quote:

Originally posted by SgtFoo ... out of the blue here... If all unions whined for more money like the YorkU union is, then most businesses would say fuck the unions and hire another source for the same staff minus the union. There's another union which as of late is practically taking the companies that hire them down the tubes.... .... THE AMERICAN AUTO MAKERS!! If the automotive industry in America would fire all unionized workers (most of whom all make %300 more than the job initially merits) and hire fresh non-union staff to do the same work (and I guarantee they can find the people) they would not need any bail-out money, and would be able to spend the cash on actually making reliable cars and learn a little something from the import auto companies. .... to correlate:: If the YorkU union fucks with people too much (and they are at this point... it is very evident) then the people who have to pay for the services will not want to anymore and thus the YorkU business will crash upon itself. Can you imagine how angry all the students will be at the TAs if/when they come back?? I'd be throwing frozen water bottles!! I work in the A/V field. In Canada, we do not unionize. In the USA, the A/V professionals like myself have the option of unionizing... but it's a fact that they get less work just because they cost too much more than non-union A/V people.... and what difference is there between them? ... usually just a few extra sheets of paper.... from the union. //end rant.

Ok dude, first of all, you dropped into this thread posting about stuff that's already been discussed (and some of what you are saying is clearly not factual and ridiculous). So you think SCABS should be allowed to take the place of unionised workers? You want to be a scab eh? Do you realise that we have fucking laws that prevent that kind of shit? Laws that have been around for as long as five or six decades? And you think they should be wiped away so we can break the unions and hire scab workers at half the cost?

You are a fucking moron. An absolute fucking tool. Please do not send your children anywhere near my workplace. It's a school. Did you ever go to one?

___________________
"No offense, but you're stupid"

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Smitty20 Ok dude, first of all, you dropped into this thread posting about stuff that's already been discussed (and some of what you are saying is clearly not factual and ridiculous). So you think SCABS should be allowed to take the place of unionised workers? You want to be a scab eh? Do you realise that we have fucking laws that prevent that kind of shit? Laws that have been around for as long as five or six decades? And you think they should be wiped away so we can break the unions and hire scab workers at half the cost? You are a fucking moron. An absolute fucking tool. Please do not send your children anywhere near my workplace. It's a school. Did you ever go to one?

LOL

How impudently delicious.

I think we can close the casket on this discussion Smitty--the voice of reason reigns uncontested.

(plus it's like talking to a wall for the most part--I envy your patience in prolonging the discussion this far)

quote:

Originally posted by SgtFoo a-la Donnie Darko

"He asked me to forcibly insert the Life Line exercise card into my anus!"

quote:

Originally posted by evil_cookie Your argument is: 1. My opinion on the concept of unionization is clear and stated in this thread. 2. However, I've still never once talked to YOU about the concept of unionization--I stated my stance to someone else. Thus, even though I've said where I stand on the concept, seeing as I did not mention it to you directly, you cannot use it against me. A recap: Person "a" agrees with person "c" that 'unionization is no longer a sustainable labour model' Person "b" tells person "a" that 'unionization is a very good model: in the specific example person "a" has given and in general' Person "a" says to person "b" that 'I've never said to you directly that 'unionization is no longer a sustainable labour model,' thus you can't use what I've stated to person "c" against me. You're too easy; I almost feel bad--almost.

fucking idiot. my opinion of unionization has NOTHING to do with my comments about them holding students hostage. Get off your high horse and stop masturbating all over this fucking board. Get your fucking ego in check dicklock. For you to even suggest otherwise is completely nonsensical.

___________________

Last edited by Dave Akermanis on Jan-28-2009 at 23:31

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Akermanis fucking idiot. my opinion of unionization has NOTHING to do with my comments about them holding students hostage. Get off your high horse and stop masturbating all over this fucking board. Get your fucking ego in check dicklock.

Relax there sport.

You argued with an anecdote about your girlfriends dying family and the malevolence of unions. I pointed out that unionization is in place, particularly to assist people like your girlfriend--who ironically enough aspires to teach.

And that's all I did, was point the irony of your anecdotal advocacy in regards to her current position, to the position she'll inevitably be in once she is a teacher; in contrast to your naive and counterproductive stance on anti-unionization.

I really can't dumb it down any further--and I'm pleased to see how thoughtful you're developing your arguments, when the highlight of your most recent posts have been flimsy attempts at being witty. Don't get me wrong; putting 'dick' and 'lock' together to form 'dicklock' is incredibly witty.

quote:

Originally posted by evil_cookie Relax there sport. You argued with an anecdote about your girlfriends dying family and the malevolence of unions. I pointed out that unionization is in place, particularly to assist people like your girlfriend--who ironically enough aspires to teach.

Sure is helping her at the moment hm?

And no i did not argue the malevolence of unions with an anecdote about my girlfriends dying family. I argued the idiocy of this particular union.

My personal views on the concept of unions in general has no relevancy when we discuss how the clusterfuck labour situation at York has altered her life.

You make a valid point above re: the future, but I'm not really sure what you hoped to achieve by mentioning that. It has nothing to do with what I was talking about in the first place (i.e. The union holding the students hostage).

___________________

Last edited by Dave Akermanis on Jan-29-2009 at 00:04

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Smitty20 Ok dude, first of all, you dropped into this thread posting about stuff that's already been discussed (and some of what you are saying is clearly not factual and ridiculous). So you think SCABS should be allowed to take the place of unionised workers? You want to be a scab eh? Do you realise that we have fucking laws that prevent that kind of shit? Laws that have been around for as long as five or six decades? And you think they should be wiped away so we can break the unions and hire scab workers at half the cost? You are a fucking moron. An absolute fucking tool. Please do not send your children anywhere near my workplace. It's a school. Did you ever go to one?

enough of a moron to take some more time and waste it on telling me where and how I went wrong in that post? I could use some entertainment at work over the next week.

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Akermanis Sure is helping her at the moment hm?

Like I've already mentioned:

quote:

Originally posted by evil_cookie It’s not fair to the students; not in the least bit. Likewise, it is not fair for faculty members. So, insofar as we agree that it’s not fair what students and faculty member are going through collectively, then we have no quarrel. But you cannot rationally and impartially blame the union for everything.

The reality of the situation is unfortunate; for both sides. However, I suspect that your girlfriend will appreciate all that the teachers union can do for her, once she's employed. Even if she is disappointment or in disagreement with the current state of things.

quote:

Originally posted by evil_cookie Like I've already mentioned: The reality of the situation is unfortunate; for both sides. However, I suspect that your girlfriend will appreciate all that the teachers union can do for her, once she's employed. Even if she is disappointment or in disagreement with the current state of things.

I'm sure she will too but thats not what we were talking about in the first place.

When you say the reality is unfortunate for both sides who are you talking about? York and the union? The students have no voice at the table... they aren't considered to be stakeholders by either party.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by evil_cookie these people have spent over a decade in school obtaining the highest level of education

Please. The majority of those people just stayed in school forever because they didn't want to go out into the workforce. It's not as if they worked their asses off to become TAs and professors; most of them just want to spend the rest of their lives doing research and getting government grants to pay their bills, and they lecture and grade because it's a mandatory part of the job.

quote:

If you think a receptionist and someone who has spent considerable amount of money on post secondary education to make a living deserve the same job security, then you’re an idiot.

Receptionist, maybe not. How about a project manager? Accountant? Engineer? Doctor or nurse? Surely you don't mean to tell us that these people are less educated or don't work as hard as university professors.

Besides which, the value of a good or service isn't determined by the amount of resources or labour invested in it, it's determined largely by scarcity and to a small extent by the perceived value to the consumer. Lifelong academics really aren't that scarce. Industry experts who move into the academic field, now they are valuable and scarce, but they really don't need unions to look after them, because the universities are already lining up to get them.

And if you don't understand that, you're an idiot.

Might also be worth mentioning that a large number of faculty members aren't professors anyway, they're just administrative staff without a great deal of education or training, and they're backed by the union too.

quote:

Minimum wage, the right to organize, holiday pay, pension, compensation and severance pay, job security, enforcing a safe work environment...so on and so forth--

All included in the Employment Standards Act. With the government itself enforcing it, we definitely don't need the additional overhead of unions.

quote:

it should be noted that the unionization advocates are the same people who support certain immigration laws which have allowed you to come to this country in hopes of obtaining citizenship.

Even if this "fact" had any basis in reality and wasn't just something you pulled out of your ass, what would be the relevance? It's an ad hominem argument.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Akermanis I'm sure she will too but thats not what we were talking about in the first place. When you say the reality is unfortunate for both sides who are you talking about? York and the union? The students have no voice at the table... they aren't considered to be stakeholders by either party.

It's unfortunate for the students, teaching assistants, instructors and other faculty members--respectively in their own personal views.

In respects to considering the long-term consequences, I don’t think it’s irrelevant at all. In fact, by the mere fact that you care enough to emphasize your girlfriend’s inopportune position, it makes my point towards you all the more relevant. That is to say, you should appreciate that perhaps you did and are naively generalizing about unionization, seeing as in the long term (most important factor in my opinion) she will do better as part of a union as opposed to not participating--especially in the education system.

As again with my objection towards the use of the word ‘hostage’; coupled with the aforementioned points, I merely pointed out that the word, in its attempt to obtain a benign response, demeans and discredits the process of unionization and its self-apparent benefits.
In short, it’s not black and white--and Smitty and I have been making the case that all this bashing towards the union, and the union alone, is unfounded and speculative at best.