|
|
On November 01 2012 01:42 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 01:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 01 2012 01:16 Risen wrote:
Unions are things you join voluntarily. You pay dues voluntarily. By telling unions what they can/can not spend money on government is interfering with a private entity. I thought Republicans would be AGAINST this. I guess when it's hurting someone who disagrees with you, though, it's ok. Standard Republican/Libertarian nonsense.
Edit: I only have experience with unions in Hollywood. Correct me if I'm wrong here. http://www.nrtw.org/special-legal-notice-california-teachers-how-get-least-300-refund-cta-nonbargaining-expensesagency fees should be illegal. That link merely shows me you don't have to be a member of a union to be a California teacher.
I edited it to provide more information, but it actually shows more. it says that I, as a non-member, still have to pay for the collective bargaining. which would then allow even more of the "real dues" to go to political campaigns. one could argue that I should still have to pay for the benefit (collective bargaining) even if I don't want to be in the Union, whereas I would argue that this is an obvious and flagrant violation of the spirit of the law (which bars the non-consensual taking of money to pay for political campaigns, and prevents the governmental enforcement of unionization)
|
One other important piece of information -- mandatory union participation isn't always determined at the state level either. It can be compelled at more local levels (county, municipal, or district) even if there is no state law compelling it.
|
On November 01 2012 01:47 xDaunt wrote:
One other important piece of information -- mandatory union participation isn't always determined at the state level either. It can be compelled at more local levels (county, municipal, or district) even if there is no state law compelling it.
It's fine that you say that, but I still have yet to find anything supporting your claim that you must join a union at any government level.
On November 01 2012 01:45 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 01:42 Risen wrote:On November 01 2012 01:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 01 2012 01:16 Risen wrote:
Unions are things you join voluntarily. You pay dues voluntarily. By telling unions what they can/can not spend money on government is interfering with a private entity. I thought Republicans would be AGAINST this. I guess when it's hurting someone who disagrees with you, though, it's ok. Standard Republican/Libertarian nonsense.
Edit: I only have experience with unions in Hollywood. Correct me if I'm wrong here. http://www.nrtw.org/special-legal-notice-california-teachers-how-get-least-300-refund-cta-nonbargaining-expensesagency fees should be illegal. That link merely shows me you don't have to be a member of a union to be a California teacher. I edited it to provide more information, but it actually shows more. it says that I, as a non-member, still have to pay for the collective bargaining. which would then allow even more of the "real dues" to go to political campaigns. one could argue that I should still have to pay for the benefit (collective bargaining) even if I don't want to be in the Union, whereas I would argue that this is an obvious and flagrant violation of the spirit of the law (which bars the non-consensual taking of money to pay for political campaigns, and prevents the governmental enforcement of unionization)
Collective bargaining has nothing to do with political/ideological movements. If you can show that unions take money from nonunion members that was given to pay for collective bargaining then you have a case. Whether it's right that they should be able to take collective bargaining fees in the first place is another issue, but one that the supreme court has upheld.
|
no, that's what agency fees are. they take money from non-union members to pay for the collective bargaining.
I agree that the Supreme Court upheld it, but that doesn't mean it's right. it's wrong as hell in my opinion.
|
On October 31 2012 08:25 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 08:21 Etrnity wrote:On October 31 2012 08:07 KwarK wrote:
Nobody took away anyone's religion. It died because it was shit. It was shit because it was run primarily by human beings as cynical and amoral as the rest of society.
I find it odd that you look to Catholicism, the religion that invented the idea that you get tortured after death unless you give them money and that mistreating your fellow man can be negated for a fee, as the highpoint of culture and some opposite of consumerism. Back then morality was for sale, heaven could be bought with a chantry, sins were proportionate to your income and challenging the system, the way you condemn consumerism, was heresy punished by death.
Humans are as greedy now as they were then, no better, no worse. They're just slightly better educated so you can't sell them the idea of paradise anymore, now you have to patent rounded corners and sell them some sweat shop labour. The amount of stupid is so great, let me feed on your stupidity. Everything you bolded is fact.
Prove it
|
On November 01 2012 01:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:
no, that's what agency fees are. they take money from non-union members to pay for the collective bargaining.
I agree that the Supreme Court upheld it, but that doesn't mean it's right. it's wrong as hell in my opinion.
I agree. While those who do not take part in the union benefit from collective bargaining held by the unions, it does not mean they should have to pay. Since the supreme court upheld it, though, a specific law would have to be written protecting non-union workers from said fees. That's what you should be pushing for, not a law that prevents unions from using dues how they see fit.
|
On November 01 2012 02:02 Etrnity wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 08:25 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 31 2012 08:21 Etrnity wrote:On October 31 2012 08:07 KwarK wrote:
Nobody took away anyone's religion. It died because it was shit. It was shit because it was run primarily by human beings as cynical and amoral as the rest of society.
I find it odd that you look to Catholicism, the religion that invented the idea that you get tortured after death unless you give them money and that mistreating your fellow man can be negated for a fee, as the highpoint of culture and some opposite of consumerism. Back then morality was for sale, heaven could be bought with a chantry, sins were proportionate to your income and challenging the system, the way you condemn consumerism, was heresy punished by death.
Humans are as greedy now as they were then, no better, no worse. They're just slightly better educated so you can't sell them the idea of paradise anymore, now you have to patent rounded corners and sell them some sweat shop labour. The amount of stupid is so great, let me feed on your stupidity. Everything you bolded is fact. Prove it
The inquisition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition
Your turn to tell us what you felt was so stupid.
Edit: I suspect he will again not respond to me. I will again, not be surprised by his lack of reason.
|
On October 31 2012 23:41 Tula wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 15:53 ticklishmusic wrote:
i had a friend who had a professor who said "i don't care what version of the book you get, the history of the roman empire hasnt changed much in the last 1500 years."
best. professor. ever. Also fairly false quote :p I get what he means, but there have been quite a few changes in what we know about the history of the roman empire in the last 50 years alone  But yes, most of my history texts are between 10 and 25 years old (excluding "Zeitgeschichte", which usually has a relatively brand new book). Frankly I am always shocked how much my friends pay for some of their books (law books are between 60 and 80€ each, for that amount I buy the books for my entire semester).
its true, but it doesnt really warrant buying a new textbook as much as the professor adding supplementary reading.
i understand for certain fields books become outdated (esp bio, but i'm biased), but there;s a lot of fields where the body of knowledge is fairly static.
|
On November 01 2012 02:02 Etrnity wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 08:25 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 31 2012 08:21 Etrnity wrote:On October 31 2012 08:07 KwarK wrote:
Nobody took away anyone's religion. It died because it was shit. It was shit because it was run primarily by human beings as cynical and amoral as the rest of society.
I find it odd that you look to Catholicism, the religion that invented the idea that you get tortured after death unless you give them money and that mistreating your fellow man can be negated for a fee, as the highpoint of culture and some opposite of consumerism. Back then morality was for sale, heaven could be bought with a chantry, sins were proportionate to your income and challenging the system, the way you condemn consumerism, was heresy punished by death.
Humans are as greedy now as they were then, no better, no worse. They're just slightly better educated so you can't sell them the idea of paradise anymore, now you have to patent rounded corners and sell them some sweat shop labour. The amount of stupid is so great, let me feed on your stupidity. Everything you bolded is fact. Prove it
One of the justifications for the protestants splitting from the catholic church i believe... Of course allowing the rulers of the time to rob the church of it's riches probably helped in the actual split.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence
in indulgence check the "abuses" part.
|
United States41938 Posts
On November 01 2012 02:04 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 02:02 Etrnity wrote:On October 31 2012 08:25 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 31 2012 08:21 Etrnity wrote:On October 31 2012 08:07 KwarK wrote:
Nobody took away anyone's religion. It died because it was shit. It was shit because it was run primarily by human beings as cynical and amoral as the rest of society.
I find it odd that you look to Catholicism, the religion that invented the idea that you get tortured after death unless you give them money and that mistreating your fellow man can be negated for a fee, as the highpoint of culture and some opposite of consumerism. Back then morality was for sale, heaven could be bought with a chantry, sins were proportionate to your income and challenging the system, the way you condemn consumerism, was heresy punished by death.
Humans are as greedy now as they were then, no better, no worse. They're just slightly better educated so you can't sell them the idea of paradise anymore, now you have to patent rounded corners and sell them some sweat shop labour. The amount of stupid is so great, let me feed on your stupidity. Everything you bolded is fact. Prove it The inquisition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InquisitionYour turn to tell us what you felt was so stupid. Edit: I suspect he will again not respond to me. I will again, not be surprised by his lack of reason.
He won't be replying so let's shut this little digression down.
For anyone who wishes to take it to PMs, I was referring to the lack of purgatory in scriptures, the practice of establishing chantries for accelerated passage through purgatory and the sale of indulgences.
|
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Edit: Wait, Kwark, are you telling me we should not be discussing Martin Luther's 95 theses in a US political debate thread? Heresy!
|
On November 01 2012 02:23 farvacola wrote:
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Edit: Wait, Kwark, are you telling me we should not be discussing Martin Luther's 95 theses in a US political debate thread? Heresy!
But the Spanish Inquisition gave you a month's notice. 
|
On November 01 2012 01:52 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 01:47 xDaunt wrote:
One other important piece of information -- mandatory union participation isn't always determined at the state level either. It can be compelled at more local levels (county, municipal, or district) even if there is no state law compelling it. It's fine that you say that, but I still have yet to find anything supporting your claim that you must join a union at any government level.
Take it from an attorney who deals with this stuff. As for why you can't find anything about it works, all I can say is "search better." It is exactly how I say it is.
|
On November 01 2012 02:26 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 01:52 Risen wrote:On November 01 2012 01:47 xDaunt wrote:
One other important piece of information -- mandatory union participation isn't always determined at the state level either. It can be compelled at more local levels (county, municipal, or district) even if there is no state law compelling it. It's fine that you say that, but I still have yet to find anything supporting your claim that you must join a union at any government level. Take it from an attorney who deals with this stuff. As for why you can't find anything about it works, all I can say is "search better." It is exactly how I say it is.
I don't think you understand the burden of proof. You made the statement of fact, it's not on other people to prove it for you when they question.
|
On November 01 2012 02:30 TwoToneTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 02:26 xDaunt wrote:On November 01 2012 01:52 Risen wrote:On November 01 2012 01:47 xDaunt wrote:
One other important piece of information -- mandatory union participation isn't always determined at the state level either. It can be compelled at more local levels (county, municipal, or district) even if there is no state law compelling it. It's fine that you say that, but I still have yet to find anything supporting your claim that you must join a union at any government level. Take it from an attorney who deals with this stuff. As for why you can't find anything about it works, all I can say is "search better." It is exactly how I say it is. I don't think you understand the burden of proof. You made the statement of fact, it's not on other people to prove it for you when they question.
It's not something that can be easily cited to because it's dealt with state by state, city by city, and district by district. Seriously, have we already forgotten what the Wisconsin recall election was all about?
EDIT: The issue is also about whether non-union members can be compelled to pay union dues because of the "benefits" that they receive from the union anyway.
|
On October 31 2012 16:15 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 14:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 31 2012 13:27 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 13:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 31 2012 12:34 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 12:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 31 2012 12:10 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:54 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:
No, the most vapid posts are one's that attack a post without offering a single argument or constructive criticism in response. There's nothing in there one can respond to, hence the use of the word "vapid." There is a notion that you paint across multiple posts that bothers me. What makes government spending necessarily inefficient (or less efficient) than consumer or business spending? What makes it less efficient is the absence of both the price mechanism and the profit incentive. How do neither of those exist? We don't live in a world where government doesn't have to pay for goods or services at market competitive prices, and their capital resources, while large, are budgeted tightly, and are limited in turn. Profit incentive is replaced by the incentive to get reelected, which should largely be judged by how effectively the people are governed, which includes the services and goods government provides. That's often incorrect. The government doesn't price, say, K-12 education at a market rate and then tax people based on that market rate. The government basically takes their cost (which may or may not be reasonable) and passes it onto the taxpayer. Which is what businesses do when they provide a product or service. They offer it at cost, which may or may not be reasonable, and then expect to profit as well. Consumers are then supposed to weigh the costs and benefits of the product/service and determine if it is reasonable for them. The market only serves as an empty term to pin efficiency to as well. There is no "market price," only the price people are willing to pay for a good or service. The closest thing you have to the idealized notion of a "market" is the reference point people have of different prices being offered for differing quality of the same product/service. No, generally businesses don't simply do cost plus pricing. The cost of comparable goods and services play a huge role in determining pricing. For example, GM couldn't simply pass its high production costs onto the consumer. If it could it never would have need to seek bankruptcy protection. The reason it couldn't pass its cost onto the consumer was that competitors could offer comparable cars at a lower price and still turn a profit - because they had more efficient cost structures. The same competitive pressure doesn't exist in public education and so there is no check on inefficient spending. Competing cost of goods play a different role depending on the industry involved. Sometimes that role is huge, and people hunt for the lowest price available. Other times, the role is almost nonexistent, where people want the job done (right) and weigh the price against their available finances. As for education, the pressure exists in another way. People are always clamoring for more government spending and/or lower taxes, so education is often in competition with other departments for a limited pool of resources. There are a ton of checks on inefficient spending, and budgets are often strictly controlled and rigid in implementation. After all, if the education system is 5% under budget, that's a lot of money that can go to roads/transportation, parks, health, public safety, or a future tax break. Your real gripe seems to be that schools don't go "bankrupt" enough, but when they do, it greatly impacts the lives of the students involved. Instead of getting a poor education, they're stuck with no education. Yeah, I don't want schools to go "bankrupt" ... whatever that means. But back on topic... Strictly controlled budgets are not a sufficient check on inefficient spending in the case of education because the body of knowledge as to what constitutes efficient vs inefficient spending is extremely poor. You simply do not have the level of internal and external numerical analysis over government budgets as you do with private businesses. It just doesn't exist. The incentives you mention aren't that great either. Getting the education system 5% under budget opens you up to attack for 'cutting education spending' while benefiting the next person in office. Why not? What differentiates private investment from public investment at this point?
Externally there's just not much incentive to scrutinize a public school's budget. So no one does it.You also have a problem with the accounting - government doesn't use the same accounting standards so its a lot easier for the government to hide big liabilities like pensions.
The lack of external oversight and pressure also feeds into the internal operations. It allows for far more budget inertia - bad spending in prior years gets carried forward because no one outside is ringing the alarm bell. The lack of external pressure also makes it harder for well-intentioned administrators to affect change. Without the threat of a competing school taking away students it becomes harder to convince the staff that hard but necessary changes are required.
There's other issues as well - this is just going off the top of my head.
|
Alright, I went and looked the union thing up because the issue was pissing me off. The rule is this: union membership cannot be compulsory. However, paying union dues, regardless of whether you are a member are not, can be compulsory in non-right to work states.
EDIT: And it is the compulsory union dues that makes union membership seem compulsory.
EDIT: So what is handled on a state by state, city by city, and district by district basis is the extent to which non-union members can be compelled to pay union dues.
|
On November 01 2012 01:39 nevermindthebollocks wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 00:13 Zaqwert wrote:On October 31 2012 22:38 nevermindthebollocks wrote:I admit it is always hard for me to image Romney getting more than 40% of the national vote (or even 20%) but I think this shows the key big swing states are Obama's" http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57542715/poll-obama-holds-small-ohio-edge-fla-va-tight/?tag=categoryDoorLead;catDoorHeroMr. Obama now leads Romney 50 percent to 45 percent among likely voters in Ohio - exactly where the race stood on Oct. 22. His lead in Florida, however, has shrunk from nine points in September to just one point in the new survey, which shows Mr. Obama with 48 percent support and Romney with 47 percent. The president's lead in Virginia has shrunk from five points in early October to two points in the new survey, which shows him with a 49 percent to 47 percent advantage. I have a feeling there's still a chance for North Carolina too and the election will be all but over before the polls even close in Ohio. These CBS/NYT/Quinnipac polls are insane. They assume a Democratic turnout advantage at or ABOVE 2008 levels. Obama won Ohio in 2008 by +4, you really expect that to go up? The entire country is moving away from Obama, even the states he's gonna win, and yet somehow Ohio is moving MORE towards it? The fact that every poll they released show Obama like 4-5 points better than all the other polls for that state should let you know the polls have some sort of systematic problem. Obama could easily win Ohio, but if he does it will be less than 4% margin he got last time. What makes you think the country is moving away from Obama? Because all your favorite new sources say so and you don't hear the other side?
How many of the 50 states do you expect Obama to do better than he did in 2008? That is, winning the ones he won by a bigger margin, or losing the ones he lost by a smaller margin.
I'll go on record right now and say Obama will do worse in 2012 in virtually every state.
But don't go jump off a bridge yet, he won by a comfortable margin in 2008, so he can still lose steam in every state and squeak out a win in the electoral college.
|
|
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 01 2012 01:32 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 01:29 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 01 2012 01:26 Risen wrote:On November 01 2012 01:24 Sermokala wrote:On November 01 2012 01:16 Risen wrote:
Unions are things you join voluntarily. You pay dues voluntarily. By telling unions what they can/can not spend money on government is interfering with a private entity. I thought Republicans would be AGAINST this. I guess when it's hurting someone who disagrees with you, though, it's ok. Standard Republican/Libertarian nonsense.
Edit: I only have experience with unions in Hollywood. Correct me if I'm wrong here. there are a lot of government jobs were you are forced to join the union and pay your dues to even have the job in the first place. teachers and what not. These unions tend to pay out money to democratic canidates and not republican ones where it becomes a problem. Then this is where I see a problem. You shouldn't be forced to join a union to get a government paying job. If you DO have to join said union, it shouldn't be allowed to contribute to any political process. If the law were limited to this, I'd be down. As it stands, it's not. Edit: Do you have a source on being forced to join a union to get a government job? I'm not finding anything. Ah, so we agree on something. Common sense prevails! Call the partisan police. I'm all for common sense, but I'm still not finding anything that says you have to join a union to get a government job. If you don't have to join a union to get a government job, and public sector unions work just like private sector ones (I haven't found a difference) then I don't think there should be anything limiting unions being able to contribute to the political process. Don't like your money going to politics via unions, don't join or leave it. Edit: And we don't need the partisan police, I'm not even a Democrat :< ((I'm just voting for one lolol))
This is the crux of Prop. 32. If you don't want people contributing your dues to political campaigns then opt out. If you think the process is too difficult for people to opt out right now, then make it easier. Prop. 32 is not aiming for fair campaign finance reform, it's just aiming to crush unions.
At the very least, making the process easier for members to opt out would be easier to get state-wide support for than an overall union-crushing bill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
