|
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*... more VAT
"Joe" wrote in message ups.com... How's about a flat sales tax of 10% for American made goods and 15% for imports. Are you getting up there in age, Joe? Do you have any money saved for retirement? If you do have money saved, it is money you paid income taxes on, most likely. What if you have 100 thousand dollars saved. It's worth 100 thousand dollars. If they all of a sudden get rid of income taxes and put on a sales or "consumption" tax of 20% (that's the minimum it will take BTW) your 100 thousand suddenly is worth only 80 thousand to you. You have just been taxed TWICE on the same money. Can you live with that. Can your parents if you are young and don't have any retirement savings? Can you just imagine the huge Canadian or Mexican black market that would result if people could keep from paying that 20% consumption tax? Paladin (Have gun - will travel) -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
... On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:29:56 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Frank Boettcher" wrote in message . .. On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 21:15:11 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: That's a tougher question. I was part of union, and I was required to join for a summer job. There were dues, but the benefits and the pay were pretty good, considering I was in high school and had minimal experience. I had an accident at work while driving a forklift... damaged a lot of expensive equipment through no fault of my own except inexperience. If I had not been a member of the union, I would have been fired for sure. I was slightly injured and had to take off a couple of weeks. The salaried supervisor asked me one time what happened. The union steward was present, and he stopped him when he started to get mean (I'm sure his job was on the line). I was given an opportunity to make a statement, and briefly mentioned my lack of experience. When I returned to work, the supervisor found someone to train me, so that it wouldn't happen again. In another situation, I was a staff employee in a union shop (defense contractor). The union was pretty strict about members not doing anything beyond their job description, but tended to look the other way if you had a good relationship with the employee/staff member. We had a situation of another supervisor telling his subordinates (me included) that we shouldn't fraternize with union people... exchange pleasantries and the like... I think he was on a power trip. 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. Very difficult to believe, Jon. Considered a wildcat strike, an unfair labor practice, and no Union that I know of would allow that to happen. Could be held liable for any damages to the company over the issue. If there is nothing written in the contract about the right to fraternize then you cannot "strike" over any aspect of the issue. If there is something in the contract about it, you would have to go through the grievance procedure. Frank It lasted about 1/2 hour. Everyone was satisfied with the result. Can't help it if you have difficulty believing it. Management was satisfied to accept the cost of a half hour disruption and shutdown of their operation with an illegal wildcat strike? No I don't believe that. Management should have filed an unfair labor practice complaint with the NLRB, and if they did not, it is very difficult to believe. The Union cannot endorse a "strike" over any issue, grievable or not, that is why there is a contract. Frank Why do I care what you believe again? You don't know much about management/employee relations do you. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*... more VAT
Paladin wrote: "Joe" wrote in message ups.com... How's about a flat sales tax of 10% for American made goods and 15% for imports. Are you getting up there in age, Joe? Not even mid 40's yet Do you have any money saved for retirement? No..I have money saved to go cruising. Do not plan to retire, I like my work too much. If you do have money saved, it is money you paid income taxes on, most likely. 401-K What if you have 100 thousand dollars saved. It's worth 100 thousand dollars. If they all of a sudden get rid of income taxes and put on a sales or "consumption" tax of 20% (that's the minimum it will take BTW) your 100 thousand suddenly is worth only 80 thousand to you. You have just been taxed TWICE on the same money. Can you live with that. Can your parents if you are young and don't have any retirement savings? I failed to mention making existing retirement funds exempt. Can you just imagine the huge Canadian or Mexican black market that would result if people could keep from paying that 20% consumption tax? By then the fences should be up and ready. Joe Paladin (Have gun - will travel) -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 14:16:05 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote: "Frank Boettcher" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:29:56 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Frank Boettcher" wrote in message ... On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 21:15:11 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: That's a tougher question. I was part of union, and I was required to join for a summer job. There were dues, but the benefits and the pay were pretty good, considering I was in high school and had minimal experience. I had an accident at work while driving a forklift... damaged a lot of expensive equipment through no fault of my own except inexperience. If I had not been a member of the union, I would have been fired for sure. I was slightly injured and had to take off a couple of weeks. The salaried supervisor asked me one time what happened. The union steward was present, and he stopped him when he started to get mean (I'm sure his job was on the line). I was given an opportunity to make a statement, and briefly mentioned my lack of experience. When I returned to work, the supervisor found someone to train me, so that it wouldn't happen again. In another situation, I was a staff employee in a union shop (defense contractor). The union was pretty strict about members not doing anything beyond their job description, but tended to look the other way if you had a good relationship with the employee/staff member. We had a situation of another supervisor telling his subordinates (me included) that we shouldn't fraternize with union people... exchange pleasantries and the like... I think he was on a power trip. 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. Very difficult to believe, Jon. Considered a wildcat strike, an unfair labor practice, and no Union that I know of would allow that to happen. Could be held liable for any damages to the company over the issue. If there is nothing written in the contract about the right to fraternize then you cannot "strike" over any aspect of the issue. If there is something in the contract about it, you would have to go through the grievance procedure. Frank It lasted about 1/2 hour. Everyone was satisfied with the result. Can't help it if you have difficulty believing it. Management was satisfied to accept the cost of a half hour disruption and shutdown of their operation with an illegal wildcat strike? No I don't believe that. Management should have filed an unfair labor practice complaint with the NLRB, and if they did not, it is very difficult to believe. The Union cannot endorse a "strike" over any issue, grievable or not, that is why there is a contract. Frank Why do I care what you believe again? I have no idea. You don't know much about management/employee relations do you. Quite a bit. Frank |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*... more VAT
"Joe" wrote in message oups.com... What if you have 100 thousand dollars saved. It's worth 100 thousand dollars. If they all of a sudden get rid of income taxes and put on a sales or "consumption" tax of 20% (that's the minimum it will take BTW) your 100 thousand suddenly is worth only 80 thousand to you. You have just been taxed TWICE on the same money. Can you live with that. Can your parents if you are young and don't have any retirement savings? I failed to mention making existing retirement funds exempt. It is not possible to do that. Do you know what a national sales or consumption tax is? Everything you buy has a tax on it. Your income isn't taxed but your outgo is. It is possible to exempt some items like groceries, for example. And it is possible to tax some items like luxury automobiles at a higher rate. However it is not possible to exempt retirement funds. A consumption tax is placed on money being spent. That's why you saved that retirement money - so you can spend it when you are too old to earn any more. You've already paid income taxes on it. Now they would tax it again - not just the small percentage of interest and capital gain but the entire sum total at a 20% rate when you spend it. Double taxation plain and simple. Are you still for it? More importantly, do you think the millions of baby boomers will be for it? It doesn't have a chance in hell of ever being implemented. I am asking this because I really think people don't realize what a consumption or national sales tax means to them on an individual basis. The only way to do it would be to phase it in on new workers. They would be the only ones required to pay it. And they would be exempt from income taxes. Over a period of about a hundred years you could change the system over fairly. You just can't do it overnight or over a year or two. The big problem with this, however, is it is not workable. Those workers would just give their purchase money to a friend who was exempt to buy things for them. Paladin (Have gun - will travel) -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*... more VAT
"Dave" wrote in message ... Joe, I think you just identified the central problem with the guy's argument. Rather than talk about why he thinks income tax or some other tax is better than VAT, he quibbles about the details of getting from one system to the other. It's a bit like saying "I don't care how great heaven is. It's not worth considering because I don't see an easy way to get from here to there." Do you realize how naive you sound? You would willy-nilly implement a new tax system without studying every single ramification? You are a liberal without a doubt. If it feels good do it. Is that right? As for not being worth considering, I am considering aspects of a consumption tax nobody else is even aware of at this point. That's more than you are doing though you decry the lack, thereof. Your logic is as faulty as your intellect, sir. Paladin (Have gun - will travel) -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
... On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 14:16:05 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Frank Boettcher" wrote in message . .. On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:29:56 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Frank Boettcher" wrote in message m... On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 21:15:11 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: That's a tougher question. I was part of union, and I was required to join for a summer job. There were dues, but the benefits and the pay were pretty good, considering I was in high school and had minimal experience. I had an accident at work while driving a forklift... damaged a lot of expensive equipment through no fault of my own except inexperience. If I had not been a member of the union, I would have been fired for sure. I was slightly injured and had to take off a couple of weeks. The salaried supervisor asked me one time what happened. The union steward was present, and he stopped him when he started to get mean (I'm sure his job was on the line). I was given an opportunity to make a statement, and briefly mentioned my lack of experience. When I returned to work, the supervisor found someone to train me, so that it wouldn't happen again. In another situation, I was a staff employee in a union shop (defense contractor). The union was pretty strict about members not doing anything beyond their job description, but tended to look the other way if you had a good relationship with the employee/staff member. We had a situation of another supervisor telling his subordinates (me included) that we shouldn't fraternize with union people... exchange pleasantries and the like... I think he was on a power trip. 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. Very difficult to believe, Jon. Considered a wildcat strike, an unfair labor practice, and no Union that I know of would allow that to happen. Could be held liable for any damages to the company over the issue. If there is nothing written in the contract about the right to fraternize then you cannot "strike" over any aspect of the issue. If there is something in the contract about it, you would have to go through the grievance procedure. Frank It lasted about 1/2 hour. Everyone was satisfied with the result. Can't help it if you have difficulty believing it. Management was satisfied to accept the cost of a half hour disruption and shutdown of their operation with an illegal wildcat strike? No I don't believe that. Management should have filed an unfair labor practice complaint with the NLRB, and if they did not, it is very difficult to believe. The Union cannot endorse a "strike" over any issue, grievable or not, that is why there is a contract. Frank Why do I care what you believe again? I have no idea. I think you do. :-) You don't know much about management/employee relations do you. Quite a bit. Frank You haven't demonstrated that... -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
"Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Frank Boettcher" wrote in message ... On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 14:16:05 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Frank Boettcher" wrote in message ... On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:29:56 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Frank Boettcher" wrote in message om... On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 21:15:11 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: That's a tougher question. I was part of union, and I was required to join for a summer job. There were dues, but the benefits and the pay were pretty good, considering I was in high school and had minimal experience. I had an accident at work while driving a forklift... damaged a lot of expensive equipment through no fault of my own except inexperience. If I had not been a member of the union, I would have been fired for sure. I was slightly injured and had to take off a couple of weeks. The salaried supervisor asked me one time what happened. The union steward was present, and he stopped him when he started to get mean (I'm sure his job was on the line). I was given an opportunity to make a statement, and briefly mentioned my lack of experience. When I returned to work, the supervisor found someone to train me, so that it wouldn't happen again. In another situation, I was a staff employee in a union shop (defense contractor). The union was pretty strict about members not doing anything beyond their job description, but tended to look the other way if you had a good relationship with the employee/staff member. We had a situation of another supervisor telling his subordinates (me included) that we shouldn't fraternize with union people... exchange pleasantries and the like... I think he was on a power trip. 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. Very difficult to believe, Jon. Considered a wildcat strike, an unfair labor practice, and no Union that I know of would allow that to happen. Could be held liable for any damages to the company over the issue. If there is nothing written in the contract about the right to fraternize then you cannot "strike" over any aspect of the issue. If there is something in the contract about it, you would have to go through the grievance procedure. Frank It lasted about 1/2 hour. Everyone was satisfied with the result. Can't help it if you have difficulty believing it. Management was satisfied to accept the cost of a half hour disruption and shutdown of their operation with an illegal wildcat strike? No I don't believe that. Management should have filed an unfair labor practice complaint with the NLRB, and if they did not, it is very difficult to believe. The Union cannot endorse a "strike" over any issue, grievable or not, that is why there is a contract. Frank Why do I care what you believe again? I have no idea. I think you do. :-) You don't know much about management/employee relations do you. Quite a bit. Frank You haven't demonstrated that... -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com I've finally figured it out Jon. You're the best troll here. All this time I thought you were off your rocker, but your simply trolling the daylights out of everyone. You're an order of magnitude better than RB. My hat's off to you! Spectacular job! |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*... more VAT
Paladin wrote: "Joe" wrote in message oups.com... What if you have 100 thousand dollars saved. It's worth 100 thousand dollars. If they all of a sudden get rid of income taxes and put on a sales or "consumption" tax of 20% (that's the minimum it will take BTW) your 100 thousand suddenly is worth only 80 thousand to you. You have just been taxed TWICE on the same money. Can you live with that. Can your parents if you are young and don't have any retirement savings? I failed to mention making existing retirement funds exempt. It is not possible to do that. Do you know what a national sales or consumption tax is? Everything you buy has a tax on it. Your income isn't taxed but your outgo is. It is possible to exempt some items like groceries, for example. And it is possible to tax some items like luxury automobiles at a higher rate. However it is not possible to exempt retirement funds. Bull feathers, If you have 100K in your retirement plan then 100K of spending would be tax exempt, you get a rebate. Joe A consumption tax is placed on money being spent. That's why you saved that retirement money - so you can spend it when you are too old to earn any more. You've already paid income taxes on it. Now they would tax it again - not just the small percentage of interest and capital gain but the entire sum total at a 20% rate when you spend it. Double taxation plain and simple. Are you still for it? More importantly, do you think the millions of baby boomers will be for it? It doesn't have a chance in hell of ever being implemented. I am asking this because I really think people don't realize what a consumption or national sales tax means to them on an individual basis. The only way to do it would be to phase it in on new workers. They would be the only ones required to pay it. And they would be exempt from income taxes. Over a period of about a hundred years you could change the system over fairly. You just can't do it overnight or over a year or two. The big problem with this, however, is it is not workable. Those workers would just give their purchase money to a friend who was exempt to buy things for them. Paladin (Have gun - will travel) -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*... more VAT
"Joe" wrote in message oups.com... Bull feathers, If you have 100K in your retirement plan then 100K of spending would be tax exempt, you get a rebate. What are you going to do? Save each and every receipt for everything you bought and every service you availed yourself of and then file a tax form and send along a truckload of receipts? Then prove the money you spent really came out of a retirement account and that you did not just stash that money under a mattress? Come now! Sounds more intrusive than the present unwieldy system to me. How is it possible to get a rebate otherwise. You go to the store and tell them you are spending your retirement dollars and ask them to not charge you the consumption tax? You know that is not going to fly. Just how do you make spending tax exempt? You cannot. Tax is either collected on what you spend or it is not. There is no way you can exempt one individual and not the other. Taxes are built in from manufacturer to retailer all the way down the line. Consumption tax is on goods and services. Not just individuals pay them. Exemption will not work. Rebates are unworkable. Perhaps you have another brilliant idea that fits in the realistic category? Before you advocate for something it would be better if you at least had an inkling of how something works. Americans are truly an arrogantly uninformed and sorry lot of ******s. Texans are even worse. Bush is proof of that. If ever one of you spoiled brats had to do some serious understanding on your own your head would surely explode. Paladin (Have gun - will travel) -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*... more VAT
"Walt" wrote in message With the right exemptions, it can be. Say, a flat X percent with the first Y dollars exempt. By adjusting X and Y one can make it as progressive or regressive as you want. How, then, would that be a "flat tax?" Max |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
"Martin Baxter" wrote in message ... Maxprop wrote: I was fired from a summer job because I refused to join the union in a union shop. The monthly dues amounted to about half my meager pay. I couldn't afford it. Just what union was that, the Mob perhaps? Perhaps it never occurred to you that my wages were meager? And that the union dues were based upon substantially higher wage levels? It was a summer job between years in high school, after all. Max |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
"Capt. JG" wrote in message I am not sure about the requirement to join a union to work. It's a mixed bag of protection and obligation. I've seen, as I said, both sides of it. Closed and union shops are not uncommon. One hears much complaining about them, but such complaints fall on deaf union boss ears. Not at all unlike strong-arm management tactics, right? The unfortunate workers takes it in the ass, despite who's doing the screwing. Max |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
"Gilligan" wrote in message
... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Frank Boettcher" wrote in message ... On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 14:16:05 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Frank Boettcher" wrote in message m... On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:29:56 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Frank Boettcher" wrote in message news:flldn2lbfsnk32pqoha1e8f5b2097bqpps@4ax. com... On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 21:15:11 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: That's a tougher question. I was part of union, and I was required to join for a summer job. There were dues, but the benefits and the pay were pretty good, considering I was in high school and had minimal experience. I had an accident at work while driving a forklift... damaged a lot of expensive equipment through no fault of my own except inexperience. If I had not been a member of the union, I would have been fired for sure. I was slightly injured and had to take off a couple of weeks. The salaried supervisor asked me one time what happened. The union steward was present, and he stopped him when he started to get mean (I'm sure his job was on the line). I was given an opportunity to make a statement, and briefly mentioned my lack of experience. When I returned to work, the supervisor found someone to train me, so that it wouldn't happen again. In another situation, I was a staff employee in a union shop (defense contractor). The union was pretty strict about members not doing anything beyond their job description, but tended to look the other way if you had a good relationship with the employee/staff member. We had a situation of another supervisor telling his subordinates (me included) that we shouldn't fraternize with union people... exchange pleasantries and the like... I think he was on a power trip. 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. Very difficult to believe, Jon. Considered a wildcat strike, an unfair labor practice, and no Union that I know of would allow that to happen. Could be held liable for any damages to the company over the issue. If there is nothing written in the contract about the right to fraternize then you cannot "strike" over any aspect of the issue. If there is something in the contract about it, you would have to go through the grievance procedure. Frank It lasted about 1/2 hour. Everyone was satisfied with the result. Can't help it if you have difficulty believing it. Management was satisfied to accept the cost of a half hour disruption and shutdown of their operation with an illegal wildcat strike? No I don't believe that. Management should have filed an unfair labor practice complaint with the NLRB, and if they did not, it is very difficult to believe. The Union cannot endorse a "strike" over any issue, grievable or not, that is why there is a contract. Frank Why do I care what you believe again? I have no idea. I think you do. :-) You don't know much about management/employee relations do you. Quite a bit. Frank You haven't demonstrated that... -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com I've finally figured it out Jon. You're the best troll here. All this time I thought you were off your rocker, but your simply trolling the daylights out of everyone. You're an order of magnitude better than RB. My hat's off to you! Spectacular job! I apologize. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 16:54:03 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote: "Frank Boettcher" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 14:16:05 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Frank Boettcher" wrote in message ... On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:29:56 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Frank Boettcher" wrote in message om... On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 21:15:11 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: That's a tougher question. I was part of union, and I was required to join for a summer job. There were dues, but the benefits and the pay were pretty good, considering I was in high school and had minimal experience. I had an accident at work while driving a forklift... damaged a lot of expensive equipment through no fault of my own except inexperience. If I had not been a member of the union, I would have been fired for sure. I was slightly injured and had to take off a couple of weeks. The salaried supervisor asked me one time what happened. The union steward was present, and he stopped him when he started to get mean (I'm sure his job was on the line). I was given an opportunity to make a statement, and briefly mentioned my lack of experience. When I returned to work, the supervisor found someone to train me, so that it wouldn't happen again. In another situation, I was a staff employee in a union shop (defense contractor). The union was pretty strict about members not doing anything beyond their job description, but tended to look the other way if you had a good relationship with the employee/staff member. We had a situation of another supervisor telling his subordinates (me included) that we shouldn't fraternize with union people... exchange pleasantries and the like... I think he was on a power trip. 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. Very difficult to believe, Jon. Considered a wildcat strike, an unfair labor practice, and no Union that I know of would allow that to happen. Could be held liable for any damages to the company over the issue. If there is nothing written in the contract about the right to fraternize then you cannot "strike" over any aspect of the issue. If there is something in the contract about it, you would have to go through the grievance procedure. Frank It lasted about 1/2 hour. Everyone was satisfied with the result. Can't help it if you have difficulty believing it. Management was satisfied to accept the cost of a half hour disruption and shutdown of their operation with an illegal wildcat strike? No I don't believe that. Management should have filed an unfair labor practice complaint with the NLRB, and if they did not, it is very difficult to believe. The Union cannot endorse a "strike" over any issue, grievable or not, that is why there is a contract. Frank Why do I care what you believe again? I have no idea. I think you do. :-) 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 |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*... more VAT
Maxprop wrote:
"Walt" wrote in message With the right exemptions, it can be. Say, a flat X percent with the first Y dollars exempt. By adjusting X and Y one can make it as progressive or regressive as you want. How, then, would that be a "flat tax?" See the work of Hall & Rabushka in the early 80's, the grandfather of all modern "flat tax" proposals. It had a flat 19% tax that applied to corporations and individuals with at $25k deduction for individuals. This sort of scheme is common to all flat tax proposols. In terms of high school analytic geometry, a flat tax is a straight line, but the y-intercept is not necessarily zero. By adjusting the y-intercept, a flat tax can be made more or less progressive. But it's still a flat tax regardless of the intercept. If the y intercept is zero, this is sometimes called a "pure" flat tax, but to insist on this as part of the definition of "flat tax" is to ignore 99% of the actual proposals that call themselves by that name. See http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publi...cfm?PubID=8521. or http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared...sNav=pb&id=151 The flat tax was an interesting proposal. Too bad it was used as a stalking horse. //Walt |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
... On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 16:54:03 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Frank Boettcher" wrote in message . .. On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 14:16:05 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Frank Boettcher" wrote in message m... On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:29:56 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Frank Boettcher" wrote in message news:flldn2lbfsnk32pqoha1e8f5b2097bqpps@4ax. com... On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 21:15:11 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: That's a tougher question. I was part of union, and I was required to join for a summer job. There were dues, but the benefits and the pay were pretty good, considering I was in high school and had minimal experience. I had an accident at work while driving a forklift... damaged a lot of expensive equipment through no fault of my own except inexperience. If I had not been a member of the union, I would have been fired for sure. I was slightly injured and had to take off a couple of weeks. The salaried supervisor asked me one time what happened. The union steward was present, and he stopped him when he started to get mean (I'm sure his job was on the line). I was given an opportunity to make a statement, and briefly mentioned my lack of experience. When I returned to work, the supervisor found someone to train me, so that it wouldn't happen again. In another situation, I was a staff employee in a union shop (defense contractor). The union was pretty strict about members not doing anything beyond their job description, but tended to look the other way if you had a good relationship with the employee/staff member. We had a situation of another supervisor telling his subordinates (me included) that we shouldn't fraternize with union people... exchange pleasantries and the like... I think he was on a power trip. 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. Very difficult to believe, Jon. Considered a wildcat strike, an unfair labor practice, and no Union that I know of would allow that to happen. Could be held liable for any damages to the company over the issue. If there is nothing written in the contract about the right to fraternize then you cannot "strike" over any aspect of the issue. If there is something in the contract about it, you would have to go through the grievance procedure. Frank It lasted about 1/2 hour. Everyone was satisfied with the result. Can't help it if you have difficulty believing it. Management was satisfied to accept the cost of a half hour disruption and shutdown of their operation with an illegal wildcat strike? No I don't believe that. Management should have filed an unfair labor practice complaint with the NLRB, and if they did not, it is very difficult to believe. The Union cannot endorse a "strike" over any issue, grievable or not, that is why there is a contract. Frank Why do I care what you believe again? I have no idea. I think you do. :-) 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. Are you claiming that every time there's a minor violation, management (or the union) should escalate to legal action? -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 09:07:01 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote: "Frank Boettcher" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 16:54:03 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Frank Boettcher" wrote in message ... On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 14:16:05 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Frank Boettcher" wrote in message om... On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:29:56 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Frank Boettcher" wrote in message news:flldn2lbfsnk32pqoha1e8f5b2097bqpps@4ax .com... On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 21:15:11 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: That's a tougher question. I was part of union, and I was required to join for a summer job. There were dues, but the benefits and the pay were pretty good, considering I was in high school and had minimal experience. I had an accident at work while driving a forklift... damaged a lot of expensive equipment through no fault of my own except inexperience. If I had not been a member of the union, I would have been fired for sure. I was slightly injured and had to take off a couple of weeks. The salaried supervisor asked me one time what happened. The union steward was present, and he stopped him when he started to get mean (I'm sure his job was on the line). I was given an opportunity to make a statement, and briefly mentioned my lack of experience. When I returned to work, the supervisor found someone to train me, so that it wouldn't happen again. In another situation, I was a staff employee in a union shop (defense contractor). The union was pretty strict about members not doing anything beyond their job description, but tended to look the other way if you had a good relationship with the employee/staff member. We had a situation of another supervisor telling his subordinates (me included) that we shouldn't fraternize with union people... exchange pleasantries and the like... I think he was on a power trip. 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. Very difficult to believe, Jon. Considered a wildcat strike, an unfair labor practice, and no Union that I know of would allow that to happen. Could be held liable for any damages to the company over the issue. If there is nothing written in the contract about the right to fraternize then you cannot "strike" over any aspect of the issue. If there is something in the contract about it, you would have to go through the grievance procedure. Frank It lasted about 1/2 hour. Everyone was satisfied with the result. Can't help it if you have difficulty believing it. Management was satisfied to accept the cost of a half hour disruption and shutdown of their operation with an illegal wildcat strike? No I don't believe that. Management should have filed an unfair labor practice complaint with the NLRB, and if they did not, it is very difficult to believe. The Union cannot endorse a "strike" over any issue, grievable or not, that is why there is a contract. Frank Why do I care what you believe again? I have no idea. I think you do. :-) 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. 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? 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 |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*... more VAT
"Dave" wrote in message ... On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 23:36:37 -0500, "Paladin" noneofyourbusiness.www said: Rebates are unworkable. So I guess the European mechanisms for refunding VAT to tourists are just so many more dead trees. If you are trying to sound like an fool, you are doing a decent job of it. VAT taxes are only refunded to tourists who take themselves and their purchases out of the country. Tourist pay VAT on goods and services of which they avail themselves while in country and these taxes are not refundable. Doing the paperwork on small items taken out of the country isn't generally worth the time. However, if you are buying a yacht and shipping or sailing it out of the country it is. But, this is entirely different than an American having to document every good or service he used from year to year and requesting a refund based upon the fact he purchased everything with retirement fund money. Good luck with that. Now, Dave, it is high time I told you to shut your pie hole. Please spare yourself further embarrassment and discontinue future displays of stupidity. Paladin (Have gun - will travel) -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
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 Frank Boettcher wrote: On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 09:07:01 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Frank Boettcher" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 16:54:03 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Frank Boettcher" wrote in message ... On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 14:16:05 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Frank Boettcher" wrote in message om... On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:29:56 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Frank Boettcher" wrote in message news:flldn2lbfsnk32pqoha1e8f5b2097bqpps@4ax .com... On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 21:15:11 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: That's a tougher question. I was part of union, and I was required to join for a summer job. There were dues, but the benefits and the pay were pretty good, considering I was in high school and had minimal experience. I had an accident at work while driving a forklift... damaged a lot of expensive equipment through no fault of my own except inexperience. If I had not been a member of the union, I would have been fired for sure. I was slightly injured and had to take off a couple of weeks. The salaried supervisor asked me one time what happened. The union steward was present, and he stopped him when he started to get mean (I'm sure his job was on the line). I was given an opportunity to make a statement, and briefly mentioned my lack of experience. When I returned to work, the supervisor found someone to train me, so that it wouldn't happen again. In another situation, I was a staff employee in a union shop (defense contractor). The union was pretty strict about members not doing anything beyond their job description, but tended to look the other way if you had a good relationship with the employee/staff member. We had a situation of another supervisor telling his subordinates (me included) that we shouldn't fraternize with union people... exchange pleasantries and the like... I think he was on a power trip. 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. Very difficult to believe, Jon. Considered a wildcat strike, an unfair labor practice, and no Union that I know of would allow that to happen. Could be held liable for any damages to the company over the issue. If there is nothing written in the contract about the right to fraternize then you cannot "strike" over any aspect of the issue. If there is something in the contract about it, you would have to go through the grievance procedure. Frank It lasted about 1/2 hour. Everyone was satisfied with the result. Can't help it if you have difficulty believing it. Management was satisfied to accept the cost of a half hour disruption and shutdown of their operation with an illegal wildcat strike? No I don't believe that. Management should have filed an unfair labor practice complaint with the NLRB, and if they did not, it is very difficult to believe. The Union cannot endorse a "strike" over any issue, grievable or not, that is why there is a contract. Frank Why do I care what you believe again? I have no idea. I think you do. :-) 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. 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? 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 |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
"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 |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
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 |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
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 |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
"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 |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
"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 |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
"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 |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
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 |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
"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 |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
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. |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
"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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:21 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com