Lew Hodgett wrote:


"Dave In Houston" wrote:

ME likewise. But I'm overrun with a similar ****load. It's a first
cousin to your ****load. And my ****load has a life of it's own; it
grows and breeds other ****loads.
"One day I'll use that for something," Dave said as he contemplated
the
piece of scrap, "and it'll save me a trip to the lumber store." Then he
tossed it onto the ****load bin which long ago had overflowed its box and
was slowly spreading across the floor in the rear of the shop.

Worked for a company that had a company policy as follows:

Every year in December, you had to go thru your files and throw anything
away more than 2 years old.

It was a policy developed by the lawyers.

"If you don't have it, they can't use it against you was the logic.

Great dicipline.


Yeah, great until you get a phone call asking for why 0.125 steel was
chosen for such and such a part and whether it would be possible, based
upon previous trade studies whether substituting 0.130 aluminum would work
in order to meet weight specifications. But, you, as the designer were
forced to throw out those files 6 months ago. End result -- the trade
studies get to be redone.

Lew

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

And as we all know, greedy CEO's have never, ever put a company out of
business after stripping off its assets.

It's only the unionised workers who drive companies out of business.

John E.

"Twayne" wrote in message
news:kdT8j.330$JW4.165@trnddc05...
Ron wrote:
As the late Senator Paul Wellstone liked to say, "We
may
be entitled to our own opinions, but we're not
entitled
to our own facts." Even with organized labor's many
problems (shrinking membership, internal dissension,
gutless Democrats, growing irrelevancy, etc.),
there's no
disputing the facts.
Fact: Across the board, union jobs pay more (10-15%
more), offer better health and medical benefits, and
provide workers greater on-the- job security and
influence than non-union jobs. Fact: Union facilities
are
demonstrably safer than non-union facilities;
statistically, the numbers aren't even close. Fact:
If
unions didn't represent a threat to management's
greed
and unchecked authority, they wouldn't be so
vehemently
opposed by businesses and business lobbies.
All of which raises the question: Given the
post-Reagan
assault on the earning power and dignity of
blue-collar
jobs, why aren't more people signing union cards? Why
haven't the marginal and disenfranchised in the
workforce
wised up? Union membership used to hover at close to
35%;
today it's barely 12%. Worse, if only private
industry
were counted, it's less than 7%. Better money, richer
benefits, safer environment, more control . . .
what's
not to like?

Millwright Ron
www.unionmillwright.com

But you're only looking at one side of the picture.
BTDT in a union that put the company out of business
and into bankruptcy. Oh, the workers were real happy
until ... IBEW BTW.

On Dec 13, 6:47�pm, Doug Winterburn wrote:
RayV wrote:

The ultra-liberal union leadership that tries to force their views of
'what should be' on the membership. �Yeah, yeah the democrats are the
party of the working man and the republicans are the party of Warren
Buffet. �

Er, didn't you watch the news the last few days? �Warren Buffet is
supporting Hillary for Pres. �He is and always has been a Democrat..

What he said in the whole paragraph was:
"The ultra-liberal union leadership that tries to force their views
of
'what should be' on the membership. Yeah, yeah the democrats are the
party of the working man and the republicans are the party of Warren
Buffet. If the republicans are so rich why do the democrats always
say that they're stupid and live in trailer parks watching Nascar?"

I believe it was sarcasm. If you re-read it, it is obvious that he
knows that Buffett is a Democrat, and was making the point that, just
like the Republicans are not the party of Warren Buffett (thus the
comment about them being stereotyped as NASCAR-watching trailer park
dwellers), the Democrats are not the party of the working man. In
other words, the Democrats, who claim to be the party of the working
man, are actually the party of the likes of Warren Buffett to a
greater degree than the Republicans.

That being said, the problem I have with unions (I am a union
member)is that the unions support candidates for office using union
funds. You can stipulate that your dues are not to be used for
political campaigns, but once the money leaves your hands, what
actually happens to it is anyone's guess. Just as some union members
can't understand why a union member would be Republican, other union
memebrs wonder how a union member can be a Democrat.

Because a person's union membership is not the only important aspect
of his life, and often not the most important apsect of his life, he
may have other issues which would make him wish to avoid supporting a
candidate. Personal opinions regarding a candidate's stance on
abortion, for example, might preclude one from supporting a
candidate. While one may say this is a single issue, other's may say
a candidate's stance on unions is their single issue.

A union's endorsement of a candidate seems to imply tacit approval of
its members, which is the purpose. That in and of itself causes
dissension. The fact that the union spent money that was not
specifically donated for the purpose of supporting a candidate makes
the issue worse. You have to opt-out, not opt-in to have your money
spent to endorse a candidate, and with the aggressive attitudes of
some union members, opting out can be further cause for dissent.

It can be said that the union supports the candidates that work in the
best interest of the unions, but there is typically far from a
unanimous opinion on who that candidate is. The simple act of
endorsing a candidate, usually without a vote of the membership,
causes the kind of dissent which ruins a union. This seems, to me, to
be among the main downfalls of unions. Frankly, some candidates know
that no matter what they do, they will receive the endorsement of
unions. In many cases they don't act in the union's best interest,
and often don't keep their promises to the unions. Sometimes,
unfortunately, they keep only the back room promises they made with
union leaders.

You can disagree with whether people should be upset by a union's
politcal endorsements, but the fact is they are, and have been for a
long time. Unt6il unions either stop endorsing candidates, or at
least change the way they do it, they are going to continue to
aggravate a significant portion of their membership.

"Mark & Juanita" wrote:

Yeah, great until you get a phone call asking for why 0.125 steel was
chosen for such and such a part and whether it would be possible, based
upon previous trade studies whether substituting 0.130 aluminum would work
in order to meet weight specifications. But, you, as the designer were
forced to throw out those files 6 months ago. End result -- the trade
studies get to be redone.

Engineering studies are cheaper than lawsuits; however, engineering
documents were exempt.

Last time I check, engineers don't bill out at $500/hr + expensesG.

Only commercial documents were involved.

Lew

On Dec 15, 7:31 pm, celticsoc wrote:
snip

That being said, the problem I have with unions (I am a union
member)is that the unions support candidates for office using union
funds. You can stipulate that your dues are not to be used for
political campaigns, but once the money leaves your hands, what
actually happens to it is anyone's guess.

You can look at what happens with some of the $$ here
Officers of unions
https://cslxwep1.dol-esa.gov/Disclos...?ReportId=LM30

The LM 2 forms have the general financial info and salaries paid to
officers
http://erds.dol-esa.gov/query/getOrgQry.do

Lots more to be found on the site if you dig a little...

John E. wrote:

And as we all know, greedy CEO's have never, ever put a company out of
business after stripping off its assets.

It's only the unionised workers who drive companies out of business.


Don't recall anyone having said any such thing. CEO's however, typically
have a vested interest in seeing a business do well in the long run. In
addition, that falls under the "fiduciary duties" part of their job
descriptions. Should they quote, unquote strip a business of its assets
for their own aggrandizement, they can, and have been prosecuted for
violating their fiduciary duties. On the other hand, if you are a union
leader, not so much.

Now, if you are trying to say that CEO's screwing up is equivalent to your
accusation, that is a different discussion. Sometimes things happen, CEO's
are not omniscient.

John E.

"Twayne" wrote in message
news:kdT8j.330$JW4.165@trnddc05...
Ron wrote:
As the late Senator Paul Wellstone liked to say, "We
may
be entitled to our own opinions, but we're not
entitled
to our own facts." Even with organized labor's many
problems (shrinking membership, internal dissension,
gutless Democrats, growing irrelevancy, etc.),
there's no
disputing the facts.
Fact: Across the board, union jobs pay more (10-15%
more), offer better health and medical benefits, and
provide workers greater on-the- job security and
influence than non-union jobs. Fact: Union facilities
are
demonstrably safer than non-union facilities;
statistically, the numbers aren't even close. Fact:
If
unions didn't represent a threat to management's
greed
and unchecked authority, they wouldn't be so
vehemently
opposed by businesses and business lobbies.
All of which raises the question: Given the
post-Reagan
assault on the earning power and dignity of
blue-collar
jobs, why aren't more people signing union cards? Why
haven't the marginal and disenfranchised in the
workforce
wised up? Union membership used to hover at close to
35%;
today it's barely 12%. Worse, if only private
industry
were counted, it's less than 7%. Better money, richer
benefits, safer environment, more control . . .
what's
not to like?

Millwright Ron
www.unionmillwright.com

But you're only looking at one side of the picture.
BTDT in a union that put the company out of business
and into bankruptcy. Oh, the workers were real happy
until ... IBEW BTW.



--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Lew Hodgett wrote:


"Mark & Juanita" wrote:

Yeah, great until you get a phone call asking for why 0.125 steel was
chosen for such and such a part and whether it would be possible, based
upon previous trade studies whether substituting 0.130 aluminum would
work
in order to meet weight specifications. But, you, as the designer were
forced to throw out those files 6 months ago. End result -- the trade
studies get to be redone.

Engineering studies are cheaper than lawsuits; however, engineering
documents were exempt.

Last time I check, engineers don't bill out at $500/hr + expensesG.

Only commercial documents were involved.


Ah, that's a bit different then.

Lew

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

LRod wrote in
:

There were serious issues that directly related to our well being that
were not being addressed. You probably think it was about money, don't
you? If you'd been there, you'd know diifferent.


I was there. Leesburg, Nashua. It was about more controllers, fewer hours
and more money. Most controllers I spoke with, before they went out, wanted
more money and fewer hours. Controllers made a pretty decent living. I was
with IBM at the time and made a bit (quite) less. Most of them (the ATCs
that I dealt with or knew) thought they had the Country by the balls
because they could totally shut down all air traffic in the USA. Even
though they felt that way, they really didn't want to strike. The few that
mentioned or spoke to me about striking being illegal, didn't think it was
anything inportant because teachers, garbage collectors etc. had been
getting away with it for years. Again, this is my experience with the ATC's
I worked or dealt with on a daily basis. That strike was about money. Cloak
it in all the nice words you want.
Sat at the Holiday Inn bar in Nashua NH after President Reagan fired the
ATC's listening to them saying "he can't be serious", "a big bluff", etc.
I guess they ****ed him off. I don't know which side was right. Some of the
people I know went back and others didn't have the option.
I KNOW ONE TRUTH. When you think you have become indispensible, you are in
the most danger of becoming dispensible.
Hank

"Dave In Houston" wrote in news:u42dndL_a-
:


"RicodJour" wrote in message
...
And to cheer up Charlie Self, I'll draw a woodworking analogy. Do you
cut corners on the interior of your cabinet because nobody will see
it, or do you do the best work you feel you can do whether anyone sees
it or not?

I resemble that remark!
Is it OK to use a lesser expensive piece of material since nobody is
going to see it?

Yes it is; as long as it is priced into the product accordingly.

celticsoc wrote in news:7d571230-4494-4deb-9a9f-
:

On Dec 13, 6:47�pm, Doug Winterburn wrote:
RayV wrote:

The ultra-liberal union leadership that tries to force their views
of
'what should be' on the membership. �Yeah, yeah the democrats ar
e the
party of the working man and the republicans are the party of Warren
Buffet. �

Er, didn't you watch the news the last few days? �Warren Buffet is

supporting Hillary for Pres. �He is and always has been a Democrat
.

What he said in the whole paragraph was:
"The ultra-liberal union leadership that tries to force their views
of
'what should be' on the membership. Yeah, yeah the democrats are the
party of the working man and the republicans are the party of Warren
Buffet. If the republicans are so rich why do the democrats always
say that they're stupid and live in trailer parks watching Nascar?"

I believe it was sarcasm. If you re-read it, it is obvious that he
knows that Buffett is a Democrat, and was making the point that, just
like the Republicans are not the party of Warren Buffett (thus the
comment about them being stereotyped as NASCAR-watching trailer park
dwellers), the Democrats are not the party of the working man. In
other words, the Democrats, who claim to be the party of the working
man, are actually the party of the likes of Warren Buffett to a
greater degree than the Republicans.

That being said, the problem I have with unions (I am a union
member)is that the unions support candidates for office using union
funds. You can stipulate that your dues are not to be used for
political campaigns, but once the money leaves your hands, what
actually happens to it is anyone's guess. Just as some union members
can't understand why a union member would be Republican, other union
memebrs wonder how a union member can be a Democrat.

Because a person's union membership is not the only important aspect
of his life, and often not the most important apsect of his life, he
may have other issues which would make him wish to avoid supporting a
candidate. Personal opinions regarding a candidate's stance on
abortion, for example, might preclude one from supporting a
candidate. While one may say this is a single issue, other's may say
a candidate's stance on unions is their single issue.

A union's endorsement of a candidate seems to imply tacit approval of
its members, which is the purpose. That in and of itself causes
dissension. The fact that the union spent money that was not
specifically donated for the purpose of supporting a candidate makes
the issue worse. You have to opt-out, not opt-in to have your money
spent to endorse a candidate, and with the aggressive attitudes of
some union members, opting out can be further cause for dissent.

It can be said that the union supports the candidates that work in the
best interest of the unions, but there is typically far from a
unanimous opinion on who that candidate is. The simple act of
endorsing a candidate, usually without a vote of the membership,
causes the kind of dissent which ruins a union. This seems, to me, to
be among the main downfalls of unions. Frankly, some candidates know
that no matter what they do, they will receive the endorsement of
unions. In many cases they don't act in the union's best interest,
and often don't keep their promises to the unions. Sometimes,
unfortunately, they keep only the back room promises they made with
union leaders.

You can disagree with whether people should be upset by a union's
politcal endorsements, but the fact is they are, and have been for a
long time. Unt6il unions either stop endorsing candidates, or at
least change the way they do it, they are going to continue to
aggravate a significant portion of their membership.


Probably the most intelligent entry in this thread. Before I 'joined'
IBM, I worked for United Aircraft in Conn. I was a shop steward (IAM) the
last two years I worked there (worked there three years). I wasn't
appointed, but elected. I ran unopposed. Everything in your post is
pretty much as I remember it.
Didn't really need a union at that time, but thirty years later hmmmmm.

Hank

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 05:36:01 -0000, Hank wrote:

LRod wrote in
:

There were serious issues that directly related to our well being that
were not being addressed. You probably think it was about money, don't
you? If you'd been there, you'd know diifferent.


I was there. Leesburg, Nashua. It was about more controllers, fewer hours
and more money. Most controllers I spoke with, before they went out, wanted
more money and fewer hours.

Well, you can't discount money as an issue no matter what the other
issues are, because most of them will boil down to more money.
However, I can tell you that the "$10K" that was so widely touted by
the FAA in their disinformation campaign as the chief negotiating
point was a "throw-away" that none of us who were politically aware
had a realistic expectation of getting. More important to us was a 32
hour workweek (as several European countries with far les traffic than
even our second tier facilities enjoyed).

And you can dismiss it thinking money was truly the point, but we were
pretty tired of getting short shrift on staffing, equipment, and
support in general. When I left in 1997 there were still racks of
equipment in the basement being used with a label stating "property of
CAA." The CAA was replaced by the FAA(gency) the predecessor of the
FAA(dministration) by the Federal Aviation Act of 1958. They used
tubes.

The FAA is the only organization I know of in which minimum staffing
and maximum staffing is the same number. The long standing truth in
the FAA (I speak solely for the Air Traffic Division) was that if you
needed an ad hoc day off on short notice (namely once the schedule was
posted), there was no point in asking for annual leave (vacation
time), it was virtually never approved because the schedule was made
to minimum staffing numbers. Even supervisors would tell you to take
sick leave.

When you have a business that operates 24/7/365 it's difficult enough
to try to make family events such as school plays, soccer games, or
recitals with regular shift assignments, but when a last minute
request for your presence for a teacher meeting, or when your
son/daughter gets promoted to the varsity mid season and is starting
tomorrow's game, your stuck. Other businesses have room to accomodate
such exigencies, but not when you're constantly at minimum staffing.

Working traffic for 40 hours per week was not back breaking, but it
certainly took a toll on the vast majority of controllers. This is not
a profession you can work at until you're 60. I retired when I was 51
(after 30 years) and I'd just about had enough. There were no new
people in the pipeline, no relief in sight for the continued increase
in traffic, and the airlines had sandbagged the FAA into the so called
"free flight" protocol, which was in direct conflict with the sector
balancing our traffic management programs had tried so hard to
implement when I was a flow controller in the late '80s.

Factor in Reduced Vertical Separation Minima, effectively doubling the
number of airplanes in a sector above FL290 (29,000 feet), along with
the reduced staffing and it's no wonder people are bailing left and
right. They'd be leaving even if there wasn't a statutory retirement
after 25 years (I was exempt because of my hire date--pre-1973--I
could have legally continued as long as I wanted).

Controllers made a pretty decent living. I was
with IBM at the time and made a bit (quite) less.

We did okay. But in 1981 we were making (in Chicago, and I was a
senior guy) about $45K. The $10k we were asking? By 1983, after I was
reinstated, I was making that much more. Must not have been a problem
to come up with, huh?

Most of them (the ATCs that I dealt with or knew) thought they had the
Country by the balls because they could totally shut down all air traffic i
n the USA. Even though they felt that way, they really didn't want to strike.

Yes, we were a pretty cocky bunch. And don't think for a minute that
we didn't actually achieve that. The figures the FAA put out in the
months after August 3, were pure fiction. The airlines colluded in it
because they had their own ax to grind with the controllers. When I
came back to work in '83, I was shocked with who was in that buiilding
working airplanes. You do not want to know what dregs of "talent" they
used (much of it illegal) to hold the system together long enough to
get replacements in.

The few that mentioned or spoke to me about striking being illegal, didn't
think it was anything inportant because teachers, garbage collectors etc.
had been getting away with it for years. Again, this is my experience with
the ATC's I worked or dealt with on a daily basis.

Absolutely correct. The phrase we used was, "the only illegal strike
is the one that isn't successfull."

That strike was about money. Cloak it in all the nice words you want.

Only in the context I laid out above. I was as militant as anyone, and
as I said, the $10K was a throwaway from the start. It was a lot more
than money, cloak it in all the money words you want. I really was
there.

Sat at the Holiday Inn bar in Nashua NH after President Reagan fired the
ATC's listening to them saying "he can't be serious", "a big bluff", etc.

It was groundbreaking, that's for sure. We couldn't believe he'd
turned his back on us.

I guess they ****ed him off. I don't know which side was right. Some of the
people I know went back and others didn't have the option.

Although there were some true scabs who returned under the three day
(as I recall) warning period, after the dust had settled, there were
probably fewer than a couple hundred nationwide who ultimately won
their cases (we all appealed our firings). I was one of about 40 in
Chicago, and we had the largest number, I believe. I was one of them.

I KNOW ONE TRUTH. When you think you have become indispensible, you are in
the most danger of becoming dispensible.

It sure is easy to make that observation in hindsight and when you're
not in the middle of it. What's interesting is I am in touch with a
large number of fired controllers, and there are hardly any who don't
think they did the right thing. There are, however, very, very few (if
any) who would do it again, particularly if they had any idea how it
would turn out.

This is my last post on this subject. Unless there is another
controller here to talk about it, not one of you can possibly know the
true details of the experience and all that led to it and followed it.
For those who are bent on believing what they believe and which isn't
in concert with what I know and what I experienced, further rhetoric
will not illuminate. It's a pointless discussion.


--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net
http://www.normstools.com

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.

LRod wrote:
SNIP

Working traffic for 40 hours per week was not back breaking, but it
certainly took a toll on the vast majority of controllers. This is not
a profession you can work at until you're 60. I retired when I was 51
(after 30 years) and I'd just about had enough. There were no new
people in the pipeline, no relief in sight for the continued increase
in traffic, and the airlines had sandbagged the FAA into the so called
"free flight" protocol, which was in direct conflict with the sector
balancing our traffic management programs had tried so hard to
implement when I was a flow controller in the late '80s.


So, in summary, you objected to working 40 hours per week - something
almost all working people do (and more) - your job was "stressful" -
like a good many of the rest of us - you went back on your word
by striking in the face of the contractual obligation not to - and
it was Reagan's fault? I don't think so. BTW, a good many of
us worked in 7x24x365 environments, for well below what ATC folk were
making and didn't see this as some kind of oppressive system.

Are ATC folk in a position of great responsibility? Sure. So are
nurses, doctors, teachers, engineers, lawyers, executives, and
the local plumbers (try seeing how long you can survive w/o a
flushing toilet). The simple fact is that you folks made a promise,
broke it, and tried to blame the government that had given you
a monopoly in exchange for that promise because you didn't believe
the President would all your BS - you were wrong.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 15:05:03 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote:

Every year in December, you had to go thru your files and throw anything
away more than 2 years old.

It was a policy developed by the lawyers.

Lucky you!

The joint I work for has a huge document detailing 1, 5, and 7 year
retention schedules. We have to take yearly training on document
retention.

They've gone so far as to create 1, 5, and 7, year automatic email
"vaults" for electronic documentation.

"Twayne" wrote in message

But you're only looking at one side of the picture. BTDT in a union that
put the company out of business and into bankruptcy. Oh, the workers were
real happy until ... IBEW BTW.

Friend of mine owned a metal supply business. Fifteen employees, three of
which were truck drivers with Teamsters. Other employees were well paid and
generally satisfied, but the Teamsters organized them. After a lengthy
strike, they settled (for very little more that what they already had) and
of the 12 on strike, only five were called back. A few weeks later the
Union asked then he was calling back the rest of the workers. He never did
as the outage destroyed much of his customer base. A year later he closed
the doors.

Union wages have always paid the bills at our house.
Now, Union retirement.

I'm damn proud to be the wife of a Union man - Operating Engineers Local 3

Kate

"Ron" wrote in message
...
As the late Senator Paul Wellstone liked to say, "We may be entitled
to our own opinions, but we're not entitled to our own facts." Even
with organized labor's many problems (shrinking membership, internal
dissension, gutless Democrats, growing irrelevancy, etc.), there's no
disputing the facts.
Fact: Across the board, union jobs pay more (10-15% more), offer
better health and medical benefits, and provide workers greater on-the-
job security and influence than non-union jobs. Fact: Union facilities
are demonstrably safer than non-union facilities; statistically, the
numbers aren't even close. Fact: If unions didn't represent a threat
to management's greed and unchecked authority, they wouldn't be so
vehemently opposed by businesses and business lobbies.
All of which raises the question: Given the post-Reagan assault on the
earning power and dignity of blue-collar jobs, why aren't more people
signing union cards? Why haven't the marginal and disenfranchised in
the workforce wised up? Union membership used to hover at close to
35%; today it's barely 12%. Worse, if only private industry were
counted, it's less than 7%. Better money, richer benefits, safer
environment, more control . . . what's not to like?

Millwright Ron
www.unionmillwright.com

"Kate" wrote in message
. ..
Union wages have always paid the bills at our house.
Now, Union retirement.

I'm damn proud to be the wife of a Union man - Operating Engineers Local 3

Kate



So your husband worked for the Union or was he actually paid by a company
that he worked for.

On Dec 16, 10:34 am, "Kate" wrote:
Union wages have always paid the bills at our house.
Now, Union retirement.

I'm damn proud to be the wife of a Union man - Operating Engineers Local 3

Kate

It's all fine and dandy that you're proud of him, but if he wasn't a
union man, would you be any less proud? Generally speaking it's the
man that should make you proud, not what he does or who he does it
for.

R

I well remember the day when I went to management from labor. The
union took those dues out of my check every month and used it to boost
their own benefits. The "workers" got a minimum %, and the union dues
happened to go up every year.

"Leon" wrote in message
t...

"Kate" wrote in message
. ..
Union wages have always paid the bills at our house.
Now, Union retirement.

I'm damn proud to be the wife of a Union man - Operating Engineers Local 3

Kate



So your husband worked for the Union or was he actually paid by a company
that he worked for.
---
He was paid by the company he worked for.
If you're just trying to stir up a fuss, you're in the wrong kitchen.

As a union memeber he had/has better benefits and wages than non union
workers in the same field.

Kate

"RicodJour" wrote in message
...
On Dec 16, 10:34 am, "Kate" wrote:
Union wages have always paid the bills at our house.
Now, Union retirement.

I'm damn proud to be the wife of a Union man - Operating Engineers Local 3

Kate

It's all fine and dandy that you're proud of him, but if he wasn't a
union man, would you be any less proud? Generally speaking it's the
man that should make you proud, not what he does or who he does it
for.

R

Oh for crying out loud, what's with trying to pick the fly specks out of the
pepper?
Of course I'm proud of him no matter what.

He's a good man. Better than most.

Kate