Apple and fraud

Post by **Cybrweez** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 2:29 pm

No, I think it only makes sense to those who value govt workers as people.

Post by **wayfriend** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 2:51 pm

I wish they didn't call it "right to work". Because they make it sound like it's a right to work. Pretty deceptive, and probably will come back to bite them.

Cail wrote:I'll just point out a few things .....

Recently I learned from watching Big Bang Theory what a Post Hoc Ergo Proctor Hoc falacy is.

Post by **Cail** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 4:15 pm

wayfriend wrote:
Cail wrote:I'll just point out a few things .....
Recently I learned from watching Big Bang Theory what a Post Hoc Ergo Proctor Hoc falacy is.

Apparently not.....

All I did was point out that right to work states aren't, in your words, "on it's way to being China".

Post by **Zarathustra** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 4:24 pm

Cybrweez wrote:No, I think it only makes sense to those who value govt workers as people.

Please tell me you're being a smartass.

Post by **Cybrweez** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 10:55 pm

Post by **Avatar** » Mon Jan 30, 2012 5:57 am

Cail wrote:You've apparently bought into the pro-union propaganda, as your example can happen in any state, regardless of law.

It's got nothing to do with pro-union propaganda, whatever that is. :LOLS:

I'm just not clear on exactly what this "right to work" is supposed to be.

I was under the impression that it had something to do with how easy or not it was to fire people.

Like, here, you can't just fire somebody. Except in cases with clear evidence of a contravention of your employment contract, there are procedures which need to be followed, and the employee has rights ensuring that they're not fired unfairly.

I've gotten the sense that the same is not true in the states, and discussing it in the past, I gathered (perhaps incorrectly) that it had to do with whether the state was "right to work" or not.

Maybe I have the wrong end of the stick here...

(Oh, and nobody can/should be forced to join a union.)

Z wrote:...then the fact that the government is the middle man who extracts the money isn't a significant distinction, IMO.

Course it is. If government plays along with them and decides to pay, they could cover that money from anywhere they wanted. Hell, if you ask me, they're complicit in laying the blame. "Oh, we don't want to take this money from you, but the unions have left us no choice..." Please.

--A

Post by **Rigel** » Mon Jan 30, 2012 7:19 am

Avatar wrote: I'm just not clear on exactly what this "right to work" is supposed to be.

I was under the impression that it had something to do with how easy or not it was to fire people.

What you're thinking of called "at will" employment here. It means that an employer can fire you at any time, and you can quit at any time, with or without a reason (you can quit "at will").

"Right to work" means you can't be required to join a union or pay union dues as a condition of employment. Conversely, if you refuse to join a union and pay union dues, the union can't demand that you be fired.

Post by **wayfriend** » Mon Jan 30, 2012 4:18 pm

There is no such thing as a right to work. Calling this other thing "right to work" is meant to make it seem more palatable than it is - in other words, to deceive. And it will backfire.

- - - - - - - -

Tennesee was notably in the news this morning. Seems that things are turning around, and the state has some extra money.

Now, the state workers, who's right to bargain has been outlawed by the state, have had their pay and benefits cut all throughout the state's financial crisis.

So now that the revenue is going upwards again, guess what the state is doing? Yep. Cutting taxes.

So this is a great demonstration of the need for collective bargaining: because when the state wants to cut your wages and benefits, budget problems are only a convenient excuse, and the real agenda is to gouge state workers.

Post by **Cail** » Mon Jan 30, 2012 5:49 pm

wayfriend wrote:There is no such thing as a right to work. Calling this other thing "right to work" is meant to make it seem more palatable than it is - in other words, to deceive. And it will backfire.

Who was it meant to deceive, and how will it backfire?

Right to work, in this context, means that you can't be forced to join a union. I thought choice was good?

Post by **aliantha** » Mon Jan 30, 2012 7:25 pm

wayfriend wrote:Tennesee was notably in the news this morning. Seems that things are turning around, and the state has some extra money.

I think I read recently (but can't find it now

) that revenue is up in all but two states -- one of which being Wisconsin. Can't remember the other one, which is why I wanted to find the article.

Post by **Zarathustra** » Mon Jan 30, 2012 9:32 pm

According to MSNBC, the proposed tax cuts for TN are $32 million, nearly half of which are a cut in taxes on groceries (seems a reasonable thing to do in a recession), with the other portion being a raise on the inheritance tax limit (which will provide fodder for "tax cuts for the rich" arguments). Together these tax cuts are only 5.7% of the $565 million increase in expected revenues.

For the sake of comparison, giving state workers a raise of only 1% would be $55.2 million. So the relief being given to tax payers wouldn't even pay for a 1% raise for public employees, but will help everyone with their grocery bill (including public employees).

Yes, the revenues are up, but they're still not at 2008 levels, and won't be for years.

Post by **wayfriend** » Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:25 pm

Still, TN is paying for vote-buying and gold-card-perks-for-the-1% on the backs of state workers.

If they had raised sales tax and estate tax to balance the budget, then there would be a good argument for restoring them now to the proper level.

Else ... you either think about the people who sacrificed to see you through the crisis ... or else you don't.

Of course, Tennesseeans may be of a mind to applaud the whole arrangement, what with being taught how lazy and thieving state workers actually are.

Post by **Cail** » Tue Jan 31, 2012 2:06 am

wayfriend wrote:Still, TN is paying for vote-buying and gold-card-perks-for-the-1% on the backs of state workers.

If they had raised sales tax and estate tax to balance the budget, then there would be a good argument for restoring them now to the proper level.

Else ... you either think about the people who sacrificed to see you through the crisis ... or else you don't.

Of course, Tennesseeans may be of a mind to applaud the whole arrangement, what with being taught how lazy and thieving state workers actually are.

Can you explain how a reduction in grocery taxes are a perk for 1%ers?

And can you address your previous accusations regarding deceptions and backfiring?

Post by **Avatar** » Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:00 am

Rigel wrote: What you're thinking of called "at will" employment here...

"Right to work" means you can't be required to join a union or pay union dues as a condition of employment...

Aha, thanks for the clarification Rigel.

Cail wrote:Right to work, in this context, means that you can't be forced to join a union. I thought choice was good?

Sounds fine to me.

Uh...does this mean that you have states where you can be forced to join a union?

Oh, and one last thing...yes, it's a confusing name for it at best.

--A

Post by **Rigel** » Tue Jan 31, 2012 7:02 am

Avatar wrote: Uh...does this mean that you have states where you can be forced to join a union?
--A

Ever heard the term "union shop?" Some states allow unions to force their employers to agree to only hire union members. If they hire someone non-union, that person has a certain amount of time to join the union or be terminated.

It's good for the union, as it means they're guaranteed more members. But in right to work states, where this practice is illegal, unions must work harder to convince workers to join, meaning they offer more benefits with membership.

Post by **Zarathustra** » Tue Jan 31, 2012 12:01 pm

I Googled quite a bit to see if I could find any information on TN state workers having made any sacrifice in terms of reduced benefits or wages, and--despite this story being "notable in the news" (apparently)--I couldn't find anything to support the claim.

Post by **Cail** » Tue Jan 31, 2012 12:54 pm

Zarathustra wrote:I Googled quite a bit to see if I could find any information on TN state workers having made any sacrifice in terms of reduced benefits or wages, and--despite this story being "notable in the news" (apparently)--I couldn't find anything to support the claim.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around how a reduction in grocery taxes is a gold-card-perk-for-the-1% on the backs of state workers.

Hopefully explanations are forthcoming.

Post by **SerScot** » Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:17 pm

Cail,

I imagine the counter will be that it's a benefit for everyone including the 1% and thus not really fair.

Post by **Cybrweez** » Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:58 pm

I think he's referring to the inheritance tax limit. I'd have to say, seems like a dumb cut, why not just put it all on groceries?

Post by **Rigel** » Tue Jan 31, 2012 2:39 pm

Cybrweez wrote:I think he's referring to the inheritance tax limit. I'd have to say, seems like a dumb cut, why not just put it all on groceries?

It's called throwing a bone. Politicians are doing something to show they care about the people who donate the most to them.

Kevin's Watch

Kevin's Watch

Apple and fraud