wrote in message
...


You guys don't want what's best for the country, you want failure
because of who is in office. That's sad. It was sad when Harry felt
that way about Bush, and it's sad when you guys feel that way about
Obama.

-----------------------

Wake up my friend.

Obama is selling your soul.

Eisboch

"HK" wrote in message
m...

I was on the actual staff of several unions in my "illustrious" career.
Once during a recession, one of the unions was fairly hard hit, so at the
behest of the union president, management decided to vote itself a 20% pay
cut so that non-management staff would only have to endure a 5% pay cut.
No one had to be laid off.

When the economic turnaround came, salaries were restored and everyone who
had taken a pay cut got that money paid back over six pay periods.




Gee. Golly whiz.

How about going without *any* paycheck for 6 months so that employees could
collect 100% of theirs?

Two or three times.

Eisboch

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:


He's a political accident looking for a place to happen and it's only
going to get worse from here on out.

Poor Tommy...he's gonna go nut-sier.


Yabut, your wing flapping isn't quite as enthusiastic as before.

Eisboch

On May 8, 12:50*pm, wrote:
On May 8, 12:31*pm, John H wrote:





On Fri, 08 May 2009 11:57:38 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports

wrote:
Simply pay attention to headlines and first lines of news stories
about the economy (or the war, or anything!). It’s educational! Teach
your children how to compare and contrast by studying how first lines
can make economic news seem either positive or negative, for fun
economics, polling and presidential impact!

Here’s one!

Headline: New jobless claims plunge, retail sales improve.
Sub-header: New jobless claims plunge unexpectedly to 610,000, while
retail sales improve in April

New applications for jobless benefits plunged to the lowest level in
14 weeks, a possible sign that the massive wave of layoffs has peaked.
Still, the number of unemployed workers getting benefits climbed to a
new record.

First line: positive.

Now, let’s look at another news story, this time from 2005:

Headline:
There go 800,000 jobs out the door
Subheader:
UCLA: Housing slump to hit building and finance employment, slow the
economy, but no recession seen.

The expected downturn in the housing market could end up costing
800,000 construction and finance jobs, putting a big dent in economic
growth over the next two years, a report from UCLA said.

First line: Really, really negative. Incredibly negative. Terrifying.

Yes, that’s right, President Bush would have killed for a “first line
positive” on economic stories while he was president; unemployment was
4.8% and tax-revenues were at all-time highs. Instead, during his
presidency, we got, “Economists worry about possible downturns,
despite 3 percent growth in this quarter.”

Fair and honest reporting.

How refreshing to see Newspeak done so effciently.

Once this passes, they will only get worse. They won't have to worry
about the public buying their biased papers, Obama and Pelosi will
save their day.

http://www.reuters.com/article/polit...52N67F20090324
--
John H

For a great time, go here first...http://tinyurl.com/d3vxvm-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You guys don't want what's best for the country, you want failure
because of who is in office. That's sad. It was sad when Harry felt
that way about Bush, and it's sad when you guys feel that way about
Obama.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not quite.. We really don't care about "who" and I know you are not
calling us racist.. We are really concerened about "what" is in office
as far as policy. Most of the policy he is running with is against
everything we believe in to our core and we are frustrated because we
have no say at all.

Take Chrysler for instance.. Stock holders get 29 cents on the dollar,
the UAW is getting 49 cents on a dollar, 55% of the stock and along
with the Canadian union 5 out of the 9 board of directors.. Pretty
sweet deal for the Union, who knows nothing about running a
manufacturing company except they want more of the cut.... Obama is
cutting the Vouchers in DC after campaininging on better education.
Stem cells, letting ACORN own the cencus, etc... These are very
serious issues to us and the list goes on and on.. And again, we have
no say at all, we are being told what is good for us and how we are
gonna' take it, talk about it, that's it, no discussion...

On Fri, 8 May 2009 18:04:47 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


wrote in message
...


You guys don't want what's best for the country, you want failure
because of who is in office. That's sad. It was sad when Harry felt
that way about Bush, and it's sad when you guys feel that way about
Obama.

-----------------------

Wake up my friend.

Obama is selling your soul.

Eisboch

Uh, isn't Loogy a Canuck?

Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
m...

I was on the actual staff of several unions in my "illustrious"
career. Once during a recession, one of the unions was fairly hard
hit, so at the behest of the union president, management decided to
vote itself a 20% pay cut so that non-management staff would only have
to endure a 5% pay cut. No one had to be laid off.

When the economic turnaround came, salaries were restored and everyone
who had taken a pay cut got that money paid back over six pay periods.




Gee. Golly whiz.

How about going without *any* paycheck for 6 months so that employees
could collect 100% of theirs?

Two or three times.

Eisboch



We were employees, too.

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 May 2009 18:04:47 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


wrote in message
...


You guys don't want what's best for the country, you want failure
because of who is in office. That's sad. It was sad when Harry felt
that way about Bush, and it's sad when you guys feel that way about
Obama.

-----------------------

Wake up my friend.

Obama is selling your soul.

Eisboch

Uh, isn't Loogy a Canuck?

Say what!
Wash your mouth out with soap and then gargle with Clorox.
He lived near the Canadian border but was chased south with the other
peaches.

wrote:
On May 8, 1:37 pm, HK wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
On Fri, 8 May 2009 09:50:25 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
You guys don't want what's best for the country, you want failure
because of who is in office. That's sad. It was sad when Harry felt
that way about Bush, and it's sad when you guys feel that way about
Obama.
Good point. Gets dangerous when we don't pull together.
That's why strong leaders are required. Obama might have the right
stuff. We'll see.
I just got off the phone with my brother. He's an IT security guy at
a huge University/Medical complex here in Illinois.
Management leadership asked for volunteers to take unpaid time off
to avoid layoffs.
Not enough volunteers, so management just laid out the unpaid days off
for everybody.
Brother didn't volunteer, because he wants to work every day.
But he has no problem losing the pay, because he knows the
alternative.
Leadership made the difference.
OTOH, he talks with the union guys there, mostly maintenance.
He's been in unions himself, as I have.
They had a vote to reduce hours and avoid layoffs.
The vote failed, and a bunch got laid off.
****es him off, because he's friendly with a couple of them that got
laid off. Of course they got laid off according to seniority.
But you'd figure there wouldn't be enough senior guys to sway the
vote.
Anyway, leadership here would have worked best in keeping everybody
working.
I'm a bit surprised Obama hasn't used his bully pulpit to encourage
business leaders to look at salary and work reduction as a preferred
alternative over lay offs.
But carrying health costs are a big part of the equation.
Things are really going to hell in a handbasket.
Kenny Rogers said it best. You got to know when to hold them, and
know when to fold them
--Vic
I was on the actual staff of several unions in my "illustrious" career.
Once during a recession, one of the unions was fairly hard hit, so at
the behest of the union president, management decided to vote itself a
20% pay cut so that non-management staff would only have to endure a 5%
pay cut. No one had to be laid off.

When the economic turnaround came, salaries were restored and everyone
who had taken a pay cut got that money paid back over six pay periods.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yeah, sure. Everyone here believes you, I'm sure. You're such an
honest person!

That's 100% narcissistic bull****.

On May 8, 7:07*am, HK wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

Simply pay attention to headlines and first lines of news stories
about the economy (or the war, or anything!). It’s educational! Teach
your children how to compare and contrast by studying how first lines
can make economic news seem either positive or negative, for fun
economics, polling and presidential impact!

Poor Tommy...

You're responses are getting weaker Herr. Krause. Maybe you should
have been on the debate team at Drexel instead of Yale.

On May 8, 12:37*pm, HK wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
On Fri, 8 May 2009 09:50:25 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

You guys don't want what's best for the country, you want failure
because of who is in office. That's sad. It was sad when Harry felt
that way about Bush, and it's sad when you guys feel that way about
Obama.

Good point. *Gets dangerous when we don't pull together.
That's why strong leaders are required. *Obama might have the right
stuff. *We'll see.
I just got off the phone with my brother. *He's an IT security guy at
a huge University/Medical complex here in Illinois.
Management leadership asked for volunteers to take unpaid time off
to avoid layoffs.
Not enough volunteers, so management just laid out the unpaid days off
for everybody.
Brother didn't volunteer, because he wants to work every day.
But he has no problem losing the pay, because he knows the
alternative.
Leadership made the difference.
OTOH, he talks with the union guys there, mostly maintenance.
He's been in unions himself, as I have.
They had a vote to reduce hours and avoid layoffs.
The vote failed, and a bunch got laid off.
****es him off, because he's friendly with a couple of them that got
laid off. *Of course they got laid off according to seniority.
But you'd figure there wouldn't be enough senior guys to sway the
vote.
Anyway, leadership here would have worked best in keeping everybody
working.
I'm a bit surprised Obama hasn't used his bully pulpit to encourage
business leaders to look at salary and work reduction as a preferred
alternative over lay offs.
But carrying health costs are a big part of the equation.
Things are really going to hell in a handbasket.
Kenny Rogers said it best. *You got to know when to hold them, and
know when to fold them

--Vic

I was on the actual staff of several unions in my "illustrious" career.
Once during a recession, one of the unions was fairly hard hit, so at
the behest of the union president, management decided to vote itself a
20% pay cut so that non-management staff would only have to endure a 5%
pay cut. No one had to be laid off.

When the economic turnaround came, salaries were restored and everyone
who had taken a pay cut got that money paid back over six pay periods.

So, Herr Krause. The officers were either raking in far too much, and
the non-management was making far too little? What a gracious thought,
the President of the Union had a conscience after all to make such a
suggestion? Or did he threaten to take a ball bat to their knees in
they were non-compliant?