Actually, he wanted to offer subsidies to nonprofits that would give rides to people while the transit union was on strike. Blind people already were in a pickle what with the buses not running. The plan apparently didn't go through, however, and the strike lasted a month and a half.
That is actually a different situation than the one I had in mind.
Some may recall that one of Teflon Tim's closest friends during his first run for governor was David Strom, of the "Taxpayer's League" (one of the most ironic names ever). When he was running, and establishing himself as governor, he was pretty well doing whatever Strom wanted. Strom himself wanted the state government to buy used cars for everyone who used public transportation, so it could be shut down completely - I'm pretty sure that was before the strike ever occurred.
I'm not sure how that differs form our current POTUS, or the one before him, or the one before him, or the one before him, or any other POTUS I can think of ever.[Citation needed]
I'd like to see a specific example of this that wasn't a throwback to the neo-con abortion we just emerged from.
It is not clear if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me there...
So what do you do about people who are physically incapable of driving?
Used cars for them, too, of course! They can carpool with the blind people, the chronic drinkers, the children, and the elderly! We don't need buses when we have so many used car dealers!
You opt not to drive, you are opting to figure out what to do to get around.
What if you opt not to drive, because you currently have a reliable transportation system available to you that allows you to get to where you need to go without driving? If you took that system away, wouldn't you be taking freedom away from those people who made that choice?
It's not up to other citizens to solve your problem.
If there is a solution in place that someone can use, and they opt to use it, how are they counting on other citizens to solve their problem? They didn't ask the system to be built for them, they worked an existing system into their lives voluntarily.
If your county demolished the road in front of your house, because they felt that "It's not up to other citizens to solve your problem", wouldn't you be a bit upset over it? You likely bought your house expecting that the street in front of it - which of course you help pay for - would be there for you to use when you need it. If someone intentionally locates themselves in a place where they can use public transportation, and you take it away from them, you're doing the same thing as the county demolishing the road in front of your house and replacing it with an 8 foot deep lagoon.
Thank you for making it clear to me who the candidate with a working thought process is
Let me get this "thought process" straight, then:
----------
Helping people buy a house who were previously rejected for mortgages = bad, bad, bad, bad, bad
Giving people money to buy a used car who cannot currently afford to drive = infinite win of excellence?
-----------
I'm not sure I am familiar with this new definition of "thought process", really.
Ha, that didn't go the way you expected it, did it?
Actually, it did. I expected that only people with no grip on reality would think it to be a good idea to give used cars to people who cannot afford to drive.
yes... put money in the hands of poor people. What a radical concept.
OK, so you want to give poor people money to buy used cars. If you give Joe-Minimum-Wage, who currently rides the bus to work, $2k to buy a car, how long will he be able to afford insurance on the car? How about gas and parking (which he also didn't need to pay while riding the bus)? What if the car breaks down and he can't get to work?
What if Joe was a chronic drinker who liked to get plastered after work every night? He was getting home safely on the bus, and now you want him to drive home instead?
all I see is a gang of public sector workers walking away with a big bag of money
Yeah, I know so many wealthy bus drivers... Man, I don't know what they do with all that money they are paid! And they get to drive a 40+ foot vehicle all day for work? They should pay US for the privilege!
If mass transit can be provided by non-profits or by a business... more power to them. But they'll have to get every single penny from the people giving their cash or using their vouchers.
Actually the largest public transit system in MN - where Teflon Tim was supposedly governor - was funded mostly by fares. And they were non-profit. People could opt to go by taxi instead, of course, but they would generally prefer a bus if possible.
There is something wrong with getting rid of buses? Large gridlocked car less city's sure but the rest. Who do I have to vote for to have this happen?
There's plenty wrong. But nonetheless, if you want to get rid of buses, subways, trains, and anything else that resembles public transportation, you have your chance this year. Go vote for Teflon Tim Pawlenty, the man who was - on paper, anyways - the governor of MN for 8 years. He's been running for president since at least 2006, but this year he finally got around to declaring his candidacy.
He'd love to have your vote. If you find the right guy, in the right back room, before the right primary, you might be able to make some money off of it, too.
You are also overlooking those who for any of a variety of good reasons opt not to drive, or those who are legally forbidden from driving (repeat drunk offenders amongst others).
Of course, public safety always takes a back seat to profit.
A lot of people who started out against the unions watched the unions agree to a pay cut, a benefits cut, and even a temporary moratorium on collective bargaining
Sadly that doesn't matter to many people. The unions have become the new multipurpose boogeyman for any number of groups and causes. Go take a look at the recent story hear about an Apple Store employee who wanted to form a union, and look at how many slashdot people jumped up to bash unions in response.
I think he'd be hard pressed to explain his behavior on a national stage to anyone other than anti-union Republicans.
There are a lot of people in this country with strong anti-union feelings. And there are plenty of people who could be convinced to feel the same way as well. Explaining this to enough people to win the GOP nomination is trivial.
Besides, with our current conservative POTUS in office, the republicans have to go even further to the right in order to make any distinction between what they want and what Obama has already done. Anyone who isn't rabidly anti-union will be labelled as "soft left' as the kindest.
If Walker handled the country like he's handled Milwaukee County and is handling Wisconsin, we could look forward to becoming the United States of America Sponsored by BP(tm)
As opposed to our current status as The United States of America Owned Outright by BlueCross/BlueSheild?
This guy's given straight-up hand outs to corporations that donated to his campaign
I'm not sure how that differs form our current POTUS, or the one before him, or the one before him, or the one before him, or any other POTUS I can think of ever.
and then claimed we needed to end unions to make up the sudden shortfall
Unions are the universal boogeyman. I wouldn't be surprised if one of the GOP presidential contenders tries to blame them for 9/11 before the primary season is over.
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is just taking after his friend the former "governor" of Minnesota, Teflon Tim Pawlenty. Teflon Tim at one point wanted to move to dissolve the public transportation system (buses, primarily) and instead give waivers to poor people to buy used cars so they could get around on their own. You get the idea - put money in the hands of businesses, and... whatever. Of course, he never said what he was going to do for the people who used public transportation because they were legally blind.
But either way, Walker is just trying to keep himself in view. His union-busting went well enough for his purposes, now he's on to frying other fish. He figures if his friend the nonsticky one can run for the GOP presidential nomination, he can too.
Your example of the post office doesn't work, either. You do realize that they formed a union in 1889, which was well before the peak revenue of the USPS, right?
And perhaps you've heard of this new method of sending personal correspondence (mail) electronically? what is it called again... oh, yeah, E-MAIL. The post office doesn't make much money off of email, as far as I know. And strangely enough, the union doesn't have an effect on that lack of revenue.
Now go back under your bridge and turn your radio back on. Maybe Glenn Beck will have another bad example for you to offer up when you return next month to troll again.
Wow, you went far enough back to find a quote, yet you still cannot bother to find an example that properly addresses my question. My quote that you brought up was in direct response to someone claiming that businesses which were doing well previously were faced with a previously inexistent union and then promptly driven under. So far in this thread nobody has provided a single example of that actually happening.
Trolls like you have tried to dance around that problem, but nonetheless the question stands. Can you point to a company that started out without a unionized workforce, did well financially with the non-unionized workforce, then saw their workforce unionize and subsequently went under?
We have already addressed how GM is very much not an example of that happening. Can you find an example that actually is?
I won't be holding my breath, because addressing the question is not part of your troll mantra.
I will only stop when you stop promoting FUD that saying unions has nothing to do with GM bankruptcy.
I never said that. Not in this thread, not ever. Don't put words into my mouth just because your trolling looks better that way.
There is also the lie saying GM unions are weaker now than in the past (hint: it is not).
Stop lying. Anyone who knows anything about management-union negotiations at GM - or any of the big three - knows that the unions have made numerous concessions in the past decades. They don't have nearly the clout they used to.
You have no proof for these assertion of yours either, so can I call you a troll?
No, you cannot. The first assertion you made of me is inaccurate - as usual for you - and the second is actually rooted in reality (unlike your statements).
In other words, the accurate label is to call you a troll, because you are trolling.
Stop wasting our time, and the storage space on slashdot's servers. Your trolling isn't amusing, or useful. You avoid questions and brush them off with your utter lack of knowledge. Your meaningless bickering about anonymous posting doesn't mean anything here, either.
But then again, you haven't yet stated anything in here that did mean anything, so that is just par for the course. I also enjoy how you are now going for labels that apply to your own nonsense, in order to pre-emptively play the "I know you are, but what am I" bit that was so much fun back in 1st grade. I'm anxiously awaiting the "I'm rubber and you're glue" response to come out of one of your posts soon if you don't give up first.
I am calling you a troll because you are trolling. Of course, you already knew that.
You aren't helping your own cause here, as you continue brushing off questions while now moving towards slinging petty insults in an attempt to distract from your own lack of knowledge on what you are talking about.
You should read more, and write less. There are plenty of more skilled trolls around here that you could learn from. Your form is weak. Wasting my time you are, but making me angry you are not. Maybe you get a rise out of just wasting peoples' time, if so great for you. Clearly you are not doing this to make a point, because you have made none. However if you are trying to enrage people, you aren't doing that, either.
Really the bigger question here is why you aren't posting at -1 like most other trolls here on slashdot. I presume that is just because you only come by once a month or so to troll, as opposed to trolls who practice regularly. Unfortunately, it is painfully obvious that you are out of practice. You may want to go back to 4chan for a while to get back into form.
If you mean General Motors, then you need to go back and read the question fully. General Motors does not fit the description offered, of a company that was doing well before the initiation of a union, and then fell apart immediately after. General Motors has had union workers for a very long time, and they were there when the company was doing very well. Indeed, the UAW/CAW at General Motors was a stronger union back when General Motors was the largest auto manufacturer in the world (as well as before then), so there is no basis for claiming that the creation or emergence of a union brought them down.
The fact that I am still here indicate that I am willing to debate you to the fullest.
That is nothing short of an outright lie. You have no desire to debate anyone. If you wanted to debate, you would have answered the questions posed to you. Instead you have avoided them at every turn.
You are just here to troll people. You are wasting our time. Go back into hiding and come back in another month or so, maybe you can fool someone else into thinking you are something other than a troll.
Laughing at being called out on being a troll is not an effective defense towards being shown to be a troll. You are not setting a good example for future trolls to follow.
Here's a hint for you - after you're done with your prank call, you're supposed to hang up the phone.
Victim: Hello?
You: Is your refrigerator running?
Victim: Yes, it is
You: Well you better go out and catch it!
click...
Is how it is supposed to work. You forgot the important step of hanging up and now you're being asked questions you aren't prepared to respond to.
Nothing you just said in any way helps your earlier claims. You are just one of many trolls here at slashdot. Go waste someone else's time instead of mine, since you still refuse to back up anything you say with any actual information. You have had numerous chances to answer questions and have skirted them every time. It's time you get your jollies somewhere else, troll.
Since I'm not familiar with that specific company - and the name "Building Technologies" is rather generic and not easy to search for - I will ask a follow-up question:
Were they unionized from the start, or did the workers join a union in the latter years?
The person who started this thread, and is not responding to my request for examples, specifically said that unions show up at existing companies and drive them bankrupt. I'm not saying your example is insufficient, but after a troll showed up already and tried to claim that an existing union was somehow responsible for taking down an entire company, I want to make sure that the query is clear.
I just looked at your comment history and now I see that indeed you're just a troll. You pop up every month or so and inject nonsense into existing conversations just because you get a rise out of it.
Which explains why you refuse to provide any facts, whatsoever, to back up your statements. I ask you why you believe something to be a certain way and you dodge it completely. I'm not sure what you are getting out of this other than wasting my time, but after this you won't be getting that, either. If your sense of reality is just whatever is spouted out on conservative talk radio, there is no reason for us to have this discussion because you will insist on remaining wrong in spite of evidence to the contrary.
Shoo, troll. Go back under your bridge and come back next month to annoy someone else.
When GM was successful, their unions aren't as greedy as they were today
Now you're talking out of your ass. The unions at GM are nowhere near as powerful today as they were when GM was wealthier. The unions have made numerous concessions over the past several decades, regardless of what Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh tell you.
Do you really think the unions during GM's heyday is the same as the one you see today?
They are a decidedly weaker union today than they were before. They are arguably the weakest union ever to represent GM in terms of what they have won for the workers recently in comparison to what they have conceded.
The answer is no, and if you claim to the contrary, then you really doesn't know history.
You don't seem to know history, or grammar.
GM unions are one of the greediest in USA, no doubt about that
That is an arbitrary metric, to be kind. There is not an industrialized nation in the world where the unions have less clout than the USA.
Even USPS unions doesn't hold a candle to GM unions when it comes to selfishness.
I would ask you to provide a reference for that, but I see no reason to expect that you would.
Oh, BTW, it wasn't me who say 'Today's unions have been known to bankrupt companies once they get on site' post.
I realized after I sent that reply that you entered into the conversation late. Being as you were replying to a specific query that I offered up in response to a specific comment from someone else in the conversation, I errantly expected you would know what you were replying to.
However now I realize while writing this reply that you have no idea what you are talking about. If you had more than conservative radio snippets to base your conversation on, this might be interesting.
1 guy, working in an apple store, SAYS he is unionizing. That's the story? I worked with a guy at Best Buy who said "Hey, we should try to form a union!" once. He didn't make front page of Slashdot.
This is a story because it is Apple. At least 90% of people on slashdot have an opinion of Apple; either positive or negative. Maybe 1 in 10 here have no opinion of them and would just say "meh" when you just mention them as a company.
On the other hand, many people here would say "meh" when you say Best Buy. Sure, they are the most prevalent consumer electronics retailer in the US, but I don't have to tell you where else geeks can buy stuff. Hence someone doing something like this at Best Buy is no big deal here.
If it were at a Sony or Microsoft store, it would be news here. Best Buy or WalMart, no.
General Motors had unions when they were successful, and had them when they were unsuccessful as well. They had unions when they grew to be the largest auto manufacturer in the world, and they had them when they fell from that pinnacle.
If you think their unions doesn't have any part whatsoever in causing it to go bankrupt
There were many factors in GM going broke. If you for some reason see the workers being the only reason, then I don't have anything to say to you.
Nonetheless, you earlier stated
Today's unions have been known to bankrupt companies once they get on site
And GM is not an example of this. Not in any way, shape or form, being as the unions were there while the company grew to be the enormous and highly successful company that it once was. No person of at least reasonable intelligence could possibly look at the collapse of GM as a supporting example of your statement.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, he wanted to offer subsidies to nonprofits that would give rides to people while the transit union was on strike. Blind people already were in a pickle what with the buses not running. The plan apparently didn't go through, however, and the strike lasted a month and a half.
That is actually a different situation than the one I had in mind.
Some may recall that one of Teflon Tim's closest friends during his first run for governor was David Strom, of the "Taxpayer's League" (one of the most ironic names ever). When he was running, and establishing himself as governor, he was pretty well doing whatever Strom wanted. Strom himself wanted the state government to buy used cars for everyone who used public transportation, so it could be shut down completely - I'm pretty sure that was before the strike ever occurred.
I'm not sure how that differs form our current POTUS, or the one before him, or the one before him, or the one before him, or any other POTUS I can think of ever.[Citation needed]
I'd like to see a specific example of this that wasn't a throwback to the neo-con abortion we just emerged from.
It is not clear if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me there...
So what do you do about people who are physically incapable of driving?
Used cars for them, too, of course! They can carpool with the blind people, the chronic drinkers, the children, and the elderly! We don't need buses when we have so many used car dealers!
You opt not to drive, you are opting to figure out what to do to get around.
What if you opt not to drive, because you currently have a reliable transportation system available to you that allows you to get to where you need to go without driving? If you took that system away, wouldn't you be taking freedom away from those people who made that choice?
It's not up to other citizens to solve your problem.
If there is a solution in place that someone can use, and they opt to use it, how are they counting on other citizens to solve their problem? They didn't ask the system to be built for them, they worked an existing system into their lives voluntarily.
If your county demolished the road in front of your house, because they felt that "It's not up to other citizens to solve your problem", wouldn't you be a bit upset over it? You likely bought your house expecting that the street in front of it - which of course you help pay for - would be there for you to use when you need it. If someone intentionally locates themselves in a place where they can use public transportation, and you take it away from them, you're doing the same thing as the county demolishing the road in front of your house and replacing it with an 8 foot deep lagoon.
Thank you for making it clear to me who the candidate with a working thought process is
Let me get this "thought process" straight, then:
----------
Helping people buy a house who were previously rejected for mortgages = bad, bad, bad, bad, bad
Giving people money to buy a used car who cannot currently afford to drive = infinite win of excellence?
-----------
I'm not sure I am familiar with this new definition of "thought process", really.
Ha, that didn't go the way you expected it, did it?
Actually, it did. I expected that only people with no grip on reality would think it to be a good idea to give used cars to people who cannot afford to drive.
yes... put money in the hands of poor people. What a radical concept.
OK, so you want to give poor people money to buy used cars. If you give Joe-Minimum-Wage, who currently rides the bus to work, $2k to buy a car, how long will he be able to afford insurance on the car? How about gas and parking (which he also didn't need to pay while riding the bus)? What if the car breaks down and he can't get to work?
What if Joe was a chronic drinker who liked to get plastered after work every night? He was getting home safely on the bus, and now you want him to drive home instead?
all I see is a gang of public sector workers walking away with a big bag of money
Yeah, I know so many wealthy bus drivers... Man, I don't know what they do with all that money they are paid! And they get to drive a 40+ foot vehicle all day for work? They should pay US for the privilege!
If mass transit can be provided by non-profits or by a business... more power to them. But they'll have to get every single penny from the people giving their cash or using their vouchers.
Actually the largest public transit system in MN - where Teflon Tim was supposedly governor - was funded mostly by fares. And they were non-profit. People could opt to go by taxi instead, of course, but they would generally prefer a bus if possible.
There is something wrong with getting rid of buses? Large gridlocked car less city's sure but the rest. Who do I have to vote for to have this happen?
There's plenty wrong. But nonetheless, if you want to get rid of buses, subways, trains, and anything else that resembles public transportation, you have your chance this year. Go vote for Teflon Tim Pawlenty, the man who was - on paper, anyways - the governor of MN for 8 years. He's been running for president since at least 2006, but this year he finally got around to declaring his candidacy.
He'd love to have your vote. If you find the right guy, in the right back room, before the right primary, you might be able to make some money off of it, too.
You are also overlooking those who for any of a variety of good reasons opt not to drive, or those who are legally forbidden from driving (repeat drunk offenders amongst others).
Of course, public safety always takes a back seat to profit.
A lot of people who started out against the unions watched the unions agree to a pay cut, a benefits cut, and even a temporary moratorium on collective bargaining
Sadly that doesn't matter to many people. The unions have become the new multipurpose boogeyman for any number of groups and causes. Go take a look at the recent story hear about an Apple Store employee who wanted to form a union, and look at how many slashdot people jumped up to bash unions in response.
I think he'd be hard pressed to explain his behavior on a national stage to anyone other than anti-union Republicans.
There are a lot of people in this country with strong anti-union feelings. And there are plenty of people who could be convinced to feel the same way as well. Explaining this to enough people to win the GOP nomination is trivial.
Besides, with our current conservative POTUS in office, the republicans have to go even further to the right in order to make any distinction between what they want and what Obama has already done. Anyone who isn't rabidly anti-union will be labelled as "soft left' as the kindest.
If Walker handled the country like he's handled Milwaukee County and is handling Wisconsin, we could look forward to becoming the United States of America Sponsored by BP(tm)
As opposed to our current status as The United States of America Owned Outright by BlueCross/BlueSheild?
This guy's given straight-up hand outs to corporations that donated to his campaign
I'm not sure how that differs form our current POTUS, or the one before him, or the one before him, or the one before him, or any other POTUS I can think of ever.
and then claimed we needed to end unions to make up the sudden shortfall
Unions are the universal boogeyman. I wouldn't be surprised if one of the GOP presidential contenders tries to blame them for 9/11 before the primary season is over.
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is just taking after his friend the former "governor" of Minnesota, Teflon Tim Pawlenty. Teflon Tim at one point wanted to move to dissolve the public transportation system (buses, primarily) and instead give waivers to poor people to buy used cars so they could get around on their own. You get the idea - put money in the hands of businesses, and ... whatever. Of course, he never said what he was going to do for the people who used public transportation because they were legally blind.
But either way, Walker is just trying to keep himself in view. His union-busting went well enough for his purposes, now he's on to frying other fish. He figures if his friend the nonsticky one can run for the GOP presidential nomination, he can too.
Your example of the post office doesn't work, either. You do realize that they formed a union in 1889, which was well before the peak revenue of the USPS, right?
... oh, yeah, E-MAIL. The post office doesn't make much money off of email, as far as I know. And strangely enough, the union doesn't have an effect on that lack of revenue.
And perhaps you've heard of this new method of sending personal correspondence (mail) electronically? what is it called again
Now go back under your bridge and turn your radio back on. Maybe Glenn Beck will have another bad example for you to offer up when you return next month to troll again.
Wow, you went far enough back to find a quote, yet you still cannot bother to find an example that properly addresses my question. My quote that you brought up was in direct response to someone claiming that businesses which were doing well previously were faced with a previously inexistent union and then promptly driven under. So far in this thread nobody has provided a single example of that actually happening.
Trolls like you have tried to dance around that problem, but nonetheless the question stands. Can you point to a company that started out without a unionized workforce, did well financially with the non-unionized workforce, then saw their workforce unionize and subsequently went under?
We have already addressed how GM is very much not an example of that happening. Can you find an example that actually is?
I won't be holding my breath, because addressing the question is not part of your troll mantra.
I will only stop when you stop promoting FUD that saying unions has nothing to do with GM bankruptcy.
I never said that. Not in this thread, not ever. Don't put words into my mouth just because your trolling looks better that way.
There is also the lie saying GM unions are weaker now than in the past (hint: it is not).
Stop lying. Anyone who knows anything about management-union negotiations at GM - or any of the big three - knows that the unions have made numerous concessions in the past decades. They don't have nearly the clout they used to.
You have no proof for these assertion of yours either, so can I call you a troll?
No, you cannot. The first assertion you made of me is inaccurate - as usual for you - and the second is actually rooted in reality (unlike your statements).
In other words, the accurate label is to call you a troll, because you are trolling.
Stop wasting our time, and the storage space on slashdot's servers. Your trolling isn't amusing, or useful. You avoid questions and brush them off with your utter lack of knowledge. Your meaningless bickering about anonymous posting doesn't mean anything here, either.
But then again, you haven't yet stated anything in here that did mean anything, so that is just par for the course. I also enjoy how you are now going for labels that apply to your own nonsense, in order to pre-emptively play the "I know you are, but what am I" bit that was so much fun back in 1st grade. I'm anxiously awaiting the "I'm rubber and you're glue" response to come out of one of your posts soon if you don't give up first.
I am calling you a troll because you are trolling. Of course, you already knew that.
You aren't helping your own cause here, as you continue brushing off questions while now moving towards slinging petty insults in an attempt to distract from your own lack of knowledge on what you are talking about.
You should read more, and write less. There are plenty of more skilled trolls around here that you could learn from. Your form is weak. Wasting my time you are, but making me angry you are not. Maybe you get a rise out of just wasting peoples' time, if so great for you. Clearly you are not doing this to make a point, because you have made none. However if you are trying to enrage people, you aren't doing that, either.
Really the bigger question here is why you aren't posting at -1 like most other trolls here on slashdot. I presume that is just because you only come by once a month or so to troll, as opposed to trolls who practice regularly. Unfortunately, it is painfully obvious that you are out of practice. You may want to go back to 4chan for a while to get back into form.
General Mills is still doing just fine.
If you mean General Motors, then you need to go back and read the question fully. General Motors does not fit the description offered, of a company that was doing well before the initiation of a union, and then fell apart immediately after. General Motors has had union workers for a very long time, and they were there when the company was doing very well. Indeed, the UAW/CAW at General Motors was a stronger union back when General Motors was the largest auto manufacturer in the world (as well as before then), so there is no basis for claiming that the creation or emergence of a union brought them down.
The fact that I am still here indicate that I am willing to debate you to the fullest.
That is nothing short of an outright lie. You have no desire to debate anyone. If you wanted to debate, you would have answered the questions posed to you. Instead you have avoided them at every turn.
You are just here to troll people. You are wasting our time. Go back into hiding and come back in another month or so, maybe you can fool someone else into thinking you are something other than a troll.
Now stop wasting our time.
Here's a hint for you - after you're done with your prank call, you're supposed to hang up the phone.
Victim: Hello?
You: Is your refrigerator running?
Victim: Yes, it is
You: Well you better go out and catch it!
click...
Is how it is supposed to work. You forgot the important step of hanging up and now you're being asked questions you aren't prepared to respond to.
Nothing you just said in any way helps your earlier claims. You are just one of many trolls here at slashdot. Go waste someone else's time instead of mine, since you still refuse to back up anything you say with any actual information. You have had numerous chances to answer questions and have skirted them every time. It's time you get your jollies somewhere else, troll.
Since I'm not familiar with that specific company - and the name "Building Technologies" is rather generic and not easy to search for - I will ask a follow-up question:
Were they unionized from the start, or did the workers join a union in the latter years?
The person who started this thread, and is not responding to my request for examples, specifically said that unions show up at existing companies and drive them bankrupt. I'm not saying your example is insufficient, but after a troll showed up already and tried to claim that an existing union was somehow responsible for taking down an entire company, I want to make sure that the query is clear.
I just looked at your comment history and now I see that indeed you're just a troll. You pop up every month or so and inject nonsense into existing conversations just because you get a rise out of it.
Which explains why you refuse to provide any facts, whatsoever, to back up your statements. I ask you why you believe something to be a certain way and you dodge it completely. I'm not sure what you are getting out of this other than wasting my time, but after this you won't be getting that, either. If your sense of reality is just whatever is spouted out on conservative talk radio, there is no reason for us to have this discussion because you will insist on remaining wrong in spite of evidence to the contrary.
Shoo, troll. Go back under your bridge and come back next month to annoy someone else.
When GM was successful, their unions aren't as greedy as they were today
Now you're talking out of your ass. The unions at GM are nowhere near as powerful today as they were when GM was wealthier. The unions have made numerous concessions over the past several decades, regardless of what Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh tell you.
Do you really think the unions during GM's heyday is the same as the one you see today?
They are a decidedly weaker union today than they were before. They are arguably the weakest union ever to represent GM in terms of what they have won for the workers recently in comparison to what they have conceded.
The answer is no, and if you claim to the contrary, then you really doesn't know history.
You don't seem to know history, or grammar.
GM unions are one of the greediest in USA, no doubt about that
That is an arbitrary metric, to be kind. There is not an industrialized nation in the world where the unions have less clout than the USA.
Even USPS unions doesn't hold a candle to GM unions when it comes to selfishness.
I would ask you to provide a reference for that, but I see no reason to expect that you would.
Oh, BTW, it wasn't me who say 'Today's unions have been known to bankrupt companies once they get on site' post.
I realized after I sent that reply that you entered into the conversation late. Being as you were replying to a specific query that I offered up in response to a specific comment from someone else in the conversation, I errantly expected you would know what you were replying to.
However now I realize while writing this reply that you have no idea what you are talking about. If you had more than conservative radio snippets to base your conversation on, this might be interesting.
1 guy, working in an apple store, SAYS he is unionizing. That's the story? I worked with a guy at Best Buy who said "Hey, we should try to form a union!" once. He didn't make front page of Slashdot.
This is a story because it is Apple. At least 90% of people on slashdot have an opinion of Apple; either positive or negative. Maybe 1 in 10 here have no opinion of them and would just say "meh" when you just mention them as a company.
On the other hand, many people here would say "meh" when you say Best Buy. Sure, they are the most prevalent consumer electronics retailer in the US, but I don't have to tell you where else geeks can buy stuff. Hence someone doing something like this at Best Buy is no big deal here.
If it were at a Sony or Microsoft store, it would be news here. Best Buy or WalMart, no.
General Motors?
General Motors had unions when they were successful, and had them when they were unsuccessful as well. They had unions when they grew to be the largest auto manufacturer in the world, and they had them when they fell from that pinnacle.
If you think their unions doesn't have any part whatsoever in causing it to go bankrupt
There were many factors in GM going broke. If you for some reason see the workers being the only reason, then I don't have anything to say to you.
Nonetheless, you earlier stated
Today's unions have been known to bankrupt companies once they get on site
And GM is not an example of this. Not in any way, shape or form, being as the unions were there while the company grew to be the enormous and highly successful company that it once was. No person of at least reasonable intelligence could possibly look at the collapse of GM as a supporting example of your statement.