Re: Simplex wants Union workers to install there product

["petem" <petem001@xxxxxxxxx>]

"mleuck" <m.leuck@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit dans le message de groupe de discussion
: be9095da-456e-41ea-a6a9-af959e5b529f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> On Jul 21, 8:44 am, "petem" <petem...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> "Jim" <alarmi...@xxxxxxx> a écrit dans le message de groupe de discussion
>> :
>> b6ac79dd-4e30-4b4d-a108-9fadba6d8...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 20, 1:37 pm, "petem" <petem...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> "nick markowitz" <nmarkow...@xxxxxxxxx> a crit dans le message de
>> >> groupe
>> >> de
>> >> discussion :
>> >> fedb877b-304a-4fa4-808b-7c465d57b...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> >> > Have a contractor I do sub work for that has a large retirement
>> >> > village he handles and they like our work .
>> >> > We have been installing Simplex equiptment with no problems and it
>> >> > works great.
>> >> > Now al of a suden the rep for Simplex says they only want Union
>> >> > workers installing there products there. Needless to say the
>> >> > management told them No . It us or no one .
>>
>> >> > Since when is its simplex buisness to say who installs ther stuff.
>>
>> >> Could it be that the client asked for union only worker?...
>>
>> >> BTW it been prooved that in the construction business, union worker
>> >> have
>> >> a
>> >> better rating then non-union worker....
>>
>> > Proved?    How would you "prove" that?
>>
>> here in Alberta, there is a large construction site, the horizon project,
>> and some part of it is build by non-union worker, and some part with
>> union
>> worker,
>>
>>  on the electricity part of the project we had access to the ratings of
>> the
>> whole project.
>>
>> a normal day of work as a rating of 1 , the whole project on the non
>> union
>> part had a rating overall of .6 on the union side we were at 1.5. on
>> on the defect part we were at 94% no defect on the non union they were at
>> 80% no defect.
>>
>> now if those number doesnt speak by themself.....
>
> Without knowing who did the ratings and how they measured what you
> said is meaningless and it also appears to be just one instance
> instead of an average of several instances.
>

of course , when its coming from the management of an union, and that the
numbers were provided to them by the management of a milti billion project,
those number cant be taken seriously...