Republicans trying to gag nonprofits
 

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 12:17:51 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

It's just another attempt by the right-wing trash to turn everything
into a black or white issue.

Harry, you're getting lazy.

Steve

Republicans trying to gag nonprofits
 

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 07:05:24 +0000, Steven Shelikoff wrote:


That's exactly what many unions do. You're forced to pay union dues as a
requirement to work a job

snip

Not in the 22 Right to Work states. As an aside, I found a link with the
Right to Work states mapped. It's interesting to note that they are
surprisingly close to Bush's red states.

Right to Work states:

http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm

The election map:

http://www.democraticunderground.com...08/27_map.html

Republicans trying to gag nonprofits
 

thunder wrote:

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 07:05:24 +0000, Steven Shelikoff wrote:



That's exactly what many unions do. You're forced to pay union dues as a
requirement to work a job


snip

Not in the 22 Right to Work states. As an aside, I found a link with the
Right to Work states mapped. It's interesting to note that they are
surprisingly close to Bush's red states.

Right to Work states:

http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm

The election map:

http://www.democraticunderground.com...08/27_map.html



That's right to work for less states.

Republicans trying to gag nonprofits
 

That's right to work for less states.



Maybe we should use the maritime example (that has served so well for a
thousand years) to modernize employment.

If we were employed as commercial fishermen, whalers, privateers, or Vikings on
a longboat raid not a one of us would work for wages. Before an enterprise
began, there would be a contract assigning shares to various responsibilities.
Ship's owner 20%, ship's master 10%, officers
several percent each, all the way down to
shanghaied "landsmen" that might get a fraction of a percent apiece.

Some would say, "That smacks of Communism!" but it does not. Under a communist
system, every crew member would get an equal share regardless of contribution
or responsibility- and that's not likely to be sustainable because it is
inequitable.

Previously agreed expenses would be deductible, of course.

The system worked well because each person was equitably vested in the success
of the venture. No results or poor results meant financial ruin for all.
Cutting a fat hog meant that ordinary seamen earned far more than their
unfortunate, wage slaving fellows working ashore.

To keep the system functioning on the up and up, the crew would elect a
"quartermaster" to help control expenses
and keep a running inventory of booty, prizes, and cargo. Even umpteen hundred
years ago, there were "clever" folks who would otherwise exaggerate expenses or
conceal income to more adequately pad thier own pocket prior to settling up.
Unfortunately, the "trust me" system doesn't work very well.

Failing to follow the maritime model means that we have a system where labor
and management are adversaries, not partners.
Labor is an unfortunate expense, which any smart businessperson will take steps
to reduce to the lowest possible dollar amount. Management is seen as the
greedy capitalist group with little or no regard for anything beyond putting up
the best possible numbers on the quarterly report. Under those circumstances,
it's no wonder that labor and management are always at odds and squabbling over
the division of profits.

In the modern economy, you can find the maritime model routinely employed in
sales jobs. When I was a very young man, my family all tried to warn me against
"working on commission". They couldn't have been more wrong. Give a man (or
woman) a piece of the action, get the hell out of the way and let them do the
job,
*ACCOUNT HONESTLY*, and everybody gets rich.

We also find the maritime model employed by investors. In that system,
"shareholders" rather than working partners divide the profits based on a ratio
that reflects the contribution of capital (rather than skill, labor, time, or
expertise) to the enterprise. The workers (considered an expense rather than
partners in an endeavor) are often paid as little as the company can get away
with to minimize the impact on the most important reckoning....the return on
capital.

Best businessman I ever knew built an business with 75 -80 employees, all of
whom were either on a generous commission structure or paid higher per hour
than employees at similar businesses in the area. Didn't need a union- working
for union scale would have been a cut in pay. My employer used to take a lot of
flack from other people in the same industry. They would criticize him for his
payroll expense, and try to point out how he'd be more profitable if he'd cut
back to
the industry norm. Had he cut back to the prevailing pay scale, he would not
have been able to attract the type of talent that made his enterprise what it
was.

What most of the competitors failed to appreciate, was that this particular
bsuiness was (according to a national manufacturer who would be in a position
to know) among the top 5% in the nation for net profit among businesses of its
type. I eventually worked up to a (substantially jr) partnership in the firm
and know for a fact that my employer was personally drawing
over $7mm a year from the operation. That's not a lot of money by today's
standards, but it was a decent, executive level income 20 years ago- when major
league ballplayers were still willing to bat for just a few hundred thousand a
year. :-)

The common labor vs. capital model doesn't work well because both sides are
squabbling over how to divide the pie.

If we use the maritime model and put people on equitable shares, the emphasis
is no longer on fighting over the division of the corporate pie but rather
making the pie large enough that everybody can eat his or her fill.

Might be something to this. Notice that national economies, whether capitalist,
socialist, communist, or what not......seem to come and go with the passage of
centuries. While there aren't a lot of privateers these days and it's been a
while since the last longboat went raiding, commercial fishing and crabbing
still use a very old system for equitable division of income and the activities
have outlasted
scores of more sophisticated economies.

So..to hell with unions. Let's all go crabbing. :-)

Republicans trying to gag nonprofits
 

Well trying to get used to a new browser, I inadvertently replied just to
Gold.

Post as best I can remember it follows

While in my "reading room" this Am, I picked up the March Issue of the boat
US Mag.

Note all content summarized and paraphrased

On the cover ----Sen Breaux bids adieu

page 4 Behind the buoy ---- Sen Breaux is a good guy

Page 7 Breaux's legacy in pearl -- dealing with a $500 Mil trust fund for
boating

Page 8 Manatee Deaths up ---- But not because of boats

Page 10 California Budget Woes --(complete with a Pix of Arnold who is going
to divert boat fuel tax to other than boat uses

Page 11 SC Sky-High Tax -- Personal property tax on boats is bad

Page 12 Boat Liability Insurance --- Might be a good thing

Pages 20-21 Profile of NTSB Chairwoman

Pages 28-29 Fuel tax -- how states use it

Page 32 Fl has no lemon law for boats --- Bad

So which (if any) of these are political? (suggest you read your own copy
before replying) You ARE members aren't you?




"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Spending money is one thing -- but what about saying "Mr. Smith is a good
guy, and we think he will work in our best interests" in their
newsletter?

If BOAT/US, or anybody else, felt it was important for the membership to
understand the differences in candidate's positions on certain issues that
might effect something of interest to organization members, it would be
more
appropriate to make a certain amount of space available in the newsletter
for
the candidate to say his piece. It would also be fair (although there are
fewer
rules requiring fair play these days) to allow the opposition an equal
amount
of space.

Far too much editorializing gets shoveled under the crack in the door when
a
newsletter editor makes a recommendation to the membership.

Whether it's Marine Trade Association, the
Yacht Brokers Association, Boat/US, or whatever....the main purpose of
those
and similar organizations should be promoting the best interest of the
entire
membership on a non-partisan basis. Not diverting membership dues to
political
campaigns on *any* side of the spectrum.
Not even using the membership roster as a "mailing list" to pressure
members to
contribute to the campaign of some gool ol' boy or another.

Republicans trying to gag nonprofits
 

I thought you threatened to leave with you ball and bat.

Change your mind Chuckie?


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Spending money is one thing -- but what about saying "Mr. Smith is a good
guy, and we think he will work in our best interests" in their
newsletter?

If BOAT/US, or anybody else, felt it was important for the membership to
understand the differences in candidate's positions on certain issues that
might effect something of interest to organization members, it would be
more
appropriate to make a certain amount of space available in the newsletter
for
the candidate to say his piece. It would also be fair (although there are
fewer
rules requiring fair play these days) to allow the opposition an equal
amount
of space.

Far too much editorializing gets shoveled under the crack in the door when
a
newsletter editor makes a recommendation to the membership.

Whether it's Marine Trade Association, the
Yacht Brokers Association, Boat/US, or whatever....the main purpose of
those
and similar organizations should be promoting the best interest of the
entire
membership on a non-partisan basis. Not diverting membership dues to
political
campaigns on *any* side of the spectrum.
Not even using the membership roster as a "mailing list" to pressure
members to
contribute to the campaign of some gool ol' boy or another.

Republicans trying to gag nonprofits
 

correction edit to my original post.


"jim--" wrote in message
...
I thought you threatened to leave with your ball and bat.

Change your mind Chuckie?

Republicans trying to gag nonprofits
 

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 13:18:56 -0400, "jim--" wrote:

I thought you threatened to leave with you ball and bat.

Change your mind Chuckie?


He did as he said, left for three months. Now he's back. At least his post was
boating related. Actually, it was kind of interesting.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

Republicans trying to gag nonprofits
 

I thought you threatened to leave with you ball and bat.

Change your mind Chuckie?

I said I'd be gone for 90 days. With a couple of minor exceptions, I was.

I said I'd not be posting here as much in the future as in the past, and I will
not.
If I want to argue philosophy, I'll look for a forum where the typical rebuttal
isn't a juvenile, personal insult.

If a thread doesn't somehow relate to boating, there's no use persuing it in
this forum. I only got sucked into this one because BOAT/US was brought up as
an example of a non-profit orgainzation that could, conceivably, endorse or
support a political candidate.

It's easy to get a fresh perspective on rec.boats after an absence.
Would you believe there are a bunch of no-boaters who hang around here just
looking for opportunities to take personal potshots at folks? Such people are
without any useful purpose in a boating newsgroup, and unworthy of any time or
concern. Watchout for them, Jim. They will try to screw up your on-topic
discussion by bringing up personal issues and flaming. Most of them are none
too bright, and they come from many sides of the spectrum. They are as noisy
and annoying and insignificant as blood sucking mosquitoes, and you certainly
wouldn't want to get any of them dogging you around.

Besides, "You cannot teach a pig to dance. You get all muddy and it irritates
the pig." Darn good reason to avoid the political posts. :-)

Republicans trying to gag nonprofits
 

jim-- wrote:

correction edit to my original post.


"jim--" wrote in message
...

I thought you threatened to leave with your ball and bat.

Change your mind Chuckie?





Chuck's post had some interesting content. I can't recall one of yours
that did.