Re: Van Impe situation, by Magilla



In article <[email protected]>,
MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ask anybody in here if EMPLOYERS are considered the adversary to any
> union member EMPLOYEE and see what they say. They will say YES.


Anybody who gives me money for work gets good work.
I do not work for anyone I consider an adversary;
and I will not take money from them while pretending to work.

You should get out more.

--
Michael Press
 
On Mar 26, 9:14 pm, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
> RonSonic wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:21:46 -0400, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> >>RonSonic wrote:

>
> >>>On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:58:00 -0400, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> >>>>Dan Gregory wrote:

>
> >>>>>MagillaGorilla wrote:

>
> >>>>>>Oh yeah, well in the U.S. little kids don't have a license, let alone
> >>>>>>a "UCI juvenile" license.  You're in love with the UCI.

>
> >>>>>Oh dear you don't even know what's happening on the other side of
> >>>>>Mogillapond

>
> >>>>>http://www.usacycling.org/news/user/story.php?id=2727

>
> >>>>>The UCI is the cycling Union - like many Unions the leadership is not
> >>>>>very much in touch with its membership. Love affair it ain't.
> >>>>>With a little solidarity from the riders this mess would have been
> >>>>>sorted a long time ago viz Unibet etc....

>
> >>>>The UCI is not a cycling union.  If it were it wouldn't accept money

>
> >>>>from teams and promoters, which are the adversaries of cyclists.

>
> >>>Teams and promoters give cyclists money. They ain't the adversary.

>
> >>>Ron

>
> >>Hey stupid, so do employers.  Yet employers are considered the adversary
> >>of workers and unions.

>
> > No they aren't. No wonder the simian unemployment rate is so high, y'allare a
> > screech-load of sloppy, binary, not-quite-Marxist thinking.

>
> > Ron

>
> Hey dickweed,
>
> Ask anybody in here if EMPLOYERS are considered the adversary to any
> union member EMPLOYEE and see what they say.  They will say YES.
>
> This is not debatable.  Unions are formed to protect workers from being
> exploited by their employers.  The relationship is adversarial. Ever
> hear of something called a strike?  That's when union members strike
> against their own employers.
>
> So yes, they do consider employers to be their adversary.


Some people think anyone they work for is an enemy, with unions just
not even anywhere whatsoever in the picture.

IME, the "adversarial" thing happens at contract negotiation time, and
maybe others, as when the bosses used to fudge production records so
they didn't have to pay us our rightful bonus for busting ass and
exceeding quota. Otherwise, there's work to be done and beer to drink
after, at least in my world. And yes, I'm happy to be relatively well-
adjusted, thanks.

> You're a moron.


You've seemingly lost a significant amount of your ability to make a
point in a humorous, pointed manner.

Hope everything is OK at home. Dusty miss old Maggie. Hug? --D-y
 
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 22:14:50 -0400, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:

>RonSonic wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:21:46 -0400, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>RonSonic wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:58:00 -0400, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Dan Gregory wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Oh yeah, well in the U.S. little kids don't have a license, let alone
>>>>>>>a "UCI juvenile" license. You're in love with the UCI.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Oh dear you don't even know what's happening on the other side of
>>>>>>Mogillapond
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.usacycling.org/news/user/story.php?id=2727
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The UCI is the cycling Union - like many Unions the leadership is not
>>>>>>very much in touch with its membership. Love affair it ain't.
>>>>>>With a little solidarity from the riders this mess would have been
>>>>>>sorted a long time ago viz Unibet etc....
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The UCI is not a cycling union. If it were it wouldn't accept money
>>>>
>>>>>from teams and promoters, which are the adversaries of cyclists.
>>>>
>>>>Teams and promoters give cyclists money. They ain't the adversary.
>>>
>>>>Ron
>>>
>>>Hey stupid, so do employers. Yet employers are considered the adversary
>>>of workers and unions.

>>
>>
>> No they aren't. No wonder the simian unemployment rate is so high, y'all are a
>> screech-load of sloppy, binary, not-quite-Marxist thinking.

>
>>
>> Ron

>
>
>Hey dickweed,
>
>Ask anybody in here if EMPLOYERS are considered the adversary to any
>union member EMPLOYEE and see what they say. They will say YES.


Cyclists aren't union members. You said so.

>This is not debatable. Unions are formed to protect workers from being
>exploited by their employers. The relationship is adversarial. Ever
>hear of something called a strike? That's when union members strike
>against their own employers.


No the relationship is negotiable, that's what the strike is about.

>So yes, they do consider employers to be their adversary.


Then they are stupid and will be rejected by workers and die.

>You're a moron.


Flinging poo does not make you a bigger, smarter ape.

Ron
 
Michael Press wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Ask anybody in here if EMPLOYERS are considered the adversary to any
>>union member EMPLOYEE and see what they say. They will say YES.

>
>
> Anybody who gives me money for work gets good work.
> I do not work for anyone I consider an adversary;
> and I will not take money from them while pretending to work.
>
> You should get out more.
>



Dude - do you think I made up the concept of unions myself? Not only
does your UPS man have his own union, so does your airline pilot.

I'm pretty sure they both do "good work" too.

And both consider their employer to be their adversary.

I suggest you get an education and learn about unions and how essential
they were in the development of the manufacturing industry in this
country's history.

If cyclists had me for their leader, they would have had a union years
ago. With you, you would be in the same place they are right now - NO
SAY IN ANYTHING, JUST COMPLAINING TO THE PRESS.


Magilla
 
RonSonic wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 22:14:50 -0400, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>RonSonic wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:21:46 -0400, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>RonSonic wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:58:00 -0400, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Dan Gregory wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Oh yeah, well in the U.S. little kids don't have a license, let alone
>>>>>>>>a "UCI juvenile" license. You're in love with the UCI.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Oh dear you don't even know what's happening on the other side of
>>>>>>>Mogillapond
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://www.usacycling.org/news/user/story.php?id=2727
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The UCI is the cycling Union - like many Unions the leadership is not
>>>>>>>very much in touch with its membership. Love affair it ain't.
>>>>>>>With a little solidarity from the riders this mess would have been
>>>>>>>sorted a long time ago viz Unibet etc....
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The UCI is not a cycling union. If it were it wouldn't accept money
>>>>>
>>>>>>from teams and promoters, which are the adversaries of cyclists.
>>>>>
>>>>>Teams and promoters give cyclists money. They ain't the adversary.
>>>>
>>>>>Ron
>>>>
>>>>Hey stupid, so do employers. Yet employers are considered the adversary
>>>>of workers and unions.
>>>
>>>
>>>No they aren't. No wonder the simian unemployment rate is so high, y'all are a
>>>screech-load of sloppy, binary, not-quite-Marxist thinking.

>>
>>>Ron

>>
>>
>>Hey dickweed,
>>
>>Ask anybody in here if EMPLOYERS are considered the adversary to any
>>union member EMPLOYEE and see what they say. They will say YES.

>
>
> Cyclists aren't union members. You said so.
>
>
>>This is not debatable. Unions are formed to protect workers from being
>>exploited by their employers. The relationship is adversarial. Ever
>>hear of something called a strike? That's when union members strike
>>against their own employers.

>
>
> No the relationship is negotiable, that's what the strike is about.
>
>
>>So yes, they do consider employers to be their adversary.

>
>
> Then they are stupid and will be rejected by workers and die.
>
>
>>You're a moron.

>
>
> Flinging poo does not make you a bigger, smarter ape.
>
> Ron



Sorry, but the guy is trying to redefine the concept of a union. So
he's a moron by definition because this is not subject to debate. Does
he think I made up the tenured legacy and importance of unions in this
country's history over the last hundred years?

Ever hear of the Automotive Worker's Union? How about the Airline Pilot
Association union? How about the Teamsters Union (all UPS employees).
How about unions for steel workers, coal miners, and dockworkers - the
manufacturing backbone of this country for the last 60 years?

This guy comes in here and thinks he's going to re-write the history of
unions and talk condescending to me and you want me to be civil?

He's a moron. There's no other word for it.


Magilla
 
[email protected] wrote:

> On Mar 26, 9:14 pm, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>RonSonic wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:21:46 -0400, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:

>>
>>>>RonSonic wrote:

>>
>>>>>On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:58:00 -0400, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:

>>
>>>>>>Dan Gregory wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>MagillaGorilla wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>Oh yeah, well in the U.S. little kids don't have a license, let alone
>>>>>>>>a "UCI juvenile" license. You're in love with the UCI.

>>
>>>>>>>Oh dear you don't even know what's happening on the other side of
>>>>>>>Mogillapond

>>
>>>>>>>http://www.usacycling.org/news/user/story.php?id=2727

>>
>>>>>>>The UCI is the cycling Union - like many Unions the leadership is not
>>>>>>>very much in touch with its membership. Love affair it ain't.
>>>>>>>With a little solidarity from the riders this mess would have been
>>>>>>>sorted a long time ago viz Unibet etc....

>>
>>>>>>The UCI is not a cycling union. If it were it wouldn't accept money

>>
>>>>>>from teams and promoters, which are the adversaries of cyclists.

>>
>>>>>Teams and promoters give cyclists money. They ain't the adversary.

>>
>>>>>Ron

>>
>>>>Hey stupid, so do employers. Yet employers are considered the adversary
>>>>of workers and unions.

>>
>>>No they aren't. No wonder the simian unemployment rate is so high, y'all are a
>>>screech-load of sloppy, binary, not-quite-Marxist thinking.

>>
>>>Ron

>>
>>Hey dickweed,
>>
>>Ask anybody in here if EMPLOYERS are considered the adversary to any
>>union member EMPLOYEE and see what they say. They will say YES.
>>
>>This is not debatable. Unions are formed to protect workers from being
>>exploited by their employers. The relationship is adversarial. Ever
>>hear of something called a strike? That's when union members strike
>>against their own employers.
>>
>>So yes, they do consider employers to be their adversary.

>
>
> Some people think anyone they work for is an enemy, with unions just
> not even anywhere whatsoever in the picture.
>
> IME, the "adversarial" thing happens at contract negotiation time, and
> maybe others, as when the bosses used to fudge production records so
> they didn't have to pay us our rightful bonus for busting ass and
> exceeding quota. Otherwise, there's work to be done and beer to drink
> after, at least in my world. And yes, I'm happy to be relatively well-
> adjusted, thanks.


Wrong. The adversarial attitude is constant and never ends. Read this
website and you will see how a real union acts in the best interest of
its constituents:

http://www.alpa.org

You're just another dumb cyclist who thinks the UCI, teams, and
promoters all have your best interest at heart. Let's not lose sight of
the context in which unions was being discussed.



Magilla
 
MagillaGorilla wrote:

> If cyclists had me for their leader, they would have had a union years
> ago. With you, you would be in the same place they are right now - NO
> SAY IN ANYTHING, JUST COMPLAINING TO THE PRESS.


http://www.iww.org/en/join
 
On Mar 27, 11:31 am, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Mar 26, 9:14 pm, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:

>


> Wrong.


I disagree.

> The adversarial attitude is constant and never ends.


"Fair day's work for a fair day's pay". My grandfather was General
Manager of a large foundry (large) back East; that's how he did it.
Witness a very long line of cars behind his hearse. OK?

I already recognized the adversarial element. FWIW, I had one jagoff
asshole give me **** about being "the best welder" when I was doing
sheetmetal enclosures at GE GPC in Illinois. I took pride in my work;
he was a worthless jagoff sorely lacking in personal values. Get me?

>  Read this
> website and you will see how a real union acts in the best interest of
> its constituents:
>
> http://www.alpa.org
>
> You're just another dumb cyclist who thinks the UCI, teams, and
> promoters all have your best interest at heart.  Let's not lose sight of
> the context in which unions was being discussed.


Context is OK. My understanding is OK. I don't think anyone has "my
best interests at heart". Jeeze, I'm not 12 years old. Or 10. Not to
mention my many references to unions' protecting their members, right
here in this thread a few times. Racers, all athletes are selling
their time and bodies to the circus (or the Man, if you will), just
like anyone who is in effect forced to labor for others in order to
have a roof and food to eat, etc.

'Scuse me if I skip the suggested reading and just comment that I've
seen a very real union or two **** in their metal messkits.

From today's New York Times:
(quote): The Caterpillar labor dispute seems to be considerably less
tough on Peoria's economy than when members of the United Auto Workers
Union struck for 207 days in 1982. That strike, retailers and city
officials say, caused spending and housing purchases to plunge and led
some businesses to close.

Mayor Maloof said the 1982 strike led a group of businesses and unions
to form an organization to seek ways of promoting better relations
between the two groups. "We thought that this organization would help
promote the image of Peoria being a place where labor and management
could work together," he said, referring to the Peoria Area Labor
Management. "And now we're stunned by this."

Some economists and retailers say they have seen some slippage in
Peoria's retail sales, to varying degrees.

Many here are fearful that the worst may yet lie ahead. Even if there
are replacement workers to fill the jobs of striking Caterpillar union
members, that will leave thousands of those strikers with lost jobs
and insufficient resources to pay mortgages, to buy clothing, let
alone go to movies. "We don't see any great sweeping decline in our
economy yet," said James F. Bubert, chairman and chief executive of
the First National Bank of Peoria. "But some people wonder if it's
coming." (end quote)

I lived nearby in '82. Union propaganda line: "We can't give up what
we've gained". Well, biz for big machinery was way down; the evils of
"downsizing" notwithstanding, the company was in difficult financial
times. Typical for the Midwest at the time. The strike was big-time as
stupid as you can get; hurt everyone involved. Made a bad situation
much, much worse.

As I referred to earlier, your former abilities IRT discussing/
debating with some distance (perspective) and most of all, humor, seem
to largely have left you when it comes to discussing doping in
cycling. Which is somewhat ironic, I guess, since the main problem
IMHO with the whole deal is the lack of humility-- humanity-- so
evident in the "anti-doper" camp, to use a description.

Thrown out for .3%? Not even a quick retest, just in case, as one
poster mentioned, there is some small amount of error in the "health
screen" process? I'm sure you read and/or saw the interview with Brit
coach Brailsford? Hayles not on a strong performance level at the time
of the screen? Well, at least no public/media "conviction by
performance".

And true, Hayles could have been trying to salvage something to take
away from the events, an inexperienced doper getting caught, but then
we'll have to see about the tests when they come in.

And please, the cops have let me off even for passing a stopped school
bus once (with red light flashing, at the school) and I'll spare you
the story unless you ask but the point is clear. --D-y
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:fb33ad49-607e-4b53-a731-a836b0dbe8ad@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Context is OK. My understanding is OK. I don't think anyone has "my
> best interests at heart". Jeeze, I'm not 12 years old. Or 10. Not to
> mention my many references to unions' protecting their members, right
> here in this thread a few times. Racers, all athletes are selling
> their time and bodies to the circus (or the Man, if you will), just
> like anyone who is in effect forced to labor for others in order to
> have a roof and food to eat, etc.


If citizens of this country don't stop buying foreign manufactured goods
there will eventually BE no manufacturing jobs in this country. You can't be
a (good) manager if you haven't a clue how the work should be done.
 
On Mar 27, 12:31 pm, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > IME, the "adversarial" thing happens at contract negotiation time, and
> > maybe others, as when the bosses used to fudge production records so
> > they didn't have to pay us our rightful bonus for busting ass and
> > exceeding quota. Otherwise, there's work to be done and beer to drink
> > after, at least in my world. And yes, I'm happy to be relatively well-
> > adjusted, thanks.

>
> Wrong. The adversarial attitude is constant and never ends.  Read this
> website and you will see how a real union acts in the best interest of
> its constituents:
>
> http://www.alpa.org
>
> You're just another dumb cyclist who thinks the UCI, teams, and
> promoters all have your best interest at heart.  Let's not lose sight of
> the context in which unions was being discussed.
>
> Magilla- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Don't know, my experience mirrors Dy's. They weren't friends, but
realized they needed to get along to make the company function. Unions
get too hostile, they drive costs too high, and the jobs get off-
shored in a heartbeat. The key is finding fair middle ground. Some
unions do a good job defending their folks, some are cozy with
management, some will put the company out of business rather than
compromise.
The folks I worked with did a pretty good job finding common ground
and protecting their people. Others I know of threw people to
management, and failed their people miserably, but collected some nice
bonuses for it.
I'm with you on this one though Magilla. Cycling, right now, needs a
no compromise militant union just to begin to level the field. They
really need a good PR firm too to make their case to the public.
Most non-cyclists are stunned by the workload, miserable pay, and
benefits, once they know about them. Most people have the idea that
ALL pro athletes are millionaires, at least.
Bill C
 
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:31:22 -0400, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> On Mar 26, 9:14 pm, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>RonSonic wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:21:46 -0400, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>RonSonic wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:58:00 -0400, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>Dan Gregory wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>Oh yeah, well in the U.S. little kids don't have a license, let alone
>>>>>>>>>a "UCI juvenile" license. You're in love with the UCI.
>>>
>>>>>>>>Oh dear you don't even know what's happening on the other side of
>>>>>>>>Mogillapond
>>>
>>>>>>>>http://www.usacycling.org/news/user/story.php?id=2727
>>>
>>>>>>>>The UCI is the cycling Union - like many Unions the leadership is not
>>>>>>>>very much in touch with its membership. Love affair it ain't.
>>>>>>>>With a little solidarity from the riders this mess would have been
>>>>>>>>sorted a long time ago viz Unibet etc....
>>>
>>>>>>>The UCI is not a cycling union. If it were it wouldn't accept money
>>>
>>>>>>>from teams and promoters, which are the adversaries of cyclists.
>>>
>>>>>>Teams and promoters give cyclists money. They ain't the adversary.
>>>
>>>>>>Ron
>>>
>>>>>Hey stupid, so do employers. Yet employers are considered the adversary
>>>>>of workers and unions.
>>>
>>>>No they aren't. No wonder the simian unemployment rate is so high, y'all are a
>>>>screech-load of sloppy, binary, not-quite-Marxist thinking.
>>>
>>>>Ron
>>>
>>>Hey dickweed,
>>>
>>>Ask anybody in here if EMPLOYERS are considered the adversary to any
>>>union member EMPLOYEE and see what they say. They will say YES.
>>>
>>>This is not debatable. Unions are formed to protect workers from being
>>>exploited by their employers. The relationship is adversarial. Ever
>>>hear of something called a strike? That's when union members strike
>>>against their own employers.
>>>
>>>So yes, they do consider employers to be their adversary.

>>
>>
>> Some people think anyone they work for is an enemy, with unions just
>> not even anywhere whatsoever in the picture.
>>
>> IME, the "adversarial" thing happens at contract negotiation time, and
>> maybe others, as when the bosses used to fudge production records so
>> they didn't have to pay us our rightful bonus for busting ass and
>> exceeding quota. Otherwise, there's work to be done and beer to drink
>> after, at least in my world. And yes, I'm happy to be relatively well-
>> adjusted, thanks.

>
>Wrong. The adversarial attitude is constant and never ends. Read this
>website and you will see how a real union acts in the best interest of
>its constituents:
>
>http://www.alpa.org
>
>You're just another dumb cyclist who thinks the UCI, teams, and
>promoters all have your best interest at heart. Let's not lose sight of
>the context in which unions was being discussed.


Dumbass, just because we are sane people who do not see employment as an
adversarial relationship does not mean unions are bad or objectionable. They can
be very useful. The violence and coercion of 19th and early 20th century strikes
were a right and proper answer to the intimidation and use of state force by the
employers of that time.

That's a long time ago. Time to realize that the labor pool of now and the
employment needs of now are different. The unions need to be different. And the
professional cyclists need to form one or reform the one they've got.

Ron
 
On Mar 28, 7:08 am, Bill C wrote:

> Sure there is [union for pro cyclists]. It's run by the employers, isn't that how it's supposed
> to work?


Yes-- for in the Company Town, everything runs smoothly.

"I owe my soul to the company store..." --D-y
 

Similar threads