Ronald E. Kramedjian in gray, my old stuff in brown, deletia
I read what you wrote
I am sure you read it. I am also sure, as you have demonstrated repeatedly, that you also interpreted it exactly the way you wanted to in order to serve your desired purpose and then ignored anything that you couldn't twist around in you flippant replies.
If you feel your thoughts have been misinterpreted, perhaps you might consider expressing them in a more lucid manner.
Whatever gave you such a silly idea?
30 years of doing war with unions in California and Tennessee from the management side of the equation gave me my “silly” ideas.
Thank goodness you have an excuse.
California is not a right to work state, Tennessee is. I can tell you from experience watching farmers change their standards for farm workers to avoid Chavez and the Teamsters.
Would you care to regale this forum with the "standards for farm workers" that existed before Chavez and his bunch? The pendulum swings both ways.
I can tell you from management meetings were we discussed the latest applicable unionization efforts in our competitors and how they were going to impact our labor and benefits costs.
Bully for you. Did you try to see both sides, or, as a member of management, was your primary concern the corporate bottom line and its impact on the stockholders?
The last thing management wants in any state is to have some group of union activists and lawyers mucking up the works
"Mucking up the works?" What'n hell does that mean? Does that mean you think anything that does not tilt the table in management's favor is a Bad Thing?
and considering the cost associated with defending a single federal labor case it is cheaper for most companies in sectors that are threatened are most likely to have a strong knowledge base on union activities and on where they need to be in wages and benefits to avoid unionization activities.
Your argument is absurd. If your premise were valid, then every company in those sectors "threatened" by unionization would be offering wages and benefits in accord with union demands. It doesn't happen.
So do not try t sell you naive pabulum to me with you air of experience, you apparently have never been through a union siege and have no direct knowledge of the negative financial impact of one, even in a right to work state.
Naivete? Anyone who managed to stay awake during American History and Eco 101 likely has a fair grasp of the impact of both union activity and management avarice on the country's economy.
Oh, and on the issue of piece work. B. S. United Farm Workers and the Teamsters have negotiated piecework contracts in he past that have cost farmers significantly more that the hourly wage rate would have. In fact I have watched some of those downtrodden union workers sending one, two and even three thousand dollars a week home to Mexico from doing piece work.
Speaking of naivete, are you unaware of the difference between labor associated with perishables and non-perishables in terms of negotiating power? Are you unaware that a widget can stay on the shelf 'til hell freezes over, but a crop will rot in the field unless it's harvested on a timely basis?
I don't doubt you've seen a Mexican worker sending home thousands of dollars for doing piece work, but you neglected to mention how many of the Mexican's family were involved in the harvest or how long it took them to earn it. You also forgot to mention that harvest workers have always been paid on the basis of the amount harvested - boxes, sacks, pounds, bunches, etc. - never on an hourly basis.
You may call it reality. But it most certainly is not.
Reality is a matter of perception. As a member of corporate management, your reality is apparently based on tunnel vision that focuses only on management's position; however, labor has another position, and reality for an objective observer exists somewhere in the middle.
In my opinion it is your anti union fanaticism driven by your fantasy of what happens in the real business world and is facilitated by your sometimes impressive ability to turn a phrase.
Had you read my stuff for content, you would've noticed I have nothing against unions,
per se; my quarrel is with closed shops. As far as I'm concerned, any union that can exist on its own merit, without the unfair economic benefit of a closed shop, is a Good Thing.
Stick to art, blacksmithing and horse shoeing. At least there you have a leg to stand on.
LMAO! Your condescending assumption that I have no "leg to stand on" when it comes to a discussion of agricultural economics, especially as it relates to migrant labor, enforces the validity of the old saying about the "ass" in assumption. I was raised in Uvalde County, just north of an area of Texas called the "Winter Garden", a region semi-famous for spinach and onion production. As you might expect, the region relies heavily on Hispanic migrant labor; and, unlike yourself, I've seen both sides of the issues, up close and personal.
Dare I suggest that you stick to something you know a little something about? You appear to be mighty good at having meetings.