Slashdot Mirror

Mississippi has one of the larger percentages of union employees in the south. Not sure why you are so butthurt about unions? Do you have a problem with people getting together to try and get a better deal for themselves?

No, I have a problem with workers that are being exploited by an overbearing corporation and its overpaid bosses to also have to deal with being exploited by an overbearing and often corrupt union and its overpaid bosses. Mississippi has lots of union workers, and yet it's a right to work state. So why do the unions in Michigan and elsewhere think they need laws and the violent power of the state to force people to join a union against their will, and even take money out of the paychecks of people that get NO benefit from the union? Or extract union money from workers' paychecks for partisan lobbying activities?

Sixteen states and the District of Columbia established state-based exchanges. But more than half of these exchanges are already inoperable or are facing budget shortfalls. Even after spending $4 billion in federal grants, the track records of state-based exchanges have been nothing short of calamitous. In fact, at least three state-based exchange efforts — Maryland, Oregon and Massachusetts — are now the subjects of federal investigations.

This astonishing track record bears repeating: Only 16 out of 50 states chose to create state health exchanges, even though the law stated that by not doing the citizens of the remaining 34 states would not get federal subsidies (the whole point of the Supreme Court case). Yet, of those 16 that did create exchanges, more than half have failed to work or have gone over budget, after wasting more than $4 billion in federal funds. On top of that, three are now under investigation.

Gee, lets do the same with everything. No government regulation for anything. After all, you can choose what is an acceptable risk. So what if you didn't know that Uber drivers aren't properly insured? Why not unregulated food manufacturers who can sell you bacteria-laced meat? Why not unregulated cars that are unsafe at any speed?

Yes, food & automobile manufacturers have a strong incentive to kill their customers. It's good for long-term profits.

Why not unregulated medicines that are as likely to kill as to cure?

Vioxx was FDA approved, and killed 60,000 people. Meanwhile, effective drugs are unnecessarily kept off of the market by the FDA, like Provenge. And those are only 2 examples.

And unregulated banks that can take your money and run?

Or the regulated banks that can do that legally.

Hey, go all the way - allow the issuing of unregulated currencies

Why not? The Fed has done such a bang-up job.

the use of non-credentialed teachers from the local state pen, and everything else?

Yes, credentialed pedophiles that the teachers' union support are much better.

The fact is that regulations are supposed to ensure that the consumer doesn't have to spend hours investigation who is and who isn't competent themselves, as well as provide a feedback mechanism when the regulations are broken.

There are a boatload of ways to find out about what products are good and which businesses provide competent employees, such as the Better Business Bureau, Consumer Reports, Underwriters Laboratory, as well as review web sites, etc. I'm not saying unregulated markets would be perfect, but I believe that they would by and large be a better solution than the current regulatory morass we have in this country.

The fourth amendment has been dead since civil forfeiture became common.

Not dead, but badly bruised and put on the cart.

That really needs to be fixed, now.

Federal Case Could Make It Easier For Victims To Defend Themselves Against Civil Forfeiture
Pennsylvania judge calls civil asset forfeiture “state-sanctioned theft”
IJ Scores Major Federal Court Victory In Massachusetts Civil Forfeiture Case
The Rise of Asset Forfeiture Abuse
Bill Would Prohibit Asset Forfeiture In Michigan Without Criminal Conviction - State has been ground zero for money and property seizures

Unless it is addressed the problem will only get worse as local and state governments face funding squeezes due to tax shortfalls and growing pension funding problems.

Those inefficiencies can be almost impossible to remove, because the Union will want something back from management in exchange for what they view as a concession.

This is the mind set that has the Detroit Water and Sewage Department still having blacksmiths on the payroll long after the horses have gone. http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/17404

Mod Up. This is true.

Googled "care provider forced to join union"

How the Forced Unionization of Day Care and Home Health Care Providers Took Place
http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/16241

‘FORCED UNIONIZATION’: SEIU COLLECTS UNION DUES FROM DISABLED KIDS’ MEDICAID CHECKS
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/forced-unionization-seiu-collects-union-dues-from-disabled-kids-medicaid-checks/

Take this guy, for instance - not some lone nut, but an influential and respected spokesperson. Bloody frightening.

Ok, so I bet the Chevy Volt is shit compared to Teslas, and Tesla is at least honest about what it currently costs to make their cars, and why, and is worth it (you know, If you're going to drive a car at all). And that cost? It comes in considerably below the Volt's total of $250K plus sales. http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/16192

The obvious solution is for the local government to sunset the monopoly, buy back the infrastructure, and lease it to whomever wants to use it.

That solution may be the obvious one, but is it the right one?

Suppose the telcos are allowed to keep their infrastructure, but get out of the ISP business, or stay in the ISP business and give up their infrastructure. If the data delivery vs. service delivery are separate (which is what you are proposing), then everything is fair, right?

The only thing I disagree with here is the gov't owning the infrastructure. We've already seen how badly they manage spectrum (selling huge chunks to those nasty telcos you love to hate). Why not simply make it illegal for a company to provide both infrastructure and data delivery? That ensures that there are companies who own the infrastructure (and lease it at a fair, published price), and companies who provide services (data, phone, etc.). Both can be profitable, and the infrastructure can be more easily managed through lawmaking without the need for a bureaucracy that manages the local data lines. If you put gov't in charge of the lines, then you will see those lines go for the next 50 years without a single upgrade in speed because they will raise your taxes to pay for it, then spend the extra revenue on new services that have nothing to do with managing the infrastructure.

The point is to ensure fairness while keeping the gov't out of the ownership/maintenance business. If gov't owns it, then they can do things like cut essential services (fire, police) while still paying hundreds of thousands for a fountain http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/13219. If you complain about the service, they'll just raise your taxes and buy a bigger fountain while never improving the infrastructure.