Made In USA

This past year, all my Weinbrenner wading boots (with and without studs)
finally gave out, so I've been looking for new boots. Problem is, I'm
hearing from fly shop owners and others that many of the boot brands are now
made over-seas, and the quality has dropped.

In the bigger scheme of things, it seems that more and more fly fishing
items have been caught up in the whole out-sourcing over-seas make-it-cheap
craze. Even warranty policies are being weakened to compensate for the
increasing number of defects and returns in fly fishing products.

What the heck is happening? Are fly fishers representative of and
encouraging the out-sourcing make-it-cheap craze, or are fly fishers in a
position to push back.

At this point, I'm placing an online order for some US Made Weinbrenner's:

http://www.wadingshoes.com/introduction/index.html

Thomas Gilg

news.cup.hp.com wrote:

This past year, all my Weinbrenner wading boots (with and without studs)
finally gave out, so I've been looking for new boots. Problem is, I'm
hearing from fly shop owners and others that many of the boot brands are now
made over-seas, and the quality has dropped.

In the bigger scheme of things, it seems that more and more fly fishing
items have been caught up in the whole out-sourcing over-seas make-it-cheap
craze. Even warranty policies are being weakened to compensate for the
increasing number of defects and returns in fly fishing products.

What the heck is happening? Are fly fishers representative of and
encouraging the out-sourcing make-it-cheap craze, or are fly fishers in a
position to push back.

At this point, I'm placing an online order for some US Made Weinbrenner's:

http://www.wadingshoes.com/introduction/index.html

Thomas Gilg


Another reason to fish bamboo....

"news.cup.hp.com" wrote in
:


This past year, all my Weinbrenner wading boots (with and without
studs) finally gave out, so I've been looking for new boots. Problem
is, I'm hearing from fly shop owners and others that many of the boot
brands are now made over-seas, and the quality has dropped.

In the bigger scheme of things, it seems that more and more fly
fishing items have been caught up in the whole out-sourcing over-seas
make-it-cheap craze. Even warranty policies are being weakened to
compensate for the increasing number of defects and returns in fly
fishing products.

What the heck is happening? Are fly fishers representative of and
encouraging the out-sourcing make-it-cheap craze, or are fly fishers
in a position to push back.

At this point, I'm placing an online order for some US Made
Weinbrenner's:

http://www.wadingshoes.com/introduction/index.html

Thomas Gilg



There are still plenty of quality producers of fly fishing gear. I think
the problem with boots is that they're big and bulky and expensive to
stock and inventory, so fly shops pick their two or three favorite
brands, and stick with them. Most shops I've dealt with seem to stock
Simms. I don't know what country they are made in, but I haven't heard
of any quality complaints about Simms boots.

For boots, though, I'm pretty fussy, so I like dealing with LL Bean. You
don't like it, you send it back, even after using it a few times, no
questions. I haven't taken them up on that policy, but I have sent back
boots when I didn't like the fit.

Scott

On 10 May 2005 18:55:31 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

"news.cup.hp.com" wrote in
:


This past year, all my Weinbrenner wading boots (with and without
studs) finally gave out, so I've been looking for new boots. Problem
is, I'm hearing from fly shop owners and others that many of the boot
brands are now made over-seas, and the quality has dropped.

In the bigger scheme of things, it seems that more and more fly
fishing items have been caught up in the whole out-sourcing over-seas
make-it-cheap craze. Even warranty policies are being weakened to
compensate for the increasing number of defects and returns in fly
fishing products.

What the heck is happening? Are fly fishers representative of and
encouraging the out-sourcing make-it-cheap craze, or are fly fishers
in a position to push back.

At this point, I'm placing an online order for some US Made
Weinbrenner's:

http://www.wadingshoes.com/introduction/index.html

Thomas Gilg



There are still plenty of quality producers of fly fishing gear. I think
the problem with boots is that they're big and bulky and expensive to
stock and inventory, so fly shops pick their two or three favorite
brands, and stick with them. Most shops I've dealt with seem to stock
Simms. I don't know what country they are made in, but I haven't heard
of any quality complaints about Simms boots.

For boots, though, I'm pretty fussy, so I like dealing with LL Bean. You
don't like it, you send it back, even after using it a few times, no
questions. I haven't taken them up on that policy, but I have sent back
boots when I didn't like the fit.

Scott


If I'm not mistaken Weinbrenner is the last U.S. manufacturer of mass
market wading boots. (There are probably small, custom makers, but
looking at a couple catalogs reveals that Simms, L.L. Bean, Patagonia,
Korkers and Chotas are all imported.) The factory is three blocks from
my house. I doubt if they'll be there much longer. The Chinese work
cheap. The Koreans and Taiwanese aren't quite as cheap but their
quality control has improved drastically. I just got back from a
AFL-CIO training seminar. While they still suggest that a person "Buy
American" they feel that it is more realistic to put increased
emphasis on expanding union activities in developing nations. If the
corporations have to meet minimum decent standards for the workers and
the environment (which will of course increase their costs) they may
have fewer incentives to move overseas.

g.c.

"George Cleveland" wrote in message
...
...I just got back from a
AFL-CIO training seminar. While they still suggest that a person "Buy
American" they feel that it is more realistic to put increased
emphasis on expanding union activities in developing nations. If the
corporations have to meet minimum decent standards for the workers and
the environment (which will of course increase their costs) they may
have fewer incentives to move overseas.


It's tough to decide whether that's a pitifully lame strategy or a
pathetically transparent admission of impotence. Either way, Hoffa must be
spinning in his foundation.

Wolfgang
who remembers a time when a union could be something other than just another
"not for profit" corporation.

On Wed, 11 May 2005 08:17:37 -0500, "Wolfgang"
wrote:


"George Cleveland" wrote in message
.. .
...I just got back from a
AFL-CIO training seminar. While they still suggest that a person "Buy
American" they feel that it is more realistic to put increased
emphasis on expanding union activities in developing nations. If the
corporations have to meet minimum decent standards for the workers and
the environment (which will of course increase their costs) they may
have fewer incentives to move overseas.


It's tough to decide whether that's a pitifully lame strategy or a
pathetically transparent admission of impotence. Either way, Hoffa must be
spinning in his foundation.

Wolfgang
who remembers a time when a union could be something other than just another
"not for profit" corporation.



While I'm sure its not seen by them as a "pathetically transparent
admission of impotence" it does mean that they have come to the
conclusion that globalization is not going to be stopped by Buy
American ad campaigns. One of the examples they used was of the "Look
for the Union Label" campaign of the ladies garment workers from a
couple of decades ago. It turned out, as should be no surprise, that
most people looked for the price label instead. It might be nice if
Buy American campaigns worked but the objective reality is that they
don't. So what does Labor (capital L) do? The stratedgy of reaching
out to other Labor organizations in other countries seems to be a
reasonable effort. After all, after China, the U.S. is probably the
least Labor (there's that capital L again) friendly country in the
industrialized world. If you buy a KPOS fly reel it most probably was
made in a Unionized shop and the Unions in Korea have real respect and
power (they were deeply involved in overthrowing the late
dictatorship). I think it is a hopeful trend, this recognition that
workers of all countries have much in common. During one of the breaks
I asked (with a smile on my face) whether this means that I should
renew my IWW (Industrial Workers of the World, ie. Wobblies)
membership. The speaker thought I was joking. I wasn't.


g.c.

"George Cleveland" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 May 2005 08:17:37 -0500, "Wolfgang"
wrote:


"George Cleveland" wrote in message
. ..
...I just got back from a
AFL-CIO training seminar. While they still suggest that a person "Buy
American" they feel that it is more realistic to put increased
emphasis on expanding union activities in developing nations. If the
corporations have to meet minimum decent standards for the workers and
the environment (which will of course increase their costs) they may
have fewer incentives to move overseas.


It's tough to decide whether that's a pitifully lame strategy or a
pathetically transparent admission of impotence. Either way, Hoffa must
be
spinning in his foundation.

Wolfgang
who remembers a time when a union could be something other than just
another
"not for profit" corporation.



While I'm sure its not seen by them as a "pathetically transparent
admission of impotence" it does mean that they have come to the
conclusion that globalization is not going to be stopped by Buy
American ad campaigns. One of the examples they used was of the "Look
for the Union Label" campaign of the ladies garment workers from a
couple of decades ago. It turned out, as should be no surprise, that
most people looked for the price label instead. It might be nice if
Buy American campaigns worked but the objective reality is that they
don't. So what does Labor (capital L) do? The stratedgy of reaching
out to other Labor organizations in other countries seems to be a
reasonable effort. After all, after China, the U.S. is probably the
least Labor (there's that capital L again) friendly country in the
industrialized world. If you buy a KPOS fly reel it most probably was
made in a Unionized shop and the Unions in Korea have real respect and
power (they were deeply involved in overthrowing the late
dictatorship). I think it is a hopeful trend, this recognition that
workers of all countries have much in common. During one of the breaks
I asked (with a smile on my face) whether this means that I should
renew my IWW (Industrial Workers of the World, ie. Wobblies)
membership. The speaker thought I was joking. I wasn't.

Labor's notion that unionization in the rest of the world, with it's
concomittent increase in the cost of goods, might prove a boon to the
American work force isn't necessarily a bad idea. However, the AFL-CIO is a
rapidly diminshing force even in American politics; the only thing that
saves their implicit suggestion that they are serving their membership by
promulgating this idea from being sheer hubris is that it helps to maintain
the illusion that their primary interests are the same as those of their
constituents. Moreover, unionization (wherever and whenever it has
occurred....even as far back as medieval trade guilds) has typically
accomplished as much for the employers who tried to stamp it out (stopping
at nothing, including mass murder.....and often with cheerful assistance of
local and state law enforcement....not to mention the United States Army) as
it has for workers, by being a positive force in the development of
increased efficiency and quality through various means. Unionize China and
it becomes an even more threatening competitor in the long run. On the
other hand, if Chinese labor doesn't become organized China becomes a more
threatening economic competitor in the long run anyway.

Wolfgang
the 20th was "The American Century".....this one most certainly won't be.

On Wed, 11 May 2005 13:19:10 -0500, "Wolfgang"
wrote:


"George Cleveland" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 11 May 2005 08:17:37 -0500, "Wolfgang"
wrote:


"George Cleveland" wrote in message
...



While I'm sure its not seen by them as a "pathetically transparent
admission of impotence" it does mean that they have come to the
conclusion that globalization is not going to be stopped by Buy
American ad campaigns. One of the examples they used was of the "Look
for the Union Label" campaign of the ladies garment workers from a
couple of decades ago. It turned out, as should be no surprise, that
most people looked for the price label instead. It might be nice if
Buy American campaigns worked but the objective reality is that they
don't. So what does Labor (capital L) do? The stratedgy of reaching
out to other Labor organizations in other countries seems to be a
reasonable effort. After all, after China, the U.S. is probably the
least Labor (there's that capital L again) friendly country in the
industrialized world. If you buy a KPOS fly reel it most probably was
made in a Unionized shop and the Unions in Korea have real respect and
power (they were deeply involved in overthrowing the late
dictatorship). I think it is a hopeful trend, this recognition that
workers of all countries have much in common. During one of the breaks
I asked (with a smile on my face) whether this means that I should
renew my IWW (Industrial Workers of the World, ie. Wobblies)
membership. The speaker thought I was joking. I wasn't.

Labor's notion that unionization in the rest of the world, with it's
concomittent increase in the cost of goods, might prove a boon to the
American work force isn't necessarily a bad idea. However, the AFL-CIO is a
rapidly diminshing force even in American politics; the only thing that
saves their implicit suggestion that they are serving their membership by
promulgating this idea from being sheer hubris is that it helps to maintain
the illusion that their primary interests are the same as those of their
constituents. Moreover, unionization (wherever and whenever it has
occurred....even as far back as medieval trade guilds) has typically
accomplished as much for the employers who tried to stamp it out (stopping
at nothing, including mass murder.....and often with cheerful assistance of
local and state law enforcement....not to mention the United States Army) as
it has for workers, by being a positive force in the development of
increased efficiency and quality through various means. Unionize China and
it becomes an even more threatening competitor in the long run. On the
other hand, if Chinese labor doesn't become organized China becomes a more
threatening economic competitor in the long run anyway.

Wolfgang
the 20th was "The American Century".....this one most certainly won't be.


I think that the Unions here in the U.S. were dealt a double (perhaps
fatal) blow in the late 40s. The removal of the Reds (who were usually
very effective organizers) was a big blow. But the Taft-Hartley Act,
which basically banned Unions from organizing workers as a class, was
the bigger of the two. Once sympathy strikes and boycotts were banned
it meant that Unions were forced to deal with a unified corporate
structure by means of a legally fragmented Labor. The workers
organizations in other Western democracies didn't suffer under those
handicaps and I think the arguably higher level of "civilization"
that Europe currently enjoys (better health care for the average
person, better retirement and vacations, lower levels of "alienation"
from their jobs and society as a whole) is because the means to
establish class consciousness weren't undercut by their respective
governments. Of course the Unions here could have responded by massive
acts of civil disobedience when the Taft-Hartley Act was passed but
they had just purged themselves of those very factions who believed in
that type of class based activities.

Now Hoffa may be spinning in his grave but the fact is that
Taft-Hartley gave rise, as an unintended consequence, to Unions who
could only maintain power by intimidation. And while the Teamsters
built their reputation as an effective Union under the myth that they
could intimidate employers, they, in reality and in line with other
dictatorial organizations, used their apparatus for intimidation on
their own members even more than they did on their "class" opponents
(if a Union organized on the "business model" can even be said to
represent a different class from the employers).


g.c.

Who, due to a merger, is now, unhappily, a Teamster himself.

"George Cleveland" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 May 2005 13:19:10 -0500, "Wolfgang"
wrote:


"George Cleveland" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 11 May 2005 08:17:37 -0500, "Wolfgang"
wrote:


"George Cleveland" wrote in message
m...



While I'm sure its not seen by them as a "pathetically transparent
admission of impotence" it does mean that they have come to the
conclusion that globalization is not going to be stopped by Buy
American ad campaigns. One of the examples they used was of the "Look
for the Union Label" campaign of the ladies garment workers from a
couple of decades ago. It turned out, as should be no surprise, that
most people looked for the price label instead. It might be nice if
Buy American campaigns worked but the objective reality is that they
don't. So what does Labor (capital L) do? The stratedgy of reaching
out to other Labor organizations in other countries seems to be a
reasonable effort. After all, after China, the U.S. is probably the
least Labor (there's that capital L again) friendly country in the
industrialized world. If you buy a KPOS fly reel it most probably was
made in a Unionized shop and the Unions in Korea have real respect and
power (they were deeply involved in overthrowing the late
dictatorship). I think it is a hopeful trend, this recognition that
workers of all countries have much in common. During one of the breaks
I asked (with a smile on my face) whether this means that I should
renew my IWW (Industrial Workers of the World, ie. Wobblies)
membership. The speaker thought I was joking. I wasn't.

Labor's notion that unionization in the rest of the world, with it's
concomittent increase in the cost of goods, might prove a boon to the
American work force isn't necessarily a bad idea. However, the AFL-CIO is
a
rapidly diminshing force even in American politics; the only thing that
saves their implicit suggestion that they are serving their membership by
promulgating this idea from being sheer hubris is that it helps to
maintain
the illusion that their primary interests are the same as those of their
constituents. Moreover, unionization (wherever and whenever it has
occurred....even as far back as medieval trade guilds) has typically
accomplished as much for the employers who tried to stamp it out (stopping
at nothing, including mass murder.....and often with cheerful assistance
of
local and state law enforcement....not to mention the United States Army)
as
it has for workers, by being a positive force in the development of
increased efficiency and quality through various means. Unionize China
and
it becomes an even more threatening competitor in the long run. On the
other hand, if Chinese labor doesn't become organized China becomes a more
threatening economic competitor in the long run anyway.

Wolfgang
the 20th was "The American Century".....this one most certainly won't be.


I think that the Unions here in the U.S. were dealt a double (perhaps
fatal) blow in the late 40s.

Well, there was also the 80s.....but, go on.

The removal of the Reds (who were usually
very effective organizers) was a big blow. But the Taft-Hartley Act,
which basically banned Unions from organizing workers as a class, was
the bigger of the two. Once sympathy strikes and boycotts were banned
it meant that Unions were forced to deal with a unified corporate
structure by means of a legally fragmented Labor. The workers
organizations in other Western democracies didn't suffer under those
handicaps and I think the arguably higher level of "civilization"
that Europe currently enjoys (better health care for the average
person, better retirement and vacations, lower levels of "alienation"
from their jobs and society as a whole) is because the means to
establish class consciousness weren't undercut by their respective
governments. Of course the Unions here could have responded by massive
acts of civil disobedience when the Taft-Hartley Act was passed but
they had just purged themselves of those very factions who believed in
that type of class based activities.

Now Hoffa may be spinning in his grave but the fact is that
Taft-Hartley gave rise, as an unintended consequence, to Unions who
could only maintain power by intimidation. And while the Teamsters
built their reputation as an effective Union under the myth that they
could intimidate employers, they, in reality and in line with other
dictatorial organizations, used their apparatus for intimidation on
their own members even more than they did on their "class" opponents
(if a Union organized on the "business model" can even be said to
represent a different class from the employers).

All true (although, given other aspects of European history in the 20th
century, I might prefer the use of "internal socialization" to
"civilization"......but that's another rant) and a nice summation.

Nevertheless, unions DID accomplish much here in the U.S. in the latter half
of the 19th and the first half of the 20th centuries, before they decided,
collectively (if you'll forgive the expropriation of the term), on the "if
you can't beat them, BE them" philosophy. We're both old enough to remember
a time when the 40 hour week was perceived (however ephemerally.....and
perhpas erroneously) as canonical.

g.c.

Who, due to a merger, is now, unhappily, a Teamster himself.

Now all you need is a star to hitch your wagon to.

Wolfgang

On Wed, 11 May 2005 14:21:15 -0500, "Wolfgang"
wrote:


"George Cleveland" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 11 May 2005 13:19:10 -0500, "Wolfgang"
wrote:


"George Cleveland" wrote in message


Now all you need is a star to hitch your wagon to.

Wolfgang

Nah, all my former stars turned out to be brown dwarfs (dwarves?).

I'm going fishing.


g.c.