PDA

View Full Version : Light Tower Power!


Vsahajpal
09-02-2002, 01:12 PM
woo, I feel so vindicated

HawkDJ
09-02-2002, 01:17 PM
This thread is under high Daver watch.

Vsahajpal
09-02-2002, 01:22 PM
First of all, don't taint my LTP thread.

Secondly, daver, if you want to get rid of this thread, go ahead, I'll find my "Joe" thread and add on :)

duke of dorwood
09-02-2002, 01:33 PM
Damn impressive. To all those who chose not to watch, I SAW #1

duke of dorwood
09-02-2002, 01:36 PM
Hey Vsa, how many homers lefty and righty at Charlotte?

RedPinStripes
09-02-2002, 01:48 PM
Daver's hiding since we were all idiots for thinking there might be baseball next year or being on the owners side. :smile:

BuehrleACE56
09-02-2002, 02:00 PM
that was quite a shot! nice goin' joe. If we can get our young Joes on a streak, it will be something positive to look forward too in ST 2003.

BuehrleACE56
09-02-2002, 02:01 PM
also, Borchard is huge! wow i didnt realize he was such a big guy. he'll make a good #6-7 hitter i think.

RedPinStripes
09-02-2002, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by BuehrleACE56
also, Borchard is huge! wow i didnt realize he was such a big guy. he'll make a good #6-7 hitter i think.

Might be your next #3 hitter in 2003 or 4.

doublem23
09-02-2002, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by BuehrleACE56
also, Borchard is huge! wow i didnt realize he was such a big guy. he'll make a good #6-7 hitter i think.

In a year or two he will be either #3 or #4.

LongDistanceFan
09-02-2002, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by BuehrleACE56
he'll make a good #6-7 hitter i think.


??????? :?:

pls explain your thoughts

NUKE_CLEVELAND
09-02-2002, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by RedPinStripes
Daver's hiding since we were all idiots for thinking there might be baseball next year or being on the owners side. :smile:

Who's the idiot now?

*****!!

We knew the answer to that one all along

doublem23
09-02-2002, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by RedPinStripes
Daver's hiding since we were all idiots for thinking there might be baseball next year or being on the owners side. :smile:

You can't honestly be pleased that the players gave into the owners.

I'd much rather have had them strike than this.

But when you're worried about millions of idiots and their idiotic opinions, I guess you get caught in a corner.

Jerry_Manuel
09-02-2002, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by doublem23
But when you're worried about millions of idiots and their idiotic opinions, I guess you get caught in a corner.

Finally, someone pegs it correctly.

I love seeing those signs that say "The players are greedy. I hate them," but those same fans helped pay their salary by buying a ticket to the park that day.

NUKE_CLEVELAND
09-02-2002, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by doublem23
You can't honestly be pleased that the players gave into the owners.

I'd much rather have had them strike than this.

But when you're worried about millions of idiots and their idiotic opinions, I guess you get caught in a corner.

Who cares! These aren't the UPS teamsters fighting for a small raise, these are a bunch of millionaires we're dealing with here. I have no sympathy for them whatsoever.

HawkDJ
09-02-2002, 02:45 PM
The Joes and the Jons are the key to 2003.

NUKE_CLEVELAND
09-02-2002, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by HawkDJ2k2
The Joes and the Jons are the key to 2003.

:burly

"What about the Marks?"

HawkDJ
09-02-2002, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by NUKE_CLEVELAND
:burly

"What about the Marks?"

The Marks are a given, unless MJ is still with us. Its how Crede, Borchard, Rauch, Garland (,Adkins??) play that will truly decide our season.

Jerry_Manuel
09-02-2002, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by NUKE_CLEVELAND
:burly

"What about the Marks?"

This season is a perfect example of why the key to next year is the Joe's and Jon's.

Mark is having a great year, but the team is having a bad year.

BuehrleACE56
09-02-2002, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by LongDistanceFan
??????? :?:

pls explain your thoughts

I meant for right now. He may very well turn out to be a #3 or clean-up type guy. but with maggs, paulie, and even frank (for the time being) borchard will make a good 6-7 guy in the lineup. :smile:

Daver
09-02-2002, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by RedPinStripes
Daver's hiding since we were all idiots for thinking there might be baseball next year or being on the owners side. :smile:

No I went fishing and did a little squirrell hunting over the holiday weekend.

kermittheefrog
09-02-2002, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by doublem23
You can't honestly be pleased that the players gave into the owners.

I'd much rather have had them strike than this.

But when you're worried about millions of idiots and their idiotic opinions, I guess you get caught in a corner.

I like the way you think bro. But I'm still glad there is no strike.

CubKilla
09-02-2002, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by Vsahajpal
woo, I feel so vindicated

Not to rain on your parade VSA, but it's only one game. I'm glad he did well though from what all of you are saying..... and no..... I didn't see the game. Some of us had to work on Labor Day :D:

kermittheefrog
09-02-2002, 05:50 PM
I slept through the game! If I had only known Borchard was making his debut I would have woken up earlier.

doublem23
09-02-2002, 11:02 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
I like the way you think bro. But I'm still glad there is no strike.

Well, obviously I'm caught between a rock and a hard spot. I don't want a strike, but I am sorely dissappointed by the players caving into the owners. And I'm sure they did it because of the millions of moron fans who have absoletuly no idea about anything saying, 'If they strike, I walk."

Fine! Go! No one put a god damn gun to your head and made you fork over the dough. Dumbass.

I guess we're all OK with letting guys like Reinsdorf and the rest of his pro-profit, anti-baseball owners destroy the sport I love.

Granted, I have little sympathy for the players, but I have none whatsoever for those lying bastards running the show. And we all let them win. Go buy yourself a cookie.

Vsahajpal
09-02-2002, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by Vsahajpal
woo, I feel so vindicated

Holy ****, from Sullivan's column this evening

Though his overall numbers weren't bad, Borchard's high strikeout totals—139 in 438 at-bats this season—made some wonder if he was going to be an all-or-nothing kind of hitter in the Dave Kingman mode. Despite some early struggles, Borchard said he felt "vindicated" by the call-up and did not regret his decision to play pro baseball...


Great minds, Joey Baseball, Great minds!

Chisox_cali
09-02-2002, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by Vsahajpal
Holy ****, from Sullivan's column this evening

Though his overall numbers weren't bad, Borchard's high strikeout totals—139 in 438 at-bats this season—made some wonder if he was going to be an all-or-nothing kind of hitter in the Dave Kingman mode. Despite some early struggles, Borchard said he felt "vindicated" by the call-up and did not regret his decision to play pro baseball...


Great minds, Joey Baseball, Great minds!

You are Joe Borchard aren't you!!! I knew it!!! :)

DVG
09-03-2002, 12:43 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by doublem23
[B]Well, obviously I'm caught between a rock and a hard spot. I don't want a strike, but I am sorely dissappointed by the players caving into the owners. And I'm sure they did it because of the millions of moron fans who have absoletuly no idea about anything saying, 'If they strike, I walk."

Fine! Go! No one put a god damn gun to your head and made you fork over the dough. Dumbass.

I guess we're all OK with letting guys like Reinsdorf and the rest of his pro-profit, anti-baseball owners destroy the sport I love.

but I have none whatsoever for those lying bastards running the show. And we all let them win.














I'm glad someone is saying that. I never root for the owners
under any circumstances. The players have a right to be paid
what the market will bear. It is the height of hypocrisy that the
creep owners pay out all the jack for even the most mediocre
talent, then cry all the way to the bank that they are going
broke and that they need to "fix" baseball's problems. This,
of course, has been expounded on ad nauseum, I'm not saying
anything new. And so now the owners have their luxury tax.
What will they do with all that extra money? I already stated
the obvious earlier in the paragraph. I won't do it twice.

RedPinStripes
09-03-2002, 07:20 AM
Originally posted by daver
No I went fishing and did a little squirrell hunting over the holiday weekend.

You're nuts if you think there's gonna be baseball next year. They'll never come to terms. :D:

Kilroy
09-03-2002, 08:24 AM
Originally posted by doublem23
...I guess we're all OK with letting guys like Reinsdorf and the rest of his pro-profit, anti-baseball owners destroy the sport I love.

Dub, I think you need to be realistic. Sure, baseball is a sport, and we'd play just to have a good time. but major league baseball is a business, first and foremost. It exists simply because of its potential for profit. And those who invest in teams do so with the intention of realizing a profit. If you choose to ignore that fact, there's not much that can be done for you. If the sport you love is baseball, then you can see that at the nearest high-school. If the sport you love is major league baseball, then you need to come to grips with all that encompasses.

RedPinStripes
09-03-2002, 08:48 AM
Originally posted by Kilroy
Dub, I think you need to be realistic. Sure, baseball is a sport, and we'd play just to have a good time. but major league baseball is a business, first and foremost. It exists simply because of its potential for profit. And those who invest in teams do so with the intention of realizing a profit. If you choose to ignore that fact, there's not much that can be done for you. If the sport you love is baseball, then you can see that at the nearest high-school. If the sport you love is major league baseball, then you need to come to grips with all that encompasses.

Hell yeah!

Randar68
09-03-2002, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by NUKE_CLEVELAND
Who cares! These aren't the UPS teamsters fighting for a small raise, these are a bunch of millionaires we're dealing with here. I have no sympathy for them whatsoever.

And I have no sympathy for the uneducated who think they are entitled to make as much as people who spent 4-10 years of their lives in education.

This, however, does not matter in terms of labor law.

What is one of the big reasons the are airlines failing? Unions...

Dadawg_77
09-03-2002, 10:31 AM
Why do you hate Unions so much Randar? Look the biggest reason for United troubles in mismanagment. Labor cost are high, but not so much that quality managers couldn't work around them. There is a reason why management teams come and go at united.

Also get off your educated high horse for a second. You get paid what the market gives you, no matter what Labor laws say. For unskilled work the labor is much higher thus the cost is lower. Baseball players are highly skilled with a much smaller labor pool, thus a much higher cost. Did you forget that one from Econ 101?
Education is just a skilled to peddle on the job market, and since there is a smaller pool of baseball players then college grads, baseball players make more.

Randar68
09-03-2002, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Why do you hate Unions so much Randar? Look the biggest reason for United troubles in mismanagment. Labor cost are high, but not so much that quality managers couldn't work around them. There is a reason why management teams come and go at united.

Also get off your educated high horse for a second. You get paid what the market gives you, no matter what Labor laws say. For unskilled work the labor is much higher thus the cost is lower. Baseball players are highly skilled with a much smaller labor pool, thus a much higher cost. Did you forget that one from Econ 101?
Education is just a skilled to peddle on the job market, and since there is a smaller pool of baseball players then college grads, baseball players make more.

They are much like Affirmative Action. A great concept that was at one time greatly needed, however, has overgrown its initial usefullness and at minimum, requires significant reworkings.

I was a member of the Teamsters at one point. They are only out for the $$$, payoffs and such. They don't give a crap about their employees' best interests and they additionally raise the salary level of unskilled/uneducated workers to unreasonable levels.

It's not bitterness or anything like that. However, this economy is going through a lot of "readjustment" and people aren't liking it, but from a macro-economic view, the cost of unskilled labor within the US is one reason why we are losing so many jobs to foreign markets.

Labor unions create an artificially high-cost labor market by strong-arm and political tactics. I have done the heavy lifting and the unskilled labor and have many relatives in that boat to whom I am sympathetic. However, that does not change my view on the subject.

Randar68
09-03-2002, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Education is just a skilled to peddle on the job market, and since there is a smaller pool of baseball players then college grads, baseball players make more.

It's apparent to me, especially from posts here through this baseball strike talk, that Americans think they are entitled to everything. If a business is to make a profit, then all but a handful of the $$$'s made are supposed to go to the worker. That somehow, the employee is ENTITLED to 99.9% of all revenue, etc. etc.

Newsflash. Businesses and investors are the ones ENTITLED to the profits.

The open market on salaries will play out as it may (one reason why I have little interest in supporting the baseball owners), but this notion is preposterous and indicative of some sort of generational spoiled-attitude.

NUKE_CLEVELAND
09-03-2002, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by doublem23
Well, obviously I'm caught between a rock and a hard spot. I don't want a strike, but I am sorely dissappointed by the players caving into the owners. And I'm sure they did it because of the millions of moron fans who have absoletuly no idea about anything saying, 'If they strike, I walk."

Fine! Go! No one put a god damn gun to your head and made you fork over the dough. Dumbass.

I guess we're all OK with letting guys like Reinsdorf and the rest of his pro-profit, anti-baseball owners destroy the sport I love.

Granted, I have little sympathy for the players, but I have none whatsoever for those lying bastards running the show. And we all let them win. Go buy yourself a cookie.

It's not the owners that are destroying baseball. The players and their union are doing the most damage with their outrageous salary demands and Bud selig is destroying the game by just being himself. I'd have a lot more sympathy for the players if things were like they were back in the 50's when we had star players having to work a second job over the winter to support their families. However I could give two ****s about the players and their money now. If an average of 2.3 Million a year isin't enough to live well then they can all go jump off a bridge.

kermittheefrog
09-03-2002, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by Vsahajpal
Holy ****, from Sullivan's column this evening

Though his overall numbers weren't bad, Borchard's high strikeout totals—139 in 438 at-bats this season—made some wonder if he was going to be an all-or-nothing kind of hitter in the Dave Kingman mode. Despite some early struggles, Borchard said he felt "vindicated" by the call-up and did not regret his decision to play pro baseball...


Great minds, Joey Baseball, Great minds!

Does that make everyone with the word vindicated in their vocabulary a great mind?

kermittheefrog
09-03-2002, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by NUKE_CLEVELAND
It's not the owners that are destroying baseball. The players and their union are doing the most damage with their outrageous salary demands and Bud selig is destroying the game by just being himself. I'd have a lot more sympathy for the players if things were like they were back in the 50's when we had star players having to work a second job over the winter to support their families. However I could give two ****s about the players and their money now. If an average of 2.3 Million a year isin't enough to live well then they can all go jump off a bridge.

Oooooooo labor war talk, I'm in. First of all players only get as much money as owners choose to give them. It's not like demanding a certain amount of money gaurantees them they'd get it. If it worked that way everyone would be making a hundred million a season. And if you're going to complain about the players salaries what do you think the owners are paying themselves for owning the team? I'm willing to bet the average owner salary is something over 40 million. It's silly to begrudge the players for making a lot of cash but let the owners go scot free. Realistically I don't think you should begrudge anyone for the amount of money someone else is willing to pay them.

voodoochile
09-03-2002, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by Randar68
It's apparent to me, especially from posts here through this baseball strike talk, that Americans think they are entitled to everything. If a business is to make a profit, then all but a handful of the $$$'s made are supposed to go to the worker. That somehow, the employee is ENTITLED to 99.9% of all revenue, etc. etc.

Newsflash. Businesses and investors are the ones ENTITLED to the profits.

The open market on salaries will play out as it may (one reason why I have little interest in supporting the baseball owners), but this notion is preposterous and indicative of some sort of generational spoiled-attitude.

How much profit is there if no one will work at the business? Ideally speaking any business will allow both the employees and owners to make a good living.

Earlier you complained about unskilled uneducated employees making outrageous money. Can you give an example?

Dadawg_77
09-03-2002, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by NUKE_CLEVELAND
It's not the owners that are destroying baseball. The players and their union are doing the most damage with their outrageous salary demands and Bud selig is destroying the game by just being himself. I'd have a lot more sympathy for the players if things were like they were back in the 50's when we had star players having to work a second job over the winter to support their families. However I could give two ****s about the players and their money now. If an average of 2.3 Million a year isin't enough to live well then they can all go jump off a bridge.

Look, why is Tom Hicks the guy who outbid everyone by $100 million dollars for A Rod, complaining that players make to much. Because Tom got played. But at least A Rod produces on the field, I hate to have Greg Vaughn's contract.

No one is forcing the owners to pay anyone anything. But the owners chose to do so. Last year you saw, I believe for the next couple of years, a market correction. How many teams may bids for Bonds, Boone and the other big names on the market? This trend should continue for a couple more years and it would of even without the new CBA.

If competitive balance is what you are looking for this CBA does nothing for it. The only way to get competitive balance is to limit what the Yankees and others can spend but to also increase what your Kansas Cities and Twins spend.

Now fans can demand or complain that team doesn't spend money. That is their right as a consumer, they can chose to spend or not to spend their money based on the quality of the product. So the owners are now in a position to put a quality team on the field without over spending. But that is buisness, how to satify your customers while making a profit.

doublem23
09-03-2002, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by NUKE_CLEVELAND
It's not the owners that are destroying baseball. The players and their union are doing the most damage with their outrageous salary demands and Bud selig is destroying the game by just being himself. I'd have a lot more sympathy for the players if things were like they were back in the 50's when we had star players having to work a second job over the winter to support their families. However I could give two ****s about the players and their money now. If an average of 2.3 Million a year isin't enough to live well then they can all go jump off a bridge.


Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Realistically I don't think you should begrudge anyone for the amount of money someone else is willing to pay them.

Well said, kermit. Remember, Nuke, the next time someone offers a quarter-BILLION dollars over ten years, you should turn it down because its just too much.

And I contend there is a difference between running baseball like a SPORT for profit and a BUSINESS for profit. If you're strictly in baseball for the sole purpose of lining your pockets, well, then, yes you are killing the game.

Of course, in all of this, has to be said the fact that I do generally associate myself with labor unions because I owe everything I've got to them and the sacrifices people in them made. There's really nothing I am more proud of than the fact that I am a memeber of a union.

Randar68
09-03-2002, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
How much profit is there if no one will work at the business? Ideally speaking any business will allow both the employees and owners to make a good living.

Earlier you complained about unskilled uneducated employees making outrageous money. Can you give an example?

Between the UAW and Teamsters (the former of which I am related to a high-ranking union official in GM), there are too many to mention.

voodoochile
09-03-2002, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Between the UAW and Teamsters (the former of which I am related to a high-ranking union official in GM), there are too many to mention.

How much do they make for doing what job? Can you please give a specific example?

Randar68
09-03-2002, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
If competitive balance is what you are looking for this CBA does nothing for it. The only way to get competitive balance is to limit what the Yankees and others can spend but to also increase what your Kansas Cities and Twins spend.


Personally, I think people are underestimating the public relations of this CBA does to the owners. The owners and Selig are the ones who have touted these changes as ways of leveling competitive balance. Owners like JR, Pohlad, etc, have used the uneven market excuse for years as reasons not to spend competitively. However, they have painted themselves into a corner of sorts here.

They no longer have a valid (or at least as powerful) an excuse as previously. I think you will hear a lot less whining about $$$ from JR (although KW will undoubtedly stick his foot in his mouth).

The owners got at least a measure of what they were seeking, and for any of them to use this excuse in the near future would be a PR nightmare(I know, this IS the owners we are talking about!). We know the Sox will receive somewhere in the 20 million range next year in tax and revenue sharing above what they received this year. For KW to cut payroll and sign no FA's this offseason because of money will be tyhe equivalent of crucifying himself in the media.

Randar68
09-03-2002, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
How much do they make for doing what job? Can you please give a specific example?

I know of a line worker at a Ford plant who essentially presses a couple of buttons as the line moves down to initiate processes that are completely automated. No technical knowledge of the machinery, so he's not like a highly-skilled operator. A monkey could damn-near do the job, and he makes over 70G a year.

Unions do not work on economics. The older you get, the less work you have to do, and the more job security. Not because of performance, but because you have seniority. And your seniority is only partly related to your position, but mostly due to service time.

A business cannot just free-wheeling adjust it's employee structure in order to be more efficient. In many cases, you have to fire from the bottom up. These young or new employees often do more work, but are fired because of seniority clauses in labor contracts.


Look, I know this is not a popular stance. My father-in-law works for American. My uncle is a high-ranking union guy at UAW for GM, I have other close relatives in IBEW and the Teamsters. Some of them agree with me, especially the Teamsters and UAW relatives.

From a "Free-market" perspective, Unions in their current implementation, retard economic flexibility and efficiency. True, they offer better employee protection and it is INTENDED to look out for the welfare of its members. Unfortunately, it is simply not the case in many situations today.

voodoochile
09-03-2002, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
I know of a line worker at a Ford plant who essentially presses a couple of buttons as the line moves down to initiate processes that are completely automated. No technical knowledge of the machinery, so he's not like a highly-skilled operator. A monkey could damn-near do the job, and he makes over 70G a year.

Unions do not work on economics. The older you get, the less work you have to do, and the more job security. Not because of performance, but because you have seniority. And your seniority is only partly related to your position, but mostly due to service time.

A business cannot just free-wheeling adjust it's employee structure in order to be more efficient. In many cases, you have to fire from the bottom up. These young or new employees often do more work, but are fired because of seniority clauses in labor contracts.


Look, I know this is not a popular stance. My father-in-law works for American. My uncle is a high-ranking union guy at UAW for GM, I have other close relatives in IBEW and the Teamsters. Some of them agree with me, especially the Teamsters and UAW relatives.

From a "Free-market" perspective, Unions in their current implementation, retard economic flexibility and efficiency. True, they offer better employee protection and it is INTENDED to look out for the welfare of its members. Unfortunately, it is simply not the case in many situations today.

I guess the point I am trying to make is that this guy has been working for the same company for how long? He didn't start out with an easy job that paid him lots of money. Shouldn't loyalty be rewarded? Shouldn't longevity be rewarded? Was his job always this simple? What did he make when he started? How many "educated" or "skilled" laborers would be willing to do the same job, or would they consider it beneath them? Sure, there are other unskilled uneducated workers who could do the job for a lot less money, but why would we begrudge a guy good pay after a long time with the same company? Obviously auto makers have decided that unions are a necessary evil, or they would have packed up and left a long time ago, or shut down the plant long enough to break the union (like Cat did in Illinois).

Also, there are other sides to this story. There are many cases where after a long stay in a town, a company has just packed it up and gone elsewhere for a better lease, or cheaper labor. That is their right and their duty to their share holders, but what of the people in that town who all of a sudden had no jobs? In many cases, a factory leaving town has effectively closed the town and forced people with lifelong ties to move.

I'm not a huge fan of unions either, but I do understand that the situation has another side. I also think your point about seniority is a moot one. Longer standing employees should be paid more money for what they do. To me that is an accepted fact. Heck raises alone should cause a person's salary to increase through the years if they stay one place long enough. I have a family member who has worked for a big insurance company for over 30 years and she isn't even making 40K a year because they gave her cost of living raises every year. When they closed her department they put her in a room of people who were effectively doing the same thing she was, but they all were making more money than her even though she knew more about her job than any of them. That was because the other people had all been hired when starting salaries were much higher (she started at $12K/year back in 1972). Finally a boss who recognized her worth gave her some merit raises in b2b years to bring her pay up to almost the same level as everyone else. Then they further closed her new department and forced her to take a new job that requires much longer hours and didn't give her that big of a raise. The work is similar, so she is still the most knowledgeable, yet lowest paid worker in the room.

Big Business is hardly the good guy in this equation...

Mathew
09-03-2002, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
How much do they make for doing what job? Can you please give a specific example?

My high school educated friend makes $18 dollars an hour in a tourism town where the average wage for someone his age and skill is at most $7.00 per hour, they went on strike and now make 18.75 plus an extra $4/h on nights and weekends and they all got a $1000 signing bonus!

P.S. he takes tickets at the park gates and a monkey can certainly do his job. The union has all the government employees behind it and the country's organizational structure to use as a barganing chip. They are not sharing profits with the owners, they are far from hard done by. They are stealing from the tax payer. The streets and roads department is the only unionized department in the town I'm in. As an Alderman here we gave the town staff a 6% raise across the board, the THREE unionized streets and roads employees have now gone on strike because the wanted a %10 increase this year. It will cost us more to fight it, but we have to because they already make more that the rest of the departments (most of the other depts. require a good deal of education). Finally my father's gutless union IATSE the film union, has gotten them a whole $1.25 raise over the last 9 years because they need to keep labour low to steal away films from the U.S. Their dues are extremely high and the upper management makes stupid amouts of money. At least Randar's teamsters are taken care of in film, most of them old, former cowboys sleep on the job and complain about the catering. I know this was too long and the thread not directed at me but here's 3 reasons why I hate unions. (sorry if this is in the wrong place I got carried away.)

voodoochile
09-03-2002, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by Mathew
My high school educated friend makes $18 dollars an hour in a tourism town where the average wage for someone his age and skill is at most $7.00 per hour, they went on strike and now make 18.75 plus an extra $4/h on nights and weekends and they all got a $1000 signing bonus!

P.S. he takes tickets at the park gates and a monkey can certainly do his job. The union has all the government employees behind it and the country's organizational structure to use as a barganing chip. They are not sharing profits with the owners, they are far from hard done by. They are stealing from the tax payer. The streets and roads department is the only unionized department in the town I'm in. As an Alderman here we gave the town staff a 6% raise across the board, the THREE unionized streets and roads employees have now gone on strike because the wanted a %10 increase this year. It will cost us more to fight it, but we have to because they already make more that the rest of the departments (most of the other depts. require a good deal of education). Finally my father's gutless union IATSE the film union, has gotten them a whole $1.25 raise over the last 9 years because they need to keep labour low to steal away films from the U.S. Their dues are extremely high and the upper management makes stupid amouts of money. At least Randar's teamsters are taken care of in film, most of them old, former cowboys sleep on the job and complain about the catering. I know this was too long and the thread not directed at me but here's 3 reasons why I hate unions. (sorry if this is in the wrong place I got carried away.)

That 18.75/hour comes out to less than $40K/year. Hardly a windfall...

Randar68
09-03-2002, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
I guess the point I am trying to make is that this guy has been working for the same company for how long? He didn't start out with an easy job that paid him lots of money. Shouldn't loyalty be rewarded? Shouldn't longevity be rewarded? Was his job always this simple? What did he make when he started? How many "educated" or "skilled" laborers would be willing to do the same job, or would they consider it beneath them? Sure, there are other unskilled uneducated workers who could do the job for a lot less money, but why would we begrudge a guy good pay after a long time with the same company? Obviously auto makers have decided that unions are a necessary evil, or they would have packed up and left a long time ago, or shut down the plant long enough to break the union (like Cat did in Illinois).


There is something to be said for loyalty, trust, and a good relationship between employee and employer. We need only to look at the current airlines situation. Year after year, these unions demand pay increases in excess of 10%. This increase far exceeds both the growth of the industry as well as inflation. At some point, these businesses are destined to collapse. There is no economical way for the business to support itself. However, these unions cannot shut down an entire sector of the US economy if they don't bend, crippling not only the ailines industry, but the entire US economy as well. For what? The industry has next to no choice. Give in, Give in, Give in. Eventually, profits disappear as they are already riding a thin line between the red and black. One disaster or slowdown and the whole thing comes crashing down.

Originally posted by voodoochile
Big Business is hardly the good guy in this equation...

I never said they were. However, I am sick of seeing people here support the players because the owners make money. I support the free-market system. However, when someone (or some company) makes a mistake such as overextending itself, how does it recover or rectify the fact when you are not allowed to control your own business????

The owners are the ones who have made hundreds of millions of dollars in investment and who have assumed all the risk. IT IS THEIR RIGHT to make a profit if the market bears such to be the case.

I fully support the right of the players to make lots of money. They do regrdless. I also support the right of the players to be payed per a "free market" scale. The excuses I have heard endlessly here about the owners and any profits they may or may-not have made is complete BS along these lines.



This is a long rant, but we are only seeing the tip of the iceburg on this whole thing. I will not even begin to go into the crookedness and back-room bull crap that many unions practice and take payoffs to keep quite about real issues etc etc. As I once heard from a long-time Teamster: "The Teamsters ain't looking out for you and me, buddy, as long as their pockets are lined."

Randar68
09-03-2002, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
That 18.75/hour comes out to less than $40K/year. Hardly a windfall...

40,000 a year for a person with only a HS education to pull tickets?

Please, this is not preposterous to you? I know several people who are teachers and/or work with the mentally handicapped (well educated folks) for many more hours a week than 40 who make less than 40K a year. This guy pulls freaking tickets!?!?!

Mathew
09-03-2002, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
That 18.75/hour comes out to less than $40K/year. Hardly a windfall...

For an 18 yr old kid living at his parents house sure it does. My mother with 3 kids works for $8.50 and pays her taxes towards his salary.

voodoochile
09-03-2002, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
I never said they were. However, I am sick of seeing people here support the players because the owners make money. I support the free-market system. However, when someone (or some company) makes a mistake such as overextending itself, how does it recover or rectify the fact when you are not allowed to control your own business????

The owners are the ones who have made hundreds of millions of dollars in investment and who have assumed all the risk. IT IS THEIR RIGHT to make a profit if the market bears such to be the case.

What makes you think the owners aren't making a profit? Doesn't the increased value of their franchises count? What about the salaries the owners/charimen make? Why won't they fully open their books? I have no problem with the owners making money at baseball, but I don't believe them when they say they aren't. Anyone of them can sell their team for more money than they bought it. As another poster pointed out a week ago. The capital increase alone on the Sox since JR bought the team, almost matches the DJIA over the same period of time. Yet the owners refuse to acknowledge they are making money. They made the mess by getting into bidding wars and driving up the salaries to outrageous levels. It isn't like the players get paid more money based on seniority - just the opposite in fact. The older you get, the less they pay you unless you are a bonified superstar.

I'd like to see more fiscal responsibility on both sides of the equation, but the facts support the players, IMO.

voodoochile
09-03-2002, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by Randar68


40,000 a year for a person with only a HS education to pull tickets?

Please, this is not preposterous to you? I know several people who are teachers and/or work with the mentally handicapped (well educated folks) for many more hours a week than 40 who make less than 40K a year. This guy pulls freaking tickets!?!?!


Originally posted by Mathew


For an 18 yr old kid living at his parents house sure it does. My mother with 3 kids works for $8.50 and pays her taxes towards his salary.


My point was that it really isn't that much money in the grander scheme of things. Yes, for what he does it is pretty ridiculous, but overall, it isn't going to make the kid rich and is only ridiculous when viewed in context. Still it does sound like some taxpayers need to rise up and make a stand.

Randar68
09-03-2002, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
What makes you think the owners aren't making a profit? Doesn't the increased value of their franchises count? What about the salaries the owners/charimen make? Why won't they fully open their books? I have no problem with the owners making money at baseball, but I don't believe them when they say they aren't. Anyone of them can sell their team for more money than they bought it. As another poster pointed out a week ago. The capital increase alone on the Sox since JR bought the team, almost matches the DJIA over the same period of time. Yet the owners refuse to acknowledge they are making money. They made the mess by getting into bidding wars and driving up the salaries to outrageous levels. It isn't like the players get paid more money based on seniority - just the opposite in fact. The older you get, the less they pay you unless you are a bonified superstar.

I'd like to see more fiscal responsibility on both sides of the equation, but the facts support the players, IMO.

Do I believe everything the owners are saying? Hell no. In addition, my arguement was in protest to those trying to validate their thoughts on "why the players are right" to some sort of connection between the owners making money and the players deserving their slice. The players aren't shareholders. They are employees.

So the fact of JR making less than the S&P 500 over the same period in appreciation of value of his business equates to what???

I am fairly certain that the Sox at least break even on a yearly basis based on the way the Sox have structured their stadium deals and the way JR runs his club (minimal staff, crappy marketing, crappy management, etc, etc. and does it all cheaply). Am I bitter as a fan??? Sure I am. However, it is a business. We are its customers. Until the customers make a dent in the business with their will and pocketbooks, nothing will change.

Dadawg_77
09-03-2002, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by Mathew
For an 18 yr old kid living at his parents house sure it does. My mother with 3 kids works for $8.50 and pays her taxes towards his salary.

Is that 18.75 in Canadian dollars? Which is significantly less then 18.75 in US dollars?

Randar68
09-03-2002, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Is that 18.75 in Canadian dollars? Which is significantly less then 18.75 in US dollars?

40,000 Canadian dollars in Canada will get you about the same standard of living, so does it matter?

NorthSideConvert
09-03-2002, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
And I have no sympathy for the uneducated who think they are entitled to make as much as people who spent 4-10 years of their lives in education.

This, however, does not matter in terms of labor law.

What is one of the big reasons the are airlines failing? Unions...

Actually, the most heavily unionized airline, Southwest, is the most profitable. They have never had a layoff either. Go figure.

NSC

Randar68
09-03-2002, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by NorthSideConvert
Actually, the most heavily unionized airline, Southwest, is the most profitable. They have never had a layoff either. Go figure.

NSC

I don't know the reason for this. Do they have a better relationship with their employees? They also have more limited service to higher-traffic locations only. Also, I'm curious what their salaries(+benefits) would be at various levels in comparison to United.

voodoochile
09-03-2002, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Do I believe everything the owners are saying? Hell no. In addition, my arguement was in protest to those trying to validate their thoughts on "why the players are right" to some sort of connection between the owners making money and the players deserving their slice. The players aren't shareholders. They are employees.

So the fact of JR making less than the S&P 500 over the same period in appreciation of value of his business equates to what???

I am fairly certain that the Sox at least break even on a yearly basis based on the way the Sox have structured their stadium deals and the way JR runs his club (minimal staff, crappy marketing, crappy management, etc, etc. and does it all cheaply). Am I bitter as a fan??? Sure I am. However, it is a business. We are its customers. Until the customers make a dent in the business with their will and pocketbooks, nothing will change.

Maybe the players should be share holders, or at least have the owners acknowledge that without the players, they have no game. Every other sport has more of a partnership between owners and players.

My point about the appreciation of the Sox in value is that JR already has a tidy profit in hand before taking in anything on a yearly basis. The owners refuse to calculate that in to their discussion with the players. They just say, "We are losing money." Any idiot with a basic understanding of finance can see that the business isn't losing money if you calculate in the appreciation in capital. If the owners cannot afford to run their teams and make a profit, they should sell the team to someone who can and take the unrealized capital profit. They aren't really taking any risks after all, because every team is worth more than the current owner paid for it and MLB isn't going to die anytime soon unless the owners and players cannot start treating it more like a partnership and less like "us V them"...

Baseball isn't like other businesses. Value of the teams is more based on prestige and perception than on yearly earnings (though that plays a part). Comparisons between baseball and real world situations just don't cut it...

Vsahajpal
09-03-2002, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Does that make everyone with the word vindicated in their vocabulary a great mind?


Contextually speaking? Absolutely! :)

Paulwny
09-03-2002, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
I don't know the reason for this. Do they have a better relationship with their employees?

I saw an interview on CNBC with the ceo (?) of Southwest. Although their starting to lose some money he won't idle any employees, "The people who are responsible for Southwest's success.
He's not the normal ceo, he asked how long the interview was going to take because he needed a drink and a cigarette.

Randar68
09-03-2002, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
They aren't really taking any risks after all

Has there ever been such a guarantee? Because you succeed does not mean you are not taking risks. They are mutually exclusive.

voodoochile
09-03-2002, 08:57 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Has there ever been such a guarantee? Because you succeed does not mean you are not taking risks. They are mutually exclusive.

In a normal business, you are correct, but unless the current group of owners are dumber than a box of rocks, there is no risk in owning a baseball franchise in MLB. If any of them lose money, it is all their own fault. If the sport goes bankrupt, it is all their own fault. If they manage to kill the golden goose, they will have no one to blame but themselves. The player's salaries will only be part of the problem...

FanOf14
09-03-2002, 09:35 PM
$18.75 for pulling tickets is kinda ridiculous. Either of my parents would kill for that. Also, just because you've been with a company and in the same union for a long time doesn't mean you'll be paid handsomely in 15-20 years. My dad has been at the same place and in the same union for 20 years now, and he makes $11.25 now, I think when he started he was at whatever minimum wage was at the time (I was only 6 at the time so I am not really sure what minimum wage was then). My mom isn't in a union, has been at the same company for about 13-15 yrs now and she makes about the same, if not more, as my dad and she started at $6 or $7 an hr.