First off, for all damage that unions allegedly do to the employees that compose it - if they don't like the way the union is run, they can elect new representatives, or if that does not satisfy the voters in the minority, they have the right to quit and seek employment elsewhere.
They have the right to quit? Oh, c'mon. If anything, they have LOST their rights.
Secondly, if "big labor" (as the linked page refers to unions) has so much power, why isn't every job everywhere a union job? Why has union membership declined continually throughout the years?
Membership has declined for the simple reason that employers have left those industries where unions are strong. Employers have been exercising their right to quit and move to other industries where unions don't (yet) exist.
Remember employers are there voluntarily. They don't have to provide a job for anyone.
Really, who is going to want to work with people that have the legal right to commit extortion for example? No wonder union jobs have disappeared. They've driven themselves to extinction.
The "necessary evil" with a mandate to use force against people, thus better limited to using the force (i.e., military, police and courts) and NOT distracted by doing "nice" things (like, everything else liberals would want it to do).
Right.
"Hey, we love doing nice things for people. Now give us your money so we can pay for our special programs, or we'll throw you in jail."
"Help us spead peace and love or we'll kick your ass!"
Actually, child labor laws were put into place to keep young people from screwing around with dangerous machinery that was being built at the time. The concept of children is a byproduct of the Industrial Revolution.
Child labor laws were also put in place to prevent them from competing with adult workers.
The problem was that big families used to count on children helping to support the family through their work on the family farm. This was especially true of many immigrant families.
Child labor laws to some extent actually made things much tougher for these families.
The biggest reason unions have such a bad name is because corporations have much larger marketing departments.
Well, unions may have a bad name, but that doesn't seem to stop them from receiving special treatment from the government.
Labor union officials enjoy many extraordinary powers and immunities that were created by legislatures and the courts. Union officials claim to rely on the support of rank-and-file workers. Yet, they clamor in the political arena to secure and expand their government-granted powers, including the powers to shake down workers for financial support and even to wage campaigns of violent retaliation against non-union employees.
The following list of special privileges reveals the extent to which union bosses have rigged our nation's labor laws in their favor.
Privilege #1: Exemption from prosecution for union violence. The most egregious example of organized labor's special privileges and immunities is the 1973 United States v. Enmons decision. In it, the United States Supreme Court held that union violence is exempted from the Hobbs Act, which makes it a federal crime to obstruct interstate commerce by robbery or extortion. As a result, thousands of incidents of violent assaults (directed mostly against workers) by union militants have gone unpunished. Meanwhile, many states also restrict the authority of law enforcement to enforce laws during strikes.
Privilege #2: Exemption from anti-monopoly laws. The Clayton Act of 1914 exempts unions from anti-monopoly laws, enabling union officials to forcibly drive out independent or alternative employee bargaining groups.
Privilege #3: Power to force employees to accept unwanted union representation. Monopoly bargaining, or "exclusive representation," which is embedded in most of the country's labor relations statutes, enables union officials to act as the exclusive bargaining agents of all employees at a unionized workplace, thereby depriving employees of the right to make their own employment contracts. For example, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935, the Federal Labor Relations Act (FLRA) of 1978, and the Railway Labor Act (RLA) of 1926 prohibit employees from negotiating their own contracts with their employers or choosing their own workplace representatives.
Privilege #4: Power to collect forced union dues. Unlike other private organizations, unions can compel individuals to support them financially. In 28 states under the NLRA (those that have not passed Right to Work laws), all states under the RLA, on "exclusive federal enclaves," and in many states under public sector labor relations acts, employees may be forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment, even if they reject union affiliation.
Privilege #5: Unlimited, undisclosed electioneering. The Federal Election Campaign Act exempts unions from its limits on campaign contributions and expenditures, as well as some of its reporting requirements. Union bigwigs can spend unlimited amounts on communications to members and their families in support of, or opposition to, candidates for federal office, and they need not report these expenditures if they successfully claim that union publications are primarily devoted to other subjects. For years, the politically active National Education Association (NEA) teacher union has gotten away with claiming zero political expenditures on its IRS tax forms!
Privilege #6: Ability to strong-arm employers into negotiations. Unlike all other parties in the economic marketplace, union officials can compel employers to bargain with them. The NLRA, FLRA, and RLA make it illegal for employers to resist a union's collective bargaining efforts and difficult for them to counter aggressive and deceptive campaigns waged by union organizers.
Privilege #7: Right to trespass on an employer's private property. The Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932 (and state anti-injunction acts)
"We have... every possible kind of Council, including a World Council -- and if these do not as yet hold total power over us, is it from lack of intention?" -A.R.
Companies create real difficulties for employees that go far beyond wages. These difficulties translate into real costs for the employee.
If that were true, the employee would leave for a less difficult life. If they stay, it must mean the alternatives are worse.
Pardon me for caring more about the employee.
And how many jobs have you created?
Actually, companies use automated manufacturing because of little things like repeatability, cost, speed, and tolerance. A product produced by a highly automated process is nearly always of a higher quality than a hand-assembled product, when produced in the same volume. If the employees hadn't been unionized, the company would have gone to an automated process anyway, because humans can't do what automated manufacturing can.
This is why the plants built overseas still use automated techniques - AM is simply BETTER. If it was solely cost of labor that drove AM, why would they use it overseas, where labor is cheap?
Many overseas companies do use automation, but it is very primitive compared to what is available here. More sophisticated machines are too expensive -- unless the workers threaten "union" and "strike".
That's not to say that the virtues you cited aren't important, they are, but you have to look at the whole picture. Automation DOES look much more desirable when workers are union.
It would still be cheaper to manufacture overseas, because cost-of-living in the US is higher, so workers need to be paid more.
Unions create difficulties for companies that go way beyond wages. Those difficulties translate into real costs for the company.
Unions didn't kill manufacturing, the change from skilled manufacturing to unskilled automated manufacturing did.
And why would companies pay so much for automated manufacturing? Because machines don't strike, machines don't steal from you, and a machine that doesn't do it's job can be replaced.
Unions are more than just workers getting together
on
SBC CWA Strike Imminent
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Labor union officials enjoy many extraordinary powers and immunities that were created by legislatures and the courts. Union officials claim to rely on the support of rank-and-file workers. Yet, they clamor in the political arena to secure and expand their government-granted powers, including the powers to shake down workers for financial support and even to wage campaigns of violent retaliation against non-union employees.
The following list of special privileges reveals the extent to which union bosses have rigged our nation's labor laws in their favor.
Privilege #1: Exemption from prosecution for union violence. The most egregious example of organized labor's special privileges and immunities is the 1973 United States v. Enmons decision. In it, the United States Supreme Court held that union violence is exempted from the Hobbs Act, which makes it a federal crime to obstruct interstate commerce by robbery or extortion. As a result, thousands of incidents of violent assaults (directed mostly against workers) by union militants have gone unpunished. Meanwhile, many states also restrict the authority of law enforcement to enforce laws during strikes.
Privilege #2: Exemption from anti-monopoly laws. The Clayton Act of 1914 exempts unions from anti-monopoly laws, enabling union officials to forcibly drive out independent or alternative employee bargaining groups.
Privilege #3: Power to force employees to accept unwanted union representation. Monopoly bargaining, or "exclusive representation," which is embedded in most of the country's labor relations statutes, enables union officials to act as the exclusive bargaining agents of all employees at a unionized workplace, thereby depriving employees of the right to make their own employment contracts. For example, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935, the Federal Labor Relations Act (FLRA) of 1978, and the Railway Labor Act (RLA) of 1926 prohibit employees from negotiating their own contracts with their employers or choosing their own workplace representatives.
Privilege #4: Power to collect forced union dues. Unlike other private organizations, unions can compel individuals to support them financially. In 28 states under the NLRA (those that have not passed Right to Work laws), all states under the RLA, on "exclusive federal enclaves," and in many states under public sector labor relations acts, employees may be forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment, even if they reject union affiliation.
Privilege #5: Unlimited, undisclosed electioneering. The Federal Election Campaign Act exempts unions from its limits on campaign contributions and expenditures, as well as some of its reporting requirements. Union bigwigs can spend unlimited amounts on communications to members and their families in support of, or opposition to, candidates for federal office, and they need not report these expenditures if they successfully claim that union publications are primarily devoted to other subjects. For years, the politically active National Education Association (NEA) teacher union has gotten away with claiming zero political expenditures on its IRS tax forms!
Privilege #6: Ability to strong-arm employers into negotiations. Unlike all other parties in the economic marketplace, union officials can compel employers to bargain with them. The NLRA, FLRA, and RLA make it illegal for employers to resist a union's collective bargaining efforts and difficult for them to counter aggressive and deceptive campaigns waged by union organizers.
Privilege #7: Right to trespass on an employer's private property. The Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932 (and state anti-injunction acts) give union activists immunity from injunctions against trespass on an employer's property.
Privilege #8: Ability of strikers to keep jobs despite refusing to work. Unlike other employees, unionized employees in the private sector have the right to strike; that is, to refuse to work while keeping their job. In some
The market in the US also dropped %4 or more in the last week or so as the Congress Party swept the elections. So by your comment our society has now outsourced the driving factors of our markets to India.
Over the past 10+ years or so, India has seen great economic growth. Many economists attribute this to the adoption of a more capitalist/free market system. Recent elections threaten to turn back these reforms as many rural people feel they have been left out of the boom. Such a backlash might make doing business in India more difficult. In fact, shortly after the elections, the Indian stock market dropped about 4%.
I'd like to hear the opinion of Indians on these elections and their impact.
Here in the Northeast US, median salaries for public school kindergarten teachers with 3-5 years' experience is in the mid $40's. Median salaries for secondary school teachers with MA/MS degrees and 10 years' experience is $65-70. Top-step teachers in many states earn over $80k. This is for 6.5 hours/day and 180 days per year.
Many more teachers could be paid a better wage if the scale wasn't so top-heavy, but that's a typical outcome of collective bargaining.
Those that have been in the system longest have the most political power, so they tend to get the biggest rewards.
Yes, it's true that it has that many transistors BUT, only 29 million of them are part of the core, the rest is memory. The transistor count on the video cards does not count the ram.
Sure it does, it's just that the ram isn't cache, it's mostly huge register files.
The new 90nm Pentium 4's really didn't get much of a clock rate boost, which was a surprise. Reducing feature sizes has usually given us a good bump in clock rate. Remember the original Pentium 4 when it came out? There was a big jump in clock rate. This lastest shrink hasn't provided much. Now we hear that Intel is going to the Pentium-M: a chip with a lower clock-rate. That doesn't mean the chip is a poor performer. In fact, it runs very well. Like the Athlon, it gets much more work done per cycle than the Pentium 4.
Still, process shrinks in the past have yielded easy speed increases, but not this time around. Intel's move seems to confirm that there might be trouble ahead.
It looks like the folks at IBM also have concerns:
"It's been estimated that gifted students are 6 times as likely to drop out of high school "
Have you got anything even remotely resembling support for that statement? Because every magnet program in the county around here has dropout rates far less than normal. And that's just dropping out f the advanced programs, not high school in general.
There is a summary here of many studies concerning the over-representation of the gifted amoung dropouts.
But there is all sorts of other information on web. It took me maybe 5 minutes search online to find the above paper.
I wish I had found something similar in my school.
Many of my teachers were just plain ignorant.
I remember one day being told, for example, that opposite angles formed by two intersecting lines aren't necessary equal. As proof, I was asked to go to the black board and measure two such angles with a giant protractor. To my surprise, the angles were different. I pointed out that two intersecting arcs had been drawn rather than lines, and this affected the measurement. She then said, "lines ain't got to be straight".
In another class we were asked to bring in food labels so were could see what those evil corporations were putting in our food.
The teacher complained, "look at all these chemicals they're putting in your food!". There's riboflavin and niacin and citric acid! She didn't know these were vitamins. She thought those evil corps were poisoning everyone.
To be frank, a very minimal portion of society actually care about science. In this day and age, there's the attitude that says "Who cares about science when there are more interesting things to do, like watch music videos and make more money?"
Ah, but there is a lot of money in science and that was once a big motivator.
The trouble is that kids never get to find that out. The media have given kids the idea that all the money is in music videos and sports.
What with the right wing dominancy, corporate patent frenzy, and general all around discouragement of any thinking that isn't part of the patriotic mainstream (you're either with us or against us), I can understand why the search for truth and understanding gets short thrift in the US.
Except that, in the educational establishment, the political left dominates by a long-shot and that's where scientists should be geting their inspiration.
Instead, they drop out of high school.
It's been estimated that gifted students are 6 times as likely to drop out of high school. Drop outs don't usually become scientists.
I asked a guy I worked with to write a C function to compute the distance between two points.
He didn't know how. So I wrote the formula down for him.
"What's that", he asked, pointing to the symbol for square root.
I asked if he had a high school diploma.
"Of course", he exclaimed.
Now, how does someone get through high school not knowing what a square root symbol is?
Then there are the smart kids that get bored after going over the same material year after year. Why? Because Johnny half-brain needs the lesson again. And since we're all just have to be one big happy group of robots, all the same, well, we'll just have to wait for him to catch up so that we're all equal at the end.
There's plenty more to complain about. Am I bitter? Sure. I was tested gifted. I was a clever kid. I should have gone to a university when I was 18. Instead, I was going to summer-school just to graduate.
Why? Because the lesson of public education isn't education, it's busy work. Well, I didn't need busy work like Johnny half brain to understand the lesson. My punishment for understanding the material without doing all the busy work was failure.
I was intellectually a free spirit and I wouldn't follow their plan.
Joe has agreed to give Bill senior free hamburgers in exchange for a promise that when Joe becomes a senior he too will get free hamburgers. Joe knows this. It's called a social contract.
In exchange for a promise from whom? Bill? He'll be dead!
You mean Joe allows it to be done to him because he believes he'll be able to do it to the next generation. Well, maybe, and maybe not.
In any case, if Joe is not given a service or promise or anything or less than he wants in exchange for his service, then he is getting used.
But I'm glad you took the time to read through the message.
The reason it isn't obvious is because tax dollars that come back to you look the same as dollars you spent somewhere to obtain a product or service.
You don't know who it is you're serving for free.
Consider Joe hamberger maker and his payroll taxes. It's about 6+% right now. When he is payed, this 6% comes out in taxes and eventually it ends up in the hands of Bill retiree.
So Bill retiree comes in with this money. He hands it to Joe and asks for a hamberger. Joe takes the money and makes a hamberger. Eventually, this money makes it back into Joe's paycheck where it gets taken out again and given to Bill again. Bill comes back next month for another hamberger. Repeat.
So what is happening here? Joe is making Bill senior free hambergers. Joe doesn't realize it because the money Bill give him looks like anyone else's money. He can't tell the difference. Except it is different -- it's the money Joe was forced to give Bill senior in taxes. Bill senior is merely stopping by to get his free hamberger that Joe must prepare for him.
Joe, through his taxes, is serving Bill without getting anything in return. That's a form of servitude.
All tax money that is spent eventually puts a demand on the productive efforts of the economy and there will be Joes out there to do the work. If Joe gets nothing in return, he's being used.
The point here is that these things are for the common good.
Values are subjective. Therefore there is no such thing as "the common good". Of course, most people that use the idea of the "common good" usually just mean THEIR good.
There may be things that are considered desirable by many people, but that's not the same thing.
Slashdot Mirror
If someone runs, shoot at the car, stop the persuit and hunt for the signal later.
This might just save some lives.
In fact it is very well established that "loyalty" cards atually cause prices to rise rather than fall.
Well established? You have to be kidding.
There is no way people are going to willingly pay 50% more for their groceries consistently, yet that's what the "study" would have us believe.
I mean seriously. You think people aren't going to notice the difference between $100 and $150 when they go shopping?
If loyalty cards really made that big a difference in prices, any grocery store adopting such a program would be out of business in a second.
Come on, now. "loyalty cards" can't explain the 50% difference found.
Maybe there was bias in the sample?
It seems like everything these days is self serving and dishonest.
Of course everyone is self-serving. That's a fact of life.
The problem is that people don't realize dishonesty, in the long run, isn't really self-serving.
It all comes back to you eventually. It's hard to see and indirect, but it will come back to you.
First off, for all damage that unions allegedly do to the employees that compose it - if they don't like the way the union is run, they can elect new representatives, or if that does not satisfy the voters in the minority, they have the right to quit and seek employment elsewhere.
They have the right to quit? Oh, c'mon. If anything, they have LOST their rights.
Secondly, if "big labor" (as the linked page refers to unions) has so much power, why isn't every job everywhere a union job? Why has union membership declined continually throughout the years?
Membership has declined for the simple reason that employers have left those industries where unions are strong. Employers have been exercising their right to quit and move to other industries where unions don't (yet) exist.
Remember employers are there voluntarily. They don't have to provide a job for anyone.
Really, who is going to want to work with people that have the legal right to commit extortion for example? No wonder union jobs have disappeared. They've driven themselves to extinction.
The "necessary evil" with a mandate to use force against people, thus better limited to using the force (i.e., military, police and courts) and NOT distracted by doing "nice" things (like, everything else liberals would want it to do).
Right.
"Hey, we love doing nice things for people. Now give us your money so we can pay for our special programs, or we'll throw you in jail."
"Help us spead peace and love or we'll kick your ass!"
Actually, child labor laws were put into place to keep young people from screwing around with dangerous machinery that was being built at the time. The concept of children is a byproduct of the Industrial Revolution.
Child labor laws were also put in place to prevent them from competing with adult workers.
The problem was that big families used to count on children helping to support the family through their work on the family farm. This was especially true of many immigrant families.
Child labor laws to some extent actually made things much tougher for these families.
The biggest reason unions have such a bad name is because corporations have much larger marketing departments.
Well, unions may have a bad name, but that doesn't seem to stop them from receiving special treatment from the government.
Labor union officials enjoy many extraordinary powers and immunities that were created by legislatures and the courts. Union officials claim to rely on the support of rank-and-file workers. Yet, they clamor in the political arena to secure and expand their government-granted powers, including the powers to shake down workers for financial support and even to wage campaigns of violent retaliation against non-union employees.
The following list of special privileges reveals the extent to which union bosses have rigged our nation's labor laws in their favor.
Privilege #1: Exemption from prosecution for union violence.
The most egregious example of organized labor's special privileges and immunities is the 1973 United States v. Enmons decision. In it, the United States Supreme Court held that union violence is exempted from the Hobbs Act, which makes it a federal crime to obstruct interstate commerce by robbery or extortion. As a result, thousands of incidents of violent assaults (directed mostly against workers) by union militants have gone unpunished. Meanwhile, many states also restrict the authority of law enforcement to enforce laws during strikes.
Privilege #2: Exemption from anti-monopoly laws.
The Clayton Act of 1914 exempts unions from anti-monopoly laws, enabling union officials to forcibly drive out independent or alternative employee bargaining groups.
Privilege #3: Power to force employees to accept unwanted union representation.
Monopoly bargaining, or "exclusive representation," which is embedded in most of the country's labor relations statutes, enables union officials to act as the exclusive bargaining agents of all employees at a unionized workplace, thereby depriving employees of the right to make their own employment contracts. For example, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935, the Federal Labor Relations Act (FLRA) of 1978, and the Railway Labor Act (RLA) of 1926 prohibit employees from negotiating their own contracts with their employers or choosing their own workplace representatives.
Privilege #4: Power to collect forced union dues.
Unlike other private organizations, unions can compel individuals to support them financially. In 28 states under the NLRA (those that have not passed Right to Work laws), all states under the RLA, on "exclusive federal enclaves," and in many states under public sector labor relations acts, employees may be forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment, even if they reject union affiliation.
Privilege #5: Unlimited, undisclosed electioneering.
The Federal Election Campaign Act exempts unions from its limits on campaign contributions and expenditures, as well as some of its reporting requirements. Union bigwigs can spend unlimited amounts on communications to members and their families in support of, or opposition to, candidates for federal office, and they need not report these expenditures if they successfully claim that union publications are primarily devoted to other subjects. For years, the politically active National Education Association (NEA) teacher union has gotten away with claiming zero political expenditures on its IRS tax forms!
Privilege #6: Ability to strong-arm employers into negotiations.
Unlike all other parties in the economic marketplace, union officials can compel employers to bargain with them. The NLRA, FLRA, and RLA make it illegal for employers to resist a union's collective bargaining efforts and difficult for them to counter aggressive and deceptive campaigns waged by union organizers.
Privilege #7: Right to trespass on an employer's private property.
The Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932 (and state anti-injunction acts)
"We have ... every possible kind of Council, including a World Council -- and if these do not as yet hold total power over us, is it from lack of intention?" -A.R.
This is all about power, folks, not protection.
Companies create real difficulties for employees that go far beyond wages. These difficulties translate into real costs for the employee.
If that were true, the employee would leave for a less difficult life. If they stay, it must mean the alternatives are worse.
Pardon me for caring more about the employee.
And how many jobs have you created?
Actually, companies use automated manufacturing because of little things like repeatability, cost, speed, and tolerance. A product produced by a highly automated process is nearly always of a higher quality than a hand-assembled product, when produced in the same volume. If the employees hadn't been unionized, the company would have gone to an automated process anyway, because humans can't do what automated manufacturing can.
This is why the plants built overseas still use automated techniques - AM is simply BETTER. If it was solely cost of labor that drove AM, why would they use it overseas, where labor is cheap?
Many overseas companies do use automation, but it is very primitive compared to what is available here. More sophisticated machines are too expensive -- unless the workers threaten "union" and "strike".
That's not to say that the virtues you cited aren't important, they are, but you have to look at the whole picture. Automation DOES look much more desirable when workers are union.
Let's say unions didn't exist.
It would still be cheaper to manufacture overseas, because cost-of-living in the US is higher, so workers need to be paid more.
Unions create difficulties for companies that go way beyond wages. Those difficulties translate into real costs for the company.
Unions didn't kill manufacturing, the change from skilled manufacturing to unskilled automated manufacturing did.
And why would companies pay so much for automated manufacturing? Because machines don't strike, machines don't steal from you, and a machine that doesn't do it's job can be replaced.
Labor union officials enjoy many extraordinary powers and immunities that were created by legislatures and the courts. Union officials claim to rely on the support of rank-and-file workers. Yet, they clamor in the political arena to secure and expand their government-granted powers, including the powers to shake down workers for financial support and even to wage campaigns of violent retaliation against non-union employees.
The following list of special privileges reveals the extent to which union bosses have rigged our nation's labor laws in their favor.
Privilege #1: Exemption from prosecution for union violence.
The most egregious example of organized labor's special privileges and immunities is the 1973 United States v. Enmons decision. In it, the United States Supreme Court held that union violence is exempted from the Hobbs Act, which makes it a federal crime to obstruct interstate commerce by robbery or extortion. As a result, thousands of incidents of violent assaults (directed mostly against workers) by union militants have gone unpunished. Meanwhile, many states also restrict the authority of law enforcement to enforce laws during strikes.
Privilege #2: Exemption from anti-monopoly laws.
The Clayton Act of 1914 exempts unions from anti-monopoly laws, enabling union officials to forcibly drive out independent or alternative employee bargaining groups.
Privilege #3: Power to force employees to accept unwanted union representation.
Monopoly bargaining, or "exclusive representation," which is embedded in most of the country's labor relations statutes, enables union officials to act as the exclusive bargaining agents of all employees at a unionized workplace, thereby depriving employees of the right to make their own employment contracts. For example, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935, the Federal Labor Relations Act (FLRA) of 1978, and the Railway Labor Act (RLA) of 1926 prohibit employees from negotiating their own contracts with their employers or choosing their own workplace representatives.
Privilege #4: Power to collect forced union dues.
Unlike other private organizations, unions can compel individuals to support them financially. In 28 states under the NLRA (those that have not passed Right to Work laws), all states under the RLA, on "exclusive federal enclaves," and in many states under public sector labor relations acts, employees may be forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment, even if they reject union affiliation.
Privilege #5: Unlimited, undisclosed electioneering.
The Federal Election Campaign Act exempts unions from its limits on campaign contributions and expenditures, as well as some of its reporting requirements. Union bigwigs can spend unlimited amounts on communications to members and their families in support of, or opposition to, candidates for federal office, and they need not report these expenditures if they successfully claim that union publications are primarily devoted to other subjects. For years, the politically active National Education Association (NEA) teacher union has gotten away with claiming zero political expenditures on its IRS tax forms!
Privilege #6: Ability to strong-arm employers into negotiations.
Unlike all other parties in the economic marketplace, union officials can compel employers to bargain with them. The NLRA, FLRA, and RLA make it illegal for employers to resist a union's collective bargaining efforts and difficult for them to counter aggressive and deceptive campaigns waged by union organizers.
Privilege #7: Right to trespass on an employer's private property.
The Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932 (and state anti-injunction acts) give union activists immunity from injunctions against trespass on an employer's property.
Privilege #8: Ability of strikers to keep jobs despite refusing to work.
Unlike other employees, unionized employees in the private sector have the right to strike; that is, to refuse to work while keeping their job. In some
The market in the US also dropped %4 or more in the last week or so as the Congress Party swept the elections. So by your comment our society has now outsourced the driving factors of our markets to India.
What a bunch of hoo-ha.
The Indian stock market is nearly in free fall today.
It's obvious to everyone that the elections are the cause.
The Dow, on the other hand, has been mostly stable.
Over the past 10+ years or so, India has seen great economic growth. Many economists attribute this to the adoption of a more capitalist/free market system. Recent elections threaten to turn back these reforms as many rural people feel they have been left out of the boom. Such a backlash might make doing business in India more difficult. In fact, shortly after the elections, the Indian stock market dropped about 4%.
I'd like to hear the opinion of Indians on these elections and their impact.
Here in the Northeast US, median salaries for public school kindergarten teachers with 3-5 years' experience is in the mid $40's. Median salaries for secondary school teachers with MA/MS degrees and 10 years' experience is $65-70. Top-step teachers in many states earn over $80k. This is for 6.5 hours/day and 180 days per year.
Many more teachers could be paid a better wage if the scale wasn't so top-heavy, but that's a typical outcome of collective bargaining.
Those that have been in the system longest have the most political power, so they tend to get the biggest rewards.
Yes, it's true that it has that many transistors BUT, only 29 million of them are part of the core, the rest is memory. The transistor count on the video cards does not count the ram.
Sure it does, it's just that the ram isn't cache, it's mostly huge register files.
Still, process shrinks in the past have yielded easy speed increases, but not this time around. Intel's move seems to confirm that there might be trouble ahead.
It looks like the folks at IBM also have concerns:
"Somewhere between 130-nm and 90-nm the whole system fell apart. Things stopped working and nobody seemed to notice."
"It's been estimated that gifted students are 6 times as likely to drop out of high school "
Have you got anything even remotely resembling support for that statement? Because every magnet program in the county around here has dropout rates far less than normal. And that's just dropping out f the advanced programs, not high school in general.
There is a summary here of many studies concerning the over-representation of the gifted amoung dropouts.
But there is all sorts of other information on web. It took me maybe 5 minutes search online to find the above paper.
I wish I had found something similar in my school.
Many of my teachers were just plain ignorant.
I remember one day being told, for example, that opposite angles formed by two intersecting lines aren't necessary equal. As proof, I was asked to go to the black board and measure two such angles with a giant protractor. To my surprise, the angles were different. I pointed out that two intersecting arcs had been drawn rather than lines, and this affected the measurement. She then said, "lines ain't got to be straight".
In another class we were asked to bring in food labels so were could see what those evil corporations were putting in our food.
The teacher complained, "look at all these chemicals they're putting in your food!". There's riboflavin and niacin and citric acid! She didn't know these were vitamins. She thought those evil corps were poisoning everyone.
To be frank, a very minimal portion of society actually care about science. In this day and age, there's the attitude that says "Who cares about science when there are more interesting things to do, like watch music videos and make more money?"
Ah, but there is a lot of money in science and that was once a big motivator.
The trouble is that kids never get to find that out. The media have given kids the idea that all the money is in music videos and sports.
It's a lie.
What with the right wing dominancy, corporate patent frenzy, and general all around discouragement of any thinking that isn't part of the patriotic mainstream (you're either with us or against us), I can understand why the search for truth and understanding gets short thrift in the US.
Except that, in the educational establishment, the political left dominates by a long-shot and that's where scientists should be geting their inspiration.
Instead, they drop out of high school.
It's been estimated that gifted students are 6 times as likely to drop out of high school. Drop outs don't usually become scientists.
I asked a guy I worked with to write a C function to compute the distance between two points.
He didn't know how. So I wrote the formula down for him.
"What's that", he asked, pointing to the symbol for square root.
I asked if he had a high school diploma.
"Of course", he exclaimed.
Now, how does someone get through high school not knowing what a square root symbol is?
Then there are the smart kids that get bored after going over the same material year after year. Why? Because Johnny half-brain needs the lesson again. And since we're all just have to be one big happy group of robots, all the same, well, we'll just have to wait for him to catch up so that we're all equal at the end.
There's plenty more to complain about. Am I bitter? Sure. I was tested gifted. I was a clever kid. I should have gone to a university when I was 18. Instead, I was going to summer-school just to graduate.
Why? Because the lesson of public education isn't education, it's busy work. Well, I didn't need busy work like Johnny half brain to understand the lesson. My punishment for understanding the material without doing all the busy work was failure.
I was intellectually a free spirit and I wouldn't follow their plan.
And I payed for it. I'm still paying for it.
The Official Handbook of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy
Loser pays is a great idea.
These lawyers are playing the lottery. Without "loser pays", the tickets are all free.
Joe has agreed to give Bill senior free hamburgers in exchange for a promise that when Joe becomes a senior he too will get free hamburgers. Joe knows this. It's called a social contract.
In exchange for a promise from whom? Bill? He'll be dead!
You mean Joe allows it to be done to him because he believes he'll be able to do it to the next generation. Well, maybe, and maybe not.
In any case, if Joe is not given a service or promise or anything or less than he wants in exchange for his service, then he is getting used.
But I'm glad you took the time to read through the message.
Because calling it servitude is retarded.
The reason it isn't obvious is because tax dollars that come back to you look the same as dollars you spent somewhere to obtain a product or service.
You don't know who it is you're serving for free.
Consider Joe hamberger maker and his payroll taxes. It's about 6+% right now. When he is payed, this 6% comes out in taxes and eventually it ends up in the hands of Bill retiree.
So Bill retiree comes in with this money. He hands it to Joe and asks for a hamberger. Joe takes the money and makes a hamberger. Eventually, this money makes it back into Joe's paycheck where it gets taken out again and given to Bill again. Bill comes back next month for another hamberger. Repeat.
So what is happening here? Joe is making Bill senior free hambergers. Joe doesn't realize it because the money Bill give him looks like anyone else's money. He can't tell the difference. Except it is different -- it's the money Joe was forced to give Bill senior in taxes. Bill senior is merely stopping by to get his free hamberger that Joe must prepare for him.
Joe, through his taxes, is serving Bill without getting anything in return. That's a form of servitude.
All tax money that is spent eventually puts a demand on the productive efforts of the economy and there will be Joes out there to do the work. If Joe gets nothing in return, he's being used.
The point here is that these things are for the common good.
Values are subjective. Therefore there is no such thing as "the common good". Of course, most people that use the idea of the "common good" usually just mean THEIR good.
There may be things that are considered desirable by many people, but that's not the same thing.