Minimum Wage |
||
|
Minimum Wage
Asura.Kingnobody said: » So, go ahead, show us a non-profit organization that blows all of their money on their CEO. That was largely sarcasm, but I can tell you that UPMC's CEO makes over $6M/year. Yes it's a hospital system, but it's still classified as a private non-profit. That's obviously a miniscule percentage of the money they work with being one of the nation's leading hospital systems, but still. That's a lot for a non-profit. The Alberta Medical system did just that, and the federal Government was powerless to stop it from happening, since the CEO and board members were given the power to vote themselves raises and bonuses they didn't deserve.
Which took away funding from additional and necessary hospitals, hospital beds, funding for additional and necessary staff, equipment, and medications. Bloodrose said: » given the power to vote themselves raises and bonuses they didn't deserve. <Right Wing Argument> WHO ARE YOU TO SAY THEY DIDN'T DESERVE THEM. THEY SET THEIR VALUE. Bloodrose said: » Which took away funding from additional and necessary hospitals, hospital beds, funding for additional and necessary staff, equipment, and medications. Well if those *** poor people would stop getting sick or injured until they have the money to buy these things for themselves... Bloodrose said: » The same thing can be said, and is true about the people on the right. So it's really dishonest to say that about only the left wingers. Which is what KN was getting at. What you are saying, by claiming "as typical of the right", means that it is not typical of the left. When it's not even remotely true. It is because the left works as hard, as dependably as the right, that they feel it is their responsibility to provide for those who can not provide for themselves for various reasons - which encompasses both sides, not just the left wingers that can't provide, not just the right. But for everyone. the left doesn't. it isn't typical of them. don't want to take responsibility for your actions? abortion it away. don't feel like earning your keep? welfare it away. want to have things that you didn't earn? government subsidies program it away. conservatives do not do such things. I like how everyone things living on welfare is so damned awesome.
I promise you that if it were, more people wouldn't be working the ***jobs you all take for granted.
[+]
Asura.Kingnobody said: » Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Seraph.Ramyrez said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Right and the government never allocates funds properly so starving the beast and giving them as little money as possible is the answer. Because that money will get where it's supposed to go that way, right? What you're basically saying is, "the government will *** it up and the money won't get to the people who need it, so just let the billionaires and millionaires keep their money to themselves. It still won't get to the people who need it, but they can at least vicariously enjoy their owners living the high life." Wrong, the top 20% pays just under 70% of all federal income taxes. In that report, the top 1% pays about 63% of all federal taxes for the entire nation. The bottom 40% pays less than 0% of all federal taxes. They receive more back from refundable credits than they put in through payroll taxes. I thought we went over this before? Canadian Health Care is theoretically "universal", though it comes with various ignored costs.
I mean, it's been noted that "Canadian Health Care is a hazard to your health" given the atrociously long waiting lines for admitting, even in the emergency waiting room. People with real emergencies end up being sent away, while the derp with a ***' sliver in his hand gets to see a doctor. Also, since the Alberta health care reforms that occurred in the past few years, we've gone to a two-tier system - public and private health care, which has sped up the process, and improved health care across the board. The CEO and board members were eventually ***-canned, but not before guaranteeing themselves a retirement package worth millions of dollars, that also gave them several hundred thousand dollars a year, which also couldn't be touched. Quote: Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner, dogged in attempts to eliminate fees paid to unions by workers who choose not to join, has instructed state agencies to divert money from nonunion employee paychecks away from organized labor until a judge settles the matter. In a memo obtained by The Associated Press, general counsel Jason Barclay directs departments under the Republican governor's control to create two sets of books, one of which would move deductions from nonunion members to the operations budgets of state agencies instead of to the unions, although the money would not be spent. The idea was immediately condemned by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the largest of two dozen unions that filed a countersuit over an executive order Rauner signed last month calling the fees a free-speech violation. He's seeking a federal court's declaration that they are unconstitutional. "This legally questionable scheme shows the lengths to which Gov. Rauner will go in his obsession to undermine labor unions," Roberta Lynch, executive director of the Illinois council of AFSCME, said in a prepared statement. "To frustrate lawful fair-share agreements, Rauner is ordering payroll staff to make unauthorized reductions in employees' established salaries." The process outlined in the memo calls for preparing one payroll report with the "proper pay" and one, to be processed, that reduces the worker's gross pay by an amount equal to what nonunion workers normally pay in so-called "fair share" fees. It is not clear how the deductions would affect federal tax withholding or health-insurance payments. Taxes are based on gross pay — if that amount is lower, less is withheld, creating potential headaches down the line. "We are confident in the process laid out in the memo," Rauner spokeswoman Catherine Kelly said in a prepared statement. "It's no surprise that AFSCME is doing everything in their power to deny state employees from exercising their First Amendment rights." Rauner, a businessman who admires Republican governors of Indiana, Wisconsin and elsewhere who have reduced union power, has also proposed "right-to-work" zones where local voters could decide whether workers should join unions. While he has said that he is not anti-union, he has frequently asserted that out-of-control union pensions and the political power of organized labor have contributed to the state's financial woes. Lynch questioned what legal liability those payroll employees would face in issuing "inaccurate checks." The system explained in the memo exposes a level of uncertainty associated with what labor expert Robert Bruno called "virgin territory." The memo recommends that each agency prepare a "payroll report using the normal figures," copy and save it, and then create a second payroll "needed to reduce the gross pay" and enter a zero in a category reserved for fair share amounts. Then, it says, the amounts "should be accepted by the comptroller." Comptroller Leslie Munger, whom Rauner appointed to fill a vacancy, had stymied the governor's original plan to create a separate escrow account. Munger relied on the attorney general's opinion it would be illegal. The memo said Munger "provided the method" for the latest plan, but after her spokesman, Rich Carter, denied that, Kelly clarified that after reviewing procedures with Munger's staff, "the governor's staff identified a way" to proceed. Carter, meanwhile, didn't answer a question about whether Munger would process the altered payrolls. About 6,500 nonunion workers pay amounts lower than union dues — about $575 annually — to cover the costs of union negotiating and grievances. Unions must represent those who chose not to join. Rauner's action could keep about $3.74 million out of union bank accounts. Bruno, a labor and industrial relations professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, said Rauner's move would likely prompt a new legal action by the unions. He said if Rauner is trying to demoralize labor, it hasn't worked. "In fact, a rather extraordinary form of unity and consensus has broken out," Bruno said. Corbett tried doing that in Pennsylvania but got his *** voted out too soon to enact it.
Any Union-busting the state legislature does here before cutting their own per diems, allowances, and making themselves part-time like most all other states is nothing but straight-up corruption. Quote: About 6,500 nonunion workers pay amounts lower than union dues — about $575 annually — to cover the costs of union negotiating and grievances. Unions must represent those who chose not to join. Rauner's action could keep about $3.74 million out of union bank accounts. Those who opt of joining a union still have to pay a fee to the unions for 'negotiating.' What's the problem then? Leviathan.Protey said: » Bloodrose said: » The same thing can be said, and is true about the people on the right. So it's really dishonest to say that about only the left wingers. Which is what KN was getting at. What you are saying, by claiming "as typical of the right", means that it is not typical of the left. When it's not even remotely true. It is because the left works as hard, as dependably as the right, that they feel it is their responsibility to provide for those who can not provide for themselves for various reasons - which encompasses both sides, not just the left wingers that can't provide, not just the right. But for everyone. the left doesn't. it isn't typical of them. don't want to take responsibility for your actions? abortion it away. don't feel like earning your keep? welfare it away. want to have things that you didn't earn? government subsidies program it away. conservatives do not do such things. The typical right winger believes they are entitled to "MY WAY OR GTFO" and "NOT IN MY BACKYARD!" bible-thumping ***. Abortion can be, and in many cases, is seen as taking responsibility. Can't afford to bring a child into the world? They don't. The Right believes that people should be forced to have children if they become pregnant, no matter the means, then when that child is born... *** EM! That's ignoring the right's responsibility of forcing people to have kids. Because it's part of their limited understanding of the biblical passages that claim all life is sacred... until it's born. Then it's everyman, woman, and child for themselves. More and more conservatives in the bible belt abuse welfare than the left wingers. They have a greater welfare population than the left. But given the right's tendency... "I'm a 'Murican! I deserve to be taken care of!" and who the *** takes care of those people? Oh right, the left.
[+]
Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Not federal taxes or overall amount, but social welfare programs is what I was referring to. Those are paid for at the state level. They are dispersed at the state level, but they are primarily funded with federal money. Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Quote: About 6,500 nonunion workers pay amounts lower than union dues — about $575 annually — to cover the costs of union negotiating and grievances. Unions must represent those who chose not to join. Rauner's action could keep about $3.74 million out of union bank accounts. Those who opt of joining a union still have to pay a fee to the unions for 'negotiating.' What's the problem then? Because they're still getting the benefit of the contract the union hammers out. And I promise you they'll lose more than $575 without that contract... Bloodrose said: » Leviathan.Protey said: » Bloodrose said: » The same thing can be said, and is true about the people on the right. So it's really dishonest to say that about only the left wingers. Which is what KN was getting at. What you are saying, by claiming "as typical of the right", means that it is not typical of the left. When it's not even remotely true. It is because the left works as hard, as dependably as the right, that they feel it is their responsibility to provide for those who can not provide for themselves for various reasons - which encompasses both sides, not just the left wingers that can't provide, not just the right. But for everyone. the left doesn't. it isn't typical of them. don't want to take responsibility for your actions? abortion it away. don't feel like earning your keep? welfare it away. want to have things that you didn't earn? government subsidies program it away. conservatives do not do such things. The typical right winger believes they are entitled to "MY WAY OR GTFO" and "NOT IN MY BACKYARD!" bible-thumping ***. Abortion can be, and in many cases, is seen as taking responsibility. Can't afford to bring a child into the world? They don't. The Right believes that people should be forced to have children if they become pregnant, no matter the means, then when that child is born... *** EM! That's ignoring the right's responsibility of forcing people to have kids. Because it's part of their limited understanding of the biblical passages that claim all life is sacred... until it's born. Then it's everyman, woman, and child for themselves. More and more conservatives in the bible belt abuse welfare than the left wingers. They have a greater welfare population than the left. But given the right's tendency... "I'm a 'Murican! I deserve to be taken care of!" and who the *** takes care of those people? Oh right, the left. As I've said before, I love seeing people on welfare and disability go on rants about how terrible the left is... Oh believe me, the left isn't happy about the minute amount of fraud that happens with the programs, but because it helps the greatest amount of people, they can focus on the good being done.
I believe the fraud was less than 0.3%-1.3% of all people who used the programs, and the ones that used it responsibly were only on it as long as they needed to be in order to get back on their feet, then paid it forward to others who needed help? Also, most of the support military members and their families get when returning to civilian life comes from the left. Since they end up being forgotten by the right. Seraph.Ramyrez said: » Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Quote: About 6,500 nonunion workers pay amounts lower than union dues — about $575 annually — to cover the costs of union negotiating and grievances. Unions must represent those who chose not to join. Rauner's action could keep about $3.74 million out of union bank accounts. Those who opt of joining a union still have to pay a fee to the unions for 'negotiating.' What's the problem then? Because they're still getting the benefit of the contract the union hammers out. And I promise you they'll lose more than $575 without that contract... Sounds like bullying/fear tactics from unions.
[+]
Bloodrose said: » so, most of the support military members and their families get when returning to civilian life comes from the left. Since they end up being forgotten by the right. Don't forget that the "crazy homeless guy" stereotype descends almost entirely from when Reagan kicked all of the mentally ill folks -- many of them traumatized Vietnam vets -- out of the hospitals to save a dime. Leviathan.Chaosx said: » How on earth does they'll lose more than that without a contract factor in? Sounds like bullying/fear tactics from unions. Bullying? You think their yearly salary and/or benefits/PTO won't drop like a rock the second collective bargaining goes out the window? Leviathan.Protey said: » the left doesn't. it isn't typical of them. don't want to take responsibility for your actions? abortion it away. don't feel like earning your keep? welfare it away. want to have things that you didn't earn? government subsidies program it away. conservatives do not do such things. Rather than expecting you to find this out yourself, they're white and vote Republican.
[+]
Shiva.Onorgul said: » Rather than expecting you to find this out yourself, they're white and vote Republican. You see? Damn liberals, seeing to it no one has to do any work... I was going to back read but what's the point !
Seraph.Ramyrez said: » Leviathan.Chaosx said: » How on earth does they'll lose more than that without a contract factor in? Sounds like bullying/fear tactics from unions. Bullying? You think their yearly salary and/or benefits/PTO won't drop like a rock the second collective bargaining goes out the window? Do unions pay their members when they go on strike?
[+]
Shiva.Onorgul said: » Leviathan.Protey said: » the left doesn't. it isn't typical of them. don't want to take responsibility for your actions? abortion it away. don't feel like earning your keep? welfare it away. want to have things that you didn't earn? government subsidies program it away. conservatives do not do such things. Rather than expecting you to find this out yourself, they're white and vote Republican. To be fair, the idea of the free-loading minority has been ingrained in the conservative sphere since Reagan's fictional single mother in Chicago getting 11 checks monthly. It's just accepted as the truth because it's been perpetuated for generations, much like the 10% of your brain or all the misconceptions about sex.
[+]
Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Seraph.Ramyrez said: » Leviathan.Chaosx said: » How on earth does they'll lose more than that without a contract factor in? Sounds like bullying/fear tactics from unions. Bullying? You think their yearly salary and/or benefits/PTO won't drop like a rock the second collective bargaining goes out the window? Do unions pay their members when they go on strike? Actually, the only people that are guaranteed to have jobs when a union goes on strike are the scabs and temps. Non-union employees are just as likely to get canned as any union person in those situations, sadly, even when they show up for work and try to pick up the slack, since union leadership taps people in managerial positions to affect the course of labor within the company that is not unionized. Left leaning policies, tend to use preventative measures, which keeps the largest amount of people working, and provides them with necessary care.
Conservative policies tend to be a big *** YOU to everyone but themselves. There are some exceptions, such as trying to create fiscal responsibility at a government level, but to do that, the easiest way is to cut funding to medical necessities, and education. Because who needs to be educated when you should just "suck less"?
[+]
Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Seraph.Ramyrez said: » Leviathan.Chaosx said: » How on earth does they'll lose more than that without a contract factor in? Sounds like bullying/fear tactics from unions. Bullying? You think their yearly salary and/or benefits/PTO won't drop like a rock the second collective bargaining goes out the window? Do unions pay their members when they go on strike? And again, you're stating that a job with no benefits and reduced pay is better than fighting for fair wages and benefits. King tries saying that this isn't the 1800s, and the conditions aren't the same, but you're using the exact same mindset of the old coal barons. "Abuse whoever you can however you can and give up nothing." Can you send me a PM when you are done with unions are great blah blah blah discussion. That would be great !
fonewear said: » Can you send me a PM when you are done with unions are great blah blah blah discussion. That would be great ! You know you're allowed to just ignore a thread discussing something you don't want to discuss? :p I do it all the time with the Odin.Jassik said: » Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Not federal taxes or overall amount, but social welfare programs is what I was referring to. Those are paid for at the state level. They are dispersed at the state level, but they are primarily funded with federal money. Federal funding goes primarily into funding of state ran organizations under various acts. Where as cash assistance and medical assistance is solely on the state. |
||
|
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.
|
||
