In article ,
says...
In todays ''World'',,,,, you practice what you preach,,, you get fired!


That makes about as much sense as the other posts.
How do you get fired by QUITTING if you don't like the conditions?
Sounds like the old "Who's on first" thing.
I QUIT!
You can't quit.
Why not?
Because you are FIRED!

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
. ..
"Leonard Caillouet" wrote in
message ...

You seem to have added a right that is not found in the BOR.
Exactly where is that right specified?

The Bill of Rights explicitly protects all rights NOT specified in it.
(Read
it.) The right to organize to advance one's POV, agenda, etc, is a right
essential to any democracy.




Have read it many, many times. The "right" to form a union is not
specified, and because it may infringe on the rights of others, cannot be
assumed to be "protected" without more specific enumeration of what that
right might be. The right to speech and the right to assemble peaceably are
enumerated rights, but this does not mean that the coersive practices of
many unions are any more protected than the coersive practices of employers.
Saying that a "right" is guaranteed by the BOR just because it is not
enumerated assumes a lot and is a lazy debate tactic.

Leonard

"Don Bowey" wrote in message
...
On 2/8/08 7:40 AM, in article
, "James Beck"
wrote:

In article ,
says...
"Leonard Caillouet" wrote in
message ...

You seem to have added a right that is not found in the BOR.
Exactly where is that right specified?

The Bill of Rights explicitly protects all rights NOT specified in it.
(Read
it.) The right to organize to advance one's POV, agenda, etc, is a right
essential to any democracy.

Sure, but your rights end where they infringe on mine.
I have the right to own and run my business as I see fit.
How does your right to organize trump that? It doesn't.

Jim

You need to correct that thinking. If I am an organizer, my rights to
*attempt* to organize your workforce do *not* end, regardless of your
wishes
or how you run your company. If you fire your persuaded employees and
attempt to hire new ones, I will picket your business and attempt to
organize your new people. My union position would only be altered if you
provided wages, benefits and working conditions that are at least equal to
union shops. That's how things are.




And the non-union employees have the right to reject your organization,
right?

Leonard

Leonard Caillouet" wrote in
message ...

The Bill of Rights explicitly protects all rights NOT specified in it.
(Read it.) The right to organize to advance one's POV, agenda, etc,
is a right essential to any democracy.

Have read it many, many times.

Then you obviously haven't been paying attention.

The BOR explicitly states that non-enumerated rights -- states' and
individual -- are not disparaged. The BOR protects rights -- it does not
enumerate or proscribe them.

The right to form associations -- political or otherwise -- is a right that
is inherent in democracy, and essential to it.

And please learn to spell coercive.

In article , says...
"Don Bowey" wrote in message
...
On 2/8/08 7:40 AM, in article
, "James Beck"
wrote:

In article ,
says...
"Leonard Caillouet" wrote in
message ...

You seem to have added a right that is not found in the BOR.
Exactly where is that right specified?

The Bill of Rights explicitly protects all rights NOT specified in it.
(Read
it.) The right to organize to advance one's POV, agenda, etc, is a right
essential to any democracy.

Sure, but your rights end where they infringe on mine.
I have the right to own and run my business as I see fit.
How does your right to organize trump that? It doesn't.

Jim

You need to correct that thinking. If I am an organizer, my rights to
*attempt* to organize your workforce do *not* end, regardless of your
wishes
or how you run your company. If you fire your persuaded employees and
attempt to hire new ones, I will picket your business and attempt to
organize your new people. My union position would only be altered if you
provided wages, benefits and working conditions that are at least equal to
union shops. That's how things are.




And the non-union employees have the right to reject your organization,
right?

Leonard

Oh yeah, try to get on at a "union shop" and not join the union. That
usually breaks some agreement that the union has coerced the employer
into agreeing to.

Jim

In article ,
says...
Leonard Caillouet" wrote in
message ...

The Bill of Rights explicitly protects all rights NOT specified in it.
(Read it.) The right to organize to advance one's POV, agenda, etc,
is a right essential to any democracy.

Have read it many, many times.

Then you obviously haven't been paying attention.

The BOR explicitly states that non-enumerated rights -- states' and
individual -- are not disparaged. The BOR protects rights -- it does not
enumerate or proscribe them.

The right to form associations -- political or otherwise -- is a right that
is inherent in democracy, and essential to it.

And please learn to spell coercive.


Ah, the spelling correction.
You can tell a person is grasping at straws when they have to point out
some little spelling error. The BOR still doesn't give you or any group
the right to blackmail a company.

Jim

"James Beck" wrote in message
th.net...
In article ,
says...
Leonard Caillouet" wrote in
message ...

The Bill of Rights explicitly protects all rights NOT specified in
it.
(Read it.) The right to organize to advance one's POV, agenda, etc,
is a right essential to any democracy.

Have read it many, many times.

Then you obviously haven't been paying attention.

The BOR explicitly states that non-enumerated rights -- states' and
individual -- are not disparaged. The BOR protects rights -- it does not
enumerate or proscribe them.

The right to form associations -- political or otherwise -- is a right
that
is inherent in democracy, and essential to it.

And please learn to spell coercive.


Ah, the spelling correction.
You can tell a person is grasping at straws when they have to point out
some little spelling error. The BOR still doesn't give you or any group
the right to blackmail a company.

I don't see forcing an non-human entity to behave in a "moral" fashion as
blackmail.

On 2/8/08 11:21 AM, in article
, "James Beck"
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On 2/8/08 7:40 AM, in article
, "James Beck"
wrote:

In article ,
says...
"Leonard Caillouet" wrote in
message ...

You seem to have added a right that is not found in the BOR.
Exactly where is that right specified?

The Bill of Rights explicitly protects all rights NOT specified in it.
(Read
it.) The right to organize to advance one's POV, agenda, etc, is a right
essential to any democracy.

Sure, but your rights end where they infringe on mine.
I have the right to own and run my business as I see fit.
How does your right to organize trump that? It doesn't.

Jim

You need to correct that thinking. If I am an organizer, my rights to
*attempt* to organize your workforce do *not* end, regardless of your wishes
or how you run your company. If you fire your persuaded employees and
attempt to hire new ones, I will picket your business and attempt to
organize your new people. My union position would only be altered if you
provided wages, benefits and working conditions that are at least equal to
union shops. That's how things are.

That's fine.
I have a problem with the idea that you can't fire a union member just
because they are on strike.
You have the right to say or do what ever you want outside the doors of
another's business.
If employee 'A' comes to me and says "I want a raise and better
benefits" and I say "Sorry, not enough spare money", or "Sorry, you just
aren't doing a job that warrants that kind of compensation" and his
response is "Well, then I'm not coming back to work until you change
your mind". I would tell that employee to take all the time they need
and spend it in the unemployment line. Isn't that my right as a
business owner?

Jim

Yes, it is. Obviously, in the situation you outlined, the employee is not a
(union) represented employee, so you will deal with the employee as you
wish. Had the employee been a union employee, the situation would never
occur, as he/she cannot bargain individually with you, nor you with him/her.

In article ,
says...
"James Beck" wrote in message
th.net...
In article ,
says...
Leonard Caillouet" wrote in
message ...

The Bill of Rights explicitly protects all rights NOT specified in
it.
(Read it.) The right to organize to advance one's POV, agenda, etc,
is a right essential to any democracy.

Have read it many, many times.

Then you obviously haven't been paying attention.

The BOR explicitly states that non-enumerated rights -- states' and
individual -- are not disparaged. The BOR protects rights -- it does not
enumerate or proscribe them.

The right to form associations -- political or otherwise -- is a right
that
is inherent in democracy, and essential to it.

And please learn to spell coercive.


Ah, the spelling correction.
You can tell a person is grasping at straws when they have to point out
some little spelling error. The BOR still doesn't give you or any group
the right to blackmail a company.

I don't see forcing an non-human entity to behave in a "moral" fashion as
blackmail.


And I guess somehow the union is now the moral compass of the world. If
the company is so immoral, quit and start a more moral company. I guess
it comes down to, if you really think blackmail is moral just because
YOU like the end result, you are the immoral one.

Jim

In article ,
says...
On 2/8/08 11:21 AM, in article
, "James Beck"
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On 2/8/08 7:40 AM, in article
, "James Beck"
wrote:

In article ,
says...
"Leonard Caillouet" wrote in
message ...

You seem to have added a right that is not found in the BOR.
Exactly where is that right specified?

The Bill of Rights explicitly protects all rights NOT specified in it.
(Read
it.) The right to organize to advance one's POV, agenda, etc, is a right
essential to any democracy.

Sure, but your rights end where they infringe on mine.
I have the right to own and run my business as I see fit.
How does your right to organize trump that? It doesn't.

Jim

You need to correct that thinking. If I am an organizer, my rights to
*attempt* to organize your workforce do *not* end, regardless of your wishes
or how you run your company. If you fire your persuaded employees and
attempt to hire new ones, I will picket your business and attempt to
organize your new people. My union position would only be altered if you
provided wages, benefits and working conditions that are at least equal to
union shops. That's how things are.

That's fine.
I have a problem with the idea that you can't fire a union member just
because they are on strike.
You have the right to say or do what ever you want outside the doors of
another's business.
If employee 'A' comes to me and says "I want a raise and better
benefits" and I say "Sorry, not enough spare money", or "Sorry, you just
aren't doing a job that warrants that kind of compensation" and his
response is "Well, then I'm not coming back to work until you change
your mind". I would tell that employee to take all the time they need
and spend it in the unemployment line. Isn't that my right as a
business owner?

Jim

Yes, it is. Obviously, in the situation you outlined, the employee is not a
(union) represented employee, so you will deal with the employee as you
wish. Had the employee been a union employee, the situation would never
occur, as he/she cannot bargain individually with you, nor you with him/her.

OK, so what is the difference?
So, the union dude comes in and says the lug nut tighteners want another
$50/wk and better medical benefits, and I say Sorry, there is no budget
for that and the machine tightens the lugs nuts all they do is hold the
machine and I don't feel they deserve $50 more a week and you say fine
then we aren't coming back to work until you feel like the job is worth
that. So, if I now fire all the lug nut tighteners and hire people that
are willing to work for those wages, what is the difference and the
problem, other than the number of people?

Jim

On Feb 8, 5:26*pm, James Beck wrote:
In article ,
says...



On 2/8/08 11:21 AM, in article
t, "James Beck"
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On 2/8/08 7:40 AM, in article
t, "James Beck"
wrote:

In article ,
says...
"Leonard Caillouet" wrote in
...

You seem to have added a right that is not found in the BOR.
Exactly where is that right specified?

The Bill of Rights explicitly protects all rights NOT specified in it.
(Read
it.) The right to organize to advance one's POV, agenda, etc, is a right
essential to any democracy.

Sure, but your rights end where they infringe on mine.
I have the right to own and run my business as I see fit.
How does your right to organize trump that? *It doesn't.

* * * * * * * * * * *Jim

You need to correct that thinking. *If I am an organizer, my rights to
*attempt* to organize your workforce do *not* end, regardless of your wishes
or how you run your company. *If you fire your persuaded employees and
attempt to hire new ones, I will picket your business and attempt to
organize your new people. *My union position would only be altered if you
provided wages, benefits and working conditions that are at least equal to
union shops. *That's how things are.

That's fine.
I have a problem with the idea that you can't fire a union member just
because they are on strike.
You have the right to say or do what ever you want outside the doors of
another's business.
If employee 'A' comes to me and says "I want a raise and better
benefits" and I say "Sorry, not enough spare money", or "Sorry, you just
aren't doing a job that warrants that kind of compensation" and his
response is "Well, then I'm not coming back to work until you change
your mind". *I would tell that employee to take all the time they need
and spend it in the unemployment line. *Isn't that my right as a
business owner?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Jim

Yes, it is. *Obviously, in the situation you outlined, the employee is not a
(union) represented employee, so you will deal with the employee as you
wish. *Had the employee been a union employee, the situation would never
occur, as he/she cannot bargain individually with you, nor you with him/her.

OK, so what is the difference?
So, the union dude comes in and says the lug nut tighteners want another
$50/wk and better medical benefits, and I say Sorry, there is no budget
for that and the machine tightens the lugs nuts all they do is hold the
machine and I don't feel they deserve $50 more a week and you say fine
then we aren't coming back to work until you feel like the job is worth
that. *So, if I now fire all the lug nut tighteners and hire people that
are willing to work for those wages, what is the difference and the
problem, other than the number of people?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Jim- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I was a troubleshooter, a very highly respected position at a union
shop in The Bronx many years ago. We worked on electronic
countermeasures equipment for the Air Force. I really enjoyed my job
and I felt that I was doing something important for my country. One
day the shop steward came over to me and told me that I was doing too
much work. It seemed that fifteen power supplies a day was too much. I
was told that the third shift guy was only turning out eight. I told
the man that "obviously the third shift guy is incompetent and
probably should not be a troubleshooter". The steward walked away from
me and I thought that was the end of it until the "goon" showed up. It
seemed that "they" knew where I lived, they knew who my girlfriend
was, what kind of cars we drove and as he so aptly put it, " we
wouldn't want you to do something that you might regret". Luckily I
had a good relationship with my boss and I told him about this and he
took me off production and put me on repairs, an area not time
studied. I was off the hook, but the second shift guy when he was
similarly approached told them to go pound sand. His car wound up with
a mysterious case of diabetes on the Brooklyn Queens Expressway one
night on the way home from work. I loved my job but the Union was an
ever present obstacle. One could never excell with making the monkeys
look bad. I left that company because of it. That was 32 years ago and
I'm quite certain the inmates are still running the asylum. I've run
my own business for the past 24 years and I would never go back. Just
my two cents. Lenny

James Sweet wrote:

So your view of people is that they are 'stupid and cheap'? that's a
bit harsh. And, dare I say, very convenient, as it puts the blame
neatly on the citizens. You forget that demand is in part created by
supply. people will buy what is there, since their range of choices ,
i.e what's available, is dictated by accountants in the electronics
industry. It is they who ultimately decide what to put out into the
marketplace. And not every average Joe is a technician or
knowledgeable about consumer electronics, since it is not the sort of
thing taught in schools, it's hardly entirely their own fault is it?
more like a failure of the education system which does not equip
people with the skills to judge and think about what they're
consuming. Since there is little part from weak 'consumer
legislation' to force companies to put serviceability before profits,
what usually happens is, the formerly good brands end up cutting costs
to compete with the cheaper ones and the whole quality level goes
down. Oh, the joys of a free market...


It's more complex than that. You may offer a higher quality yet more
expensive product, refusing to make cheap junk, yet your competitor will put
out cheap junk and people will buy that instead, forcing you to either put
out equally cheap junk to compete, or drop out of the market. There's no one
cause of it and I don't know how to fix it, but I avoid buying cheap junk
whenever I can. It leads to me buying much less new stuff, but the new stuff
that I do buy is usually nice.


james, you are wasting your time trying to educate this anonymous
coward. His mind is closed tighter than Jack Benny's vault, and anyone
who disagrees with him is wrong. He reads what he wants to see in
whatever you write,. not what you wrote.

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

b wrote:

On Feb 7, 9:47 pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
b wrote:

On Feb 1, 2:29 pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

It is the consumer's fault that so much throw away crap is built,
because they are too stupid and too cheap to buy quality, repairable
equipment.

So your view of people is that they are 'stupid and cheap'? that's a
bit harsh. And, dare I say, very convenient, as it puts the blame
neatly on the citizens.


The truth hurts, doesn't it? the majority of the world is mindless
sheep, living for the day, if not the hour. The concept of looking for
quality and serviceability has been lost by the herd.


You forget that demand is in part created by
supply. people will buy what is there, since their range of choices ,
i.e what's available, is dictated by accountants in the electronics
industry. It is they who ultimately decide what to put out into the
marketplace. And not every average Joe is a technician or
knowledgeable about consumer electronics, since it is not the sort of
thing taught in schools, it's hardly entirely their own fault is it?


It is if the willing spend money on things they don't understand. DO
you buy a car, or power tools without looking them over and deciding
they will meet your needs? Or do you just toss a dart and buy whatever
piece of crap you hit? If people didn't buy the cheapest piece of ****
that the Chinese or any other country wants to dump, they would either
build better equipment, or go out of business. You are a complete and
utter fool if you think you can place ALL of the blame at the feet of
the bean counters.


more like a failure of the education system which does not equip
people with the skills to judge and think about what they're
consuming. Since there is little part from weak 'consumer
legislation' to force companies to put serviceability before profits,
what usually happens is, the formerly good brands end up cutting costs
to compete with the cheaper ones and the whole quality level goes
down. Oh, the joys of a free market...


Their is a lot of joy, when people think before they spend. I walk
out of stores quite often, because the quality isn't there. I don't put
up with shoddy products, or service.


had the IBEW try to unionize the cable TV company I
worked for. They GUARANTEED me $2.50 an hour less than I was making, a week's less vacation, no unwanted

And if your boss had decided to make those changes (very common in
non-unionized employer-employee relationships) then that would have
been ok, right?

I quit that job after four years, and I did it the day they announced
changes that I didn't like. Try it some time. Be a man (if you can). I
had to move to another state to find another good job, and turned down
several crappy offers in the process. One was Chief Engineer of WRGT TV
in Dayton, Ohio, because the pay and working conditions were crap.


Time to trot out the old chestnut, 'oh, I'll just
find another job if i don't like it.'


That's what a real man does. I have no idea what you would do. In
fact, I stopped to pick up something on the way home and ran into a TV
news crew from WXIX in Cincinnati. they showed a microphone in my face
and asked, "How do you deal with stress on the job?" I smiled and told
them that i had just quit my job, and kept walking.


Well one of the things about unions is that you can stand for
positions and later uses the democratic process to change what you
don't like... instead of asking what your union could do for you, you
could have asked what you could have done for your union ;-)


Bull****. I would have picked scrap metal before I would work in a
union shop. I grew up in a steel town. The jerks were always
threatening to walk out, and did several times. They finally hurt the
company so bad that they had to sell out. It was bought by a japanese
company. As soon as the new managers arrived, the union people were
there with more demands, and threats. They just smiled and told them to
walk out if they wanted to, because they intended to shut the plant down
and dismantle it at the first opportunity.


Don't try to put words in my mouth, stooge. You don't even have the
guts to use your name online, yet you are trying to preach your ignorant
unionism crap. My first job was in a TV shop when I was 13. I worked
full time at another shop (That also did industrial electronics) for two
years after I graduated. Then I was called up for the draft. I was
given five separate 4F ratings for health problems, but they drafted me
anyway, because of my electronics background. While in basic training,
I tested out of the three year course US Army electronics school at Ft.
Monmoth and was awarded the M.O.S. of broadcast engineer. I worked with
CATV headends, CARS, and weather equipment, RADAR, the world's first
emergency alert system that took control of 13 CATV systems around Ft.
Rucker and delivered emergency information on all 12 channels on all the
systems. I have built a TV station from an empty building, moved radio
stations, and built studios.

I worked as a broadcast engineer in both radio & TV, owned and
operated an industrial electronics repair business for years, repaired
computers to the component level, sold and serviced business radio
systems, did Quality Assurance in an electronics defense plant, and at
the end of my career, I worked as a production and engineering test tech
for the world leader in modular telemetry equipment.

thanks for sharing all that unsolicited biographical drivel with us -
NOT! None of which had anything at all to do with the argument. I see
that modesty is not to be found in your list of qualifications...


Drivel? That's exactly what I expect from someone who need 'Mommy
Union' to do their thinking.


Have you ever done
anything but push unions? Do you know why it was so hard to remove car
radios for repair? The union fought the change to a through the dash
design that could be done by a single employee, rather than the six
people the current system used. That drove up the price of US built
cars, along with other stupid union labor intensive steps that slowed
production, lowered quality and allowed the imports to take over the
market.

You clearly feel it was more important for the business to emulate
exploitative practises which enabled those imports to be made more
cheaply, instead of setting a standard - don't you think that those
people had any right to defend their jobs? It's all about profit with
you people.


Sigh. once again you reading and cognitive skills are completely
missing. Tell me something, B(ozo). How can you even compose a message
with so few working neurons?


the only thing that this proves is you had a weak government who
allowed this shameful corporate behaviour to go on at the expense of
the citizens who elected it and whose interests it was supposed to be
representing. Funny how , in the neoliberal ideology, capital can
cross borders freely but people can't....

Allow it? They were all for it. They needed the radios and
shipboard RADAR equipment for the US military, and the idiot union was
determined to stay out for years. The idiots in the union told them
they couldn't be replaced, because all their jobs required VERY high
skill levels. Two weeks after the plant in Mexico opened, former farm
workers were doing quite well at their jobs.

yeah, i wonder under what conditions...? So you are suggesting that it
was better for the US plant to close costing jobs, and move to exploit
mexicans.


See? you make judgments with no information whatsoever. There was
no exploitation. The workers had some of the highest pay in town and a
guarantee that as long as the company was in business the mexican plant
would remain open for a minimum of 20 years. As far as the US workers,
if the company hadn't opened the plant in Mexico they would have been
out of business within 90 days and there would have been no jobs for
them to go back to. Defense contracts have some severe penalty,
especially when delivering critical military supplies during wartime.


You truly are a brainwashed union stooge.

BTW, you should be out there kissing Obama's union loving ass instead
of wasting our time on a repair newsgroup.

The only thing I have to respond to this abuse, which is neither
called for nor deserved, is that coming from an adult on a science
newsgroup, it's pathetic.


Uncalled for? Where is that 'wonderful' union solidarity? Since the
AFL-CIO is behind him, you are disloyal not to back him.


Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.

Service to your country? service to corporate elites more like. one
day you might see that there are millions of workers out there whose
rights are in dire need of defending.


Once again your absolute ignorance exceeds your excessive arrogance.
That SIG file refers to having served in the US Army, during the Vietnam
Era. I was a broadcast engineer in the US Army at the time, and it had
absolutely nothing to do with your perverted fantasy union life. BTW,
do YOU know what the DAV is?



-B(ozo)


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

On 2/8/08 12:36 PM, in article , "Leonard
Caillouet" wrote:

"Don Bowey" wrote in message
...
On 2/8/08 7:40 AM, in article
, "James Beck"
wrote:

In article ,
says...
"Leonard Caillouet" wrote in
message ...

You seem to have added a right that is not found in the BOR.
Exactly where is that right specified?

The Bill of Rights explicitly protects all rights NOT specified in it.
(Read
it.) The right to organize to advance one's POV, agenda, etc, is a right
essential to any democracy.

Sure, but your rights end where they infringe on mine.
I have the right to own and run my business as I see fit.
How does your right to organize trump that? It doesn't.

Jim

You need to correct that thinking. If I am an organizer, my rights to
*attempt* to organize your workforce do *not* end, regardless of your
wishes
or how you run your company. If you fire your persuaded employees and
attempt to hire new ones, I will picket your business and attempt to
organize your new people. My union position would only be altered if you
provided wages, benefits and working conditions that are at least equal to
union shops. That's how things are.




And the non-union employees have the right to reject your organization,
right?

Leonard


I'm out of date on the question of Open Shop and Closed Shop.

On 2/8/08 1:15 PM, in article
, "James Beck"
wrote:

In article , says...
"Don Bowey" wrote in message
...
On 2/8/08 7:40 AM, in article
, "James Beck"
wrote:

In article ,
says...
"Leonard Caillouet" wrote in
message ...

You seem to have added a right that is not found in the BOR.
Exactly where is that right specified?

The Bill of Rights explicitly protects all rights NOT specified in it.
(Read
it.) The right to organize to advance one's POV, agenda, etc, is a right
essential to any democracy.

Sure, but your rights end where they infringe on mine.
I have the right to own and run my business as I see fit.
How does your right to organize trump that? It doesn't.

Jim

You need to correct that thinking. If I am an organizer, my rights to
*attempt* to organize your workforce do *not* end, regardless of your
wishes
or how you run your company. If you fire your persuaded employees and
attempt to hire new ones, I will picket your business and attempt to
organize your new people. My union position would only be altered if you
provided wages, benefits and working conditions that are at least equal to
union shops. That's how things are.




And the non-union employees have the right to reject your organization,
right?

Leonard

Oh yeah, try to get on at a "union shop" and not join the union. That
usually breaks some agreement that the union has coerced the employer
into agreeing to.

Jim

You may be FOS. I believe it is the employer who coerces the Union to accept
an Open Shop.

On 2/8/08 2:11 PM, in article
, "James Beck"
wrote:

In article ,
says...
"James Beck" wrote in message
th.net...
In article ,
says...
Leonard Caillouet" wrote in
message ...

The Bill of Rights explicitly protects all rights NOT specified in
it.
(Read it.) The right to organize to advance one's POV, agenda, etc,
is a right essential to any democracy.

Have read it many, many times.

Then you obviously haven't been paying attention.

The BOR explicitly states that non-enumerated rights -- states' and
individual -- are not disparaged. The BOR protects rights -- it does not
enumerate or proscribe them.

The right to form associations -- political or otherwise -- is a right
that
is inherent in democracy, and essential to it.

And please learn to spell coercive.


Ah, the spelling correction.
You can tell a person is grasping at straws when they have to point out
some little spelling error. The BOR still doesn't give you or any group
the right to blackmail a company.

I don't see forcing an non-human entity to behave in a "moral" fashion as
blackmail.


And I guess somehow the union is now the moral compass of the world. If
the company is so immoral, quit and start a more moral company. I guess
it comes down to, if you really think blackmail is moral just because
YOU like the end result, you are the immoral one.

Jim

Who is being blackmailed and specifically how? Or is this just more mud
slinging?

On 2/8/08 2:26 PM, in article
, "James Beck"
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On 2/8/08 11:21 AM, in article
, "James Beck"
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On 2/8/08 7:40 AM, in article
, "James Beck"
wrote:

In article ,
says...
"Leonard Caillouet" wrote in
message ...

You seem to have added a right that is not found in the BOR.
Exactly where is that right specified?

The Bill of Rights explicitly protects all rights NOT specified in it.
(Read
it.) The right to organize to advance one's POV, agenda, etc, is a right
essential to any democracy.

Sure, but your rights end where they infringe on mine.
I have the right to own and run my business as I see fit.
How does your right to organize trump that? It doesn't.

Jim

You need to correct that thinking. If I am an organizer, my rights to
*attempt* to organize your workforce do *not* end, regardless of your
wishes
or how you run your company. If you fire your persuaded employees and
attempt to hire new ones, I will picket your business and attempt to
organize your new people. My union position would only be altered if you
provided wages, benefits and working conditions that are at least equal to
union shops. That's how things are.

That's fine.
I have a problem with the idea that you can't fire a union member just
because they are on strike.
You have the right to say or do what ever you want outside the doors of
another's business.
If employee 'A' comes to me and says "I want a raise and better
benefits" and I say "Sorry, not enough spare money", or "Sorry, you just
aren't doing a job that warrants that kind of compensation" and his
response is "Well, then I'm not coming back to work until you change
your mind". I would tell that employee to take all the time they need
and spend it in the unemployment line. Isn't that my right as a
business owner?

Jim

Yes, it is. Obviously, in the situation you outlined, the employee is not a
(union) represented employee, so you will deal with the employee as you
wish. Had the employee been a union employee, the situation would never
occur, as he/she cannot bargain individually with you, nor you with him/her.

OK, so what is the difference?
So, the union dude comes in and says the lug nut tighteners want another
$50/wk and better medical benefits, and I say Sorry, there is no budget
for that and the machine tightens the lugs nuts all they do is hold the
machine and I don't feel they deserve $50 more a week and you say fine
then we aren't coming back to work until you feel like the job is worth
that. So, if I now fire all the lug nut tighteners and hire people that
are willing to work for those wages, what is the difference and the
problem, other than the number of people?

Jim

No, as a supervisor or manager of a union workforce you would know better
than to say that to the union dude, so the rest of what you say is totally
irrelevant.

Here's how it would go: So, the union dude comes in and says the lug nut
tighteners want another $50/wk and better medical benefits, and I say to
him, sorry, you know these are bargaining issues. Take this up with your
Union Steward and if she/he wants to, they can take it to your bargaining
team for next time the contract is negotiated.

At that point the Steward *will* support the management reply and that will
be the end of it until the next bargaining session prior to the contract
running out.

On Feb 9, 3:25 am, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

The truth hurts, doesn't it? the majority of the world is mindless
sheep, living for the day, if not the hour. The concept of looking for
quality and serviceability has been lost by the herd.

well, thanks for confirming what i had suspected. It's precisely that
sort of view of people which has laid the groundwork for tyranny
throughout history!

you hit? If people didn't buy the cheapest piece of ****
that the Chinese or any other country wants to dump, they would either
build better equipment, or go out of business. You are a complete and
utter fool if you think you can place ALL of the blame at the feet of
the bean counters.

...which i didn't, I merely pointed out that not everyone is tech-
savvy, and not necessarily through any fault of their own.


And if your boss had decided to make those changes (very common in
non-unionized employer-employee relationships) then that would have
been ok, right?

I quit that job after four years, and I did it the day they announced
changes that I didn't like. Try it some time. Be a man (if you can).

So, you ran away. Real man-style, then. Truth is, you suffered at the
hands of your employer who did what he wanted with no regard for you,
but you're too proud to admit it.

I grew up in a steel town. The jerks were always
threatening to walk out, and did several times. They finally hurt the
company so bad that they had to sell out. It was bought by a japanese
company.

So what does this prove? that your country is up for sale and the
workers have no defence. Nice place to live, I'm sure.....

Sigh. once again you reading and cognitive skills are completely
missing. Tell me something, B(ozo). How can you even compose a message
with so few working neurons?

well thanks once more for another torrent of abuse. A clear sign of
someone who knows their arguments are shaky and resorts to name
calling. Clearly you're just a sad old man, sat behind the computer
with nothing better to do. I actually feel a bit sorry for you.

The workers had some of the highest pay in town and a
guarantee that as long as the company was in business the mexican plant
would remain open for a minimum of 20 years. As far as the US workers,
if the company hadn't opened the plant in Mexico they would have been
out of business within 90 days and there would have been no jobs for
them to go back to. Defense contracts have some severe penalty,
especially when delivering critical military supplies during wartime.

(sigh)...Once more you don't seem to grasp the idea that outsourcing
production to the third world to cut costs (or threatening to in order
to make the employees work for **** money, precarious contracts and
worse conditions) is not ethical behaviour. It's an example of
everything that is wrong with corporate ideology.

-B

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...
James Sweet wrote:

So your view of people is that they are 'stupid and cheap'? that's a
bit harsh. And, dare I say, very convenient, as it puts the blame
neatly on the citizens. You forget that demand is in part created by
supply. people will buy what is there, since their range of choices ,
i.e what's available, is dictated by accountants in the electronics
industry. It is they who ultimately decide what to put out into the
marketplace. And not every average Joe is a technician or
knowledgeable about consumer electronics, since it is not the sort of
thing taught in schools, it's hardly entirely their own fault is it?
more like a failure of the education system which does not equip
people with the skills to judge and think about what they're
consuming. Since there is little part from weak 'consumer
legislation' to force companies to put serviceability before profits,
what usually happens is, the formerly good brands end up cutting
costs to compete with the cheaper ones and the whole quality level
goes down. Oh, the joys of a free market...

It's more complex than that. You may offer a higher quality yet more
expensive product, refusing to make cheap junk, yet your competitor will
put
out cheap junk and people will buy that instead, forcing you to either
put
out equally cheap junk to compete, or drop out of the market. There's no
one
cause of it and I don't know how to fix it, but I avoid buying cheap junk
whenever I can. It leads to me buying much less new stuff, but the new
stuff
that I do buy is usually nice.

james, you are wasting your time trying to educate this anonymous
coward. His mind is closed tighter than Jack Benny's vault, and anyone
who disagrees with him is wrong. He reads what he wants to see in
whatever you write,. not what you wrote.

I'm inclined to agree/disagree with all of you. Sony isn't doing too well at
the moment, but the company used to do pretty well with a mix of pricey --
and often innovative -- products, with more modestly priced items. Unlike
Polaroid, Sony has not yet ruined its good name. Sony got its reputation for
the perceived quality of its products.

Cheap items aren't always junk, and cheap items don't necessarily drive out
more-expensive items. People are somewhat (but only somewhat) more aware
than you might think. Back around March I was wandering through Fry's and
noticed the latest Sony Bravia LCD. My jaw dropped. (I was sorely tempted to
buy it.) A day later one of the review mags came, frothing at the mouth over
this model.

I love my AIBO like.no.other thing I've ever owned.

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

The truth hurts, doesn't it? the majority of the world is mindless
sheep, living for the day, if not the hour. The concept of looking for
quality and serviceability has been lost by the herd.

I don't think they ever had it. People are more influenced by advertising
than careful thought.


It is if the willing spend money on things they don't understand. DO
you buy a car, or power tools without looking them over and deciding
they will meet your needs? Or do you just toss a dart and buy whatever
piece of crap you hit? If people didn't buy the cheapest piece of ****
that the Chinese or any other country wants to dump, they would either
build better equipment, or go out of business. You are a complete and
utter fool if you think you can place ALL of the blame at the feet of
the bean counters.

I bought a Chinese jukebox -- the iRiver HP-120 -- after careful research,
and have had no reason to complain. At the time I bought it, it was a much
better product than any of the iPods. As an audio-only player, it still is.


I quit that job after four years, and I did it the day they announced
changes that I didn't like. Try it some time. Be a man (if you can). I
had to move to another state to find another good job, and turned down
several crappy offers in the process. One was Chief Engineer of WRGT TV
in Dayton, Ohio, because the pay and working conditions were crap.

Were you married at the time? Having dependents can greatly reduce your
freedom to make a decision.

William Sommerwerck wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

The truth hurts, doesn't it? the majority of the world is mindless
sheep, living for the day, if not the hour. The concept of looking for
quality and serviceability has been lost by the herd.

I don't think they ever had it. People are more influenced by advertising
than careful thought.


They used to look around more than they do today. You see people
walk down the isle, just looking at prices, then grabbing a box with the
lowest price.


It is if the willing spend money on things they don't understand. DO
you buy a car, or power tools without looking them over and deciding
they will meet your needs? Or do you just toss a dart and buy whatever
piece of crap you hit? If people didn't buy the cheapest piece of ****
that the Chinese or any other country wants to dump, they would either
build better equipment, or go out of business. You are a complete and
utter fool if you think you can place ALL of the blame at the feet of
the bean counters.

I bought a Chinese jukebox -- the iRiver HP-120 -- after careful research,
and have had no reason to complain. At the time I bought it, it was a much
better product than any of the iPods. As an audio-only player, it still is.


There is some decent imported equipment, but the majority of it is
junk. You did your research, rather than impulse buy. Most people
don't.


I quit that job after four years, and I did it the day they announced
changes that I didn't like. Try it some time. Be a man (if you can). I
had to move to another state to find another good job, and turned down
several crappy offers in the process. One was Chief Engineer of WRGT TV
in Dayton, Ohio, because the pay and working conditions were crap.

Were you married at the time? Having dependents can greatly reduce your
freedom to make a decision.


No. that station bragged that it was built under budget, and I
already knew they had lost three chief engineers because the way the
place was built, and the station only willing to pay a 40 hour per week
salary, while expecting you to be available 24/7.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

b wrote:

On Feb 9, 3:25 am, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

The truth hurts, doesn't it? the majority of the world is mindless
sheep, living for the day, if not the hour. The concept of looking for
quality and serviceability has been lost by the herd.

well, thanks for confirming what i had suspected. It's precisely that
sort of view of people which has laid the groundwork for tyranny
throughout history!


Certainly! Our employees were the highest paid techs in the area,
had the best health care, got to drive company trucks home, and could be
fired if they didn't do their jobs right. My pay was more than $3 an
hour higher than anyone in any of the union shops. As usual, you union
maggots can't see reality for your greed.


you hit? If people didn't buy the cheapest piece of ****
that the Chinese or any other country wants to dump, they would either
build better equipment, or go out of business. You are a complete and
utter fool if you think you can place ALL of the blame at the feet of
the bean counters.

..which i didn't, I merely pointed out that not everyone is tech-
savvy, and not necessarily through any fault of their own.


So it isn't their fault that they are ignorant? Then where do YOU
lay the blame? Public schools? their parents? I KNOW! They were
unloved as a child and refused to learn anything, just to show up their
parents!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



And if your boss had decided to make those changes (very common in
non-unionized employer-employee relationships) then that would have
been ok, right?

I quit that job after four years, and I did it the day they announced
changes that I didn't like. Try it some time. Be a man (if you can).

So, you ran away. Real man-style, then. Truth is, you suffered at the
hands of your employer who did what he wanted with no regard for you,
but you're too proud to admit it.


See? You are making more unfounded ASS-umptions. The company hired
an new executive VP who decided to close the in house service
department. Both techs were to be transferred to field work, and because
of my health I could not climb poles on climbing hooks. I was made a
promise that I would NEVER have to climb a pole, and had one of the
bucket trucks available for special projects. It was no longer the
company I had agreed to work for, so I was man enough to leave. You ass
kissing union losers would have walked out on strike, because you can't
think for yourself. Also, I wanted to leave the area to be closer to
family, all of who lived in Florida.


I grew up in a steel town. The jerks were always
threatening to walk out, and did several times. They finally hurt the
company so bad that they had to sell out. It was bought by a japanese
company.

So what does this prove? that your country is up for sale and the
workers have no defence. Nice place to live, I'm sure.....


Just the twisted communist view I expected from a union flunky. The
owners were fed up with the union forcing them to keep thieves and
useless workers on the payroll, so they sold out. It was the Middletown
Armco steel mill, the first computer controlled steel mill in the United
States. It was built in the early '60s at a cost of over 1.2 Billion
dollars. The 'union' construction company managed to turn a 600 million
dollar project into one with an over 100 percent cost overrun. The
workers were well paid, because most of the jobs were technical, not
grunt work like their original 100 year old mill.

AK Steel, the new owners wanted to close the plant because they could
make steel cheaper in Japan, even though the quality was lower. The
plant needed some upgrades, but all the money Armco needed to stay
competitive was being bled from their bank accounts by the deadwood the
union demanded they keep on their payroll.

Middletown WAS a very nice place to live, till the greedy union
*******s slit their own throats. The ripple effect on the support
industries hurt about 200,000 people.


Sigh. once again you reading and cognitive skills are completely
missing. Tell me something, B(ozo). How can you even compose a message
with so few working neurons?

well thanks once more for another torrent of abuse.


You're welcome. I studied hard to learn to talk like a union member.


A clear sign of
someone who knows their arguments are shaky and resorts to name
calling.


A clear sign of someone who knows their union arguments are shaky
and resorts to name calling.


Clearly you're just a sad old man, sat behind the computer
with nothing better to do. I actually feel a bit sorry for you.


See above.


The workers had some of the highest pay in town and a
guarantee that as long as the company was in business the mexican plant
would remain open for a minimum of 20 years. As far as the US workers,
if the company hadn't opened the plant in Mexico they would have been
out of business within 90 days and there would have been no jobs for
them to go back to. Defense contracts have some severe penalty,
especially when delivering critical military supplies during wartime.

(sigh)...Once more you don't seem to grasp the idea that outsourcing
production to the third world to cut costs (or threatening to in order
to make the employees work for **** money, precarious contracts and
worse conditions) is not ethical behaviour.


Show everyone where I EVER made that claim. I was ****ed by the
early imports of Japanese 'crap-tronics' when it hit our shores, over 40
years ago. No one listened, because the stuff was
CHEAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They could save 30% or more, and have it right
now even if it failed within a year.


It's an example of everything that is wrong with corporate ideology.


You are an example of someone who only see what he wants to, and
tells lies to make his point. No one should be guaranteed a job for
life, or be protected from being fired for stealing, doing shoddy or no
work at all.

Unions are greedy and have caused a lot of businesses to close. For
example: A corporation owned about 20 paper mills across the US. 19
were making decent profits, and the other was hemorrhaging losses. The
workers complained about everything, and never admitted their screw
ups. The machinery is too old! (It was newer than most of the other
plants.) The raw material is no good. (The other plants used the same
materials from the same sources.) It wasn't their fault they were late
or absent from the job several times a week, blah, blah, blah.

The president of the company moved to Middletown, Ohio to try to
straighten it out. After a few months of their constant whining, they
told him they were going union. He showed them that they were already
better paid that the union people working in other local paper mills and
he was not going to put up with another layer of problems, that if they
formed a union, he was closing the plant and splitting their work
between two of their other plants in the region.

They told him he was bluffing. A few days later they walked into his
office and dropped the union papers on his desk. He picked up his phone
and announced the plant was closed, and that people only had five
minutes to remove their personal property.

All of a sudden they were making all kinds of promises, offered to
tear up the union papers, but the place was closed and padlocked. It
cost his company less for additional shipping from the other plants to
their customers, than the expense of trying to keep that plant open. No
one got transferred to another plant.

Fast forward a decade: Another local paper plant burnt one night,
and made the national news. The president that had closed that mill
flew into town the next morning to deliver the keys to his closed
plant. It opened a few days later, with same machinery. Within a few
weeks they were producing more than three times the paper the former
workers ever did.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

Certainly! Our employees were the highest paid techs in the area,
had the best health care, got to drive company trucks home, and
could be fired if they didn't do their jobs right. My pay was more
than $3 an hour higher than anyone in any of the union shops.
As usual, you union maggots can't see reality for your greed.

If the situation were reversed -- that the union employees were better
off -- would you have pumped for a union?

I've long wanted a union for technical writers. Not for better pay, which is
good, but to keep out the unqualified people (ie, middle-aged women who have
nothing better to do with their time) and establish high standards of
technical documentation. I wish there were a tech-writer's union -- I'd
probably still be working at Data I/O.

Speaking of steel mills... Do you remember the tax break American steel
companies got back in the '70s? Do you remember what they did with it?

Greedy unions exist because greedy businesses exist.

On Feb 10, 4:27 am, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

Certainly! Our employees were the highest paid techs in the area,
had the best health care, got to drive company trucks home, and could be
fired if they didn't do their jobs right. My pay was more than $3 an
hour higher than anyone in any of the union shops. As usual, you union
maggots can't see reality for your greed.

Or to put it another way, you couldn't see what was coming for your
greed. you preferred better wages in the short term and zero job
security - as you later found out to your cost. who's the greedy one
here?

(speculative crap snipped)

So, you ran away. Real man-style, then. Truth is, you suffered at the
hands of your employer who did what he wanted with no regard for
you, but you're too proud to admit it.

See? You are making more unfounded ASS-umptions. The company hired
an new executive VP who decided to close the in house service
department. Both techs were to be transferred to field work, and because
of my health I could not climb poles on climbing hooks. I was made a
promise that I would NEVER have to climb a pole,

..dumb****, for believing that!

kissing union losers would have walked out on strike, because you can't
think for yourself.

....and losers like you go round blithely union-bashing, spewing out
this nonsense because you are too stupid or too indoctrinated by
neoliberal doctrines to realise you're being screwed over, wrapping it
up in BS about 'being a man'. everyone can see how full of **** you
are.

Also, I wanted to leave the area to be closer to
family, all of who lived in Florida.

ah, so now you weren't forced out aof a job by broken management
promises, but you WANTED to leave. this is hilarious!

I grew up in a steel town. The jerks were always
threatening to walk out, and did several times. They finally hurt the
company so bad that they had to sell out. It was bought by a japanese
company.

So what does this prove? that your country is up for sale and the
workers have no defence. Nice place to live, I'm sure.....

Just the twisted communist view I expected from a union flunky. The
owners were fed up with the union forcing them to keep thieves and
useless workers on the payroll, so they sold out.

ah, so its 'reds under the bed' time now. this is great, how many more
cold war clichés are you going to come out with?

AK Steel, the new owners wanted to close the plant because they could
make steel cheaper in Japan, even though the quality was lower. The
plant needed some upgrades, but all the money Armco needed to stay
competitive was being bled from their bank accounts by the deadwood the
union demanded they keep on their payroll.

who's to say who is 'dead wood' and who isn't ? sounds like an excuse
to increase profits at the cost of the workers to me.

ultimately this seems to come down not so much to an argument about
industrial relations, but to an argument about basic view of people.
You feel they're 'thieves', 'lazy', 'dead wood', 'stooges', 'maggots',
a 'herd'...I pity people with a dismal worldview like you. You have
proven yourself incapable of educated and balanced argument; someone
comes along with a more open view of people and their rights, then you
immediately start getting personal and vulgar - there's barely a
single paragraph you wrote which didn't contain some abuse and
bull****.

(more tired union-bashing snipped)

(sigh)...Once more you don't seem to grasp the idea that outsourcing
production to the third world to cut costs (or threatening to in order
to make the employees work for **** money, precarious contracts and
worse conditions) is not ethical behaviour.

Show everyone where I EVER made that claim.

your incessant disregard for the rights of woriking people NOT to be
screwed over by employers is evidence enough. we're going round in
circles here so let's just agree to disagree...
-B

"b" wrote in message
...
On Feb 10, 4:27 am, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

Ah, so it's "reds under the bed" time now. This is great, how
many more Cold War clichés are you going to come out with?

Actually, the idea of unions being "communist" organizations dates back long
before the Cold War. Rent "How Green Was My Valley". The father -- who has
an important job in the coal mine -- is very much against unions because
they're "communist".

On Feb 11, 12:28 am, "William Sommerwerck"

Actually, the idea of unions being "communist" organizations dates back long
before the Cold War. Rent "How Green Was My Valley". The father -- who has
an important job in the coal mine -- is very much against unions because
they're "communist".

thanks William, will try and find a copy!

-B

I have an old dog eared hard back How Green Was My Valley book here.
I never haved worked anywhere that was union, and I wouldn't
either.Those unions always wind up shooting themselves in the foot.
http://sgmidisoundtracks.homestead.c..._Strangers.MID
cuhulin

In article 93696c5c-5c71-45a4-a271-92ef4adc74c8
@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com, says...
On Feb 8, 5:26*pm, James Beck wrote:
In article ,
says...



On 2/8/08 11:21 AM, in article
t, "James Beck"
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On 2/8/08 7:40 AM, in article
t, "James Beck"
wrote:

In article ,
says...
"Leonard Caillouet" wrote in
...

You seem to have added a right that is not found in the BOR.
Exactly where is that right specified?

The Bill of Rights explicitly protects all rights NOT specified in it.
(Read
it.) The right to organize to advance one's POV, agenda, etc, is a right
essential to any democracy.

Sure, but your rights end where they infringe on mine.
I have the right to own and run my business as I see fit.
How does your right to organize trump that? *It doesn't.

* * * * * * * * * * *Jim

You need to correct that thinking. *If I am an organizer, my rights to
*attempt* to organize your workforce do *not* end, regardless of your wishes
or how you run your company. *If you fire your persuaded employees and
attempt to hire new ones, I will picket your business and attempt to
organize your new people. *My union position would only be altered if you
provided wages, benefits and working conditions that are at least equal to
union shops. *That's how things are.

That's fine.
I have a problem with the idea that you can't fire a union member just
because they are on strike.
You have the right to say or do what ever you want outside the doors of
another's business.
If employee 'A' comes to me and says "I want a raise and better
benefits" and I say "Sorry, not enough spare money", or "Sorry, you just
aren't doing a job that warrants that kind of compensation" and his
response is "Well, then I'm not coming back to work until you change
your mind". *I would tell that employee to take all the time they need
and spend it in the unemployment line. *Isn't that my right as a
business owner?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Jim

Yes, it is. *Obviously, in the situation you outlined, the employee is not a
(union) represented employee, so you will deal with the employee as you
wish. *Had the employee been a union employee, the situation would never
occur, as he/she cannot bargain individually with you, nor you with him/her.

OK, so what is the difference?
So, the union dude comes in and says the lug nut tighteners want another
$50/wk and better medical benefits, and I say Sorry, there is no budget
for that and the machine tightens the lugs nuts all they do is hold the
machine and I don't feel they deserve $50 more a week and you say fine
then we aren't coming back to work until you feel like the job is worth
that. *So, if I now fire all the lug nut tighteners and hire people that
are willing to work for those wages, what is the difference and the
problem, other than the number of people?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Jim- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I was a troubleshooter, a very highly respected position at a union
shop in The Bronx many years ago. We worked on electronic
countermeasures equipment for the Air Force. I really enjoyed my job
and I felt that I was doing something important for my country. One
day the shop steward came over to me and told me that I was doing too
much work. It seemed that fifteen power supplies a day was too much. I
was told that the third shift guy was only turning out eight. I told
the man that "obviously the third shift guy is incompetent and
probably should not be a troubleshooter". The steward walked away from
me and I thought that was the end of it until the "goon" showed up. It
seemed that "they" knew where I lived, they knew who my girlfriend
was, what kind of cars we drove and as he so aptly put it, " we
wouldn't want you to do something that you might regret". Luckily I
had a good relationship with my boss and I told him about this and he
took me off production and put me on repairs, an area not time
studied. I was off the hook, but the second shift guy when he was
similarly approached told them to go pound sand. His car wound up with
a mysterious case of diabetes on the Brooklyn Queens Expressway one
night on the way home from work. I loved my job but the Union was an
ever present obstacle. One could never excell with making the monkeys
look bad. I left that company because of it. That was 32 years ago and
I'm quite certain the inmates are still running the asylum. I've run
my own business for the past 24 years and I would never go back. Just
my two cents. Lenny


Oh yeah, these guys are real pillars of the community.
From :
http://my.earthlink.net/article/nat?...47ad3350_3ca6_
1552620080209854738943

Delvescovo, reputed mob associate Nicholas Calvo and union official
Michael King allegedly shook down a subcontractor identified in the
indictment only as "John Doe No. 4." The informant is Joseph Vollaro,
the owner of Andrews Trucking and other companies, according to a
federal law enforcement official who spoke on condition of anonymity
because the individual was not named in the documents.

In article ,
says...
On 2/8/08 1:15 PM, in article
, "James Beck"
wrote:

In article , says...
"Don Bowey" wrote in message
...
On 2/8/08 7:40 AM, in article
, "James Beck"
wrote:

In article ,
says...
"Leonard Caillouet" wrote in
message ...

You seem to have added a right that is not found in the BOR.
Exactly where is that right specified?

The Bill of Rights explicitly protects all rights NOT specified in it.
(Read
it.) The right to organize to advance one's POV, agenda, etc, is a right
essential to any democracy.

Sure, but your rights end where they infringe on mine.
I have the right to own and run my business as I see fit.
How does your right to organize trump that? It doesn't.

Jim

You need to correct that thinking. If I am an organizer, my rights to
*attempt* to organize your workforce do *not* end, regardless of your
wishes
or how you run your company. If you fire your persuaded employees and
attempt to hire new ones, I will picket your business and attempt to
organize your new people. My union position would only be altered if you
provided wages, benefits and working conditions that are at least equal to
union shops. That's how things are.




And the non-union employees have the right to reject your organization,
right?

Leonard

Oh yeah, try to get on at a "union shop" and not join the union. That
usually breaks some agreement that the union has coerced the employer
into agreeing to.

Jim

You may be FOS. I believe it is the employer who coerces the Union to accept
an Open Shop.


Yeah, I'll bet that is a common thing......... NOT, and what you BELIEVE
and what really happened might just be 2 different things.

Jim

In article ,
says...
On 2/8/08 2:11 PM, in article
, "James Beck"
wrote:

In article ,
says...
"James Beck" wrote in message
th.net...
In article ,
says...
Leonard Caillouet" wrote in
message ...

The Bill of Rights explicitly protects all rights NOT specified in
it.
(Read it.) The right to organize to advance one's POV, agenda, etc,
is a right essential to any democracy.

Have read it many, many times.

Then you obviously haven't been paying attention.

The BOR explicitly states that non-enumerated rights -- states' and
individual -- are not disparaged. The BOR protects rights -- it does not
enumerate or proscribe them.

The right to form associations -- political or otherwise -- is a right
that
is inherent in democracy, and essential to it.

And please learn to spell coercive.


Ah, the spelling correction.
You can tell a person is grasping at straws when they have to point out
some little spelling error. The BOR still doesn't give you or any group
the right to blackmail a company.

I don't see forcing an non-human entity to behave in a "moral" fashion as
blackmail.


And I guess somehow the union is now the moral compass of the world. If
the company is so immoral, quit and start a more moral company. I guess
it comes down to, if you really think blackmail is moral just because
YOU like the end result, you are the immoral one.

Jim

Who is being blackmailed and specifically how? Or is this just more mud
slinging?

You don't understand the term?
Just to top it off, it appears that the union thugs in NYC have been
shaking down construction companies for illegal kick backs. Yep, real
moral giants there.

http://my.earthlink.net/article/nat?...47ad3350_3ca6_
1552620080209854738943

Jim

In article ,
says...
On 2/8/08 2:26 PM, in article
, "James Beck"
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On 2/8/08 11:21 AM, in article
, "James Beck"
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On 2/8/08 7:40 AM, in article
, "James Beck"
wrote:

In article ,
says...
"Leonard Caillouet" wrote in
message ...

You seem to have added a right that is not found in the BOR.
Exactly where is that right specified?

The Bill of Rights explicitly protects all rights NOT specified in it.
(Read
it.) The right to organize to advance one's POV, agenda, etc, is a right
essential to any democracy.

Sure, but your rights end where they infringe on mine.
I have the right to own and run my business as I see fit.
How does your right to organize trump that? It doesn't.

Jim

You need to correct that thinking. If I am an organizer, my rights to
*attempt* to organize your workforce do *not* end, regardless of your
wishes
or how you run your company. If you fire your persuaded employees and
attempt to hire new ones, I will picket your business and attempt to
organize your new people. My union position would only be altered if you
provided wages, benefits and working conditions that are at least equal to
union shops. That's how things are.

That's fine.
I have a problem with the idea that you can't fire a union member just
because they are on strike.
You have the right to say or do what ever you want outside the doors of
another's business.
If employee 'A' comes to me and says "I want a raise and better
benefits" and I say "Sorry, not enough spare money", or "Sorry, you just
aren't doing a job that warrants that kind of compensation" and his
response is "Well, then I'm not coming back to work until you change
your mind". I would tell that employee to take all the time they need
and spend it in the unemployment line. Isn't that my right as a
business owner?

Jim

Yes, it is. Obviously, in the situation you outlined, the employee is not a
(union) represented employee, so you will deal with the employee as you
wish. Had the employee been a union employee, the situation would never
occur, as he/she cannot bargain individually with you, nor you with him/her.

OK, so what is the difference?
So, the union dude comes in and says the lug nut tighteners want another
$50/wk and better medical benefits, and I say Sorry, there is no budget
for that and the machine tightens the lugs nuts all they do is hold the
machine and I don't feel they deserve $50 more a week and you say fine
then we aren't coming back to work until you feel like the job is worth
that. So, if I now fire all the lug nut tighteners and hire people that
are willing to work for those wages, what is the difference and the
problem, other than the number of people?

Jim

No, as a supervisor or manager of a union workforce you would know better
than to say that to the union dude, so the rest of what you say is totally
irrelevant.

Here's how it would go: So, the union dude comes in and says the lug nut
tighteners want another $50/wk and better medical benefits, and I say to
him, sorry, you know these are bargaining issues. Take this up with your
Union Steward and if she/he wants to, they can take it to your bargaining
team for next time the contract is negotiated.

At that point the Steward *will* support the management reply and that will
be the end of it until the next bargaining session prior to the contract
running out.

And then........................................

William Sommerwerck wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

Certainly! Our employees were the highest paid techs in the area,
had the best health care, got to drive company trucks home, and
could be fired if they didn't do their jobs right. My pay was more
than $3 an hour higher than anyone in any of the union shops.
As usual, you union maggots can't see reality for your greed.

If the situation were reversed -- that the union employees were better
off -- would you have pumped for a union?


No I would have moved to another field. That job was well below my
skill set, but the pay was acceptable. I worked second shift by myself,
set my own schedule, and had free cable TV while at work. If there was
something I wanted to watch, that was when i took my lunch break.


I've long wanted a union for technical writers. Not for better pay, which is
good, but to keep out the unqualified people (ie, middle-aged women who have
nothing better to do with their time) and establish high standards of
technical documentation. I wish there were a tech-writer's union -- I'd
probably still be working at Data I/O.


A professional association would be better than a union, but you
still run into management not understanding the importance of good
documentation, or even worse, the bean counters who won't spend the
money.


Speaking of steel mills... Do you remember the tax break American steel
companies got back in the '70s? Do you remember what they did with it?


When was this? I spent part of the '70s in the US Army.


Greedy unions exist because greedy businesses exist.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

On 2/11/08 7:32 AM, in article
, "James Beck"
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On 2/8/08 2:11 PM, in article
, "James Beck"
wrote:

In article ,
says...
"James Beck" wrote in message
th.net...
In article ,
says...
Leonard Caillouet" wrote in
message ...

The Bill of Rights explicitly protects all rights NOT specified in
it.
(Read it.) The right to organize to advance one's POV, agenda, etc,
is a right essential to any democracy.

Have read it many, many times.

Then you obviously haven't been paying attention.

The BOR explicitly states that non-enumerated rights -- states' and
individual -- are not disparaged. The BOR protects rights -- it does not
enumerate or proscribe them.

The right to form associations -- political or otherwise -- is a right
that
is inherent in democracy, and essential to it.

And please learn to spell coercive.


Ah, the spelling correction.
You can tell a person is grasping at straws when they have to point out
some little spelling error. The BOR still doesn't give you or any group
the right to blackmail a company.

I don't see forcing an non-human entity to behave in a "moral" fashion as
blackmail.


And I guess somehow the union is now the moral compass of the world. If
the company is so immoral, quit and start a more moral company. I guess
it comes down to, if you really think blackmail is moral just because
YOU like the end result, you are the immoral one.

Jim

Who is being blackmailed and specifically how? Or is this just more mud
slinging?

You don't understand the term?

I understand the term, but obviously you don't or you would be able to
specify the item the union threatened to "tell about."


Just to top it off, it appears that the union thugs in NYC have been
shaking down construction companies for illegal kick backs. Yep, real
moral giants there.

So what were the construction companies doing that opened them up to being
"blackmailed" (your term, not mine)? Sounds like two rotten organizations.



http://my.earthlink.net/article/nat?...47ad3350_3ca6_
1552620080209854738943

Jim

On 2/11/08 7:33 AM, in article
, "James Beck"
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On 2/8/08 2:26 PM, in article
, "James Beck"
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On 2/8/08 11:21 AM, in article
, "James Beck"
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On 2/8/08 7:40 AM, in article
, "James Beck"
wrote:

In article ,
says...
"Leonard Caillouet" wrote in
message ...

You seem to have added a right that is not found in the BOR.
Exactly where is that right specified?

The Bill of Rights explicitly protects all rights NOT specified in it.
(Read
it.) The right to organize to advance one's POV, agenda, etc, is a
right
essential to any democracy.

Sure, but your rights end where they infringe on mine.
I have the right to own and run my business as I see fit.
How does your right to organize trump that? It doesn't.

Jim

You need to correct that thinking. If I am an organizer, my rights to
*attempt* to organize your workforce do *not* end, regardless of your
wishes
or how you run your company. If you fire your persuaded employees and
attempt to hire new ones, I will picket your business and attempt to
organize your new people. My union position would only be altered if you
provided wages, benefits and working conditions that are at least equal
to
union shops. That's how things are.

That's fine.
I have a problem with the idea that you can't fire a union member just
because they are on strike.
You have the right to say or do what ever you want outside the doors of
another's business.
If employee 'A' comes to me and says "I want a raise and better
benefits" and I say "Sorry, not enough spare money", or "Sorry, you just
aren't doing a job that warrants that kind of compensation" and his
response is "Well, then I'm not coming back to work until you change
your mind". I would tell that employee to take all the time they need
and spend it in the unemployment line. Isn't that my right as a
business owner?

Jim

Yes, it is. Obviously, in the situation you outlined, the employee is not
a
(union) represented employee, so you will deal with the employee as you
wish. Had the employee been a union employee, the situation would never
occur, as he/she cannot bargain individually with you, nor you with
him/her.

OK, so what is the difference?
So, the union dude comes in and says the lug nut tighteners want another
$50/wk and better medical benefits, and I say Sorry, there is no budget
for that and the machine tightens the lugs nuts all they do is hold the
machine and I don't feel they deserve $50 more a week and you say fine
then we aren't coming back to work until you feel like the job is worth
that. So, if I now fire all the lug nut tighteners and hire people that
are willing to work for those wages, what is the difference and the
problem, other than the number of people?

Jim

No, as a supervisor or manager of a union workforce you would know better
than to say that to the union dude, so the rest of what you say is totally
irrelevant.

Here's how it would go: So, the union dude comes in and says the lug nut
tighteners want another $50/wk and better medical benefits, and I say to
him, sorry, you know these are bargaining issues. Take this up with your
Union Steward and if she/he wants to, they can take it to your bargaining
team for next time the contract is negotiated.

At that point the Steward *will* support the management reply and that will
be the end of it until the next bargaining session prior to the contract
running out.

And then........................................



And then what? You are showing clear signs of being an ass.

b wrote:

On Feb 10, 4:27 am, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

Certainly! Our employees were the highest paid techs in the area,
had the best health care, got to drive company trucks home, and could be
fired if they didn't do their jobs right. My pay was more than $3 an
hour higher than anyone in any of the union shops. As usual, you union
maggots can't see reality for your greed.

Or to put it another way, you couldn't see what was coming for your
greed. you preferred better wages in the short term and zero job
security - as you later found out to your cost. who's the greedy one
here?

(speculative crap snipped)


And a union would have guaranteed me a job forever? How IS the buggy
whip manufacturing business these days?


So, you ran away. Real man-style, then. Truth is, you suffered at the
hands of your employer who did what he wanted with no regard for
you, but you're too proud to admit it.

See? You are making more unfounded ASS-umptions. The company hired
an new executive VP who decided to close the in house service
department. Both techs were to be transferred to field work, and because
of my health I could not climb poles on climbing hooks. I was made a
promise that I would NEVER have to climb a pole,

..dumb****, for believing that!


No, but you are for thinking that you know all the details. I ran the
corporate repair facility, I was not part of the field crew. At first
it was interesting work. I was repairing equipment that the manufacturer
couldn't, designed system extensions and CATV headends.

Now tell us: If you were hired as a welder would YOU expect to be
cleaning toilets?


kissing union losers would have walked out on strike, because you can't
think for yourself.

....and losers like you go round blithely union-bashing, spewing out
this nonsense because you are too stupid or too indoctrinated by
neoliberal doctrines to realise you're being screwed over, wrapping it
up in BS about 'being a man'. everyone can see how full of **** you
are.


i earned the right to union bash, after the death threats I got from
co workers who were union. I was working management, and was told I
would never make it home from work if I crossed their picket line.



Also, I wanted to leave the area to be closer to
family, all of who lived in Florida.

ah, so now you weren't forced out aof a job by broken management
promises, but you WANTED to leave. this is hilarious!


A closed mind is a terrible thing. A union lobotomized mind is even
worse. I get bored after a number of years on the same job and I had
worked there over four years. That, with a death in the immediate family
and several other things, there just wasn't any reason to stay. I moved,
and got the first job I applied for. People with valuable skills can do
that.


BTW: You still haven't told the newsgroup if you have any skills other
than the inability to write clearly.



I grew up in a steel town. The jerks were always
threatening to walk out, and did several times. They finally hurt the
company so bad that they had to sell out. It was bought by a japanese
company.

So what does this prove? that your country is up for sale and the
workers have no defence. Nice place to live, I'm sure.....

Just the twisted communist view I expected from a union flunky. The
owners were fed up with the union forcing them to keep thieves and
useless workers on the payroll, so they sold out.

ah, so its 'reds under the bed' time now. this is great, how many more
cold war clichés are you going to come out with?



If there are any 'reds under the bed', they aren't here. Union
propaganda is still made of recycled, overpriced lies. Unions were
great, at one time. Then the criminals and idiots took over.




AK Steel, the new owners wanted to close the plant because they could
make steel cheaper in Japan, even though the quality was lower. The
plant needed some upgrades, but all the money Armco needed to stay
competitive was being bled from their bank accounts by the deadwood the
union demanded they keep on their payroll.

who's to say who is 'dead wood' and who isn't ? sounds like an excuse
to increase profits at the cost of the workers to me.


The people who were always away from their position? How about the
guy they videotaped on second **** slipping into a storeroom? He would
sleep four hours, get up and go to lunch, then go back for four more
hours. According to the union, it wasn't the union member's fault that
the company couldn't find him. or that he was being paid for work he
didn't do.


ultimately this seems to come down not so much to an argument about
industrial relations, but to an argument about basic view of people.
You feel they're 'thieves', 'lazy', 'dead wood', 'stooges', 'maggots',
a 'herd'...I pity people with a dismal worldview like you. You have
proven yourself incapable of educated and balanced argument; someone
comes along with a more open view of people and their rights, then you
immediately start getting personal and vulgar - there's barely a
single paragraph you wrote which didn't contain some abuse and
bull****.

(more tired union-bashing snipped)

(sigh)...Once more you don't seem to grasp the idea that outsourcing
production to the third world to cut costs (or threatening to in order
to make the employees work for **** money, precarious contracts and
worse conditions) is not ethical behaviour.

Show everyone where I EVER made that claim.

your incessant disregard for the rights of woriking people NOT to be
screwed over by employers is evidence enough. we're going round in
circles here so let's just agree to disagree...
-B



You are full of ****, as usual. Unions are a great thing for bottom
feeders, and those who can't think for themselves. My dad had to join a
union to work in a corrugated paper plant. He was happier that he could
quit the union than for the pay increase when he made foreman. he was
always complaining about the dead wood he had to work with, because the
union wouldn't let the company fire them. One was so bad that they had
to show him how to do his job every Monday. He also complained about
the losers demanding he reduce the quality of his work, to their level.

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

Speaking of steel mills... Do you remember the tax break American steel
companies got back in the '70s? Do you remember what they did with it?

When was this? I spent part of the '70s in the US Army.

It was during the Carter administration. The steel industry got one-time tax
breaks, so it could upgrade its facilities to remain competitive. Instead,
the steel companies used the money to buy other companies that were doing
well, so they could give their stockholders a better return.

In other words, the steel companies viewed themselves as being in business
to make profits for their stockholders, rather than to manufacture and sell
steel.

In article ,
says...
On 2/11/08 7:33 AM, in article
, "James Beck"
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On 2/8/08 2:26 PM, in article
, "James Beck"
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On 2/8/08 11:21 AM, in article
, "James Beck"
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On 2/8/08 7:40 AM, in article
, "James Beck"
wrote:

In article ,
says...
"Leonard Caillouet" wrote in
message ...

You seem to have added a right that is not found in the BOR.
Exactly where is that right specified?

The Bill of Rights explicitly protects all rights NOT specified in it.
(Read
it.) The right to organize to advance one's POV, agenda, etc, is a
right
essential to any democracy.

Sure, but your rights end where they infringe on mine.
I have the right to own and run my business as I see fit.
How does your right to organize trump that? It doesn't.

Jim

You need to correct that thinking. If I am an organizer, my rights to
*attempt* to organize your workforce do *not* end, regardless of your
wishes
or how you run your company. If you fire your persuaded employees and
attempt to hire new ones, I will picket your business and attempt to
organize your new people. My union position would only be altered if you
provided wages, benefits and working conditions that are at least equal
to
union shops. That's how things are.

That's fine.
I have a problem with the idea that you can't fire a union member just
because they are on strike.
You have the right to say or do what ever you want outside the doors of
another's business.
If employee 'A' comes to me and says "I want a raise and better
benefits" and I say "Sorry, not enough spare money", or "Sorry, you just
aren't doing a job that warrants that kind of compensation" and his
response is "Well, then I'm not coming back to work until you change
your mind". I would tell that employee to take all the time they need
and spend it in the unemployment line. Isn't that my right as a
business owner?

Jim

Yes, it is. Obviously, in the situation you outlined, the employee is not
a
(union) represented employee, so you will deal with the employee as you
wish. Had the employee been a union employee, the situation would never
occur, as he/she cannot bargain individually with you, nor you with
him/her.

OK, so what is the difference?
So, the union dude comes in and says the lug nut tighteners want another
$50/wk and better medical benefits, and I say Sorry, there is no budget
for that and the machine tightens the lugs nuts all they do is hold the
machine and I don't feel they deserve $50 more a week and you say fine
then we aren't coming back to work until you feel like the job is worth
that. So, if I now fire all the lug nut tighteners and hire people that
are willing to work for those wages, what is the difference and the
problem, other than the number of people?

Jim

No, as a supervisor or manager of a union workforce you would know better
than to say that to the union dude, so the rest of what you say is totally
irrelevant.

Here's how it would go: So, the union dude comes in and says the lug nut
tighteners want another $50/wk and better medical benefits, and I say to
him, sorry, you know these are bargaining issues. Take this up with your
Union Steward and if she/he wants to, they can take it to your bargaining
team for next time the contract is negotiated.

At that point the Steward *will* support the management reply and that will
be the end of it until the next bargaining session prior to the contract
running out.

And then........................................



And then what? You are showing clear signs of being an ass.

Wow, you sure told me.
That still doesn't answer the question.
And then.........

Jim

In article ,
says...
On 2/11/08 7:32 AM, in article
, "James Beck"
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On 2/8/08 2:11 PM, in article
, "James Beck"
wrote:

In article ,
says...
"James Beck" wrote in message
th.net...
In article ,
says...
Leonard Caillouet" wrote in
message ...

The Bill of Rights explicitly protects all rights NOT specified in
it.
(Read it.) The right to organize to advance one's POV, agenda, etc,
is a right essential to any democracy.

Have read it many, many times.

Then you obviously haven't been paying attention.

The BOR explicitly states that non-enumerated rights -- states' and
individual -- are not disparaged. The BOR protects rights -- it does not
enumerate or proscribe them.

The right to form associations -- political or otherwise -- is a right
that
is inherent in democracy, and essential to it.

And please learn to spell coercive.


Ah, the spelling correction.
You can tell a person is grasping at straws when they have to point out
some little spelling error. The BOR still doesn't give you or any group
the right to blackmail a company.

I don't see forcing an non-human entity to behave in a "moral" fashion as
blackmail.


And I guess somehow the union is now the moral compass of the world. If
the company is so immoral, quit and start a more moral company. I guess
it comes down to, if you really think blackmail is moral just because
YOU like the end result, you are the immoral one.

Jim

Who is being blackmailed and specifically how? Or is this just more mud
slinging?

You don't understand the term?

I understand the term, but obviously you don't or you would be able to
specify the item the union threatened to "tell about."


Just to top it off, it appears that the union thugs in NYC have been
shaking down construction companies for illegal kick backs. Yep, real
moral giants there.

So what were the construction companies doing that opened them up to being
"blackmailed" (your term, not mine)? Sounds like two rotten organizations.
Yeah, wanting to do business in the city, that sure sounds bad to me.
So, those great moral union/mob boys needed to take a little of the
profit, off the books, to straighten things out for the workers.
You are such a union stooge it isn't even funny.

Jim

In article ,
says...
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

Speaking of steel mills... Do you remember the tax break American steel
companies got back in the '70s? Do you remember what they did with it?

When was this? I spent part of the '70s in the US Army.

It was during the Carter administration. The steel industry got one-time tax
breaks, so it could upgrade its facilities to remain competitive. Instead,
the steel companies used the money to buy other companies that were doing
well, so they could give their stockholders a better return.

In other words, the steel companies viewed themselves as being in business
to make profits for their stockholders, rather than to manufacture and sell
steel.

No, they bought companies that had already invested in better
technology, rather than doing upgrades to older plants. The idea was to
make the company profitable and able to financially maneuver faster. It
worked, the US steel industry is a $75 billion dollar a year industry
and those companies are still employing people. If you don't like how
they manage their money start your own steel company and do it better.
THAT is the American way, whining isn't.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/industry/steel/profile.html

Jim

On 2/11/08 12:19 PM, in article
, "James Beck"
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On 2/11/08 7:33 AM, in article
, "James Beck"
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On 2/8/08 2:26 PM, in article
, "James Beck"
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On 2/8/08 11:21 AM, in article
, "James Beck"
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On 2/8/08 7:40 AM, in article
, "James Beck"
wrote:

In article ,
says...
"Leonard Caillouet" wrote in
message ...

You seem to have added a right that is not found in the BOR.
Exactly where is that right specified?

The Bill of Rights explicitly protects all rights NOT specified in
it.
(Read
it.) The right to organize to advance one's POV, agenda, etc, is a
right
essential to any democracy.

Sure, but your rights end where they infringe on mine.
I have the right to own and run my business as I see fit.
How does your right to organize trump that? It doesn't.

Jim

You need to correct that thinking. If I am an organizer, my rights to
*attempt* to organize your workforce do *not* end, regardless of your
wishes
or how you run your company. If you fire your persuaded employees and
attempt to hire new ones, I will picket your business and attempt to
organize your new people. My union position would only be altered if
you
provided wages, benefits and working conditions that are at least equal
to
union shops. That's how things are.

That's fine.
I have a problem with the idea that you can't fire a union member just
because they are on strike.
You have the right to say or do what ever you want outside the doors of
another's business.
If employee 'A' comes to me and says "I want a raise and better
benefits" and I say "Sorry, not enough spare money", or "Sorry, you just
aren't doing a job that warrants that kind of compensation" and his
response is "Well, then I'm not coming back to work until you change
your mind". I would tell that employee to take all the time they need
and spend it in the unemployment line. Isn't that my right as a
business owner?

Jim

Yes, it is. Obviously, in the situation you outlined, the employee is
not
a
(union) represented employee, so you will deal with the employee as you
wish. Had the employee been a union employee, the situation would never
occur, as he/she cannot bargain individually with you, nor you with
him/her.

OK, so what is the difference?
So, the union dude comes in and says the lug nut tighteners want another
$50/wk and better medical benefits, and I say Sorry, there is no budget
for that and the machine tightens the lugs nuts all they do is hold the
machine and I don't feel they deserve $50 more a week and you say fine
then we aren't coming back to work until you feel like the job is worth
that. So, if I now fire all the lug nut tighteners and hire people that
are willing to work for those wages, what is the difference and the
problem, other than the number of people?

Jim

No, as a supervisor or manager of a union workforce you would know better
than to say that to the union dude, so the rest of what you say is totally
irrelevant.

Here's how it would go: So, the union dude comes in and says the lug nut
tighteners want another $50/wk and better medical benefits, and I say to
him, sorry, you know these are bargaining issues. Take this up with your
Union Steward and if she/he wants to, they can take it to your bargaining
team for next time the contract is negotiated.

At that point the Steward *will* support the management reply and that will
be the end of it until the next bargaining session prior to the contract
running out.

And then........................................



And then what? You are showing clear signs of being an ass.

Wow, you sure told me.
That still doesn't answer the question.
And then.........

Jim

And then, WHAT? Don't be so obtuse.