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