Union Millwrights

I looked at this group as a way of sharing my knowledge of machinery but instead I was attacked by people that are non-producers,closed minded bigots or obnoxious idiots who think they know everthing.

Watering rocks will not make them grow......

I will always stand up when I am attacked.

"Those who would destroy or further limit the rights of organized labor-those who cripple collective bargaining or prevent organization of the unorganized-do a disservice to the cause of democracy. "

President John F. Kennedy

"SKILLED ON PRINCIPLE ----- UNION BY CHOICE"

From The Folks Who Gave You The Weekend

Union Millwright Ron

formatting link

Reply to
Millwright Ron
Loading thread data ...

You have officially become a SPAMMER in my book, asshole.

Erectile dysfunction cure shills, penis extender shills, and organized labor shills......all cut from the same cloth, it appears.

Reply to
*

Millwright Wrong wrote in article ...

You're SPAMMING this group MORE OFTEN than the Islamist Extremists......

.....and, you're sounding MORE and MORE like them with your philisophical B.S.........................

......which says a LOT about you and your beliefs!

Reply to
*

I must have missed those posts; all I saw were rants about unions which are at odds with my direct personal experience.

Good for you, lad. Next perhaps you can work on rhetorical tactics and effective communication skills now that you have standing mastered.

Reply to
Dave Hinz

Hey, Dave, Ron is playing it straight. That's a lot more important than one's rhetorical skills.

Reply to
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 21:31:55 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed Huntress" quickly quoth:

The only posts he's made are in reference to his own millwrighting praise or praise for unions. I call it spam even if it's vaguely connected to metalworking. YMMV

----------------------------------------------------------------- When I die, I'm leaving my body to science fiction. --Steven Wright ----------------------------

Reply to
Larry Jaques

Actually, he also posted a machining lexicon URL and another for types of gears. He's trying.

Reply to
Ed Huntress

Well, good for him! Now, when he leaves behind his union bullshit and starts talking about relevant issues, maybe he'll be accepted by the pack.

Can this person even begin to understand that the majority of readers here, at least the outspoken ones, are self starters, people that have been creative and productive individuals, rarely followers? To come before such a group and espouse your communist bullshit propaganda and expect a warm welcome is a bit of a stretch. None of us will accept such bullshit, for, almost to a man, none of us suffer fools gladly----and right now he's behaving like a fool.

Harold

Reply to
Harold and Susan Vordos

I've been watching this thread with some trepidation, Harold, and I have to say that Ron may be a strong union partisan, but he didn't come in here insulting you guys the way you've been insulting him -- as an individual -- since the moment he came in. I don't recall him calling you a "fool," or a scab, a parasite, or anything else.

And while we're on the subject of insults, I should point out that my wife is in a union, and my uncle, who was the head of the NJ Industrial Arts Education Association, like many others a union man by necessity, and who probably would have worked anyone here under the table three times over, would not have had much respect for the bigoted attitudes we're seeing here. Neither do I.

So, you're opposed to unions. That's your business. But you're projecting your disdain for unions onto an individual who you don't know.

If you read past the boilerplate, Ron has some good points. So do you, but you also have some real blind spots. You don't seem to know where your money came from all your working life, for example. You sure didn't get it on your own. The ground was fully plowed for you by others, for most of a century, before you got your first job. You ought to spend some time thinking about how you wound up in the middle class, when workers rarely made it past the "working class" (read, working poor) for generations before you. What do you think changed, hmm? Did the owners suddenly turn into altruists, just about the same time that unions got real power? Are you in the market for a bridge? d8-)

And as for calling them "communists," I dare you to walk into a union hall and say that to their faces. You'll be lucky to come out alive. I don't think you're old enough to have known Eugene Debs, and you're talking about something that nobody alive has experienced. After the Depression, unions became the nemesis of the socialist organizers, because the unions turned their back on the old "proletariat" identity. There is nothing that communists hate more than today's trade and industrial unions, and vice-versa. To a communist, a modern union man is a proletarian striving to be petite bourgeoisie (which is what you and I are), a traitor to his class.

I think you owe Ron an apology. He hasn't done anything here to deserve the insults.

Reply to
Ed Huntress

I am not going to try to change your opinion, but thought I would express mine.

I don't think that unions are responsible for there being a middle class. I can not believe that unions were necessary to create a middle class, but now somehow the need has gone away. I think there were many forces that created the middle class and unions occurred because of these same forces. Unions obviously do not explain the middle class white collar worker.

Yes the ground was plowed by others before me, but none of them were union workers. My great grandfather was the son of a farmer and was a farmer himself. Moved from West Virginia to Missouri. And then on to Western Kansas. My grandfather was also a farmer in Kansas. My dad graduated from high school and became a teacher, then joined the army at the beginning of WWI. After WWI he went to the Colorado School of Mines and became a geologist. No union members anywhere there. They did not even live in states where unions were common. Yet the middle class exists in places as Western Kansas.

There were huge changes from the time my great grandfather lived. The car, the telephone, radio, television, computers, universal education, mass production. All of those had more influence in creating a middle class than the unions. If there had been no unions, there would still have been politicians and minimum wage laws.

I do believe that unions acted as a lubricant and did speed up the rate of change, but the forces that created the middle class were not the unions. If the unions were the force, then unions would still be necessary to keep the middle class in existance.

As I said, I am not going to try to change your mind as you grew up in the industrial East, knew union members all your life, and were probably taught by teachers who belonged to a union. And you were probably taught that unions were essential to the formation of the middle class. I on the other hand grew up in the deep South, never knew anyone that belonged to a union until I was out of college and out of the military and had moved to California. But do try to think about why unions were necessary to form the middle class, but are no longer required. That makes no sense to me.

No reply is necessary. I understand your point of view, just don't believe it is correct. I can not think of anyway to prove that you are correct, or that I am correct. Just because two things are corelated, does not mean one is a cause. And just because many people believe something is true, does not mean much either. Lots of people thought the earth was flat.

Dan

Reply to
dcaster

In a sense, I agree with you, Ed. He hasn't directly said any of those things--but-----indirectly---he certainly is implying that very thing. As long as he insists on promoting an organization that has left less than a good taste in my mouth, I'm afraid he's simply going to have to get used to the idea that it goes with the territory, especially when he's promoting such an organization to people that are well motivated and are more than capable of making their way in society without having a third party represent them. I find that particularly insulting-----to assume that the only way you can get good and proper service or workmanship is through a union. My work, as well as the work of many that read these words, has spoken for itself, and has carried me well in my life.

Yes, that's unfortunate, for I have no quarrel with you, your good wife, certainly not your uncle, people I don't know, even remotely. That doesn't mean I'd endorse their particular organization. I wouldn't, and I don't agree with the philosophy that supports it, for which I'll not offer an apology. My life has been negatively affected by unions, so I need not have respect for them, no more than I'd have for any other enemy. (The story is long, and painful. My father was in the union before he lost his health. The union screwed him over something fierce).

Is it not true that this person is also projecting his position on me, and the rest of the readers? With rare exception, to this point, posts by this individual revolve around unions, and have little to nothing to do with the subject matter we are usually here to discuss-----metal working in general. I have no quarrel with you, or anyone, that chooses to be a union member, but it should remain your business, not flaunted before the eyes of others, as if to, in some magical way, to elevate you in stature----as if you are privy to information and techniques known only to you and your organization, and the balance of society is in some way, left out of the loop. We are a gathering of people from all walks of life and need not subscribe to any particular dogma in order to share thoughts, especially when these thoughts are intended to divide and conquer. I resent his posts just as I resent the posts of religious zealots.

I'm sorry, but I must voice a strong disapproval of your comment. I certainly did do it on my own----particularly from August 19th, 1967, at which time I became self employed. The buck stopped at my door. No one sent me money just because I was cute------I earned it through careful bidding and good and proper workmanship, none of which can be attributed to unions of any kind. I fail to see a connection.

My training came in a non-union shop----one that was founded precisely because of unions----and all the problems associated with them, particularly on the East coast, back in the mid 50's. If you're alluding to that as the plowed ground, then I agree-----but the lesson learned is one that helped form my opinion of unions. They are just as destructive, to me, as a heroin addiction is to others. I attribute the fair treatment I received when I was employed by Sperry to the company realizing that as long as they treated employees with respect, that they'd get a fair shake from the employees. Sperry Utah was founded in 1956, and is still in business, although having undergone various changes in name, all a part of the vast corporation. One thing has remained constant, however, and that is that there is no union.

Yes, I recognize the good unions did at one point in time, and perhaps their day will return in the future. man is known to forget the lessons of the past.

Could be my understanding of communism is in direct conflict with what I'm saying, but anytime you group people and treat them equally, guaranteeing that they all receive the same pay, and are assigned to a given task and can't perform others, I see that as communism. We are not all created equally, nor do we all have the same potential to succeed. Many will go through life with no notable accomplishments, while others will set records in that department. The very idea that a good and skilled worker has no chance of promotion because he was hired a few days later than a worthless individual that puts forth no effort isn't my idea of anything but communism. If I've misused the word, you, with your considerable education and writing prowess, may be able to determine that I'm trying to say. I'm completely out of me environment just getting involved in conversations like this, as you likely realize.

I offer my regrets, at best. This I know for sure. Had he posted his comments on the board I co-moderate, they would have been immediately deleted, as would my boorish comments in response. It isn't necessary for him, or anyone else, to promote their personal agenda in order to have a meaningful conversation with others. As long as he insists on posting his union dogma, I figure I'm good for all the negative comments I can muster. If he'd like to drop that bullshit and start talking shop, with no regard to unions, or what kind of lathe he thinks someone should own in order to "qualify", then I'm in. I'll apologize for attacking his union if he'll apologize for making them the point of his posts. I don't feel any differently about that than I do about people that think their religion is the one and only religion, and others must comply, or not be worthy. I've had more than my share of that mentality----it's time to speak out. Neither of those issues relate in the least to the purpose of the forum-----and serve only to divide the readers.

Nothing personal, Ed, I think you know that.

Harold

Reply to
Harold and Susan Vordos

Ed Huntress wrote in article ...

Interestingly, most of the other SPAMMERS are pretty polite.

All I've ever seen is sweet-tempered Islamists trying to convince you that their way is right, and polite "businessmen" trying to convince you to do business with them.

They are vilified here - which says to me that it is WHAT you say.....not HOW you say it!!

Are you saying that you don't have enough self-control to avoid opening posts that you KNOW will be an insult to you?

As do many of the people who respond to other SPAMMERS without actually knowing them.

You don't need to have a cup of coffee with a SPAMMER to know that you don't like him.

Blah....blah...blah!

Geez! I'll bet you walk into theaters yelling "FIRE!"

Yet more blah....blah....blah!

Perhaps "un-American" would be a more appropriate phrase than the word "communist".....

....except to SPAM the group regularly - which entitles him to the same courtesies and treatment that all other SPAMMERS receive. My opinion is that he joins a l-o-n-g list of SPAMMERS who actually owe the newsgroup an apology.

Reply to
*

And a very reasonable point of view it is, Dan. Sure, unions were only a part of it. And whether they were essential is a good question. I think that many of the other factors were driven by the pressure imposed by unions, but in academic circles, where people have spent their entire lives studying these questions, where they've tracked the history of it in a serious way, there also are multiple points of view on the subject.

Some of those quotes that Ron posted here, from people that we wouldn't associate with unions in any way and who were much older than us and lived through the whole development of unions, tell us that real experience convinced a lot of independent-minded people that unions were essential to our economic prosperity. But there also were plenty on the other side.

I also agree with you that unions are far from being essential today. I also question whether their net effect is good or bad at this stage in our economic development. As I also said, I'm going to be real interested to see how they play out in the developing countries, or if they have any role at all.

When you get up close and personal with unions they can look pretty ugly. I tend to view them from a distance and try to figure out what effect they've had on the economy at large. Anyone who studies it seriously needs to be acquainted with both sides, which none of us really are. So it's a legitimately debatable subject. I don't think it's a justification for personal insults, however, and Ron has taken an unfair amount of it.

-- Ed Huntress

Reply to
Ed Huntress

Well, if Ron were trying to get you to worship Allah or to sell you union T-shirts, you might have a point. But he's not, so you don't.

Reply to
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote in article ...

All he has posted is a link to the millwright union's website.

ANYBODY - even a 10-year-old with minimal computer skills - could have done that.

Reply to
*

I skipped this thread for a few days, but finally opened it and am a little bit surprised by the vitriol shown here.

i
Reply to
Ignoramus12236

Ed Huntress wrote in article ...

Close....but, as usual, taken - and answered - completely out of context.

It is pretty obvious that Millwright Wrong is trying to get people to worship the unions as ferventkly as he does......just like an Islamist extremist.

.
Reply to
*

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 09:24:57 -0600, with neither quill nor qualm, Ignoramus12236 quickly quoth:

Why, Ig? Most of us who have been in unions have less-than-favorable outlooks on them afterward. When someone comes in spewing like that, why shouldn't they get what they deserve? Usenet gives instant karma.

Reply to
Larry Jaques

And what have *you* done for us lately, asterisk, except to take snarling potshots at everybody you disagree with, about unions, liberals, and Chinese motorcycles?

Oh, you did post one link to Boston Gear. Do you get a commission?

Reply to
Ed Huntress

And it's pretty obvious who you want us to villify, and that you want us to worship the political right.

It won't work, asterisk. You're trying to make something out of it that it isn't, while posting snarling sarcasm and insults in a ratio of about 10:1.

Reply to
Ed Huntress

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.