It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump Names Andrew Puzder , CEO of Hardee's and Carl's Jr. as Labor Secretary

page: 2
15
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: reldra

What is your objection to this guy being the Labor Secretary?


Trump picked him. Duh.


You will fit right in with the new state of the country.




posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Hefficide

So you're saying that a CEO of a corporation that employs tens of thousands of people knows nothing about labor issues other than minimum wage?


I didn't say any of that. You did. What I did say is that Andrew Pudzer is an active critic of issues regarding the minimum wage - which is a politically hot button issue.

In fact other than being the CEO of CKE - it's what he is known most for.




You do know that the Department of Labor does much more than just mandate what private companies should pay their employees, right?


Yes.



The purpose of the Department of Labor is to foster, promote, and develop the welfare of the wage earners, job seekers, and retirees of the United States; improve working conditions; advance opportunities for profitable employment; and assure work-related benefits and rights. In carrying out this mission, the Department of Labor administers and enforces more than 180 federal laws and thousands of federal regulations. These mandates and the regulations that implement them cover many workplace activities for about 10 million employers and 125 million workers.


Source

Just as I know that asking the wolf to guard the hen house - while apparently appealing to some - isn't very condusive to the welfare of the chickens.




I hope that you are just being flippant about this, but when the OP tells you that you make a good point, it concerns me.


Rather than assuming me flippant - you may want to research President Elect Trumps picks thus far - as they fit the pattern described. You could start with DeVos, Secretary of Education, and her crusade against public education. Then maybe move on to Scott Pruitt- a climate change denier who will be in charge of the EPA.

The game is glaringly obvious.




I hope that other threads about this topic don't get shut down because this one already exists--that'd be a waste of what could actually be a good thread on this topic.


Opinion noted but not relevant to anything we're discussing.


edit on 12/8/16 by Hefficide because: repaired ex tags



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 03:10 PM
link   
It is an epic understatement to stay I was hoping for better. You cannot rebuild the middle class on service sector jobs. Im not sure what this individuals experience brings to bear in our country, other than helping to squash minimum wage increases (which is a small silver lining, i guess).

I don't know the guy. Or his experience. So im pulling this outta my ass here based on his industry. But this doesn't bode well for labor in the US.

Side note: much more push against labor and I expect the 2 parties to fracture to create a 3rd Labor Party. Its been the great unspoken voice for so long.....



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Urantia1111
a reply to: SlapMonkey

He just means that they should pay someone $31k a year to not be able to calculate correct change.


How ever would I have known what I mean if you weren't around to put the words into my mouth? Thank you!



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 03:15 PM
link   
At this rate I nominate mike judge for presidential speechwriter



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide

Or like putting Linda McMahon in charge of small businesses?



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Simple questions for anyone willing to answer:

- is this pick an obvious attack on the minimum wage?
- is maintaining a low, or removing entirely, minimum wage seem in line with Trumps business interests?


And the only question that matters in the big picture:

- is it smarter to continue raising the minimum wage, or to prevent the steady devaluation in the dollar that not only drives these periodic minimum wage talks, but also makes saving for a retirement a race against inflation? Especially considering our SS and retirement dilemma?

We all argue over the wrong questions, folks. And the answers are so simple, even a gorilla can figure them out.



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 03:29 PM
link   
CRAZY I just joined ATS yesterday, And in my introduction thread I made this exact reference.... Check it out

I'm at a loss for words



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

We call it jobs for the boys over here.


USA PLC



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I think it is an attack on the minimum wage, which has not kept up with the cost of living.



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

"Not kept up with the cost of living" is a different way of saying, "The dollar is rotting slowly and is a shadow of what it was when todays retiree's first starting saving for retirement".

The minimum wage increase is a band aid meant to cover up this fact. Same as "cost of living" increases for SS recipients. The dollar rots and loses purchasing power against real goods.

How does this happen? Our government has enlisted a system known as "Keynsian Economics" to guide our economy. Add to this the wholesale export of our currency via corporate trusts and offshore accounts (at least $21 trillion hidden away in tax havens), Foreign nationals on work visa's, and illegal aliens not on work visas.

All the partisan bickering aside, our federal government has 3 primary jobs:

- protect our borders (fail)
- protect our currency (fail)
- protect our markets (major fail)

And that is the "meat and potatoes" that we just don't talk about. The basics, which are consistently failed at, and which then take billions in bandaid's to cover up.



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: reldra

What is your objection to this guy being the Labor Secretary?


Trump picked him. Duh.


Exactly... I guess that's why I didn't get an answer before you.



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide

I'm not assuming that you're being flippant, the tone of your post supports that claim. Maybe I'm mistaken and read into it incorrectly--hard to know the tone when it's just letters.

But, since you assert that I am mistaken, let's run with that. What is wrong with a president elect appointing people into positions opposed to some of the policies of the organization that they will run if the president elect is also opposed to those same policies? Just because Puzder is opposed to a federally mandated minimum wage does not mean that this is the only metric by which we should judge his qualification, nor is it necessarily his only focus concerning the Dept. of Labor. It seems to me that you're cherry picking this point, as neither you nor I (nor Reldra, who seems to be starting a series of snarky threads concerning these appointments) are not privy to what his specific goals will be during his charge of the DoL.

Secondly, there are MANY people who hold views that oppose the direction that the EPA or the DoE are heading, and would like to see some of the policies and directives halted and possibly reversed (basically, reducing the heavy hand of central government). Just because that goal might oppose your desires, or the desires of someone else, or may not match the ideological belief as to how those organizations should be run does not make the appointments tantamount to giving the wolf the watch over the hen house. That is hyperbole based on zero evidence as to how the departments will be changed in the future--it's fear mongering, and it's a tiresome game that is glaringly obvious.

For the record, I'm keeping close tabs as to who he is appointing in most of the larger cabinet positions, and yes, it appears that there is a goal in mind, but not everyone considers that goal to be a bad one. There are numerous federal agencies that I could point to and easily say that we can do without at the federal level. Sometimes no one needs to guard the hen house when the hen house is unnecessary or has been destroyed and needs rebuilding.



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   
The man has experience with law and experience turning two failing companies away from bankruptcies. "Hardee's ,Carl's Jr."

He's a solid choice.
Some may not like his politics but that will always be the case.



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

While you can count me in the "very suspicious of Trump" camp, your last point is a good one: many positions Trump will fill are wholly unnecessary and should be abolished. Dept of Education is top on the list, but the DEA and BATF rank pretty high. Throw the DHS and their little minions on the pile, too.

A major problem we have is that so many citizens are employed by the federal government.



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: reldra

"Not kept up with the cost of living" is a different way of saying, "The dollar is rotting slowly and is a shadow of what it was when todays retiree's first starting saving for retirement".

The minimum wage increase is a band aid meant to cover up this fact. Same as "cost of living" increases for SS recipients. The dollar rots and loses purchasing power against real goods.



That's how I feel about it, too. The cost of living increases so people want more money to cover their expenses (the bandaid you spoke about), which in turn causes the cost of living to go up even more. It's like a never ending cycle that we don't know how to, or simply refuse to stop. I honestly don't have an answer other than dropping the price of EVERYTHING across the country by, say, 10% or so. But I'm not an economist so I don't know how that would effect us all.

I miss the days when Wrigley gum was 25¢ a pack and gas was 78¢ per gallon (1998) for regular unleaded. $5.27 would get me anywhere I needed to go on a weekend date.



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: LSU0408

It works to our benefit, that is for sure. Take out a loan for $1 trillion, print cash like crazy and devalue the dollar, pay that trillion back at 70% valuation to what was actually borrowed.

All you have to do is keep the downward slide on par with interest and you essentially got an interest free loan (or better).

Just to throw out a scenario that played out recently with China.

ETA: the real kicker is that most consumers don't realize the decrease in value. That peanut butter jar that has the enormous hump in the bottom. The boxed goods that are slimmer and shorter. The bagged goods that just have more empty space inside. Reeses cups are smaller. Hershey's uses a cheaper formula. The degradation in value to the consumer almost goes unnoticed, if you aren't nearly obsessed with observing it.
edit on 12/8/2016 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Welcome to 'Murica I love you.



edit on 8-12-2016 by NarcolepticBuddha because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 05:26 PM
link   
I read the title of the thread and was going to immediately say it sounded like "Idiocracy" that comedy movie that has now morphed into a documentary...

The OP beat me to it...



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Call me a crazy conspiracy theorist but....

Trump putting all these corporate ceo's into positions of authority everywhere is not going to be for the benefit of the little people, it's going to be for the benefit of corporate interests.

There are plenty of intelligent, highly educated, non-politically linked, non-financial establishment associated people in the US that would be more than capable of filling these positions... So why is he choosing to go with all these politically linked corporate associates instead ?



Things that make you go "hmmmm".




edit on 8-12-2016 by CranialSponge because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
15
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join