On 6/29/2012 16:12, Dave Drum -> John Massey wrote:   
    DD>> I see. You don't believe in paying for your supper, then?   
      
    JM>> What is that suppose to mean?   
      
    DD> If you enjoy an annual vacation, a base 40 hour week, a   
    DD> less-than-seven-day work week, etc. then you owe the union movement a   
    DD> debt of gratitude even if you don't directly owe it any dues.   
      
   Then I don't owe them nothing. A 40 hr five days a week is for someone that   
   will settle for the mediocre. If you want the nicer toys you have to work more.   
      
    JM>> I have no problem paying for my supper.   
      
    DD> Probably because a union some where/when negotiated a living wage.   
      
   What is a living wage? Is it the same in New York City as in Live Oak FL.?    
   "Living wage," is a worth less phrase, it means nothing.   
      
    >   
    JM>> You talk of going back. Dumping the union is a step forward for the   
    JM>> individual.   
      
    DD> And there, my fine right-winger we have a basic disconnect. Keeping and   
    DD> strengthening the unions (yes, and getting them off their arses to do   
    DD> what their original purpose was) is the basis of an improving economy   
    DD> and a growing and healthy middle class.   
      
   I'm sure you believe that.  I'm not sure anyone that truly thinks about it   
   would agree. I certainly don't.   
      
    DD> Dumping the unions only works if you're already a member of the 1%. Are   
    DD> you?   
      
   Sorry I don't agree withe premise of your question. IF a person has a   
   marketable job skill and the talent to promote themselves  they will always do   
   better to dump the union and represent themselves as an individual. IMO. That   
   is the only way they stand a chance in hell of getting to be the 1%.   
      
   --- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.   
    * Origin: Fidonet Via Newsreader - http://www.easternstar.info (1:123/789.0)