Dubai has a serious labor shortage problem. This has lead to a massive "importation" of low-wage foreign workers who, upon entering, are forced to give up their passports. From NPR: They typically live eight to a room and don't see [their families] for years at a time. Salaries are often withheld to pay "back loans" - and often for months on end - essentially creating indentured servants.
:rolleyes:
You can say the exact same thing about any nation. This is true of many American immigrants and lots of other situations that happen in all nations.
The fact remains that Dubai is not rural China. They both share a relative lack of labor laws, yet they are very different places.
But things are improving. At the end of last year, the UAE labor minister stated that Dubai will allow the formation of labor unions. So, if you want to get in on this paradise, you'd better hurry. Pretty soon it might not be any better than here.
If you think I believe there should be laws against unions, you don't read my posts or don't understand them.
You can say the exact same thing about any nation. This is true of many American immigrants and lots of other situations that happen in all nations.
The fact remains that Dubai is not rural China. They both share a relative lack of labor laws, yet they are very different places.
If you think I believe there should be laws against unions, you don't read my posts or don't understand them.
I know you claim to be in favor of collective bargaining - but most of what you say you don't want in this country were brought about by labor unions, including the minimum wage.
No, it's not rural China, but it's lack of labor laws are causing problems. Do you know of any place else where legal foreign workers have to give up their passports in order to work? And apparently, the wages there were low enough to cause riots. But, there you go. You can move there (though, by their laws, you're never allowed to be a citizen), if you're tired of the boat you're riding in now. It's a free choice, though; no one's holding a gun to your head.
I know you claim to be in favor of collective bargaining - but most of what you say you don't want in this country were brought about by labor unions, including the minimum wage.
This logic is ridiculous. Being for collective bargaining doesn't mean being for all ends that arguably can come from it. You're glossing over the fact that a "collective" is no different than a person and, just like a person, it can do good things and it can do bad things.
Labor unions that negotiate on behalf of their members are wonderful -- they're no different, at least in theory, than people who negotiate on their own behalf. However, labor unions who use violence are not wonderful, just like individual people who use violence are not wonderful.
A "bargain" implies an agreement -- a willful exchange between to parties. When you introduce violence into the equation, you are no longer talking about bargaining or negotiation. You're talking about threats and physical harm.
I'm going to say this again, because I don't think you understand. If you work for Company A, and you and your fellow employees go to your management and ask that Company A institute a minimum wage, and management agrees, I'm perfectly fine with that. That's collective bargaining. You evaluated your own worth, found your pay lacking, and made a demand while management then evaluated your worth and agreed with your terms.
What you're proposing with a national minimum wage is completely different. You're demanding that a minimum wage be instituted at companies you don't work for or own and subjecting both employers and workers who are not you to your terms. And you'll harm anyone caught violating these terms. This is not a "bargain", or a "compromise", or any of the other inappropriate words you keep using. Those terms imply that I am allowed to consider your proposition in terms of personal benefit. Your proposition cares nothing about my personal benefit or my own evaluation.
No, it's not rural China, but it's lack of labor laws are causing problems.
Sure! But do you not understand the point that Dubai's lack of labor laws have far different effects than the lack of labor laws in China or many other nations? You keep wanting to pretend a lack of labor laws will lead to a singular end -- some kind of evil corporate overlord. That's specious logic because it ignores that labor laws or the lack thereof are not the primary definer of a labor environment. Skills and needs are. Furthermore, your solutions to these problems seems to be the imposition of an evil corporate overlord simply known as government.
Do you know of any place else where legal foreign workers have to give up their passports in order to work?
Not really, no. But that's just a "labor law" is it not? And that seems to be right up your alley.
And apparently, the wages there were low enough to cause riots.
Sure. And the people crazy enough, obviously.
But, there you go. You can move there (though, by their laws, you're never allowed to be a citizen), if you're tired of the boat you're riding in now. It's a free choice, though; no one's holding a gun to your head.
The "boat" and the "nation" don't have to be the same thing. Your laws have made it so. That's what I think you're missing. And when you threaten people with violence, it's not free choice, regardless of what you're talking about.
Besides, you've already said you'd hold a gun to my head earlier when you suggested that there should be a law that prevents me from moving my business overseas.
"This logic is ridiculous. Being for collective bargaining doesn't mean being for all ends that arguably can come from it. "
How is that logic ridiculous? Or, if ridiculous, why is it you insist on using the same logic for different ends - i.e. "Not really, no. But that's just a "labor law" is it not? And that seems to be right up your alley."? You're just as guilty of pushing what you see as the ends of my beliefs on me, whether I believe those ends or not. And, for the record, the passport law isn't a labor law per say, but rather an anti-labor law.
It's frustrating when people argue like you, isn't it? Oh, and I stand by my words - they're completely appropriate.
"This logic is ridiculous. Being for collective bargaining doesn't mean being for all ends that arguably can come from it. "
How is that logic ridiculous? Or, if ridiculous, why is it you insist on using the same logic for different ends - i.e. "Not really, no. But that's just a "labor law" is it not? And that seems to be right up your alley."? You're just as guilty of pushing what you see as the ends of my beliefs on me, whether I believe those ends or not. And, for the record, the passport law isn't a labor law per say, but rather an anti-labor law.
It's frustrating when people argue like you, isn't it? Oh, and I stand by my words - they're completely appropriate.
i don't think you're addressing me; but i'd like to give my take. if it were not for the minimum wage law; i'd be paying $10 to $12/hr. that's what i feel the work is worth. BUT, the government says i can pay $6/hr so i do.
"This logic is ridiculous. Being for collective bargaining doesn't mean being for all ends that arguably can come from it. "
How is that logic ridiculous?
Let me give you an example. I love knives. They're very useful. The do great things. However, I don't like stabbings. A stabbing and a knife are not the same thing. Do you understand that?
Similarly, I love the concept of individual people coming together with shared interests for a shared purpose. That's the essence of both a union and a corporation. However, I don't like it when a union or a corporation uses violence to extract "agreement" from their counterparts. A "collective bargain" and ransom are not the same thing.
Or, if ridiculous, why is it you insist on using the same logic for different ends - i.e. "Not really, no. But that's just a "labor law" is it not?
I'm using your logic. That's the point.
And that seems to be right up your alley."? You're just as guilty of pushing what you see as the ends of my beliefs on me, whether I believe those ends or not. And, for the record, the passport law isn't a labor law per say, but rather an anti-labor law.
But do you not understand that when you give people the right to extract things via force from their employers, you grant the employer the exact same right??? You're arguing against your own moral code here. On what grounds can you say you have a right to tell the employer what you're worth and force them to abide by it, but the employer cannot do the same? All you're left with is which side has more guns that the other. Your moral code here, if it can even be called that, is nothing more than a struggle between two strongmen.
It's frustrating when people argue like you, isn't it? Oh, and I stand by my words - they're completely appropriate.
Can you tell me how it's a "compromise" when one party demands something, the other says no, and the first simply holds a gun to the second's head? Where is the "compromise" or the "bargain" there?
But do you not understand that when you give people the right to extract things via force from their employers, you grant the employer the exact same right??? You're arguing against your own moral code here. On what grounds can you say you have a right to tell the employer what you're worth and force them to abide by it, but the employer cannot do the same? All you're left with is which side has more guns that the other. Your moral code here, if it can even be called that, is nothing more than a struggle between two strongmen.
i agree. and good point too. i have an employee sign a document spelling out their job description. the attorney words it so the person couldn't possibly do everything but they don't notice the legal wording. i can then fire the person any time i want. they can't get unemployment for being fired because they didn't do the job they agreed to. in most cases; the employer always wins.
i agree. and good point too. i have an employee sign a document spelling out their job description. the attorney words it so the person couldn't possibly do everything but they don't notice the legal wording. i can then fire the person any time i want. they can't get unemployment for being fired because they didn't do the job they agreed to. in most cases; the employer always wins.
I'm not sure how this ridiculous situation matches what I said. I'd suggest spending more time worrying about hiring the right people as opposed to worrying about how to fire them later, but that said I don't know your business.
I'm not sure how this ridiculous situation matches what I said. I'd suggest spending more time worrying about hiring the right people as opposed to worrying about how to fire them later, but that said I don't know your business.
and that's what it's about. it's easy for someone to be a good worker for 3 or 4 months. but at that point the laws keep an employer from firing that person. then they'll try to collect unemployment.
the point here is that employees try to force (as you said) laws and regulations on employers thus forcing the employer to take actions to protect themselves.
i thought this was your point so i offered an example. i apologize if i misread or misunderstood your intention.
House Republicans yesterday declared "something fishy" about the major tuna company in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district being exempted from the minimum-wage increase that Democrats approved this week.
"I am shocked," said Rep. Eric Cantor, Virginia Republican and his party's chief deputy whip, noting that Mrs. Pelosi campaigned heavily on promises of honest government. "Now we find out that she is exempting hometown companies from minimum wage. This is exactly the hypocrisy and double talk that we have come to expect from the Democrats."
On Wednesday, the House voted to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour.
The bill also extends for the first time the federal minimum wage to the U.S. territory of the Northern Mariana Islands. However, it exempts American Samoa, another Pacific island territory that would become the only U.S. territory not subject to federal minimum-wage laws.
One of the biggest opponents of the federal minimum wage in Samoa is StarKist Tuna, which owns one of the two packing plants that together employ more than 5,000 Samoans, or nearly 75 percent of the island's work force. StarKist's parent company, Del Monte Corp., has headquarters in San Francisco, which is represented by Mrs. Pelosi. The other plant belongs to California-based Chicken of the Sea.
"There's something fishy going on here," said Rep. Patrick T. McHenry, North Carolina Republican.
During the House debate yesterday on stem-cell research, Mr. McHenry raised a parliamentary inquiry as to whether an amendment could be offered that would exempt American Samoa from stem-cell research, "just as it was for the minimum-wage bill."
A clearly perturbed Rep. Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who was presiding, cut off Mr. McHenry and shouted, "No, it would not be."
"So, the chair is saying I may not offer an amendment exempting American Samoa?" Mr. McHenry pressed.
"The gentleman is making a speech and will sustain," Mr. Frank shouted as he slammed his large wooden gavel against the rostrum.
Some Republicans who voted in favor of the minimum-wage bill were particularly irritated to learn yesterday -- after their vote -- that the legislation did not include American Samoa.
"I was troubled to learn of this exemption," said Rep. Mark Steven Kirk, Illinois Republican. "My intention was to raise the minimum wage for everyone. We shouldn't permit any special favors or exemptions that are not widely discussed in Congress. This is the problem with rushing legislation through without full debate."
A spokeswoman for Mrs. Pelosi said Wednesday that the speaker has not been lobbied in any way by StarKist or Del Monte.
*************************
Doesn't American Somoa deserve a higher standard of living just like everyone else?
and that's what it's about. it's easy for someone to be a good worker for 3 or 4 months. but at that point the laws keep an employer from firing that person. then they'll try to collect unemployment.
the point here is that employees try to force (as you said) laws and regulations on employers thus forcing the employer to take actions to protect themselves.
i thought this was your point so i offered an example. i apologize if i misread or misunderstood your intention.
Ok, I understand this better now. And yes, it would be related in the sense that an employee who uses instruments of state force to extract payment really has no grounds on which to complain when the employer simply turns the tables and does the same. But, as employers, I'd hope we'd be better than that, since once we play that game we give the same sanction to our employees.
House Republicans yesterday declared "something fishy" about the major tuna company in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district being exempted from the minimum-wage increase that Democrats approved this week.
"I am shocked," said Rep. Eric Cantor, Virginia Republican and his party's chief deputy whip, noting that Mrs. Pelosi campaigned heavily on promises of honest government. "Now we find out that she is exempting hometown companies from minimum wage. This is exactly the hypocrisy and double talk that we have come to expect from the Democrats."
On Wednesday, the House voted to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour.
The bill also extends for the first time the federal minimum wage to the U.S. territory of the Northern Mariana Islands. However, it exempts American Samoa, another Pacific island territory that would become the only U.S. territory not subject to federal minimum-wage laws.
One of the biggest opponents of the federal minimum wage in Samoa is StarKist Tuna, which owns one of the two packing plants that together employ more than 5,000 Samoans, or nearly 75 percent of the island's work force. StarKist's parent company, Del Monte Corp., has headquarters in San Francisco, which is represented by Mrs. Pelosi. The other plant belongs to California-based Chicken of the Sea.
"There's something fishy going on here," said Rep. Patrick T. McHenry, North Carolina Republican.
During the House debate yesterday on stem-cell research, Mr. McHenry raised a parliamentary inquiry as to whether an amendment could be offered that would exempt American Samoa from stem-cell research, "just as it was for the minimum-wage bill."
A clearly perturbed Rep. Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who was presiding, cut off Mr. McHenry and shouted, "No, it would not be."
"So, the chair is saying I may not offer an amendment exempting American Samoa?" Mr. McHenry pressed.
"The gentleman is making a speech and will sustain," Mr. Frank shouted as he slammed his large wooden gavel against the rostrum.
Some Republicans who voted in favor of the minimum-wage bill were particularly irritated to learn yesterday -- after their vote -- that the legislation did not include American Samoa.
"I was troubled to learn of this exemption," said Rep. Mark Steven Kirk, Illinois Republican. "My intention was to raise the minimum wage for everyone. We shouldn't permit any special favors or exemptions that are not widely discussed in Congress. This is the problem with rushing legislation through without full debate."
A spokeswoman for Mrs. Pelosi said Wednesday that the speaker has not been lobbied in any way by StarKist or Del Monte.
*************************
Doesn't American Somoa deserve a higher standard of living just like everyone else?
Meet the new boss.....
Apparently a "living wage" isn't such a right after all. The idiocy here just goes on and on.
Ok, I understand this better now. And yes, it would be related in the sense that an employee who uses instruments of state force to extract payment really has no grounds on which to complain when the employer simply turns the tables and does the same. But, as employers, I'd hope we'd be better than that, since once we play that game we give the same sanction to our employees.
i'm old enough to remember the good days but we've had a lot of trouble with meth users so the protection put into place is more for that than anything else.
we also must remember that government is on the side of the employer. for every law in the employees favor the employer gets 2 loopholes so we're basically spending all this legislative money for nothing.
House Republicans yesterday declared "something fishy" about the major tuna company in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district being exempted from the minimum-wage increase that Democrats approved this week.
"I am shocked," said Rep. Eric Cantor, Virginia Republican and his party's chief deputy whip, noting that Mrs. Pelosi campaigned heavily on promises of honest government. "Now we find out that she is exempting hometown companies from minimum wage. This is exactly the hypocrisy and double talk that we have come to expect from the Democrats."
On Wednesday, the House voted to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour.
The bill also extends for the first time the federal minimum wage to the U.S. territory of the Northern Mariana Islands. However, it exempts American Samoa, another Pacific island territory that would become the only U.S. territory not subject to federal minimum-wage laws.
One of the biggest opponents of the federal minimum wage in Samoa is StarKist Tuna, which owns one of the two packing plants that together employ more than 5,000 Samoans, or nearly 75 percent of the island's work force. StarKist's parent company, Del Monte Corp., has headquarters in San Francisco, which is represented by Mrs. Pelosi. The other plant belongs to California-based Chicken of the Sea.
"There's something fishy going on here," said Rep. Patrick T. McHenry, North Carolina Republican.
During the House debate yesterday on stem-cell research, Mr. McHenry raised a parliamentary inquiry as to whether an amendment could be offered that would exempt American Samoa from stem-cell research, "just as it was for the minimum-wage bill."
A clearly perturbed Rep. Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who was presiding, cut off Mr. McHenry and shouted, "No, it would not be."
"So, the chair is saying I may not offer an amendment exempting American Samoa?" Mr. McHenry pressed.
"The gentleman is making a speech and will sustain," Mr. Frank shouted as he slammed his large wooden gavel against the rostrum.
Some Republicans who voted in favor of the minimum-wage bill were particularly irritated to learn yesterday -- after their vote -- that the legislation did not include American Samoa.
"I was troubled to learn of this exemption," said Rep. Mark Steven Kirk, Illinois Republican. "My intention was to raise the minimum wage for everyone. We shouldn't permit any special favors or exemptions that are not widely discussed in Congress. This is the problem with rushing legislation through without full debate."
A spokeswoman for Mrs. Pelosi said Wednesday that the speaker has not been lobbied in any way by StarKist or Del Monte.
*************************
Doesn't American Somoa deserve a higher standard of living just like everyone else?
Fucking amazing. Any Pelosi supporters want to defend this? And what does it do for the minimum wage argument, when the very people who champion it, don't think it is necesary for American Samoa? God damned hypocrites.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
LOL, I think I can smell it too. Yep, that's chum.
*****************
House Republicans yesterday declared "something fishy" about the major tuna company in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district being exempted from the minimum-wage increase that Democrats approved this week.
*****************
In hindsight, you both actually made a little of sense but it turns out instead of chum, it's tuna. Care to comment on the true root of that smell?
Minimum-Wage Hike May Reach to Samoa
Saturday, January 13, 2007; Page A02
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), dogged by Republican charges of a double standard, said yesterday that American Samoa may join the Northern Mariana Islands as U.S. territories that would have to comply with a higher federal minimum wage.
Under the minimum-wage increase approved by the House this week, employers on the Northern Marianas would for the first time have to pay their workers the minimum wage, which would rise from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour. For years, Republicans -- with the help of convicted lobbyist Jack A. Abramoff -- have fended off efforts to bring the islands under federal labor laws.
Why is everyone so shocked that Walmart likes to make shitloads of money and make good decisions to make shitloads of money unlike some of their main competors like K-Mart?
Shaming of success is being ingrained into our minds. I like how they find a way to bring teachers into the debate. Somehow abused puppy dogs didn't make the final cut.
Also, ironic that you have to be on the grid to watch off the grid.
Why is everyone so shocked that Walmart likes to make shitloads of money and make good decisions to make shitloads of money unlike some of their main competors like K-Mart?
Shaming of success is being ingrained into our minds. I like how they find a way to bring teachers into the debate. Somehow abused puppy dogs didn't make the final cut.
Also, ironic that you have to be on the grid to watch off the grid.
Shaming of success? That's a bit much! How about shaming of people who take advantage of others unnecessarily. Is having money and making money a real measure of success?
Is having money and making money a real measure of success?
For a business, I would think so. They have a responsibility to their shareholders to do just that. There are other measures of success of course, but making money better be a primary objective for any business.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Why is everyone so shocked that Walmart likes to make shitloads of money and make good decisions to make shitloads of money unlike some of their main competors like K-Mart?
Shaming of success is being ingrained into our minds. I like how they find a way to bring teachers into the debate. Somehow abused puppy dogs didn't make the final cut.
Also, ironic that you have to be on the grid to watch off the grid.
I don't think most have a problem with wal mart making money, but they can easily afford better pay and benefits ...
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Why is everyone so shocked that Walmart likes to make shitloads of money and make good decisions to make shitloads of money unlike some of their main competors like K-Mart?
Shaming of success is being ingrained into our minds. I like how they find a way to bring teachers into the debate. Somehow abused puppy dogs didn't make the final cut.
Also, ironic that you have to be on the grid to watch off the grid.
Shaming of success? That's a bit much! How about shaming of people who take advantage of others unnecessarily. Is having money and making money a real measure of success?
Sadly in Canada and the U.S. momey seemingly is what success is to many.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
I agree with Jesse. I think Wal-Mart should take a few billion and pay their employees better. I just don't think the government should force them to do it.
Noone has ever commented on the urban/rural question. Certainly you think the minimum wage in Chicago would be different than somewhere in the middle of Kansas, correct? So, who is this proposed minimum wage appropriate for? The city slickers or the country bumpkins? So even after the change, either the country folks are being overpaid or the city folks are underpaid. Shouldn't that be addressed?
in a land where all men are created equal; how do you justify different minimum wages?
In a perfect world, all salaries should reflect the local cost of living.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Noone has ever commented on the urban/rural question. Certainly you think the minimum wage in Chicago would be different than somewhere in the middle of Kansas, correct? So, who is this proposed minimum wage appropriate for? The city slickers or the country bumpkins? So even after the change, either the country folks are being overpaid or the city folks are underpaid. Shouldn't that be addressed?
in a land where all men are created equal; how do you justify different minimum wages?
In a perfect world, all salaries should reflect the local cost of living.
I had two thoughts that came quickly to me upon reading this:
1. First one was positive: Yes, absolutely. Great idea! 2. Second one was a bit cynical: Ah, but it does work that way. In a less wealthy area like parts of my semi-rural to very rural county (El Dorado) there are a few very wealthy, some middle class, and a fair number of poor. In the Bay Area, there is a more than average number of wealthy people, some middle class, and a lower than average number of poor. The difference is that the rich here make about what the middle class do in the Bay Area, the middle class here make about what the poor do in the Bay Area, and the poor here make less than pretty much anyone does in the Bay Area. So the wages do somewhat reflect the cost of living but generally speaking, the elite are the elite, the middle class is shrinking, and the poor are growing in number.
(Maybe not the best analogy but hopefully you get what I mean.)
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Yes Brian, you talking about economic disparity! Probably THE number one social problem in the world - the true root of poverty and corruption IMO .... Well in a perfect world, economic disparity wouldn't exist either.
But as far as salaries reflecting local cost of living.... even with the evil of economic disparity, it is a real-life solution (coming from someone who lives in a place with a serious problem of average salaries not even coming close to being appropriate to the local cost of living even for people with relatively high salaries). That's in response to the idea of wage equality despite location. IMO, wage equality between economic disparate locations makes no economic sense at. Fortunately, that's not how it works. Unfortunately, in most places there is a serious lack of balance as far as salaries vs local cost of living goes.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Comments
:rolleyes:
You can say the exact same thing about any nation. This is true of many American immigrants and lots of other situations that happen in all nations.
The fact remains that Dubai is not rural China. They both share a relative lack of labor laws, yet they are very different places.
If you think I believe there should be laws against unions, you don't read my posts or don't understand them.
No, it's not rural China, but it's lack of labor laws are causing problems. Do you know of any place else where legal foreign workers have to give up their passports in order to work? And apparently, the wages there were low enough to cause riots. But, there you go. You can move there (though, by their laws, you're never allowed to be a citizen), if you're tired of the boat you're riding in now. It's a free choice, though; no one's holding a gun to your head.
This logic is ridiculous. Being for collective bargaining doesn't mean being for all ends that arguably can come from it. You're glossing over the fact that a "collective" is no different than a person and, just like a person, it can do good things and it can do bad things.
Labor unions that negotiate on behalf of their members are wonderful -- they're no different, at least in theory, than people who negotiate on their own behalf. However, labor unions who use violence are not wonderful, just like individual people who use violence are not wonderful.
A "bargain" implies an agreement -- a willful exchange between to parties. When you introduce violence into the equation, you are no longer talking about bargaining or negotiation. You're talking about threats and physical harm.
I'm going to say this again, because I don't think you understand. If you work for Company A, and you and your fellow employees go to your management and ask that Company A institute a minimum wage, and management agrees, I'm perfectly fine with that. That's collective bargaining. You evaluated your own worth, found your pay lacking, and made a demand while management then evaluated your worth and agreed with your terms.
What you're proposing with a national minimum wage is completely different. You're demanding that a minimum wage be instituted at companies you don't work for or own and subjecting both employers and workers who are not you to your terms. And you'll harm anyone caught violating these terms. This is not a "bargain", or a "compromise", or any of the other inappropriate words you keep using. Those terms imply that I am allowed to consider your proposition in terms of personal benefit. Your proposition cares nothing about my personal benefit or my own evaluation.
Sure! But do you not understand the point that Dubai's lack of labor laws have far different effects than the lack of labor laws in China or many other nations? You keep wanting to pretend a lack of labor laws will lead to a singular end -- some kind of evil corporate overlord. That's specious logic because it ignores that labor laws or the lack thereof are not the primary definer of a labor environment. Skills and needs are. Furthermore, your solutions to these problems seems to be the imposition of an evil corporate overlord simply known as government.
Not really, no. But that's just a "labor law" is it not? And that seems to be right up your alley.
Sure. And the people crazy enough, obviously.
The "boat" and the "nation" don't have to be the same thing. Your laws have made it so. That's what I think you're missing. And when you threaten people with violence, it's not free choice, regardless of what you're talking about.
Besides, you've already said you'd hold a gun to my head earlier when you suggested that there should be a law that prevents me from moving my business overseas.
How is that logic ridiculous? Or, if ridiculous, why is it you insist on using the same logic for different ends - i.e. "Not really, no. But that's just a "labor law" is it not? And that seems to be right up your alley."? You're just as guilty of pushing what you see as the ends of my beliefs on me, whether I believe those ends or not. And, for the record, the passport law isn't a labor law per say, but rather an anti-labor law.
It's frustrating when people argue like you, isn't it? Oh, and I stand by my words - they're completely appropriate.
i don't think you're addressing me; but i'd like to give my take. if it were not for the minimum wage law; i'd be paying $10 to $12/hr. that's what i feel the work is worth. BUT, the government says i can pay $6/hr so i do.
Let me give you an example. I love knives. They're very useful. The do great things. However, I don't like stabbings. A stabbing and a knife are not the same thing. Do you understand that?
Similarly, I love the concept of individual people coming together with shared interests for a shared purpose. That's the essence of both a union and a corporation. However, I don't like it when a union or a corporation uses violence to extract "agreement" from their counterparts. A "collective bargain" and ransom are not the same thing.
I'm using your logic. That's the point.
But do you not understand that when you give people the right to extract things via force from their employers, you grant the employer the exact same right??? You're arguing against your own moral code here. On what grounds can you say you have a right to tell the employer what you're worth and force them to abide by it, but the employer cannot do the same? All you're left with is which side has more guns that the other. Your moral code here, if it can even be called that, is nothing more than a struggle between two strongmen.
Can you tell me how it's a "compromise" when one party demands something, the other says no, and the first simply holds a gun to the second's head? Where is the "compromise" or the "bargain" there?
i agree. and good point too. i have an employee sign a document spelling out their job description. the attorney words it so the person couldn't possibly do everything but they don't notice the legal wording. i can then fire the person any time i want. they can't get unemployment for being fired because they didn't do the job they agreed to. in most cases; the employer always wins.
I'm not sure how this ridiculous situation matches what I said. I'd suggest spending more time worrying about hiring the right people as opposed to worrying about how to fire them later, but that said I don't know your business.
and that's what it's about. it's easy for someone to be a good worker for 3 or 4 months. but at that point the laws keep an employer from firing that person. then they'll try to collect unemployment.
the point here is that employees try to force (as you said) laws and regulations on employers thus forcing the employer to take actions to protect themselves.
i thought this was your point so i offered an example. i apologize if i misread or misunderstood your intention.
House Republicans yesterday declared "something fishy" about the major tuna company in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district being exempted from the minimum-wage increase that Democrats approved this week.
"I am shocked," said Rep. Eric Cantor, Virginia Republican and his party's chief deputy whip, noting that Mrs. Pelosi campaigned heavily on promises of honest government. "Now we find out that she is exempting hometown companies from minimum wage. This is exactly the hypocrisy and double talk that we have come to expect from the Democrats."
On Wednesday, the House voted to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour.
The bill also extends for the first time the federal minimum wage to the U.S. territory of the Northern Mariana Islands. However, it exempts American Samoa, another Pacific island territory that would become the only U.S. territory not subject to federal minimum-wage laws.
One of the biggest opponents of the federal minimum wage in Samoa is StarKist Tuna, which owns one of the two packing plants that together employ more than 5,000 Samoans, or nearly 75 percent of the island's work force. StarKist's parent company, Del Monte Corp., has headquarters in San Francisco, which is represented by Mrs. Pelosi. The other plant belongs to California-based Chicken of the Sea.
"There's something fishy going on here," said Rep. Patrick T. McHenry, North Carolina Republican.
During the House debate yesterday on stem-cell research, Mr. McHenry raised a parliamentary inquiry as to whether an amendment could be offered that would exempt American Samoa from stem-cell research, "just as it was for the minimum-wage bill."
A clearly perturbed Rep. Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who was presiding, cut off Mr. McHenry and shouted, "No, it would not be."
"So, the chair is saying I may not offer an amendment exempting American Samoa?" Mr. McHenry pressed.
"The gentleman is making a speech and will sustain," Mr. Frank shouted as he slammed his large wooden gavel against the rostrum.
Some Republicans who voted in favor of the minimum-wage bill were particularly irritated to learn yesterday -- after their vote -- that the legislation did not include American Samoa.
"I was troubled to learn of this exemption," said Rep. Mark Steven Kirk, Illinois Republican. "My intention was to raise the minimum wage for everyone. We shouldn't permit any special favors or exemptions that are not widely discussed in Congress. This is the problem with rushing legislation through without full debate."
A spokeswoman for Mrs. Pelosi said Wednesday that the speaker has not been lobbied in any way by StarKist or Del Monte.
*************************
Doesn't American Somoa deserve a higher standard of living just like everyone else?
Ok, I understand this better now. And yes, it would be related in the sense that an employee who uses instruments of state force to extract payment really has no grounds on which to complain when the employer simply turns the tables and does the same. But, as employers, I'd hope we'd be better than that, since once we play that game we give the same sanction to our employees.
Meet the new boss.....
Apparently a "living wage" isn't such a right after all. The idiocy here just goes on and on.
i'm old enough to remember the good days but we've had a lot of trouble with meth users so the protection put into place is more for that than anything else.
we also must remember that government is on the side of the employer. for every law in the employees favor the employer gets 2 loopholes so we're basically spending all this legislative money for nothing.
Fucking amazing. Any Pelosi supporters want to defend this? And what does it do for the minimum wage argument, when the very people who champion it, don't think it is necesary for American Samoa? God damned hypocrites.
*****************
House Republicans yesterday declared "something fishy" about the major tuna company in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district being exempted from the minimum-wage increase that Democrats approved this week.
*****************
In hindsight, you both actually made a little of sense but it turns out instead of chum, it's tuna. Care to comment on the true root of that smell?
Here is some of the commentary in congress:
http://malama.solupress.com/malama/news/articles/article1123.asp
This discussion may become moot:
Minimum-Wage Hike May Reach to Samoa
Saturday, January 13, 2007; Page A02
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), dogged by Republican charges of a double standard, said yesterday that American Samoa may join the Northern Mariana Islands as U.S. territories that would have to comply with a higher federal minimum wage.
Under the minimum-wage increase approved by the House this week, employers on the Northern Marianas would for the first time have to pay their workers the minimum wage, which would rise from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour. For years, Republicans -- with the help of convicted lobbyist Jack A. Abramoff -- have fended off efforts to bring the islands under federal labor laws.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/12/AR2007011201966.html
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/careers/careers-leadership/why-raise-the-minimum-wage-just-ask-costco/article20839767/
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Shaming of success is being ingrained into our minds. I like how they find a way to bring teachers into the debate. Somehow abused puppy dogs didn't make the final cut.
Also, ironic that you have to be on the grid to watch off the grid.
Is having money and making money a real measure of success?
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
1. First one was positive: Yes, absolutely. Great idea!
2. Second one was a bit cynical: Ah, but it does work that way. In a less wealthy area like parts of my semi-rural to very rural county (El Dorado) there are a few very wealthy, some middle class, and a fair number of poor. In the Bay Area, there is a more than average number of wealthy people, some middle class, and a lower than average number of poor. The difference is that the rich here make about what the middle class do in the Bay Area, the middle class here make about what the poor do in the Bay Area, and the poor here make less than pretty much anyone does in the Bay Area. So the wages do somewhat reflect the cost of living but generally speaking, the elite are the elite, the middle class is shrinking, and the poor are growing in number.
(Maybe not the best analogy but hopefully you get what I mean.)
But as far as salaries reflecting local cost of living.... even with the evil of economic disparity, it is a real-life solution (coming from someone who lives in a place with a serious problem of average salaries not even coming close to being appropriate to the local cost of living even for people with relatively high salaries). That's in response to the idea of wage equality despite location. IMO, wage equality between economic disparate locations makes no economic sense at. Fortunately, that's not how it works. Unfortunately, in most places there is a serious lack of balance as far as salaries vs local cost of living goes.