Unions

snip----

He does have a point worthy of consideration. Union people were involved in murder in the 50's, at least on the right coast. It was for that reason that Sperry sought a right-to-work state to found a new business. Were it not for them, my job at Sperry likely would have never occurred.

Ed's right----I owe something to the unions. All the more tragedy, for it came from the negative aspects, not something good and wholesome.

Harold

snip----

Be patient, Dave. The night is young. :-)

Harold

"rigger" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

I don't know much about cancer, either. I quite like that. Don't know what it's like to get hit by a moving vehicle, either. I'm Ok with that, too, being my preferred position. I've looked at unions, dennis. I didn't like what I saw. You're not paying attention.

"Special" isn't the word, dennis. Victimized----delusional----screwed over-----those are words more in keeping with my thoughts.

Heh! As if mentioning not only the place of employment where the union killed the job wasn't enough. Even the approximate date. And a second mention where the union was busted, and operations resumed at greater production with less than 25% of the old staff. (Kennecott Copper-----do the math)

Same thing is going on------you refuse to accept examples cited------yet you expect me to take you at face value? You're a union supporter, dennis------I can't do that. I have real life experience from which to assume my posture. All the union dogma in the world won't change what I experienced, nor can it be explained away in such a way that it was justifiable. My attitude was seeded, watered, and grown by observing unions in action. I have nothing good to say about them, because the only results I've witnessed from their presence indicate to me that they have done nothing but make my cost of living rise, or have been the source of thriving business closing doors because of lack of profitability.

What you're really saying is why don't I agree with your points. I've answered them, you simply refuse to accept my answers------pulling the usual union bullshit of telling me time and again the same corrupt thing, with the hopes that I'll eventually cave and believe. Ain't gonna happen------not unless you can change what I've witnessed.

Interesting concept, but hardly representative of my philosophy. As I said, you don't know me-----and you sure as hell can't speak for me, nor how I feel. Here's something for you to mull in your mind. I expect that a person should be qualified for a job-----no matter what it is. I expect that if the person has no qualifications that set him aside from others, he deserves nothing more than a menial task job---one that can be filled by anyone off the street, barring any and all training of all kinds. Part of the education we should have received in our youth includes the need to prepare one's self for employment as an adult. To expect anything more form society is parasitic in nature. Such people represent unearned money----as do those that make far beyond their worth within their particular training. I, for example, would not be worth $200/hr as a machinist, although, given the opportunity, it's not beyond possibility to make that kind of money. I know. I ran a shop for years. Problem is-----someone-----somewhere-----is getting screwed-----and it's likely you, the tax payer. I did a considerable amount of defense work---------and NO-----I didn't milk the work for the most I could get. There's far more to this than is apparent-----and I passed the test (more than once, by the way), should you be interested. Taking unearned money is, and has been, against my principles. I have to be true to myself, even when I'm surrounded by a bunch of immoral people that see nothing wrong with stealing from their fellow man..

It was exceptional, dennis. Hope yours was, as well. I may not agree with you, nor your union, and never will, but that shouldn't stand in the way of my hoping for the best for you.

Be well,

Harold

Chuckle!

Certainly not folks that are unreasonable-----

union members come to mind.

Harold

Insults from a union person serve no purpose here, dennis. I flat don't care----I know the truth.

NO ONE can do better than the truth. I'd hire a hundred individuals that are self motivated individual thinkers before I'd hire one union worker that isn't secure enough in his/her ability to earn their way without the coercion of their organization.

Harold

You know, you are the first person to make a civil comment on my chosen 'net name.

It was a part of one of my old business logos.

The tie-in was its use as a wildcard character, suggesting that we could do virtually anything for our customers that they could dream up......

Millwright Ron wrote in article ...

I could not agree more.......

.....so, when are you going to work to de-certify some of the unions that make it impossible for American manufacturers to compete in a world economy?

You chose the name, I didn't. Yet when I read your offerings, another word for rectum does come to mind.

Yes, you did.

I agree, I am usually in awe of what Ed Huntress writes and seldom differ in view. When we do differ, it causes me to reexamine my view, something I try to do anyway.

OTOH, I've seen nothing from you or most others that sparks self reexamination.

David

Does that make me an expert troll?

Keep in mind that the only reason I'm ragging on Puck is that he insisted on making personal attacks on Ron, which I found obnoxious and unfair. He'll stop soon, and I'll stop soon, and then Puck can get back to his usual background-level snarling and griping. d8-)

-- Ed Huntress

You don't know a thing about my "brother." Sounds like you've been rejected in the past. But, as you're not an employer, and capable of making business decisions such as negotiating contracts, it really doesn't matter whether you understand, or not, does it?

But since your job does not include negotiating contracts your point holds no weight, does it? Ask your boss for the details.

Easy talk from someone like yourself. But the same ideas pour forth overt-and-over. Nothing new here.

Yes. And I keep saying you go along with the program because your BOSS tells you to. Now why do you think he does that? It's because HIS values are not yours. The company signed a contract agreeing to the terms you're unhappy with. Cry me a river, or better yet, realize that if the contract was NOT acceptable to your (not really your) company it would not have been signed. If you can't accept this simple idea then go start your own company (like Harold did) and quit whinning like a baby.

The union does "carry" them WHICH IS THE REASON YOUR CONTRACT HAS BEEN WRITTEN THAT WAY. Why can't you understand this?

I think union action in the days of stronger unions may have slowed or prevented what you see now. You seem to have a feeble grasp of economics. Read much, or at all? (I don't mean newspapers)

dennis in nca

please?

Know anything about "value added?" Can you tell us how many middlemen add to food cost? How much they add? Or don't you think this means anything? No complaints about those numbers but if someone expects to earn a living wage then they're "bad" by your definition?

But if a worker wants a decent living they're out-of-line?

Why don't you couch your questions a little better. Or have you stopped beating your wife? I hope so. Please tell us about this instead.

Now THAT"S funny.

dennis in nca

Except for the rugged induviduals who can do it all alone, yep, I agree totally.

But unfortunatly in the U.S. these days, with one big party to choose canidates from, the moderating influence of the unions is lost, perhaps forever.

dennis in nca

Our union ok'd a move for a company having the same "wildcat" problem you mention. They were moved without the employee's knowledge. No one shed a tear.

dennis in nca

First of all the 50s were a HALF CENTURY AGO and secondly the violence was NOT one sided. You must have read the newspapers. No?

I'm not defending criminal actions by anyone but instead trying to note the lack of balance in your post.

dennis in nca

Actually, I now am.

Union contracts? Not on your life.

I understand you people. I disagree with you people. Why is that so hard for your type to understand?

I wasn't aware that I was required to be in contract law to have an opinion on why your thinking benefits only lazy people with more seniority. So how about you answer my original question: who, other than the lazy guy with more years of service, is benefited by rules that keep me from hiring the guy most qualified for the job?

Yup, same basic idea. It is WRONG to give a job to someone who can't or won't do it, just because he's got more years with the union. You are protecting the WRONG PEOPLE, for the WRONG REASONS.

I'm not whining, I'm asking you or the other two guys how being forced to hire the oldest guy on the crew, rather than the best qualified for the job, benefits anyone other than the oldest guy on the crew.

The union isn't paying them, the employer is. If you want to protect your brother, then YOU carry him. Don't expect the company to pay him for not doing his job, just because he's been around longest.

See, personal insults of my intelligence just aren't going to get anywhere with me, sorry. You're doing it again, assuming I'm stupid just because I am not willing to let you force me to pay your "brother" to do nothing.

If the guy speculating on the price of lettuce keeps the marketplace working, then he's providing a market for the producers. Therefore adding value. And yes, I've taken micro- and macro-economics courses.

Of course not. Don't presume to make my points please; you're barely capable of making your own. You say "worker". So work, and I'll pay ya. Be the lazy guy with the most seniority but not working, don't expect ME to carry you.

You attempted to insult me by pretending I don't watch the news or something. What do you pretend I should be seeing there which backs up your alleged "common sense"?

Yeah, I figured.

Not my point Harold. I do believe if a figure decended from the sky and told you you were wrong you'd call it "A union trick." I'd suggest you never change your mind about any- thing, you'll be more content. But I thought we were discussing "unions" and not "Harold's unchanging opinions in the light of facts." See!

And yet you like to ignore all posts describing the beneficial effects created by unions. Heh! back at ya.

I provide facts. You supply your limited "life experiences" yet you won't answer the factual points I've made except to say the same stories over and over. Your statistical value is low; I hope you realize that.

I'm not trying to, only offering another angle to view the situation. Did you not see this?

So you never join with others to create a contract? Of course you do. Does this make you bad? Yet you insist a person (if he's in a union) should not do the same. But, since you're not signing any union contracts in the near future (hah, I made a joke) then you just like to complain about how others do it. Have I got this right, finally? Or explain how it's something other than your own predjudiced view that I read.

Thanks Harold. I hope the year is winding down on good things for you and yours as well.

dennis in nca

Mmmmm. How I would like to meet you over "the bargaining table." :)

dennis in nca

Sorry you think my comments are insults Harold, but the fact is by ignoring the good that comes with unions (please deny this here to validate my point; thank you) you only show yourself as predjudiced and not open to reasoning. Example: "I know the truth." tells me what I need to know.

And as long as you feel only Harold can be right how can there be a discussion?

dennis in nca