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.

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

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

On Jan 25, 2:19Â*pm, thunder wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 07:11:32 -0800, Jack wrote:
No, it's called greed. Â*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. Â*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. 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?

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?

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...


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



Partially, but I'm betting a significant, if not a majority of the middle
class work for companies and are not self-employed.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"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

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"I am Tosk" wrote in message

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.


Word games.
It is accurate to state that the majority of middle class working people are
either non-union, work for a non-union company *or* are self-employed.

In fact, I think that pretty much covers *all* working people.

Eisboch

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 23:57:11 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


Word games.
It is accurate to state that the majority of middle class working people
are either non-union, work for a non-union company *or* are
self-employed.

In fact, I think that pretty much covers *all* working people.

I think, including public workers, unions account for a little over 12%
of the workforce. They had been a dwindling segment, but apparently, in
the last several years, union membership has shown a bit of an uptick.

In article ,
says...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"I am Tosk" wrote in message

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.


Word games.
It is accurate to state that the majority of middle class working people are
either non-union, work for a non-union company *or* are self-employed.

In fact, I think that pretty much covers *all* working people.

Eisboch

Yes, that is what I meant to say...

Scotty

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

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"I am Tosk" wrote in message

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.


Word games.
It is accurate to state that the majority of middle class working people
are
either non-union, work for a non-union company *or* are self-employed.

In fact, I think that pretty much covers *all* working people.

Eisboch

Yes, that is what I meant to say...

Scotty


So, I guess I wasn't playing word games. Thanks for the clarification of
your intention.

--
Nom=de=Plume