Apple and fraud

[Zarathustra]

The governor claimed that rich people are leaving the state in order to evade the inheritance tax. If that's true, then not only are they losing some of their biggest donors, but also some of the biggest tax payers. Sometimes tax policy isn't merely about personal gain of politicians, but actually has the welfare of the citizens in mind. Though it doesn't make nearly as interesting a conspiracy theory, the fact is that states must compete against each other for workers, corporations, and yes rich people. Rich people are some of the most mobile people in the world. They can afford to live where ever they want, and often make their choice of where to buy a home or where to start a business with a state's tax policy at the forefront of their considerations.

[wayfriend]

The governor claimed that rich people are leaving the state in order to evade the inheritance tax.

But could not provide any evidence of this. So underscore "claim".

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

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

If I did, I would also have to explain how reducing the estate tax is buying voters.

Oh wait. I mixed up the two tax breaks (groceries, estates) with my two descriptions of them (vote-buying, gold-card). Gosh, if I was really smart, I would have applied them in the same order I found them. Stupid me.

Oh wait, I wasn't the one who mixed them up. It was you!

Gosh, I wonder if there is the slightest chance that was an unintentional mistake and you weren't looking for a baseless and childish excuse to mock something I posted?

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

Cail, I already did, twice, all you have to do is scroll back. This seriously qualifies as harrassment, and I am not kidding.

To repeat: it is deceptive because it is called "right to work" but it's not a right to work, it's only called "right to work" to make it sound better than what it really is, which is making certain things that unions bargain for illegal to bargain for (a closed shop). And it could bite them in the ass when someday someone starts asking hey where's my right to work? Didn't I support a vote for the right to work?

[Cail]

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

Cail, I already did, twice, all you have to do is scroll back. This seriously qualifies as harrassment, and I am not kidding.

Probably ought to call the Interwebz cops.

To repeat: it is deceptive because it is called "right to work" but it's not a right to work, it's only called "right to work" to make it sound better than what it really is, which is making certain things that unions bargain for illegal to bargain for (a closed shop). And it could bite them in the ass when someday someone starts asking hey where's my right to work? Didn't I support a vote for the right to work?

There's nothing deceptive about that. Right to work means that you have a right to work without involuntarily joining a union and paying dues. Perhaps "Pro-Choice" would be better, but I believe that's already taken.

[Cybrweez]

You lost me. I started a thread about right to work, and what it means. The discussion was about allowing people to not join a union, even when the union incurs costs that improve that worker's benefits. Freeloading some called it. Now, you can say right to work does not describe that very well, I agree. But who is talking about making certain things illegal in the right to work legislation? Is it now a broader label?

If we're talking about the issues of states that can have unions force companies to only hire union members, then you could call it right to work, and maybe add "w/o union membership".

[aliantha]

Rich people are some of the most mobile people in the world. They can afford to live where ever they want, and often make their choice of where to buy a home or where to start a business with a state's tax policy at the forefront of their considerations.

No offense to any Tennesseeans present. But if I were rich, Tennessee would not be #1 on my list of relocation options, no matter how many tax breaks they offered me.

[DukkhaWaynhim]

'Right to work' is like many other pieces of legislation that get large boluses of invective-laden media and curmudgeonly attention, in that it is a label given to a piece of proposed legislation. Legislation like this can also (and most often does) proffer other (often wildly unrelated) porky pieces of proposed law, yet is illogically lumped into a single -- and often custom-designed to be misleading -- bill.
Clever words, subtle marketing, the battles of connotation-made-slogan, these are all wordsmiths' weapons to advertise, fire-bomb, and wage psychological and political warfare in the minds of the voters and public opinion, to paint just the right picture and influence getting some legislation passed or jettisoned.
Proposed legislation should be judged based on its stated purpose versus its actual content - precisely because you cannot rely upon a name, especially one chosen by vociferous proponents *or* detractors.

dw

[wayfriend]

But who is talking about making certain things illegal in the right to work legislation?

Well I am. Because that's what it really does. (I may be the only person who cares about that.)

So called "right to work" bills (which don't give anyone a right at all) make it illegal for unions to ask for closed shops (only employs union members). If you read it, it's actually a list of prohibitions, and all the prohibitions apply to union contracts.

Any "freedom" that comes from this is all spin.

No rights are conferred by this at all.

[Zarathustra]

Allowing people the freedom to work without being forced to join a union and pay union dues may sound "prohibitive" if you side with unions over the individual, but to everyone else it sounds like freedom. Choice. Laws against monopolies may sound "prohibitive" to corporations that want to limit freedom, choice, and protect their turf, but you don't see people talk about it that way very often.

So people have the "right" to collectively bargain, but they don't have a corresponding right to be free from working for and/or paying the collective?

Aliantha, Tennessee offers some of the most beautiful land in this entire country. Have you ever been to eastern TN? The Smoky Mnts? I've seen every state in this country, and TN is one of the most beautiful.

[SerScot]

aliantha,

Rich people are some of the most mobile people in the world. They can afford to live where ever they want, and often make their choice of where to buy a home or where to start a business with a state's tax policy at the forefront of their considerations.

No offense to any Tennesseeans present. But if I were rich, Tennessee would not be #1 on my list of relocation options, no matter how many tax breaks they offered me.

The Cumberland Plateau is beautiful.

[SerScot]

wayfriend,

But who is talking about making certain things illegal in the right to work legislation?

Well I am. Because that's what it really does. (I may be the only person who cares about that.)

So called "right to work" bills (which don't give anyone a right at all) make it illegal for unions to ask for closed shops (only employs union members). If you read it, it's actually a list of prohibitions, and all the prohibitions apply to union contracts.

Any "freedom" that comes from this is all spin.

No rights are conferred by this at all.

So, it means you have the "right to work" without being required to join a Union to be employed? Radical concept that will perhaps encourage Unions to make membership more enticing as it doesn't prevent people from forming Unions in the first place.

[SoulBiter]

I agree that it does give you a choice to be in a union or not but I will also agree that its a Union busting tool that non-union states have employed to make those states less Union friendly and to discourage Unions in those states. Unions only work really effectively when everyone is in the union together. When you have a Union but people don't 'have' to be in that Union, you end up with freeloaders who are willing to take any and all personal gain the Union provides without having to fund the Union itself.

[SerScot]

Soulbiter,

Then the Union should negotiate better wages and benefits for its members than may be offered to non-union employees under the Contract between the Union and the Employer. Then, there's a built in incentive to join the Union.

[aliantha]

aliantha,

Rich people are some of the most mobile people in the world. They can afford to live where ever they want, and often make their choice of where to buy a home or where to start a business with a state's tax policy at the forefront of their considerations.

No offense to any Tennesseeans present. But if I were rich, Tennessee would not be #1 on my list of relocation options, no matter how many tax breaks they offered me.

The Cumberland Plateau is beautiful.

I don't doubt it. Parts of West Virginia are beautiful, too, as is the Lake Michigan shore where I grew up. But given the choice, and money being no object, I'd move to the Rockies.

[aliantha]

Soulbiter,

Then the Union should negotiate better wages and benefits for its members than may be offered to non-union employees under the Contract between the Union and the Employer. Then, there's a built in incentive to join the Union.

But that's not how it works, SerScot. At least in Virginia, which is a right-to-work state, in the union shop where I worked, the same pay and benefits negotiated by the union were paid to everyone, regardless of their union membership. That's another way state regulations undermine the unions.

[SoulBiter]

Soulbiter,

Then the Union should negotiate better wages and benefits for its members than may be offered to non-union employees under the Contract between the Union and the Employer. Then, there's a built in incentive to join the Union.

What Ali said. People are so shortsighted and I'm gonna say it, greedy just like corporations are. So if I can let you and 1000 others pay an extra 100 dollars a month in dues and I can not pay and still get the same benefits as you do, then why would I pay when I can let you pay for my benefits.

I'm not pro-Union but I do understand that Unions cant work properly unless everyone is in.

[Cail]

Soulbiter,

Then the Union should negotiate better wages and benefits for its members than may be offered to non-union employees under the Contract between the Union and the Employer. Then, there's a built in incentive to join the Union.

But that's not how it works, SerScot. At least in Virginia, which is a right-to-work state, in the union shop where I worked, the same pay and benefits negotiated by the union were paid to everyone, regardless of their union membership. That's another way state regulations undermine the unions.

That's not accurate and you know it. There is no state regulation stating that everyone has to be paid the same. The company you worked for chose to do things that way. That's called "freedom", something that I'm shocked to see you and Wayfriend argue against.

[wayfriend]

Allowing people the freedom to work without being forced to join a union and pay union dues may sound "prohibitive" if you side with unions over the individual

Please explain where a union "forced" anyone to work for a union, even in a closed shop.

That's called "freedom", something that I'm shocked to see you and Wayfriend argue against.

Oh, I'm not arguing against freedom. I am arguing against the tried-and-true myth that letting corporations steamroll over people is somehow "freedom".

Do you know what we have lots of data for? What working was like before unions. I don't want to go back to that, thanks. It's not my kind of freedom.

I do know about rights. I do know that collective bargaining is my right. I do know that every right-wing law that limits collective bargaining limits my rights. That's not my kind of freedom either.

[Cail]

That's called "freedom", something that I'm shocked to see you and Wayfriend argue against.

Oh, I'm not arguing against freedom. I am arguing against the tried-and-true myth that letting corporations steamroll over people is somehow "freedom".

Please explain how forcing an employee to join a union and pay dues isn't steamrolling over individuals.

Do you know what we have lots of data for? What working was like before unions. I don't want to go back to that, thanks. It's not my kind of freedom.

I want to make sure I understand you. Do you believe that making union membership optional (which is what Right to Work is all about) would somehow turn back the clock on labor relations 150 years? We have lots of data from the 22 states that are currently Right-to-Work, and none of them are the Dickensian-nightmare that you're predicting.

I do know about rights. I do know that collective bargaining is my right. I do know that every right-wing law that limits collective bargaining limits my rights. That's not my kind of freedom either.

You apparently don't know your rights, as collective bargaining ain't one, not by a long shot. And don't try to conflate it with your right to assemble, as a 2nd grader could pick that argument apart.

[wayfriend]

That's called "freedom", something that I'm shocked to see you and Wayfriend argue against.

Oh, I'm not arguing against freedom. I am arguing against the tried-and-true myth that letting corporations steamroll over people is somehow "freedom".

Please explain how forcing an employee to join a union and pay dues isn't steamrolling over individuals.

You would first have to explain how any employee was forced to join a union.

Do you know what we have lots of data for? What working was like before unions. I don't want to go back to that, thanks. It's not my kind of freedom.

I want to make sure I understand you. Do you believe that making union membership optional (which is what Right to Work is all about) would somehow turn back the clock on labor relations 150 years? We have lots of data from the 22 states that are currently Right-to-Work, and none of them are the Dickensian-nightmare that you're predicting.

That's quite a tactic to say I claimed anything like that. I didn't.

And the old everythings-fine-we-don't-need-these-protections-any-more argument - not a powerful argument, really.

As long as unions exist somewhere, they indirectly benefit everyone everywhere else. Employers treat workers well because they want to discourage unionization.

Make unions something that becomes of no concern whatsover, and that will change rapidly.

But maybe you like China.

I do know about rights. I do know that collective bargaining is my right. I do know that every right-wing law that limits collective bargaining limits my rights. That's not my kind of freedom either.

You apparently don't know your rights, as collective bargaining ain't one, not by a long shot. And don't try to conflate it with your right to assemble, as a 2nd grader could pick that argument apart.

Please go ahead. I assume you are at least as smart as a 2nd grader.

If I have a right to free speech, then I can say "I won't work for you unless we agree to these terms". If I have a right to assemble, then I can say, "hey guys, lets formalize our group and ask for terms together".

[Zarathustra]

Soulbiter,

Then the Union should negotiate better wages and benefits for its members than may be offered to non-union employees under the Contract between the Union and the Employer. Then, there's a built in incentive to join the Union.

But that's not how it works, SerScot. At least in Virginia, which is a right-to-work state, in the union shop where I worked, the same pay and benefits negotiated by the union were paid to everyone, regardless of their union membership. That's another way state regulations undermine the unions.

How does it undermine a union for "free riders" to receive the benefits of collective bargaining? All it undermines are union dues (to a small extent). But I thought the point was the workers themselves, not the union bosses (and their ability to funnel money to the Democratic Party). Who cares if they see a reduction in dues? That's good for workers, too. I'm not even sure why unions need 100s of millions of dollars. Is it impossible for workers to have meetings, go on strike, make a list of demands, etc. without paying a bunch of union bureaucrats a 6 figure income?

When pro-union people sing the praises of unions, they try to make us believe that our entire society has benefited from a history of unions, giving us the weekend, safer work condition, better wages, etc. And this is supposed to apply to all of society, not just union members (who make up a small percentage of all workers). Doesn't that make our entire society a bunch of free riders? Isn't the concept built into the argument?

All this boils down to is supporting a wing of the Democratic Party, and keeping that money flowing in the form of massive campaign contributions to the people pro-union people vote for. Otherwise, no one would worry about free riders or union dues being hurt. They'd be happy the worker is getting paid more, regardless of how it happens.