On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 08:34:58 -0800 (PST), rigger wrote:
On Nov 15, 8:16 pm, Dave Hinz wrote:

By the way both my parents were lifetime union members. And both
of
them were **** on by the unions when they needed help.

I'm sorry to hear about this. Did the union decide your parents were
just too old and worn-out to bother with?

No, in one case the union was in bed with management and its only
purpose was to collect dues and sustain its own internal politics. In
the other it was more a case of a dying field with not enough people
coming in to the trade to sustain the promises they had made decades
earlier. Either way, they both paid dues for a very long time and were
let down when they needed it.

And you keep obsesing about this "too old and worn out" thing. That
never has been my point, my point is, I want to be able to hire the
person that is best for the job, regardless of years of service.
Sometimes the old-timer is best for the job, and sometimes, he's
counting the days to retirement.

Ed Huntress wrote in article
For good reason, he signs his posts with the Sign of the Puckered
Asshole.
He may be advertising.

--
Ed Huntress




And, most guys I know would rather be known as a HuntER.

You, OTOH, are a HuntRESS.....

Something to do with Oedipus, perhaps?

"*" wrote in message
news:01c828fd$2d6cc880$5c92c3d8@race...


Ed Huntress wrote in article
For good reason, he signs his posts with the Sign of the Puckered
Asshole.
He may be advertising.

--
Ed Huntress




And, most guys I know would rather be known as a HuntER.

You, OTOH, are a HuntRESS.....

Something to do with Oedipus, perhaps?

It's a little early for you to get into the etymology of surnames in 17th
century England, Puck. Come back after you're learned to write your name and
we can talk about it.

--
Ed Huntress

On Nov 16, 11:18 am, Dave Hinz wrote:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 08:34:58 -0800 (PST), rigger wrote:
On Nov 15, 8:16 pm, Dave Hinz wrote:
By the way both my parents were lifetime union members. And both
of
them were **** on by the unions when they needed help.

I'm sorry to hear about this. Did the union decide your parents were
just too old and worn-out to bother with?

No, in one case the union was in bed with management and its only
purpose was to collect dues and sustain its own internal politics. In
the other it was more a case of a dying field with not enough people
coming in to the trade to sustain the promises they had made decades
earlier. Either way, they both paid dues for a very long time and were
let down when they needed it.

And you keep obsesing about this "too old and worn out" thing. That
never has been my point, my point is, I want to be able to hire the
person that is best for the job, regardless of years of service.
Sometimes the old-timer is best for the job, and sometimes, he's
counting the days to retirement.

And you keep obsesing about this "too old and worn out" thing.
That
never has been my point, my point is, I want to be able to hire
the
person that is best for the job, regardless of years of service.
Sometimes the old-timer is best for the job, and sometimes, he's
counting the days to retirement.

If that's the way you want to hire then make sure you have
provisions in your contract to allow it. Coming along after
someone has already written the rules is a bitch, and the
person who put his John Henry on the dotted line is the
person you should be talking to.

dennis
in nca

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 12:53:03 -0800 (PST), rigger wrote:
On Nov 16, 11:18 am, Dave Hinz wrote:

And you keep obsesing about this "too old and worn out" thing.
That
never has been my point, my point is, I want to be able to hire
the
person that is best for the job, regardless of years of service.
Sometimes the old-timer is best for the job, and sometimes, he's
counting the days to retirement.

If that's the way you want to hire then make sure you have
provisions in your contract to allow it.

I don't _HAVE_ a contract. I'm not union. I was setting up an assembly
line with folks who are, and wasn't given the option of getting someone
able, I had to take the guy who'd been there longest. And my question
was and is, how does that benefit anyone other than the lazy old guy.
Certainly it doesn't benefit the company or the customer.

Coming along after
someone has already written the rules is a bitch, and the
person who put his John Henry on the dotted line is the
person you should be talking to.

You keep missing my point. Almost like it's intentional. But that in
itself answers my question and confirms my impressions.

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 12:53:03 -0800 (PST), rigger wrote:
On Nov 16, 11:18 am, Dave Hinz wrote:

And you keep obsesing about this "too old and worn out" thing.
That
never has been my point, my point is, I want to be able to hire
the
person that is best for the job, regardless of years of service.
Sometimes the old-timer is best for the job, and sometimes, he's
counting the days to retirement.

If that's the way you want to hire then make sure you have
provisions in your contract to allow it.

I don't _HAVE_ a contract. I'm not union. I was setting up an assembly
line with folks who are, and wasn't given the option of getting someone
able, I had to take the guy who'd been there longest. And my question
was and is, how does that benefit anyone other than the lazy old guy.
Certainly it doesn't benefit the company or the customer.

Coming along after
someone has already written the rules is a bitch, and the
person who put his John Henry on the dotted line is the
person you should be talking to.

You keep missing my point. Almost like it's intentional. But that in
itself answers my question and confirms my impressions.


Sadly, that's the union way, and what is so wrong with unions. His
position is intentional---and in keeping with the thinking of rabid union
followers.

There's nothing better than starting your own business, where the buck stops
at your desk, to understand how bad (read that *wrong*) the union mentality
is. When you're the one paying the bills, and receiving little to nothing
in return for wages paid, it starts making sense.

I dyed-in-the-wool family acquaintance was a union steward. I didn't know
him well, he being a friend of my parents, and years my senior. I won't
forget how he told me he could easily unionize my shop (there we no
employees) and whip it into shape. I informed the *******, in a very
heated discussion, that I'd close the doors on a shop before allowing anyone
to dictate terms to me. I was deadly serious, and anyone that knows me or
my demeanor would clearly understand I was in earnest.

I don't do anything to support deadbeats, or those that think they're owed a
living. I'm a cold hearted son-of-a-bitch that would gladly watch a guy's
kids starve to death before caving in to his unreasonable demands. If
they mean so little to him that he'd sacrifice them for his beliefs, why
should I forgo mine instead?

Harold

Harold

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
. net...
snip---

Man, did I manage to slaughter that one! I think what I wanted to say was:

A family acquaintance was a dyed-in-the-wool union steward. I didn't know
him well, he being a friend of my parents, and years my senior.

Harold

On Nov 17, 2:15 pm, Dave Hinz wrote:
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 12:53:03 -0800 (PST), rigger wrote:
On Nov 16, 11:18 am, Dave Hinz wrote:
And you keep obsesing about this "too old and worn out" thing.
That
never has been my point, my point is, I want to be able to hire
the
person that is best for the job, regardless of years of service.
Sometimes the old-timer is best for the job, and sometimes, he's
counting the days to retirement.

If that's the way you want to hire then make sure you have
provisions in your contract to allow it.

I don't _HAVE_ a contract. I'm not union. I was setting up an assembly
line with folks who are, and wasn't given the option of getting someone
able, I had to take the guy who'd been there longest. And my question
was and is, how does that benefit anyone other than the lazy old guy.
Certainly it doesn't benefit the company or the customer.

Coming along after
someone has already written the rules is a bitch, and the
person who put his John Henry on the dotted line is the
person you should be talking to.

You keep missing my point. Almost like it's intentional. But that in
itself answers my question and confirms my impressions.

I don't _HAVE_ a contract. I'm not union. I was setting up an
assembly
line with folks who are, and wasn't given the option of getting
someone
able, I had to take the guy who'd been there longest. And my
question
was and is, how does that benefit anyone other than the lazy old
guy.
Certainly it doesn't benefit the company or the customer.

I...will...go...slower...so...you...can...understa nd...me...OK?

It's the "company's" contract that must be signed by a member
of the "company" management. Please try to understand.

When a contract is negotiated both "company" and "union"
representatives are involved. Did you not know this? Did
you not know someone from "your company's" management
signed this contract? Did they not explain all the details to
you? Perhaps ask you to attend the negotiations? LOL

As I said, I hate it when clueless people come around to
whine after-the-fact. Go complain to management about
how they negotiated a bad contract or start negotiating
your own.

You keep missing my point. Almost like it's intentional. But
that in
itself answers my question and confirms my impressions.

Actually I think it's you who doesn't understand what's going on,
but I've observed that's mostly because upper management likes
to keep middle management in the dark and not because of any
inate stupidity on the part of the (caught in the) middle managers.

dennis
in nca

On Nov 17, 5:54 pm, "Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message

...





On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 12:53:03 -0800 (PST), rigger wrote:
On Nov 16, 11:18 am, Dave Hinz wrote:

And you keep obsesing about this "too old and worn out" thing.
That
never has been my point, my point is, I want to be able to hire
the
person that is best for the job, regardless of years of service.
Sometimes the old-timer is best for the job, and sometimes, he's
counting the days to retirement.

If that's the way you want to hire then make sure you have
provisions in your contract to allow it.

I don't _HAVE_ a contract. I'm not union. I was setting up an assembly
line with folks who are, and wasn't given the option of getting someone
able, I had to take the guy who'd been there longest. And my question
was and is, how does that benefit anyone other than the lazy old guy.
Certainly it doesn't benefit the company or the customer.

Coming along after
someone has already written the rules is a bitch, and the
person who put his John Henry on the dotted line is the
person you should be talking to.

You keep missing my point. Almost like it's intentional. But that in
itself answers my question and confirms my impressions.

Sadly, that's the union way, and what is so wrong with unions. His
position is intentional---and in keeping with the thinking of rabid union
followers.

There's nothing better than starting your own business, where the buck stops
at your desk, to understand how bad (read that *wrong*) the union mentality
is. When you're the one paying the bills, and receiving little to nothing
in return for wages paid, it starts making sense.

I dyed-in-the-wool family acquaintance was a union steward. I didn't know
him well, he being a friend of my parents, and years my senior. I won't
forget how he told me he could easily unionize my shop (there we no
employees) and whip it into shape. I informed the *******, in a very
heated discussion, that I'd close the doors on a shop before allowing anyone
to dictate terms to me. I was deadly serious, and anyone that knows me or
my demeanor would clearly understand I was in earnest.

I don't do anything to support deadbeats, or those that think they're owed a
living. I'm a cold hearted son-of-a-bitch that would gladly watch a guy's
kids starve to death before caving in to his unreasonable demands. If
they mean so little to him that he'd sacrifice them for his beliefs, why
should I forgo mine instead?

Harold

Harold



- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Please read my answer to Dave, above, concerning both his
and your lack of understanding.

As far as THIS is concerned:

I don't do anything to support deadbeats, or those that think
they're owed a
living. I'm a cold hearted son-of-a-bitch that would gladly
watch a guy's
kids starve to death before caving in to his unreasonable
demands. If
they mean so little to him that he'd sacrifice them for his
beliefs, why
should I forgo mine instead?

I'm afraid this tells it all. You make yourself sound like an
uncomprimising ******* and, somehow, proud of the fact
that these "kids" would suffer because you are so "MACHO.'

Actually I doubt your perceived lack of success can be
blamed on unions. In fact, I'm sure it has more to do
with your personal failure than the actions of others. Too
bad you're "bottled-up" under pressure this way. Try
enjoying life a little more.

"(there we (sic) no employees)"

I think I understand why.

dennis
in nca

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 09:59:20 -0800 (PST), rigger wrote:
On Nov 17, 2:15 pm, Dave Hinz wrote:

I don't _HAVE_ a contract. I'm not union. I was setting up an assembly
line with folks who are, and wasn't given the option of getting someone
able, I had to take the guy who'd been there longest. And my question
was and is, how does that benefit anyone other than the lazy old guy.
Certainly it doesn't benefit the company or the customer.

You keep missing my point. Almost like it's intentional. But that in
itself answers my question and confirms my impressions.

I...will...go...slower...so...you...can...understa nd...me...OK?

Condescention is rarely a successful rhetorical tactic. Just so you
know.

It's the "company's" contract that must be signed by a member
of the "company" management. Please try to understand.

I'm not management, I'm a tech being asked to set up an assembly line.
If that's "management" then my salary needs to be $30K higher.

When a contract is negotiated both "company" and "union"
representatives are involved. Did you not know this? Did
you not know someone from "your company's" management
signed this contract? Did they not explain all the details to
you? Perhaps ask you to attend the negotiations? LOL

Why should I care, LOL. My job is to get the assembly line set up with
people who can do the job.

As I said, I hate it when clueless people come around to
whine after-the-fact. Go complain to management about
how they negotiated a bad contract or start negotiating
your own.

Yawn. So I'm stuck with some lazy **** who has been here longer than
someone who can actually read a drawing and follow it. See previous
how exactly does this benefit anyone other than said lazy ****.

You keep missing my point. Almost like it's intentional. But
that in
itself answers my question and confirms my impressions.

Actually I think it's you who doesn't understand what's going on,

Oh, I understand allright.

but I've observed that's mostly because upper management likes
to keep middle management in the dark and not because of any
inate stupidity on the part of the (caught in the) middle managers.

Insulting my intelligence and observation skills of reality is unlikely
to bring me over to your point of view. Just so you know.

When I am forbidden from hiring qualified people in deference to people
who haven't been fired yet but have been around longer, my perception of
unions is likely to be negative.

"rigger" wrote in message
...
snip----

I'm afraid this tells it all. You make yourself sound like an
uncomprimising ******* and, somehow, proud of the fact
that these "kids" would suffer because you are so "MACHO.'

Not at all. Macho is the last thing I am, and the last thing I'd hope to
become. I simply refuse to be held hostage by others when they have
unreasonable demands. If their children mean so little to them, so be it.

I live by my beliefs. I served six years in the guard, and didn't pick up
butts. I didn't smoke 'em, and I'll be damned if I was going to pick them
up. I told them they could bust me to a civilian and nothing would change.
I sure as hell pulled a lot of KP for that, however, but I stood by my
principles. Do you?


Actually I doubt your perceived lack of success can be
blamed on unions. In fact, I'm sure it has more to do
with your personal failure than the actions of others. Too
bad you're "bottled-up" under pressure this way. Try
enjoying life a little more.

Failures? How so? The only failure in my life, at least as far as I'm
concerned, was my not attending college, and marrying my first wife.

I was never unemployed a day in my life, once I graduated from school. I
founded and ran two successful businesses, changing careers midstream, both
of which were of my choosing. I retired when I was 54 years old, and have
not suffered any negative consequences as a result. I have never drawn a
dime of unemployment pay, nor have I ever collected a dime of welfare
money------and never have received food stamps, nor needed them.

Enjoy life a little more?

I'd like that, and I fully intend to do so, just as soon as I'm finished
building my retirement home. Mean time, I listen to classical music and
jazz, on a stereo system that would be the envy of most folks, I drive
vehicles of my choosing, which were bought with cash, as was our
real-estate. My shop, which is as nice as most folks houses, is paid for.
The house that is under construction is being paid in cash as we go. I
haven't been in debt since the late 70's, and then only briefly on a boat
that I financed for three years. I do not do drugs, I do not smoke, and I
enjoy a good glass of scotch, lobster with butter, king crab, a burger or
two, and have the company of a very decent woman. I answer to no one aside
from the law. How can I improve my lot in life? I'm all ears.


"(there we (sic) no employees)"

I think I understand why.

dennis
in nca

No, you don't. Sorry for the typo, don't know how it got past me, but I'm
not the writer Ed is. It's to be expected from one out of his element. I
am when I write, although I do the best I can, and spend enough time to,
hopefully, avoid such mistakes. Apparently I need to spend more time.

I had no employees because that was my choice. I have worked with far too
many people to understand that most have a lousy work ethic, and less than
enough interest in quality. Even those that don't belong to a union often
have a union mentality---hoping for more pay for less effort. I'm a
loner that demands nothing less than perfection from others, particularly in
machining. I don't suffer fools gladly, and have no patience for posers.
Working alone is the chief reason why, in my 16 years of running my machine
shop, I had but 5 rejects from Litton Guidance & Control, yet I had work for
them in house for the entire duration of my run. Work was typically very
close tolerance, as close as .0001". I worked alone because I knew I
could do the work-----and wasn't willing to gamble on others that thought
they could-----but couldn't. Where I came from, small shops
flourished----almost to a man, anyone that was capable of turning out good
work was self employed, and all but one was successful.

Sorry, Dennis, you don't know me at all.

Harold

On Nov 19, 6:47 pm, Dave Hinz wrote:
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 09:59:20 -0800 (PST), rigger wrote:
On Nov 17, 2:15 pm, Dave Hinz wrote:
I don't _HAVE_ a contract. I'm not union. I was setting up an assembly
line with folks who are, and wasn't given the option of getting someone
able, I had to take the guy who'd been there longest. And my question
was and is, how does that benefit anyone other than the lazy old guy.
Certainly it doesn't benefit the company or the customer.
You keep missing my point. Almost like it's intentional. But that in
itself answers my question and confirms my impressions.
I...will...go...slower...so...you...can...understa nd...me...OK?

Condescention is rarely a successful rhetorical tactic. Just so you
know.

It's the "company's" contract that must be signed by a member
of the "company" management. Please try to understand.

I'm not management, I'm a tech being asked to set up an assembly line.
If that's "management" then my salary needs to be $30K higher.

When a contract is negotiated both "company" and "union"
representatives are involved. Did you not know this? Did
you not know someone from "your company's" management
signed this contract? Did they not explain all the details to
you? Perhaps ask you to attend the negotiations? LOL

Why should I care, LOL. My job is to get the assembly line set up with
people who can do the job.

As I said, I hate it when clueless people come around to
whine after-the-fact. Go complain to management about
how they negotiated a bad contract or start negotiating
your own.

Yawn. So I'm stuck with some lazy **** who has been here longer than
someone who can actually read a drawing and follow it. See previous
how exactly does this benefit anyone other than said lazy ****.

You keep missing my point. Almost like it's intentional. But
that in
itself answers my question and confirms my impressions.
Actually I think it's you who doesn't understand what's going on,

Oh, I understand allright.

but I've observed that's mostly because upper management likes
to keep middle management in the dark and not because of any
inate stupidity on the part of the (caught in the) middle managers.

Insulting my intelligence and observation skills of reality is unlikely
to bring me over to your point of view. Just so you know.

When I am forbidden from hiring qualified people in deference to people
who haven't been fired yet but have been around longer, my perception of
unions is likely to be negative.

When I am forbidden from hiring qualified people in deference to
people
who haven't been fired yet but have been around longer, my
perception of
unions is likely to be negative.

So, instead of saying the company you work for screwed-up
in agreeing to these provisions, you come around "after" the
negotiations and complain. Nothing about what the union
may have given-up in wages/vacation/health insurance,
BECAUSE MANAGEMENT NEVER TOLD YOU!!!

All I hear is your complaining. Why don't you try to find out
the truth of your particular situation? Until you do that
you're only operating on predjudice and speculation, not
facts. After you do that we can have a conversation.

dennis
in nca

On Nov 20, 2:00 am, "Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote:
"rigger" wrote in message

...
snip----



I'm afraid this tells it all. You make yourself sound like an
uncomprimising ******* and, somehow, proud of the fact
that these "kids" would suffer because you are so "MACHO.'

Not at all. Macho is the last thing I am, and the last thing I'd hope to
become. I simply refuse to be held hostage by others when they have
unreasonable demands. If their children mean so little to them, so be it.

I live by my beliefs. I served six years in the guard, and didn't pick up
butts. I didn't smoke 'em, and I'll be damned if I was going to pick them
up. I told them they could bust me to a civilian and nothing would change.
I sure as hell pulled a lot of KP for that, however, but I stood by my
principles. Do you?



Actually I doubt your perceived lack of success can be
blamed on unions. In fact, I'm sure it has more to do
with your personal failure than the actions of others. Too
bad you're "bottled-up" under pressure this way. Try
enjoying life a little more.

Failures? How so? The only failure in my life, at least as far as I'm
concerned, was my not attending college, and marrying my first wife.

I was never unemployed a day in my life, once I graduated from school. I
founded and ran two successful businesses, changing careers midstream, both
of which were of my choosing. I retired when I was 54 years old, and have
not suffered any negative consequences as a result. I have never drawn a
dime of unemployment pay, nor have I ever collected a dime of welfare
money------and never have received food stamps, nor needed them.

Enjoy life a little more?

I'd like that, and I fully intend to do so, just as soon as I'm finished
building my retirement home. Mean time, I listen to classical music and
jazz, on a stereo system that would be the envy of most folks, I drive
vehicles of my choosing, which were bought with cash, as was our
real-estate. My shop, which is as nice as most folks houses, is paid for.
The house that is under construction is being paid in cash as we go. I
haven't been in debt since the late 70's, and then only briefly on a boat
that I financed for three years. I do not do drugs, I do not smoke, and I
enjoy a good glass of scotch, lobster with butter, king crab, a burger or
two, and have the company of a very decent woman. I answer to no one aside
from the law. How can I improve my lot in life? I'm all ears.



"(there we (sic) no employees)"

I think I understand why.

dennis
in nca

No, you don't. Sorry for the typo, don't know how it got past me, but I'm
not the writer Ed is. It's to be expected from one out of his element. I
am when I write, although I do the best I can, and spend enough time to,
hopefully, avoid such mistakes. Apparently I need to spend more time.

I had no employees because that was my choice. I have worked with far too
many people to understand that most have a lousy work ethic, and less than
enough interest in quality. Even those that don't belong to a union often
have a union mentality---hoping for more pay for less effort. I'm a
loner that demands nothing less than perfection from others, particularly in
machining. I don't suffer fools gladly, and have no patience for posers.
Working alone is the chief reason why, in my 16 years of running my machine
shop, I had but 5 rejects from Litton Guidance & Control, yet I had work for
them in house for the entire duration of my run. Work was typically very
close tolerance, as close as .0001". I worked alone because I knew I
could do the work-----and wasn't willing to gamble on others that thought
they could-----but couldn't. Where I came from, small shops
flourished----almost to a man, anyone that was capable of turning out good
work was self employed, and all but one was successful.

Sorry, Dennis, you don't know me at all.

Harold

Sorry, Dennis, you don't know me at all.

snip Even those that don't belong to a union often
have a union mentality---hoping for more pay for less effort.
snip

Actually I might understand you better than you may think.
Everyone likes to think of themselfs as an individual but
when it comes down to discussion many people lapse into
the stale old rhetoric taught them by others.

Let me ask you this: Are you aware unions and employers
use a "negotiated" contract? And that each side makes
concessions in order to gain the bargaining points most
important to them?

If you concede this is true then how can you complain
about the choices each group makes? If management
decides it's better to settle for lower wages and allow
seniority to rule the labor pool how is this "wrong?"

Anti-union pundits love to scream about the way the
union protects their members but never give the other
side of the story. The people who feel aggrieved over
union choices lap this up as this validates their feel-
ings, and never bother to learn more. Is this you?

dennis
in nca

On Nov 20, 3:45 pm, rigger wrote:

So, instead of saying the company you work for screwed-up
in agreeing to these provisions, you come around "after" the
negotiations and complain. Nothing about what the union
may have given-up in wages/vacation/health insurance,
BECAUSE MANAGEMENT NEVER TOLD YOU!!!

All I hear is your complaining. Why don't you try to find out
the truth of your particular situation? Until you do that
you're only operating on predjudice and speculation, not
facts. After you do that we can have a conversation.

dennis
in nca

Are you saying that the union would give up wages, vacation, and
health benefits in order to have seniority in the contract?

That sounds like a union that does not do much for the hard working
members, but does a lot for the members that just want to barely get
by. I would much prefer a union that bargained for pay raises and let
the company have some latitude on how the raise packet is distributed.

Say the negociated raise packet is 4% . Everyone get at least 2% but
the company can give 8 % to some and 4 and 6% to others. So the
average raise is 4%.

Dan

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 07:45:52 -0800 (PST), rigger wrote:
On Nov 19, 6:47 pm, Dave Hinz wrote:

When I am forbidden from hiring qualified people in deference to people
who haven't been fired yet but have been around longer, my perception of
unions is likely to be negative.

So, instead of saying the company you work for screwed-up
in agreeing to these provisions, you come around "after" the
negotiations and complain. Nothing about what the union
may have given-up in wages/vacation/health insurance,
BECAUSE MANAGEMENT NEVER TOLD YOU!!!

Let's try this one more time. Who does this benefit other than the guy
who has been there longest? The skilled younger guys don't get the
interesting assignments, and the company doesn't get the complicated
stuff done by the appropriately skilled person, if one person with more
seniority wants it. It's lose-lose.

All I hear is your complaining. Why don't you try to find out
the truth of your particular situation? Until you do that
you're only operating on predjudice and speculation, not
facts. After you do that we can have a conversation.

The truth is, I couldn't hire people who could read and follow drawings
and procedures for an assembly job, because some guy who had more years
wanted what he saw as a cushy job.

"rigger" wrote in message
...
On Nov 20, 2:00 am, "Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote:
snip--

Actually I might understand you better than you may think.
Everyone likes to think of themselfs as an individual but
when it comes down to discussion many people lapse into
the stale old rhetoric taught them by others.

Let me ask you this: Are you aware unions and employers
use a "negotiated" contract? And that each side makes
concessions in order to gain the bargaining points most
important to them?

Yes, I am. So what? Where I worked, that didn't prevent slackers from
killing the job.


If you concede this is true then how can you complain
about the choices each group makes? If management
decides it's better to settle for lower wages and allow
seniority to rule the labor pool how is this "wrong?"

Surely, you're not asking me that question. I've never made it a
point-----but I damned well know that the best man for a job is the guy that
can do the work successfully-----not necessarily the guy that's been there
the longest.

Understand this: When I was trained, I had some outstanding guidance.
Some of these people went on to other jobs, including starting their own
business in one case. This one individual that had years more experience
than I did would ask my advice for problem areas. He knew that his years
of experience in a given area were not the equal of what I knew. Based on
your plan, that's the guy you'd have to do your work. Based on my plan, I'm
the guy that would do the work. In some cases, you'd lose, while in others
you'd win. Tell me----is work a gamble, or should it be predictable?
Basing qualifications on seniority sucks ------sucks big time. Fact is,
many of these *******s are nothing more than slackers that take the long
ride and are reluctant to leave a job, secure in the knowledge that they
can't compete. Yeah, that's the guy I want to hire. The only thing gray
hair means is that the hair is gray. There's no guarantee that it has any
skill or talent, ESPECIALLY if it comes from the union, where deadbeats are
protected. Sorry, you're going to have to do a lot better than than.


Anti-union pundits love to scream about the way the
union protects their members but never give the other
side of the story. The people who feel aggrieved over
union choices lap this up as this validates their feel-
ings, and never bother to learn more. Is this you?

dennis
in nca

There is nothing to lap up. I've known union workers, and have known their
type-----even when not a union member, and I don't much like what I see.
Virtually all of them think they're over worked and under paid. They
rarely are as able as their counterparts, guys that had to earn their way
with skill, talent and effort. That's not to say there aren't some damned
good people in the union-------but my experience dictates they're the
minority.

My opinions are based on real life experiences----and considering the very
small contact I've had with the union------it flat boggles my mind. How can
so much bad **** come from such a small example? If I don't like what I see
on the surface, how could I possibly like what's inside? They simply
represent that which I abhor.

This I know: I need not get hit by a locomotive to understand it can kill
me. You can trust me when I tell you, there's absolutely nothing a union
can do for me that I can't do for myself---------which I did. That
includes moving to another job when I was under the supervision of a guy
that was less than a machinist, and would have no part of getting
better-------yet he was the shop foreman.

No------this wasn't a union job. There's assholes everywhere.

Frankly, I'm surprised that you haven't figured me out by now. No one does
my thinking for me, and I'm not easily mislead by BS artists. I made my
way in life without ever having a union represent me. I'm as proud of that
as I am the fact that I was never unemployed, or never took a dime from
unemployment.

NO ENTITY OWNS ME!

Harold

On Nov 20, 3:28 pm, " wrote:
On Nov 20, 3:45 pm, rigger wrote:



So, instead of saying the company you work for screwed-up
in agreeing to these provisions, you come around "after" the
negotiations and complain. Nothing about what the union
may have given-up in wages/vacation/health insurance,
BECAUSE MANAGEMENT NEVER TOLD YOU!!!

All I hear is your complaining. Why don't you try to find out
the truth of your particular situation? Until you do that
you're only operating on predjudice and speculation, not
facts. After you do that we can have a conversation.

dennis
in nca

Are you saying that the union would give up wages, vacation, and
health benefits in order to have seniority in the contract?

That sounds like a union that does not do much for the hard
working
members, but does a lot for the members that just want to barely
get
by. I would much prefer a union that bargained for pay raises
and let
the company have some latitude on how the raise packet is
distributed.

Say the negociated raise packet is 4% . Everyone get at least 2%
but
the company can give 8 % to some and 4 and 6% to others. So the
average raise is 4%.

Dan

So throw the decision about increases upon the tender
mercy of management??? LOL No thanks, but that
was really funny.

The whole idea of unions is "solidarity." Why would
a member decide management would better under-
stand this and how to apply it?

On the other hand "Everything is negotiable" may just
work for you if you negotiate a contract. Try it.

dennis
in nca

On Nov 20, 3:41 pm, Dave Hinz wrote:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 07:45:52 -0800 (PST), rigger wrote:
On Nov 19, 6:47 pm, Dave Hinz wrote:
When I am forbidden from hiring qualified people in deference to people
who haven't been fired yet but have been around longer, my perception of
unions is likely to be negative.
So, instead of saying the company you work for screwed-up
in agreeing to these provisions, you come around "after" the
negotiations and complain. Nothing about what the union
may have given-up in wages/vacation/health insurance,
BECAUSE MANAGEMENT NEVER TOLD YOU!!!

Let's try this one more time. Who does this benefit other than the guy
who has been there longest? The skilled younger guys don't get the
interesting assignments, and the company doesn't get the complicated
stuff done by the appropriately skilled person, if one person with more
seniority wants it. It's lose-lose.

All I hear is your complaining. Why don't you try to find out
the truth of your particular situation? Until you do that
you're only operating on predjudice and speculation, not
facts. After you do that we can have a conversation.

The truth is, I couldn't hire people who could read and follow drawings
and procedures for an assembly job, because some guy who had more years
wanted what he saw as a cushy job.

Just more "sour grapes" Dave.

These are the contract terms your management negotiated.

If you have problems understanding them, ask your manager
why the contract was written this way. He/she may not
know, and I'm not advocating you get yourself in hot water
by asking too many questions, but the person in your
company, who negotiated the contract, will know the details.

As I said before, until you can tell me why your contract was
written with these clauses, I don't feel we have anything to
discuss.

dennis
in nca

On Nov 20, 9:35 pm, "Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote:
"rigger" wrote in message

...

On Nov 20, 2:00 am, "Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote:
snip--

Actually I might understand you better than you may think.
Everyone likes to think of themselfs as an individual but
when it comes down to discussion many people lapse into
the stale old rhetoric taught them by others.

Let me ask you this: Are you aware unions and employers
use a "negotiated" contract? And that each side makes
concessions in order to gain the bargaining points most
important to them?

Yes, I am. So what? Where I worked, that didn't prevent slackers from
killing the job.



If you concede this is true then how can you complain
about the choices each group makes? If management
decides it's better to settle for lower wages and allow
seniority to rule the labor pool how is this "wrong?"

Surely, you're not asking me that question. I've never made it a
point-----but I damned well know that the best man for a job is the guy that
can do the work successfully-----not necessarily the guy that's been there
the longest.

Understand this: When I was trained, I had some outstanding guidance.
Some of these people went on to other jobs, including starting their own
business in one case. This one individual that had years more experience
than I did would ask my advice for problem areas. He knew that his years
of experience in a given area were not the equal of what I knew. Based on
your plan, that's the guy you'd have to do your work. Based on my plan, I'm
the guy that would do the work. In some cases, you'd lose, while in others
you'd win. Tell me----is work a gamble, or should it be predictable?
Basing qualifications on seniority sucks ------sucks big time. Fact is,
many of these *******s are nothing more than slackers that take the long
ride and are reluctant to leave a job, secure in the knowledge that they
can't compete. Yeah, that's the guy I want to hire. The only thing gray
hair means is that the hair is gray. There's no guarantee that it has any
skill or talent, ESPECIALLY if it comes from the union, where deadbeats are
protected. Sorry, you're going to have to do a lot better than than.



Anti-union pundits love to scream about the way the
union protects their members but never give the other
side of the story. The people who feel aggrieved over
union choices lap this up as this validates their feel-
ings, and never bother to learn more. Is this you?

dennis
in nca

There is nothing to lap up. I've known union workers, and have known their
type-----even when not a union member, and I don't much like what I see.
Virtually all of them think they're over worked and under paid. They
rarely are as able as their counterparts, guys that had to earn their way
with skill, talent and effort. That's not to say there aren't some damned
good people in the union-------but my experience dictates they're the
minority.

My opinions are based on real life experiences----and considering the very
small contact I've had with the union------it flat boggles my mind. How can
so much bad **** come from such a small example? If I don't like what I see
on the surface, how could I possibly like what's inside? They simply
represent that which I abhor.

This I know: I need not get hit by a locomotive to understand it can kill
me. You can trust me when I tell you, there's absolutely nothing a union
can do for me that I can't do for myself---------which I did. That
includes moving to another job when I was under the supervision of a guy
that was less than a machinist, and would have no part of getting
better-------yet he was the shop foreman.

No------this wasn't a union job. There's assholes everywhere.

Frankly, I'm surprised that you haven't figured me out by now. No one does
my thinking for me, and I'm not easily mislead by BS artists. I made my
way in life without ever having a union represent me. I'm as proud of that
as I am the fact that I was never unemployed, or never took a dime from
unemployment.

NO ENTITY OWNS ME!

Harold

NO ENTITY OWNS ME!

As long as you use your own "special" definition of "OWN" I'm
sure this is true. On my side of the fence the IRS "owns" a
piece of me, as do other taxing organizations. & etc.

In your life have you ever written or signed a contract??
Don't you understand what this means? Did you ever
negotiate a contract?

Do you have a brother or sister? If you do would you fire
your brother or sister (or child) because someone could
do the job better?? (I'd like to hear about the ass-kicking
from your wife when you did so. LOL) Or maybe you'd
fire your Dad or Mom??? LOL

Union members call other union members "brothers" and
"sisters" because thats how we treat them and how we
want to be treated ourselfs. If you can't understand (and
some people apparently, can not) this simple idea then
I'm sorry for you. For some, it isn't the "instant money"
you gain now but the overall health of the organization
and its members which leads to a better life for all.

Sorry you haven't had any good experiences.

dennis
in nca

Ed Huntress wrote in article
...

"*" wrote in message
news:01c828fd$2d6cc880$5c92c3d8@race...


Ed Huntress wrote in article
For good reason, he signs his posts with the Sign of the Puckered
Asshole.
He may be advertising.

--
Ed Huntress




And, most guys I know would rather be known as a HuntER.

You, OTOH, are a HuntRESS.....

Something to do with Oedipus, perhaps?

It's a little early for you to get into the etymology of surnames in 17th

century England, Puck. Come back after you're learned to write your name
and
we can talk about it.

--
Ed Huntress




Sorry!

I missed that part in the newsgroup rules that states it is okay for YOU to
make fun of the 'net name a person chooses to use, but it is NOT okay for
others to make fun of yours.

Mea Culpa! for not understanding the double standard.

"*" wrote in message
news:01c82c5d$08178940$c195c3d8@race...


Ed Huntress wrote in article
...

"*" wrote in message
news:01c828fd$2d6cc880$5c92c3d8@race...


Ed Huntress wrote in article
For good reason, he signs his posts with the Sign of the Puckered
Asshole.
He may be advertising.

--
Ed Huntress




And, most guys I know would rather be known as a HuntER.

You, OTOH, are a HuntRESS.....

Something to do with Oedipus, perhaps?

It's a little early for you to get into the etymology of surnames in 17th

century England, Puck. Come back after you're learned to write your name
and
we can talk about it.

--
Ed Huntress




Sorry!

I missed that part in the newsgroup rules that states it is okay for YOU
to
make fun of the 'net name a person chooses to use, but it is NOT okay for
others to make fun of yours.

Mea Culpa! for not understanding the double standard.

You can make fun of my name if you want, Puck. All the 6th graders used to
do it. Join in.

I think of yours as a particularly direct symbolism, like a Chinese
pictograph.

--
Ed Huntress

On Nov 21, 4:00 pm, rigger wrote:

So throw the decision about increases upon the tender
mercy of management??? LOL No thanks, but that
was really funny.

Not funny at all to sane people. After all whose money is it?
Certainly not the unions. I don't know for sure, but I think this is
how the engineers union works at BOEING. The union and BOEING
negotiate the total size of the pay raise packet, and the company gets
to reward the engineers that do good work.

The whole idea of unions is "solidarity." Why would
a member decide management would better under-
stand this and how to apply it?


Because the whole ideas of unions is not necessarily " solidarity ".
The idea of unions is to join together in order to have a stronger
position in bargaining with the company. Solidarity is just a slogan.

On the other hand "Everything is negotiable" may just
work for you if you negotiate a contract. Try it.

Not a chance. I am not about to go back to work. Not worth while
unless I can negotiate with the Federal Government a deal for lower
taxes.

dennis

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 08:06:50 -0800 (PST), rigger wrote:
On Nov 20, 3:41 pm, Dave Hinz wrote:

The truth is, I couldn't hire people who could read and follow drawings
and procedures for an assembly job, because some guy who had more years
wanted what he saw as a cushy job.

Just more "sour grapes" Dave.

No, it's the central point. Ability isn't valued, length of service is.
That's just fundamentally wrong.

These are the contract terms your management negotiated.
If you have problems understanding them, ask your manager
why the contract was written this way.

Are you seriously pretending that "the guy with seniority gets the first
shot at a job" is somehow unique to this specific contract?

As I said before, until you can tell me why your contract was
written with these clauses, I don't feel we have anything to
discuss.

Yeah, I've made my point pretty clearly. I got stuck with the lazy old
guy instead of someone who would have done it better but wasn't there as
long. And, you're apparently not only not seeing why that's a problem,
but are criticizing _me_ for the terms of _their_ contract.
I think that sums up the problem pretty well. It certainly helped me to
get a better insight into the mentality of the people like that, and has
reinforced my previous impressions.

On Nov 21, 4:06 pm, rigger wrote:


Just more "sour grapes" Dave.

These are the contract terms your management negotiated.

If you have problems understanding them, ask your manager
why the contract was written this way. He/she may not
know, and I'm not advocating you get yourself in hot water
by asking too many questions, but the person in your
company, who negotiated the contract, will know the details.

As I said before, until you can tell me why your contract was
written with these clauses, I don't feel we have anything to
discuss.

dennis
in nca

The most probable reason it was negotiated that way, was the union was
not interested in getting the best deal for the members, the union was
interested in getting the best deal for the union.

If it goes by seniority, the company has to employ more people because
some of them have retired on the job. Therefore the union has more
members and the leaders of the union get a higher salary.

So the union negotiated away higher wages and better benefits in order
to obtain seniority rights. The members lose and the union bosses
gain.

Dan

On Nov 21, 8:00 am, rigger wrote:
On Nov 20, 3:28 pm, " wrote:



On Nov 20, 3:45 pm, rigger wrote:

So, instead of saying the company you work for screwed-up
in agreeing to these provisions, you come around "after" the
negotiations and complain. Nothing about what the union
may have given-up in wages/vacation/health insurance,
BECAUSE MANAGEMENT NEVER TOLD YOU!!!

All I hear is your complaining. Why don't you try to find out
the truth of your particular situation? Until you do that
you're only operating on predjudice and speculation, not
facts. After you do that we can have a conversation.

dennis
in nca

Are you saying that the union would give up wages, vacation, and
health benefits in order to have seniority in the contract?

That sounds like a union that does not do much for the hard
working
members, but does a lot for the members that just want to barely
get
by. I would much prefer a union that bargained for pay raises
and let
the company have some latitude on how the raise packet is
distributed.

Say the negociated raise packet is 4% . Everyone get at least 2%
but
the company can give 8 % to some and 4 and 6% to others. So the
average raise is 4%.



Dan

So throw the decision about increases upon the tender
mercy of management??? LOL No thanks, but that
was really funny.

The whole idea of unions is "solidarity." Why would
a member decide management would better under-
stand this and how to apply it?

On the other hand "Everything is negotiable" may just
work for you if you negotiate a contract. Try it.

dennis
in nca- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
******************************
Hi Dennis:
The Union that I belong to.....( This Union is over 100 years
old )
believes in 8 hours pay for 8 hours work.
If you do no follow these rules. Your Union Brothers will get on your
case! You have to make a profit for your employer and they understand
fully that if the owner goes out of business They do not have a JOB!
If you fail to perform,you will not be there for long.
Those Union Brothers know the owner has the right to send you down the
road.
Millwright Ron
www.unionmillwright.com

"rigger" wrote in message
...
snip----
NO ENTITY OWNS ME!

As long as you use your own "special" definition of "OWN" I'm
sure this is true. On my side of the fence the IRS "owns" a
piece of me, as do other taxing organizations. & etc.

OK-----let me rephrase that. My butt is owned by the government----but I
have never signed it over to any other agency. :-)


In your life have you ever written or signed a contract??
Don't you understand what this means? Did you ever
negotiate a contract?

Indeed I have, but that has nothing to do with my conversation.

Do you have a brother or sister?

Yes, and I don't like either one of them. Reason? Each has an "it's all
about me" attitude. No thanks.

..If you do would you fire
your brother or sister (or child) because someone could
do the job better?? (I'd like to hear about the ass-kicking
from your wife when you did so. LOL) Or maybe you'd
fire your Dad or Mom??? LOL

From this, I conclude that if one of your family members was guilty of
murdering a few people, that you'd stand by them, helping them avoid
capture, defending them at all costs? You wouldn't encourage them to turn
themselve in to authorities? Perhaps you'd understand if I didn't want
you living in my neighborhood-----or city-----or state, not with that kind
of attitude.

This isn't all about you and yours------it's about doing the right
thing -------the one that benefits society, where we all live.

I get your point, but that's not what we're talking about, is it! What
we're talking about is hiring someone, regardless of affiliation or
relationship, to perform a given task-----at least that's what Dave was
talking about. I gather you'd hire your brother-in-law to perform
brain surgery on your child because he's family------never mind he has no
clue what to do, or how to do it. That makes no sense, and never will.


Union members call other union members "brothers" and
"sisters" because thats how we treat them and how we
want to be treated ourselfs. If you can't understand (and
some people apparently, can not) this simple idea then
I'm sorry for you. For some, it isn't the "instant money"
you gain now but the overall health of the organization
and its members which leads to a better life for all.

For one, "instant money" is against my principles. That's union magic
bull****, not reality. AND-----I don't want to be a part of any
organization like that-----no more than I'd choose to be a member of a
church. That wonderful organization is working hard to make my cost of
living go up---and continue the decline of the power of the dollar. I
can't get interested in that, not for any reason. You appear to have a
"this is good for me/us" attitude, even at the cost of being bad for the
nation. Sorry-----my head doesn't work that way.

The only people that benefit from union coercion is the union and worker,
often at great expense to the worker. You tell me, in terms I can
understand, how picketing meat workers at my local store, demanding an
unreasonable raise in pay, is going to benefit me? He (they) are trying
to move their class of living up the scale at the expense of moving mine
down. You know, and I know, that if a store pays more in wages, they'll
make an offset in prices for compensation. Sorry, that doesn't fly with
me------and as I've said previously-----I'm a man of my word-----I'll drive
far out of my way to insure that I cross the picket line of anyone picketing
an organization, and laugh in the faces of the dumb *******s that have been
out of work for months, depriving their families of a comfortable life that
otherwise may have been.

You want more pay in life? Get qualified to earn more-----don't pick up
your gun and mask and demand more from me.

You have to understand that I see through these dodges-----I have a
different mindset-----I expect people to work for their money, and I expect
that they'll be paid what they earn. Not what they think they earn-----but
what they earn. That, of course, doesn't seem to be in the thinking of
union people-----who are constantly finding themselves the victim of their
employers-----and demanding unearned pay and benefits.

As I said before, nothing would put this in focus for you quicker than
owning your own business. When the buck stops at your desk, it doesn't
take very long to figure out that they aren't handed out because you're cute
and clever--------they're handed out because you earn them. I earned
mine. I expect you, and others, to do the same.


Sorry you haven't had any good experiences.

Ah! But I have! Many, in fact, including laughing in the faces of those
stupid union *******s that **** in their own nest when Eimco closed the
doors on the crawler tractor division. To a man, they knew why it went
south-------they just couldn't believe it would come down to that. Their
union had convinced them that they were indispensable. Looks to me like
the union was wrong.

I can site a second example, again, in Utah. Kennecott Copper was being
destroyed by the union. It was common knowledge that workers generally held
two jobs, using Kennecott for getting sleep. A person I knew quite well
was one of them, and he joked about sleeping no less than 4 hours every
night. They closed the doors, when it employed roughly 8,000 people, and
modernized the entire operation. When they started up again, about 18
months later, they did so with only about 2,500 workers, and were then
producing more copper than they were prior to the shut down. The unions were
busted in the process, so new hires knew they had to work instead of stand
around. I wonder------does the union teach the members to like the taste
of crow? :-) Kennecott was powerless to control the workers prior to the
shutdown.

You're OK, Dennis-----just very misguided. The day will come, hopefully,
when you realize which entity signs your checks. That's what it's really
all about. The union doesn't pay your wages, and is, in fact, the enemy.
They are the entity that is now encouraging remaining businesses to leave US
turf. Could your job be hanging in the balance as a result?

Harold

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 08:24:45 -0800 (PST), rigger
wrote:

NO ENTITY OWNS ME!

Harold

NO ENTITY OWNS ME!

As long as you use your own "special" definition of "OWN" I'm
sure this is true. On my side of the fence the IRS "owns" a
piece of me, as do other taxing organizations. & etc.

If a thief comes into your home, and takes your belongings at the
point of a gun, they do not own you.

In your life have you ever written or signed a contract??
Don't you understand what this means? Did you ever
negotiate a contract?

I have, and fulfilled all of them to the satisfaction of all parties
involved. I have also walked away from unfavorable contracts. I have
never attempted to force the party on the other side of the deal to
agree to my terms.

Do you have a brother or sister? If you do would you fire
your brother or sister (or child) because someone could
do the job better?? (I'd like to hear about the ass-kicking
from your wife when you did so. LOL) Or maybe you'd
fire your Dad or Mom??? LOL

When I was a construction contractor, I hired my wife to do some
cleanup on a job site when I was getting close to my contract
deadline.

I fired her ass because she wouldn't work fast enough and claimed her
wrist hurt- she still married me. If she'd have held my firing her
against me, I wouldn't have asked her to be my wife. I also fired my
little brother for similar reasons. I wouldn't hesitate to do the
same to any other family members or friends- neither blood nor
affection is a valid reason to sacrifice the skilled to the unskilled.

Union members call other union members "brothers" and
"sisters" because thats how we treat them and how we
want to be treated ourselfs. If you can't understand (and
some people apparently, can not) this simple idea then
I'm sorry for you. For some, it isn't the "instant money"
you gain now but the overall health of the organization
and its members which leads to a better life for all.

My brother is a drug user and welfare recipient, and doesn't take care
of his (illegitimate) kids. I treat him precisely as I would want to
be treated if I were him- with contempt. The last thing anyone should
recieve is undeserved respect or esteem. To pretend that he is doing
nothing wrong, and his acceptance of the charity that is forcably
taken from me by our government to suppliment his lack of ability and
desire to improve himself would be to spit in the face of justice.

Without justice, we all die starving in the dark. With perfect
justice, only those who seek to do nothing, and therefore deserve
nothing are the recipients of that fate.

Sorry you haven't had any good experiences.

I can tell you with some certainty, without ever having met Harold,
that he has had experiences that you will never equal. He stands for
freedom and the unmitigated joy of accomplishment- you stand for
percieved safety and brother-love. The two never meet. The former is
a rare and perfect gem, while the latter is dirty rock from the
backyard- common and devoid of value. A flawless diamond does not
require the approval of it's peers to be set into a magnificent ring-
but for a piece of shale to achieve that same end requires a great
deal of omission and force.

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 08:00:04 -0800 (PST), rigger
wrote:

No, No, No! I agree the lame and unfit should be shot and pushed
off the road and out of the way of the more productive people, not.

No reason to shoot them, but I don't see the value of allowing anyone
to block my path.

What you're advocating is that the more productive people be punished
for their ability, while the least fit earn rewards based on thier
lack of merits. Who gave you the right to tie an albatross around my
neck to slow me down?

This is exactly what I mean. If you're not a well functioning tool
corporate is more than willing to discard you for a fresh one as
soon as possible. This is the method many today, perhaps
yourself included, have taken on as their mantra, feeling the
human side of the equation can be overlooked.

What is the human side of the equation?

Is it that any man who comes up to me with his hand out has a right to
the fruits of my endeavors, simply because he wishes it?

Where was that man when I spent evenings after a 12 hour workday
reading engineering textbooks and working in my shop?

Why, when I stayed home to make a product through sweat and effort on
a Friday night, while he was drinking at the local tavern, should I
give him that product?

Who among my peers came to my shop to learn something new, or to
enrich themselves in any other way?

Which of those "brothers" came to lend their aid when I needed help?

When I have learned, through will and effort, to stand upon my own two
feet, and have long since put aside the hope of any aid or comfort,
why should I bow to my inferiors, and make to them a shrine adorned
with crippled limbs and minds?


As opposed to: In my local riggers union the younger members
HELPED the older workers , as required, NOT try to push them
out of the way in the mad scramble to the top we see in a lot of
organizations. This is part of the "Brotherhood" you'll hear men-
tioned from time-to-time, something many find it hard to relate to.

I know many men who are well past the age of retirement that do not
need the help of those who are younger, and are offended if it is
offered. I count those men among my friends, and have learned a great
deal from them. Those who no longer have the strength to work pay me
for my labor with knowledge. Every relationship is a trade of values-
charity is an obscene word.

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:45:23 -0800 (PST), rigger

Yep, that's what makes unions work. Violence trumps any
argument.

And I'm sure you have the statistics and cites to go
with them?

I thought not. Another big mouth with nothing to offer.

What happens to the "scabs" who cross your picket lines?

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 09:59:56 GMT, "Harold and Susan Vordos"
wrote:


"Prometheus" wrote in message
.. .
snip-----

In practice, it's raw communism

Thanks. I had alluded to unions being communistic and was informed that
they hate the communists. That could be, but their principles appear, at
least to me, to be much the same. Apparently you and I think the same way.
I totally understand your position.

Don't lose site of the fact that our educational system is doing everything
in it's power to steer people away from the industrial crafts these days.
As far as I know, very few high schools even offer any classes related to
machining these days. After all, we're a "service society" now! sigh

One day, I'd like someone to explain to me how we are to pay our way
as a country if all we do is serve pizzas to each other and patch one
another up when all that fine dining ends up in heart attacks and
strokes....

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 06:49:02 -0800, rigger wrote:


All that being said, I guess I'm sort of a hypocrite about it. I'd
hate actually working in a union shop- but that doesn't mean I
wouldn't like to have about four of them surrounding any place I work
at. Nothing like a little wage pressure to make life easier for
someone who is actually willing and able to do the work.

Hypocrite is one word some use. "Blood-sucking leech
who rides on the backs of those willing to make the
necessary sacrifices and then bad-mouths them" is
another, less deceptive, way of saying the same thing.

I suppose you could phrase it that way from your point of view- but
the fact is, and remains, that I work at least twice as hard as most
of those around me to ensure my place in the world. As far as I'm
concerned, having union shops drive up the pay in the area would just
be inadequate compensation for all of the money I've had taken from my
paychecks in the form of taxes over the years to support slackards.
In reality, I was trying to cede you part of the point in the interest
of civility, but after reading more of this thread, I don't think
that's either wise or necessary.

If I ever become a "blood-sucking leech," I shall kill myself- not
demand that others give my thier blood and smile. But since there are
few union shops around here, it's really a moot point in any case.

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:41:23 -0600, "Adam Corolla"
wrote:


"Prometheus" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 17:12:31 -0600, "Adam Corolla"
wrote:

On the bright side, it only takes one or two employers in an area to
pay a better wage to start things swinging the right way. When I
started at my current job about 15 months ago, the average pay for a
machinist in the area was about $12-13/hour.

Good grief!!

Indeed. But, on a larger scale, it does allow the area to compete
with overseas labor, and the housing costs, etc, are lower as well.
Where it really hurts is when a guy like me is building production
capacity on the side, and machine tooling is being sold at the same
prices as it is in wealthier areas.

I'm not rich by any means, and I like money as much as the next guy-
but when you start looking at the union shops, you find that for every
skilled and talented employee, there are at least two or three that
are just wasting good air. Even worse, they try to pressure the ones
who do work hard to slow down. If it were a matter of the union
negotiating higher wages and better benefits, while putting pressure
on the union workers to work harder and faster, it's be a beautiful
thing- but that's not how it is. In practice, it's raw communism


Or, what communism is considered to be by those who don't understand it (For
example Russia, China, North Korea...)

I'm not sure in what way I am misunderstanding communism. The sense
in which I mean it is the situation where a mass of workers unite to
elevate a leader or ruling class who then begins to dictate the terms
of society. In the abstract, this is supposed to lead to an eventual
state of anarchy in which all people work for the benefit of society,
but in reality, it tends to lead to a small group retaining power
though intimidation and a network of informers.

Eventually, most communist societies fail because there is little
incentive to demonstrate skill or innovation, and the best way to "get
ahead" is to become a more effective victim to gain more of the meager
benefits the state has to offer.


ends up punishing the ones who want to work by attaching the albatross
of those who do not to their necks.

All that being said, I guess I'm sort of a hypocrite about it. I'd
hate actually working in a union shop- but that doesn't mean I
wouldn't like to have about four of them surrounding any place I work
at. Nothing like a little wage pressure to make life easier for
someone who is actually willing and able to do the work.

It's a tough situation to be in, for sure.

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:17:38 -0800, Millwright Ron
wrote:

******************************************
"Life has a taste that the protected will never know."

How can you post this while shilling for union labor?

Even those that received a dishonorable discharge get a dd214.

Millwright Ron
Combat Wounded
Vietnam 68,69,70

Millwright Ron wrote in article
...
On Nov 21, 8:00 am, rigger wrote:
******************************
Hi Dennis:
The Union that I belong to.....( This Union is over 100 years
old )
believes in 8 hours pay for 8 hours work.


To be more accurate, eight hours pay for eight hours on the clock - not
necessarily eight hours worked. That's how unions REALLY work. Such as
"fire tenders" on diesel locomotives.



If you do no follow these rules. Your Union Brothers will get on your
case! You have to make a profit for your employer and they understand
fully that if the owner goes out of business They do not have a JOB!
If you fail to perform,you will not be there for long.
Those Union Brothers know the owner has the right to send you down the
road.
Millwright Ron
www.unionmillwright.com




So, your union has NEVER jeopardized the profitability and/or viability of
a business by going out on strike and shutting down the operation in hopes
of bringing management down to their knees?

That IS, after all, the union's "strength".....the ability to shut a place
down.

If your union has EVER gone on strike, your statement above is pure
political B.S. and more lies and propaganda.

On Nov 21, 10:32 am, " wrote:
On Nov 21, 4:00 pm, rigger wrote:

So throw the decision about increases upon the tender
mercy of management??? LOL No thanks, but that
was really funny.

Not funny at all to sane people. After all whose money is it?
Certainly not the unions. I don't know for sure, but I think this is
how the engineers union works at BOEING. The union and BOEING
negotiate the total size of the pay raise packet, and the company gets
to reward the engineers that do good work.

Whose money is it? It's yours dcaster, and mine, and everyones.
That is "if" you subscribe to Henry Ford's crazy idea that "your"
money is actually only being "handled" by someone else for a
while (Sorry Henry if I botched this up too bad). I personally think
this makes a lot of sense.
As far as Boing is concerned; This appears to be an example of
a contract negotiated/written to everyones desires.

The whole idea of unions is "solidarity." Why would
a member decide management would better under-
stand this and how to apply it?

Because the whole ideas of unions is not necessarily " solidarity ".
The idea of unions is to join together in order to have a stronger
position in bargaining with the company. Solidarity is just a slogan.

You say po-tae-toes and I say po-tah-toes. Big deal. I don't
teach you how to speak my way and visa-versa. OK?

On the other hand "Everything is negotiable" may just
work for you if you negotiate a contract. Try it.

Not a chance. I am not about to go back to work. Not worth while
unless I can negotiate with the Federal Government a deal for lower
taxes.

You've got that right. Me too. Gee, if we negotiate, now we're a
union of two ; how did that happen?


dennis
in nca

On Nov 21, 10:37 am, Dave Hinz wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 08:06:50 -0800 (PST), rigger wrote:
On Nov 20, 3:41 pm, Dave Hinz wrote:
The truth is, I couldn't hire people who could read and follow drawings
and procedures for an assembly job, because some guy who had more years
wanted what he saw as a cushy job.

Just more "sour grapes" Dave.

No, it's the central point. Ability isn't valued, length of service is.
That's just fundamentally wrong.

These are the contract terms your management negotiated.
If you have problems understanding them, ask your manager
why the contract was written this way.

Are you seriously pretending that "the guy with seniority gets the first
shot at a job" is somehow unique to this specific contract?

Let me take an paragraph from my post to Harold:

"Do you have a brother or sister? If you do would you fire
your brother or sister (or child) because someone could
do the job better?? (I'd like to hear about the ass-kicking
from your wife when you did so. LOL) Or maybe you'd
fire your Dad or Mom??? LOL"

Try thinking along these lines and you may better under-
stand the union mentality and what makes unions strong.

On the other hand if you can not understand the precept
I will be happy to explain it further.

As I said before, until you can tell me why your contract was
written with these clauses, I don't feel we have anything to
discuss.

Yeah, I've made my point pretty clearly. I got stuck with the lazy old
guy instead of someone who would have done it better but wasn't there as
long. And, you're apparently not only not seeing why that's a problem,
but are criticizing _me_ for the terms of _their_ contract.
I think that sums up the problem pretty well. It certainly helped me to
get a better insight into the mentality of the people like that, and has
reinforced my previous impressions.

You will then lump yourself with the people who like to whine
about how badly the world treats them. Please listen : IT'S
NOT ABOUT YOU!!! Read my post again: IT'S BETWEEN
YOUR COMPANY'S MANAGEMENT AND THE UNION
NEGOTIATERS!!! I hope that's now clear. You are merely a
pawn in the matter. Sorry. For details please see your
company's managers. I can not provide any more detail.

dennis
in nca

On Nov 21, 10:38 am, " wrote:
On Nov 21, 4:06 pm, rigger wrote:





Just more "sour grapes" Dave.

These are the contract terms your management negotiated.

If you have problems understanding them, ask your manager
why the contract was written this way. He/she may not
know, and I'm not advocating you get yourself in hot water
by asking too many questions, but the person in your
company, who negotiated the contract, will know the details.

As I said before, until you can tell me why your contract was
written with these clauses, I don't feel we have anything to
discuss.

dennis
in nca

The most probable reason it was negotiated that way, was the union was
not interested in getting the best deal for the members, the union was
interested in getting the best deal for the union.

If it goes by seniority, the company has to employ more people because
some of them have retired on the job. Therefore the union has more
members and the leaders of the union get a higher salary.

So the union negotiated away higher wages and better benefits in order
to obtain seniority rights. The members lose and the union bosses
gain.



- Show quoted text -

Your interpretation of the situation sounds, while simplistic,
not unreasonable in it's ideas. Yes, it's true: sometimes wage
is negotiated away in favor of health care and other benefits
such as vacation, pension, seniority, etc. For the rugged
induvidual in other work circumstances this will seem
familiar as these are the bargaining points often used in an
individual's contract as well. If you, or someone you knew,
was able to negotiate a favorable contract would you think
this was somehow "wrong?"

If you're really interest in the truth, I'd suggest reading
some history.

dennis
in nca

On Nov 21, 12:34 pm, Millwright Ron wrote:
On Nov 21, 8:00 am, rigger wrote:



On Nov 20, 3:28 pm, " wrote:

On Nov 20, 3:45 pm, rigger wrote:

So, instead of saying the company you work for screwed-up
in agreeing to these provisions, you come around "after" the
negotiations and complain. Nothing about what the union
may have given-up in wages/vacation/health insurance,
BECAUSE MANAGEMENT NEVER TOLD YOU!!!

All I hear is your complaining. Why don't you try to find out
the truth of your particular situation? Until you do that
you're only operating on predjudice and speculation, not
facts. After you do that we can have a conversation.

dennis
in nca

Are you saying that the union would give up wages, vacation, and
health benefits in order to have seniority in the contract?

That sounds like a union that does not do much for the hard
working
members, but does a lot for the members that just want to barely
get
by. I would much prefer a union that bargained for pay raises
and let
the company have some latitude on how the raise packet is
distributed.

Say the negociated raise packet is 4% . Everyone get at least 2%
but
the company can give 8 % to some and 4 and 6% to others. So the
average raise is 4%.

Dan

So throw the decision about increases upon the tender
mercy of management??? LOL No thanks, but that
was really funny.

The whole idea of unions is "solidarity." Why would
a member decide management would better under-
stand this and how to apply it?

On the other hand "Everything is negotiable" may just
work for you if you negotiate a contract. Try it.

dennis
in nca- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

******************************
Hi Dennis:
The Union that I belong to.....( This Union is over 100 years
old )
believes in 8 hours pay for 8 hours work.
If you do no follow these rules. Your Union Brothers will get on your
case! You have to make a profit for your employer and they understand
fully that if the owner goes out of business They do not have a JOB!
If you fail to perform,you will not be there for long.
Those Union Brothers know the owner has the right to send you down the
road.
Millwright Ronwww.unionmillwright.com

- Show quoted text -

If you do no follow these rules. Your Union Brothers will get on your
case! You have to make a profit for your employer and they understand
fully that if the owner goes out of business They do not have a JOB!
If you fail to perform,you will not be there for long.
Those Union Brothers know the owner has the right to send you down the
road.

My union as well Ron. But there's always some anti-union
diehard who will jump in with an (uninformed) exception they've
heard of, so don't be surprised.

dennis
in nca

On Nov 22, 2:02 am, "Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote:
"rigger" wrote in message


snip----

NO ENTITY OWNS ME!

As long as you use your own "special" definition of "OWN" I'm
sure this is true. On my side of the fence the IRS "owns" a
piece of me, as do other taxing organizations. & etc.

OK-----let me rephrase that. My butt is owned by the government----but I
have never signed it over to any other agency. :-)

In your life have you ever written or signed a contract??
Don't you understand what this means? Did you ever
negotiate a contract?

Indeed I have, but that has nothing to do with my conversation.



Do you have a brother or sister?

Yes, and I don't like either one of them. Reason? Each has an "it's all
about me" attitude. No thanks.

Sorry. But I'd suggest you be thankfull for the brother and
sister anyway. I wish I could be.

.If you do would you fire

your brother or sister (or child) because someone could
do the job better?? (I'd like to hear about the ass-kicking
from your wife when you did so. LOL) Or maybe you'd
fire your Dad or Mom??? LOL

From this, I conclude that if one of your family members was guilty of
murdering a few people, that you'd stand by them, helping them avoid
capture, defending them at all costs? You wouldn't encourage them to turn
themselve in to authorities? Perhaps you'd understand if I didn't want
you living in my neighborhood-----or city-----or state, not with that kind
of attitude.

I guess this is in answer to my question: "If you do would you fire
your brother or sister (or child) because someone could
do the job better??" Lousy answer, but I'll answer it anyway: If
my family member were Adolph Hitler (close to what you were
getting at? LOL) then, "Yes", I'd encourage him to turn himself
in to authorities. But what does this prove???????


I get your point, but that's not what we're talking about, is it! What
we're talking about is hiring someone, regardless of affiliation or
relationship, to perform a given task-----at least that's what Dave was
talking about. I gather you'd hire your brother-in-law to perform
brain surgery on your child because he's family------never mind he has no
clue what to do, or how to do it. That makes no sense, and never will.

You can do better than this.

Union members call other union members "brothers" and
"sisters" because thats how we treat them and how we
want to be treated ourselfs. If you can't understand (and
some people apparently, can not) this simple idea then
I'm sorry for you. For some, it isn't the "instant money"
you gain now but the overall health of the organization
and its members which leads to a better life for all.

For one, "instant money" is against my principles. That's union magic
bull****, not reality. AND-----I don't want to be a part of any
organization like that-----no more than I'd choose to be a member of a
church. That wonderful organization is working hard to make my cost of
living go up---and continue the decline of the power of the dollar. I
can't get interested in that, not for any reason. You appear to have a
"this is good for me/us" attitude, even at the cost of being bad for the
nation. Sorry-----my head doesn't work that way.

You misunderstand: We're not asking you to join. Go somewhere else.
Next you'll no doubt have popeye jump out and begin hollering about
unions supporting terrorism; idiotic reasoning.

The only people that benefit from union coercion is the union and worker,
often at great expense to the worker. You tell me, in terms I can
understand, how picketing meat workers at my local store, demanding an
unreasonable raise in pay, is going to benefit me? He (they) are trying
to move their class of living up the scale at the expense of moving mine
down. You know, and I know, that if a store pays more in wages, they'll
make an offset in prices for compensation. Sorry, that doesn't fly with
me------and as I've said previously-----I'm a man of my word-----I'll drive
far out of my way to insure that I cross the picket line of anyone picketing
an organization, and laugh in the faces of the dumb *******s that have been
out of work for months, depriving their families of a comfortable life that
otherwise may have been.

Without facts everything in a discussion becomes a personal rant,
which is what this appears to becoming. But I'll try:

Are you aware only 10% of the store cost of a head of lettuce is
spent on labor (Dept. of Ag. figures) and only another 10% or so
goes to the farmer. Would you rather see the middleman (with-
out visible "negotiations" take your money?? Do I hear you complain
about this?? Or is it only when the worker benifits you complain??
If YOU make more money does it diminish others?? Is this OK??
Is this a selfish attitude?? Ok for you but not for others??

You want more pay in life? Get qualified to earn more-----don't pick up
your gun and mask and demand more from me.

snip the s-c stuff

Sorry you haven't had any good experiences.

snip the unsubstantiated stuff Unions make mistakes too???
I never knew that.. Thanks for the news.


You're OK, Dennis-----just very misguided. The day will come, hopefully,
when you realize which entity signs your checks. That's what it's really
all about. The union doesn't pay your wages, and is, in fact, the enemy.
They are the entity that is now encouraging remaining businesses to leave US
turf. Could your job be hanging in the balance as a result?

Harold

Well, I guess "You've got yours!!!" Harold. And anything government
or
corporations (same thing, right?) do is fine with you. Anyone who
can't
see any further than this can not be expected to carry on a decent
conversation. It appears to me Harold, that you've "ossifed", become
so
rigid in your beliefs that nothing, including the "Second Coming" will
change them (What's that? You're part of some "group?" LOL)

Sorry Harold, but your imitation of the "Duke" doesn't impress,
despite
the personal success (by "your" definition) you may have enjoyed.

dennis
in nca

On Nov 22, 3:31 am, Prometheus wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 08:24:45 -0800 (PST), rigger
wrote:

NO ENTITY OWNS ME!

Harold

NO ENTITY OWNS ME!

As long as you use your own "special" definition of "OWN" I'm
sure this is true. On my side of the fence the IRS "owns" a
piece of me, as do other taxing organizations. & etc.

If a thief comes into your home, and takes your belongings at the
point of a gun, they do not own you.

But they do "own" part of my money which IS a part
of my life. OK?

In your life have you ever written or signed a contract??
Don't you understand what this means? Did you ever
negotiate a contract?

I have, and fulfilled all of them to the satisfaction of all parties
involved. I have also walked away from unfavorable contracts. I have
never attempted to force the party on the other side of the deal to
agree to my terms.

Sounds good to me.

Do you have a brother or sister? If you do would you fire
your brother or sister (or child) because someone could
do the job better?? (I'd like to hear about the ass-kicking
from your wife when you did so. LOL) Or maybe you'd
fire your Dad or Mom??? LOL

When I was a construction contractor, I hired my wife to do some
cleanup on a job site when I was getting close to my contract
deadline.

I fired her ass because she wouldn't work fast enough and claimed her
wrist hurt- she still married me. If she'd have held my firing her
against me, I wouldn't have asked her to be my wife. I also fired my
little brother for similar reasons. I wouldn't hesitate to do the
same to any other family members or friends- neither blood nor
affection is a valid reason to sacrifice the skilled to the unskilled.

Good for you. Shows moral strength. But would you also
fire these same people when they got older and you found
you could hire a younger person for half the wage?

Union members call other union members "brothers" and
"sisters" because thats how we treat them and how we
want to be treated ourselfs. If you can't understand (and
some people apparently, can not) this simple idea then
I'm sorry for you. For some, it isn't the "instant money"
you gain now but the overall health of the organization
and its members which leads to a better life for all.

My brother is a drug user and welfare recipient, and doesn't take care
of his (illegitimate) kids. I treat him precisely as I would want to
be treated if I were him- with contempt. The last thing anyone should
recieve is undeserved respect or esteem. To pretend that he is doing
nothing wrong, and his acceptance of the charity that is forcably
taken from me by our government to suppliment his lack of ability and
desire to improve himself would be to spit in the face of justice.

My taxes go to support your brother too, don't forget. And those of
all
my "brothers and sisters" as well. Your "little" brother, I'll bet.

Without justice, we all die starving in the dark. With perfect
justice, only those who seek to do nothing, and therefore deserve
nothing are the recipients of that fate.

Sorry you haven't had any good experiences.

I can tell you with some certainty, without ever having met Harold,
that he has had experiences that you will never equal. He stands for
freedom and the unmitigated joy of accomplishment- you stand for
percieved safety and brother-love. The two never meet. The former is
a rare and perfect gem, while the latter is dirty rock from the
backyard- common and devoid of value. A flawless diamond does not
require the approval of it's peers to be set into a magnificent ring-
but for a piece of shale to achieve that same end requires a great
deal of omission and force.

Are you feeble? Do you know me? Your thinking is so limited
and unimaginative as to make your statement meaningless:

"Your thinking is like my big toe; all gnarlly" Surely you can do
better?

dennis
in nca