slaves. *There are fewer unions today because there are far
> fewer skilled workers. *Without unions US workers would have the same
> rights as Chinese workers.

All exactly correct. I'd be WAY more willing to kill or be killed for
a union than for some stupid nation state.

--Bryan

On Jun 16, 9:19*am, Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:
>
> *Without unions US workers would have the same
> rights as Chinese workers.

What would be beautiful would be if union busting executives were
afraid every time they left their walled compounds. Where they needed
armed guards to escort them into their skyboxes at sporting events.
Imagine a YouTube type video of a kidnapped CEO being kicked to death
by steel toed work boots. Beautiful.

--Bryan

On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 10:19:21 -0400, Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 22:33:02 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"notbob" > wrote
> >>
> >> That's the problem with the tradtional adversarial business model.
> >> It's them against us (choose whichever fits you). I worked for a
> >> company like you describe and for almost a decade the place was a
> >> utopian situation for perm hires. Unfortunately, it was mostly due to
> >> the high skillset required from workers that made the mgt so generous.
> >> On the darker side, temps were the rule rather than the exception and
> >> they would be screwed on a daily basis.
> >
> >
> >Like everything in life, there are good companies and bad. Most are in the
> >middle and are reasonable places to work. What gets me is the people that
> >think every company makes huge profits and screws the worker and customer to
> >do so. Businesses must make a profit in order to stay in business and
> >provide jobs. They must remain profitable in order to support their
> >customers. They must have reserves to get past the lean times, like now.
> >
> >Everyone is fairly paid where I work. In a good year, we get a bonus. In
> >really good years, we get really good bonuses. We get profit sharing and
> >everyone knows that a reject part or wasted material takes away from our
> >profit sharing. That gets people to co-operate and do things with care.
>
> Then where you work is the exception. Most companys still practice
> nepotism and descrimination is very alive and well... naturally
> management never addresses these points because they are who promote
> this unfairness... to think management is fair is fantasy.

The he talks always makes me think he's part of the management team.
He might not own the company, but he's in management.

> In
> manufacturing they never take the good workers off the bench, the
> least capable workers with the loudest mouths and brownest noses are
> who gets promoted to management positions.
>
> >More companies have been enlightened to treat people fairly, thus the drop
> >in unions. Good companies don't need them.
>
> Very few employers treat people fairly, most folks don't treat each
> other fairly, it's human nature to be competitive and agressive. If
> not for unions there'd be no 40 hour work week, no sick leave, no
> personal days, few holidays, no vacations, no health insurance, no
> pension plans, no paid lunch/coffee breaks, there'd be no OSHA, and
> pay would be the pits... and there'd be no seniority, soon as workers
> accrued better benefits and/or neared retirement they'd get fired for
> no cause. Too soon we forget the history behind why there are unions.
> Unions began in Europe with the trade guilds when apprentices were
> indentured slaves. There are fewer unions today because there are far
> fewer skilled workers. Without unions US workers would have the same
> rights as Chinese workers.

Hear, hear!

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 08:20:51 -0700 (PDT), Bryan
> wrote:

> Imagine a YouTube type video of a kidnapped CEO being kicked to death
> by steel toed work boots. Beautiful.

Calm down, that's too far over the top.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On 6/14/2011 9:24 PM, sf wrote:
> On 15 Jun 2011 01:05:41 GMT, > wrote:
>
>> On 2011-06-15, > wrote:
>>
>>> This business with Boeing and South Carolina vs. the unions just makes
>>> my blood boil! Damn straight the company has the right to put their
>>> factory where ever they want it.
>>
>> Jes as the workers have a right to form a union to protect themselves.
>>
>> You sound like someone who has never been screwed outta your rightful
>> earnings by your employer. It happens. It's happened to me often
>> enough to appreciate the value of a good union. I'll be the first to
>> admit unions can become just as bad for the rank and file as
>> corporations, but each case must be judged on its own merits.
>>
>> Passing laws that give either the corporations or the union an edge
>> over the other is bad politics.
>>
> AS if nurses don't have unions. She could be one of the cheapskates
> that doesn't "join" her union, but reaps the benefits. To bad unions
> don't negotiate just for their members. Instead those who opt out
> reap the benefits of union negotiations and can pretend to be
> anti-union on usenet.
>
>
How does a "cheapskate" do this? In a right to work state such as mine a
worker can opt out of joining a labor union in a unionized workplace but
is still required to pay whatever dues etc everyone else pays.

Lots of folks understand the pluses and minuses of both bad unions and
bad management.

Plenty of folks negotiate on their own to sell their skills to a decent
employer.

On 6/16/2011 10:19 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 22:33:02 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> > wrote
>>>
>>> That's the problem with the tradtional adversarial business model.
>>> It's them against us (choose whichever fits you). I worked for a
>>> company like you describe and for almost a decade the place was a
>>> utopian situation for perm hires. Unfortunately, it was mostly due to
>>> the high skillset required from workers that made the mgt so generous.
>>> On the darker side, temps were the rule rather than the exception and
>>> they would be screwed on a daily basis.
>>
>>
>> Like everything in life, there are good companies and bad. Most are in the
>> middle and are reasonable places to work. What gets me is the people that
>> think every company makes huge profits and screws the worker and customer to
>> do so. Businesses must make a profit in order to stay in business and
>> provide jobs. They must remain profitable in order to support their
>> customers. They must have reserves to get past the lean times, like now.
>>
>> Everyone is fairly paid where I work. In a good year, we get a bonus. In
>> really good years, we get really good bonuses. We get profit sharing and
>> everyone knows that a reject part or wasted material takes away from our
>> profit sharing. That gets people to co-operate and do things with care.
>
> Then where you work is the exception. Most companys still practice
> nepotism and descrimination is very alive and well... naturally
> management never addresses these points because they are who promote
> this unfairness... to think management is fair is fantasy. In
> manufacturing they never take the good workers off the bench, the
> least capable workers with the loudest mouths and brownest noses are
> who gets promoted to management positions.

Not an exception at all. A cheerleader for walmart may not get it but
there are plenty of organizations that operate just as Ed describes.
Management empowers the workforce and folks who are empowered and feel
like they are part of something good and know that their part counts do
their best to make it work. The classic example used to illustrate this
is Fedex. They empower their workers, they pay them well and the workers
do their part and no labor unions are involved.

Likely you will be asking for a picture next:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fe...ck-Chicago.jpg


>
>> More companies have been enlightened to treat people fairly, thus the drop
>> in unions. Good companies don't need them.
>
> Very few employers treat people fairly, most folks don't treat each
> other fairly, it's human nature to be competitive and agressive. If
> not for unions there'd be no 40 hour work week, no sick leave, no
> personal days, few holidays, no vacations, no health insurance, no
> pension plans, no paid lunch/coffee breaks, there'd be no OSHA, and
> pay would be the pits... and there'd be no seniority, soon as workers
> accrued better benefits and/or neared retirement they'd get fired for
> no cause. Too soon we forget the history behind why there are unions.
> Unions began in Europe with the trade guilds when apprentices were
> indentured slaves. There are fewer unions today because there are far
> fewer skilled workers. Without unions US workers would have the same
> rights as Chinese workers.
>

"sf" > wrote
>
> The he talks always makes me think he's part of the management team.
> He might not own the company, but he's in management.

I run a small manufacturing company with 20 employees. My boss is the
owner. He comes in 3 or 4 days a week and spends much of the winter in
Florida. I run the day to day operations.

We worked together for a while and he left that company to start this
company. I followed him four years later and have been there 21 years.
Yes, I'm in management, but I've done every job there from mold setup,
loading trucks, cleaning, purchasing, buying equipment , etc.

In my working career, I've been both a worker and a manger . One is not
necessarily better than the other and no job is unimportant. IMO, unless
you've been a worker, you can't be a good manager.

"Brooklyn1" <Gravesend1> wrote
> Very few employers treat people fairly, most folks don't treat each
> other fairly, it's human nature to be competitive and agressive. If
> not for unions there'd be no 40 hour work week, no sick leave, no
> personal days, few holidays, no vacations, no health insurance, no
> pension plans, no paid lunch/coffee breaks, there'd be no OSHA, and
> pay would be the pits... and there'd be no seniority, soon as workers
> accrued better benefits and/or neared retirement they'd get fired for
> no cause. Too soon we forget the history behind why there are unions.
> Unions began in Europe with the trade guilds when apprentices were
> indentured slaves. There are fewer unions today because there are far
> fewer skilled workers. Without unions US workers would have the same
> rights as Chinese workers.
>

I've stated before, if this was 1920 or 1930, I'd probably be a union
organizer. I don't forget the history of the union and how important they
were in getting good working conditions. Everyone benefited and we still do
today.

What has happened though, some unions have gone overboard. They are seeking
their own money making survival and don't give a damn about anything but
collecting dues. Under the guise of helping the little guy, some unions
(not all) are exploiting the worker more than the company. Take a look at
the UAW building in Detroit and check the wagers of the top union officials.

Personally, I'd rather negotiate my own wages and working conditions.
Perhaps not everyone is equipped to do that very well, but paying dues not
not guarantee you won't be exploited by someone. I've been at the
negotiating table years ago. It would make you sick to see what really
happens and where the money goes.

On Jun 16, 9:56*am, George > wrote:
> On 6/14/2011 9:24 PM, sf wrote:
>
> > On 15 Jun 2011 01:05:41 GMT, > *wrote:
>
> >> On 2011-06-15, > *wrote:
>
> >>> This business with Boeing and South Carolina vs. the unions just makes
> >>> my blood boil! Damn straight the company has the right to put their
> >>> factory where ever they want it.
>
> >> Jes as the workers have a right to form a union to protect themselves.
>
> >> You sound like someone who has never been screwed outta your rightful
> >> earnings by your employer. *It happens. *It's happened to me often
> >> enough to appreciate the value of a good union. *I'll be the first to
> >> admit unions can become just as bad for the rank and file as
> >> corporations, but each case must be judged on its own merits.
>
> >> Passing laws that give either the corporations or the union an edge
> >> over the other is bad politics.
>
> > AS if nurses don't have unions. *She could be one of the cheapskates
> > that doesn't "join" her union, but reaps the benefits. *To bad unions
> > don't negotiate just for their members. *Instead those who opt out
> > reap the benefits of union negotiations and can pretend to be
> > anti-union on usenet.
>
> How does a "cheapskate" do this? In a right to work state such as mine a
> worker can opt out of joining a labor union in a unionized workplace but
> is still required to pay whatever dues etc everyone else pays.
>
> Lots of folks understand the pluses and minuses of both bad unions and
> bad management.
>
> Plenty of folks negotiate on their own to sell their skills to a decent
> employer.

This only works when there are as many decent employers looking for
workers as there are decent employees looking for work.

No, most folks have a choice of two options:

Take it, or
leave it.

If you don't want the job at the price I'm willing to pay there are
plenty of others who do, and if nobody wants it at my price I'll move
production (marketing, engineering) to Mexico, or Malaysia, or Macau.

On 6/16/2011 7:34 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> "sf" > wrote
>>
>> The he talks always makes me think he's part of the management team.
>> He might not own the company, but he's in management.
>
> I run a small manufacturing company with 20 employees. My boss is the
> owner. He comes in 3 or 4 days a week and spends much of the winter in
> Florida. I run the day to day operations.
>
> We worked together for a while and he left that company to start this
> company. I followed him four years later and have been there 21 years.
> Yes, I'm in management, but I've done every job there from mold setup,
> loading trucks, cleaning, purchasing, buying equipment , etc.
>
> In my working career, I've been both a worker and a manger . One is not
> necessarily better than the other and no job is unimportant. IMO, unless
> you've been a worker, you can't be a good manager.

One of the trends that turned everything upside down was the idea of
hiring young MBAs instead of more rounded experienced folks to run
businesses. They didn't even understand what the companies they were
controlling did but thought they could make it all work by only looking
at and manipulating the numbers because they imagined they were so smart
while of course being soulless.

On 6/16/2011 8:21 PM, spamtrap1888 wrote:
> On Jun 16, 9:56 am, > wrote:
>> On 6/14/2011 9:24 PM, sf wrote:
>>
>>> On 15 Jun 2011 01:05:41 GMT, > wrote:
>>
>>>> On 2011-06-15, > wrote:
>>
>>>>> This business with Boeing and South Carolina vs. the unions just makes
>>>>> my blood boil! Damn straight the company has the right to put their
>>>>> factory where ever they want it.
>>
>>>> Jes as the workers have a right to form a union to protect themselves.
>>
>>>> You sound like someone who has never been screwed outta your rightful
>>>> earnings by your employer. It happens. It's happened to me often
>>>> enough to appreciate the value of a good union. I'll be the first to
>>>> admit unions can become just as bad for the rank and file as
>>>> corporations, but each case must be judged on its own merits.
>>
>>>> Passing laws that give either the corporations or the union an edge
>>>> over the other is bad politics.
>>
>>> AS if nurses don't have unions. She could be one of the cheapskates
>>> that doesn't "join" her union, but reaps the benefits. To bad unions
>>> don't negotiate just for their members. Instead those who opt out
>>> reap the benefits of union negotiations and can pretend to be
>>> anti-union on usenet.
>>
>> How does a "cheapskate" do this? In a right to work state such as mine a
>> worker can opt out of joining a labor union in a unionized workplace but
>> is still required to pay whatever dues etc everyone else pays.
>>
>> Lots of folks understand the pluses and minuses of both bad unions and
>> bad management.
>>
>> Plenty of folks negotiate on their own to sell their skills to a decent
>> employer.
>
> This only works when there are as many decent employers looking for
> workers as there are decent employees looking for work.
>
> No, most folks have a choice of two options:
>
> Take it, or
> leave it.
>
> If you don't want the job at the price I'm willing to pay there are
> plenty of others who do, and if nobody wants it at my price I'll move
> production (marketing, engineering) to Mexico, or Malaysia, or Macau.

There actually are good jobs to be had. Not everyone who is running a
company is Obamas best buddy immelt who he made chairman of his "Jobs
Council". What a complete insult to everyone. GE (the company immelt
runs) is one of the first to really popularize the trend of throwing
your US workers under the bus and going off shore.

On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 19:43:03 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
> wrote:

>
>"Brooklyn1" <Gravesend1> wrote
>> Very few employers treat people fairly, most folks don't treat each
>> other fairly, it's human nature to be competitive and agressive. If
>> not for unions there'd be no 40 hour work week, no sick leave, no
>> personal days, few holidays, no vacations, no health insurance, no
>> pension plans, no paid lunch/coffee breaks, there'd be no OSHA, and
>> pay would be the pits... and there'd be no seniority, soon as workers
>> accrued better benefits and/or neared retirement they'd get fired for
>> no cause. Too soon we forget the history behind why there are unions.
>> Unions began in Europe with the trade guilds when apprentices were
>> indentured slaves. There are fewer unions today because there are far
>> fewer skilled workers. Without unions US workers would have the same
>> rights as Chinese workers.
>>
>
>I've stated before, if this was 1920 or 1930, I'd probably be a union
>organizer. I don't forget the history of the union and how important they
>were in getting good working conditions. Everyone benefited and we still do
>today.
>
>What has happened though, some unions have gone overboard. They are seeking
>their own money making survival and don't give a damn about anything but
>collecting dues. Under the guise of helping the little guy, some unions
>(not all) are exploiting the worker more than the company. Take a look at
>the UAW building in Detroit and check the wagers of the top union officials.
>
>Personally, I'd rather negotiate my own wages and working conditions.
>Perhaps not everyone is equipped to do that very well, but paying dues not
>not guarantee you won't be exploited by someone. I've been at the
>negotiating table years ago. It would make you sick to see what really
>happens and where the money goes.

Your company is not the norm, in fact what you describe is very rare.
Most companys, large and small, treat their workers poorly and
likewise their employees treat the company poorly. The other side of
the coin however is that it's great to have a job that one enjoys
going to every day but in the US one can employ other methods for
earning income. I was always able to earn as much if not more income
from my own business ventures than from my regular job.

"Brooklyn1" <Gravesend1> wrote
> The other side of
> the coin however is that it's great to have a job that one enjoys
> going to every day but in the US one can employ other methods for
> earning income. I was always able to earn as much if not more income
> from my own business ventures than from my regular job.

And there are people that support themselves with no job. I've known people
over the years that never had a job, but had a pickup, pocket of cash, and
were always busy doing something for someone. They have no benefits, but
pay no taxes. They not just survive, but flourish in an underground
economy.

Need repair on the house? Call Bob. Need the boat moved? Call Bob. Need
a tree down? Call Bob. He often has the best kept house in the town and
built it himself.

On Jun 16, 11:27*am, sf > wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 08:20:51 -0700 (PDT), Bryan
>
> > wrote:
> > Imagine a YouTube type video of a kidnapped CEO being kicked to death
> > by steel toed work boots. *Beautiful.
>
> Calm down, that's too far over the top.
>
I even agree that it is "over the top" to find such a thing to be
"beautiful," but the effect of things like that on class relationships
would be quite positive.

--Bryan

On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 22:42:47 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
> wrote:

>
> "Brooklyn1" <Gravesend1> wrote
> > The other side of
> > the coin however is that it's great to have a job that one enjoys
> > going to every day but in the US one can employ other methods for
> > earning income. I was always able to earn as much if not more income
> > from my own business ventures than from my regular job.
>
> And there are people that support themselves with no job. I've known people
> over the years that never had a job, but had a pickup, pocket of cash, and
> were always busy doing something for someone. They have no benefits, but
> pay no taxes. They not just survive, but flourish in an underground
> economy.
>
> Need repair on the house? Call Bob. Need the boat moved? Call Bob. Need
> a tree down? Call Bob. He often has the best kept house in the town and
> built it himself.
>
And sooner or later, "Bob" decides to be a contractor not and "outlaw"
and goes legit.


--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Jun 16, 6:34*pm, "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote:
> "sf" > wrote
>
>
>
> > The he talks always makes me think he's part of the management team.
> > He might not own the company, but he's in management.
>
> I run a small manufacturing company with 20 employees. *My boss is the
> owner. He comes in 3 or 4 days a week and spends much of the winter in
> Florida. *I run the day to day operations.
>
> We worked together for a while and he left that company to start this
> company. *I followed him four years later and have been there 21 years.
> Yes, I'm in management, but I've done every job there from mold setup,
> loading trucks, cleaning, purchasing, buying equipment , etc.
>
> In my working career, I've been both a worker and a manger . *One is not
> necessarily better than the other and no job is unimportant. *IMO, unless
> you've been a worker, you can't be a good manager.


It is hard to be a good "manager" if you don't understand the ins and
outs of the jobs you supervise. It doesn't follow that the owner(s)
need have any experience with hands on work. Owners are nearly always
to some extent, parasites, and it might surprise some to know that I
find that to be proper. It is the way that Capitalism works that the
owner extracts some amount of value from the laborer, and the nature
of the owner-worker relationship will always be adversarial to
whatever degree. I believe that a highly unionized and class
conscious workforce is necessary to minimize the excesses of
Capitalism. At the extremes the results are equality (Socialist
stagnation), and inequity (Robberbaronism). The happy medium is
equity. For the past few decades, we've had class warfare in the USA
(and many other places as well). The Ownership class initiated the
current class war, and is winning it, mostly because the working class
folks are not as savvy. No working class person who has a clue as to
the nature of class, wealth accumulation and that the ownership of
anything, be it the *means of production* or promises made to workers,
would ever support the Tea Party ideology, yet many do.
Money itself is merely representative of a "promise to pay." What
makes money superior to other promises to pay. Aren't pensions a
promise to pay? Aren't the things called *entitlements* as much a
promise to pay as money itself? Why not? The ownership class screams
if they are taxed, calling it, "a taking." Working people have been
duped into thinking that the claims on wealth of the owners are
sacred, whereas their own rights to a share of the wealth are somehow
less concrete. The idea that private sector production is always
better than public sector production is completely absurd, and leads
to inefficiencies in production, just like Socialist co-option of
production that would be more efficient if performed by the private
sector does. This leads to farming out duties that would be more
efficiently performed by public sector civil servants to private
companies where the owners parasitize by taking profits, nearly all of
which are gained by under-compensating workers. Certainly, if a
private company performs a tax supported job that would have cost the
government 100 units if done by civil servants, and charges only 90
units, then pays the workers only 80 units, keeping the extra 10 units
as profit, the loser is the worker who loses 20% compensation, while
the contractor parasitizes the other 10% without adding any useful
efficiency. That 10% that the ownership class extracts might be
considered ideologically superior by those who idealize privatization,
but why would any intelligent member of the working class find that
wise? Why? Because working folks have been deceived.
The Ayn Randites like Paul Ryan espouse an economic policy that's as
unbalanced and flawed as the Communists who err to the other extreme.
The Right is terrorizing working people, and has convinced a Hell of a
lot of them that it is the Left who has really been doing it. I
swear, it's like Hitler burning the Reichstag, and blaming it on the
Communists. The Germans fell for it too.

--Bryan

"Bryan" > wrote in message
...
> On Jun 16, 11:27 am, sf > wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 08:20:51 -0700 (PDT), Bryan
>>
>> > wrote:
>> > Imagine a YouTube type video of a kidnapped CEO being kicked to death
>> > by steel toed work boots. Beautiful.
>>
>> Calm down, that's too far over the top.
>>
> I even agree that it is "over the top" to find such a thing to be
> "beautiful," but the effect of things like that on class relationships
> would be quite positive.
>
> --Bryan

Yes, it would positively keep them far apart.