"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...


Hence the 40 hour work week and a decent standard of living in the
USA.
You are the beneficiary of a century of American unionism.

These have nothing to do with unionism, they have everything to do
with
productivity.


You are absolutley flat out wrong.


Prove it.



Reductions in the work week were won in ealry union contracts,
for example, by the ILGWU


If you don't like the conditions where you work you are free to get more
training or education in order to gain advancement. Slaves had no such
option.


That's a nice story book dream, reality is often quite different.
BTW, unionized workplaces frequently have such arrangements
in cooperatrive ventures with management.


You seem to be syaing that 90% of the workforce are slaves.

Nobody owes you a living or a living wage. You get paid for what
you're
worth in the marketplace.


What you are worth is a matter of what you are able
to negotiate.

Keying cars, slamming people's hands in doors and other acts of
vandalism
are your idea of negotiation?

No
Neither are extreme management tactics.
It happens

It happend only when unionists are on strike and not getting their way.
The
Teamsters have a very long history of this.


No, management has their own bag of dirty tricks.


What is extreme about trying to keep your business competitive by reducing
labor costs?

Complete nonsense, 90% of the workforce does very well without unions,
they
are able to aquire skills and negotiate on their own merits.


The environment which allows this has evovlved, in large part, because
of unionism.


Popular myth.

No, its true. This is acknowledged by main stram historians,


Oh, gang war. Bull****. People with skills in demand get paid
well,
people
with skills that are readily available get paid less.


It's trogladytes like you that prevent me from taking the last step
in severing myself from the Democratic party and actually
registering
as a Republican.

Unwarranted personal attack noted.


The statement is warranted, and not an attack
Your brand of. Neanderthal conservatism is noted.

Once again name calling, the act of someone without a case.


Your arguments speak for themselves, relevant to Neanderthal views.


I'm not a conservative, not a Republican, just somebody who has worked for
in a union shop and who is aware that they do more harm than good.


You lie about not being a conservative. This is in consideration of
my having heard your views on other political subjects otehr than
unionism.


Don't let me stop you, I'm not a Republican.
I'm also not a Democrat.

I hate to ask what you are.
I have my suspicions you lean towards Fascism.

Anybody who disagrees with a Liberal must be a Fascist?


No, and I am not a Liberal.
I voted for George Bush.
I support our President's war on terror.
I support his tax cutting economic policies.

I would calssify you as a Neanderthal reactionary conservative, with
leanings
towards Fascism. That is NOT because you disagree with me. And certainly
not because I am a Liberal

Did you graduate from the Trotsky school of intellectual dishonesty?

Talk about personal attacks!!




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---