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.

 

AOC’s inspiration failed as solar company fires all employees after they unionized

page: 5
37
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Yet another example... diesel trucks get slightly better efficiency on level ground at 55 mph than at 65 mph. Slightly better, but not much. The adverse part of slowing the speed limits on trucks is two-fold: you just introduced a speed differential between traffic which can and does lead to an increase in accidents, and over mountainous terrain the truck actually can get much better mileage at 65 mph than at 55. The constant change in load requirements to pull and then descend hills means that the truck limited to 55 mph will have to downshift to climb hills because it cannot build enough momentum during the descent to make the climb without doing so. Yet, I can point you to very mountainous areas right now where the speed limit is 65, but 55 for trucks, and it was implemented based on EPA recommendations for decreasing pollution from diesel fuel.

I'm not sure how burning 25+% more fuel trying to climb hills slowly and creating traffic hazards in the process is helping the environment, but according to the EPA it is and they'll fine the crap out of you if caught speeding down a hill.

OOIDA (an independent truck drivers' union of sorts) regularly lobbies government agencies to try and maintain fairness in the regulations. They are constantly battling groups who simply want to stop all truck traffic, often because someone's child was injured or killed in a collision with a truck they caused. Without OOIDA, the industry would be in more turmoil than it is right now, and certain areas would literally be doing without some products (at one time, parts of Minnesota passed a law against reefers - refrigerated trailers - operating while the driver was not actively driving, which made ice cream delivery almost impossible; OOIDA got it repealed). If we did not have industry representation talking to Congressmen, this country would be much worse off than it is right now.

TheRedneck




posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
I want to make sure I understand you here... you are saying that it should not be illegal for one person to act as a representative for the group, but it should be illegal for them to not pay for the whole trip themselves?

If so, it's going to be hard to find anyone who is willing to act as a representative.

Exactly. As it should be.


Excuse me, but the exercise of rights cannot be denied by law. If they can be, they were not rights to start with.

Now you get it. Lobbying is not a Right, it is a privilege.


But, again, all Congressmen are involved in regulating all industries, by definition.

Good. That means they cannot engage in lobbying. Goal achieved.


How will you word the law to not apply to all lobbying by all former Congressmen?

All former Congress persons will have the Right to petition for redress of grievances personally - just not on behalf of some commercial entity/entities.


"Not in some cases."

Can you provide links to these exceptions?

Like these?


Enumerated Constitutional rights are not privileges. The First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

Commercial lobbying by former Congress critters doesn't fall into any of those categories.


People have the right to contact their Congressional Representatives and Senators in order to promote their positions and complain about situations they consider improper or unfair.

Yes, they do, including all former Congress critters.

But that bears no relation to commercial lobbying.



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl


"I want to make sure I understand you here... you are saying that it should not be illegal for one person to act as a representative for the group, but it should be illegal for them to not pay for the whole trip themselves?

If so, it's going to be hard to find anyone who is willing to act as a representative.
"

Exactly. As it should be.

No. You are talking about a roundabout way of restricting a right. In the situation I described, there is no profit fro the representative who is doing the actual lobbying, but there is payment by others whom the representative is also representing.

There is your problem and the reason we cannot find agreement: no law may be passed that infringes upon a Constitutional right of a US citizen. That is the basis of our legal system and I cannot and will not condone throwing away that basis over a situation that has other answers.


Now you get it. Lobbying is not a Right, it is a privilege.

Oh, but it is a right, and you just proved it. Read on.


Good. That means they cannot engage in lobbying. Goal achieved.

Removal of a Constitutional right is never "good."


All former Congress persons will have the Right to petition for redress of grievances personally - just not on behalf of some commercial entity/entities.

And if that former Congressman happens to agree with a company?


Like these?

Exactly like those. Thank you.

Now, let's read that link. Remember this part?

So, why don’t we just ban lobbying all together? Well, constitutionally, we can’t — and we shouldn’t have to.

Lobbying isn’t inherently evil. After all, a lobbyist is just a professional person hired to represent their client’s interests to an elected official. All kinds of groups, from major businesses to unions to nonprofits, pay for lobbyists.

The act of lobbying itself — that is, simply advocating a position to an elected official — is not the problem, and it’s actually protected by the First Amendment. Individuals and groups have every right to express their opinions to Congress about how proposed legislation might affect them and to try to convince lawmakers to take their side.

That is directly from the link you provided and it says the exact same thing I have been saying since we started this exchange. To be fair, I will include the remainder of that last paragraph:

The problem is that lobbyists routinely use money, favors, gifts, or lucrative job offers to do the convincing for them.

That I can also agree with, and were your position to eliminate that particular form of lobbying I would be in agreement. But it's not, and I'm not. Your position is to remove the right of anyone who has served in Congress from redressing the government of grievances - in essence removing a part of their citizenship through specific denial of Constitutional rights. I will never condone that.


Commercial lobbying by former Congress critters doesn't fall into any of those categories.

According to your link above, it does.


Yes, they do, including all former Congress critters.

But that bears no relation to commercial lobbying.

Then perhaps you should re-evaluate your use of words. Lobbying is simply meeting with and talking to Congressmen about issues important to you. Technically, if you have ever met an elected representative and asked him/her about an issue, you have lobbied. Commercial lobbying is simply lobbying in a commercial environment, and is little different that the right to be represented by counsel.

I have lobbied Congress. I have written to my Representative and Senators and have expressed a problem I have with current legislation. In many cases I doubt I did any good, but I did lobby Congress. I also used a thing of value to try and persuade them: my vote. I consider it valuable, and apparently so do they... they keep asking me for it.

Now, if you want to talk about some of the issues in your link, such as restricting lobbyists acting as a designated representative for others from organizing fundraisers, I might could get on board with that (based on the language of course). I'm not in favor of large corporations using undue influence either. I just don't see where giving up more rights to correct the issue is the right answer.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96




$56 an hour PLUS benefits.

LOL. talk about effing GREED.


Meh. That's close to a decent salary for an electrical engineer in my neck of the woods. And I don't think laying off a bunch of people over peanuts counts as an argument against unions, this isn't how that works. It's the other way around, actually.

Talking about the disconnect from working class people, eh? Oh, the irony...

Funny thread. It's always the same with the predictably greedy kinda capitalists, all they need is someone handing them a rope to hang themselves with. You need another piece of hemp? Buy two for the price of one!




posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Color me surprised. I would have thought there was a law against this, particularly in a Democrat jurisdiction like NY. Weird deal that.



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion


That's close to a decent salary for an electrical engineer in my neck of the woods.

Yeah, about right. Wages here start at close to $60 an hour for engineers with experience. Was everybody electrical engineers that demanded this wage? I have never heard of a company that only hired engineers, and that includes engineering companies.


And I don't think laying off a bunch of people over peanuts counts as an argument against unions, this isn't how that works. It's the other way around, actually.

Didn't work the other way around this time, did it?

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: neo96




$56 an hour PLUS benefits.

LOL. talk about effing GREED.


Meh. That's close to a decent salary for an electrical engineer in my neck of the woods. And I don't think laying off a bunch of people over peanuts counts as an argument against unions, this isn't how that works. It's the other way around, actually.

Talking about the disconnect from working class people, eh? Oh, the irony...

Funny thread. It's always the same with the predictably greedy kinda capitalists, all they need is someone handing them a rope to hang themselves with. You need another piece of hemp? Buy two for the price of one!



Right. I mean what are we really talking about here? Largely it’s the working class people, who spend 100% of their income, generally fighting to maintain the percentage of profit they create that they get from year to year on one side, and called lazy and greedy.

On the other it’s the execs, shareholders, owners etc who arbitrarily allocate themselves a larger distribution of the profits that others create every year. Often making more than they can spend (of other peoples created profit). And they are lauded as the heroes of the story.



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: PublicOpinion


That's close to a decent salary for an electrical engineer in my neck of the woods.

Yeah, about right. Wages here start at close to $60 an hour for engineers with experience. Was everybody electrical engineers that demanded this wage? I have never heard of a company that only hired engineers, and that includes engineering companies.


And I don't think laying off a bunch of people over peanuts counts as an argument against unions, this isn't how that works. It's the other way around, actually.

Didn't work the other way around this time, did it?

TheRedneck

No, because all businesses try union busting. It’s no surprise. But if everyone just stopped unionizing and fighting, wages would drop all around.

At any rate; the workers (12 of them that were fired) were all paid at or just above the local minimum wage of $15 an hour. The $58 an hour they were asking for was the area’s minimum wage for electricians working on government projects in New York City, and is implemented in most union workshops as well. So it’s apparently the going minimum rate for their particular field.



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Moin Red!

Define "didn't work" when we have the more desperate rightwingers spreading AOC's policies, and capitalists acting like capitalists to press her points? The workers are fcked either way. So much for MAGA when the profit margins shrink away in case you don't exploit cheap labor and lax regulations. Who knew?
Germany had lotta solar tech companies as well, a while ago. Guess we'll all meet in China one day to buy a slice of bread. Cuz... ya know, the production costs will be too damnd high...

However. Look, over there! A socialist to blame for greedy unions. Noice!






posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 03:25 PM
link   
And apparently, upon perusal of this particular case, their primary concern wasn’t even the pay. It was the companies coercion to operate in unsafe ways and conditions which caused serious injury to 3 of the workers over the last year. The pay was a standard part of the specific union contract presented by the organization they joined.



posted on Dec, 6 2019 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Unions can be beneficial to a company IF and only IF they partner with the company. If it is an attempt to suck more pay and benefits out of the company than it can sustain, the company will fail or at least have a hard time competing in the market. If they are willing to invest and look at options to cut costs while benefiting everyone, great things can happen.



posted on Dec, 6 2019 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: pexx421


No, because all businesses try union busting. It’s no surprise. But if everyone just stopped unionizing and fighting, wages would drop all around.

Yes, that's called "capitalism." It's an adversarial economic system by definition.

You do the same thing. So do I. I doubt either of us decide to buy something, then shop around for the highest price. Why would you expect a business to do otherwise? They try to minimize their costs to maximize profit, just as everyone does.

When the greedy criticize the greedy for being too greedy, it just doesn't make that much of an impact.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 6 2019 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion


Moin Red!

Morning. Sorry about the delay... thread got lost.


Define "didn't work" when we have the more desperate rightwingers spreading AOC's policies, and capitalists acting like capitalists to press her points? The workers are fcked either way. So much for MAGA when the profit margins shrink away in case you don't exploit cheap labor and lax regulations. Who knew?
Germany had lotta solar tech companies as well, a while ago. Guess we'll all meet in China one day to buy a slice of bread. Cuz... ya know, the production costs will be too damnd high...

"Didn't work" as in all the workers are no longer employed. They're making $0 an hour now.

Anyone who will not take the time to protect their own self interests in any capitalist system is screwed. That's just a fact. Companies will not, cannot, sell goods and services for less than it costs them to produce... that's another fact. If the cost to produce is too high, the price for the product or service is too high and people won't be buying, causing the business to close, because people are just as greedy. Yet another fact.

No one yet has come up with a working economic system that is not adversarial and relies on capitalistic principles. If you can do so, you'll get a Nobel prize.


However. Look, over there! A socialist to blame for greedy unions. Noice!

Hey, look over there! Someone who is ignoring the fact that the person he's talking about has never supported pure capitalism. Nice!

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 6 2019 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: AllBiz


Unions can be beneficial to a company IF and only IF they partner with the company. If it is an attempt to suck more pay and benefits out of the company than it can sustain, the company will fail or at least have a hard time competing in the market. If they are willing to invest and look at options to cut costs while benefiting everyone, great things can happen.

Requoted for truth.

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join