End of collective bargaining/other anti-union measures plus reactions ...

Thus my confusion numerous posts ago about Matt's point...

 

Before I completely dismiss your opinion, could you just tell me who, if anyone, is supposed to advocate for the supermarket workers?

 

Your original post:

"Hardly secretive" is not exclusive of "secretive". You're a lawyer, you should understand the difference.

Setting terms that favor the union bosses and teachers' pensions at the expense of tax payers is fraud. Tacit collusion, esquire.

 

The turn this debate has taken is kinda weird. Matt is trying to define which unions are OK and which ones aren't. If you step back about 10 yards, it's just...weird.

 

71st page!!!!!!

 

I'm not sure I understand this part. Could you flush this out a little?

 

Do you have a position on all private market transactions???? I mean, what is the proper way for an electronic component salesman to discount bulk purchases? What is the acceptable way for a doctor to charge indigent patients? What is the right way for a radio station to bill remotes?

What's weird isn't your position. It's weird that you HAVE a position, that you think you can sit there among the sand dunes and have an opinion on what professions should have unions and which ones shouldn't.

It's pretty ********ing arrogant. And it's even more arrogant that when I pointed out precisely what you're doing, you still didn't get it.

 

The companies that pilots work for benefit significantly by the fact that they are unionized. This also applies to aircraft mechanics that work for the same companies. I suspect that management working in the education world may benefit from the unions as well.

Pilots in unionized positions increase pay, flight assignments, days off, and vacation based on seniority. Airlines pay tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars to train pilots on their equipment. As seniority builds the pilots are better trained and more marketable. Except that they have to go to the bottom of the scale at the competitor if they want to change jobs. In a non union environment the pilot could take the megathousand spent on his/her training and go where the money is.

 

Perhaps you would like to enlighten me as to which definition of 'hardly' you were using. Because if you say 'not at all,' then you are wrong in your interpretation of the secretive aspect of colluding.

If you go with any of the others, than I am correct.

With regards to this specific case, no matter how you slice it, I am right. You are wrong.

1. Would you care to explain how the MLB owner's colluding to keep players' salaries depressed meets the requirement of false representation?

2. Is this the legal definition of fraud that is accepted across all jurisdictions in the US?

For someone that appears to be bent on details, you sure to due leave a lot out.

 

Is that because the NFL players have specialized skills, or because they make so much money?

 

Yes, because contrarians are so very original and interesting. It's difficult not to conclude that you take ridiculous positions just for the attention and the pleasure of getting people riled.

 

The best thing about MitH is that he only does that about half the time.

So you never know which version you'll get...

 

He reminds me of my dad.

 

no they don't, at all.

 

He's bi-winning.

 

You're really outdoing yourself here. I mean, I think this may exceed your "prohibiting mining on public property is a restriction on private property" and "the contractor is not responsible for the actions of his subcontractors" legal theories on the stoopid scale.

 

Plus, in Wisconsin anyway, teachers apparently tend to vote Dem. Walker has notably not gone against police unions because they tend to vote Reep.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...isconsin-cops-keep-collective-bargaining.html

http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/22/w...-by-sparing-wisconsins-policemen-and-firemen/

It's all about partisan politics (and paying back the Koch brothers for their brib.... er, "contributions") and the people of Wisconsin will be the losers if he succeeds. Hopefully, they'll have learned their lesson without paying too high a cost for Walker's little political games.

 

What's so hard to figure out? He's just trying to stir things up with his phony "contrarianism"/glibertarianism. Play along with him if you want or don't feed him if you don't.