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

On 2007-12-13 12:28:55 -0800, Ron said:

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

Amen brother....

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:28:55 -0800 (PST), Ron
wrote:

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?

As a member of the Class of '81 (Reagan's first victim) I couldn't
agree more, but the one big problem is that only one side of the
equation wants to play fair any more. Collective bargaining? No, it's,
"don't like it here, we'll hire someone else." There is no loyalty
left in corporate America any longer.

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?

The union haters will be dumping all over this thread in a heartbeat.
I've never understood how a working person wouldn't be in favor of a
union, just as I've never understood how a black person or gay person
could be a rethuglican. Doesn't make sense. It's like a chicken
belonging to the fox club.

I'm sure there'll be some old wreck acquaintances putting me on their
**** list, now. I don't believe I've ever publicly discussed where I
was in '81 before.


--
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:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:28:55 -0800 (PST), Ron
wrote:

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?

As a member of the Class of '81 (Reagan's first victim) I couldn't
agree more, but the one big problem is that only one side of the
equation wants to play fair any more. Collective bargaining? No,
it's,
"don't like it here, we'll hire someone else." There is no loyalty
left in corporate America any longer.

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?

The union haters will be dumping all over this thread in a
heartbeat.
I've never understood how a working person wouldn't be in favor of a
union,

The first time a union negotiates you a pay cut you'll understand.

just as I've never understood how a black person or gay person
could be a rethuglican.

If you dumbo-craps would restrain yourselves from using such
derogatory terms you would be much more credible. See how easy it is
to make fun of a name and how unproductive it is?

Doesn't make sense. It's like a chicken
belonging to the fox club.

I'm sure there'll be some old wreck acquaintances putting me on
their
**** list, now. I don't believe I've ever publicly discussed where I
was in '81 before.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

LRod wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:28:55 -0800 (PST), Ron
wrote:

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?

As a member of the Class of '81 (Reagan's first victim) I couldn't
agree more, but the one big problem is that only one side of the
equation wants to play fair any more. Collective bargaining? No, it's,
"don't like it here, we'll hire someone else." There is no loyalty
left in corporate America any longer.

Same here in the UK, Thatcher set about smashing the union's, using the
police (and secret services) as her shock troops. Now the police, who by
law may not strike, are upset that they're pay rise will be like
everyone elses, paid in stages, after years of huge rises and overtime
that started with Thatchers union bashing, THEY want the right to
strike! The UK Police Federation (their body which is NOT a Union) is
funded by their employer, the gov't, so how long before the rug gets
pulled from under them too...

I was in the power industry when Thatcher (Reagan's soulmate accross the
pond) came to power, one of the first things she did was start the
process to sell off the power industry, cue staffing freeze, loss by
natural wastage, early retirements and trainee's (like me, apprentices)
not taken on at the end of training, finally by redundancy.

I've been a union member ever since, most of the time it just costs with
little benefit as our anti-union laws and union busting advice, often
from the US, has reduced their positive effects, but every once in a
while it pays off. I'm now a union workplace rep. specialising in Health
and Safety, most of the time is spent reminding my employer of their
LEGAL duties, and fighting the chinese attitude to other peoples safety!

On Dec 13, 12:28 pm, Ron wrote:
snip benefits of unions
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?


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?

The way the unions 'eat their young' by bargaining contracts that
provide lesser pay and or benefits to those yet to be hired. All for
a few pieces of silver...

The way union leaders feel that new members should be beholden to them
for all they have done for the newbies. Not that the unions haven't
done a lot of good, but the new members weren't around in the old days
and don't even know about Norma Ray or Jimmy Hoffa other than he is
buried under Giants stadium.

Because union leaders want to sit on their backsides instead of do
something like Andy Stern has done.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Stern

I'm a union member and only know the good the union has done for me
because when I complained about something the local president put me
on the bargaining team and had me run for the executive board. Most
union leaders get indignant and tell their own members to 'shut up'.
Not a way to run a railroad...

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.

LRod wrote:

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:28:55 -0800 (PST), Ron
wrote:

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?

As a member of the Class of '81 (Reagan's first victim)

Are you referring to the Air Traffic Controllers? The ones that were
forbidden by federal law from going on strike? But did anyway? But somehow
it was Reagan who was the bad guy when he didn't cave to an illegal act but
fired those who were illegally striking?

I couldn't
agree more, but the one big problem is that only one side of the
equation wants to play fair any more. Collective bargaining? No, it's,
"don't like it here, we'll hire someone else." There is no loyalty
left in corporate America any longer.


Don't disagree with that sentiment either. However, the labor union
stance that pretty much says everybody gets paid the same based only upon
how long they have been around doesn't do much to help efficiency or the
ability to compete in a world market. It also doesn't encourage anybody to
work hard or excel either. Why should a union member ever try to do any
more than any of their co-workers? There is no opportunity for advancement
through that route.

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?


Getting a union grievance for picking up a scope probe to measure a
voltage on a down piece of equipment, for picking up a box of documents
that one has finished sorting through in order to make room for the next
box. Having to wait 1/2 a day for transportation to get around to moving a
computer from one cubicle to another in order to avoid having a grievance
filed. The only raise one gets is for having been at the same place for
another year, knowing that you are more capable than the guy working next
to you, but he makes the same because you are both working under the same
collective bargaining agreement. What's to like?


The union haters will be dumping all over this thread in a heartbeat.
I've never understood how a working person wouldn't be in favor of a
union, just as I've never understood how a black person or gay person
could be a rethuglican. Doesn't make sense. It's like a chicken
belonging to the fox club.


Yep, voting for the Dems for over 40 years as a solid block has really
done the black community a world of good hasn't it? What is the rate of
unwed mothers in the dependency-class enclaves created by Democrat
policies? How have their lives been improved? Yep, it's done them a
world of good.


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

"LRod" wrote in message
news

The union haters will be dumping all over this thread in a heartbeat.
I've never understood how a working person wouldn't be in favor of a
union, just as I've never understood how a black person or gay person
could be a rethuglican. Doesn't make sense. It's like a chicken
belonging to the fox club.

I don't hate the union because if forces the prices of products to not be
compeditive, or because $2500 on every GM vehicle goes toward an employee
and his family that no longer work for GM, or because when they strike it
disrupts the economy.
I was one that was able to keep a job on my own merrits with out a union to
stand behind.

"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

The union is an unnecessary institution who's time has come and gone as
witnessed by it demise. The Democrats have stepped in to fill the shoes.

"Ron" wrote in message
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

What's not to like? I can do my own negotiating; I don't need a union
officer making $150,000 a year get me a 5¢ raise and take my hard earned
money for dues.

I do thank the unions for what they did back in the 1930, 40, maybe into the
50's, but they became as greedy as anyone. I've been at the negotiating
table and watched the union leader settle for a pittance for the worker, but
a big increase for the "health and welfare benefits" for the union.

Check to see what the union bosses are making from your dues and get back to
us. Never have and never will join a union.

Subject

Like most things, labor unions behave like a pedulum.

During the 30's when labor unions were being formed, they had almost
no power, and neither did their members.

As far as the employers were concerned, it was their way or the
highway during those years.

The pendulum was definitely on the employer's side of the table.

After WWII, unions began to gain power until by the mid/late 70's,
unions had gained so much power that they had become a detriment to
the overall economy.
IOW, the pendulum had swung the other way to their side of the table.

Organized labor forgot who brought them to the dance.

Factory automation a change in the work force requirements as well as
the overall economy that labor unions failed to adjust to, has caused
a demise in their ranks.

The work place today reflects the weakness of the organized labor
movement.

The American labor movement is far from perfect, but it has/does make
a positive contribution.

The employers hire lobbists to represent them.

The lowly employee joins a umion who then hires a lobbist to represent
them.

Guess it depends on whose ox is being gored.

Disclaimer:

I have never belonged to a labor union, but do recognise they provide
a necessary function in our complex society.

Off the box.

Lew

Ron wrote:
SNIP

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?

Because most of us have sufficient skill, work ethic, integrity,
and ambition to not settle for the lowest common denominator that is
a union arrangement, that's why. I've seen the "quality" the union
contractors put into my home when it was new - it was pitiful.

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

On Dec 13, 7:47 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.

He just does that to make things look good. He knew about 9-11...
http://killtown.911review.org/buffett.html

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
. net...

What's not to like? I can do my own negotiating; I don't need a union
officer making $150,000 a year get me a 5¢ raise and take my hard earned
money for dues.

I do thank the unions for what they did back in the 1930, 40, maybe into
the 50's, but they became as greedy as anyone. I've been at the
negotiating table and watched the union leader settle for a pittance for
the worker, but a big increase for the "health and welfare benefits" for
the union.

Check to see what the union bosses are making from your dues and get back
to us. Never have and never will join a union.


Typically union leaders want to run "help" the company and not share the
investment or responsibility. They virtually have nothing to loose and yet
they are loosing.

On Dec 13, 9:12 pm, "Leon" wrote:

I don't hate the union because if forces the prices of products to not be
compeditive, or because $2500 on every GM vehicle goes toward an employee
and his family that no longer work for GM, or because when they strike it
disrupts the economy.
I was one that was able to keep a job on my own merrits with out a union to
stand behind.

Bring back the guilds!
Meritocracy
Trade secrets that are really secret
Indentured apprentices - well, at least apprentices that you can smack
around (you know it's for their own good)
A much better word than 'union'.

R

On Dec 14, 9:09 am, RicodJour wrote:
On Dec 13, 9:12 pm, "Leon" wrote:



I don't hate the union because if forces the prices of products to not be
compeditive, or because $2500 on every GM vehicle goes toward an employee
and his family that no longer work for GM, or because when they strike it
disrupts the economy.
I was one that was able to keep a job on my own merrits with out a union to
stand behind.

Bring back the guilds!
Meritocracy
Trade secrets that are really secret
Indentured apprentices - well, at least apprentices that you can smack
around (you know it's for their own good)
A much better word than 'union'.

R

Yes. Marvelous. WTF does ANY of this have to do with hobby woodworking?

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...

Yes. Marvelous. WTF does ANY of this have to do with hobby woodworking?

It's a long shot but perhaps expensive union labor may be part of the reason
that wood working tools are mostly made in foreign countries now.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:


"Ron" wrote in message
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

What's not to like? I can do my own negotiating; I don't need a union
officer making $150,000 a year get me a 5¢ raise and take my hard earned
money for dues.

.... snip
us. Never have and never will join a union.

After retiring from the store Dad owned, Mom and Dad started driving buses
for the airport. They did this for several years until the drivers voted
to unionize. They both quit after that. Dad's comment, "I've gone 75
years without needing a union, I don't need one now."


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

RayV wrote:

On Dec 13, 7:47 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.

He just does that to make things look good. He knew about 9-11...
http://killtown.911review.org/buffett.html


Oh gads, not a troofer. I sure hope you don't use powered woodworking
machinery, you are likely to hurt yourself.


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

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 18:21:12 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

LRod wrote:

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:28:55 -0800 (PST), Ron
wrote:

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?

As a member of the Class of '81 (Reagan's first victim)

Are you referring to the Air Traffic Controllers? The ones that were
forbidden by federal law from going on strike? But did anyway? But somehow
it was Reagan who was the bad guy when he didn't cave to an illegal act but
fired those who were illegally striking?

Just the response I expected.

Everything's negotiable. See USPS Strike 1970. Just as "illegal" but
amicably resolved by good faith negotiations. Reagan promised support
for the controllers in exchange for the union's endorsement. We did,
he didn't. Yeah, I blame him. He was the one instructing Drew Lewis
and company to "not give an inch."

But you weren't there, so you don't know.

--
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.

Leon wrote:
"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...

Yes. Marvelous. WTF does ANY of this have to do with hobby
woodworking?

It's a long shot but perhaps expensive union labor may be part of the
reason that wood working tools are mostly made in foreign countries
now.

Probably not.....Pretty hard to compete against $1.00 (or less) an hour
labor with or without union wages. Rod

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:58:16 +0000, LRod
wrote:

Everything's negotiable. See USPS Strike 1970. Just as "illegal" but
amicably resolved by good faith negotiations.

There have also been "illegal" strikes by teachers, transit workers,
firefighters, etc...

The 2005 NYC Transit Strike was probably the most recent example.

The whole lot was not fired for striking.

"Rod & Betty Jo" wrote in message
...
Leon wrote:
"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...

Yes. Marvelous. WTF does ANY of this have to do with hobby
woodworking?

It's a long shot but perhaps expensive union labor may be part of the
reason that wood working tools are mostly made in foreign countries
now.

Probably not.....Pretty hard to compete against $1.00 (or less) an hour
labor with or without union wages. Rod


I bet the first to compete, Makita, Ryobi, etc were paying much more than
$1 per hour. Tiawan was much later.

On Dec 14, 9:00 am, Mark & Juanita wrote:
RayV wrote:

He just does that to make things look good. He knew about 9-11...
http://killtown.911review.org/buffett.html

Oh gads, not a troofer. I sure hope you don't use powered woodworking
machinery, you are likely to hurt yourself.


I only run the power tools at night so the EMFs don't combine with the
rays they are beaming into my head from the HAARP.
http://www.freedomfiles.org/technology/haarp.htm

The tinfoil hats only amplify the governments power...

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
Leon wrote:
"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
Yes. Marvelous. WTF does ANY of this have to do with hobby
woodworking?
It's a long shot but perhaps expensive union labor may be part of the
reason that wood working tools are mostly made in foreign countries
now.

Probably not.....Pretty hard to compete against $1.00 (or less) an hour
labor with or without union wages. Rod



I'm just curious what you think labor is "worth". True Capitalists
believe labor is another good like any other and is worth what
the market will bear. Marxists think labor is somehow sacred
and should be funded at some artificial "fair" rate independent
of economic reality. The former view has created incredible
success for people at almost every level of the economic ladder.
The latter view was instrumental in the stunning "success" of
the Societ Bloc.

P.S. By "True Capitalist" I do NOT mean business and market players
who are only too happy to avoid the law by taking shortcuts
like hiring illegal workers, cheating their employees, and
so on. These people are not "Capitalists", they are criminals.

P.P.S. No matter how anyone *feels* about things, there is a simple
economic calculus here. If you give an American worker
who is already making, say, $20/hr plus benefits a raise
of $1/hr, they grumble about "unfair" it is. If you take
someone overseas living in some 3rd-world sewer who is making
$1/week and offer him/her $1/hour, you just improved their
lot in life immensely and they will jump at this opportunity.
It make absolutely no difference how you feel about it - no
entity, including even government, has sufficient power to
control and manage economic reality.

(cf: "The Wealth Of Nations", Adam Smith, particularly
his reference to the "invisible hand" and what happens
when you try to hold it back. Then go read
"The Road To Serfdom" by Hayek for a near perfect
lab example of what happens when you meddle with economies
by force.)

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

Bonehenge (B A R R Y) wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:58:16 +0000, LRod
wrote:
Everything's negotiable. See USPS Strike 1970. Just as "illegal" but
amicably resolved by good faith negotiations.

There have also been "illegal" strikes by teachers, transit workers,
firefighters, etc...

The 2005 NYC Transit Strike was probably the most recent example.

The whole lot was not fired for striking.

But they should have been. All these people serve public
safety and/or the interests of our children. They are
granted a virtual monopoly to do so by government and
are paid with all of our tax money. Part of the deal
when they signed up was an agreement to never strike -
or at least that was the deal with the ATC folk - precisely
because their work is so integral to the safety of the nation.
They joined up voluntarily, and signed their contracts as
adults, making that promise to never strike without coercion
or other force. Then they go back and their word (i.e. lie)
and you *defend* this? I've heard screeching about far less
here on the 'wreck because someone felt ripped off over a
tool or a discount that wasn't honored at some store. Why
aren't public servants to be held to the same standard?
Either everyone must keep their word or no one has to...



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

RayV wrote:
On Dec 14, 9:00 am, Mark & Juanita wrote:
RayV wrote:

He just does that to make things look good. He knew about 9-11...
http://killtown.911review.org/buffett.html
Oh gads, not a troofer. I sure hope you don't use powered woodworking
machinery, you are likely to hurt yourself.


I only run the power tools at night so the EMFs don't combine with the
rays they are beaming into my head from the HAARP.
http://www.freedomfiles.org/technology/haarp.htm

The tinfoil hats only amplify the governments power...

Not if you aim them at Rosie O'Donnell - she absorbs all energy.

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

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:20:30 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

Oh, if only life were so simple. First of all, I have yet to find any
government employee with more than about two years on the job who even
remembers such a document. When you get hired (anywhere) you are
virtually overwhelmed with documents, orientations, procedures,
chain-of-command, etc., and that doesn't even count the actual OJT.

But that's not even the important part. Implicit in that "agreement"
was that you would be treated as a professional, you would benefit
from professional leadership, and that you would enjoy the respect and
loyalty of the institution in return for your own.

I have thousands of examples personally experienced by me and
multiplied by the tens of thousands of fellow controllers with whom I
worked over the years of violations of the most egregious sort by the
agency of those committments.

It's easy to sit back and prosletyze about what *should* be done when
you' haven't the benefit of the experience. I was there. I know what
happened, and I knew what needed to be done. Do you honestly think for
a second that over 13,000 people not only went out the door but
refused to return just on a whim?

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.

Either everyone must keep their word or no one has to...

I never cease to be amused when someone says something like this,
particularly when reagan is somehow involved. How many wives did he
have? Wasn't he president of SAG? Didn't he promise to work for
controllers' issues when elected? Then let's start on his presidency.
Weren't we supposed to stay out of Nicaragua? It goes on and on.

Bonehenge (B A R R Y) wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:58:16 +0000, LRod
wrote:
Everything's negotiable. See USPS Strike 1970. Just as "illegal" but
amicably resolved by good faith negotiations.

There have also been "illegal" strikes by teachers, transit workers,
firefighters, etc...

The 2005 NYC Transit Strike was probably the most recent example.

The whole lot was not fired for striking.

But they should have been. All these people serve public
safety and/or the interests of our children. They are
granted a virtual monopoly to do so by government and
are paid with all of our tax money. Part of the deal
when they signed up was an agreement to never strike -
or at least that was the deal with the ATC folk - precisely
because their work is so integral to the safety of the nation.
They joined up voluntarily, and signed their contracts as
adults, making that promise to never strike without coercion
or other force. Then they go back and their word (i.e. lie)
and you *defend* this? I've heard screeching about far less
here on the 'wreck because someone felt ripped off over a
tool or a discount that wasn't honored at some store. Why
aren't public servants to be held to the same standard?
Either everyone must keep their word or no one has to...

--
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.

On Dec 14, 10:31 pm, LRod wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:20:30 -0600, Tim Daneliuk

Either everyone must keep their word or no one has to...

Ummm, not really. Your word has nothing to do with the other person's
integrity. If you don't trust/respect/value them, don't give them
your word in the first place.

I never cease to be amused when someone says something like this,
particularly when reagan is somehow involved. How many wives did he
have? Wasn't he president of SAG? Didn't he promise to work for
controllers' issues when elected? Then let's start on his presidency.
Weren't we supposed to stay out of Nicaragua? It goes on and on.

It appears that you are saying that if someone doesn't keep their word
you don't have to keep yours. Is that right? On the face of it, that
seems like common sense, but it's a little different when you start
dragging in someone's personal choices - things like marriage/divorce
and where they used to work - and other things that had nothing
whatsoever to do with your particular grievance.

A bargain is a bargain, but your word is your word. There will always
be other bargains, you have only one word. It's not about the other
guy and their faults - it's about you and your integrity in the face
of someone else's lack of it, no?

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?

R

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:20:30 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:


Either everyone must keep their word or no one has to...

I totally agree!

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
I'm just curious what you think labor is "worth". True Capitalists
believe labor is another good like any other and is worth what
the market will bear. Marxists think labor is somehow sacred
and should be funded at some artificial "fair" rate independent
of economic reality. The former view has created incredible
success for people at almost every level of the economic ladder.
The latter view was instrumental in the stunning "success" of
the Societ Bloc.

Apparently you see a rather black and white world...of which neither
actually exists. The Soviet Union did not think labor was somehow sacred but
rather that the state owned anything and/or everything...the absence of
individual ownership was the weak link. The oppressive state played no small
role either. From the wealth stand point I'd suspect the former Soviet Union
was considerably wealthier per capita than the current Russia. But income
was never equally distributed and in fact the party elite did quite well.

Pure Capitalism(if such has ever existed in a modern state) has far more
warts than benefits (The great depression is but one small example). The
public is not served well as serfs and overall economic output does not soar
when those at the top control all of the wealth and the resulting
benefits......A large and prosperous middle class has been the root of our
countries overall success in the past century.....at no time in the worlds
history has so many done so well by any objective criteria..... The market
place indeed is most efficient at determining wages and/or prices and the
strengths need to be judicially used for any effective system but unchecked
or uncontrolled it does not work for the great unwashed masses. A mixed
economy(what we have more or less) has the greatest chance at producing more
for the many. Rod

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 14, 9:01 pm, RayV wrote:
On Dec 14, 9:00 am, Mark & Juanita wrote:

RayV wrote:

He just does that to make things look good. He knew about 9-11...
http://killtown.911review.org/buffett.html

Oh gads, not a troofer. I sure hope you don't use powered woodworking
machinery, you are likely to hurt yourself.

I only run the power tools at night so the EMFs don't combine with the
rays they are beaming into my head from the HAARP.http://www.freedomfiles.org/technology/haarp.htm

The tinfoil hats only amplify the governments power...

Not if you turn the shiny side out.

On Dec 14, 9:21 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
RayV wrote:
On Dec 14, 9:00 am, Mark & Juanita wrote:
RayV wrote:

He just does that to make things look good. He knew about 9-11...
http://killtown.911review.org/buffett.html
Oh gads, not a troofer. I sure hope you don't use powered woodworking
machinery, you are likely to hurt yourself.

I only run the power tools at night so the EMFs don't combine with the
rays they are beaming into my head from the HAARP.
http://www.freedomfiles.org/technology/haarp.htm

The tinfoil hats only amplify the governments power...

Not if you aim them at Rosie O'Donnell - she absorbs all energy.


Is THAT what makes her so ugly?

"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?
--
Dave in Houston

On Dec 15, 12:48 pm, "Dave In Houston" wrote:
"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?

Good work isn't wasteful. The best work you can do requires you to be
thrifty. That's why God invented poplar for furniture frames and the
guts of projects. And that's why I have one US regulation ****load of
offcuts awaiting their turn in the limelight...on the interior of
something or other.

R

"RicodJour" wrote in message
...

Good work isn't wasteful. The best work you can do requires you to be
thrifty. That's why God invented poplar for furniture frames and the
guts of projects. And that's why I have one US regulation ****load of
offcuts awaiting their turn in the limelight...on the interior of
something or other.

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.

--
NuWave Dave in Houston

"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.

Lew

RayV wrote:

On Dec 14, 9:00 am, Mark & Juanita wrote:
RayV wrote:

He just does that to make things look good. He knew about 9-11...
http://killtown.911review.org/buffett.html

Oh gads, not a troofer. I sure hope you don't use powered woodworking
machinery, you are likely to hurt yourself.


I only run the power tools at night so the EMFs don't combine with the
rays they are beaming into my head from the HAARP.
http://www.freedomfiles.org/technology/haarp.htm

The tinfoil hats only amplify the governments power...

Ah, good to hear that, I was worried about you. ;-)

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