On Sep 29, 10:56*am, Bama Brian wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Sep 28, 11:32 am, "RD (The Sandman)" rdsandman(spamlock)
@comcast.net wrote:
wf3h wrote :

no, they're no. since manufacturing has disappeared in the US and
virtually none of it was unionized, it's obvious unions had zip to do
with it. *you admit IBM is *unionized...and still in the US, while the
non unionized plants are gone
That was a company choice....and not a good one.

oh. i see how this works. you claim unions destroy business. proof of
that is

1. non unionized plants are closed
2. unionized plants are still in production but you think they
shouldn't be because that disproves your view

gee. an ironclad argument

and that, to you, proves non unionized plants protect jobs? if that's
the case, where are the jobs?
If you were half as familiar with IBM as you insinuate, you would know
what a loss that was.

and if you knew logic, you'd see how ridiculous your position is

Argue this:

Times Union: A sweet IBM dealhttp://cnse.albany.edu/News/index.cfm?step=show_detail&NewsID=1406

A sweet IBM deal that netted the company $1.6 billion of the taxpayer
dollars, and then:

BM layoffs reaching 3000, union group claimshttp://www.edn.com/article/CA6632229.html

And then there are many, many, many of these that you can argue:

Toyota to Close Union Plant in Californiahttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/business/28nummi.html

and yet you admit that all the silicon valley plants that closed were
non union

and that proves unions cause plants to close.

kind of like the guy who says whistling keeps polar bears away from
florida...when he's told that there are no polar bears in florida, he
says 'see how well it works!"



So argue away, wf3h. *Show us all how unions keep plants alive.


and show us how lack of unions causes them to thrive. go ahead. we'll
wait