Clay Campbell
Well-Known Member
100!!!
Trucker's Strike on April 1
- Thread starter Gavin Allan
- Start date
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
Gypsy me
Well-Known Member
:lol: Nobleman
I don't condone them blocking traffic or highways they surely will get tickets for that.
CLAY! :lol:
I don't condone them blocking traffic or highways they surely will get tickets for that.
CLAY! :lol:
Roger Batts
Well-Known Member
My dad has a dump truck and he can barely afford to fill it up every day. If he stayed home, it was because of weather. I doubt he would have participated in the strike.
Bill Barber
Well-Known Member
was this truley a strike? not, it was a mini protest, did it serve any purpose, did it lower the price of fuel? NIMO
small independants are getting killed for sure, but they are a very small segment of the trucking industry.
there is and will never be solidarity amoungst truckers, the teamsters, the big guys such as yellow want to see all the little guys gone.
When you have deep pockets, the price of fuel is of no consideration, you just pass it on to the consumer, thats US.
small independants are getting killed for sure, but they are a very small segment of the trucking industry.
there is and will never be solidarity amoungst truckers, the teamsters, the big guys such as yellow want to see all the little guys gone.
When you have deep pockets, the price of fuel is of no consideration, you just pass it on to the consumer, thats US.
gary s
Well-Known Member
i am going to drive my toyota right thru that convoy :lol:
buzz worth
Active Member
tom.........we all realize you lean toward the radical when it comes to the liberal/robin hood ways of the world. But if you were to take some of your time and energy, start your own company, and see how the world of business really worked you would certainly turn in your rose colored glasses.
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Buzzworth,
I will translate what you said for Tom:
Translation: "It's easy to complain when sitting in the cheap seats. It's a whole different ballgame when you are on the floor, calling the plays!"
TJR
I will translate what you said for Tom:
Translation: "It's easy to complain when sitting in the cheap seats. It's a whole different ballgame when you are on the floor, calling the plays!"
TJR
gary s
Well-Known Member
wow, this is great. i can just sit back with my bag of popcorn and watch. 
So I think everything should be handed to me? Not hardly. i want to be treated fairly. Give me the same treatment as everyone else. Pay me fairly and give me fair work hours. That is all I ask.
If a company has money to reward a CEo for doing a bad job, what is wrong with rewarding an employee for doing a good job?
Tom
buzz worth
Active Member
Hillary's on her way to see you, Buckeyes.
Nelson Atwell
Well-Known Member
Redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor is a fundamental ideal of Socialism. We fought many wars, spent Billions of dollars and lost many American lives fighting Socialism the past 60 years. All the while, our government has implemented more and more Socialist programs, such as welfare, social security, etc. Now we are faced with the prospect of "Social Medicine" from one of the leading Presidential candidates. After that the only remaining program we could implement is to guarantee that every US citizen will have a job.
The USSR was a failed experiment. It failed because Socialist societies are inefficient. It takes away the incentive for the average Joe to work hard and better his life. This is because there is no incentive to do so, because regardless of how hard he works, his wealth will be redistributed to some lazy slug who sits at home drinking beer all day or some floozy with 7 children from seven different deadbeat dads.
The USSR was a failed experiment. It failed because Socialist societies are inefficient. It takes away the incentive for the average Joe to work hard and better his life. This is because there is no incentive to do so, because regardless of how hard he works, his wealth will be redistributed to some lazy slug who sits at home drinking beer all day or some floozy with 7 children from seven different deadbeat dads.
I thought a country like Canada was Socialist while the USSR was Communist.
In this country, or whole tax system is based off the Communist Manifesto.
Is the pot calling the kettle black?
What are your thoughts of Medicare to care for the old and disabled. Should we throw those people off the side because they no longer benifit society. Less not forget, we all get old.
Tom
Nelson Atwell
Well-Known Member
Tom,
It used to be that when parents became old, their children took care of them. In most sucessful countries that is still the case. Few societies throw their parents into a nursing home when they become a burden. The same goes for children. Most societies have a parent in the lead childrearing role, not some daycare center.
In our grandparents' day, if you didn't plan for your future, you would wind up in the poor house or living with your children. There is nothing wrong with going back to that way, because it gives people the incentive to save up for their old age. If Social Security and MediCare fail (as many predict), there will a lot of surprised old people sitting in poor houses or out on the streets.
It used to be that when parents became old, their children took care of them. In most sucessful countries that is still the case. Few societies throw their parents into a nursing home when they become a burden. The same goes for children. Most societies have a parent in the lead childrearing role, not some daycare center.
In our grandparents' day, if you didn't plan for your future, you would wind up in the poor house or living with your children. There is nothing wrong with going back to that way, because it gives people the incentive to save up for their old age. If Social Security and MediCare fail (as many predict), there will a lot of surprised old people sitting in poor houses or out on the streets.
Nelson,
You still never answered my question. I know the way it used to be. My parents are old enough to be your parents.
Medicare and Madicaide are a type of Socialistic medicine. (Not really, I dare you to show me why they are different)
Whats about the USSR. Socialist like Canada and Germany (Maybe Poland too)? Or were they Communist.
Just because Socialist was in their name does not mean they were socialist.
Tom
You still never answered my question. I know the way it used to be. My parents are old enough to be your parents.
Medicare and Madicaide are a type of Socialistic medicine. (Not really, I dare you to show me why they are different)
Whats about the USSR. Socialist like Canada and Germany (Maybe Poland too)? Or were they Communist.
Just because Socialist was in their name does not mean they were socialist.
Tom
Gypsy me
Well-Known Member
GAVIN! look what you started! :lol:
user 62394
Active Member
- Joined
- May 27, 2005
- Messages
- 491
- Reaction score
- 0
Isn't socialism a broad, general term, and communism a specific form of socialism. Maybe I am wrong.
Rocks
Rocks
Nelson Atwell
Well-Known Member
Tom,
Below are the definitions of socialism and communism. The USSR aspired for Communism, and it was their official doctrine, but they never attained pure communism. They were a socialist state, as the US is also becoming gradually.
By the way, unions take control of the means of production by imposing restrictions through binding contracts and arbitration, sometimes enforced by the government or by the union itself, through strikes.
Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsô-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Main Entry: com·mu·nism
Pronunciation: \ˈkäm-yə-ˌni-zəm, -yü-\
Function: noun
Etymology: French communisme, from commun common
Date: 1840
1 a: a theory advocating elimination of private property b: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2capitalized a: a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics b: a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c: a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d: communist systems collectively
Here are two other terms:
Main Entry: cap·i·tal·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈka-pə-tə-ˌliz-əm, ˈkap-tə-, British also kə-ˈpi-tə-\
Function: noun
Date: 1877
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
Main Entry: free market
Function: noun
Date: 1897
: an economic market operating by free competition
This is the most efficient form of economy, but it has no interference from government, and allows for the formation of monopolies and allows some people to become very rich and others to become destitute. Gradually, our government has put layers of control on our free market economy which has made it inefficient.
Below are the definitions of socialism and communism. The USSR aspired for Communism, and it was their official doctrine, but they never attained pure communism. They were a socialist state, as the US is also becoming gradually.
By the way, unions take control of the means of production by imposing restrictions through binding contracts and arbitration, sometimes enforced by the government or by the union itself, through strikes.
Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsô-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Main Entry: com·mu·nism
Pronunciation: \ˈkäm-yə-ˌni-zəm, -yü-\
Function: noun
Etymology: French communisme, from commun common
Date: 1840
1 a: a theory advocating elimination of private property b: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2capitalized a: a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics b: a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c: a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d: communist systems collectively
Here are two other terms:
Main Entry: cap·i·tal·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈka-pə-tə-ˌliz-əm, ˈkap-tə-, British also kə-ˈpi-tə-\
Function: noun
Date: 1877
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
Main Entry: free market
Function: noun
Date: 1897
: an economic market operating by free competition
This is the most efficient form of economy, but it has no interference from government, and allows for the formation of monopolies and allows some people to become very rich and others to become destitute. Gradually, our government has put layers of control on our free market economy which has made it inefficient.
Last edited by a moderator:
So? Unions keep both sides playing by the rules. If you were a business owner and you had a perspective customer offer to buy something from you, would you not have them sign a contract to make sure you both knew what was on the table? That prevents your customer from agreeing on one thing, but giving you another. When you joined the Military, did you not sign a contract saying you would join for a minimum of so many years?
So far, you have avoided actually answering my questions.
Interesting that we think the USA has the best market, yet we get our butts kicked by companies based in markets that are not free. The US government gave a contract (look the Government does contracts to) to Airbus to build a refueling plane. Lets not forget, Airbus is Government subsidized by France and Germany.
I thought a free market gets the best there is.
A Single Payer network, one that the Doctors and hospitals continue to work on thier own is different than a doctor working for the government.
That is not socialist medicine.
Keeping the [profit in the medical field while eliminating profit in the medical insurance field would be a win-win for everyone.
Tom
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Caymen,
Re. your point about contracts...
I have found them mostly needed when dealing with those that can't be trusted and those that don't keep their word.
Employee Contracts, for example, send a clear message from employer to employee of the subordinate relationship at hand, and the subtle message that without a contract the employee would probably do wrong. That's why whenever I sign one, I also footnote it and write "Signed under duress."
Don't get me wrong, contracts have become a necessary evil, but don't be confused, they are an evil. They have replaced honor and a sense of right.
No one is well served when a contract binds people (or companies, or customers) to that which is harmful to them or no longer in their best interest.
TJR
Re. your point about contracts...
I have found them mostly needed when dealing with those that can't be trusted and those that don't keep their word.
Employee Contracts, for example, send a clear message from employer to employee of the subordinate relationship at hand, and the subtle message that without a contract the employee would probably do wrong. That's why whenever I sign one, I also footnote it and write "Signed under duress."
Don't get me wrong, contracts have become a necessary evil, but don't be confused, they are an evil. They have replaced honor and a sense of right.
No one is well served when a contract binds people (or companies, or customers) to that which is harmful to them or no longer in their best interest.
TJR
TJR,
You would be willing to sell your house without a binding contract?
Get real.
Getting a contract between the employer and employee, INO, is a smart move. It places all cards on the table and I know what I can can result in whatever we agreed to.
If I am not allowed to be late to work more than 3 times in 365 dqays, I can expect to be fired if I am late one more time. That is my agreement. If the company wants to systematicaly fire key people because they make too much money, the company can change the policy for one day, fire the employees they want to fire and then change it back. They can pick and choose how they want to apply the rules. This guy takes the boss golfing, if he is late, who cares. If that other guy that comes into work, does his job, and goes home is late once, he is looking for a new job.
Tom
You would be willing to sell your house without a binding contract?
Get real.
Getting a contract between the employer and employee, INO, is a smart move. It places all cards on the table and I know what I can can result in whatever we agreed to.
If I am not allowed to be late to work more than 3 times in 365 dqays, I can expect to be fired if I am late one more time. That is my agreement. If the company wants to systematicaly fire key people because they make too much money, the company can change the policy for one day, fire the employees they want to fire and then change it back. They can pick and choose how they want to apply the rules. This guy takes the boss golfing, if he is late, who cares. If that other guy that comes into work, does his job, and goes home is late once, he is looking for a new job.
Tom
