On Nov 22, 3:57 am, Prometheus wrote:
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.

ME ME ME ME ME MY MY MY MY MY

This discussion is not about YOU!!

We're happy you're pleased with yourself.

dennis
in nca

On Nov 22, 4:01 am, Prometheus wrote:
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?

Nothing, and unless you can provide FACTS mine remains the
ONLY fact in this part of the discussion.

dennis
in nca

On Nov 22, 4:21 am, Prometheus wrote:
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.

Well Prom' it's evident we all pay taxes, and complain, so
I don't see how that makes you special. In fact many, such
as yourself, like the increased wages nearby unions bring,
but are willing to bad-mouth them anyway, so I guess this
doesn't make you special either. Anything new lately?

dennis
in nca

rigger wrote in article
...
On Nov 22, 4:01 am, Prometheus wrote:
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?

Nothing, and unless you can provide FACTS mine remains the
ONLY fact in this part of the discussion.



The trick is getting THROUGH the picket line in one piece!!!!

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

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

Funny------when a reasonable point is raised---your common defense is it's
"uninformed". You choose to discount anything worthy of consideration as
if to imply only you are the one that is "informed". I'm beginning to see a
pattern here-----a union pattern-----based on union dogma------"uninformed"
union dogma.

You keep suggesting that others can "do better than that".

Uh huh! You sure as hell can. It's becoming obvious, at least to me,
that you need a union-----and are part of the problem, not part of the
solution. Wise and informed people have their own examples-----they need
not parrot that which is union propaganda.

Harold

"rigger" wrote in message
...
snip-


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.

Strong? In your mind, dennis-----in your mind. You're a member of the
losing team, with no prospects of becoming the winning team, if for no other
reason, convoluted thinking. That's precisely what's wrong with unions,
and a big part of why they are anything but "strong" these days. People can
see through that facade easily.

Protecting worthless individuals while qualified people go without
employment, or worthless people being employed along with qualified people,
raising the cost of projects unnecessarily. Unearned money,
dennis----which is the point you seem to conveniently overlook in the world
you see through rose colored glasses. . NO ONE should be guaranteed a
living wage unless they invest enough of their time and effort to EARN it.
There is no free lunch. Someone, somewhere, is picking up the tab, and
receiving nothing in return. If that's your idea of an ideal society, you
won't get my vote-----not now-----not tomorrow-----not ever.

Harold

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

ME ME ME ME ME MY MY MY MY MY

This discussion is not about YOU!!

We're happy you're pleased with yourself.

dennis
in nca

I'm impressed with him (Prometheus), far more than you will ever know.

He represents the points that I live by----standing on one's own two feet,
accomplishing missions without holding others hostage--and rightfully
claiming that which he has earned. Union people will never understand
that concept------for they represent a gathering of inept, incompetent
people that have done their level best to avoid all of the above, yet demand
the rewards of those that have been contributing members to society.
Sadly, in the union, many must gather to speak with a ME ME ME MY MY MY
voice. I see no difference, aside from one side earning the right, with
the other stealing the privilege.

Harold

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
et...

"rigger" wrote in message
...
snip-


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.

Strong? In your mind, dennis-----in your mind. You're a member of the
losing team, with no prospects of becoming the winning team, if for no
other reason, convoluted thinking. That's precisely what's wrong with
unions, and a big part of why they are anything but "strong" these days.
People can see through that facade easily.

Protecting worthless individuals while qualified people go without
employment, or worthless people being employed along with qualified
people, raising the cost of projects unnecessarily. Unearned money,
dennis----which is the point you seem to conveniently overlook in the
world you see through rose colored glasses. . NO ONE should be guaranteed
a living wage unless they invest enough of their time and effort to EARN
it. There is no free lunch. Someone, somewhere, is picking up the tab,
and receiving nothing in return. If that's your idea of an ideal society,
you won't get my vote-----not now-----not tomorrow-----not ever.

Harold

I have two pennies to throw into the pot, and a confession to make.

I have been on union jobs where I did a good job. Then there showed up
people who got paid as much as me and did half the work. The company liked
them more because instead of charging for 8 hours of my work, they could
send two guys to do the same thing for 8 hours.

So, what do I do? First, I slow down so as not to ire the other members who
will drop a 4x on my head at first opportunity. Then I match my performance
with theirs, even enjoying the time off. (Working three hours out of eight
instead of eight out of eight.)

In a union situation, the good never bring up the bad to their level. The
bad always bring the others down. And the unions support it because they
have more people on the rolls paying dues.

Old union joke?

How many union members does it take to build a house?

Who gives a ****? You got a problem with that?

Steve, who's gladly retired and permanently disabled due to an ignorant
cocksucking union member mentality worker.

* wrote:

rigger wrote in article
...
On Nov 22, 4:01 am, Prometheus wrote:
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?

Nothing, and unless you can provide FACTS mine remains the
ONLY fact in this part of the discussion.


The trick is getting THROUGH the picket line in one piece!!!!


The trick is not trying to pick too big of a fight. Some idiots at
Armco Steel announced they were going to stop the slag train and kill
the crew. the state put armed officers aboard the train, with orders of
shoot to kill, if necessary. they dumb asses tried to stop the train by
sitting in lawn chairs across the track. They barely made it off the
track in time.

The union at Cincinnati Electronics elected a new president, and the
next day she declared that she was going to bring the company to its
knees. She told me that if i reported for work, they would pull me out
of my truck and beat me to death. I thanked her for the warning and
told her that if any of her idiots tried to stop me, I would run over
them, repeatedly. My job (Quality Assurance) was non union so they had
no right to stop me from reporting for work.

I also pointed out what happened the last time they went on strike.
After a lot of 'bargaining' they went back to work for half what they
had been making, after the company had built a plant in Mexico. She
didn't believe me, but her union members told her to shut up and that
she was just a stinking figure head, because she was stupid enough to
run for the office.


--
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 Thu, 22 Nov 2007 08:05:17 -0800 (PST), rigger wrote:
On Nov 21, 10:37 am, Dave Hinz wrote:

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

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"

If they're not doing the job, hell yes.

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

Oh, I _understand_ your point of view.

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

You're back to doing that condescending thing where you pretend people
who disagree with you are just too stupid to see your point or

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.

On the contrary. I fixed the situation by finding a better job.

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.

Yeah, see previous not understanding, vs. not agreeing.

I understand your point. I _disagree_ with your point. It's not good
for anyone other than lazy people who have been around longer. And
that's why we're losing manufacturing jobs to China; because you
wouldn't fire your brother for being lazy and useless, so my employer
and yours has to pay both of you for the output of one person.

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 09:05:07 -0800 (PST), rigger wrote:

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??

Middlemen? You mean like, the packing plant that cleans and wraps it,
and then the trucker who hauls it, the grocery store who has a huge
financial investment in building, staff, and inventory, that kind of
middlemen? Yeah, they all deserve to get paid too, of course. Why
would anyone have a problem with that?

David R. Birch wrote in article
...

Come to think of it, I saw *'s name twice this weekend while gutting
deer. It was right there just below the tail.




It is interesting to note that your first "contribution" to this thread has
NOTHING to do with the discussion of unions, but is a sophomoric reference
to animal rectums.

"Yuk! Yuk! Hey Beavis....He said rectum."

As a troll, you are a mere amateur compared to those on this newsgroup....

rigger wrote in article
...

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


Why?

So unions can continue to attempt to live in the 1940s and 1950s?

This is the 21st Century.

When will the unions come to grips with that?

On Nov 22, 1:52 pm, "*" wrote:
rigger wrote in article
...





On Nov 22, 4:01 am, Prometheus wrote:
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?

Nothing, and unless you can provide FACTS mine remains the
ONLY fact in this part of the discussion.

The trick is getting THROUGH the picket line in one piece!!!!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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

Nothing, and unless you can provide FACTS mine remains the
ONLY fact in this part of the discussion.

The trick is getting THROUGH the picket line in one piece!!!!-
Hide quoted text -


My sympathies for your perceived injury.

dennis
in nca

On Nov 22, 1:57 pm, "Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote:
"rigger" wrote in message

...
snip-----



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

Funny------when a reasonable point is raised---your common defense is it's
"uninformed". You choose to discount anything worthy of consideration as
if to imply only you are the one that is "informed". I'm beginning to see a
pattern here-----a union pattern-----based on union dogma------"uninformed"
union dogma.

You keep suggesting that others can "do better than that".

Uh huh! You sure as hell can. It's becoming obvious, at least to me,
that you need a union-----and are part of the problem, not part of the
solution. Wise and informed people have their own examples-----they need
not parrot that which is union propaganda.

Harold

Sorry to say Harold, but most people today don't seem
to know very much about unions, yourself included. I
don't think the fact I know more than most makes me
special in any way but, when I see people, such as
yourself, speaking only from predjudice and not from
any demonstratable "FACTS" then I know all we're
going to hear is the old "well so-and-so said such-
and-such" or "I am strong, I never needed them" bull
associated with unfounded statements. This is your
evidence of a "reasonable point?" If you can provide
me with your "reasonable point" which is more than
just "your opinion" I'd be happy to address it, but if
not please keep it to yourself as repitition helps no
one.

If the shoe fits Harold, wear it. But can you do "better
than that?"

Well first how about answering some of my points?
Perhaps even admit there's some truth in them? No?
Well I didn't expect so. You've a one-way mind
which barrells down the track looking neither left nor
right and this coupled with your particular brand of
determination has held you in good stead through the
years. However what's good for Harold isn't always
the best for others SURPRISE. I'll bet you didn't
know that Harold! But it's true. Learn, grow, Oh
"Wise and informed" one.

Hope you had a nice Thanksgiving.

dennis
in nca

On Nov 22, 2:06 pm, "Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote:
"rigger" wrote in message

...
snip-



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.

Strong? In your mind, dennis-----in your mind. You're a member of the
losing team, with no prospects of becoming the winning team, if for no other
reason, convoluted thinking. That's precisely what's wrong with unions,
and a big part of why they are anything but "strong" these days. People can
see through that facade easily.

Protecting worthless individuals while qualified people go without
employment, or worthless people being employed along with qualified people,
raising the cost of projects unnecessarily. Unearned money,
dennis----which is the point you seem to conveniently overlook in the world
you see through rose colored glasses. . NO ONE should be guaranteed a
living wage unless they invest enough of their time and effort to EARN it.
There is no free lunch. Someone, somewhere, is picking up the tab, and
receiving nothing in return. If that's your idea of an ideal society, you
won't get my vote-----not now-----not tomorrow-----not ever.

Harold

Thanks for all the free info Harold, but learning to
hate, at this stage in my life, just doesn't seem
reasonable. But I doubt you can understand this
as I'm fairly certain no one ever accused you of
being "reasonable."

dennis
in nca

On Nov 22, 2:15 pm, "Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote:
"rigger" wrote in message

...
snip-------



ME ME ME ME ME MY MY MY MY MY

This discussion is not about YOU!!

We're happy you're pleased with yourself.

dennis
in nca

I'm impressed with him (Prometheus), far more than you will ever know.

He represents the points that I live by----standing on one's own two feet,
accomplishing missions without holding others hostage--and rightfully
claiming that which he has earned. Union people will never understand
that concept------for they represent a gathering of inept, incompetent
people that have done their level best to avoid all of the above, yet demand
the rewards of those that have been contributing members to society.
Sadly, in the union, many must gather to speak with a ME ME ME MY MY MY
voice. I see no difference, aside from one side earning the right, with
the other stealing the privilege.

Harold

That's great Harold; somehow armor suits you. Too
bad you seem so self centered or it might actually
mean something besides blah, blah, blah.

But, instead you would have us see the drops of gold,
or better, pearls, as they drop from your lips. I see,
however, you're still weak on facts (ever heard of them?)
and top-heavy on self-serving, stale, rehotric.

You can do better.

dennis
in nca

On Nov 22, 2:17 pm, "SteveB" wrote:
"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in s.tds.net...







"rigger" wrote in message
...
snip-

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.

Strong? In your mind, dennis-----in your mind. You're a member of the
losing team, with no prospects of becoming the winning team, if for no
other reason, convoluted thinking. That's precisely what's wrong with
unions, and a big part of why they are anything but "strong" these days.
People can see through that facade easily.

Protecting worthless individuals while qualified people go without
employment, or worthless people being employed along with qualified
people, raising the cost of projects unnecessarily. Unearned money,
dennis----which is the point you seem to conveniently overlook in the
world you see through rose colored glasses. . NO ONE should be guaranteed
a living wage unless they invest enough of their time and effort to EARN
it. There is no free lunch. Someone, somewhere, is picking up the tab,
and receiving nothing in return. If that's your idea of an ideal society,
you won't get my vote-----not now-----not tomorrow-----not ever.

Harold

I have two pennies to throw into the pot, and a confession to make.

I have been on union jobs where I did a good job. Then there showed up
people who got paid as much as me and did half the work. The company liked
them more because instead of charging for 8 hours of my work, they could
send two guys to do the same thing for 8 hours.

So, what do I do? First, I slow down so as not to ire the other members who
will drop a 4x on my head at first opportunity. Then I match my performance
with theirs, even enjoying the time off. (Working three hours out of eight
instead of eight out of eight.)

In a union situation, the good never bring up the bad to their level. The
bad always bring the others down. And the unions support it because they
have more people on the rolls paying dues.

Old union joke?

How many union members does it take to build a house?

Who gives a ****? You got a problem with that?

Steve, who's gladly retired and permanently disabled due to an ignorant
cocksucking union member mentality worker.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So because you felt these people were underhanded
you decided to play their game??? All I can say is:
Look out for Harold. He'll tell you what you should
have done (Hint: It wasn't "play along").

Too bad you got buffaloed by the "bad guys" but
how about giving all of the associated information.
As long as you're disabled (not "UNION" disability
coverage, I hope) you shouldn't have to worry about
them not giving you any work, right?

Oh; sorry you lowered yourself.

dennis
in nca

On Nov 22, 2:54 pm, Dave Hinz wrote:
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 08:05:17 -0800 (PST), rigger wrote:
On Nov 21, 10:37 am, Dave Hinz wrote:
No, it's the central point. Ability isn't valued, length of service is.
That's just fundamentally wrong.
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"

If they're not doing the job, hell yes.

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

Oh, I _understand_ your point of view.

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

You're back to doing that condescending thing where you pretend people
who disagree with you are just too stupid to see your point or

When YOU make points you expect me to answer them, and,
unless they're a repitition only of your "opinion", I'll attempt to
answer them. If you ignore my points, and they are salient to
the discussion, I'll keep bringing them back until they ARE re-
cognized. Or perhaps you feel ignoring the facts is integral to
your argument?

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.

On the contrary. I fixed the situation by finding a better job.

Perfect. Good for you.

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.

Yeah, see previous not understanding, vs. not agreeing.

Ibid

I understand your point. I _disagree_ with your point. It's not good
for anyone other than lazy people who have been around longer. And
that's why we're losing manufacturing jobs to China; because you
wouldn't fire your brother for being lazy and useless, so my employer
and yours has to pay both of you for the output of one person.

That is NOT NOT NOT my point. What I'm saying is that
MANAGEMENT (yes, of the company negotiating the contract)
has chosen to allow it. If it were in the company's interest to
NOT allow it, it may have been done differently.

But, more to your point: It has been demonstrated, in count-
less instances, that management would fire, or in some other
manner "remove" older, higher paid workers with younger,
lower paid workers. If you're a union how do you prevent this
dispicable occurance from being repeated over and over, until
it's your turn, or your father's turn, etc.? The answer?
Negotiate.

Anti-union people, such as yourself, like to make it seem
as though older workers have some type of mental or
physical problem (or they're "lazy") which comes on them
after the age of what, 50? How idiotic. But even assuming
this can happen it doesn't address the issue of management
moving older people out without cause. And you would join
them in their efforts?

dennis
in nca

On Nov 22, 3:00 pm, Dave Hinz wrote:
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 09:05:07 -0800 (PST), rigger wrote:
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??

Middlemen? You mean like, the packing plant that cleans and
wraps it,
and then the trucker who hauls it, the grocery store who has a
huge
financial investment in building, staff, and inventory, that kind
of
middlemen? Yeah, they all deserve to get paid too, of course.
Why
would anyone have a problem with that?

Or the financier who buys futures and then sells
them for an inflated price having "added no value"
to the product but who may gain a lion's share of
the profit?

Or the 53 million dollar+ bonuses?

Or any one of the many day-to-day scams printed
in our newspapers everyday. You do read the news,
don't you? If so you're ignoring common knowledge
in order to be argumentative. No thanks.

dennis
in nca

On Nov 23, 7:16 am, "*" wrote:
David R. Birch wrote in article
...



Come to think of it, I saw *'s name twice this weekend while gutting
deer. It was right there just below the tail.

It is interesting to note that your first "contribution" to this thread has
NOTHING to do with the discussion of unions, but is a sophomoric reference
to animal rectums.

"Yuk! Yuk! Hey Beavis....He said rectum."

As a troll, you are a mere amateur compared to those on this newsgroup....

Oh come on. It was funny. Loosen up and tell
us how you chose "*" for your "handle."

dennis
in nca

On Nov 23, 7:39 am, "*" wrote:
rigger wrote in article
...



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

Why?

So unions can continue to attempt to live in the 1940s and 1950s?

This is the 21st Century.

When will the unions come to grips with that?

Right you are. Why, I had forgotten how great things
have become for the American worker. How could I
have missed that? Thanks a bunch.

dennis
in nca

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 09:38:07 -0800 (PST), rigger wrote:
On Nov 22, 2:54 pm, Dave Hinz wrote:
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 08:05:17 -0800 (PST), rigger wrote:

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

Oh, I _understand_ your point of view.
You're back to doing that condescending thing where you pretend people
who disagree with you are just too stupid to see your point or

When YOU make points you expect me to answer them, and,
unless they're a repitition only of your "opinion", I'll attempt to
answer them. If you ignore my points, and they are salient to
the discussion, I'll keep bringing them back until they ARE re-
cognized. Or perhaps you feel ignoring the facts is integral to
your argument?

I recognize that you feel that an employer should pay your incompetant
brother because you and he have solidarity. I recognize and _reject_
that.

I understand your point. I _disagree_ with your point. It's not good
for anyone other than lazy people who have been around longer. And
that's why we're losing manufacturing jobs to China; because you
wouldn't fire your brother for being lazy and useless, so my employer
and yours has to pay both of you for the output of one person.

That is NOT NOT NOT my point.

You're right. It's mine. It's one thing for you to tolerate someone
who isn't productive, that's fine, go for it. When it becomes my
problem is when it effects ME. Like as a shareholder, or as someone
responsible for getting a job done.

But, more to your point: It has been demonstrated, in count-
less instances, that management would fire, or in some other
manner "remove" older, higher paid workers with younger,
lower paid workers. If you're a union how do you prevent this
dispicable occurance from being repeated over and over, until
it's your turn, or your father's turn, etc.? The answer?
Negotiate.

No, the answer is to be useful and to stop rewarding longevity over
ability.

Anti-union people, such as yourself, like to make it seem
as though older workers have some type of mental or
physical problem (or they're "lazy") which comes on them
after the age of what, 50? How idiotic.

You keep doing it. I've said several times I don't give a **** how old
someone is, IF THEY CAN DO THE JOB. The problem is that I don't have
the choice, I _MUST_ take the guy who has been there longest, regardless
of skill and motivation. That was and is the problem, and that was and
is my point.

But even assuming
this can happen it doesn't address the issue of management
moving older people out without cause. And you would join
them in their efforts?

If they can do the job, they can stay. If they can't, then it's up to
the union to protect them and find a job they can do. Or the union can
carry them. But don't expect everyone around them, who didn't buy into
some protection-of-the-incompetant scheme, to suffer the costs of your
misguided "solidarity".

Again, all you are accomplishing is costing US manufacturers more than
it would cost to outsource to China. And how's that whole thing working
out for you?

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 09:44:10 -0800 (PST), rigger wrote:
On Nov 22, 3:00 pm, Dave Hinz wrote:

Middlemen? You mean like, the packing plant that cleans and
wraps it,
and then the trucker who hauls it, the grocery store who has a
huge
financial investment in building, staff, and inventory, that kind
of
middlemen? Yeah, they all deserve to get paid too, of course.
Why
would anyone have a problem with that?

Or the financier who buys futures and then sells
them for an inflated price having "added no value"
to the product but who may gain a lion's share of
the profit?

So now you're against the commodities market? How do you propose food
and similar _should_ be priced please?

Or the 53 million dollar+ bonuses?

If a CEO's job is to make money for the shareholders, and he performs
that job well, he should be compensated well for it. This is that whole
pay for performance thing we've been talking about. The market has
decided that a CEO gets paid more than the guy who builds the product.
That's just how it is.

Or any one of the many day-to-day scams printed
in our newspapers everyday. You do read the news,
don't you? If so you're ignoring common knowledge
in order to be argumentative.

Which specific common knowledge do you pretend I would see on the news
that justifies rewarding length of service over the ability to do the
job?

Try to stick to that point, you keep wandering off into the weeds. At
least you haven't compared me to hitler yet.

"rigger" wrote in message
...
On Nov 23, 7:39 am, "*" wrote:
rigger wrote in article
...



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

Why?

So unions can continue to attempt to live in the 1940s and 1950s?

This is the 21st Century.

When will the unions come to grips with that?

Right you are. Why, I had forgotten how great things
have become for the American worker. How could I
have missed that? Thanks a bunch.

dennis
in nca

i'd imagine if it weren't for unions american workers would still look much
the same as chinese or indian workers do now. thank god and the courageous
men who fought (and died) for unionized labor.

b.w.

On Nov 22, 2:06 pm, "Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote:
"rigger" wrote in message

...
snip-



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.

Strong? In your mind, dennis-----in your mind. You're a member of the
losing team, with no prospects of becoming the winning team, if for no other
reason, convoluted thinking. That's precisely what's wrong with unions,
and a big part of why they are anything but "strong" these days. People can
see through that facade easily.

Protecting worthless individuals while qualified people go without
employment, or worthless people being employed along with qualified people,
raising the cost of projects unnecessarily. Unearned money,
dennis----which is the point you seem to conveniently overlook in the world
you see through rose colored glasses. . NO ONE should be guaranteed a
living wage unless they invest enough of their time and effort to EARN it.
There is no free lunch. Someone, somewhere, is picking up the tab, and
receiving nothing in return. If that's your idea of an ideal society, you
won't get my vote-----not now-----not tomorrow-----not ever.

Harold

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$

Does anyone know how many Amero's equal a Dollar or is it how many
Dollars equals a Amero's?

If we continue to buy imports!
Where will our children work?

SKILLED ON PRINCIPLE ----- UNION BY CHOICE
Millwright Ron
www.unionmillwright.com

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$

On Nov 22, 5:31 am, "*" wrote:
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.


********************************************

For 35 years that I have belonged to this Union. We always had a no
shrike clause in out contract. Anyone that went on a wildcat strike
could be fired by the employer.
As long as our contract was in forced. We did not go on strike.

Excellence Is A Process Not A Goal To Do Better

Millwright Ron
www.unionmillwright.com

"rigger" wrote in message
...
On Nov 22, 1:52 pm, "*" wrote:
rigger wrote in article
...
snip----

The trick is getting THROUGH the picket line in one piece!!!!-
Hide quoted text -


My sympathies for your perceived injury.

dennis
in nca

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

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

Harold

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 09:44:10 -0800 (PST), rigger wrote:
snip----

Try to stick to that point, you keep wandering off into the weeds. At
least you haven't compared me to hitler yet.


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

Harold

"rigger" wrote in message
...
On Nov 22, 1:57 pm, "Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote:
"rigger" wrote in message

...
snip-----



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

Funny------when a reasonable point is raised---your common defense is
it's
"uninformed". You choose to discount anything worthy of consideration
as
if to imply only you are the one that is "informed". I'm beginning to
see a
pattern here-----a union pattern-----based on union
dogma------"uninformed"
union dogma.

You keep suggesting that others can "do better than that".

Uh huh! You sure as hell can. It's becoming obvious, at least to
me,
that you need a union-----and are part of the problem, not part of the
solution. Wise and informed people have their own examples-----they need
not parrot that which is union propaganda.

Harold

Sorry to say Harold, but most people today don't seem
to know very much about unions, yourself included.

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

don't think the fact I know more than most makes me
special in any way

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

but, when I see people, such as
yourself, speaking only from predjudice and not from
any demonstratable "FACTS" then I know all we're
going to hear is the old "well so-and-so said such-
and-such" or "I am strong, I never needed them" bull
associated with unfounded statements. This is your
evidence of a "reasonable point?" If you can provide
me with your "reasonable point" which is more than
just "your opinion" I'd be happy to address it, but if
not please keep it to yourself as repitition helps no
one.

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

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


If the shoe fits Harold, wear it. But can you do "better
than that?"

Well first how about answering some of my points?

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


Perhaps even admit there's some truth in them? No?
Well I didn't expect so. You've a one-way mind
which barrells down the track looking neither left nor
right and this coupled with your particular brand of
determination has held you in good stead through the
years. However what's good for Harold isn't always
the best for others SURPRISE. I'll bet you didn't
know that Harold! But it's true. Learn, grow, Oh
"Wise and informed" one.

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



Hope you had a nice Thanksgiving.

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

Be well,

Harold

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

Harold

Thanks for all the free info Harold, but learning to
hate, at this stage in my life, just doesn't seem
reasonable. But I doubt you can understand this
as I'm fairly certain no one ever accused you of
being "reasonable."

Chuckle!

Certainly not folks that are unreasonable-----

union members come to mind.

Harold

"rigger" wrote in message
...
On Nov 22, 2:15 pm, "Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote:
"rigger" wrote in message

...
snip-------



ME ME ME ME ME MY MY MY MY MY

This discussion is not about YOU!!

We're happy you're pleased with yourself.

dennis
in nca

I'm impressed with him (Prometheus), far more than you will ever know.

He represents the points that I live by----standing on one's own two
feet,
accomplishing missions without holding others hostage--and rightfully
claiming that which he has earned. Union people will never understand
that concept------for they represent a gathering of inept, incompetent
people that have done their level best to avoid all of the above, yet
demand
the rewards of those that have been contributing members to society.
Sadly, in the union, many must gather to speak with a ME ME ME MY MY MY
voice. I see no difference, aside from one side earning the right,
with
the other stealing the privilege.

Harold

That's great Harold; somehow armor suits you. Too
bad you seem so self centered or it might actually
mean something besides blah, blah, blah.

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


But, instead you would have us see the drops of gold,
or better, pearls, as they drop from your lips. I see,
however, you're still weak on facts (ever heard of them?)
and top-heavy on self-serving, stale, rehotric.

You can do better.

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

Harold

rigger wrote in article
...
On Nov 23, 7:16 am, "*" wrote:

Oh come on. It was funny. Loosen up and tell
us how you chose "*" for your "handle."


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

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

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

Millwright Ron wrote in article
...


Does anyone know how many Amero's equal a Dollar or is it how many
Dollars equals a Amero's?

If we continue to buy imports!
Where will our children work?







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

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

"David R. Birch" wrote in message
...
* wrote:
David R. Birch wrote in article
...
Come to think of it, I saw *'s name twice this weekend while
gutting deer. It was right there just below the tail.




It is interesting to note that your first "contribution" to this
thread has NOTHING to do with the discussion of unions, but is a
sophomoric reference to animal rectums.

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

"Yuk! Yuk! Hey Beavis....He said rectum."

Yes, you did.

As a troll, you are a mere amateur compared to those on this
newsgroup....

I agree, I am usually in awe of what Ed Huntress writes and seldom
differ in view.

Does that make me an expert troll? g

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

--
Ed Huntress

On Nov 23, 9:52 am, Dave Hinz wrote:
snip
I recognize that you feel that an employer should pay your incompetant
brother because you and he have solidarity. I recognize and _reject_
that.

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

snip YOUR point
That is NOT NOT NOT my point.

You're right. It's mine. It's one thing for you to tolerate someone
who isn't productive, that's fine, go for it. When it becomes my
problem is when it effects ME. Like as a shareholder, or as someone
responsible for getting a job done.

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

snip my comment
No, the answer is to be useful and to stop rewarding longevity over
ability.

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

snip

You keep doing it. I've said several times I don't give a **** how old
someone is, IF THEY CAN DO THE JOB. The problem is that I don't have
the choice, I _MUST_ take the guy who has been there longest, regardless
of skill and motivation. That was and is the problem, and that was and
is my point.

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

But even assuming
this can happen it doesn't address the issue of management
moving older people out without cause. And you would join
them in their efforts?

If they can do the job, they can stay. If they can't, then it's up to
the union to protect them and find a job they can do. Or the union can
carry them. But don't expect everyone around them, who didn't buy into
some protection-of-the-incompetant scheme, to suffer the costs of your
misguided "solidarity".

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

Again, all you are accomplishing is costing US manufacturers more than
it would cost to outsource to China. And how's that whole thing working
out for you?

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

dennis
in nca

On Nov 23, 11:00 am, Dave Hinz wrote:
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 09:44:10 -0800 (PST), rigger wrote:
On Nov 22, 3:00 pm, Dave Hinz wrote:
Middlemen? You mean like, the packing plant that cleans and
wraps it,
and then the trucker who hauls it

snip further examples
Or the financier who buys futures and then sells
them for an inflated price having "added no value"
to the product but who may gain a lion's share of
the profit?

So now you're against the commodities market?
How do you propose food and similar _should_ be priced
please?

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

Or the 53 million dollar+ bonuses?

If a CEO's job is to make money for the shareholders, and he performs
that job well, he should be compensated well for it. This is that whole
pay for performance thing we've been talking about. The market has
decided that a CEO gets paid more than the guy who builds the product.
That's just how it is.

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


Which specific common knowledge do you pretend I would see on the news
that justifies rewarding length of service over the ability to do the
job?


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

Try to stick to that point, you keep wandering off into the weeds. At
least you haven't compared me to hitler.

Now THAT"S funny.

dennis
in nca

On Nov 23, 11:41 am, "William Wixon" wrote:
"rigger" wrote in message

...





On Nov 23, 7:39 am, "*" wrote:
rigger wrote in article
...

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

Why?

So unions can continue to attempt to live in the 1940s and 1950s?

This is the 21st Century.

When will the unions come to grips with that?

Right you are. Why, I had forgotten how great things
have become for the American worker. How could I
have missed that? Thanks a bunch.

dennis
in nca

i'd imagine if it weren't for unions american workers would still
look much
the same as chinese or indian workers do now. thank god and the
courageous
men who fought (and died) for unionized labor.

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

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

dennis
in nca

On Nov 23, 5:19 pm, Millwright Ron wrote:
On Nov 22, 5:31 am, "*" wrote:





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.

********************************************

For 35 years that I have belonged to this Union. We always had a no
shrike clause in out contract. Anyone that went on a wildcat strike
could be fired by the employer.
As long as our contract was in forced. We did not go on strike.

Excellence Is A Process Not A Goal To Do Better

Millwright Ronwww.unionmillwright.com

- Show quoted text -

For 35 years that I have belonged to this Union. We always had a
no
shrike clause in out contract. Anyone that went on a wildcat
strike
could be fired by the employer.

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

dennis
in nca

On Nov 23, 10:07 pm, "Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote:
"rigger" wrote in message

...

On Nov 22, 1:52 pm, "*" wrote:
rigger wrote in article
...
snip----

The trick is getting THROUGH the picket line in one piece!!!!-
Hide quoted text -

My sympathies for your perceived injury.

dennis
in nca

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

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

Harold

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

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

dennis
in nca