| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"T James" |
| Date: |
29 May 2005 04:59:00 PM |
| Object: |
The National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation |
The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a nonprofit, charitable
organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights
have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses. The Foundation, which can be
contacted toll-free at 1-800-336-3600, is assisting thousands of employees in
close to 300 cases nationwide.
--
..
"The Purpose and Limits of Government,"
by Roger Pilon, 1999 (PDF, screen optimized, 256 kb)
http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletters/cl-13.pdf
(Hardcopy $1.00, call 800-767-1241)
.
|
|
| User: "Michael Legel" |
|
| Title: Re: The National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation |
29 May 2005 04:08:40 PM |
|
|
If you want to work for lower wages, fewer benefits and no dignity. This
bunch is more concerned about lowering employee costs to their sponsors. They
do not work to get better pay or benefits to employees.
"T James" <ec12_13@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote in message
news:429a2d14_2@newspeer2.tds.net...
The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a nonprofit,
charitable
organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil
rights
have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses. The Foundation, which can
be
contacted toll-free at 1-800-336-3600, is assisting thousands of employees
in
close to 300 cases nationwide.
--
.
"The Purpose and Limits of Government,"
by Roger Pilon, 1999 (PDF, screen optimized, 256 kb)
http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletters/cl-13.pdf
(Hardcopy $1.00, call 800-767-1241)
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Freedom_Advocate?=" |
|
| Title: Re: The National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation |
06 Jun 2005 11:22:49 PM |
|
|
In article <1117794860.752436.202170@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Wdivekw@aol.com says...
I've been an employee company targetted *not* to get workers into a
union, but because they were already in another one.
Whose "targeting" you to not do something?
The point was that one union was targetting my employer. But *not*
because the employees weren't union. That employer was targetted
because the employees were in a different one.
--
A Freedom Advocate
-+-
"[A] major source of objection to a free economy
is precisely that it... gives people what they want
instead of what a particular group thinks they ought
to want. Underlying most arguments against the free
market is the lack of belief in freedom itself."
Milton Friedman, "Capitalism and Freeodom", 1962
.
|
|
|
| User: "Capt. Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: The National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation |
07 Jun 2005 06:17:53 AM |
|
|
Freedom Advocate wrote:
The point was that one union was targetting my employer. But *not*
because the employees weren't union. That employer was targetted
because the employees were in a different one.
Please explain:
What do you mean by "targeting" and what is involved in this.
Name the 2 unions involved.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Freedom_Advocate?=" |
|
| Title: Re: The National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation |
09 Jun 2005 10:02:08 PM |
|
|
In article <1118143073.737687.185310@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Wdivekw@aol.com says...
Please explain:
What do you mean by "targeting" and what is involved in this.
Name the 2 unions involved.
I choose not. You will get the exact same level of evidence you give.
You've claimed this organization is working to eliminate unions, but
have yet to provide even one example.
--
A Freedom Advocate
-+-
"[A] major source of objection to a free economy
is precisely that it... gives people what they want
instead of what a particular group thinks they ought
to want. Underlying most arguments against the free
market is the lack of belief in freedom itself."
Milton Friedman, "Capitalism and Freeodom", 1962
.
|
|
|
| User: "Capt. Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: The National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation |
10 Jun 2005 06:03:20 AM |
|
|
Freedom Advocate wrote:
Please explain:
What do you mean by "targeting" and what is involved in this.
Name the 2 unions involved.
I choose not. You will get the exact same level of evidence you give.
Evidence of what? You won't explain what your accusation is.
You've claimed this organization is working to eliminate unions, but
have yet to provide even one example.
Tell you what, you go to their website and show how their working in
favor of unions, and not against them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation |
11 Jun 2005 11:54:31 AM |
|
|
They should be renamed "The Right to lie about unions Movement".
Everything they do is focused on weakening unions and lowering wages.
That is the "One and Only Example" that is needed. Everything.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Freedom_Advocate?=" |
|
| Title: Re: The National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation |
19 Jun 2005 10:01:11 AM |
|
|
In article <1118508871.798655.14260@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
tmurph2@peoplepc.com says...
They should be renamed "The Right to lie about unions Movement".
Everything they do is focused on weakening unions and lowering wages.
That is the "One and Only Example" that is needed. Everything.
Everything? There's been one example cited in this thread of a legal
attempt to overturn "Labor" Organizations' compulsory membership powers.
That's not an automatic lowering of wages.
--
A Freedom Advocate
-+-
"[A] major source of objection to a free economy
is precisely that it... gives people what they want
instead of what a particular group thinks they ought
to want. Underlying most arguments against the free
market is the lack of belief in freedom itself."
Milton Friedman, "Capitalism and Freeodom", 1962
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Legel" |
|
| Title: Re: The National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation |
19 Jun 2005 12:22:08 PM |
|
|
"Freedom Advocate" <advocate@fréédomadvocate.org> wrote in message
news:1119194186.320fd2573111b59ff3fcb2e6d127292d@teranews...
In article <1118508871.798655.14260@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
tmurph2@peoplepc.com says...
They should be renamed "The Right to lie about unions Movement".
Everything they do is focused on weakening unions and lowering wages.
That is the "One and Only Example" that is needed. Everything.
Everything? There's been one example cited in this thread of a legal
attempt to overturn "Labor" Organizations' compulsory membership powers.
That's not an automatic lowering of wages.
Of course it is. WHY do they wish to be rid of the union in the first place?
To remove the ability to bargain collectively for better wages and benefits.
Otherwise an employer would care less whether you belong to a union or any
other organization. I can't believe you are really this ignorant so I can
only believe you have some other reason to act so.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Freedom_Advocate?=" |
|
| Title: Re: The National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation |
20 Jun 2005 12:18:19 AM |
|
|
In article <4Rhte.12282$kj5.11673@trnddc03>, says...
Of course it is. WHY do they wish to be rid of the union in the first place?
No one is, ostensibly, trying to get rid of the union. Only to break
their compulsory nature. Why is it criminal to want to do a job and not
be in a union?
What if a man believes he can do the job well enough to merit a
different pay? Who are you to deny him the right to pursue that
happiness?
--
A Freedom Advocate
-+-
"[A] major source of objection to a free economy
is precisely that it... gives people what they want
instead of what a particular group thinks they ought
to want. Underlying most arguments against the free
market is the lack of belief in freedom itself."
Milton Friedman, "Capitalism and Freeodom", 1962
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "T James" |
|
| Title: Re: The National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation |
01 Jun 2005 11:49:50 PM |
|
|
In article <sbqme.5602$Vm4.1843@trnddc01>, says...
If you want to work for lower wages, fewer benefits and no dignity.
Dangling participle.
This
bunch is more concerned about lowering employee costs to their sponsors. They
do not work to get better pay or benefits to employees.
Their supporters are undisclosed, so you have no credibility in claiming
existence of such an agenda.
You're right, however, that they don't work to get
better pay or benefits to employees. What they do is given in the description
at the original post, and again below. You cannot perjur their stated purpose
beyond ad hominem, heresay, or otherwise flawed argument. One need only look
at the NRTW activities, namely legal action to protect workers whose human or
civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism, to find that they do,
indeed, what they say they do.
"T James" <ec12_13@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote in message
news:429a2d14_2@newspeer2.tds.net...
The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a nonprofit,
charitable
organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil
rights
have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses. The Foundation, which can
be
contacted toll-free at 1-800-336-3600, is assisting thousands of employees
in
close to 300 cases nationwide.
--
.
"The Purpose and Limits of Government,"
by Roger Pilon, 1999 (PDF, screen optimized, 256 kb)
http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletters/cl-13.pdf
(Hardcopy $1.00, call 800-767-1241)
--
..
"The Purpose and Limits of Government,"
by Roger Pilon, 1999 (PDF, screen optimized, 256 kb)
http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletters/cl-13.pdf
(Hardcopy $1.00, call 800-767-1241)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Legel" |
|
| Title: Re: The National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation |
02 Jun 2005 06:11:13 AM |
|
|
"T James" <ec12_13@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote in message
news:429e81de_2@newspeer2.tds.net...
In article <sbqme.5602$Vm4.1843@trnddc01>, says...
You're right, however, that they don't work to get
better pay or benefits to employees. What they do is given in the
description
at the original post, and again below. You cannot perjur their stated
purpose
beyond ad hominem, heresay, or otherwise flawed argument. One need only
look
at the NRTW activities, namely legal action to protect workers whose human
or
civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism, to find that they
do,
indeed, what they say they do.
What they do has nothing to do with any "right to work" because there is no
such thing obviously. What they do is union busting so that workers will not
have the leverage to demand better pay and benefits ... this also has nothing
to do with any "right to work".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "T James" |
|
| Title: Re: The National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation |
01 Jun 2005 11:59:59 PM |
|
|
In article <429e81de_2@newspeer2.tds.net>, ec12_13@yahoo.com.INVALID says...
In article <sbqme.5602$Vm4.1843@trnddc01>, says...
If you want to work for lower wages, fewer benefits and no dignity.
Dangling participle.
Or sentence fragment.
--
..
"The Purpose and Limits of Government,"
by Roger Pilon, 1999 (PDF, screen optimized, 256 kb)
http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletters/cl-13.pdf
(Hardcopy $1.00, call 800-767-1241)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Legel" |
|
| Title: Re: The National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation |
02 Jun 2005 06:12:01 AM |
|
|
"T James" <ec12_13@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote in message
news:429e843f_2@newspeer2.tds.net...
In article <429e81de_2@newspeer2.tds.net>, ec12_13@yahoo.com.INVALID says...
In article <sbqme.5602$Vm4.1843@trnddc01>, says...
If you want to work for lower wages, fewer benefits and no dignity.
Dangling participle.
Or sentence fragment.
Not only an expert on the Constitution but an English teacher too?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tayssir John Gabbour" |
|
| Title: Re: The National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation |
05 Jun 2005 07:24:29 AM |
|
|
T James wrote:
In article <sbqme.5602$Vm4.1843@trnddc01>, says...
If you want to work for lower wages, fewer benefits and no dignity.
Dangling participle.
This bunch is more concerned about lowering employee costs to their
sponsors. They do not work to get better pay or benefits to employees.
Their supporters are undisclosed, so you have no credibility in claiming
existence of such an agenda.
You're right, however, that they don't work to get
better pay or benefits to employees. What they do is given in the
description
at the original post, and again below. You cannot perjur their stated purpose
beyond ad hominem, heresay, or otherwise flawed argument. One need only look
at the NRTW activities, namely legal action to protect workers whose human or
civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism, to find that they do,
indeed, what they say they do.
Ooh, a debater. Entertaining.
It is clearly intelligent to speculate on the motives of any
organization which carefully controls information about itself. You
simply look at its effects and take it into the context of how the
world works.
As part of your argument, you quite carefully say its supporters are
"undisclosed." Saying that is very important to an organization such as
yours. As the deified-but-misquoted Adam Smith pointed out, employers
are quite willing to work together secretly to depress wages. Anyone
who doesn't know this is "ignorant of the world."
If people must take only your stated word, and not reflect on their own
experiences, that's one great way to be ignorant of the world.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Capt. Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: The National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation |
02 Jun 2005 06:43:46 AM |
|
|
T James wrote:
Their supporters are undisclosed, so you have no credibility in claiming
existence of such an agenda.
So prove that thousands of workers are sending in contributions to fund
an organization that wants to lower their pay and benefits. Good Luck.
Dangling participle.
Not as bad as your dangling non-answer to why a worker would want to
make less money, and less benefits, by supporting this organization.
Do you honestly believe that Business owners aren't behind this
anti-worker organization?
.
|
|
|
| User: "T James" |
|
| Title: Re: The National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation |
06 Jun 2005 12:21:36 AM |
|
|
In article <1117712626.266714.88620@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Wdivekw@aol.com says...
T James wrote:
Their supporters are undisclosed, so you have no credibility in claiming
existence of such an agenda.
So prove that thousands of workers are sending in contributions to fund
an organization that wants to lower their pay and benefits. Good Luck.
Oops your begging the question. Typical example of fallacious logic in
argument. Regardless, the burden of proof is on you.
Regarding the assertion that right to work laws equates to less pay, the cost
of living needs to be accounted for in the total purchasing power--as opposed
to raw income alone--in states that allow compulsory unionism vs. those that do
not.
"...The [other] major argument used by opponents of
RTW laws is that working in a right-to-work
state is "the right-to-work for less" or "the
right-to-starve." This is shorthand for the
idea that enactment of a right-to-work law
will weaken the union’s
ability to protect workers from management
exploitation, and therefore reduce the
economic gains of workers.
"The remainder of this study examines [this]
claim, and suggests what economic impact a
right-to-work law might have in Michigan.
The analysis concludes that RTW laws do not
lead to a reduction in economic benefits for
workers in RTW states and would not do so in
Michigan. In fact, there are signs that RTW
laws have produced significant benefits for
workers in those states. The debate
surrounding RTW principles often centers on
emotional rhetoric. This analysis, however,
provides empirical evidence that will help
both supporters and opponents of right-to-work
to assess more accurately the impact of a
Michigan RTW law on
Michigan workers and their families.[1]"
1. "The Effect of Right-To-Work Laws on
Economic Development: A Comparitive Analysis of
Economic Performance in All 50 States and the
Implications for Michigan", A Mackinac Center
Report by William T. Wilson, Ph.D., pp 7, June 2002
This report is available free for download.
Mackinac Center for Public Policy
140 West Main Street
P.O.Box 568
Midland,Michigan 48640
(989)631-0900 | Fax ((989)631-0964
www.mackinac.org | mcpp@@mackinac.org
--
..
"The Purpose and Limits of Government,"
by Roger Pilon, 1999 (PDF, screen optimized, 256 kb)
http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletters/cl-13.pdf
(Hardcopy $1.00, call 800-767-1241)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Legel" |
|
| Title: Re: The National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation |
06 Jun 2005 06:04:19 AM |
|
|
"T James" <ec12_13@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote in message
news:42a3cf50_2@newspeer2.tds.net...
In article <1117712626.266714.88620@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Wdivekw@aol.com says...
T James wrote:
Their supporters are undisclosed, so you have no credibility in claiming
existence of such an agenda.
So prove that thousands of workers are sending in contributions to fund
an organization that wants to lower their pay and benefits. Good Luck.
Oops your begging the question. Typical example of fallacious logic in
argument. Regardless, the burden of proof is on you.
Regarding the assertion that right to work laws equates to less pay, the
cost
of living needs to be accounted for in the total purchasing power--as
opposed
to raw income alone--in states that allow compulsory unionism vs. those that
do
not.
So having admitted that it does indeed equate to lower wages and benefits, you
now seek to rationalize why lower wages and benefits are a good thing?
Typical business apologist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Boomer" |
|
| Title: Re: The National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation |
06 Jun 2005 07:10:18 PM |
|
|
"Michael Legel" <mjlegel@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:T4Woe.7302$nr3.4333@trnddc02...
"T James" <ec12_13@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote in message
news:42a3cf50_2@newspeer2.tds.net...
In article <1117712626.266714.88620@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Wdivekw@aol.com says...
T James wrote:
Their supporters are undisclosed, so you have no credibility in claiming
existence of such an agenda.
So prove that thousands of workers are sending in contributions to fund
an organization that wants to lower their pay and benefits. Good Luck.
Oops your begging the question. Typical example of fallacious logic in
argument. Regardless, the burden of proof is on you.
Regarding the assertion that right to work laws equates to less pay, the
cost
of living needs to be accounted for in the total purchasing power--as
opposed
to raw income alone--in states that allow compulsory unionism vs. those
that do
not.
So having admitted that it does indeed equate to lower wages and benefits,
you now seek to rationalize why lower wages and benefits are a good thing?
Typical business apologist.
Depending on what business, it can be true that lower wages and benefits
are a
good thing. For instance, the biggest supporter of right to work laws is
Wal-Mart. Since
the company mainly markets to low income people it's important to support
measures such
as right to work that draws in cheap labor. So supporting right to work
laws are one of the best
ways for Wal-Mart to support its customer base. To support my claim, a
story last summer
in Sight Selection Magazine said that the south with its right to work laws
had become
an alternative to India and China for CHEAP LABOR.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Avery" |
|
| Title: Re: The National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation |
07 Jun 2005 05:23:56 AM |
|
|
"Boomer" <Boomerlake@cox.net> wrote in message
news:%A5pe.49057$gc6.38794@okepread04...
"Michael Legel" <mjlegel@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:T4Woe.7302$nr3.4333@trnddc02...
"T James" <ec12_13@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote in message
news:42a3cf50_2@newspeer2.tds.net...
In article <1117712626.266714.88620@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Wdivekw@aol.com says...
T James wrote:
To support my claim, a
story last summer
in Sight Selection Magazine said that the south with its right to work
laws had become
an alternative to India and China for CHEAP LABOR.
Interesting fact that only 10 of the 22 RTW states are "Southern". Of the
22, 18 had Demo governors when RTW was passed. So much for Demos supporting
the working person.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation |
06 Jun 2005 07:22:34 PM |
|
|
Boomer wrote:
"Michael Legel" <mjlegel@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:T4Woe.7302$nr3.4333@trnddc02...
"T James" <ec12_13@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote in message
news:42a3cf50_2@newspeer2.tds.net...
In article <1117712626.266714.88620@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Wdivekw@aol.com says...
T James wrote:
Their supporters are undisclosed, so you have no credibility in claiming
existence of such an agenda.
So prove that thousands of workers are sending in contributions to fund
an organization that wants to lower their pay and benefits. Good Luck.
Oops your begging the question. Typical example of fallacious logic in
argument. Regardless, the burden of proof is on you.
Regarding the assertion that right to work laws equates to less pay, the
cost
of living needs to be accounted for in the total purchasing power--as
opposed
to raw income alone--in states that allow compulsory unionism vs. those
that do
not.
So having admitted that it does indeed equate to lower wages and benefits,
you now seek to rationalize why lower wages and benefits are a good thing?
Typical business apologist.
Depending on what business, it can be true that lower wages and benefits
are a
good thing. For instance, the biggest supporter of right to work laws is
Wal-Mart. Since
the company mainly markets to low income people it's important to support
measures such
as right to work that draws in cheap labor. So supporting right to work
laws are one of the best
ways for Wal-Mart to support its customer base. To support my claim, a
story last summer
in Sight Selection Magazine said that the south with its right to work laws
had become
an alternative to India and China for CHEAP LABOR.
So we will know we are successful when India and China start sending
work over here to avoid the prison slave labor costs they are paying.
When American workers are willing to work all day for less rice than
the Chinese are getting then this will be a great country.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation |
06 Jun 2005 07:33:21 PM |
|
|
Boomer wrote:
"Michael Legel" <mjlegel@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:T4Woe.7302$nr3.4333@trnddc02...
"T James" <ec12_13@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote in message
news:42a3cf50_2@newspeer2.tds.net...
In article <1117712626.266714.88620@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Wdivekw@aol.com says...
T James wrote:
Their supporters are undisclosed, so you have no credibility in claiming
existence of such an agenda.
So prove that thousands of workers are sending in contributions to fund
an organization that wants to lower their pay and benefits. Good Luck.
Oops your begging the question. Typical example of fallacious logic in
argument. Regardless, the burden of proof is on you.
Regarding the assertion that right to work laws equates to less pay, the
cost
of living needs to be accounted for in the total purchasing power--as
opposed
to raw income alone--in states that allow compulsory unionism vs. those
that do
not.
So having admitted that it does indeed equate to lower wages and benefits,
you now seek to rationalize why lower wages and benefits are a good thing?
Typical business apologist.
Depending on what business, it can be true that lower wages and benefits
are a
good thing. For instance, the biggest supporter of right to work laws is
Wal-Mart. Since
the company mainly markets to low income people it's important to support
measures such
as right to work that draws in cheap labor. So supporting right to work
laws are one of the best
ways for Wal-Mart to support its customer base. To support my claim, a
story last summer
in Sight Selection Magazine said that the south with its right to work laws
had become
an alternative to India and China for CHEAP LABOR.
And you think that is a good thing?
In a right to work state, anyone can walk in off the street and sign the
day book at the hall, but they will never go to work. I have never seen
one case in thirty years.
The reason is the referral procedure. We have book one for local
members, they get the first chance at jobs. We have book two for
travelers from other locals. They get the jobs the local members turn down.
Another reason, thanks to Bush, is out of 1200 members, we have 400 out
of work.
Our contract with the employers also states, that if the local can't
fill the jobs in seven days, the employer can hire off the street.
I have never seen this happen in thirty years.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Capt. Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: The National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation |
06 Jun 2005 06:01:57 AM |
|
|
T James wrote:
Oops your begging the question. Typical example of fallacious logic in
argument. Regardless, the burden of proof is on you.
Since you can't prove that thousands of workers are donaing to an
organization that wants to lower their pay and benefits, you expect me
to expect me to prove that the businesses that receive the benefits of
workers held to lower pay and benefits.
The proof of your argument, since it is so illogiccal, is on you.
Regarding the assertion that right to work laws equates to less pay, the cost
of living needs to be accounted for in the total purchasing power--as
opposed
to raw income alone--in states that allow compulsory unionism vs. those
that do
not.
If you're going to bring in the cost of living into the argument then
you have to include the better education received in non-RTWfor less
States. But that is not the argument.
The fact is that non-union workers make less, and receive less, or no
benefits compared to union workers.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Freedom_Advocate?=" |
|
| Title: Re: The National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation |
04 Jun 2005 10:21:51 PM |
|
|
In article <1117795105.013243.172760@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Wdivekw@aol.com says...
Very simple actually. The NRTW for Less Organizations fights to keep
unions out of the workplace. Here's an example of what happens in a
craft, union versus non-union:
Case in point: My old job paid $25 an hour and I paid $15 a week in
union dues. The non-union scale for the same job was $12 an hour, with
no union dues. Do the math.
Notice where NOTHING of what you said actually proves anything about the
organization in question?
Typical.
--
A Freedom Advocate
-+-
"[A] major source of objection to a free economy
is precisely that it... gives people what they want
instead of what a particular group thinks they ought
to want. Underlying most arguments against the free
market is the lack of belief in freedom itself."
Milton Friedman, "Capitalism and Freeodom", 1962
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Legel" |
|
| Title: Re: The National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation |
05 Jun 2005 09:03:39 AM |
|
|
"Freedom Advocate" <advocate@fréédomadvocate.org> wrote in message
news:1117942473.a765b6d364e1e54fe04b57dfdb767c6a@teranews...
In article <1117795105.013243.172760@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Wdivekw@aol.com says...
Very simple actually. The NRTW for Less Organizations fights to keep
unions out of the workplace. Here's an example of what happens in a
craft, union versus non-union:
Case in point: My old job paid $25 an hour and I paid $15 a week in
union dues. The non-union scale for the same job was $12 an hour, with
no union dues. Do the math.
Notice where NOTHING of what you said actually proves anything about the
organization in question?
Typical.
It actually says quite a lot. Do you deny that unions provide better wages
and benefits? Do you deny that it is the NRTWforless goal is to eliminate
unions?
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Freedom_Advocate?=" |
|
| Title: Re: The National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation |
09 Jun 2005 09:55:22 PM |
|
|
In article <%CDoe.846$xI2.226@trnddc09>, says...
It actually says quite a lot. Do you deny that unions provide better wages
and benefits?
Yes. They *did* at one time. That has left their primary attention for
some time.
Do you deny that it is the NRTWforless goal is to eliminate
unions?
Dishonesty. I'm not the one making the claim. *You* are. A claim
you've made, but have made absolutely no effort to prove. You've *said*
they are funded by companies, but haven't cited anything to prove it.
You've *said* they are out to eliminate unions, but, once again, you
fail to provide even one item to prove it.
It's possible you're right. But, without any effort on your part to
back up your claim, there's no way for anyone to know.
--
A Freedom Advocate
-+-
"[A] major source of objection to a free economy
is precisely that it... gives people what they want
instead of what a particular group thinks they ought
to want. Underlying most arguments against the free
market is the lack of belief in freedom itself."
Milton Friedman, "Capitalism and Freeodom", 1962
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Legel" |
|
| Title: Re: The National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation |
09 Jun 2005 10:36:38 PM |
|
|
"Freedom Advocate" <advocate@fréédomadvocate.org> wrote in message
news:1118372907.26283e949b92e0be84cb709f89946cc7@teranews...
In article <%CDoe.846$xI2.226@trnddc09>, says...
It actually says quite a lot. Do you deny that unions provide better wages
and benefits?
Yes. They *did* at one time. That has left their primary attention for
some time.
*****. There are plenty of statistics that prove union workers TODAY
receive better wages and benefits.
Do you deny that it is the NRTWforless goal is to eliminate
unions?
Dishonesty. I'm not the one making the claim. *You* are. A claim
you've made, but have made absolutely no effort to prove. You've *said*
they are funded by companies, but haven't cited anything to prove it.
You've *said* they are out to eliminate unions, but, once again, you
fail to provide even one item to prove it.
It's possible you're right. But, without any effort on your part to
back up your claim, there's no way for anyone to know.
I'm not making a claim, I am stating a fact which I have documented numerous
times in this newsgroup. Just because you don't accept that evidence makes it
no less so. Your prove it or lose it nonsense is a straw argument. Why you
would shill for an obviously anti-worker organization is your own business,
but your elitist posts do nothing to advance your argument. If you even have
one. And for the record, I made no comment as to who was funding them, but I
do say they are pro-business advocates with the intent of removing unions. I
have not said they have broken any laws or even that they don't have a right
to do what they do. I have simply said it is important for workers to
understand this organization has no consideration for workers except to
attempt lower the wages and benefits they receive by removing or obstructing
their ability to bargain collectively.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Freedom_Advocate?=" |
|
| Title: Re: The National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation |
11 Jun 2005 02:41:22 PM |
|
|
In article <aV7qe.24897$J73.23322@trnddc05>, says...
I'm not making a claim, I am stating a fact which I have documented numerous
times in this newsgroup. Just because you don't accept that evidence makes it
no less so. Your prove it or lose it nonsense is a straw argument. Why you
would shill for an obviously anti-worker organization is your own business,
but your elitist posts do nothing to advance your argument. If you even have
one. And for the record, I made no comment as to who was funding them, but I
do say they are pro-business advocates with the intent of removing unions. I
have not said they have broken any laws or even that they don't have a right
to do what they do. I have simply said it is important for workers to
understand this organization has no consideration for workers except to
attempt lower the wages and benefits they receive by removing or obstructing
their ability to bargain collectively.
With the intent of removing unions. And yet you have failed, you
haven't even tried, to prove that. As if your mere declaration is all
it takes to make it so.
Guess what? You don't have that power.
--
A Freedom Advocate
-+-
"[A] major source of objection to a free economy
is precisely that it... gives people what they want
instead of what a particular group thinks they ought
to want. Underlying most arguments against the free
market is the lack of belief in freedom itself."
Milton Friedman, "Capitalism and Freeodom", 1962
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Freedom_Advocate?=" |
|
| Title: Re: The National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation |
11 Jun 2005 02:39:57 PM |
|
|
In article <aV7qe.24897$J73.23322@trnddc05>, says...
Yes. They *did* at one time. That has left their primary attention for
some time.
*****. There are plenty of statistics that prove union workers TODAY
receive better wages and benefits.
What you said does not disprove what I said. In fact, it doesn't even
*address* what I said.
--
A Freedom Advocate
-+-
"[A] major source of objection to a free economy
is precisely that it... gives people what they want
instead of what a particular group thinks they ought
to want. Underlying most arguments against the free
market is the lack of belief in freedom itself."
Milton Friedman, "Capitalism and Freeodom", 1962
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Freedom_Advocate?=" |
|
| Title: Re: The National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation |
04 Jun 2005 10:23:02 PM |
|
|
In article <1117795399.425742.266780@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
Wdivekw@aol.com says...
I love your reasoning. No one can prove that thousands of workers are
donating to get lower pay and benefits, so I have to show that
Businesses that benefit from paying less do contribute to this
organization.
You are the one making the claim about who is donating. Not the other
guy. If you are going to make the claim, then logical discussion
demands you have the facts to back it up.
So far, not.
--
A Freedom Advocate
-+-
"[A] major source of objection to a free economy
is precisely that it... gives people what they want
instead of what a particular group thinks they ought
to want. Underlying most arguments against the free
market is the lack of belief in freedom itself."
Milton Friedman, "Capitalism and Freeodom", 1962
.
|
|
|
| User: "Capt. Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: The National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation |
05 Jun 2005 07:17:39 AM |
|
|
Freedom Advocate wrote:
I love your reasoning. No one can prove that thousands of workers are
donating to get lower pay and benefits, so I have to show that
Businesses that benefit from paying less do contribute to this
organization.
You are the one making the claim about who is donating. Not the other
guy. If you are going to make the claim, then logical discussion
demands you have the facts to back it up.
So far, not.
My claim is that no one can show that thousands of workers are donating
to the NRTW for Less organization. Since they're not donating in order
to receive less pay and benefits, then where do you suggest this
ant-union, anti-worker, organization is getting their money?
Who benefits from workers being paid less and receiving little or no
benefits?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
