Here is some correspondence following up yesterday's post about the latest sleazy union attack on Wal*Mart. Reader "Mr. Wonderful" shared this e-mail exchange with David Groves, Communications Director of the Washington State Labor Council, who apparently also enjoys pretending he's the 40-year-old virgin
 |  |
| David Groves | 40-year-old virgin |
Shark is a hack. Extortion?! What a dick.I have my own friggin' BUSINESS, thank you, something which those who earn a living by skimming off other people's paychecks might not understand.
I have no idea if the study was union backed. It probably was. Who gives a rat's ass? These "studies" are the stock-and-trade of corporations, non-profits and advocacy groups to get "free media." It looks to me like this study got some. If Shark has nothing better to do than lie on the grassy knoll and whack his half-stiff blog every time some organization's study gets some press, he should go out and get a friggin' JOB.
Meanwhile, some more informative and factual comments were sent to me by Jennifer Holder, a public affairs spokeswoman at Wal*Mart. I posted her complete response to the bogus union study here
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 12, 2006 03:51 PM | Email ThisNothing makes Marxists like Groves more fearful than self reliant individuals who realize they no longer need unions. Kudos to Stefan for shining some disinfecting light on the collectivist fungus.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 12, 2006 04:25 PMAmen to that, Stefan!
Posted by: Michele on May 12, 2006 04:31 PMMaybe it's easier for Groves to go this route as opposed to creating a Myspace account to fish for chicks.
Posted by: Reporterward on May 12, 2006 04:53 PM
Did you honestly expect anything different from the loser?
Posted by: ERNurse on May 12, 2006 08:14 PMBut your use of the word "force" there makes no sense. They aren't forced. And the word "corrupt" is specious: they are in the risk of business to make money, that's what they do. They could do better at equanimity and compensation, that doesn't make them "corrupt" or evil, any more than people shopping there are evil. Posted by: Bleeding heart conservative on May 13, 2006 07:46 AM
he/she/it follows that with the old "everybody is corrupt" homily....you're on a roll!
Lee Scott, the CEO, makes $8,343 per HOUR.... my congrats to Lee! I don't care if he makes $8,343/minute. I only care that Socialists like you are denied the ability to "even the playing field" by bringing everyone down to your level!
Posted by: alphabet soup on May 13, 2006 08:23 AMSince David has represented us, we have watched many of our jobs go to foreign countries.
David tells us I will soon get my job back and will get to move to a far away tropical country to have a job thanks to him.
Since David helped lose my job here in America, I have found I cannot afford to shop at Wal-Mart...so I'm ticked at Wal-Mart too.
Thank God for Goodwill and Food Banks.
Thank God for my Union Golden Boy David Groves. Posted by: UnionThug on May 13, 2006 08:30 AM
If you are having such a hard time feeding your family and affording their medical insurance, sell your computer.
That'll buy a lot of mac and cheese.
Also, use your time working instead of bitching.
. . . or take up Spanish and visiting Washington State DSHS offices.
BTW: I know two people who worked at Wal-Mart and were very happy for it . . . you must be a moron.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on May 13, 2006 10:46 AMThey just don't want to have to do it the honest way. They both imagine that Lee Scott applied for the job paying $8,343 per SECOND and won in a grueling round of interviews because he was white, male and knew how to say “market share” with a straight face. They honestly believe that business men are those weird ones who stayed awake during econ 101.
No one is forced to shop or work at Wal-Mart except morons who are too dim-witted to recognize the alternatives. Cat would obviously rather shop at the local government store where Groves works but she hasn't figured the angles yet. Groves is too lazy and mentally lacking to work in a public sector profession so he sucks off the teat of morons like Cat.
Ahh yes . . . mutual gratification . . . makes the world go round.
We don’t need TV sit-coms any more; after all . . . we have liberals.
What a life.
You pretty much said it all.
We used to have comedians making up funny stuff for our amusement (and many who gratutitously swore for effect),
now we have liberals.
Thanks.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on May 13, 2006 02:29 PMThe man is a professional, passionate, and very, very good at what he does. I agree sometimes, and disagree at other times, but he tells it like it is, is a reasonable man, and is provocative in his writing.
Not to mention having a sense of humor about grafting this or that picture onto his body in his webpage.
I passed that along for humor, and amusement only, not to denigrate Mr. Groves. I did not intend it for publication, which I regret making clear.
What he said is true. I enjoy reading his stuff, because he is an excellent spinmeister, and I enjoy folks who are good at their trade.
Posted by: The Geezer on May 14, 2006 05:02 AMThe original article implied that Wal-Mart stores ATTRACK crime. Even if that's true - so what? Doesn't that make the rest of the community SAFER?
It didn't even try to imply that Wal-Mart stores create crime. Because Wal-Mart stores are such large, and potentially impersonal, places with lots of valuables it's obvious that criminals would gravitate to such places rather than, say, your home.
So, essentially these liberals are saying that they're angry at Wal-Mart for luring the criminals in their communities away from their own homes and valuables.
Friggin' idiots.
Posted by: Larry on May 14, 2006 10:18 AMYou are not making any sense. If you really think that “whack his half stiff blog,” is a catchy line and a colorful turn of word,
I’ll take that as an answer as to why none of the rest of what you say makes any sense either.
If I had known my personal email to "The Geezer," with whom I correspond fairly frequently, would end up publicly posted, I probably would have edited out the obscenities. However, the substance of my message would not change. If Stefan is going to post a blog entry every time some study appears that was financed by a corporation, non-profit, union or anyone else with an agenda, he'll be a busy man reporting on all such "extortion"... too busy to give his "friggin' business" the attention it deserves.
Speaking of which, I've update my bio page -- at http://www.wslc.org/bios/groves.htm -- to remove the 40-year-old Communications Director picture and pay tribute to The Bidnessman.
Sincerely,
David Groves
When I first heard of the WalMart attacks about three years ago and read some of the union literature, I agreed whole-heartedly with the union position.
But now, three years later and a lot more reading up on it, the union position stinks to high heaven.
And it hurts me to stand up for a big corporation against these unwarranted attacks and against the unions, but WalMart is right on this one for about a 100 reasons. The only thing in WalMart's detriment is that according to labor law, it is possible to force a up or down vote on whether there should or shouldn't be a union. Why are the unions stepping out from that position?
Posted by: swatter on May 15, 2006 07:22 AMI'm not going to defend the study in question. Frankly, I don't know anything about it. But I do know that it makes me furious -- and should make any real conservative furious -- that millions of our tax dollars are subsidizing the labor costs of the biggest corporation on the planet, and putting good employers out of business in the process. That very deliberate part of their business model is nothing to celebrate, it's something to fight.
If you want to read what I've written about Wal-Mart, here's something I wrote during the legislative session that just about sums it up: http://www.wslc.org/legis/lu012006.htm
-- David Groves
Posted by: Union Guy on May 15, 2006 07:35 AMIt is NOT Wal-Mart that is "putting good employers out of business", it is the consumer. If the consumer did not prefer what they get at Wal-mart, Wal-Mart would be out of business and the 10s of thousands of their employees would be out on the street collecting unemployment.
Posted by: Fred on May 15, 2006 08:11 AMIf you go after them, too, then I'll take you serious. But right now, I see you as very disengenuous since those others are union companies.
And then Costco. They are not union but the union types like them. Of course, Costco is not as labor intensive as WalMart, is it? And they don't have people who can't get a job anywhere else that are paid to just stand around and create jobs like WalMart, are they?
If there weren't WalMart, there would be more people on welfare. WalMart fills a niche, doesn't it?
As for Health Care, the whole situation is a mess and gets worse with the Democrats running off the insurance companies in this State with the trial lawyers chasing them. (Sorry, for the last paragraph, but I had to get a little sterotype in there)
Posted by: swatter on May 15, 2006 08:41 AMFred Meyer is a good union employer that provides decent health care benefits, and none of the other non-union employers you mention (with the possible exception of Home Depot) would fail to achieve the 9% payroll-costs-toward-health-care standard in the Fair Share bill.
What is unique about Wal-Mart -- in addition to the fact that taxpayers are subsidizing this corporation on a grand scale compared to the other companies you mention -- is that they have very aggressively interfered with their employees' right to choose for themsleves whether they want to unionize or not. They are proud of this aspect of their business model. In fact, they consider it key to their success.
Federal labor law says that Americans have the right to choose whether they want to unionize without intimidation, harassment or retaliation. But that law is rarely enforced. And Wal-Mart routinely gets away intimidating/harassing employees who even mention the word "union" (managers are instructed to call Bentonville if they hear the U word so they can fly in their union-avoidance thugs). Wal-Mart has closed store departments that voted to unionize. In an infamous case in Canada, it closed an entire store rather than negotiate with the union its employees voted to form. They hold that case up as an example of what can happen if their employees consider organizing a union. I ask you, how is that not intimidation or coercion?
Think about it. If you were a Wal-Mart checker getting paid $8 an hour with no affordable health coverage, and you have a friend that does almost the exact same job at Safeway down the street, but her union negotiated a contract where she gets paid twice as much, with health insurance and retirement benefits, where would you rather work? So give me one reason why you, as a Wal-Mart worker, wouldn't want to organize a union? (And for the purposes of this discussion, let's pretend that you care more about improving your family's quality of life than you do about paying "mandatory union dues" -- which I know is tough bit of pretending for the folks that read this blog.) I'll tell you what the reason is. Because you know you will lose your job or get your hours cut if you even mention the word "union" to a co-worker. Period.
Either that, or all Wal-Mart employees just magically share the anti-union aversion that most of the people reading this blog share, and that philosophy is more important than being able to afford to go to the doctor. Do you really think that a Wal-Mart employee wouldn't trade jobs -- union dues and all -- with a Safeway employee in a heartbeat?
Not one single friggin' Wal-Mart store of the THOUSANDS of stores in this country have a union. Do you REALLY believe the company spokespeople when they tell you this has simply been their collective decision, free from intimidation, coercion and harassment? Come on.
And I absolutely reject the notion that Wal-Mart employees would all be on welfare if that company disappeared. There are quite a few studies (not financed by unions, Stefan) that have found the introduction of a Wal-Mart to be a net job loser for the community.
But even if you don't believe this is true, an unacceptable percentage of Wal-Mart employees -- including full-time workers -- are ALREADY on public assistance for health care, housing and other needs. As other employees cut health and retirement benefits in order to compete with Wal-Mart, more and more people need such government assistance to meet basic needs. How can a true conservative support this race-to-the-bottom as a fair consequence of good ol' American capitalism? It is social pollution. If an oil company was able to save money by dumping toxic sludge in the Puget Sound and forcing the government to clean up its mess, we wouldn't allow that, would we?
There needs to be a level playing field upon which American employers compete that does not allow any corporation an advantage by denying Americans their basic rights and dignity. The playing field was a lot more level before Sam Walton set up shop.
And, Swatter, it would be great to have a serious discussion about what to do about the health care crisis in the state and country, but you're going to have to get past that rhetoric about the Democrats chasing away insurance companies if you want to participate.
-- David Groves
Posted by: Union Guy on May 15, 2006 10:36 AMUnion Guy insists that failing to ram the right to choose whether employees want to unionize without intimidation, harassment or retaliation down employers throats is not enforcing the law, when in fact, for the employees, it is simply working where they choose free from the interference, intimidation, harassment and retaliation exhibited by the events documented here and the attitudes displayed by Union Guy. Union Guy accuses Wal-Mart of numerous instances of wrong doing, but you notice that HE NEVER ONCE ACTUALLY CITES A SUBSTANTIVE SOURCE OF CORROBERATION FOR HIS CLAIMS—only bare statements of innuendo and insinuation. For all any of us can possibly know, his claims are all false.
Because Union Guy lacks facts to make an argument, he diverts attention by asserting a purportedly undesirable characteristic (anti-union aversion) and then parallels it with a false comparison; leaving you to conclude his absurd construct that philosophy is not as important as health, as if anti-union thought is therefore anti-doctor.
He says ”Not one single friggin' Wal-Mart store of the THOUSANDS of stores in this country have a union. Do you REALLY believe the company spokespeople when they tell you this has simply been their collective decision, free from intimidation, coercion and harassment? Come on.” This variant of the “all or nothing” ruse assumes that if none of one thing, then all of another; of course the one thing is a (good) store with a union, and the other -- intimidation, coercion and harassment. This rhetorical tactic sounds kind of persuasive but of course -- it is complete and utter baseless nonsense.
Union- Guy stridently rejects the notion that Wal-Mart employees would all be on welfare if that company disappeared as if that means something. It doesn’t; he just wants to insinuate that if we are foolish enough to assert such a thing, he‘s cleverly cut us off at the pass. You won’t find Wal-Mart employees getting many jobs at Safeway either, but that’s beside the point. Besides, why would Guy argue about what happens if unions have their way? Because he knows that we know it would not be a good thing for employees. Then he changes the subject saying there are ”quite a few studies that have found the introduction of a Wal-Mart to be a net job loser for the community but he doesn’t cite a single study as basis for this claim. Surprise, surprise.
BUT WAIT – IT GETS BETTER!
Union Bot states unequivocally that ” Wal-Mart employees -- including full-time workers -- are ALREADY on public assistance for health care, housing and other needs.” Union bot cannot prove this claim any more than any others of his idiotic nonsense . . . and he knows it . . . but he says it anyway. That is called lying.
He says, ”As other employees cut health and retirement benefits in order to compete with Wal-Mart, more and more people need such government assistance to meet basic needs” but what he doesn’t say is that the opposite of this false construct is equally true but makes far more sense. If Wal-Mart employees surrender their rights to freedom of association and unionize, it will make it easier for other employers to raise their prices and cover their bottom lines, lower competition thus shifting market shares and decreasing overall employment, lowering productivity and product availability, and stifling free market dynamics. Free markets are the engine of a healthy economy, and the driving force of behind markets is capital – not labor. The government has already set minimum labor standards and a minimum wage so Unions are obsolete. They are anathema to healthy economies because they are parasitic to labor and freeloaders on free markets.
MTo this extent, I agree whole heartedly with Union Guy. There certainly does need to be a level playing field upon which American employers compete that does not allow any corporation an advantage by denying Americans their basic rights and dignity. The level playing field is called a free market and no matter how communists like to invert facts to suit their farcical perversions of it- free markets are damaged by labor unions. No one has a right to a job or health care; these are not rights any more than a date with the queen on prom-nite, legal advice, transportation, shelter, Hershey bars, or lunch. You are always better off to avoid unions, find your own opportunities, and maintain freedom of choice where it matters.
A level playing field exists precisely because of Sam Walton and people like him.
Simple minded manipulation exists because of droll communist party liners like Union Guy. I choose Sam Walton.
That's the ticket, when losing the argument, resort to cheap tactics. Good job. Your words represent you well as does your need to attempt to characterize me instead of addressing by comments. Everyone has seen your picture and you have nothing to brag about pal -- get over yourself.
Mostly get over your inflated ego -- you have no cause other than delusional liberalism.
What hateful invective against trade unionism?
I INVITE ANY union members who might otherwise support MY candidates and causes THAT simply cannot stomach MY COMMENTS TO TELL ME THEY CONSIDER THEM hateful invective against trade unionism.
As a withdrawn member of several unions, I don't like unions because they proved to me to be anti-free market and anti- employee contrivances.
Since you term my expressiion of an opinion "hateful invective," I invite your union buddies to look at you -- not me.
Nice job for an empty suit.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on May 15, 2006 05:04 PMThere is nothing quite like telling the half of the truth that makes your idea shine to justify the pretense that it is other than an outright lie. Your peremptory supposition that society owes people socialist "rights" to mandatory employment security and health care is the culprit -- not Wal-Mart.
No real conservative is stupid enough to buy your canard that our tax dollars are subsidizing anyone's labor costs unless they also admit that FIRSTliberals pervert our system to make it reliant on corporate raiding. The logic is tantamount to a justification of hit and run saying that I ran over someone because they were in my way; by circumstance of my making, it was their fault. You insist that Wal-Mart has no business doing business unless they do it your way -- otherwise they are in your way.
First you cow and fleece the corporations because the public pays the bills anyway, then you can exploit the electorate because they have no where else to go, but never mind the fact that the majority of those benefiting from the largesse you seize don’t earn it to begin with. No matter the superficial justification, extorting money from Jim and giving to Joe does not justify also seizing money from John.
Health care and jobs are not the real issue here anyway. Union communists like you haven’t been able to intimidate Wal-Mart into playing your cynical game and that is all that you care about -- and ALL THAT IS INVOLVED HERE.
So long as liberal communist unionists angle to force government health care on us by extorting corporations, you will be making a false argument based on an assumption that corporatism is the best arrangement for society, and so long as Wal-Mart refuses to abide your nascent diktat you will oppose them. God help us all if Wal-Mart loses.
Since you obviously like these socialist ideas, move to France.
Otherwise don’t pretend that most of us are stupid enough to buy into your half-baked lies.
Why is it reasonable for unions to go in there and try and persuade employees to join the union, but unreasonable for employers to counter?
Posted by: Fred on May 15, 2006 08:04 PMbunion guy, I can't help but notice that your idea of refutation is to change the subject or insult your opponent. That's cool...I like to play that way sometimes too.
I don't know you personally, but I've seen your type often enough - eager to lick somebody's sack in the hopes of screwing someone (even if they're on "your team") or first to key your "enemies" car (over insults imagined, not witnessed). The thing that brings me joy is when I witness union "brothers" dissing little bed-wetters to your face.
Critters like you are what give me the inspiration to stand so staunchly against the evil that is Dhimmicrats.
Posted by: alphabet soup on May 15, 2006 09:06 PMYour name invokes smirking-but-withdrawn condescension, but your post conjures images of a spittle-spraying McCarthyist (complete with displaced combover) whose tirade against those unAmerican enough to disagree with him could lead to a very unamusing stroke.
I, however, remain amused because I have you -- and Franco-hatas like you -- to thank for the fact that many union members who might otherwise support your candidates and causes simply cannot stomach the right wing's hateful invective against trade unionism. One day, perhaps some group anger therapy will help you keep your innermost thoughts in check long enough that you'll succeed in getting Washington's working class to vote against their best economic interests, as your national counterparts have managed. Until then... keep up the good work!
-- David Groves
Posted by: Union Guy on May 15, 2006 10:56 PMThere are plenty of very good arguments that can be made for the unionization of Wal-Mart, some of the best that involve actual facts and logical lines of reasoning. I don't agree with his position on this issue, but if I were in David Groves' place I could easily present a strong and persuasive case in favor of organized labor without resorting to falsehoods and foolish pandering nonsense. David Groves is paid (probably very well) as a professional advocate for organized labor and yet his presentation is an amateurish rant absent any facts, and without any citations of specifics against Wal-Mart to substantiate his case. He produces only obvious lies, baseless claims, and lame hypothetical comparisons. In a word – sleazy.
David Groves, the Communications Director of the Washington State Labor Council communicates with those he disagrees with by behaving like a thug. Having no arguments to support his assertions, Groves proves it with stupid transparent fallacies in substitution for arguments and outright lies without the slightest concern for accuracy or authenticity in the cynical assumption that those he is trying to con are as dim witted and arrogantly hidebound as he is.
Currently there are many potential union members that will not stomach David Groves' dishonest, dim-witted, lying thug routine in favor of trade unionism.
HERE AT SOUND POLITICS ON THIS THREAD YOU LOST YOUR CASE AGAINST WAL MART.
After some examination, David Groves confirmed the impression of a slimy punk with a big mouth and low impulse control. Since Groves is the best that the Washington State Labor Council can come up with to argue their case, it’s a good thing they aren’t required to show tangible results or make a profit.
Impressive, persuasive, and amusing.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on May 16, 2006 12:10 AMMan! You are so angry! You sound like like one of those road ragers who gets so irrationally furious at other drivers from the anonymous comfort of your single-occupancy vehicle. I'm sure you are a nice man or woman, but really. Please tell me that when you finally pass that driver and see them face-to-face that you -- even if just for a moment -- forgive their affront of slow driving, or failure to signal, or "Gregoire for Governor" bumper sticker. Because if you sustain this hate of strangers because of their driving, or their opinions, jobs, or lifestyle, you will lead a very unhappy life.
How long do these threads last anyway? And how do you rearrange the sequence of comments like that by inserting additional comments between what was originally there? (Obviously, I'm a rookie at this.)
I'd love to go back and forth with you and cite the sources you need -- like this year's state report ID'ing Wal-Mart as having the most employees by far on public health programs in 2004, and as the ONLY large corporation on the list that had predominently full-timers instead of part-timers utilizing taxpayer-funded health coverage (see http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002758209_report24m.html) -- but like you say, I have a high-paying job to do, so I'm going to have to withdraw from this comment thread into my personal hell of dimwitted union thuggery.
Feel free to shoot me an e-mail -- visit www.wslc.org for a link -- and let me know the next time you have another important union issue that begs a response. (I don't check this particular blog regularly because it seems creepily obsessed with the gubernatorial election... kind of like the could-been-a-contenda Dems who couldn't get over the mistakes/problems/election result in Florida in 2000.) You know, like what picture a union staffer posted of himself on his organization's website.
Your friend,
David Groves
FUNNY WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU CHALLENGE A LIBERAL UNION OFFICIAL ON SUBSTANCE
(like nudging a rock)
This has little to do with the fact that David Groves’ initial response about Stefan Sharkansky made the impression of him as a slimy punk with a big mouth and low impulse control. One thinks, give the guy a chance, maybe he just momentarily lost his temper but has something worth while to say. I may or may not not agree with him but I might possibly learn something substantive from his presentation. Such reservations existed until David Groves came to Sound Politics and removed all doubt.
My challenges of Groves’ assertions went unanswered. Instead he replied with character attacks; a personal assault from an official who wishes to speak in behalf of thousands of workers on an issue of such huge importance as their livelihoods. David Groves’ comments here invite close and careful examination by those many thousands of people who would be affected by the momentous changes demanded by his organization – a comportment and bearing that would directly affect each one of these workers up close and personally. It is enough to make anyone pause and consider both the message Groves provides, but behind it the sincerity of the organization(s) that employ him to offer that message.
The abrupt volatility, lack of professionalism, and cheap sleazy tactics displayed by David Groves speak clearly for his cause. I pointed out earlier that David’s presentation is “an amateurish rant absent any facts, and without any citations of specifics against Wal-Mart to substantiate his case.” In any field of endeavor, a serious professional with a sincere case to make for their point of view will avoid personal insults and come prepared with facts. In his professional capacity as the communications director for the Washington State Labor Council, DAVID GROVES PRESENTS NOT A SINGLE FACT IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIMS AGAINST WAL-MART. Instead, he wraps a newspaper opinion piece that agrees with his unsupported opinion by Seattle Times Olympia bureau reporter Ralph Thomas between priggish personal insults and invectives against a mere commenter at Sound Politics.
In this exchange, I referred to David Groves as a ”slimy punk with a big mouth and low impulse control.” Groves has since substantially established that my initial characterization of him was very accurate. TO WIT:
In return, Groves characterizes me as a spittle-spraying McCarthyist (complete with displaced combover) whose tirade against those unAmerican enough to disagree with him could lead to a very unamusing stroke. [I'm a proclaimer of a] right wing's hateful invective against trade unionism. One of those road ragers who gets so irrationally furious at other drivers from the anonymous comfort of your single-occupancy vehicle, that when you finally pass that driver and see them face-to-face that you -- even if just for a moment -- forgive their affront of slow driving, or failure to signal, or "Gregoire for Governor" bumper sticker. Because if you sustain this hate of strangers because of their driving, or their opinions, jobs, or lifestyle, you will lead a very unhappy life.Further, arguing for unionization of Wal Mart, Groves comments that,”One day, perhaps some group anger therapy will help you keep your innermost thoughts in check long enough that you'll succeed in getting Washington's working class to vote against their best economic interests.” What does all of this really mean? Please think about it.
The point here is that David Groves purports to make a case against Wal Mart and for the unionization of Wal Mart but he has no case. Groves is steeped in the notion that insulting and pigeon-holing his presumed adversaries will win the day. His attributions of my character come as the direct result of his refusal/inability to support his own pathetic statements with substance. They are in direct compensation for the fact that David Groves has nothing but garbage emotional appeals to support his case.
I AM JUST A COMMENTER AT SOUND POLITICS—WHY DOES DAVID GROVES FEEL THE NEED TO SHINE THE LIGHT ON ME?
To divert attention away from the fact that David lost the argument immediately when he chose to inveigle people with foolish nonsense instead of persuading them with facts. Who does David Groves think I am? He has no idea yet, but without the slightest idea, Groves feeeeeels free to stereotype and categorize me in terms that say more about David Groves than they do about me. Not very smart at all. He suggests that since I don’t slavishly buy into his idiotic statements and lies that I should have a stroke.
In effect David Groves says, no matter what anyone thinks or understands, if they don’t agree with David Groves, he will disrespect them personally and enforce it with petty insulting thuggish behavior.
No, David I'm not angry; but I am very amused.
Thanks for providing the evidence to prove once again what most of us already know,
that unions and unionism are the bailiwick of petty Marxist thugs and parasites.
Half of the IBP plant workforce was at the May 1st march in Seattle. Where was the union for these folks. I was making $9.00 an hour at Union Meat Processing facility as a cutter in 1978. Tell me why you have not bargined to have the wages and benefits keep pace with inflation? These folks are making $10.00 an hour 28 years later? Do you actually DO anything for the membership? Is ist because they are Hispanic and of questionable legality and you know they will not complain? Any competent union would have these folks making over double what they are now. How much are taking from these folks to keep them under the corporate thumb?
Posted by: huh? on May 16, 2006 02:03 PM(Personally, if I held the sort of position that he does, and conducted myself as atrociously as he did, I wouldn't be hanging around, either! ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on May 18, 2006 10:24 AMSome like me wondered if David Groves just momentarily indulged in mistaken intemperance in his comments about Stefan Sharkansky.
Groves did us a great service by proving that he is a slimy lying union thug with a big mouth and low impulse control.