"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 14:43:40 -0700, "Charles Momsen"
said:

Happens all the time. That's why Unions are exempt from anti-trust laws.

You seem really fixated on this discovery of yours.

Labor unions are exempt from the antitrust laws because way back when
someone managed to sell the slogan "labor is not a commodity" to a
gullible
Congress and public, expecting, quite correctly, that no one would be
smart
enough to ask what that wonderful-sounding slogan means.

I'm not fixated, it's just a handy device to mention every now and then.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 12:06:16 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

I suppose that if one is in a delicate condition, every sniffle and sore
throat is potentially life-threatening. For most of us that's not the
case.


Dude... are you really that heartless? Do you think a stomach ache can be
an
indication of too much food but not a ruptured appenedix? Get real.

Q.E.D.


Thanks for answering. I'm sorry you're so heartless.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On 25 Nov 2008 14:36:01 -0600, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 12:06:16 -0800, "Capt. JG" said:

I suppose that if one is in a delicate condition, every sniffle and sore
throat is potentially life-threatening. For most of us that's not the
case.


Dude... are you really that heartless? Do you think a stomach ache can be an
indication of too much food but not a ruptured appenedix? Get real.

Q.E.D.

You misspelled Queeg.

Dave wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 07:55:15 -0500, Martin Baxter said:

Nope. An employer can provide no health benefits at all if he so chooses.
The system of linking health benefits to employment is an outgrowth of wage
an price controls of WWII. Most do offer them to be competitive in hiring.
Ah, so Toyota has no health care plan for its' workers?
What is your basis for that conclusion?

The four letter word "Nope" that opens your previous post.

Most interesting and quite revealing. It suggests you believe businesses
answer only to government requirements--that market forces such as the need
to compete with other potential employers in setting wages and benefits, and
the need to compete with other sellers in product pricing, has no influence
in those businesses' decisions. That assumption may be true in a command
economy. Maybe that's why command economies fail.


It suggests nothing of the kind. I only suggests that you failed to
answer in a clear a cogent manner.

Cheers
Martin

Dave wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 13:08:30 -0500, said:

Unless, of course, they all get together and collude to jack prices
up, rather than compete against each other. That, of course, could
NEVER happen!

They say even paranoids have enemies.

Dave, do you wonder why most democratic countries have some form of anti
trust law?

Cheers
Martin

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:25:12 -0700, "Charles Momsen"
said:

Labor unions are exempt from the antitrust laws because way back when
someone managed to sell the slogan "labor is not a commodity" to a
gullible
Congress and public, expecting, quite correctly, that no one would be
smart
enough to ask what that wonderful-sounding slogan means.

I'm not fixated, it's just a handy device to mention every now and then.

It seems to surprise no one but you.

Sorry, I won't mention it again.

Dave wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 22:10:37 -0500, Marty said:

Nope. An employer can provide no health benefits at all if he so chooses.
The system of linking health benefits to employment is an outgrowth of wage
an price controls of WWII. Most do offer them to be competitive in hiring.
Ah, so Toyota has no health care plan for its' workers?
What is your basis for that conclusion?
The four letter word "Nope" that opens your previous post.
Most interesting and quite revealing. It suggests you believe businesses
answer only to government requirements--that market forces such as the need
to compete with other potential employers in setting wages and benefits, and
the need to compete with other sellers in product pricing, has no influence
in those businesses' decisions. That assumption may be true in a command
economy. Maybe that's why command economies fail.

It suggests nothing of the kind. I only suggests that you failed to
answer in a clear a cogent manner.

You asked the question: "isn't that pretty much a legal
requirement?"

I answered:

Nope. An employer can provide no health benefits at all if he so chooses.

What do you find this unclear? What part of "Nope" do you not understand.


And here I thought the question was "Toyota has no health care plan for
it's workers?"

Cheers
Martin
------------ And now a word from our sponsor ------------------
Want to have instant messaging, and chat rooms, and discussion
groups for your local users or business, you need dbabble!
-- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_dbabble.htm ----

Dave wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:43:12 -0500, Martin Baxter said:

You asked the question: "isn't that pretty much a legal
requirement?"

I answered:

Nope. An employer can provide no health benefits at all if he so chooses.
What do you find this unclear? What part of "Nope" do you not understand.

And here I thought the question was "Toyota has no health care plan for
it's workers?"

You need to go back and review the bidding.

That was the question you asked after I told you there is no legal
requirement for an employer to provide for payment of his employee's medical
bills--the answer you seem to have difficulty comprehending.


Now there you go again, you couldn't resist the snide dig, but it
doesn't really matter.

You would agree then that Toyota does in fact participate in a health
care plan for it's workers?

Cheers
Martin

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 13:02:43 -0500, Martin Baxter
wrote:

Dave wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:43:12 -0500, Martin Baxter said:

You asked the question: "isn't that pretty much a legal
requirement?"

I answered:

Nope. An employer can provide no health benefits at all if he so chooses.
What do you find this unclear? What part of "Nope" do you not understand.

And here I thought the question was "Toyota has no health care plan for
it's workers?"

You need to go back and review the bidding.

That was the question you asked after I told you there is no legal
requirement for an employer to provide for payment of his employee's medical
bills--the answer you seem to have difficulty comprehending.


Now there you go again, you couldn't resist the snide dig, but it
doesn't really matter.

You would agree then that Toyota does in fact participate in a health
care plan for it's workers?

Just a little sanity here, which may not be of interest.
Big 3 legacy costs include health care for retirees.
With a 30 and out policy, providing health care for a 50 year old
until he reaches the medicare age of 65 can be expensive.
I don't know the details, but the costs might go beyond age 65.
There are a lot of weeds to wade through before you find real answers.

--Vic

Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 13:02:43 -0500, Martin Baxter
wrote:

Dave wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:43:12 -0500, Martin Baxter said:

You asked the question: "isn't that pretty much a legal
requirement?"

I answered:

Nope. An employer can provide no health benefits at all if he so chooses.
What do you find this unclear? What part of "Nope" do you not understand.
And here I thought the question was "Toyota has no health care plan for
it's workers?"
You need to go back and review the bidding.

That was the question you asked after I told you there is no legal
requirement for an employer to provide for payment of his employee's medical
bills--the answer you seem to have difficulty comprehending.

Now there you go again, you couldn't resist the snide dig, but it
doesn't really matter.

You would agree then that Toyota does in fact participate in a health
care plan for it's workers?

Just a little sanity here, which may not be of interest.
Big 3 legacy costs include health care for retirees.
With a 30 and out policy, providing health care for a 50 year old
until he reaches the medicare age of 65 can be expensive.
I don't know the details, but the costs might go beyond age 65.
There are a lot of weeds to wade through before you find real answers.

--Vic

Oh damn you! Let's have no talk of sanity... screws up a perfectly
good piece of Usenet fun.... on the other the health care cost issue
probably cost you guys the most recent Toyota plant in North America,
seems the liked the idea of Canada's commy universal health care.

Cheers
Martin