RRRRR...there's so many softball lobs in that last post of yours Rush, like the issue of shared burdens but...there's no point.

All that is proven is that you like to argue endlessly.

Yeah, exactly. I've said that any number of times. Explicitly. I do it to test the relative strength or weakness of particular arguments.

Not that you really presented any, but some people do.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

LOL

I do it to test the relative strength or weakness of particular arguments.

Actually, you do it to find the weaknesses in your own arguments In the hope that you'll do better the next time around... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

That's the best you have to excuse your hatred of unions?
The story clearly states that the deal was dependent upon reaching a deal with the union representing pilots.
The company and union didn't reach an understanding and the company cancelled the order.
It wasn't the union blocking the purchase.
Do your homework.

In a NON union company the deal would have gone through just fine and the wages would have been worked out later..

Clearly the union delayed the order for their personal benefit and not the companies benefit. Hence anti-productive. Hence unions are bad.

~BoB

---

Do you Good Search for Seti@Home? http://www.goodsearch.com/?charityid=888957
Or Good Shop? http://www.goodshop.com/?charityid=888957

In a NON union company the deal would have gone through just fine and the wages would have been worked out later..

Clearly the union delayed the order for their personal benefit and not the companies benefit. Hence anti-productive. Hence unions are bad.

~BoB

Sorry mate...you're wrong again.

The company and the union signed a collective agreement.
That's a contract that spells out the conditions, wages, benefits and other details of the workplace.

The CEO has a contract with the company, why shouldn't the workforce?

If this order was placed without regard for the collective agreement then it is clear that the company was in violation of the contract and had to back down.

Just as the company would have to back down if it violated their agreement with any customer, client or even it's own CEO.

If the company signed the agreement, they are legally bound by the terms.

Isn't that a cornerstone of right wing thought?

There is no way that anyone can fault the union for this screw-up.

Wow, and yet 90% plus of the American working population

More accurately, 10% of the population is 'collecting unemployment benefits'... Many more are unemployed... ;)

As of Oct. 2007 the unemployment rate was 4.7%

http://www.bls.gov/cps/home.htm
U.S. Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics

Not that you care about the truth...

---

Sorry mate...you're wrong again.

Heh.

The company and the union signed a collective agreement.
That's a contract that spells out the conditions, wages, benefits and other details of the workplace.

That contract is coerced, that's why it isn't legitimate and why Bob is correct in asserting that the union is at fault.

You see, one cannot say to another, "you had better hire me as your landscaper or I'll burn your house down and damage your children" and then claim that the resulting contract is valid--it was obtained under duress.

The CEO has a contract with the company, why shouldn't the workforce?

No one has a problem with such an agreement as long the company can hire and fire at will, just as it can with the CEO. To use your terms, the company can fire the CEO at will, why shouldn't it be able to do the same with the workforce?

If this order was placed without regard for the collective agreement then it is clear that the company was in violation of the contract and had to back down.

Just as the company would have to back down if it violated their agreement with any customer, client or even it's own CEO.

If the company signed the agreement, they are legally bound by the terms.

Of course, if the contract in question was not signed under duress. The mob uses that tactic all the time. They threaten physical violence against businesses in order to obtain legitimate contracts--and no, that doesn't mean the original business is legally bound by the terms.

Similarly, unions use the same coercive methods to get companies to sign contracts under duress. They use the threat of physical violence (damage, assault and battery against employees, preventing the delivery of raw materials, work slowdowns, blocking the gates, et cetera) to coerce the company into signing a contract. They then claim, like the mob does, and like you just did, that the contract is perfectly legitimate.

Isn't that a cornerstone of right wing thought?

No, it's the cornerstone of contract law and has nothing to do with right or left wing thought. The fact that you make such silly a comment suggests that you buy mindlessly into ideology

There is no way that anyone can fault the union for this screw-up.

Slowing down the business plan of Air Canada as they try to buy new aircraft is stupid because, as usual, it drives costs up. Driving costs up is why companies have overwhelmingly avoided unions and their membership has fallen dramatically.

As previously noted, multi-million dollar robots are cheaper, and don't have a vote. Do you think that they could fly planes...?

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

No, robots cannot fly a plane with only a right wing to hold it up.

Every PM I've received has warned me that you never give up, no matter how wrong your position, so I'll refer you back to the Quitter rule.

A winner never quits,
and a quitter never wins.
But a guy who never wins and never quits is an idiot.

Stop adding your editorial opinions to subjects like a collective agreement signed between a company and it's union workforce.
You claim coersion with no facts or evidence, you claim some form of mobster intimidation tactics with the same level of evidence.

You are the very image of the one descibed in the quitter rule.

I have nothing more to say to you.

No, robots cannot fly a plane with only a right wing to hold it up.

I'll bet they could, and far better than a human as well. Well, assuming the control surfaces still function. Without that, the plane is likely going down regardless.

But keep driving the costs up and you just might find out. The pilots union could go the way of the UAW, deflated and dying.

Every PM I've received has warned me that you never give up, no matter how wrong your position, so I'll refer you back to the Quitter rule.

I would have no idea what PMs you've received, so who cares? The few I received consisted mostly of sneering at you, especially after the humpty-dumpty link, but again, who cares?

Rest assured, that you happen to think I'm wrong has no value whatsoever, especially since you haven't provided any reasoning beyond your self-serving conclusions and mindless repetition. That you said it doesn't have any value as evidence. If I am wrong, it's not because you have demonstrated where my reasoning has failed, in fact, you haven't demonstrated anything at all.

>snip< Stop adding your editorial opinions to subjects like a collective agreement signed between a company and it's union workforce.
You claim coersion with no facts or evidence, you claim some form of mobster intimidation tactics with the same level of evidence.

There were no "editorial opinions" there. For example, I stated the reasons why unions are coercive. I said that they use the threat of physical violence (damage, assault and battery against employees, preventing the delivery of raw materials, work slowdowns, blocking the gates, et cetera) to coerce the company into signing a contract. They then claim, like you did, that the contract is perfectly legitimate. Should you disagree with that statement, you should present the reasons why you disagree. There are COUNTLESS examples of unions doing ALL of those things, in fact, they are often the only reason the company signs a contract.

Another example, you said "The CEO has a contract with the company, why shouldn't the workforce?"

To which I replied: "No one has a problem with such an agreement as long the company can hire and fire at will, just as it can with the CEO. To use your terms, the company can fire the CEO at will, why shouldn't it be able to do the same with the workforce?" Should you disagree with that comparison, you should present reasons why you disagree.

You see, things aren't true because you happened to say they are. I presented the reasoning behind my statements. You do not.

You are the very image of the one descibed in the quitter rule.

Certainly not because you sez so. How about this: You are the very image of the once described in the quitter rule. Is that true because I said so?

I have nothing more to say to you.

Frankly, given your posts so far, that's just the status quo. Your posts generally have said little to nothing anyway.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Not that you care about the truth...

What would you know about the TRUTH?

Unemployment rate = Percent of the population collecting unemployment benefits...

Unemployed = The percent of people who don't have a job... <---(conveniently UNdocumented)

It doesn't matter that the unemployment rate is dropping because all that tells us is that unemployment benefits have expired... Wether those people are employed or not, is a another story... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

No one has a problem with such an agreement as long the company can hire and fire at will

You call "hire and fire at will" an employment contract? That's no contract.
Here in Germany there are other rules, which have been fought for by the unions long time ago. Like tariffs. Like severance payments. Like a three-month period of notice (at least). Like continuation of payments to sick workers.

I'm glad that (at least officially) the employers here in Germany cannot hire and fire at will. Not even the temp agencies.

---

Account frozen...

You call "hire and fire at will" an employment contract? That's no contract.

America used to have other rules too... Apparantly, they have all been removed at the request of the employers... Heck, even collecting unemployment compensation isn't worth the fight anymore... ;)

(America has lost its moral compass, and the sad part is, nobody seems to care.)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

No one has a problem with such an agreement as long the company can hire and fire at will

You call "hire and fire at will" an employment contract? That's no contract.
Here in Germany there are other rules, which have been fought for by the unions long time ago. Like tariffs. Like severance payments. Like a three-month period of notice (at least). Like continuation of payments to sick workers.

I'm glad that (at least officially) the employers here in Germany cannot hire and fire at will. Not even the temp agencies.

The only reason a company will fire someone is politics or bad work (attitude/laziness/poor quality.. ect)

So you don't work you get fired you sound like a good employee? great your hired.
It works well if your a good worker or there is no politics. The only downside is less stability but if your a good worker then there will be lots of stability.

~BoB

---

Do you Good Search for Seti@Home? http://www.goodsearch.com/?charityid=888957
Or Good Shop? http://www.goodshop.com/?charityid=888957

The only reason a company will fire someone is politics or bad work

Lay-offs? Downsizing? Lack of business? Loss of a contract? Closing a branch? SCANDAL? The boss simply doesn't like you?

If ya ain't gettin paid, it doesn't really matter how or why you were dismissed... ;)

(EMPLOYERS make mistakes too, BIG ONES.)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Wow, and yet 90% plus of the American working population

More accurately, 10% of the population is 'collecting unemployment benefits'... Many more are unemployed... ;)

As of Oct. 2007 the unemployment rate was 4.7%

http://www.bls.gov/cps/home.htm
U.S. Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics

Not that you care about the truth...

Statistics can be used to present anyones version of the truth.

Like Jeff said, the unemployment statistics only count those who are actually receiving benefits.

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

No one has a problem with such an agreement as long the company can hire and fire at will

You call "hire and fire at will" an employment contract? That's no contract.

Not one in any way that you can understand, obviously. But if you say it's not a contract, that must be true.

Here in Germany there are other rules, which have been fought for by the unions long time ago. Like tariffs. Like severance payments. Like a three-month period of notice (at least). Like continuation of payments to sick workers.

I'm glad that (at least officially) the employers here in Germany cannot hire and fire at will. Not even the temp agencies.

And yet the unemployment rate in Germany has traditionally been easily 3 times that of the U.S., surprise surprise.

Why is that? Because no one in their right mind will hire anyone unless they are absolutely sure they need that employee. And when they are wrong, or if that employee sucks, or even if business is dropping, it's difficult at best to dismiss them them. When it is very difficult to dismiss someone, employers are very reluctant to hire them in the first place.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Statistics can be used to present anyones version of the truth.

While that happy little bromide is often bandied about as if it were true, in fact it's just silly because presenting a statistic is just another argument that may or may not be valid.

99% of serial killers drink milk the morning before they kill someone. I just presented a statistic. Therefore, milk is the cause of their psychosis. Did my statistic actually present my "version of the truth?" Did the statistic I provided actually support my case?

Like Jeff said, the unemployment statistics only count those who are actually receiving benefits.

Sheesh, repeating idiocy doesn't make your case. For an oversimplified account of U.S. employment statistics, see the Dept. of Labor: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_faq.htm

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

There were no "editorial opinions" there. For example, I stated the reasons why unions are coercive. I said that they use the threat of physical violence (damage, assault and battery against employees, preventing the delivery of raw materials, work slowdowns, blocking the gates, et cetera) to coerce the company into signing a contract. They then claim, like you did, that the contract is perfectly legitimate. Should you disagree with that statement, you should present the reasons why you disagree. There are COUNTLESS examples of unions doing ALL of those things, in fact, they are often the only reason the company signs a contract.

I've just come home after setting grade on a roadway for 9 hours in 5 below.
All I want is a good nights sleep but this statement cannot go unchallenged.

OK smart guy...give me one example of a CEO or board member being murdered during a labour dispute.
Give me one example of a CEO or board member being beaten during a labour dispute.

When you get tired of looking for your example, try googling murdered or beaten unionists.
You'll find hundreds, if not thousands of hits.
Unions don't beat or kill their adversaries but corporate leaders do.

I grow weary of you and your predictable responses.

Good night

There were no "editorial opinions" there. For example, I stated the reasons why unions are coercive. I said that they use the threat of physical violence (damage, assault and battery against employees, preventing the delivery of raw materials, work slowdowns, blocking the gates, et cetera) to coerce the company into signing a contract. They then claim, like you did, that the contract is perfectly legitimate. Should you disagree with that statement, you should present the reasons why you disagree. There are COUNTLESS examples of unions doing ALL of those things, in fact, they are often the only reason the company signs a contract.

I've just come home after setting grade on a roadway for 9 hours in 5 below.
All I want is a good nights sleep but this statement cannot go unchallenged.

OK smart guy...give me one example of a CEO or board member being murdered during a labour dispute.
Give me one example of a CEO or board member being beaten during a labour dispute.

And yet you provide another empty response. So empty that in fact, you are responding to something I didn't say. I didn't say that unionists murdered or beat CEOs or board members. What I said was, "...they use the threat of physical violence (damage, assault and battery against employees, preventing the delivery of raw materials, work slowdowns, blocking the gates, et cetera) to coerce the company into signing a contract."

It's funny that you say that my "statement cannot go unchallenged," and then you ask for evidence of a statement that I didn't make. Which, once again, suggests that you are unqualified to even be having this conversation and calls your reading skills into question.

When you get tired of looking for your example, try googling murdered or beaten unionists.
You'll find hundreds, if not thousands of hits.
Unions don't beat or kill their adversaries but corporate leaders do.

Un huh. Right. Unions don't do any of that stuff. Sheesh. A quick glance at Wikipedia provides this article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_violence And it notes some of the violence on both sides.

More specifically:

* 2004 AFL-CIO push their way into a Republican field office in Orlando FL, breaking the wrist of one staffer. AFL-CIO member Van Church is unrepentant: "If his wrist was fractured, it's a result of his own actions in jerking the door the way he did"
* 1999 - During protests by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1547 against a non-unionized workforce getting a contract, picketters threatened and assaulted workers, spat at them, sabotaged equipment, and shot guns near workers. The Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the union had engaged in "ongoing acts of intimidation, violence, destruction of property".
* 1999 - During protests by Laborers' International Union of America Local 310, picketters punched a worker, and threw coffee cups at workers.
* 1999 - Members of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 120 were convicted of striking a worker, and imprisoning another one in a truck trailer.
* 1998 - Teamsters Orestes Espinosa, Angel Mielgo, Werner Haechler, Benigno Rojas, and Adrian Paez beat, kicked, and stabbed a UPS worker (Rod Carter) who refused to strike, after Carter received a threatening phone call from the home of Anthony Cannestro, Sr., president of Teamsters Local 769.
* 1998 - During the Communications Workers of America U.S. West strike a worker was threatened with a gun, and a manager was hit in the head with a rock.
* 1990 - on the first day of The New York Daily News strike, trucks were attacked with stones and sticks. One union member was immediately arrested for transporting Molotov cocktails. Strikers followed replacement laborers and threatened them with baseball bats. Strikers then started threatening newsstands with arson, or stole all copies of the Daily News and burned them in front of the newsstands. Independent sources estimated over a thousand reports of threats. The newspaper recorded over two thousand legal violations. The Police Department, recorded more than 500 incidents. 50 strikers were arrested. Bombings of delivery trucks became common, with 11 strikers arrested on one day in October.
* 1983 - Eddie York was murdered for crossing a United Mine Workers (UMW) picket line.

But the point remains the same. Companies do not want such contracts because they drive costs up, and often only sign them because of the underlying threat. That's coercion. If the company says, "No Union," what part of No Union do you guys not understand? If they've said that, then the only way they are going to sign such a contract is if the union forces them into it. How do they force a company to sign? Could that be "damage, assault and battery against employees, preventing the delivery of raw materials, work slowdowns, blocking the gates, et cetera?"

And look, I presented evidence of my claims. See how that works? I presented evidence where unions have used damage, assault and battery against employees, preventing the delivery of raw materials, work slowdowns, and blocking the gates to force a company to sign a contract.

That is coercion, and it's wrong, and therefore the contract has no meaning.

I grow weary of you and your predictable responses.

What's there to grow weary of? You don't put any thought whatsoever into your posts. You don't provide examples, reasoning, analysis, or anything else, other than what you happen to feel about something.

In fact, in this post you replied to something I didn't even say. It doesn't get any easier than that. You just make stuff up in your head and post that.

Do you want to take a stab on whether that is helping your position or harming it?

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...