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.

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

Why should one justify the other?

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?

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!

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.


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?

"Tom Disque" wrote

You make better points!

Fanks. Tossing folks a bone now and then is always
a good idea.

--Ted

C G wrote:
USENET READER wrote:



C G wrote:

USENET READER wrote:



C G wrote:

USENET READER wrote:



C G wrote:

USENET READER wrote:



C G wrote:


USENET READER wrote:

I am starting a DYI home-improvement project and I
notice that few power or hand tools are made in the
USA. Even most of the Craftsman brand tools are made in
the USA. Some are made in Taiwan (a democracy I have no
problem doing business with) and Red China (perhaps I
should call them Fascist China, a country where the
factories are owned by the state and staffed with slave
labor).










Are you stuck in the '80s? Most Chinese companies have
been privatized.









And who owns these private companies? Mostly it is
well-connected members of the ChiCom party - so for all
intents and purposes, it is still owned by those who run
the government.









Still stuck in the '80s. The ownership has been changing
for quite a while now, but I would not have expected you to
be informed enough to know this.









No actually - your head is up your ass. Can you tell me who
owns the private companies if not the party elite? They
just privatized these factories and now they split the
profits not with the workers, but with their American
investors. So you tell me how while it has changed in
shape, the end result isn't really different?









Seems it's your head up your own ass. China's got a thriving
stock market and ownership is shifting to individuals. I
wouldn't have expected you to know this, it bursts your
bubble of ignorance.









Bullshit - you can say that there is a stockmarket and that is
supposed to mean that your average rank and file Chinese
citizen can own stock? that is such bullshit - that whole
thing is set up to attract foreign investment capital and to
also make it easier to reward the party bigwigs. Their system
is more fascist than free-market capitalism. They could still
take it all back and leave their overseas investors hanging -
what you gonna do when they do that? Sue them?









You've just proven you do not know what the hell you are
talking about. The average citizen DOES OWN STOCK. Give up,
you obviously are clueless about this subject.









The average citizen in China doesn't own stock. Do you know
what the per capita or average income level is in China? There
are like 1.5 billion people over there. Can you show a cite
where you an prove that the average chinese citizen owns stock??








You don't know what the **** you are talking about, why don't you
just shut up idiot. I know many average chinese citizens. They
own stock. The ability of the average Chinese person to live
cheap and save would put most Americans to shame.







You know these citizens from where? You go over to China?






I know them from China, twit. You're an idiot who writes before
reading. I did go over to China, more times than I can remember.
I lived there for several years. I have friends from many
different income levels and from many different places including
cities and the country side. You obviously know nothing about
China other than a few things you read in the paper. As you've now
shown, even your reading skills are limited. I'm done talking to
you. Go troll somehwere else.





You went over to China more times than you can remember? Where did
you lve in China? If the Red Chinese let you over there, they
didn't let you run all over the country and see all the poverty and
the people who had no democratic freedom.




Keep going, you're showing more of your ignorance.



Are you saying that that I am somehow ignorant of the decrease in
poverty and the increase in democratic freedoms in China? Back it up
- and by something that can be proven - not just you saying that you
lived in China, which itself proves noting - since you can't prove you
lived there and I can't check it out. I can check out cites thatr you
provide, but perhaps that is why you haven't provided any.


I don't have to prove shit to you moron. I lived in China. People who
know me know it's a fact. Ever see a US passport that was issued at the
Hong Kong consulate? Didn't think so, but I've got one. There's at
least one person I work with who follows this NG. If I'm lying about
living in China, I'm sure he'll say so.

YOu could say you lived on the moon, shared a peanut-butter and banana
sandwich with Elvis last night, and have of of your loser friends back
you up - but it doesn't make it true.



If they can buy stocks, they can only buy the stocks the commie
*******s want them to buy.




Sure, whatever you say.



Moron - I haven't said anything - I WRITE to post on USENET - no
wonder you have problems understanding logic.


You are such a petty fool.

Words mean something - talking is not the same as writing. Anyone who
doesn't understand that there is a difference between talking and
writing is a moron - or a Republican (same thing).




You make Red China sound like a bastion of freedom, democracy and
capitalism. Maybe you should talk to some Tibetans - they just love
the Red Chinese. Maybe you should just go the **** back there and
live - r starve. I don't care - either way you are a ****ing moron
who can't make a logical argument and can't cite any facts to back
up your claim.




I've backed up my claims, I have personal knowledge of the subject.
You only have a few distorted newspaper articles and an obvious
predjudice that has prevented you from learning much about what has
happened in China over the last 20 years. Get your head out of the
paper. Go experience life and then report back in a few years. Ni
bu zhe dao Zhonggua. Ni tai ben. Ni zui zui ben. Zaijian shagua.
And no, I did not need any help to write that. Go figure it out troll.



YOu have backed up nothing - you claim that you are right because you
lived in China. I don't know you (and don't want to know you), and
you can't prove that you lived there and there is no way to validate
your claims anyway. You offer no cites for facts to back up your
claims, unlike the ones that I have provided.


I can prove I lived there, but you are not worth the time. Did your
cite prove people can't, and don't, own stock? Nope.

My cites proved that average people in China don't have rights, and
don't earn enough money to put food on the table - from that any
intelligent person would realize that they wouldn't be starving to
invest in stocks and buy TVs and cars and cell phones. Per capita
income in China according to Business Week is $1000 a year - how much
****ing stock can you buy at that level?

Furthermore, China's high population and the "one-child" policy is
causing another problem which would lead any thinking person to conclude
that workers aren't buying much stock. The Chinese old-age pension
system is broke, and with every worker supporting his or her parents and
their two parents, for a total of 6 other people, how are they going to
eat, live, raise their own kid, take care of parents and family, and
invest in the market?


One of my bext friends from college is from Taiwan. He was very
active in the political system over there about 5 years ago, and he
relocated his business to mainland China because he speaks the
language and he would have a competitive advantage over people located
in the states. Talking with him when he comes back to the USA, and
exchanging e-mail, he tells me of a China that is definately not the
China that you write about. So what accounts for that difference?
Probably because you are full of shit and have never been to China.


What China have I written about? I've talked about common people being
able to buy stocks. The rest of the things about democracy and freedom
are things you added. Yet more examples of your inability to read and
comprehend.

Dinglebarry - since I have not met you personally - you only wrote about
China in your posting, you could not "talk" about it. I read and
comprehend perfectly - you can't talk in print! You are a moron!


Another associate of mine is a retired executive/engineer for an
American/Canadian company who worked in China for 5 years, retiring
from that job in mid 2004. He tells me the same thing that my other
friend who lives in China - the economy sucks and there is no
democracy for the average Chinese worker. Also he tells me that it
is not uncommon to see workers missing body parts or otherwise
severely injured because there are no workplace safety and health
protections in China. So how are they better off than we are?


Once again, you are showing you can't read. I never talked about any of
this stuff, although I know all about it. Where did you get your
ability to fabricate?


I roomed with a very cute girl from Taiwan, who has a mother and
sisters over in Taiwan. I also have two friends who teach
college-level courses in Taiwan. They all watch the mainland and they
say that things aren't as good as you claim them to be.


Well isn't that special. I never claimed they were good. I said common
people can, and do, buy stock. The rest is stuff you imagine I said.

You wrote about it - not talked about it. And given what I wrote about
and the cites I gave, it makes your claim that common people in China
own stock rather unbelievable. Unless you care to back it up with some
cites and facts like I did, you would fail to score points at any debate
except for those held at the Rush Limbaugh fan club.


So I ask you again - do you have anything other than your word to back
up your claim that things in China are doing great? You say don't
read the newspapers - but what should I read for factual information
to back up your claims? Can you cite just 3 sources of information
that back up your claims? If you can't - you lose and shut the **** up!


I told you. Go there. Visit some farms in the country side. Work in
15 to 20 cities. Talk to some (mainland) Chinese instead of just
Taiwanese who's view of mainland China is biased. Marry one, instead of
rooming with a "cute girl from Taiwan". Once you've done some of these
things, you'll have a better idea of what China is like.


I don't have to go there - I can take the word of my friends who have
lived on the mainland and and who live there now. I can base my opinion
on the articles published by sources on both sides of the political
aisle. I know what China is like now and I damn sure wouldn't want to
live there now. I rather like not living in filth and squallor, with
blackouts and horrible public health problems, and having to worry about
losing a finger, arm or other body parts working in factories with no
workplace health and safety protection.

If you liked it so much - why don't you go the **** back there to live?
We damn sure don't need anymore people trying to turn the US into
China with a race to the bottom.

Edward M. Kennedy wrote:

"USENET READER" wrote


Reputation. A medical standards group that racks up a lot of
bozos with malpractice suits is dead in the water. Right now,
the system is not only biased, there's not much feedback.

There's no shortage of certification systems in the private market.
A bachelors degree in engineering from an *accredited* university
is also a form accredation. Microsoft does a lot too, as does the
Red Cross for lifeguards.

You raise an interesting point. The problem is that those
certifications and degrees cost money out front before you even get a
job that might not be there when you graduate.


If you can't hold a job and earn certifications from Microsoft
at the same time, you aren't very employable to begin with.

Sorry - many people who work today have to work long and hard hours and
their lives aren't their own. Most people have to not only get this
certification apart from work, but they also have to pay for it on their
own too! Someone who is told that they have to work tonight (when they
should be going to their certification class) or they don't have to come
in the next day has a tough choice to make. Getting your certification
on the job is so much better.

And it's tougher to pay for that very expensive certification if you
don't have a job - that is some expensive shit! You can't even get the
State to pay for it in a reasonable period of time - let's say taking
classes at the McKimmon Center - because the classes are so much more
expensive than at Wake Tech - where it will take a lot longer to
complete the course work.



"Would you like to supersize that?" And don't leave the nest
until you can fly.


One of the things that a union has done in the past is to have a system
for new workers to come into a system as a helper or apprentice and work
and learn at the same time, until they passed some sort of
certification. And they didn't have to take out loans or pay someone to
teach them - they learned on the job while they were getting paid. And
while they were learning, they had job protection. What could possibly
be wrong with that?


Nothing. The false dichotomy (again) is that you need a union
to have apprenticeships. Many, many professions have some
form of this.

--Ted

Since few employees have the bargaining strength these days (relative to
their employers) to negotiate for paid on the job training, unions do
help with that. Name me a profession that isn't unionized that have
apprenticeships? And don't say medicine, because that is apples and
oranges.

Tom Disque wrote:

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:23:17 -0500, "Edward M. Kennedy"
wrote:


"Tom Disque" wrote


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.

Like what? It's a false dichotomy. You don't need a *union*
guy to do that -- you need a *qualified* guy to do that. The
"union" guy may be *more* likely to have BS certification for
all you know. You know, get passed along by the bureaucracy
like in a public school?

It's a similar thing for doctors and lawyers. I'm not against their
certification, I'm against the monopoly in deciding who gets to
practice medicine or law at all.

--Ted


You make better points!

SO who signed your diploma saying you graduated from college, or
certified that the college you went to was worth a damn? Or is that an
OK monopoly in your view?

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.

wrote:


God, what bellyaching! *Cheap* power tools now are better than the
*expensive* power tools of a generation ago - and anyone can easily

enough

order power tools at whatever quality level he chooses to afford. And

why

would someone want to spend a bunch more for a tool like a drill that

will

last 10 years, when in five years the newer drills will probably be

vastly

improved and he'll want one of those anyway?


Disregarding the quality aspect, what improvements have there been in
drills, saws, and sanders in the past 5 years?

Jim

Very few - about the only thing that I can see is the incorporation of
lasers into saws to aid in cutting.

There are some lighter-weight tools out there today because of the use
of magnesium, high-strength plastics and other lighter materials in the
higher end tools. The light-weight plastics and metals in cheaper tools
are very flimsy and don't stand up to heavy-duty use.

There are a lot more cordless tools out there, but most won't stand up
to the daily grind, which is why you see corded tools on all but a few
construction sites. Handymen tend to use them because the set up and
tear down is easier, since they do it so much more frequently.

USENET READER wrote:

Name me a profession that isn't unionized that have
apprenticeships?

Two - though their apprenticeships aren't formal training.
- electronic technicians
- machinery mechanics.
(They instead depend upon years of exposure to different types
of malfunctioning "gear", including poorly-written software.)

No training classes can prepare these individuals for what they
may encounter. In fact, both are similar in a lot of ways to
your "medicine" example, where diagnostic skills can come only
from lengthy exposure/experience.

USENET READER wrote:



C G wrote:

USENET READER wrote:



C G wrote:

USENET READER wrote:



C G wrote:

USENET READER wrote:



C G wrote:

USENET READER wrote:



C G wrote:


USENET READER wrote:

I am starting a DYI home-improvement project and I
notice that few power or hand tools are made in the
USA. Even most of the Craftsman brand tools are made
in the USA. Some are made in Taiwan (a democracy I
have no problem doing business with) and Red China
(perhaps I should call them Fascist China, a country
where the factories are owned by the state and staffed
with slave labor).











Are you stuck in the '80s? Most Chinese companies have
been privatized.










And who owns these private companies? Mostly it is
well-connected members of the ChiCom party - so for all
intents and purposes, it is still owned by those who run
the government.










Still stuck in the '80s. The ownership has been changing
for quite a while now, but I would not have expected you
to be informed enough to know this.










No actually - your head is up your ass. Can you tell me
who owns the private companies if not the party elite?
They just privatized these factories and now they split the
profits not with the workers, but with their American
investors. So you tell me how while it has changed in
shape, the end result isn't really different?










Seems it's your head up your own ass. China's got a
thriving stock market and ownership is shifting to
individuals. I wouldn't have expected you to know this, it
bursts your bubble of ignorance.










Bullshit - you can say that there is a stockmarket and that
is supposed to mean that your average rank and file Chinese
citizen can own stock? that is such bullshit - that whole
thing is set up to attract foreign investment capital and to
also make it easier to reward the party bigwigs. Their
system is more fascist than free-market capitalism. They
could still take it all back and leave their overseas
investors hanging - what you gonna do when they do that? Sue
them?










You've just proven you do not know what the hell you are
talking about. The average citizen DOES OWN STOCK. Give up,
you obviously are clueless about this subject.










The average citizen in China doesn't own stock. Do you know
what the per capita or average income level is in China? There
are like 1.5 billion people over there. Can you show a cite
where you an prove that the average chinese citizen owns stock??









You don't know what the **** you are talking about, why don't
you just shut up idiot. I know many average chinese citizens.
They own stock. The ability of the average Chinese person to
live cheap and save would put most Americans to shame.








You know these citizens from where? You go over to China?







I know them from China, twit. You're an idiot who writes before
reading. I did go over to China, more times than I can remember.
I lived there for several years. I have friends from many
different income levels and from many different places including
cities and the country side. You obviously know nothing about
China other than a few things you read in the paper. As you've
now shown, even your reading skills are limited. I'm done talking
to you. Go troll somehwere else.






You went over to China more times than you can remember? Where did
you lve in China? If the Red Chinese let you over there, they
didn't let you run all over the country and see all the poverty and
the people who had no democratic freedom.





Keep going, you're showing more of your ignorance.




Are you saying that that I am somehow ignorant of the decrease in
poverty and the increase in democratic freedoms in China? Back it up
- and by something that can be proven - not just you saying that you
lived in China, which itself proves noting - since you can't prove
you lived there and I can't check it out. I can check out cites
thatr you provide, but perhaps that is why you haven't provided any.



I don't have to prove shit to you moron. I lived in China. People
who know me know it's a fact. Ever see a US passport that was issued
at the Hong Kong consulate? Didn't think so, but I've got one.
There's at least one person I work with who follows this NG. If I'm
lying about living in China, I'm sure he'll say so.


YOu could say you lived on the moon, shared a peanut-butter and banana
sandwich with Elvis last night, and have of of your loser friends back
you up - but it doesn't make it true.

And since you're just trolling, nothing I write here will convince you
either, lutou.





If they can buy stocks, they can only buy the stocks the commie
*******s want them to buy.





Sure, whatever you say.




Moron - I haven't said anything - I WRITE to post on USENET - no
wonder you have problems understanding logic.



You are such a petty fool.


Words mean something - talking is not the same as writing. Anyone who
doesn't understand that there is a difference between talking and
writing is a moron - or a Republican (same thing).

Anyone who resorts to sniping at the use of the verb to say versus the
verb to write during this kind of a discussion is a troll. You also
should learn a bit more about the use of the English language. The verb
to say is not the same as the verb to talk. The first definition of to
say is "to express in words". The form of expression is not specified.
In fact, one of the examples is "the clock says five minutes after
twelve". Everybody knows that most clocks don't talk. It's very common
in literature to use the verb to say in a manner such as I did. Either
you have a limited grasp on the English language, or you're trolling.
Since you appear to be able to write, it's obvious that you are just
trolling.






You make Red China sound like a bastion of freedom, democracy and
capitalism. Maybe you should talk to some Tibetans - they just
love the Red Chinese. Maybe you should just go the **** back there
and live - r starve. I don't care - either way you are a ****ing
moron who can't make a logical argument and can't cite any facts to
back up your claim.





I've backed up my claims, I have personal knowledge of the subject.
You only have a few distorted newspaper articles and an obvious
predjudice that has prevented you from learning much about what has
happened in China over the last 20 years. Get your head out of the
paper. Go experience life and then report back in a few years. Ni
bu zhe dao Zhonggua. Ni tai ben. Ni zui zui ben. Zaijian shagua.
And no, I did not need any help to write that. Go figure it out troll.



YOu have backed up nothing - you claim that you are right because you
lived in China. I don't know you (and don't want to know you), and
you can't prove that you lived there and there is no way to validate
your claims anyway. You offer no cites for facts to back up your
claims, unlike the ones that I have provided.



I can prove I lived there, but you are not worth the time. Did your
cite prove people can't, and don't, own stock? Nope.


My cites proved that average people in China don't have rights, and
don't earn enough money to put food on the table - from that any
intelligent person would realize that they wouldn't be starving to
invest in stocks and buy TVs and cars and cell phones. Per capita
income in China according to Business Week is $1000 a year - how much
****ing stock can you buy at that level?

Once again, you've proven your ignorance. Many people do have cars,
TVs, and cell phones. They also live a hell of a lot cheaper than
people in the US. More people live in one house. They spend more
carefully and save much more.


Furthermore, China's high population and the "one-child" policy is
causing another problem which would lead any thinking person to conclude
that workers aren't buying much stock. The Chinese old-age pension
system is broke, and with every worker supporting his or her parents and
their two parents, for a total of 6 other people, how are they going to
eat, live, raise their own kid, take care of parents and family, and
invest in the market?

Many of them do it quite well. Have you been there to see it? Nope,
didn't think so. I have. Do you know how inexpensive food it there?
Nope, didn't think you did. Do you have ANY first hand knowledge about
China? Nope, you can only form your opinion on second hand information.
I'm not saying China is perfect, in fact, it is far from perfect. My
point is, and has been, that they have an amazing ability to live cheap,
save money, and spend it carefully.




One of my bext friends from college is from Taiwan. He was very
active in the political system over there about 5 years ago, and he
relocated his business to mainland China because he speaks the
language and he would have a competitive advantage over people
located in the states. Talking with him when he comes back to the
USA, and exchanging e-mail, he tells me of a China that is definately
not the China that you write about. So what accounts for that
difference? Probably because you are full of shit and have never
been to China.



What China have I written about? I've talked about common people
being able to buy stocks. The rest of the things about democracy and
freedom are things you added. Yet more examples of your inability to
read and comprehend.


Dinglebarry - since I have not met you personally - you only wrote about
China in your posting, you could not "talk" about it. I read and
comprehend perfectly - you can't talk in print! You are a moron!

More trolling. Sheesh, what a petty loser.




Another associate of mine is a retired executive/engineer for an
American/Canadian company who worked in China for 5 years, retiring
from that job in mid 2004. He tells me the same thing that my other
friend who lives in China - the economy sucks and there is no
democracy for the average Chinese worker. Also he tells me that it
is not uncommon to see workers missing body parts or otherwise
severely injured because there are no workplace safety and health
protections in China. So how are they better off than we are?



Once again, you are showing you can't read. I never talked about any
of this stuff, although I know all about it. Where did you get your
ability to fabricate?


I roomed with a very cute girl from Taiwan, who has a mother and
sisters over in Taiwan. I also have two friends who teach
college-level courses in Taiwan. They all watch the mainland and
they say that things aren't as good as you claim them to be.



Well isn't that special. I never claimed they were good. I said
common people can, and do, buy stock. The rest is stuff you imagine I
said.


You wrote about it - not talked about it.
More trolling.

And given what I wrote about
and the cites I gave, it makes your claim that common people in China
own stock rather unbelievable. Unless you care to back it up with some
cites and facts like I did, you would fail to score points at any debate
except for those held at the Rush Limbaugh fan club.

I'll humor you. I wrote up a list of the cities I have been to. I know
I forgot a few, but here it is: Beijing, Changsha, Chengdu, Chengde,
Shanghai, Hangzhou, Lijiang, Zhongdian, Zhuhai, Shenzhen, Hong Kong,
Kunming, Guangzhou, Guilin, Yangshuo, Xian, Sanya, Shijiazhuang, Fujian,
Huangshan, Haikou, Zhuhai, Taipei (internationally accepted as being
part of China).




So I ask you again - do you have anything other than your word to
back up your claim that things in China are doing great? You say
don't read the newspapers - but what should I read for factual
information to back up your claims? Can you cite just 3 sources of
information that back up your claims? If you can't - you lose and
shut the **** up!



I told you. Go there. Visit some farms in the country side. Work in
15 to 20 cities. Talk to some (mainland) Chinese instead of just
Taiwanese who's view of mainland China is biased. Marry one, instead
of rooming with a "cute girl from Taiwan". Once you've done some of
these things, you'll have a better idea of what China is like.



I don't have to go there - I can take the word of my friends who have
lived on the mainland and and who live there now.

Then you can only go by the second hand information you get from them.
If you actually spent time in China, and worked alongside Chinese and
Taiwanese, you would understand the Taiwanese bias against (mainland)
Chinese. This would help you better understand the opinions they give you.

I can base my opinion
on the articles published by sources on both sides of the political
aisle. I know what China is like now and I damn sure wouldn't want to
live there now.

That's a pity. It seems you have a closed mind and little desire to
learn about other cultures. There are many beautiful places in China.
The people are friendly, curious and love to learn about what our life
is like. I base my opinion on the time I spend there, the condiditions
I see, the people I worked, lived, and played with.

I rather like not living in filth and squallor, with
blackouts and horrible public health problems, and having to worry about
losing a finger, arm or other body parts working in factories with no
workplace health and safety protection.

I've had more power outages since I got home than in all of my time in
China. Yes, there are health and safety problems. Never said there
weren't.


If you liked it so much - why don't you go the **** back there to live?

I actually may for a couple years.

We damn sure don't need anymore people trying to turn the US into China
with a race to the bottom.

More trolling. I didn't say anything about changing the US to be more
like China.

USENET READER 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.

Jimmy Hoffa was a very personable fellow also -- doesn't mean he
wasn't a crook.

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 08:09:47 GMT, USENET READER
wrote:

Tom Disque wrote:

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:23:17 -0500, "Edward M. Kennedy"
wrote:


"Tom Disque" wrote


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.

Like what? It's a false dichotomy. You don't need a *union*
guy to do that -- you need a *qualified* guy to do that. The
"union" guy may be *more* likely to have BS certification for
all you know. You know, get passed along by the bureaucracy
like in a public school?

It's a similar thing for doctors and lawyers. I'm not against their
certification, I'm against the monopoly in deciding who gets to
practice medicine or law at all.

--Ted


You make better points!

SO who signed your diploma saying you graduated from college, or

I duno, I never looked at it.

certified that the college you went to was worth a damn?

Why bother? It wasn't! From grade school on, anything I learned was
pretty much up to me. If I wished, I could've casted all the way thru
college. Lucky for me, I enjoy learning.

Or is that an OK monopoly in your view?

Is what an OK monopoly? College certification boards?

"USENET READER" wrote

Reputation. A medical standards group that racks up a lot of
bozos with malpractice suits is dead in the water. Right now,
the system is not only biased, there's not much feedback.

There's no shortage of certification systems in the private market.
A bachelors degree in engineering from an *accredited* university
is also a form accredation. Microsoft does a lot too, as does the
Red Cross for lifeguards.

You raise an interesting point. The problem is that those
certifications and degrees cost money out front before you even get a
job that might not be there when you graduate.


If you can't hold a job and earn certifications from Microsoft
at the same time, you aren't very employable to begin with.

Sorry - many people who work today have to work long and hard hours and
their lives aren't their own. Most people have to not only get this
certification apart from work, but they also have to pay for it on their
own too! Someone who is told that they have to work tonight (when they
should be going to their certification class) or they don't have to come
in the next day has a tough choice to make.

Crime me an anecdotal river.

Getting your certification on the job is so much better.

For *you*.

And it's tougher to pay for that very expensive certification if you
don't have a job

Firmly grasping the obvious...

- that is some expensive shit!

....until now. Software certification is free/cheap.

You can't even get the
State to pay for it in a reasonable period of time - let's say taking

GOOD!

classes at the McKimmon Center - because the classes are so much more
expensive than at Wake Tech - where it will take a lot longer to
complete the course work.



"Would you like to supersize that?" And don't leave the nest
until you can fly.


One of the things that a union has done in the past is to have a system
for new workers to come into a system as a helper or apprentice and work
and learn at the same time, until they passed some sort of
certification. And they didn't have to take out loans or pay someone to
teach them - they learned on the job while they were getting paid. And
while they were learning, they had job protection. What could possibly
be wrong with that?


Nothing. The false dichotomy (again) is that you need a union
to have apprenticeships. Many, many professions have some
form of this.

Since few employees have the bargaining strength these days (relative to
their employers) to negotiate for paid on the job training,

Plenty of employers *do* offer it if it is related to work. Care
to back up your implied (sneaky, aren't we?) claim that few
employees have access to on the job training?

unions do
help with that. Name me a profession that isn't unionized that have
apprenticeships? And don't say medicine, because that is apples and
oranges.

If you say so. Ironically, computers were the classic type of
learn-as-you-go work, though not as much now. Just about
every type of construction effectively works that way. You
don't take carpentry classes. You start as a helper. Same for
aliminum siding, roofing, sheetrock, etc. Electricians do the
formal version even where their aren't unions.

Lawyers, engineers, brokers, etc. start in junior positions.
Management in general is trains & grooms as you go. It's
a very common model, whether it is a formal apprenticeship
or not.

--Ted

"Tom Disque" wrote in message

SO who signed your diploma saying you graduated from college, or

I duno, I never looked at it.

certified that the college you went to was worth a damn?

Why bother? It wasn't! From grade school on, anything I learned was
pretty much up to me. If I wished, I could've casted all the way thru
college. Lucky for me, I enjoy learning.

Or is that an OK monopoly in your view?

Is what an OK monopoly? College certification boards?

Grain of Sand is free to start his own college certification board.
Zen University, Buddha College, The Socratic School of Sophistry...

--Ted

Edward M. Kennedy wrote:
"USENET READER" wrote



Plenty of employers *do* offer it if it is related to work. Care
to back up your implied (sneaky, aren't we?) claim that few
employees have access to on the job training?


unions do
help with that. Name me a profession that isn't unionized that have
apprenticeships? And don't say medicine, because that is apples and
oranges.


If you say so. Ironically, computers were the classic type of
learn-as-you-go work, though not as much now. Just about
every type of construction effectively works that way. You
don't take carpentry classes. You start as a helper. Same for
aliminum siding, roofing, sheetrock, etc. Electricians do the
formal version even where their aren't unions.

Lawyers, engineers, brokers, etc. start in junior positions.
Management in general is trains & grooms as you go. It's
a very common model, whether it is a formal apprenticeship
or not.

--Ted



The difference between unionized apprenticeship programs and just
company apprenticeship programs is standardization. Of course the ojt
occurs a bit differently depending on the respective industry, but the
classroom training is pretty much standardized in unionized
apprenticeship programs.

Edward M. Kennedy wrote:

"USENET READER" wrote

Reputation. A medical standards group that racks up a lot of
bozos with malpractice suits is dead in the water. Right now,
the system is not only biased, there's not much feedback.



If you say so. Ironically, computers were the classic type of
learn-as-you-go work, though not as much now. Just about
every type of construction effectively works that way. You
don't take carpentry classes. You start as a helper. Same for
aliminum siding, roofing, sheetrock, etc. Electricians do the
formal version even where their aren't unions.

Lawyers, engineers, brokers, etc. start in junior positions.
Management in general is trains & grooms as you go. It's
a very common model, whether it is a formal apprenticeship
or not.

--Ted

By the way, what does this have to do with alt.home.lawn.garden?