The
The link between productivity gains and wages has been broken.
Recently, the Economic Policy Institute showed that productivity has
grown almost three times faster than wages since 2001. During that
time, 70 percent of the nation’s income growth has gone straight into
corporate coffers as profits—presumably to continue to finance
staggering pay and benefits for executives—a complete reversal from
the previous seven business cycles when 77 percent of the overall
income growth went to wages.
Millwright Ron
www.unionmillwright.com

Millwright Ron wrote:

The
The link between productivity gains and wages has been broken.
Recently, the Economic Policy Institute showed that productivity has
grown almost three times faster than wages since 2001. During that
time, 70 percent of the nation’s income growth has gone straight into
corporate coffers as profits—presumably to continue to finance
staggering pay and benefits for executives—a complete reversal from
the previous seven business cycles when 77 percent of the overall
income growth went to wages.
Millwright Ron
www.unionmillwright.com


Hey, Ron! It looks like a whole wad of your useless union buddies
are about to be laid off at GM, and other unionized car companies.
Happy days are here again!


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.

"Millwright Ron" wrote in message
...
The
The link between productivity gains and wages has been broken.
Recently, the Economic Policy Institute showed that productivity has
grown almost three times faster than wages since 2001. During that
time, 70 percent of the nation’s income growth has gone straight into
corporate coffers as profits—presumably to continue to finance
staggering pay and benefits for executives—a complete reversal from
the previous seven business cycles when 77 percent of the overall
income growth went to wages.
Millwright Ron
www.unionmillwright.com
**************************************
The huge increases in costs due to unions' declining productivity per man/hour
has forced manufacturers to drastically increase automation. Why should those
increases in productivity not benefit the people that risked the investment and
benefit the people that caused the problems in the first place? Duhh!

"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
...

"Millwright Ron" wrote in message
...
The
The link between productivity gains and wages has been broken.
Recently, the Economic Policy Institute showed that productivity has
grown almost three times faster than wages since 2001. During that
time, 70 percent of the nation’s income growth has gone straight into
corporate coffers as profits—presumably to continue to finance
staggering pay and benefits for executives—a complete reversal from
the previous seven business cycles when 77 percent of the overall
income growth went to wages.
Millwright Ron


I love it - documented proof that excessive pay for management is good for
the bottom line


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
...

"Millwright Ron" wrote in message
...
The
The link between productivity gains and wages has been broken.
Recently, the Economic Policy Institute showed that productivity has
grown almost three times faster than wages since 2001. During that
time, 70 percent of the nation's income growth has gone straight into
corporate coffers as profits-presumably to continue to finance
staggering pay and benefits for executives-a complete reversal from
the previous seven business cycles when 77 percent of the overall
income growth went to wages.
Millwright Ron
www.unionmillwright.com
**************************************
The huge increases in costs due to unions' declining productivity per
man/hour has forced manufacturers to drastically increase automation. Why
should those increases in productivity not benefit the people that risked
the investment and benefit the people that caused the problems in the
first place? Duhh!

Hold the phone, Tom. Wages didn't drive automation. Competition drove
automation. And if you want to see a perfect test-tube experiment that
proved the point, look at the US car makers. Their wages went through the
roof but they dragged their feet on automation for decades. Being an
oligopoly (something like a monopoly, only with several players who have
little real interest in competiting with each other, except at the margins),
they weren't even trying hard to control labor costs as long as their
supposed competitors weren't controlling labor costs, either. That's why
they're in the fix they're in today. Ford put up little fight against giving
the unions anything they wanted as long as Chrysler and GM got nailed the
same way.

It wasn't until the Japanese started to give them real competition in the
late 1970s that they got serious about cutting costs, which included serious
automation. Until that time the unions and the big three had established an
equilibrium that produced a healthy car industry, well-paid workers, and
customers who kept buying more cars along with more houses, educations,
Bahamas vacations and so on.

The US car industry operated in a hermetically sealed sub-economy, with
little foreign competition. The deals they made with the unions set the
basic cost parameters. As long as the customers kept buying cars at prices
that were profitable to the car makers, the sub-economy of the automobile
industry was on cruise control and everybody was pretty damned well-off.

What global competition did was to re-set the equilibrium. And because most
of the countries that gave us high-volume competition in core industries
were low-wage developing countries, the new equilibrium compelled the car
makers to squeeze labor costs first. That was one big bite they could take
without additional investment. They bit as much as they could but contracts
for long-term benefits, and the resistance of labor to rollbacks and
layoffs, limited how much they could bite. So the next path was a
combination of rationalizing manufacturing organization (zero-defects, the
Toyota system, etc., etc.) and automating.

When I hear people complain about how high labor costs, and unions, make us
uncompetitive, I wonder what kind of competition they have in mind. You seem
to accept the idea without question that we have to compete with companies
in low-wage countries that pay their workers $0.80/hour, that we have no
choice in the matter. That may be true, if globalization is to be left in
the saddle to ride mankind, but I would expect you to at least question it.
I don't hear a peep. Everyone seems to accept the fact that, in terms of
wages, we're doomed to what Alan Tonelson calls "the race to the bottom."

And the discussion breaks down because we mix up and confuse macro effects
with micro effects. The US Commerce Dept. tells us how wonderful
globalization is for our GDP. It may be -- that's one argument. But then
labor points out that we're losing high-paying jobs, and that the people who
are benefitting are those in the ultra-thin slice of top income earners. GM
and Ford workers are in relatively worse shape than they were 30 years ago.

Both are true, apparently. Macro effects don't determine micro effects.
Unions are frustrated because we had a system that worked and it's broken
down. That tells them that globalization and union-busting are wrecking
their lives. They're quite right about that, at the micro level -- and the
micro level means at the level of individual human beings, working for
individual companies.

Are you so willing to let low-wage competition sit in the saddle and ride
the rest of us? Don't you have some objection? When the next wave of
low-wage competition comes along (Africa? Outer Mongolia? The huge number of
peasants in China's interior, who are hardly a factor yet in the Chinese
miracle?), how much more will you be willing to squeeze labor to meet the
competition?

I'm surprised NOT that you resent what labor wants -- most business owners
seem to resent that, now as always -- but that you don't even mention the
fact that we've knuckled under to the interests that are driving
globalization. And their interests are not your interests, or my interests,
or Ron's interests, except in the abstract of GDP and the delusion of
trickle-down economics. All that's trickling down is a lot of debt, longer
work hours, and fewer benefits. Some trickle-down, eh?

Or do you see us getting on top of it somehow, and restoring wages and
benefits at some future time? If so, how do you think that's going to
happen? Meantime, just how much do you want labor to give up, in order to
play the globalization game that we've been told is so good for us?

--
Ed Huntress

"William Noble" wrote in message
...

I love it - documented proof that excessive pay for management is good for the
bottom line


If management is the investor, they should reap more benefits than the
adversarial union.

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
...

"Millwright Ron" wrote in message
...
The
The link between productivity gains and wages has been broken.
Recently, the Economic Policy Institute showed that productivity has
grown almost three times faster than wages since 2001. During that
time, 70 percent of the nation's income growth has gone straight into
corporate coffers as profits-presumably to continue to finance
staggering pay and benefits for executives-a complete reversal from
the previous seven business cycles when 77 percent of the overall
income growth went to wages.
Millwright Ron
www.unionmillwright.com
**************************************
The huge increases in costs due to unions' declining productivity per
man/hour has forced manufacturers to drastically increase automation. Why
should those increases in productivity not benefit the people that risked the
investment and benefit the people that caused the problems in the first
place? Duhh!

Hold the phone, Tom. Wages didn't drive automation. Competition drove
automation. And if you want to see a perfect test-tube experiment that proved
the point, look at the US car makers. Their wages went through the roof but
they dragged their feet on automation for decades. Being an oligopoly
(something like a monopoly, only with several players who have little real
interest in competiting with each other, except at the margins), they weren't
even trying hard to control labor costs as long as their supposed competitors
weren't controlling labor costs, either. That's why they're in the fix they're
in today. Ford put up little fight against giving the unions anything they
wanted as long as Chrysler and GM got nailed the same way.

It wasn't until the Japanese started to give them real competition in the late
1970s that they got serious about cutting costs, which included serious
automation. Until that time the unions and the big three had established an
equilibrium that produced a healthy car industry, well-paid workers, and
customers who kept buying more cars along with more houses, educations,
Bahamas vacations and so on.

The US car industry operated in a hermetically sealed sub-economy, with little
foreign competition. The deals they made with the unions set the basic cost
parameters. As long as the customers kept buying cars at prices that were
profitable to the car makers, the sub-economy of the automobile industry was
on cruise control and everybody was pretty damned well-off.

What global competition did was to re-set the equilibrium. And because most of
the countries that gave us high-volume competition in core industries were
low-wage developing countries, the new equilibrium compelled the car makers to
squeeze labor costs first. That was one big bite they could take without
additional investment. They bit as much as they could but contracts for
long-term benefits, and the resistance of labor to rollbacks and layoffs,
limited how much they could bite. So the next path was a combination of
rationalizing manufacturing organization (zero-defects, the Toyota system,
etc., etc.) and automating.

When I hear people complain about how high labor costs, and unions, make us
uncompetitive, I wonder what kind of competition they have in mind. You seem
to accept the idea without question that we have to compete with companies in
low-wage countries that pay their workers $0.80/hour, that we have no choice
in the matter. That may be true, if globalization is to be left in the saddle
to ride mankind, but I would expect you to at least question it. I don't hear
a peep. Everyone seems to accept the fact that, in terms of wages, we're
doomed to what Alan Tonelson calls "the race to the bottom."

And the discussion breaks down because we mix up and confuse macro effects
with micro effects. The US Commerce Dept. tells us how wonderful globalization
is for our GDP. It may be -- that's one argument. But then labor points out
that we're losing high-paying jobs, and that the people who are benefitting
are those in the ultra-thin slice of top income earners. GM and Ford workers
are in relatively worse shape than they were 30 years ago.

Both are true, apparently. Macro effects don't determine micro effects. Unions
are frustrated because we had a system that worked and it's broken down. That
tells them that globalization and union-busting are wrecking their lives.
They're quite right about that, at the micro level -- and the micro level
means at the level of individual human beings, working for individual
companies.

Are you so willing to let low-wage competition sit in the saddle and ride the
rest of us? Don't you have some objection? When the next wave of low-wage
competition comes along (Africa? Outer Mongolia? The huge number of peasants
in China's interior, who are hardly a factor yet in the Chinese miracle?), how
much more will you be willing to squeeze labor to meet the competition?

I'm surprised NOT that you resent what labor wants -- most business owners
seem to resent that, now as always -- but that you don't even mention the fact
that we've knuckled under to the interests that are driving globalization. And
their interests are not your interests, or my interests, or Ron's interests,
except in the abstract of GDP and the delusion of trickle-down economics. All
that's trickling down is a lot of debt, longer work hours, and fewer benefits.
Some trickle-down, eh?

Or do you see us getting on top of it somehow, and restoring wages and
benefits at some future time? If so, how do you think that's going to happen?
Meantime, just how much do you want labor to give up, in order to play the
globalization game that we've been told is so good for us?

--
Ed Huntress


I speak from a narrow point of view, but not exclusive.

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 04:30:48 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Tom
Gardner" quickly quoth:


"William Noble" wrote in message
...

I love it - documented proof that excessive pay for management is good for the
bottom line


If management is the investor, they should reap more benefits than the
adversarial union.

You guys are sure giving that union troll a lot of air time...again.

--
"Giving every man a vote has no more made men wise and free
than Christianity has made them good." --H. L. Mencken
---

Millwright Ron wrote:

The
The link between productivity gains and wages has been broken.
Recently, the Economic Policy Institute showed that productivity has
grown almost three times faster than wages since 2001. During that
time, 70 percent of the nation’s income growth has gone straight into
corporate coffers as profits—presumably to continue to finance
staggering pay and benefits for executives—a complete reversal from
the previous seven business cycles when 77 percent of the overall
income growth went to wages.


To survive productivity has had to increase. We are now competing against the third world
and very cheap labor. Sadly our union education system is not putting out students that
are world class. It is damn sad that a union electrician does a far better job than a
union teacher. We need very smart and educated workers in our economy.

At least the electrician has skills since the union has a pretty good training program.
Union teachers, well there is one failure of monumental proportion.

A union teacher is nothing but a tool for the left. Someone that desperately wants to
maintain a monopoly on teaching our children or indoctrinating them as I see it, paid for
by our tax dollars.

People that have to pay for a failed school system (union) and then pay for private
schooling have a real hatred for unions for good reason. If you notice the NEA opposes
freedom of choice, AKA, vouchers with a passion.

It is going to shock you but I do think the ceo's are raking off a bit more cream than
they should. I'm speaking as a stock holder in various companies.

We seem to be able to use illegal's and H1B's for tech work, I'm thinking some Japs that
get 10:1 ratio pay would be perfect executives for many American businesses. My dividends
and stock price on holdings would go up.

Wes

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
snip

You guys are sure giving that union troll a lot of air time...again.


Ron is a troll and he knows unions are a hot-button with many here so, he wins!

Tom Gardner wrote:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
snip

You guys are sure giving that union troll a lot of air time...again.


Ron is a troll and he knows unions are a hot-button with many here so, he wins!


Not really. He sold his soul to the union, so he's lost everything
worth owning.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

The huge increases in costs due to unions' declining productivity per
man/hour has forced manufacturers to drastically increase automation. Why
should those increases in productivity not benefit the people that risked
the investment and benefit the people that caused the problems in the
first place? Duhh!

Hold the phone, Tom. Wages didn't drive automation. Competition drove
automation. And if you want to see a perfect test-tube experiment that
proved the point, look at the US car makers. Their wages went through the
roof but they dragged their feet on automation for decades. Being an
oligopoly (something like a monopoly, only with several players who have
little real interest in competiting with each other, except at the margins),
they weren't even trying hard to control labor costs as long as their
supposed competitors weren't controlling labor costs, either. That's why
they're in the fix they're in today. Ford put up little fight against giving
the unions anything they wanted as long as Chrysler and GM got nailed the
same way.

Ed, I remember a bunch of used robots I bought and used in manufacturing processes at ET.
Clearly marked GMF General Motors Fanuc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FANUC_Robotics

I think they got into robots to eliminate labor, expensive labor. We didn't eliminate
labor with our use of the robots, just some of the physical stresses on the employees
while getting more output.

Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

The huge increases in costs due to unions' declining productivity per
man/hour has forced manufacturers to drastically increase automation.
Why
should those increases in productivity not benefit the people that
risked
the investment and benefit the people that caused the problems in the
first place? Duhh!

Hold the phone, Tom. Wages didn't drive automation. Competition drove
automation. And if you want to see a perfect test-tube experiment that
proved the point, look at the US car makers. Their wages went through the
roof but they dragged their feet on automation for decades. Being an
oligopoly (something like a monopoly, only with several players who have
little real interest in competiting with each other, except at the
margins),
they weren't even trying hard to control labor costs as long as their
supposed competitors weren't controlling labor costs, either. That's why
they're in the fix they're in today. Ford put up little fight against
giving
the unions anything they wanted as long as Chrysler and GM got nailed the
same way.

Ed, I remember a bunch of used robots I bought and used in manufacturing
processes at ET.
Clearly marked GMF General Motors Fanuc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FANUC_Robotics

I think they got into robots to eliminate labor, expensive labor. We
didn't eliminate
labor with our use of the robots, just some of the physical stresses on
the employees
while getting more output.

GM got into robotics when they felt the competition from Japan, Wes. I was
reporting on the car industry for American Machinist while all that was
going on, so I remember the events well.

One of those years -- '77 through '80 -- Japan was reported to have 70,000
robots in manufacturing, while the US had fewer than 5,000. GM was copying
Japan as fast as they could so they implemented a crash program to put
robots into spot-welding and painting. As it happens, most of those 70,000
"robots" in Japan actually were gantry loaders and other simple machine
loaders, all of which the Japanese counted as "robots."

Of course the reason GM got into robotics was to reduce labor costs. But
that came about only because they were feeling the heat of competition from
the Japanese builders. At that time Japanese autoworkers were making less
than half what US workers were making, so we had the same situation on a
smaller scale that we have now with China. The EU at that time (I think it
actually was the EC then) sent a team to Japan and reported that Japanese
workers were (and these are their exact words) "workaholics living in rabbit
hutches." That's what we were competing with.

The Japanese had very sophisticated manufacturing by then, so our choices
were to try to beat them at their own game, or to cut wages until *our*
workers were workaholics living in rabbit hutches. GM thought we could beat
them, but they really didn't get it. There was more to the Japanese miracle
than technology. And they didn't have healthcare to deal with, especially
the legacy costs for retirees. The Japanese government was paying for
healthcare.

So now we have the second round of this stuff going on, only now the wage
disparity is really huge. We have the same problems we had then only our
manufacturing is now world-class. Still, you don't cover 30:1 ratios of
wages with technology alone. The European and US car makers in China are
polishing up Chinese manufacturing, in at least the auto-related industries,
very fast and very effectively. We're left with the
workaholics-living-in-rabbit-hutches alternative, with nothing else to lean
on at all.

As a point of interest, the European reaction to this was protectionism.
They limited Japanese car makers to 10% - 12% of their markets for a lot of
years. Free-trade theory says they were self-destructing. Only they didn't.
The European manufacturers used the opportunity to strengthen their car
industry.

BTW, I had dinner with Hamei and his...er, assistant a few nights ago, and
the assistant said that the Chinese people all want to own a German car. I
guess the Europeans car makers positioned themselves well for the coming
years, eh?

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

Well written Ed. Many people these days are more interested in assigning
blame than applying critical thinking skills to these complex problems.

You are indeed correct that there is more to this than wages. Standards of
living, ecological considerations, and overall product quality play an
important role. How many times have we seen discussions on this NG about
the poor quality of imports?

It has been said that every time you spend your money you are voting for the
kind of world you want to live in.

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:48:20 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Tom
Gardner" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
snip

You guys are sure giving that union troll a lot of air time...again.


Ron is a troll and he knows unions are a hot-button with many here so, he wins!

The wise man stops to think before typing.

--
"Giving every man a vote has no more made men wise and free
than Christianity has made them good." --H. L. Mencken
---

"Kelly Jones" wrote in message
. ..

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

Well written Ed. Many people these days are more interested in assigning
blame than applying critical thinking skills to these complex problems.

Thanks, Kelly. It would be nice if the critical thinking led clearly to
solutions. Unfortunately, in most cases like the one we're discussing, it
doesn't. But it's a lot more productive than looking for scapegoats.


You are indeed correct that there is more to this than wages. Standards of
living, ecological considerations, and overall product quality play an
important role. How many times have we seen discussions on this NG about
the poor quality of imports?

Right. And a lot of the things we're getting from China really are poor
quality. But not uniformly, of course. Their hair dryers suck, but their
bluejeans can be really good. Fortunately for me, I work mostly in jeans,
and I have less use for a hair dryer all the time. d8-)


It has been said that every time you spend your money you are voting for
the kind of world you want to live in.

That's an interesting thought. I'll work on that one.

--
Ed Huntress

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:48:20 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Tom
Gardner" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
snip

You guys are sure giving that union troll a lot of air time...again.


Ron is a troll and he knows unions are a hot-button with many here so, he
wins!

The wise man stops to think before typing.

I don't think that Ron is a troll so much as a prosyletizer. And,
considering this crowd, he's in the lion's den.

OTOH, he's about the only one here who promotes the other side of the story.
And there are two sides to it. You just don't like to hear it.

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:48:02 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:48:20 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Tom
Gardner" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
snip

You guys are sure giving that union troll a lot of air time...again.


Ron is a troll and he knows unions are a hot-button with many here so, he
wins!

The wise man stops to think before typing.

I don't think that Ron is a troll so much as a prosyletizer. And,
considering this crowd, he's in the lion's den.

OTOH, he's about the only one here who promotes the other side of the story.
And there are two sides to it. You just don't like to hear it.


On the website that he always includes with his signature he also
sells a lot of tee shirts and hats with pro union statements printed
on them.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
snip
The wise man stops to think before typing.

This lesbian is less than wise, what's your excuse?

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
snip
OTOH, he's about the only one here who promotes the other side of the story.
And there are two sides to it. You just don't like to hear it.

--
Ed Huntress


Actually, I always read Ron's posts, I don't agree with his mindset about
entitlement and hope that some day he will at least think about a better way
than the old "union" mentality that even our union has moved away from.

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:48:20 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Tom
Gardner" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
snip

You guys are sure giving that union troll a lot of air time...again.


Ron is a troll and he knows unions are a hot-button with many here so, he
wins!

The wise man stops to think before typing.

I don't think that Ron is a troll so much as a prosyletizer. And,
considering this crowd, he's in the lion's den.

OTOH, he's about the only one here who promotes the other side of the
story. And there are two sides to it. You just don't like to hear it.


They'll become much more receptive when they're driving around in their
pickups after midnight, dumpster-diving.
Or wondering why their kids, and grandkids, won't--I mean, can't--leave the
house.
Or why, after the house is paid off, they have to work for their local
municipality for minimum wage to pay their tax bill--at age 73.

'course, then it's just a little too late.
--
DT




--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

I don't think that Ron is a troll so much as a prosyletizer. And,
considering this crowd, he's in the lion's den.

OTOH, he's about the only one here who promotes the other side of the story.
And there are two sides to it. You just don't like to hear it.


This newsgroup is not a labor newsgroup, so he is not only off
topic, but annoying. "the other side" might be worth listening to on a
labor relations newsgroup, but who in their right mind would try to
unionize a one man operation?


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:10:18 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:

On the website that he always includes with his signature he also
sells a lot of tee shirts and hats with pro union statements printed
on them.

Gee, I wonder if they are 100% Made in the USA by Union Labor, and
all the slogans were written by Union writers and typeset by Union
Printers. Made using Union Made Soy Inks and Union Farmed Organic
Cotton that were all farmed and processed and woven locally, in a
fully sustainable manner, and all waste generated was laboratory
proven biodegradable and certified 100% recycled...

No, they couldn't be - if you could find all the materials to fit
that rigid specification you'd have to charge over $100 each for a
simple screen printed tee shirt, and nobody in their right mind would
pay it.

Unions are a nice concept and 100 years ago they were truly
necessary if workers were to ever get ahead. But they've managed to
make themselves irrelevant. Go organize a buggy whip factory...

-- Bruce --

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

Ed Huntress wrote:

I don't think that Ron is a troll so much as a prosyletizer. And,
considering this crowd, he's in the lion's den.

OTOH, he's about the only one here who promotes the other side of the
story.
And there are two sides to it. You just don't like to hear it.


This newsgroup is not a labor newsgroup, so he is not only off
topic, but annoying.

Baloney. We've seen anti-union postures here for years, Michael, since long
before Ron came around, and everyone piles on. I've never seen an objection
to someone raising an anti-union issue here.

It isn't the fact that he's off-topic that some are finding bothersome. It's
that he's off-message for the conservative attitude that permeates this
collection of interests. In other words, he's on the other side.

"the other side" might be worth listening to on a
labor relations newsgroup, but who in their right mind would try to
unionize a one man operation?

An awful lot of people sure have an opinion about it, though, don't they?
d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
snip
OTOH, he's about the only one here who promotes the other side of the
story. And there are two sides to it. You just don't like to hear it.

--
Ed Huntress


Actually, I always read Ron's posts, I don't agree with his mindset about
entitlement and hope that some day he will at least think about a better
way than the old "union" mentality that even our union has moved away
from.

That will become a lot more likely, IMO, when they aren't facing the old
anti-union mentality at every turn. Right now, they're being blamed for
everything, from offshoring to inflation, even while their numbers have
declined to near insignificance. If you look at the comments about unions on
this NG over the years, you'll see that they're consistently the scapegoat
of choice.

The irony of some of it makes me do a backflip. Earlier today someone here
was blaming the unions for high prices. And my guess is that the poster
drives a pickup or an SUV that gets 12 mpg. Maybe he didn't notice the
relationship between energy demand, energy costs, and retail prices.

--
Ed Huntress

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:48:02 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:48:20 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Tom
Gardner" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
m...
snip

You guys are sure giving that union troll a lot of air time...again.


Ron is a troll and he knows unions are a hot-button with many here so,
he
wins!

The wise man stops to think before typing.

I don't think that Ron is a troll so much as a prosyletizer. And,
considering this crowd, he's in the lion's den.

OTOH, he's about the only one here who promotes the other side of the
story.
And there are two sides to it. You just don't like to hear it.


On the website that he always includes with his signature he also
sells a lot of tee shirts and hats with pro union statements printed
on them.

Maybe he's a union entrepreneur. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:48:02 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:48:20 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Tom
Gardner" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
snip

You guys are sure giving that union troll a lot of air time...again.


Ron is a troll and he knows unions are a hot-button with many here so, he
wins!

The wise man stops to think before typing.

I don't think that Ron is a troll so much as a prosyletizer. And,
considering this crowd, he's in the lion's den.

I don't believe he'd be back for more if he weren't a troll, sir.


OTOH, he's about the only one here who promotes the other side of the story.
And there are two sides to it. You just don't like to hear it.

"Promotes"? Methinks you misspelled "lies about", Ed. He praises
unions, the Army says "See the world!", and religious fanatics talk
about "heaven", as if there's nothing else to life. Nah, don't want to
hear about it, thanks.

--
"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:48:02 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:48:20 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Tom
Gardner" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
m...
snip

You guys are sure giving that union troll a lot of air time...again.


Ron is a troll and he knows unions are a hot-button with many here so,
he
wins!

The wise man stops to think before typing.

I don't think that Ron is a troll so much as a prosyletizer. And,
considering this crowd, he's in the lion's den.

I don't believe he'd be back for more if he weren't a troll, sir.

He's not starting conversations. He's laying out his "evidence." Think of
him as a persistent proselytizer. g



OTOH, he's about the only one here who promotes the other side of the
story.
And there are two sides to it. You just don't like to hear it.

"Promotes"? Methinks you misspelled "lies about", Ed. He praises
unions, the Army says "See the world!", and religious fanatics talk
about "heaven", as if there's nothing else to life. Nah, don't want to
hear about it, thanks.

That's what I mean.

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 01:19:13 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Tom
Gardner" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
snip
The wise man stops to think before typing.

This lesbian is less than wise, what's your excuse?

Jes keepin' you honest, Tawm.

--
"Giving every man a vote has no more made men wise and free
than Christianity has made them good." --H. L. Mencken
---

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 09:09:00 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

I don't think that Ron is a troll so much as a prosyletizer. And,
considering this crowd, he's in the lion's den.

I don't believe he'd be back for more if he weren't a troll, sir.

He's not starting conversations. He's laying out his "evidence." Think of
him as a persistent proselytizer. g

If you believe that, I've got some nice bottomland for you, Ed. (I
won't say on the bottom of what.)


OTOH, he's about the only one here who promotes the other side of the
story.
And there are two sides to it. You just don't like to hear it.

"Promotes"? Methinks you misspelled "lies about", Ed. He praises
unions, the Army says "See the world!", and religious fanatics talk
about "heaven", as if there's nothing else to life. Nah, don't want to
hear about it, thanks.

That's what I mean.

Not wanting to hear distortions and lies must make me a very bad
person. In penance, I'll start my self-flagellations, um, soon.
(Let's see now; where'd I put that cat...?)

--
"Giving every man a vote has no more made men wise and free
than Christianity has made them good." --H. L. Mencken
---

Ed Huntress wrote:

He's not starting conversations. He's laying out his "evidence." Think of
him as a persistent proselytizer. g


If he did it on a street corner, it would be called prostitution.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.

Maybe it has changed, but when I worked for GM, we had 3 full coverage
medical packages. 100% coverage ZERO deduct. The three shared cost.
It was nice at the time, we didn't use it, but the thought of having
to have money up front or when you walk out puts a scare in most people
and keep them from medical unless it is free.

I think 1 or even nice to have 2 and some deduct would have been
better for the bottom line of the cost of a car/truck.

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/


Ed Huntress wrote:
"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
snip
OTOH, he's about the only one here who promotes the other side of the
story. And there are two sides to it. You just don't like to hear it.

--
Ed Huntress

Actually, I always read Ron's posts, I don't agree with his mindset about
entitlement and hope that some day he will at least think about a better
way than the old "union" mentality that even our union has moved away
from.

That will become a lot more likely, IMO, when they aren't facing the old
anti-union mentality at every turn. Right now, they're being blamed for
everything, from offshoring to inflation, even while their numbers have
declined to near insignificance. If you look at the comments about unions on
this NG over the years, you'll see that they're consistently the scapegoat
of choice.

The irony of some of it makes me do a backflip. Earlier today someone here
was blaming the unions for high prices. And my guess is that the poster
drives a pickup or an SUV that gets 12 mpg. Maybe he didn't notice the
relationship between energy demand, energy costs, and retail prices.

--
Ed Huntress




----== 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 =---

"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
...
Maybe it has changed, but when I worked for GM, we had 3 full coverage
medical packages. 100% coverage ZERO deduct. The three shared cost.
It was nice at the time, we didn't use it, but the thought of having
to have money up front or when you walk out puts a scare in most people
and keep them from medical unless it is free.

I think 1 or even nice to have 2 and some deduct would have been
better for the bottom line of the cost of a car/truck.

Martin

It depends on when that was, Martin. At one time, the cost of such insurance
was pretty cheap.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:48:02 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:48:20 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Tom
Gardner" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
om...
snip

You guys are sure giving that union troll a lot of air time...again.


Ron is a troll and he knows unions are a hot-button with many here so, he
wins!

The wise man stops to think before typing.

I don't think that Ron is a troll so much as a prosyletizer. And,
considering this crowd, he's in the lion's den.

I don't believe he'd be back for more if he weren't a troll, sir.

He's not starting conversations. He's laying out his "evidence." Think of him
as a persistent proselytizer. g



OTOH, he's about the only one here who promotes the other side of the story.
And there are two sides to it. You just don't like to hear it.

"Promotes"? Methinks you misspelled "lies about", Ed. He praises
unions, the Army says "See the world!", and religious fanatics talk
about "heaven", as if there's nothing else to life. Nah, don't want to
hear about it, thanks.

That's what I mean.

--
Ed Huntress


Come on Ed, the only thing missing from Ron's pontificating is 72 virgins!

"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:48:02 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
m...
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:48:20 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Tom
Gardner" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news:08gu7458e3ppd6da2kuaiorus3m70nma72@4ax. com...
snip

You guys are sure giving that union troll a lot of air time...again.


Ron is a troll and he knows unions are a hot-button with many here so,
he
wins!

The wise man stops to think before typing.

I don't think that Ron is a troll so much as a prosyletizer. And,
considering this crowd, he's in the lion's den.

I don't believe he'd be back for more if he weren't a troll, sir.

He's not starting conversations. He's laying out his "evidence." Think of
him as a persistent proselytizer. g



OTOH, he's about the only one here who promotes the other side of the
story.
And there are two sides to it. You just don't like to hear it.

"Promotes"? Methinks you misspelled "lies about", Ed. He praises
unions, the Army says "See the world!", and religious fanatics talk
about "heaven", as if there's nothing else to life. Nah, don't want to
hear about it, thanks.

That's what I mean.

--
Ed Huntress


Come on Ed, the only thing missing from Ron's pontificating is 72 virgins!

Overall, Ron is a little less than half right. That's about the same
percentage as the anti-union set delivers here. It's also about par for
people pontificating about history and economics when they were bored stiff
in history class and never read the books, and have spent maybe an hour of
their lives studying economics.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:48:02 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
om...
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:48:20 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Tom
Gardner" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news:08gu7458e3ppd6da2kuaiorus3m70nma72@4ax .com...
snip

You guys are sure giving that union troll a lot of air time...again.


Ron is a troll and he knows unions are a hot-button with many here so, he
wins!

The wise man stops to think before typing.

I don't think that Ron is a troll so much as a prosyletizer. And,
considering this crowd, he's in the lion's den.

I don't believe he'd be back for more if he weren't a troll, sir.

He's not starting conversations. He's laying out his "evidence." Think of
him as a persistent proselytizer. g



OTOH, he's about the only one here who promotes the other side of the
story.
And there are two sides to it. You just don't like to hear it.

"Promotes"? Methinks you misspelled "lies about", Ed. He praises
unions, the Army says "See the world!", and religious fanatics talk
about "heaven", as if there's nothing else to life. Nah, don't want to
hear about it, thanks.

That's what I mean.

--
Ed Huntress


Come on Ed, the only thing missing from Ron's pontificating is 72 virgins!

Overall, Ron is a little less than half right. That's about the same
percentage as the anti-union set delivers here. It's also about par for people
pontificating about history and economics when they were bored stiff in
history class and never read the books, and have spent maybe an hour of their
lives studying economics.

--
Ed Huntress


I'm anti-CORRUPT-union...is that the same? After 35 years, I've experience
quite a bit of that, including grand theft, fraud and coercion that involved
many police and NLB investigations.

Ed Huntress wrote:

Overall, Ron is a little less than half right. That's about the same
percentage as the anti-union set delivers here. It's also about par for
people pontificating about history and economics when they were bored stiff
in history class and never read the books, and have spent maybe an hour of
their lives studying economics.


Ed, I have never had an encounter with union, or their members where
I wasn't lied to, threatened or they attempted to steal something. Some
jackass with a union card threatening to do bodily harm just for sowing
up for your management job leaves a very bad taste. At another time I
had three school systems under contract to do all of their electronics
work. There was an elementary school across the street from my shop.
When the school board told the striking teachers that they couldn't
picket on school property I got back from a service call to find them in
my yard, with 55 gallon burn barrels to keep warm. They were parked on
the grass and made a huge mess. i had to threaten to have them arrested
for trespass, then explain to that school board that I had not given
them permission to use my property. Another time the IBEW was trying to
unionize the place I worked. After listening to them, I felt the need to
take a bath in a strong degreaser. They were the biggest liars I have
ever met, including all the politicians, lawyers and used car salesmen.

You can get in bed with the low life *******s, but I refuse to.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.

"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:48:02 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news:17vv749mb19ahv7n0v4faibsp6ugl4kjqi@4ax. com...
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:48:20 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm,
"Tom
Gardner" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news:08gu7458e3ppd6da2kuaiorus3m70nma72@4a x.com...
snip

You guys are sure giving that union troll a lot of air
time...again.


Ron is a troll and he knows unions are a hot-button with many here
so, he
wins!

The wise man stops to think before typing.

I don't think that Ron is a troll so much as a prosyletizer. And,
considering this crowd, he's in the lion's den.

I don't believe he'd be back for more if he weren't a troll, sir.

He's not starting conversations. He's laying out his "evidence." Think
of him as a persistent proselytizer. g



OTOH, he's about the only one here who promotes the other side of the
story.
And there are two sides to it. You just don't like to hear it.

"Promotes"? Methinks you misspelled "lies about", Ed. He praises
unions, the Army says "See the world!", and religious fanatics talk
about "heaven", as if there's nothing else to life. Nah, don't want to
hear about it, thanks.

That's what I mean.

--
Ed Huntress


Come on Ed, the only thing missing from Ron's pontificating is 72
virgins!

Overall, Ron is a little less than half right. That's about the same
percentage as the anti-union set delivers here. It's also about par for
people pontificating about history and economics when they were bored
stiff in history class and never read the books, and have spent maybe an
hour of their lives studying economics.

--
Ed Huntress


I'm anti-CORRUPT-union...is that the same? After 35 years, I've
experience quite a bit of that, including grand theft, fraud and coercion
that involved many police and NLB investigations.

Unions were born in brutality and corruption, with hundreds of them hung or
shot to death in the 19th century; ex-cons hired by factory owners and given
machine guns mowed them down in at least three demonstrations; dozens were
lynched for leading strikes, and the corrupt cops who could have stopped it
either cheered it on or turned their backs. It's a brutal business. In turn,
it's bred violence and corruption within its ranks and a no-holds-barred,
mob-style attitude.

Should we be surprised? The thing is, if you're anti corrupt union because
they're corrupt, then there's hardly a powerful institution in this country
that doesn't deserve the same reaction from you. Corruption is the product
of power and opportunity. No segment of society is immune to the incentives
for corruption, and no segment of society is free of the kinds of greed and
ambition that lead some people to become corrupt. There are corrupt church
ministers as well as corrupt corporate treasurers and politicians.

So you have to put that into perspective to judge the whole system in terms
of net effects on people. I don't think that many people can detach
themselves from their emotional reactions and view it purely in terms of
economic and social effects. Either that, or they view it through an
ideological filter that blinds them to what's really going on.

--
Ed Huntress

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

Ed Huntress wrote:

Overall, Ron is a little less than half right. That's about the same
percentage as the anti-union set delivers here. It's also about par for
people pontificating about history and economics when they were bored
stiff
in history class and never read the books, and have spent maybe an hour
of
their lives studying economics.


Ed, I have never had an encounter with union, or their members where
I wasn't lied to, threatened or they attempted to steal something.

Really? Well, you need to associate with a better class of union members.
For example, I was a member of the Retail Clerks when I was in college and
worked in a supermarket. My wife is in the NJEA, a teacher's union. My
uncle, who was one of the best machinists you would ever see, was also in
NJEA. And another uncle was in the Ironworkers.

We won't lie to you, Michael. We'd never threaten you, and we don't steal.

You can get in bed with the low life *******s, but I refuse to.

I'd be very unhappy if I found you in bed with my wife. My uncles...well,
each to his own.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

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

Ed Huntress wrote:

Overall, Ron is a little less than half right. That's about the same
percentage as the anti-union set delivers here. It's also about par for
people pontificating about history and economics when they were bored
stiff
in history class and never read the books, and have spent maybe an hour
of
their lives studying economics.


Ed, I have never had an encounter with union, or their members where
I wasn't lied to, threatened or they attempted to steal something.

Really? Well, you need to associate with a better class of union members.


I had no choice who I ran into, but I would like to have run over the
one who threatened to cut my brake lines.


For example, I was a member of the Retail Clerks when I was in college and
worked in a supermarket. My wife is in the NJEA, a teacher's union.


A teacher's union almost cost me three contracts, and the work at
about 80 schools.


My
uncle, who was one of the best machinists you would ever see, was also in
NJEA. And another uncle was in the Ironworkers.


Good for them, but the 'deal' the IBEW offered me would have cost me
over $8000 the first year, if the owner didn't shut the place down and
walk away. He believed in paying good wages, providing decent health
insurance, including dental and eyecare. He wanted good employees who
were able to get the job done. Our staff was less than half the size,
per customer of our closest competitor, yet we were the highest rated in
our business in the region. You don't do that by treating people like
crap, or keeping deadwood union members, like our competitors. I was
making about 50% more that the union members, who did similar work.


We won't lie to you, Michael. We'd never threaten you, and we don't steal.

You can get in bed with the low life *******s, but I refuse to.

I'd be very unhappy if I found you in bed with my wife.


I have never touched another man's wife. No need to.


My uncles...well, each to his own.


Sorry, but they will have to find someone else. I've never been into
guys, no matter how good they look in a dress..


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.