"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
jps wrote:
Skanky owners. If their people were treated well, they'd have never
sought to unionize in the first place.

It couldn't have been such a bad place to work. If it was the employees
would seek employment elsewhere. That's what you'd do, isn't it?


The assumption on your part that it's possible to find other employment?

Well if the only available employment is "workin at da ca wash" then they
should stop harassing the management and get to work before they get
fired.


So, what you're saying is that if there's no other viable job, then it's ok
for management to exploit the worker? That's certainly not right. It's
called mutual respect, and it works.

--
Nom=de=Plume

nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
jps wrote:
Skanky owners. If their people were treated well, they'd have never
sought to unionize in the first place.

It couldn't have been such a bad place to work. If it was the employees
would seek employment elsewhere. That's what you'd do, isn't it?

The assumption on your part that it's possible to find other employment?

Well if the only available employment is "workin at da ca wash" then they
should stop harassing the management and get to work before they get
fired.


So, what you're saying is that if there's no other viable job, then it's ok
for management to exploit the worker? That's certainly not right. It's
called mutual respect, and it works.


Are you serious? flajim doesn't believe in that sort of thing. Anyone
who reads his posts knows that.





--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:33:08 -0400, Jim wrote:

H the K wrote:
nom=de=plume wrote:
"H the K" wrote in message
m...
flajim's only job was a sinecure in the navy.


I had to look that up... lol



flajim is one of our many secretive boatless righties. They "go after"
those they don't like but make sure they never reveal anything about
themselves.

flajim is such a pussy, he once asked another poster here to please not
mention what part of florida he lived in, because he was afraid a poster
here might show up on his doorstoop and punch him in the nose.



Yawn. You say you hold multiple degrees. You sure don't act like such a
person. Grow up.

By deduction, you got the 8th grade.

nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
jps wrote:
Skanky owners. If their people were treated well, they'd have never
sought to unionize in the first place.

It couldn't have been such a bad place to work. If it was the employees
would seek employment elsewhere. That's what you'd do, isn't it?

The assumption on your part that it's possible to find other employment?

Well if the only available employment is "workin at da ca wash" then they
should stop harassing the management and get to work before they get
fired.


So, what you're saying is that if there's no other viable job, then it's ok
for management to exploit the worker? That's certainly not right. It's
called mutual respect, and it works.

Absolutely not. If these guys don't like the conditions of employment
they can walk. There's probably a waiting list full of liberal arts
grads waiting for the opportunity to work at the car wash.

"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
jps wrote:
Skanky owners. If their people were treated well, they'd have never
sought to unionize in the first place.

It couldn't have been such a bad place to work. If it was the
employees would seek employment elsewhere. That's what you'd do, isn't
it?

The assumption on your part that it's possible to find other
employment?

Well if the only available employment is "workin at da ca wash" then
they should stop harassing the management and get to work before they
get fired.


So, what you're saying is that if there's no other viable job, then it's
ok for management to exploit the worker? That's certainly not right. It's
called mutual respect, and it works.

Absolutely not. If these guys don't like the conditions of employment they
can walk. There's probably a waiting list full of liberal arts grads
waiting for the opportunity to work at the car wash.


With no other job prospects? Hardly.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, it's a non-skilled job like in a
fastfood place. Anyone without skills would want the job, so there's a
waiting list of applicants. The boss is a grabber with female employees
(let's assume for the sake of this discussion that this behavior is "legal"
even though it isn't). Are you claiming that the "solution" is for the
female employee to quit? Or, is it more reasonable for the boss to be held
accountable for his actions? I believe the latter is more reasonable. If the
boss actually treats his employees with respect, then no one needs to be
held accountable, no action is necessary, no union is needed.

--
Nom=de=Plume

nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
jps wrote:
Skanky owners. If their people were treated well, they'd have never
sought to unionize in the first place.

It couldn't have been such a bad place to work. If it was the
employees would seek employment elsewhere. That's what you'd do, isn't
it?
The assumption on your part that it's possible to find other
employment?

Well if the only available employment is "workin at da ca wash" then
they should stop harassing the management and get to work before they
get fired.

So, what you're saying is that if there's no other viable job, then it's
ok for management to exploit the worker? That's certainly not right. It's
called mutual respect, and it works.

Absolutely not. If these guys don't like the conditions of employment they
can walk. There's probably a waiting list full of liberal arts grads
waiting for the opportunity to work at the car wash.


With no other job prospects? Hardly.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, it's a non-skilled job like in a
fastfood place. Anyone without skills would want the job, so there's a
waiting list of applicants. The boss is a grabber with female employees
(let's assume for the sake of this discussion that this behavior is "legal"
even though it isn't). Are you claiming that the "solution" is for the
female employee to quit? Or, is it more reasonable for the boss to be held
accountable for his actions? I believe the latter is more reasonable. If the
boss actually treats his employees with respect, then no one needs to be
held accountable, no action is necessary, no union is needed.


You are making things much too complicated for your mind to deal with,
using your scenarios and suppositions.

I'll lay it out real simply so you and Krause can understand. When times
are tough, people on all strata are unemployed and even car wash
managers are having a rough time making ends meet, advantage goes to
employer who is tasked with keeping his business afloat so that there
will be a place to work when times get better. On the other side of the
coin, when times are good, business is booming, employees are in short
supply, advantage goes to employee until a threshold is reached where
the employer cannot bend to the employees demands and the business is in
jeopardy. So long as the employee doesn't get too greedy everyone wins.
This works pretty well until The "I've got mine screw everyone else
liberal" dweebs stick their noses into it.

"Jim" wrote in message
...
Let's say, for the sake of argument, it's a non-skilled job like in a
fastfood place. Anyone without skills would want the job, so there's a
waiting list of applicants. The boss is a grabber with female employees
(let's assume for the sake of this discussion that this behavior is
"legal" even though it isn't). Are you claiming that the "solution" is
for the female employee to quit? Or, is it more reasonable for the boss
to be held accountable for his actions? I believe the latter is more
reasonable. If the boss actually treats his employees with respect, then
no one needs to be held accountable, no action is necessary, no union is
needed.


You are making things much too complicated for your mind to deal with,
using your scenarios and suppositions.

I'll lay it out real simply so you and Krause can understand. When times
are tough, people on all strata are unemployed and even car wash managers
are having a rough time making ends meet, advantage goes to employer who
is tasked with keeping his business afloat so that there will be a place
to work when times get better. On the other side of the coin, when times
are good, business is booming, employees are in short supply, advantage
goes to employee until a threshold is reached where the employer cannot
bend to the employees demands and the business is in jeopardy. So long as
the employee doesn't get too greedy everyone wins.
This works pretty well until The "I've got mine screw everyone else
liberal" dweebs stick their noses into it.


You are not only rude but wrong. I just love it... "if the employee doesn't
get too greedy" and "employee demands" .. how about substituting employer
for employee and get back to me when you can speak in a civil tongue.

--
Nom=de=Plume

nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
Let's say, for the sake of argument, it's a non-skilled job like in a
fastfood place. Anyone without skills would want the job, so there's a
waiting list of applicants. The boss is a grabber with female employees
(let's assume for the sake of this discussion that this behavior is
"legal" even though it isn't). Are you claiming that the "solution" is
for the female employee to quit? Or, is it more reasonable for the boss
to be held accountable for his actions? I believe the latter is more
reasonable. If the boss actually treats his employees with respect, then
no one needs to be held accountable, no action is necessary, no union is
needed.

You are making things much too complicated for your mind to deal with,
using your scenarios and suppositions.

I'll lay it out real simply so you and Krause can understand. When times
are tough, people on all strata are unemployed and even car wash managers
are having a rough time making ends meet, advantage goes to employer who
is tasked with keeping his business afloat so that there will be a place
to work when times get better. On the other side of the coin, when times
are good, business is booming, employees are in short supply, advantage
goes to employee until a threshold is reached where the employer cannot
bend to the employees demands and the business is in jeopardy. So long as
the employee doesn't get too greedy everyone wins.
This works pretty well until The "I've got mine screw everyone else
liberal" dweebs stick their noses into it.


You are not only rude but wrong. I just love it... "if the employee doesn't
get too greedy" and "employee demands" .. how about substituting employer
for employee and get back to me when you can speak in a civil tongue.

wellll excuseee meeee.

"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
Let's say, for the sake of argument, it's a non-skilled job like in a
fastfood place. Anyone without skills would want the job, so there's a
waiting list of applicants. The boss is a grabber with female employees
(let's assume for the sake of this discussion that this behavior is
"legal" even though it isn't). Are you claiming that the "solution" is
for the female employee to quit? Or, is it more reasonable for the boss
to be held accountable for his actions? I believe the latter is more
reasonable. If the boss actually treats his employees with respect,
then no one needs to be held accountable, no action is necessary, no
union is needed.

You are making things much too complicated for your mind to deal with,
using your scenarios and suppositions.

I'll lay it out real simply so you and Krause can understand. When times
are tough, people on all strata are unemployed and even car wash
managers are having a rough time making ends meet, advantage goes to
employer who is tasked with keeping his business afloat so that there
will be a place to work when times get better. On the other side of the
coin, when times are good, business is booming, employees are in short
supply, advantage goes to employee until a threshold is reached where
the employer cannot bend to the employees demands and the business is in
jeopardy. So long as the employee doesn't get too greedy everyone wins.
This works pretty well until The "I've got mine screw everyone else
liberal" dweebs stick their noses into it.


You are not only rude but wrong. I just love it... "if the employee
doesn't get too greedy" and "employee demands" .. how about substituting
employer for employee and get back to me when you can speak in a civil
tongue.

wellll excuseee meeee.


If you were actually excusing yourself, I would acknowledge it and that
would be the end of it, but clearly you're not doing that.

I also note that you haven't done the substitution of the words.

--
Nom=de=Plume

nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
Let's say, for the sake of argument, it's a non-skilled job like in a
fastfood place. Anyone without skills would want the job, so there's a
waiting list of applicants. The boss is a grabber with female employees
(let's assume for the sake of this discussion that this behavior is
"legal" even though it isn't). Are you claiming that the "solution" is
for the female employee to quit? Or, is it more reasonable for the boss
to be held accountable for his actions? I believe the latter is more
reasonable. If the boss actually treats his employees with respect, then
no one needs to be held accountable, no action is necessary, no union is
needed.

You are making things much too complicated for your mind to deal with,
using your scenarios and suppositions.

I'll lay it out real simply so you and Krause can understand. When times
are tough, people on all strata are unemployed and even car wash managers
are having a rough time making ends meet, advantage goes to employer who
is tasked with keeping his business afloat so that there will be a place
to work when times get better. On the other side of the coin, when times
are good, business is booming, employees are in short supply, advantage
goes to employee until a threshold is reached where the employer cannot
bend to the employees demands and the business is in jeopardy. So long as
the employee doesn't get too greedy everyone wins.
This works pretty well until The "I've got mine screw everyone else
liberal" dweebs stick their noses into it.


You are not only rude but wrong. I just love it... "if the employee doesn't
get too greedy" and "employee demands" .. how about substituting employer
for employee and get back to me when you can speak in a civil tongue.


That'll be...never.



--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All