|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
gmforsythe 15-May-24, 18:15
« Back to club forum
| ||||||||
| From | Message | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 gmforsythe 15-May-24, 18:15I will take this point by point. Also GM, in case you missed my post where I explained why I copied and pasted the information. You can go back using the link above to read it again. With the addition of saying... Why should I retype all that information by hand when a copy paste would be more efficient in sharing the information in question? I could understand your semi sarcastic pointing out that the information was copy/paste if I were sharing an opinion with you that requires me to share my own thoughts. You asked what policies, I answered. [The issue] 1. National Right-to-Work legislation tcf.org [GM's reply] 1. <said he would sign a National Right-to-Work law introduced in the Senate if it reaches his desk.> Did it reach his desk? I see no evidence of it, so this is a non-issue. [My rebuttal/response] The bill was killed in Congress therefore it never reached his desk. If it had he would have signed it. It is an issue! It shows mindset and attitude towards the little guy VS the corporations. He will always side with the rich. Here is my proofs for the mindset claims... In 2017, the White House stated that "The president believes in right-to-work. He wants to give workers and companies the flexibility to do what's in the best interest for job creators...." indicating Trump's willingness to sign such a bill. news.bloomberglaw.com www.jdsupra.com Right to work, is a very misleading title. Like the people's Republic of North Korea, is neither a Republic nor for the people. The right to work is neither a right or for workers. It is designed to defund Unions so that they are to weak to collective bargain on behalf of workers for better working conditions, healthcare benefits and fair wages. Trump isn't concerned about workers. Just like he never brought back the coal jobs in Pennsylvania and Virginia like he said he would. He is for the rich. Period. His eagerness to sign the Right to work bill is a signal to them that he will give them what they want. Senator Rand Paul and others have repeatedly introduced National Right-to-Work legislation in Congress, which would ban mandatory union dues or fees as a condition of employment nationwide that would cripple Unions and their members. If you want to kill something you make it optional and defund it. That proposal would do both. The issue is mindset!!! [Issue Trump, failed to support second stimulus package] [GM's reply] 2. < Failed to support second stimulus> This inflationary measure should never have been proposed. "Once a people discovers that it can vote itself money, that will be the end of the republic." [My rebuttal/response] Donald Trump initially refused to sign the $900 billion COVID-19 relief package passed by Congress in December 2020, delaying the delivery of aid for several days. Trump wanted to increase the payment from 600$ to 2,000$ or 4,000$ per person. Sources: www.nbcnews.com As if adding approximately $8.4 trillion to the national debt over a ten-year budget window wasn't enough! Talk about fiscal responsibility! His unnecessary delays and threatened government shutdown if he didn't get what he wanted added a huge amount of uncertainty to people who were already hurting! Again mindset and irresponsibility. [Issue deception and concealment on matters important to everyday workers] [GM'S response] 3. <Hid economic analysis on ‘tip stealing’ rule Trump’s Department of Labor proposed a rule that would allow employers to pocket the tips of their employees as long as workers are paid the minimum wage. How does proposing a rule "hide" something? [My rebuttal/response] /answer (Q) How does proposing a rule "hide" something? (A) That wasn't the issue. Back to the facts and the facts are as follows... The Trump administration hid the economic analysis showing the negative impacts of the proposed "tip stealing" rule by actively concealing it from the public and Congress. Specifically: The Department of Labor's own internal analysis found the rule would cost tipped workers $5.8 billion annually in lost tips. However, the Secretary of Labor went to great lengths to keep this economic analysis hidden and prevent it from being released publicly. By hiding this internal analysis that revealed the significant costs and harm the rule would cause to tipped workers, the administration was able to publicly promote and justify the rule without acknowledging its true negative economic impacts. Concealing unfavorable data or analysis that contradicts the stated justification for a proposed policy is a way administrations can effectively "hide" information that could undermine their regulatory agenda. Conducting economic analysis but then suppressing it when it does not support the desired policy outcome prevents transparent rulemaking based on full consideration of costs and benefits. This violates principles of good governance and regulatory best practices which call for economic impacts to be rigorously analyzed and publicly disclosed. Once again siding with the rich corporate world over average Americans who are working. This should show a pattern and mindset. I will leave it to these three for now or until you address my rebuttal. That way neither of us should get overwhelmed |
|||||||
|
apatzer ===================== <[My rebuttal/response] The bill was killed in Congress therefore it never reached his desk. If it had he would have signed it. It is an issue! It shows mindset and attitude towards the little guy VS the corporations. He will always side with the rich. Here is my proofs for the mindset claims... In 2017, the White House stated that "The president believes in right-to-work. He wants to give workers and companies the flexibility to do what's in the best interest for job creators...." indicating Trump's willingness to sign such a bill. > Well, since we are dealing with hypotheticals, I would suggest my position on this issue. I worked for the NYS DOL which had a union when I began work, and later two unions. Union dues were mandatorily deducted from my paycheck, which I resented. I eventually joined the union for the sole reason of having a voice in its decisions. My voice was as effective as the proverbial urinating into the wind. I would have preferred not having a union or not having my union dues mandatorily deducted (stolen) to support political campaigns with which I vehemently disagreed. Eventually, a law was passed that allowed me to have my dues diminished by the percentage of union dues that were expended on political causes. Of course, I IMMEDIATELY took advantage of this, after which I had no objection to union membership and even became a shop steward. I believe in collective bargaining, but I do not believe in mandatory union membership. ========================= <Trump isn't concerned about workers. Just like he never brought back the coal jobs in Pennsylvania and Virginia like he said he would. He is for the rich. Period. His eagerness to sign the Right to work bill is a signal to them that he will give them what they want. > I disagree with the first sentence. Pres. Trump knows that he needs blue collar workers to get elected as they are much more numerous than rich people. I do not know all of what went on with the coal workers but as was said elsewhere, we are not privy to all that goes on behind the closed doors of government. A President is not a King or a Fairy Godmother who can wave a wand and bring legislation into being. As an aside, Pres. Trump certainly showed more empathy for the common workers in East Palestine than Biden, who did not even show up for more than a year. DJT provided water out of his own pocket. Biden, who had access to federal largesse, showed much less sympathy. So much for "Scranton Joe," the common man. <Senator Rand Paul and others have repeatedly introduced National Right-to-Work legislation in Congress, which would ban mandatory union dues or fees as a condition of employment nationwide that would cripple Unions and their members. If you want to kill something you make it optional and defund it. That proposal would do both. > Making something optional gives people the right to choose, which I will always support, as I did with the elimination of the military draft. I was taught that it was my duty to my country, and I chose to fulfill that duty. My brother did not. We each were free to choose. His choice did nothing to defund the military. ========================== < Donald Trump initially refused to sign the $900 billion COVID-19 relief package passed by Congress in December 2020, delaying the delivery of aid for several days. Trump wanted to increase the payment from 600$ to 2,000$ or 4,000$ per person.> If that was his reason, I would say that I disagreed with his position. I stand by my belief that printing more money to inject into the economy devalues the money. I stand by my statement: <This inflationary measure should never have been proposed. "Once a people discovers that it can vote itself money, that will be the end of the republic." > Gotta go feed the chickens. Be back later. |
|||||||
|
apatzer (2) One more observation on the mis-named "stimulus." I have read that, contrary to the intent of the move, the money was more often used to pay off credit cards and other debts or to put into savings than to purchase new stuff to stimulate the economy. Congratulations to those who used it responsibly! ========================= <However, the Secretary of Labor went to great lengths to keep this economic analysis hidden and prevent it from being released publicly. > I was not aware of this effort to hide economic analysis, but I would agree that this was an action with which I would vigorously disagree. Truth is a wonderful disinfectant. Unfortunately we are not necessarily provided with the best candidates for President, or even for Congress; we are compelled, more often than not, to choose the one who stinks least. I proudly stand by my decision, made years ago, to vote for Ron Paul, both when he was on the ballot and when he was not. The Presidential candidate that I most regret not having voted for was Ross Perot. I strongly agree with the old saw that those who like sausage and respect the law should never watch either of them being made. Sometimes ignorance truly is bliss. |
|||||||
|
GMF 05:23 Very true! But it is still ignorance. I would prefer my sausage-maker and my law-maker to have clean hands. |
|||||||
|
bob The former usually does; I'm less certain of the latter; in fact i am probably more certain of the contrary. |
|||||||
|
Cleanliness |
|||||||
|
gmforsythe My response to 17-May-24, 04:48 & 17-May-24, 05:23. I will place ((( your words ))) to show what I am replying to. ((( Well, since we are dealing with hypotheticals))) I disagree that we are dealing with a hypothetical, which is something that is based on a suggested idea or theory rather than actual facts or reality. It involves imagining a possible situation or scenario for the purpose of analysis, discussion or illustration. He stated very clearly that he was not only in complete support for "right to work" he also started that he would sign the bill. My contention is this clearly shows his mindset regarding the issue. It isn't a theory or supposition he didn't say I might sign it. He said he would. (((I worked for the NYS DOL which had a union when I began work, and later two unions. Union dues were mandatorily deducted from my paycheck, which I resented.))) Your experience with Unions isn't indicative of the entire nation. We are talking about a nation wide bill that would effect millions of workers. You may have resented paying dues but you wouldn't have had half the benefits that you did and probably not as much pay either. But then again you were working for NY state so I might be wrong about that. When working for a corporation who's only concern is it's shareholders, bottom line. Things are very different! ((( My voice was as effective as the proverbial urinating into the wind. I would have preferred not having a union or not having my union dues mandatorily deducted (stolen) to support political campaigns with which I vehemently disagreed.))) I don't think that Unions should support politicians or have any political agenda. Your dues weren't stolen from you. You agreed to join the union because it was a requirement for the job you said yes to taking. Unions work on behalf of their members and some unions do a better job than others. Your experience is indicative of the nation's experience with Unions. However no one should have to support a political position even by proxy. (((Eventually, a law was passed that allowed me to have my dues diminished by the percentage of union dues that were expended on political causes. Of course, I IMMEDIATELY took advantage of this, after which I had no objection to union membership and even became a shop steward. I believe in collective bargaining, but I do not believe in mandatory union membership.))) I agree that your dues should be diminished by the percentage of political expenditures. Unfortunately mandatory union membership and dues is the only way a union can be effective. Power concedes nothing without demand and the power to enforce one's position. The bill was designed to kill unions nothing less. Imagine what would happen if we made paying car insurance optional? Very few people would pay and the insurance companies would die overnight. <Trump isn't concerned about workers. Just like he never brought back the coal jobs in Pennsylvania and Virginia like he said he would. He is for the rich. Period. His eagerness to sign the Right to work bill is a signal to them that he will give them what they want. > ((( I disagree with the first sentence. Pres. Trump knows that he needs blue collar workers to get elected as they are much more numerous than rich people.))) Needing something and supporting or caring about it are two entirely different things The AFL-CIO stated Trump "actively sought to roll back worker protections, wages and the right to join a union at every level" during his presidency. aflcio.org So there is far more actual evidence that he doesn't care about average working people and that's a fact. ..... Gotta run to the store. I'll finish this later |
|||||||
|
apatzer 1610 I agree that my experience is only anecdotal, but it contributed to the formation of my position. Another factor are the writings and teaching of Walter E. Williams and Thomas Sowell. Among their teachings are the reality that if enough workers dislike the conditions under which they are working, they will simply look for other jobs. Thus, the recalcitrant employer will lose skilled workers and will thus be compelled either to improve working conditions (salary, benefits, etc.) or else hire less productive or less skillful workers. This will result in either lower production or poorer quality products, either of which will reduce his profits and possibly enable his competitors to force him out of business. Unions are not necessary to lead him to this conclusion; market forces will simply do the job. =================== <I don't think that Unions should support politicians or have any political agenda. > Maybe not, but reality is that they do. ==================== <Your dues weren't stolen from you. You agreed to join the union because it was a requirement for the job you said yes to taking. > I did not agree to join the union (nor did I for some time, however dues were deducted nevertheless), but as you say, I did have the choice not to work there. However, had the union not negotiated with the state and won the right to all employees' dues, I would have had my full salary without the deduction. ================== <Unfortunately mandatory union membership and dues is the only way a union can be effective. Power concedes nothing without demand and the power to enforce one's position. > But as I said above, market forces can compel an employer to meet employee needs or else go out of business. Unions should not be in a position to endanger the nation as happened with the Air Traffic Controllers under Reagan's administration. That strike violated their contract but they overestimated their coercive power. ===================== <Needing something and supporting or caring about it are two entirely different things> Yes, as Democrats are learning today by the diminution of their control over black and Hispanic voters. |
|||||||
|
You also would have worked for about 30% less. Unless those dues were thirty percent of your salary, you did all right. Or you could have found a non union job that paid thirty percent less or less. |
|||||||
|
ls With all due respect, I don't think that your speculation is anything more than just that. And jobs in the private sector for the same work I was doing were paying considerably more. The main reason I stayed in the job was job security. And being too lazy to go job-hunting. |
|||||||
|
Nationwide California teacher union dues are $90 a month. That is 2% of a 44K annual salary. So take home translates to only 11% more than non union labor. |
|||||||
|
30% Assuming dues across the nation are commensurate with California dues, 11 to 14% was all the extra you earned courtesy of the union. |
|||||||
|
Labor Unions 57,000. They would have to work nearly 30 years to earn back the wages they lost. So the workers ended up dissolving the unions. That was in the eighties when Reagan was waging war on union labor. I was never in a labor union. |
|||||||
|
Let us not forget Our union was a very weak one as the law prevented us from striking, so basically the main functions were political action and defending workers on trial for disciplinary reasons. |
|||||||
|
gmforsythe 4:18 The UAW helped establish good wages and benefits for autoworkers, creating an envied middle class. After WW2 it was Union workers and companies that were forced to have competitive wages and benefits in order to attract workers because of Unions. Lead to the strongest middle class this nation has ever saw. And the rich have sought to take money back from the middle class ever since. The middle class was so strong a family could not only live on one primary income, they often thrived. There were a multitude of reasons that our auto industry failed to hold it's place as the envy of the world. Part of that is, when you are green you grow and when you are ripe you rot. Greed and hubris made our auto industry ripe. And then came Toyota, Honda and others who were green and growing producing Superior products of quality and engineering. Some other key factors in the decline of the auto industry... Lack of innovation and investment in new technologies compared to foreign competitors like Toyota and Honda. Source: theweek.com Detroit automakers were slow to adapt to changing consumer preferences for smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles. Especially during the fuel crisis of the 70's where demand for large inefficient vehicles dropped significantly. Poor business decisions like continuing to produce gas-guzzling vehicles even as oil prices rose, rather than pivoting to more efficient models. Geographic dispersion of production away from the concentrated ecosystem in Detroit made it harder to implement innovations and new processes quickly.. Source: www.forbes.com So while unions negotiated good wages and benefits, blaming them for the failures of U.S. automakers to innovate and adapt their products is misguided. The primary factors were strategic missteps, lack of investment, and external shocks like the 2008 recession. If a company can't survive because they pay a living wage to it's employees then they don't have a right to exist. Perhaps they should have reinvested and innovated rather than pumping all the wealth of the company directly to it's shareholders, for whom the world is not enough! |
|||||||
|
This changed in the 1970's, when the Labor Party came under the influence of 'Middle-class Socialists' such as Whitlam, Wran and other 'Labor Lawyers'. The Labor Party was no longer the party of cloth-cap workers. It was these 'Labor Lawyers' who dragged the Australian economic structure out of the 'class warfare' mentality. Where the Conservatives had tried to break 'Union Power', the new-look Labor Party tried to change the rules of the game to allow win-win outcomes. One of the major changes was the abolition of 'demarcation disputes', in which work would stop because a relatively minor job included details not within the scope of just one union. For example, putting a new toilet pedestal into an office couldn't just be done by one or two men; it demanded a plumber, a tiler, a bricklayer to make good the hole in the wall (or a carpenter plus a plasterer if a timber-framed wall). And of course, each different trade required a different labourer. The Australian economy benefitted hugely from this streamlining or 'multi-trades ability'. Strikes became a rarity, productivity and wages increased. This was so successful that union members realised they no longer needed to be members of a union to enjoy the benefits of this new economic structure. Over time this led to wages not keeping up with inflation. Australia now is in a situation where unions have only a shell of their former power, wages are stagnant and the economy is sputtering because of lack of demand. The Reserve Bank, that bastion of Conservative economics, has said that wages need to rise faster. But the unions, the only realistic way of pushing for higher wages, have been nobbled. Conservatives and union-bashers, be careful what you wish for. Keeping costs down relative to your competitors is good business management, but keeping wages down across the entire economy is like trying to cut the costs of running a car by not putting fuel into it. The dollars you save by not paying higher wages are only a percentage of the dollars you don't get back through increased sales. |
|||||||
|
apatzer |
|||||||
|
Totally unrelated Please indicate your acceptance or declination of my challenge. |
|||||||
|
What is the difference... Between 'avarice' and a sound commercial decision that earns the CEO a bonus while putting a thousand workers out of a job? Answer:- Whether or not you benefit from one but not the other. |
|||||||
|
GMF 18:32 My interest is in whether or not such an inauguration would be a Good Thing or a Bad Thing to happen, and from what perspective. Also, I can hope for one thing while expecting the opposite. Wishing does NOT make something true. |
|||||||
|
Condition to my wager offer |
|||||||
|
bob |
|||||||
|
Correction |
|||||||
|
Sorry |
|||||||
|
GMF 18:24 We have so much in common! |
|||||||
|
Wager This is one bet I would gladly hope to lose, except Trump claims he never took the oath of office in 2017. He apparently was never inaugurated then either. I would take it just for the celebratory joy if it, except I have had no income so far this year. |
|||||||
|
Please elucidate So you're accepting my wager? (It's a win-lose for both sides). |
|||||||
|
Shiva 21:17 Trump might say that, but who believes what Trump says? There are plenty of witnesses within earshot at the time that would say he DID take the oath. Perhaps he claims his fingers were crossed, or that he was holding a pebble in his hand which (by Roman law) would negate his words upon appeal to Tellus, or perhaps Pence was a ventriloquist. But just think, for a moment, of what might result if he really DIDN'T take the oath. It would mean that everything he did as President would be invalid. It would also mean that he can't claim Executive Immunity, which might be inconvenient in some of his court pleadings. It would also mean that even if elected in 2024, he would be entitled to run again in 2028. Oh, Golly, the twisted web we weave! |
|||||||
|
1:30 mark Page 11 www.supremecourt.gov |
|||||||
|
Nuance www.newsweek.com |
|||||||
| ||||||||
