Not going to work, an interesting dichotomy.

[Ray From Cleveland]

Jobs move out of country because companies and corporations take them out. That is sometimes due to demands made upon them by unions who are covered under a collective agreement. The employer has exercized his right to terminate some collective agreements. (a right with certain conditions)

You're getting closer. Yes, unions forced jobs out of our state and country. I know this for a fact. I've delivered to places that were in the process of moving out and talked with the owners of the company. Unions never back down for anything. That's the problem.

 

[Donald H]

Just remember something here, you are an outsider. We live here. My Dad spent his working years in the union. I've been in two unions myself. I have friends that were in the union years ago. You don't know shit of what goes on here no more than me telling YOU what's going on in Canada.

You've already tried that deflection Ray.

You're just trying to tell me that all collective agreements contain 'closed shop clauses' and you are wrong in Canada and wrong in America too.

Find yourself an issue in which you will be worthy of debate. I'm just not going to answer to your nonsense anymore.

 

[Donald H]

You're getting closer. Yes, unions forced jobs out of our state and country. I know this for a fact. I've delivered to places that were in the process of moving out and talked with the owners of the company. Unions never back down for anything. That's the problem.

Yes, in fact unions could be responsible for jobs leaving your state or country. The union made demands on the employer that the employer refused to grant their workers, and thus terminated the collective agreement in force.

Sometimes unions 'back down' as you put it. The union may decide to not exercize it's right to withdraw the workers' services. This is almost exclulsively after the union membership has decided in the majority, its course of action.

Each time you raise an objection to what I've said you have most likely learned something.

However, this time you most likely knew that you weren't telling the truth. Unions do indeed back down sometimes.

Catch up with me tomorrow with a different attitude.

 

[danielpalos]

It all boils down to the same thing: Unions determine what is cause--not the employer. Employers have to keep troublemakers and low performing employees on the job whether they like it or not. That's why the last customer we had that was union, the company got rid of three people in their small shop the day the union was gone. The employer wanted them out for years.

In my opinion, this is an "artificially" created problem through unfaithful execution and protection of our at-will employment laws.

Labor should be able to quit on an at-will basis and collect unemployment compensation in an at-will employment State.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes, in fact unions could be responsible for jobs leaving your state or country. The union made demands on the employer that the employer refused to grant their workers, and thus terminated the collective agreement in force.

Sometimes unions 'back down' as you put it. The union may decide to not exercize it's right to withdraw the workers' services. This is almost exclulsively after the union membership has decided in the majority, its course of action.

Each time you raise an objection to what I've said you have most likely learned something.

However, this time you most likely knew that you weren't telling the truth. Unions do indeed back down sometimes.

In many cases no they don't. I got this from union workers and the industry itself. Even if the union knows it's a much better plan to work things out, if the employees say no, then it's no.

Unions are gone because most of us Americans have learned from our past mistakes.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Find yourself an issue in which you will be worthy of debate. I'm just not going to answer to your nonsense anymore.

Smart choice on your part.

 

[Dr Grump]

Nobody is stopping those wage-earners from bettering themselves. This isn't 19th century England.

Fasle dichotomy..

 

[Donald H]

In many cases no they don't.

That's what I said Ray, and so once again you verify that you were wrong.

You need to find somebody who is going to disagree with you on your perception of unions. Your attitude is causing your knee to jerk and that's costing you to make a complete uninformed ass of yourself.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's what I said Ray, and so once again you verify that you were wrong.

You need to find somebody who is going to disagree with you on your perception of unions. Your attitude is causing your knee to jerk and that's costing you to make a complete uninformed ass of yourself.

I think you should worry about your own affliction of that.

I can't imagine being so arrogant, such a snob that I'd go to a political blog of another country. People tell me what it's like there, their personal and professional experiences of themselves, friends and family, and me telling them that's not what goes on in their country. I know more about what took place in their country than they do, and I've never been there before.

That's a level of arrogance few people have, even on the left.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Actually they're both. Have you ever met a capitalist that wasn't an opportunist? I don't even think one could exist.

It may be true that just about all people who claim to be 'Capitalists' are really 'Opportunists', however those two are not the same and are in many ways in contrast to each other.

'Capitalism' means using money to make money within the principles of capitalism. 'Opportunism' means taking advantage of any 'opportunity' regardless of any principles.

For example, Capitalist competition is based on the idea that anyone who offers a product at lower cost and/or higher quality should attract all customers. That's really free market, which is part of capitalist principles.

However, in reality, many business people base their patronage on interpersonal relations, especially membership in some fraternal organization. For example the Free Masons or the Mafia. This is opportunism which contradicts capitalist principles. People that offer products at lower cost and/or higher quality do not get business from customers if they are not a member of one of these organizations.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It may be true that just about all people who claim to be 'Capitalists' are really 'Opportunists', however those two are not the same and are in many ways in contrast to each other.

'Capitalism' means using money to make money within the principles of capitalism. 'Opportunism' means taking advantage of any 'opportunity' regardless of any principles.

For example, Capitalist competition is based on the idea that anyone who offers a product at lower cost and/or higher quality should attract all customers. That's really free market, which is part of capitalist principles.

However, in reality, many business people base their patronage on interpersonal relations, especially membership in some fraternal organization. For example the Free Masons or the Mafia. This is opportunism which contradicts capitalist principles. People that offer products at lower cost and/or higher quality do not get business from customers if they are not a member of one of these organizations.

I totally disagree. Opportunism does not indicate foul play. There is foul play within some opportunities like there is foul play within capitalism. When they get caught they face legal consequences.

You are not going to try and sell your product or service where there is little demand. You are going to sell your product or service where the opportunity exists.

 

[Hum Dinger]

I totally disagree. Opportunism does not indicate foul play. There is foul play within some opportunities like there is foul play within capitalism. When they get caught they face legal consequences.

You are not going to try and sell your product or service where there is little demand. You are going to sell your product or service where the opportunity exists.

According to that statement, in order for 'opportunism' to stay within acceptable limits of 'capitalism', it requires the government's justice system to intervene.

How socialistic of you!!!!

According to capitalistic principles, offering a product at lower cost and/or better quality than the competition should create opportunity.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

According to that statement, in order for 'opportunism' to stay within acceptable limits of 'capitalism', it requires the government's justice system to intervene.

How socialistic of you!!!!

According to capitalistic principles, offering a product at lower cost and/or better quality than the competition should create opportunity.

At times it does and at times it doesn't. That's why the government subsidizes electric cars and solar panels. Most people don't want them. They don't need to subsidize cell phones because nearly everybody has or wants one.

Having laws that make fair play is not socialism. If that's what you think socialism is, you need to study more about it. The truth of the matter is we were founded as a nation of laws. Laws are what helps create and maintain a civilized society. An opportunist can break laws and a capitalist can break laws. That's why Bernie Madoff is in prison today. Police have been sent to prison for breaking our laws and even judges sent away for the same.

 

[Hum Dinger]

At times it does and at times it doesn't. That's why the government subsidizes electric cars and solar panels. Most people don't want them. They don't need to subsidize cell phones because nearly everybody has or wants one.

Having laws that make fair play is not socialism. If that's what you think socialism is, you need to study more about it. The truth of the matter is we were founded as a nation of laws. Laws are what helps create and maintain a civilized society. An opportunist can break laws and a capitalist can break laws. That's why Bernie Madoff is in prison today. Police have been sent to prison for breaking our laws and even judges sent away for the same.

So according to you, we need government to control and regulate commerce in order to have a true and fair capitalist system.

I do believe that most conservatives on this board would call you a communist.

And BTW - government subsidized the airline industry for many years because the airline industry wasn't financially sound. Just like solar panel and electric cars - everyone wants them, but the cost is prohibitive, so it requires government subsidies until those industries mature.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So according to you, we need government to control and regulate commerce in order to have a true and fair capitalist system.

I do believe that most conservatives on this board would call you a communist.

And BTW - government subsidized the airline industry for many years because the airline industry wasn't financially sound. Just like solar panel and electric cars - everyone wants them, but the cost is prohibitive, so it requires government subsidies until those industries mature.

Apples and oranges because most everybody wanted to fly, it's just that it was too expensive and people back then didn't have the money. Most also realized that some day, flying would be a major way of transportation. Solar and electric cars not many people want. I could care less if there was one solar panel or electric car in the year 2050. I have no use or need for them and they don't benefit society. They just make a group of people feelz good at taxpayer expense. Our tax dollars should not be used to pander to a group of people while not advancing our society in any way.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Apples and oranges because most everybody wanted to fly, it's just that it was too expensive and people back then didn't have the money. Most also realized that some day, flying would be a major way of transportation. Solar and electric cars not many people want. I could care less if there was one solar panel or electric car in the year 2050. I have no use or need for them and they don't benefit society. They just make a group of people feelz good at taxpayer expense. Our tax dollars should not be used to pander to a group of people while not advancing our society in any way.

I suspect that if you were alive in the 1920s, you'd be one of the "If God had meant man to fly, he would have given him wings" people.

Lots of people want solar power and electric cars. They're a huge benefit to society.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I suspect that if you were alive in the 1920s, you'd be one of the "If God had meant man to fly, he would have given him wings" people.

Lots of people want solar power and electric cars. They're a huge benefit to society.

No, they make people feel good. Without solar we have plenty of natural gas and coal to make electricity. Without electric cars, we have plenty of gasoline cars to get us where we want to go. Therefore we are wasting billions of dollars to make people feel like they're making a difference in our climate which any reasonable person knows can only be controlled by God.

 

[Hum Dinger]

No, they make people feel good. Without solar we have plenty of natural gas and coal to make electricity. Without electric cars, we have plenty of gasoline cars to get us where we want to go. Therefore we are wasting billions of dollars to make people feel like they're making a difference in our climate which any reasonable person knows can only be controlled by God.

Pure and utter nonsense!

You really are one of those "If God had meant for man to fly, He would have given us wings" people.

You may live in the hell of your medieval beliefs, but the rest of us believe that we can control our destiny.

So please explain why God favors Natural Gas, Coal and Oil, but disfavors solar, wind and electricity?

Is that perhaps you're a moron that rejects any change whatsoever?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Pure and utter nonsense!

You really are one of those "If God had meant for man to fly, He would have given us wings" people.

You may live in the hell of your medieval beliefs, but the rest of us believe that we can control our destiny.

So please explain why God favors Natural Gas, Coal and Oil, but disfavors solar, wind and electricity?

Is that perhaps you're a moron that rejects any change whatsoever?

Where did I say God had a preference? What I said is man can no more control the climate than he can the shape of the moon at night. Only God can control the climate as he has since he made the place.

You know in these conversations, I often think of a classroom of kids in about 150 years or so from today. The teacher tells her class that back in the early 2000's, man thought he could control the climate, and the kids bust out in laughter as we did when our teacher told us man thought the earth was flat, and if you walk too far, you'll fall off.

Now I know a lot of you leftists don't believe in God, but most of us on the right do. We believe that this planet was created specifically for us. And the products God provided us were for a reason. We on the right also believe in freedom and choice which I know you on the left don't. So if you want to drive an electric car or have solar panels on your house, be my guest. But don't try and force me to or use my tax dollars to pay people to do the things you do.

See, that's fair.

 

[SweetTea]

You may live in the hell of your medieval beliefs, but the rest of us believe that we can control our destiny.

No, not all the “rest of us” believe. The rest of the indoctrinated believe they can actually stop the clearly cyclical warming and cooling of the earth.