Neither of those events are old enough to determine the long term exposure limits. Chernobyl's data also suffers from a haphazard collection efforts, the haphazard radiation exposure of the nearby population and the opaque nature of the government at the time. Both of which greatly reduce the usefulness of the data.
What happened in Japan is definitely not old enough for long term exposure studies, being less than 10 years ago. Also, there was extremely low exposure to anybody outside the plant boundary, with the bulk of adverse effects being from stress, not radiation up to this point.
We pay 14+% here, but Social Security is going bankrupt because our politicians spent the money in the trust fund and left a pile of IOU's. The problem with this whole scheme is that it's a horrible investment. They literally take 14% of your income, but if you took 5% and actually invested it in almost anything (CD's, bonds, some mutual fund) you'd have more money when you retired.
But, alas, that's how government works when it does this socialism thing. You pay through the nose and get horrible returns because the government is absolutely the least efficient and least cost effective way to do anything.
ALL of them have gone through bankruptcy and all of them that I know of dumped their Union demanded pensions onto the federal government UNDER funded.
Yes, their pension funds were distributed to shareholders, and then the companies went through bankruptcies to get rid of the debt. It's not rocket science or prima facia impossible. It's all about the ability to not fully offset long term liabilities.
Really, so? Where were the Unions when this was going on? Why were they not *demanding* that the pension funds be kept in sync with the liabilities being incurred?
My complaint about the Unions in this is they chose to ignore the problem right along with management. Unions kept asking for more benefits, but kept accepting that the company could fund the pension funds later, somehow. In fact, this raiding of the pension fund was a regular occurrence right up to the point in the late 80's when it became illegal to put money into them, then later take it out for cash. Treat it like a bank account. Of course the Unions just sat there and watched while the pension funding source was strangled, even participated in the death of their golden goose while their members lost their pensions, benefits, and eventually their jobs. The Union bosses should have seen what was coming and if they cared a bit about their members, at least tried to head off the inevitable, but that's not how Unions work... Nobody is there looking at the long term.
Your attempt at adding in statistically is also telling.. You are admitting that equal outcome is not a way to measure opportunity..
My father had a saying, two actually.. The first one here is "There are lies, damn lies and statistics." And the other "Figures never lie, but liars figure."
Why do I bring up these two bad jokes? Because, you have jumped off of your original position of "equal outcome" (everybody gets a participation trophy) and jumped straight into the pool of figuring statistics to perpetuate the lie that things are not fair. You cannot prove your view without cooking up some very suspicious looking numbers that obviously cannot take into account all manor of unmeasurable things that mean far more to the outcome than opportunity.. Good luck with that.
Also, this whole question of equal opportunity started with YOUR complaint about CEO pay. Obviously you think that getting paid millions is somehow unfair to the employees below these CEO's. But all you have is an argument based on envy and not liking people who are rich. You want to bash folks for being wealthy because (in your view) it's not fair and they obviously got rich unfairly. THIS view is basicly what Marx sold his whole theory on. It appeals to envy and greed, paints the wealthy as bad people when most of them are hardworking folks who earned what they have. CEO's are usually such folks and I've not seen many who didn't get where they are by working, by getting education, skills, and experience and proving they can do the job.
But you Marxists want to paint everything as unfair, the rich as bad people who take advantage of you, who own everything because they unfairly took it from you. That's a lie! A lie designed to inflame passion in the poor, a lie that condemns the less wealthy who believe it to a iief of poverty by making it seem like effort and hard work are not worth it, the "man" has it in for you and no matter how hard you try you cannot get ahead. That's a LIE and all the statistics you can come up with are just folks doing figuring to mislead you.
The law is supposed to prevent people coming from other countries and working here illegally, yet millions are doing it. And yes there are rules in place. So let's say John gets a job where there's unsafe conditions. John reports said problem to boss who
does nothing. Then John reports it to the authorities. Then John gets fired for not being a team player. That's how it works.
In your example, if John reports the problem to authorities and gets fired for doing so, he should contact OSHA. Retaliation against whistleblowers is not allowed and there is a literal army of OSHA bureaucrats just itching to drop the boom on employers in cases like this. So John's employer *should* get a OSHA visit about this and a comprehensive safety inspection, at their earliest inconvenience. If John is right about conditions and why he got fired, you can bet OSHA will rip his former employer a new one. What's a Union going to do? Process a grievance? Nope, likely just turn the company over to OSHA anyway.
Unions don't stop illegal activity or employment by the way. Undocumented, illegals work all the time and there isn't much Unions can do about it but report it when they see it. But I don't see Unions out doing this myself.
So, you don't think the Unions had a duty to my parents and their retirements to demand a fully funded pension fund? I do..
lolwut. So you hate unions and think they are unnecessary, but at the same time hate them for not being more powerful because they couldn't force the company to better fund their pensions?
No, I'm faulting them because they didn't TRY. The focus wasn't on funding the pension fund, but garnering more retirement benefits that the company obviously couldn't' afford. Don't try and tell me otherwise, I went to the union meetings with my parents, I remember what the Union bosses were telling the crowds and I remember my Dad complaining about this very thing way back then.
You don't think the Unions didn't make the financial condition of many of the major companies untenable at least partially due to the demands of their Unions? I do.
If the company can't exist without wage slavery, it doesn't deserve to exist. And what part of "unions accept massive cutbacks while executives take golden parachutes" did I stutter on? When was the last time you saw top company executives agree to work for $10 an hour to get the company back on track?
How's this relevant to what the Unions did or didn't do? Why is this class envy thing always seen as justification for making people who get paid more somehow bad actors? But to answer your question, I've heard of CEO's taking huge pay cuts in struggling companies, but this is all PR with zero substance anyway. I've not seen a company go bankrupt because they paid a CEO too much money. Have you? Citation please?
Personally I'm tired of the arguments born out of class envy
Wow, that's a leap! So now I'm embarrassed by rich people? Seriously? I'm not embarrassed by them, I don't envy them and I would like to be rich like them. I have some very wealthy friends, they got their money by working hard for it, most rich people do just that. There is NOTHING to be ashamed about if you are rich and you didn't cheat or steal your way into the money. If you think I'm embarrassed by rich people, or would be embarrassed to be one of them is stupid.
Like it or not, this country has EQUAL opportunity codified in our laws but we DON'T have equal outcome guarantees.
If you don't have equal opportunity.
And there it is, marxism in all it's glory. Having an equal chance, equal opportunity does NOT produce equal outcomes.
Have you ever watched the 100 yard dash? All the runners start at the same distance from the finish line, run on the same track and must start at the same time. Only one wins. They all run the same distance, the one that gets to the finish line first, wins. Why does only one win when all were afforded the same opportunity? Because each runner had varying skills, training drive and ability and so one could run faster. It's the same in life. Opportunity is by law, equal, skill, drive and ability vary, so outcome varies.
In your world, you think equal opportunity means everybody should get a participation trophy, just for entering the race. They don't have to run a step, train, have any ability or develop any skills, they get the same trophy as everybody else. I ask you, why run? Why Train? Why try? If you get the same thing as everybody else, who cares. But that's what Marx says we should do, that's what socialism says should happen.... AND exactly why those systems fail... Nobody tries..
You USED to have zero protection, but now we've codified into law a lot of the protections that Unions used to provide.
These days, working conditions are controlled by law, work hours are limited by law, payment of overtime is governed by law as are benefits being required for full time workers. Unions don't provide this, the law does.
Sure, Unions have work rules, minimum staffing rules, who must be called in first rules and (in closed shops) who can and cannot do certain jobs, but I'm not sure how this is a good thing for labor. Unions may negotiate benefits and wages as a group, but I don't know if that it is always necessary for a Union to do that. I get paid fairly and have good benefits but I'm not in a Union or work in a place where Unions are.
So, I don't agree that you have zero protections or that Unions are necessary to represent labor's interests. For me, the good doesn't outweigh the bad in Unons.
Measuring "fair" by comparing paychecks? How's that relevant to a discussion about Unions?
So what about my Dad and Mom's pension checks? They worked in union shops for all their lives and got stuck with a fraction of what they were promised. Where is the Union in this? What responsibility does the Union have here?
1. They let the company skate without fully funding the pension plan.... Why? So they could get raises now for their dues paying members. Who cares about the pension plan? The Union should have, but they chose to ignore the issue and let the company kick the can down the road. Yea, that's looking out for labor...
2. Where was the Union when the company was obviously on an unsustainable path to bankruptcy? Where they trying to negotiate with the company to keep it afloat? Heck no, they were insisting on maintaining the shop rules, preventing layoffs and protecting today's wages. Why wasn't the Union looking at the company's condition YEARS in advance and demanding the right things get done to keep it afloat and keep their membership working? Because that would mean giving up something. So they let the goose die and cut the retirees adrift to their own devices. How fair was that?
So, you don't think the Unions had a duty to my parents and their retirements to demand a fully funded pension fund? I do..
You don't think the Unions didn't make the financial condition of many of the major companies untenable at least partially due to the demands of their Unions? I do.
That management gets paid what they do has little to do with the survival or failure of a business. Usually a CEO's salary amounts to pennies on the dollar to the in the trenches worker, yet your ilk want to make some kind of moral argument about how unfair it is that one person gets so much and the new guy gets so little of the company's revenue.
Personally I'm tired of the arguments born out of class envy, socialistic politics and anti capitalist clap trap. Like it or not, this country has EQUAL opportunity codified in our laws but we DON'T have equal outcome guarantees. You cannot measure opportunity by measuring outcome and you cannot measure what's fair by outcome either.
Ah, but the pension problem WAS a Union failure on two counts.
1. The Union's could have demanded the FULL funding of the pension NOW, not just higher and higher retirement benefits in the future. They failed their membership in this by being short sighted, pay me a "fair" wage now demands. What happened to my parents happened to thousands upon thousands in many industries which were unionized. I've NEVER seen a Union demand that the pension fund be fully funded to cover future liabilities, only that benefits and wages be increased NOW. They gave no thought about the sustainability of what they demanded and didn't look out for their retired member's interests.
2. ALL of the major airlines and automobile manufacturers in this country where Unionized way before I was born. ALL of them have gone through bankruptcy and all of them that I know of dumped their Union demanded pensions onto the federal government UNDER funded. I don't think this is a coincidence. I believe that Unions, which once had a valid purpose, lost sight of their primary goals and ended up strangling their own individual golden egg laying geese. Similar non-unionized companies fared better overall, as did their pensioners. This is plain to see if you look.
Finally, I'm not discounting the past good that unions have done. They served their purpose at the dawn of the industrialized age where labor was powerless as the individual and management didn't care because there was always another willing laborer to take the job. However, we no longer live in the same world, and the individual has rights by law that they didn't have before. Unions are not as necessary as they were before.
In summary... Unions lacked foresight, hurt their members by not working with management to seek sustainable benefits and wages and now we have largely replaced the function of Unions with codified laws about employment, safety and other things Unions used to protect. In my view, they are doing more damage than they do overall good for the workers they represent and therefore should go.
I get paid well and I'm not in a union.... Unions are NOT the only way to be fairly paid...
Also, such "pay us what we define as fair or else" killed every major airline and car maker in the country in the end and dumped hard working people like my father (who was a union guy himself) onto the pension guarantee corporation and the fraction of the pension he was promised though the Union's efforts in the 25 years he worked there.
Personally, I think Unions of late do more harm than good in the long term... Certainly, watching my parents struggle to make ends meet on only portion of their Union retirement didn't make me like the unions who killed the airline they both worked for causing them to lose most of the benefits they earned including medical, flight privileges and a good portion of their income. The unions did that to them really, Management really had no choice but to play along and keep kicking the liability for Union benefits down the road if they wanted to stay in business now. The guys at the Union didn't care about tomorrow or the continued existence of the company, just about exacting their promises today. They ended up killing the goose that laid the golden eggs and EVERYBODY lost in the end.
Well, well, well... Tesla doesn't want to be unionized? Say it isn't so.
Of course I'd take this "they fired the Union organizers" with a grain of salt. I'm sure Tesla has CYA documentation for each and every one of these folks. And it kind of makes sense that the pro-Union folks would be lower in the productivity measures, not because they are pro-Union, but because it would be kind of hard to keep Union organizing and doing their work separated.
In general, Unions have outlived their primary reason to exist in this country. The big ones have become too powerful and self serving to care about the common worker anymore. Unions drove every major airline and car company in this country though bankruptcy by not seeing the long term implications of their demands and a load of loyal retired union folks lost the majority of their retirement income. I blame the unions for a lot of this.
Now that we have federal oversight on employment that governs things like hours, minimum wages, working conditions and safety, the union has less and less to negotiate with management over, yet they remain huge political and financial operations. Unions succeeded in their primary mission, and then proceeded to become the very thing they were designed to combat. I think they should go.
I think we are on the same page here.. I was pointing out to the anti-Trump mind that this is basically meaningless. Russia going to do what Russia going to do and we'd better get used to it.
Actually, I believe that about all we can really do is draw attention to this kind of thing. Maybe then folks will pause and think about what they are reading a bit, and not just reacting to this garbage.
Yea I know... Fat chance it will help.. But we can at least hope for a better informed voter..
When the business of News is obviously in the tank for profits from advertisement, what do you expect from the likes of Google and Facebook? Unbiased commentary and search results? Please.... It's all about profits and getting paid to push advertisements onto your browser, you phone, your tablet, you big screen TV where you have to see them.
The internet is starting to look and sound like a bazar where *everybody* from the kookiest on up get's paid the same way, ad clicks. The crazier you can be, the most interesting spectacle you can produce is what matters, not facts or truth. If you have enough money, you can also just buy viewership from the providers of spectacle but in the end, what you see is about money.
What is well documented and by whom? Shame on Google and Facebook for selling the ads, but how's this important to me? It's not like you can stop the Russians from trying tripe like this in today's day and age if they want to. We better learn to live with it.
There's no real money in legitimate Oxy sales, it went generic a LONG time ago.
Where I'm sure they don't mind if their wholesalers do, Big Pharma dare not openly engage in illicit production and sales. Regulators would find out quickly if they did and poof, no profits...
(((Hollywood))) hasn't had an original idea in decades.
Well.... I think that's a bit unfair. They just haven't been very good at taking original ideas they find and making them into movies folks want to see. The problem, and what's not original are the old tired formulas that Hollywood uses to take an idea and turn it into entertainment.
They are victims of their past successes, drinking their own Kool-Aid, and not taking chances. Basically, the MBA's have taken over to maximize profit.
Slashdot Mirror
Neither of those events are old enough to determine the long term exposure limits. Chernobyl's data also suffers from a haphazard collection efforts, the haphazard radiation exposure of the nearby population and the opaque nature of the government at the time. Both of which greatly reduce the usefulness of the data.
What happened in Japan is definitely not old enough for long term exposure studies, being less than 10 years ago. Also, there was extremely low exposure to anybody outside the plant boundary, with the bulk of adverse effects being from stress, not radiation up to this point.
We pay 14+% here, but Social Security is going bankrupt because our politicians spent the money in the trust fund and left a pile of IOU's. The problem with this whole scheme is that it's a horrible investment. They literally take 14% of your income, but if you took 5% and actually invested it in almost anything (CD's, bonds, some mutual fund) you'd have more money when you retired.
But, alas, that's how government works when it does this socialism thing. You pay through the nose and get horrible returns because the government is absolutely the least efficient and least cost effective way to do anything.
Yes, their pension funds were distributed to shareholders, and then the companies went through bankruptcies to get rid of the debt. It's not rocket science or prima facia impossible. It's all about the ability to not fully offset long term liabilities.
Really, so? Where were the Unions when this was going on? Why were they not *demanding* that the pension funds be kept in sync with the liabilities being incurred?
My complaint about the Unions in this is they chose to ignore the problem right along with management. Unions kept asking for more benefits, but kept accepting that the company could fund the pension funds later, somehow. In fact, this raiding of the pension fund was a regular occurrence right up to the point in the late 80's when it became illegal to put money into them, then later take it out for cash. Treat it like a bank account. Of course the Unions just sat there and watched while the pension funding source was strangled, even participated in the death of their golden goose while their members lost their pensions, benefits, and eventually their jobs. The Union bosses should have seen what was coming and if they cared a bit about their members, at least tried to head off the inevitable, but that's not how Unions work... Nobody is there looking at the long term.
Your attempt at adding in statistically is also telling.. You are admitting that equal outcome is not a way to measure opportunity..
My father had a saying, two actually.. The first one here is "There are lies, damn lies and statistics." And the other "Figures never lie, but liars figure."
Why do I bring up these two bad jokes? Because, you have jumped off of your original position of "equal outcome" (everybody gets a participation trophy) and jumped straight into the pool of figuring statistics to perpetuate the lie that things are not fair. You cannot prove your view without cooking up some very suspicious looking numbers that obviously cannot take into account all manor of unmeasurable things that mean far more to the outcome than opportunity.. Good luck with that.
Also, this whole question of equal opportunity started with YOUR complaint about CEO pay. Obviously you think that getting paid millions is somehow unfair to the employees below these CEO's. But all you have is an argument based on envy and not liking people who are rich. You want to bash folks for being wealthy because (in your view) it's not fair and they obviously got rich unfairly. THIS view is basicly what Marx sold his whole theory on. It appeals to envy and greed, paints the wealthy as bad people when most of them are hardworking folks who earned what they have. CEO's are usually such folks and I've not seen many who didn't get where they are by working, by getting education, skills, and experience and proving they can do the job.
But you Marxists want to paint everything as unfair, the rich as bad people who take advantage of you, who own everything because they unfairly took it from you. That's a lie! A lie designed to inflame passion in the poor, a lie that condemns the less wealthy who believe it to a iief of poverty by making it seem like effort and hard work are not worth it, the "man" has it in for you and no matter how hard you try you cannot get ahead. That's a LIE and all the statistics you can come up with are just folks doing figuring to mislead you.
Sum-Tim Wong
Weteu lue
Frye Wedie....
The law is supposed to prevent people coming from other countries and working here illegally, yet millions are doing it. And yes there are rules in place. So let's say John gets a job where there's unsafe conditions. John reports said problem to boss who does nothing. Then John reports it to the authorities. Then John gets fired for not being a team player. That's how it works.
In your example, if John reports the problem to authorities and gets fired for doing so, he should contact OSHA. Retaliation against whistleblowers is not allowed and there is a literal army of OSHA bureaucrats just itching to drop the boom on employers in cases like this. So John's employer *should* get a OSHA visit about this and a comprehensive safety inspection, at their earliest inconvenience. If John is right about conditions and why he got fired, you can bet OSHA will rip his former employer a new one. What's a Union going to do? Process a grievance? Nope, likely just turn the company over to OSHA anyway.
Unions don't stop illegal activity or employment by the way. Undocumented, illegals work all the time and there isn't much Unions can do about it but report it when they see it. But I don't see Unions out doing this myself.
lolwut. So you hate unions and think they are unnecessary, but at the same time hate them for not being more powerful because they couldn't force the company to better fund their pensions?
No, I'm faulting them because they didn't TRY. The focus wasn't on funding the pension fund, but garnering more retirement benefits that the company obviously couldn't' afford. Don't try and tell me otherwise, I went to the union meetings with my parents, I remember what the Union bosses were telling the crowds and I remember my Dad complaining about this very thing way back then.
If the company can't exist without wage slavery, it doesn't deserve to exist. And what part of "unions accept massive cutbacks while executives take golden parachutes" did I stutter on? When was the last time you saw top company executives agree to work for $10 an hour to get the company back on track?
How's this relevant to what the Unions did or didn't do? Why is this class envy thing always seen as justification for making people who get paid more somehow bad actors? But to answer your question, I've heard of CEO's taking huge pay cuts in struggling companies, but this is all PR with zero substance anyway. I've not seen a company go bankrupt because they paid a CEO too much money. Have you? Citation please?
There it is. You sir, are a temporarily embarrassed millionaire.
Wow, that's a leap! So now I'm embarrassed by rich people? Seriously? I'm not embarrassed by them, I don't envy them and I would like to be rich like them. I have some very wealthy friends, they got their money by working hard for it, most rich people do just that. There is NOTHING to be ashamed about if you are rich and you didn't cheat or steal your way into the money. If you think I'm embarrassed by rich people, or would be embarrassed to be one of them is stupid.
If you don't have equal opportunity.
And there it is, marxism in all it's glory. Having an equal chance, equal opportunity does NOT produce equal outcomes.
Have you ever watched the 100 yard dash? All the runners start at the same distance from the finish line, run on the same track and must start at the same time. Only one wins. They all run the same distance, the one that gets to the finish line first, wins. Why does only one win when all were afforded the same opportunity? Because each runner had varying skills, training drive and ability and so one could run faster. It's the same in life. Opportunity is by law, equal, skill, drive and ability vary, so outcome varies.
In your world, you think equal opportunity means everybody should get a participation trophy, just for entering the race. They don't have to run a step, train, have any ability or develop any skills, they get the same trophy as everybody else. I ask you, why run? Why Train? Why try? If you get the same thing as everybody else, who cares. But that's what Marx says we should do, that's what socialism says should happen.... AND exactly why those systems fail... Nobody tries..
You USED to have zero protection, but now we've codified into law a lot of the protections that Unions used to provide.
These days, working conditions are controlled by law, work hours are limited by law, payment of overtime is governed by law as are benefits being required for full time workers. Unions don't provide this, the law does.
Sure, Unions have work rules, minimum staffing rules, who must be called in first rules and (in closed shops) who can and cannot do certain jobs, but I'm not sure how this is a good thing for labor. Unions may negotiate benefits and wages as a group, but I don't know if that it is always necessary for a Union to do that. I get paid fairly and have good benefits but I'm not in a Union or work in a place where Unions are.
So, I don't agree that you have zero protections or that Unions are necessary to represent labor's interests. For me, the good doesn't outweigh the bad in Unons.
Measuring "fair" by comparing paychecks? How's that relevant to a discussion about Unions?
So what about my Dad and Mom's pension checks? They worked in union shops for all their lives and got stuck with a fraction of what they were promised. Where is the Union in this? What responsibility does the Union have here?
1. They let the company skate without fully funding the pension plan.... Why? So they could get raises now for their dues paying members. Who cares about the pension plan? The Union should have, but they chose to ignore the issue and let the company kick the can down the road. Yea, that's looking out for labor...
2. Where was the Union when the company was obviously on an unsustainable path to bankruptcy? Where they trying to negotiate with the company to keep it afloat? Heck no, they were insisting on maintaining the shop rules, preventing layoffs and protecting today's wages. Why wasn't the Union looking at the company's condition YEARS in advance and demanding the right things get done to keep it afloat and keep their membership working? Because that would mean giving up something. So they let the goose die and cut the retirees adrift to their own devices. How fair was that?
So, you don't think the Unions had a duty to my parents and their retirements to demand a fully funded pension fund? I do..
You don't think the Unions didn't make the financial condition of many of the major companies untenable at least partially due to the demands of their Unions? I do.
That management gets paid what they do has little to do with the survival or failure of a business. Usually a CEO's salary amounts to pennies on the dollar to the in the trenches worker, yet your ilk want to make some kind of moral argument about how unfair it is that one person gets so much and the new guy gets so little of the company's revenue.
Personally I'm tired of the arguments born out of class envy, socialistic politics and anti capitalist clap trap. Like it or not, this country has EQUAL opportunity codified in our laws but we DON'T have equal outcome guarantees. You cannot measure opportunity by measuring outcome and you cannot measure what's fair by outcome either.
Ah, but the pension problem WAS a Union failure on two counts.
1. The Union's could have demanded the FULL funding of the pension NOW, not just higher and higher retirement benefits in the future. They failed their membership in this by being short sighted, pay me a "fair" wage now demands. What happened to my parents happened to thousands upon thousands in many industries which were unionized. I've NEVER seen a Union demand that the pension fund be fully funded to cover future liabilities, only that benefits and wages be increased NOW. They gave no thought about the sustainability of what they demanded and didn't look out for their retired member's interests.
2. ALL of the major airlines and automobile manufacturers in this country where Unionized way before I was born. ALL of them have gone through bankruptcy and all of them that I know of dumped their Union demanded pensions onto the federal government UNDER funded. I don't think this is a coincidence. I believe that Unions, which once had a valid purpose, lost sight of their primary goals and ended up strangling their own individual golden egg laying geese. Similar non-unionized companies fared better overall, as did their pensioners. This is plain to see if you look.
Finally, I'm not discounting the past good that unions have done. They served their purpose at the dawn of the industrialized age where labor was powerless as the individual and management didn't care because there was always another willing laborer to take the job. However, we no longer live in the same world, and the individual has rights by law that they didn't have before. Unions are not as necessary as they were before.
In summary... Unions lacked foresight, hurt their members by not working with management to seek sustainable benefits and wages and now we have largely replaced the function of Unions with codified laws about employment, safety and other things Unions used to protect. In my view, they are doing more damage than they do overall good for the workers they represent and therefore should go.
I get paid well and I'm not in a union.... Unions are NOT the only way to be fairly paid...
Also, such "pay us what we define as fair or else" killed every major airline and car maker in the country in the end and dumped hard working people like my father (who was a union guy himself) onto the pension guarantee corporation and the fraction of the pension he was promised though the Union's efforts in the 25 years he worked there.
Personally, I think Unions of late do more harm than good in the long term... Certainly, watching my parents struggle to make ends meet on only portion of their Union retirement didn't make me like the unions who killed the airline they both worked for causing them to lose most of the benefits they earned including medical, flight privileges and a good portion of their income. The unions did that to them really, Management really had no choice but to play along and keep kicking the liability for Union benefits down the road if they wanted to stay in business now. The guys at the Union didn't care about tomorrow or the continued existence of the company, just about exacting their promises today. They ended up killing the goose that laid the golden eggs and EVERYBODY lost in the end.
Well, well, well... Tesla doesn't want to be unionized? Say it isn't so.
Of course I'd take this "they fired the Union organizers" with a grain of salt. I'm sure Tesla has CYA documentation for each and every one of these folks. And it kind of makes sense that the pro-Union folks would be lower in the productivity measures, not because they are pro-Union, but because it would be kind of hard to keep Union organizing and doing their work separated.
In general, Unions have outlived their primary reason to exist in this country. The big ones have become too powerful and self serving to care about the common worker anymore. Unions drove every major airline and car company in this country though bankruptcy by not seeing the long term implications of their demands and a load of loyal retired union folks lost the majority of their retirement income. I blame the unions for a lot of this.
Now that we have federal oversight on employment that governs things like hours, minimum wages, working conditions and safety, the union has less and less to negotiate with management over, yet they remain huge political and financial operations. Unions succeeded in their primary mission, and then proceeded to become the very thing they were designed to combat. I think they should go.
I think we are on the same page here.. I was pointing out to the anti-Trump mind that this is basically meaningless. Russia going to do what Russia going to do and we'd better get used to it.
Actually, I believe that about all we can really do is draw attention to this kind of thing. Maybe then folks will pause and think about what they are reading a bit, and not just reacting to this garbage.
Yea I know... Fat chance it will help.. But we can at least hope for a better informed voter..
Exactly...
When the business of News is obviously in the tank for profits from advertisement, what do you expect from the likes of Google and Facebook? Unbiased commentary and search results? Please.... It's all about profits and getting paid to push advertisements onto your browser, you phone, your tablet, you big screen TV where you have to see them.
The internet is starting to look and sound like a bazar where *everybody* from the kookiest on up get's paid the same way, ad clicks. The crazier you can be, the most interesting spectacle you can produce is what matters, not facts or truth. If you have enough money, you can also just buy viewership from the providers of spectacle but in the end, what you see is about money.
That joke wasn't funny on the late night comedy shows the first time it got told. It's not getting better with age.
Even when its true and well documented?
What is well documented and by whom? Shame on Google and Facebook for selling the ads, but how's this important to me? It's not like you can stop the Russians from trying tripe like this in today's day and age if they want to. We better learn to live with it.
Shame on Facebook and Google...
Other than that, nothing to see here unless one campaign or the other was involved in breaking FEC rules, which seems unlikely at this point..
Ah yes, define what a thought is for yourself. Ultimately this is a philosophical question? Which is, by the way, my whole point.
Unless we have a clear definition of what constitutes a thought, how are we going to know if a computer has one or not?
But, Wesley is dead.... Or at least mostly dead...
There's no real money in legitimate Oxy sales, it went generic a LONG time ago.
Where I'm sure they don't mind if their wholesalers do, Big Pharma dare not openly engage in illicit production and sales. Regulators would find out quickly if they did and poof, no profits...
This.
(((Hollywood))) hasn't had an original idea in decades.
Well.... I think that's a bit unfair. They just haven't been very good at taking original ideas they find and making them into movies folks want to see. The problem, and what's not original are the old tired formulas that Hollywood uses to take an idea and turn it into entertainment.
They are victims of their past successes, drinking their own Kool-Aid, and not taking chances. Basically, the MBA's have taken over to maximize profit.
is hostile to consumers.
I blame Harvey W. for this....
Would a sonic weapon be protected under the 2nd or 1st amendment?
Yes.... And the 14th should you live in a state, not just a territory.
Just leave the Army and Air Force out of it.... We don't need another bay of pigs..
Oh, and by the way, we already are in Cuba... We've been there for a long, long time and are not leaving any time soon.