On 4/19/2014 7:27 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/18/14, 11:18 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 21:15:52 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 4/18/14, 8:57 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


What working experience do you have ... meaning employment ... where
*you* were were subject to the king boss and had to take whatever the
job dished out? Ever? I suspect zero.



Your suspicions would add up to...zero.


Every story you have told here was about your jobs where you made
unbelievable money doing exactly what you loved.
You boss always fell at your feet in awe.

As they say on Law and Order, "were you lying then or are you lying
now"?


Yeah, my first full-time newspaper job paid me $100 a week. Yipperdoo.
The Associated Press "recruited" me out of that job by doubling that
salary, and my first ad/pr agency job in Detroit tripled the AP salary.
All chump change jobs, but I did get along with my various bosses. I was
recruited out of the Detroit job by the National Education Association.

In 1971, I think it was, I was hired by a big DC ad/pr agency for a
grand a week, decent pay for a young man in those days. Stayed there for
three years, then was hired by another DC ad/pr agency for another pay
spike, but I don't remember what it was. The second agency was a lot of
fun...it was much more of a "retail" agency with lots of local TV and
radio advertising.

In 1977, I think, the NEA asked me if I wanted to be a contract
consultant to manage some of its national advertising business so I left
the agency. Shortly thereafter, I picked up two other international
unions as clients, and then I got a contract to produce TV ads for the
AFL-CIO building trades department and a national veterans organization.

I did ok on the payrolls of others, once my career got going, but much
better financially running my own little ad/pr shop.



Was your own little ad/pr shop unionized?

On 4/19/2014 7:13 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/19/14, 1:07 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 23:08:37 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 4/18/14, 11:03 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 20:36:59 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 4/18/14, 8:29 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 15:50:56 -0700 (PDT), wrote:


The union operatives implant it into them. I sat in on a union
meeting years ago (IBEW) where a union suit came in to give a
talk. He literally told the workers that management was out to
get them any way they can, so they'd better build a file on
management "misconduct" so they could use that info to try save
their jobs when management "came after them". Turning the
workers against the company that feeds them. That's some way to
build a successful company, eh? Any wonder nearly all unionized
companies are poor performers, and fail?

Fear mongering. Intimidation. Lies. Deceit. The tools of unions.

Unions had a function 100 years ago but they are anachronisms today.
Most of the "protections" they pioneered are now federal law

That's just absolute, complete bull****.

You never heard of OSHA, NLRB, the various labor laws and last but not
least a very litigious society with lawyers trolling for clients every
day. Carnegie is not sending the Pinkertons in to shoot strikers, you
don't have kids working in unsafe conditions and putting in 72 hours a
week for base pay.



I think I know a bit more about the real world of labor law and what is
enforced and what isn't, generally, than you do. Most of the teeth in
many labor laws have been excised, and the NLRB is only a shadow of what
it used to be.

Are you seriously going to say that there is anything like the kind of
labor problems now as they had at the turn of the last century?


There are still many serious labor/management problems, and during the
Reagan mis-administration, they started getting worse again.

It's always nice to see a union thugs's take on the situation, but to
get a better perspective on what really goes on behind union doors, go
to www.unionfacts.org Be sure to drop in on the bricklayers and visit
with Harry's beloved sugar momma.

On 4/19/14, 7:55 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/19/2014 7:13 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/19/14, 1:07 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 23:08:37 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 4/18/14, 11:03 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 20:36:59 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 4/18/14, 8:29 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 15:50:56 -0700 (PDT), wrote:


The union operatives implant it into them. I sat in on a union
meeting years ago (IBEW) where a union suit came in to give a
talk. He literally told the workers that management was out to
get them any way they can, so they'd better build a file on
management "misconduct" so they could use that info to try save
their jobs when management "came after them". Turning the
workers against the company that feeds them. That's some way to
build a successful company, eh? Any wonder nearly all unionized
companies are poor performers, and fail?

Fear mongering. Intimidation. Lies. Deceit. The tools of
unions.

Unions had a function 100 years ago but they are anachronisms today.
Most of the "protections" they pioneered are now federal law

That's just absolute, complete bull****.

You never heard of OSHA, NLRB, the various labor laws and last but not
least a very litigious society with lawyers trolling for clients every
day. Carnegie is not sending the Pinkertons in to shoot strikers, you
don't have kids working in unsafe conditions and putting in 72 hours a
week for base pay.



I think I know a bit more about the real world of labor law and what is
enforced and what isn't, generally, than you do. Most of the teeth in
many labor laws have been excised, and the NLRB is only a shadow of
what
it used to be.

Are you seriously going to say that there is anything like the kind of
labor problems now as they had at the turn of the last century?


There are still many serious labor/management problems, and during the
Reagan mis-administration, they started getting worse again.


Is that why general union membership has gone from about 20 percent of
all employed in 1983 to 11.5 percent now?


No, it isn't.

On 4/19/2014 7:55 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/19/2014 7:13 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/19/14, 1:07 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 23:08:37 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 4/18/14, 11:03 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 20:36:59 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 4/18/14, 8:29 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 15:50:56 -0700 (PDT), wrote:


The union operatives implant it into them. I sat in on a union
meeting years ago (IBEW) where a union suit came in to give a
talk. He literally told the workers that management was out to
get them any way they can, so they'd better build a file on
management "misconduct" so they could use that info to try save
their jobs when management "came after them". Turning the
workers against the company that feeds them. That's some way to
build a successful company, eh? Any wonder nearly all unionized
companies are poor performers, and fail?

Fear mongering. Intimidation. Lies. Deceit. The tools of
unions.

Unions had a function 100 years ago but they are anachronisms today.
Most of the "protections" they pioneered are now federal law

That's just absolute, complete bull****.

You never heard of OSHA, NLRB, the various labor laws and last but not
least a very litigious society with lawyers trolling for clients every
day. Carnegie is not sending the Pinkertons in to shoot strikers, you
don't have kids working in unsafe conditions and putting in 72 hours a
week for base pay.



I think I know a bit more about the real world of labor law and what is
enforced and what isn't, generally, than you do. Most of the teeth in
many labor laws have been excised, and the NLRB is only a shadow of
what
it used to be.

Are you seriously going to say that there is anything like the kind of
labor problems now as they had at the turn of the last century?


There are still many serious labor/management problems, and during the
Reagan mis-administration, they started getting worse again.


Is that why general union membership has gone from about 20 percent of
all employed in 1983 to 11.5 percent now?

Unions seem to be losing their flavor for many.


While membership is down, management still prospers. Isn't that one of
Harry's pet peeves; rewarding management for poor performance. ;-)

On 4/19/14, 7:57 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/19/2014 7:27 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/18/14, 11:18 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 21:15:52 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 4/18/14, 8:57 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


What working experience do you have ... meaning employment ... where
*you* were were subject to the king boss and had to take whatever the
job dished out? Ever? I suspect zero.



Your suspicions would add up to...zero.


Every story you have told here was about your jobs where you made
unbelievable money doing exactly what you loved.
You boss always fell at your feet in awe.

As they say on Law and Order, "were you lying then or are you lying
now"?


Yeah, my first full-time newspaper job paid me $100 a week. Yipperdoo.
The Associated Press "recruited" me out of that job by doubling that
salary, and my first ad/pr agency job in Detroit tripled the AP salary.
All chump change jobs, but I did get along with my various bosses. I was
recruited out of the Detroit job by the National Education Association.

In 1971, I think it was, I was hired by a big DC ad/pr agency for a
grand a week, decent pay for a young man in those days. Stayed there for
three years, then was hired by another DC ad/pr agency for another pay
spike, but I don't remember what it was. The second agency was a lot of
fun...it was much more of a "retail" agency with lots of local TV and
radio advertising.

In 1977, I think, the NEA asked me if I wanted to be a contract
consultant to manage some of its national advertising business so I left
the agency. Shortly thereafter, I picked up two other international
unions as clients, and then I got a contract to produce TV ads for the
AFL-CIO building trades department and a national veterans organization.

I did ok on the payrolls of others, once my career got going, but much
better financially running my own little ad/pr shop.



Was your own little ad/pr shop unionized?



Actually, yes.

On 4/19/2014 8:03 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/19/14, 7:57 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/19/2014 7:27 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/18/14, 11:18 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 21:15:52 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 4/18/14, 8:57 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


What working experience do you have ... meaning employment ... where
*you* were were subject to the king boss and had to take whatever
the
job dished out? Ever? I suspect zero.



Your suspicions would add up to...zero.


Every story you have told here was about your jobs where you made
unbelievable money doing exactly what you loved.
You boss always fell at your feet in awe.

As they say on Law and Order, "were you lying then or are you lying
now"?


Yeah, my first full-time newspaper job paid me $100 a week. Yipperdoo.
The Associated Press "recruited" me out of that job by doubling that
salary, and my first ad/pr agency job in Detroit tripled the AP salary.
All chump change jobs, but I did get along with my various bosses. I was
recruited out of the Detroit job by the National Education Association.

In 1971, I think it was, I was hired by a big DC ad/pr agency for a
grand a week, decent pay for a young man in those days. Stayed there for
three years, then was hired by another DC ad/pr agency for another pay
spike, but I don't remember what it was. The second agency was a lot of
fun...it was much more of a "retail" agency with lots of local TV and
radio advertising.

In 1977, I think, the NEA asked me if I wanted to be a contract
consultant to manage some of its national advertising business so I left
the agency. Shortly thereafter, I picked up two other international
unions as clients, and then I got a contract to produce TV ads for the
AFL-CIO building trades department and a national veterans organization.

I did ok on the payrolls of others, once my career got going, but much
better financially running my own little ad/pr shop.



Was your own little ad/pr shop unionized?



Actually, yes.

Here comes the bull****.

On 4/19/2014 8:03 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/19/14, 7:57 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/19/2014 7:27 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/18/14, 11:18 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 21:15:52 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 4/18/14, 8:57 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


What working experience do you have ... meaning employment ... where
*you* were were subject to the king boss and had to take whatever
the
job dished out? Ever? I suspect zero.



Your suspicions would add up to...zero.


Every story you have told here was about your jobs where you made
unbelievable money doing exactly what you loved.
You boss always fell at your feet in awe.

As they say on Law and Order, "were you lying then or are you lying
now"?


Yeah, my first full-time newspaper job paid me $100 a week. Yipperdoo.
The Associated Press "recruited" me out of that job by doubling that
salary, and my first ad/pr agency job in Detroit tripled the AP salary.
All chump change jobs, but I did get along with my various bosses. I was
recruited out of the Detroit job by the National Education Association.

In 1971, I think it was, I was hired by a big DC ad/pr agency for a
grand a week, decent pay for a young man in those days. Stayed there for
three years, then was hired by another DC ad/pr agency for another pay
spike, but I don't remember what it was. The second agency was a lot of
fun...it was much more of a "retail" agency with lots of local TV and
radio advertising.

In 1977, I think, the NEA asked me if I wanted to be a contract
consultant to manage some of its national advertising business so I left
the agency. Shortly thereafter, I picked up two other international
unions as clients, and then I got a contract to produce TV ads for the
AFL-CIO building trades department and a national veterans organization.

I did ok on the payrolls of others, once my career got going, but much
better financially running my own little ad/pr shop.



Was your own little ad/pr shop unionized?



Actually, yes.


You've made it very clear over the years that unions are near and dear
to your heart. Obviously your career and earning power was tied to your
association and work for unions. But you are in the minority.
The overwhelming majority of employed people are not union, don't want
to be union and want nothing to do with unions. Those that *are* union
are the ones who complain most about their jobs, their ability to
advance (or lack of) due to personal motivation and achievement. It's
also interesting that the majority of remaining union jobs are also
federal jobs.

Why is that?

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 4/19/2014 8:03 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/19/14, 7:57 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/19/2014 7:27 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/18/14, 11:18 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 21:15:52 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 4/18/14, 8:57 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


What working experience do you have ... meaning employment ... where
*you* were were subject to the king boss and had to take whatever
the
job dished out? Ever? I suspect zero.



Your suspicions would add up to...zero.


Every story you have told here was about your jobs where you made
unbelievable money doing exactly what you loved.
You boss always fell at your feet in awe.

As they say on Law and Order, "were you lying then or are you lying
now"?


Yeah, my first full-time newspaper job paid me $100 a week. Yipperdoo.
The Associated Press "recruited" me out of that job by doubling that
salary, and my first ad/pr agency job in Detroit tripled the AP salary.
All chump change jobs, but I did get along with my various bosses. I was
recruited out of the Detroit job by the National Education Association.

In 1971, I think it was, I was hired by a big DC ad/pr agency for a
grand a week, decent pay for a young man in those days. Stayed there for
three years, then was hired by another DC ad/pr agency for another pay
spike, but I don't remember what it was. The second agency was a lot of
fun...it was much more of a "retail" agency with lots of local TV and
radio advertising.

In 1977, I think, the NEA asked me if I wanted to be a contract
consultant to manage some of its national advertising business so I left
the agency. Shortly thereafter, I picked up two other international
unions as clients, and then I got a contract to produce TV ads for the
AFL-CIO building trades department and a national veterans organization.

I did ok on the payrolls of others, once my career got going, but much
better financially running my own little ad/pr shop.



Was your own little ad/pr shop unionized?



Actually, yes.


You've made it very clear over the years that unions are near and dear to
your heart. Obviously your career and earning power was tied to your
association and work for unions. But you are in the minority.
The overwhelming majority of employed people are not union, don't want to
be union and want nothing to do with unions. Those that *are* union are
the ones who complain most about their jobs, their ability to advance (or
lack of) due to personal motivation and achievement. It's also
interesting that the majority of remaining union jobs are also federal jobs.

Why is that?

Your corporate heroes have sold out this country.

On 4/19/2014 8:29 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 4/19/2014 8:03 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/19/14, 7:57 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/19/2014 7:27 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/18/14, 11:18 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 21:15:52 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 4/18/14, 8:57 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


What working experience do you have ... meaning employment ... where
*you* were were subject to the king boss and had to take whatever
the
job dished out? Ever? I suspect zero.



Your suspicions would add up to...zero.


Every story you have told here was about your jobs where you made
unbelievable money doing exactly what you loved.
You boss always fell at your feet in awe.

As they say on Law and Order, "were you lying then or are you lying
now"?


Yeah, my first full-time newspaper job paid me $100 a week. Yipperdoo.
The Associated Press "recruited" me out of that job by doubling that
salary, and my first ad/pr agency job in Detroit tripled the AP salary.
All chump change jobs, but I did get along with my various bosses. I was
recruited out of the Detroit job by the National Education Association.

In 1971, I think it was, I was hired by a big DC ad/pr agency for a
grand a week, decent pay for a young man in those days. Stayed there for
three years, then was hired by another DC ad/pr agency for another pay
spike, but I don't remember what it was. The second agency was a lot of
fun...it was much more of a "retail" agency with lots of local TV and
radio advertising.

In 1977, I think, the NEA asked me if I wanted to be a contract
consultant to manage some of its national advertising business so I left
the agency. Shortly thereafter, I picked up two other international
unions as clients, and then I got a contract to produce TV ads for the
AFL-CIO building trades department and a national veterans organization.

I did ok on the payrolls of others, once my career got going, but much
better financially running my own little ad/pr shop.



Was your own little ad/pr shop unionized?



Actually, yes.


You've made it very clear over the years that unions are near and dear to
your heart. Obviously your career and earning power was tied to your
association and work for unions. But you are in the minority.
The overwhelming majority of employed people are not union, don't want to
be union and want nothing to do with unions. Those that *are* union are
the ones who complain most about their jobs, their ability to advance (or
lack of) due to personal motivation and achievement. It's also
interesting that the majority of remaining union jobs are also federal jobs.

Why is that?

Your corporate heroes have sold out this country.


Ha! You crack me up. What else did I expect? :-)

Here's how I view unions. To me they are an added, controlling factor
on one's life and ability to pursue a career with as much opportunity as
possible in this highly regulated world. Unions tend to create a
homogeneous work force where personal motivation or abilities become
second to job classification, time in grade and seniority.

The closest thing to being in a union for me was 9 years active duty in
the Navy. It's also why, when my contract was up, I exited stage left.
Like a union, opportunity for advancement and earning power is limited
to time in grade, in service and the needs of the service. I wanted
more than that in life.

Due to the path I took I had the opportunity to know many, many people
working for a living, union and non-union. By far the happiest and most
satisfied people were non-union.

There are those who work primarily to support their families and
lifestyles. Not all are motivated to "climb the career ladder".
Nothing wrong with that. There are also those who put forth a little
extra .... sometimes a *lot* extra because they want to do the very best
they can. Usually those people become more valuable to a company and
they *do* succeed. If a slow period comes and lay-offs are required the
more motivated are the last to go, regardless of how long they have
worked for the company. Unions don't consider that. Everyone is
equally qualified, so seniority rules.

I am surprised unions don't issue uniforms and have haircut regulations.

On 4/19/14, 9:40 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 08:14:55 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

the majority of remaining union jobs are also
federal jobs.

Why is that?



The Davis Bacon Act

There are also the state/local government employees who are sucking
the fiscal life out of our cities.
They get to "negotiate" from both sides of the bargaining table so
their deals are budget busters.




And once again, you display your lack of knowledge.

Jobs covered under Davis Bacon are, for the most part, *not* federal
jobs. They are construction worker jobs for workers employed by private
contactors.

It's astonishing to me that so many of your righties here are so damned
opposed to hard-working men and women earning incomes that just reach
the bottom of the rung of the middle class. Yes, of course there are
exceptions, but the majority of these workers aren't big earners.

And, of course, you never bitch about the huge salaries the corporate
suits make. *That's* okay, because pushing paper or keyboard keys is
white man's work, eh?