On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:09:24 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 13:26:50 -0800, jps wrote:


Yeah, let's do a total boycott of all foreign goods! Enjoy your
walk...'cause you will not find an automobile made in the U.S. from
parts
made only in the U.S. While you're at it, you better sew your own
shoes...'cause I doubt you'll find a pair made in the U.S. from
materials
made only in the U.S.

You are an extremist. More selectivity along with a clear campaign led
by consumer advocates might really help our current situation.

I'm really curious if a large enough percentage of people would in fact
pay a little more for an American made product if that differentiation
were made evident.


Assuming that the American made product was not made by a union worker
who's under qualified for the job, and who's management can't fire
him. And if that worker was not on the rag about their favorite sports
team losing the night before, and adopting the "Hey, I'm not going to
buy this thing" attitude and other equally "creative" ways to get out
of putting in a full day's worth of QUALITY work for their overly
inflated wages. And if the cost difference was marginal, then I might
consider it.

Dave

My friend Bob must be a sick man. He's a union butcher. He works 10 hour
days because he loves dealing with the public at the store I shop in. But,
he's probably the only union employee in the known universe who's like that.
Right, Dave?

Use your head Doug. Union membership is MANDATORY in many businesses
(Gee, I wonder why?). Not all union members take advantage of the
system to slack off. But that does not negate the fact that a great
many do. Union rules are made to benefit those who don't aspire to be
the very best that they can be. In other words they are protectionist,
and foster an attitude of mediocrity. Not a good atmosphere if you
are trying to make a quality built product.
I worked with many of these people and had to deal with these policies
and attitudes when I had my first full time job in a factory, and was
a card carrying member of the UAW.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


My friend Bob must be a sick man. He's a union butcher. He works 10 hour
days because he loves dealing with the public at the store I shop in.
But,
he's probably the only union employee in the known universe who's like
that.
Right, Dave?


Use your head Doug. Union membership is MANDATORY in many businesses
(Gee, I wonder why?). Not all union members take advantage of the
system to slack off.

Good. I just wanted to be sure you understood that. I thought maybe you were
making another one of your exquisitely stupid absolute statements.


But that does not negate the fact that a great
many do. Union rules are made to benefit those who don't aspire to be
the very best that they can be.

All union rules? Do you know why they came to exist initially?


In other words they are protectionist,
and foster an attitude of mediocrity.

All union rules are protectionist? What about rules regarding safety and
working conditions? Be careful here, Dave. Your response may make you a
target for "ad puer" (not "ad hominem") remarks.

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 15:05:00 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .


My friend Bob must be a sick man. He's a union butcher. He works 10 hour
days because he loves dealing with the public at the store I shop in.
But,
he's probably the only union employee in the known universe who's like
that.
Right, Dave?


Use your head Doug. Union membership is MANDATORY in many businesses
(Gee, I wonder why?). Not all union members take advantage of the
system to slack off.

Good. I just wanted to be sure you understood that. I thought maybe you were
making another one of your exquisitely stupid absolute statements.

I've told you before, I don't deal in absolutes. Far too few of them
can be proven either one way or another.



But that does not negate the fact that a great
many do. Union rules are made to benefit those who don't aspire to be
the very best that they can be.

All union rules?

Who said anything about *all* rules? There you go again assuming an
absolute and then attributing the claim to me.


Do you know why they came to exist initially?

Sure, and most of those reasons are long gone.




In other words they are protectionist,
and foster an attitude of mediocrity.

All union rules are protectionist?

There you go again. Can't you contemplate an issue without going to
absolute extremes?


What about rules regarding safety and
working conditions?

What about them? They are no better than those mandated by OSHA.


Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


But that does not negate the fact that a great
many do. Union rules are made to benefit those who don't aspire to be
the very best that they can be.

All union rules?

Who said anything about *all* rules? There you go again assuming an
absolute and then attributing the claim to me.

You said "Union rules are made to benefit......". You did not say "some", "a
few", etc. Sounds like you meant "all", until you were pushed to the wall
and forced to recant.


Do you know why they came to exist initially?

Sure, and most of those reasons are long gone.

Really? Are you sure you might not want to spend some time doing research
this weekend, so you can come back and recant that statement, too? Here's a
teaser for you, but there are plenty more out there, and recent ones, too.
http://www.labornotes.org/archives/1999/0499/0499b.html


In other words they are protectionist,
and foster an attitude of mediocrity.

All union rules are protectionist?

There you go again. Can't you contemplate an issue without going to
absolute extremes?

You said "...they are protectionist....". You did not modify your statement
with other words like "some". You are now recanting your statement.


What about rules regarding safety and
working conditions?

What about them? They are no better than those mandated by OSHA.

In cases where a union gets written legal agreements for certain safety
standards, they establish a system of recourse that holds up in court. This
is often more effective than waiting for OSHA, a beaurocracy, to offer an
opinion.

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 17:12:17 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .


But that does not negate the fact that a great
many do. Union rules are made to benefit those who don't aspire to be
the very best that they can be.

All union rules?

Who said anything about *all* rules? There you go again assuming an
absolute and then attributing the claim to me.

You said "Union rules are made to benefit......". You did not say "some", "a
few", etc. Sounds like you meant "all", until you were pushed to the wall
and forced to recant.

I've recanted nothing. I've just corrected your misinterpretation.




Do you know why they came to exist initially?

Sure, and most of those reasons are long gone.

Really? Are you sure you might not want to spend some time doing research
this weekend, so you can come back and recant that statement, too? Here's a
teaser for you, but there are plenty more out there, and recent ones, too.
http://www.labornotes.org/archives/1999/0499/0499b.html

Sigh. Another wonderful website. If I put up a website which said that
the moon was made of green cheese, would you believe that too?


In other words they are protectionist,
and foster an attitude of mediocrity.

All union rules are protectionist?

There you go again. Can't you contemplate an issue without going to
absolute extremes?

You said "...they are protectionist....". You did not modify your statement
with other words like "some". You are now recanting your statement.

No, I'm correcting you.


What about rules regarding safety and
working conditions?

What about them? They are no better than those mandated by OSHA.

In cases where a union gets written legal agreements for certain safety
standards, they establish a system of recourse that holds up in court. This
is often more effective than waiting for OSHA, a beaurocracy, to offer an
opinion.

What? You mean the government isn't the most efficient and effective
at promoting and enforcing policies?

Gee, what a concept.....

Dave

Dave Hall wrote in message . ..

Is there any point to your mindless pseudo-conservative prattle here,
fellow?

You almost make me ashamed to be a conservative.

You are about as disconnected from the real world as anyone I have
noticed in newsgroups, and, worse, you post incessantly about almost
nothing.

Get a life.

On 19 Jan 2004 06:26:04 -0800, (Mad
Dog Dave) wrote:

Dave Hall wrote in message . ..

Is there any point to your mindless pseudo-conservative prattle here,
fellow?

Yes, correcting the misconceptions of those on the left, who can't see
the forest for the trees.


You almost make me ashamed to be a conservative.

You should be, if you take the side of the left opposed to that of
common sense and logic.


You are about as disconnected from the real world as anyone I have
noticed in newsgroups, and, worse, you post incessantly about almost
nothing.

I'd be glad to engage you on any topic you feel passionately about.
Get ready to have your boat rocked.


Get a life.

Touch a nerve? I normally get that reaction when I hit a little too
close to home with most liberals.

Your more than welcome to prove my "prattle" wrong with any hard
evidence that you may have.

Dave