Tom Disque wrote:

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 04:16:49 GMT, USENET READER
wrote:



Tom Disque wrote:


On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 20:14:32 GMT, USENET READER
wrote:



Tom Disque wrote:



On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 08:08:57 GMT, USENET READER
wrote:




Tom Disque wrote:




On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 02:06:01 GMT, USENET READER
wrote:





Oscar_Lives wrote:

[snip]





And don't forget all the fat lazy and corrupt union workers who strangle
productivity because of stupid labor rules that require 5 shovel-leaners for
every one worker.

Hey **** you - if it hadn't been for those brave union workers who put
their lives and jobs on the line, we wouldn't have the workplace and
wage protections that we have now - 40 hour workweek, overtime
protection, workpace health and safety protection. In fact, all the
protections you have today are due to unions and other liberal ideas.
SO unless you want to be the first on the boat to go back and work in
some slave labor factory in China just for the sake of showing that the
bosses are always right and good, then shut the **** up!

[snip]

Those brave union workers who put their lives and jobs on the line are
not the same people as the fat lazy and corrupt union workers who
strangle productivity because of stupid labor rules.


What stupid labor rules are you referring to? Those rules are simply a
contract to deliver labor to management in a specific way. Instead of
management telling you what to do and how to do it and you having no say
other than to quit if you don't like it, labor and management negotiates
the rules by which the work gets done.

It's like delivering any other service - you just don't like the fact
that these workers have rights that you don't have. Are you envious or
jealous? why not admit it instead of calling these workers names
because you can't handle it?


I simply cut 'n' pasted what you and Oscar said and pasted them
together, to emphasize that you aren't talking about the same people.
Did you not notice the exact same wording, or do you not read what you
write?

I DO think it is ridiculous to require a union electrician to plug in
equipment, though.

Depends on where you are plugging stuff into and what else is plugged
into that circuit?

I work in photography and when I go up to NYC to photograph a dancer in
a Broadway show (as I did last summer), I can't just plug into any old
wall outlet. I don't know what the outlet is rated for, what else is
plugged in there, etc. So I get a union guy to do it. He or she is
responsible for knowing the condition of the electrical capacity in the
building or theater. He comes and checks out my equipment, makes sure
it isn't gonna blow up their electrical outlets or in any way keep them

from putting on a show. He knows if the outlet is live and if not, how


to turn it on. He knowns if it is switched off for a reason - it needs
to be repaired or perhaps other things are plugged into it and need to
be switched on and off for the show.

There are all sorts of pratical reasons why you need a union electrician
to do that work - would you want to plug in some cheap-assed made in
China electrical device and blow out an entire electrical panel and keep
a Broadway show from starting on time?

I know also that when my grandmother was n a nursing home, you couldn't
plug in any electrical devices into the wall without first having them
checked out by the custodial staff. You wouldn't want someone plugging
in some crappy old non-grounded lamp and tripping the breakers and
grandma's O2 generator goes out - would you?


You make some good points that I had not considered.

I've really got no dog in this fight. I think both of you are partly
correct. I know full well that I would not enjoy the benefits that I
have if it were not for the union organizers of yesteryear. I also
know that the demands of some unions became excessive in the 60s and
70s, and that some unions at certain points in time were infested by
the mob.

I am not endorsing any illegal or excessive actions by any unions or
groups that supported them, but do you not see that there is a
difference between labor and management?


If ny 'labor' you mean 'labor leaders', then no. Union leaders are,
by and large, are just another layer of management.

Sorry - they are not. Maybe some labor leaders in the past were put on
the boards of some companies, and they sold out, but today's labor
leaders are aware of how recent leaders have sold out and are much more
willing to take stands on principle like the leaders of old.


So what if the demands of the unions were excessive?
Are the demands of management any less so?


Why should one justify the other?

NO they are not - but the demands of labor are not unreasonable, They
are not asking for something for nothing, unlike the CEOs. Todays union
members want a decent job at a fair wage, health and pension benefits -
a decent future for them and their families. Not to get filthy ****ing
rich like these CEOs. You can't even compare the contract demands of
labor unions today with the contracts that CEOs get whether or not they
do anything worthwhile.


Are any of these superstar CEOs worth the money they are paid for driving
companies into bankruptcy?


HELL no!


Are the corporate directors - who are
managers in other companies themselves - acting in the stockholders best
interests or their own selfish interest?


their own selfish interest, of course!


So what if the mob got into
the pension funds of unions - do you not think that there is much more
money being made illegally by groups other than unions and mobs these
days with all the greedy CEOs?


So we should all act like greedy CEOs?

The unions are not acting like greedy CEOs. How is asking for a fair
wage, a pension and health care benefits being greedy?


Know what Vito Corleone told his sons - "A lawyer with a briefcase can
steal more money than a hood with a gun!" And in the front of that same
book - "Behind every great fortune - there is a crime!" Look at the
world's great fortunes and you will see crime - from Rockefeller, to
Getty, to Gates, Bush and Cheney. The Walton family fortune also comes

from crime - from hiring illegals to clean up stores that are illegally

locked down at night, to making employees work off the clock, etc.


Well, you've convinced me! Let's all become criminals!

No - what I am writing is that most modern-day corporations engage in
more profitible criminal behavior than the boldest stick-up man.
According to my uncles who worked in the NE PA coal mines, the reasons
why the unions got the mob to provide protection is that the bosses were
forming fascist strike-breaking gangs to beat up on the union members.
Did you know that the American Legion was formed of WWI vets for that
purpose? Did you know that the Mellon and DuPont families formed groups
like the Silver Shirts and the Black Legion to break up organized labor
by violence? Did you know that managment was in bed with Hitler in the
20s and 30's - so was GW Bush's grandfather and great-grandfather.
Labor did nothing but fight back with the mob, but once the mob was your
friend, they sort of stuck their hooks in you. Hence the problems with
the mob and union pension plans.




Mostly, I wanted to point out to the two of you that you were
comparing apples and oranges. The people who started the unions are
not the same people (or even the same quality of people) who run the
unions today.

So what - are you saying that the people who run companies today are
saints?


No. I wasn't saying ANYTHING about companies. You're using GWB logic
("Yer for us or agin' us!"). The union workers I know would be
revolted by the idea of their morals being determined by CEOs.

When you comlain about dirty unions, you imply somehow that lack of
unions is a good thing - which is one of the ways that the corporate
elite con you into believing that you don't need a union, and then onto
other things you don't need: workplace health and safety, minimum
wages, wage and hour protection, etc.



Or that John Sweeney of the AFL-CIO is a crook like Ken Lay,
Bernie Ebbers, and the rest of the ****ing corporate criminal elite? I
think that John Sweeney is better educated and a better quality person
than either Sam Gompers or Jimmy Hoffa? He ain't no crook, and he is a
better quality person than the sociopaths who run today's corporations.


Perhaps, but that has nothing to do with what I said. I was comparing
him with those idealistic folks who started the unions, not the CEOs
who currently run the companies. Did you read what I wrote?


Having met John Sweeny at the AFL-CIO HQ up the street from the White
House - and even parking in his spot out front - I can tell you that he
is more like the idealistic folks who started the unions. You wrote
that the people who run the unions today are not the same people who
started them, and are not of the same quality. I wrote that you were
incorrect. But most of the anti-union people on here seem to think that
management can do no wrong - they all want to be CEOs or make their money.