Peaches

Mister, I have no idea what you're talking about here.

Always used this name. Just hardly ever post.

The fact she kept responding shows I did get a rise out of her.

The other side of this is that the shipping companies are slowing down the docking in order to make the charge of a work stoppage, like the article I gave. Which side is right? Probably both are doing it. See the hypocrisy you're arguing?

You really don't see my point at all, do you? I'm saying that both sides are doing the very same thing, and that both sides are jockeying for positional advantage. You are only acknowledging one side and didn't even admit that salary is not the same as total cost of employment. But hey, I'm sure you are heavily involved in the negotiations and know all the details about all this. Like a marriage, when one person is always right, there is soon to not be a marriage at all. Talking with you is like a marriage where one person is always right, and that person is you. Like any marriage with that ty

I've read her posts enough to know that. I'm just in a mood to poke her with the stick to get a rise out of her so she will keep saying these really out there statements. My colleagues laugh at the things she posts and this is just more stuff for us to get a chuckle over next week.

That is my point. Both sides influence the selection. Here is an interesting article http://www.wsj.com/articles/west-coast-port-employers-suspend-some-operations-amid-labor-dispute-1423264257 that says the shipping companies are delaying the operations. Don't be one-sided.

You honestly believe the companies don't do similar things to get arbitrators that lean toward the benefit of the companies? That is why both sides are in the negotiation and both sides get their picks. In other words, it appears the companies only want arbitrators that will favor the management. See the hypocrisy?

The employees are losing their ability to provide for their families each day should a strike happen. Do you really think the employees are not negotiating in good faith and that it's the shipping companies that are trying to take advantage of that? See the hypocrisy?

If you honestly don't understand that the piece of paper shows the successful completion of the course work, then there is nothing anyone can do to help you understand the complexities of the world in which we live. Without that piece of paper, there is an informational illiteracy.

If you honestly believe that someone without a college degree would be held in the same regard by the world's top leaders as someone with a college degree, then there is nothing anyone can do to help you see the fallacy of that thought.

You missed MY entire point. It is apparent that the owners of the shipping companies and associated businesses will hold the economy hostage in order to get what they want and that is to not deal fairly with the workers to increase their profits. Now imagine what will happen if the owners continue to not deal fairly with the workers and how that will affect the country. See the hypocrisy?

Kinda like the culture of the Middle East has the kind of violence of beheadings the West doesn't have. The West used to be violent like that but we now have laws against it and we figured out violence like that doesn't do anyone any good. It's not the religion but the culture.

You still didn't acknowledge that the total compensation and salary are two different things. Instead you want to denigrate them for the profession they chose and the salary the job commands? What kills me is you don't complain about defense contractors making this kind of money but you do about these longshoremen. So what about teachers? We don't make anywhere near that salary and get told all the time that we should just leave if we want a different salary because we are not allowed to have collective bargaining. I see a lot of hypocrisy.

I don't think you read your own article. It clearly said that number was "total compensation" and that it "included benefits." That is in the quote you gave. Total compensation is the cost of employment, and that also includes the employer's portion of social security.

Those articles were talking about total package, or total cost of employment, just like I said. That is not the same thing as salary.

I'm calling BS on this. I tried to find in the article a reputable source for the $147,000 salary and couldn't find it. It is itself a blog and not a reputable news site anyway. It also said the source was a retail association, the same group that is against the union to begin with. I kept trying to find the source for that and clicked through several but never did find it. Then I did a search for average dockworker salary. I found a Houston Chronicle http://work.chron.com/average-wage-longshoreman-20463.html article that gives a number of about 2/3 that $147000, and that includes

There were a few in the 1970s who talked about global cooling, but that was an extremely smal minority. It was in the news when they first talked about it but it has been well documented since the 1950s that global warming is happening and that is what the nearly unanimous number of scientists are telling us.

John Coleman is not a climate scientist but a weatherman. He has a degree in journalism, not science. Line by line here is why Coleman is considered a quack in science circles. http://uscentrist.org/platform/positions/environment/context-environment/john_coleman/the-amazing-story-behind-the-global-warming-scam

This is what happens when we run government like a business.

What? I'm not backtracking at all. I am pointing out that you were dead wrong when you said a business should be able to refuse service to whomever they want, and then you said that you could choose who [sic] you will or won't do business with. That is not true. I said you cannot refuse service for any reason, not that you cannot refuse service if there is a legitimate business reason.There are laws that say you cannot refuse people for whatever reason you want.

Business owners may do whatever they wish as individuals. Businesses are not individuals. They are set up to limit the owner from liability. Take the advantages of a business means taking the limitations of the business. Do you not see where I said "and follow equal access laws?" That does not mean any and all reasons but what the law says.

I did not say that. The focus of my point never changed though I did respond to your points where you kept confusing private business with faith groups with educational centers. Sexuality is not a protected class. People who may identify themselves as gay or transgendered or bi-sexual are in a protected class in many states because this group was being specifically targeted to cut them out of mainstream society. This group should be a protected class at the federal level but it is going to take time for that to happen.

You didn't quote the very next paragraph in the LegalZoom site that said the restaurant that refused to serve the gay couple lost because there was no legitimate business reason to do that. You are giving examples where there is a legitimate reason to refuse service and that is ok. My point is that it is illegal to refuse service to protected classes in some states. State law may go further in protections but may not negate or make less those federal protections. In states where, in this discussion, gays are not a protected class, it may or may not be illegal to refuse service but by doing

Science teacher. I'm saying that all people have some sense of human decency about what is just the right thing to do and not do, and that is not predicated on religion. You said those things came from religion and I'm saying religion adopted basic morality in the religious systems. Morality come from the culture and the people Morality doesn't come from religion.