The Truth About Right to Work (for less) in Indiana

[PobreCarlos]

menotype;

I said they were scarce; not non-existent (although I'll freely admit that I've never found one). With that in mind, could you explain to me just how your post would change my mind...or that of any potential member?

You see, whether you want to admit it or not, Teamsters generally have had a reputation of being incapable of dealing reasonably and responsibly with the issues that confront them....and of sticking their heads in the sand and/or reacting childishly (and unethically) as "crowbar" did above in deliberately misquoting posters. Do you think that potential members don't recognize that inability? Or such a blatant disregard of ethics?

Now your posts come along. Instead of refuting points reasonably, or offering logical arguments as to why you think things AREN'T like I claim them to be, you sputter what is essentially some Colonel Blimp-like "harumph", and walk away from the challenge.

And that's supposed to change my - and any potential member's! - mind how?

Sorry, but it seems to me that posts like yours only reinforce what I've been saying...and that's rather sad, actually

 

[menotyou]

I am not in this argument. You two are. I only point out that I am neither dishonest nor unintelligent.

I have had many meetings with our Division Labor Manager, all of which were conducted reasonably. Details? Sorry. They were closed door meetings. I have never been disciplined by him for any of the comments I have made.
I am respected by them, as they have told my BA that many times. They still ask how I am doing through my center manager, whom I hear from weekly. Does he have to do this? No. It's a choice he makes. Why? He has stated, along with my on-car, I am sorely missed and they want me back ASAP. Every week. Gee, I guess I am not the thorn I have been purported to be.


AS far as RTW, I am not well versed in the subject. I have little knowledge on the subject, so I choose not to join in.
My father and I have had discussions on it. I choose to keep those private at this time.

I do know unions were started to protect workers from tyrannical employers. UPS has become that. Now, more than ever, something is needed to protect us. Is it the union? Well, we have nothing else right now. Am I proud of the teamsters and what they have done for us? Not lately. Again, that makes it hard for me to defend them right now.

Crowbar is an individual. He is making his own statements. He has his own opinion.
He thinks you to be an idiot. Which do I believe?

As far as a challenge to your posts, no. I simply stated a reasonable fact. You can't just accept my statement for what it is. I do not have to challenge you.

I was thinking you had some good points. Then, you pull out the "stupid" comments. Talk about a Colonel Blimp moment.

I have no desire to change someone's mind. They have a free will. They are free to make up their own mind.
I guess that is the difference. I think if the facts are clearly presented, one can make their own reasonable decision.

Your opinion of me and my posts is just that, your opinion. I have no desire to change it, either. Maybe, before I would have. Not now. That is what is sad.

 

[PobreCarlos]

menotyou;

Bear in mind I'm not commenting personally on you, either. But let's review what I said in light of some facts.

1. In the recent national election, only 231000 of an [alleged] membership of 1.4 million even bothered to even vote....via a MAIL-IN ballot, no less! Think what you will, but to my mind that defines more than 82% of Teamsters as being somewhat less than "enthusiastic".

2. Of the less than 18% remaining, look what proportion support the denial of future individual national election voting privileges for Teamsters. And then look at the proportion of THOSE who support voluntary (not coerced) "membership"......and then consider what that says about their "honesty".

3. From those, look at how many STILL are belly-aching about things such as deregulation (as if the consumer should continue to subsidize a special interest minority), or who make excuses for the failure over the last 35-40 years of the union to make even a decent EFFORT to organize the competition facing their union's largest employer. Intelligent?

4. Then, from the remnant that's still around, look at how many were (or are!) willing to face head-on the union's pension problems, which were overwhelmingly caused by the union putting their core transportation employers out of business AT A TIME WHEN THE INDUSTRY AS A WHOLE WAS THRIVING? Intelligent? Then the proportion of those who thought that UPS was responsible for bailing-out the union for it's OWN mistakes. Honest? (in considering this, I suggest you review the reasons for the last national UPS strike, or "Sprague v. Central States", or the codicil the union agreed to a few contracts back in terms of pension funding. Or the SIX BILLION UPS coughed-up (even while being fully "paid-up" in terms of the pension contributions it owed for ITS employees) to cover the union's failings. And what happened to that six billion after it was received. Again, "honest"?

5. Then, of the (by now almost minute) remainder, take away those who, in spite of statistic after statistic showing that unemployment has been the defining characteristic of Teamster membership over the last few decades (remember those more-than-a-million jobs lost during a time - again - when the INDUSTRY AS A WHOLE WAS THRIVING) claim that being a member offers job protection generally. Or that UNEMPLOYED Teamsters are making more than their EMPLOYED brethren? Intelligent? Honest? And then those who support the contracts negotiated over the last 30 years in light of what groups such as the UPS p/t'ers are making in order to prop-up the union? Or the funds contributed to entities like the Western States pension on behalf of p/ters....many (most?) of whom will never see a penny of those contributions returned to them. Again..."honest"? "Intelligent"?

6. Then, of those left, how many are able to reasonably, responsibly, and honestly able to support their position....and not [figuratively] just stick their heads in the sand instead of POSITIVELY confronting the issues the union is facing? For example, what proportion are claiming union "growth" based on the most recent statistics that indicate that, in terms of the rate of union participation compared to the total number employed, union membership CONTINUED to decline, albeit at a slower rate?

Sorry, but in light of the above, "scarce as hens teeth" could appear to be an exaggeration on the positive side.

Again, I'm not casting aspersions against you personally....but I also don't believe that, in light of your post, you've put yourself in a position to claim that you're intelligently responsive to the broader issues the union faces generally. Maybe you are. Maybe you can justify the loss of the majority of the union's core industry members their jobs. Maybe you can justify the loss of so much in the way of potential wages and pension benefits the UPS members have suffered. Good luck! Personally, I just don't believe you can "enthusiastically", "honestly", and "intelligently" do so.

 

[menotyou]

I don't need to. Period. I was commenting on your blanket statement about union members. The fact that you feel the need to disparage me is interesting, to say the least though. You are contradicting yourself. That is what I see.
I am commenting on you, in case you were confused.

 

[menotyou]

The Truth about Right to Work in Indiana

My favorite is: The truth about the right to work bill, by Mark Hounsell - SentinelSource.com: Guest

 

[PobreCarlos]

I don't need to. Period. I was commenting on your blanket statement about union members. The fact that you feel the need to disparage me is interesting, to say the least though. You are contradicting yourself. That is what I see.
I am commenting on you, in case you were confused.

No, YOU "don't need to". I'd submit, however, that your union does. Beyond that, I'm sorry if you thought I was "disparaging" you. That wasn't my intent, nor do I feel that I did. But I can't help but feel that your thinking I was - along with the rest of your post - is illustrative of the point I was trying to make.

By the way, I got a kick out of your using the AFL-CIO source, given that it - as so many Teamsters - ignore the basic facts of the situation (and, morever, are quick to censor those who offer-up such facts in response!)...such as why the "RTW" states have been GROWING in population and job growth in comparison to non-"RTW"ones. Or how their relative wages have prospered/declined over the last few decades. Or in terms of new job creation. For example, where have the new auto plants been located? Yes...I'm well aware that new plants have located themselves in Indiana as well; but they invariably have chosen NON-union localities. Honda in Greensburg, for example...which quite pointedly chose to hire only those who reside in the "ring" counties surrounding Decatur, while essentially locking-out those in heavily UAW-organized Delaware, Madison, Howard, and Grant counties.

Meanwhile, compare the populations of non-RTW (and highly "union") Michigan, Illinois and Ohio (and their unemployment rates) with those of RTW states like Texas, Florida, GA, TN, and such. "Yes", the unemployment rates are similar...but those similar unemployment rates have to be reviewed in light of the tremendous INFLUX of residents into those states - and the jobs created to sustain that influx - against the relative DECLINE (and corresponding LOSS of jobs) in the non-RTW'ers. In short; in light of the tremendous job losses organizations like the AFL-CIO have engendered, I'm not quite as ready to consider them as viable a source as you might be.

I will admit, however, that in making your post, you - as opposed to others on this thread - didn't go out of your way to be deliberately dishonest.

Regards....

 

[menotyou]

I am not a dishonest person, no matter what a certain poster on here tries to sell.
I believe it has gotten to the point the union need to earn their keep.

You did intend to disparage me. I don't believe I need to point out how as I believe you know exactly what you did. Hence, my next comment. You will not hear me call you unintelligent.

You did not respond to the comments Mr. Hounsell made. Why?

Contradictory, yes. Honest? Not so sure.

I always love when people try to put it back on the other person when they disparage them. It shows what kind of character they have.

 

[PobreCarlos]

menotyou;

I'm sorry, but I don't think you're in a position to claim that I have *NOT* "respond[ed] to the comments Mr. Hounsell made". Beyond that, I think I've pretty well "responded" to his comments [additionally] via the points I've posted here on BC. And it might be added that, while speaking of "character", one can't help but note YOUR level of "response" to those points either. They've been real insightful, haven't they? [smile] And I've no doubt you'll continue with even more in the same vein. Deflection, denial, and ignoring....very convincing!

With that in mind, I think I'll quite un-apologetically allow my comments to stand, thank you.

Again, regards....

 

[menotyou]

This isn't my fight. Why do you insist on trying to drag me in? I have not ignored. I have not denied. And, I am not deflecting as(again) I was never in the fight, to begin with.
Your dragging me in is what lead me to a three second search on Google. Which, in doing so, I came across Mr. Hounsell's article. I am not spending my day going through your argument with Crowbar to see if you countered every point Mr. Hounsell made. You did not respond. You expected me to do the work for you. Again, not my fight.

As for character, is a character flaw to lump a whole group in because of a few bad apples. You are pointing to the union membership being unintelligent and dishonest, when it is the ones in the ivory towers whom are the real thieves.

I don't agree with you. As I stated, I thought you had some good points until you started calling me and other proud union members stupid.

I wasn't asking for, nor do I need your apologies. I just need to understand one thing.

Why is it fair for me to fund the union which you pay nothing to, from which you receive free benefits?
You may perform the same work as I do, but who paid for the men and women to sit at that bargaining table protecting your rights and benefits? Again, why is that fair?

 

[PobreCarlos]

menotyou;

I'm trying hard to reconcile your declaration that...

"I am not spending my day going through your argument with Crowbar to see if you countered every point Mr. Hounsell made."

...with your prior claim that...

"You did not respond to the comments Mr. Hounsell made."

If you did not CHECK to see if I'd responded, then how could you DECLARE that I had *NOT* responded?

See a problem there? Don't think there's an element of dishonesty in the dichotomy of those two statements?

I suggest you go back through the posts (realizing that is an immense imposition on Teamsters such as yourself to ask them to actually FAMILIARIZE themselves with the facts before shooting off their mouths!) and see which points I *DID* make (mostly quite directly) which were responsive to Mr. Hounsell's comments. The only one that I can think of off-hand is his piece that I wasn't responsive to was his...

"It should be noted that the bill’s sponsors choose the language of both the title and the analysis."

...to which I would say "whoop-dee-doo!"...as if sponsors - on any and every side of the political spectrum -don't ROUTINELY "choose the language of both the title and the analysis".

Also, while fully aware that might be too great a task to ask as well, you might also want to review my points on this thread regarding your last (highlighted) paragraph before trying to "smoke" it by me.

With the above in mind, (and not excluding your calling of "crowbar's" direct misquoting of me "opinion") I'll amend my judgement and say that, while you may be an "enthusiastic" Teamster, your last series of posts have pretty much demonstrated that you're far from being an "honest" or particularly "intelligent" one.

It seem that, like Diogenes, I'm still looking.

 

[menotyou]

I suppose I should have spent an hour thinking about how to perfectly respond to your post, rather than just shooting from the hip.

But, I just shoot from the hip on most things. It's who I am. I see now how you tend to twist and misdirect and intentionally disparage people. No point in going any further with someone whom choose to act this way.

I choose to end this 'discussion' now. Thank you and have a great day.

 

[PobreCarlos]

I suppose I should have spent an hour thinking about how to perfectly respond to your post, rather than just shooting from the hip.

But, I just shoot from the hip on most things. It's who I am. I see now how you tend to twist and misdirect and intentionally disparage people. No point in going any further with someone whom choose to act this way.

I choose to end this 'discussion' now. Thank you and have a great day.

menotyou;

You're right; I *DO* tend to "disparage" those who lie to me....and it's very "intentional" as well. But there's no "twist[ing[ or "misdirect[ion] about it. You LIED; plain and simple. And people like me simply aren't going to stand by while charlatans try to bullsh_t their way through this world.

That said, I can fully understand your choosing to end this "discussion"...as I can see how you wouldn't see much point in going "any further" with anyone who "acts" as though they DO value honesty and intelligence.

You might, however, want to remember this; it's *YOU* who chose to lie. It's *YOU* who chose to shoot-off your mouth without doing the [minimal] amount of research neccessary to inform yourself about what you proposed to speak on. With that in mind, perhaps you'll think twice next time before "shooting from the hip".

That said, don't beat up on yourself TOO much; after all, it's behavior representative of all-too-many Teamsters in this day and age (we ARE talking, afer all, about an organization that set-up a scholarship fund in memory of a convicted felon!). And that's also a prime reason why "RTW" is so important to those who DO value honesty, and who DO value intelligence; they don't like to be coerced into being "represented" - and PAYING FOR SUCH "REPRESENTATION" - by those who try to excuse such behavior as simply "shooting from the hip".

Anyway, same type of day to ya'...

 

[menotyou]

menotyou;

You're right; I *DO* tend to "disparage" those who lie to me....and it's very "intentional" as well. But there's no "twist[ing[ or "misdirect[ion] about it. You LIED; plain and simple. And people like me simply aren't going to stand by while charlatans try to bullsh_t their way through this world.
HOW?

That said, I can fully understand your choosing to end this "discussion"...as I can see how you wouldn't see much point in going "any further" with anyone who "acts" as though they DO value honesty and intelligence.
Is that why you chose to end your conversation with Crowbar?
You might, however, want to remember this; it's *YOU* who chose to lie. It's *YOU* who chose to shoot-off your mouth without doing the [minimal] amount of research neccessary to inform yourself about what you proposed to speak on. With that in mind, perhaps you'll think twice next time before "shooting from the hip".
I simply responded to your calling us stupid.
That said, don't beat up on yourself TOO much; after all, it's behavior representative of all-too-many Teamsters in this day and age (we ARE talking, afer all, about an organization that set-up a scholarship fund in memory of a convicted felon!). And that's also a prime reason why "RTW" is so important to those who DO value honesty, and who DO value intelligence; they don't like to be coerced into being "represented" - and PAYING FOR SUCH "REPRESENTATION" - by those who try to excuse such behavior as simply "shooting from the hip".

Anyway, same type of day to ya'...

If you don't want the representation, the don't accept what has been accomplished by that representation. No problem.


​Have a great day!!!!

 

[PobreCarlos]

metoyou;

Exactly where was I "calling [you] stupid"? That another declarative statement that you're prepared to back-up ala' your "Hounsell" assertion? Which post? Care to point it out, would ya'? I mean it's not like you would be LYING to me again in asserting that I used such a nominative would it? N.o.o..o...not ""meto"! [smile]

As for your....

"if you don't want the representation, the [sic] don't accept what has been accomplished by that representation"

...tirade, well that's EXACTLY what the majority of workers seem to be saying today. They apparently DON'T WANT to "accept" that type of "representation", and they're sick and tired of people like you trying to IMPOSE it on them. And many of them sure as the Devil don't want to PAY the likes of you for the "privilege"! In that, you're right..."no problem"; all you guys need to do is get the Hell out of their way!

As for your question of "how"....well, that goes back to the "intelligence" and "honesty" issue again, doesn't it? I.e. - if you're too DENSE to figure out just "how" you lied, after it has been directly pointed out to you (remember "Hounsell"? Or your declaration of what was "crowbar's" "opinion"?l), or too DISHONEST to acknowledge same (even after it appeared that you HAD acknowledged not being truthful!), then that's your problem. But I think you can take it to the bank that those who you would wish to become fellow members, if left to their OWN devices, would recognize just "how" you lied in a New York minute. "Crowbar" too, for that matter. And that too - for you and the union at least -I think, WOULD be a problem as well. In fact, I'd submit that is HAS BEEN and IS a problem already. I'd also submit that it's why your kind is fighting like the dickens against "RTW"...I suspect you KNOW that you have an integrity problem when it comes to potential members. And I suspect you KNOW that the union lacks the intelligence to formulate a position that would enhance VOLUNTARY membership. Gosh, if you can't FORCE people to become members, just what are you going to do?!?

In any case, keep 'em coming! Not sure what your point is, but you seem to be making a heck of case for legislating against "RTW", don't ya'? [he says "smiling", appreciative of each additional arrow added to his quiver]

BTW...I'll admit that I don't like the "yells" you threw in what was supposed to be a quote of MY words, either. I'll speak for myself, thank you...and I'd appreciate it if you didn't (ala' "crowbar") attempt to pass of YOUR crappola as something *I* said. You've already demonstrated that you lack integrity; no need to emphasize the point.

 

[menotyou]

I'm going to bow out of this "discussion" now "crowbar"

Did you lie? As you are still discussing RTW and I am discussing you one particular statement. It was unfortunate of me to spend those seconds doing the google search. I shouldn't have wasted them.

I've heard somewhere that there are intelligent enthusiastic Teamsters, and there are honest enthusiastic Teamsters, but that there's a real shortage of intelligent AND honest Teamsters; they seem to be as scarce as hen's teeth. And, unfortunately, there seems to be a real abundance of the UN-intelligent and DIS-honest enthusiastic type.

Since it is biologically impossible for hen to have teeth, one can then infer you meant no honest or intelligent teamsters exist.

Sorry, but in light of the above, "scarce as hens teeth" could appear to be an exaggeration on the positive side.

I just don't believe you can "enthusiastically", "honestly", and "intelligently" do so.

You state this once again.

No, YOU "don't need to". I'd submit, however, that your union does.

Now, you agree I do not need to enter this argument.

Crowbar is an individual. He is making his own statements. He has his own opinion.
He thinks you to be an idiot.

Here, I point out Crowbar's opinion. I will wait for Crowbar to tell me he believes you NOT
to be an idiot. You calling me a liar is a bit premature, but I am sure you are use to that.

If you did not CHECK to see if I'd responded, then how could you DECLARE that I had *NOT* responded?

See a problem there? Don't think there's an element of dishonesty in the dichotomy of those two statements?

One can infer from the pages of posts you two have done that you have responded in some fashion. Once again, Stupid seems to be your issue.

metoyou;
So cute of you to diddle with my name. Aren't you special?

Exactly where was I "calling [you] stupid"? I mean it's not like you would be LYING to me again in asserting that I used such a nominative would it? N.o.o..o...not ""meto"! [smile]

As for your....

"if you don't want the representation, the [sic] don't accept what has been accomplished by that representation"

As for your question of "how"....well, that goes back to the "intelligence" and "honesty" issue again, doesn't it? I.e. - if you're too DENSE to figure out just "how" you lied, after it has been directly pointed out to you (remember "Hounsell"? Or your declaration of what was "crowbar's" "opinion"?l), or too DISHONEST to acknowledge same (even after it appeared that you HAD acknowledged not being truthful!), then that's your problem. But I think you can take it to the bank that those who you would wish to become fellow members, if left to their OWN devices, would recognize just "how" you lied in a New York minute. "Crowbar" too, for that matter.

In any case, keep 'em coming! Not sure what your point is, but you seem to be making a heck of case for legislating against "RTW", don't ya'? [he says "smiling", appreciative of each additional arrow added to his quiver]

Simple remedy here. Do not accept the benefits that have been negotiated for by the union. Negotiate your own with UPS. Quit leeching of the backs of us whom do fund those contract negotiations.

 

[PobreCarlos]

"meto" (as in "gimme, gimme")

Blah, blah, blah. Sorry if you feel insulted by being "outed" for what you are. Again, I didn't force you (or "crowbar") to lie. And I appreciate your terming as "opinion" that which you knew to be a lie; i.e. - "crowbar's" deliberate misquoting. Of course, since you, yourself, chose to go that low road the post before last, guess there's no surprise there. As for your "inferences"...well, you've pretty much demonstrated the value of what you take as "inferred" as well, haven't you? I.e. - you make the "stupid" claim, have it shoved back-up your lying hind-end, and then try like the Devil to counter-balance what you term an "inference" with an out-and-out lie. Again, "whoop-dee-do!"

Lastly, I like - and have taken - your final recommendation. And I think that EVERY UPS employee ought to have that same opportunity. Tell me, since we're talking about Indiana, when was the last time an Indiana District UPS employee had the ability to vote "yea" or "nay" on the union? Or, to include those areas of the state that are not in the District, ANY UPS employee in Indiana? 1957? 1959? Ever? Is there *ANY* current Indiana UPS "Teamster" that has EVER had the opportunity to choose to have, or not have, the Teamsters as their "representation"? You claim to be "intelligent", and this seems to be point-on topic. Got an answer? If so, I'd like to hear it. How many UPS are there still working in Indiana who CHOSE via the ballot to become Teamsters? The answer ought to be interesting.

Got news for ya', "meto"....in total, you and your kind have not benefited the AVERAGE "Teamster" at all. Fact is, you've cost most of them their jobs. And for many of the ones whose jobs you HAVEN'T cost - say the UPS p/te'rs - you've dramatically limited their wage and benefit opportunities. And since you're so "intelligent" and "honest", you can't for the life of you even make an EFFORT to organize the competition of your major employer - even over the space of close to 40 years! - , and in the process you've hindered the advancement of practically EVERY UPS employee; Teamster and non-Teamster. And, in the off chance you've forgotten, it might be worth pointing out that UPS is about all that's left of the core Teamster transportation industry today.

Now, you COULD take a RESPONSIBLE, REASONABLE and HONEST stab at addressing those points...but I think you and I both know you probably won't. You apparently lack the intellectual capacity and integrity to do so. Which, of course, is why you INSIST that members be FORCED to "join" in "membership" with you. And, in case you hadn't noticed, that's the topic of this entire thread; i.e. - "The Truth About Right To Work (for less) In Indiana". Seems like when it comes to "truth", you and yours are found wanting. Given that, it's a big surprise that potential members aren't lining up in droves to sign-on, isn't it? A real "big surprise" indeed!

Again, it's not my fault you lack intelligence. Nor is it my fault that you're dishonest. Believe me, I wish it weren't so. And I most certainly had no desire to make an issue of it until you essentially forced me to do so. Then again, maybe that was your goal. Maybe you think those who *YOU* termed "stupid" and those *I* termed "dishonest" are attractive to potential members. Time will tell, I guess. Maybe history ISN'T that determinative.

Anyway, good luck with your approach. It's worked so WELL in the past, hasn't it? [grin!]

 

[menotyou]

"meto" (as in "gimme, gimme")

Blah, blah, blah. Sorry if you feel insulted by being "outed" for what you are. Again, I didn't force you (or "crowbar") to lie. And I appreciate your terming as "opinion" that which you knew to be a lie; i.e. - "crowbar's" deliberate misquoting. Of course, since you, yourself, chose to go that low road the post before last, guess there's no surprise there. As for your "inferences"...well, you've pretty much demonstrated the value of what you take as "inferred" as well, haven't you? I.e. - you make the "stupid" claim, have it shoved back-up your lying hind-end, and then try like the Devil to counter-balance what you term an "inference" with an out-and-out lie. Again, "whoop-dee-do!"

Lastly, I like - and have taken - your final recommendation. And I think that EVERY UPS employee ought to have that same opportunity. Tell me, since we're talking about Indiana, when was the last time an Indiana District UPS employee had the ability to vote "yea" or "nay" on the union? Or, to include those areas of the state that are not in the District, ANY UPS employee in Indiana? 1957? 1959? Ever? Is there *ANY* current Indiana UPS "Teamster" that has EVER had the opportunity to choose to have, or not have, the Teamsters as their "representation"? You claim to be "intelligent", and this seems to be point-on topic. Got an answer? If so, I'd like to hear it. How many UPS are there still working in Indiana who CHOSE via the ballot to become Teamsters? The answer ought to be interesting.

Got news for ya', "meto"....in total, you and your kind have not benefited the AVERAGE "Teamster" at all. Fact is, you've cost most of them their jobs. And for many of the ones whose jobs you HAVEN'T cost - say the UPS p/te'rs - you've dramatically limited their wage and benefit opportunities. And since you're so "intelligent" and "honest", you can't for the life of you even make an EFFORT to organize the competition of your major employer - even over the space of close to 40 years! - , and in the process you've hindered the advancement of practically EVERY UPS employee; Teamster and non-Teamster. And, in the off chance you've forgotten, it might be worth pointing out that UPS is about all that's left of the core Teamster transportation industry today.

Now, you COULD take a RESPONSIBLE, REASONABLE and HONEST stab at addressing those points...but I think you and I both know you probably won't. You apparently lack the intellectual capacity and integrity to do so. Which, of course, is why you INSIST that members be FORCED to "join" in "membership" with you. And, in case you hadn't noticed, that's the topic of this entire thread; i.e. - "The Truth About Right To Work (for less) In Indiana". Seems like when it comes to "truth", you and yours are found wanting. Given that, it's a big surprise that potential members aren't lining up in droves to sign-on, isn't it? A real "big surprise" indeed!

Again, it's not my fault you lack intelligence. Nor is it my fault that you're dishonest. Believe me, I wish it weren't so. And I most certainly had no desire to make an issue of it until you essentially forced me to do so. Then again, maybe that was your goal. Maybe you think those who *YOU* termed "stupid" and those *I* termed "dishonest" are attractive to potential members. Time will tell, I guess. Maybe history ISN'T that determinative.

Anyway, good luck with your approach. It's worked so WELL in the past, hasn't it? [grin!]

I have found TOS.

 

[Returntosender]

PobreCarlos lacks Ego. If you respond you only validate the crazy.

 

[hypocrisy]

Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,Union busting drivel,

Thought you were leaving? Glad you stuck around!

Among all the supposed 'facts' you love to post, I loved your one about.. oh let me get the quote right with your caps for emphasis.... about how "RTW states are GROWING in population and job growth compared to non-RTW".
Gee, growing yet still paying less, still not offering cadillac paid healthcare, still not offering pensions, still not offering a grievance procedure, and still not offering job security. I'd say that is going to be a ripe opportunity for organizing and overturning RTW laws in the future. Thanks! I love how you blame us "dishonest,unintelligent, and unethical" union members while ignoring other factors, such as the regulatory climate & tax environment in California vs. Texas for example. You might want to keep an eye on those trends because you might see those jobs move back as usually there is a reason they set up in the states the originated in. You blame the Teamsters for the loss of freight jobs when deregulation was the main cause and the Teamsters failed to adapt. Yet you ridicule those drivers as now changing bed pans when most likely they went to work for a non-union carrier. Just get on the CB and ask how those non-union carriers are paying and you will see that Union is vastly better. But you RTW'ers just love how difficult it is for us to organize a bunch of small companies over one large one, especially in a RTW state. Nothing like screwing the little guy!

Glad you stuck around Pobre! Keep up the Unethical, dishonest, and unintelligent labeling of us Union members, I'm sure it helps your cause. I'll stick with my facts as it seems to be padding my bank account quite a bit.

This idiotic, delusional Pobre is just like the guy who moves into an HOA neighborhood and wages war with the board. He signed the rules when he bought his house but now believes they shouldn't apply to him. Everyone else goes along with the HOA for the benefits (higher home values, continuity, landscaping etc) and he wants all of that but doesn't want to be party to the agreement or pay his share to maintain it. Don't like HOA's? Then move to a neighborhood that doesn't have one or get some land in the country like I did.

Yes Pobre, I think you're an idiot. Not just for what you post, but because you supposedly "left" yet now continue spewing your crapola on here. I'll let you in on a little secret: you aren't changing anyone's mind and the longer this thread goes the less likely anyone is to read it. So you're little message isn't going anywhere. I'm enjoying the way it's devolving into name calling as it just trashes your reputation so much more (nice one going after Menotyou! just more evidence you are a complete bag).

 

[hypocrisy]

PobreCarlos lacks Ego. If you respond you only validate the crazy.

Yes but it does have some mild entertainment value doesn't it?