http://tinyurl.com/lp99as6

Damn shame. That'll put some folks in a real sour mood. I reckon those Southerners aren't so stupid
after all.

Perhaps the union organizer said it best:

"Unfortunately, politically motivated third parties threatened the economic future of this facility
and the opportunity for workers to create a successful operating model that would grow jobs in
Tennessee," UAW Southern Region organizer Gary Casteel said."

Those damn politically motivated third parties. Of course, the UAW Southern Region is in no way
politically motivated.

Right, FOAD?

On 2/15/2014 9:41 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/lp99as6

Damn shame. That'll put some folks in a real sour mood. I reckon those Southerners aren't so stupid
after all.

Perhaps the union organizer said it best:

"Unfortunately, politically motivated third parties threatened the economic future of this facility
and the opportunity for workers to create a successful operating model that would grow jobs in
Tennessee," UAW Southern Region organizer Gary Casteel said."

Those damn politically motivated third parties. Of course, the UAW Southern Region is in no way
politically motivated.

Right, FOAD?


This is a huge victory... These guys remember what happened to their
parents jobs, and they don't want to be another Detroit! The Unions
destroyed that part of the country, and they all ran south to get away
from that...

On 2/15/14, 12:47 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 09:41:52 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/lp99as6

Damn shame. That'll put some folks in a real sour mood. I reckon those Southerners aren't so stupid
after all.

Perhaps the union organizer said it best:

"Unfortunately, politically motivated third parties threatened the economic future of this facility
and the opportunity for workers to create a successful operating model that would grow jobs in
Tennessee," UAW Southern Region organizer Gary Casteel said."

Those damn politically motivated third parties. Of course, the UAW Southern Region is in no way
politically motivated.

Right, FOAD?

It appears that they rejected the idea of a union that was in bed with
the company they were working for. That is the way unions are in most
of those foreign country union people like to cite.


The state's politicians poisoned the well with direct and indirect
threats to jobs.

On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 12:52:39 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 2/15/14, 12:47 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 09:41:52 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/lp99as6

Damn shame. That'll put some folks in a real sour mood. I reckon those Southerners aren't so stupid
after all.

Perhaps the union organizer said it best:

"Unfortunately, politically motivated third parties threatened the economic future of this facility
and the opportunity for workers to create a successful operating model that would grow jobs in
Tennessee," UAW Southern Region organizer Gary Casteel said."

Those damn politically motivated third parties. Of course, the UAW Southern Region is in no way
politically motivated.

Right, FOAD?

It appears that they rejected the idea of a union that was in bed with
the company they were working for. That is the way unions are in most
of those foreign country union people like to cite.


The state's politicians poisoned the well with direct and indirect
threats to jobs.

They also, I've heard, made some totally inappropriate references to Detroit.

Do you not think the union organizers also had some political motivation?

F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/15/14, 12:47 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 09:41:52 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/lp99as6

Damn shame. That'll put some folks in a real sour mood. I reckon
those Southerners aren't so stupid
after all.

Perhaps the union organizer said it best:

"Unfortunately, politically motivated third parties threatened the
economic future of this facility
and the opportunity for workers to create a successful operating
model that would grow jobs in
Tennessee," UAW Southern Region organizer Gary Casteel said."

Those damn politically motivated third parties. Of course, the UAW
Southern Region is in no way
politically motivated.

Right, FOAD?

It appears that they rejected the idea of a union that was in bed with
the company they were working for. That is the way unions are in most
of those foreign country union people like to cite.


The state's politicians poisoned the well with direct and indirect
threats to jobs.
Cite?

On 2/22/2014 9:53 PM, Earl! wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/15/14, 12:47 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 09:41:52 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/lp99as6

Damn shame. That'll put some folks in a real sour mood. I reckon
those Southerners aren't so stupid
after all.

Perhaps the union organizer said it best:

"Unfortunately, politically motivated third parties threatened the
economic future of this facility
and the opportunity for workers to create a successful operating
model that would grow jobs in
Tennessee," UAW Southern Region organizer Gary Casteel said."

Those damn politically motivated third parties. Of course, the UAW
Southern Region is in no way
politically motivated.

Right, FOAD?

It appears that they rejected the idea of a union that was in bed with
the company they were working for. That is the way unions are in most
of those foreign country union people like to cite.


The state's politicians poisoned the well with direct and indirect
threats to jobs.
Cite?

It's something MSNBC made up, but they will run with it to the courts...
I hope they spend another 5 million and get their parasite asses handed
to them again. **** the Unions, they are as useless as a washed up union
hack...

On 2/23/14, 1:17 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 21:53:02 -0500, "Earl! " . wrote:

F*O*A*D wrote:

The state's politicians poisoned the well with direct and indirect
threats to jobs.
Cite?

It is another stretch of the facts from Harry. What the state said is
they *might* rethink FUTURE tax incentives for NEW plants. It had
nothing to do with current employees.


Uh-huh, sure, Gregg. Right. Of course. And Senator Corker didn't play a
role at the end, either, and the workers weren't left with the
impression that if they voted union the state might play fun and games
with their employer. Well, we shall see what happens. Corker said if the
workers voted no, VW would be building another plant in their state
then...he reneged on that statement after the vote, and that had nothing
to do with the vote, either. Luckily, VW's workers in Germany will have
something to say about future plants in the United States.

On 2/23/2014 7:57 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/23/14, 1:17 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 21:53:02 -0500, "Earl! " . wrote:

F*O*A*D wrote:

The state's politicians poisoned the well with direct and indirect
threats to jobs.
Cite?

It is another stretch of the facts from Harry. What the state said is
they *might* rethink FUTURE tax incentives for NEW plants. It had
nothing to do with current employees.


Uh-huh, sure, Gregg. Right. Of course. And Senator Corker didn't play a
role at the end, either, and the workers weren't left with the
impression that if they voted union the state might play fun and games
with their employer. Well, we shall see what happens. Corker said if the
workers voted no, VW would be building another plant in their state
then...he reneged on that statement after the vote, and that had nothing
to do with the vote, either. Luckily, VW's workers in Germany will have
something to say about future plants in the United States.


I had two business associates who were executives in a major German
engineering and manufacturing company. Both left Germany and relocated
to the US. One joined and later started a similar company here. The
other joined my company. Why? Because the German style of
management/employee co-running the business drove them nuts.

I had a very democratic philosophy in the running of the business I had
but soon realized that there were limits to how much control employees
should have in decision making. It's not that the corporation's goals
were at odds with the employee's ... it's simply a case where the
employees typically were looking at issues from a personal point of view
rather than a more global view required to successfully manage and run a
company. We all have jobs to do, all are important but people are
better at some things than others.

We had a very knowledgeable thin films engineer on our staff. We would
meet with a prospective customer who also had thin film engineers who
typically wrote the technical specifications and requirements for a
system they wanted us to design and build. In several cases, our
"expert" would start challenging the customer's approach because he
didn't agree with it, promoting *his* way of doing it. This happened
two or three times, resulting in customers becoming uneasy with awarding
a contract to us. To me, it's ok to offer alternative ways of doing
things if you think they will benefit the customer, but not to the point
where you are actually insulting them or causing them to think their
system will not receive our best efforts.

He didn't last long in my democracy. He ended up starting his own
company that fell flat on it's face in a short period of time.

On 2/23/14, 8:38 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/23/2014 7:57 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/23/14, 1:17 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 21:53:02 -0500, "Earl! " . wrote:

F*O*A*D wrote:

The state's politicians poisoned the well with direct and indirect
threats to jobs.
Cite?

It is another stretch of the facts from Harry. What the state said is
they *might* rethink FUTURE tax incentives for NEW plants. It had
nothing to do with current employees.


Uh-huh, sure, Gregg. Right. Of course. And Senator Corker didn't play a
role at the end, either, and the workers weren't left with the
impression that if they voted union the state might play fun and games
with their employer. Well, we shall see what happens. Corker said if the
workers voted no, VW would be building another plant in their state
then...he reneged on that statement after the vote, and that had nothing
to do with the vote, either. Luckily, VW's workers in Germany will have
something to say about future plants in the United States.


I had two business associates who were executives in a major German
engineering and manufacturing company. Both left Germany and relocated
to the US. One joined and later started a similar company here. The
other joined my company. Why? Because the German style of
management/employee co-running the business drove them nuts.

I had a very democratic philosophy in the running of the business I had
but soon realized that there were limits to how much control employees
should have in decision making. It's not that the corporation's goals
were at odds with the employee's ... it's simply a case where the
employees typically were looking at issues from a personal point of view
rather than a more global view required to successfully manage and run a
company. We all have jobs to do, all are important but people are
better at some things than others.

We had a very knowledgeable thin films engineer on our staff. We would
meet with a prospective customer who also had thin film engineers who
typically wrote the technical specifications and requirements for a
system they wanted us to design and build. In several cases, our
"expert" would start challenging the customer's approach because he
didn't agree with it, promoting *his* way of doing it. This happened
two or three times, resulting in customers becoming uneasy with awarding
a contract to us. To me, it's ok to offer alternative ways of doing
things if you think they will benefit the customer, but not to the point
where you are actually insulting them or causing them to think their
system will not receive our best efforts.

He didn't last long in my democracy. He ended up starting his own
company that fell flat on it's face in a short period of time.





Perhaps part of the fault with much corporate management these days is
in thinking that capital is many times superior to labor. To me, capital
and labor should be on the same step. Capital is not more valuable than
labor. I'm not advocating workplace democracy...someone has to be in
charge...but I am advocating treating everyone and everything involved
as valuable assets.

On 2/23/2014 8:38 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/23/2014 7:57 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/23/14, 1:17 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 21:53:02 -0500, "Earl! " . wrote:

F*O*A*D wrote:

The state's politicians poisoned the well with direct and indirect
threats to jobs.
Cite?

It is another stretch of the facts from Harry. What the state said is
they *might* rethink FUTURE tax incentives for NEW plants. It had
nothing to do with current employees.


Uh-huh, sure, Gregg. Right. Of course. And Senator Corker didn't play a
role at the end, either, and the workers weren't left with the
impression that if they voted union the state might play fun and games
with their employer. Well, we shall see what happens. Corker said if the
workers voted no, VW would be building another plant in their state
then...he reneged on that statement after the vote, and that had nothing
to do with the vote, either. Luckily, VW's workers in Germany will have
something to say about future plants in the United States.


I had two business associates who were executives in a major German
engineering and manufacturing company. Both left Germany and relocated
to the US. One joined and later started a similar company here. The
other joined my company. Why? Because the German style of
management/employee co-running the business drove them nuts.

I had a very democratic philosophy in the running of the business I had
but soon realized that there were limits to how much control employees
should have in decision making. It's not that the corporation's goals
were at odds with the employee's ... it's simply a case where the
employees typically were looking at issues from a personal point of view
rather than a more global view required to successfully manage and run a
company. We all have jobs to do, all are important but people are
better at some things than others.

We had a very knowledgeable thin films engineer on our staff. We would
meet with a prospective customer who also had thin film engineers who
typically wrote the technical specifications and requirements for a
system they wanted us to design and build. In several cases, our
"expert" would start challenging the customer's approach because he
didn't agree with it, promoting *his* way of doing it. This happened
two or three times, resulting in customers becoming uneasy with awarding
a contract to us. To me, it's ok to offer alternative ways of doing
things if you think they will benefit the customer, but not to the point
where you are actually insulting them or causing them to think their
system will not receive our best efforts.

He didn't last long in my democracy. He ended up starting his own
company that fell flat on it's face in a short period of time.



It's kind of you to offer Harry a little insight into what business
management is all about.