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

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

dennis
in nca

Yes, we all noticed that by reading your posts. That's why this
conversation, on my behalf, has come to an end.

Harold

rigger wrote:

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


That is so true, and explains why they join unions.


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

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

On 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"?

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

I do not know what you are talking about ??????


The contract that is negotiated on and agreed too......Is for the
minimum pay not maximum pay. If the company wishes to pay more. Why
not? If the company wishes to give a check to an employee for 10,000
dollars. Why not? This is an option that any company can do but most
do not. Why do you have a problem with that? The wage package is the
minimum for all Union Brothers and Sisters.


Most corporate version's are pay the ceo's more money and screw the
worker.

Ever week it seems that you hear about some ceo or cfo stealing money
from the companies that they work for....


Millwright Ron

On Nov 26, 9:27 am, " wrote:
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

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

I have never been on strike. Even when our contract had been expired
14 months.

I did walk a picket line once. When we had been locked out. It took a
court order for me to be able to retrieve my own personal tools.
Our Union did file a grievance with the NLRB and we did win. I am
proud that we stood up for our rights.That year the ceo still received
his bonus.... When we did return back to work. There were lots of
bitter feelings. Families had lost their homes, marriages, cars and
their savings.The trust that we thought we had with the company was
lost and was never regained.
I moved on to greener pastures.

Union Millwright Ron
www.unionmillwright.com



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

On Nov 26, 7:45 am, "*" wrote:
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.

Thanks "*", that was so refreshing:

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.

And then:

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.

Yep, you sure have me and the entire union situation
figured out to a "t", don't you? I guess that makes you
the "right one": who can argue with logic like that? I
give up due to your and Harold's masterful understanding
gained through your years of study. Good for you.

dennis
in nca

On Nov 27, 5:47 am, Millwright Ron wrote:


I have never been on strike. Even when our contract had been expired
14 months.

I did walk a picket line once. When we had been locked out. It took a
court order for me to be able to retrieve my own personal tools.
Our Union did file a grievance with the NLRB and we did win. I am
proud that we stood up for our rights.That year the ceo still received
his bonus.... When we did return back to work. There were lots of
bitter feelings. Families had lost their homes, marriages, cars and
their savings.The trust that we thought we had with the company was
lost and was never regained.
I moved on to greener pastures.

Union Millwright Ronwww.unionmillwright.com


Strikes and lock outs are hard on everyone. Most workers can not
afford to lose more than about two weeks wages. And it affects the
company too.

From reading all the posts on unions, it seems as if all unions are
not the same, just like companies. If you have some time to kill,
look up the Nucor web page and look at their company policies.


Dan

wrote

Strikes and lock outs are hard on everyone. Most workers can not
afford to lose more than about two weeks wages. And it affects the
company too.

It is pathetic when a person makes a good union wage, yet cannot last more
than a couple of weeks off work. On our last strike, we were offered a
package with no health benefits. It was voted in! When I went back to work
and asked the guys, they said they voted for it because they needed to get
back to work for the money.

So, what's so great about a union and union wages if the members can't even
afford to save and stash enough to sit out a strike where the outcome is
that they give up their health benefits?

Not much in my eyes.

But then, they all didn't want to get down on their payments on "stuff" they
didn't need anyway. Like the big bubba truck for $500 a month plus gas and
insurance. It seems whether you make $800 or $8000 a month, that's what it
costs you to live. Most people, anyway.

Steve

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


I'm not sure in what way I am misunderstanding communism. The sense
in which I mean it is the situation where a mass of workers unite to
elevate a leader or ruling class who then begins to dictate the terms
of society.

That's not communism, it's dictatorship.

Communism is where essentially all property is communally owned and there
are no class divisions, people are basically equal. For example, factories
and office buildings wouldn't be owned by individuals or corporations, but
by society at large. What Russia, China and North Korea have had is a
dictatorship which gives lip service to communist ideals but replaces
"society" as the owner of all capital with "the ruling class." It's
essentially the opposite of communism: the masses own nothing and a tiny
minority own everything. That's exactly what Marx was against.

There are few small communities scattered throughout the world which
actually live in accordance with what Marx was getting at. They thrive
because it's a more efficient way to run than competition; however, it takes
a *very* rare kind of person to let go of the idea of personal property and
work for the common good, which is why communism has never been attempted on
a large scale. Even if the original leaders of the USSR, red China and N.
Korea were sincere and altruistic (and I'm not saying they were, by any
means, but even IF they were) they had to force people to live by communist
principles, which is the first step away from those principles because it
sets up a class system.

Essentially, Marx's complaint was that the rich get richer while not
actually contributing anything to society, the people who make society great
by doing all the chores like making things and providing services live in
poverty, and there seems to be no way out of the cycle. Why not make
everyone do their share of the work, and give everyone an equal share of the
profit? It sounds like a good idea, but turned out that it's impossible to
implement on anything other than a tiny scale because of the rise of the
middle class. 99.99% of people would rather own their own property and have
the chance to get rich than have to get an equal share as everyone else. In
addition, if you always get paid the same whether you do a good job, a
****-poor job or no job at all, what's your motive to work? Improving
society sounds nice, but why bother putting my droplet into the vast ocean
when I can live a life of ease without any noticible difference in the
result--but when the majority of people start thinking this way, eveything
goes to crap.


In the abstract, this is supposed to lead to an eventual
state of anarchy in which all people work for the benefit of society,
but in reality, it tends to lead to a small group retaining power
though intimidation and a network of informers.

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


Yep, we're saying the same thing, except that what you're calling communist
societies are actually dictatorships. It might be that dictatorship is
supposed to be the first step in a series of steps toward true communism,
but it doesn't work on a large scale because people are greedy and want to
"get agead" as you call it by gaining lots of personal property--so one
never gets past the first step--as soon as the dictatorship starts to ease
up, people start reverting to capitalism again. Not saying there's anything
wrong with that, it's just how people are and it's why you can't force
communism on anyone.

Actual communist societies not only survive, they thrive. Twin Oaks and
East Wind in the US are two examples. They produce way more than they
consume. However their membership numbers leveled off in the 1970s at
around 60 to 100, because that's about how many people out of the two to
three hundred million in the US who actually want to live the way Marx was
talking about. They rule by a set of by-laws which can be changed by a
two-thirds majority vote. In other words, these "communist" societies are
also true democracies in which the majority (in this case, two-thirds rather
than +50%) actually rules, unlike any nation on earth!

On Nov 29, 6:45 pm, "Adam Corolla"
wrote:

Actual communist societies not only survive, they thrive. Twin Oaks and
East Wind in the US are two examples. They produce way more than they
consume. However their membership numbers leveled off in the 1970s at
around 60 to 100, because that's about how many people out of the two to
three hundred million in the US who actually want to live the way Marx was
talking about. They rule by a set of by-laws which can be changed by a
two-thirds majority vote. In other words, these "communist" societies are
also true democracies in which the majority (in this case, two-thirds rather
than +50%) actually rules, unlike any nation on earth!

Maybe some communistic societies thrive, but not all of them. I
visited " The Farm " in Tennessee. They were existing, but not
thriving. The reason seemed to be that those that joined had no
skills or education. With a low standard of living , there was not
much incentive for someone that knew a trade to join. But there was
an incentive for those that were more or less homeless to join. They
were consuming everything that was produced and more. When one joined
one had to contribute all of ones savings. Well actually more like
all that one had inherited.

The Farm is still in existance and has a web site. Apparently they
reorganized in 1983 which is after I had visited. So it is no longer
communistic.

Dan

wrote in message
...
On Nov 29, 6:45 pm, "Adam Corolla"
wrote:

Actual communist societies not only survive, they thrive. Twin Oaks and
East Wind in the US are two examples. They produce way more than they
consume. However their membership numbers leveled off in the 1970s at
around 60 to 100, because that's about how many people out of the two to
three hundred million in the US who actually want to live the way Marx
was
talking about. They rule by a set of by-laws which can be changed by a
two-thirds majority vote. In other words, these "communist" societies
are
also true democracies in which the majority (in this case, two-thirds
rather
than +50%) actually rules, unlike any nation on earth!

Maybe some communistic societies thrive, but not all of them. I
visited " The Farm " in Tennessee. They were existing, but not
thriving. The reason seemed to be that those that joined had no
skills or education. With a low standard of living , there was not
much incentive for someone that knew a trade to join. But there was
an incentive for those that were more or less homeless to join. They
were consuming everything that was produced and more. When one joined
one had to contribute all of ones savings. Well actually more like
all that one had inherited.

The Farm is still in existance and has a web site. Apparently they
reorganized in 1983 which is after I had visited. So it is no longer
communistic.

Dan


I believe part of The Farm's problem may have been a lack of organization.
Looking at their web site, I'd say that's still an issue there, to some
degree--the site's layout and design is, plainly speaking, horrible. I
spent quite a while there just trying to find out what The Farm *is* before
I gave up and sent to Wikipedia. Twin Oaks and East Wind have an excellent
system of labor distribution which has worked for decades, and that spirit
of organization shows on their sites:
http://twinoaks.org/
http://www.eastwind.org/main.aspx

Realistically, there's no need for anyone in one of these societies to know
a trade in order for them to survive. If you have ten people all working
for minimum wage and sharing living expenses, you can have a pretty decent
standard of living and build up a savings to boot. As the society gains
wealth and increases its standard of living, more people with skills will be
attracted to living there, which will improve efficiency to an even greater
degree. However, there are *SO FEW* people who actually want to give up
ownership of personal property, these communities will stay very small. I
think this is at least in part the other issue that The Farm faced--which
makes sense as their population has increased since they switched to a more
capitalistic system.

On Nov 30, 10:20 pm, "Adam Corolla"
wrote:

Realistically, there's no need for anyone in one of these societies to know
a trade in order for them to survive. If you have ten people all working
for minimum wage and sharing living expenses, you can have a pretty decent
standard of living and build up a savings to boot. As the society gains
wealth and increases its standard of living, more people with skills will be
attracted to living there, which will improve efficiency to an even greater
degree. However, there are *SO FEW* people who actually want to give up
ownership of personal property, these communities will stay very small. I
think this is at least in part the other issue that The Farm faced--which
makes sense as their population has increased since they switched to a more
capitalistic system.

You need to go back and read more on " The Farm ' website. As I read
it, they had something like 1200 people there at one point before they
switched.

Dan

wrote in message
...
On Nov 30, 10:20 pm, "Adam Corolla"
wrote:

Realistically, there's no need for anyone in one of these societies to
know
a trade in order for them to survive. If you have ten people all working
for minimum wage and sharing living expenses, you can have a pretty
decent
standard of living and build up a savings to boot. As the society gains
wealth and increases its standard of living, more people with skills will
be
attracted to living there, which will improve efficiency to an even
greater
degree. However, there are *SO FEW* people who actually want to give up
ownership of personal property, these communities will stay very small.
I
think this is at least in part the other issue that The Farm faced--which
makes sense as their population has increased since they switched to a
more
capitalistic system.

You need to go back and read more on " The Farm ' website. As I read
it, they had something like 1200 people there at one point before they
switched.

Dan


No, I read that. After they switched, their membership went up to four
thousand. Also, The Farm is a different sort of case--its main purpose is
not, and never was, to set up a society based on the principles that Marx
was talking about. A lot of people who *didn't* want to live that way at
all joined up anyway because they were so attracted to the main objectives
of The Farm, which haven't changed, and are primarily environmental in
nature. In addition, The Farm suffered from poor leadership. When I
visited Twin Oaks in 1985, they had around 70 members and had just finished
building an enormous redwood deck for outdoor parties and were in the
process of building several other structures at a combined cost of several
million dollars, none of which was borrowed. I got the feeling that these
expenditures were a relative drop in the bucket.

Twin Oaks had pioneered the manufacture of several products made from
polypropylene rope and were making lots of money off their sales. Their
partner commune, East Wind, made the same products and also had a factory
which produced nut, seed and legume butters such as sesame butter, almond
butter, cashew butter and of course peanut butter. It was entirely owned
and operated by the commune.

Twin Oaks required 49 hours of work per week from its members and East Wind
48. That might seem like a lot, but there's virtually no commute time, and
cooking/dishwashing counted toward the total. Because breakfast, lunch and
dinner were provided, you never had to spend time cooking for yourself if
you didn't want to; making the 48 and 49 hour requirements seem even less
daunting. Finally, you could choose what work you did for the most part
(though everyone had to take turns with the jobs nobody wanted, like washing
dishes) and your hours, so much of the time it didn't even seem like work.

I was a visitor at Twin Oaks for three weeks and I think I was at East Wind
for three weeks also. The level of organization, efficiency and freedom in
these communities amazed me and still amazes me. I'd join one of them, but
I like owning my own stuff too much. :-)