COLO. SPRINGS-
The notice on the supermarket door reads “Due to a possible labor dispute Safeway is now accepting applications for temporary employment.”
UFCW Local 7 is predicted to go on strike this weekend. Instead of working toward a settlement, the supermarkets are planning to hire SCABS, which shouldn’t be hard in this economy. In the few minutes I was watching, two eager dumbersomethings strode into the store with applications. Hopefully an ugly picket line will raise Colorado Springs’ class struggle literacy.
“King Soopers will be hiring temporary replacement workers as a precautionary measure due to a potential labor dispute with the
U.F.C.W. – Local 7 which may occur on or after May 9th, 2009.”
Just tear them down. I did and told everybody in the store I did, too. And get the bargain priced goods before the strike is started by management. They have artificially lowered many items to get people into the mood for crossing picket lines.
Another thing, too. Anybody can print up a sign that says…
DON’T SCAB
Everybody in Colorado will know what is meant by that sign if you are out in public with it.
FAIR WAGES
The $10.25 per hour offered to scabs is not. That’s what they want union people to work for and minus the benefits.
DON’T SCAB
DON’T HELP THEM TRY TO BUST UNIONS
I’m unemployed, have mouths to feed and am 6″2″. I’ll cross the picket line… No Problem!
Unions are part of the reason the country is in this mess…
Look at the UAW not granting any concessions and eventually losing their jobs anyway.
$30 for screwing on a bolt… Pleeeeze!
Hey, you want better? Go work for yourself and be your own boss!
So you are unemployed and would take somebody else’s job and make them unemployed instead? And you are the guy who blames others for the country’s problems? Look in the mirror instead, American Bob.
the UAW gave great concessions!! do your homework! did the CEO take a pay cut? I think NOT. Union people died so others can have a 40 hour work week, paid holidays etc. Without unions there would still be child labor in this country. WTF does your size have to do with anything??
A physical threat to beat heads, I think? Big, stupid, and another fucking P—-.
Thank you my friends, it is comforting to know that there ARE people who support people like ME who work for these assholes!
To bob swowski, I,ll bet you would work for 50 cents an hour because you supported the Bush idea to compete in the global economy, if you are a scab you are as smart as a box of rocks!
Just tear down these signs that threaten to hire workers to replace the people being forced out on strike. Talk about creating a hostile work environment! I bet ‘Dan’ the scab would hire on to be one of these whores for the company? That’s the type of creep that would.
i just wished i lived in denver again so i could cross that picket line after what that union did to me and 200 others in 1984!!!! local 7 are crooks!! and the will sell out their members in a heart beat you watch and see!!! Dont trust them!!!
Five and twenty ponies
Trotting through the dark-
Brandy for the Parson,
‘Baccy for the Clerk.
Them that asks no questions isn’t told a lie –
Watch the wall, my darling, while the gentlemen go by!
– R. Kipling
A scene from Chapter 3, The Grapes of Wrath…
In the summer heat, a turtle plods across the baking highway. A woman careens her car aside to avoid hitting the turtle, but a young man veers his truck straight at the turtle, trying to run it over.
Ahead – the sign read:
Help wanted.
This is YOUR last chance to snub fair labor for courageous profiteering. Be sure to bring the family. Job skills offered in cake decorating and stacking fruit. All you have to do is temporarily surrender concepts of healthcare, loyalty, fair trade and labor.
In short: Why did “american bob” mention his height in his comment above? Was it to demonstrate a potential ability in throwing rocks at other humans? …Or for reaching the top shelf with the bean cans at his new job?
Kurtz: “Are you an assassin?”
Willard: “I’m a soldier.”
Kurtz: “You’re neither. You’re an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks, to collect a bill.”
I work at a non-union king soopers near my home in castle rock. I just recently got promoted to produce after my junior year in high school and took the job of a slacking veteran which is how it chould be . Promotions should be appointed based on work ethic not merlely senority. My wage went from minimum wage to 9.00 which is a nice raise, yet even that much seems too high for the work I do. Certainly, being 16 I don’t have a family to support but for those who do that are in my own situation you must learn to deal with the 9 bucks an hour as you put yourself in that position and if you cannot afford to live that lifestyle than get educated and get a better job, but don’t depend on kroger to give your lazy ass a free ride. Be thankful you have a job because with hiring freezes some others aren’t so lucky.
Spoken like a true slave in training.
Do your mommy and daddy agree that with a selfish little pig like yourself in the house only $9 an hour would be sufficient?
P.S. it was the Union who got you the wage.
Here’s a thought, if King Soopers Shareholders believe that they, too, can survive on less than $10 an hour, perhaps they themselves can strap on some aprons and take their happy arses to do some actual work.
Rather than hire Scabs.
Surely a national chain like Krogers has more than 3500 shareholders, who would be more than happy to prove that the Shareholders and Management are the ones who make the money for the company, and the Workers are merely kept on the payroll as a courtesy.
That would include Scabrous, pustulent putrid dorks who believe the Company will take care of them, as long as they lick enough Corporate Boots.
Hope you like the taste of Corporate Shoe Polish.
Now, here’s a more civilized response.
If I listen to the Farm and Ranch Report (commodities prices) at 5 AM and hear that potatoes are selling for $40 a ton (which would be higher than usual) which comes out to 2 cents a pound…
Would I be able to walk up to you, or the clerks or managers of the store where you work, and pay you only 20 cents for a ten pound bag of potatoes?
Hogs today are selling for 65 cents a pound.
Can I buy a pound of pork chops or bacon from you for 65 cents?
Corn is $4.55 a bushel, that’s about a nickel an ear.
King Soopers Produce Dept is selling it for 50 cents an ear.
Speaking of “ear”, that’s the thing your mommy and daddy would be tossed out on (their collective ear, along with your ear because I know you don’t have your own apartment) if they told the landlord or mortgage company they would only pay a percentage of what they are charging your family to stay in what is essentially Their Property.
When you grow up and start paying your own bills you’ll start to understand.
When you get to the age of 40 and your medical bills are roughly 10 times what they are for a 16 year old Little Boy, and add in the medical bills of your own CHILD or Children…
And that “ten times” is a very low estimate, if your Benevolent Masters get their way and completely dismantle all workplace safety laws (and you can thank the Unions for such laws being empowered in the first place) then your medical bills might be like for instance MINE.
I was injured on-the-job while working for $5 an hour.
For the Richest Company in America, (it was a division of Halliburton)
Non-Union of course, in Texas where the full weight of the Terrorist State is brought to bear against Unions and Union “troublemakers”… you know, like was placed on the ballot back in November to enable the same type of powers HERE…
I made For The Companies Who Employed Me, several million dollars. That’s the profit margin they got from MY work, not anywhere near the minimum wage I was usually paid.
Try to buy a 20,000 square foot house for under a quarter million, buy one from Brown & Root, (Halliburton), if you harbor any doubts that I actually DID make the company that much money.
That “free ride” from the Company? Shit, BOY, I didn’t even get a single one of my medical bills paid by them.
That’s how they “do” you in a Non-Union state.
Maybe YOU ought to be so grateful to Kroger that you’ll not only work for them for free, you should PAY THEM for the privilege.
Oh, wait…
You Already Are…
If the strikers don’t show up for work, why not fire them? if it is private property, have the police escort them to the sidewalk. If they tear down store signs, have them arrested for vandalism. I really don’t see the problem. Of course, the consumer has the right to boycott the stores, also.
Copy Cat, you are speaking like a true nazi in training, If adolph Hitler were alive he would be proud to have you serve in his army.
Why not pay the workers what it costs US to produce our labor?
Liberty only for those who have the money, gotten from the backs of “their” workers, to afford them?
For somebody who supposedly espouses “Liberty” you sure do adhere to the Rights of the Wealthy only, and not the rights of the workers to organize, and to demand a fair wage and safe working conditions.
We the workers are the source of the Store Owners Wealth.
Without labor, there would be no production.
No production=No products to sell
No product to sell=No profits
No profits=No capital.
do you tell your landlord that you will only pay him a fraction of what it cost him to buy and maintain your house or apartment?
If you were the landlord, would you accept that from your tenants?
Why then should we?
Oh, yeah, right, you have the Publicly Funded Courts and the Publicly Funded Police to force us to accept that.
Might Makes Right…
Here’s a clue, dude.
You don’t have the Might.
And then your Courts and other Pigs can force us to work for another one of your “Libertarian Free Enterprise” corporations like Wackenhut, and force us to Pay Them for the privilege of working for them.
For somebody who says he endorses Freedom, you sure do endorse Slavery a lot.
BJ – because a commodity is sold at one price, that’s how much it costs?
Does King Soopers grow the corn out behind the store, along with the potatoes and pigs?
No. It costs money to execute the trade, it costs money to get the commodity from the producer to the processor to the warehouse to the store. There are people all along the route from commodity to store shelf that touch the product, and like you…they require a wage for their role in the FREE MARKET.
You are berating a 16-year-old who has an opinion different from yours and then spouting off like you know how it all works.
Just like a landlord won’t accept less rent, niether will a corporation accept less $$ for what an item truly costs. And how dare the evil corporation make a profit off the deal…apparently that is reserved for the (union) workers?
It is absolutely LAUGHABLE to suggest that it is only YOUR efforts that made millions of dollars for that company. What about all your other brothers and sisters in arms, slaving away day in and day out? Just because somebody sits at a desk doesn’t mean they aren’t working just as hard with similar stresses in their life.
Perhaps you should think twice before picking on a 16-year-old kid that has a good paying job and motivation to go for more in life. (Who certainly doesn’t seem selfish, but instead…honest and hard-working.)
He just might be your boss someday!
NS, who was picking on who here? Here is this 16 year old dummy brat, ´T´, in his own words….
‘I work at a non-union king soopers near my home in castle rock. I just recently got promoted to produce after my junior year in high school and took the job of a slacking veteran which is how it chould be.’
Oh really? You might soon become the ´slacking vet´ yourself, Baby Boy T.
You and NS are rather dense IMO ..and without much compasssion either. You 2 have the energy now but will someday be seen by management and other dunces like yourselves as being fodder for the old workers garbage can, too. Maybe you´ll develop some insight then? We´ll pray for you to.
Why would OUR commodity be priced below what it cost us to produce it?
Which was the point in Economics the lad and the Other Scabs fail to get.
$9 an hour for 20 hours a week is less than minimum wage for a 40 hour week.
Sure, a kid who lives at home with Mommy and Daddy might be able to get by with less than $200 a week.
The rent on my house (and really cheap for Colorado Springs) is 600 a month… Plus bills, plus transportation, plus groceries… PLUS health care. Clothing.Laundry.
My wife passed away and our kid is 37 years old come November.
Between myself and my roommate/landlady we come up with less 1600 a month and barely make it.
Does King Soopers pay $1600 a month?
Sure, force American workers into Third World Wage Slavery… again.
The workers who take the side of the Very Rich in order to place and keep their fellow workers in chains are lucky to be called Scabs.
That’s because in the English Language (by the way, T, learn to write dude, or you’ll NEVER have a chance) in which I’m very proficient and have a vocabulary larger than anybody I’ve ever met, there’s no word scandalous enough for the depths of depravity inherent in scabbing.
>>Why not pay the workers what it costs US to produce our labor?
If someone agrees to mow your lawn for $10, and it winds up costing him $20 to do the work, are you in the wrong if you only pay him the $10 you agreed to pay him? It is the same principle.
The employer offers a job, at a particular wage. When an employee takes the job, He agrees to work at that wage. He is trading his labor for an agreed-upon sum of money. If the worker agrees to work for $1/hour, how is the employer wrong for refusing to pay $2/hour? It is not the responsibility of the employer to ensure that the worker has food on his table. It IS the employer’s responsibility to pay the employee what he contracted to pay him.
>>Liberty only for those who have the money, gotten from the backs of “their” workers, to afford them?
When voluntary trade occurrs, both parties believe that they are better off than when the trade occurred. If they didn’t then they wouldn’t have traded. By definition, the workers must believe that the wages they receive are worth the labor that they do,(or at least believe that they are better off trading that labor, than not) or they would not trade that labor for those wages. This is a voluntary exchange.
>>For somebody who supposedly espouses “Liberty” you sure do adhere to the Rights of the Wealthy only, and not the rights of the workers to organize, and to demand a fair wage and safe working conditions.
Liberty is , essentially, property rights.
The worker (including a “scabs”) has the right to complete control of his property (including his labor). He has the right to exchange that labor for whatever price he believes it is worth. He has the right to withhold that labor (refuse to trade). He has the right to join with other like-minded people in withholding that labor (reducing the supply) until the market price of that labor is agreeable to him. this is the purpose of a strike.
The employer also has the right to complete control his property (including his money, and his physical place of business). He has the right to allow, or prohibit access to this property. He has the right to expect just compensation from another individual who damages his property (vandalism).
You do have the right to organize, and demand a “fair” wage and safe working conditions. Anyone has the right to demand whatever they want. Whether they have the right to what they demand is another matter.
>>We the workers are the source of the Store Owners Wealth.
>> Without labor, there would be no production.
>> No production=No products to sell
>> No product to sell=No profits
>> No profits=No capital.
But, where did the original capital come from? The owner risked his property (the startup money) to start the business. All his subsequent wealth came from voluntary trade with his suppliers, customers, and workers. Each of these traders believed he was better off after the trade, than if the trade had not occurred. So no, the worker is not the source of the store owner’s wealth. Voluntary trade is the source.
>>do you tell your landlord that you will only pay him a fraction of what it cost him to buy and maintain your house or apartment?
If the landlord contracted to lease the property for less than it cost to maintain it, then he has no right to expect me to pay more than we agreed upon.
>>If you were the landlord, would you accept that from your tenants?
If I signed a contract, i would have to abide by the terms of the contract, whether it was profitable, or not.
>>Why then should we?
you were expecting me to treat the landlord, and the tennant differently.
>>Oh, yeah, right, you have the Publicly Funded Courts and the Publicly Funded Police to force us to accept that.
Do the courts ,or the police force you to work for a particular employer? Do they force you to contract for wages that will not support your needs?
>>Might Makes Right…
Actually, no it doesn’t. The rights of the one outweigh the needs (or wants) of the many.
Here’s an example: for the first 100 years of our country’s history, we had slavery. The majority of Americans (the might) thought this was right and proper. Did that make slavery any more right and proper than it is today? No.
>>Here’s a clue, dude.
>>You don’t have the Might.
But we, as individuals, DO have rights.
I am interested to know your definition of “liberty” and what “rights” an individual has, and if you believe that “groups” have rights independent of those individual rights.
So Safeway and Kroger have an exclusive right to break their contract with the workers, over pay that’s due to the workers (half their pension) But the WORKERS owe the company everything, including a servile attitude and a “Yassuh, Boss, we-uns din’ need no Actual Working Wage anyhows, and we’s jes plumb grateful you-all let us work for you for less than it costs us to produce our labor”…(or the one the Right Wing feels is even more offensive: “Jawohl, Mein Kommandant!” accompanied by the stiff armed salute.
Hey, what the company is doing is the epitome of Why Free Market Libertarianism needs a lot of supervision.
The courts and police are unwilling to enforce Labor Laws, and bitches like YOU are unwilling to enforce them, so Unions have to.
An individual employee facing off against a Large Corporation, what chance would he have?
Would YOU be willing to stand up for him?
I doubt that very very much.
You probably wouldn’t defend anybody on any count.
Another shining example of Libertarian Republican courage.
So, let’s get this straight.
Under your version of “Liberty” the Safeway and Kroger corporations can renege on the payment of a contract they agreed to, in this case payment of something the Workers have EARNED, and were actually contractually promised… But the WORKERS aren’t allowed to so much as petition for a redress of that grievance.
Now, it’s a given that the Company will have every Judge and cop in Colorado paid off to “protect” their right to screw the Workers, so the police and Courts aren’t going to represent the workers…
Any INDIVIDUAL worker will be told that he has No Right To complain and if he does he can be fired AND beaten down and arrested by the Pigs for doing so.
Which is what happens in Non-Union “negotiations”.
But the WORKERS don’t have the right to form a union, hire attorneys to represent them and collectively bargain.
So it’s “Only those with Money have rights”.
Of course, we can still count on a Freedom Loving individual such as yourself to stand up for our rights, yes?
Actually, I think you only stand up for the Corporations, and then because you know they’ll protect your coward ass.
History shows, and now Krogers shows once again, they’ll hire Thugs to break a strike, and if the workers fight back, the Thugs can count on police protection.
Just like at Ludlow when the Army mowed down strikers and their families with a machine gun.
good to see a True Patriot like yourself standing up for Corporate Rights rather than workers rights.
Libertarian-Republican “courage” at it’s very finest.
So, let’s get this straight.
>>Under your version of “Liberty” the Safeway and Kroger corporations can renege on the payment of a contract they agreed to, in this case payment of something the Workers have EARNED, and were actually contractually promised… But the WORKERS aren’t allowed to so much as petition for a redress of that grievance.
no, if the company agreed to pay, then reniged on the contract, they should pay the workers DOUBLE what was agreed upon. One for the original contract, and once as recompense and punishment for defrauding the workers.
>>Now, it’s a given that the Company will have every Judge and cop in Colorado paid off to “protect” their right to screw the Workers, so the police and Courts aren’t going to represent the workers…
This is a side effect of complicated laws and “regulation” that only protects the corporations, and of fraud committed by the judges. This is not a valid part of a libertarian society. This thing would happen just as much in a socialist society, except that instead of money changing hands, the bribes are paid in “influence” who you know will become more important than how much money you have. It is essentially the same thing. It is the responsibility of the people to protect the republic (through the electoral process) from these traitors of the public trust. In other words, elect people who cannot be bought.
>>Any INDIVIDUAL worker will be told that he has No Right To complain and if he does he can be fired AND beaten down and arrested by the Pigs for doing so.
>>Which is what happens in Non-Union “negotiations”.
I have no experience with such negotiations, but i will take your word for it. This , too, is a side effect of the government being large enough to be used as a weapon against the people.
>>But the WORKERS don’t have the right to form a union, hire attorneys to represent them and collectively bargain.
to recap:
The worker (including a “scab”) has the right to complete control of his property (including his labor). He has the right to exchange that labor for whatever price he believes it is worth. He has the right to withhold that labor (refuse to trade).
*** He has the right to join with other like-minded people in withholding that labor (reducing the supply) until the market price of that labor is agreeable to him. this is the purpose of a strike. *** This includes hiring lawyers, etc.
So it’s “Only those with Money have rights”.
no
Of course, we can still count on a Freedom Loving individual such as yourself to stand up for our rights, yes?
yes. I completely support your right to strike. and boycott the stores, and encourage others to boycott said store. I have never said that you have no right to do so.
>>Actually, I think you only stand up for the Corporations, and then because you know they’ll protect your coward ass.
no i stand up for the rights of ALL INDIVIDUALS to own and protect their property. I make no distinction between the workers, and the employer. Both are “merchants” of a sort. The worker sells his labor, and is entitled to any amount the employer agreed to pay, as well as any other benefits the employer contracted for. The employer is entitled to the same consideration.
>>History shows, and now Krogers shows once again, they’ll hire Thugs to break a strike, and if the workers fight back, the Thugs can count on police protection.
>>Just like at Ludlow when the Army mowed down strikers and their families with a machine gun.
>>good to see a True Patriot like yourself standing up for Corporate Rights rather than workers rights.
This is why it is important to limit the power and scope of government so that it cannot be used as a weapon against the people.
>>Libertarian-Republican “courage” at it’s very finest.
don’t call me a Republican, they are no better than the Democrats.
🙂
‘no i stand up for the rights of ALL INDIVIDUALS to own and protect their property. I make no distinction between the workers, and the employer. Both are “merchants” of a sort.’
For Copycat, the laws against vagrancy equally apply to Bill Gates and the hobo under the sleeping bridge. You are a real ‘Democrat’ and ‘freedom lover’ you are, Copycat (Dittohead). NOT!
>>For Copycat, the laws against vagrancy equally apply to Bill Gates and the hobo under the sleeping bridge. You are a real ‘Democrat’ and ‘freedom lover’ you are, Copycat (Dittohead). NOT!
I am against “laws against vagrancy” at all. The vagrant, by being a citizen, in a sense “owns” the bridge, and has a right to sleep there, but so do all other citizens, so they should, logically, be able to use it for all their own myriad purposes. This creates a problem, because this is impossible. It is also impossible to resolve the use issue, because all citizens equally own the bridge. That is why I am against the government owning property at all. If the bridge had a clear owner, then he would make the rules as to it’s use.
By “dittohead” i assume you are implying that i listen and agree with Rush Limbaugh. I do occasionally listen to his radio show, but i feel that he mixes too much religion with his politics. I also think he is a pompous (sp?) ass 🙂 . The way i listen, is to think (on my own) about the subject he brings up, and try to ignore his babbling.
If by “dittohead” you are making a play on words, concerning my user name “copycat” , then I acknowledge the jibe. It was very clever. 🙂
No, I am not a Democrat. Pure democracy is the second worst form of government (behind monarchy). A true republican (small “r”) form of government, where rights, and only rights are protected by the government is ideal, but has never existed. Socialism is ideal, only if every member of society is completely altruistic, and there is no concept of individual property. This has never and will never happen. That being said, I believe that the best form of viable government is what the original framers of the constitution set up:
a democratic (by the people) republic (set of laws) under which every individual is treated equally, and which protects the rights of the individual against the will of the majority.
That has never been truly implemented either, but it is possible, so long as the people make sure that the government is small enough to keep in check. This requires that the people take responsibility for their own needs, and rely on government only to protect their “natural” rights from infringement by other individuals. Those rights being ,essentially, self defense (self-ownership), liberty (to the limit of one’s ability and ambition, physically assaulting no one and robbing no one ) and property ownership (including the right to protect that property).
Now, I would like to address the name calling and mocking that has taken place.
Ed Billings called me a “nazi”, with no explanation as to the logic behind this conclusion. This shows, among other things, a fundamental disrespect for the opinions of those with whom he disagrees, and possibly no valid argument against the logic of my statements. I would , however, like to point out to him that the NAZI party was the German national SOCIALIST party. As a libertarian, I give no credence to the idea that socialism functions at all on anything but the smallest of scales (the individual family unit is a socialist group of sorts).
Tony Logan wrote:
“For Copycat, the laws against vagrancy equally apply to Bill Gates and the hobo under the sleeping bridge. You are a real ‘Democrat’ and ‘freedom lover’ you are, Copycat (Dittohead). NOT!”
I took this as mockery, and I apologize if he did not intend it as such. That being said, why would all laws NOT apply equally to the rich and the poor? Do the poor deserve more rights or protection because they are poor? Do the rich deserve fewer rights or protection because they are rich? Or should all individuals be equal under the law?
***This is not a rhetorical question, I am truly interested to know everyone’s opinions on this matter.***
Brother Jonah is the only person who has attempted to show the reasoning behind his posts, and has, to an extent, changed my view of the safeway/king sooper situation. This has not changed my view of property rights, but IF the employers broke the contract, THEN the government should protect the property rights of the workers who were affected by that breach. Including awarding them enough in damages to insure that no other company or individual would risk breaking a contract.
I completely disagree with Brother Jonah on his reasoning, and I still support the company’s right to restrict access to it’s property and hire non-union workers, but (assuming breach of contract) I agree that the company is in the wrong, and should pay heavily for that breach.
I will see any name-calling or mockery posted without explanation or arguments supporting your view as a weak argument on your own part, and validation of the strength of my own argument. In other words:
“Show me a man who throws insults, and I’ll show you a man who is losing an argument.”
I look forward to comments.
copycat
>>Here’s a thought, if King Soopers Shareholders believe that they, too, can survive on less than $10 an hour, perhaps they themselves can strap on some aprons and take their happy arses to do some actual work.
amen
Copy Cat, now I can see why you are so fucked in the head….a libertarian is a republican who smokes pot, it’s time for you to put away your pipe and get real…if you think that it’s patriotic to let corporate america exploit the working people then perhaps you should move to asia where you will only get paid 50 cents per hour. Of course you are probably too arrogant to do any kind of manual labor in the first place, you are the type of bonehead who thinks they are better than the rest of the world. If you were born with a gold spoon in your mouth, you could wind up living in a gutter sooner or later. I don’t know why you even bother trying to argue in the first place with us because you won’t convince me or anyone else to support your right wing ideas. You say I am losing an arguement I say you are just wasting your time. Have fun criticizing me, all you are doing is proving that you are arrogant and stupid.
>>Copy Cat, now I can see why you are so fucked in the head….a libertarian is a republican who smokes pot, it’s time for you to put away your pipe and get real…if you think that it’s patriotic to let corporate america exploit the working people then perhaps you should move to asia where you will only get paid 50 cents per hour. Of course you are probably too arrogant to do any kind of manual labor in the first place, you are the type of bonehead who thinks they are better than the rest of the world. If you were born with a gold spoon in your mouth, you could wind up living in a gutter sooner or later. I don’t know why you even bother trying to argue in the first place with us because you won’t convince me or anyone else to support your right wing ideas. You say I am losing an arguement I say you are just wasting your time. Have fun criticizing me, all you are doing is proving that you are arrogant and stupid.
nothing but insults in that, but i will try to clarify…
If the store loses money, are the workers expected to give their paychecks back? (presumably, no) If the store loses money, the shareholders ARE ,in effect, forced to give their money back (in the form of the price of their stock going down)
Instead of being paid for their labor, the stockholders are paid (when there is a profit) for risking the loss of their money.
So, Ed, I would ask you:
If you were the owner of a large store like the one in question, and you had the responsibility to your stockholders to make a profit, how would you run your store? How would you handle a similar situation in which the safeway/sooper stores are in?
If you were the only stockholder and owner, how would you handle both of the above situations?
I have seen nothing but criticism and insult from you, and no logical , or even practical conclusions (yes, logical and practical don’t always mean the same thing). You may not agree with my conclusions, but at least I’m thinking about the situation, and not just reacting to the oppression of the “saintly workers” by the “evil corporations”.
My logic is based on the premise that people (and corporations) will always act in a way that is most advantageous to themselves, individually. And that the best way to keep them in check is with a government that is limited to protecting the rights of the individual. In regards to rights, I mean “natural rights” , not “right to health care” and right to free food if you can’t afford it”. I define “natural rights” as any right you would have if you were dropped on a desert island, and had to provide for your own needs. Just because someone really wants something, or even needs something to survive, does not make it a right.
The “right” to health care, or a “living wage” necessarily means that a person can “demand” a service or property from another person at will. This means that those with “need” may become masters of those who can provide. And the corollary, that the ones with the ability to provide are slaves (and must perform at the whim of) those with “need”.
As i said before, I support the right of the (union) workers to withhold their labor until the store agrees to compensate them in a manner which the workers feel is adequate for their labor. I have also said that IF the store signed a contract with the workers, and they breached the terms of that contract, then they should be made to pay heavily for that breach.
The way Brother Jonah describes these cases, the government bodies seem to be used as a “cudgel” against the workers. This is the strongest argument yet for limiting the size and scope of that weapon.
I look forward to your answer to the above “what would you do?” questions.
copycat
p.s. Where did you get the idea that I smoke pot? And where did you get the idea that i don’t work for a living? I do on-site repair of copiers. I have worked in factories, loading docks, and fast food. I put myself through tech school, and have never had anything handed to me. I just like to keep what I work for, instead of seeing my hard-earned money spent on beer,drugs, and “bling” by people who “can’t afford to support themselves”. Kudos to the striking workers who are exercising their rights. I fully support their right to do so, and I support ALL property owners’ right to protect that property.
p.p.s. I have not criticized you. You have written nothing for which I could criticize. You have given your opinion of my though processes (I assume intended as an insult), and I have called you to address the ISSUE, not to insult the people who actually have something to say about the issue. Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them wrong, or stupid, or a “pot head” or a “nazi”, or a “bonehead” or “arrogant” or “f&*ked in the head” . It just means that they disagree with you. I started posting on this site to try to understand some of the logic behind the opinions on the “other side” of some issues. I knew that I would disagree with those opinions, on the surface, but I wanted to understand the logic behind those opinions. Brother Jonah has helped a lot, and Tony Logan has at least shown that he is capable of basic human decency with regards to those with whom he disagrees. But I have yet to see any substance to any opinion you proffer, or even an opinion on anything except my character for having the nerve to (apparently) disagree with you. Your spouting of names and insults is no better than the retards in the KKK that scream that whites are superior “just because they are superior”.
I work at Fry’s in Arizona, our contract has been negotiated (supposedly) for over 12 months now. We authorized a strike and immediately the company started posting misinformation in the stores trying to turn us against our own union, trying to make themselves out to be the good guys, and also to subtly intimidate us and try and convince us to quit the union (It’s right-to-work/right-to-be poor here). I am so fed up with another bad contract being offered and only one 0.25 raise in the past six years, I just want to go on strike now. I’ll barely survive and my credit will be shot but I don’t care anymore. I want to go on strike the same time as Colorado and I want to make them sorry for hogging all the profits to themselves and trying to brainwash us into being scared and taking another bad contract. Let’s do this and make them think next time about screwing us over!
i wish youd all just walk off your jobs ,show them you mean busness,dont let them push or take any more from vall
The Union have a lot more invested in the companies than the “capital”.
To the “Capital” it’s just one more investment, to the workers it’s their jobs, their pensions, their health care. The future of their families.
if you work for king soopers you know that they treat you like shit, demand more work then you can ever get done, nevr agree with this company
I work for Safeway in Colorado Springs. We recently got a letter saying that if Safeway went on strike then Kroger planned to lock its workers out. Just like Rod said, this is a scare tactic. They think that if they say that even more people wont be going to work if we strike then we wont do it. Well the deal they are trying to make is RIDICULOUS. I have not spoken to a single person who plans on voting for it. I hope that we do go on Strike because the company needs to know that cutting half the pension and then saying they will give us a .25 cent raise IS NOT a good deal. I like my job but i will not stand for that. If that means picketting outside my store until Safeway realizes they need to make a better effort for their employees then so be it. I agree with whoever said that The Shareholders should work….and that the employees are only kept on the payroll as a courtesy. However, i beleive that is how it works with MOST companies these days. The problem is in this community and economy there will always be SCABS that need the money while we are trying to fight for ours.