# Ignorance and revelation (just trying to understand)



## Buddha In Babylon (Mar 23, 2009)

Before i get too far into what i want to say here, let me explain myself and preface my entry. I am a dues paying union member(and exceeingly hard working){Local 26}, and have been for almost a year. Not a long time for anything really, except maybe to be suffering from a disease. I have been aware for some time that union/non-union hostilities existed and that those same hostilities were based on differing views on the worth of unions themselves, and the opposing and supporting rhetoric and philosophies that abound within that same conflict. However, until recently, reading peoples posts on this site, i didn't know that sentiments were held so deeply that individuals began to detest each other and lines were being drawn not for principle or conviction, but for pride and self centered interests on both sides of the line. To be in the right. To be more correct than the other. 
In the past, men suffered because of their union affiliation, and it seems men suffered because of their non-union affiliation as well. I am young, so i have not witnessed any of this with my own eyes. In the end are we not all just puny worms on this planet trying to survive for a lifetime as electricians and are our differences so vast that verbal/physical abuse or assault is in order and has it ever or will it ever resolve those differences? I pray in my time i won't see this because i have to say that i would have a hard time stomaching anything or anyone that loses sight of this very easy and simple fact. It is against who i am to pursue conflict or violence in the interest of views. Short of invasion and tyrrany, i can think of nothing that justifies adopting views to that end. 
I am open to criticism on my opinions, and expect it actually. I want to know the why of this deal. If somebody reading this thinks to themself "this kid is a pu$$y, has no f'ing idea, doesn't deserve to be in the union, etc." please offer to me a response based on logic, reason, and the fundamentals of decency otherwise i may never understand why this is such a hot debate/fight. I am all ears.


----------



## drsparky (Nov 13, 2008)

I don't get it either brother. Some jobs we will have half a dozen electrical contractors both, union and not. We get along fine, sometimes I get asked about the union, I answer them the best answer I can and refer them to the hall if they are still interested. I don't wish anyone harm an don't see what the fuss is all about. I guess we will have radicals on both sides of every issue, 95% of us would like them just to shut up. :thumbsup:


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

From what I have seen, learned and been told, most of the angst between the two camps originates from Union men mistreating open shop men.

Sabotage on the job
Damage to vehicles
taunting, name calling
picketting.

I really see no reason why from the open shop stand point to care one way or the other if a guy is union, if none of the above occur.

From a union stand point, the bros feel open shop men are taking "their work" under mining their wage and benefits which leads to sabotage on the job, damage to vehicles, taunting, name calling and in some cases picketting.

I may be wrong on this and am sure I will be called out on a few items. Both sides have their right to work one side does not see it that way.


----------



## drsparky (Nov 13, 2008)

How far back do we take this grudge match? Henry Miller and the boys hid their tickets in their shoes to keep from getting killed. This forum is to exchange ideas and a little humor. Does anyone like it when it gets nasty? Some of the older folks may have issues with personal experiences of maltreatment but I would guess most are second hand. I just wish everyone would get over it, we all have more in common than not, we all electricians.


----------



## Minuteman (Dec 29, 2007)

brian john said:


> From what I have seen, learned and been told, most of the angst between the two camps originates from Union men mistreating open shop men.
> 
> Sabotage on the job
> Damage to vehicles
> ...


Stupid people are on both sides of the union issue. When my grandfather worked as a lineman and organizer, they had a Molotov's Cocktail tossed though the window. His brother-in-law's electrical service became signatory. Until the vote, he had tires slashed and windows broke on his trucks. It's just stupid.


----------



## George Stolz (Jan 22, 2009)

I did not realize how bitter some people were, until I saw some threads on this site. Now I more fully understand why some other sites opt to squelch all union/non-union discussion.

For what it's worth, I'd love to have more union influence in my area. From what I hear, they charge more, and would drive up prices and also send more business in my direction. :laughing:

A philosophical question for the really staunch union guy though: If a job is completed without a union ear being close enough to hear it, is it still stolen work?


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

drsparky said:


> Some of the older folks may have issues with personal experiences of maltreatment but I would guess most are second hand.


I am 45 and have more then a few personal experiences with the union intimidation tactics. I really enjoyed working with conduit that had been pissed on. 



> I just wish everyone would get over it,


I wish the world would have a group hug but it ain't as simple as wishing for it. 

From my perspective the people at the top of the unions need to come out and make a strong statement that the use of intimidation, name calling and vandalism are a thing of the past and then follow that up for real.


----------



## Rockyd (Apr 22, 2007)

Biggest problem is the union's member's (about 2 to 5% of them) are agitators and trouble makers, making it tough for the other 95% that actually may never hear of this forum, but just go to work everyday, and paybills...being ordinary American citizens. They don't know that we carry stupid along with us on the tail end.

The same can be said of the non-union sector.

All it takes is a few radicals to screw up a good thing. Beauty of this site is that most conversations are allowed to run their full course, and it shows who the asses are. Ya, the same bomb throwers from both sides that are too dumb to put a sock in it, and sound like they've had a couple of liquid shots of courage to lead them through their self flagation, and destruction of all associated.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

drsparky said:


> How far back do we take this grudge match? Henry Miller and the boys hid their tickets in their shoes to keep from getting killed. This forum is to exchange ideas and a little humor. Does anyone like it when it gets nasty? Some of the older folks may have issues with personal experiences of maltreatment but I would guess most are second hand. I just wish everyone would get over it, we all have more in common than not, we all electricians.


 
I really do not know the full history behind this, I do know the in the early 20th century union members did have a rough time, I would think most of this came from management and their baiting the employees. Much like what may be happening on the other side. That being said, the Germans and Japanese use to be our enemies today they are some of our closest allies. Maybe it is time to bury the hatchet and not in the opposing parties head!


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Rockyd said:


> Biggest problem is the union's member's (about 2 to 5% of them) are agitators and trouble makers, making it tough for the other 95% that actually may never hear of this forum, but just go to work everyday, and paybills...being ordinary American citizens. They don't know that we carry stupid along with us on the tail end........


So why does that 2-5% seem to be the only ones present in some picket lines? Wouldn't randomness mean that if there's 50 people on a picket, only 1 to 3 would be bad apples?

If so, why don't the remaining 47-49 'keep the peace' and try to corral the troublemakers?


----------



## Frasbee (Apr 7, 2008)

Lets all join the Union and shakes things up from the inside out.


----------



## sparkyboys (May 3, 2009)

i have nothing against the union other than that some think they are better electricians than nonunion and that you have to be union in order to get a high paying career and retirement. its just not true. thats all


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

Rockyd said:


> Biggest problem is the union's member's (about 2 to 5% of them) are agitators and trouble makers, making it tough for the other 95% that actually may never hear of this forum, but just go to work everyday, and paybills...being ordinary American citizens. They don't know that we carry stupid along with us on the tail end.


 
Most folks on either side of this issue just want their 40 hours, and able to go home I agree there are a small percentage that like to stir stuff up.


I know when the local here did picketting, everyone was suppose to picket once or twice a year, it was civil and just a day without pay. Though I did pay my men and to the man they all HATED picket duty seeing it as a waste of time.


----------



## John (Jan 22, 2007)

It all comes done to “Live and let Live”. People choose their own path in life.



drsparky said:


> Some of the older folks may have issues with personal experiences of maltreatment but I would guess most are second hand. I just wish everyone would get over it, we all have more in common than not, we all electricians.



I did when I first started out back in the mid 70’s and I made choices to avoid the IBEW whenever possible. I chose my path and I don’t need someone preaching to me that it was wrong.


----------



## mattsilkwood (Sep 21, 2008)

first off i could care less if a guy is union or not. the company i work for is mostly ex-union guys that in their words got fed up with the bs. 

ive never had any union guys mess with any jobs ive been on but i have heard stories, mostly from the older guys.

in my opinion the only advantage a union shop has over a merit shop is on extremely big jobs where a merit shop cant man it.

in my neck of the woods those are the only jobs they can seem to get.


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

In my 25 plus years working union, I have never seen, first hand, any violence or intimidation against non-union guys. We have always gone out of the way to help when ever we could. 
We were denied work for the Army Corps of Engineers after hurricane Andrew due to being union for some reason I still do not understand.
It takes a lot of persistence and effort to complete a formal apprenticeship and not every one has a chance to do it.
If you don't make it in the program before you are married with kids, its almost impossible to start from the bottom as a first year.
We were taught that if wanted to be an electrician than the only way was to spend 5 years in class and spend 10,000 hours OJT, then and only then could you call yourself a journeyman wireman.
We came to find out that some guys were called Journeymen when they had three years in the trade and passed a county exam. That kind of took away from what we had achieved.
We found out that the guys without a journeyman license were making 5 to 8 dollars an hour, with no health care or pension, same work as a first or second year apprentice without a license but for five dollars an hour less.
The non-union journeymen were making 10 to 12 dollars and hour, six to eight dollars an hour less than us. At the time we did not understand why they would work for so much less and no benefits. It was easy to think of non-union workers as second class.
I still do not understand the motivation unless it is just lack of opportunity. 
I would never use the word "merit" seems more like "demerit" to me.
I always wondered what the electricians wife would do if she found out that other people, doing the same work, are paid the equivalent of overtime and the boss is still making good money off of them.
Show up with your tools, give em 8 for 8, go home tired and dirty. That's what I was taught.:thumbsup:


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

Jarannis:

From name calling and sabotage of projects I worked on (both instances were by other union tradesman only had one run in with a union electrician) to being denied entrance to the union for 8 years. I was told I was not qualified and anything I had learned was wrong.

I knew I was good and never ran into any trained union men that were any better than the open shop men I worked with. For the most part I always made scale but I knew what was offered was better in the long run after 8 years in a MERIT shops the union came to me and I accepted the offer.

From my stand point their lack of foresight and wrongly made comments about my skills cost me at the time with future retirement. I have always felt the union wages and benefits are better, but I still have a hard feeling for the poor treatment I received.

When I first got in it was election time in the local, the president elect came to the job and was walking around shaking hands, when he got to me he went to shake my hand, one of his cronies whispered loud enough for me to hear "that's the one they are calling about", he pulled his hand back when another guy says his vote still counts out goes his hand as I turned and walked away.

Seems some of the bros had been calling the hall because I was given the job of testing transformers, I had an understanding of the job at hand and I guess they did not. They felt the rat boy (their writings on the walls) was stealing their work.

So I am pro union with an attitude and get extremely upset with the union lawyer types.


----------



## amptech (Sep 21, 2007)

jrannis said:


> In my 25 plus years working union, I have never seen, first hand, any violence or intimidation against non-union guys. We have always gone out of the way to help when ever we could.
> We were denied work for the Army Corps of Engineers after hurricane Andrew due to being union for some reason I still do not understand.
> It takes a lot of persistence and effort to complete a formal apprenticeship and not every one has a chance to do it.
> If you don't make it in the program before you are married with kids, its almost impossible to start from the bottom as a first year.
> ...


The main flaw in this statement is that the IBEW doesn't let everyone who wants to join in the program. You got it right when you mention the "lack of opportunity" as a source of motivation. That isn't every non-union electrician's reason for being non-union, but it is the reason for many. 
Myself, I chose non-union because of the market in my area. I don't work for less than my union counterparts. My total package to myself figures to be just over $80.00 an hour. I have nothing against the union. My only beef with the pro-union posters on this forum is their complete lack of respect for my personal choice. I would never tell someone they were stupid for choosing the union path. I would never call a union guy a liar when he tells me every union man on the job gives 100% for 8 hours every day. I would never call a union man a liar when he says every union JW is the best trained and most knowledgable JW there is. I can't refute him because I'm not on his job and I don't belong to his union. But some pro-union members of this forum must have crystal balls that allow them to see everything everywhere because they repeatedly make blanket statements about how non-union electricians are untrained hacks. That open shops are blatant exploiters of every worker they encounter. That management everywhere is always looking to rape labor and leave them in a broken, quivering pile. 
There are 2 union outfits in my area and I have very good relationships with both of them. I have loaned both of them equipment on occasion and materials when the local supply house ran short. They have both done the same for me. The only poor behavior I have witnessed first hand from the IBEW has been on this fourm and from the BA from a neighboring town. The IBEW guys who I've known and seen actually work for a living would never shovel this crap in my direction.


----------



## Minuteman (Dec 29, 2007)

The locals have organizing efforts, which includes bringing in several individuals per year. Since we have a state licensing act that requires 4 years experience, the hall here gives their own standardized test to those who have a state license and want to join. There is also a program for those without a state license or fail the hall's test.

The problem comes AFTER someone organizes in. That 2-5% that Rocky spoke of, put out a 100% effort to make the organized guys unwelcome. It doesn't take violence or blatant harassment. Just subtle and not so subtle acts that let the new guys know, that they are not welcome.

It's this sort of thing, that causes Unionism to have a bad name.


----------



## drsparky (Nov 13, 2008)

I guess I've always worked with a few radical nutcases that hassle the organized guys. They are looking for anything to make them feel comfortable. The same guys that have the piss on fill in the blank sticker on the back window of there pickup truck. We have a need to be part of a group and make it exclusive, even though there may be a million or more members.
You can trace this pattern of sets and subsets back to primitive society. Part of tribe, clan, cave, north wall of cave, sleeping spot. Each part brings with it a level of comfort. 
Do we need to continue this trait to survive? Of course, we haven’t evolved as much as we think.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

I hate that bumper sticker.


----------



## Buddha In Babylon (Mar 23, 2009)

drsparky said:


> Do we need to continue this trait to survive? Of course, we haven’t evolved as much as we think.


Well spoken and an interesting observation.

By the way, i was thinking about something in this thread earlier today at work...Someone said that a lot of the beef exists because both sides think they steal work from the other, but isn't that a bunch of crap? Isn't it the PM's and GC's job to find work for you whether you're union or not, and doesn't it seem like the market is pretty much open to both parties so long as the price is right? Mostly THAT is the bottom line for a lot of companies, and it's the higher ups JOB to secure a bid practically, so no single union electrician or non-union electrician should have this argument. If one should be mad about losing work to another company, union or otherwise, shouldn't that same anger be directed at the higher ups??? I don''t understand this notion as you can see...:confused1:


----------



## George Stolz (Jan 22, 2009)

It could be that the Union price will usually be a bit higher to cover the higher bargained wages, and you've got a few more people to pay for.

http://www.ibew.org/IBEW/index.htm
http://www.ibew.org/IBEW/directory/ivp.asp
http://www.ibew.org/IBEW/directory/iec.asp

And you've got people tracking politics, etc that a non-union shop doesn't...


----------



## Minuteman (Dec 29, 2007)

George Stolz said:


> And you've got people tracking politics, etc that a non-union shop doesn't...


There is political tracking on the non union side too. http://www.ieci.org/index.mv?screen=667&xsub=4


----------



## JES2727 (Mar 19, 2009)

brian john said:


> From a union stand point, the bros feel open shop men are taking "their work" under mining their wage and benefits ...


This has always been the root of the problem as far as I'm concerned. We've always viewed the non-union sector as the competition. But it's not a level playing field and that really takes the fun out of competing. _In general, _the non-unions guy cost less, and sometimes alot less. It's not because the union guys are overpaid, in my opinion, it's because the non-union guys aren't paid enough. It's similar to the recent flood of workers across our borders willing to work for less. I used to pay a guy 50 bucks to mow my lawn, now I can get it done for 30. That's good for me, but what about the guy I used to use? Should he lower his prices? Or should the new guy raise his? I view it as a race to the bottom. And as long as there are guys willing to work for less money there will be others getting angry. Unfortunately sometimes they vent with their anger in non-constructive ways. In a perfect world we would all be earning about the same amount and we could compete in a more sporting fashion.
Personally, I harbor no ill will toward any working man (or woman), regardless of their union affiliation (but I _wish_ we *all* had union cards). At the end of the day, we're all just trying to feed our families.


----------



## Rockyd (Apr 22, 2007)

> That's good for me, but what about the guy I used to use? Should he lower his prices? Or should the new guy raise his? I view it as a race to the bottom.


Consider the very definition of Capitalism -

Capitalism *is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. *Under capitalism the *state* is separated from economics (production and *trade*). 

There are a million parts of the sum, to make the whole of the issue. The biggest killer of capitalism at the current time is the lack of education of the populace as a whole. You can't compete with the illegal, how do you compete with a guy who wants to use your 4" stub up as a porta-potty, and is willing to work for less? Make INS and ICE get the illegals out of the country! This is our country, we are a country that is *supposed to be a country that follows the rule of law*. It's not nearly a union/non-union battle as nearly as much as it is getting the country on a forward path. The other part of ignorance in this country is the global warming/envirowhacko running all of our industry's overseas. 

We fix the health of the country, union, and non-union would all go up (rising tide raises all ships), and the electrical field would be much more of a level playing field. Right now I have to agree with a man who made the following observation - 

When questioned by a bystander about what type of government the founding fathers had framed in Philadelphia, Ben Franklin reportedly said, “It’s a republic, if you can keep it”.

The capitalist will pay whatever it takes when the country returns to it proper stature.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

But IMO the union limits membership, maybe they should be truly a BROTHERHOOD of ELECTRICAL WORKERS, let everybody in. Sign as many members as you can, not limit membership. Then open shops would have to hire from the BROTHERHOOD.

For sure the EXPERT training that some tout as why they are better does not show up in a lot of union projects I have seen from Boston, New York, Huston, Dallas, New Orleans, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Maryland, DC and Virginia.

I have seen excellent work and slop work in all places noted. so the issue with letting in guys that did not serve a full apprenticeship is OUT THE WINDOW IMO.


----------



## Buddha In Babylon (Mar 23, 2009)

a lot of interesting discussion here and valid points throughout. I am appreciative of everyone throwing in their two cents so that i can get a better handle on this issue and understand what i got myself into.

One thing about the IBEW that took me surprise completely when i first joined was the political tracking. Before i joined IBEW i had no idea about labor unions, political views on unions, etc. Shortly before the new presidential elections, Then Senator Obama was EVERYWHERE in the hall. Stickers, banners, posters...and i was getting **** in the mail even, telling me i was an idiot if i didn't vote for Obama. At that time i didn't realise how involved the union was in all this and frankly i was put off a little bit. I resent politics in every way and trust no man to rule other men. I realise it's unavoidable and possibly advantageous to have a government but let's just say i've never seen anything good come out of the government my whole life. So it left a bad taste in my mouth, the whole election. Anyhow why question is this...if the unions favor democratic candidates because the party has traditionally favored unions, does it stand to reason that non-union shops if they are involved in political tracking as heavily, favor Republicans??? I don't like politics in the least but i'm just curious.


----------



## cdnelectrician (Mar 14, 2008)

Well, here is my two cents on the whole thing....I still think unions are an important thing in this trade. I have not seen many open shops offering comparable wages and benefits (if any) to what the IBEW or other unions offer. And if it wasn't for what the IBEW fought for, we would all be working for 15 an hour and the compulsory licencing requirements and training to be an electrician would probably be non-existent. 

Before the shop I was working for at the time became union, I worked open shop for 6 years. And I worked with some really sharp guys in all places (a lot of whom I owe much of my experience to) I did however see a LOT of un-licenced guys that could not pass their exam or were just too lazy to keep at it working in the open shops. We had a few at the last company that got let go because they could not pass their exams when the company became union and they had been with said company for years. I also saw apprentices being sent out on service calls and being told to work live etc. when they are in their second year. Not to say all open shops do this, but I saw a lot of it happen. And one thing is for sure, I haven't seen that happen in the union as of yet.

The only thing I can't stand about the union is the politics and the backstabbing that goes on between union guys themselves. I also can't stand the way some of the union guys treat open shop guys. They can't seem to remember that at some point some of them were open shop too, and whoever was running the shop they started at in the first place gave them a chance to get started in the trade. 

I care about this trade. I'm just out here trying to make a living, and doing what is in my best interest to make that living.:thumbup:


----------



## garvin (Mar 29, 2009)

*Hubris* (/hjuːbrɪs/) (ancient Greek ὕβρις) is a term used in modern English to indicate overweening pride, superciliousness, or arrogance, often resulting in fatal retribution or nemesis. In ancient Greece, hubris referred to actions which, intentionally or not, shamed and humiliated the victim, and frequently the perpetrator as well. It was most evident in the public and private actions of the powerful and rich. The word was also used to describe actions of those who challenged the gods or their laws, especially in Greek tragedy, resulting in the protagonist's downfall.
Hubris, though not specifically defined, was a legal term and was considered a crime in classical Athens. It was also considered the greatest sin of the ancient Greek world. That was so because it was not only proof of excessive pride, but also resulted in violent acts by or to those involved. The category of acts constituting hubris for the ancient Greeks apparently broadened from the original specific reference to mutilation of a corpse, or a humiliation of a defeated foe, or irreverent "outrageous treatment" in general.
The meaning was eventually further generalized in its modern English usage to apply to any outrageous act or exhibition of pride or disregard for basic moral laws. Such an act may be referred to as an "act of hubris", or the person committing the act may be said to be hubristic. _Ate|Atë_, ancient Greek for "ruin, folly, delusion," is the action performed by the hero, usually because of his/her hubris, or great pride, that leads to his/her death or downfall.


Nothing new under the sun.........

What about now a days is "*Hubris" *part of the current US speak?


----------



## garvin (Mar 29, 2009)

Uh ……I meant U.S. legal speak? :001_huh:


----------



## garvin (Mar 29, 2009)

uhmmm...can i catch the bus:thumbsup:.....er no wait....


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

Garvin are you alluding to the false sense of superiority in some bros of the IBEW?


----------



## Buddha In Babylon (Mar 23, 2009)

i would imagine he is...and actually it is pretty right on, if you ask me. Also i love words and etymology so thanks to garvin for teaching us all a good word.


----------



## steelersman (Mar 15, 2009)

brian john said:


> Garvin are you alluding to the false sense of superiority in some bros of the IBEW?


I think he is alluding that some of the actions of some of the unions and their members is similar or basically the same thing as Hubris.


----------



## miller_elex (Jan 25, 2008)

Hubris means going against the natural design.

I find it natural that a group of people that all do the same specialized skill for a living would get together and set a floor in the wages instead of undercutting each other.

Hell, companys that all do similar business and are in competition with each other, get together and form associations for their common good, what is so wrong about the working men doing that?

How people really get their head screwed on backwards, is when the business association tells the working man what is best for him, i.e. IEC and ABC. There's no way I let the NECA tell me what's best for me, they want the same thing the IEC, ABC, and AGC all want at the core of it, the most labor for the lowest price.


----------



## miller_elex (Jan 25, 2008)

Buddha In Babylon said:


> unions, does it stand to reason that non-union shops if they are involved in political tracking as heavily, favor Republicans???


Hell yeah the non-union shops favor the Republicans! Some of the electricians don't, but most do. There are Democrats and Republicans split up-and-down on both sides.

I was working non-union during the Bush/Kerry election, and the shop wasted no time mailing me a form letter telling me why I should vote for W. That non-union shop did the sharpest work I've ever seen, it all had to be done right, no shortcuts. The shop originally splintered off a large union shop and when they all went to the hall to take the new company union, the hall said, 'no room for you.' It was a big mistake on the hall's part. 

Believe it or not, I am a Democrat. But I get along way better with Republicans, my family are all Republicans of the Siege mentality apocalypse bunker type, so I can relate very well with most Republicans. 

There are the Right-wing religious Republicans, and the business Republicans. I can relate to the religious ones, but the business ones are the guys who are out to snuff the American worker out under his heel in the dust.

If you can go to work, and avoid political venting, you will go further. When someone vents politically at break, pick up the paper and ignore them. When the subject reverts to the acceptable, smile, listen, and pay attention. Its called operant conditioning, check out BF Skinner.

People don't follow hate, thats why the Republicans took such a trouncing last two times around.


----------



## steelersman (Mar 15, 2009)

miller_elex said:


> Hubris means going against the natural design.


 
Well I don't know where you get that from but according to my dictionary it means exactly what garvin said it means and that is this: hu·bris [ hybriss ]

noun Definition: 1. *pride: *excessive pride or arrogance

2. *excessive ambition: *the excessive pride and ambition that usually leads to the downfall of a hero in classical tragedy

[Late 19th century. < Greek]


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

Rockyd said:


> Consider the very definition of Capitalism -
> 
> Capitalism *is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. *Under capitalism the *state* is separated from economics (production and *trade*).
> 
> ...


This kind of rhetoric always gets my back up, mainly due to the simple fact that the implied "truth" in this statement is the notion that the founding fathers of this country had some kind of pure basis in forming an unspoiled society on a free and pristine land. Let's be clear: the founding fathers were a bunch of marauding, thieving thugs who killed the natives who lived here and stole their land. Then they pushed the remaining ones off of their land and put them in "reservations" (forced encampments) in mostly desert and barren areas. The founding fathers were boat people from other countries, much like the illegal immigrants are today. The people who built this nation stole people from their homes and used them as slaves to farm the land, under force. Later populations who "emigrated" to this country, such as the Irish and Asians, were denigrated, abused, and mistreated much as the illegals of today, and offered low paying jobs much as the illegals of today (they, also being "boat people"). What the founding fathers framed, in my personal opinion, is now irrelevant and bears little or no resemblance to the USA of today. Take it for what it is, but the truth will set you free. The USA is a capitalist society framed by a half a million laws, where the dollar rules. If you have a corporation and have to go to court about anything, you can't even represent yourself, you have to have a lawyer. IMO the only brotherhood that really exists in this country is the brotherhood of lawyers.

Now you can attack me if you want, but make no mistake, I am proud to be an American, and would live nowhere else. But facts are facts.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

Wildleg:

Unless you are blind to history and the ways of the world, this was and has been the ways of man since caveman. Do you have any doubt anyone else would have acted any different?

Not saying you are saying this, BUT the hugs and kisses groups that think a kinder gentler approach is best usually get theirs in the end, unfortunately that end is usually as a slave in or ead.


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

brian john said:


> Wildleg:
> 
> Unless you are blind to history and the ways of the world, this was and has been the ways of man since caveman. Do you have any doubt anyone else would have acted any different?
> 
> Not saying you are saying this, BUT the hugs and kisses groups that think a kinder gentler approach is best usually get theirs in the end, unfortunately that end is usually as a slave in or ead.


 
agreed and well said. Whenever the "founding fathers" are brought into the discussion to support things (especially involving "illegals" or "boat people") it just rubs me the wrong way.


----------



## gilbequick (Oct 6, 2007)

480sparky said:


> So why does that 2-5% seem to be the only ones present in some picket lines? Wouldn't randomness mean that if there's 50 people on a picket, only 1 to 3 would be bad apples?
> 
> If so, why don't the remaining 47-49 'keep the peace' and try to corral the troublemakers?


Probably the same reasons that the whiny-offeneded of this country are the ones who are catered to and not the way-to-silent majority who don't care about all of the PC crap.


----------



## Rockyd (Apr 22, 2007)

> agreed and well said. Whenever the "founding fathers" are brought into the discussion to support things (especially involving "illegals" or "boat people") it just rubs me the wrong way.


Clue,

The founding fathers wrote "The Constitution" which is the basis of law for the United States. So if you don't like what they said, go lobby DC to get it changed, or did it simply offend you that i might have a leg to stand on?


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

the founding fathers were the original foreign language speaking immigrants, arrived on a boat with little more that the shirts on their backs, refused to learn the language already spoken here, kept coming in regardless of whether they were wanted or not. sound familiar ?


----------



## miller_elex (Jan 25, 2008)

Ben Franklin was all about getting naked and smoking pot too,

I always looked upto the FF's, but now I found something I can relate to in my dear Uncle Ben!


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

wildleg said:


> the founding fathers were the original foreign language speaking immigrants, arrived on a boat with little more that the shirts on their backs, refused to learn the language already spoken here, kept coming in regardless of whether they were wanted or not. sound familiar ?


 
Not at all, for the times we did what was the thing which for Europeans was colonizing the world kick our ass or we kick yours.

Not if the illegals want to follow those principals.:thumbup:

We need to get a handle on our boarders legals are allowed illegals have to go, be it through busting the employers or the illegal crossers.


----------



## prldrp1 (Jun 1, 2009)

All the talk...union....non-union hey how ever a guy makes an honest buck is fine by me. I have been a #134 union electrician for 32 years, there are a few more benifits at being union than not I feel. Most non union wages are based on the union scale, a union worker usually has better benifits.....here in Chicago 90% all medical paid....dental, braces for the kids teeth, step-kids covered, we pay $90 bucks for a pair of bifocaled eyeglasses, we have 2 pension plans and a wage of over $40 an hour on the check, we don't have to go to the boss for raises, and like I am right now, besides collecting state unemployment, the union kicks in an additional $200.00 a week, and continues our health insurance, so these pro's deffinetly outway the con's of being a union guy in my opinion, but let each decide for themselves


----------



## amptech (Sep 21, 2007)

wildleg said:


> the founding fathers were the original foreign language speaking immigrants, arrived on a boat with little more that the shirts on their backs, refused to learn the language already spoken here, kept coming in regardless of whether they were wanted or not. sound familiar ?


I always chuckle when I hear someone describing the early colonists as poor, just the shirt on their back, have-nothings. The fact of the matter is it took a considerable investment to come to the new world as a colonist. True, some came as indentured servants, but for the most part they were pretty well-healed. Boat fare alone was a small fortune plus supplies to get started on once they got here. You also just couldn't jump a boat to get here. You had to have permission and pay a fee or get sponsorship. Then you had to have a letter of character from your local authority(I have a copy of my family's letter from 1691). Then once you were here and established good ole Mother England sent the tax collector over yearly to collect.


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

brian john said:


> Not at all, for the times we did what was the thing which for Europeans was colonizing the world kick our ass or we kick yours.
> 
> Not if the illegals want to follow those principals.:thumbup:
> 
> We need to get a handle on our boarders legals are allowed illegals have to go, be it through busting the employers or the illegal crossers.


 
If the majority of the people in this country want to close the borders, then fine, by rule of law, its a done deal. However, I think a few changes should be in order. For instance, they should take the current inscription on the Statue of Liberty which reads: 
*"Give me your tired, your poor,*
*Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,*
*The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.*
*Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,*
*I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" *

*and change it to, perhaps:*
*"Stay the f**k out mo**erf***ers"*​


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

brian john said:


> But IMO the union limits membership, maybe they should be truly a BROTHERHOOD of ELECTRICAL WORKERS, let everybody in. Sign as many members as you can, not limit membership. Then open shops would have to hire from the BROTHERHOOD.
> 
> For sure the EXPERT training that some tout as why they are better does not show up in a lot of union projects I have seen from Boston, New York, Huston, Dallas, New Orleans, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Maryland, DC and Virginia.
> 
> I have seen excellent work and slop work in all places noted. so the issue with letting in guys that did not serve a full apprenticeship is OUT THE WINDOW IMO.


I haven't been to half the places you list, but I have been on plenty of union and nonunion projects in NY and can tell you emphatically that the skillset from labor right on up through management in nonunion shops just isn't there. 

I spent the better part of my career "cleaning up" recently organized shops where they were in a pickle and asked the union for some exceptionally good help. Most of these were on public works projects and the common thread with each of them was foreman who lacked proper training, (from print reading to people skills) and project managers and estimators who lacked proper training, and both dug themselves holes attempting to squeeze a dime out of a nickel, making expensive "cost-saving" decisions that caused massive overruns.

For sure there is good and bad on both sides. (And of course, I wouldn't have been sent to a good organized shop) But when the bad rears it's ugly head on a union project, it's not because of lack of knowledge or skills on the part of labor.


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

miller_elex said:


> Hell yeah the non-union shops favor the Republicans! Some of the electricians don't, but most do. There are Democrats and Republicans split up-and-down on both sides.
> 
> I was working non-union during the Bush/Kerry election, and the shop wasted no time mailing me a form letter telling me why I should vote for W. That non-union shop did the sharpest work I've ever seen, it all had to be done right, no shortcuts. The shop originally splintered off a large union shop and when they all went to the hall to take the new company union, the hall said, 'no room for you.' It was a big mistake on the hall's part.
> 
> ...


The last Republican administration, and the prior Republican stranglehold on the house and senate stood for nothing like what the real Republican party stood for. 

Whatever party you side with, or even if none at all, keep in mind that life is a game and we're the spectators. The gameplayers are forcing us to choose sides and while we all get wrapped up in waving our own banner and hope the other side loses, not many of us are actually watching the game being played.


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

wildleg said:


> If the majority of the people in this country want to close the borders, then fine, by rule of law, its a done deal. However, I think a few changes should be in order. For instance, they should take the current inscription on the Statue of Liberty which reads:
> *"Give me your tired, your poor,*
> *Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,*
> *The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.*
> ...


Keep in mind the French wrote that inscription, and it does not constitute US immigration policy. Appropriate for a time when America was younger, and actually needed tired, poor, huddled, uneducated masses to build dams, railroads, subways, bridges...

Today, the last thing America needs is unskilled labor. All it does is supress the natural supply/demand economic system to depress wages. 

We cannot beat the drum of "Freedom and capatilism for the US... HORRAY!" while simultaniously introducing a foreign component to artifically manipulate the balance of power.


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> Keep in mind the French wrote that inscription, and it does not constitute US immigration policy. Appropriate for a time when America was younger, and actually needed tired, poor, huddled, uneducated masses to build dams, railroads, subways, bridges...
> 
> Today, the last thing America needs is unskilled labor. All it does is supress the natural supply/demand economic system to depress wages.
> 
> We cannot beat the drum of "Freedom and capatilism for the US... HORRAY!" while simultaniously introducing a foreign component to artifically manipulate the balance of power.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

Wild leg I NEVER SAID CLOSE THE BORDERS. Legals are welcomed, illegals NOT WELCOMED, I say go after employers and workers.


----------



## Minuteman (Dec 29, 2007)

brian john said:


> Wild leg I NEVER SAID CLOSE THE BORDERS. Legals are welcomed, illegals NOT WELCOMED, I say go after employers and workers.


100% agreement :thumbsup:


----------



## amptech (Sep 21, 2007)

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> Keep in mind the French wrote that inscription, and it does not constitute US immigration policy. Appropriate for a time when America was younger, and actually needed tired, poor, huddled, uneducated masses to build dams, railroads, subways, bridges...
> 
> Today, the last thing America needs is unskilled labor. All it does is supress the natural supply/demand economic system to depress wages.
> 
> We cannot beat the drum of "Freedom and capatilism for the US... HORRAY!" while simultaniously introducing a foreign component to artifically manipulate the balance of power.


For the record, Emma Lazarus, an American poet, wrote the poem "The New Colossus" that is on the plaque of the Statue of Liberty. And it is not U.S. immigration policy. I fully support legal immigration to this country.


----------



## steelersman (Mar 15, 2009)

amptech said:


> I fully support legal immigration to this country.


 
I think most Americans support "legal" immigration to this country, however, unfortunately there are quite a few who also support "illegal" immigration to this country and try to defend it by pointing out that current Americans originally immigrated here from Europe. Difference is that Europeans back in the day immigrated here "legally" through Ellis Island and had a strong desire to be "American" and learn to speak "English" and fly an "American" flag. I am in full support of "legal" immigration to this country as well as long as the immigrants have this same desire. I see too many El Salvadorian or Honduran bumper sticker flags on old Celicas and Civics. It irritates me sometimes. Every once in a while I see a Hispanic person wearing something with a US flag on it and it totally makes me want to go up to them and embrace them (hug or handshake depending on their gender) and give them words of encouragement. These are the ones that I like. :thumbsup:


----------



## e57 (Jun 5, 2009)

Well it looks like the street gang differences between Union or not can be put aside so long as there is a bonding of opinion on anyone from outside the country?

I work with a lot of latino guys who have often been falsely confused with being 'illegal' solely due to the accent and color of skin. (Most of which were born here in the first place.) But on one occassion some great white dope decided to tell one of these guys he should go back to his own country. This persons reply was fantastic... "Hey Jethro - this was Mexico 150 years ago - how about I throw you out of my country?!?" (This of course had no response - as this individual was not used to having people stand up to him.)

On both the matter of race, and of Union or not - there has to be a middle ground where the continous insult stops - and the stereotypes are put aside. However I think that day is well off in the distant future.


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

e57 said:


> But on one occassion some great white dope decided to tell one of these guys he should go back to his own country. This persons reply was fantastic... "Hey Jethro - this was Mexico 150 years ago - how about I throw you out of my country?!?" (This of course had no response - as this individual was not used to having people stand up to him.)


I would never tell someone to "go back to where they came from," however, when confronted with the "Mexico used to be part of the U.S" angle, I would point out that Mexico is a chaotic, desperately poor 3rd world country, while California has one of the largest and most powerful economies in the entire world. I would ask if the southwestern states would have been better off in Mexico's hands or the United States'.


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

steelersman said:


> I think most Americans support "legal" immigration to this country, however, unfortunately there are quite a few who also support "illegal" immigration to this country and try to defend it by pointing out that current Americans originally immigrated here from Europe. Difference is that Europeans back in the day immigrated here "legally" through Ellis Island and had a strong desire to be "American" and learn to speak "English" and fly an "American" flag. I am in full support of "legal" immigration to this country as well as long as the immigrants have this same desire. I see too many El Salvadorian or Honduran bumper sticker flags on old Celicas and Civics. It irritates me sometimes. Every once in a while I see a Hispanic person wearing something with a US flag on it and it totally makes me want to go up to them and embrace them (hug or handshake depending on their gender) and give them words of encouragement. These are the ones that I like. :thumbsup:


tell that to the American Indians


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

Peter D said:


> I would never tell someone to "go back to where they came from," however, when confronted with the "Mexico used to be part of the U.S" angle, I would point out that Mexico is a chaotic, desperately poor 3rd world country, while California has one of the largest and most powerful economies in the entire world. I would ask if the southwestern states would have been better off in Mexico's hands or the United States'.


 
yes .

(you asked)


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

wildleg said:


> yes .
> 
> (you asked)


Now you are just showing ignorance or a disdain for America.

If California is such a bad place why do so many from South of the Boarder head there?

As for the Indians, past history. While we must know and understand history I/WE/you cannot be held responsible for what someone else's ancestors did. My family immigrated in 1889 and 1981.

Should I be held accountable for the English my ancestors killed?


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

wildleg said:


> yes .
> 
> (you asked)


Wow, that was a thrillingly compelling answer. :blink:


----------



## RePhase277 (Feb 5, 2008)

wildleg said:


> yes .
> 
> (you asked)


Guess what? They lost the war, and thus the territory. They want it back, they have to get by the same means that we did... Kick somebody's ass and take it. To hell with them. If they were better fighters, they'd still have it. Punks.

It is obvious that you have a clear dislike of America. Tell you what, Stalin, there's plenty of land on the surface of the earth that few, if any, have ever seen. Get packin'...


----------



## amptech (Sep 21, 2007)

InPhase277 said:


> Guess what? They lost the war, and thus the territory. They want it back, they have to get by the same means that we did... Kick somebody's ass and take it. To hell with them. If they were better fighters, they'd still have it. Punks.
> 
> It is obvious that you have a clear dislike of America. Tell you what, Stalin, there's plenty of land on the surface of the earth that few, if any, have ever seen. Get packin'...


While I am pretty sure I would disagree with the majority of wildleg's opinions, from what I have read here, I absolutely defend his right to have/express them. 
And as far as the race thing goes, that has nothing to do with it as far as I am concerned. I don't care where you come from. Just do it legally.


----------



## steelersman (Mar 15, 2009)

I guess I need to point out that all Wildleg said was "yes". Well if you read the question carefully you'll find that it can't be answered with yes or no. The answer is either Mexico or U.S., not yes or no. I believe Wildleg was just trying to be funny. Think about it.:thumbsup:


----------



## RePhase277 (Feb 5, 2008)

amptech said:


> While I am pretty sure I would disagree with the majority of wildleg's opinions, from what I have read here, I absolutely defend his right to have/express them.
> And as far as the race thing goes, that has nothing to do with it as far as I am concerned. I don't care where you come from. Just do it legally.


I agree that race has nothing to do with it. Well, I'm sure there are plenty of racist idiots out there that turn it that way. Also, Wildleg is completely entitled to his opinion(s). However, I also believe that if you have a great distaste for the country you live in, you should find a place to live that is more to your liking. It's quite amazing, this America. You can go there, and be free to live your life as you please, and then completely bitch about the place that has granted you that freedom. Try that in Red China.


----------



## steelersman (Mar 15, 2009)

I will post this again, since it seems that some haven't noticed. Maybe you can chime in and tell me if you think I'm right or wrong.

I guess I need to point out that all Wildleg said was "yes". Well if you read the question carefully you'll find that it can't be answered with yes or no. The answer is either Mexico or U.S., not yes or no. I believe Wildleg was just trying to be funny. Think about it.:thumbsup:


----------



## RePhase277 (Feb 5, 2008)

steelersman said:


> I will post this again, since it seems that some haven't noticed. Maybe you can chime in and tell me if you think I'm right or wrong.
> 
> I guess I need to point out that all Wildleg said was "yes". Well if you read the question carefully you'll find that it can't be answered with yes or no. The answer is either Mexico or U.S., not yes or no. I believe Wildleg was just trying to be funny. Think about it.:thumbsup:


Yes, I can see how that could be the case. I personally didn't quote his "yes" post due to its content. He clearly has a dislike for this country. Apparently it's routed in what some long-dead Europeans did to some long-dead Indians. Both ancestors of mine, I might add.

Fact still remains, if Mexico, or any other country for that matter, wants the border states back, they are going to have to win them in a bloody, bloody war. And even then, they likely won't get much use out of them, because they will have to kill every single true American to get any peace afterward.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

amptech said:


> While I am pretty sure I would disagree with the majority of wildleg's opinions, from what I have read here, I absolutely defend his right to have/express them.
> And as far as the race thing goes, that has nothing to do with it as far as I am concerned. I don't care where you come from. Just do it legally.



I am all for free speech and I appreciate his responses but we have the advantage of responding in like. Our responses should not bother you anymore than his, IF YOU TRUELY BELIEVE.


----------



## amptech (Sep 21, 2007)

I'm not sure exactly what you mean but no, nobody's opinions affect me one way or the other. I have plenty of my own and am pretty set in my way of thinking.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

amptech said:


> I'm not sure exactly what you mean but no, nobody's opinions affect me one way or the other. I have plenty of my own and am pretty set in my way of thinking.


My point was that both sides of the story have a right to be heard.

Many in our country believe in free speech for their side but do not want to hear the other side.

I have never been a believer in Love it or Leave it. Love it or work for change.


----------



## Rockyd (Apr 22, 2007)

Well said Brian John. Wild Leg seems to have a distinct dislike for America. Maybe he should look at a little bit more modern history. 

How does he think WWII was won? I thank Oppenhiemer, and the men who had the courage to migrate here (Fermi and others) and develop the Manhattan Project. Think about the codetalkers and what they contributed. Maybe Wild Leg would rather have us speaking German or Japanese?

Illegal immigrants are an insult to all those who did the legwork to actually become citizens the legal way. What war, or major effort has Mexico helped us in (crickets chirping)? Being allowed to come to the United States is a *privilege*, not a right. The only free pass I'm even in the mind to consider is if you are willing to do two years in a "HOT ZONE" defending America in the military, then you and your immeadiate family can get a pass. Other than that, what is you bring to the table, or have risked to be here?


----------



## amptech (Sep 21, 2007)

brian john said:


> My point was that both sides of the story have a right to be heard.
> 
> Many in our country believe in free speech for their side but do not want to hear the other side.
> 
> I have never been a believer in Love it or Leave it. Love it or work for change.


I'm not a "love it or leave it" kind of person either. It saddens me when people trash-talk this country and go on about how evil the US is. I've noticed a trend in the last few years with people of an ultra-liberal stance invoking the "freedom of speech" mantra whenever someone is stumping for same sex marriage or abortion rights. But when anyone attempts to voice an opposing opinion they are branded a gay-basher or a religous fanatic and are drowned out in a roar of hate speech. I fear that a large portion of society, in an attempt to be very open-minded, has allowed a whole bunch of trash to be thrown in and taken for truth.


----------



## amptech (Sep 21, 2007)

e57 said:


> Well it looks like the street gang differences between Union or not can be put aside so long as there is a bonding of opinion on anyone from outside the country?
> 
> I work with a lot of latino guys who have often been falsely confused with being 'illegal' solely due to the accent and color of skin. (Most of which were born here in the first place.) But on one occassion some great white dope decided to tell one of these guys he should go back to his own country. This persons reply was fantastic... "Hey Jethro - this was Mexico 150 years ago - how about I throw you out of my country?!?" (This of course had no response - as this individual was not used to having people stand up to him.)
> 
> On both the matter of race, and of Union or not - there has to be a middle ground where the continous insult stops - and the stereotypes are put aside. However I think that day is well off in the distant future.


When I was in high school(around '75)we had a Vietnamese lady and her 2 sons come in to the community via the refugee sponsorship program. The oldest boy was 13 and spoke english pretty well. This was the first non-white student at my very small very rural Indiana school. A loudmouth, ******* bully called him a "*****" on his second day at school. He looked the much larger than him bully in the eye and said, "I'm from South Viet Nam. That makes me a ****, not a *****." Everybody there was on the floor laughing. The bully slinkered away red-faced and never bothered him again. Tahn, the Vietnamese guy, was a great kid. Super athlete, loaded with personality and graduated #2 in his class. I asked him once if he ever regretted having to leave Viet Nam. He said no, there wasn't any family back there because they had all been killed by either the NVA or VC. He just wanted to work and study hard and experience the best America had to offer.


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

amptech said:


> I've noticed a trend in the last few years with people of an ultra-liberal stance invoking the "freedom of speech" mantra whenever someone is stumping for same sex marriage or abortion rights. But when anyone attempts to voice an opposing opinion they are branded a gay-basher or a religous fanatic and are drowned out in a roar of hate speech. I fear that a large portion of society, in an attempt to be very open-minded, has allowed a whole bunch of trash to be thrown in and taken for truth.


Yes, there is a very obvious double standard. I'm not worried though - judgement day is coming. :thumbsup:


----------



## miller_elex (Jan 25, 2008)

Peter D said:


> judgement day is coming. :thumbsup:


AMEN to that!!

I can't wait for the rapture to take away all you kooks!:thumbup:

Nobody here in the NW is going to miss the Bible Belt, its you folks coming here looking for jobs that drives down the wages for the rest of us!:laughing:


----------



## amptech (Sep 21, 2007)

:laughing:


miller_elex said:


> AMEN to that!!
> 
> I can't wait for the rapture to take away all you kooks!:thumbup:
> 
> Nobody here in the NW is going to miss the Bible Belt, its you folks coming here looking for jobs that drives down the wages for the rest of us!:laughing:


Hater!:laughing:


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

miller_elex said:


> AMEN to that!!
> 
> I can't wait for the rapture to take away all you kooks!:thumbup:



Too bad I don't believe in the whole rapture theology.


----------



## steelersman (Mar 15, 2009)

I don't like bible thumpers. :no:


----------



## amptech (Sep 21, 2007)

What makes someone a "bible thumper"?


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

steelersman said:


> I don't like bible thumpers. :no:


That's really too bad. I thought you didn't dislike anyone? 

What's worse in your mind? "Bible thumpers" with Bibles, or Muslims with swords ready to cut your head off?


----------



## steelersman (Mar 15, 2009)

Peter D said:


> That's really too bad. I thought you didn't dislike anyone?
> 
> What's worse in your mind? "Bible thumpers" with Bibles, or Muslims with swords ready to cut your head off?


I'll take the swords for $1000 Alex. At least I'll die quickly and won't have to suffer.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

I like most people, radicals in any persuasion are usually the issue.


----------



## amptech (Sep 21, 2007)

brian john said:


> I like most people, radicals in any persuasion are usually the issue.


True dat:thumbsup:


----------



## steelersman (Mar 15, 2009)

yes, I second dat true dat!


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

brian john said:


> From what I have seen, learned and been told, most of the angst between the two camps originates from Union men mistreating open shop men.
> 
> Sabotage on the job
> Damage to vehicles
> ...


 You hit the nail on the head. When I was working for one outfit we got all our trucks tires slashed, windows busted, and some tools stolen. All because my boss was awarded a big job wiring a Party City headquarters. And Ill never forget all those guys picketing with their big rat doll. My boss finally agreed to hire three guys to keep the peace. And these guys did nothing but slack off when they could, broke tools (two drills, three fish tapes, one fiberglass fish tape, and lost several core drill bits and a sawzall) Its funny because up until they came on board no tools were lost or broken. My boss had a tool incentive, where if you managed to keep all your truck tools intact all year and nothing went missing you got a 300 dollar bonus. So everyone was real careful, except these three knuckleheads. And all they did was bitch and preach their union crap.

Now that I'm a little older and wiser I have no ill feelings towards them anymore and they definitely have their place in the food chain. I dont know of many private contractors that can do big big big jobs like high rises and such. 
And sometimes I can almost sympathise with them. Especially when I see fellas doing service changes for 1200 bucks. I say to myself "if we were all union this wouldn't happen".


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> I haven't been to half the places you list, but I have been on plenty of union and nonunion projects in NY and can tell you emphatically that the skillset from labor right on up through management in nonunion shops just isn't there.
> 
> I spent the better part of my career "cleaning up" recently organized shops where they were in a pickle and asked the union for some exceptionally good help. Most of these were on public works projects and the common thread with each of them was foreman who lacked proper training, (from print reading to people skills) and project managers and estimators who lacked proper training, and both dug themselves holes attempting to squeeze a dime out of a nickel, making expensive "cost-saving" decisions that caused massive overruns.
> 
> For sure there is good and bad on both sides. (And of course, I wouldn't have been sent to a good organized shop) But when the bad rears it's ugly head on a union project, it's not because of lack of knowledge or skills on the part of labor.


 And I have seen a 5 year union guy that didnt know how to put two metal boxes together to make a two gang (and I promise you its true) sooooooo I guess he was an exception. Ive also seen a few 15 - 20 years union guys that couldnt calculate motor loads to save their lives, not to mention trouble shoot anything other than a light bulb sooooo I guess they are exceptions too.
I mean really..... do you really want to get into how many jobs get screwed up or have gotten screwed up by unon outfits....? Your so silly. 
Its people like you that really make me sour to these sites. I inevitably come across some stupid nonsensical comment that you make and it just irritates the crap out of me. And I just have to say something.


----------



## erics37 (May 7, 2009)

miller_elex said:


> Nobody here in the NW is going to miss the Bible Belt, its you folks coming here looking for jobs that drives down the wages for the rest of us!:laughing:


Hell yeah! \m/ Pacific Northwest \m/ Don't let Oregon become California's Canada!



Peter D said:


> What's worse in your mind? "Bible thumpers" with Bibles, or Muslims with swords ready to cut your head off?


Islam is a younger religion than Christianity. When Christianity was Islam's age, its adherents were cutting peoples' heads off too 



steelersman said:


> I don't like bible thumpers. :no:


:thumbup:


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

captkirk said:


> And I have seen a 5 year union guy that didnt know how to put two metal boxes together to make a two gang (and I promise you its true) sooooooo I guess he was an exception.


I believe it. He was probably used to 4 & 11/16ths boxes with a 2 gang raised, and 3,4,5,6 gang roughouse boxes for anything larger. That's how REAL shops do it, because paying journeymen to reconfigure material into multi-gang boxes is stupid and not cost productive. (When you're paying real journeyman wages, that is.) 



> Ive also seen a few 15 - 20 years union guys that couldnt calculate motor loads to save their lives, not to mention trouble shoot anything other than a light bulb sooooo I guess they are exceptions too.
> I mean really..... do you really want to get into how many jobs get screwed up or have gotten screwed up by unon outfits....? Your so silly.
> Its people like you that really make me sour to these sites. I inevitably come across some stupid nonsensical comment that you make and it just irritates the crap out of me. And I just have to say something.


Well there you go, you said something. Keep in mind many union workers are used to large projects where "troubleshooting" just doesn't come into play too often. I guess that's the price we pay for doing the jobs right the first time. 

As for calculating motor loads - let me tell you, with the exception of some rollup steel doors, I never hooked up a motor starter in my life. But I'll bet MOST of the nonunion guys couldn't fusion splice, or weld underwater. 

Since the proliferation of MC cable, a lot of small pipework has been eliminated. This has caused a problem in that when it's time to run the big stuff, the recent turnouts don't have the skills because they never got enough practice during their apprenticeship to learn the ropes on the 3/4 and 1" stuff. 

So we have a pipe clinic at our union hall, which any apprentice or journeyman can go to to sharpen their skills.

We have a high voltage splicing school. When a high voltage job is coming up, you'll be sent to learn it before you're sent to the jobsite to do it. (Face it, it's not something we do everyday)

We have a Transit Skills and safety course. If you're referred to a jobsite involving the transit system, you'll be going to that school to to learn how it's done, and done safely. (If you haven't already done the course) Then there are refreshers to recertify if your class expired.

And yes, we have a motors & controls shop. Because NYC is not too industrial as it once was when everything was made in America, motors aren't something we work with everyday. The cables for all our tension bridges were actually made in Brooklyn (In Greenpoint, on Robeling Ave) and many of the devices you install made by Levitton were made in Greenpoint, Brooklyn NY, (until they found out all the phenolic dust was killing everyone.) 

If there's one thing that can be said about this trade, it's that nobody has done everything. Not having done something before is no reason to put a man down.


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

amptech said:


> What makes someone a "bible thumper"?


http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bible


----------



## amptech (Sep 21, 2007)

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bible


I was asking steelerman his definition.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

erics37 said:


> Hell yeah! \m/ Pacific Northwest \m/ Don't let Oregon become California's Canada!


That puts you in the category of a BIGOT,

And you thought you were a nice liberal do gooder. SHAME ON YOU





> Islam is a younger religion than Christianity. When Christianity was Islam's age, its adherents were cutting peoples' heads off too
> 
> 
> 
> :thumbup:


And that makes it OK in your book? Jeeze your logic needs some SERIOUS HELP!.

Steeler


> I don't like bible thumpers


There are good and bad people in all walks of life, personally I don't care for blanket statements that encompass a whole group of people under one tent.


----------



## steelersman (Mar 15, 2009)

amptech said:


> I was asking steelerman his definition.


Anyone who is constantly talking about their religion and how it's the only way into heaven. If there is a god (and I hope there is. By the way I'm not Atheist. I'm more like Agnostic) then I don't think that there is only one correct religion. I believe that if you live a generally good life then you'll be ok in the end. Kind of like karma. Bible thumpers push their dogmas on others. And while I'm at it, I can't stand the Holy Roller type churches. All that fake tongues gibberish and falling on the floor and rolling around. If their is a god then he's shaking his head at these people and possibly cracking a grin at how silly they make themselves look.


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

I have no problem with other people's choice of worship or beliefs. I DO have a problem when they try to inject their tenants onto others in any way, shape, or form. It's your religion, keep it between you, your god, and your congregation. Once it pours out of those boundaries I say it's a business and ought to be taxed and regulated as such.


----------



## drsparky (Nov 13, 2008)

Churches should be taxed like everyone else.


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

drsparky said:


> Churches should be taxed like everyone else.


The US isn't supposed to "recognize or condone" churches or religion, yet, by NOT taxing them, and refusing to not tax others, it IS recognizing some and not others... 

So you're right. Churches should be taxed like any other business...


----------



## Minuteman (Dec 29, 2007)

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> The US isn't supposed to "recognize or condone" churches or religion...


And where in the Constitution did you find that little quote?


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> I have no problem with other people's choice of worship or beliefs. I DO have a problem when they try to inject their tenants onto others in any way, shape, or form. It's your religion, keep it between you, your god, and your congregation. Once it pours out of those boundaries I say it's a business and ought to be taxed and regulated as such.


 
Now I am scared we agree on something.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

drsparky said:


> Churches should be taxed like everyone else.


THAT AIN'T EVER GOING TO HAPPEN


As my grandmother use to say "Wish in one hand and crap in the other and see which one fills up first."


----------



## drsparky (Nov 13, 2008)

brian john said:


> THAT AIN'T EVER GOING TO HAPPEN
> 
> 
> If I build a house I pay for fire protection with my taxes. If you build a new electrical contracting office your taxes help pay for fire protection upgrades. However if I build a nice big mega church and the fire department may need a bigger truck to handle the new structure, who pays for the new equipment? There in nothing in the constitution exempting churches from taxes. The word “church” is not even in the constitution.
> ...


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

drsparky said:


> brian john said:
> 
> 
> > THAT AIN'T EVER GOING TO HAPPEN
> ...


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

erics37 said:


> When Christianity was Islam's age, its adherents were cutting peoples' heads off too


Anyone who claimed to be a Christian and did such a thing is not a Christian in any way, shape or form.


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

brian john said:


> Too much clout.


Normally I respect what you have to say, but in this case, it has nothing to do with "clout." 


I find it more than a bit troubling that when it comes to dislike of Christianity, there are some out there, including some who have posted on this thread, who are more than willing to throw Constitutionally protected rights out the window. That is no freedom at all, but tyranny.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

Peter D said:


> Normally I respect what you have to say, but in this case, it has nothing to do with "clout."
> 
> 
> I find it more than a bit troubling that when it comes to dislike of Christianity, there are some out there, including some who have posted on this thread, who are more than willing to throw Constitutionally protected rights out the window. That is no freedom at all, but tyranny.


 
Peter:

My point is that the laws be it a constitutional thing or federal/state laws are not going to change as this group as a whole has a large voting block.

I am not a Christian, though I'd like to think I live by their professed standards. Christian's are one of the few groups you can slam in the press, on TV and in public without getting into trouble (with exception of some politicians). Comments are made about Christians that if uttered about Muslims, gays, or any other minority would get you slammed.


----------



## drsparky (Nov 13, 2008)

Peter D said:


> Normally I respect what you have to say, but in this case, it has nothing to do with "clout."
> 
> 
> I find it more than a bit troubling that when it comes to dislike of Christianity, there are some out there, including some who have posted on this thread, who are more than willing to throw Constitutionally protected rights out the window. That is no freedom at all, but tyranny.


What constitutional protected rights are being thrown out the window?:001_huh:


----------



## miller_elex (Jan 25, 2008)

Peter D said:


> What's worse in your mind? "Bible thumpers" with Bibles, or Muslims with swords ready to cut your head off?


Swords? I thought they strapped themselves with TNT, hell, I wish it was just swords!


----------



## Minuteman (Dec 29, 2007)

drsparky said:


> _Amendment 1 *Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;* or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances._
> I say tax them, charge them 200 years of back taxes with interest.


What part of *FREE *exercise, don't you understand? What part of *NO LAW* *ESTABLISHING* *or* *PROHIBITING,* don't you understand?


----------



## RePhase277 (Feb 5, 2008)

The only way that not taxing a church would be unconstitutional is if one particular church was tax exempt, but not another. For instance, if all Baptist churches were tax exempt, but no synagogues were. That would be a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. 

What the 1st Amendment really means is that the government cannot mandate a state religion. It does NOT, however, mean that our politicians and elected officials can't make judgments based on their personal religious beliefs. I also find it laughable when cry babies spout that having "In God We Trust" on our money, or the pledge saying "Under God" is somehow a violation of the 1st Amendment. That just shows how truly ignorant they are.


----------



## e57 (Jun 5, 2009)

Peter D said:


> Anyone who claimed to be a Christian and did such a thing is not a Christian in any way, shape or form.


Sorry - but religions of all types have their misgivings throughout history. (Most still) Through the many inquisitions people have been slowly tortured to death - burned alive - you name it.... Christians are probably the best known for this type of 'believe my folk-lore or I _KEEEL_ you' crap. Ah - the Crusades... 

The warm fuzzy version of Christianity is pretty new! - but that said there is not a month that goes by that some Christian hasn't had an international incident trying to convert people who want nothing to do with them in a country that doesn't want them there.

Our former President (and several before him) feel that funding the Zionists in Israel who kill Arabs helps our image in the middle east - but then again some of them think they are helping the second coming to come along.... :whistling2: Which only seems to help the Bin Laden's of the world recruit simple minded nut bags on the other side of the monotheist coin to blow up buildings full of people in the name of religion and all that they feel is "holy". If they only realized how much they have in common they might get along a little better if they were willing to share - but they're not...

In parting - some words from a wise man IMO


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

brian john said:


> Now I am scared we agree on something.


Even a broken clock is correct 2x a day.


----------



## steelersman (Mar 15, 2009)

e57 said:


> Sorry - but religions of all types have their misgivings throughout history. (Most still) Through the many inquisitions people have been slowly tortured to death - burned alive - you name it.... Christians are probably the best known for this type of 'believe my folk-lore or I _KEEEL_ you' crap. Ah - the Crusades...
> 
> The warm fuzzy version of Christianity is pretty new! - but that said there is not a month that goes by that some Christian hasn't had an international incident trying to convert people who want nothing to do with them in a country that doesn't want them there.
> 
> ...


Excellent post E57! George Carlin was the man! "GOD" rest his soul. Pun intended.


----------



## Minuteman (Dec 29, 2007)

e57 said:


> the Zionists in Israel who kill Arabs


Every time Israel gets attacked and retaliates, the cry goes out about the "evil Zionists". Israel's 7 million population is no threat to the 434 million Arab population. Talk about David and Goliath. You are looking though the wrong side of the telescope my friend.


----------



## steelersman (Mar 15, 2009)

All this crap over religion and whose god is real or right. Religion is the root to all evil.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

steelersman said:


> All this crap over religion and whose god is real or right. Religion is the root to all evil.


 
Actually it is not, it is people acting like people, in the name of religion. Religion itself (for the most part) has very good attributes when followed, not when you follow some self serving leader be it Christian, Hebrew, Islam, or The Greater Southeast Church of Christ His Lord In the Name of God Holier Than Thou House of The Redeemer in the Name of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Churches with more that 4 or 5 words in their name bug me.


----------



## drsparky (Nov 13, 2008)

Minuteman said:


> What part of *FREE *exercise, don't you understand? What part of *NO LAW* *ESTABLISHING* *or* *PROHIBITING,* don't you understand?


If you are claimng the first amendment exempts churches from taxes then you would also agree that the press is tax exempt to? ABC CNN, NBC would love that.

_Amendment 1 Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances._

I just think churches should help pay for police and fire protection and other government services. Currently I am pay for your church/mosque/synagogue so I am being taxed for you religious views.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

drsparky said:


> If you are claimng the first amendment exempts churches from taxes then you would also agree that the press is tax exempt to? ABC CNN, NBC would love that.
> 
> _Amendment 1 Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances._
> 
> I just think churches should help pay for police and fire protection and other government services. Currently I am pay for your church/mosque/synagogue so I am being taxed for you religious views.


Great idea BUT

*THAT AIN'T EVER GOING TO HAPPEN*


----------



## RePhase277 (Feb 5, 2008)

Those stupid Indians just couldn't get it through their thick skulls how much Jesus loved them... so the Europeans killed them.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

InPhase277 said:


> Those stupid Indians just couldn't get it through their thick skulls how much Jesus loved them... so the Europeans killed them.


Not all of them, and they were on the removal list Christians or not.

*Manifest Destiny *The 19th-century doctrine that the United States had the right and duty to expand throughout the North American continent


----------



## e57 (Jun 5, 2009)

InPhase277 said:


> Those stupid Indians just couldn't get it through their thick skulls how much Jesus loved them...


 No matter how much you beat them.


----------



## drsparky (Nov 13, 2008)

brian john said:


> Great idea BUT
> 
> *THAT AIN'T EVER GOING TO HAPPEN*


I know it will never happen. I just like it when people get to see a alternate view. Makes them think.


----------



## Minuteman (Dec 29, 2007)

drsparky said:


> If you are claimng the first amendment exempts churches from taxes then you would also agree that the press is tax exempt to? ABC CNN, NBC would love that.
> 
> _Amendment 1 Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances._
> 
> I just think churches should help pay for police and fire protection and other government services. Currently I am pay for your church/mosque/synagogue so I am being taxed for you religious views.


What part of abridging freedom of speech don't you understand?


----------



## Minuteman (Dec 29, 2007)

steelersman said:


> All this crap over religion and whose god is real or right. Religion is the root to all evil.


Why are you so angry at God?


----------



## steelersman (Mar 15, 2009)

Minuteman said:


> Why are you so angry at God?


I don't get angry over fictional characters. But the root of all wars stems from religion, which is not a good thing. All religion is is a form of self policing. Make the people think that if they don't abide by the law then they will go to hell.


----------



## drsparky (Nov 13, 2008)

Minuteman said:


> What part of abridging freedom of speech don't you understand?


I don't understand how this means a church is exempt from taxes. Enlighten me, I'm not very bright.


----------



## PhatElvis (Jan 23, 2009)

Wow this conversation hit the gutter pretty fast.


----------



## Minuteman (Dec 29, 2007)

drsparky said:


> If you are claimng the first amendment exempts churches from taxes then you would also agree that the press is tax exempt to? ABC CNN, NBC would love that.


Are saying that churches/synagogues/mosques/ et al, need to be taxed because ABC's, CNN's, and NBC's free speech are being abridged?


----------

