Posted 2 months, 4 days ago in 
Loading ...
My family started Dos Hombres Restaurants 31 years ago. We have been in business in the Grand Valley for 34 years. We have been very fortunate to build a successful business in the Grand Valley and live the American Dream. I am now facing the fact that our business my have to close.
Four labor initiatives on the ballot this year are business-killing, job-killing initiatives, but Amendment 56 (mandatory health care) will force anyone who employs 20 or more people (full or part time) to pay 80 percent of the employees’ health insurance costs plus 70 percent of their dependents’ health insurance. This would cost me an additional $9,000 per year, per employee. For Dos Hombres in Clifton that means $756,000 yearly. With my profit margin at 5 percent (average for restaurants), I would need to generate an additional $180,000 per year per employee to cover the cost. If Amendment 56 passes, I will need to close or let 64 people go to survive.
Amendments 53, 55 and 57 will cost me hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to defend myself against claims that I did not report a server who was under-reporting tips, or that I “wrongfully” fired someone for not showing up for work or that a cook who burned his finger has $1 million worth of pain and suffering.
Beyond the hurt to the people I employ and to my family, Colorado will be hurt as well. Restaurants generate approximately $575 million in state and local tax revenues. What is going to happen when three-fourths of them are out of business like me? At a time when nearly every municipality in our state is strapped for cash and looking for ways to cover budget shortfalls, it doesn’t seem prudent to put one of the largest tax-generating sectors of the economy out of business, does it?
Save our small business! Vote “N0” on 53, 55, 56 and 57!
SPIKE HOWARD
Grand Junction
68 Responses to “Save small business, vote ‘No’ on 53, 55, 56 and 57”
Posted September 30th, 2008 at 10:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
You mean to tell me that the employees of Dos Hambres are not provided with health care benefits now? I treated friends to dinner at your restaurant last Saturday, but I will not be continuing this practice given your labor practices. $9,000 per person per year for health insurance? There are group policies considerably cheaper than that.
Posted October 1st, 2008 at 8:56 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Whenever I hear speaking of ’small business’, I have to wonder what as to what definition of ’small’ they are using. How ’small’ is ’small’? I am aware of many who were making millions a year yet still considered themselves ’small’. Most individuals would not consider that at all ’small’.
As to the insurance. It would seem that Mr. Howard, instead of ‘complaining’ only about providing the insurance, might wish to ask himself another question. Why is it that the “cost” of insurance is so high, or is he of the opinion that insurance companies have a ‘right’ to all the profits they make, however that is done? If he does, then the real problem may not be lay with the employees being provided insurance, but with Mr. Howard’s attitude. It is quite easy to complain when one thinks only of themselves and their own interests. Perhaps Mrl Howard, as well as others, may wish to expand their perspective and consider the possibility that they are not the center of the universe and begin recognizing and accepting their obligations towards others. We realize that such is not a popular view these days, recognizing and being concerned only with oneself and one’s own personal desires having replaced it, it is not surprising to see that position constantly expressed in so many letter to local newpapers. One has to wonder why such individuals never developed any type of social conscience, such as responsibility towards one neighbor. Well, some were raised that way (to think only of themselves), and others merely indoctrinated themselves to believe as they now do. They consider themselves ‘entitled’ to all of the benefits, but are the last to put anything in.
Posted October 1st, 2008 at 9:23 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Perhaps if Mr. Laitres were a small business owner in his own right, and had as many employees to work with as Mr Howard, one would give more weight to the value of his opinion.
One has to wonder why individuals such as Mr. Laitres would make the assumption that they know better than the person that operates on a daily basis under the assumption that, after 34 years and numerous highly successful businesses, does not know, or understand the realities of their businesses.
As a person who has known Mr Howard for a number of years, I KNOW that Mr. Howard IS one of the more employee conscious employers in the valley.
Mr Laitres apparently does not know the man, and is only spewing forth that which he has no knowledge of.
Posted October 1st, 2008 at 9:48 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I don’t know Mr. Howard, and I don’t know anyone who works for him, but I think it’s an act of incredible hubris to presume his motives, or his relationship with his employees.
I’ve worked for employers who were fair, conscientious, and cared very much for their employees, who simply could not afford to provide health insurance.
In his letter, Mr. Howard simply gave the facts of what he, as a business owner, was facing. I didn’t see anything selfish or inconsiderate of his employees in that letter. To assume that Mr. Howard’s ‘attitude’ is at fault is to make a judgment based solely on one’s own perception.
Posted October 1st, 2008 at 10:08 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
C52 said to Mr. Howard, “You mean to tell me that the employees of Dos Hambres are not provided with health care benefits now? I treated friends to dinner at your restaurant last Saturday, but I will not be continuing this practice given your labor practices.”
I’m with you, C52, but I must admit I haven’t been to Dos Hombres for several years because I prefer restaurants with a less chaotic atmosphere and better value than that offered by Mr. Howard’s establishment.
Posted October 1st, 2008 at 10:30 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“The National Restaurant Association believes that every American should have access to affordable health insurance, whether through their employer or on their own.”
http://www.restaurant.org/government/issues/issue.cfm?Issue=healthcare
Posted October 1st, 2008 at 10:34 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Responsible restaurant owners who really have the interests of their employees at heart are doing something about providing health care insurance for their employees. The following indicates a positive approach rather than the whining we hear from Mr. Howard:
“The restaurant industry is essential to the nation’s health-care debate. Finding ways to provide meaningful health care for restaurant employees is vital to our industry’s future, and access to affordable health-care coverage is one of our members’ top concerns,” said John Gay, senior vice president of government affairs and public policy for the Association. “We are encouraged that the SHOP Act will provide relief for restaurants, and we urge lawmakers to join the bill’s sponsors in their effort.”
The SHOP Act, which has been introduced in both houses of Congress, would:
• Allow small businesses and the self employed to band together in a statewide or nationwide pool to obtain lower health insurance prices by spreading their risk over a larger number of participants.
• Keep prices low by offering a range of private health plans that have to compete for business.”
http://www.restaurant.org/pressroom/pressrelease.cfm?ID=1686
Posted October 1st, 2008 at 10:37 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
In reply to Mr. Johnson and Curmudgeon, there is no direct attack on Mr. Howard, merely the question as to whether he is so ‘locked in’ to his parochial concerns so as to be unable to see beyond them. If he is concerned with the ‘costs’ of insurance, he might expand his horizons beyond those, and consider why those insurance costs are so high. If he is not doing that, then he is looking at a symptom rather than the cause. If a problem or situation is to be resolved, that is where one has to look, something which all too many are either unable or unwilling to do.
Living in Delta, I know many ’small business’ owners, and speak to them frequently. Some do care for their employees, while others care only about their own ‘bottom line’. Some care about their customers while others care only about the the contents of their customers’ wallets and how they can shift them to their own. And that is reflected in poor service, shoddy workmanship, and poor products. Those whose sole concern is themselves, are not entitled to any profit, nor do they deserve to survive. The fact that they label themselves as a ’small business’ does not carry any weight, at least with this individual.
Posted October 1st, 2008 at 10:39 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class, you do realize that the boycott you promised Mr. Howard will eventually mean less for the employees and eventual termination with NO benefits other than the paltry amounts offered by unemployment ‘insurance’?
Is this about what is good for BOTH the employer and the employee?
If so, please explain why your promised refusal to return to Mr. Howards place of business is ‘good’ for the employees and their impending job loss.
Posted October 1st, 2008 at 10:43 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bob, can you please explain how what you think has any bearing on the realities of Mr. Howards business?
******************
” In reply to Mr. Johnson and Curmudgeon, there is no direct attack on Mr. Howard, merely the question as to whether he is so ‘locked in’ to his parochial concerns so as to be unable to see beyond them. If he is concerned with the ‘costs’ of insurance, he might expand his horizons beyond those, and consider why those insurance costs are so high. If he is not doing that, then he is looking at a symptom rather than the cause. If a problem or situation is to be resolved, that is where one has to look, something which all too many are either unable or unwilling to do.”
*************************
Your implication is that Mr. Howard shows up in the mornings and has no idea of how his business came into being, how it got to where it is, and where it is headed.
PERHAPS the man knows more about HIS business than you?
naw, probably not….
Posted October 1st, 2008 at 10:46 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
What “boycott” are you talking about? A boycott is an organized and concerted effort by a group. I am simply declining to patronize Dos Hambres. By changing my patronage to other restaurants I will be supporting a different owner and his employees.
Posted October 1st, 2008 at 10:51 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sure class.
POST #1.
**************************
” Classof52
Posted September 30th, 2008 at 10:46 pm PM This User Report this comment
You mean to tell me that the employees of Dos Hambres are not provided with health care benefits now? I treated friends to dinner at your restaurant last Saturday, but I will not be continuing this practice given your labor practices. $9,000 per person per year for health insurance? There are group policies considerably cheaper than that.”
The relevant phrase:
” I treated friends to dinner at your restaurant last Saturday, but I will not be continuing this practice given your labor practices.”
******************
You quite plainly stated that you are going to boycott the establishment.
And your ” By changing my patronage to other restaurants I will be supporting a different owner and his employees. ” may be good for the emloyees at the ‘other’ restaurant, but punishes the employees at the restaurant CURRENTLY UNDER DISCUSSION, and that is the employees that I thought you cared about.
Posted October 1st, 2008 at 11:07 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr. Johnson asks: “Bob, can you please explain how what you think has any bearing on the realities of Mr. Howards business?”
Mr. Howard’s business is his business. However, neither Mr. Howard nor his business are the centers of the universe. He, like every single one of us have to be concerned with much more than ourselves and our own parochial and selfish interests.
If he did, he might find that he is also overpaying on liability and casualty insurance, much like many doctors are overpaying on liability insurance. Yet, being concerned only with themselves and their own interests, they cannot see that they are being ‘fleeced’ at every turn, much as we all are, and in more ways than one.
Perhaps the problem is that ’small business’ owners have a view of economics and finance that, while it may apply to the lemonade vendor, does not apply at other levels. The current turmoil in the financial sector of the economy is a case in point.
Does anyone believe that the rules they operate by are the same as does Mr. Howard? Those who believe or think they are,are deluding themselves. They are operating by their own ’set of rules’, and frequently by those which they wrote of ‘purchased’ for themselves through lobbying. And one of those industries constantly engaged in ‘purchasing’ the rules they want is the insurance industry.
Perhaps Mr. Howard, as well as many others, would do well to pay attention to that facet of the problem also, everyone should.
Posted October 1st, 2008 at 11:21 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
So Bob, you are saying that you have an intimate knowledge of what Mr. Howard does, and does not know of his own business?
You pretend to know where his ‘horizon’ lies and you know that he cannot see anything beyond on the limitations that YOU PLACED ON HIM?
Some people would label that as pomposity at it’s extreme.
But not me, I merely consider the source.
Posted October 1st, 2008 at 1:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I am fortunate to work 3/4 time for a small nonprofit business that has made it a priority to cover all of its employees’ health insurance premiums 100%, including mine. I would think that if a small nonprofit business could swing this, a much bigger, for-profit employer like Dos Hombres could do the same, if they had the will. I know Lois’ Place on Grand Ave. offers such benefits for its employees, and in return has had remarkable retention of employees for many years. Employees appreciate it when they see their employer truly cares for them, and return the favor by being loyal.
Posted October 1st, 2008 at 1:27 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well, apparently this latest poster knows how Mr. Howard treats his employees.
I guess we’ll all just have to wait and see how many abandon Spike and go running to Lois’s Place looking for a ‘better’ employer.
Or, it may be possible that Mr. Howard treats his employees far better than his detractors on this site would have the readers believe?
Naw, they would never knowingly spread lies about a person they know nothing about.
Posted October 1st, 2008 at 3:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ: Or, it may be possible that Mr. Howard treats his employees far better than his detractors on this site would have the readers believe?
Detractors? What was it they said that led you to believe they were downgrading hime, WLJ? All I have seen are comments by people who have just taken him at his word that he has no intentions of providing health insurance for his employees as some other restaurants do and as advocated by the National Restaurant Association as detailed in post 7 above. For all we know this posture toward his employees may indicate similar attitudes toward them in other areas of their interactions.
How about you WLJ, do you provide health care insurance to your employees in your business or are you in sympathy with Mr. Howard’s view?
Posted October 1st, 2008 at 4:31 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
If you’re going to stop eating at restaurants that don’t buy health insurance for their employees, you better buy a cookbook and an apron, cuz you’ll be eating virtually every meal at home. You better grow your own food too, because grocery stores don’t buy health insurance either. Plus, you better walk everywhere because the gas station where you buy your gas ain’t paying for it; and neither is the bank where you cash your checks. Hoo-boy, you might just as well hole up for good!
And really, what do you think the Natopnal restaurant Asociation is going to say? That they believe no employees should get health insurance? Really, think it through!!
Posted October 1st, 2008 at 4:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ilickers: “If you’re going to stop eating at restaurants that don’t buy health insurance for their employees, you better buy a cookbook and an apron, cuz you’ll be eating virtually every meal at home. You better grow your own food too, because grocery stores don’t buy health insurance either. Plus, you better walk everywhere because the gas station where you buy your gas ain’t paying for it; and neither is the bank where you cash your checks. Hoo-boy, you might just as well hole up for good!”
Have you got any data to support your opinions or are these just off the wall comments? I know for a fact that some restaurants and oil and gas companies have health insurance as part of their employee benefits. Maybe you are the one who needs to do some thinking!!
In any case, once Obama gets elected we will have adequate health insurance for everyone and the whole point will be moot.
Posted October 1st, 2008 at 5:58 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Everyone is worried about the restaurant industry and restaurant owners. They don’t deserve any more consideration than any other business entity, and no more than the individual worker or citizen. Classof52 apparently shares some of the same values that I do. Those who do not treat their workers with respect are not deserving of my patronage, nor will they get it. Some brands I have not bought for decades, for that very reason. And, that is my choice to make. While I may not launch a full-fledged campaign (boycott) to get everyone else to do the same, I do make sure to tell people I am doing so when the opportunity arises. That is also my choice, and one which I choose to exercise. If that offends some of the ‘corporatist’ in our midst, that is their problem, not mine. At least that is how I look at it. Those who believe differently have every right to choose their own course of action, if any.
Posted October 1st, 2008 at 9:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bob, I’m so glad that you wrote this sentence.
” Those who do not treat their workers with respect are not deserving of my patronage, nor will they get it. ”
Apparently this means that you will be a regular patron at Dos Hombres in Clifton.
Spike treats his employees very well, ad even respects them far more than you know.
You have actually been there and discussed the working environment with his employees haven’t you?
Posted October 1st, 2008 at 10:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Rexall states: “52 you are one naive son of a gun!”
The gentleman must have watched the McCain performance and picked up a new word in the process. We can therefore expect to see it quite frequently in his future posts.
Posted October 1st, 2008 at 10:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
boycott: verb refuse to have commercial or social dealings with (a person, organization, or country) as a punishment or protest.
The Compact Oxford English Dictionary
Sounds like C52 is starting a boycott.
Posted October 1st, 2008 at 11:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sullivan uses a ‘compact’ dictionary to define boycott. That is not something that has much use, except as a starting point. Instead, one should use a full dictionary, Oxford in this case. In that regard the definition begins as follows: “To COMBINE in refusing to hold relations….” And, unless one combines with oneself (not that such might not be useful to some) it is well nigh impossible to institute a boycott one one’s own.
Posted October 1st, 2008 at 11:31 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
My dictionary says that the word “boycott” is “after Captain C. C. Boycott, land agent ostracized [boycotted] by his neighbors during the Land League agitation in Ireland in 1880.” RLaitres is thus correct in that the word “boycott” typically entails a combined effort by a group of people.
Posted October 2nd, 2008 at 8:08 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Many places have signs that say “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service.” I’ve never seen one that said anything about pants.
Posted October 2nd, 2008 at 8:54 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I find it interesting that when one of the usual suspects launches a one person boycott and gets called on his hypocrisy, the rest jump in and apply different definitions.
Even by their attempted deflection, class advertised his intentions to boycott the establishment, and encouraged others to follow him in his efforts to cause financial harm to Mr Howard for not operating HIS BUSINESS in accordance with his desires.
Either way fellers, you lose.
Why not take up a collection and repay Mr. Howard for the expenses YOU desire to place on his business, and thereby help his employees?
Posted October 2nd, 2008 at 9:02 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
The center ‘L’’s are capital “I”
Posted October 2nd, 2008 at 9:04 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
POOF!!! even the question from dc is gone….
Posted October 2nd, 2008 at 9:04 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I am amazed at the comments generated by my letter, this is the way we should open up discussion about health care. Believe me we have looked at many options for health care for our employees, and we provide health care for our management, we also have a 401K progam, healthclub membership, discounted employees meals,paid vacation,flex scheduling,etc..Many of our employees are in high school or college and are covered by their parents also we have working moms who are covered by their spouses. I’m not whining Grand Junction has been good to us and we have given back to our community in many ways.This bill is purposefully vague and will be administered by the state that scares me also. If we are going to do health care let’s get it right this bill was submitted by unions as opposition to amendment #47.Colorado restaurants are going to be the victim of this battle.
Posted October 2nd, 2008 at 9:07 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr. Howard mentioned all four amendments, and I certainly understand his concerns about the the costs of health benefits, but what about the other amendments?
As someone who worked in food service for close to 15 years, I have seen a lot of abuses. As a 16 year old, I was required to operate large meat and cheese slicers (law at the time required me to be 18), and I was told I’d be fired if I didn’t do the job assignment to me.
A couple of years later, at a different job, I witnessed an coworker lose the tip of his finger to a malfunctioning slicer (of which the owners were aware–but they ordered him to keep using it anyway). He was denied Workers Compensation because, the owners claimed in hindsight, he should have known better than to use a faulty piece of equipment. This coworker was only 19 at the time, and didn’t know his rights, so he eventually paid his own medical bills.
I’ve also seen countless coworkers fired for little or no reason (refusing to work unassigned shifts; defending themselves against truly abusive customers; not getting along with the owner’s favorite employees; complaining about unsanitary practices).
I don’t mean to suggest that these things happen at all restaurants, and I certainly don’t mean to imply anything about Dos Hombres, but things like this do happen fairly often in food service. And, since many food service workers are young, they’re less aware of their rights than more seasoned employees. For those restaurants that treat employees fairly, Amendments 53, 55, and 57 shouldn’t create too many changes–but maybe they’ll better protect those workers whose employees don’t follow the rules.
Posted October 2nd, 2008 at 9:57 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
dos2hom states: “If we are going to do health care let’s get it right this bill was submitted by unions as opposition to amendment #47.Colorado restaurants are going to be the victim of this battle.”
1. That is correct, and if we are going to ‘get it right’, let us begin with the question as to ‘Why employers cannot afford insurance for their employees’; i.e. why is much insurance unaffordable. Let us have the courage to ask that question first. Then we can proceed.
2. We should not be legislating through the constition, any constitution. And nobody should be doing so, either business, churches, or unions. Unfortunately the various parties do not apply that restriction to themselves. “No. The other person should not do it, but I can”; that is what the problem usually is. One need only look at the shifting editorial positions of the Daily Sentinel on this issue.
3. The gentleman is afraid of unions. He should ask himself why. If he were to look at the current mess in the financial sector of the economy, he might find that it is not the unions that caused it, it is business and many in its leaders. If he looks at history without a jaundiced eye, he may ask himself where unions came from, and why. He might do that instead of succumbing to ‘fear’ and judging them ‘en masse’, as if they were intrinsically evil.
4. There are other amendment questions on the ballot this year, most being placed there by ‘business’ and commercial interests. They have no business there either.
Posted October 2nd, 2008 at 10:01 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL, item number 3.
Actually, it is the cost of unions that has destroyed the US auto manufacturing industry.
And a major reason, along with punishing government regulations that are driving businesses to move their production facilities to foreign locations.
Posted October 2nd, 2008 at 10:12 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof52: Yes, of course I have data to support my comments. I encourage you to research it for yourself, and these Web sites may be of considerable help:
http://www.bls.gov. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes a comprehensive survey of benefits participation in both the public and private sector. The research only pertains to the percent of employees participating in benefit programs offered by employers, and not whether employers actually offer benefits packages, so use caution when interpreting those results. It is of particular interest, to me, anyways, that a much higher percentage of workers in government jobs particpate in these programs. That might be due to the fact that the government (read: employer), you and I of course, are paying for these benefits allowing the employees to participate at a greater rate and at a lower personal cost. That is only speculation on my part since the survey does not cover that aspect.
Another excellent resource is http://www.ebri.org. Employee Benefits Research Institute is a non-partisan organization that compiles vast amounts of fact-based research and statistics on the status of insured vs. insured citizens, and non-citizens for that matter, whether they are currently employed or not. EBRI studies encompass a far greater amount of research than just health benefits, but you might want to stick to that topic for starters, lest you become afflicted with “analysis paralysis”! One very interesting and perhaps myth-busting study can be found in the 36 page brief entitled Sources of Health Insurance and Characteristics of the Uninsured: Analysis of the March 2008 Current Population Survey. I would be interested in your opinions on it after you’ve read it.
There are numerous individual corporate Web sites that explain at a very cursory level the type of benefits packages offered. For example, http://www.halliburton.com and http://www.conocophillips.com provide that information. Please note at Conoco Phillips the information available is only for their oil and gas exploration and development segment, not their retail gas stations. The two are obviously very different entities and handle their employee benefits very differently as well. (Halliburton is a somewhat more difficult site to access, but your persistence will pay off.)
Additionally, and more germane to Mr. Howard’s original comments, is the fact that the Colorado Restaurant Association, the state branch of the National Restaurant Association, is also advocating the defeat of these amendments! Surprised? They even refer to them as “Poison Pills”. You can find that information at http://www.coloradorestaurant.com.
I hope you find this information helpful and enriching.
Posted October 2nd, 2008 at 10:30 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ilickers: Classof52: Yes, of course I have data to support my comments. I encourage you to research it for yourself, and these Web sites may be of considerable help:
No. You made the assertions so by the rules of logic the burden of proof is on you to back up your statements if challenged to provide evidence. Open ended references do not constitute evidence. It would be like my saying “Jesus lied about his mother” reference: The Bible. I am sure you would not find that a satisfactory citation. You need to document your statements that restaurants, the food industry, the oil and gas industry and the banking industry do not offer their employees health care benefits. Otherwise what we have here is merely your unsupported opinion.
Posted October 2nd, 2008 at 10:36 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ: Actually, it is the cost of unions that has destroyed the US auto manufacturing industry.”
Another false statement not supported by evidence. The U.S. auto industry did not deliver vehicles that even came close in quality, reliability or features to that offered by foreign competitors, notably Toyota and Honda. My last Cadillac had a total engine failure during its first year of operation. since then I have been driving Mercedes with no problems.
Posted October 2nd, 2008 at 10:39 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
No class, it is up to your to disprove his position.
By providing reputable sources, he has proven his position to be valid.
Now it is up to you to provide evidence that would disprove his position.
Posted October 2nd, 2008 at 10:44 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
As to the costs of union labor, healthcare, assorted benefits, as well as the retirement packages forced on the automakers over the years, the union costs ARE the reason the companies could not afford to keep open plants in the US, but moved those facilities out of this country.
THAT, my friend is undeniable FACT.
The fact that it interferes with your political agenda is not relevant to the discussion.
And, as an aside, I could really care less if you bought a vehicle with a defective part. Or maybe is was poor workmanship during the manufacturing process?
You know, like crappy work by a union member? Who would have ever thunk it could happen?
Posted October 2nd, 2008 at 11:03 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I know for a fact that unions are one of the primary reasons why the American Merchant Marine is almost non-existant. Not the only reason, but one of the biggest. Flag a ship in the US and you have to hire a union crew, making around $20.00 per hour to start and lots of overtime. Flag it in Panama and you can hire a Filipino crew for $20.00 per day each.
Posted October 2nd, 2008 at 12:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ,#38, your undeniable FACT is simplistic, to be charitable. It’s up to the companies to resist unions demands in negotiations. The real reasons the domestic manufacturers were and are in trouble is the products they produce and their inability to rapidly respond to market changes. As to crappy work, the quality in a car is built in by engineering, not by assembly workers. Foreign makers consistently have better quality and supposed “workmanship”, even in plants with unions, because the quality is designed in. If you design for smaller tolerances the assemblers have to abide by the fit of the item to be assembled because it cannot be assembled but one way. Standards of acceptance and statistical control of quality have, until very recently, also been higher in foreign manufacturer plants, both here and overseas. Unions are the only counter for individuals in dealing with the power of the employer. The US manufacturers gave away the farm in negotiations over the years because they felt they had a lock on the market and continuing production was better than a strike so they just let the legacy liabilities build up. Hubris, arrogance and bureaucracy did the rest. You gain an understanding of these things after 35 years in the industry working for both domestic and foreign manufacturers dealing with all aspects of the business including manufacturing and engineering.
Posted October 2nd, 2008 at 12:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sorry john, your protectionist post doesn’t hold water.
” As to crappy work, the quality in a car is built in by engineering, not by assembly workers. ”
If an assembly line worker decides that he just doesn’t want to put in all the nuts and bolts, or tighten them to specs, it is not ‘engineerings’ fault.
If the workers sloppy work habits are discovered, he cannot be fired, nor penalized in any manner.
And to be specific John, we are discussing the UAW, and not some petty little unheard of union in some far off part of the world.
They manufacturers “gave away the farm” because in the 50’s and 60’s, it was either cave to the demands or go bankrupt.
The FACT still remains, the enormous expense of union forced concessions over the years has directly caused the demise of American Manufacturing capabilities.
Posted October 2nd, 2008 at 1:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
One other item John, like class, I buy foreign manufactured vehicles simply for the reason that I do not believe in supporting sloppy workmanship by union ‘labor’.
I do also buy American where the quality makes it worth the price, regardless of whether or not the producer is unionized.
Posted October 2nd, 2008 at 2:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ, who said anything about protectionism or why does stating the facts amount to apparently the same thing in your mind? I was there, you weren’t. Management in the US industry can fire people for not doing their job. The work rules are a matter of negotiation and if management is lax because they feel it’s more important to put another one out the door rather than have strict assembly quality inspection and standards, I guess they’ll have to answer to the ramifications of that. Manufacturers can always hold out longer than union members. They just didn’t bother in the past because they felt they had the market advantage. Your “opinion”, rather than facts, is what doesn’t hold water. Have you ever been part of a union negotiation–from the management’s position–in the auto industry? I have. Workers are considered nothing more than just a piece of the puzzle, like a fender or windshield, in the assembly process and are not looked upon as humans. They are only worth the strength they have in the bargaining process.
Posted October 2nd, 2008 at 2:24 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
You must have been the shop steward.
Posted October 2nd, 2008 at 2:48 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ, the shop steward is a union member. I was management, as I think it was clear. Anything for a response, huh? You can have the last word. I see you’ve run out of anything concrete to say since you are way out of your element so say anything, it won’t matter. Never does. I’m outa here.
Posted October 2nd, 2008 at 3:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
So, if I only use a few words, I’m out of anything concrete?
Sorry.
You seem to be very protective of the union as opposed to any loyalty to the company, and the company thinks of the employees as somewhat less than human.
Fair enough, after the demands that nearly put all of the three major manufactures out of business during the 50’s and 60’s, management probably did feel that way.
After all, they were no longer ‘employees’, but rather something closely resembling ungrateful leeches.
You say that you represented the management in labor contract negotiations, but your attitude seems to be pro union and, as a member of senior management I probably would find less and less need for your services with each concession you gave away to the unions.
Posted October 2nd, 2008 at 3:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ: “No class, it is up to your to disprove his position.
By providing reputable sources, he has proven his position to be valid.
Now it is up to you to provide evidence that would disprove his position.”
OK. WLJ here is one for you: I am certain that invisible angels control everything you say and write, that you have no independent will but that everything you do is controlled by these invisible and undetectable heavenly messengers. How do I know this? It’s in the Bible, a reputable source of information. Prove me wrong!
Posted October 2nd, 2008 at 3:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
His position has been proven to be invalid by the fact that there are numerous foreign auto manufacturers doing a very good business in this country.
Posted October 2nd, 2008 at 3:24 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh, sorry, I misread what you had posted class.
You have invisible angels that control everything you say and write?
That does help explain a lot of things class, but as a confirmed non-believer, are you allowed to read the Bible?
Do you really consider the Bible to be a reputable source?
Do you believe everything that is written in the Bible?
And what does this have to do with the topic under discussion?
Wasn’t this in regards to whether or not Mr. Howard should be required by the government to provide healthcare for all his employees?
And now I’m getting a religious sermon?
VERY interesting…..
Posted October 2nd, 2008 at 4:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I worked at the “little’ Dos Hombres and deli on 1st Street back in the winter of 84& 85. It was a part time minimum wage job but it was one I needed at the time. I worked for the other hombre, Scott. His manager at the time was a poorly educated and often rude woman but there wasn’t anything I could do about it. The labour amendments have been removed from the ballet.
Posted October 2nd, 2008 at 5:17 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Spike, excellent letter. Don’t be discouraged by what you read here. You have to understand that when you come to this site you will be bombarded by liberals who believe that the profit motive is a sin.
In a town where Mexican restaurants are everywhere, the competition is stiff and profit margins are very narrow. Don’t pay attention to these liberals. They encourage you to pay the benefits even if it drives you out of business. Driving up the cost of labor is what the unions did in the 70s and 80s and that is why all those factories in the midwest shut down and jobs went overseas.
Let Class go eat at restaurants that pay health care benefits. I cab see it now, Class walks into a restaurant and before being seated he inquires if health benefits are being paid. You won’t miss his business.
Posted October 2nd, 2008 at 8:59 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ: “And what does this have to do with the topic under discussion?”
It goes right to your point made above :WLJ: “No class, it is up to your to disprove his position.”
The example I gave demonstrates the absurdity of trying to “disprove” an assertion when one is simply given a tome as a reference. One would have to read the entire material (many many hours in the references cited) to try to find either a proof or lack thereof. Most people understand that it is impossible to prove a negative, or to disprove another’s assertion when no useful reference is given.
Posted October 2nd, 2008 at 9:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bfrog: “You have to understand that when you come to this site you will be bombarded by liberals who believe that the profit motive is a sin.”
Why do you make these inflammatory and untrue stereotypical characterizations BFrog? It certainly does not contribute to advancing a discussion in a thoughtful way. I ran a small business in Grand Junction for several years which now supports one of my sons and his family. We made a substantial profit.
Posted October 2nd, 2008 at 9:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bfrog states: “You have to understand that when you come to this site you will be bombarded by liberals who believe that the profit motive is a sin.”
The above statement exhibits one who “thinks in extremes.” If it is not alpha it has to be omega, if something is not ‘white’ it has to be black. “Profit” is not a sin, but neither should it be a ‘god’. Such type of thinking (if one can call it that), exhibits that of an individual lacking any type of real understanding as a consequence of a lack of education; not ’schooling’ mind you, education.
Posted October 2nd, 2008 at 9:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“Such type of thinking (if one can call it that), exhibits that of an individual lacking any type of real understanding as a consequence of a lack of education; not ’schooling’ mind you, education.”
I will be happy to compare my education to yours any time. Anyone who reads this blog knows full well that you and your buddy are anti-business and pro-union; typical liberals.
Posted October 2nd, 2008 at 10:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
BFrog: “I will be happy to compare my education to yours any time. Anyone who reads this blog knows full well that you and your buddy are anti-business and pro-union; typical liberals.”
I assume that I am the buddy you are talking about. If so then you should know that for the last 18 years or so of my career, I worked in corporate America. I was a an Executive Vice President for one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the Country, a member of the group of 5 on the executive committee who made all policy decisions for the company. Anti business??? What a laugh. My stockbroker and my accountant would be greatly amused at such a characterization. Watch out who you stereotype BFrog; it may come back to bite you in the butt!
Posted October 2nd, 2008 at 10:14 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog responded: “I will be happy to compare my education to yours any time. Anyone who reads this blog knows full well that you and your buddy are anti-business and pro-union; typical liberals.”
Let us take point one. He wishes to compare his ‘education’ against mine. Really? Is the individual sure that he is not speaking here of ’schooling’ only? That seemingly small distinction, which is a rather large one, is really quite important. A ’schooled’ person may know a great many things; i.e. facts or skills. There is nothing wrong with that. However, the ‘educated’ person has the ability and capability to place those facts into proper persepective.
Then, we can move on to the standard ‘everyone’ or ‘anyone’ argument. Again, I ask “Really?” Who is “anyone”? Now, perhaps bullishfrog learned many things in his schooling but, any individual who has ever written a serious academic paper, or engaged in serious debate, already knows that one that such generalizations are not at all convincing in any argument as they say absolutely nothing. (Some of us did learn that as part of our education).
Posted October 2nd, 2008 at 10:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well, Class, the comment regarding my lack of education was made by RL, not you, and my answer was directed at him. And I just learned that the ammendments being discussed here will no longer be an issue in this election. A blow to liberals and a win for those who believe in free enterprise.
Posted October 2nd, 2008 at 10:23 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
One gets the definite impression that bullishfrog constantly evades the points in the arguments of others. Perhaps it is important to provide him with a question, something related to a field in which one he would claim to be an expert “economics”.
We would like to see a treatise upon the subject, not only on one economic system, but rather if knows what is the purpose of an economic system, not of itself, but in relation to a society or country. What he sees as its proper function and role in one or both.
Posted October 3rd, 2008 at 7:07 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Funny, I would certainly be considered a liberal by the standards here and I’m glad the proposed amendments are off the table. No blow suffered here.
Posted October 3rd, 2008 at 8:53 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL, while you philosophize, folks who own a restaurant, have a business to run. You have the luxury of criticizing and raising questions without offering any solutions to the issues raised. You never offer any solutions because you are afraid to be pinned down and be forced to defend yourself. I have seen this on frequent occasions when, upon getting pinned down and asked to defend a position, you simply disappear.
So keep philosophizing and allow others. like Spike Howard, who have to operate in the real world, to go about their business.
Posted October 3rd, 2008 at 9:16 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
BFrog: ” and my answer was directed at him.”
Really? Then why did you write: “…you and your buddy are anti-business and pro-union; typical liberals.”
“liberals” is plural and must have been directed at RM and his buddy as you indicated, nocierto?
Posted October 3rd, 2008 at 9:45 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog responds: “So keep philosophizing and allow others. like Spike Howard, who have to operate in the real world, to go about their business.”
Perhaps bullishfrog should not use such a big word as philosopy or philosophize, like many others who do, do not have the slightest inkling as to what it means. Let us just say that everyone is a ‘philosopher’ and philosophizes. It is just that some of us recognize that we do, and take the time to understand what our ‘philsophy’ is, where it came from, and what are its components. When seeing a reply such as bullishfrog’s who, when asked a serious question about his own, what some of us see is an attempt to totally evade, and jump back down into the immediate or personal.
One has to wonder if the individual, when he purchases a car, goes to the dealer and purchases one based solely on all the parts being present, or if he also looks at how it is put together? Does he look at the tires and make sure that they are round instead of square? Does he look to see if the engine and transmission are in there proper places and correctly hooked up or, is he concerned at all if their positions are reversed and connected only by bailing wire?
As to the gentleman’s advice about living in the ‘real’ world, if one is to live in the real world, one needs first to understand it. bullishfrog, when he speaks of the ‘real’ world, is not speaking of reality at all. What he means by that is a parochial world, limited by the self-imposed constraints of limited knowledge and understanding. That is more an existence of ‘believing’ and one almost devoid of perspective.
As far as to solutions, some of us have learned the difference between offering solutions to ’symptoms’ vs. devising real solutions; i.e. addressing the problem or issue itself. And, we have also learned that such requires much more than being concerned with the immediate and obvious.
Posted October 3rd, 2008 at 10:32 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class, don’t play stupid.
Let’s recap. Here is RL’s put down:
RL wrote: “Such type of thinking (if one can call it that), exhibits that of an individual lacking any type of real understanding as a consequence of a lack of education”
To which I responded: “I will be happy to compare my education to yours any time.”
Then, in response to you, I wrote:
“Well, Class, the comment regarding my lack of education was made by RL, not you, and my answer was directed at him.”
Now, if you too want to accuse me of lacking an education, go ahead. Then we can spar some more.
Posted October 3rd, 2008 at 10:38 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
When one reads RL’s postings, one can imagine the following scene:
Joe, a soldier in the battlefield, is hunkerd down in a foxhole, with shells exploding all around him and enemy tanks headed straight for his position. He calls out to RL, his commanding officer, for advice.
RL comes over to Joe and says: “Now Joe, you are worried about getting killed. But have you really thought about what caused this war? Have you considered what our leaders could have done to prevent it? Perhaps there was something that went on in your early childhood years that prevents you from looking at the big picture? Perhaps……………BOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted October 3rd, 2008 at 11:39 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Perhaps bullishfrog may wish to avoid military analogies, as some of us have considered and used them in the past.
When reading bullishfrog’s posts, one may also conclude that if he were a soldier he would give all his concerns to his own survival, and none as to that of others or the mission of his unit. He might not even get up in the morning or go out on a mission because of the possibility that he might ‘get shot at’; i.e. only his self-interests matter.
Perhaps instead of attempting to provide me with free psycho-analysis as to my childhood, or perhaps say that my perspective does not allow me to look at the ‘big picture’, he might answer what I requested him to do in a previous post, as to the how an economic system fits into the life of a society or country.
It is doubtful if he really understands the question or the concept, ever considered it, and therefore does not recognize its importance or necessity of answering it. Therefore, we are left with little nothing but denial and evasion.
Posted October 3rd, 2008 at 12:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Much has been said of ‘education’, and we use it quite liberally. Unfortunately, few bother to go back to look what constitutes an ‘educated’ person or even why our founders wanted a system of public education.
The founders wanted people to be ‘educated’ because they considered it important in the exercise of the democratic franchise. They wanted the individual not only to ‘know about’, but to understand issues and what was at stake when casting their ballot and the very real consequences of voting one way or another.
When looking at what today we call our ‘educational system’, that appears to have been lost. In large part, not completely, it is dedicated to teaching ’skills’. It is not that those are unimportant, but is that all there is to being ‘educated’? Some of us believe that it is not.
Nor is formal schooling necessary in order to become educated.
Some of us have had the privilege of meeting individuals who, despite their lack of opportunity to attend colleges and universities, or even grade or high school, we consider highly educated. That is because they have exercised the powers of observation and critical thought all of their lives. They learned by ‘living’ in the real world.
On the other hand, we have also met college and university educated individuals who, having been ‘taught’ by their professors, instead of ‘learning’, have blindly accepted whatever their teachers and professors as somehow being ‘absolute truths’, and merely because such individuals hold degrees in one discipline or another. There is no such thing as any ‘absolute truth’ in anything any individual can understand. The active and critical mind will recognize that.
Progress, any type of progress, and in any field, can only occur if people ‘question’. The other type of mentality creates nothing more than a ‘believer’ who has imposed limitations on him/herself. The latter can only lead to stagnation or, in many cases, becoming a reactionary.
Posted October 3rd, 2008 at 12:38 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Quite right RL: Many people also confuse a true educational experience with the kind of technical training that one gets at let’s say, The Colorado School of Mines.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.