wrote:

You talk of right wing whackos as if the left has
none.

Not at all

I am embarrassed by the right wing wackos and would certainly prefer
if they would disappear quietly. The difference though, is that the left is
defined by the wackos.

Again, not at all.

This is a method of discrediting anything you disagree with as being propagated
by "whackos" before even starting. And you want to claim a halo for being of so
reasonable and logical..... NOT

If you were capable of having a conversation on the
basis of fact, not namecalling, I would gladly engage you.

I guess you have not followed this NG very long. I'd much prefer to talk boats,
and the few times I get into political discussions it's either serious (as in
the economics thread above) or for humor, as when clubbing NOBBY and some of the
other right-wing whackos here (who all try to position themselves as
"conservatives"). The only one with a lick of sense seems to be JohnH, and he
gets dragged over the edge all too often.



Let's start with the left's idea that it's the government's responsibility
to find you a job...just yesterday one of the dwarves spole to the AFL-CIO
and question after question was "What are you going to do to find me this or
get me that?" Get up off your ass and do it yourself!

That would appear to be more than just "the left." Anybody who is worried about
his financial future is not automatically a leftist, so sorry.

As for getting up and doing yourself, that's an admirable concept IMHO.


...I'm sure you'll dismiss me as an ignorant right
wing wacko...so be it...

Actually, you seem to be somewhat well informed, but badly biased and
quiveringly eager to dismiss anything you disagree with as whacko-ism. So yes, I
dismiss you. Don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
wrote:

You talk of right wing whackos as if the left has
none.

Not at all

I am embarrassed by the right wing wackos and would certainly prefer
if they would disappear quietly. The difference though, is that the
left is
defined by the wackos.

Again, not at all.

This is a method of discrediting anything you disagree with as being
propagated
by "whackos" before even starting. And you want to claim a halo for being
of so
reasonable and logical..... NOT

I don't discredit it because I disagree with it, I discredit it because more
and more, the left is defined by special interest groups and extremists.
Take a look at the 2004 candidates - all but Lieberman are trying to
"out-left" each other, thinking that this is the only way to stand apart
from the crowd, and hoping to get the vote. In my opinion, any program that
takes my money and rewards someone for doing nothing, or misuses it, is
repulsive. Both parties are guilty of misuse of funds, but the majority
comes from social programs and entitlement programs designed by the Dems.
Look at CA, they extend these programs to people who are breaking the law
(illegal immigrants) while denying them to to citizens. If they had any
brains at all, they would allow the illegals to work there (doing the jobs
we're too proud to do anyway) and tax the income...maybe whittle down a
little of that $38 billion debt. Don't even get me started on the 9th
Circus Court...how about San Fransisco paying for sex change operations for
city workers...just a few examples of the policies coming from the left.
Maybe Michael Moore should run in '04, he'd beat 'em all...

I think it boils down to this...call someone a leftist, and they deny it and
act insulted...call be a right wing conservative and I proudly, openly
acknowledge it. I will openly discuss my goals and motives, while the left
claims impartiality and swears they are not biased.


If you were capable of having a conversation on the
basis of fact, not namecalling, I would gladly engage you.

I guess you have not followed this NG very long. I'd much prefer to talk
boats,
and the few times I get into political discussions it's either serious (as
in
the economics thread above) or for humor, as when clubbing NOBBY and some
of the
other right-wing whackos here (who all try to position themselves as
"conservatives"). The only one with a lick of sense seems to be JohnH, and
he
gets dragged over the edge all too often.

I've been following the NG since 1997, after purchasing my Grand Banks 46




Let's start with the left's idea that it's the government's
responsibility
to find you a job...just yesterday one of the dwarves spole to the
AFL-CIO
and question after question was "What are you going to do to find me
this or
get me that?" Get up off your ass and do it yourself!

That would appear to be more than just "the left." Anybody who is worried
about
his financial future is not automatically a leftist, so sorry.

No, but anyone who is a member of a union automatically IS a leftist.
Unions may have had a place in society at one time, but they are not
counterproductive. All they do is breed nepotism and interfere with free
competition. How is it that someone who moves boxes around on a dock can
make as much as I make with two degrees and state licensure as a Forensic
Engineer? Granted, cost of living has some factor, but explain to me how
the two jobs are of equal worth. Unskilled labor vs. technical and legal
analysis.

Where I live, you can't do random drug testing at the fire dept. because the
union won't allow it. Some stoned jackass is going to kill somebody one of
these days as a direct result of union policy. Why do unions cry every time
someone wants to put a job out for competitive bid? Because they can't
compete. They are a burden to society, and anyone who is in a union is
supporting the ideals, making them leftist by association.


As for getting up and doing yourself, that's an admirable concept IMHO.


It used to be the American way, before everyone decided that someone else is
to blame for all their problems


...I'm sure you'll dismiss me as an ignorant right
wing wacko...so be it...

Actually, you seem to be somewhat well informed, but badly biased and
quiveringly eager to dismiss anything you disagree with as whacko-ism. So
yes, I
dismiss you. Don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out.

DSK

I don't discredit it because I disagree with it, I discredit it because more
and more, the left is defined by special interest groups and extremists.

I understand the left has an exclusive franchise on extremists and special
interests. :-)

Besides, jealousy will get you nowhere.

Take a look at the 2004 candidates - all but Lieberman are trying to
"out-left" each other, thinking that this is the only way to stand apart
from the crowd, and hoping to get the vote. In my opinion, any program that
takes my money and rewards someone for doing nothing, or misuses it, is
repulsive.

??????? Care to be more specific? Exactly what programs have the 2004 hopefuls
proposed that would take your money and use it to reward people for "doing
nothing"?



Both parties are guilty of misuse of funds, but the majority
comes from social programs and entitlement programs designed by the Dems.

The POTUS has the ultimate authority on spending. It's called the veto. The
current POTUS has not vetoed one single spending bill during his enitre term.
Last I looked, he wasn't a Democrat.

Don't even get me started on the 9th
Circus Court...how about San Fransisco paying for sex change operations for
city workers...just a few examples of the policies coming from the left.

Does the City of San Francisco pay for sex change operations, or is it a
benefit included in the health insurance policies that City Workers (likely)
fund with deductions from their pay checks?

I think it boils down to this...call someone a leftist, and they deny it and
act insulted..

Horsefeathers. Just because you might intend it as an insult doesn't make it
one.
A lot of left leaners, self included, are proud of our principles and our
priorities.

call be a right wing conservative and I proudly, openly
acknowledge it. I will openly discuss my goals and motives, while the left
claims impartiality and swears they are not biased.

Not only are you an expert on what you stand for, you claim to be expert on
what everybody else stands for (based on label) too. Why would you seek
discussion if you are confident you have all the anwers?


No, but anyone who is a member of a union automatically IS a leftist.

No more than anybody who is a registered Republican automatically IS a fascist.
Our forefathers framed a government based upon separation of powers.
Will Congress Defend the Constitution of the United States?

http://larouchein2004.net/pages/othe...09dodreorg.htm

Unions may have had a place in society at one time, but they are not
counterproductive. All they do is breed nepotism and interfere with free
competition. How is it that someone who moves boxes around on a dock can
make as much as I make with two degrees and state licensure as a
Forensic
Engineer? Granted, cost of living has some factor, but explain to me how
the two jobs are of equal worth. Unskilled labor vs. technical and legal
analysis.

Huh? What happened to

free
competition. ?

If the box movers can convince society that their services are worth more than
Forensic Engineers, more power to them.
Naturally, jealous Forensic Engineers will disagree.

By the way, some of those guys "moving boxes" (longshore work is far more
technical and dangerous than that, btw) probably have more education than many
engineers. Some of them used to have white collar jobs, before "free
competition" prevailed and the guys working for $2/hour US in Russia or India
won the engineering and accounting jobs.



Where I live, you can't do random drug testing at the fire dept. because the
union won't allow it. Some stoned jackass is going to kill somebody one of
these days as a direct result of union policy.

When that happens, the jackass and his two immediate supervisors should be
fired- or maybe jailed. You can't sit around the firehouse and get stoned
without somebody knowing about it. You might find it surprising, but pee tests
are almost TOTALLY defeatable. There's an OTC product called "Clean Pee" that
works almost 100 percent of the time. (It's probably even sold in drug stores
that require their new hires to take a pee test). For $10 bucks, a clean and
sober buddy will pee in the cup for you, or pee into a test tube you cap and
take into the restroom. Why would this be news to a guy working in forensics?

Why do unions cry every time
someone wants to put a job out for competitive bid? Because they can't
compete. They are a burden to society, and anyone who is in a union is
supporting the ideals, making them leftist by association.

Who hires Forensic Engineers? Sounds like a civil service job to me. If so,
good thing *you* are required to submit a competitive bid every time an
opportunity to ply your trade arises. That should keep your income suitably
suppressed. We wouldn't want some government agency to guarantee you a certain
annual income and benefits (all at taxpayers expense) along with some measure
of protection against unjust or politically motivated firing... those things
might discourage free competition for *your* job, and make you a leftist by
association.

Seen on a bumper sticker: "Unions, The people who brought you the weekend."

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Unions may have had a place in society at one time, but they are not
counterproductive. All they do is breed nepotism and interfere with free
competition. How is it that someone who moves boxes around on a dock can
make as much as I make with two degrees and state licensure as a
Forensic
Engineer? Granted, cost of living has some factor, but explain to me how
the two jobs are of equal worth. Unskilled labor vs. technical and legal
analysis.

Huh? What happened to

free
competition. ?

If the box movers can convince society that their services are worth more than
Forensic Engineers, more power to them.
Naturally, jealous Forensic Engineers will disagree.

By the way, some of those guys "moving boxes" (longshore work is far more
technical and dangerous than that, btw) probably have more education than many
engineers. Some of them used to have white collar jobs, before "free
competition" prevailed and the guys working for $2/hour US in Russia or India
won the engineering and accounting jobs.



Where I live, you can't do random drug testing at the fire dept. because the
union won't allow it. Some stoned jackass is going to kill somebody one of
these days as a direct result of union policy.

When that happens, the jackass and his two immediate supervisors should be
fired- or maybe jailed. You can't sit around the firehouse and get stoned
without somebody knowing about it. You might find it surprising, but pee tests
are almost TOTALLY defeatable. There's an OTC product called "Clean Pee" that
works almost 100 percent of the time. (It's probably even sold in drug stores
that require their new hires to take a pee test). For $10 bucks, a clean and
sober buddy will pee in the cup for you, or pee into a test tube you cap and
take into the restroom. Why would this be news to a guy working in forensics?

Why do unions cry every time
someone wants to put a job out for competitive bid? Because they can't
compete. They are a burden to society, and anyone who is in a union is
supporting the ideals, making them leftist by association.

Who hires Forensic Engineers? Sounds like a civil service job to me. If so,
good thing *you* are required to submit a competitive bid every time an
opportunity to ply your trade arises. That should keep your income suitably
suppressed. We wouldn't want some government agency to guarantee you a certain
annual income and benefits (all at taxpayers expense) along with some measure
of protection against unjust or politically motivated firing... those things
might discourage free competition for *your* job, and make you a leftist by
association.

Seen on a bumper sticker: "Unions, The people who brought you the weekend."




I have yet to see a lib who is anti union. Coincidence?

So exactly why are you such a strong union supporter Chuck? Because you are a lib?

And just how have the unions improved the lives of workers in the 21st century?

Why should all union workers get the same pay increases despite their contributions to
the company? Why should slackers get the same as the go-getters?

What do the unions do with all those dues that members blindly pay every week?

Just a few of my questions. Take you time in answering them.

I have yet to see a lib who is anti union. Coincidence?

So exactly why are you such a strong union supporter Chuck? Because you are
a lib?

Because I believe stongly in reaching agreement through negotiation.
Negotiation is only meaningful between two parties with equal power. If the
average worker were sent to report,, individually, to a comittee of suits and
explain why he thought he deserved a certain income, there would be no equity
in power. The management would be in a position to influence the worker far
more than an individual worker could ever influence the management.

And just how have the unions improved the lives of workers in the 21st
century?

Puhleeze. The 21st century is two years old already. Let's look at the 20th,
and compare the average worker's workweek, health benefits, standard of living,
etc in 1900 vs. 1999. If you see no difference, you will never see any benefit
that was provided by unions. The changes were not brought about by the
magnificent generosity of employers. Unions haven't
"held back" improved conditions that employers have been desperate to provide.

Why should all union workers get the same pay increases despite their
contributions to
the company? Why should slackers get the same as the go-getters?

It's called the principle of collective bargaining. All the workers, together,
negotiate more powerfully. The majority of workers voluntarily agree to accept
a common pay rate. The go-getters are rewarded more than the slackers. The
go-getters are more likely to be promoted into management, (where they will be
free of the union influence.) :-)

Management has done the same thing for
decades, with "Associations." A group of steel mills, mining companies,
shipping companies, etc. band together to try to keep wages suppressed. When
all the employers in an industry make a common wage offer to the employees, is
that "leftism", or just "good business"?

Why should the companies with lousy working environments get by with paying as
little as companies with more progressive management?

What do the unions do with all those dues that members blindly pay every
week?


Run the union business office. Fund a union retirement plan for union workers.
Pay union death and disability benefits to the families of workers killed or
injured on the job. Lobby for pro-labor legislation, just as management lobbies
for anti-labor laws.
Any union member is free to ask for an accounting of union income and expense.

Just a few of my questions. Take you time in answering them.

No time needed. Next time, try to think up some tough ones. :-)

On 08 Aug 2003 00:28:19 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

I have yet to see a lib who is anti union. Coincidence?

So exactly why are you such a strong union supporter Chuck? Because you are
a lib?

Because I believe stongly in reaching agreement through negotiation.
Negotiation is only meaningful between two parties with equal power. If the
average worker were sent to report,, individually, to a comittee of suits and
explain why he thought he deserved a certain income, there would be no equity
in power. The management would be in a position to influence the worker far
more than an individual worker could ever influence the management.

And just how have the unions improved the lives of workers in the 21st
century?

Puhleeze. The 21st century is two years old already. Let's look at the 20th,
and compare the average worker's workweek, health benefits, standard of living,
etc in 1900 vs. 1999. If you see no difference, you will never see any benefit
that was provided by unions. The changes were not brought about by the
magnificent generosity of employers. Unions haven't
"held back" improved conditions that employers have been desperate to provide.

Why should all union workers get the same pay increases despite their
contributions to
the company? Why should slackers get the same as the go-getters?

It's called the principle of collective bargaining. All the workers, together,
negotiate more powerfully. The majority of workers voluntarily agree to accept
a common pay rate. The go-getters are rewarded more than the slackers. The
go-getters are more likely to be promoted into management, (where they will be
free of the union influence.) :-)

Management has done the same thing for
decades, with "Associations." A group of steel mills, mining companies,
shipping companies, etc. band together to try to keep wages suppressed. When
all the employers in an industry make a common wage offer to the employees, is
that "leftism", or just "good business"?

Why should the companies with lousy working environments get by with paying as
little as companies with more progressive management?

What do the unions do with all those dues that members blindly pay every
week?


Run the union business office. Fund a union retirement plan for union workers.
Pay union death and disability benefits to the families of workers killed or
injured on the job. Lobby for pro-labor legislation, just as management lobbies
for anti-labor laws.
Any union member is free to ask for an accounting of union income and expense.

Just a few of my questions. Take you time in answering them.

No time needed. Next time, try to think up some tough ones. :-)

When you're good, you're damned good. )

My previous job (14 years) was management. I was laid off, and took a
temporary job in a construction crew in my field. It has been a long
time since I went home that tired.

Any management or professional jackass that thinks that blue collar
workers "push boxes around", doesn't have a clue.

Most "professionals" (in my experience) are far removed from the
reality of hard work. Egotism and stupidity set in, and the "whine"
is heard from coast to coast.

I know it's cliche, but every "anti-union whiner" should slip on a
pair of steel-toed mocassins and try to keep up. They couldn't.

It's interesting to me that you don't hear union or labor workers
begrudging the life-style of management or professionals, but the
reverse is not true. They don't have a clue, and don't want one.
It would upset their lifestyle.

The next time your toilet doesn't flush, your car won't start, or you
want to build an office building- call your proctologist. Maybe he
can help, but he's not cheap.

noah


Courtesy of Lee Yeaton,
See the boats of rec.boats
www.TheBayGuide.com/rec.boats

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
I have yet to see a lib who is anti union. Coincidence?

So exactly why are you such a strong union supporter Chuck? Because you are
a lib?

Because I believe stongly in reaching agreement through negotiation.
Negotiation is only meaningful between two parties with equal power. If the
average worker were sent to report,, individually, to a comittee of suits and
explain why he thought he deserved a certain income, there would be no equity
in power. The management would be in a position to influence the worker far
more than an individual worker could ever influence the management.


I guess you don't have too much faith in your abilities or you are just a poor
performer.

I have never had a problem negotiating pay increases based on my contributions. Most
hard workers who contribute to the bottom line do not have problems either. They
negotiate one on one based on their skills and contributions.

Unions lead to mediocrity. Why work hard or perform over and beyond? You will get the
same pay increase no matter what.


And just how have the unions improved the lives of workers in the 21st
century?

Puhleeze. The 21st century is two years old already.

So how have they improved the lives of the workers in the 21st century? And Chuck,
don't tell anyone but it is actually 2.5 years old.

Let's look at the 20th,
and compare the average worker's workweek, health benefits, standard of living,
etc in 1900 vs. 1999. If you see no difference, you will never see any benefit
that was provided by unions. The changes were not brought about by the
magnificent generosity of employers. Unions haven't
"held back" improved conditions that employers have been desperate to provide.

Continue living in the past Chuck. Not me though.

But if you want to, provide some facts on how the unions have improved the lives of
workers in the late 20th century, say from 1985 on.



Why should all union workers get the same pay increases despite their
contributions to
the company? Why should slackers get the same as the go-getters?

It's called the principle of collective bargaining. All the workers, together,
negotiate more powerfully. The majority of workers voluntarily agree to accept
a common pay rate. The go-getters are rewarded more than the slackers. The
go-getters are more likely to be promoted into management, (where they will be
free of the union influence.) :-)

And the collective bargaining leads to lower productivity and mediocrity. If you need
it, fine. Most people with skills and talent don't need a group to bargain for them.


Management has done the same thing for
decades, with "Associations." A group of steel mills, mining companies,
shipping companies, etc. band together to try to keep wages suppressed. When
all the employers in an industry make a common wage offer to the employees, is
that "leftism", or just "good business"?

Why should the companies with lousy working environments get by with paying as
little as companies with more progressive management?

What do the unions do with all those dues that members blindly pay every
week?


Run the union business office. Fund a union retirement plan for union workers.
Pay union death and disability benefits to the families of workers killed or
injured on the job. Lobby for pro-labor legislation, just as management lobbies
for anti-labor laws.
Any union member is free to ask for an accounting of union income and expense.

You forgot the part about padding their pockets. That is where most of the money goes.


Just a few of my questions. Take you time in answering them.

No time needed. Next time, try to think up some tough ones. :-)

Perhaps if you took your time you could have provided some better answers.

Gould 0738 wrote:

I have yet to see a lib who is anti union. Coincidence?

So exactly why are you such a strong union supporter Chuck? Because you are
a lib?

Because I believe stongly in reaching agreement through negotiation.
Negotiation is only meaningful between two parties with equal power. If the
average worker were sent to report,, individually, to a comittee of suits and
explain why he thought he deserved a certain income, there would be no equity
in power. The management would be in a position to influence the worker far
more than an individual worker could ever influence the management.

A valid concept. But like power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts
absolutely, such is the same in the union world. Where unions were once
the savior of the worker, they are now the cancer of industry. There
are many stories of industries (like steel) which have closed down
thanks to the unions strangling unreasonable salaries and benefits from
management, and preventing them from competing in the global economy.
What good is it to be saying that you USED to be a $30/hr steelworker,
who is BTW, unemployed now.


And just how have the unions improved the lives of workers in the 21st
century?

Puhleeze. The 21st century is two years old already. Let's look at the 20th,
and compare the average worker's workweek, health benefits, standard of living,
etc in 1900 vs. 1999.

There is a big difference if you split the last century in half. The
first half of the century saw the union in its most favorable light.
Equality for workers, and the establishment of labor standards which
were eventually written into federal law.
By the end of the second half of the century the union has pretty much
outlived its original purpose, and its usefulness as well. Today, the
union is nothing more than a bloated beaurocracy in itself. It preaches
uniformity in work. Those who strive to do better, are "encouraged" to
not "make the other guys look bad". Al the while the whole process of
grievances, union stewards, and the like, do little more than allow the
union to prevent the company from firing a worker who is unproductive.
This is little more than a microcosm of socialism, which dos little more
than foster an air of mediocrity.

Today the union is little more than the bastion of unskilled labor. They
are the last remnants of the industrial age, which has all but gone from
this country (and people wonder why?). In the professional skilled
trades, there is little need for a union, as the demand for skilled jobs
usually exceeds the supply of qualified candidates. Companies actually
compete with attractive salary and benefit packages in order to attract
the brightest and best candidates.


Why should all union workers get the same pay increases despite their
contributions to
the company? Why should slackers get the same as the go-getters?

It's called the principle of collective bargaining. All the workers, together,
negotiate more powerfully. The majority of workers voluntarily agree to accept
a common pay rate. The go-getters are rewarded more than the slackers.

And how is that exactly? You said it yourself, it's a "collective"
bargaining unit. No stars are rewarded, and no slackers are punished.
They all get a "common" (your words) pay grade.


The
go-getters are more likely to be promoted into management, (where they will be
free of the union influence.) :-)

It used to be a common joke among union workers, that the best way for a
company to get rid of someone, was to promote them to management ;-).


Management has done the same thing for
decades, with "Associations." A group of steel mills, mining companies,
shipping companies, etc. band together to try to keep wages suppressed.

Actually they just try to stifle competition, in oprder to keep prices
up. Sort of like OPEC.


When
all the employers in an industry make a common wage offer to the employees, is
that "leftism", or just "good business"?

That depends on which side of the table that you're on. I tend to look
at it as "dirty pool". Competition is one of the key pieces of a free
market economy.


Dave

Apologies in advance for responding to Gould in Jim's response - Gould is
already filtered but I can't let some of his uninformed responses go
unanswered...

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Unions may have had a place in society at one time, but they are not
counterproductive. All they do is breed nepotism and interfere with
free
competition. How is it that someone who moves boxes around on a dock
can
make as much as I make with two degrees and state licensure as a
Forensic
Engineer? Granted, cost of living has some factor, but explain to me
how
the two jobs are of equal worth. Unskilled labor vs. technical and
legal
analysis.

Huh? What happened to

free
competition. ?

If the box movers can convince society that their services are worth
more than
Forensic Engineers, more power to them.
Naturally, jealous Forensic Engineers will disagree.

By the way, some of those guys "moving boxes" (longshore work is far
more
technical and dangerous than that, btw) probably have more education
than many
engineers. Some of them used to have white collar jobs, before "free
competition" prevailed and the guys working for $2/hour US in Russia or
India
won the engineering and accounting jobs.

No. my problem was the fact that the longshoremen making 90K a year were
fighting the implementation of the technology used by UPS and FedEx every
day - a lot of their practices are yesterday's technology. In addition, I
don't think it was a coincidenct that the timing of the work stoppage
coincided with election time...

Where I live, you can't do random drug testing at the fire dept.
because the
union won't allow it. Some stoned jackass is going to kill somebody
one of
these days as a direct result of union policy.

When that happens, the jackass and his two immediate supervisors should
be
fired- or maybe jailed. You can't sit around the firehouse and get
stoned
without somebody knowing about it. You might find it surprising, but pee
tests
are almost TOTALLY defeatable. There's an OTC product called "Clean Pee"
that
works almost 100 percent of the time. (It's probably even sold in drug
stores
that require their new hires to take a pee test). For $10 bucks, a clean
and
sober buddy will pee in the cup for you, or pee into a test tube you cap
and
take into the restroom. Why would this be news to a guy working in
forensics?

Exactly the reason that I don't even acknowlege urine tests - I use blood
evidence. The fact that you talk about them as if they would be used in a
forensic investigation shows that you are the one who does not know
procedures. Blood evidence is required, and immediately after the incident
or at random if applicable. And BTW, one of the firemen has a patch growing
in his yard, and everyone at the firehouse knows about it, but no one will
do anything about it...

Why do unions cry every time
someone wants to put a job out for competitive bid? Because they can't
compete. They are a burden to society, and anyone who is in a union is
supporting the ideals, making them leftist by association.

Who hires Forensic Engineers? Sounds like a civil service job to me. If
so,
good thing *you* are required to submit a competitive bid every time an
opportunity to ply your trade arises. That should keep your income
suitably
suppressed. We wouldn't want some government agency to guarantee you a
certain
annual income and benefits (all at taxpayers expense) along with some
measure
of protection against unjust or politically motivated firing... those
things
might discourage free competition for *your* job, and make you a leftist
by
association.

Attorneys, insurance companies, and large corporations are my primary
clients, although I will occasionally work for an individual if they want to
foot the bill. And yes, I also do work for many government agencies and
municipalities. I am in the private sector, and woek 60 to 80 hours per
week, thank you. And once again, you are showing your ignorance to the
engineering practice. It is illegal for an entity to retain my services on
the basis of price. Engineers are required to submit a statement of
qualifications, and are chosen on that basis. Once the firm has been
selected, then we negotiate a fee for services. Granted, I can't charge
twice what my competitor does, but I will say that my firm is the most
expensive in our region, and we still manage to hold an 80% market share.
Furthermore, unions are not necessary for protection from unjust
firings...there is federal legislation in place for that already, and our
so-effective court system if you wish to pursue it in civil court...

and for the record, yes I am a white collar worker now, with a salary and a
bonus dependent on the company's profitability. I do not get raises or
bonuses on the basis of a predetermined schedule (unions) and if I quit
producing, I'm out on my can, as it should be...when others around me quit
producing, I toss them out so they don't sponge my profits...

however, I put myself through college, working 45 hours a week on average,
doing things like roughnecking, road construction, concrete formwork,
framing, and carpentry, so don't tell me I don't know what it's like to work
for a living...what I do know is that it's the best motivation to get a
white collar career...