CalifBill wrote:
"D.Duck" wrote in message
...
"hk" wrote in message

Eisboch
How many of the non-degreed fellows at that plant are making $37 an
hour in the envelope, plus pension and health benefits?
How many union guys are making $37 an hour in the envelope?

Construction workers? Lots. Not most, but lots.

My local has a call out for specialty welders for three to four years of
work at rates higher than that, plus the probability of significant OT.
The skills required for those jobs are way over my pay rate, but...I'm
glad to see the rate way up there.

Gosh...I'm amazed you even know what that term in the envelope means.

Believe it or not I was a Teamster at one time. I had to be a member for
my job during college selling/delivering 7-UP.

I still don't think there are as many union electricians and plumbers
making you would like everyone believe. But now you spin it to *specialty
welders*.


Welders are in huge demand. they are partnering up with 2 and 4 year
colleges to train ceertified welders. So therefore the welder, union or not
is going to get big pay checks. $500,000,000 at one of the local refineries
in upgrades. Lots require welding and they can not get welders..


This thread is a perfect example of how person x misreads what person y
posted and then goes off on a tangent.

I stated that lots, but not most, construction workers were pulling in
$37 an hour.

I'm told that there aren't as many electricians and plumbers making as
much as I "would like everyone to believe."

But I never made a statement implying that $37+ an hour was what most,
or even a majority of electricians and plumbers were earning. I said
"not most, but lots."

Then, I mentioned my local union specifically, where there is a "job"
upcoming that will provide years of work at even higher rates for a
certain category of specialty welders. Those were not the guys I was
referring to for the $37 an hour rate, and I stated that.

So I'm told I'm just spinning that.

Quack, quack, quack.

Reggie syndrome.

"hk" wrote in message
. com...


This thread is a perfect example of how person x misreads what person y
posted and then goes off on a tangent.

So I'm told I'm just spinning that.

Quack, quack, quack.

Reggie syndrome.





No. This thread is a perfect example of you making a statement or
implication, being called on it, then weaving your way with words out of any
accountability.

You were the first one to mention $37 per hour in the envelope. Here's
your exact words:

"How many of the non-degreed fellows at that plant are making
$37 an hour
in the envelope, plus pension and health benefits?"

Any reasonable interpretation of those words would be that you were stating
a typical pay scale and benefits package for union workers.

But, when challenged, your story changes to the following:

"I stated that lots, but not most, construction workers were pulling in
$37 an hour."

and:

" But I never made a statement implying that $37+ an hour was what most,
or even a majority of electricians and plumbers were earning. I said
"not most, but lots.""

followed by:

" Then, I mentioned my local union specifically, where there is a "job"
upcoming that will provide years of work at even higher rates for a
certain category of specialty welders. Those were not the guys I was
referring to for the $37 an hour rate, and I stated that."


and you wonder why.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. com...
This thread is a perfect example of how person x misreads what person y
posted and then goes off on a tangent.
So I'm told I'm just spinning that.

Quack, quack, quack.

Reggie syndrome.





No. This thread is a perfect example of you making a statement or
implication, being called on it, then weaving your way with words out of any
accountability.

You were the first one to mention $37 per hour in the envelope. Here's
your exact words:

"How many of the non-degreed fellows at that plant are making
$37 an hour
in the envelope, plus pension and health benefits?"

Any reasonable interpretation of those words would be that you were stating
a typical pay scale and benefits package for union workers.

But, when challenged, your story changes to the following:

"I stated that lots, but not most, construction workers were pulling in
$37 an hour."

and:

" But I never made a statement implying that $37+ an hour was what most,
or even a majority of electricians and plumbers were earning. I said
"not most, but lots.""

followed by:

" Then, I mentioned my local union specifically, where there is a "job"
upcoming that will provide years of work at even higher rates for a
certain category of specialty welders. Those were not the guys I was
referring to for the $37 an hour rate, and I stated that."


and you wonder why.

Eisboch




Lots is not most, and I never stated or implied $37 an hour plus fringes
was typical. "Typical" is $25 to $30 plus fringes in the major markets,
or was the last time I bothered to look. The largest markets have higher
rates, typically.

You are the one, I believe, who brought up a specific work location,
your old company. I did not bring up a specific local or even locale.

Now, my local, is beginning to send out the word for certain
specifically trained welders for a great job that will take years to
complete at rates that will be substantially higher than $37 an hour. My
guess is that up to a couple hundred such welders will be needed at peak
times.

On Sep 1, 8:12*am, hk wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
.com...
This thread is a perfect example of how person x misreads what person y
posted and then goes off on a tangent.
So I'm told I'm just spinning that.

Quack, quack, quack.

Reggie syndrome.

No. *This thread is a perfect example of you making a statement or
implication, being called on it, then weaving your way with words out of any
accountability.

You were the first one to mention $37 per hour in the envelope. * Here's
your exact words:

* * * * * * *"How many of the non-degreed fellows at that plant are making
$37 an hour
* * * * * * * *in the envelope, plus pension and health benefits?"

Any reasonable interpretation of those words would be that you were stating
a typical pay scale and benefits package for union workers.

But, when challenged, your story changes to the following:

* "I stated that lots, but not most, construction workers were pulling in
* * $37 an hour."

and:

* " But I never made a statement implying that $37+ an hour was what most,
* * or even a majority of electricians and plumbers were earning. I said
* * "not most, but lots.""

followed by:

* *" Then, I mentioned my local union specifically, where there is a "job"
* * * upcoming that will provide years of work at even higher rates for a
* * * certain category of specialty welders. Those were not the guys I was
* * * referring to for the $37 an hour rate, and I stated that."

and you wonder why.

Eisboch

Lots is not most, and I never stated or implied $37 an hour plus fringes
was typical. "Typical" is $25 to $30 plus fringes in the major markets,
or was the last time I bothered to look. The largest markets have higher
rates, typically.

You are the one, I believe, who brought up a specific work location,
your old company. I did not bring up a specific local or even locale.

Now, my local, is beginning to send out the word for certain
specifically trained welders for a great job that will take years to
complete at rates that will be substantially higher than $37 an hour. My
guess is that up to a couple hundred such welders will be needed at peak
times.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Liar.