American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

And why do these unions stay in place?

Because the majority of their membership sees the benefit of being unionized and as a result aren’t going to voluntarily give up that benefit.

I assume it's because you can't just break them by leaving them on a picket line forever but I'd defer to you.

Depending on the jurisdiction that’s one option, but it’s a very costly option and one that doesn’t guarantee permanently having a non-union workforce.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Is it possible for you guys to your points without the corporate lackey, bootlicker name calling? It makes it hard to take you seriously.

If the shoe fits. Buttigieg's entire tenure as Transportation has basically been carrying water for corporations. Really his entire career going back to McKinsey.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by rubecube

If the shoe fits. Buttigieg's entire tenure as Transportation has basically been carrying water for corporations. Really his entire career going back to McKinsey.

Stop calling a spade a spade rube! It’s much harder to rail (hehe) against the unions when you make the people trying to crush them sound as bad as they actually are.

If you could start using softer euphemistic language it’d be swell.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by rubecube

If the shoe fits. Buttigieg's entire tenure as Transportation has basically been carrying water for corporations. Really his entire career going back to McKinsey.

I know the progressives schtick is to paint him that way, but is there really anything to back up that he did anything at McKinsey that made him this pro-corporate/anti-worker monster? Just saying it over and over and giving him nicknames doesn't make it fact.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I know the progressives schtick is to paint him that way, but is there really anything to back up that he did anything at McKinsey that made him this pro-corporate/anti-worker monster? Just saying it over and over and giving him nicknames doesn't make it fact.

Yes, everything he did + his career since. We’ve already covered this.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Yes, everything he did + his career since. We’ve already covered this.

Such as what? I think everything he was accused of doing at Mckinsey was basically debunked. Or just simply working there as an early career job disqualifies someone from government forever?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Such as what? I think everything he was accused of doing at Mckinsey was basically debunked. Or just simply working there as an early career job disqualifies someone from government forever?

You’re the one calling him a monster and saying he’s diss qualified from government. Makes it hard to take you seriously when you reframe posts like that.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

It's pretty ####ed up that people arguing that the position and role is so absolutely essential to the economy that tons of people would be turbo####ed by a strike, are also arguing that people working said position don't deserve paid sick time.

Like, do you even listen to yourselves?

"Your role is too important to deserve basic workers rights." is some gigabrain ####

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?

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Do you get PTO and Sick time separate? I do. I also get way more than 10 PTO days a year. I also get Paternity/Parental leave.

I am not in a union. I do not have a job that can cripple the economy.

Why is it okay to take advantage of these workers? Because their work is labor-based?

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?

Originally Posted by Makarov

Obviously, any strike has negative consequences for the bargaining unit members, the employer, and all sorts of other affected people. In some cases, those negative consequences may be severe.

Is that a good enough reason to both (a) not recognize the right to collective bargaining as part of a constitutionally-protected right to freedom of association? and (b) to permit government infringe on that right without demonstrating a serious and proportionate justification for doing so?

Personally, I don't think so.

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.

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

This is crabs in a bucket ####.

A better world is possible. It's happening in other countries, you don't need to contest better working conditions for others because you settled for less.

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.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Because the majority of their membership sees the benefit of being unionized and as a result aren’t going to voluntarily give up that benefit.



Depending on the jurisdiction that’s one option, but it’s a very costly option and one that doesn’t guarantee permanently having a non-union workforce.

I'm sure that's true, but why do these particular unions last when so many others didn't is what I'm trying to get at? It's a legitimate question that I'm asking for expertise on... Not a gotcha.

[ripTDR]

Because it's easier to shut a small fast food/retail joint that wants to unionize than shutting a national piece of infrastructure. Simplistic take but you get the idea

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

I'm sure that's true, but why do these particular unions last when so many others didn't is what I'm trying to get at? It's a legitimate question that I'm asking for expertise on... Not a gotcha.

The short answer is bad policy that has made it more and more difficult for workers to form unions and keep their unions. These include things like weak to no protection against outsourcing of work to get rid of a union, right to work laws, little penalty for employer interference in union campaigns, etc…

[Snuffleupagus]

Noose must be starting to tighten on the idiot

Trump calls for the termination of the Constitution

[direwolf]

He just keeps going deeper and deeper into crazy town. What a lunatic.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Noose must be starting to tighten on the idiot

Trump calls for the termination of the Constitution

Originally Posted by direwolf

He just keeps going deeper and deeper into crazy town. What a lunatic.

And yet, the cowardly GOP still cower lest they attract his rage.

Sad...hard to believe that his base is that brainwashed...They fall back on platitudes like "oh, he's not serious about that"

Open your damn eyes - he is absolutely serious about this. He's floating up test balloons as a test of loyalty, but he'd damn well terminate the Constitution if it helps his shameless grasp for power.

its sickening.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

And yet, the cowardly GOP still cower lest they attract his rage.

Sad...hard to believe that his base is that brainwashed...They fall back on platitudes like "oh, he's not serious about that"

Open your damn eyes - he is absolutely serious about this. He's floating up test balloons as a test of loyalty, but he'd damn well terminate the Constitution if it helps his shameless grasp for power.

its sickening.

It's to stay out of jail, can't wait to see this moron in an orange jump suit.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

It's to stay out of jail, can't wait to see this moron in an orange jump suit.

I kind of expect he would flee the country and set up a 'government in exile' somewhere like Russia before he would actually accept going to jail.

[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.

[PsYcNeT]

"Actually, Americans love having large corporations boot on their neck, just not the government's."

[TheKiprusoffResurrection]

I wish rolling PTO was a thing in Canada, personally. I have worked FT for about 20 years now and have never used more than 2 sick days in a year. Every year I have 8-10 sick days that go unused and provide me with no benefit whatsoever.

Meanwhile a certain group of co-workers always manage to use up their entire allotment of sick days. Amazing how those people are sick exactly 10 working days each year! Not 9 and not 11.

In terms of both company productity and moral, rolling PTO makes alot of sense to me. Should I get two weeks less off per year because I refuse to pretend I'm sick?

And before someone jumps down my throat, yes, there are people who use those sick days for very valid reasons. But they appear to be few and far between as best I can tell.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

https://twitter.com/user/status/1598363768157016064

Sweating yet, Matt?

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/0...probe-00058617

However, signs of activity in the probe seemed to slow in recent months even as some predicted action in the case by the end of summer. Earlier this month, when the Justice Department entered into a pre-election quiet period for politically-charged investigations without any charges being brought, the chances of charges against Gaetz appeared to dim.

Charges are unlikely because they'll need a better witness than Greenburg