Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

'Right to work' kills, those who pass such are murderers

Page 5 of 7 [ 109 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

13 Dec 2012, 10:09 pm

Jacoby wrote:

Quote:
The federal government needs to get the hell out of education.

OH NO! We can't have government-less education. Without government all over it there might not be enough fairness and love.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

13 Dec 2012, 10:28 pm

Jacoby wrote:
I'm sure you do care, just as I'm sure Mao Zedong and Che Guevara cared. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Immoral acts are immoral acts regardless of how you justify them.

Pulling the red scare card I see. :roll:

As far as the second sentence goes I could say the exact same thing to you. It's useless though as you people live in a bubble of epistemic closure. We could get rid of every single government institution except for the post office and then when the economy crashed once again you'd be coming up with some clever explanation for how stamp prices were "artificially distorting the free market forces" and how "we just can't afford stamps".



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

13 Dec 2012, 10:56 pm

Jacoby wrote:
The longer we keep up this charade the worse the correction is going to be when the bubble finally does burst. Pain and suffering will result either way, the difference is how much and when. You can kick the can further down the road and hope your not around when the day of reckoning has come but you can't really claim to care about young people then.

Cutting government spending is not the solution to the debt. In Europe, austerity has shrunken GDP leading to worse debt-to-GDP ratios in countries that were forced to make cuts. Fixing the trade deficit is the only way to stop the deficit. We aren't going to be able to keep importing cheaply produced goods manufactured elsewhere by American companies. The US has the resources to be a self-sustaining economy. We have tons of natural gas, can develop much more in the way of wind and solar power, or even build new nuclear reactors if we have to. The ultimate problem isn't debt but lack of political will. If there was an alien invasion the government would spend and the debt would cease to have meaning. Debt is a social quantity, not something hard or physical.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

13 Dec 2012, 10:58 pm

marshall wrote:

If you don't want to work for a union shop you are "free" to choose employment elsewhere.


Does the union own the company at which I seek employment? If not, why do I have to -buy- the union's permission to have a job at this company?

I should be able to submit a job application to the owner or manager of the company and be considered for employment.

ruveyn



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,127
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

14 Dec 2012, 1:52 am

Fnord wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Fnord wrote:
... these things can all be accomplished by "Employee Associations" that are to unions what credit unions are to banks -- they keep it simple, keep it local, and keep it friendly, that's all!
But would those employee associations even exist without organized labor?

Probably (imo). Employee Associations are kinda like when a few employees get together and retain a lawyer to make sure that their civil rights are no being violated, and to advise them of the legalities of any actions they may contemplate. There are no strikes, no slowdowns, no sit-ins, and no 3rd-party bystanders getting beat up for having the "wrong" skin color.

It's all local. You know all of the other members, and it may one day be your turn to chair the meetings for a year. You might even be friends with <*gasp*> management!


My point is, employers would have probably seen such organizations as dangerous, and thus would have stamped them out of existence, had organized labor not led the way in workers rights.
Incidentally, sit ins and slow downs had been invaluable tools of the workers to get their rights. And I doubt it was all that common that non-Caucasian bystanders to be hurt by striking workers.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Deth_V
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 5 Dec 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 13
Location: Central Oregon

14 Dec 2012, 2:51 am

visagrunt wrote:
"Right to Work"

Perhaps the greatest lie ever foisted upon a naïve and easily duped public by the crony capitalists of the plutocracy.

This does not create a right to work--it creates a right to exploit. The statistics do not lie. Median hourly income in so-called "right to work" states are $3/hour lower than in states without such legislation.

According to the US Census bureau, four of of the five lowest ranking states by median household income (three year average) are right to work states. None of the top five are.

There are policy alternatives that could easily accommodate dissenters. In the Canadian public service, for example, dissenters are free to direct the employer to divert the amount of their union dues to a registered charity. Union membership and memership within the bargaining unit are separated--so a person is bound by the terms of their employment to the collective agreement, but can choose not to exercise membership in the union.

If the era of Big Labour is finished, then say hello to the return of the sweatshop.
. How much does the unions take away? The amount taken away by unions could equal the amount that the people end up earning in those states. Also, I have been to those states, and the cost of living is a lot less than in union states. So it balances out. Also, if a union is actually fighting for people's rights, then the people would pay them regardless if they are required by law or not.

I'm sorry someone seems to have convinced you that right to work is evil, it really isn't. Also, honestly, it is more evil to require people to pay for groups that they don't agree with. Unions in the past have donated to political campaigns in the past, and normally it is not to a good half of the people irking there support, so forcing the workers to pay (indirectly) political campaigns is also wrong.

We won't end up working in sweatshops again, the rich aren't out to get you, you don't need to be afraid of right to work, it is a good thing.


marshall wrote:
Cutting government spending is not the solution to the debt. In Europe, austerity has shrunken GDP leading to worse debt-to-GDP ratios in countries that were forced to make cuts. Fixing the trade deficit is the only way to stop the deficit. We aren't going to be able to keep importing cheaply produced goods manufactured elsewhere by American companies. The US has the resources to be a self-sustaining economy. We have tons of natural gas, can develop much more in the way of wind and solar power, or even build new nuclear reactors if we have to. The ultimate problem isn't debt but lack of political will. If there was an alien invasion the government would spend and the debt would cease to have meaning. Debt is a social quantity, not something hard or physical.



Are you serious, do you know how to balance a budget? If you have too much coming out of your budget, and you need more money, you have to cut spending. I do agree with the trade thing, but we need to make sure that companies can thrive in this country, so they will want to move here.



The title of this thread is so silly....



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,127
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

14 Dec 2012, 2:59 am

Deth_V wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
"Right to Work"

Perhaps the greatest lie ever foisted upon a naïve and easily duped public by the crony capitalists of the plutocracy.

This does not create a right to work--it creates a right to exploit. The statistics do not lie. Median hourly income in so-called "right to work" states are $3/hour lower than in states without such legislation.

According to the US Census bureau, four of of the five lowest ranking states by median household income (three year average) are right to work states. None of the top five are.

There are policy alternatives that could easily accommodate dissenters. In the Canadian public service, for example, dissenters are free to direct the employer to divert the amount of their union dues to a registered charity. Union membership and memership within the bargaining unit are separated--so a person is bound by the terms of their employment to the collective agreement, but can choose not to exercise membership in the union.

If the era of Big Labour is finished, then say hello to the return of the sweatshop.
. How much does the unions take away? The amount taken away by unions could equal the amount that the people end up earning in those states. Also, I have been to those states, and the cost of living is a lot less than in union states. So it balances out. Also, if a union is actually fighting for people's rights, then the people would pay them regardless if they are required by law or not.

I'm sorry someone seems to have convinced you that right to work is evil, it really isn't. Also, honestly, it is more evil to require people to pay for groups that they don't agree with. Unions in the past have donated to political campaigns in the past, and normally it is not to a good half of the people irking there support, so forcing the workers to pay (indirectly) political campaigns is also wrong.

We won't end up working in sweatshops again, the rich aren't out to get you, you don't need to be afraid of right to work, it is a good thing.


marshall wrote:
Cutting government spending is not the solution to the debt. In Europe, austerity has shrunken GDP leading to worse debt-to-GDP ratios in countries that were forced to make cuts. Fixing the trade deficit is the only way to stop the deficit. We aren't going to be able to keep importing cheaply produced goods manufactured elsewhere by American companies. The US has the resources to be a self-sustaining economy. We have tons of natural gas, can develop much more in the way of wind and solar power, or even build new nuclear reactors if we have to. The ultimate problem isn't debt but lack of political will. If there was an alien invasion the government would spend and the debt would cease to have meaning. Debt is a social quantity, not something hard or physical.



Are you serious, do you know how to balance a budget? If you have too much coming out of your budget, and you need more money, you have to cut spending. I do agree with the trade thing, but we need to make sure that companies can thrive in this country, so they will want to move here.



The title of this thread is so silly....


I'm sorry to say, you are very naive if you truly believe the super wealthy don't mean us any harm.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Deth_V
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 5 Dec 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 13
Location: Central Oregon

14 Dec 2012, 3:21 am

I have met rich people before, they have been nice and DID NOT drink my blood. The only super wealthy people that I am concerned about aware people like Michael Moore, and George Soros.

I was talking of course to most of American rich people. ... Also I'd like to point out that rich people give the most to charities... Bill gates is an example as far as I know he's done huge donations to charities before.


(Most) Rich people have worked extremely hard for their money, and sometimes they hae grown out of poverty. I think it's naive to think, that people in their own little worlds would step out of them to start harming other random people. Rich people aren't like Mr. burns from the Simpsons, they are humans too.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

14 Dec 2012, 7:30 am

Kraichgauer wrote:

I'm sorry to say, you are very naive if you truly believe the super wealthy don't mean us any harm.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


What is "super" wealthy? Does it mean that a person has more net worth than you think he ought to have? If so, I ask WHO ARE YOU. Who appointed you judge and jury to decide what the right amount of wealth a person should have? And if you are not that judge you are simply expressing a judgement which need not have a basis in fact.

You comments indicate you are an anti-wealth anti-capitalist bigot.

There is one thing worse than a tyrant and that is an egalitarian. Humans are NOT created equal. They never were and they never will be. We come in all sizes, shapes, temperments and ranges of ability.

ruveyn



OliveOilMom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,447
Location: About 50 miles past the middle of nowhere

14 Dec 2012, 10:24 am

xenon13 wrote:
According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the rate of workplace deaths is 52.9 percent higher in right-to-work states. That means dead bodies, corpses, and anyone who passes laws for this is a murderer because they know that it causes deaths.

As I said, the Right likes punishment, pain and violence... and as they think that the worship of a God that predestines people to Hell is what brought the great leap of progress out of darkness, this is to be expected. "Life is unfair", they like to say, and under their breath they add, "and may we make it more unfair still".


That's on OSHA, not on the lack of unions. Take that up with them.


_________________
I'm giving it another shot. We will see.
My forum is still there and everyone is welcome to come join as well. There is a private women only subforum there if anyone is interested. Also, there is no CAPTCHA. ;-)

The link to the forum is http://www.rightplanet.proboards.com


RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

14 Dec 2012, 11:05 am

ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:

I'm sorry to say, you are very naive if you truly believe the super wealthy don't mean us any harm.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

There is one thing worse than a tyrant and that is an egalitarian. Humans are NOT created equal. They never were and they never will be. We come in all sizes, shapes, temperments and ranges of ability.

ruveyn

In subjective realm humans are. You cannot objectively quantify the value of another human being. This is one of the reasons why I believe wage labor is wrong, its landlords attempting to assign objective value to the labor of other individuals. Not every anti-capitalist subscribes to Marx's labor theory of value.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

14 Dec 2012, 11:13 am

RushKing wrote:
In subjective realm humans are. You cannot objectively quantify the value of another human being. This is one of the reasons why I believe wage labor is wrong, its landlords attempting to assign objective value to the labor of other individuals. Not every anti-capitalist subscribes to Marx's labor theory of value.


Try getting things produced when you depend on the Goodness of the Heart. The Lazy will do nothing and expect the Busy to provide for them. The only way to make sure things get made and get made right is to pay a fair wage which is proportional to the value of the goods produced.

The Egalitarian view is not only stupid and wrong, but it will lead to want and misery.

ruveyn



RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

14 Dec 2012, 11:28 am

ruveyn wrote:
RushKing wrote:
In subjective realm humans are. You cannot objectively quantify the value of another human being. This is one of the reasons why I believe wage labor is wrong, its landlords attempting to assign objective value to the labor of other individuals. Not every anti-capitalist subscribes to Marx's labor theory of value.


Try getting things produced when you depend on the Goodness of the Heart. The Lazy will do nothing and expect the Busy to provide for them. The only way to make sure things get made and get made right is to pay a fair wage which is proportional to the value of the goods produced.

The Egalitarian view is not only stupid and wrong, but it will lead to want and misery.

ruveyn

And whats wrong with lazys freeriding? If only 20% population worked at the average level of productivity today, the society would still function. More jobs are becoming automated and the capitalist system is becoming more obsolete. Mass welfare is inevitable and inescapable.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

14 Dec 2012, 11:50 am

RushKing wrote:
[
And whats wrong with lazys freeriding? If only 20% population worked at the average level of productivity today, the society would still function. More jobs are becoming automated and the capitalist system is becoming more obsolete. Mass welfare is inevitable and inescapable.


Well, I simply cannot dissuade you from the ugliness of injustice. You think freeloading is o.k. I don't I am extremely reluctant to feed a freeloader who is perfectly capable of producing some useful good or service. Look at the late and unlamented Soviet Union. The joke that made the rounds there was: They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work. So you got a country where people spent half their waking hours standing in line for not only scarce good, but goods that were cheap and shoddy. You are welcome to that.

ruveyn



RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

14 Dec 2012, 12:07 pm

ruveyn wrote:
RushKing wrote:
[
And whats wrong with lazys freeriding? If only 20% population worked at the average level of productivity today, the society would still function. More jobs are becoming automated and the capitalist system is becoming more obsolete. Mass welfare is inevitable and inescapable.


Well, I simply cannot dissuade you from the ugliness of injustice. You think freeloading is o.k. I don't I am extremely reluctant to feed a freeloader who is perfectly capable of producing some useful good or service. Look at the late and unlamented Soviet Union. The joke that made the rounds there was: They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work. So you got a country where people spent half their waking hours standing in line for not only scarce good, but goods that were cheap and shoddy. You are welcome to that.

ruveyn

If one person today can easily harvest 168 bushels of corn, I don't believe freeloading is much of an issue. The issue is the ruling class working everyone else to death. Look at all the food supermarkets are throwing out. All of that could have been potential welfare.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

14 Dec 2012, 12:19 pm

Deth_V wrote:
marshall wrote:
Cutting government spending is not the solution to the debt. In Europe, austerity has shrunken GDP leading to worse debt-to-GDP ratios in countries that were forced to make cuts. Fixing the trade deficit is the only way to stop the deficit. We aren't going to be able to keep importing cheaply produced goods manufactured elsewhere by American companies. The US has the resources to be a self-sustaining economy. We have tons of natural gas, can develop much more in the way of wind and solar power, or even build new nuclear reactors if we have to. The ultimate problem isn't debt but lack of political will. If there was an alien invasion the government would spend and the debt would cease to have meaning. Debt is a social quantity, not something hard or physical.

Are you serious, do you know how to balance a budget? If you have too much coming out of your budget, and you need more money, you have to cut spending. I do agree with the trade thing, but we need to make sure that companies can thrive in this country, so they will want to move here.

The title of this thread is so silly....

Your mistake is equating the economy of a nation with a household budget. It really is not that simple. The problem is changes in taxes and spending change the economy as a whole which in turn changes the amount of revenue the government collects. When balancing a household budget you don't have to worry about losing your job when you stop spending. Also, becoming a third-world country ourselves in order to compete with third-world wages is not a good option. That kind of adjustment will almost certainly lead to deep anger and social unrest. If that is really inevitable, we have a moral obligation to protect the weakest members of our society. I don't think that is inevitable as we do have leverage over leaders and major shareholders of multi-national corporations who still choose to live in the west. There's a lack of political will to do anything because people are scared and money has a stranglehold on our government.