blake murphy wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:23:57 -0500, Lou Decruss wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:56:17 GMT, blake murphy
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 15:27:11 -0500, Lou Decruss wrote:
> >
> >>> That was a butchers union rule. Meat couldn't be sold unless there
> >>> was a union member on duty. I remember the meat being covered in
> >>> white paper at 5:59. But back then many women didn't work full time
> >>> so it was a bit easier. Today it would be tough on families where both
> >>> parents work. It was a dumb rule.
> >>>
> >>> Lou
> >>
> >>i'd say the butchers had a mighty good union at that time.
> >
> > I don't know about good, but they were strong. As long as they were
> > doing all the cutting and wrapping I see no reason to control sales
> > hours.
> >
> > Lou
>
> 'strong' would be a good word for it.
>
> i know we possibly differ on this, but i think i'd prefer the times when
> unions were stronger than the state they are in today. many people are
> getting screwed today who would have been better off then even if they
> didn't belong to a union.


Hey blake, I'm not meaning to be all coy and stuff but how do ya like my new
sig...???

;-p


--
Best
Greg

"The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other
people's money."~~~~Margaret Thatcher