On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:40:57 -0800, nom=de=plume wrote:


And, it's never an either/or situation. There are typically union and
non-union shops. So, your statement about if they don't like the wage,
they can go somewhere else doesn't necessarily apply. There might be
other non-union shops, but there might not be.

Let's not forget the 22 "Right to work" states.

thunder wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:40:57 -0800, nom=de=plume wrote:


And, it's never an either/or situation. There are typically union and
non-union shops. So, your statement about if they don't like the wage,
they can go somewhere else doesn't necessarily apply. There might be
other non-union shops, but there might not be.

Let's not forget the 22 "Right to work" states.

That's the "22 right-to-work-for-less" states.

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:59:56 -0500, Harry wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:40:57 -0800, nom=de=plume wrote:


And, it's never an either/or situation. There are typically union and
non-union shops. So, your statement about if they don't like the wage,
they can go somewhere else doesn't necessarily apply. There might be
other non-union shops, but there might not be.

Let's not forget the 22 "Right to work" states.

That's the "22 right-to-work-for-less" states.

Yup, the map would seem to correspond to the lower wage states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Right_to_work.svg

On Jan 25, 4:09*pm, thunder wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:59:56 -0500, Harry wrote:
thunder wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:40:57 -0800, nom=de=plume wrote:

And, it's never an either/or situation. There are typically union and
non-union shops. So, your statement about if they don't like the wage,
they can go somewhere else doesn't necessarily apply. There might be
other non-union shops, but there might not be.

Let's not forget the 22 "Right to work" states.

That's the "22 right-to-work-for-less" states.

Yup, the map would seem to correspond to the lower wage states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Right_to_work.svg

The right to work states have the lowest cost of living.

Meanwhile, those union states have the highest unemployment, closed
down factories, biggest social problem, highest cost of living, etc.

South Carolina has the new Boeing plant coming here.

"CHICAGO—Boeing Co. said it would build a second final assembly line
for its troubled 787 Dreamliner jet in South Carolina, a move that
spurns the powerful aircraft machinists' union that had been
negotiating with Boeing to locate the work at the current factory near
Seattle."

"It's the first time since 2006 that Boeing will assemble a commercial
airplane outside of the Puget Sound area and provides the company with
an assembly line beyond the reach of the labor union that has caused
production headaches off and on for decades in Seattle."

How are those unions working out for ya?

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Jan 25, 4:09 pm, thunder wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:59:56 -0500, Harry wrote:
thunder wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:40:57 -0800, nom=de=plume wrote:

And, it's never an either/or situation. There are typically union and
non-union shops. So, your statement about if they don't like the wage,
they can go somewhere else doesn't necessarily apply. There might be
other non-union shops, but there might not be.

Let's not forget the 22 "Right to work" states.

That's the "22 right-to-work-for-less" states.

Yup, the map would seem to correspond to the lower wage states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Right_to_work.svg

The right to work states have the lowest cost of living.

Meanwhile, those union states have the highest unemployment, closed
down factories, biggest social problem, highest cost of living, etc.

South Carolina has the new Boeing plant coming here.

"CHICAGO—Boeing Co. said it would build a second final assembly line
for its troubled 787 Dreamliner jet in South Carolina, a move that
spurns the powerful aircraft machinists' union that had been
negotiating with Boeing to locate the work at the current factory near
Seattle."

"It's the first time since 2006 that Boeing will assemble a commercial
airplane outside of the Puget Sound area and provides the company with
an assembly line beyond the reach of the labor union that has caused
production headaches off and on for decades in Seattle."

How are those unions working out for ya?


Reply: I really don't want to live in Wyoming, etc.


--
Nom=de=Plume

nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Jan 25, 4:09 pm, thunder wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:59:56 -0500, Harry wrote:
thunder wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:40:57 -0800, nom=de=plume wrote:
And, it's never an either/or situation. There are typically union and
non-union shops. So, your statement about if they don't like the wage,
they can go somewhere else doesn't necessarily apply. There might be
other non-union shops, but there might not be.
Let's not forget the 22 "Right to work" states.
That's the "22 right-to-work-for-less" states.
Yup, the map would seem to correspond to the lower wage states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Right_to_work.svg

The right to work states have the lowest cost of living.

Meanwhile, those union states have the highest unemployment, closed
down factories, biggest social problem, highest cost of living, etc.

South Carolina has the new Boeing plant coming here.

"CHICAGO—Boeing Co. said it would build a second final assembly line
for its troubled 787 Dreamliner jet in South Carolina, a move that
spurns the powerful aircraft machinists' union that had been
negotiating with Boeing to locate the work at the current factory near
Seattle."

"It's the first time since 2006 that Boeing will assemble a commercial
airplane outside of the Puget Sound area and provides the company with
an assembly line beyond the reach of the labor union that has caused
production headaches off and on for decades in Seattle."

How are those unions working out for ya?


Reply: I really don't want to live in Wyoming, etc.



You wouldn't like south carolina, either. Its coastal areas are nice for
a short visit, but it is about as backwards a state as you'll find in
the USA these days.

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:30:51 -0800, Jack wrote:

On Jan 25, 4:09Â*pm, thunder wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:59:56 -0500, Harry wrote:
thunder wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:40:57 -0800, nom=de=plume wrote:

And, it's never an either/or situation. There are typically union
and non-union shops. So, your statement about if they don't like
the wage, they can go somewhere else doesn't necessarily apply.
There might be other non-union shops, but there might not be.

Let's not forget the 22 "Right to work" states.

That's the "22 right-to-work-for-less" states.

Yup, the map would seem to correspond to the lower wage states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Right_to_work.svg

The right to work states have the lowest cost of living.

Meanwhile, those union states have the highest unemployment, closed down
factories, biggest social problem, highest cost of living, etc.

South Carolina has the new Boeing plant coming here.

"CHICAGO—Boeing Co. said it would build a second final assembly line for
its troubled 787 Dreamliner jet in South Carolina, a move that spurns
the powerful aircraft machinists' union that had been negotiating with
Boeing to locate the work at the current factory near Seattle."

"It's the first time since 2006 that Boeing will assemble a commercial
airplane outside of the Puget Sound area and provides the company with
an assembly line beyond the reach of the labor union that has caused
production headaches off and on for decades in Seattle."

How are those unions working out for ya?

Fine, you are the one complaining about unions. Oh, and the Boeing story
seems to make a lie out of what you posted up-thread.

"In a union environment, the job and it's wages are controlled by the
union
through coercion. As we've seen, the market's ability to sustain the wage
seemingly has no influence on the demands of the unions. The company has
no choice, as it can not terminate striking workers, and will go under if
it does not comply with the union's demands. It is essentially held
hostage until bled dry."

It would seem the company has a choice, doesn't it?

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:52:08 -0800, Jack wrote:

On Jan 25, 2:19*pm, thunder wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 07:11:32 -0800, Jack wrote:
No, it's called greed. *It's not market driven when the company has
no choice but to pay.

Gordon Gekko, "Greed...is good."

You're basing your position on a fictional character? Awesome.


Collective bargaining = legalized coercion.

I'm glad you finally see it. *Although, I'm sure that you are in denial
that a corporation is a collective by definition.

Big difference in application, though.

In a non-union environment, the company offers the jobs for a wage, and
the workers have a choice to take it or not. The wage is driven by ,
among other factors, market conditions.

In a union environment, the job and it's wages are controlled by the
union through coercion. As we've seen, the market's ability to sustain
the wage seemingly has no influence on the demands of the unions. The
company has no choice, as it can not terminate striking workers, and
will go under if it does not comply with the union's demands. It is
essentially held hostage until bled dry.

The entire history of the labor movement, not withstanding. Coercion is
just as likely to come from management, as from the union.

Not necessarily true. I have been in several unions and worked in and
around union shops from CT to Texasasasas.... The only violence and
"thuggery" I have ever seen is directly traceable to the unions, not the
management. I have been in factorys that were voting, and never saw
coercion from the mgt, but certainly did from the other side. This is
real world expedience, I have posted about it before, I am sure you have
seen it...

The entire
concept of unions, is to balance the equation. If either side gets out
of whack, the system doesn't work. You seem quite willing to accept the
company's collective, take it or leave it position. I'll point out,
that's many against one. With a union, it's many against many. Which is
fairer?

Are you asking us for our opinion, or should we just agree with yours?
Really, if "everybody" thought the way you do, there would be no need to
vote and 80% of the country wouldn't be non-union.


Easy concepts to grasp, if you'll just... think.

While you're thinking, consider this. The strength of this country is
the middle class, and the strength of the middle class correlates quite
closely with union membership. Cause and effect?

This is just pie in the sky, there is no cause and effect. The middle
class is mostly non-union and self employed.

Scotty

In article ,
says...


This is just pie in the sky, there is no cause and effect. The middle
class is mostly non-union and self employed.

Scotty

Let me clear that last line up. What I meant was the the middle class is
"made up of" non-union and/or self employed.. Sorry, I am sure the ones
I have filtered are already all over this, hopefully you will not fall
into that trap

Scotty

"I am Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:52:08 -0800, Jack wrote:

On Jan 25, 2:19 pm, thunder wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 07:11:32 -0800, Jack wrote:
No, it's called greed. It's not market driven when the company has
no choice but to pay.

Gordon Gekko, "Greed...is good."

You're basing your position on a fictional character? Awesome.


Collective bargaining = legalized coercion.

I'm glad you finally see it. Although, I'm sure that you are in denial
that a corporation is a collective by definition.

Big difference in application, though.

In a non-union environment, the company offers the jobs for a wage, and
the workers have a choice to take it or not. The wage is driven by ,
among other factors, market conditions.

In a union environment, the job and it's wages are controlled by the
union through coercion. As we've seen, the market's ability to sustain
the wage seemingly has no influence on the demands of the unions. The
company has no choice, as it can not terminate striking workers, and
will go under if it does not comply with the union's demands. It is
essentially held hostage until bled dry.

The entire history of the labor movement, not withstanding. Coercion is
just as likely to come from management, as from the union.

Not necessarily true. I have been in several unions and worked in and
around union shops from CT to Texasasasas.... The only violence and
"thuggery" I have ever seen is directly traceable to the unions, not the
management. I have been in factorys that were voting, and never saw
coercion from the mgt, but certainly did from the other side. This is
real world expedience, I have posted about it before, I am sure you have
seen it...

You don't know much about history then...

The entire
concept of unions, is to balance the equation. If either side gets out
of whack, the system doesn't work. You seem quite willing to accept the
company's collective, take it or leave it position. I'll point out,
that's many against one. With a union, it's many against many. Which is
fairer?

Are you asking us for our opinion, or should we just agree with yours?
Really, if "everybody" thought the way you do, there would be no need to
vote and 80% of the country wouldn't be non-union.


Easy concepts to grasp, if you'll just... think.

While you're thinking, consider this. The strength of this country is
the middle class, and the strength of the middle class correlates quite
closely with union membership. Cause and effect?

This is just pie in the sky, there is no cause and effect. The middle
class is mostly non-union and self employed.

I don't believe it's the case that most middle class people are
self-employed.

--
Nom=de=Plume