Racist Poster

[SlowwHand]

[KrazyHorse]

I don't get it, but I approve.

[SlowwHand]

04-06-04 Killdozer NEVER FORGET

[KrazyHorse]

Yes, but why now?

[SlowwHand]

I don't know. I guess a feeling just came over me. Nothing to do with the conversation.

[Aeson]

I like the way Sloww is thinking here. Killdozer would have been an effective means to "break up" union picket lines.

[Al B. Sure!]

No, they get the government to. Do you not understand how unions work?

What the ****?

There are union-free workplaces. I currently work for one. Any attempt to organize a union must be reported

[Al B. Sure!]

Right here... straight from my employee handbook:

"Through good human resource management, which includes fair, firm, and consistent implementation of human resource policies and procedures, it is considered unnecessary for any employees to seek representation from a union....

...Should a union organizer approach any supervisor, that supervisor is to refer the organizer to the Vice President of Human Resources or to Corporate Counsel. The supervisor in no way shall engage in any discussion, argument, or debate with the organizer.

Every supervisor is to immediately contact the Vice President of Human Resources or Corporate COunsel when they learn of any demands or desires about a union made by a union or team member"

[Al B. Sure!]

Oh wait KH has me on ignore.

Anyone else? Kuciwalker went along with it.

How is it that employers can declare union representation unnecessary, establish union-free workplaces, and yet be forced to have unions?

When I worked for Sodexo, it was union-employment but that was because our contract with Temple University stipulated that we must be a union employer.

[Kuciwalker]

How is it that employers can declare union representation unnecessary, establish union-free workplaces, and yet be forced to have unions?

By having all of the workers organize and form a union anyway?

I don't understand where you are confused. Do you think the HR policy somehow makes union formation impossible?

[Ben Kenobi]

You're a moron, ben, shut up.

100 posts later, Kuci posts, don't like gas prices, drive to Canada.

You'd almost think it was original.

I find it fricking hilarious that we are posting the exact same thing yet you don't want to be associated with me.



Maybe crazy ol' wizard Kenobi has a few marbles left, eh?

[rah]

"Through good human resource management, which includes fair, firm, and consistent implementation of human resource policies and procedures, it is considered unnecessary for any employees to seek representation from a union....

...Should a union organizer approach any supervisor, that supervisor is to refer the organizer to the Vice President of Human Resources or to Corporate Counsel. The supervisor in no way shall engage in any discussion, argument, or debate with the organizer.

Every supervisor is to immediately contact the Vice President of Human Resources or Corporate COunsel when they learn of any demands or desires about a union made by a union or team member"

Of course an HR handbook is going to say that a union is unnecessary. DOH.

The reason the policy says that you should report any union organization activities or any demands because there are many federal laws that limit what a company can do. For example All union busting activities are considered illegal and a company must protect itself from litigation caused by an manager's action that might be perceived as an attempt to break the union. HR's responsibility is to assure that all responses are within the law.

I worked at a company that had a union busting training seminar. It was obviously named something else and was only attended by upper management OFF-SITE. We were taught how to recognize and combat union organizers before they could get momentum. We did simulations. Some of which were hilarious. One of the simulations involved setting up organizers in compromising situations so we could expose to the workers how their dues would be used. Another involved bribery and threats of physical violence. We were a non union-shop and did everything to keep it that way. The seminar was illegal as hell and if made public could have resulted in litigation, but the company thought it was worth the risk. I no longer work there but no union has ever cracked it's way in to my knowledge.

[Fake Boris]

I answered your ridiculous "question", you idiot.

No you haven't, you pissant.

If the most rational thing to do is to skew the rules, how do you calculate/optimize rule tampering? Hint: unions aren't alone at tampering with rules.

[C0ckney]

Finally, I can see ABSOLUTELY NO REASON that we'd want to distort production against investment in heavy industry (and also distort the labor market) in order to accomplish a bit of redistribution, when the state is more than able to redistribute much more with much less distortion in other ways.

this is all well and good but ignores a rather crucial point. that is, in order to actually have any meaningful redistribution of wealth, it is necessary to have a political environment where redistribution is possible. there are two things major factors in creating this environment, the existence of strong socialist/social democratic parties and strong trade unions. developed countries which have these have stronger welfare states and less inequality of income and wealth than countries that don't. in other words, countries with strong unions and left wing parties do a much better job of actually redistributing wealth than those that don't.

[Boris Godunov]

They were southerners--of course they were religious. And Pickett's Charge was Lee's one big mistake in a long war. Sherman may have been better but the Union consistently ****ed up with Lee until Grant came along and turned the Union Army into something that could actually fight and win.

Lee ****ed up continuously throughout the war: The Seven Day's Campaign, Antietam, Chancellorsville (a quintessential Pyhrric victory), Gettysburg... and his myopic attention on Virginia resulted in his failing to reinforce the west (Vicksburg) and Atlanta, which was disastrous. The fact is the only way for the South to win the war was to hunker down in a defensive posture and fight a demoralizing war of attrition with the North, just as we did against Britain in the Revolutionary War. But Lee was a peacock who wanted glory and to be considered the hero, so he launched all of those failed and costly offensives. It didn't matter if they inflicted more casualties on the Union, since the CSA was the one that needed every single soldier. On top of all that, Lee's battlefield successes were primarily due to his subordinates rather than his own genius. Longstreet was chief among these, and was probably the single greatest general in the war on either side. But since he wasn't a racist and advocated racial equality in the South after the war, his reputation was destroyed by the "Lost Cause" Southerners who are also responsible for creating the "Lee was the greatest evar!!!" myth. The irony is that Lee almost certainly doomed the South to defeat from early on in the war.