|
York U Students?? (pg. 12)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| SgtFoo |
... out of the blue here...
If all unions whined for more money like the YorkU union is, then most businesses would say 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 s 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. |
|
|
| evil_cookie |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dave Akermanis
We're talking about the present for starters. Second, we're talking about a specific union... not the concept of unions as a whole.
:rolleyes: |
You're really bad at this.
Diginut makes a comment about UNIONS AS A WHOLE:
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Can't be much longer before most of society catches onto the fact that unionization in its current incarnation is no longer a sustainable labour model. |
and you respond by saying:
| quote: | Originally posted by Dave Akermanis
For once I entirely agree with you. |
stop embarrassing yourself and just concede the fact that you have not and cannot present yourself logically without contradicting yourself in every post. |
|
|
| Dave Akermanis |
| quote: | Originally posted by evil_cookie
You're really bad at this.
Diginut makes a comment about UNIONS AS A WHOLE:
and you respond by saying:
stop embarrassing yourself and just concede the fact that you have not and cannot present yourself logically without contradicting yourself in every post. |
Two completely different threads of discussion within one post. You're just twisting around dude... |
|
|
| evil_cookie |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dave Akermanis
Two completely different threads of discussion within one post. You're just twisting around dude... |
rofl are you kidding me? different threads?
It's on the same god-damn page. :haha:
My God, you are a child. At least Skipper can defend her arguments somewhat logically--you my friend, are a disappointment.
Tell me how they are different, tell me how I am twisting you words--how the can I even put words in your mouth? I AM QUOTING YOU.
I know comprehension and reading is not your thing, and god forbid you attempt to employ any sense of logic, but please, do not kid yourself--or me.
The words are right here--your words--are right here: quoted and and unaltered. |
|
|
| Dave Akermanis |
| quote: | Originally posted by evil_cookie
rofl are you kidding me? different threads?
It's on the same god-damn page. :haha:
My God, you are a child. At least Skipper can defend her arguments somewhat logically--you my friend, are a disappointment.
Tell me how they are different, tell me how I am twisting you words--how the can I even put words in your mouth? I AM QUOTING YOU.
I know comprehension and reading is not your thing, and god forbid you attempt to employ any sense of logic, but please, do not kid yourself--or me.
The words are right here--your words--are right here: quoted and and unaltered. |
Way to be an stick. I know comprehension and reading isn't YOUR thing but you'll notice i said it was different threads of discussion WITHIN THE SAME FORUM POST. I was replying to completely different comments there dude.
You might be quoting me but you're using disparate comments to address a completely different discussion, with a completely different person, in response to a completely different comment. |
|
|
| Nick Cenik |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dave Akermanis
stick |
:haha: |
|
|
| evil_cookie |
| quote: | | Originally posted by Dave Akermanis You might be quoting me but you're using disparate comments to address a completely different discussion, with a completely different person, in response to a completely different comment. |
You cannot say something is irrelevant, and you cannot dismiss an argument without presenting your evidence for the nullification.
Show me where you were discussing two separate issues.
Here is the text: unaltered, and impartial:
DigiNut says:
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
What's a little ironic to me about this whole cluster is that the unions are screwing over their most ardent supporters outside of the unions themselves.
The universities, the teachers, the ATU (TTC), all collectively flipping the bird to the Lib and Dipper generations. Can't be much longer before most of society catches onto the fact that unionization in its current incarnation is no longer a sustainable labour model.
|
You respond by saying:
| quote: | Originally posted by Dave Akermanis
For once I entirely agree with you. |
THERE WE HAVE ESTABLISHED YOUR STANCE in regards to the concept of unionization.
Then when I say:
| quote: | Originally posted by evil_cookie
Her opinion? It’s self-evident that you are speaking for her--your memory can’t be that bad. Did you forget your oh-so articulate appeal to emotion? Here it is:
You paint a sad picture, and I’m telling you that unionization in secondary and post secondary institutions are in place particularly to help those like your girlfriend--that is after she gets a position. So spare me your illogical, selective, and double-standard way of reasoning. Either present your arguments logically, or at least admit that you’re being fallacious. |
In addition, I previously recognized that unionization is far more beneficial than non-unionization.
In responding you say:
| quote: | Originally posted by Dave Akermanis
we're talking about a specific union... not the concept of unions as a whole.
:rolleyes: |
Tell me how that’s not a direct contradiction--please enlighten me. Oh and don't just say 'oh because it's not.' You speak so highly of comprehension; try employing it.
I'm waiting. |
|
|
| Dave Akermanis |
| you're a ing idiot. I replied to your comments about the union holding students hostage and now you're attacking my stance on unions on general. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: |
|
|
| evil_cookie |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dave Akermanis
you're a ing idiot. I replied to your comments about the union holding students hostage and now you're attacking my stance on unions on general. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: |
And I rest my case.
I have outlined explicitly, how and when you are being utterly fallacious, and time and again, you respond with emoticons--there is nothing else to say--I have given you numerous opportunities to defend your case.
However, I am generally a nice person. And so I'd like to offer you to come sit in the intermediate logic tutorial I teach, I think you could benefit it from it--greatly. |
|
|
| Dave Akermanis |
We're talking about two completely different issues. You can keep waving your dick around talking about the larger issues but I've still never once talked to YOU about the concept of unionization as a whole in this thread.
Prove me wrong smart guy. Use all that logic and reasoning you keep talking about... maybe it will help you because you certainly cant read. |
|
|
| evil_cookie |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dave Akermanis
We're talking about two completely different issues. You can keep waving your dick around talking about the larger issues but I've still never once talked to YOU about the concept of unionization as a whole in this thread.
Prove me wrong smart guy. Use all that logic and reasoning you keep talking about... maybe it will help you because you certainly cant read. |
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.
:happy2:
You're too easy; I almost feel bad--almost. |
|
|
| Dj Smitty20 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
They have the right to market determined labor conditions, and the right to choose how and where they participate.
I've said it before - you don't like your job or the way you are treated, LEAVE. Don't whine and stomp your feet like a toddler until someone gives you a hand out. |
well the law says they have a right to go on strike and that won't be changing any time soon. You have a very one sided view of this issue (not surprising, considering your background and education) and you can't really refute some of the larger points we've made.
"If you don't like your job, quit and leave" is an oversimplified and narrow minded way of looking at things, especially with all the very real issues in the workplace. |
|
|
|
|
