(SIX PICTURES BELOW)
http://www.geocities.com/backlassoweb/
WEDNESDAY RALLIES UFCW 1442 (6:00p.m. to 9:00p.m)

Feb. 11
Albertson's #6103
12630 S. Hawthorne @ El Segundo

Feb. 18
Vons #110
715 Pier Ave. @PCH (Lincoln)
Hermosa Beach

`Feb 25
Albertson's #6162
2627 Lincoln Blvd,@Ocean Park
Santa Monica
SATURDAY RALLIES UFCW 1442

Feb. 14
Albertson's #6127
1516 PCH (Lincoln)
Redondo Beach
11:00 am

Feb. 21
Vons #105
4365 Glencoe Ave.
Marina Del Rey
11:00 a.m.

Feb. 28
Albertson's #6189
2115 Artesia Blvd.
Redondo Beach
11:00 a.m.

STRIKE FORCE 1442 AT ALBERTSONS NEAR LAX

STRIKE FORCE 1442 AT ALBERTSONS NEAR LAX 2

AT RALPHS, CA 90045

AT RALPHS, CA 90045 (2)

AT VONS NEAR LOYOLA UNIVERSITY

I think all of them should immediately be fired. It's not that difficult to replace them, let's be honest.

Fire them all. The next job they get, they might appreciate it.

As someone who is not had health insurance in all my years of work. As someone who got fired for union organizing, when the right to organize is supposed to be a democratic right in our nation and many others around the world. There is something terribly wrong when corporations like Safeway, with multi-millionaire CEOs at their helm like Steve Burd, think that it is ok to try to increase their profits on the backs of workers wages and health. Even worse is the brainwashing of so many working class people who think that is ok to stab your neighbor in the back crossing their picketlines, well somehow rationalizing the greed and inhumanity that affects us all when any of us go without healthcare or have to struggle to make ends meet us at co-pays and premiums keep going up while wages have stayed the same if not gone down.
We need to wake up and realize how this affects us all, and as far as all the shitty comments go, y'all need to just shut the fuck up if you aren't going to say anything semi-productive. Unless you wanna try and put more context on it, or even step to the plate and work a grocery job, that is still to under appreciated and underpayed, even with the cost of basic healthcare being covered by the greedy 3.

Thanks to the Strikers for Taking a Stand
Solidarity Forever - upton sinclair, bay area supporter ad boycotter

How do you like that? You and all the rest of your Bolshevik friends can buy a one-way ticket to North Korea. See how you like that.

"Unless you wanna try and put more context on it, or even step to the plate and work a grocery job, that is still to under appreciated and underpayed,"


As soon as you make completely assinine comments like that, your credibility is shot.

Underappreciated and underpaid will never be honest assessments of such a menial task.

Please save us the hyperbole. It's comments like those that are making the average person look at the strikers like the goofs that they are.

Tell us, oh fetid shitpile, what do YOU do for a living?

...also, I thought that this was kind of funny

shitpile: "Underappreciated and underpaid will never be honest assessments of such a menial task. "

...then directly after this overblown, overreaching elitist spittle...

shitpile: "Please save us the hyperbole."

Gee....Republican Hypocrite...whodda thunk it?

Those who live off the labor of others - employers living off their workers, landlords off their renters, the idle rich off their servants, sharecroppers and peons, "managers" squeezing rank and file workers on behalf of a bigger boss - always have a psychological need to disparage the people who support them by using terms like menial. It helps them to rationalize their idleness as part of the law of nature and to claim that their money and their idleness are God-given rights.

If the strikers don't feel they are being treated fairly, then quit and find another job. 98% of the employees in this country are non-union and deal with "unfair" employers in that mannor. Somehow these Union goons think it is perfectly OK to harass thier customers and hating the SCABS. Well you know what? If it were not for the SCABS we, the public would not be able to buy groceries. Oh yes I know, I should support your cause and drive all over the place to buy my groceries. If you don' tlike your job QUIT IT. You fucking losers make me sick.

I get along fine without the help of any scabs, and everyone else can, too. I shop at smaller stores or do without some things that I would normally buy. No big sacrifice; the ones making the sacrifice are the strikers. They are battling for most of us, because if the grocery predators/bosses win this struggle then our own bosses are going to attack our health benefits, too, justifying it as the wave of the future. Well, screw that. Serfdom and slavery were once praised as waves of the future, too. This attempted thievery by the bastards who control those grocery conglomerations has to be smashed.

We need a national Right to Work law.

No one should ever be forced to join a labor union and pay union dues against their will.

No one should ever have their money appropriated against their will and used to fund political activities of someone they don't support and actually abhor (can you say Al Gore?). That's SOP (standard operating procedure) for labor unions.

What a maroon.

Look, if you are shopping at other stores, why don't you name them? Could it be that these other stores are not union-dominated locked shops? How pray tell does your shopping at non-union stores in any way help your union compatriots?

Let's assume for a moment that everyone was to follow your example and shop at non-striking stores. These stores would be busier than ever, would be forced to hire more employees to handle the increased customer load, and would make much larger profits - encouraging them to open additional locations to reduce the strain on their existing outlets.

Conversely, the Albertson's, Ralph's, and Vons stores would not have a single customer, receipts would be zero. The businesses would have to come to terms with their striking employees immediately, or go out of business.

So, our strike is over with labor victorious and the evil top-hatted grocers put firmly in their place.

One problem: Now the other stores are bigger and richer, and have a more loyal customer base because they don't have employees who are likely to go on strike.

Why would anyone want to go back to Ralph's or Albertson's or Vons? Why not stay at Trader Joe's or Gelson's or Whole Foods or Henry's?

And where does that leave your heroic friends?

Unemployed.

Wow Simple Simon, you make it sound like a deterministic chess game.

Reality is messy. This strike is as much a "show of strength" as anything else. There is no problem with the union fighting against a specific corporation. The goal is to put a little scare in the company, and remind them who creates their wealth.

Also - GD - if someone doesn't want to pay dues, they should go work for a non-union company. They should go work at a store where there isn't a union, benefits suck, and pay is very low. Then, they won't have to pay those darn dues that get spent buying politicians.

Or, maybe they can go work for the big corporations that give political contributions to pro-business politicians, mostly Republicans, and also urge their workers to vote a certain way to protect their industries. What are these corporations doing making political contributions by skimming off the wealth created by the workers? That sounds unfair to me!

Poppycock.

A company's wealth is created by providing a product or service that is desired by the populace, not by the employees who labor therein. Non-skilled workers are little more than cogs in a machine, easily replaced. They are about as resposible for the success of the company as the air conditioners, musak machine, cash registers, and automatic doors. They are needed, yes, but only as a tool.

An argument could be made in certain industries (artisans, hair dressers, mechanics, etc) that the employees' skills and capabilities directly impact sales and the acquisition of wealth for the company, but not so in non-skilled work such as fast food, factory line work, or grocery work.

So spare me the Marx.

-

A company's wealth is created by providing a product or service that is desired by the populace, not by the employees who labor therein. -
#
providing a product is labor, or do you mean mechanized production which is only another investment?

A grocery store isn't successful because "Dave" works there. "Dave" works there because they pay him well. Put another way, "Dave" trades his time and skills for a wage. If "Dave" doesn't like the wage he is offered, he can negotiate for more or he can find another job. Anyone working for salary or wages can make no claim on the profits of a venture above their agreed-upon level of compensation.

Wealth is generated by a company by taking an investment of capital and reinvesting the profits after selling a product or service. Yes, "Dave" is the guy who physically takes your money when you buy your Pop-Tarts, but they are not "Dave's" Pop-Tarts to sell - they belong to the company which bought them.

An employee takes none of the risks of a venture- they are paid their rate regardless of circumstance. For example, if a truckload of Pop-Tarts is stolen or destroyed in a highway crash, the employee doesn't take a cut in pay. This loss must be paid for somewhere, so if it is the "workers" who create wealth, then it should be the "workers" who make up for loss. Since no one asks "Dave" for $10,000 to replace the misplaced Pop-Tarts, "Dave" is obviously not the wealth-generating engine of the enterprise.

Get it yet?

I miss the idea of individual crafts[man women-person]ship and the pride of personality and creativity.
But that was when I was in R&D and the work couldn't be patterned out for 13 cents per hour in China.
This last decade has been murderous to domestic labor particularly with NAFTA allowing
equipment shipped over to new and cheaper labor, it was a tax write off and we the People made up or lost, the difference in neglected infrastructure

Then together with this is the tax burdens ( in a form of debt) increasing and going to
ruinous military expenditure as the tax base is reduced. It looks like a deliberate economic and social war against the middle class for irrational destructive purpose.

I've been shopping mostly at family owned grocery stores; there are a number of them in the urban area where I live and work. They have been there sinces the thirties or forties, in some cases since the twenties or even earier. Today they are mostly owned by Mexican or Asian immigrants. Maybe some of you life-long suburbanites have never seen these stores, but they are only about a 20% of the size of even the smallest and oldest Von's but at the same time much cheaper and with a bigger selection than the 7-11s or other convenience outlets. They remind me of the grocery stores that I shopped in as a kid in Boston during the 1950's.
They don't have everything I would normally but, but that is OK; I still get the necessities of life and am living much better than many millions of people in Latin America, Asia and Africa live. Some of the items they sell are more expensive than you would get at Ralph's, but some are actually cheaper. In any event, shopping in these stores is a lot cheaper than the prospect of paying massively higher health insurance rates if my bosses use the victory of the grocery chain pigs as a precedent to screw me over as well.
I would no sooner shop in a store staffed by scabs than I would run over an injured animal with a motor vehicle. There is something called basic human decency. Some of the people who post here don't seem to have it.

That is exactly what we don't need; it is a euphamism for a make it impossible to unionize law. What we need is a national right to health care law, with health insurance funded entirely by the billionaires and the obscenely rich pigs who run outfits like Kroger.

Fido: "Poppycock"

...any asshole who uses this term in this century is not to be taken seriously...

...especially if it's a diggity doggie asshole like Fido!

...oh, Fido...you forgot to zing Meyer by calling him a "dork"....your posts always seem so flaccid unless you fling that devastating putdown.....

...fuckin' eunuch.....

Simple Simon, you should go live in a world of robotic factories and vending machines.

I imagine that your inhumane conception of labor would be more applicable there than in the real world.

I'm not that up on econ, but I understand that the labor theory of value (the idea that labor is the main source of wealth) was not invented by Marx but by Adam Smith and David Ricardo. Marx departed from the Anarchists like Proudhon in that he advocated a division between the raw materials and the finished product. (This seems to set the conditions to justify state capitalism in the old communist countries.)

Here's a quote from Adam Smith:
"It was not by gold or by silver, but by labor, that all the wealth of the world was originally purchased; and its value, to those who possess it, and who want to exchange it for some new productions, is precisely equal to the quantity of labor which it can enable them to purchase or command."

I recently read a non-econ article that says the labor theory of value was disconnected from liberal/libertarian/anarcho politics by Murray Rothbard (I think he's now called a paleo-libertarian, to contrast with the new Libertarian Party libertarians who support incremental fascism). Presumably, since then, the idea that the market itself determines value has increasingly gained credibility.

Moreover, the idea that the market encourages freedom and liberty has gained credibility since then. Until then, freedom and liberty were considered opposed to the forces of the market. (In my experience talking with a lot of people in their 60s and 70s, they do seem to come from the perspective that capitalism is opposed to justice. Many of these people are Republicans.)

As for risk, I've addressed this in another post.

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2004/01/102085_comment.php#102407

I think GW Bush is proof that market forces and conservative politics is a dead end for freedom and liberty. Finally, we have a "business" White House (to go along with the other business regimes in Latin America) and what happens? Our political system starts to resemble a police state, and imperialist foreign policy, and a growing upper class.

Let's get back to basics. The labor theory of value is valid. Marx's distinction between the means of production (capital) and the products of production (objects), was probably wrong -- but there is a difference between raw materials from the Earth (aka, created by solar power), and stuff that's been modified by labor.

First of all, let's address the tireless and well-spoken KPC:

Burp.

Next, let's deal with the gaping wound that is Meyer's bleeding heart:

Hey, junior, those mom and pop joints you are patronizing don't pay livable wages and provide NO benefits. They frequently hire illegals at below-minimum wage. Now here comes Mr. Morally Superior to enrich these same people. Classic. Yep, you sure showed those scab-hiring stores, boy.

If Ralphs or Vons or Albertsons ran a no-benefits, sub-minimum wage, board of health-failing operation like so many of these mom and pop shops, you'd be screaming even more irrationally than you are already.

Get a grip, son. The workers in grocery stores are being paid a king's ransom to do non-skilled work. I have to pay for my health care, don't you? Are you under the impression that your health care costs should be borne by others?

Finally, let's address Mr. More Rational:

First of all, Mr. Smith's assertion is correct. ORIGINALLY the wealth of the world is created by labor. But this is not to say that the employee is a generator of wealth. Rather it is the person who conceived of and created the enterprise, who takes the risks both personal and financial, to bring a product or service to market that is the generator of wealth.

McDonalds will not stop selling hamburgers if "Tom" doesn't work there anymore. "Tom" might be the nicest, smartest, sweetest guy in the world, but the reason people are coming to the drive-thru is for the "2 for 2 bucks" promo, or the "Saving Nemo" collectable crapola.

Again, for purposes of education: An employee trades his or her time and skill sets for a salary or wage. I don't suppose any of you knows what "intellectual property" is. If "Bill" is a designer working for a comany, and "Bill" designs something on company time, the company owns it. Shocking, no? The company would be dead in the water if "Bill" hadn't come up with the new "KPC stay-dry diaper" but he doesn't see a cent in royalties from the sales. And, as a kicker, "Bill" gets canned for showing up late too many times in a quarter. Poor poor "Bill".

You see, "Bill" took a job as a designer. He is paid to design. He is paid hansomely or meanly, but he is paid and he agrees to this pay. He has made a compact to provide a service in exchange for money. If "Bill" thinks this arrangement is unfair, he is perfectly within his rights to set up his own company, design his own products and reap all the benefits for himself. Of course, he'll also have to locate the building for his business, pay the lease, hire the staff, purchase the furniture, pay the water, electricity, heating and air-conditioning bills, have someone clean up the place, mow the lawn and blow the leaves off of the drive, buy coffee and have it made, purchase phones and computers, establish websites and purchase advertising space in phone books and trade magazines...get it yet?

The company pays all the expenses. The company takes all the risks. The employee is merely a mercenary paid for his abilities. He is NOT the source of wealth generation, but in fact, a (necessary) drain on the company's resources. He is a factored-in expense. When I pull up to the drive thru and KPC says (in broken English, and with difficulty) "You wan' fries wit dat?" he is paid according to his skills and experience. The idea that KPC is in any way responsible for the Burger King at which he labors is preposterous.

Enough for now. Ta ta kiddies.

I thought this was just boffo, by the way, KPC.

" crafts[man women-person]ship "

I can't believe that there's anyone so incredibly limpwristedly PC to have actually typed that.

I'll bet you're the kind of guy who listens to Sting.

You are, aren't you>

I know what intellectual property is, and designer Bill, like all creators of intellectual property, is getting screwed in his deal. Granted, those are the breaks, but all creators of IP are due some royalties. When they aren't paid, the value of the invention goes to the owner of the IP -- in that example, the company.

Now, how is it that designers give up their intellectual property rights so easily? It's because they're paid pretty well (for now - wait until more IP production is offshored). The IP is replicated, and influences society -- whether through automating labor, creating demand through advertising, figuring out how to pay people less, inventing a new way to kill, creating a blueprint for a chain store, or whatever. The IP creates demand, or reduces costs of production, and from that profit, the designer is paid.

Why would a designer not strike out on their own and retain their IP? Because, as you said, business is expensive. It's a pain in the ass. And, more than anything, to shift from a small business to a larger one requires a great amount of capital. Some businesses can ride an unexpected tide of popularity and amass enough capital to expand, but most require loans that are paid back slowly.

So, is this a fair trade, to "work for hire"? That's hard to say. It's fair inasmuch as the rich always have the upper hand over everyone else.

At McDonalds, the designers have created a hamburger factory where people are easily replaced, and paid as little as legally possible. If slavery were legal, there'd be slaves at McDonalds steaming the Big Macs.

No matter how smart or great you are, McDonalds is designed to turn you into a cog. That is the goal of a large business: to make the human dispensible, and make the machinery of work more complete and total.

That's why they need promotions. The food is acceptable, but in order to sell in the volumes they require, they need to hire people to create demand through advertising. They need to create an aura around the Big Mac that convinces people that it's different from and better than the regular burger from another burger stand. (This is called reification.)

A few years back, Arby's went the next step and started taking food orders via touch screens. It's like getting food from an ATM. Perhaps they will automate the restaurant completely, so it's a gigantic vending machine dispensing heated-up frozen food, and a 3-D computer graphic marionette will give you service with a video of a smile.

But, more likely, as automation increases, people will come to value service and pay for it. That's why they support this strike. The public not only want service, they also work in the service sector, and understand their relationship to wealth.

People support this strike? What, you got a mouse in your pocket?

The fact is that people don't support this strike. What the people are is non-confrontational. They don't want to go to the store that they normally patronize and have an encounter with one of the workers they know. That's the limit of their support.

You'll notice the number of people driving across town to shop at an out-of-their-neigborhood Vons, and you'll also note how PACKED the Ralph's stores are since the end of organized pickets there. It is merely fear of confrontation that paralyzes the people.

You claim that the 'cogs in the machine' theory doesn't hold water, yet wrote nothing to disprove it. Curious. Could it be that you meant 'I don't much like the cogs in the machine theory'?

It is true that fear of confrontation is mistaken for support but then again thats how unions operate. Bust heads, yell scab and basically act like goons. They have the nerve to call customers scabs! Can you imagine the balls it takes to insult the very people that make their jobs and benefits possible? They are hopelessly out of touch and I cannot wait for the strike to end so I can stop shopping at Vons and start supporting the non unionized stores

Working people in general have to support this strike. A victory for the grocery chain exploiters will have a disasterous effect on workers all over southern California - employees in transportation, teaching, municipal and county employment, aerospace, university work including everyone from cafeteria worker to full professor, utilities, tourism, and many other sectors can expect to have their health benefits attacked by bosses using the grocery industry as a precedent. I hope that the union starts encouraging more militant support actions by former customers of these places - including piling up groceries in carts and then leaving the carts at the counter without paying after one discovers that one has "forgotten" one's money. No law is broken, there is no need of fearing arrest, and if many people do this at busy parts of the day it will play havoc with the stores ability to operate. This brutal assault on the right of working people to have complete and affordable health coverage has to be smashed.

The problems that exist with unions is their compromised (as usual ) upper echelon of
governing structure.
More open bargaining and counsel participation from the members.
Big business spent the early part of the 1900's using blood and corrupt
alliances between law enforcement and big business but now it's between
interested parties as conflict of interests. More closed door deals. This practice should be illegal.
Open negotiations and real time communications involving effected groups is the only just or reasonable way to manage operations.
This should operate in the same field with chartered corporations ( renewable by vote ) and the stripping of non-legal 14th amendment rights from same opening their books to the public. Now that would be interesting.
Both unions and corporations need to be opened up.

Fido: "It is merely fear of confrontation that paralyzes the people. "

So all these people are just too afraid of the big bad picketers...all except tough guys like you, huh?


...whadda fuckin' blowhard douchbag you are, Fido. You have never worked an honest day in your fuckin' life. You call THESE workers expendable? HELLO? IS THIS THING ON??? You are a SOLDIER, stupid, you can't GET any more expendable than that! I bet you're one of those mamma's boys who went straight into the only branch of the service that would accept your lazy ass just so you could still have someone to cook your meals and tell your stupid ass what to do. Sergeant Mamma was what you were looking for, huh?

...you are pathetic....

Uh, the adults are talking about the grocery strike, KPC. Try to stay on topic.

Meyer, are you actually saying that asking someone to pay for their own health insurance is an assault on working people?

By this rationale, asking for my money when I want a Snickers bar is an assault on working people!

I get it now. You're nuts.

Make no mistake..without even hazarding a guess as to the dubious nature of whatever kfc might do for a living..it is certainly utterly expendable compared to being a soldier.

Perhaps he is one of these quasi worthless baggers.

In any case it's good to see him get so upset over, yet another battle of words and wits he finds himself on the losing end of.

The cogs idea doesn't hold up because people are people, and they have rights. The goal of some businesses is to make them expendable, but, people resist this. Moreover, people resist this together, and support each other in resistance.

There are a lot of people giving the strikers food and money. I see at the strikes, tables with snacks donated by local people. It's solidarity. Some people are afraid of confrontation, but, I think they're in the minority. If you know someone, you don't want to see them get a pay cut.

I want to know: do you make an effort to be a prick to the people who serve you at these businesses? Do you hate them or something? If they're rude to you, I can understand, but if they're cool, you should be cool back to them.

As for health insurance - that's just the battle for now. The real big issue is the decline in overall compensation in an industry that used to be easy pickings for the union. The unions don't organize enough, and workers don't have enough power to organize Walmart.

Health insurance will keep rising in cost if less and less able-bodied people participate. By making it optional, the companies are only helping the premiums rise.

Also, regarding soldiers: they are a necessary expense for any nation, but generally don't produce much of value. Standing armies are expensive, and mobile ones even more so. Not only that, American soldiers are so much more expensive than other soldiers, that it's cheaper to give money to allies in a country than to go and fight a war with our own troops. Now... if we had any allies in Iraq, maybe we'd be able to afford this Occupation... but we don't, so it could sink the economy by draining wealth from this country.

Thanks GW!

I spent a lot of time explaining my ideas, and you all just ignore them, fixating on one tiny point rather than the bigger picture of what I'm saying.

Start addressing the real issues, because I'm tired of writing these elaborate rants.

Grocery store clerks help me put food on my table; they make it available without my having to grow it myself in my spare time or visiting a dozen different stores a day as our grandparents did in the 1940's.
Soldiers, on the other hand, spend my tax money on hundred dollar wrenches that could be bought at Target for $4.99 and on five hundred dollar toilet seats for generals. But, worst of all, they spend it murdering peasants and other poor people around the world.

Given the choice between grunt or bagger...I'd pick bagger everytime!

I mean...c'mon, I've got self-respect.....

More rational, you complain about people supposedly picking nits out of your broader arguments, yet your broader arguments are either entirely absent or merely a collection of easily picked nits.

First point: Cogs in the machine. You claim that people resist being 'made expendible' and that they support each other in this resistance. But the fact is that 95% of the adult American population is employed, and a vast preponderance of this 95% work for other people (they are not self employed). The fact that only a relative handful of members of a subset of a subset of the working population is on strike pokes some serious holes in your resistance theory.

Second Point: Support for the strikers. I am sure you have at least one friend. Someone who likes you and doesn't work in your line of work. The same can be assumed for the grocery workers on strike. Their friends are showing support. This is a far cry from being representative of general public support. Have you been to a Ralphs store lately? They're packed. Why? Because the pickets are not there. Ralphs is still one of the 'evil three' are they not? So if one is to believe your theory of general support for the strikers in the population, Ralphs stores shouldn't be any busier than Vons or Albertsons. But this isn't the case.

Third point: Pricks. Where do you get the notion that I am personally unfriendly to grocery clerks? I know and like a number of them. The fact that they are on the wrong side of an argument doesn't make me hate them or encourage me to abuse them. It makes me wish they had the sense to see that their industry is changing and they need to develop skills and look for skilled work.

Fourth point: The battle. Look, health insurance costs are skyrocketing for a number of factors, not least of which is rampant abuse of malpractice suits and runaway juries handing out jackpot settlements. The insurance companies jack up the malpractice insurance premiums they charge to doctors and hospitals, and in turn the costs are passed on to the HMO's and ultimately to the consumer of the services.

As I have said before, the reason this battle is taking place now is that a non-unionized competitor (Wal Mart) is capable of providing identical merchandise at lower costs. The consumer doesn't give a fiddler's fart about your class war struggle, he wants Cap'n Crunch for less than $4 a box.

Again, this industry is changing. Modernizing. The companies realize they don't have to pay non-skilled workers rediculously high wages and provide them with unpaid benefits. And, I might add, that your side's support of unlimited illegal immigration has a little bit to do with the downward pressure on wages as well.

Final Point: Soldiers. Throughout all of history, no country ever thrived and grew to greatness following a policy of being disarmed and by demonstrating a lack of ability to defend themselves. All that is done in this country is ultimately protected by the soldier. Without him, you don't have your domestic tranquility, your right to life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness. So whatever we pay for the training and maintenance of these soldiers is a bargain at twice the price.

These over-paid soldiers overthrew a savage fascist dictator in less than a month, removed a large, brutal army from the neck of a population of 24 million people, uncovered mass graves which hold the remains of hundreds of thousands of murder victims, and you and your partisans piss and moan that the French and Germans didn't give us the ok. You should take your sense of morality into the shop, I think it's on the fritz.

That's all for now, gotta go earn that Yankee dollar.

Gee, Fido, sure looks like a lot of time, effort and words to be puttin' in just to demonstrate what we already know...that you don't know your ass from you elbow....


...save your stinkin' swilly breath next time....

Sooooooooo.....

The grocery strike seems to be at an end.

Let's peruse the details, shall we?

Hmmmmmm..

Seems to me that 80 some percent of the workers voted to go back to work. Wow. That's some concensus. I guess the brave laborers who were fighting for all American workers must have really showed those greedy corporations.

What's that? The corporations' demand for a two tiered wage and benefits package is still going forward? New hires won't be paid as well as current employees? They won't receive the same benefits?

Well, my God man, why would the brave soldiers of the Proletariat give up their struggle for all the working people of the world if they didn't get the corporations to cancel their dastardly plans?

Oh, here's the reason: Current employees will not have to pay for their health care for the next three years- and potentially longer than that if the company health fund is full enough.

So, the strike WASN'T about "rights" and it WASN'T a stand against corporate America, but it WAS about not wanting to have to pay for their own healthcare. Now can we dispense with all the "noble workingmen" claptrap and "resistance" excrement?

These lazy unskilled bastards just wanted free healthcare for themselves and didn't give a damn about anyone else - including those who will work alongside them in the future. What a joke.

Cleanup in aisle three.