Slashdot Mirror


17,000 AT&T Workers Go On Strike In California and Nevada (fortune.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Fortune: Approximately 17,000 workers in AT&T's traditional wired telephone business in California and Nevada walked out on strike on Wednesday, marking the most serious labor action against the carrier in years. The walkout -- formally known as a grievance strike -- occurred after AT&T changed the work assignments of some of the technicians and call center employees in the group, the Communications Workers of America union said. The union would not say how long the strike might last. A contract covering the group expired last year and there has been little progress in negotiations over sticking points like the outsourcing of call center jobs overseas, stagnant pay, and rising health care costs. The union said it planned to file an unfair labor charge with the National Labor Relations Board over the work assignment changes. "A walkout is not in anybody's best interest and it's unfortunate that the union chose to do that," an AT&T spokesman told Fortune. "We're engaged in discussion with the union to get these employees back to work as soon as possible."

172 comments

  1. 100% of landline customers affected by strike by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

    Luckily the number of landline customers is zero.

    1. Re:100% of landline customers affected by strike by Stonent1 · · Score: 1

      Except for small businesses who haven't moved to Vonage or similar.

    2. Re:100% of landline customers affected by strike by bobdehnhardt · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Worst case scenario for the unions: what if nobody really notices?

    3. Re:100% of landline customers affected by strike by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      In this scenario, the telecom workers could switch to coal mining which has a big future under the current administration, I hear, according to campaign promises.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    4. Re:100% of landline customers affected by strike by Altus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Then clearly the companies shouldn't be employing any of them... which is fine, but probably not the case since companies are pretty slick when it comes to figuring out if they still need employees and cutting down labor costs if the answer is "no" so really this is just about your hatred of unions because you know damn well that if these people weren't needed the company would have laid them off a long time ago

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    5. Re:100% of landline customers affected by strike by WheezyJoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yep. Boss Trump is rallying the fans in Kentucky, promising to bring back coal jobs. Or, at least, bring back coal by letting up on silly environmental rules like the Stream Protection Rule.

      Trouble is, giving coal companies a break doesn't necessarily mean good things for coal miners. Like everyone else, coal companies are heavily investing in automation and mining techniques that require fewer pesky workers. At the same time, strip-mining and poisoning the water and the land makes it suck worse to live in coal country, either as a miner or even as a crazed live-off-the-land survivor type.

      Further, Trump is a big friend of fracking, which lowers the price of natural gas, which, like, lowers the demand for coal. Uhhh, right.

      My guess is there's gonna be a lot of disappointed folks in coal country in a coupla years when the jobs don't come and Trumpcare takes over. Maybe by then AT&T will be hiring scabs to replace all the folks on strike. Can you run some fiber before that black lung gits ya, or will the heavy metals in the frogs and the river trout git ya first?

      --
      Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
    6. Re:100% of landline customers affected by strike by gtall · · Score: 1

      How come Trump isn't riding to the rescue of these workers and setting the company on the righteous path of ensuring their employment at AT&T? Surely this should qualify for his alleged deal making skills. He's been telling us about them for years. He's also been telling us how smart he is, and this is a no-brainer kind of deal he could make.

    7. Re:100% of landline customers affected by strike by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      Yea, but he doesn't give a fuck about Californians, and he LOVES unregulated monopolies so... I don't really foresee any action being taken by the Executive branch with regards to this, not unless it starts negatively impacting coal mining corporations somehow.

    8. Re:100% of landline customers affected by strike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Have you actually _read_ what Trump's new health care act would do to states like Kentucky? There's broken, and then there's making it worse.
      Besides, Trump puts his name on everything anyway.

    9. Re:100% of landline customers affected by strike by antdude · · Score: 1

      More like 1%. I still know a few people with landlines for copper phone and DSL services.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    10. Re:100% of landline customers affected by strike by hambone142 · · Score: 2

      I dumped AT&T two years ago. They wanted $39 for basic telephone service (no long distance).
      I bought a dedicated Tracfone and linked it to a bluetooth gateway. I plugged the gateway in to my house wiring and transferred my landline number to the Tracfone. My monthly cost is running about ten dollars now.

      Screw ATT and screw their union.

      They are a dying business model.

    11. Re:100% of landline customers affected by strike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As soon as a landline goes down and AT&T doesn't supply dialtone they're on the clock to get it restored or they face massive fines.
      Not being able to call 911 is frowned upon mightily by the FCC.

      The unions have the power here if their repair trucks are idle.

    12. Re:100% of landline customers affected by strike by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      such is why you can call 911 on locked cellphones and those without service.

    13. Re:100% of landline customers affected by strike by BoogieChile · · Score: 1

      Not everything. Apparently, this shit sandwich is such a shitty shit sandwich that even the king of shit shandwich shitty isn't willing to put his name on it.

    14. Re:100% of landline customers affected by strike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only a Communist would love regulating monopolies.

      If you cannot exploit being bigger than everyone else to buy up or destroy your competitors without restriction how can you ultimately achieve that Free Market Nirvana that comes from everyone having a single choice - you?

    15. Re: 100% of landline customers affected by strike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No cell signal at my house... landline only.

    16. Re:100% of landline customers affected by strike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "you know damn well that if these people weren't needed the company would have laid them off a long time ago"

      What, precisely, is wrong with that?

    17. Re:100% of landline customers affected by strike by whitroth · · Score: 1

      Are you really that ignorant, or just being obnoxious?

      I'll leave as an exercise for the student to google up how much revenue is in landlines. And btw, sound quality on almost any landline makes your stupidphone sound like two paper cups and a string between them.

    18. Re:100% of landline customers affected by strike by dj245 · · Score: 1

      Yep. Boss Trump is rallying the fans in Kentucky, promising to bring back coal jobs. Or, at least, bring back coal by letting up on silly environmental rules like the Stream Protection Rule.

      Trouble is, giving coal companies a break doesn't necessarily mean good things for coal miners. Like everyone else, coal companies are heavily investing in automation and mining techniques that require fewer pesky workers. At the same time, strip-mining and poisoning the water and the land makes it suck worse to live in coal country, either as a miner or even as a crazed live-off-the-land survivor type.

      Further, Trump is a big friend of fracking, which lowers the price of natural gas, which, like, lowers the demand for coal. Uhhh, right.

      My guess is there's gonna be a lot of disappointed folks in coal country in a coupla years when the jobs don't come and Trumpcare takes over. Maybe by then AT&T will be hiring scabs to replace all the folks on strike. Can you run some fiber before that black lung gits ya, or will the heavy metals in the frogs and the river trout git ya first?

      In fact, the Stream Protection Rule originated with coal miners. Coal miners, after all, presumably have to live somewhere nearby to the coal mine.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
  2. Baby Goes Whaaaaaaaa! by sexconker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A walkout is not in anybody's best interest and it's unfortunate that the union chose to do that

    I'm generally anti-union because they almost always devolve into pieces of shit, but fuck AT&T and fuck the obvious bullshit line about a strike not being in anyone's best interest. It's in the best interest of the union (and hopefully of the employees).

    1. Re:Baby Goes Whaaaaaaaa! by Nutria · · Score: 1

      All this is gonna do is accelerate AT&T's desire to outsource call center personnel.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    2. Re:Baby Goes Whaaaaaaaa! by es330td · · Score: 2

      That train is going to be run. You have no choice about that. But you can choose whether it’s going to be run by one of your men or not. If you choose not to let them, the train will still run, if I have to drive the engine myself If you think that I need your men more than they need me, choose accordingly. If you know that I can run an engine, but they can’t build a railroad, choose according to that.

      It's in the best interest of the union

      Not if striking lets the union find out that the employees they represent are no longer needed and the union's membership suddenly no longer pays union dues.

    3. Re: Baby Goes Whaaaaaaaa! by cyber-vandal · · Score: 2

      Just like that. Jobs just magically appear whenever you need them and they always pay better. Let me guess. You're young with no responsibilities and/or in a career with much higher demand than supply.

    4. Re:Baby Goes Whaaaaaaaa! by Altus · · Score: 1

      Good, thats exactly what should happen... but probably wont because, you know, if they weren't needed the jobs would have been cut long before this.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    5. Re:Baby Goes Whaaaaaaaa! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Heaven forbid an employer has to honor a contract it has with its employees.

    6. Re: Baby Goes Whaaaaaaaa! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You dumb ass. That's exactly what they did, they fucking quit. That's what a strike is.

    7. Re:Baby Goes Whaaaaaaaa! by sit1963nz · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Many years ago I belonged to a Union.
      In its rules was the cause that we could NOT go on strike. The employer could not do a lock out.

      What took it's place was that any negotiations over pay and conditions that could not be resolved in 12 weeks would be taken to an independent Arbiter. That arbiter was a member of the judiciary, their job was not influenced by elections, employer payments, etc etc etc

      Both sides put their final offer to the arbiter and defended it, justifying why their position was the most fair and reasonable. There arbiter required proof of any claims, and that could include looking at the employers books.

      The arbiter could then take a further 2 weeks and choose EITHER the union OR the employer offer. No chasing bits from one and bits from another, they had toe make a choice which offer was the most reasonable. And that decision was binding on both parties

      This forced both sides to start from a position of reason right from the start and most negotiations took less then 3 weeks to negotiate and ratify.

      Sadly that union was consumed by a larger union and all that went away.

    8. Re:Baby Goes Whaaaaaaaa! by PoopJuggler · · Score: 2

      This is where a UBI would really shine. There's no way 17,000 people can all quit and all find other jobs in the same area, but a UBI would give them the time they need to retrain or relocate or just not have to take the first thing that comes along. You would see a drastic decrease in shitty companies because nobody would be forced to take the first exploitive job that comes along.

    9. Re:Baby Goes Whaaaaaaaa! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heaven forbid an employer has to honor a contract it has with its employees.

      RTFS. There is no contract.

    10. Re:Baby Goes Whaaaaaaaa! by buss_error · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I remember when President Reagan fired the Air Traffic Controllers. That didn't work out well for more than a year.

      I have also been a union member twice. Unfortunately, one union was run by the company, so it was a pretty shitty union for the most part. The other union was run by ex-union members and were not beholden to the company. That worked pretty well in that "silly" stuff didn't happen. If a shitty boss wanted to fire people for not kowtowing, too bad. But if someone screwed up, the shop steward and the boss delivered the pink slip together. Nobody wanted to do extra work because someone else slacked their assignment. I eventually went management in that job, and I never had a problem in 6 years with union workers. I generally had to hold back the shop steward when I knew things about the employee that he didn't (terminally ill wife, child, substance problems they were being helped with, that sort of thing.) The times I did have to terminate someone, the union guys were in agreement with me and we'd already tried multiple times to get the person back into the fold.

      That said, what strikes me are the many people that say "Unions suck" that have never been in one and how frequently the throw out "get another job".

      Hm. You must live in the land of good jobs, where the trees of excellent education are right there behind the bushes of golden opportunity and the river of endless paycheck. That's a sweet place to live, but one whose address I've not found.

      --
      Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
    11. Re:Baby Goes Whaaaaaaaa! by hambone142 · · Score: 2

      "Changing work assignments of technicians and call center people".

      OH NO! We can't have that.

      In the real world, people get asked to do different things on a daily basis.

      In a union environment, we get a lot of "It's not my job to do that".

    12. Re: Baby Goes Whaaaaaaaa! by rwven · · Score: 1

      No, I'm a grown adult who has made that decision when I needed to on several occasions. I'm just not entitled and whiny when things don't go my way... Know what happens when companies lose their good employees to greener pastures? The companies either learn from their mistakes, or they go under. A strike is a temper tantrum, nothing more.

    13. Re:Baby Goes Whaaaaaaaa! by rwven · · Score: 1

      RTFA. There was no contract. They're striking because they WANT one.

    14. Re:Baby Goes Whaaaaaaaa! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's somewhere in Idaho, but that's all the spoonfeeding you're getting from me.

    15. Re: Baby Goes Whaaaaaaaa! by Highdude702 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Im a non union electrician for a reason, i may make a lot less but the unions out here promote laziness and shitty work. if you get thrown off of one job, they send you to another, tossed off that one, on to another. as long as you pay union dues they dont really give a fuck. thats not my style. as i said i do electrical work. peoples lives are at stake. i will not be responsible for stupidity.

    16. Re:Baby Goes Whaaaaaaaa! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't blame them for striking to get a contract.

    17. Re:Baby Goes Whaaaaaaaa! by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      I'm generally anti-union because they almost always devolve into pieces of shit

      Right. In the same way that if you start your own business, it will mean you will sexually harass your secretary while defrauding your investors, killing your employees with unsafe working conditions, selling fake products to customers and dumping toxic waste in the river. Because reasons.

    18. Re:Baby Goes Whaaaaaaaa! by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      That arbiter was a member of the judiciary, their job was not influenced by elections, employer payments, etc etc etc

      Still corporatists, though. Either because they had to run for election at some point (and had to pander for campaign donations), or because they were appointed by a corporatist politician, who had to pander for campaign donations to get elected.

    19. Re:Baby Goes Whaaaaaaaa! by sit1963nz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not in New Zealand.

      Our Judges are not elected, nor government appointed. They either put their name forward themselves or the firms they work for nominates them. However the MUST have a law degree, must have at least 7 years experience as a practicing lawyer, and they get chosen based on their work experience, character , social awareness, fairness etc etc etc by the Attorney-General's Judicial Appointments Unit.

      Our civil service is also non partisan, senior appointments are not political appointments and dont change when there is a change in government.

      Equally our news media is less partisan then US media, and it has been rated as far more free (as in free speech) than US media too.

      New Zealand is also one of the least corrupt countries in the world, the lack of political interference in the courts, police, civil service may also account for this.

    20. Re:Baby Goes Whaaaaaaaa! by Uberbah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nobody wanted to do extra work because someone else slacked their assignment.

      That's the central flaw in the "unions protect the lazy" canard. It's predicated on the idea that Steve is happy to do his own work plus Bob's if Bob starts to slack off. Human beings simply aren't built that way, unless they're in a Biff Tannen/George McFly relationship - in which case Biff could just as easily having George do his work at a non union shop anyway.

    21. Re: Baby Goes Whaaaaaaaa! by Uberbah · · Score: 2

      just not entitled and whiny

      Entitled and whiny? Common man, just because capitalists feel entitled to gouge their customers while stiffing employees in the midst of high profits (while paying a lower tax rate than either) doesn't mean they aren't people too!

      Know what happens when companies lose their good employees to greener pastures?

      They continue to enjoy the benefits of lowered pay scales, laughing at the unique snowflakes who think their wages aren't lowered for being a tree in a forest.

      The companies either learn from their mistakes, or they go under.

      Yes, that's the need thing about capitalism: success means success, but failure also means success because it frees up space for the next group of capitalists to come in and begin the next round of exploitation.

    22. Re:Baby Goes Whaaaaaaaa! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the company is trying to force the prem techs into doing jobs people that make $16 bucks an hour more are supposed to be doing for no extra pay.

      This job is above prem tech pay grade..Would you ask a nurse to perform brain surgery

    23. Re:Baby Goes Whaaaaaaaa! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually there is. we are still working under the aspects of the old contract even after it expired

    24. Re:Baby Goes Whaaaaaaaa! by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      But you all put that Kim Dot Com guy through the wringer didn't you?

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    25. Re:Baby Goes Whaaaaaaaa! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And he is still going through the legal process.

      American Pressure has failed to have any influence on our courts.

      And even then New Zealanders can apply to the UK privy council which is even further outside our governments influence, and indeed our government has lost a number of times there.

    26. Re: Baby Goes Whaaaaaaaa! by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      A strike is a protest. You haven't said what field you're in or whether you've got responsibilities or not so it's hard to say where you're coming from. I will ask you this though: where are the 17,000 better jobs these striking workers can apply for?

    27. Re:Baby Goes Whaaaaaaaa! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is where a UBI would really shine. There's no way 17,000 people can all quit and all find other jobs in the same area, but a UBI would give them the time they need to retrain or relocate or just not have to take the first thing that comes along. You would see a drastic decrease in shitty companies because nobody would be forced to take the first exploitive job that comes along.

      Well yes, but maybe they would like to keep their present jobs. Maybe they actually want something more than to simply destroy AT&T but simply want better compensation and/or working conditions.

      Fortunately for them, however, one of the things well-organized unions do is setup strike funds. So that the workers don't get literally starved out.

      Something that these noble Ayn-Rand-y we-don't-need-no-stinkin-union basement dwellers aren't going to have.

      I'm just waiting for the day that the Atlas Shrugged crowd finally gets it that the protagonists in their Bible won by forming what was de facto a union and going on strike.

    28. Re: Baby Goes Whaaaaaaaa! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually, union electricians are far better trained than non-union, and their work is normally superb. They make more because as part of their union contract, they are required to undergo a lot of training and certification.

      Unions rock. Without them, you're just a slave as a normal worker.

    29. Re:Baby Goes Whaaaaaaaa! by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      I get your point, but I can't imagine why anyone would want to work for a company that treats its workers like shit and only decides to treat them better because you forced them to, unless they have no other option. I'm arguing that a UBI would cause shitty companies like AT&T to die, because somewhere there's some entrepreneurs who would love to create a telecom company that actually cares about its workers.

    30. Re: Baby Goes Whaaaaaaaa! by erapert · · Score: 2

      One anecdote against another.
      Stop wasting our time.

    31. Re: Baby Goes Whaaaaaaaa! by LunaticTippy · · Score: 2

      Working conditions used to be awful. Unions improved conditions for all, union or not, and are the sole reason we have things like days off, health care, safety rules, and good pay.

      As unions have lost power conditions have begun eroding, especially for unskilled workers. It's fine to think you are self reliant, but you exist in an environment that was shaped by a lot of other peoples effort. You are benefiting from that. Now that that force is fading conditions will continue to deteriorate.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    32. Re:Baby Goes Whaaaaaaaa! by es330td · · Score: 1

      Often times a change may be warranted but not implemented because the cost recovery time does not definitively justify said change at the current time. In this case there is an external factor that may influence the decision. Management may have previously deemed the cost not worth it but a day of lost productivity may reveal unexpected costs that may force the switch. In a world in which fears of worker replacement are a constant discussion poking this particular bear is not smart, imho.

  3. National Labor Relations Board by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Under this administration? Good luck!

  4. We'll see what Trump does by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This could be interesting.

    1. Re:We'll see what Trump does by TroII · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well he campaigned on the idea of giving power back to the people, so if he were an honest man, he'd be on the workers'/union's side here. However it's quite obvious that he's the biggest, greatest liar in the world, as well as being a traditional conservative corporate whore, so he's going to be on AT&T's side.

    2. Re:We'll see what Trump does by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Trump has always been anti-union, something those white union workers who voted for him have seem to have forgotten.

    3. Re:We'll see what Trump does by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Trump has always been anti-union, something those white union workers who voted for him have seem to have forgotten.

      Many union members in closed shop states (including California, but not Nevada) don't actually like unions, and are only members because paying union dues is a condition of employment.

    4. Re:We'll see what Trump does by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      This is a private matter of a company and its employees, government must not be allowed to get involved in the first place.

    5. Re:We'll see what Trump does by Uberbah · · Score: 0

      Many union members in closed shop states (including California, but not Nevada) don't actually like unions, and are only members because paying union dues is a condition of employment.

      Then they'd be freeloading assholes, wanting to enjoy benefits won by unions without having to pay for them. Try an experiment: walk into your local Chamber of Commerce, and tell the receptionist you want all the perks of membership without having to pay any dues, and see what kind of face he makes at you.

    6. Re:We'll see what Trump does by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Las Vegas here. I can attest that most of our construction unions are shit for people actual skill.

    7. Re:We'll see what Trump does by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      With actual skill. Sorry about that lil buzzed

    8. Re:We'll see what Trump does by Talderas · · Score: 1

      The freeloading "problem" only exists because unions negotiate for closed shops in right-to-work states but Unions don't want employees knowing about their Beck rights. We'll see if the requirement for businesses to post notifications of Beck rights for employees will be reinstated under Trump after Obama had removed it.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    9. Re:We'll see what Trump does by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. Unions drive up wages and benefits through collective bargaining for that sector of the economy, then people who don't want to pay the dues necessary to earn those higher wages and benefits want to take advantage of them anyway. There's a word for those sort of people.

      Freeloaders.

      Now, did you or did you not go into your local Chamber of Commerce and demand all the perks of Chamber membership without paying any of the costs involved?

  5. strike ended by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Strikers replaced by H1B scabs.

    1. Re:strike ended by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      Strikers replaced by robots.

      But I don't want to talk to a call center. I want to talk to a human being. Oh, wait. I say that already, even before robots are introduced. Although they seem like robots. Their programming is fairly rigid.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    2. Re:strike ended by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alexa will never get bored of reading the call center script to you. Infrared is super pretty.

    3. Re:strike ended by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please stay on the line. You call is very important to us!

  6. Support the Union by sdinfoserv · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm not a member of a union, and used to be anti-union, but the destruction of unions paves the way to total employee exploitation. Notice that pay has been flat for years, but for Corporate AT&T in 2016:
    *Consolidated revenues of $40.5 billion, up more than 22%
    *Operating income up 13.6%
    *Net income up 10.6%
    *Cash from operations of $10.3 billion, up 12.5%
    *Free cash flow of $4.8 billion, up 8.4%
    *Diluted EPS of $0.55 as reported and $0.72 diluted adjusted EPS compared to $0.59 and $0.70 in the year-ago quarter.
    All the while the workers get no increases. Every single worker in the US (outside of a few high pay tech positions) is suffering due to corporate greed. A few people at the top have received all the increases for all the productivity gains since the 1980s. If you care about what this country will look like for your kids, you really should care about this. The reality is, you are likely not someone at the top.

    1. Re: Support the Union by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      What are ya? Some kinda Commie?

    2. Re:Support the Union by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember, kids, you have a $Diety-given right to other peoples' money!

    3. Re: Support the Union by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What are you? Some AT&T shill?

    4. Re:Support the Union by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strawman arguments are lies.

    5. Re:Support the Union by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      Combine a strong OSHA with a UBI and you nearly eliminate any exploitive power of corporations.

    6. Re:Support the Union by sit1963nz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      See, when I complained how Apple was able to sort the New Zealand tax system the people from the USA were unsympathetic.

      "Change the laws" they said
      "It will only increase the price of Apple products" others said
      "The government has no rights to Apples money" yet more people said

      Well here we are now in the USA, with US workers complaining.
      The same basic sentiments apply by the looks of it.

      The only people entitled to make more money is "not you", and Trump is not going to change that.

    7. Re:Support the Union by sdinfoserv · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Profit for a company in the form of reduced benefits is off the backs of the workers
      C-Levels continually get raises, golden parachutes, and lucrative stock options paid for the by the workers of the company who are only rewarded with less vacation, more expensive health care, lower bonus, and decreasing or no annual raises - and you want to call it "other peoples money".... I say their fair share was stolen.

    8. Re:Support the Union by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stallman's lies are truth.

    9. Re:Support the Union by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1

      This country is running trade deficits because manufacturing jobs have been shoved overseas - to areas of sub-livable wages, no intellectual property laws, no environmental laws, no labor laws and corrupt governments. Foxconn, the Chinese company that builds all the icrap for Apple has (c) 1 million employees. Children are chained to desks, nets have been installed to catch suicide jumpers, the air is no longer breathable on some days and many buildings have their own environmental systems, ground waters are heavily polluted. Now, if that's the world you want here in the US, then those are all those "pesky job killing regulations" Emperor Trump wants to do away with. Go down this road and we'll return to the era of very few having everything and almost everyone lives in squaller or slums. This means you and your kids digging through garbage to find something to eat.

    10. Re:Support the Union by roman_mir · · Score: 1, Interesting

      If any of what you are selling had any merit China would have been worse off today than it was 40 years ago, the people there would have still been poorer than dirt. What you are selling is garbage though, collectivist garbage, which is why China brought hundreds of millions out of complete poverty by drastically reducing collectivism, not by growing it. USA is on a completely wrong path, has been on it for over a 100 year stretch now, it is a path of diseased collectivism and it is murdering, slaughtering USA economy.

    11. Re:Support the Union by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This country is running trade deficits because manufacturing jobs have been shoved overseas

      Nope. America manufactures more today than ever before. We just do it with a lot fewer people. The main reason for the trade deficit is that America controls the world's reserve currency, which is a GOOD THING.

      Foxconn, the Chinese company ...

      Foxconn is not a Chinese company.

      Children are chained to desks

      All the evidence for that was part of a hoax. There is no credible evidence that anyone at Foxconn was ever physically restrained at their desk, and they do not employ children.

      Now, if that's the world you want here in the US ...

      You mean the world of "alternative facts?" We already have that.

    12. Re:Support the Union by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Wrong. The main reason for the trade deficits is not that the USA 'controls' the reserve currency but the inability of the USA manufacturing to produce enough either to cover USA consumption or to pay for it with a balanced trade. USA is in enormous debt because the world subsidises its consumption. Reserve currency does not prevent the need to pay for consumption, that is just a silly excuse that will cost USA its entire economy.

    13. Re:Support the Union by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      USA is in enormous debt because the world subsidises its consumption.

      Duh. Of course. But that is not going to stop. Trade "debt" is not like personal credit card debt. There is no reason that it EVER has to be paid back. As long as we control the world's reserve currency, we can continue to issue checks that will never be cashed. Besides, it is not "collective debt". If I buy a German made BMW, that adds to our trade deficit, but paying it back is MY problem, not yours.

      Trade deficits are a sign of strength, not weakness. It means foreigners want to invest in dollar denominated assets (such as American stocks and bonds) and are willing to reduce their own consumption and subsidize ours in order to make that happen.

      Japan has run trade surpluses for more than 50 years. What has it got them? My chicken coop is bigger than the average Japanese home. The yen went from ~400 to the dollar to 90 today, which means 80% of the "savings" that they sweated for decades to achieve simply disappeared, and their economy is stagnant. Do you really think America should be more like Japan?

      Reserve currency does not prevent the need to pay for consumption

      False.

    14. Re: Support the Union by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly! unions made sense back in the 20s when there were no laws against child labor, working conditions, worker safety, etc.

      Fast forward a few decades and you have a 70,000+ department of labor which was specifically designed to address those issues and monitor new ones.

      Unions today exist solely to artificially increase wages / benefits and to perpetuate themselves. But what they really do is deter new jobs by being such a pain in the a$$

    15. Re:Support the Union by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I understand. You believe this because it worked so far. It is similar to a drunk driver believing that because he didn't crash the car yet, based on that 'evidence' he can drive drunk and not crash due to the impairment. That *is* false.

    16. Re:Support the Union by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Wait, you are comparing a situation with some government wanting to steal from a company to a situation involving 2 private sides (employees and the employer)? I guess you don't see any difference but it does exist. It is not 'US workers', it is AT&T employees and it is a private contract issue, not a case of racketeering.

    17. Re: Support the Union by Uberbah · · Score: 2

      Unions today exist solely to artificially increase wages / benefits and to perpetuate themselves. But what they really do is deter new jobs by being such a pain in the a$$

      Tired anti-union nonsense is tired. Unions act as a counter-balance to corporate greed. If corporate greed isn't a problem anymore, and you can trust the altruism of capital, than you can also repeal all the laws on...

      child labor, working conditions, worker safety

      ...because those laws are as "antiquated" as unions. Don't forget overtime, too - there's no way the CEO would exploit non-exempt employees if given the chance, now would he?

    18. Re:Support the Union by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      America manufactures more today than ever before.

      Because the population has grown.

      We just do it with a lot fewer people.

      Yes, nevermind that entire industries have been moved offshore (aside from niche players), like textiles.

      The main reason for the trade deficit is that America controls the world's reserve currency, which is a GOOD THING.

      Not for the rest of the world it's not, as it allows the U.S. to manipulate exchange rates as one of it's tools in its imperial arsenal. But one issue I've yet to see apologists for corporate trade come up with an excuse for, is how it allows corporations to walk in and tell their workforce to bend over and take it up the ass on benefit cuts, least their jobs be moved overseas. Even if the corporation in question is enjoying record profits.

    19. Re:Support the Union by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      You believe this because it worked so far.

      No, I believe it because I understand economics. I also understand history: Britain controlled the world's reserve currency from the Napoleonic Wars until WW1. They had trade deficits for a century while their economy boomed and British people enjoyed the highest living standards in the world. Most of the bonds issued to fund this debt were repeatedly rolled over, and eventually inflated away and never repaid in real terms. Now we enjoy those same benefits, and we would be foolish to throw them away in some idiotic quest for "balanced trade".

    20. Re:Support the Union by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And a Ceo making $23,000.00 in total compensation in 1 hour in 2016 up from $21,500 in 2015

    21. Re:Support the Union by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      Obviously you do not *understand* history, understanding goes beyond what you are doing with it. If you *understood* history you would have learned that every empire ended up diluting the value of its currency, with the inevitable failure of that currency and with the inevitable loss of the empire status. The status of the empire shifted from the former to some previously backwater place that had just enough economic freedom that for sometime the government there wouldn't be meddling with the economy and with the actual money. Eventually that backward place would grow and become the dominant economy and its growing government would then stifle and inevitably destroy the economy by taxes, laws but most importantly by declaring fiat and devaluing its currency.

      The money of whatever the current economic empire is always desirable because the rest of the world can either exchange it for whatever the empire produces or store it because it is intrinsically valuable in itself (gold for example). However as the economy of the empire becomes more and more regulated by the growing government, the production leaves, so there is less to exchange for with the empire. The growing government needs more and more funding, eventually starts clipping the coins, diluting gold with less valuable metals, declaring the coins to have face value that is meaningless, not a weight of a precious and intrinsically valuable metal. Switching to paper and ultimately to an electronic fiat not backed by anything, gold nor production is the ultimate nail in the coffin of that empire. Thinking you understand and understanding are quite different things.

    22. Re:Support the Union by slashrio · · Score: 1

      Reagan once joked that the most dangerous statement is: "Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."
      Regarding 'collectivism': do you want a health insurance, or do you want to gamble and pay your health (disease rather) expenses yourself?

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    23. Re:Support the Union by slashrio · · Score: 1

      If however there exists an optimum level of collectivity, then decreasing the collectivity in China, and raising the level of collectivity in the US could be an improvement for both countries.

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    24. Re:Support the Union by slashrio · · Score: 1

      People don't 'invest' in dollar denominated assets because they want to, but because they have little choice.
      America exports dollars because they are needed by other countries to buy oil, due to the deal Kissinger struck with the Saudis to demand dollars for payment of the oil. So they manufacture products and send them to the US for dollars, which they then can use to buy oil from the OPEC, which has not much choice than either sit on them, or invest them back into the US.
      I think Obama thought, or was told, that this was a great deal, that the Americans don't even need to produce anything, because they can always import it, forgetting that people who don't produce have no job and can not buy anything.
      hmmm... Are they really that stupid?

      Well, anyway, we can now understand why Saddam Hussain had to 'go' after starting selling his oil in Euros. That went quick. And Ghaddafi. And Chavez, who was planning the same, plus many other 'forbidden' things.

      And then there are the central banks, but that's a completely different story. Or is it?

      -- get's a new glass of rhum

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    25. Re:Support the Union by slashrio · · Score: 1

      So in order not to be foolish you want to be a criminal?
      In order to keep this scheme going you have to eliminate every single one that threatens to throw a wrench in the gears.
      Saddam Hussain, Chavez, Khomeini/Iran, Ghaddafi.
      Heck! Why not iceland? But that would involve central banking which plays an intertwining role.
      Central banking was the reason that Ghaddafi's gold was immediately shipped off, and why the Libyan 'rebels'' first act was to establish a new central bank.
      I mean... what the heck are genuine rebels doing with a central bank??
      Anyway, no more independent central banks allowed.
      Afghan, Iraqi and Libyan central banks were 'westernized' in 'the process', we're still working on Venezuela and North Korea.

      -- gets some more rum

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    26. Re: Support the Union by slashrio · · Score: 1

      The whole point is that employers are easily organized in small groups, laborers aren't, due to the sheer amount of them.
      So in order to balance the power between employers and employees, you need an organization of laborers: let's call them 'unions'.
      The income disparity in the last decades has only steadily improved, while unionization has steadily declined.
      This more or less proves my point.
      QED

      -- gets some more rum

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    27. Re: Support the Union by slashrio · · Score: 1

      Yo! Exactly what I meant!

      -- enough rum?

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    28. Re:Support the Union by slashrio · · Score: 1

      Those '2 private sides' are in a power balance only when the employees are organized. One organization (employer) against the other (employee's organization--let's call them 'unions').

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    29. Re:Support the Union by Lord_Rion · · Score: 1

      How much does the head of the Union make?

      --
      --Hired Net Grunt
    30. Re:Support the Union by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Employer cannot force an employee by law to do anything. Government can force a company, oppress it. That is the difference. The rest of it is irrelevant.

    31. Re:Support the Union by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Of course I want completely private, self paid health care. That is the only way to ensure that it is affordable and of good quality, with people competing to provide it to you.

      Health *insurance* should *not* be used to pay for most health concerns and care, it should be a high deductible thing, something that kicks in when a person is in trouble that is too expensive to pay out of pocket.

    32. Re:Support the Union by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What universe do you live in?

    33. Re:Support the Union by erapert · · Score: 1

      Voluntary unions == Great.
      Mandatory unions == Extremely bad... but not right away. It always takes a couple years for the real crap to show up. When it does it's bad.

    34. Re:Support the Union by erapert · · Score: 1

      The only people entitled to make more money is "not you"

      But your sentiment betrays what's really going on: pure jealousy and greed. On your part.
      Nobody's taking money out of your pocket-- oh wait, yeah the government is totally doing that.
      Well, aside from taxes nobody is robbing you or holding you back. If you want to be mediocre and just live your life then don't complain when you get mediocre pay.
      Otherwise, provide a good or service to lots of people and make lots of money. Nobody's stopping you.

    35. Re:Support the Union by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a well paying job
      I own six houses, I have a new car, I have money in the bank, we travel all over the world.
      I pay my taxes.

      My government taxes us and uses that collective money to provide education, health care, law and order, welfare, etc etc etc.
      The benefits of this is that our
      Healthcare outcomes are much the same as the US ones, yet cost less than 1/2 the amount
      Healthcare is universal, prescription medications are typically free
      Crime rates are much lower than the USA and murder is significantly lower
      We are according the the latest research also a much happier people than the USA
      We have greater freedom of speech than the USA
      We have less corruption than the USA
      We have a better education system than the USA
      No one feels the need to carry a gun so the can leave their house, in fact its illegal to do so, gun ownership is a privilege , not a right.
      Everyone has the right to 4 weeks paid annual leave every year

      So, do we expect everyone to pay their taxes, so we can maintain this life style, yes.
      We prefer to pay $1 to the government, you prefer to pay $2 to an insurance company believing "choice" is better. Turns out, sometimes its not.

    36. Re:Support the Union by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      Does this exist anywhere on this lush planet?

      If not, why not?

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    37. Re:Support the Union by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      no, I believe there is no level of 'collectivity' that is an improvement. Again, China is doing capitalism now and USA is doing collectivism and it shows.

    38. Re:Support the Union by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      [spits out coffee] but that's Obamacare!

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    39. Re:Support the Union by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      I'm really curious. Your only example of private, self paid health care, with the power of free markets providing competition and lower costs is in the United States? The US has the highest costs in the whole world. Is the free market so horrible that literally any other approach, however socialist, offers better outcomes at lower cost?

      I'm starting to think that libertarians aren't serious people with any ideas to contribute. It's a shame because I agree with some of their axioms.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    40. Re:Support the Union by erapert · · Score: 1

      I would rather make voluntary payments rather than pay compulsory taxes.

    41. Re:Support the Union by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      USA is a regulated market, if you want to be serious you have to admit to that first of all. As a regulated market, it is the antithesis to a free market.

    42. Re:Support the Union by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      OK, so once again. Is there a market on this planet that you like? Somewhere, anywhere, is there a single country that approaches health care in a manner that you approve of?

      I'm thinking there isn't, or you would have brought it up the first time I asked. Given that there isn't you should think about why. It is possible that your approach is not valid or it hasn't been tried yet.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    43. Re:Support the Union by slashrio · · Score: 1

      I agree with you all the way, except for the deductibility. I even don't completely understand what you mean by that.
      If you mean that health care insurance should only cover the costs that one would otherwise in no way be able to cover, then I agree completely with you, but that criterion should not be applied ad absurdum in that you can only apply when all your assets are gone and you've basically become a beggar.

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    44. Re:Support the Union by slashrio · · Score: 1

      You don't get it.
      China isn't doing 100% capitalism, and USA isn't doing 100% collectivism.
      You haven't proven that either 100% capitalism or 100% collectivism is an optimal economic-political system, so I'll have to assume there is an optimum in between 100% capitalism and 100% collectivism.
      So, if China and USA have not reached that optimum yet, it's still possible China needs some more capitalism and USA some more collectivism.

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    45. Re:Support the Union by slashrio · · Score: 1

      You're moving the goal posts.
      I didn't say that employers are more powerful by law than employees.
      But they are more powerful simply due to the fact that they are bigger and more powerful than any (prospective) employee, they are better organized (employees aren't, unless they're member of a union) through amongst others the Chambers of Commerce. So principally they are able to demand an employee to work for a ridiculously low wage in order to be employed, and the single employee can't do anything against that, because there's always some poor desperate guy that feels forced to accept the terms. But if the employees are (also) organized, in a union, there's more balance of power.

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    46. Re:Support the Union by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Oh, I get it. There should be 100% free market capitalism and instead nobody is getting it.

    47. Re:Support the Union by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I like the paid care I can get in Germany and in Switzerland, I don't like the public option that exists in Germany, I think it shouldn't exist.

    48. Re:Support the Union by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      What I mean by that is that insurance should be used as insurance and not as 'care management package'. *Maybe* there is space for a product like that in a free market but we don't know about it, do we? We are not allowed to have free market.

      My point is that health care should be done similarly to car care, when you need gas you don't use insurance to buy it because insurance does not exist for gas. You use insurance when your car gets into an accident and then it has to be a big enough level of damage for you to get insurance because of a large deductible. This is important to prevent overuse of insurance for basic maintenance.

      Becoming a beggar becomes a possibility in the *current* USA system that is nowhere near being a free market. It used to be that USA had the free market including in health care and health insurance, people paid doctors out of pocket, it wasn't an issue. It was possible to buy insurance for a few bucks a month that would cover extremely expensive things like cancers, heart surgeries, large traumas etc.

      People started becoming beggars when socialism destroyed free market in the USA.

    49. Re:Support the Union by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      no, *I never moved the goal posts*, my position never changed, it is the same for the last 20+ years, the government uses collectivism ideology to oppress the producers, the business owners, the earners to subsidise the lazy, the incompetent, the jealous. AFAIC the *only* oppression that matters and needs to be abolished is the oppression where the oppressor has the so called 'legal authority' to oppress an individual, all these other ideas that the employer has more power than the employee are garbage, always were garbage, always will be garbage, all used to create the system of oppression I am talking about.

    50. Re:Support the Union by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      OK, I am familiar with the German system. I don't understand how the public option hurts the paid care. All the Germans I know like the system's main parts. To me, the German system is a good example of universal health care with capitalism provided care on top of it and it working out well for rich and poor alike.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    51. Re:Support the Union by slashrio · · Score: 1

      You were.
      I was talking about companies, due to them being highly organized having power over individual prospective employees who aren't.
      Countering that by saying that companies have no power by law makes totally no sense and has nothing to do with it.
      That's called 'moving the goal posts'.
      An employee denying his service to an employer has zero power in doing so, as for him 10 others.
      An employer denying a prospective employee a job unless he accepts a much lower salary is using his power from being only one of the so many, and probably works in collusion (cartel) with other companies, so nobody gets a job nowhere unless he accepts a ridiculously low wage.

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    52. Re:Support the Union by slashrio · · Score: 1

      You can use the free market by going (how cynically :) to Cuba for your disease care.

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    53. Re:Support the Union by slashrio · · Score: 1

      100% free, or 100% capitalism?

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
  7. On the bright side... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    California is leading the resistance! Woo-hoo!

    1. Re:On the bright side... by slashrio · · Score: 1

      Some western country's proverb: "The head that sticks out the most above the grass gets chopped off."

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    2. Re:On the bright side... by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      It is a Japanese proverb

      The nail that sticks out gets hammered down.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    3. Re:On the bright side... by slashrio · · Score: 1

      Actually: no. "The nail that sticks out gets hammered down" is the English equivalent of the Japanese "The stake that sticks out gets hammered down".
      Read your own link, I think you really need that seminar. :)

      Further it's not totally clear to me why you posted this reply, because it's in the signature of the previous poster that it's a Japanese proverb, so for you there's nothing to add to the discussion with this, unless you misunderstood my reply by thinking I was denying it's a Japanese proverb, which I didn't, but which I--thanks to your link--do now indeed.

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
  8. In other news... by Notabadguy · · Score: 1

    There are 17,000 new job openings in California and Nevada.

    1. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And 17,000 new McDonalds employees. Do you want fries with that?

    2. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want a McFalafel.

  9. Rape their children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rape their children and then kill them. Kill them with death.
    --
    roman_mir

    1. Re:Rape their children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      roman_mir is plenty stupid all on his own, you don't need to sockpuppet him to make him look bad.

  10. Too bad Muslim terrorists don't go on strike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another Muslim terrorist attack today. Trump's right... keep the fuckers out of America.

    1. Re:Too bad Muslim terrorists don't go on strike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ALLAHLALHALHALHALHALHALH

    2. Re:Too bad Muslim terrorists don't go on strike by sit1963nz · · Score: 1

      And this year in America
      about 17,000 americans will be murdered by americans.
      about 200,000 americans will be killed by the doctor through medical mistakes
      and more americans will be killed by sharks, lightening strikes, and falling coke machines than killed by terrorists.

      Given that the US imprisons a higher percentage of the population than any other country, has a murder rate much higher than other 1st world countries it would make just as much sense to keep US citizens from being able to go anywhere else in the world, because those countries have a right to keep their citizens safe too.
      And in the mean time, millions of tourists are also avoiding the USA, costing billions of dollars, and thousands of jobs.
      They are also campaigning against US corporations not paying taxes

      Trump wants trade barriers against imports with "US first", those barriers will be mirrored by other countries , put in place on American exports, $2 Trillion worth as every other country goes "USA last".
      96% of people are not US citizens and 80% of world GDP does not involved the USA.

      You are not locking people out, you are locking yourselves in, which will only server to increase the rate at which the US falls.

    3. Re:Too bad Muslim terrorists don't go on strike by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1

      The murder rate in Mexico is 15 / 100,000 people. The murder rate in the US is 5 / 100,000 : sorry to poop on your little theory.

    4. Re:Too bad Muslim terrorists don't go on strike by lgw · · Score: 2

      Terror attacks are rare in the US because we've kept the terrorists out. Now there's a concerted effort to ship terrorists to the western world. Europe has changed from attacks being just as rare as here, to attacks being common. Let's not have that here. Islamic terrorists killed over 22,000 people last year, and it's an ongoing and increasing campaign. Keep the attacks here rare, please.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    5. Re:Too bad Muslim terrorists don't go on strike by sit1963nz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Murder rate
      UK 0.9/100,000
      Canada 1.5/100,000
      Germany 0.9/100,000
      France 1.2/100,000
      New Zealand 0.9/100,000
      Australia 1.0/100,000
      Spain 0.7/100,000
      China 0.8/100,000
      Japan 0.3/100,000
      Italy 0.8/100,000
      Sweden 0.9/100,000
      Iceland 0.3/100,000

      And the site I am looking at says the USA is 3.9/100,000 which puts it 108th out of 218 countries
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Almost half the countries in the world are safer than the USA.


      And the US imprisonment rate is nearly 700/100,000
      Canada 114/100,000
      Germany 78/100,000
      France 103/100,000
      New Zealand 202/100,000
      Australia 152/100,000
      Spain 131/100,000
      China 118/100,000
      Japan 47/100,000
      Italy 89/100,000
      Sweden 53/100,000
      Iceland 45/100,000

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      So yeah, most countries could indeed be safer if they kept americans out, they seem to have a high rate of crime and murder compared to other 1st world civilised countries. That wall is looking better and better, not to keep Mexicans out, but to keep Americans in, Canada should take a close look at this, who knows maybe they can get the US to pay.

    6. Re: Too bad Muslim terrorists don't go on strike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't it be easier just to drop a nuke on Mecca? Vaporize their magic stone and the religion ceases to exist since they'd have nothing left to worship. Maybe somebody should suggest this to President Trump before it's too late.

    7. Re:Too bad Muslim terrorists don't go on strike by sit1963nz · · Score: 2

      https://www.start.umd.edu/pubs...

      In the period 2004-20013 3066 Americans were killed due to terrorists, 2902 were killed in 9/11
      In the period 2004 -20013 over 126,000 americans were murdered by americans.

      If you remove 9/11 as a statistical outlier you have are 128 time more likely to be murdered than killed by a terrorist.If you assume half the people know their murderer you are over 60 times more likely to be killed by someone you know than by a terrorist.

      Now lets compare this to deaths in Iraq
      https://www.theguardian.com/ne...
      "The key figures IBC found are:
      14,705 (13%) of all documented civilian deaths were reported as being directly caused by the US-led coalition. The report notes that
      Of the 4,040 civilian victims of US-led coalition forces for whom age data was available, 1,201 (29%) were children"


      And that was just for one year, over the same 9 years it could be higher than 150,000 deaths and climbing

      The USA is much less a "hero" than you are led to believe.

      And you wonder why people from these countries have a strong anti-US sentiment ?
      Look how much hate the US has towards muslims, yet the deaths caused by them are insignificant compared to the number of muslims killed by US led forces.

    8. Re: Too bad Muslim terrorists don't go on strike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do people feel the need to argue a factor of ten difference for a statistic 6 factors of ten large? At 100k, who cares about 15 or 1.5?

      Granted, when it's your loved one it matters. But that argument applies if even one person EVER is murdered. This is an argument built to polute rational discourse...

    9. Re:Too bad Muslim terrorists don't go on strike by lgw · · Score: 1

      War sucks. Lets not have one in our homeland. This is not a complicated concept.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    10. Re: Too bad Muslim terrorists don't go on strike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nuke the goatfuckers and they won't come calling...

    11. Re:Too bad Muslim terrorists don't go on strike by sit1963nz · · Score: 1

      Then keep your troops, your drones, your guns, your bombs, etc etc out of other peoples countries.

      Its not rocket science, when you kill people in another country, those people get pissed off and want revenge
      In that regard they are no different to americans it seems

      They DONT have drones or planes or missiles, so their "weapon of choice" is suicide bombers and the like, the only effective weapon available for their use.

    12. Re: Too bad Muslim terrorists don't go on strike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      umm Muslims have been pissed at us long before drones, Iraq, etc. And this is despite is shipping them billions over the decades for that black tea they just pump out of the ground.

      You would think the west collectively being a huge consumer they would bend over backwards for us for them wealthy. But the truth is that the middle east is still run by despots who have been hoarding all their treasure whilst making us out as the "bad guys". Me thinks history will not be so kind on the armpit of the world.

    13. Re: Too bad Muslim terrorists don't go on strike by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      umm Muslims have been pissed at us long before drones, Iraq, etc.

      For good reason, as western imperialist assholes have been fucking with them for the last century. Overthrowing Iran's democracy, installing despots like Saddam and the Shah, killing half a million kids with sanctions and calling it 'worth it' - your shitbaggery started long before Predator Drone strikes.

    14. Re:Too bad Muslim terrorists don't go on strike by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Terror attacks are rare in the US because we've kept the terrorists out.

      Because the United States is hard to attack. It's surrounded by the world's largest oceans and two large, friendly nations.

      Now there's a concerted effort to ship terrorists to the western world.

      Oh, do go fuck yourself, racist Western Exceptionalist. It's not Muslims invading, overthrowing and bombing countries on the other side of the planet from them for bullshit reasons- that's what you are doing to them. And all the 'Islamic terrorism' you can wank on about is either:

      1) Directly sponsored by the United States, as when it funds and arms ISIS and Al Queda in Syria or Yemen
      2) Blowback from your imperalistic shitbaggery. Want to know how to create a 'terrorist' in one simple step? You take a man who's done nothing to you and murder his family with a drone strike or a regime change.

    15. Re: Too bad Muslim terrorists don't go on strike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you can flip that argument. After 9/11 lots of widows and broken families from the terrorist bombing. But how many of them became terrorists? The difference is in the reaction - western culture has evolved and the middle east in general has not.

    16. Re: Too bad Muslim terrorists don't go on strike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fun fact: The US originally created its navy because of pirates from North African Muslim countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    17. Re:Too bad Muslim terrorists don't go on strike by slashrio · · Score: 1

      Comparing the number of deaths from terrorism with those resulting from medical failures might change the narrative completely.

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    18. Re:Too bad Muslim terrorists don't go on strike by slashrio · · Score: 1

      Oh man! I would mod you up if I could! :)

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    19. Re:Too bad Muslim terrorists don't go on strike by slashrio · · Score: 1

      Europe has changed from attacks being just as rare as here, to attacks being common.

      Maybe European citizens should also establish 'the right to bear arms'?

      Let's not have that here.

      Then buy all means, keep the guns!

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    20. Re:Too bad Muslim terrorists don't go on strike by slashrio · · Score: 1

      Fuck! "by", I mean.

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    21. Re: Too bad Muslim terrorists don't go on strike by slashrio · · Score: 1

      puke (finger in mouth)

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    22. Re:Too bad Muslim terrorists don't go on strike by lgw · · Score: 1

      Then keep your troops, your drones, your guns, your bombs, etc etc out of other peoples countries.

      Sure, we could take the position of weakness. Or, we could keep stomping anyone who annoys us, and protect our borders. That works too. But we can't do half-and-half.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    23. Re:Too bad Muslim terrorists don't go on strike by lgw · · Score: 1

      That's why there were several attacks in one week in Germany? That's why Parliament was attacked? That's why Turkey says you should be afraid to walk the streets?

      It's convenient to blane the US, but it's not realistic.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    24. Re:Too bad Muslim terrorists don't go on strike by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      we've kept the terrorists out

      No, we just have a different sort of terrorism here.

    25. Re:Too bad Muslim terrorists don't go on strike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See there is your problem.

      You believe the solution is to kill people so you don't look "weak".

      Well you do look weak. You look scared. You look like a trapped animal thats in fight or flight mode.

      You have willingly given up your freedoms to be protected from something that kills fewer US citizens than falling coke machines, all because you are scared.

      You spend more money on the military than the next 7 countries combined.

      Large portions of your country can not leave the house unless they are armed

      You are spending billions on walls and barriers instead of health and education

      You are not strong, you are scared and weak and over compensate with bullying and killing everyone thats no you. You treat your friends in the world little better than you do those you fear.

      You interfere in the politics of other countries, yet feel aggrieved when they do the same to the USA.

      Americas "interests" end at the US boarder. EVERY country wants to be just like the US
      Be able to practice their religion without fear and persecution
      To raise their children, send them to school
      To live their lives the way they believe they should be lived
      To have a job, run a business, to socialise, to have friends, to enjoy a meal
      They just don't want to be americans or share their beliefs.

      So perhaps when the USA stops trying to force USA down the worlds throats, maybe the world will stop kicking back.

  11. and the Aliens Go Whaaaaaaaa? by WheezyJoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Alas, as the aliens observing us reluctantly realize, humans have short memories. Like environmental laws, civil rights (and even... democracy), collective bargaining came about because our great-grandparents went through hella crazy Pinkerton shit, and our grandparents stood up and got shot until they managed to force change. But alas, our grandparents died off and our parents grew up not knowing what the fuck, and anyway global markets came along so that everything is cheap in China, and now the politicians are telling us that the only thing between us and a trophy wife and the top-floor suite of the Trump Hotel is unions and job-killing environment and food-inspection laws.

    and the aliens say, isn't that the shit these creatures fought so hard for just a few generations ago?

    --
    Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
    1. Re:and the Aliens Go Whaaaaaaaa? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Likely the aliens would be looking upon the US with, well, that was a stupid idea, with regard to lead in fuels, lead water pipes and firing lead bullets in concentrated doses on gun ranges. Look how stupid in made them, keep in mind the current rank of politicians all are that generation of lead addled fuckwits as are their core of older voters. So yes, bad memories, limited thought, reduced morality and a range of really destructive outcomes (insane greed, high level child molestation, destroying the planet, wars for fun, torture and mass attacks on the rights of citizens and workers).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    2. Re:and the Aliens Go Whaaaaaaaa? by WheezyJoe · · Score: 1

      Good God yes. Detroit used to make a station wagon with a kid's seat in the way-back, and a back-window that would roll down just perfect to suck in all the leaded fumes from the tail pipe... right into the lungs and brains of the "leaders of tomorrow".

      Of course, Dad's smoking his pipe in the front seat and Mom's hittin' the Virginia Slims, so there's really no escape. You can have either lead or nicotine with your carbon monoxide. And you wonder why you can't sit still in math class and those SAT's are so hard... maybe I'll just punch this nerdy kid next to me in the mouth!

      --
      Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
    3. Re:and the Aliens Go Whaaaaaaaa? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Tell it to the BBC http://www.bbc.com/news/magazi... or http://www.abc.net.au/news/201... or https://www.forbes.com/sites/a... or https://cosmosmagazine.com/bio... or http://scholar.harvard.edu/fil... or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... Let me guess, you love firing lead bullets at firing ranges with your buddies, as much as possible.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    4. Re:and the Aliens Go Whaaaaaaaa? by WheezyJoe · · Score: 1

      Let me guess, you love firing lead bullets at firing ranges with your buddies, as much as possible.

      Don't need to... got plenty enough lead from breathing car fumes, like tons of other kids.
      Great citations, though. In all seriousness, it's truly insane that engineers and, well, everybody, could be so completely careless of what blows out the tail pipe of an engine, like magic nature fairies just clean it all up as soon as it goes in the air. Lead. Fuck. Because it reduces engine knocking, boosts octane ratings, and helps with wear and tear on valve seats. Lead. Why not throw some mercury, asbestos and plutonium into the fuel if it makes cars start more reliably in the cold? I mean, lead in paint and pipes is bad, truly, but literally vaporizing it and blasting it through a pipe to the car behind you, stuck in traffic?
      What were these human thinking?

      --
      Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
  12. Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So we can expect more fiber cuts in remote areasâ and they won't be able to find anyone responsible...

  13. Good - hope they get what they want by ErichTheRed · · Score: 2

    I hope the union members get what they want. People are all too willing to give up all of their bargaining power and be at the mercy of employers. I happen to be one of those strange people who would like to see a little more loyalty on the part of both employers and employees. It's not good for either side to have a revolving door - employers lose valuable trained people, employees become modern-day Okies migrating from employer to employer with no consistency in their lives. If you have that loyalty, and a good work environment, and good salary/benefits, then you wouldn't need a union. Unfortunately, we're back on the other side of the pendulum now, and I think it might be time for collective bargaining to make a comeback.

    Think about it rationally -- even if you're the l33test, baddest full-stack DevOps Ninja out there, you're still at the mercy of an employer who is actively trying to pay you as little as possible. If you work in Silicon Valley, you're in a salary bubble right now because Apps! Wait until the bubble pops and employers have their pick of 500 DevOps Ninjas, some of whom are willing to work for practically nothing. Or, they have their pick of thousands of H-1B candidates who work for even less, or could just have all the Ninja-ing done in India and pay less than that! And of course, all that savings goes directly into their pockets, increasing the income disparity and making life miserable for everyone except the executives. I don't think there's anything wrong with a union standing up and fighting against the offshoring of their jobs...or look how many IT jobs might have been saved had the H-1B visa been lobbied against. This is what unions do.

    Face it, everybody needs a job, and everybody needs a job whose salary keeps up with inflation and lets them earn more as they age. Society is set up around this, and it's not going to change easily. No one is going to buy houses anymore once they see they can't count on their employers to keep them employed. People won't even take out car loans if they don't feel they have income to pay them back. Unless we have a nuclear war and have to rebuild the system with 1% of the population, you're not going to get people to give up using money to transfer value amongst themselves. I think unions and professional organizations are a good limiting factor on the unchecked greed of business owners. No business owner is going to be nice and share their profits equitably among their workers unless something forces them to. A union is an employee's best hope of getting as many table scraps from the executive dining room table as possible -- no one employee, not even a DevOps Ninja, will get the management class to give in to anything they want.

    1. Re:Good - hope they get what they want by slashrio · · Score: 1

      If you want a salary that consistently (over decades that is) keeps up with inflation, then you have but one choice: Get rid of the central banks.

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
  14. Timing went from bad to worse by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    This strike, had it been called while President Barack "Lawnchair" Obama was in office, would have likely ended in no progress for either side, with the workers going back to the same shitty situation they walked out from (ultimately a loss for the workers as they would see no raise while their cost of living increases). That would have been bad timing.

    Now we have a GOP that is still drunk on power calling the shots in DC. These workers might as well go take a long walk off a short pier at this point. I would be surprised if they are able to return to any jobs at all. There is no protection left for them, and if they thought otherwise they will soon find how wrong they are.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Timing went from bad to worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the strike ended at around 6pm PST today with the Union side winning employee rights to not have to perform the additional duties. The union employee jobs were never at jeopardy of being lost. Please read up on contracts in regards to Grievance settlements and Unfair Labor practices

  15. In the real world, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You dont ask a nurse to do a surgeons job, Which is exactly what is happening. They are asking Prem techs to do jobs above their paygrade without additional pay (TO the tune of $16.0 dollars an hour)

  16. The good news ... by Tjp($)pjT · · Score: 1

    ... Is when they get fired municipalities can absorb them and thousands more for the "Dig Once" pending legislation.

    --
    - Tjp

    I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!