Honestly, I haven't gone through each and every one of these points. I did find out through Google that the first point is deceptive - 1973 United States v. Enmons decision does not make violence committed by union members immune to prosecution, only to the Hobbs act. They can still be prosecuted under state law, for things like assault, vandalism, murder, etc. I suspect similar deception in several of the other points, but I'll leave that for later.
The larger question though, is whether you oppose the concept of collective bargaining itself, or merely its current incarnation of unions. Whether you believe that workers should be able to organize themselves to obtain a better bargaining position, or whether they shouldn't have that right.
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.
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?
Firstly: Who says that the only capability these nanos will have is to increase the size of your muscles? They could also improve your cardiovascular and respiratory systems (scrape out all the crap in our arteries and lungs, for instance). Also, the heart is essentially a big muscle, so would even be affected with your example.
Secondly: You say that increased discipline is an effect of regular exercise. I think you have that backwards: people who exercise regularly do so because they already have discipline. People without discipline won't exercise regularly.
From what I've read, the main reason health care costs are so high come down to one thing: the AMA makes it nearly impossible to create a new medical school, which means that the ratio of patients to doctors has been increasing rapidly for many, many years.
Which is exactly why we need a few protectionist policies. That's the only way to break a prisoner's dilemma situation - create penalties that will outweigh any benefit of defecting.
Maybe I'm a bit of a hardass, but this is how I'd handle it (and I'm considering getting into teaching, because it beats unemployment):
If suspending a student doesn't get them to learn their lesson, keep suspending them, so they don't disrupt class for the other students.
If their parents don't care, don't bother contacting them again.
If the principal says you're not passing enough students, curve them up to a C. Of course, they won't learn anything, but that's their problem.
Frankly, if the students and parents want to waste their tax dollars by not educating themselves/their child, that's their choice. Don't let them ruin it for everyone else, or yourself.
The "burden" is chosen. If you choose to have sex, then you have chosen to take the risk that you might end up with a burden. Therefore, if your value to the business world does not offset the disadvantage parenthood brings, that is entirely your fault.
Parents provide a service to society as a whole. How exactly? If nobody reproduces, society dies out. Is it really such a mind-boggling idea to help out the people who provide this service?
Now, am I suggesting we let those who make mistakes simply starve to death? No, we can help them with charity.
In other words, you want to allow the rich to let the masses survive or starve at their whim.
And you are failing to see (or choosing to ignore) that the American worker IS the American consumer. For the most part they are one and the same. They hypicritically demand the lowest prices while demanding the highest wages and job protection, and the vast majority will go to Walmart and buy something made in China if the similar item made in the U.S. costs more.
Ever heard of the Tragedy of the Commons? Or perhaps the Prisoners Dilemma?
Would any individual customer's choice of Walmart or a five and dime save or condemn either? Would it keep them from losing their jobs?
Boycotting Walmart individually is just a meaningless gesture that only hurts the individuals involved. Unless there is a mandate for everyone, then it won't work. This is the same reason that the people saying unions should be purely voluntary are full of shit: without something to enforce compliance, organized labor is a pipe dream.
See, that's where the problems come in. What's a legitimate expense? Is the trip the CEO took to Hawaii (First Class, staying in a Four Star hotel for a week, riding around in limos) to meet some business prospects a legitimate expense or not?
So if a company spends $100k in costs and only makes $105k in revenue, does that mean they take a loss for the year, despite making more than they earned?
Not quite. "Beyond a shadow of a doubt" would mean the total absence of all evidence opposing that conclusion. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" would exclude things like, for instance, the theory that Martians replaced you with a genetic duplicate for the few moments in which the crime took place, and then put you back afterwards. You know, "unreasonable" doubts.
It's true that 90% of everything is crap. Back when I was hiring on a regular basis, I was just astounded by how willing people were to apply for jobs for which they're obviously nowhere near qualified.
Funny, I've regularly been advised to apply for jobs when I don't match the requirements, on the rationale that companies post their "wish list", and hire they best that comes in, whether it meets these requirements or not.
Hey, they wouldn't even need sweatshops. They could just do an automated recorded message calling everybody on their lists, since they wouldn't have to worry about those laws against them. Cell phones wouldn't be safe either.
I guess the perfect revenge on him would be to Slashdot his server, don't you think?
Re:I jam cell phone conversation MY WAY
on
Cell-Phone Wars
·
· Score: 1
I jam cell phone conversation MY WAY with a swift kick to the nuts!
I don't have a problem with that. If someone is being rude, I don't have a problem with responding rudely. The idea of hiding behind some pocket-jammer would only appeal to some passive-aggressive control freak anyway. If it's worth getting upset about, it's worth actually being ASSERTIVE about. If you don't have the balls to be assertive, then quit whining.
But you save hours upon hours of time, which you can put towards important things like blogging, or trying out yet another test release of Fedora Core,
Or, in the more unrealistic range, trying to get laid.
Slashdot Mirror
Honestly, I haven't gone through each and every one of these points. I did find out through Google that the first point is deceptive - 1973 United States v. Enmons decision does not make violence committed by union members immune to prosecution, only to the Hobbs act. They can still be prosecuted under state law, for things like assault, vandalism, murder, etc. I suspect similar deception in several of the other points, but I'll leave that for later.
The larger question though, is whether you oppose the concept of collective bargaining itself, or merely its current incarnation of unions. Whether you believe that workers should be able to organize themselves to obtain a better bargaining position, or whether they shouldn't have that right.
They have the right to quit? Oh, c'mon. If anything, they have LOST their rights.
It's better than if there was no union, in which case the choice would be accept whatever terms the boss gives, or quit.
Really, who is going to want to work with people that have the legal right to commit extortion for example?
Heh, you mean like the corporations do all the time? Nobody, except someone who has no choice. Which is why more people are working intolerable hours.
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.
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?
The biggest reason unions have such a bad name is because corporations have much larger marketing departments.
And you care more about the profits of lazy, rude, moronic managers and stockholders?
Firstly: Who says that the only capability these nanos will have is to increase the size of your muscles? They could also improve your cardiovascular and respiratory systems (scrape out all the crap in our arteries and lungs, for instance). Also, the heart is essentially a big muscle, so would even be affected with your example.
Secondly: You say that increased discipline is an effect of regular exercise. I think you have that backwards: people who exercise regularly do so because they already have discipline. People without discipline won't exercise regularly.
From what I've read, the main reason health care costs are so high come down to one thing: the AMA makes it nearly impossible to create a new medical school, which means that the ratio of patients to doctors has been increasing rapidly for many, many years.
Which is exactly why we need a few protectionist policies. That's the only way to break a prisoner's dilemma situation - create penalties that will outweigh any benefit of defecting.
Maybe I'm a bit of a hardass, but this is how I'd handle it (and I'm considering getting into teaching, because it beats unemployment):
If suspending a student doesn't get them to learn their lesson, keep suspending them, so they don't disrupt class for the other students.
If their parents don't care, don't bother contacting them again.
If the principal says you're not passing enough students, curve them up to a C. Of course, they won't learn anything, but that's their problem.
Frankly, if the students and parents want to waste their tax dollars by not educating themselves/their child, that's their choice. Don't let them ruin it for everyone else, or yourself.
Parents provide a service to society as a whole. How exactly? If nobody reproduces, society dies out. Is it really such a mind-boggling idea to help out the people who provide this service?
In other words, you want to allow the rich to let the masses survive or starve at their whim.
Would any individual customer's choice of Walmart or a five and dime save or condemn either? Would it keep them from losing their jobs? Boycotting Walmart individually is just a meaningless gesture that only hurts the individuals involved. Unless there is a mandate for everyone, then it won't work. This is the same reason that the people saying unions should be purely voluntary are full of shit: without something to enforce compliance, organized labor is a pipe dream.
See, that's where the problems come in. What's a legitimate expense? Is the trip the CEO took to Hawaii (First Class, staying in a Four Star hotel for a week, riding around in limos) to meet some business prospects a legitimate expense or not?
So if a company spends $100k in costs and only makes $105k in revenue, does that mean they take a loss for the year, despite making more than they earned?
It's not the tax brackets that make the system so complicated, it's the deductions.
When you're doing more harm than good in the process.
Not quite. "Beyond a shadow of a doubt" would mean the total absence of all evidence opposing that conclusion. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" would exclude things like, for instance, the theory that Martians replaced you with a genetic duplicate for the few moments in which the crime took place, and then put you back afterwards. You know, "unreasonable" doubts.
"Stop! Or I will yell 'Stop!' again!"
Hey, they wouldn't even need sweatshops. They could just do an automated recorded message calling everybody on their lists, since they wouldn't have to worry about those laws against them. Cell phones wouldn't be safe either.
I guess the perfect revenge on him would be to Slashdot his server, don't you think?