U.S. workers who belong to unions earn 30 percent more than non-union
workers.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Union Members in 2006, Table 2. Median
weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers by union
affiliation and selected characteristics." Current Population Survey,
January 2007.
Millwright Ron
www.unionmillwright.com

Millwright Ron wrote in news:3e897762-911e-
:

U.S. workers who belong to unions earn 30 percent more than non-union
workers.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Union Members in 2006, Table 2. Median
weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers by union
affiliation and selected characteristics." Current Population Survey,
January 2007.
Millwright Ron
www.unionmillwright.com


When they HAVE work, that is...

Eregon wrote:
Millwright Ron wrote in news:3e897762-911e-
:

U.S. workers who belong to unions earn 30 percent more than non-union
workers.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Union Members in 2006, Table 2. Median
weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers by union
affiliation and selected characteristics." Current Population Survey,
January 2007.
Millwright Ron
www.unionmillwright.com


When they HAVE work, that is...

^
You misspelt "employment"

"Millwright Ron" wrote in message
...
U.S. workers who belong to unions earn 30 percent more than non-union
workers.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Union Members in 2006, Table 2. Median
weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers by union
affiliation and selected characteristics." Current Population Survey,
January 2007.
Millwright Ron
www.unionmillwright.com

And, after a quick Google, union plants are 14% more productive than non-union
plants. Hmmm, can you do the math? In order for unions to join the
Twenty-First Century, they are going to have to deal with globalization, world
wage levels and partnering with manufacturers rather than hobbling them. Just
look at the auto industry, Toyota is kicking GMs ass and SOME of that problem is
unions. Unions in their present form are not working. (and neither are their
members)

Tom, which way are union plants? More or less productive?

Tom Gardner wrote:
And, after a quick Google, union plants are 14% more productive than non-union
plants. Hmmm, can you do the math? In order for unions to join the
Twenty-First Century, they are going to have to deal with globalization, world
wage levels and partnering with manufacturers rather than hobbling them. Just
look at the auto industry, Toyota is kicking GMs ass and SOME of that problem is
unions. Unions in their present form are not working. (and neither are their
members)

"Louis Ohland" wrote in message
...
Tom, which way are union plants? More or less productive?


According to a quick Google, union plants are 14% more productive but as Ron
says union people make 30% more money. My point is non-union shops are more
cost effective and that says it all.

Tom Gardner wrote:

"Louis Ohland" wrote in message
...

Tom, which way are union plants? More or less productive?



According to a quick Google, union plants are 14% more productive but as Ron
says union people make 30% more money. My point is non-union shops are more
cost effective and that says it all.

But you did not clarify how exactly 'more productive' is calculated.
More productive like in ROE? More productive like in 'production per
capita' (including management) or 'production per worker'? It will make
big difference which could consume this 14%/30% difference.

A.

"Millwright Ron" wrote in message
...
U.S. workers who belong to unions earn 30 percent more than non-union
workers.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Union Members in 2006, Table 2. Median
weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers by union
affiliation and selected characteristics." Current Population Survey,
January 2007.
Millwright Ron
www.unionmillwright.com

Get a life.

Harold

"Millwright Ron" wrote in message
...
U.S. workers who belong to unions earn 30 percent more than non-union
workers.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Union Members in 2006, Table 2. Median
weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers by union
affiliation and selected characteristics." Current Population Survey,
January 2007.
Millwright Ron
www.unionmillwright.com

I would nt worry too much longer about whether union or non union members
earn more or less - the Chinese will only be prepared to pay you in bowls of
rice, you may get jobs tending their gardens after their banks (formerly
your banks) foreclose on your mortgages and put high ranking members of the
Chinese Communist Party in them as holiday homes.

Millwright Ron wrote:

U.S. workers who belong to unions earn 30 percent more than non-union
workers.

The local IBEW types are freelancing on the side and working non-union to
eat. Only time they seem to cut a fat hog in the ass is on federal projects
and you know how that is rigged.

Wes

"Roger" wrote:

I would nt worry too much longer about whether union or non union members
earn more or less - the Chinese will only be prepared to pay you in bowls of
rice, you may get jobs tending their gardens after their banks (formerly
your banks) foreclose on your mortgages and put high ranking members of the
Chinese Communist Party in them as holiday homes.

I think our banks are being bought by middle eastern investors.

Wes

On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 06:04:09 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm,
"Harold and Susan Vordos" quickly quoth:


"Millwright Ron" wrote in message
...
U.S. workers who belong to unions earn 30 percent more than non-union
workers.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Union Members in 2006, Table 2. Median
weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers by union
affiliation and selected characteristics." Current Population Survey,
January 2007.
Millwright Ron
www.unionmillwright.com

Get a life.

Once again, will you guys stop feeding the trolls? They come back over
and over because you continue to feed them with replies. If you must
reply, could you please take it to email? (though theirs is
undoubtedly faked.) deep sigh

--
The best and safest thing is to keep a balance in your life,
acknowledge the great powers around us and in us. If you can
do that, and live that way, you are really a wise man.
-- Euripides

On Mar 6, 12:07*am, "Roger" wrote:
"Millwright Ron" wrote in message

...

U.S. workers who belong to unions earn 30 percent more than non-union
workers.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Union Members in 2006, Table 2. *Median
weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers by union
affiliation and selected characteristics." Current Population Survey,
January 2007.
Millwright Ron
www.unionmillwright.com

I would nt worry too much longer about whether union or non union members
earn more or less - the Chinese will only be prepared to pay you in bowls of
rice, you may get jobs tending their gardens after their banks (formerly
your banks) foreclose on your mortgages and put high ranking members of the
Chinese Communist Party in them as holiday homes.



"The China Price"
They are the three scariest words in U.S. industry. Cut your price at
least 30% or lose your customers. Nearly every manufacturer is
vulnerable -- from furniture to networking gear. The result: A massive
shift in economic power is under way
Millwright Ron
www.unionmillwright.com

"Millwright Ron" wrote in message
...
On Mar 6, 12:07 am, "Roger" wrote:
"Millwright Ron" wrote in message

...

U.S. workers who belong to unions earn 30 percent more than non-union
workers.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Union Members in 2006, Table 2. Median
weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers by union
affiliation and selected characteristics." Current Population Survey,
January 2007.
Millwright Ron
www.unionmillwright.com

I would nt worry too much longer about whether union or non union members
earn more or less - the Chinese will only be prepared to pay you in bowls
of
rice, you may get jobs tending their gardens after their banks (formerly
your banks) foreclose on your mortgages and put high ranking members of
the
Chinese Communist Party in them as holiday homes.



"The China Price"
They are the three scariest words in U.S. industry. Cut your price at
least 30% or lose your customers.


The problem started many years ago when the unions forced employers to
pay wages that were out of line with their production. The average person
then had to start looking elsewhere for products they could afford.



Nearly every manufacturer is
vulnerable -- from furniture to networking gear. The result: A massive
shift in economic power is under way
Millwright Ron
www.unionmillwright.com

Millwright Wrong wrote in article
...
On Mar 6, 12:07*am, "Roger" wrote:
"Millwright Wrong" wrote in message

...

U.S. workers who belong to unions earn 30 percent more than non-union
workers.


"The China Price"
They are the three scariest words in U.S. industry. Cut your price at
least 30% or lose your customers.

Millwright Wrong
www.unionmillwright.com

Can you READ what you wrote?

Union workers "earn" 30% more......

Chinese products cost 30% less.....

Two-plus-two equals ????

It is simple. I can cut my prices by 30% by simply getting rid of the
union.

Thanks for pointing out such an obvious solution.

And, here I thought you were pro-union......................

"NewsGroups" spar@plaus wrote in message
news

"Millwright Ron" wrote in message
...
On Mar 6, 12:07 am, "Roger" wrote:
"Millwright Ron" wrote in message

...

U.S. workers who belong to unions earn 30 percent more than non-union
workers.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Union Members in 2006, Table 2. Median
weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers by union
affiliation and selected characteristics." Current Population Survey,
January 2007.
Millwright Ron
www.unionmillwright.com

I would nt worry too much longer about whether union or non union members
earn more or less - the Chinese will only be prepared to pay you in bowls
of
rice, you may get jobs tending their gardens after their banks (formerly
your banks) foreclose on your mortgages and put high ranking members of
the
Chinese Communist Party in them as holiday homes.



"The China Price"
They are the three scariest words in U.S. industry. Cut your price at
least 30% or lose your customers.


The problem started many years ago when the unions forced employers to
pay wages that were out of line with their production. The average person
then had to start looking elsewhere for products they could afford.



Nearly every manufacturer is
vulnerable -- from furniture to networking gear. The result: A massive
shift in economic power is under way
Millwright Ron
www.unionmillwright.com

Morphed again, did you?

plonk

SteveB wrote:

Morphed again, did you?

plonk


You can't keep 20 gallons of crap in a gallon bucket.


--
My sig file can beat up your sig file!

* wrote:

And, here I thought you were pro-union......................

LMAO....


Jon

On Mar 7, 1:45*pm, Jon Anderson wrote:
* wrote:
And, here I thought you were pro-union......................

LMAO....

Jon

In 2005, an average Chief Executive Officer (CEO) was paid 821 times
as much as a minimum wage earner, who earns just $5.15 per hour. An
average CEO earns more before lunchtime on the very first day of work
in the year than a minimum wage worker earns all year.

"total overall labor costs" and not "unit labor costs."
Millwright Ron
www.unionmillwright.com

"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
...
"Louis Ohland" wrote in message
...
Tom, which way are union plants? More or less productive?


According to a quick Google, union plants are 14% more productive but as
Ron
says union people make 30% more money. My point is non-union shops are
more
cost effective and that says it all.

And if employers paid a fair wage and provided a clean, safe, working
environment no one would need to be a union member. What are the chances of
that happening due to the good will of businessmen? The reality is
businessmen want to return to the bad old days before unions when they
treated workers like animals. They've found it now too. By moving production
facilities overseas all the constraints imposed by unions on American
companies can be completely avoided by making third world inhabitants what
American workers were before unions. You have to hand it to business, they
never stop trying to screw their workers. The only difference is that it
isn't American workers that businesses are screwing but foreign workers.

Hawke

"Roger" wrote in message
...

"Millwright Ron" wrote in message
...
U.S. workers who belong to unions earn 30 percent more than non-union
workers.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Union Members in 2006, Table 2. Median
weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers by union
affiliation and selected characteristics." Current Population Survey,
January 2007.
Millwright Ron
www.unionmillwright.com

I would nt worry too much longer about whether union or non union members
earn more or less - the Chinese will only be prepared to pay you in bowls
of
rice, you may get jobs tending their gardens after their banks (formerly
your banks) foreclose on your mortgages and put high ranking members of
the
Chinese Communist Party in them as holiday homes.


That's the beauty of the free market.

Hawke

Hawke wrote:

That's the beauty of the free market.


Yes. We don't have to buy overpriced union made crap.


--
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 Mar 7, 11:23*pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
Hawke wrote:

That's the beauty of the free market.

* *Yes. We don't have to buy overpriced union made crap.

--
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

You are a bitter old man. You need to take a zoloft......

Millwright Ron
www.unionmillwright.com

On Mar 7, 8:53*pm, "Hawke" wrote:
"Tom Gardner" wrote in message

...

"Louis Ohland" wrote in message
...
Tom, which way are union plants? More or less productive?

According to a quick Google, union plants are 14% more productive but as
Ron
says union people make 30% more money. *My point is non-union shops are
more
cost effective and that says it all.

And if employers paid a fair wage and provided a clean, safe, working
environment no one would need to be a union member. What are the chances of
that happening due to the good will of businessmen? The reality is
businessmen want to return to the bad old days before unions when they
treated workers like animals. They've found it now too. By moving production
facilities overseas all the constraints imposed by unions on American
companies can be completely avoided by making third world inhabitants what
American workers were before unions. You have to hand it to business, they
never stop trying to screw their workers. The only difference is that it
isn't American workers that businesses are screwing but foreign workers.

Hawke


Until 1933, no unions, no rules: you were at the mercy of your
foreman. I could go to work at seven o'clock in the morning, and at
seven fifteen the boss would come around and say: you could come back
at three o'clock. If he preferred somebody else over you, that person
would be called back earlier, though you were there longer. It was
lousy. Degraded. You might call yourself a man if you were on the
street, but as soon as you went through the door and punched your
card, you was nothing more than a robot.

Millwright Ron
www.unionmillwright.com

Millwright Ron wrote:


I am a bitter old man.


Yawn.... ... .. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZz


--
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

Millwright Wrong wrote in article
...
On Mar 7, 1:45*pm, Jon Anderson wrote:
* wrote:
And, here I thought you were pro-union......................

LMAO....

Jon

In 2005, an average Chief Executive Officer (CEO) was paid 821 times
as much as a minimum wage earner, who earns just $5.15 per hour. An
average CEO earns more before lunchtime on the very first day of work
in the year than a minimum wage worker earns all year.


----------


Well, when you give up your union card and become a CEO, I'm sure you have
a plan somwhere to share your fortune with your former union brothers and
sisters - keeping only union scale for yourself.

Sure!

Millwright Wrong wrote in article
...
On Mar 7, 11:23*pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
Hawke wrote:

That's the beauty of the free market.

* *Yes. We don't have to buy overpriced union made crap.

--
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

You are a bitter old man. You need to take a zoloft......

Millwright Wrong
www.unionmillwright.com

----------


It would be interesting to know exactly how much SPAMMING such as this
would be acceptable at the union website........................

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
...
"Louis Ohland" wrote in message
...
Tom, which way are union plants? More or less productive?


According to a quick Google, union plants are 14% more productive but as
Ron
says union people make 30% more money. My point is non-union shops are
more
cost effective and that says it all.

And if employers paid a fair wage and provided a clean, safe, working
environment no one would need to be a union member. What are the chances of
that happening due to the good will of businessmen? The reality is
businessmen want to return to the bad old days before unions when they
treated workers like animals. They've found it now too. By moving production
facilities overseas all the constraints imposed by unions on American
companies can be completely avoided by making third world inhabitants what
American workers were before unions. You have to hand it to business, they
never stop trying to screw their workers. The only difference is that it
isn't American workers that businesses are screwing but foreign workers.

Hawke



Bull****! A company's most valuable asset is it's workers that already know
what they are doing and do it well. Companies have a hard time finding and
training good people and they are valued. Wages are bumped along with bennies
in order to entice people not to look elsewhere for work. Now, on the other
hand, poor quality workers, full of booze and drugs, protected by corrupt
unions, make less money available to compensate the good people. Damn, you
don't have a clue!

"Millwright Ron" wrote in message
...
On Mar 7, 8:53 pm, "Hawke" wrote:
"Tom Gardner" wrote in message

...

"Louis Ohland" wrote in message
...
Tom, which way are union plants? More or less productive?

According to a quick Google, union plants are 14% more productive but as
Ron
says union people make 30% more money. My point is non-union shops are
more
cost effective and that says it all.

And if employers paid a fair wage and provided a clean, safe, working
environment no one would need to be a union member. What are the chances of
that happening due to the good will of businessmen? The reality is
businessmen want to return to the bad old days before unions when they
treated workers like animals. They've found it now too. By moving production
facilities overseas all the constraints imposed by unions on American
companies can be completely avoided by making third world inhabitants what
American workers were before unions. You have to hand it to business, they
never stop trying to screw their workers. The only difference is that it
isn't American workers that businesses are screwing but foreign workers.

Hawke


Until 1933, no unions, no rules: you were at the mercy of your
foreman. I could go to work at seven o'clock in the morning, and at
seven fifteen the boss would come around and say: you could come back
at three o'clock. If he preferred somebody else over you, that person
would be called back earlier, though you were there longer. It was
lousy. Degraded. You might call yourself a man if you were on the
street, but as soon as you went through the door and punched your
card, you was nothing more than a robot.

Millwright Ron
www.unionmillwright.com

The glory days of unions are gone! Today's unions are corrupt and protect poor
quality employees at the expense of good quality employees. Damn, you're thick!

"Millwright Ron" wrote in message
...
On Mar 7, 1:45 pm, Jon Anderson wrote:
* wrote:
And, here I thought you were pro-union......................

LMAO....

Jon

In 2005, an average Chief Executive Officer (CEO) was paid 821 times
as much as a minimum wage earner, who earns just $5.15 per hour. An
average CEO earns more before lunchtime on the very first day of work
in the year than a minimum wage worker earns all year.

"total overall labor costs" and not "unit labor costs."
Millwright Ron
www.unionmillwright.com

That's a downright LIE!!! PROVE IT!!!

* wrote:

Milled Wrong wrote in article:

I am a bitter old man. I need to take a lot of Zoloft......

Milled Wrong
www.uniongoons.com

----------

It would be interesting to know exactly how much SPAMMING such as this
would be acceptable at the union website........................



You know the answer to that. The computers are under a different
union. Their armed goons 'Guido & freinds', would take out anyone from
another union who touched the computers.


--
My sig file can beat up your sig file!

"SteveB" meagain@rockvilleUSA wrote in message
...


In 2005, an average Chief Executive Officer (CEO) was paid 821 times
as much as a minimum wage earner, who earns just $5.15 per hour. An
average CEO earns more before lunchtime on the very first day of work
in the year than a minimum wage worker earns all year.

You forgot to mention that he probably works six or seven days a week, and
60-100 hours. He comes in if he's sick. He doesn't take paid holidays.
He travels all night to be there for a meeting in another city in the
morning. Then he hops on a jet, flies home, gets a couple of hours sleep,
and is there at 0630 to be ready for the 0800 meeting. He does things a
"minimum wage worker" would not consider doing, nor be required to do
under current liberal Democrat worker rights laws. He also stands to be
terminated at will, at the whim of management, or at the change of
officials.

If he wants to work that hard, I'm all for giving him the dough. It's
dough that I'm not smart enough to make happen, or too lazy to work that
hard for.

Just give me forty and the door, is what I say. I have owned my own
businesses, and made less than the help. And worried a lot more.

And what is keeping these minimum wage workers from getting education,
training, and experience and knocking this King of the Hill off his
throne?

Answer: nothing but their own stupidity, lack of motivation, lack of
ambition, and laziness.

Steve

Steve:

What was I doing wrong? When I worked at the Kwajalein Missile Range I
would get a call to attend a meeting in Wash D.C and have to catch a ride on
a C 141, freeze my butt, 2500 miles later, change planes in Hawaii again
5,000 miles later in Chicago and finally land in Dulles or Reagan, jump in a
cab and attend a meeting that at least once only lasted 20 minutes, then
grab a cab and head for the airport and reverse the film and end up in
Kwajalein late in the afternoon only to find out that I would be supporting
a mission at 3 o'clock in the morning. For awhile this happened twice a
month. Never did learn to sleep on a plane. At one time I was called on to
entertain the Chief Scientist of the Star Wars group from Wash. Took him
sailing on our boat and was followed by his security team of 4 guys with
machine guns in a big inflatable.
Sometimes I wasn't sure who I was or where I was going or why. I missed the
salary boat as I didn't get anywhere near 20 times the minimum wage. BTW
the base commander could put my name on a piece of paper and even though I
was Civil Service, my wife and I would be gone with the next C 141. No
reviews, questions or anything. Stress was a bit high but the sailing and
scuba diving, when job permitted, was great. Maybe that was my CEO perk
equivalent.

Stu

"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message
.. .

"SteveB" meagain@rockvilleUSA wrote in message
...


In 2005, an average Chief Executive Officer (CEO) was paid 821 times
as much as a minimum wage earner, who earns just $5.15 per hour. An
average CEO earns more before lunchtime on the very first day of work
in the year than a minimum wage worker earns all year.

You forgot to mention that he probably works six or seven days a week,
and 60-100 hours. He comes in if he's sick. He doesn't take paid
holidays. He travels all night to be there for a meeting in another city
in the morning. Then he hops on a jet, flies home, gets a couple of hours
sleep, and is there at 0630 to be ready for the 0800 meeting. He does
things a "minimum wage worker" would not consider doing, nor be required
to do under current liberal Democrat worker rights laws. He also stands
to be terminated at will, at the whim of management, or at the change of
officials.

If he wants to work that hard, I'm all for giving him the dough. It's
dough that I'm not smart enough to make happen, or too lazy to work that
hard for.

Just give me forty and the door, is what I say. I have owned my own
businesses, and made less than the help. And worried a lot more.

And what is keeping these minimum wage workers from getting education,
training, and experience and knocking this King of the Hill off his
throne?

Answer: nothing but their own stupidity, lack of motivation, lack of
ambition, and laziness.

Steve

Steve:

What was I doing wrong? When I worked at the Kwajalein Missile Range I
would get a call to attend a meeting in Wash D.C and have to catch a ride
on a C 141, freeze my butt, 2500 miles later, change planes in Hawaii
again 5,000 miles later in Chicago and finally land in Dulles or Reagan,
jump in a cab and attend a meeting that at least once only lasted 20
minutes, then grab a cab and head for the airport and reverse the film and
end up in Kwajalein late in the afternoon only to find out that I would be
supporting a mission at 3 o'clock in the morning. For awhile this
happened twice a month. Never did learn to sleep on a plane. At one time
I was called on to entertain the Chief Scientist of the Star Wars group
from Wash. Took him sailing on our boat and was followed by his security
team of 4 guys with machine guns in a big inflatable.
Sometimes I wasn't sure who I was or where I was going or why. I missed
the salary boat as I didn't get anywhere near 20 times the minimum wage.
BTW the base commander could put my name on a piece of paper and even
though I was Civil Service, my wife and I would be gone with the next C
141. No reviews, questions or anything. Stress was a bit high but the
sailing and scuba diving, when job permitted, was great. Maybe that was
my CEO perk equivalent.

You had the wrong connections; you weren't part of the old-boy network of
compensation-committee mutual back-scratchers; you belonged to the wrong
country club; and so on.

Forget Steve's myths. That's all they are. Sure, you will work very hard as
a CEO, but that only explains perhaps 1/50th of their income. The other
49/50ths is other things, most of which have absolutely nothing to do with a
company's performance.

It's game that one has to really, really want to play, because the rules
would make most of us puke.

--
Ed Huntress

Hi Stuart -

Been there and had it a bit better. I remember the long prop planes
in the old days - years before Star Wars were coined.

It is hard for most people to consider flying 11 or 12 hours a day
in one plane only to get into another a few hours later.

I started doing the same when I worked for a large company on the west coast.
Spent time in Asia and Europe and at home some times.

Martin

Martin H. Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
TSRA, Endowed; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal.
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member.
http://lufkinced.com/


Stuart & Kathryn Fields wrote:
"SteveB" meagain@rockvilleUSA wrote in message
...

In 2005, an average Chief Executive Officer (CEO) was paid 821 times
as much as a minimum wage earner, who earns just $5.15 per hour. An
average CEO earns more before lunchtime on the very first day of work
in the year than a minimum wage worker earns all year.
You forgot to mention that he probably works six or seven days a week, and
60-100 hours. He comes in if he's sick. He doesn't take paid holidays.
He travels all night to be there for a meeting in another city in the
morning. Then he hops on a jet, flies home, gets a couple of hours sleep,
and is there at 0630 to be ready for the 0800 meeting. He does things a
"minimum wage worker" would not consider doing, nor be required to do
under current liberal Democrat worker rights laws. He also stands to be
terminated at will, at the whim of management, or at the change of
officials.

If he wants to work that hard, I'm all for giving him the dough. It's
dough that I'm not smart enough to make happen, or too lazy to work that
hard for.

Just give me forty and the door, is what I say. I have owned my own
businesses, and made less than the help. And worried a lot more.

And what is keeping these minimum wage workers from getting education,
training, and experience and knocking this King of the Hill off his
throne?

Answer: nothing but their own stupidity, lack of motivation, lack of
ambition, and laziness.

Steve

Steve:

What was I doing wrong? When I worked at the Kwajalein Missile Range I
would get a call to attend a meeting in Wash D.C and have to catch a ride on
a C 141, freeze my butt, 2500 miles later, change planes in Hawaii again
5,000 miles later in Chicago and finally land in Dulles or Reagan, jump in a
cab and attend a meeting that at least once only lasted 20 minutes, then
grab a cab and head for the airport and reverse the film and end up in
Kwajalein late in the afternoon only to find out that I would be supporting
a mission at 3 o'clock in the morning. For awhile this happened twice a
month. Never did learn to sleep on a plane. At one time I was called on to
entertain the Chief Scientist of the Star Wars group from Wash. Took him
sailing on our boat and was followed by his security team of 4 guys with
machine guns in a big inflatable.
Sometimes I wasn't sure who I was or where I was going or why. I missed the
salary boat as I didn't get anywhere near 20 times the minimum wage. BTW
the base commander could put my name on a piece of paper and even though I
was Civil Service, my wife and I would be gone with the next C 141. No
reviews, questions or anything. Stress was a bit high but the sailing and
scuba diving, when job permitted, was great. Maybe that was my CEO perk
equivalent.

Stu




----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

In 2005, an average Chief Executive Officer (CEO) was paid 821 times
as much as a minimum wage earner, who earns just $5.15 per hour. An
average CEO earns more before lunchtime on the very first day of work
in the year than a minimum wage worker earns all year.

You forgot to mention that he probably works six or seven days a week, and
60-100 hours. He comes in if he's sick. He doesn't take paid holidays. He
travels all night to be there for a meeting in another city in the morning.
Then he hops on a jet, flies home, gets a couple of hours sleep, and is
there at 0630 to be ready for the 0800 meeting. He does things a "minimum
wage worker" would not consider doing, nor be required to do under current
liberal Democrat worker rights laws. He also stands to be terminated at
will, at the whim of management, or at the change of officials.

If he wants to work that hard, I'm all for giving him the dough. It's dough
that I'm not smart enough to make happen, or too lazy to work that hard for.

Just give me forty and the door, is what I say. I have owned my own
businesses, and made less than the help. And worried a lot more.

And what is keeping these minimum wage workers from getting education,
training, and experience and knocking this King of the Hill off his throne?

Answer: nothing but their own stupidity, lack of motivation, lack of
ambition, and laziness.

Steve

On Mar 8, 12:41*pm, "Tom Gardner" wrote:
"Millwright Ron" wrote in message

...
On Mar 7, 1:45 pm, Jon Anderson wrote:

* wrote:
And, here I thought you were pro-union......................

LMAO....

Jon

In 2005, an average Chief Executive Officer (CEO) was paid 821 times
as much as a minimum wage earner, who earns just $5.15 per hour. An
average CEO earns more before lunchtime on the very first day of work
in the year than a minimum wage worker earns all year.

"total overall labor costs" and not "unit labor costs."
Millwright Ronwww.unionmillwright.com

That's a downright LIE!!! *PROVE IT!!!






http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfe...shots_20060627

Millwright Ron
www.unionmillwright.com

On Mar 8, 1:20*pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
* wrote:
I love little boys
Terrell the tough

Tom, which way are union plants? More or less productive?


According to a quick Google, union plants are 14% more productive but
as
Ron
says union people make 30% more money. My point is non-union shops are
more
cost effective and that says it all.

And if employers paid a fair wage and provided a clean, safe, working
environment no one would need to be a union member. What are the chances
of
that happening due to the good will of businessmen? The reality is
businessmen want to return to the bad old days before unions when they
treated workers like animals. They've found it now too. By moving
production
facilities overseas all the constraints imposed by unions on American
companies can be completely avoided by making third world inhabitants
what
American workers were before unions. You have to hand it to business,
they
never stop trying to screw their workers. The only difference is that it
isn't American workers that businesses are screwing but foreign workers.

Hawke



Bull****! A company's most valuable asset is it's workers that already
know
what they are doing and do it well. Companies have a hard time finding
and
training good people and they are valued. Wages are bumped along with
bennies
in order to entice people not to look elsewhere for work. Now, on the
other
hand, poor quality workers, full of booze and drugs, protected by corrupt
unions, make less money available to compensate the good people. Damn,
you
don't have a clue!

What's obvious is that you are the one who's in the dark. What a naive guy.
You sound like someone who just fell off the turnip truck. Workers have
always been disposable to business. Don't you know anything about American
history? Workers have alway been easily replaceable and is one reason why
business wants more workers than jobs, so they can take advantage of the
situation. And if you think that all the business that went overseas did
that because the workers in China are so good at what they do and are so
well trained you're nuts. Corporations simply fired the "valuable assets"
they had in the US and replaced them with whatever workers they could find
in China. If you don't know that the workers in China aren't better than
American workers you really are dumb. Or that the Chinese workers are in a
position of complete weakness and are forced to work in bad conditions for a
few dollars a day. So why don't you tell everyone about how valuable the
workers are to the companies based in China and how they can't get by
without them, and how important American workers were to the companies that
let them go so they could relocate to Asia. We'll try not to laugh.

Hawke

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

That's the beauty of the free market.


Yes. We don't have to buy overpriced union made crap.

Instead you get to buy cheaply priced and made goods produced by slave labor
in China and India. Why am I not surprised you prefer that than to buy
quality products produced by unionized American workers in American
factories that receive a fair wage but cost more. Could it be because you
are so poor even though you had every opportunity in this great country to
get rich and simply failed?

Hawke



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

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...
Millwright Ron wrote:


I am a bitter old man.


Yawn.... ... .. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZz


That is how he responds to everything after he's taken his meds.

Hawke