[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Politely, it's because you don't know what you're talking about. You're putting things in the Canadian context, not the American context. This is the American politics thread, so if you don't understand the content - politely - shove off. You don't see Americans sticking their noses in your Alberta or Canadian politics threads and telling you how wrong you have things, because the context is foreign to us. Maybe consider the same or at least respect what Americans are telling you about the society we live in, right or wrong?



Again, context matters here. The American take on unions is much different to the Canadian take on unions, so if this is something foreign to you, maybe observe and keep your Canadian context comments to yourself as they are NOT applicable?



Thank you, Counsellor. Are you aware of 42 U.S. Code § 5195c - Critical infrastructures protection? Saint Reagan made sure that critical infrastructure was subject to intervention from the federal level and could override the collective bargaining mechanisms when it came to associated collective bargaining. Unions that deal with critical infrastructure are subject to dissolution at the drop of a hat, thanks to the air traffic controllers strike of 1981. You may not like it, or appreciate it, but it is the way the country and the legal system accepts it, even if it appears to be a complete conflict with the 1st ammendment.



Clearly this is something you didn't know existed. In the United States this is actually the preferred state because people can then leverage the sick days as days off if they don't use them. In the Canadian context, if you don't use them, you lose them. In this context you have the option of carrying them over to a max. This is much more attractive to most Americans, believe it or not. Again, they are very different from Canadians and view these benefits very differently. Just like healthcare benefits. Americans would NEVER accept a Canadian system of socialized medicine, even if provided great benefit to them. That's just the American way. Accept it, because the vast majority of Americans have accepted it and will fight for it.

So effectively, you're arguing that because a portion of your population enjoys rolling PTO (while most low and middle income workers don't receive it at all), this is an "institutional cultural difference" and must be respected by dint that Americans love their working poor staying poor?

God bless America.