J. Clarke wrote:

If there's an "abuse of power" it seems to me that it's by the cop who
zaps the little kid with a Taser. Sounds to me like if there's a real
scandal here it's why it took her so long to act against the SOB.

The way it's supposed to work is via due process, not by politicians pulling
strings. Do you really want politicians going around the usual disciplinary
process and getting people fired not on the basis of evidence and a fair
hearing, but because someone powerful wants the guy gone? This is about
more than one cop who happens to be a jerk, it's about whether politicians
have to follow the same rules as the rest of us.

DGDevin wrote:
Nova wrote:

If you heard someone threaten to kill one of you family members
would
you report that individual and do whatever you could to stop it
from
happening?

Of course I'd report it. But her complaint was heard and acted on
by
the appropriate authorities and they chose not to fire the guy. The
Palin family didn't leave it there, they used every avenue they
could
to get at the guy, including trying to prove he'd really been active
while collecting worker's compensation, nothing was too petty to
try.
Palin herself has admitted her staff and associates had numerous
contacts with various people including the public safety
commissioner
trying to get this cop fired although she claims she wasn't behind
those attempts.

The second part of your question, "do whatever you could," well what
that boils down to is going outside the law. I actually took the
time to look up the Alaska statute, it makes it clear than someone
who misuses their official office to gain an advantage for
themselves
or deny someone else an advantage is breaking the law. My gut
feeling is this trooper maybe deserves to be fired, his behavior
sounds kind of whacked out to me, but there are ways that is
supposed
to be done and ways it isn't supposed to be done.

Think of how you'd react if this happened in your town, some cops
gets fired not because a disciplinary board found he had violated
dept. policy seriously enough to be dismissed, but because the
mayor's staff made a few phone call on account of the mayor has a
beef with the guy. Does that sound like how the system is supposed
to work?



Ask yourself this question. If the cop was not an in-law of the
governor's and she had done the same thing and she wasn't running for
vice president would you have even _noticed_ that this had gone on,
let alone _cared_? How about if she was a Democrat?

Firing a state employee is not "denying someone an advantage".

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

J. Clarke wrote:

You're trying
to force this situation into a box where it just doesn't fit, there
being a union involved being just one of the factors you're
overlooking.

So if he upset the union so much why aren't the Alaska cops on strike?

Care to explain how a union goes on strike while their contract is still in
force?

J. Clarke wrote:

Ask yourself this question. If the cop was not an in-law of the
governor's and she had done the same thing and she wasn't running for
vice president would you have even _noticed_ that this had gone on,
let alone _cared_? How about if she was a Democrat?

Firing a state employee is not "denying someone an advantage".

As I generally don't follow the news from Alaska much I probably wouldn't be
aware of the situation if a possible VP wasn't involved. Just what bearing
that has on the case escapes me however. Wrong is wrong, trying to get
somebody fired by pulling strings instead of via the legally mandated method
is wrong even when it doesn't make the news.

The party Palin belongs to is irrelevant, I'm not a Democrat and I enjoy
pointing out when their politicians screw up just as much as Republicans.
How about you, would you be defending Palin with such determination if she
was a Dem?

Causing someone to lose their job would certainly seem to be denying them an
advantage, the advantage of having an income. If that wasn't the case then
the investigation currently underway into the Governor's activities would
not be happening, would it. No offense, but your argument has not been real
cohesive so far.

DGDevin wrote:

Care to explain how a union goes on strike while their contract is still in
force?


Unions have been known to:

a.) Protest Strike
b.) Strike when they feel one clause of a contract is violated

Aratzio wrote:

On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 15:09:28 -0500, in alt.usenet.kooks, "David G.
Nagel" bloviated:

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
On Sep 3, 11:19 am, §ñühwØ£f wrote:
...

America cant drill its way out of a situation where alternative forms
dont supplant/surpass the current mode.

American companies are not using all of the leases they currently
hold.
Having them sit on more leases where they don't drill won't help
either.

--

FF

And as soon as the envirterrorists quit taking them to court on specious
arguments they will explore them.

You really believe that is why the oil companies don't drill in places
like the outer shelf?

and why do you think they aren't drilling there or other places? Why do
you think it would benefit them to have leases that they don't develop?


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

"DGDevin" wrote in message

Care to explain how a union goes on strike while their contract is still
in force?


Uh, they walk off the job. Happens often. Auto workers were famous for it
in the 60's & 70's.

On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 05:11:49 -0500, Phil Again
wrote:

Even hockey
Moms can have a past that demonstrates an error in judgment.


Let's see a show of hands from everyone who has NEVER made an error in
judgment. If we tried to populate D.C. with denizens having unfailing
good judgment, it would be a ghost town.


I think we should wait and see what the rabid dogs of the media tear out
of her hide. And I do believe they will find something to bite and latch
on to; I believe that with all my heart and soul.

Absolutely no question about it!

What gets me about the news dogs is that nobody is allowed to learn
from experience. If I said something 20 years ago and, from
experiences gained and knowledge accumulated over the ensuing time,
revise that statement, attitude, opinion, conviction, etc., then per
the network news readers, I "flip-flop" on the issues. There is no
one, not a single, solitary human being on the face of the earth that
is the same person they were 20 years ago.

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA

On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 19:11:46 -0700, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
Mark & Juanita got double secret probation for
writing:

Aratzio wrote:

On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 15:09:28 -0500, in alt.usenet.kooks, "David G.
Nagel" bloviated:

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
On Sep 3, 11:19 am, §ñühwØ£f wrote:
...

America cant drill its way out of a situation where alternative forms
dont supplant/surpass the current mode.

American companies are not using all of the leases they currently
hold.
Having them sit on more leases where they don't drill won't help
either.

--

FF

And as soon as the envirterrorists quit taking them to court on specious
arguments they will explore them.

You really believe that is why the oil companies don't drill in places
like the outer shelf?

and why do you think they aren't drilling there or other places? Why do
you think it would benefit them to have leases that they don't develop?

There are leases the oil companies have that are estimated to hold up
to 30,000,000,000 barrels of oil in the gulf. In places they have
leases with appoved drilling plans. There in nothing that prevents
them from drilling in those leases.

These *enviroterrorists* must be some scary mothers if they can stop
oil companies from exploiting the approved areas of drilling.

That or they just want to keep something in the bank rather than
pumping everything out now.

I know silly things like logic and good business practice shooting
holes in such lovely and quite bizarre conspiracies.

Oh and then there are the *foregone royalties* that the US Government
pays the oil companies not to drill.

Oh and a deep water drill rig: $700,000,000

Oh and manpower: None, they are currently employed drilling in the
shallower gulf waters.

Yeah, it is all abput the *ecoterrorists*.

childish follow-ups trick, defeated, ****wit

Care to explain how a union goes on strike while their contract is
still in force?


Unions have been known to:

a.) Protest Strike
b.) Strike when they feel one clause of a contract is violated

Yeah, but as they're risking a court order to force them back to work it's
not something they do casually, and certainly not because one guy who is
probably known as a jerk got a five-day suspension.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

Care to explain how a union goes on strike while their contract is
still in force?


Uh, they walk off the job. Happens often. Auto workers were famous
for it in the 60's & 70's.

In which case the company goes to court and the union is ordered to send its
people back to work or face fines and jail time for contempt. Remember what
Reagan did with the striking air traffic controllers who thought he was
bluffing?

In any case this is beside the point. The contract without doubt agrees to
the steps needed to fire a trooper. This union intervened and got this one
trooper's suspension cut in half, so it's reasonable to think they would
have gone to court if he had been fired improperly. Mr. Clarke's question
as to why the union isn't on strike over this is rather odd since the
trooper wasn't fired.

DGDevin wrote:
Care to explain how a union goes on strike while their contract is
still in force?


Unions have been known to:

a.) Protest Strike
b.) Strike when they feel one clause of a contract is violated

Yeah, but as they're risking a court order to force them back to
work
it's not something they do casually, and certainly not because one
guy who is probably known as a jerk got a five-day suspension.

Now wait a minute, you were on about the governor improperly firing
the guy. Now you're on about how it was only a five day suspension?
Can you say "tempest in a teapot"?

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

Yeah, but as they're risking a court order to force them back to
work
it's not something they do casually, and certainly not because one
guy who is probably known as a jerk got a five-day suspension.

Now wait a minute, you were on about the governor improperly firing
the guy. Now you're on about how it was only a five day suspension?
Can you say "tempest in a teapot"?

Do you have any knowledge of this beyond what you hear on the radio while
driving to work? He wasn't fired, they *tried* to get him fired and failed.
They ended up firing the Public Safety Commissioner who wouldn't fire the
trooper. The trooper was suspended over one incident, at first for ten days
but that was cut to five when his union raised a fuss. All this and more
information is available from a wide variety of news sources. Just a
friendly suggestion but perhaps a little reading is in order, sort of like
looking at the plans and making a few measurements *before* firing up the
table saw, know what I mean?

DGDevin wrote:
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

Care to explain how a union goes on strike while their contract is
still in force?


Uh, they walk off the job. Happens often. Auto workers were
famous
for it in the 60's & 70's.

In which case the company goes to court and the union is ordered to
send its people back to work or face fines and jail time for
contempt.

And the union, depending on how ****ed off it is, either goes back to
work or says "screw you, jail the lot of us and see how much work you
get done".

Remember what Reagan did with the striking air traffic
controllers who thought he was bluffing?

Which is generally a costly option. However cop strikes tend to be
slowdowns rather than stoppages--they'll still go after the thieves
and murderers but they won't write speeding tickets or the like, they
all call in sick on the same day, etc. Google "blue flu".

In any case this is beside the point. The contract without doubt
agrees to the steps needed to fire a trooper.

Without doubt? You've read it?

This union intervened
and got this one trooper's suspension cut in half, so it's
reasonable
to think they would have gone to court if he had been fired
improperly. Mr. Clarke's question as to why the union isn't on
strike over this is rather odd since the trooper wasn't fired.

And if he wasn't fired then in what way was undue influence
demonstrated?

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

DGDevin wrote:
Yeah, but as they're risking a court order to force them back to
work
it's not something they do casually, and certainly not because one
guy who is probably known as a jerk got a five-day suspension.

Now wait a minute, you were on about the governor improperly firing
the guy. Now you're on about how it was only a five day
suspension?
Can you say "tempest in a teapot"?

Do you have any knowledge of this beyond what you hear on the radio
while driving to work? He wasn't fired, they *tried* to get him
fired and failed. They ended up firing the Public Safety
Commissioner
who wouldn't fire the trooper. The trooper was suspended over one
incident, at first for ten days but that was cut to five when his
union raised a fuss. All this and more information is available
from
a wide variety of news sources. Just a friendly suggestion but
perhaps a little reading is in order, sort of like looking at the
plans and making a few measurements *before* firing up the table
saw,
know what I mean?

Look, I don't give a damn what she did. I assumed from all the
****ing and moaning that you are doing that she got the guy
fired--you're ****ing and moaning over a ten day suspension? Get a
****ing life.

plonk

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

On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 19:35:19 -0400, B A R R Y
wrote:

DGDevin wrote:

Care to explain how a union goes on strike while their contract is still in
force?


Unions have been known to:

a.) Protest Strike
b.) Strike when they feel one clause of a contract is violated


I've managed many Union operations and I've never seen a contract
without a "No Strike; No Lockout" clause. It is the one clause that
neither side ever wants to violate because of the repercussions.

I've never seen, in all my days, a strike over a single clause or in
protest. That is what the established grievance procedure is
negotiated to take care of. If this does happens, management normally
would not have to do anything, the Union district or international
would immediately step in and stop the thing dead in its tracks.

Frank

On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 05:16:25 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

DGDevin wrote:
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

Care to explain how a union goes on strike while their contract is
still in force?


Uh, they walk off the job. Happens often. Auto workers were
famous
for it in the 60's & 70's.

In which case the company goes to court and the union is ordered to
send its people back to work or face fines and jail time for
contempt.

And the union, depending on how ****ed off it is, either goes back to
work or says "screw you, jail the lot of us and see how much work you
get done".

No, the contract is invalidated, the company terminates the lot and
starts over in a non union environment. The NLRB may sanction the
international but there is no contract at that point. It is a fatal
violation.

Remember what Reagan did with the striking air traffic
controllers who thought he was bluffing?

Which is generally a costly option. However cop strikes tend to be
slowdowns rather than stoppages--they'll still go after the thieves
and murderers but they won't write speeding tickets or the like, they
all call in sick on the same day, etc. Google "blue flu".

In any case this is beside the point. The contract without doubt
agrees to the steps needed to fire a trooper.

Without doubt? You've read it?

This union intervened
and got this one trooper's suspension cut in half, so it's
reasonable
to think they would have gone to court if he had been fired
improperly. Mr. Clarke's question as to why the union isn't on
strike over this is rather odd since the trooper wasn't fired.

And if he wasn't fired then in what way was undue influence
demonstrated?

--

"I was very disappointed at Barack Hussein Obama's clinch on the
Democratic nomination earlier this year. I'd like to go on record as
such at this time."

America was a hope and a dream that free men with an education could
better rule themselves than one anointed by God himself. Flawed as its
inception was by the mistreatment of the savages, the three fifth's
ruling, and -as time went on - nearly every immigrant group to arrive
on its "welcoming shores" and its workers and their children
notwithstanding its declarations to the effect that all men were equal
in the eyes of their God's and under its laws, America has done
surprisingly well as nation states go in this world.

When I hear a wood worker compelled to go OT and declare his choice
for our next leader months before he is offered the constitutionally-
protected opportunity to make that choice whence it counts in advance
of the public vetting requisite to an informed choice, his motives are
suspect. When he refers to Senator Barack Obama II as "Barack Hussein
Obama," his choice reminds me of all that America was to overcome in
its aspirations to become that shining city on the hill.

That such a decision should be made upon such mean-spirited, ill-
informed considerations is disturbing and one can only hope that, as a
whole, the nation will choose more rationally.

And, regardless of affiliation, those who have access to Comedy
Central should watch the Daily Show - great political coverage.

GT

On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 08:22:25 -0700, in alt.usenet.kooks, §ñühwØ£f
bloviated:

On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 08:10:33 -0700, Aratzio aided th' terraists with the
following claims :

On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 08:19:47 -0700, in alt.usenet.kooks, §ñühwØ£f
bloviated:

On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 16:22:07 +0000, Sean Monaghan aided th' terraists with
the following claims :

§ñühwØ£f wrote in
news
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/09/01-3

Not exactly credible source of information, but anyways...

So, she supports drilling in her home state of Alaska and elsewhere.
Speaker Pelosi needs to get on that bandwagon too - instead of turning
lights on the floor of the House Of Representatives in the middle of a
discussion on the subject. I'm getting tired of paying $4 USD per gallon
of gasoline.

America cant drill its way out of a situation where alternative forms dont
supplant/surpass the current mode.
The oil, what small amount we could possibly get, will be sold on the
WORLD MARKET. Not sequestered in some private "americans only" reserve for
our use only.
Conservation would save more in the long run. But people are stupid lazy
and greedy so as a species we're ****ed, mate.

It is like the ****ing hysteria over taxes. I agree that cutting taxes
is a good thing BUT only if there is a commensurate cut in government
spending.

Yep. Spending under Chimpy was shifted away from social programs and into
corporate welfare, no-bod government contracts and the all-encompasing DOD.

The current lackwits and fellow kool-aid drinkers believe
they can keep spending all the money they want while cutting taxes.

Running in the red is okey dokey for the red staters?

Their supposed family values are "I get my **** now, **** the kids
that have to pay for it later". How stupid are they?

Mind bogglingly so.

Only one
president in recent memory had a surplus, Clinton. You would think
that 20 years of *supply side* governemnt economic failure (reagan,
shrub I, shrub II) would clue at least one of them in that it does not
work. But no, the selfish scumbags are all so happy they got their
$68.00 in tax breaks that they do not care there is a $500,000,000,000
deficit next year.

Chimpy's goal was never to be a fiscaly responsible conservative.
Looting the treasury and rewarding all the corporate interests that
installed him into power however, was.


The depression of the dollar is a direct result of the over extension
of the US Govt and the level of borrowing that they have done. Selling
our foreign policy to the highest bidders. All any other economic
power that wishes to shut the president up needs to do is have banked
a sufficient amount of Bonds and debt that they can simply threaten to
sell and the US govt will have to bow to the power these other
countries hold over our economy.

We won't even go into the long term results of moving critical
manufacturing off-shore.

So much for protecting the sovereignty of our nation, way to go
Republicans.

At least the bubba's can be happy knowing their $68.00 in tax cuts
bought them about a half a tank of gas for their v-8 powered 4 wheel
drive penis compensating truck that never leaves the road last year.

Maybe if they can get Shrub III elected they can have $75.00 in tax
cuts and another 1/2 tank of gas.

DGDevin wrote:
Care to explain how a union goes on strike while their contract is
still in force?


Unions have been known to:

a.) Protest Strike
b.) Strike when they feel one clause of a contract is violated


Yeah, but as they're risking a court order to force them back to work it's
not something they do casually, and certainly not because one guy who is
probably known as a jerk got a five-day suspension.



It's a moot point. In all states, almost invariably, public employees
working in the public safety field (police, fire, etc.) by law are not
allowed to strike.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 10:31:52 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt aided th' terraists
with the following claims :

On Sep 3, 11:19Â*am, §ñühwØ£f wrote:

...

America cant drill its way out of a situation where alternative forms dont
supplant/surpass the current mode.

you snipped

The oil, what small amount we could possibly get, will be sold on the
WORLD MARKET. Not sequestered in some private "americans only" reserve for
our use only.
Conservation would save more in the long run. But people are stupid lazy
and greedy so as a species we're ****ed, mate.

I restored

American companies are not using all of the leases they currently
hold.
Having them sit on more leases where they don't drill won't help
either.

If you're going to respond to me, have the intellectual fortitude to quote
*all* of my text, you post editing pussy.


--
"Those who can make you believe absurdities,
can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire

On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 08:10:33 -0700, Aratzio aided th' terraists with the
following claims :

On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 08:19:47 -0700, in alt.usenet.kooks, §ñühwØ£f
bloviated:

On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 16:22:07 +0000, Sean Monaghan aided th' terraists with
the following claims :

§ñühwØ£f wrote in
news
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/09/01-3

Not exactly credible source of information, but anyways...

So, she supports drilling in her home state of Alaska and elsewhere.
Speaker Pelosi needs to get on that bandwagon too - instead of turning
lights on the floor of the House Of Representatives in the middle of a
discussion on the subject. I'm getting tired of paying $4 USD per gallon
of gasoline.

America cant drill its way out of a situation where alternative forms dont
supplant/surpass the current mode.
The oil, what small amount we could possibly get, will be sold on the
WORLD MARKET. Not sequestered in some private "americans only" reserve for
our use only.
Conservation would save more in the long run. But people are stupid lazy
and greedy so as a species we're ****ed, mate.

It is like the ****ing hysteria over taxes. I agree that cutting taxes
is a good thing BUT only if there is a commensurate cut in government
spending.

Yep. Spending under Chimpy was shifted away from social programs and into
corporate welfare, no-bod government contracts and the all-encompasing DOD.

The current lackwits and fellow kool-aid drinkers believe
they can keep spending all the money they want while cutting taxes.

Running in the red is okey dokey for the red staters?

Their supposed family values are "I get my **** now, **** the kids
that have to pay for it later". How stupid are they?

Mind bogglingly so.

Only one
president in recent memory had a surplus, Clinton. You would think
that 20 years of *supply side* governemnt economic failure (reagan,
shrub I, shrub II) would clue at least one of them in that it does not
work. But no, the selfish scumbags are all so happy they got their
$68.00 in tax breaks that they do not care there is a $500,000,000,000
deficit next year.

Chimpy's goal was never to be a fiscaly responsible conservative.
Looting the treasury and rewarding all the corporate interests that
installed him into power however, was.


--
"Those who can make you believe absurdities,
can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire

Nova wrote:
DGDevin wrote:
Care to explain how a union goes on strike while their contract
is
still in force?


Unions have been known to:

a.) Protest Strike
b.) Strike when they feel one clause of a contract is violated


Yeah, but as they're risking a court order to force them back to
work it's not something they do casually, and certainly not because
one guy who is probably known as a jerk got a five-day suspension.



It's a moot point. In all states, almost invariably, public
employees
working in the public safety field (police, fire, etc.) by law are
not
allowed to strike.

Which has never stopped them in the past.

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

J. Clarke wrote:

Look, I don't give a damn what she did. I assumed from all the
****ing and moaning that you are doing that she got the guy
fired--you're ****ing and moaning over a ten day suspension? Get a
****ing life.

plonk

Some people are happier basing their opinions on ignorance, you appear to be
one of them.

B A R R Y wrote:
DGDevin wrote:

Care to explain how a union goes on strike while their contract is
still in force?

Unions have been known to:

a.) Protest Strike
b.) Strike when they feel one clause of a contract is violated


It's called "Blue Flu"

BTW: I'll be over with my tazer. Please have your kids ready.

J. Clarke wrote:
DGDevin wrote:
Care to explain how a union goes on strike while their contract is
still in force?

Unions have been known to:

a.) Protest Strike
b.) Strike when they feel one clause of a contract is violated
Yeah, but as they're risking a court order to force them back to
work
it's not something they do casually, and certainly not because one
guy who is probably known as a jerk got a five-day suspension.

Now wait a minute, you were on about the governor improperly firing
the guy. Now you're on about how it was only a five day suspension?
Can you say "tempest in a teapot"?

The trooper wasn't fired...

David G. Nagel wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
DGDevin wrote:
Care to explain how a union goes on strike while their contract
is
still in force?

Unions have been known to:

a.) Protest Strike
b.) Strike when they feel one clause of a contract is violated
Yeah, but as they're risking a court order to force them back to
work
it's not something they do casually, and certainly not because one
guy who is probably known as a jerk got a five-day suspension.

Now wait a minute, you were on about the governor improperly firing
the guy. Now you're on about how it was only a five day
suspension?
Can you say "tempest in a teapot"?

The trooper wasn't fired...

So where was the impropriety on the part of the governor? What
improper thing did she do to him?

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

Now wait a minute, you were on about the governor improperly firing
the guy. Now you're on about how it was only a five day suspension?
Can you say "tempest in a teapot"?

The trooper wasn't fired...

He doesn't care what the facts of the case are, he's made up his mind and
isn't about to be distracted by knowing what actually happened.

David G. Nagel wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

Now wait a minute, you were on about the governor improperly firing
the guy. Now you're on about how it was only a five day suspension?
Can you say "tempest in a teapot"?

The trooper wasn't fired...

"She (Palin) allegedly pressured public safety commissioner Walter
Monegan to fire Trooper Mike Wooten, then fired Monegan in July when he
did not come through."

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news...t/1263158.aspx

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

Nova wrote:
David G. Nagel wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

Now wait a minute, you were on about the governor improperly
firing
the guy. Now you're on about how it was only a five day
suspension?
Can you say "tempest in a teapot"?

The trooper wasn't fired...

"She (Palin) allegedly pressured public safety commissioner Walter
Monegan to fire Trooper Mike Wooten, then fired Monegan in July when
he
did not come through."

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news...t/1263158.aspx

Monegan is not "the trooper", so what does he have to do with whether
or not "the trooper" was fired?

You're confusing two events here.

And if your local paper is the Canberra Times then what's it to you,
anyway?

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

"J. Clarke" wrote:

And if your local paper is the Canberra Times then what's it to you,
anyway?

Ah yes, confirmation you were the class idiot.

Looks like you have been able to maintain your status.

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote:

And if your local paper is the Canberra Times then what's it to
you,
anyway?

Ah yes, confirmation you were the class idiot.

Looks like you have been able to maintain your status.

Stick to woodworking, if you have visions of filling Don Rickles'
shoes, don't quit your day job.

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

On Sep 4, 4:48*pm, "Upscale" wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
"J. Clarke" wrote:
And if your local paper is the Canberra Times then what's it to you,
anyway?

Ah yes, confirmation you were the class idiot.
Looks like you have been able to maintain your status.

Well, at least he's not plagiarizing anyone's work thus depriving them of a
living. Whereas, you really are the **** disturber you admitted to being.

Must be pretty boring running around all day like you do looking to cause an
argument.

There are no ****disturbers here at rec.woodworking.

Frank Boettcher wrote:

I've never seen, in all my days, a strike over a single clause or in
protest.

I have. It involved contractors doing work the union believed was
union work.

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message

"J. Clarke" wrote:
And if your local paper is the Canberra Times then what's it to you,
anyway?

Ah yes, confirmation you were the class idiot.
Looks like you have been able to maintain your status.

Well, at least he's not plagiarizing anyone's work thus depriving them of a
living. Whereas, you really are the **** disturber you admitted to being.

Must be pretty boring running around all day like you do looking to cause an
argument.

Robatoy wrote:

On Sep 4, 4:48Â*pm, "Upscale" wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
"J. Clarke" wrote:
And if your local paper is the Canberra Times then what's it to you,
anyway?

Ah yes, confirmation you were the class idiot.
Looks like you have been able to maintain your status.

Well, at least he's not plagiarizing anyone's work thus depriving them of
a living. Whereas, you really are the **** disturber you admitted to
being.

Must be pretty boring running around all day like you do looking to cause
an argument.

There are no ****disturbers here at rec.woodworking.

How tight do you have your blinders strapped on?
;-)
--
Froz...

On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 16:43:01 -0400, B A R R Y
wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:

I've never seen, in all my days, a strike over a single clause or in
protest.

I have. It involved contractors doing work the union believed was
union work.


Not the normal reaction. Normally the union would allow it to happen,
calmly file a grievance, and if they truly were right about the
jurisdiction thing they would have their members get paid for work not
done. Striking if there is a no strike, no lockout clause can
generally only get them trouble, very big trouble.

Frank

On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 07:12:19 -0500, Frank Boettcher
wrote:

On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 05:16:25 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

DGDevin wrote:
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

Care to explain how a union goes on strike while their contract is
still in force?


Uh, they walk off the job. Happens often. Auto workers were
famous
for it in the 60's & 70's.

In which case the company goes to court and the union is ordered to
send its people back to work or face fines and jail time for
contempt.

And the union, depending on how ****ed off it is, either goes back to
work or says "screw you, jail the lot of us and see how much work you
get done".

No, the contract is invalidated, the company terminates the lot and
starts over in a non union environment. The NLRB may sanction the
international but there is no contract at that point. It is a fatal
violation.

I think Frank may have been working in a "Right to Work" state (i.e.
the South) as opposed to a strong union political power state (i.e.
the northeast). I assume the mid-west and places like Alaska are
somewhere in between.

Remember what Reagan did with the striking air traffic
controllers who thought he was bluffing?

Which is generally a costly option. However cop strikes tend to be
slowdowns rather than stoppages--they'll still go after the thieves
and murderers but they won't write speeding tickets or the like, they
all call in sick on the same day, etc. Google "blue flu".

In any case this is beside the point. The contract without doubt
agrees to the steps needed to fire a trooper.

Without doubt? You've read it?

This union intervened
and got this one trooper's suspension cut in half, so it's
reasonable
to think they would have gone to court if he had been fired
improperly. Mr. Clarke's question as to why the union isn't on
strike over this is rather odd since the trooper wasn't fired.

And if he wasn't fired then in what way was undue influence
demonstrated?

--

DGDevin wrote:
Now wait a minute, you were on about the governor improperly firing
the guy. Now you're on about how it was only a five day suspension?
Can you say "tempest in a teapot"?

The trooper wasn't fired...

He doesn't care what the facts of the case are, he's made up his mind and
isn't about to be distracted by knowing what actually happened.


Point noted...

dhall987 wrote:


I think Frank may have been working in a "Right to Work" state (i.e.
the South) as opposed to a strong union political power state (i.e.
the northeast). I assume the mid-west and places like Alaska are
somewhere in between.

Bingo!