In response to your "union violence" link: Union Busting, a favorite strategy of employers:

When a chief executive hires a labor relations consultant to battle a union, he gives the consultant run of the company and closes his eyes. The consultant, backed by attorneys, installs himself in the corporate offices and goes to work creating a climate of terror that inevitably is blamed on the union.

[...]

Union busting is a field populated by bullies and built on deceit. A campaign against a union is an assault on individuals and a war on truth. As such, it is a war without honor. The only way to bust a union is to lie, distort, manipulate, threaten, and always, always attack.

[...]

To stop a union proponent—a pusher, in the anti-union lexicon—the [union] buster will go anywhere, not just to the lunch room, but into the bedroom if necessary. The buster not only is a terrorist; he is also a spy. My team and I routinely pried into workers' police records, personnel files, credit histories, medical records, and family lives in search of a weakness that we could use to discredit union activists.

Martin Jay Levitt, 1993, Confessions of a Union Buster

So, it's really the unions who are the evil part? Surprise surprise.

---

Account frozen...

In response to your "union violence" link: Union Busting, a favorite strategy of employers: >snip< Martin Jay Levitt, 1993, Confessions of a Union Buster

So, the unions really are the evil part? Surprise surprise.

And as usual, you missed the point entirely. I didn't say corporations were on the side of angels. I said that after they have said no, they only sign contracts with unions after coercion.

Here, I'll quote it for you. "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?'"

That you really really really really really really really really really want them to sign is of no interest to them. So they don't do it unless they are forced. That they fight back using the same tactics as unions do is no surprise at all.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

In response to your "union violence" link: Union Busting, a favorite strategy of employers: >snip< Martin Jay Levitt, 1993, Confessions of a Union Buster

So, the unions really are the evil part? Surprise surprise.

And as usual, you missed the point entirely. I didn't say corporations were on the side of angels. I said that after they have said no, they only sign contracts with unions after coercion.

Here, I'll quote it for you. "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?'"

That you really really really really really really really really really want them to sign is of no interest to them. So they don't do it unless they are forced. That they fight back using the same tactics as unions do is no surprise at all.

It's very easy to miss any point you make Rush, as it is so difficult to disentangle the personal insults you make to people from what you are trying to say.

In response to your "union violence" link: Union Busting, a favorite strategy of employers: >snip< Martin Jay Levitt, 1993, Confessions of a Union Buster

So, the unions really are the evil part? Surprise surprise.

And as usual, you missed the point entirely. I didn't say corporations were on the side of angels. I said that after they have said no, they only sign contracts with unions after coercion.

Here, I'll quote it for you. "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?'"

That you really really really really really really really really really want them to sign is of no interest to them. So they don't do it unless they are forced. That they fight back using the same tactics as unions do is no surprise at all.

What interest can an employer have to fear unions (who by the way are for improving the working conditions of the employees)? Why do companies claim to "have not enough money" to give their employers even a 1% raise whilst they shovel the monthly million Dollar wins into the pockets of the CEOs and share-holders? Why do companies have to spy on their employers (like for example Wal-Mart does), have to thread or intimidate them, have to gag them, have to make their customers fear unions?

If the unions did that (like YOU claim they do), they actually would begin to fight the war on the REAL terror, started by employers who engaged Pinkerton and such Mafia-like agencies!!

That's the strategy of these bully employers, not of unions:

In 1980, union buster Martin Jay Levitt conducted a counter-organizing drive at a nursing home in Sebring, Ohio. He sought to portray the union as dangerous, and the nursing home's residents as potential victims of violence. Before the campaign was concluded, residents — who for years had depended upon intimate contact with nurse's aids and other care-givers — were led to fear being alone with any of these mostly pro-union employees. Residents became so frightened that they began locking their doors at night, and their fears propelled an anti-union backlash.

The climate of fear was entirely manufactured for the sole purpose of destroying the union organizing drive. In his book Confessions of a Union Buster Levitt wrote, "I dispatched a contingent of commandos to scratch up the cars of high-profile pro-company workers and to make threatening phone calls to others." The union buster took advantage of his confederates' actions by having the nursing home's executive director write a letter to employees "taking the union to task for such barbarous scare tactics." This frameup was one part of an ugly psychological campaign which lasted a year and a half. Bright lights installed in the parking lot were publicized as necessary "due to the increasing hostility of the union." Employees were barraged with propaganda about taking alternate routes to work. The nursing home bought an old school bus, and the company's new bus service was announced as a protective measure for loyal employees during any possible strike. Letters were sent to employees about each new security measure. Such repetitive actions reinforced the climate of fear, all of which had initially been conjured as part of a frameup — through criminal mischief perpetrated by the union buster

You really believe the crap the media, influenced by those bullies, the big business chiefs, want you to believe, don't you? Try to get some independent point of view!

I really recommend these two books to you:

* Levitt, Martin Jay. 1993. Confessions of a Union Buster.
* Smith, Robert Michael. 2003. From Blackjacks to Briefcases: A History of Commercialized Strikebreaking and Unionbusting in the United States

---

Account frozen...

It's very easy to miss any point you make Rush, as it is so difficult to disentangle the personal insults you make to people from what you are trying to say.

It's simple English, and as such, I don't know what else to tell you. Especially since noting that Thorin missed the point isn't a personal insult.

But, by no means did I set the tone here. Mr. Waite did with his first response to me in this thread, "Let me speak in simple terms so you get my meaning." I am just replying in kind.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

by the way: improving the working conditions (which is what unions are fighting for) makes workers more satisfied with their job - hence, more motivated. More motivated workers work better, better work brings more turn-over to the company - so the company can only win having their workers organized

---

Account frozen...

What interest can an employer have to fear unions (who by the way are for improving the working conditions of the employees)?

I'll repeat it again: damage, assault and battery against employees, prevention of the delivery of raw materials, work slowdowns, blocking the gates, et cetera. All of those things drive costs up and productivity down.

Your beliefs about unions are irrelevant. I could just as easily say that unions are for skrewing everyone else who isn't a union member out of a job. Is that true simply because I said it is?

Why do companies claim to "have not enough money" to give their employers even a 1% raise whilst they shovel the monthly million Dollar wins into the pockets of the CEOs and share-holders?

I'll repeat it again: You could divide the entire salary and benefit package of the highest paid 1000 people at a place like GM and everyone else would get a couple of hundred bucks in one paycheck, once. Of course, that wouldn't solve even one problem, wouldn't make the company more competitive, wouldn't pay down debt or change market conditions, or anything else.

Why do companies have to spy on their employers (like for example Wal-Mart does), have to thread or intimidate them, have to gag them, have to make their customers fear unions?

For the same reasons that unions do the same thing. To win. To sway public opinion in their favor. To undermine the credibility of the other side. To defend itself.

If the unions did that (like YOU claim they do), they actually would begin to fight the war on the REAL terror, started by employers who engaged Pinkerton and such Mafia-like agencies!!

Unions do do these things, they always have because they have no other choice if the company does not want to accept a union. Otherwise they simply give up and go home. I mean, is that what they did with Wal-mart? Did they call up Sam Walton and ask "Can we unionize Wal-mart?" and after he said no, did they just give up? Or are they busily trying to coerce Wal-mart into going union?

That's the strategy of these bully employers, not of unions: >snip<

You really believe the crap the media, influenced by those bullies, the big business chiefs, want you to believe, don't you? Try to get some independent point of view!

Again, I didn't say either side was fighting with the angels. I think that companies defend themselves when presented with the threat of coercive practices. I think both sides often use the same tactics. I think that without these tactics on the part of the union, no company would ever sign a union contract. I think that unions have made themselves so expensive that any company that can will outsource to non-union labor and avoid the brainiacs and rocket scientists altogether. I think this is evidenced by the near death of unions in the U.S., and as an example, why BMW moved some production to Spartanburg, in order to avoid German unions.

I really recommend these two books to you:

* Levitt, Martin Jay. 1993. Confessions of a Union Buster.
* Smith, Robert Michael. 2003. From Blackjacks to Briefcases: A History of Commercialized Strikebreaking and Unionbusting in the United States

Why? To note that companies fight back using dirty tactics? Duh.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

by the way: improving the working conditions (which is what unions are fighting for) makes workers more satisfied. Satisfied workers work better, better work brings more turn-over to the company - so the company can only win having their workers organized

Satisfied workers are only a benefit up to a point. What few UAW members that are left, in spite of being some of the highest paid workers with massive benefits, certainly don't run around GM and Ford as if they are superworkers, praising the company. They just beg for more, and they watch as they are replaced with robots.

Smart plan, eh?

Besides, when you own your own company, you can do this all that you want. In fact, you and Moore and the UAW have plenty of manpower, resources, and expertise to do so. Yet, as always, you don't.

We're still waiting. You and Moore and UAW need to take the risk that GM does every single day. What's that you say? You aren't willing to? Well, keep begging for jobs then, good luck with that.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Interesting thread, honestly (No sarcasism intended).

Outsider looking in!

September 9th 1974 I joined London Transport Executive(As it was known then) as train crew. The training period was 6 weeks which I along with the other 41 trainees, completed successfully (Examination at end of training).

HOWEVER, before any of us could be posted to the depots of our choosing, in walked 2 reps of the dominant unions, A.S.L.E.F & the N.U.R (ASsoiciation of Locomotive Engineers & Firemen - National Union of Railwaymen).

Everyone of us had to join one or the other as it was a closed shop. Should any of us refused at that time, our services would have been terminated there and then. So we all signed.

During my time on the trains, there were numerous strikes, each & every one called for by the union heads. Not long before I resigned, there was a very serious incident worthy of a total strike - what happened? - WE were not supported by our union leaders.

A large number of us on the system began to wonder why we were paying union subscriptions which really were of no benefit to us.

Like governments, the lumps at the top got rich off our labour.

---

For an oversimplified account of U.S. employment statistics, see the Dept. of Labor:

The basic concepts involved in identifying the employed and unemployed are quite simple:
People with jobs are employed.
People who are jobless, looking for jobs, and available for work are unemployed.
People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force.

Now that's what I'd call OVERSIMPLIFIED! Let me simplify it even more:

If you work for us, you are employed...
If you beg us for a job in the exact manor required to collect unemployment benefits, you are unemployed...
If you are not employed by us nor begging us for a job, then you are no longer employed nor unemployed...

In other words: If you are not PART OF THE SYSTEM, you are NOT COUNTED... ;)

---

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

But, by no means did I set the tone here. Mr. Waite did with his first response to me in this thread, "Let me speak in simple terms so you get my meaning." I am just replying in kind.

Rush...you've been here much longer than I, so it's not difficult for anyone to go back into your posting history to see if you were just a quiet, polite dude until I showed up and antagonized you into being a (fill in appropriate word here).

I think I am blameless in this. It's all you dude.

Your approach, while interesting at first, is transparently hostile and very soon becomes such an overload of right wing bull that it numbs the mind. (enter smart-assed response here)

You're like an episode of "Right Wing World" on the Stephanie Miller Show.

Rush...you've been here much longer than I, so it's not difficult for anyone to go back into your posting history to see if you were just a quiet, polite dude until I showed up and antagonized you into being a (fill in appropriate word here).

I think I am blameless in this. It's all you dude.

I didn't say you antagonized me, because you don't. I said that I answered you in kind, which I did--I replied to your comment "Let me speak in simple terms so you get my meaning," in the same manner.

Your approach, while interesting at first, is transparently hostile and very soon becomes such an overload of right wing bull that it numbs the mind. (enter smart-assed response here)

Your approach, while utterly uninteresting, is glaringly devoid of any thought or reason, given that you simply parrot left-wing ideology. It soon becomes readily apparent that you are incapable of providing any reasoning whatsoever, and that your mind has likely always been numb.

For example, your spurious claim that I needed to provide you "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 I had in fact, made no such claim.

See how that works? I provided the reasoning behind my opinion, and then an example to illustrate it.

Sirius B even presented a few points from his first hand experience that also illustrate my point. See how that works?

That's how you change the mind of your readers, you provide evidence that your claims are correct.

Another example, when you asked for evidence, saying "Unions don't beat or kill their adversaries but corporate leaders do," I presented evidence where unions have used damage, assault and battery against employees, prevention of the delivery of raw materials, work slowdowns, and blocking the gates to force a company to sign a contract.

You're like an episode of "Right Wing World" on the Stephanie Miller Show.

Who cares what you think about me? And rest assured, trying to use mindless and empty repetition of your feelings against the people you are begging for a job won't convince them either.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

That's how you change the mind of your readers, you provide evidence that your claims are correct.

Sorry, not my style... Heckling is much more entertaining for everyone... 'cept for those being heckled... ;)

(Conversely, harassment is for those who are not talented enough to heckle.)

---

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

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.

Rush....there are a lot of statistics that " show " that Global Warming is happening and is man made. There are also lots of statistics that " show " that Global Warming is nothing more than a natural cycle.

Both sides say that their statistics are the truth??

Have I not made my point??

---

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

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

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.

Rush....there are a lot of statistics that " show " that Global Warming is happening and is man made. There are also lots of statistics that " show " that Global Warming is nothing more than a natural cycle.

Both sides say that their statistics are the truth??

Have I not made my point??

You tell me, are both "Global Warming" and "Not-Global Warming" both the truth simultaneously? If not, are both their statistics valid at presented their argument?

For example, I could say "Lies can be used to present anyone's version of the truth," or "Errors can be used to present anyone's version of the truth."

To be more clear, anything can be used to present any version of the truth, but that doesn't mean that it is valid, or that it actually does so. Take my milk statistic, I used it to present my version of the truth, milk makes cereal (heh) killers kill. But in fact, given the popularity of milk as a breakfast item, it supports the likelihood that the killer had breakfast, not that milk caused her to kill. In other words, it doesn't support my contention at all, though it was used to present it.

That whole, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics," feeds into the same idea that statistics can prove anything, but they are just another level of evidence that the reader has to consider.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

That's how you change the mind of your readers, you provide evidence that your claims are correct.

Sorry, not my style... Heckling is much more entertaining for everyone... 'cept for those being heckled... ;)

(Conversely, harassment is for those who are not talented enough to heckle.)

Actually it does nothing more than show your lack of intelligence, waste resources, and detract from the conversation taking place.

---

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.

Rush....there are a lot of statistics that " show " that Global Warming is happening and is man made. There are also lots of statistics that " show " that Global Warming is nothing more than a natural cycle.

Both sides say that their statistics are the truth??

Have I not made my point??

You tell me, are both "Global Warming" and "Not-Global Warming" both the truth simultaneously? If not, are both their statistics valid at presented their argument?

For example, I could say "Lies can be used to present anyone's version of the truth," or "Errors can be used to present anyone's version of the truth."

To be more clear, anything can be used to present any version of the truth, but that doesn't mean that it is valid, or that it actually does so. Take my milk statistic, I used it to present my version of the truth, milk makes cereal (heh) killers kill. But in fact, given the popularity of milk as a breakfast item, it supports the likelihood that the killer had breakfast, not that milk caused her to kill. In other words, it doesn't support my contention at all, though it was used to present it.

That whole, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics," feeds into the same idea that statistics can prove anything, but they are just another level of evidence that the reader has to consider.

Statistics may be correct but the inferences drawn from them may not be relevant to the question at hand. This could be be due to an incomplete understanding of the mechanisms involved or all of the contributing factors. Try this : The average American male consumes 27.1 gallons of beer per year and walks an average of 1000 miles per year. This means that the American male gets 36.9 miles per gallon of beer. Assume the stats are correct --the inference and the point being hinted at are way off the mark.

So maybe all the stats on Global warming are correct --the only one distorting may be AL Gore--but maybe none of the models, interactions and root causes are completely understood to where open-minded persons doing honest science can agree. This has transformed the discussion into the realm of politics, pseudo-religion, paranoa, chicken-littleism and who can be the loudest and most devout in their activism.

Their are many reasons to get off of fossil fuels and dependance on the Oil Ecomomy--lets get on with it and then man-made global warming due to CO2 production will become a moot point.

Regards to All

DADDIO

---

I think I am blameless in this. It's all you dude.

Actually you're the one who started the topic without taking into consideration the actions of your own government/military.

That DOES make you the trigger man.

---

Actually it does nothing more than show your lack of intelligence, waste resources, and detract from the conversation taking place.

And yet I still manage to keep YOUR full attention 24/7... ;)

---

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

I think I am blameless in this. It's all you dude.

Actually you're the one who started the topic without taking into consideration the actions of your own government/military.

That DOES make you the trigger man.

One cannot discuss events unfolding in the US by talking about Canadian issues.
One cannot talk about the frighteningly successful corporate coup d'e-tat in the US by talking about Canadian issues.

I don't feel the need to include a civics lesson covering the rest of the world when discussing the US, though you might want to look at my second post in the thread which covers the ground you mention.

As for Canada's role in Bush's "War on Terror", I'll be grateful forever to Prime Minister Cretien for keeping Canada out of Iraq. He held his ground in the face of powerful forces because he recognized the immorality of invading a country that had nothing to do with the events of Sept 11.

His decision to enter the conflict in Afghanistan was nothing more than tossing a bone to the Bush wolves.
While I disagree with Canadian forces being used as another extention of US forgein policies, I do see some small degree of logic in choosing the lesser of two evils.

If the issues presented to the world as justification for invading Afghanistan were honest and true, why did the west wait a decade before moving in?
Why didn't we invade back when the Taliban were blowing up religious sites and ancient statues? Some of them were more than a thousand years old.