Must I use my backhand?

Titus - I never said unions were commies ... man alive, do you have a "conservative cliche" Rolodex next to your computer? NONE of what you wrote has yet to be negotiated - NONE. You are predicting the future. And by the way smart ass - the culinary union that includes bartenders and cocktail waitresses @ Caesar's announced that Harrah's set a gold standard in giving out a sweetheart deal which includes bartenders starting wages at 20$ an hour (straight pay before their tips mind you), and health care granted based on hours worked for waitresses rather than a "status" deemed by the corporation. And both of those positions are making more money then they ever had and applications for both positions are a mile deep - just like the dealer's.

Put simply - you're talking out of your ass.

And "negotiate, bargain and barter" on my own with my employer? Excuse me? You write as if you weren't in the same department as the rest of us once upon a time. There is no "negotiation" in a shift office if you don't like your review, the point system or anything else. Are you serious? This industry MORE then any other, in table games at least, cries out for collective representation because walking into a shift office on your own is the equivalent of sticking your head in a wood chipper. And let me add this - the supervisor who did my last review had it sent back to him no less then 4 times by one of the shift bosses. Do you know why? Because my scores were too high and they went through them with a red ink pen like they were grading a college essay of a C student telling him where to lower the scores and how to rewrite his complimentary sentences to read "less" complimentary. Why did they do that? I mean, he works with me every day, and I have barely even spoken to that shift boss, let alone worked with her. It was because if you get a high enough score you receive a monetary bonus, and they (Harrah's mgmt) has decided that only full time employees should receive that bonus for cost reasons and I'm part time. So all the "buzz sessions" (a stepford wives pre-shift meeting we are required to attend every single work day where we work on our upcoming "smile" by role playing no less - brutal) means nothing. And the only reason I know all this is because that supervisor showed me all of the reviews that were sent back (we're friends). In fact, he ended up getting fired over it because on the last one he popped off to the shift boss that the whole thing was a shill game and if she wanted it written her way she should write it herself because it's embarrassing to be forced to give a coworker you know is proficient, bad scores - and then go over the [fake] reasons why with that coworker in person ... in other words lie to my face or be fired. He was an honorable guy and he chose being fired. Thank goodness he got picked up as a dealer @ Wynn's and is making more money, I felt horrible over the whole thing. So, before you go shooting your mouth off about individual negotiations this, or unions not helping any tip position that (a completely bogus claim with bartenders, you're just ignorant of the deal they negotiated) do yourself a favor and remember you're at least 2000 miles away and I'M ON THE FUCKING GAMING FLOOR HERE!

And not to mention - don't you think I pondered this heavily, looked at the deals the bartenders and waitresses are getting for being employed in a "side" service to what I as a dealer facilitate? I have to reiterate - you're talking out of your ass, you don't know the culinary union deal, you don't know the situation on the ground as far as day to day operation goes by the personalities whom are our bosses, and you certainly can not predict the future over the deal we will or will not get .... sheeeeeesh. But go ahead Harry Reid, declare the war lost a half a world away like you know what you're talking about. How comfy is that arm chair anyway, general?

And by the way, I'm not here to defend all unions - quite the contrary. Many of them act in contradiction to the very industry they're in and the people they serve (the patrons, be it students or Ford owners), and if that turns out to be the case, I will admit I was wrong about collective bargaining in this instance. Furthermore, if you knew anything about unionization you would know that a "YES" vote does not constitute your joining the union. It's a secret ballot genius. Haven't you considered the fact that I may have already decided to wait and see if the union delivers a good deal before joining? My vote simply afforded them the opportunity. I realize any deal they strike applies to me whether or not I'm a dues paying member. The decision to join does not affect that. Voting them in gives them the right to negotiate on your behalf, but you must fill out a card, take an actual pledge, and THEN you are a member of the union and THEN you pay dues. I'm not now or will be in the future obligated to pay anything. And again, one of the reasons the vote was 3 to 1 is because Harrah's is known (at least the Harrah's western outfit) for granting unions very generous deals.

So, to recap Titus, you're talking out of your ass and have no clue what unions have done for tipped positions in Las Vegas - where I live, that's me, F. Ryan, not Titus who lives in NEPA and does not work at Caesar's, in case you forgot. Also, Harrahs Corp historically grants great union deals because they want front line employees "happy" - they have a five day course on "happiness at work" after your normal orientation, along with the daily pre-shift meetings I mentioned. Number three - Ronnie had no problem with unions that were honest brokers. And lastly, you are talking out of your ass .... I felt like saying it again.

I feel like we're in the bizzaro world. I defend a single yes vote based on personal observations and a belief in fair play, and you attack every union known to mankind. That's almost as bad as realizing the teamster's may very well end up my "brethren" as Jambo pointed out.

****

A Near East (a more accurate term then "middle") leader we've backed that won? If you mean "won" in the sense that he won an election, then it IS Musharraf. He was elected president in October. The upcoming elections are parliamentary, party elections that would then elect a prime minister. "Won" in the sense that his country and our national and economic security were better off at the end of his term? You could write about 14 different books taking either side in my estimation. I'll concede though, in the latter the record is a tattered mosaic of unrealized reforms.

****

Your last Titus ... I agree on many points. Leaders are made, not born (outside of monarchical rule, then if bad, only in title). Also, to call these guys "idiots" badboy, or not possessing leadership ability is a bit juvenile. A lot juvenile in fact. Reagan in his CA gubernatorial race had opposition commercials aired that showed a clip of him from a movie he did, arguing with an actual chimpanzee, "Stupid" was not only implicated, but flat out said. Also, did Rudy not display leadership during 9/11? Romney balanced a budget in the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts. McCain was the senior officer of the men he suffered with in the Hanoi Hilton. His father was an active duty Admiral no less, during his POW status. The Vietcong offered his release based mostly on his Father's status, and he refused and spent an additional two years as a POW. Why? Because he refused to leave his men. That my friend is leadership.

And this leads me to a larger commentary on my party and who I am endorsing.....

There are basically 3 planks to the GOP platform when it comes to electability and ginning up the base. 1.) National Security. 2.) Fiscal responsibility. 3.) "Values." Depending on how you rank those, you have basically three choices in the GOP. Rudy is known for 9/11. That translates politically into being tough in the war on terror. Romney, a Harvard business graduate, a wildly successful business man (he's probably the richest man to run outside of Perot - personal wealth of 200 million), is known for balancing budgets and being able to read a GAO balance sheet, without aid, in his sleep. Huckabee is the values guy. He is unabashedly pro-life, anti-gay marriage, and pro-family and always has been - I'll give him that (& I'm sorry, but as honorable as McCain is, and as folksy as Thompson is, they're not going to win - outside of McCain taking New Hampshire, they love him there).

Now - why, you may ask, is Huckabee, who got outspent 15 to 1 by Romney (I underestimated in my last by stating 10 to 1), surging so far, so fast? Is family values so important suddenly? Are evangelicals that powerful in Iowa? If that were the case Robertson wouldn't have finished third in 1988. I believe the following. Dick Morris touched on this and I will expand. I think that the Reagan Democrats (they're called Republicans now), are mostly lower and middle class Americans. And they perceive that the GOP is drifting in a blue blood, country club Republican direction. By and large they are evangelical, or at least Christian, but not exclusively. They vote based on values, which INCLUDES, law and order, nationalism, and traditional outlooks on American life. And I think they may feel betrayed by the CEO class of the GOP that has so much influence. They feel that illegal "immigration" is due in large part to corporate interests in cheap labor. They think the only value these people have is in an extra yacht. Don't get me wrong - I'm an aspiring rich Republican, and I detest class warfare, what I am referring to is illegal immigration being propped up by our GOP blue bloods and the feeling that gay marriage and abortion are a distant second to bottom lines. Morris put it this way - "having done some polling data for a Texas Republican I told him there are two types of Texans: the Dallas Texans, as in the series "Dallas", who believe in success without suffering. And the Alamo Texans, who believe in suffering without success."
I think he may be right. The lower middle class GOP member that votes mostly on values feels jilted by the party. The party "expects" their vote and offers little outside of attempting to save Terry Schivo, in return.

So who is out there to unite these two sides? Who can speak authentically about family values AND economics, AND be taken serious on National Security? Can Rudy, on his third marriage and being on record supporting abortion speak to family values? Please. Huckabee - can he speak credibly on foreign affairs? Will he order the water boarding in a ticking time bomb situation knowing Jesus would not? And I'm not being crappy there - I'm serious, he is a Baptist Pastor. It is my opinion that only one man can legitimately claim fiscal responsibility, can speak authentically about family values (and has lived as pious a life as any politician out there - more so even), and uses phrases like "Islamo-fascism" and describes this intent to kill our enemies in candid terms ... Romney. But he must be careful. Huckabee is a dangerous candidate in this sense - he is likable (outside of his Mormon comment). If you watch him on the late night shows or listen to him on the radio he is self deprecating, funny, and doesn't avoid questions. I recall a line of Reagan's speech for Goldwater ... "The other side claims that 17 million Americans go to bed hungry every night. Well, that's probably true ... they're on a diet." Thunderous laughter. Huckabee: "People ask me if I believe in the Resurrection. Sure I do. Thousands of dead people vote every year in Arkansas." Laughter. Plus, he's tapped into the populous strain within the GOP and his people are true believers in him. He excites them and Romney better be aware of this and give speech after speech about terror and fiscal policy and be heavy on the family values so as to show Mormons ARE in fact Christians .. or at the very least (for Titus), simpatico with traditional American values.

If you're interested, Romney, Rudy, McCain, Thompson and Huckabee will participate in a round table discussion with Chris Wallace this morning on FOX. It's being billed as a "real" debate without all the time warning lights, 30 second rules, etc.

By the way - a leader needed "more now then in any other time in our nation's history", badboy? Well, it is a truism that we always "need" a leader. And no one takes Islamic-fundamentalism as serious as me. However, I think as the southern states succeeded, "leadership needed" took on a meaning so serious that its equal has yet to occur. Jambo ... you with me on that?
FR