On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:32:28 -0500, HK wrote:

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..

So, yes, if certain laws don't fit in with my philosophy, it is OK
to break them. In fact, one is morally compelled to break them.

In a nation founded on laws, I wish you had said "morally compelled
to change them".

Eisboch

This nation runs on greed, not law.

Sounds like Patco.


No, what it sounds like is this: you don't know what you are talking
about. One of the main purposes of a labor union is to obtain equity
for its members.

They definitely failed on that one. In fact, Patco handled it so poorly
that Patco had a negative effect on all labor unions. Talk about
screwing up big time.

If Patco wanted to get the public behind them, they should have
emphasized the need to update the infrastructure, increase public and
employee safety and also lastly provide a competitive workplace.

If Patco is not a case study for all unions, it should be. By any
chance, were you advising Patco how to handle their negotiations?




No, crap-for-brains. I was, however, involved in negotiating on behalf
of three unions the largest labor contact ever agreed to in the United
States and as a result of success in that area, my principal and I were
offered top jobs at a big federal agency by the incoming Reagan
Administration and then offered the same jobs again in 1984.
Independently, we both said no both times.

Of course, you've deliberately kept from this newsgroup what it is
you've been doing for a living all these years. From the quality of your
posts, I'm guess you paint the eyeballs on Mickey Mouse dolls for some
Chinese labor contractor. You don't seem to have the skills for much else.

Harry, since we've read about this incident now, can we say we were
involved also?
--
John H