31 replies to this topic

[apostle]

Right to Work (For Less) Parasite trying to create own rules.

http://www.legalnews...claiming-he-was

[dumfck]

freeloading ***** gets what he deserves f him and his union hating ways i wish he had to travel even more than 70 miles to go to work non union puke

[scb]

-apostle & dumfck-

HE's the parasite????

And union members wonder why both their reputations and their numbers are in decline. Real savvy, guys....real savvy.

-scb-

[unionbustersandtrollsout]

speaking of parasites

Its scabbies

[scb]

-unionbuster-

Again, "you can lead a Teamster to T-Net...but you can't make him think"

Relish your ignorance and have a good one!

-scb-

[unionbustersandtrollsout]

Looking for your imput on how to get rid of this scab parasite, scabbies

There's over 5000 of his worthless comments

and the rest of the free riders - free loaders

We don't need right-to-work states

We need unionized states

[scb]

-unionbuster-

How would you know if they're "worthless" or not? Seems to me that you'd have to read a substantial percentage of them to make that type of determination...and judging by the composition of your posts, you don't appear nearly literate enough to be up for such a task.

I have a question while I'm at it, though; just how does "Right to work" interfere with unionization? Do you feel that individuals have to be coerced into belonging to a union in order for unions to function? Don't you believe that unions have the ability to attract members WITHOUT such coercion? What do you have against individuals exercising their free will? And, for that matter, what right do you thing unions have to "freeload" on the backs of those who choose NOT to belong to unions? Why is it that unions insist on "sole representative' status, instead of just representing those individuals who WANT to be represented? And just who is this "we" you reference? Those that PROVIDE jobs? Or those who - apparently such as yourself - depend on OTHERS to PROVIDE them with jobs? How do you explain the magnificent LOSS of jobs brought about by unionization (the Teamsters LTL/NMFA jobs, for example, or the steel jobs lost by the USW, or the retail jobs lost by the UFCW, or the auto jobs pissed away by the UAW, etc., etc) as representing a "need" for "unionized states"? Do you feel "we", as a nation, need to piss away MORE jobs?

Finally, what are YOU, presumably as a NON-"parasite", doing of service to the nation's economy as a whole? How much of a financial investment have you made in capital that provides jobs? Or, more to the point, how much of your PERSONAL capital is out there providing jobs...and what number of jobs?

Show us that you more than a typical locker-room blow-hard, why don't ya' "buster", and take a serious swipe at these questions. Surely you're more than just some bozo who's intellectual limits are defined by sloganeering and name-calling, aren't you? Make your Teamster brothers and sisters proud!

Likely? [smile]

-scb-

[unionbustersandtrollsout]

Your an ungrateful FMLA freeloading troll, Mr. Scabbies

[unionbustersandtrollsout]

don't let scabbies get under your skin

http://www.medicinen...how/article.htm

learn the signs that you're being bit by scabbies

[scb]

-unionbuster-

My what a responsive post! As always, "unionbuster" is just FULL of surprises, isn't he? [grin!]

BTW, "buster", I think perhaps you should look-up the usage of the possessive "your" vs. the contraction 'you're". I say that because "you're" treading on thin ice if you think that someone of substance could ever belong to "your" blow-hard class.

-scb-

[unionbustersandtrollsout]

Wha? Huh? Scabbies, the substance you carry spreads disease.

It's the reason why noone will lay with you and why you're so lonely.

Get a life with substance, scabbies

[scb]

-unionbuster-

Again with another brilliantly responsive remark! And one which uses the word "substance"...without, once again, providing any measure of same. Our cup runneth over! [smile]

-scb-

P.S. - Who's "noone"? Somebody you've already been to "lay with"? But heh'...I'm just proud of the fact that you looked-up the usage of "you're". Fact is, "you're" moseying right along on "your" way toward basic literacy, aren't ya'? (Please forgive me if you consider that a "pithy" remark; my "loneliness" provoked it...grin!)

[unionbustersandtrollsout]

Oh no, not only do you have scabbies but schizophrenia too!

You poor, sad thing.

disjointed, out of touch with reality with a itchy rash!

No wonder

At least your disability check will come in the mail...pay for your internety? Want some more internety, scabbies?

[scb]

-buster-

Yep [grin!]

-scb-

[unionbustersandtrollsout]

oh, good good, scabbies.

Teamsters provide a listening ear for your disjointed, schizophrenic thoughts.

Its hard to fit into the world with your disability and your nasty nasty rash, huh scabbies.

You want some more internety? You talk on here cause noone wants to be around you?

Poor, poor scabbies

[LagunaBrown.com]

scb, on November 27 2011 - 01:42 PM, said:

-buster-

Yep [grin!]

-scb-

Your superior virtue and devout self righteousness is truly inspirational to me being Pro Union.
I get decent pay and can retire at 52. Personally, I pay more to buy American products and support unionized companies to keep monies in circulation here at home. Meanwhile you babble your wet dreams of trying to break unions, outsource work and get more jobs at minimum wage. I know It really burns you to have dumb truck drivers doing so good and for that,
I just wanted to say thanks for all the worthless opinions.


Sent from iPhone using the TeamsterNet Mobile app!

[scb]

-LagunaBrown-

Good for you. However, I'm not sure where I've "babbled" about "break[ing] unions" or whatever. I'm not against organized labor at all; in fact of those who participate here on T-Net, I would guess that I'm probably in the top rank - and quite possibly the very top individual - in terms of supporting Teamster jobs.

What's "busting unions" is those who have made pretenses over the last few decades of supporting organized labor....but actually have been engaged in the process of tearing it down. Who caused work to be "outsourced"? Do you think employers took the jobs they had to offer overseas simply to "break unions"? Don't you think unions - with their refusal to coordinate the competitiveness of their members - have some responsibility in that area? Unions in other countries - and I've worked there and with them - doggedly keep up the training and internal discipline needed to keep their members competitive on the world stage. In other countries, companies actually WANT to employ union members, because they offer the most efficient, cost-effective labor option. Is that the way it is here? What union in American functions in that way? The Teamsters? Are you aware, for example, of the Teamsters union INITIATING discipline on a member because he doesn't work competitively? Or know of wide-scale Teamster training programs designed to make their members MORE desirable as employees than the run-of-the-mill worker? Has it ever dawned on you just WHY employers don't want union labor...and what that says about the union laborer him/herself?

Yeah, you may "get decent pay". And YOU may be able "to retire at 52" (although today, for a heck of a lot of Teamsters, that "may" is heavy qualifier). Meanwhile, the defining attribute of the majority of your "once upon a time" brothers and sisters is that THEY LOST THEIR JOBS! When I became a Teamster, there were supposedly over 700,000 members with jobs covered under the NMFA. The Teamsters themselves assert that there were over 400,000 under NMFA when it first was initiated. What are the numbers today? 45,000 or so? The point being, of course, NINE OUT OF TEN OF THOSE JOBS HAVE BEEN LOST!!! The Teamsters simply PISSED THOSE JOBS AWAY! Now it's all good and well for the 10% left to claim that they "get decent pay" and "can retire at 52"....but what about the BULK of the members who end-up with jack-squat? Is that the purpose of unionism? I.e. - to put the majority in poverty?

It's just not the Teamsters who have done that; the pattern has been repeated in the steel industry, retail, auto, rubber, etc., etc. One has to ask; JUST WHAT DO UNIONS IN THE U.S. TODAY HAVE TO BE PROUD OF?

Speaking of your personal support in terms of "buy[ing] American products and support unionized companies", that's all good and well...but the economic reality is that good wishes aren't going to save the American worker. Nor, in the end, will it even save "minimum wage" jobs; you guys are pissing those away as well. In truth, in the manner in which you're proceeding, a "race to the bottom" is perhaps optimistic; by the time you get there (from below), "the bottom" might already be occupied by those who CARE. The "race" is actually a game of economic "musical chairs"....with the seats going to the workers who are most competitive on the global stage. And, right now you guys aren't capable of "being there" to grab an available seat when the music periodically stops. Nothing mysterious or obscure about that scenario; it's simply survival of the fittest...and those that aren't "fit" economically, won't survive. The rest of the world simply isn't prepared to subsidize them.

That said, is my "virtue" "superior"? Well, compared to those who lie not only to others, but deceive themselves as well, then "yes", I suppose it is. Is it "inspirational" in terms of being pro-union? Heck, having seen "organized" labor's fight against free choice, is there any MEANINGFUL aspects of "inspirational" left in the movement? After all, it's pretty much admitted that it can NOT function on a voluntary basis....but needs to coerce potential members, regardless of their own desires. Face it; unions don't even try to be "inspirational" today; rather, they often seem to simply exist to promote the interests of the bureaucracy and remainder membership...at the expense of the actual average worker.

Lastly, I was "a dumb truck driver" myself once upon a time...likely quite a bit earlier than the vast majority of participants on T-Net. I was a Teamster as well. Given that, do I think truck drivers are necessarily dumb? Of course not. But an incredible number of them don't seem to be all that well-informed. Let me put it another way. Over recent years, I've seen quite a few honest enthusiastic Teamsters. I've also come across quite a few intelligent enthusiastic Teamsters. However, intelligent AND honest enthusiastic Teamsters seem to have become as scarce as hens' teeth over the last 30 years. A qualifier of that statement is the fact that there are so few enthusiastic Teamsters left, period. When you have a general election - with a mail-in ballot, no less! - and only 20 percent or so of the so-called "membership" participates, it says something about the vitality of the Teamsters and the union movement in general. Somewhere along the line, you guys lost your way.

Now denying that through posturing,or keeping your head buried in the ground in order to ignore reality, while lamb-blasting every OTHER power on earth as being responsible for failures of your OWN creation may make you feel good for a while....but, in the long run, it's just more of the attitude that's been the demise of your union.

I've mentioned this several times before, but three decades ago now, I sat in as a very junior observer at a meeting where a Teamster honcho claimed that FedEx would be organized in a "matter of months". 30 years later, I haven't even seen a serious EFFORT at organizing FedEx AT ALL!....or, for that matter, much effort in keeping the EXISTING (outside of UPS) Teamster core-industry employers "organized" (or, more to the point, even in existence!) either. Oh, they've "organized" quite a few sheet-changers and bedpan pushers and such...but, meanwhile, hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of "core industry" members' jobs were lost....to the point that, outside of UPS (where more and more they exist at the companies pleasure), the Teamsters have virtually no "pull" whatsoever in the transportation industry today.

It didn't have to be that way. If those who SAY they support unions actually DID support unions in a MEANINGFUL way, things would be different. But, like organizing FedEx, the Teamsters won't even try. All they do is keep saying "gimme, gimme" and hoping against hope that some responsible party will, for some reason or another honor their demands. Good luck with that!

Opus over. Realize you neither expected nor desired such a direct and lengthy response; most Teamsters never do...which, again, is why the union is in the position it finds itself in today.

I'd like to think that I could expect a measured, thought-out response to the above....realizing full-well how unlikely I - or any other "thinking" observer of the labor movement - is to receive it.

Have a good one....

-scb-

[unionbustersandtrollsout]

You no wife or girlfriend to sleep with because you have scabbies? You stay up all night on internety hoping somebody finally pay attention to you? Teamsters hopefully pay attention because your mommy never did?

Sorry you didn't have a good one - a good life, I mean. You sad, sad individual with scabbies.

No friend. You want to make Teamster friend. You no know who to make friends? You mad. You mad at world cause you have no family to eat dinner with or wife/girlfriend to sleep with? You stay up all night and spend all day on Teamster internety cause you lonely? Scabbies mad that others have good life. Scabbies want good life too. Scabbies jealous.

Scabbies likes to pretend on the internety cause he can't make it in the real world? You come back tomorrow on here? Cause no one else wants you? You make 5000+ wasted comments cause no one else wants to talk to you?

You sleepy now by yourself? You get up in morning and get back on internety where people are forced to communicate and listen to schizophrenic thoughts. You have a bad one? You sad? No one cares?

Poor poor scabbies.

[LagunaBrown.com]

SCB - As much as I would love to debate your windy topics, they are like domino's that are set up and fall over the course of many years, These issues contributing to the ebb and flow of labor tides that grow then fail giving way for the ( greater power ) pendulum to swing between business and labor alike. So don't start crying the sky is falling because if there is true strife and failure the people will join together as history has shown. Obviously you have read the Communist Manifesto as well as other pieces on Socialism, Capitalism and Democracy. Your points being one sided and not worth the time for me to deconstruct unless I get something out of it. Put simply, I truly feel you fall in that category of people that find it easier to blame the Union than can actually solve the problem of being economically competitive.

[scb]

-LagunaBrown-

Sigh....like I said, it would have been nice for a change to receive a measured, thoughtful response, instead of the typical Teamster cop-out. As for my "points being one-sided", in just what WAY are they "one sided"? There just doesn't seem to be that Teamster around who is NOT a "dumb truck driver" , and is willing to devote even a minimal amount of effort in terms of even beginning to explain in what way they're not grounded in reality.

Doesn't that strike you as ominous, "LagunaBrown"? By that I mean that the Teamsters who come on here can attempt to bully, they can cast aspersions, they can try to intimidate, they can sluff things off...but when it actually comes down to DEFENDING their positions, they seem - to a man today, although it always wasn't always that way - to be intellectually incapable of doing so? I mean you may "truly feel" all sorts of things...but you seem to have no reasonable explanation at to just WHY you feel that way at all to offer-up at all. Strange.

Without meaning to make you the prime example (gosh knows you're far from the only, or even the most representative, Teamster with such an attitude), I can't help but see yours as reinforcement for my observation that the place where the Teamsters most want to keep their heads is buried in the sand. There "are issues", as you say, but it's not ever "worth the time" for them to "deconstruct them"...to the point that one has to assume that it's not a question of "worth the time" at all, but rather a factor of there not being any way to "deconstruct them"; I.e. - an admission by Teamsters (and I actually see this!) that they believe THEMSELVES that they're NOT capable, that they're NOT the most efficient available labor alternative out there, and that it's NOT likely that they ever will be competitive....that all they're doing now is hanging on 'til the candle that someone else provided them burns-out. And, beyond that, like you, they're not even willing to discuss the problem unless they "get something out of it directly". Tell me; just what can one hope to "get out of it directly" when there's nothing being put in in return?

Well, what they actually ARE "getting out of it" is there asses handed to 'em on a platter. As one who - with your handle - has an association with UPS, you've been somewhat insulated from that reality, by virtue of the efforts and added value of the management of the company you work for, and [increasingly] the subsidy made by contributions of non-Teamsters, particularly overseas. But I'm afraid that's a benefit you can't count on forever without feeding it in return.

Oh well....sure I'm just talking to the wind. Funny, but I've caught myself talking to the wind here prior to the CFWY debacle, the Overnite/UPS Freight card check "confusion", the CSPF strike-concession and ultimate UPS withdrawal, and the YRCW meltdown as well....but there were never Teamsters - even Teamsters who ultimately had their jobs at stake - who had time to "deconstruct" those very real issues in a timely fashion, either. Such a shame.

-scb-