On Nov 23, 10:09 pm, "Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote:
"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

Wass? You haff relatifs in Deutchland? Dis is gut.

dennis
in nca

On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 14:06:12 -0800 (PST), rigger wrote:
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,

Actually, I now am.

and capable of making business decisions
such as negotiating contracts,

Union contracts? Not on your life.

it really doesn't matter
whether you understand, or not, does it?

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

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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

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)

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

On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 14:17:37 -0800 (PST), rigger wrote:
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?

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

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?

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

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.

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

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.

Yeah, I figured.

On Nov 23, 10:38 pm, "Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote:
"rigger" wrote in message

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.

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

snip: too dumb for words

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)

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

snip: blah blah blah


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.

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

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.

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

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..

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

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- Hide quoted text -

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

dennis
in nca

On Nov 23, 10:41 pm, "Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote:
"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

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

dennis
in nca

On Nov 23, 10:49 pm, "Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote:
"rigger" wrote in message

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.

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

snip some junk

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.

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

Harold- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

dennis
in nca

On Nov 24, 7:34 am, "*" wrote:
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......

Cool. Don't know why others thought it was so bad.

dennis
in nca

On Nov 24, 7:44 am, "*" wrote:
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?

And you feel, somehow, that would get us back
on equal footing with India or China? Or can you
PROVE your statement has ANY validity?
I don't think so.

dennis
in nca

On Nov 24, 8:53 am, "David R. Birch" wrote:
* 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. When we do differ, it causes me to reexamine my view,
something I try to do anyway.

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

David

Note to self: Warn M Ron of people who have
apparent facination with animal rectums.

Oops, did I accidentally post that?

dennis
in nca

On Nov 24, 2:51 pm, Dave Hinz wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 14:06:12 -0800 (PST), rigger wrote:
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,

Actually, I now am.

and capable of making business decisions
such as negotiating contracts,

Union contracts? Not on your life.

it really doesn't matter
whether you understand, or not, does it?

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

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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

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)

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


If 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?

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

When a contract is negotiated both parties put their issues
on the table; wages, overtime, vacation pay, etc. etc. and
longitivity. If one side feels strongly about an item then
they must cede another the other side feels stronly about.
The fact that older workers remain employed in a certain
manner means something else was given-up to achieve
this. Ask your old boss if this isn't the case.

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)

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

Not your intelligence but your lack of factual data involved
in this discussion. Without this it's ONLY your opinion
you're discussing, not the facts. Sorry you were offended.

dennis
in nca

On Nov 24, 2:54 pm, Dave Hinz wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 14:17:37 -0800 (PST), rigger wrote:

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?

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

Anything in those classes about "a living wage?" Not
in the textbooks today, I'll bet. And NO, that is not
"added value."

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

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

Sorry. Too self centered to reply to.

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.

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

Not an insult. Just a suggestion to read a book about
unions and etc. Your choice.

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.

Yeah, I figured.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Gee, I figured you'd be calling me a communist and
all the time you were worried I'd be calling you a
facist. In my book that's funny. Sorry I didn't
explain it all earlier.

dennis
in nca

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

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

Sorry. Too self centered to reply to.

Oh! Contraire!

It is, in fact, impossible to respond to, for it's the truth------although
often disputed by those that seem to feel the world owes others a living.

You can agree, or not, that doesn't change the fact that a person should
earn his/her way in life----it should not come at the expense of others.
Those of us that live by that credo avoid organizations that promote
deadbeats that feel otherwise.

Harold

"rigger" wrote in message
...
On Nov 23, 10:41 pm, "Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote:
"rigger" wrote in message
snip-


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

dennis
in nca

Chuckle!

Never happen. I never did business with the devil! :-)

Dennis------I worked for myself for almost my entire life. I chose to do
that to avoid working with (1) unions
(2) stupid F'ing morons that think they're clever, but aren't. Example?
My last place of employment was in a shop that was owned by 9 guys, all of
which worked there in some capacity, anywhere from running the machines to
inspection, shop foreman, or the office. You might say, in a sense,
they were a "union" of sorts. No, the place was not organized-----just run
by a bunch of people that couldn't agree on anything. I was told on a few
occasions to do the same thing 9 different ways, if you get my drift. I
ran my shop for 16 years and was out of work three times in that period of
time, the longest stretch for less than 24 hours. I relied on no one for
making decisions------I relied on outside sources only for processing that
had to be certified. I am, such as I am, a self made man.

At my last place of employment, the one owned by 9 guys, they chose me to
run their small precision work, for that's what I do best. I found the
inspector re-cutting class three threads with a die because they wouldn't
fit a go gauge for a class 2-----(they had been properly cut and gauged,
using the three wire method). I was told to cut another thread undersized
because the moron in question didn't understand threads properly. It went
on and on, and was the straw that broke the camel's back. These experiences
were instrumental in me starting my own small shop, where I could turn out
the work I did so well, without "clever" people screwing it up for me at
every turn.

I've always had enough moxey to pull my share of the load, and it was pulled
far better without instruction from others. I'm a damned good self starter
and worker. Left to my own devices, I am a very productive individual that
has worked for his pay, and has not placed demands on society that were
unreasonable. I never hid behind a union, for I felt no need. From this,
if you can't understand that I had no need for one, I'm sorry for you. You
can glean from my comments that you have, indeed, missed out on one complete
phase of life, the one that teaches you to stand on your own two feet and be
responsible for yourself. I don't envy you for that.

Harold

Millwright Ron wrote:

Maybe you should slow down on their intake of drugs.


Why? Are you out, again?


--
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

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

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

Wrong again, Is that all the union taught you? You sure you're not
looking in a mirror? How is it you feel free to invalidate my real life
experiences, and make your union dogma the only stance acceptable?

And as long as all you can do is recite union dogma, I agree. There can't
be a discussion. The examples I've cited are conveniently rejected by you,
in spite of the sites I've provided. Get off your lazy union butt and
investigate what I posted. It is no incumbent upon me to do any more than
what I've done. If you feel you must invalidate my experiences, it all
makes sense----you don't want to hear it-----so if you deny it----it doesn't
exist. All a part of the convoluted thinking found in union dogma. You
know----the poor victims.

You are of the opinion that without your union, you don't exist. I'm of
the opinion that I am important without representation by a potentially
fraudulent organization. I am also of the opinion that I am nothing in the
scheme of things-----just a guy that can hold his head up high and proclaim
that he earned his way ----one that never used terrorist tactics to better
his lot in life at the expense of the quality of life for others.

Harold

On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 15:37:34 -0800 (PST), rigger wrote:
On Nov 24, 2:54 pm, Dave Hinz wrote:

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

Anything in those classes about "a living wage?" Not
in the textbooks today, I'll bet. And NO, that is not
"added value."

Not my problem. If your skills don't bring pay that you can live on,
then, sorry but, you're either unskilled or have chosen poorly. Learn a
new skill if you can, or starve. Not my problem.

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

Sorry. Too self centered to reply to.

Oh but, it's again central to the point. You want me to pay "workers" a
fair rate. No problem. Don't dump some old **** who doesn't want to
work on me and expect me to do the same because, if he doesn't produce,
he doesn't deserve it just because he's been around longer than someone
who can do the work.

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

Not an insult. Just a suggestion to read a book about
unions and etc. Your choice.

I understand what unions have done for the workers. Last century. This
century, they're a drain rather than a gain.

Gee, I figured you'd be calling me a communist and
all the time you were worried I'd be calling you a
facist. In my book that's funny. Sorry I didn't
explain it all earlier.

There you go again, you arrogant ****.

On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 14:54:56 -0800 (PST), rigger wrote:
On Nov 23, 10:38 pm, "Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote:

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.

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

Well, to be fair, in the year 1910 the unions DID advance the rights of
workers and all that. Got anything in the last century other than just
protecting lazy people?

snip: too dumb for words

There you go again.

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)

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

Got anything from THIS century?

snip: blah blah blah

(you're doing it again)

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.

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

As opposed to yours, which is less well spoken and even more pointless
and repetitive.

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.

So you never join with others to create a contract? Of
course you do. Does this make you bad?
Yet you insist a person (if he's in a union) should not
do the same.

I think that Harold is saying, that he'll enter a contract with someone
IF they can and will do the job.

On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 15:06:42 -0800 (PST), rigger wrote:
On Nov 24, 7:34 am, "*" wrote:

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......

Cool. Don't know why others thought it was so bad.

Funny, I figured it was because the idiot in question was trying to
break killfile rules based on his nym. His story to the contrary
changes little, though; regexp is smarter than a wildcard nym.

On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 14:30:53 -0800 (PST), rigger wrote:

First of all the 50s were a HALF CENTURY AGO

Yup, and about half as long ago as since the unions actually helped real
people who did real work.

On Nov 23, 10:41 pm, "Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote:
"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
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

A few days ago. I ask some very simply questions. Instead of the
questions being answered. I was bombarded with name calling and ugly
visceral comments from a lot of people. That seems to happen when the
question can not be answered in an intelligent manner. Again these are
very simple questions.

It always seems strange why anyone would chose to make less
money,less
benefits,less insurance,less retirement,less and less. Just how dumb
does it take... Not to be able to realize the benefits of belong to a
group that looks out for you and your family

Harold when a non-company that is paying $12.00 an hour and no
benefits closes their doors and relocates to Mexico. Is that the
Unions fault?

When a ceo of company steals millions from their stock holders and
their employees. I lost $78,000.00 when Enron fell apart. Was this the
unions fault?

I have found that good people and bad people are in every group,every
city and every country. Having a glass that is half full and
allowing the rain roll of your back makes life easier.


Be Safe and return to your love ones.
Union Millwright Ron

"rigger" wrote in message
...
On Nov 23, 10:38 pm, "Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote:
"rigger" wrote in message

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.

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

Facts? You've presented no facts------you've presented things as you would
like them to appear-----or things that you imagine, to say nothing of union
dogma. All the stuff that's supposed to baffle folks with bull****, secure
in the knowledge that it won't be done with brilliance.

I'm talking about real life experiences, which you seem to ignore. I'm
entitled to ignore your biased union propaganda-------it's intended to sway
the thinking of mindless people. I'd like to think I'm not one of them.


snip: too dumb for words

Yes------much of what you've posted is.


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)

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

There are no beneficial effects------I'm ignoring nothing. What few their
might have been come at too great of a price to make them viable. You're
not accounting for the negatives that accompany the position of the union.

I'm going to give you one more example, one that is but a year old right
now. The huge coal fired power plant north of us, Trans Alta, let go over
600 miners
and related workers just a year ago this month. Their average income
exceeded $60,000/year. Included in these people were truck drivers,
miners, heavy equipment operators, the whole gambit of necessary staff. To
insure that the company couldn't be goaded into reopening the mining
portion, they sold all of the equipment at auction.

Just yesterday, there was an article in the local newspaper that discussed
the progress of the employees that lost their jobs. The reoccurring
comments, from beginning to end, were the high wages of labor. The
union(s) involved had done to these people what they all do----push their
wages up until they were no longer competitive -------and their job was
lost-----in this case, for ever. When the company closed down the
operation,
they clearly stated that it was cheaper, by far, to haul coal to Washington
from Wyoming than to produce it next door. Do the math, Mr. I'm a union
man.

The article in question can be found online @ www.chronline.com, but they
charge for retrieval. While I don't expect you care enough to read it and
weep, if you're so inclined, I'll copy it and send it to you via email if
you so desire. The article is titled Where Have All the Miners Gone,
Front page, The Chronicle, Friday November 23, 2007.

Mean time, your
blah blah blah

should be snipped. You have nothing to say that I haven't heard from all
other union people, dennis---and you're certainly not any more convincing.
I made it on my own -------I don't need any crooked organization to
represent me------to tell me how fast to work,, or slowly, for that matter.
The union doesn't sign your check, in case you haven't noticed. Your place
of employment does, unless you have something going to which I'm not privy.


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.

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

You've provided nothing in the way of facts, you've provided your personal
opinion, or typical union dogma, and I've read it time and again. It's not
that I "don't get it". Fact is, I get it all too well. I simply don't agree
with it------no more than I agree with the mormon church. Each has an
agenda, and it's not one that is to my advantage. Quite the contrary.

----snip of foolish comments.

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.

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

I see it all too well.. All the more the tragedy. I fully understand
your position. My life experiences dictate you're wrong------and I don't
choose to be on the losing team. I am entitled to that. I'm not a union
stooge. We have serious philosophical differences, Dennis. I think
you're a nice guy, I just don't like the way you feel society owes you, and
others, a living. We don't. You must learn to earn one. I mean really
earn one, not just show up. Dedicate yourself to a worthy cause instead of
thumping on the chest of the union, which is not a necessity for survival.
Makes me think of you as being lazy, and unwilling (or unable) to carry your
weight.


So you never join with others to create a contract? Of
course you do. Does this make you bad?

I join with no one to create a contract. I carry no credit, and I've paid
cash for what we have for more than 30 years. If I can't buy it that way, I
don't need it.

I had contracts with my suppliers when I was actively pursuing my business.
They're called purchase orders. They sent a request for quotation. I bid
the work if I was interested. They awarded the contract to the entity best
suited for the job at hand. It wasn't necessarily the lowest price.
Quality, delivery and reliability played a huge role in determining where
the work went. I got my share because I was capable of performing to
required specifications, and I dedicated myself to the work, doing my level
best to ship quality work, on time. I earned a reputation for quality, on
time, and reliability. What could a union possibly have done for me? I did
not work within the confines of an organization that had a goal of bleeding
every possible dime from the supplier. I didn't want the goose killed that
laid eggs------and the goose was concerned about my welfare. They wanted
me to survive, to serve them another day. They made that very clear on many
occasions.

Yet you insist a person (if he's in a union) should not
do the same.

At no time in the history of my shop did I once picket a supplier, nor did I
ever ask for a review of a "contract". I was adult enough to understand
the terms and conditions before I entered into relations with each of my
customers. I had no designs on changing them, nor the way they did
business. All of my customers were non-union----and I was treated with
due respect. I fought only with one of them when they were the ones to not
honor their own contract by paying beyond the agreed terms, net 30. You're
simply going to have to try harder. Nothing your union has to offer comes
close to that which I got on my own.


But, since you're not signing any union contracts in
the near future (hah, I made a joke) then you just like
to complain about how others do it. Have I got this
right, finally? Or explain how it's something other
than your own predjudiced view that I read.

My only complaint is for those that can't understand that the union dogma
and agenda is not for everyone. If you think unions are your savior, that
they are the ones that sign your check, knock yourself out. Have a good
time with your union. However, If you were secure in your union, you'd have
no need to hound me, or any other, to join your organization. It's like many
of the programs that are being denied funding by the government. Much as
some may think they should remain intact, perhaps if they can't stand on
their own two feet without being propped up by tax payer's money, they
should die, as should the unions. If they can't gather a viable number of
members without hounding the hell out of others, isn't there a message in
that? I refuse to pick up the tab for a union that, in all appearances,
has caused more harm in the last 30 years than it can repair in the next
100. Regardless of what economists say, this I know. We have lost a
disproportionate number of jobs in this country because we are unable to
compete---both through high wages, and inept workers. There's something
drastically wrong with the current picture. I see a bleak future, and a
union striving to increase wages isn't helping. It's time for all of us to
bite the bullet and try to save what's left.

I'm not a union man, I will never be a union man, and I am not willing to
entertain the concept of becoming a union man. Their very concept violates
the principles by which I have lived.


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- Hide quoted text -

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

dennis
in nca


Thanks dennis. It's winding down, that I can not deny. Good things? We
shall see! :-)

Be well

Harold

On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 14:54:56 -0800 (PST) in rec.crafts.metalworking,
rigger wrote,
Not my point Harold. I do believe if a figure decended from
the sky and told you you were wrong you'd call it "A union
trick."

And it would be, of course. Riggers, most likely. Deus ex machina.

"rigger" wrote in message
...
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

Heh! The lack of balance is in your inability to see the truth. What
I've stated is what was. It can't be refuted------and is more than
evidence enough for me to know to stay the hell away from such
organizations. If corporations that found themselves in their midst were
wise enough to travel great distances to avoid them, what kind of fool would
I have to be to join them when there was no need?

You say the violence wasn't one sided? I assume that should you find
yourself in an equal circumstance, that you'd stand around with your hands
in your pockets while some dude kicked you senseless because he was trying
to exercise his *assumed* rights? I figure if union morons were
violent towards those that chose to ignore their pickets, they deserved
anything they received in return. These people had many options to
exercise, but that doesn't appear to be the union way, does it.?

Part of the rules I have chosen to live by are that I allow others to
establish the rules of relationships. Once established, I see to it that
they are enforced, to the letter. If I'm treated with kindness and
respect, I return the favor. If I'm not, then no holds are barred. Funny
how most folks can hand out their version of ****, but don't find it the
least bit acceptable when it's returned. Could it be most people have
forgotten the golden rule?

Never lose sight of the fact that union people need not picket, nor do they
have need to keep others from exercising their rights. ANYTIME you
collect your rights at the expense of denying me mine, you can expect I'm
not going to take it kindly. While I'm not a fighting man, I can be
provoked to violence, and it's not pretty once I've been pushed too far.

Harold

"Millwright Ron" wrote in message
...
On Nov 23, 10:41 pm, "Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote:
"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
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

A few days ago. I ask some very simply questions. Instead of the
questions being answered. I was bombarded with name calling and ugly
visceral comments from a lot of people. That seems to happen when the
question can not be answered in an intelligent manner. Again these are
very simple questions.

Ron, maybe we can make this thing civil. I'm willing----but you have to
meet half way.

First off, if you recall, I mentioned that this isn't a very good place to
tout the virtues of a union. The vast majority of individuals I've known
that have talent tend to shy away from such organizations, and this board
has a disproportionate number of such people. That's why they're here. They
are, for the most part, one hell of a lot brighter than folks found
elsewhere, and have excellent judgment and drive. They tend to be
well motivated people that recognize opportunities and understand how to
capitalize on them to their advantage. They also understand that there
are those in their midst that lack those qualities, and see them as an
anchor on their progress, assuming they are lumped together in a group. I
certainly had those feelings when I was gainfully employed. Sorry if I
sound like I'm a bit self centered, but I worked hard, and mastered my
trade, I was not just another guy that showed up each day. My place of
employment was run very scientifically, right down to time and motion
studies, where I was rated over 100% routinely. I realized that if I
was to try to sell my talent to others, I could represent myself far better
than anyone else could----and being lumped in a group with less capable
people certainly wouldn't be to my advantage. In that regard, I'm a very
selfish person. I worked hard to achieve my goals----harder than you might
understand. I did this while others took a casual approach to their
career, and allowed the chips to fall where they may. I had to distance
myself from such people if I expected to be recognized.

So then, Ron, you might consider that when you're trying to sell the union
to these guys, you're going to wear out your welcome. Your persistence in
promoting something that is distasteful to others will never be accepted
kindly. Just as I should leave my contempt for the union out of posting,
so should you leave out your constant promotion. There are far better
issues that we can discuss----even agree on with some luck.


It always seems strange why anyone would chose to make less
money,less
benefits,less insurance,less retirement,less and less. Just how dumb
does it take... Not to be able to realize the benefits of belong to a
group that looks out for you and your family

That's not how it was for me, Ron. I made decent money----but I also worked
for it. My shop rate was lower than larger shops, and I dedicated myself
to my obligations. It's not always about money, Ron. I can recount more
than a few occasions where I underbid a job, but still dedicated myself to
completing it as if I was making good money. Some of us work because
we're proud of our ability. That's not to say that we don't need
money------of course we do-----but I want money I've earned, so I can sleep
at night. I'm the kind of guy that walks back in a store and returns a dime
when I'm given the wrong change. I respect myself---I am not willing to
sell myself for a pittance, nor am I willing to trade my respected name and
reputation for a few bucks. No one has ever accused me of taking
unearned money. I really like that.

Part of the problem here is that you folks don't stop at earned money and
benefits. I don't give a damn how you put a spin on it, when anyone
receives unearned pay, someone somewhere is losing money----and will either
go out of business, or charge more for their products. Looking at this
another way, you can't make enough money to stay ahead of the price
increases, for each unearned pay raise will be countered with higher prices.
You don't think so? In my lifetime, I've watched an automobile rise from
under $2,000, new, to an average of, what, $40,000?. I recall, with
fondness, when first class postage was only 3 cents. A post card, including
buying the card, was one cent. Look where we are today! Do you feel
that unearned wages played a role in it to any degree? I think they did.
I've watched prices increase annually, here, with the rise in minimum wage.
Those of us on fixed incomes are being squeezed out of the picture. I'll
never take that kindly-----I paid my dues and deserve to live in reasonable
comfort in retirement. No, I don't buy a new car often. Fact is, I don't
own a car, and my newest vehicle is a '99 Dodge truck. We live within
our means-----buy things on sale, use coupons, and don't live the good life.
We're humble people that have always earned our way and lived within our
means. We're not flashy.



Harold when a non-company that is paying $12.00 an hour and no
benefits closes their doors and relocates to Mexico. Is that the
Unions fault?

Depends. It might be. It also might be a company that is hell bent on
closing the doors on anyone making any money on them aside from the
investors. I don't like that any better than I like the unions, Ron. I
don't like things that are not fair------and not much is these days.

Neither of us can address your particular issue, but I can tell you for
sure, the local steam plant closed the door on coal production, which was
adjacent to the plant, and is now shipping coal from Wyoming to Washington,
because it's far cheaper. I don't think the union was very wise in
convincing these guys that they were worth too much money-----they'd have
been far better served to have received a realistic pay scale and kept their
jobs. Many have had to relocate, while others have gone back to school.
Some will land on their feet, while others will live with disrupted lives
for the balance.

When a ceo of company steals millions from their stock holders and
their employees. I lost $78,000.00 when Enron fell apart. Was this the
unions fault?

Again, I can't place blame. I am not privy to the facts of Enron, although
it's generally accepted that management was corrupt. I don't agree with
that, and don't know many that would, but countering corruption with more
corruption isn't the answer, either. I'm also not in favor of CEO's
being paid money beyond their worth, Ron. Sadly, I'm unable to make a
judgment on what their worth might be, but when a guy is making millions per
year, seems to me he's being paid well beyond his worth. Some of that money
could go towards lowering prices, so a greater number of people could afford
the product, what ever it may be. I'd like to think a CEO earned his/her
way, too. I'd suggest that just like I said that union worker should be
willing to give back some of their pay when a job runs at a loss, so, too,
should a CEO give back the majority of his/her pay when things turn south.
Both of us know that's not going to happen-------but I refuse to be a part
of corruption just because others are involved. That doesn't give me
license----and speaks volumes about the character of those that feel
otherwise.


I have found that good people and bad people are in every group,every
city and every country. Having a glass that is half full and
allowing the rain roll of your back makes life easier.

Yep---I couldn't agree more. Fact is, that's why I started my own business.
I wanted to be free to pick my hours, I wanted to be free to choose the type
of work I ran, and I wanted to be free from a check on Friday afternoon.
It takes courage, and it takes a huge amount of dedication and self
discipline. It's not for everyone, but I thrived under those conditions,
and was almost always unhappy when employed by others. I had to have
freedom to do as I pleased, at which time I was at my best. A union
would stifle me too much. I know that because I worked in a union shop, and
the workers attempted that very thing---regularly. They were, to the man,
threatened by anyone that worked an honest day, and in so many words, they
said so. It's not for me, Ron, and, truth be told, it wouldn't fit my
circumstances, anyway.



Be Safe and return to your love ones.
Union Millwright Ron

So then, Ron, (and dennis), we can get along here----I'm more than
willing-----but you have to come to terms that there are folks that don't
see the union in the same light you two do. It may have been good for
you, and perhaps even made your life better, but the examples I witnessed
were very negative in nature, and I see no end. I think if you pay
attention, you'll see the day when Boeing does no machining in the
US-----they've made great strides towards that right now. Reason? I can't
help but think that part of it is that machinists are making well over
$60,000/year, and expect more. Their unions hold the company hostage by
striking----and delaying shipping dates. I see no difference between doing
that and using a gun at the heads of management. I don't agree with the
tactic, and find it in keeping with terrorists acts.
These people can be replaced by others in other countries-----and will be
unless they change their approach to things, but they've been so brain
washed into believing that they're indispensable that it's not likely to
happen. Only when the last door has closed will they come to understand.
Who will be responsible then? Who's fault would it be? The company? I
don't think so.

I've been to the auction of one of the facilities already-----it's
happening. Imagine a CNC mill that is 125' long, with a 14' wide table.
Two of them were a part of the auction in question, along with a huge number
of smaller machines. They are already shutting down. Next comes surplus
sales.

Be well, Ron.

Harold

On Nov 24, 6:17 pm, Dave Hinz wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 14:30:53 -0800 (PST), rigger wrote:
First of all the 50s were a HALF CENTURY AGO

Yup, and about half as long ago as since the unions actually
helped real
people who did real work.

And look at the situation the American
working man is in now.

But, no doubt, now you'll say that MORE unions
would have been better, and it is the fault of the
unions there wasn't. LOL

dennis
in nca

On Nov 24, 9:39 pm, "Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote:
"rigger" wrote in message

...





On Nov 23, 10:38 pm, "Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote:
"rigger" wrote in message

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.

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

Facts? You've presented no facts------you've presented things as you would
like them to appear-----or things that you imagine, to say nothing of union
dogma. All the stuff that's supposed to baffle folks with bull****, secure
in the knowledge that it won't be done with brilliance.

I'm talking about real life experiences, which you seem to ignore. I'm
entitled to ignore your biased union propaganda-------it's intended to sway
the thinking of mindless people. I'd like to think I'm not one of them.



snip: too dumb for words

Yes------much of what you've posted is.



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)

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

There are no beneficial effects------I'm ignoring nothing. What few their
might have been come at too great of a price to make them viable. You're
not accounting for the negatives that accompany the position of the union.

I'm going to give you one more example, one that is but a year old right
now. The huge coal fired power plant north of us, Trans Alta, let go over
600 miners
and related workers just a year ago this month. Their average income
exceeded $60,000/year. Included in these people were truck drivers,
miners, heavy equipment operators, the whole gambit of necessary staff. To
insure that the company couldn't be goaded into reopening the mining
portion, they sold all of the equipment at auction.

Just yesterday, there was an article in the local newspaper that discussed
the progress of the employees that lost their jobs. The reoccurring
comments, from beginning to end, were the high wages of labor. The
union(s) involved had done to these people what they all do----push their
wages up until they were no longer competitive -------and their job was
lost-----in this case, for ever. When the company closed down the
operation,
they clearly stated that it was cheaper, by far, to haul coal to Washington
from Wyoming than to produce it next door. Do the math, Mr. I'm a union
man.

The article in question can be found online @ www.chronline.com, but they
charge for retrieval. While I don't expect you care enough to read it and
weep, if you're so inclined, I'll copy it and send it to you via email if
you so desire. The article is titled Where Have All the Miners Gone,
Front page, The Chronicle, Friday November 23, 2007.

Mean time, your

blah blah blah

should be snipped. You have nothing to say that I haven't heard from all
other union people, dennis---and you're certainly not any more convincing.
I made it on my own -------I don't need any crooked organization to
represent me------to tell me how fast to work,, or slowly, for that matter.
The union doesn't sign your check, in case you haven't noticed. Your place
of employment does, unless you have something going to which I'm not privy.







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.

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

You've provided nothing in the way of facts, you've provided your personal
opinion, or typical union dogma, and I've read it time and again. It's not
that I "don't get it". Fact is, I get it all too well. I simply don't agree
with it------no more than I agree with the mormon church. Each has an
agenda, and it's not one that is to my advantage. Quite the contrary.

----snip of foolish comments.

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.

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

I see it all too well.. All the more the tragedy. I fully understand
your position. My life experiences dictate you're wrong------and I don't
choose to be on the losing team. I am entitled to that. I'm not a union
stooge. We have serious philosophical differences, Dennis. I think
you're a nice guy, I just don't like the way you feel society owes you, and
others, a living. We don't. You must learn to earn one. I mean really
earn one, not just show up. Dedicate yourself to a worthy cause instead of
thumping on the chest of the union, which is not a necessity for survival.
Makes me think of you as being lazy, and unwilling (or unable) to carry your
weight.



So you never join with others to create a contract? Of
course you do. Does this make you bad?

I join with no one to create a contract. I carry no credit, and I've paid
cash for what we have for more than 30 years. If I can't buy it that way, I
don't need it.

I had contracts with my suppliers when I was actively pursuing my business.
They're called purchase orders. They sent a request for quotation. I bid
the work if I was interested. They awarded the contract to the entity best
suited for the job at hand. It wasn't necessarily the lowest price.
Quality, delivery and reliability played a huge role in determining where
the work went. I got my share because I was capable of performing to
required specifications, and I dedicated myself to the work, doing my level
best to ship quality work, on time. I earned a reputation for quality, on
time, and reliability. What could a union possibly have done for me? I did
not work within the confines of an organization that had a goal of bleeding
every possible dime from the supplier. I didn't want the goose killed that
laid eggs------and the goose was concerned about my welfare. They wanted
me to survive, to serve them another day. They made that very clear on many
occasions.

Yet you insist a person (if he's in a union) should not
do the same.

At no time in the history of my shop did I once picket a supplier, nor did I
ever ask for a review of a "contract". I was adult enough to understand
the terms and conditions before I entered into relations with each of my
customers. I had no designs on changing them, nor the way they did
business. All of my customers were non-union----and I was treated with
due respect. I fought only with one of them when they were the ones to not
honor their own contract by paying beyond the agreed terms, net 30. You're
simply going to have to try harder. Nothing your union has to offer comes
close to that which I got on my own.

But, since you're not signing any union contracts in
the near future (hah, I made a joke) then you just like
to complain about how others do it. Have I got this
right, finally? Or explain how it's something other
than your own predjudiced view that I read.

My only complaint is for those that can't understand that the union dogma
and agenda is not for everyone. If you think unions are your savior, that
they are the ones that sign your check, knock yourself out. Have a good
time with your union. However, If you were secure in your union, you'd have
no need to hound me, or any other, to join your organization. It's like many
of the programs that are being denied funding by the government. Much as
some may think they should remain intact, perhaps if they can't stand on
their own two feet without being propped up by tax payer's money, they
should die, as should the unions. If they can't gather a viable number of
members without hounding the hell out of others, isn't there a message in
that? I refuse to pick up the tab for a union that, in all appearances,
has caused more harm in the last 30 years than it can repair in the next
100. Regardless of what economists say, this I know. We have lost a
disproportionate number of jobs in this country because we are unable to
compete---both through high wages, and inept workers. There's something
drastically wrong with the current picture. I see a bleak future, and a
union striving to increase wages isn't helping. It's time for all of us to
bite the bullet and try to save what's left.

I'm not a union man, I will never be a union man, and I am not willing to
entertain the concept of becoming a union man. Their
...

read more - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

At no time in the history of my shop did I once picket a
supplier, nor did I
ever ask for a review of a "contract". I was adult enough to
understand
the terms and conditions before I entered into relations with
each of my
customers.

Did I read that right? "I was adult enough to understand
the terms and conditions before I entered into relations
with each of my customers. "

And I'd expect, if some outsider came in to be critical
of the terms of these hypothetical relations between
yourself and your customer, you'd know exactly where
to tell him to go.
Yet you have no problem being critical of others. Even
though you are the outsider.
That tells the story.

dennis
in nca

On Nov 24, 11:18 pm, David Harmon wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 14:54:56 -0800 (PST) in rec.crafts.metalworking,
rigger wrote,

Not my point Harold. I do believe if a figure decended from
the sky and told you you were wrong you'd call it "A union
trick."

And it would be, of course. Riggers, most likely. Deus ex machina.


That was GOOD.
Got me there Dave. But, as all riggers are pure
and free of sin I don't think we need to worry too
much.

dennis
in nca
p.s. Maybe Millrights too.

On Nov 25, 2:24 am, "Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote:
"rigger" wrote in message

...





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

Heh! The lack of balance is in your inability to see the truth. What
I've stated is what was. It can't be refuted------and is more than
evidence enough for me to know to stay the hell away from such
organizations. If corporations that found themselves in their midst were
wise enough to travel great distances to avoid them, what kind of fool would
I have to be to join them when there was no need?

You say the violence wasn't one sided? I assume that should you find
yourself in an equal circumstance, that you'd stand around with your hands
in your pockets while some dude kicked you senseless because he was trying
to exercise his *assumed* rights? I figure if union morons were
violent towards those that chose to ignore their pickets, they deserved
anything they received in return. These people had many options to
exercise, but that doesn't appear to be the union way, does it.?

Part of the rules I have chosen to live by are that I allow others to
establish the rules of relationships. Once established, I see to it that
they are enforced, to the letter. If I'm treated with kindness and
respect, I return the favor. If I'm not, then no holds are barred. Funny
how most folks can hand out their version of ****, but don't find it the
least bit acceptable when it's returned. Could it be most people have
forgotten the golden rule?

Never lose sight of the fact that union people need not picket, nor do they
have need to keep others from exercising their rights. ANYTIME you
collect your rights at the expense of denying me mine, you can expect I'm
not going to take it kindly. While I'm not a fighting man, I can be
provoked to violence, and it's not pretty once I've been pushed too far.

Harold- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Part of the rules I have chosen to live by are that I allow
others to
establish the rules of relationships. Once established, I see to
it that
they are enforced, to the letter.

And yet, if a union and management agree to a contract, you
have no trouble complaining about THEIR terms being upheld.

dennis
in nca

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 08:17:27 -0800 (PST), rigger wrote:
On Nov 24, 6:17 pm, Dave Hinz wrote:

Yup, and about half as long ago as since the unions actually
helped real
people who did real work.

And look at the situation the American
working man is in now.

Yup. You've made labor so expensive for American manufacturers who have
to pay for your non-producing brothers, so they've moved your job to
China. Good going, you did exactly what happens over and over - work
inefficiently enough that the business owners don't want to carry your
brother anymore.

But, no doubt, now you'll say that MORE unions
would have been better, and it is the fault of the
unions there wasn't. LOL

There you go trying to speak for me again and doing it poorly. Look.
100 years ago, unions were important and valuable. But think of all the
things that couldn't have possibly happened if the union mentality was
in place at the time? The whole industrial revolution couldn't have
happened. It brought up the conditions that made unions useful and
necessary. Conditions got better. Hours got better. Safety got
better. Some of this improvement is because of what the unions
did...100 years ago. It's sad, really, that something with such useful
and noble and important beginnings has now become an entity that wants
to force employers to pay unproductive people under the guise of
"brotherhood".

"rigger" wrote in message
...
On Nov 24, 6:17 pm, Dave Hinz wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 14:30:53 -0800 (PST), rigger wrote:
First of all the 50s were a HALF CENTURY AGO

Yup, and about half as long ago as since the unions actually
helped real
people who did real work.

And look at the situation the American
working man is in now.

But, no doubt, now you'll say that MORE unions
would have been better, and it is the fault of the
unions there wasn't. LOL

dennis
in nca


I find the formula simple.

Working men + unions = the situation as it is today.

Obviously, the situation today isn't perfect. So whose fault is that?

Steve

On Nov 25, 3:29 am, "Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote:
"Millwright Ron" wrote in message

...

On Nov 23, 10:41 pm, "Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote:
"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
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

A few days ago. I ask some very simply questions. Instead of the
questions being answered. I was bombarded with name calling and ugly
visceral comments from a lot of people. That seems to happen when the
question can not be answered in an intelligent manner. Again these are
very simple questions.

Ron, maybe we can make this thing civil. I'm willing----but you have to
meet half way.

First off, if you recall, I mentioned that this isn't a very good place to
tout the virtues of a union. The vast majority of individuals I've known
that have talent tend to shy away from such organizations, and this board
has a disproportionate number of such people. That's why they're here. They
are, for the most part, one hell of a lot brighter than folks found
elsewhere, and have excellent judgment and drive. They tend to be
well motivated people that recognize opportunities and understand how to
capitalize on them to their advantage. They also understand that there
are those in their midst that lack those qualities, and see them as an
anchor on their progress, assuming they are lumped together in a group. I
certainly had those feelings when I was gainfully employed. Sorry if I
sound like I'm a bit self centered, but I worked hard, and mastered my
trade, I was not just another guy that showed up each day. My place of
employment was run very scientifically, right down to time and motion
studies, where I was rated over 100% routinely. I realized that if I
was to try to sell my talent to others, I could represent myself far better
than anyone else could----and being lumped in a group with less capable
people certainly wouldn't be to my advantage. In that regard, I'm a very
selfish person. I worked hard to achieve my goals----harder than you might
understand. I did this while others took a casual approach to their
career, and allowed the chips to fall where they may. I had to distance
myself from such people if I expected to be recognized.

So then, Ron, you might consider that when you're trying to sell the union
to these guys, you're going to wear out your welcome. Your persistence in
promoting something that is distasteful to others will never be accepted
kindly. Just as I should leave my contempt for the union out of posting,
so should you leave out your constant promotion. There are far better
issues that we can discuss----even agree on with some luck.



It always seems strange why anyone would chose to make less
money,less
benefits,less insurance,less retirement,less and less. Just how dumb
does it take... Not to be able to realize the benefits of belong to a
group that looks out for you and your family

That's not how it was for me, Ron. I made decent money----but I also worked
for it. My shop rate was lower than larger shops, and I dedicated myself
to my obligations. It's not always about money, Ron. I can recount more
than a few occasions where I underbid a job, but still dedicated myself to
completing it as if I was making good money. Some of us work because
we're proud of our ability. That's not to say that we don't need
money------of course we do-----but I want money I've earned, so I can sleep
at night. I'm the kind of guy that walks back in a store and returns a dime
when I'm given the wrong change. I respect myself---I am not willing to
sell myself for a pittance, nor am I willing to trade my respected name and
reputation for a few bucks. No one has ever accused me of taking
unearned money. I really like that.

Part of the problem here is that you folks don't stop at earned money and
benefits. I don't give a damn how you put a spin on it, when anyone
receives unearned pay, someone somewhere is losing money----and will either
go out of business, or charge more for their products. Looking at this
another way, you can't make enough money to stay ahead of the price
increases, for each unearned pay raise will be countered with higher prices.
You don't think so? In my lifetime, I've watched an automobile rise from
under $2,000, new, to an average of, what, $40,000?. I recall, with
fondness, when first class postage was only 3 cents. A post card, including
buying the card, was one cent. Look where we are today! Do you feel
that unearned wages played a role in it to any degree? I think they did.
I've watched prices increase annually, here, with the rise in minimum wage.
Those of us on fixed incomes are being squeezed out of the picture. I'll
never take that kindly-----I paid my dues and deserve to live in reasonable
comfort in retirement. No, I don't buy a new car often. Fact is, I don't
own a car, and my newest vehicle is a '99 Dodge truck. We live within
our means-----buy things on sale, use coupons, and don't live the good life.
We're humble people that have always earned our way and lived within our
means. We're not flashy.



Harold when a non-company that is paying $12.00 an hour and no
benefits closes their doors and relocates to Mexico. Is that the
Unions fault?

Depends. It might be. It also might be a company that is hell bent on
closing the doors on anyone making any money on them aside from the
investors. I don't like that any better than I like the unions, Ron. I
don't like things that are not fair------and not much is these days.

Neither of us can address your particular issue, but I can tell you for
sure, the local steam plant closed the door on coal production, which was
adjacent to the plant, and is now shipping coal from Wyoming to Washington,
because it's far cheaper. I don't think the union was very wise in
convincing these guys that they were worth too much money-----they'd have
been far better served to have received a realistic pay scale and kept their
jobs. Many have had to relocate, while others have gone back to school.
Some will land on their feet, while others will live with disrupted lives
for the balance.



When a ceo of company steals millions from their stock holders and
their employees. I lost $78,000.00 when Enron fell apart. Was this the
unions fault?

Again, I can't place blame. I am not privy to the facts of Enron, although
it's generally accepted that management was corrupt. I don't agree with
that, and don't know many that would, but countering corruption with more
corruption isn't the answer, either. I'm also not in favor of CEO's
being paid money beyond their worth, Ron. Sadly, I'm unable to make a
judgment on what their worth might be, but when a guy is making millions per
year, seems to me he's being paid well beyond his worth. Some of that money
could go towards lowering prices, so a greater number of people could afford
the product, what ever it may be. I'd like to think a CEO earned his/her
way, too. I'd suggest that just like I said that union worker should be
willing to give back some of their pay when a job runs at a loss, so, too,
should a CEO give back the majority of his/her pay when things turn south.
Both of us know that's not going to happen-------but I refuse to be a part
of corruption just because others are involved. That doesn't give me
license----and speaks volumes about the character of those that feel
otherwise.



I have found that good people and bad people are in every group,every
city and every country. Having a glass that is half full and
allowing the rain roll of your back makes life easier.

Yep---I couldn't agree more. Fact is, that's why I started my own business.
I wanted to be free to pick my hours, I wanted to be free to choose the type
of work I ran, and I wanted to be free from a check on Friday afternoon.
It takes courage, and it takes a huge amount of dedication and self
discipline. It's not for everyone, but I thrived under those conditions,
and was almost always unhappy when employed by others. I had to have
freedom to do as I pleased, at which time I was at my best. A union
would stifle me too much. I know that because I worked in a union shop, and
the workers attempted that very thing---regularly. They were, to the man,
threatened by anyone that worked an honest day, and in so many words, they
said so. It's not for me, Ron, and, truth be told, it wouldn't fit my
circumstances, anyway.



Be Safe and return to your love ones.
Union Millwright Ron

So then, Ron, (and dennis), we can get along here----I'm more than
willing-----but you have to come to terms that there are folks that don't
see the union in the same light you two do. It may have been good for
you, and perhaps even made your life better, but the examples I witnessed
were very negative in nature, and I see no end. I think if you pay
attention, you'll see the day when Boeing does no machining in the
US-----they've made great strides towards that right now. Reason? I can't
help but think that part of it is that machinists are making well over
$60,000/year, and expect more. Their unions hold the company hostage by
striking----and delaying shipping dates. I see no difference between doing
that and using a gun at the heads of management. I don't agree with the
tactic, and find it in keeping with terrorists acts.
These people can be replaced by others in other countries-----and will be
unless they change their approach to things, but they've been so brain
washed into believing that they're indispensable that it's not likely to
happen. Only when the last door has closed will they come to understand.
Who will be responsible then? Who's fault would it be? The company? I
don't think so.

I've been to the auction of one of the facilities already-----it's
happening. Imagine a CNC mill that is 125' long, with a 14' wide table.
Two of them were a part of the auction in question, along with a huge number
of smaller machines. They are already shutting down. Next comes surplus
sales.

Be well, Ron.

Harold

*****************************************
Harold:
I agree that not all men are equal in their abilities, attitudes
or desire to produce. Union scale is the minimum I had to pay. That
does not mean that I did not pay extra for talent and hard work. Which
I did! Sometimes it might be in the form of a bonus, more per hour or
offers to work over time. As for myself, I have been bless with some
talent and I have been very fortunate.
I have always in my in mind felt that 10% of any group
(doctors,dentists,auto repairmen,Millwrights) were at the top and 10%
were at the bottom. The rest were some place in between. This may have
been incorrect but it was part of my philosophy.

I am sure you were in top 10% of your trade.

The company is the final qualifier of the men he hires.

I will always be proud of being a Union Millwright.
Millwright Ron

Be Safe and return home to your Family.

"rigger" wrote in message
...
On Nov 25, 2:24 am, "Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote:
"rigger" wrote in message

...





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

Heh! The lack of balance is in your inability to see the truth. What
I've stated is what was. It can't be refuted------and is more than
evidence enough for me to know to stay the hell away from such
organizations. If corporations that found themselves in their midst
were
wise enough to travel great distances to avoid them, what kind of fool
would
I have to be to join them when there was no need?

You say the violence wasn't one sided? I assume that should you find
yourself in an equal circumstance, that you'd stand around with your
hands
in your pockets while some dude kicked you senseless because he was
trying
to exercise his *assumed* rights? I figure if union morons were
violent towards those that chose to ignore their pickets, they deserved
anything they received in return. These people had many options to
exercise, but that doesn't appear to be the union way, does it.?

Part of the rules I have chosen to live by are that I allow others to
establish the rules of relationships. Once established, I see to it that
they are enforced, to the letter. If I'm treated with kindness and
respect, I return the favor. If I'm not, then no holds are barred.
Funny
how most folks can hand out their version of ****, but don't find it the
least bit acceptable when it's returned. Could it be most people have
forgotten the golden rule?

Never lose sight of the fact that union people need not picket, nor do
they
have need to keep others from exercising their rights. ANYTIME you
collect your rights at the expense of denying me mine, you can expect I'm
not going to take it kindly. While I'm not a fighting man, I can be
provoked to violence, and it's not pretty once I've been pushed too far.

Harold- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Part of the rules I have chosen to live by are that I allow
others to
establish the rules of relationships. Once established, I see to
it that
they are enforced, to the letter.

And yet, if a union and management agree to a contract, you
have no trouble complaining about THEIR terms being upheld.

dennis
in nca


Sigh!

Gotcha, dennis. This isn't about you trying to resolve issues----this is
about you sticking to pointless subjects that have never been anything to
which I alluded--even remotely.

This conversation is now to an end. A wise person told me long ago,
"never argue with a fool, for bystanders often can't discern which is
which".

We'll talk again, dennis, but it won't be about unions. There's nothing
you have to offer that could entice me, and you've done an admirable job of
confirming my hunch----they're all about bull****----dogma, if you will.
I live in the real world, where there's no room for such nonsense. I bid
you well.

Harold

Millwright Ron wrote in article
...
On Nov 25, 3:29 am, "Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote:
"Millwright Ron" wrote in message


*****************************************
Harold:
I agree that not all men are equal in their abilities, attitudes
or desire to produce. Union scale is the minimum I had to pay. That
does not mean that I did not pay extra for talent and hard work. Which
I did! Sometimes it might be in the form of a bonus, more per hour or
offers to work over time.




Geez....!!!

Wouldn't that be a violation of the union concept of equality among
workers?

How could you pay more talented, less senior people MORE money than people
with higher seniority, and not be in violation of the contract?

It actually sounds just like some of the complaints of unequal treatment
registered earlier in this thread by people opposed to
unions.....complaints which you brushed aside as coming from uninformed,
non-union people.





I will always be proud of being a Union Millwright.
Millwright Ron




Even after admitting that you practiced the very things that you told
others didn't happen among "equal brothers"?

rigger wrote in article
...
On Nov 24, 7:44 am, "*" wrote:
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?

And you feel, somehow, that would get us back
on equal footing with India or China? Or can you
PROVE your statement has ANY validity?
I don't think so.



Well, there's the non-unionized auto manufacturing plant in Spring Hill,
Tenn,. for starters.

Dave Hinz wrote in article
...

Not my problem. If your skills don't bring pay that you can live on,
then, sorry but, you're either unskilled or have chosen poorly. Learn a
new skill if you can, or starve. Not my problem.



Or, you could do what the people of my father's generation did, and what I
have done to move up in society.....moonlight.

Work from home nights and weekends applying your own skills as a carpenter,
plumber, electrician, auto mechanic, etc..

Work nights and weekends in a gas station/convenience store.

Work part-time in a pizza shop, cleaning offices.

Etc., etc., etc.!


Everybody wants to make a comfortable living working 40 hours per week.

Fact is, that is not possible with the skills and knowledge required by
many jobs.

Many low-skill/knowledge jobs are currently being overpaid for the
skills/knowledge required due to minimum wage laws.

In the same vein, it is absolutely ridiculous to pay $20 per hour plus
benefits to someone who attaches a wheel to a car that is moving by on the
assembly line. Once you've done the job for a day, there is little more
skill/knowledge acquisition needed.

When we use to tour the GM assembly plant in Framingham, Mass. it was
common to see "workers" with a magazine open at their station not even
paying attention to the task they were performing.

Tell me again about the dedication to quality and throroughness that union
workers bring to their jobs.........

Millwright Ron wrote in article
...


As long as our contract was in forced. We did not go on strike.


You'll have to excuse my ignorance of union terms...

Does the above mean "in force", "enforced" or is it some sort of union
contract term incorporating both?

On Nov 25, 1:17 pm, "Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote:
"rigger" wrote in message

...





On Nov 25, 2:24 am, "Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote:
"rigger" wrote in message

...

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

Heh! The lack of balance is in your inability to see the truth. What
I've stated is what was. It can't be refuted------and is more than
evidence enough for me to know to stay the hell away from such
organizations. If corporations that found themselves in their midst
were
wise enough to travel great distances to avoid them, what kind of fool
would
I have to be to join them when there was no need?

You say the violence wasn't one sided? I assume that should you find
yourself in an equal circumstance, that you'd stand around with your
hands
in your pockets while some dude kicked you senseless because he was
trying
to exercise his *assumed* rights? I figure if union morons were
violent towards those that chose to ignore their pickets, they deserved
anything they received in return. These people had many options to
exercise, but that doesn't appear to be the union way, does it.?

Part of the rules I have chosen to live by are that I allow others to
establish the rules of relationships. Once established, I see to it that
they are enforced, to the letter. If I'm treated with kindness and
respect, I return the favor. If I'm not, then no holds are barred.
Funny
how most folks can hand out their version of ****, but don't find it the
least bit acceptable when it's returned. Could it be most people have
forgotten the golden rule?

Never lose sight of the fact that union people need not picket, nor do
they
have need to keep others from exercising their rights. ANYTIME you
collect your rights at the expense of denying me mine, you can expect I'm
not going to take it kindly. While I'm not a fighting man, I can be
provoked to violence, and it's not pretty once I've been pushed too far.

Harold- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Part of the rules I have chosen to live by are that I allow
others to
establish the rules of relationships. Once established, I see to
it that
they are enforced, to the letter.

And yet, if a union and management agree to a contract, you
have no trouble complaining about THEIR terms being upheld.

dennis
in nca

Sigh!

Gotcha, dennis. This isn't about you trying to resolve issues----this is
about you sticking to pointless subjects that have never been anything to
which I alluded--even remotely.

This conversation is now to an end. A wise person told me long ago,
"never argue with a fool, for bystanders often can't discern which is
which".

We'll talk again, dennis, but it won't be about unions. There's nothing
you have to offer that could entice me, and you've done an admirable job of
confirming my hunch----they're all about bull****----dogma, if you will.
I live in the real world, where there's no room for such nonsense. I bid
you well.

Harold- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"None are so blind as those who will not see."

dennis
in nca

On Nov 26, 6:50 am, "*" wrote:
Millwright Ron wrote in article
...

On Nov 25, 3:29 am, "Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote:
"Millwright Ron" wrote in message

*****************************************
Harold:
I agree that not all men are equal in their abilities, attitudes
or desire to produce. Union scale is the minimum I had to pay. That
does not mean that I did not pay extra for talent and hard work. Which
I did! Sometimes it might be in the form of a bonus, more per hour or
offers to work over time.

Geez....!!!

Wouldn't that be a violation of the union concept of equality among
workers?

How could you pay more talented, less senior people MORE money than people
with higher seniority, and not be in violation of the contract?

It actually sounds just like some of the complaints of unequal treatment
registered earlier in this thread by people opposed to
unions.....complaints which you brushed aside as coming from uninformed,
non-union people.



I will always be proud of being a Union Millwright.
Millwright Ron

Even after admitting that you practiced the very things that you told
others didn't happen among "equal brothers"?

How could you pay more talented, less senior people MORE money
than people
with higher seniority, and not be in violation of the contract?

Not all contracts are the same; but you knew that.

dennis
in nca

rigger wrote in article
...

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




Harold's truth comes from experience. It is the best kind.

You, on the other hand, seem to need your truth filtered through union
dogma.

Here's some union truth for ya'....

We used to have a teachers' workshop day on the day before school opened
every year.

At the end of this workshop, the union was allowed to make its pitch for
membership after which we would be sent to our own buildings to prepare for
school opening..

Since I had no intention of joining the union, I used to go back to my
building at the beginning of the union pitch, and work on whatever needed
to be worked on for the opening of school.

One year, I was told by my Director that I "must" stay for the union pitch,
because they would be answering questions - especially from non-members.

One question came up, and I raised my hand.

The leader of the local looked at me and said, "I cannot recognize you
since you are not a member of the union."

To which I replied, "Then why am I being forced to sit here?"

To which he simply shrugged his shoulders.

I walked out, and went back to my building - as I had for many years
before.

Not a single word was said to me regarding me leaving this "important"
meeting.

This same "leader" came to our building a few weeks later and, while
sitting in our faculty room with a half-dozen of us, stated, "I want 100
percent membership, and I'll come after any non-members with a baseball
bat."

I invited him to step outside at that moment to settle things - just him
and me, and his bat if he though he wasn't man enough on his own - but he
declined with a scarlet face.

I'm proud to say that a fellow teacher came up to me afterward and stated
that he was leaning towards joining the union, but he changed his mind when
he saw me stand up to the punk who was trying to coerce people with a lot
of trash talk......all symbolism, no substance - just like most punk-assed
bullies.

So, even though people have not had the "union experience" as members, it
doesn't mean that they haven't had experience with the union......not at
all.

And, it is arrogant on your part to suggest that one must be or have been a
member of a union to be able to speak intelligently about their own
experiences with labor organizations.

On Nov 24, 1:19 am, Millwright Ron wrote:


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

But that does not say much. As long as you were working to a
contract, no strike. Big deal.

When the union is trying to negociate a new contract , and the current
contract runs out.......................Gee you don't have a contract,
and so you can threaten to strike or actually strike.

So did you ever strike?

Dan