Are these people your heros?

Must have hit a nerve or something....

Wasn't aware that crabs constituted an STD. I guess my inexperience is showing. I bow to your vaster experience in these matters WTF.

Now about hijacking this thread...

Must have hit a nerve or something....

Wasn't aware that crabs constituted an STD. I guess my inexperience is showing. I bow to your vaster experience in these matters WTF.

Now about hijacking this thread... Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

No nerve here, any points I might have gotten, would have been well worth it. I would just hate to see cutiepie hit the RTM on you like he did on me...allegedly.

Crabs are a medical condition. Go speculate on our female posters in this forum having them and see how fast ya get reported !


#16 - Posting about/Speculating about another person's medical condition is strictly forbidden. If a member encounters a medical issue and would like to get feedback from others or share it with the community, this would be allowed, but under no circumstances is a member to discuss or state anything about another member in this regard, unless it is in response to a question posed by that member.

I have never hit the RTM on anyone. Least of all, you, WTF. It's not worth the effort.

Unions do a lot of stupid things, but they're still necessary in a market economy. Without them the market alone would set wages and conditions so low that everyone would suffer. Before the Union movement in the US manufacturing and other jobs were so bad that the entire economy sufferred from it.

We also need private entrepreneurs and corportations even though most of the time they do really stupid things too.

We also need some limited form of government, like the courts and such, and they do the most utterly stupid things most of the time.

Unions and guilds have their drawbacks, but their benefits far outweigh their costs.

Setting prices and wages is what markets do. It's called "free enterprise".

Setting prices and wages is what markets do. It's called "free enterprise". Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

So wtf is wrong with the market setting up a union? That is all that has happened. Management represents stock holders and unions rep the workers. Why is one so bad and one so good?

So wtf is wrong with the market setting up a union? That is all that has happened. Management represents stock holders and unions rep the workers. Why is one so bad and one so good? Originally Posted by WTF

I view union's as a corporate "checks and balances" measure. Unions are not always on the correct side of every issue but by the same token, neither is management.

Were it not for unions, management would overreach. Were it not for management, unions would overreach.

Get my drift?

WTF is projecting again. I didn't say anything about how private sector unions are bad. In many industries, they help achieve market equilibrium wages in the face of arbitrary ceilings imposed by corporations.

My point was that unions and markets are not always in opposition. Sometimes they are, but not always.

I have never hit the RTM on anyone. Least of all, you, WTF. It's not worth the effort. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

allegedly...

Setting prices and wages is what markets do. It's called "free enterprise". Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

allegedly...you were respondinding to this:

. Without them the market alone would set wages and conditions so low that everyone would suffer. . Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

I merely pointed out that unions were in fact part of the free market and were not a bad or good thing. They are just another part of the ECO business environment. Much like Spiders and Snakes are part of the environment. Some folks are irationally afraid of them , just as some of you hate unions.

I view union's as a corporate "checks and balances" measure. Unions are not always on the correct side of every issue but by the same token, neither is management.

Were it not for unions, management would overreach. Were it not for management, unions would overreach.

Get my drift? Originally Posted by bigtex

Nope. What about this...Unionize every single company in America and what would happen? Ahhh, yippeee, everyone would have more money and have big ol fat retirement pensions, right?

I'm curious if any liberals can possibly figure out what is wrong with the above picture, and therefore wrong with unions. They usually can't, so don't any of you fiscal conservatives spoil it and tell them the answer.

This should be fun reading the replies

I will gve you the answer...unions help keep nonunion companies from fucking their workers.Non uninon companies do the right thing by their workers because to not to would bring on a union. But with no threat of a union, mangement would fuck the ever loving shit out of its workers!

So the answer is that to much of a good thing is not a good thing , just as to little of a good thing is not a good thing.

Were you able to follow that simple bouncing ball nwarounder or do you need further explaination?

Here is my personal problems with unions and this is a case in point. Unions start to think that they OWN the means of production like good little Marxists. When they walk out (as in this case) they think they can tamper or destroy the equipment like it belonged to them. It does not belong to them and what they are doing is criminal. Too bad that so many times the police unions don't want to investigate or enforce.

A civilian worker has been indicted for "ALLEGEDLY" intentionally starting the fire that caused $400 million in damage to a nuclear submarine (USS Miami). I wonder if he was a union member. He seemed to think he had the right to start a fire even if he didn't realize how far it would go but he did think starting a fire was a good idea. He admitted to starting a second fire on a different date.

A civilian worker has been indicted for "ALLEGEDLY" intentionally starting the fire that caused $400 million in damage to a nuclear submarine (USS Miami). I wonder if he was a union member. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Let's take this from the top: Union members sometimes do illegal things while on the job, just as non-union personel do. Don't assume that only union members resort to illegal measures while on the job. In return, I won't assume that only non-union personel resort to illegal measures while on the job.

There is a distinct difference between the two: If you are a union member and you are wrongfully (emphasis on the word wrongfully) accused of performing an illegal act, there is a binding process that you are entitled to that will allow you to present your case to an impartial, third party arbitrator. If you do not belong to a union and you are wrongfully accused, the only recourse you have is to present your case to the person who is doing his best to prove you are guilty in the first place.

If you are innocent, who would you rather present your case to? An impartial, third party arbitrator, who has been jointly hired by both union and management? Or would you prefer to present your case to the supervisor who has wrongully (emphasis on the word wrongfully) already made the determination that you are guilty?

As for me, you can take your chances with trying to change the mind of your supervisor. I will to take mine with an impartial, third party arbitrator.

I will gve you the answer...unions help keep nonunion companies from fucking their workers.Non uninon companies do the right thing by their workers because to not to would bring on a union. But with no threat of a union, mangement would fuck the ever loving shit out of its workers!

So the answer is that to much of a good thing is not a good thing , just as to little of a good thing is not a good thing.

Were you able to follow that simple bouncing ball nwarounder or do you need further explaination? Originally Posted by WTF

WTF

Mathematics: F
Economics: F
Social Studies: D-

Next