Again, you fail to understand the concept of insurance.
What? If we DID have the "concept of insurance" in play, EVERYBODY would be paying (a fairly modest amount), so that when something catastrophic happens, everybody has the financial resources to weather that broken femur, etc. But that's not what the ACA is. It's a huge tax paid by only of the people, with the benefits given to a different group of people. It's an ongoing transfer of one person's daily work to another person's consumption of expensive services. It's nothing at ALL like insurance when tens of millions of people are told they get all of the benefits without carrying the same share of the burden. You may understand insurance, but you totally fail to understand that the ACA isn't about insurance, it's about a giant new entitlement program from which the group that gets the output isn't the group that has to pay for it.
And there's not a single case out there of a 60 year old woman giving birth to a child?
So, millions and millions of 60 year old women should have to pay hundreds of dollars more a month to cover the possibility that, post-menopause, despite being essentially unable to conceive, there is a tiny, tiny chance that they will get pregnant AND want to carry the pregnancy to term? Are you even listening to yourself? All of those people should have to cough up so much cash every month that they are budgeted OUT of being able to afford the actual health care appropriate to a 60 year old person, so they can have complete coverage for a one in a billion event? If this is how you're thinking about the situation, please don't do anything dangerous to other people, like voting.
Most schools are paid for using property taxes levied from the areas where the schools operate. If you don't want to pay the property tax burden that includes that, live on property in a different jurisdiction, or move to a place that funds them differently, etc. But with Obamacare, you have a federal mandate forcing you to buy a service. If you are a 60 year old nun, you're still having to buy an insurance plan that guarantees you'll have your next childbirth covered. Absurd.
My parents saved up the money to cover the costs of the birth and the time away from work needed to make it all happen. They carried simple catastrophic insurance just in case something way horribly wrong. Nobody is allowed to do that anymore. But if you're not in the solid middle class, it's OK, have all the babies you want - someone else will actually pay for all of that for you, or end up having to answer to the IRS, courtesy of the Democrats.
Right, why should men have to subsidize maternity care? Why should women have to subsidize prostate exams?
hint: that's how insurance pools work.
So, the pool of people who are planning to have kids should pay for itself. There are millions of them. The pool of people who are biologically incapable of having kids are at zero risk of incurring that cost, and shouldn't pay for the risk of an occurrence that cannot happen. Women who cannot have children are not in the pool of women who will experience the cost giving birth. Are you foggy on that, somehow?
Sounds like you should have just gone with the "no coverage" option.
But you've just been explaining to me how affordable and reasonable and good it all is. Why the change of heart?
We have a plan for two people. Our state approved, ACA-mandated plan has a deductible of $13,100 - just for two people. Add children to that, and you're quickly much higher. That is NOT catastrophic insurance (on paper, anyway) - it's the Obamacare law that requires (say, in our case) people in their 50's to pay for full maternity insurance, drug treatment and mental health coverage whether we need or want it. There is zero chance of us having a baby now or in the future. Why are we required to buy coverage for that? Because the Democrats decided to charge a tax, and that's how they disguised it.
Our rates have gone up over 50% per year every year since the ACA went into effect. Up 70% for 2017, and government says they expect next year (2018) to see another increase of close to 90% again. That's how they get around the "out of pocket" limits - by hugely increasing the monthly premiums, which are VERY MUCH out of pocket, but which don't get you a dime of actual health care. And no, "preventative care" is not covered. You get things like simple blood tests one a year (for which you pay part of the visit, and the lab costs), but of course no treatment of any kind - preventative or otherwise - is ever included in that. The ONLY thing that would be completely covered without requiring the deductible, is child birth. How's that for hilarious.
Nope instead your insurance premiums will continue to cover other people's bills. You know, since that's how all insurance works.
But that's not how Obamacare works, at least not for millions of middle-class people who are self employed or run small businesses and actually have to write a check every month. Their premiums have gone up hundreds of percent, and many no longer have the cash to go visit the doctor... but because a small family might have a deductible of $20,000... they get no healthcare unless it's catastrophic, and they're still wiped out. For millions of people who WERE buying insurance and able to write a check to the doctor, they no longer can. The ACA is the Healthcare Prevention Act, but it certainly does work as the Democrats intended - a massive new tax that distributes middle class income to other people to buy votes.
WTF?!? Russia is small!?!? It's the largest country in the world by far!
Sure, if you're looking at it from the childish perspective that acres of dirt (and snow) make up "a country." That's not what matters. Population, economic power, international trade, energy self-sufficiency, the ability to defend borders, and so on... those are the things that make up a country, and contribute to how you measure whether or not one is large or small. Previously, the Russians made themselves (temporarily, in a short-lived illusion) "larger" by being willing to slaughter (or allow to die) untold millions of people and take over other countries as they built the creaky Soviet empire. They are now a "small" country in the scheme of things, which is why Putin is once again pushing into other territories.
engineers in India's tech hub cost 13 times less than their Silicon Valley counterparts
So, the engineers in Silicon Valley cost less than somewhere else, but the ones in India are thirteen times MORE less expensive than the ones in SV? Or are we supposed to gather that the SV engineers cost something that we should all consider a good baseline, but that the Indian engineers cost roughly 8% of that amount?
Kitchen knife use case #1: Kill insufficiently Muslim heathens working for the oppressive British Government! (this use case was seen just the other day)
Kitchen knife use case #2: Make a sandwich. (this use case also seen just the other day)
Maybe you don't have the problem. But, for example, a city here in our state has been known to have a problem with "protesters" deciding that they're going to fix the problems with the culture in their local neighborhood by smashing the few remaining businesses in that neighborhood and burning the houses of the few little old ladies who haven't already decided they'd be safer living elsewhere as a homeless street person than in the middle of place like that.
The cops are too scared to even attempt to mitigate all of that violence and destruction unless they have function physical protection while trying to push a mob of looting arsonists away from the stores they're trying to destory. A tool that helps them to do that is a good thing. If somebody has a problem with the fact that a politician with the wrong idea about things might use such a tool to chase away people who aren't being violent and destructive, then they need to vote for different politicians. In the meantime, recognize the fact that there actually ARE violent, destructive herds of "protesters" who actually do get together to destroy and smash and steal things, and that it's absurd to tell a police officer to risk being, say, burned alive or having her head caved in to try to repel looters. A tool is a tool. There are always going to be outlandish or absurd use cases. If there is NO good use case (say... police batons with spikes on them?) then of course the tool is worth ridiculing. Giving cops a tool to protect themselves while preserving others' lives and property is a good thing. Misusing it is a bad thing, but that's true of cop cars and every other tool they've always had.
Well, you're just wrong. I've personally watched inventory shrinkage drop into the measurement noise with the introduction of technology-based tools that catch the people who steal - because other employees understand there are consequences.
Yes, it's a shame that throughout all of human history and in every level of society and income, some people like to steal stuff. Someone who is trying to make a living running a business and who has to make payroll every week and keep customers happy won't usually have a lot of luck changing human nature. Now, I know that you've personally solved these human nature problems in your own area, and no longer feel any need to lock your doors or in any way look after your personal safety, because you've fixed everybody that you might encounter or who might want your stuff.
Yes, people stealing things IS a problem. And taking measures to stop it from happening to you isn't irrational. Yes, more parents should raise kids that have some sort of moral compass and which are educated and motivated enough to go out and create things so that they can trade the fruit of their labors for the stuff they want, instead of stealing it. Your notion that it's wrong-headed to use convenient tools to help deal with the fact that there are lots of people out there who DO find it easier (or even, in some cases, more entertaining) to steal stuff than buy it - never mind, I realize that you're trolling. Silly me.
Ah, spoken like a person who has indeed never seen a new hire in their first week pocketing merchandise or participating in a phony return/credit scam. Grow up.
Why would you run a business without an insurance?
Who suggested that? But why would pay far more for your insurance than you need to? You can hugely mitigate those costs by having a decent security system. Which you know, but are pretending you don't.
Give them a decent paycheck so they actually have something to lose if they get fired?
Yep, you've never actually worked in such an environment, have you? I've seen people making six figures who steal routinely $20 stuff from their employers. I've seen well paid general managers of grocery stores stealing steaks. I've seen IT directors who drive Teslas but who still pocket RAM sticks from the lab.
2) Get robbed by someone who walks in the front door. Or,
3) Have one of your employees attack another one. Or,
4) Have one of your employees get hooked on heroin and start to steal your inventory.
I'm guessing your solution to getting to the bottom of such things is to hire people to stand around watching everything so they can testify based on their recollections of events later, in a trial. Because you sure wouldn't want what happens on your own property with your own inventory with your the people you pay money to be there doing things to be recorded. Until you really, really do because real life is different when you start paying a fortune in insurance as part of running a business. Or find yourself in court. Or are running out of money because of inventory shrinkage, or have to know which of your very good employees is totally innocent of what one of your rotten employees has been setting them up to look guilty for.
But yeah, I can see why you'd advocate violence against a vendor offering a service you can choose to ignore if it's not useful to you.
The people who "got" health insurance from the ACA, if they're not dirt poor, DID NOT GET HEALTH INSURANCE. They got miserably high premiums they can barely afford, and are left with so little cash each month that they can no longer afford to go see the doctor. And no, the insurance they're now paying a fortune for doesn't help with that, because a small family has a deductible pushing $20,000. So they are legally required to spend a couple thousand dollars a month on insurance they can't use, and have no cash left with which to buy the services of a doctor. Meanwhile, people who don't pay for anything "got insurance" and are being subsidized by the middle class people who effectively had their ability to see a doctor taken away.
The ACA is a terrible piece of law, and was meant by the Democrats to be just that from the beginning. And it's now imploding. I'm glad yesterday's vote got pulled. The current disaster remains under the ownership of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi.
Don't want fraudulent items, make them in your own country.
You're either a (lame) troll, or utterly clueless about how quickly knock-offs are created based on nothing more than things like product photos on the designer's web site. All a knock-off company has to do is place an order for an item (and return it, later - free access!) in order to inspect it closely enough to make a sellable ripoff version. No, not every knock off (or even most of them) is made by scam artists at the factory making the original, and brand owners are increasingly able to police that since that practice became more prevalent over the last few years.
What about it? Shown to be a giant nothing-burger. It was provisioned for a third party vendor's use in generating outbound marketing mail, and was left to rot. Read up. There's no there, there.
This is Fake News, which you know. So, the question is, why are you lying about it? It's something that's so easily debunked that you have to know anyone well-informed will know you're lying - so why do it? Which low-information audience are you taking to, and what do you think you're going to persuade them to do as they take onboard the false narrative you're trying to sell? Really - I'm curious. What's your purpose?
Whatever was the problem with Clinton was surely of much lesser magnitude than Trump's people having secret dealing with foreign state entities.
What? So, Hillary Clinton and her husband personally rake in millions of dollars selling access to foreign dictators, and she conducts all of her correspondence on a server in her house in order to avoid FOIA scrutiny of her conduct in such matters, and then fails to turn over her records as she left office (as required by law), and the foot-drags for years and even destroys records while under subpoena... all while continuing to soak up cash from overseas businesses and governments in anticipation of getting the presidential crown to which she felt entitled... and you're saying that's not as bad as some imaginary conduct by someone associated with the Trump campaign having done something that Obama's own DNI and other officials have said they've seen absolutely no evidence to suspect happened.
Why are you lying? Isn't it sort of silly when the fact your lying is so easily established through publicly available records and actual video recordings of people like Comey explaining things to us?
In the week before the election, he notified congress that a separate criminal investigation DID turn up new evidence related to the investigation of Clinton's mishandling of classified information. Why was it new evidence? Because Clinton and her aides (who had been granted immunity) said they had already turned over every scrap of data or device containing any record of the emails that Clinton handled from the internet-connected server she ran out of her house. This wan't true, of course. They had NOT turned over all of that data, or the devices on which it was stored. Because Clinton's closest aide had hundreds of thousands of such records on a laptop in her home - something that didn't come to light until the investigation into her husband's criminal activity exposed that fact. The FBI told congress about this, because congress was in the middle of investigations that relied on the FBI providing them with all such information, and the FBI - which had taken Clinton at her word that all such material had been turned over - suddenly found themselves with hundreds of thousand of new records to sort through, some of which might indeed cover some of the material that Clinto had destroyed while under subpoena. You don't think that matters? Or more to the point, you so wish it weren't the case that you're willing to try to lie it away from having happened?
And never told anyone they were investigating Trump.
Gee, I wonder why? Maybe it's because they WEREN'T "investigating Trump" at the time, and still aren't. They're investigating the manner and degree to which the Russians tried to influence public opinion during the election, and owing to political pressure, are including in that investigation whether or not individuals "associated with the campaign" had anything to do with such activity. They've also said, more than once, that they've seen no evidence at all that indicated any such thing. So what is it exactly that you're thinking they were supposed to disclose? They have nothing to show because they haven't seen anything - unlike in the Clinton case, where they had abundant evidence of her repeatedly lying, destroying evidence, and more. They pointed out that they weren't going to be able to get the Obama administration to prosecute the case, though they did say that if had been anyone else (besides Clinton) things would have been handled differently. I know, you're really trying to wish all of that away.
What the FBI says they're investigating is Russian attempts to interfere with the election. This includes investigating whether or not anyone associated with the Trump campaign did or did not have any involvement with such Russian efforts. And Comey has repeatedly gone to great lengths to point out that he can't talk about which individual people are or aren't reviewed as part of that investigation into Russia's actions. At no point have they said what the OP's headline implies - that they're "investigating the Trump campaign."
The hearing, on the other hand, HAS spent a lot more time examining the circumstances under which someone working on the Obama administration's watch committed the serious federal felony of publicly disclosing the details of surveillance that swept up the conversations of a US citizen - identification of which should have remained "masked," and which could only have been unmasked by high-level officials within the Obama administration. The FBI says they are vigorously pursuing who committed that felony.
Yes, it's called contract law. If the employer or the employee don't do what was agreed to, the courts are there to provide backup muscle for the consequences of breaching that contract. That's different than a law that says those two parties shouldn't be allowed agree on what it means to be a truck driver serving the particular needs of that employer under terms that the driver is ready to agree to and take money for.
No, you should get whatever you and the person paying agree should be the compensation - in the form, and on the schedule and terms that you both agree to. It doesn't need to get any more complicated than that. If the contract spells out overtime and and the employee can show breech of that contract, then it's lawyer time. If the contract makes it clear that people like employees doing long-haul trucking aren't paid overtime, then it really should be that simple. If you don't take that into account (as a driver, looking for a job) and negotiate a salary that you feel compensates you for the fact that job is a roller-coaster of no-work-days and long-ass-days, then that's on you.
Whether or not shipping is or is part of the distribution process depends a lot on whether the company does its own trucking and related distribution chores, or pays distributors to do that.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, you fail to understand the concept of insurance.
What? If we DID have the "concept of insurance" in play, EVERYBODY would be paying (a fairly modest amount), so that when something catastrophic happens, everybody has the financial resources to weather that broken femur, etc. But that's not what the ACA is. It's a huge tax paid by only of the people, with the benefits given to a different group of people. It's an ongoing transfer of one person's daily work to another person's consumption of expensive services. It's nothing at ALL like insurance when tens of millions of people are told they get all of the benefits without carrying the same share of the burden. You may understand insurance, but you totally fail to understand that the ACA isn't about insurance, it's about a giant new entitlement program from which the group that gets the output isn't the group that has to pay for it.
And there's not a single case out there of a 60 year old woman giving birth to a child?
So, millions and millions of 60 year old women should have to pay hundreds of dollars more a month to cover the possibility that, post-menopause, despite being essentially unable to conceive, there is a tiny, tiny chance that they will get pregnant AND want to carry the pregnancy to term? Are you even listening to yourself? All of those people should have to cough up so much cash every month that they are budgeted OUT of being able to afford the actual health care appropriate to a 60 year old person, so they can have complete coverage for a one in a billion event? If this is how you're thinking about the situation, please don't do anything dangerous to other people, like voting.
Most schools are paid for using property taxes levied from the areas where the schools operate. If you don't want to pay the property tax burden that includes that, live on property in a different jurisdiction, or move to a place that funds them differently, etc. But with Obamacare, you have a federal mandate forcing you to buy a service. If you are a 60 year old nun, you're still having to buy an insurance plan that guarantees you'll have your next childbirth covered. Absurd.
My parents saved up the money to cover the costs of the birth and the time away from work needed to make it all happen. They carried simple catastrophic insurance just in case something way horribly wrong. Nobody is allowed to do that anymore. But if you're not in the solid middle class, it's OK, have all the babies you want - someone else will actually pay for all of that for you, or end up having to answer to the IRS, courtesy of the Democrats.
Right, why should men have to subsidize maternity care? Why should women have to subsidize prostate exams? hint: that's how insurance pools work.
So, the pool of people who are planning to have kids should pay for itself. There are millions of them. The pool of people who are biologically incapable of having kids are at zero risk of incurring that cost, and shouldn't pay for the risk of an occurrence that cannot happen. Women who cannot have children are not in the pool of women who will experience the cost giving birth. Are you foggy on that, somehow?
Sounds like you should have just gone with the "no coverage" option.
But you've just been explaining to me how affordable and reasonable and good it all is. Why the change of heart?
We have a plan for two people. Our state approved, ACA-mandated plan has a deductible of $13,100 - just for two people. Add children to that, and you're quickly much higher. That is NOT catastrophic insurance (on paper, anyway) - it's the Obamacare law that requires (say, in our case) people in their 50's to pay for full maternity insurance, drug treatment and mental health coverage whether we need or want it. There is zero chance of us having a baby now or in the future. Why are we required to buy coverage for that? Because the Democrats decided to charge a tax, and that's how they disguised it.
Our rates have gone up over 50% per year every year since the ACA went into effect. Up 70% for 2017, and government says they expect next year (2018) to see another increase of close to 90% again. That's how they get around the "out of pocket" limits - by hugely increasing the monthly premiums, which are VERY MUCH out of pocket, but which don't get you a dime of actual health care. And no, "preventative care" is not covered. You get things like simple blood tests one a year (for which you pay part of the visit, and the lab costs), but of course no treatment of any kind - preventative or otherwise - is ever included in that. The ONLY thing that would be completely covered without requiring the deductible, is child birth. How's that for hilarious.
Nope instead your insurance premiums will continue to cover other people's bills. You know, since that's how all insurance works.
But that's not how Obamacare works, at least not for millions of middle-class people who are self employed or run small businesses and actually have to write a check every month. Their premiums have gone up hundreds of percent, and many no longer have the cash to go visit the doctor ... but because a small family might have a deductible of $20,000 ... they get no healthcare unless it's catastrophic, and they're still wiped out. For millions of people who WERE buying insurance and able to write a check to the doctor, they no longer can. The ACA is the Healthcare Prevention Act, but it certainly does work as the Democrats intended - a massive new tax that distributes middle class income to other people to buy votes.
WTF?!? Russia is small!?!? It's the largest country in the world by far!
Sure, if you're looking at it from the childish perspective that acres of dirt (and snow) make up "a country." That's not what matters. Population, economic power, international trade, energy self-sufficiency, the ability to defend borders, and so on ... those are the things that make up a country, and contribute to how you measure whether or not one is large or small. Previously, the Russians made themselves (temporarily, in a short-lived illusion) "larger" by being willing to slaughter (or allow to die) untold millions of people and take over other countries as they built the creaky Soviet empire. They are now a "small" country in the scheme of things, which is why Putin is once again pushing into other territories.
engineers in India's tech hub cost 13 times less than their Silicon Valley counterparts
So, the engineers in Silicon Valley cost less than somewhere else, but the ones in India are thirteen times MORE less expensive than the ones in SV? Or are we supposed to gather that the SV engineers cost something that we should all consider a good baseline, but that the Indian engineers cost roughly 8% of that amount?
Lazy writers, being lazy.
Kitchen knife use case #1: Kill insufficiently Muslim heathens working for the oppressive British Government! (this use case was seen just the other day)
Kitchen knife use case #2: Make a sandwich. (this use case also seen just the other day)
Maybe you don't have the problem. But, for example, a city here in our state has been known to have a problem with "protesters" deciding that they're going to fix the problems with the culture in their local neighborhood by smashing the few remaining businesses in that neighborhood and burning the houses of the few little old ladies who haven't already decided they'd be safer living elsewhere as a homeless street person than in the middle of place like that.
The cops are too scared to even attempt to mitigate all of that violence and destruction unless they have function physical protection while trying to push a mob of looting arsonists away from the stores they're trying to destory. A tool that helps them to do that is a good thing. If somebody has a problem with the fact that a politician with the wrong idea about things might use such a tool to chase away people who aren't being violent and destructive, then they need to vote for different politicians. In the meantime, recognize the fact that there actually ARE violent, destructive herds of "protesters" who actually do get together to destroy and smash and steal things, and that it's absurd to tell a police officer to risk being, say, burned alive or having her head caved in to try to repel looters. A tool is a tool. There are always going to be outlandish or absurd use cases. If there is NO good use case (say... police batons with spikes on them?) then of course the tool is worth ridiculing. Giving cops a tool to protect themselves while preserving others' lives and property is a good thing. Misusing it is a bad thing, but that's true of cop cars and every other tool they've always had.
Well, you're just wrong. I've personally watched inventory shrinkage drop into the measurement noise with the introduction of technology-based tools that catch the people who steal - because other employees understand there are consequences.
Yes, it's a shame that throughout all of human history and in every level of society and income, some people like to steal stuff. Someone who is trying to make a living running a business and who has to make payroll every week and keep customers happy won't usually have a lot of luck changing human nature. Now, I know that you've personally solved these human nature problems in your own area, and no longer feel any need to lock your doors or in any way look after your personal safety, because you've fixed everybody that you might encounter or who might want your stuff.
Yes, people stealing things IS a problem. And taking measures to stop it from happening to you isn't irrational. Yes, more parents should raise kids that have some sort of moral compass and which are educated and motivated enough to go out and create things so that they can trade the fruit of their labors for the stuff they want, instead of stealing it. Your notion that it's wrong-headed to use convenient tools to help deal with the fact that there are lots of people out there who DO find it easier (or even, in some cases, more entertaining) to steal stuff than buy it - never mind, I realize that you're trolling. Silly me.
Ah, spoken like a person who has indeed never seen a new hire in their first week pocketing merchandise or participating in a phony return/credit scam. Grow up.
Why would you run a business without an insurance?
Who suggested that? But why would pay far more for your insurance than you need to? You can hugely mitigate those costs by having a decent security system. Which you know, but are pretending you don't.
Give them a decent paycheck so they actually have something to lose if they get fired?
Yep, you've never actually worked in such an environment, have you? I've seen people making six figures who steal routinely $20 stuff from their employers. I've seen well paid general managers of grocery stores stealing steaks. I've seen IT directors who drive Teslas but who still pocket RAM sticks from the lab.
You'll understand when you start working.
Here's an idea for you:
1) Start a retail business.
2) Get robbed by someone who walks in the front door. Or,
3) Have one of your employees attack another one. Or,
4) Have one of your employees get hooked on heroin and start to steal your inventory.
I'm guessing your solution to getting to the bottom of such things is to hire people to stand around watching everything so they can testify based on their recollections of events later, in a trial. Because you sure wouldn't want what happens on your own property with your own inventory with your the people you pay money to be there doing things to be recorded. Until you really, really do because real life is different when you start paying a fortune in insurance as part of running a business. Or find yourself in court. Or are running out of money because of inventory shrinkage, or have to know which of your very good employees is totally innocent of what one of your rotten employees has been setting them up to look guilty for.
But yeah, I can see why you'd advocate violence against a vendor offering a service you can choose to ignore if it's not useful to you.
The people who "got" health insurance from the ACA, if they're not dirt poor, DID NOT GET HEALTH INSURANCE. They got miserably high premiums they can barely afford, and are left with so little cash each month that they can no longer afford to go see the doctor. And no, the insurance they're now paying a fortune for doesn't help with that, because a small family has a deductible pushing $20,000. So they are legally required to spend a couple thousand dollars a month on insurance they can't use, and have no cash left with which to buy the services of a doctor. Meanwhile, people who don't pay for anything "got insurance" and are being subsidized by the middle class people who effectively had their ability to see a doctor taken away.
The ACA is a terrible piece of law, and was meant by the Democrats to be just that from the beginning. And it's now imploding. I'm glad yesterday's vote got pulled. The current disaster remains under the ownership of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi.
Don't want fraudulent items, make them in your own country.
You're either a (lame) troll, or utterly clueless about how quickly knock-offs are created based on nothing more than things like product photos on the designer's web site. All a knock-off company has to do is place an order for an item (and return it, later - free access!) in order to inspect it closely enough to make a sellable ripoff version. No, not every knock off (or even most of them) is made by scam artists at the factory making the original, and brand owners are increasingly able to police that since that practice became more prevalent over the last few years.
What about it? Shown to be a giant nothing-burger. It was provisioned for a third party vendor's use in generating outbound marketing mail, and was left to rot. Read up. There's no there, there.
while cutting Meals on Wheels
This is Fake News, which you know. So, the question is, why are you lying about it? It's something that's so easily debunked that you have to know anyone well-informed will know you're lying - so why do it? Which low-information audience are you taking to, and what do you think you're going to persuade them to do as they take onboard the false narrative you're trying to sell? Really - I'm curious. What's your purpose?
Whatever was the problem with Clinton was surely of much lesser magnitude than Trump's people having secret dealing with foreign state entities.
What? So, Hillary Clinton and her husband personally rake in millions of dollars selling access to foreign dictators, and she conducts all of her correspondence on a server in her house in order to avoid FOIA scrutiny of her conduct in such matters, and then fails to turn over her records as she left office (as required by law), and the foot-drags for years and even destroys records while under subpoena ... all while continuing to soak up cash from overseas businesses and governments in anticipation of getting the presidential crown to which she felt entitled ... and you're saying that's not as bad as some imaginary conduct by someone associated with the Trump campaign having done something that Obama's own DNI and other officials have said they've seen absolutely no evidence to suspect happened.
In the week before the election, he notified congress that a separate criminal investigation DID turn up new evidence related to the investigation of Clinton's mishandling of classified information. Why was it new evidence? Because Clinton and her aides (who had been granted immunity) said they had already turned over every scrap of data or device containing any record of the emails that Clinton handled from the internet-connected server she ran out of her house. This wan't true, of course. They had NOT turned over all of that data, or the devices on which it was stored. Because Clinton's closest aide had hundreds of thousands of such records on a laptop in her home - something that didn't come to light until the investigation into her husband's criminal activity exposed that fact. The FBI told congress about this, because congress was in the middle of investigations that relied on the FBI providing them with all such information, and the FBI - which had taken Clinton at her word that all such material had been turned over - suddenly found themselves with hundreds of thousand of new records to sort through, some of which might indeed cover some of the material that Clinto had destroyed while under subpoena. You don't think that matters? Or more to the point, you so wish it weren't the case that you're willing to try to lie it away from having happened?
And never told anyone they were investigating Trump.
Gee, I wonder why? Maybe it's because they WEREN'T "investigating Trump" at the time, and still aren't. They're investigating the manner and degree to which the Russians tried to influence public opinion during the election, and owing to political pressure, are including in that investigation whether or not individuals "associated with the campaign" had anything to do with such activity. They've also said, more than once, that they've seen no evidence at all that indicated any such thing. So what is it exactly that you're thinking they were supposed to disclose? They have nothing to show because they haven't seen anything - unlike in the Clinton case, where they had abundant evidence of her repeatedly lying, destroying evidence, and more. They pointed out that they weren't going to be able to get the Obama administration to prosecute the case, though they did say that if had been anyone else (besides Clinton) things would have been handled differently. I know, you're really trying to wish all of that away.
What the FBI says they're investigating is Russian attempts to interfere with the election. This includes investigating whether or not anyone associated with the Trump campaign did or did not have any involvement with such Russian efforts. And Comey has repeatedly gone to great lengths to point out that he can't talk about which individual people are or aren't reviewed as part of that investigation into Russia's actions. At no point have they said what the OP's headline implies - that they're "investigating the Trump campaign."
The hearing, on the other hand, HAS spent a lot more time examining the circumstances under which someone working on the Obama administration's watch committed the serious federal felony of publicly disclosing the details of surveillance that swept up the conversations of a US citizen - identification of which should have remained "masked," and which could only have been unmasked by high-level officials within the Obama administration. The FBI says they are vigorously pursuing who committed that felony.
Yes, it's called contract law. If the employer or the employee don't do what was agreed to, the courts are there to provide backup muscle for the consequences of breaching that contract. That's different than a law that says those two parties shouldn't be allowed agree on what it means to be a truck driver serving the particular needs of that employer under terms that the driver is ready to agree to and take money for.
No, you should get whatever you and the person paying agree should be the compensation - in the form, and on the schedule and terms that you both agree to. It doesn't need to get any more complicated than that. If the contract spells out overtime and and the employee can show breech of that contract, then it's lawyer time. If the contract makes it clear that people like employees doing long-haul trucking aren't paid overtime, then it really should be that simple. If you don't take that into account (as a driver, looking for a job) and negotiate a salary that you feel compensates you for the fact that job is a roller-coaster of no-work-days and long-ass-days, then that's on you.
Whether or not shipping is or is part of the distribution process depends a lot on whether the company does its own trucking and related distribution chores, or pays distributors to do that.