Front Page



Tia: well.

Russ: good.

Tia: super duper, duper, duper, duper.

Russ: everyone's home.

Tia: yes, everyone's home. Okay tonight, guest speakers are.......I'll let her introduce herself. She wants to introduce herself. Okay now let me briefly skip through a few items so that we get nice and freshly underway. Let me see, okay, stock market today dropped a hundred and one points on the Dow. What's going on at the moment with the drops and it's dropped below 8000 is profit taking. People are pulling out and taking profit of the money that they've made just recently. Now it is worth watching to see what transpires at this point. Okay, that's the stock market out of the way......UPS strike, how is it affecting the United States economy? Well at the moment it's not affecting it too much but if this strike continues, it's going to destroy one of the largest organizations for transporting goods. What is happening? Well it seems to be a fight over union controlling the pension plan and the company controlling the pension plan.

Russ: in other words, retirement K something or.......

Tia: 401(k) plan.

Russ: yeah 401(k)?

Tia: yes, correct.

Russ: because the company's using it to make investments and make money on?

Tia: correct.

Russ: typical business strategy.

Tia: uh-huh and a very sound and good one. The unions want to be able to control it which is a bad move.

Russ: yeah, they want to make the money.

Tia: no, they have no idea on how to make the money. Well they do but they're not prepared to take the necessary risks to do so. In the long run it benefits the employees that the company keeps control because for a company to be successful, it has to be good with business. For a union to be successful, it doesn't have anything to do with business at all. So it is more along the lines of the union wants to control it to have control of the profits for the union i.e., the high officials in the union to have a much more bigger salary, bigger income.

Russ: well they probably heard the bad media about companies that use the 401(k) to invest, lose the investment and lose the retirement plans of their employees.

Tia: who's giving this dissertation?

Russ: oh, sorry.

Tia: thank you. I'm asking rhetorical questions........

Russ: oh.

Tia: that don't need a answer. So the unions want control of the 401 retirement (k) plan. The company wants to keep it. Who is better suited to control it? Obviously ergo the business. By......stop snickering. So what is going on? Well the thing about they want more people to go full-time. Yes that is a good idea in essence. Let us take a theoretical number. Let us say you have a staff of 50,000 in the company, that's management, supervisors and regular full-time and part-time employees. Out of that 50,000, 25,000 are part-time. Let's say you want to increase the number of full-time positions. Now there's two ways to do this. One is to go out and drum up more business and two is to cut the staff of part-timers so that the other part-timers that are left, let's say you cut fifty percent of the part-timers right? So that would be 12,500 employees that would go full-time. The other 12,500, what happens to them? If the business isn't growing but is staying the same and making a profit, those 12,500 are useless. In actual fact they start to make the company lose money. So for a company to maintain its profitability you have to get rid of that 12,500. What has been achieved at this? Well by doing this you have downsized the company but you have not made any substantial gains, you are staying the same. You're being competitive but those 12,500 people that are now unemployed, who is responsible for that? The unions are responsible because they wanted more full-time positions so ergo that is a moot point. You want more people to work full-time, well you have to lose some of your part-time people to give those other part-time people full-time status. Why do that? Well, it makes people feel good, they're now full-time. Why are the unions trying to make those people full-time? They obviously do not understand the ramifications of doing that. Okay let us move along now to something a little bit more lively and enjoyable. Reports recently of 14 to 18-year-olds state that they are more interested, not in making money, but in high morals or higher morals. But the questions were asked and worded in such a way as "which do you think is better?" Not "what do you feel is better?" but "which do you think is better?" Asking questions like this is designed as more of a feel-good exercise, it achieves nothing. Okay let us look at the recent welfare reforms. Well apparently when the bill was signed last year, 1.5 million people went off of welfare. What happened to these people? The government is not too clear on that, in fact they decidedly avoided the issue on what happened to them. If they went off welfare, how many of them actually went into the workforce. And if you look at the figures and the way it's set up, how many of those are receiving things like food stamps, put into low-rent that is subsidized by the government and so on? So even though 1.5 million people have disappeared off unemployment, they're still being supported and subsidized by the government. Ergo still supported and subsidized by taxpaying people. Okay, now let us get down to questions.

Russ: all right.....

Tia: when you're finished scribbling there.

Russ: this is due to the UPS.

Tia: uh-huh.

Russ: I have found a third version that would work really well.

Tia: okay.

Russ: and that is.........it's a policy that would be set up whereby you need to bring on full-time people and reduce the size of your part-time force.

Tia: uh-huh.

Russ: okay? So instead of firing or downsizing your part-time force, you don't hire any new people right now.

Tia: uh-huh.

Russ: but as a full-time person leaves, you bring up a.....to retire or leaves the company or for some reason........

Tia: uh-huh.

Russ: you bring up a part-timer to full-time and then you can hire someone to work part-time but now if a part-timer leaves, you don't hire a new person.

Tia: uh-huh.

Russ: that way as the full people leave, full-time people leave, the part-timers move up and then you can replace that part-timer who left with a new part-timer.

Tia: the unions won't go for that. That is in essence what UPS is trying to do.

Russ: it's a great plan.

Tia: UPS is trying to do that, the unions won't let them do that. Certainly there are individuals that are becoming full-time through the normal course of progression, people retire, somebody fills their position and so on. That is the way that it is done and that is the way that UPS wants it done. The union wants to make let's say out of my theoretical number of 25,000 part-time people, they want to make more than half of those......so that would be more than 12,500 full-time whilst keeping the other people part-time. What are those part-timers going to do for work if half the workforce that is part-time becomes full-time?

Russ: well they'll cover routes that don't need full-time coverage.

Tia: well that's the way it is now, you see? The union will if it continues on its course, destroy UPS because people will go elsewhere, to the Postal Service, to Federal Express, to the Flying Tigers, so on. For shipping they will go to other people which makes UPS have to lay off people.

Russ: well this is just setting up for someone to step in where UPS was.

Tia: exactly.

Russ: and then it would give more room for more people to come in to the courier business.

Tia: uh-huh.

Russ: who.....

Tia: career business?

Russ: yeah.

Tia: career?

Russ: courier.

Tia: could you...

Russ: as in courier, to carry something from some place to another, a courier.

Tia: that's a new word to me.

Russ: oh okay.

Tia: career.

Russ: no, courier.

Tia: not cree whatever.

Russ: no.

Tia: okay that's a new word. Korea.

Russ: courier.

Tia: courier.

Russ: yeah.

Tia: hmm okay.

Russ: anyway, that would bring up some new people into the business that are currently out of it because of the fact that UPS has got a stranglehold on the whole corporation.

Tia: uh-huh.

Russ: you have DHL, you've got Federal Express, you have a few people out there but they're not big time yet.

Tia: no, because UPS is the big.....

Russ: UPS has the planes, they've got the trucks, they've got the corporation but they're weak right now.

Tia: yeah due to the fact of the unions.

Russ: sure and people are going to find out how good those smaller companies actually are now.

Tia: uh-huh.

Russ: who normally wouldn't go with anybody else, especially the businesses.

Tia: exactly, exactly. So the unions, even though they're trying to do their members a service, are doing them a disservice. Now the other problem on the horizon for UPS is the pilots and the pilots union. It's another trouble brewing, one worth watching.

Russ: now with the UPS being controlled by the Teamsters, is this going to have any effect on truck deliveries as far as cross-country food and other deliveries......

Tia: not yet.

Russ: of shipments?

Tia: not yet.

Russ: I mean you won't have a sympathy strike from other Teamsters members?

Tia: no, I don't see that happening just yet.

Russ: okay.

Tia: the strike may go for another week, may. It may go longer.

Russ: now do you feel it's kind of shooting the....overshooting their bounds to call the White House in to mediate between these two?

Tia: yes, yes, absolutely.

Russ: I mean it's not like they're ground controllers.

Tia: no.

Russ: or something that has to do with a major government function.

Tia: yeah they're not vital as has been proved.

Russ: yeah it's a private industry.

Tia: correct.

Russ: it's unreasonable to have the government step in in a private industry's civil dispute.

Tia: well where does it stop? If you call the government in to settle that dispute, where does it stop?

Russ: well the buck stops at the government. The government could get the blame for this whole nine yards if it blows up in their face.

Tia: uh-huh and it very well could.

Russ: they were asked to come and so.....

Tia: well the unions asked them to come in.

Russ: sure and if they do it right and they get this strike resolved fairly between the two corporations, the government looks great.

Tia: uh-huh.

Russ: good gamble on Clinton's side.

Tia: yes and it's a very dangerous gamble.

Russ: it could pay off big though.

Tia: uh-huh.

Russ: I mean his stakes are not.......it's not really a win-lose situation, because he could just say at the end going, "we gave it our best shot but we ran into very much unreasonableness on the side of whichever party decides to blow it up.

Tia: uh-huh.

Russ: and they could be looking at, "well hey, government gave it a shot, that's at least something that...."

Tia: yeah but there is no right for the government to be involved.

Russ: yeah but the majority of the people aren't seeing that. The minority of people who follow government are but on the whole, those average Joe's and stuff who just read the paper are just like, "oh, well that makes sense."

Tia: yeah but where does it stop? The government comes in to settle this strike right? And it goes well for them, let's say it goes well. Where does it stop, does it stop on a local scale?

Russ: it stops when the government.......whenever the government says it has to stop.

Tia: so, let us say that two people are having a domestic disagreement right? 

Russ: uh-hmm. 

Tia: the government steps in and says, "okay we'll settle it for you." Is that right?

Russ: no, that's a job for the courts.

Tia: but that's the way it's heading. Where does it stop?

Russ: not necessarily, something like this isn't a court matter. You want to take the union and the UPS and have them settle this in court.

Tia: no but I'm saying that let us say that a husband and wife are having a disagreement over let us say........retirement plan.

Russ: uh-huh.

Tia: okay? The wife wants it in one set up and the husband wants it in another set up. Does the government have the right to intervene and say where it should go?

Russ: no.

Tia: but that's the way it's heading.

Russ: well, it's possible but I don't see it going that way in the long run. I see it will stop long before before that because the government will see that as a possibility and won't let it go that far.

Tia: the government very well might.

Russ: well yeah the government I think is just they've stepped in in Ireland, they've stepped in the Middle East, they stepped in China and Taiwan, they stepped in in Hong Kong and China. They've basically gone everywhere internationally and I think they're trying to do the same thing on a domestic level to show that their concern is also on a domestic agenda.

Tia: yes but every time they step in internationally, what happens?

Russ: actually, very good stuff so far.

Tia: well last time they stepped in, let's take northern Ireland.

Russ: uh-huh.

Tia: they stepped in, there was a 15 month cease-fire and then kablooey, back to square one.

Russ: nobody blamed that on the U.S. Government.

Tia: well why not?

Russ: it wasn't the government's fault. Extremists in the IRA caused that blow up. 

Tia: yes okay, let us look at this right? Where did the money come from for the IRA to start their terror campaign again?

Russ: Sinn Fein.

Tia: where did Sinn Fein get the money from?

Russ: well they've got their supporters around the world, the United States and England.

Tia: not so much in Great Britain. There are a few, but very, very minor.

Russ: well I mean you've got people who.......like the guy who built that silver car. (John DeLorean) whatever his name was...that chrome car or...

Tia: well it doesn't matter.

Russ: right.

Tia: but a lot of the money comes from the United States. Okay let us look at Bosnia. Okay, last Septemberthere was elections.........

Russ: uh-huh.

Tia: which were basically a farce. You end up with three people running the country right? Three presidents, very strange setup, still haven't figured that one out. Now, supposedly there were meant to be local elections. Those local elections have been postponed and postponed and postponed and they have been postponed again until September which more than likely they will be postponed again. Now, out of the twomillion people that were homeless from that war right? They were supposed to get help and everything to move and settle back in. Out of that, only 250,000 have returned home. Out of that, only 10,000 have returned to their original ethnic areas, it's not working.

Russ: yes but America isn't in charge of all that, they're trying to give Bosnia as much independence as they can and not look like a United States puppet.

Tia: uh-huh, I'm going to quote you, "it's a good thing that the US is going in there to sort things out".

Russ: yeah, I agree.

Tia: but it's not sorted anything out.

Russ: no I'm not talking now, I'm talking about earlier when they...first the war stopped.

Tia: yeah it stopped all right but it's still going on, they're still killing each other, car bombs, shootings and so on. It's not as prevalent and the lines are no longer drawn in a line.

Russ: it's not a war anymore.

Tia: exactly, but people are still getting killed.

Russ: well people are getting killed in the United States every day.

Tia: well why doesn't the government do something about that?

Russ: because they're accidents.

Tia: oh, a drive-by shooting's an accident huh?

Russ: yeah we have police but I mean it's not like the government's going to declare martial law, come in and basically put a soldier with an M-16 on every corner to keep this stuff from happening in the United States which is the same thing you'd be looking at doing in Bosnia. So the government's doing the right thing in this.

Tia: you think so?

Russ: yes.

Tia: well, let me look at it this way.......or let us look at it this way.........as soon as the headlines are over and the deals are signed, your government basically goes pufft, "you're on your own." Let us look at Haiti. At the start of his run in office right? He said that after the invasion, there would be....how long would your troops be there, 18 months?

Russ: uh-huh.

Tia: about 18 months. Well they brought certainly a lot home but they sent just as many back as support personnel to support the United Nations peacekeeping force there in supplies and communications and medical purposes. So in essence, and they're all military personnel, nothing changed. They just brought the front-line troops home and replaced them with people that aren't capable of stopping the trouble.

Russ: well I applaud that decision.

Tia: why?

Russ: because history, and especially 20th-century history, has a lot of examples of governments that have run countries and when the countries got their freedoms back, the government said "okay, you're on your own, goodbye." and left them with no support services and nothing to really base a government on at which point they were taken over by coups or ended up in total anarchy, dictatorships. No what we're doing in all three places you mentioned....

Tia: uh-huh.

Russ: is keeping a presence that if not just on a political side as in Ireland.......

Tia: uh-huh.

Russ: is actually a physical side as you see in Haiti.

Tia: uh-huh.

Russ: leaving the countries to basically they're on their own but they've got their friend to fall back on.

Tia: no they're not, they're not on their own.

Russ: well pretty much everybody sees them as on their own. I'm saying look at perceptions.

Tia: they're puppets.

Russ: I know but look at perceptions.

Tia: is it right?

Russ: yes, absolutely.

Tia: it is right?

Russ: absolutely.

Tia: so it's right for a country to have another country as a puppet?

Russ: until they get their feet together and they can make it on their own, yes I totally agree.

Tia: they're never going to get their act together because the simple reason is that the United States or any other country that does this routine, Great Britain, Russia, so on, won't let them. Because as soon as they do that, they lose control.

Russ: but we have a lot of interests and investments in those countries.

Tia: you do?

Russ: sure.

Tia: name one in Haiti.

Russ: the sugar industry.

Tia: uh-uh.

Russ: we have a sugar industry in Haiti that we do get our sugar from because that's one of their main exports is sugar.

Tia: yeah, but you can get sugar from other sources, Hawaii.

Russ: sure.

Tia: sugar beet.

Russ: the prices are lower in Haiti.

Tia: slave labor.

Russ: fine but the prices are lower.

Tia: oh yes certainly.

Russ: we have investments that we are protecting. We have major loans we've given them......

Tia: oh.

Russ: that we are.......

Tia: oh so it's a matter of protecting your investments now is it?

Russ: absolutely.

Tia: uh-huh.

Russ: well okay here's your scenario. We pull out okay? We leave them all on their own.

Tia: uh-huh.

Russ: which is what you I guess are saying.

Tia: yeah pretty much so.

Russ: okay, all of a sudden they have a fact where inflation starts to rise okay?

Tia: uh-huh.

Russ: well, we can't get investments from the United States because we can't show that we have a government that's stable enough to encourage investment from the World Bank.

Tia: uh-huh.

Russ: therefore, people start losing faith in the government, government starts to collapse. In steps a military leader of some sort to oust Astride or Asteide or whatever his name is.

Tia: Aristide.

Russ: Aristide, and we're back at square one again. Here comes America again with it's troops, take over,here comes Aristide again. Okay, well we've gone through that whole thing again......

Tia: uh-huh.

Russ: we spent time, money, man-hours and soldiers to keep them there in a place that we should have kept a residual force in and help prop up until that government is more stable.

Tia: uh-huh. Okay let's look at what you've just said.

Russ: okay.

Tia: okay, you spend X number of dollars on an invasion, you spend X number of dollars keeping individuals in that country right? To protect investments from the United States companies right?

Russ: uh-huh.

Tia: that have total control of those companies producing sugar. 

Russ: uh-huh. 

Tia: okay, those companies pay taxes to the government.

Russ: uh-huh.

Tia: that pay the troops to protect the sugar.

Russ: right.

Tia: who pays.......and you say it works out cheaper?

Russ: uh-huh.

Tia: it doesn't. If you take in to fact that you are paying.......the companies are paying the government taxes to keep the troops there so that they have control, it works out that the price is about the same. You may find out that it's five cents cheaper over.....five cents per pound cheaper. That's peanuts. Because you are paying taxes to the government and buying the sugar company's sugar that pays the taxes to the government to keep the troops there. You're paying for the troops. You're paying the government to have those individuals there. You're paying for their food, their clothing, their lodging, their equipment, their transportation. So is it correct to send troops there to protect sugar that you're paying for the sugar, you're paying for the troops and all the relevant information that I've just stated with that?

Russ: well you left out one important thing that we're paying for.

Tia: what?

Russ: democracy

Tia: you don't pay for democracy.

Russ: well I think that that there's a hard currency coin we are paying for democracy.

Tia: people pay for democracy in their blood.

Russ: uh-huh.

Tia: so, you've taken away the free will of a people that are run by a bunch of third dimensional companies to enforce third dimensional philosophy and thinking that leads to no spiritual growth. Doesn't matter if it's Haiti, Bosnia or Northern Ireland. You perpetuate the cycle.

Russ: well I'm sorry if I'm in complete disagreement with that but only because in all three places, especially Bosnia and Haiti, we are perpetuating freedom of choice, freedom of religion, freedom to go out and make money and maintain a Democratic society with the capitalistic side to it whereby all people are able to express their free will, get books and other forms of materials that will help them in their conscious growth as opposed to what we've seen in Russia before and other dictatorships or other military coup places where the government runs everything, restricts religion, restricts thought, restricts everything and keeps that consciousness at a very low level.

Tia: you'd be surprised actually how much different the facts are from what you're stating. I'm running short on time as well. Okay let me round up by saying that you go in there and using your own words, you force your will with your capitalistic ideas, with your idea of freedom on them. What if the people either don't really care or don't want it? They've got it regardless anyway. If there was the coup in the first place right?

Russ: uh-huh.

Tia: and the sanctions were not levied, what would've happened? We'll leave it on that note.

Russ: okay.

Tia: I'll be back. 

(Says goodbye in Durondedunn)

Return to The Library