On 9/17/2010 10:08 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 9/16/2010 10:03 PM, Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 13:11:33 -0700, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:40:10 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
On 9/16/2010 12:29 PM, Deep Dudu wrote:

Bush was like the oppposite of Robin Hood. He robbed from the poor
and gave to the rich.

So greed isn't bad, but government is bad.

Exactly! And Obama is robbing the working stiffs, and giving to the
union parasites.

How did you come by that twisted logic?

Thanks,
Rich


I guess he's too dumb to know that union workers are the working stiffs.
Obama is trying to give them more not take anything away from them.
That's the republicans job.

The union workers I've known weren't working stiffs, most of them worked
hardest at stiffing management. The few of us with self respect that
made us earn our pay got in trouble for "making the rest of us look bad".

Typical conversation:

Union stiff: "Why do you want to do more than you have to?"

Me: "Why would I do less than I can?"

David

On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 05:44:51 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

On 9/17/2010 10:08 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 9/16/2010 10:03 PM, Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 13:11:33 -0700, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:40:10 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
On 9/16/2010 12:29 PM, Deep Dudu wrote:

Bush was like the oppposite of Robin Hood. He robbed from the poor
and gave to the rich.

So greed isn't bad, but government is bad.

Exactly! And Obama is robbing the working stiffs, and giving to the
union parasites.

How did you come by that twisted logic?

Thanks,
Rich


I guess he's too dumb to know that union workers are the working stiffs.
Obama is trying to give them more not take anything away from them.
That's the republicans job.

The union workers I've known weren't working stiffs, most of them worked
hardest at stiffing management. The few of us with self respect that
made us earn our pay got in trouble for "making the rest of us look bad".

Typical conversation:

Union stiff: "Why do you want to do more than you have to?"

Me: "Why would I do less than I can?"

David


There actually was a long drawn out legal case in which the Union
clamed that they had the right to limit an individual's production
when the individual was being paid on a piece work basis. It was a
Pratt&Whitney plant in either Connecticut or Massachusetts and IIRC
ended up in the Supreme Court years later.

Again IIRC, the lower courts ruled in favor of the Union and the
superior court ruled in favor of the individual. The final ruling was
that no one has the right to limit an individuals production when pay
is on a piece work basis.

Cheers,

John D. Slocomb
(jdslocombatgmail)

On 9/18/2010 3:44 AM, David R. Birch wrote:
On 9/17/2010 10:08 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 9/16/2010 10:03 PM, Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 13:11:33 -0700, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:40:10 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
On 9/16/2010 12:29 PM, Deep Dudu wrote:

Bush was like the oppposite of Robin Hood. He robbed from the poor
and gave to the rich.

So greed isn't bad, but government is bad.

Exactly! And Obama is robbing the working stiffs, and giving to the
union parasites.

How did you come by that twisted logic?

Thanks,
Rich


I guess he's too dumb to know that union workers are the working stiffs.
Obama is trying to give them more not take anything away from them.
That's the republicans job.

The union workers I've known weren't working stiffs, most of them worked
hardest at stiffing management. The few of us with self respect that
made us earn our pay got in trouble for "making the rest of us look bad".

Typical conversation:

Union stiff: "Why do you want to do more than you have to?"

Me: "Why would I do less than I can?"

Because you don't understand what a contract is? If you enter into a
contract with a business to deliver two tons of crushed gravel to them
for 1,000 bucks why wouldn't you deliver an extra ton if you could for
the same amount of work? Answer: because that is what your contract
specified. That is what the union does. It has a contract to do so much
labor for so many dollars under such and such conditions. All you do is
what you contracted to do. But maybe you can tell us how often your
employer just pays you more for your work than what he is contractually
obligated to do because he can.

You also don't understand that the only reason any job you have pays you
a fair wage and has a safe working environment is because unions forced
business to do it. Without unions you would be working under horrible
19th century conditions. Which is what you really deserve.

Hawke

On Sep 18, 1:43*pm, Hawke wrote:

Because you don't understand what a contract is? If you enter into a
contract with a business to deliver two tons of crushed gravel to them
for 1,000 bucks why wouldn't you deliver an extra ton if you could for
the same amount of work? Answer: because that is what your contract
specified. That is what the union does. It has a contract to do so much
labor for so many dollars under such and such conditions. All you do is
what you contracted to do. But maybe you can tell us how often your
employer just pays you more for your work than what he is contractually
obligated to do because he can.

You also don't understand that the only reason any job you have pays you
a fair wage and has a safe working environment is because unions forced
business to do it. Without unions you would be working under horrible
19th century conditions. Which is what you really deserve.

Hawke

I do not believe any of the above. Nucor pays employees based on how
much production is achieved. They do not have a union, and the
employees run union organizers off because they do not think that a
union would benefit them. The only effect of a union would be to
decrease their take home pay.

Dan

On 9/18/2010 12:43 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 9/18/2010 3:44 AM, David R. Birch wrote:
On 9/17/2010 10:08 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 9/16/2010 10:03 PM, Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 13:11:33 -0700, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:40:10 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
On 9/16/2010 12:29 PM, Deep Dudu wrote:

Bush was like the oppposite of Robin Hood. He robbed from the poor
and gave to the rich.

So greed isn't bad, but government is bad.

Exactly! And Obama is robbing the working stiffs, and giving to the
union parasites.

How did you come by that twisted logic?

Thanks,
Rich


I guess he's too dumb to know that union workers are the working stiffs.
Obama is trying to give them more not take anything away from them.
That's the republicans job.

The union workers I've known weren't working stiffs, most of them worked
hardest at stiffing management. The few of us with self respect that
made us earn our pay got in trouble for "making the rest of us look bad".

Typical conversation:

Union stiff: "Why do you want to do more than you have to?"

Me: "Why would I do less than I can?"

Because you don't understand what a contract is? If you enter into a
contract with a business to deliver two tons of crushed gravel to them
for 1,000 bucks why wouldn't you deliver an extra ton if you could for
the same amount of work? Answer: because that is what your contract
specified. That is what the union does. It has a contract to do so much
labor for so many dollars under such and such conditions. All you do is
what you contracted to do. But maybe you can tell us how often your
employer just pays you more for your work than what he is contractually
obligated to do because he can.

The contract said I was to be paid a certain amount for my time. Self
respect led me to to do as much as I could for the company during that
time. In my dept, there were 5 people in my position, I was one of the 2
that worked. The other 3 did as little as they could and not much was
expected of them. Other than paying their union dues, of course.

You also don't understand that the only reason any job you have pays you
a fair wage and has a safe working environment is because unions forced
business to do it. Without unions you would be working under horrible
19th century conditions. Which is what you really deserve.

Every time someone points out the depravity of unions as they are now
exist, some apologist harps back to when unions served a function. Time
for you to fast forward 150 years to the present. Maintaining animosity
between workers and management benefits no one but corrupt union officials.

David

On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 05:44:51 -0500, David R. Birch wrote:

The union workers I've known weren't working stiffs, most of them worked
hardest at stiffing management. The few of us with self respect that
made us earn our pay got in trouble for "making the rest of us look bad".

Typical conversation:

Union stiff: "Why do you want to do more than you have to?"

Me: "Why would I do less than I can?"

Actual real-life experience:

Once, while I was looking for work, I heard that the Anaheim convention
center was hiring temps for a day to tear down a trade show. My job was
to drag pallettes and cardboard to the outdoor staging area, where
somebody else loaded them on trucks. I kinda teamed up with another guy,
because schlepping those things was kind of a two-man job. Well, we'd
pick up the schtuff from a booth, cart it out, and head back in with
our cart.

On one trip, some supervisor-looking guy said, "Hey, there's no hurry -
go get a coke, have a cigarette, whatever, you don't have to bust your
butt" or words very much to that effect, essentially translating to:
"Don't work so hard - you're making everybody else look bad."

And we thought we were _slacking_ at the time!

Didn't accomplish much the rest of the shift, but I still got paid!

So yes, unions are good for the unionists, but bad for the people who
get stuck writing the astronomical checks!

Hope This Helps!
Rich

On 9/18/2010 1:06 PM, wrote:
On Sep 18, 1:43 pm, wrote:

Because you don't understand what a contract is? If you enter into a
contract with a business to deliver two tons of crushed gravel to them
for 1,000 bucks why wouldn't you deliver an extra ton if you could for
the same amount of work? Answer: because that is what your contract
specified. That is what the union does. It has a contract to do so much
labor for so many dollars under such and such conditions. All you do is
what you contracted to do. But maybe you can tell us how often your
employer just pays you more for your work than what he is contractually
obligated to do because he can.

You also don't understand that the only reason any job you have pays you
a fair wage and has a safe working environment is because unions forced
business to do it. Without unions you would be working under horrible
19th century conditions. Which is what you really deserve.

Hawke

I do not believe any of the above. Nucor pays employees based on how
much production is achieved. They do not have a union, and the
employees run union organizers off because they do not think that a
union would benefit them. The only effect of a union would be to
decrease their take home pay.

Dan


Nobody that worked for a fair and honest boss ever needed a union. I
personally know that Nucor is a very well run company and is fair to
it's workers. Unfortunately, I know that overall, business is nothing
like Nucor. Most businesses are more like WalMart and don't pay well or
give decent benefits while the owners take home billions. It's for
businesses like that unions are a necessity. And Walmart is not a
horrible example. Many companies would treat their workers like dirt if
they could get away with it. All you have to look at is how companies
treat illegal alien workers. They treat them poorly so they can make
more for themselves. Unions are what made the middle class. You have to
have them to keep management from exploiting the working class. That has
not changed in hundreds of years. They aren't perfect but the world
would be a lot worse off without them.

Hawke

Typical conversation:

Union stiff: "Why do you want to do more than you have to?"

Me: "Why would I do less than I can?"

Because you don't understand what a contract is? If you enter into a
contract with a business to deliver two tons of crushed gravel to them
for 1,000 bucks why wouldn't you deliver an extra ton if you could for
the same amount of work? Answer: because that is what your contract
specified. That is what the union does. It has a contract to do so much
labor for so many dollars under such and such conditions. All you do is
what you contracted to do. But maybe you can tell us how often your
employer just pays you more for your work than what he is contractually
obligated to do because he can.

The contract said I was to be paid a certain amount for my time. Self
respect led me to to do as much as I could for the company during that
time. In my dept, there were 5 people in my position, I was one of the 2
that worked. The other 3 did as little as they could and not much was
expected of them. Other than paying their union dues, of course.

I've hardly ever worked anyplace that had a union. But it didn't matter
where I worked it was just like you described. If there were five
workers you were lucky if two of them did the job the way they should
have. But that's just people, not unions. People are lazy and want
everything for nothing. They were that way before unions were invented
and will be that way for as far as the eye can see. Unions don't make
people act like that. The do that on their own.



You also don't understand that the only reason any job you have pays you
a fair wage and has a safe working environment is because unions forced
business to do it. Without unions you would be working under horrible
19th century conditions. Which is what you really deserve.

Every time someone points out the depravity of unions as they are now
exist, some apologist harps back to when unions served a function. Time
for you to fast forward 150 years to the present. Maintaining animosity
between workers and management benefits no one but corrupt union officials.


Get rid of the unions and in no time you'll see businesses slip right
back into doing things like they did in the bad old days. There is
always a tension between management and workers. It's rare for workers
to exploit and take advantage of the management of a company but it's
very common for management to take advantage of the workers. If there is
no one watching the managers they will go back to their old ways. All of
them? No, but probably most. It's just the way business works. When you
want to maximize your profits one of the first ways is to squeeze the
workers. So I say don't forget what human nature is like. You put people
in charge of others and it's likely that they will use that power to
their advantage. That's why you still need unions. When men stop doing
that I'll agree with you that unions aren't necessary anymore. We aren't
there yet.

Hawke

On Sep 19, 2:21*am, Hawke wrote:

I've hardly ever worked anyplace that had a union. But it didn't matter
where I worked it was just like you described. If there were five
workers you were lucky if two of them did the job the way they should
have. But that's just people, not unions. People are lazy and want
everything for nothing. They were that way before unions were invented
and will be that way for as far as the eye can see. Unions don't make
people act like that. The do that on their own.

.. So I say don't forget what human nature is like. You put people
in charge of others and it's likely that they will use that power to
their advantage. That's why you still need unions. When men stop doing
that I'll agree with you that unions aren't necessary anymore. We aren't
there yet.

Hawke

Well I feel sorry for you. I never worked where the workers were lazy
and had no pride. It must really suck to work at a place like that.

Dan

On 9/19/2010 1:21 AM, Hawke wrote:

The contract said I was to be paid a certain amount for my time.
Self respect led me to to do as much as I could for the company
during that time. In my dept, there were 5 people in my position, I
was one of the 2 that worked. The other 3 did as little as they
could and not much was expected of them. Other than paying their
union dues, of course.

I've hardly ever worked anyplace that had a union. But it didn't
matter where I worked it was just like you described. If there were
five workers you were lucky if two of them did the job the way they
should have. But that's just people, not unions. People are lazy and
want everything for nothing. They were that way before unions were
invented and will be that way for as far as the eye can see. Unions
don't make people act like that. The do that on their own.

Yes, and in non union companies where I've worked, they get fired fast.
Not an option if there's a union.




You also don't understand that the only reason any job you have
pays you a fair wage and has a safe working environment is
because unions forced business to do it. Without unions you would
be working under horrible 19th century conditions. Which is what
you really deserve.

Every time someone points out the depravity of unions as they are
now exist, some apologist harps back to when unions served a
function. Time for you to fast forward 150 years to the present.
Maintaining animosity between workers and management benefits no
one but corrupt union officials.


Get rid of the unions and in no time you'll see businesses slip right
back into doing things like they did in the bad old days. There is
always a tension between management and workers.

Not at several of the shops I've worked at, where the boss is often
found on the forklift if stuff needs to be moved. Try that in a union shop.

It's rare for workers to exploit and take advantage of the management
of a company but it's very common for management to take advantage of
the workers.

Yes, unions reverse that. Nobody wins.

If there is no one watching the managers they will go back to their
old ways. All of them? No, but probably most.

Probably some, maybe I've been lucky and worked for better managers then
you have. Or you expect managers to do what you would do.

It's just the way business works. When you want to maximize your
profits one of the first ways is to squeeze the workers. So I say
don't forget what human nature is like. You put people in charge of
others and it's likely that they will use that power to their
advantage. That's why you still need unions. When men stop doing that
I'll agree with you that unions aren't necessary anymore. We aren't
there yet.

You seem to be seeing things as you would do them, I've seen it done
differently and better.

David

On 9/19/2010 4:17 AM, wrote:
On Sep 19, 2:21 am, wrote:

I've hardly ever worked anyplace that had a union. But it didn't matter
where I worked it was just like you described. If there were five
workers you were lucky if two of them did the job the way they should
have. But that's just people, not unions. People are lazy and want
everything for nothing. They were that way before unions were invented
and will be that way for as far as the eye can see. Unions don't make
people act like that. The do that on their own.

. So I say don't forget what human nature is like. You put people
in charge of others and it's likely that they will use that power to
their advantage. That's why you still need unions. When men stop doing
that I'll agree with you that unions aren't necessary anymore. We aren't
there yet.

Hawke

Well I feel sorry for you. I never worked where the workers were lazy
and had no pride. It must really suck to work at a place like that.

Dan


I used to belong to a boxing club at one time. You know what? All the
guys in the club were not tough guys. Boxers! They didn't all put
everything into their fights either. That's the way people are. It
doesn't matter what the endeavor is, only some do their best. Another
example, military research done after the battle of Iwo Jima showed that
out of all the Marine riflemen in combat only around 10% were actually
firing their rifles. During the Civil War when they collected the rifles
from the battlefield they found that not only had many not been fired at
all but many of them had been reloaded over and over but still not
fired. So you just have to accept that people are people. If you've had
the good luck to only work at places where everyone did their best all
the time then you are someone with a unique work experience. It's all
about regression to the mean. Most people are average. Those who aren't
stand out. Whether it's working hard or anything else.

Hawke

On Sep 20, 2:14*am, Hawke wrote:


Well I feel sorry for you. *I never worked where the workers were lazy
and had no pride. *It must really suck to work at a place like that.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan

That's the way people are. It
doesn't matter what the endeavor is, only some do their best.

So you just have to accept that people are people. If you've had
the good luck to only work at places where everyone did their best all
the time then you are someone with a unique work experience. It's all
about regression to the mean. Most people are average. Those who aren't
stand out. Whether it's working hard or anything else.

Hawke

I did not say they did their best all the time. But they did their
best at times and close to their best almost all the time. They did
have pride in doing a good job and were not lazy.

Dan