Comments by jrbiiicpa
Page 1 of 2 | Next
0 of 1 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on January 18 at 9:01 a.m.
Joe Hill---
You're right on one thing. You can't generalize on one anecdote...or fifty, for that matter. The number of unions "available" pales in comparison to the number of employers in the U.S., but the percentage of documented current & historical abuses (attributable to each "group" is weighted far more heavily in "favor" of the unions.
Most people in the U.S. work for small businesses, not Wal-Mart, not Ford, not Home Depot. Most workers in the U.S. are nowhere near "oppressed" by anyone's definition.
You'd have the "laws changed" to make it so dangerous (to the survival of business & the physical freedom of their owners) that it would be impossible to make any response or mount any defense whatsoever if so much as one person ("organizer" or not) expressed curiosity about union representation in any given workplace.
If you think we don't "work for the politicians", then you are either sadly deluded or one of those who has never paid taxes or been subject to regulation. I am not one who views "stop signs and double yellow lines" as a sign of creeping socialism, but I work a hell of a lot of my time "for the politicians".
"More is never enough"....not to the unionized, and not to the politicians. Both just love to tell others what to do with their money.
Not wanting to roll over and playing dead while someone else takes over your business (for as long as it lasts) is a big part of the reason that the "right" hates organized labor. Most people who have created a successful business tend to BE at least a little "to the right". Excuse us for that, it comes from wanting hang on to what we worked for. We tend to be capitalists rather than socialists. We tend to work harder at our businesses than those who work FOR us, and when we find someone who does work as hard as we do, that person is rewarded & nurtured.
We're the "do-ers", rather than the "takers". Unionization empowers those who don't "do"...those who "just sit", and those who only "take", all at the expense of those workers who are "do-ers".
1 of 2 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on January 17 at 12:07 p.m.
Joe Hill would have you believe that, without unions, there can be no fair treatment of employees.
Joe Hill would have you believe that anyone in a position to oppress will do just that, whenever the opportunity arises.
Joe Hill would have you believe that the concept of an executive being rewarded for creating & maintaining profits (and yes, jobs) is not legitimate.
Joe Hill has no concept of being responsible for "more than your own day's labor"
Joe Hill conveniently ignores those states where people still don't have the "right to work" in the course of his diatribe which blames employers for the very strongarm tactics long used by union organizers, sometimes under the mantle of "labor law"
Joe Hill appears to truly believe that "threats" and "promises" aren't a part of governmental politics (only of "NLRB politics"). Where was Joe Hill while the last presidential election was approaching?
Joe Hill doesn't believe that the shareholders, executives, managers, and owners of companies are entitled to decide the path which the business will follow, and that, if they were to be allowed to decide, that the path would always be detrimental to the "workers", and never in their best interest.
Joe Hill thinks that conceding to some collective bargaining demands is equivalent to embracing the philosophy behind the demands which are being met, when the reality is that it's a business decision made in order to "keep the doors open", when the only alternative is to quit, shut down, and walk away.
Because Joe Hill only knows the "them & us" mentality, he will never understand that there is, and can continue to be, employment where the worker benefits from the success of the business, where there is a mutual respect for the abilities and contributions of both workers and managers, and where compensation is determined based on contribution.
Joe Hill doesn't understand that, where employers are not forced to compensate people based on someone else's rules, there is "more" with which to compensate those who deserve it. Nothing in the "union mentality" has ever been "about" rewarding someone for performance.
Joe Hill is a pretty sad case if the best example he can come up with as a "poster boy" for the evils of free capitalism is ...Madoff...of all people. A con-man who ran an investment scheme that may or may not have ever even made any trades. What the heck does THAT have to do with "labor relations"?
1 of 1 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on January 16 at 11:17 a.m.
Spare me Tegrat...
If those people had followed the "union rules" they would have stood (floated) around waiting on the worker's from the union that was "supposed" to be doing each one of those separate rescue tasks while everyone drowned or froze to death.
Different unions for elevator operators, crane operators, longshoremen, deck hands, pilots to guide the guy who's steering the ship...etc.
The proof is in the exception.
1 of 1 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on January 16 at 3:59 a.m.
Ever worked in a state where you were required to be a union member to work on a "union job"? ... I have
I experienced that in Georgia years ago when they were building a nuclear power plant on the Altamaha River. I worked for a non-union mobile home manufacturer and was sent out to do "warranty work" on a unit that was damaged.
The damage was due to mistakes made while "setting it up"...because the company driver wasn't union man and they wouldn't let him on the site with it, then they wouldn't let me on the site to repair it.
They pulled the thing about 3 or 4 miles...outside the gate of the plant...in order for me to do my job. I used hand drills, saws & screwdrivers because they wouldn't permit me to use "their" power (at the guard shack). I worked on the thing all day on the side of the road.
The gate guard wouldn't permit me to use "their" restroom facilities...because I was "being paid" (and non-union), I wasn't permitted to set foot on their site.
Can you think of anything more Un-American, more contrary to your freedom than being forced to join an organization and pay a portion of your salary in order to be allowed to work? I can't. The "union" hasn't been anything ABOUT the "little guy" in a long, long time.
The UAW's short-sighted resistance to automation ..."because it costs jobs"...during the past decades of incredible technological advancement is a large part of why the auto makers are in trouble in the U.S. The best technologies, the best plants, and their only hope of survival is outside of the U.S. and the grasp of the UAW.
Our industries and our technologies have fled our shores, and the unions hold responsibility for a big part of that.
The real question here is... "Why doesn't EVERYBODY hate the unions?"
Posted on November 28 at 11:21 a.m.
Perhaps the "over-reactive" alarmist messages now found on many consumer products contribute to a general sense of apathy which leads to ignoring REAL dangers rather than a sense of caution. It seems that almost everything these days contains "something" known to the State of California to cause something...
When you give maximum alarm to any potential event, it trivializes those warnings and numbs people to their very existence.
My wife just brought home a Christmas tree with lights attached. Among the other warnings, it turns out that it is possible (just possible) that the wires on the power cord (encased in heavy plastic insulation) might have traces of lead in them.
By all means, you should never allow your child to chew on the wires of the lights on the Christmas tree, lest the child get lead poisoning.
Posted on November 25 at 6:59 p.m.
When you get right down to it, there is no greater injustice that one individual can inflict on another than to force his own beliefs on that individual.
1 of 1 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on November 23 at 12:27 p.m.
@Santabarbarasand
Since it seems that a number of your family members live nearby, perhaps you might consider having a "post-funeral wake" for your father, once things settle down for his firefighter friends. You could make it a celebration of his life combined with the opportunity for you, your friends & family to honor the efforts of the firefighters.
Anybody who might find that a little weird probably wouldn't understand firefighters (or their families) anyway.
Those who would have attended the funeral, but for the fire, would likely jump at the chance. Having spent 13 years as firefighter & paramedic in my younger years, I know that I would.
Just a thought...and something that I would do in your situation.
--A Westmont alumn's Dad
Posted on November 20 at 9:16 a.m.
LWH16
You have me confused with someone else. I have made no mention, anywhere, at any time, of Proposition 8 (other than in my 8:31 am post of today, above).
My reference to the Sheriff's office and the press conference was not to your posts, but in explanation of my own position (and prior posts on both threads).
As I stated earlier, a review of all of your posts would...well, all I can say is..."res ipsa loquitor" (Latin for "The thing speaks for itself").
I invite you (and anyone else) to do so and draw your own conclusions as to "agenda" or lack thereof.
On Westmont Says Its Students Cleared of Tea Fire Wrongdoing
Posted on November 20 at 8:31 a.m.
@LWH16
I don't think you'll find anything in any of my posts that is other than "serene", nor will you see anything in any of what I have written (here or on the other thread) which can be construed as representing an opinion that Westmont is "perfect", above reproach, or beyond criticism.
I have not, in any way, promoted Westmont or its policies, nor have I commented on the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the beliefs or actions of any of its students, faculty, or administration.
I HAVE, however, taken issue with the way in which the Sheriff's office handled this press conference and the predictable results of same, as well as the exploitation of the forums by those who have a "bone to pick" with Westmont.
You, in dredging up the entirely irrelevant reference to Proposition 8 (insofar as anything to do with this fire or its cause is concerned), have continued in that vein, even now.
Just as the beliefs of those associated with Westmont are irrelevant here, so are your reasons for taking issue with the school. It doesn't matter WHY you've continued on in this, no matter how you came to arrive at your feelings.
Your posts have served to foment divisiveness and unrest in what should be a time of healing for all concerned.
On Westmont Says Its Students Cleared of Tea Fire Wrongdoing
Page 1 of 2 | Next
Previous Month
1 of 1 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on May 9 at 8:32 a.m.
DS...I think you misread what was written...or just chose to ignore the last half of that sentence..."Lots of people spent Friday night fire-watching, a fairly pleasant pastime when there aren’t lives and houses on the line."
I don't think that the author meant that ANY wildland fire ever falls into that category.
You don't have to be weird, or a pyro to enjoy staring into the flames of a (contained, controlled) fire...like in a fireplace, firepit, or chiminea...while contemplating the meaning of life...maybe even with a nice glass of wine.
That's been a pleasant diversion since before the recorded history of mankind.
On Looking Big, but Acting Smaller