"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 09:07:01 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:
You don't know much about
management/employee relations do you.

Quite a bit.

Frank

You haven't demonstrated that...


Not taking that bait, Jon. But I'll ask a question of you since you
have passed judgement without any facts. How many organizations have
you managed? How many of them were organized. How many in right to
work states? How many union contracts have you negotiated? How many
grievance meetings have you attended. How many labor/management
meetings have you conducted.

I'm still waiting for your experiences that qualify you to make sound
judgements about the difference in effectiveness between very large
organizations and small organizations. What's it been two years?

Frank


Frank, you're the one who's passed judgement.. you said you didn't believe
me. I said that you haven't demonstrated knowledge that you know much
about
employee relations.

You don't know much about
management/employee relations do you.

Sounds like a judgement to me. But maybe not.

Possibly that *was* a judgement call, but later I said that you haven't
demonstrated such knowledge.


Are you claiming that every time there's a minor violation, management (or
the union) should escalate to legal action?

Did I say that?

wildcat strike - minor contract violation. You're not serious are
you?

Basically, yes. You said that. You're the one who used wildcat strike for a
simple disagreement that was resolved in a few minutes.


You might want to answer my questions. Just trying to find out if you
actually know anything about the subject or are just flailing around.

Frank

I can google with the best of them. What's the point.



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

Fortunately, your list of not knowing things appears to be much longer than
mine.

"Peter" wrote in message
ps.com...

I think you've made your point, Frank. Add labor relations to the long
list of subjects on which Jon has opinions without experience, evidence
or ability to defend them.

PDW


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

On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 20:54:00 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 09:07:01 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:
You don't know much about
management/employee relations do you.

Quite a bit.

Frank

You haven't demonstrated that...


Not taking that bait, Jon. But I'll ask a question of you since you
have passed judgement without any facts. How many organizations have
you managed? How many of them were organized. How many in right to
work states? How many union contracts have you negotiated? How many
grievance meetings have you attended. How many labor/management
meetings have you conducted.

I'm still waiting for your experiences that qualify you to make sound
judgements about the difference in effectiveness between very large
organizations and small organizations. What's it been two years?

Frank


Frank, you're the one who's passed judgement.. you said you didn't believe
me. I said that you haven't demonstrated knowledge that you know much
about
employee relations.

You don't know much about
management/employee relations do you.

Sounds like a judgement to me. But maybe not.

Possibly that *was* a judgement call, but later I said that you haven't
demonstrated such knowledge.


Are you claiming that every time there's a minor violation, management (or
the union) should escalate to legal action?

Did I say that?

wildcat strike - minor contract violation. You're not serious are
you?

Basically, yes. You said that. You're the one who used wildcat strike for a
simple disagreement that was resolved in a few minutes.


" When this became obvious to a union member, he
basically walked off the job along with the other members in the shop until
the "rule" was rescinded."

Jon, read it (what you stated) again. What do you think defines a
wildcat strike?

If you know anything about labor relations you would know that
generally the first article in any contract (after the one that says
the parties have negotiated this contract in the spirit of cooperation
and the Management Rights statement) is the no strike/no lockout
article. It is so important to both parties that it is always listed
first in the contract. Neither side would allow it to be violated.
In this case the bargaining unit officer committee and the
international district rep would be so appalled by the action of the
members, they would join with the company to take action against the
strikers so to avoid involvement of the NLRB.

The problem you related could be solved in a number of other ways,
within the contract. And both parties to the contract are bound to do
that.




You might want to answer my questions. Just trying to find out if you
actually know anything about the subject or are just flailing around.

Frank

I can google with the best of them. What's the point.

That's what I thought. Thank you for an honest answer.
Did all those things, googling not necessary.

Frank

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 20:54:00 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 09:07:01 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:
You don't know much about
management/employee relations do you.

Quite a bit.

Frank

You haven't demonstrated that...


Not taking that bait, Jon. But I'll ask a question of you since you
have passed judgement without any facts. How many organizations have
you managed? How many of them were organized. How many in right to
work states? How many union contracts have you negotiated? How many
grievance meetings have you attended. How many labor/management
meetings have you conducted.

I'm still waiting for your experiences that qualify you to make sound
judgements about the difference in effectiveness between very large
organizations and small organizations. What's it been two years?

Frank


Frank, you're the one who's passed judgement.. you said you didn't
believe
me. I said that you haven't demonstrated knowledge that you know much
about
employee relations.

You don't know much about
management/employee relations do you.

Sounds like a judgement to me. But maybe not.

Possibly that *was* a judgement call, but later I said that you haven't
demonstrated such knowledge.


Are you claiming that every time there's a minor violation, management
(or
the union) should escalate to legal action?

Did I say that?

wildcat strike - minor contract violation. You're not serious are
you?

Basically, yes. You said that. You're the one who used wildcat strike for
a
simple disagreement that was resolved in a few minutes.


" When this became obvious to a union member, he
basically walked off the job along with the other members in the shop
until
the "rule" was rescinded."

Jon, read it (what you stated) again. What do you think defines a
wildcat strike?

If you know anything about labor relations you would know that
generally the first article in any contract (after the one that says
the parties have negotiated this contract in the spirit of cooperation
and the Management Rights statement) is the no strike/no lockout
article. It is so important to both parties that it is always listed
first in the contract. Neither side would allow it to be violated.
In this case the bargaining unit officer committee and the
international district rep would be so appalled by the action of the
members, they would join with the company to take action against the
strikers so to avoid involvement of the NLRB.

The problem you related could be solved in a number of other ways,
within the contract. And both parties to the contract are bound to do
that.




You might want to answer my questions. Just trying to find out if you
actually know anything about the subject or are just flailing around.

Frank

I can google with the best of them. What's the point.

That's what I thought. Thank you for an honest answer.
Did all those things, googling not necessary.

Frank



And, like I said, you used the term "wildcat." I didn't. It seems to me that
when management and union members are in disagreement, the first step should
not be to attack each other. In the case I cited, management made a stupid
mistake of not respecting those in the union, the union people were offended
and reacted, then management wised up and decided not to make a major issue
out of it, apologizing, and moving on.

In your advise, both sides would have suffered.

You're just plain wrong and can't admit it.

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 20:54:00 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

You might want to answer my questions. Just trying to find out if you
actually know anything about the subject or are just flailing around.

Frank

I can google with the best of them.

QED


Nothing useful to say I see... are you now claiming that Frank is incapable
of searching for terms via Google?

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 10:18:49 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

"Dave" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 20:54:00 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

You might want to answer my questions. Just trying to find out if you
actually know anything about the subject or are just flailing around.

Frank

I can google with the best of them.

QED


Nothing useful to say I see... are you now claiming that Frank is
incapable
of searching for terms via Google?

Jon, you're simply illustrating the truth of that old maxim: Better to
remain silent and be thought a fool than to open you mouth and prove it.


Actually, you should take your own advice. You don't have anything to
contribute, so you attempt to insult me. I thought this was what you plonked
me for in the past... double standard?


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

On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 10:18:12 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 20:54:00 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 09:07:01 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:
You don't know much about
management/employee relations do you.

Quite a bit.

Frank

You haven't demonstrated that...


Not taking that bait, Jon. But I'll ask a question of you since you
have passed judgement without any facts. How many organizations have
you managed? How many of them were organized. How many in right to
work states? How many union contracts have you negotiated? How many
grievance meetings have you attended. How many labor/management
meetings have you conducted.

I'm still waiting for your experiences that qualify you to make sound
judgements about the difference in effectiveness between very large
organizations and small organizations. What's it been two years?

Frank


Frank, you're the one who's passed judgement.. you said you didn't
believe
me. I said that you haven't demonstrated knowledge that you know much
about
employee relations.

You don't know much about
management/employee relations do you.

Sounds like a judgement to me. But maybe not.

Possibly that *was* a judgement call, but later I said that you haven't
demonstrated such knowledge.


Are you claiming that every time there's a minor violation, management
(or
the union) should escalate to legal action?

Did I say that?

wildcat strike - minor contract violation. You're not serious are
you?

Basically, yes. You said that. You're the one who used wildcat strike for
a
simple disagreement that was resolved in a few minutes.


" When this became obvious to a union member, he
basically walked off the job along with the other members in the shop
until
the "rule" was rescinded."

Jon, read it (what you stated) again. What do you think defines a
wildcat strike?

If you know anything about labor relations you would know that
generally the first article in any contract (after the one that says
the parties have negotiated this contract in the spirit of cooperation
and the Management Rights statement) is the no strike/no lockout
article. It is so important to both parties that it is always listed
first in the contract. Neither side would allow it to be violated.
In this case the bargaining unit officer committee and the
international district rep would be so appalled by the action of the
members, they would join with the company to take action against the
strikers so to avoid involvement of the NLRB.

The problem you related could be solved in a number of other ways,
within the contract. And both parties to the contract are bound to do
that.




You might want to answer my questions. Just trying to find out if you
actually know anything about the subject or are just flailing around.

Frank

I can google with the best of them. What's the point.

That's what I thought. Thank you for an honest answer.
Did all those things, googling not necessary.

Frank



And, like I said, you used the term "wildcat." I didn't.


Not my term Jon, I didn't make it up. Definition:

Wildcat Strike

Sudden and unannounced work stoppage while a labor contract is still
in effect. Wildcat strikes are not authorized by union management and
are illegal strikes. Wildcat strikes result from disputes regarding
wages and working conditions.






It seems to me that
when management and union members are in disagreement, the first step should
not be to attack each other. In the case I cited, management made a stupid
mistake of not respecting those in the union, the union people were offended
and reacted, then management wised up and decided not to make a major issue
out of it, apologizing, and moving on.



"What seems to you" is irrelevant. Your opinion about the actions of
management or the workers reaction to them doesn't matter nor would
mine regardless of wether it is the same or different. Once a
bargaining unit has agreed to collective bargaining, they have given
up the right to act individually, unilaterally or arbitrarily. They
have to abide by the contract. Both parties have that obligation.



In your advise, both sides would have suffered.

I advised nothing about the incident you described, only that there
were ways to handle it successfully within the contract. Allowing a
wildcat strike to occur without reaction would destroy the integrity
of the contract.

You're just plain wrong and can't admit it.

no comment.

Frank

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 10:18:12 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:
And, like I said, you used the term "wildcat." I didn't.


Not my term Jon, I didn't make it up. Definition:

Never said it was your term Frank. What I said was, you used it, then
claimed I did. Untrue.

It seems to me that
when management and union members are in disagreement, the first step
should
not be to attack each other. In the case I cited, management made a stupid
mistake of not respecting those in the union, the union people were
offended
and reacted, then management wised up and decided not to make a major
issue
out of it, apologizing, and moving on.

"What seems to you" is irrelevant. Your opinion about the actions of
management or the workers reaction to them doesn't matter nor would
mine regardless of wether it is the same or different. Once a
bargaining unit has agreed to collective bargaining, they have given
up the right to act individually, unilaterally or arbitrarily. They
have to abide by the contract. Both parties have that obligation.

Well, since I was there and I experienced it, it seems to me that you're
trying hard to backpeddle.

In your advise, both sides would have suffered.

I advised nothing about the incident you described, only that there
were ways to handle it successfully within the contract. Allowing a
wildcat strike to occur without reaction would destroy the integrity
of the contract.

Yes, both sides would have suffered much more than just an open discussion
of the problem. Now you're claiming that the integrity of the contract was
more important than the actual work. Bzzzt.

You're just plain wrong and can't admit it.

no comment.

Clearly.

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

On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 13:56:20 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 10:18:12 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:
And, like I said, you used the term "wildcat." I didn't.


Not my term Jon, I didn't make it up. Definition:

Never said it was your term Frank. What I said was, you used it, then
claimed I did. Untrue.

I did use it as it is a valid term. I did not claim you did. Repeat
the quote, verbatim please.


It seems to me that
when management and union members are in disagreement, the first step
should
not be to attack each other. In the case I cited, management made a stupid
mistake of not respecting those in the union, the union people were
offended
and reacted, then management wised up and decided not to make a major
issue
out of it, apologizing, and moving on.

"What seems to you" is irrelevant. Your opinion about the actions of
management or the workers reaction to them doesn't matter nor would
mine regardless of wether it is the same or different. Once a
bargaining unit has agreed to collective bargaining, they have given
up the right to act individually, unilaterally or arbitrarily. They
have to abide by the contract. Both parties have that obligation.

Well, since I was there and I experienced it, it seems to me that you're
trying hard to backpeddle.

It's backpedal. To qualify or retreat from a an announced position,
policy, or endorsement. Show me where.

In your advise, both sides would have suffered.

I advised nothing about the incident you described, only that there
were ways to handle it successfully within the contract. Allowing a
wildcat strike to occur without reaction would destroy the integrity
of the contract.

Yes, both sides would have suffered much more than just an open discussion
of the problem. Now you're claiming that the integrity of the contract was
more important than the actual work. Bzzzt.

Where? repeat the quote, verbatim please.

You're just plain wrong and can't admit it.

no comment.

Clearly.

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 13:56:20 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 10:18:12 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:
And, like I said, you used the term "wildcat." I didn't.


Not my term Jon, I didn't make it up. Definition:

Never said it was your term Frank. What I said was, you used it, then
claimed I did. Untrue.

I did use it as it is a valid term. I did not claim you did. Repeat
the quote, verbatim please.


It seems to me that
when management and union members are in disagreement, the first step
should
not be to attack each other. In the case I cited, management made a
stupid
mistake of not respecting those in the union, the union people were
offended
and reacted, then management wised up and decided not to make a major
issue
out of it, apologizing, and moving on.

"What seems to you" is irrelevant. Your opinion about the actions of
management or the workers reaction to them doesn't matter nor would
mine regardless of wether it is the same or different. Once a
bargaining unit has agreed to collective bargaining, they have given
up the right to act individually, unilaterally or arbitrarily. They
have to abide by the contract. Both parties have that obligation.

Well, since I was there and I experienced it, it seems to me that you're
trying hard to backpeddle.

It's backpedal. To qualify or retreat from a an announced position,
policy, or endorsement. Show me where.

In your advise, both sides would have suffered.

I advised nothing about the incident you described, only that there
were ways to handle it successfully within the contract. Allowing a
wildcat strike to occur without reaction would destroy the integrity
of the contract.

Yes, both sides would have suffered much more than just an open discussion
of the problem. Now you're claiming that the integrity of the contract was
more important than the actual work. Bzzzt.

Where? repeat the quote, verbatim please.

You're just plain wrong and can't admit it.

no comment.

Clearly.



Pass on all your bs. You're wrong. Why don't you just admit it.

Never mind, I know the answer. Maybe you can get Dave to insult me again, or
perhaps you can make the attempt.


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