Hawke wrote in article
...

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 03:27:33 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

Hawke wrote:

Why should they have to become shareholders to share in the profits?
After
all it's the workers who make the products and provide the services
that
creates the profits to begin with. We all know it's not the owners
and
management who actually produce anything. Workers should profit from
what
they contribute to the success of the business and without them
there
is no
business. The Hollywood producers just found that out. No writers,
no
makie
money. No workers, no makie money. Owners just don't want to be fair
they
want the workers to do all the work and give them nothing so they
can
keep
all the profits for themselves. That isn't exactly a secret. It's
been
going
on for centuries.


Idiot. those workers didn't raise the capital, or spend years
building the business, unless it is employee owned. They get what they
deserve. No more and no less. Not one of them would take those
risks,
or they would own a business, not work for it.


The workers perform a service, for which they are renumerated at a
mutally agreed upon rate. They provide a service for which someone
else is willing to pay a certain amount.

The Parakeet and the other closet socialists like Millwrong Ron
believe that if you pay to get your carpets cleaned, the carpet
cleaning company now deserves a financial interest in your house.

Fraid not blockhead! But thanks for demonstrating your profound lack of
understanding of profit sharing and cooperative ventures. 19th century
business point of view is what you are spewing. Modern businesses share
profits with the workers. They pay fair wages and provide good working
conditions so the workers don't even feel the need to form a union in the
first place. The idea that labor can be used like an old rag and thrown
away
isn't long for this world. Yes they still think like that in China and
other
backward areas but eventually they will come around. All you have to do
is
look at professional basketball and you can see what sharing the wealth
is
about. Before the players union the owners said exactly what you right
wing
goof balls are saying. They were paying the players a salary and they
didn't
deserve anything else. Now the union says we want half the money or we
don't
play. Well, now they get half the money and the owners still make money
and
so do the players. Why you idiots don't understand how this works is hard
to
comprehend. You're dummies is about all I can think of.

Hawke





I have to wonder if you can EVER post something without resorting to the
adolescent practice of name-calling.

Is it an educational defect of not having a strong enough vocabulary with
which to work, or is it simply an extension of one of the union's favorite
words, "SCAB!" ?