Is anyone still stupid enough to believe that the Repubs are for worker's rights?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quit defending the crazy notion that Repubs are somehow for the workin man.

This is a great place to have a debate/argument, to offer facts, suggest other viewpoints, remind people of perspectives and previous history, however your commands to do or not do something carry no weight here.

Gee thats funny, I just posted several websites with data, should I do it again for you? Furthermore, the fight against min wage incr speaks volumes of the attack on the poor, do I need to post site about that fight?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Here's a site that has fatalities by state from 92 to 02, I am crunching the numbers now, we'll see which states have ho many deaths. It will be a litttle inexact, as the rate won't be figured in.

http://www.bls.gov/...wc/cfoi/cftb0186.pdf

Hate to pop your bubble, but those figures are totals, not rates. It is incident rates that tell where the safest states are. I'll give you an extreme example, a purely hypothetical situation. State A has 1000 workers. State B has 100. In a given year A has 10 fatalities and 100 injuries. B has 5 fatalities and 50 injuries. Is state A more dangerous because it has higher totals? no, because when you calculate the rates and percentages, a worker in state A has a 1% chance of a fatal injury, and a 10% chance of any injury. State B, in the same year, a worker has a 5% chance of a fatal and a 50% chance of any injury.

Quote

Also, don't provide some partial list of states with your data. Fuck,

If you want to continue this debate I would suggest watching your tone. There is nothing wrong with the OSHA data I presented for the purposes of this discussion. It is accurate, it is reliable, and if you want to fill in the missing states then feel free to search for the data on your own.

I WROTE: It will be a litttle inexact, as the rate won't be figured in.

YOU WROTE: Hate to pop your bubble, but those figures are totals, not rates.

WOW, perhaps reading what I wrote will help you when you answer my posts

Quote

It is incident rates that tell where the safest states are. I'll give you an extreme example, a purely hypothetical situation. State A has 1000 workers. State B has 100. In a given year A has 10 fatalities and 100 injuries. B has 5 fatalities and 50 injuries. Is state A more dangerous because it has higher totals? no, because when you calculate the rates and percentages, a worker in state A has a 1% chance of a fatal injury, and a 10% chance of any injury. State B, in the same year, a worker has a 5% chance of a fatal and a 50% chance of any injury.

Oh gee, thx for the math lesson, but I already took statistics in college. Perhaps reading me writing It will be a litttle inexact, as the rate won't be figured in. would have nullified this need for masturbation over a moot point. But you see we can figure in rate if we procured the number of workers in each state. There are probably sites that compile this data.

Quote

If you want to continue this debate I would suggest watching your tone. There is nothing wrong with the OSHA data I presented for the purposes of this discussion. It is accurate, it is reliable, and if you want to fill in the missing states then feel free to search for the data on your own.

Please, you cite a partial list, then ignore me stating that the rate isn't figured in and try to infer I don;t understand statistical compilation, now you're feelings are hurt because I wrote, "Fuck."

Quote

There is nothing wrong with the OSHA data I presented for the purposes of this discussion. It is accurate, it is reliable, and if you want to fill in the missing states then feel free to search for the data on your own.

Nothing wrong, just incomplete. That IS wrong. Not saying you misrepresented it, just that it meansd nothing until complete. You fill it in, it's your data / your argument.

I'm gonna finish crunching numbers or finding a site that has the already done so.

[willard 0]

Quote

It will be a litttle inexact, as the rate won't be figured in.

If you aren't calcutaing rates, then what are you calculating? I have given and example of why the rate is what tells the story, you claim to have taken a stats class, so what else would you use?

As I said, the OSHA list I provided did not specify why the data for those states was not available. Since this debate does not entail losing money, a job, etc. the fact that those states' data are missing is unimportant. Mississippi was missing. Since their industrial base is comparable to Alabama, another RTW state, we can safely assume for purposes of this forum that the incident rates will also be similar.

I inadvertantly missed the rate from one state while doing my averages. The correct figure is 4.6, not 3.4. Still right at the national average.

[willard 0]

BTW, just what is your point in bringing up injury stats in union vs RTW states? You don't honestly think that being one or the other is the only influence on workplace safety, do you? There are many other factors to consider such as industrial base, environment, etc.

You say I keep quoting things from the Republican camp. Maybe I do, I don't know because I don't pay any attention to what they are saying.
But I guess it all balances out with you quoting the distorted song and dance routine the unions have been trying to get everyone to believe. Think the unions tell you everything? Ever hear of Agency Fees? Ask your union reps about that one. That's one small item most unions don't want their members to know about.
Don't like living in a RTW state? Then move! It's your choice, not mine. Just stop trying to force everyone everywhere to be a union member.
Union membership is on a downturn. The reasons are many, but suffice to say that the decrease will continue but rest assured it will stabilize at some point before starting back up. Like Kallend pointed out, it will find a balance.

[Lucky... 0]

I WROTE: Here's a site that has fatalities by state from 92 to 02, I am crunching the numbers now, we'll see which states have ho many deaths. It will be a litttle inexact, as the rate won't be figured in.

YOU WROTE: Hate to pop your bubble, but those figures are totals, not rates.

I WROTE: WOW, perhaps reading what I wrote will help you when you answer my posts

YOU WROTE: If you aren't calcutaing rates, then what are you calculating? I have given and example of why the rate is what tells the story, you claim to have taken a stats class, so what else would you use?

-----> I realize the rate is the essential element, I was just posting some raw data that I said I was going to compile later. Just admit you missed the part where I wrote, “Here's a site that has fatalities by state from 92 to 02, I am crunching the numbers now, we'll see which states have ho many deaths. It will be a little inexact, as the rate won't be figured in.” And we can get on with this argument.

Quote

Since this debate does not entail losing money, a job, etc. the fact that those states' data are missing is unimportant.

Unless the states excluded indicate high injury/death in RTW states.

Quote

Mississippi was missing. Since their industrial base is comparable to Alabama, another RTW state, we can safely assume for purposes of this forum that the incident rates will also be similar.

There ya go assuming again. Considering Mississippi ranked 45th out of 50, 50 being bad in deaths in 2004, it IS very significant. Although it is comparable in that Alabama, another RTW state was 42nd, both near the bottom.

Quote

I inadvertantly missed the rate from one state while doing my averages. The correct figure is 4.6, not 3.4. Still right at the national average.

What is at the averages? Are you saying 4.6 and 3.4 are close? They’re not in these terms.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

BTW, just what is your point in bringing up injury stats in union vs RTW states?

To establish that RTW states are more dangerous places to work due to the lack of unions ensuring safety; remember the theme of this thread?

Quote

You don't honestly think that being one or the other is the only influence on workplace safety, do you? There are many other factors to consider such as industrial base, environment, etc.

Not the only influence, which is why I attribute Alaska and Montana as being near the bottom of the most safe states to work. The grouping is that RTW states are at the bottom of the safe states.

Quote

You say I keep quoting things from the Republican camp. Maybe I do, I don't know because I don't pay any attention to what they are saying.

You impart the same things they do, must be an absolute mystery.

Quote

But I guess it all balances out with you quoting the distorted song and dance routine the unions have been trying to get everyone to believe.

Believe what, the truth? RTW states are all below the national average as far as wages an they are amongst the least safe places to work? I can support that with independant data, don't need them.

Quote

Think the unions tell you everything? Ever hear of Agency Fees? Ask your union reps about that one. That's one small item most unions don't want their members to know about.

If you have a point to make about agency fees why not tell us instead of your song and dance.

Quote

Don't like living in a RTW state? Then move! It's your choice, not mine. Just stop trying to force everyone everywhere to be a union member.

I'm not forcing anyone, just trying to ensure fair elections. Apparently you are a Repub and I think we know where you stand on fair elections.

Quote

Union membership is on a downturn. The reasons are many, but suffice to say that the decrease will continue but rest assured it will stabilize at some point before starting back up. Like Kallend pointed out, it will find a balance.

Can't figure out why they are downturning, could it be that the last 3 stooges, esp GW Bush and Reagan have proactively assaulted them? People want unionization, the establishment just won't let them.

I think the cleaning out of Congress in Nov is a sign that the pendulum is swinging.

[Lucky... 0]

Here's some data for ya. I know you're going to say it's from the afl.cio, but they complied it from the labor board. It shows a distinct trend in deaths from RTW states, but does also show 4 non-RTW states at the bottom, so it is honest and objective. The RTW states are emboldened.

RHODE ISLAND 1.3 1
NEW HAMPSHIRE 2.1 2
VERMONT 2.1 2
DELAWARE 2.2 4
MASSACHUSETTS 2.2 4
CALIFORNIA 2.4 6
MAINE 2.4 6
MICHIGAN 2.6 8
MARYLAND 2.9 9
MINNESOTA 2.9 9
NEW YORK 2.9 9
CONNECTICUT 3.1 12
ARIZONA 3.1 12*
NEW JERSEY 3.1 12
WASHINGTON 3.2 15
WISCONSIN 3.2 15
ILLINOIS 3.4 17
OREGON 3.4 17
OHIO 3.6 19
PENNSYLVANIA 3.9 20
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 4.0
HAWAII 4.1 21
TEXAS 4.2 22*
NORTH CAROLINA 4.5 24*
VIRGINIA 4.6 25*
NEBRASKA 4.8 26*
COLORADO 4.9 27
UTAH 4.4 27*
INDIANA 5.0 28
IOWA 5.1 29*
FLORIDA 5.2 30*
TENNESSEE 5.2 30*
GEORGIA 5.3 32*
NEVADA 5.3 32*
SOUTH CAROLINA 5.4 34*
OKLAHOMA 5.6 35*
ARKANSAS 5.7 36*
IDAHO 5.7 36*
KANSAS 5.7 36*
MISSOURI 5.7 36
SOUTH DAKOTA 5.8 40*
LOISIANA 6.3 41*
ALABAMA 6.4 42*
NEW MEXICO 6.6 43
NORTH DAKOTA 6.6 43*
MISSISSIPPI 7.0 45*
KENTUCKY 7.6 46
WEST VIRGINIA 7.7 47
MONTANA 8.4 48
ALASKA 12.7 49
WYOMING 15.5 50*

* = RIGHT TO WORK STATE


http://www.aflcio.org/issues/safety/memorial/doj_2006.cfm


http://www.aflcio.org/issues/safety/memorial/upload/_48.pdf

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

BTW, just what is your point in bringing up injury stats in union vs RTW states?

To establish that RTW states are more dangerous places to work due to the lack of unions ensuring safety; remember the theme of this thread?

Quote

You don't honestly think that being one or the other is the only influence on workplace safety, do you? There are many other factors to consider such as industrial base, environment, etc.

Not the only influence, which is why I attribute Alaska and Montana as being near the bottom of the most safe states to work. The grouping is that RTW states are at the bottom of the safe states.

Quote

You say I keep quoting things from the Republican camp. Maybe I do, I don't know because I don't pay any attention to what they are saying.

You impart the same things they do, must be an absolute mystery.

Quote

But I guess it all balances out with you quoting the distorted song and dance routine the unions have been trying to get everyone to believe.

Believe what, the truth? RTW states are all below the national average as far as wages an they are amongst the least safe places to work? I can support that with independant data, don't need them.

Quote

Think the unions tell you everything? Ever hear of Agency Fees? Ask your union reps about that one. That's one small item most unions don't want their members to know about.

If you have a point to make about agency fees why not tell us instead of your song and dance.

Quote

Don't like living in a RTW state? Then move! It's your choice, not mine. Just stop trying to force everyone everywhere to be a union member.

I'm not forcing anyone, just trying to ensure fair elections. Apparently you are a Repub and I think we know where you stand on fair elections.

Quote

Union membership is on a downturn. The reasons are many, but suffice to say that the decrease will continue but rest assured it will stabilize at some point before starting back up. Like Kallend pointed out, it will find a balance.

Can't figure out why they are downturning, could it be that the last 3 stooges, esp GW Bush and Reagan have proactively assaulted them? People want unionization, the establishment just won't let them.

I think the cleaning out of Congress in Nov is a sign that the pendulum is swinging.

Or maybe it's just that workers are getting sick and tired of the unions taking their money for little in return?

[Lucky... 0]

Here's something else for you to chew on, here's a USA today wage assessment by state, the RTW states are emboldened.

Connecticut $56,409
New Jersey $56,356
Maryland $54,302
Massachusetts $52,713
New Hampshire $52,409
Alaska $52,391
Minnesota $50,750
Virginia $50,028 *
Colorado $49,248
Delaware $48,770
California $48,440
Hawaii $48,274
Washington $48,185
Illinois $47,367
Utah $46,709 *
Wisconsin $46,538
Michigan $46,291
Nevada $45,249 *
Rhode Island $45,006
New York $44,139
Indiana $43,323
United States $43,318
District of Columbia $43,215
Ohio $43,119
Kansas $43,113 *
Pennsylvania $42,952
Vermont $42,649
Oregon $42,593
Georgia $42,421 *
Iowa $42,278 *
Nebraska $41,984 *
Arizona $41,963 *
Wyoming $41,554 *
Missouri $40,870
Texas $39,967 *
Idaho $39,859 *
North Carolina $39,438 *
Maine $39,212
Florida $38,985 *
North Dakota $38,223 *
South Dakota $38,008 *
South Carolina $38,003 *
Tennessee $37,925 *
Kentucky $36,663
Alabama $36,131 *
Oklahoma $35,634 *
New Mexico $35,091
Montana $34,449
Louisiana $33,792 *
Arkansas $33,445 *
West Virginia $32,967
Mississippi $32,397 *

RTW states = *

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2005-11-29-wage_x.htm

This argument is getting silly, I have demonstrated why RTW states, whuch are wholly or virtually wholly Red states, are not for worker's rights. These states have amongst the lowest wages and have the highest rates of death on the job. If you want to go on with the silliness we can, but I mght just go back to the thread where the best agument against Hillary as pres is that she looks as if she has dirty underwear. CAN ANYONE SEE WHY I LEFT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY? THEY'RE ARGUMENTS ARE LAME AND BOORING AT BEST.

[Lucky... 0]

After that comprehensive reply to you, thsi is what you come up with:

------> Or maybe it's just that workers are getting sick and tired of the unions taking their money for little in return?

You're running out of gas my friend.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Or maybe it's just that workers are getting sick and tired of the unions taking their money for little in return?

According to Willard, the following = little in return for union due which are what, 2 hours pay per month:

Connecticut $56,409
New Jersey $56,356
Maryland $54,302
Massachusetts $52,713
New Hampshire $52,409
Alaska $52,391
Minnesota $50,750
Virginia $50,028 *
Colorado $49,248
Delaware $48,770
California $48,440
Hawaii $48,274
Washington $48,185
Illinois $47,367
Utah $46,709 *
Wisconsin $46,538
Michigan $46,291
Nevada $45,249 *
Rhode Island $45,006
New York $44,139
Indiana $43,323
United States $43,318
District of Columbia $43,215
Ohio $43,119
Kansas $43,113 *
Pennsylvania $42,952
Vermont $42,649
Oregon $42,593
Georgia $42,421 *
Iowa $42,278 *
Nebraska $41,984 *
Arizona $41,963 *
Wyoming $41,554 *
Missouri $40,870
Texas $39,967 *
Idaho $39,859 *
North Carolina $39,438 *
Maine $39,212
Florida $38,985 *
North Dakota $38,223 *
South Dakota $38,008 *
South Carolina $38,003 *
Tennessee $37,925 *
Kentucky $36,663
Alabama $36,131 *
Oklahoma $35,634 *
New Mexico $35,091
Montana $34,449
Louisiana $33,792 *
Arkansas $33,445 *
West Virginia $32,967
Mississippi $32,397 *




RHODE ISLAND 1.3 1
NEW HAMPSHIRE 2.1 2
VERMONT 2.1 2
DELAWARE 2.2 4
MASSACHUSETTS 2.2 4
CALIFORNIA 2.4 6
MAINE 2.4 6
MICHIGAN 2.6 8
MARYLAND 2.9 9
MINNESOTA 2.9 9
NEW YORK 2.9 9
CONNECTICUT 3.1 12
ARIZONA 3.1 12*
NEW JERSEY 3.1 12
WASHINGTON 3.2 15
WISCONSIN 3.2 15
ILLINOIS 3.4 17
OREGON 3.4 17
OHIO 3.6 19
PENNSYLVANIA 3.9 20
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 4.0
HAWAII 4.1 21
TEXAS 4.2 22*
NORTH CAROLINA 4.5 24*
VIRGINIA 4.6 25*
NEBRASKA 4.8 26*
COLORADO 4.9 27
UTAH 4.4 27*
INDIANA 5.0 28
IOWA 5.1 29*
FLORIDA 5.2 30*
TENNESSEE 5.2 30*
GEORGIA 5.3 32*
NEVADA 5.3 32*
SOUTH CAROLINA 5.4 34*
OKLAHOMA 5.6 35*
ARKANSAS 5.7 36*
IDAHO 5.7 36*
KANSAS 5.7 36*
MISSOURI 5.7 36
SOUTH DAKOTA 5.8 40*
LOISIANA 6.3 41*
ALABAMA 6.4 42*
NEW MEXICO 6.6 43
NORTH DAKOTA 6.6 43*
MISSISSIPPI 7.0 45*
KENTUCKY 7.6 46
WEST VIRGINIA 7.7 47
MONTANA 8.4 48
ALASKA 12.7 49
WYOMING 15.5 50*


So more pay and vastly more safety isn’t worth 2 hours pay per month? And the red states want to help out the worker and bust unions because the repubs are for the working man, right? I pose the question once again: Is anyone still stupid enough to believe that the Repubs are for worker's rights?

[willard 0]

Great! Now take that data, as well as mine, and factor in the type of jobs that are found in each state.

Just from a glance, I can see that the states where one would expect to find a higher percentage of white collar workers are also the states that have the lowest incident rates...NY, NJ,NH,Mass, RI, etc. Then take Wyoming. 15.5 deaths/1000 workers. Not good. But their main industries are mining and ranching, both considered dangerous jobs by anyones standards.

Never said 3.4 was close to 4.6. That's why I corrected myself.

Tell ya what. If having faith in the unions is what makes your clock tick, then have at it. As for myself I am perfectly capable of negotiating my own wages, benefits, etc. I don't need a union to do that for me. If I want to work for $12.50/hr or $25.50/hr is of no concern of yours.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Here's something else for you to chew on, here's a USA today wage assessment by state, the RTW states are emboldened.

Connecticut $56,409
New Jersey $56,356
Maryland $54,302
Massachusetts $52,713
New Hampshire $52,409
Alaska $52,391
Minnesota $50,750
Virginia $50,028 *
Colorado $49,248
Delaware $48,770
California $48,440
Hawaii $48,274
Washington $48,185
Illinois $47,367
Utah $46,709 *
Wisconsin $46,538
Michigan $46,291
Nevada $45,249 *
Rhode Island $45,006
New York $44,139
Indiana $43,323
United States $43,318
District of Columbia $43,215
Ohio $43,119
Kansas $43,113 *
Pennsylvania $42,952
Vermont $42,649
Oregon $42,593
Georgia $42,421 *
Iowa $42,278 *
Nebraska $41,984 *
Arizona $41,963 *
Wyoming $41,554 *
Missouri $40,870
Texas $39,967 *
Idaho $39,859 *
North Carolina $39,438 *
Maine $39,212
Florida $38,985 *
North Dakota $38,223 *
South Dakota $38,008 *
South Carolina $38,003 *
Tennessee $37,925 *
Kentucky $36,663
Alabama $36,131 *
Oklahoma $35,634 *
New Mexico $35,091
Montana $34,449
Louisiana $33,792 *
Arkansas $33,445 *
West Virginia $32,967
Mississippi $32,397 *

RTW states = *

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2005-11-29-wage_x.htm

This argument is getting silly, I have demonstrated why RTW states, whuch are wholly or virtually wholly Red states, are not for worker's rights. These states have amongst the lowest wages and have the highest rates of death on the job. If you want to go on with the silliness we can, but I mght just go back to the thread where the best agument against Hillary as pres is that she looks as if she has dirty underwear. CAN ANYONE SEE WHY I LEFT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY? THEY'RE ARGUMENTS ARE LAME AND BOORING AT BEST.

Thank you, very interesting data.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lucky... 0]

Least I can do prof, with all the infinite wisdom you bring here .

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

Or maybe it's just that workers are getting sick and tired of the unions taking their money for little in return?

According to Willard, the following = little in return for union due which are what, 2 hours pay per month:

Connecticut $56,409
New Jersey $56,356
Maryland $54,302
Massachusetts $52,713
New Hampshire $52,409
Alaska $52,391
Minnesota $50,750
Virginia $50,028 *
Colorado $49,248
Delaware $48,770
California $48,440
Hawaii $48,274
Washington $48,185
Illinois $47,367
Utah $46,709 *
Wisconsin $46,538
Michigan $46,291
Nevada $45,249 *
Rhode Island $45,006
New York $44,139
Indiana $43,323
United States $43,318
District of Columbia $43,215
Ohio $43,119
Kansas $43,113 *
Pennsylvania $42,952
Vermont $42,649
Oregon $42,593
Georgia $42,421 *
Iowa $42,278 *
Nebraska $41,984 *
Arizona $41,963 *
Wyoming $41,554 *
Missouri $40,870
Texas $39,967 *
Idaho $39,859 *
North Carolina $39,438 *
Maine $39,212
Florida $38,985 *
North Dakota $38,223 *
South Dakota $38,008 *
South Carolina $38,003 *
Tennessee $37,925 *
Kentucky $36,663
Alabama $36,131 *
Oklahoma $35,634 *
New Mexico $35,091
Montana $34,449
Louisiana $33,792 *
Arkansas $33,445 *
West Virginia $32,967
Mississippi $32,397 *




RHODE ISLAND 1.3 1
NEW HAMPSHIRE 2.1 2
VERMONT 2.1 2
DELAWARE 2.2 4
MASSACHUSETTS 2.2 4
CALIFORNIA 2.4 6
MAINE 2.4 6
MICHIGAN 2.6 8
MARYLAND 2.9 9
MINNESOTA 2.9 9
NEW YORK 2.9 9
CONNECTICUT 3.1 12
ARIZONA 3.1 12*
NEW JERSEY 3.1 12
WASHINGTON 3.2 15
WISCONSIN 3.2 15
ILLINOIS 3.4 17
OREGON 3.4 17
OHIO 3.6 19
PENNSYLVANIA 3.9 20
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 4.0
HAWAII 4.1 21
TEXAS 4.2 22*
NORTH CAROLINA 4.5 24*
VIRGINIA 4.6 25*
NEBRASKA 4.8 26*
COLORADO 4.9 27
UTAH 4.4 27*
INDIANA 5.0 28
IOWA 5.1 29*
FLORIDA 5.2 30*
TENNESSEE 5.2 30*
GEORGIA 5.3 32*
NEVADA 5.3 32*
SOUTH CAROLINA 5.4 34*
OKLAHOMA 5.6 35*
ARKANSAS 5.7 36*
IDAHO 5.7 36*
KANSAS 5.7 36*
MISSOURI 5.7 36
SOUTH DAKOTA 5.8 40*
LOISIANA 6.3 41*
ALABAMA 6.4 42*
NEW MEXICO 6.6 43
NORTH DAKOTA 6.6 43*
MISSISSIPPI 7.0 45*
KENTUCKY 7.6 46
WEST VIRGINIA 7.7 47
MONTANA 8.4 48
ALASKA 12.7 49
WYOMING 15.5 50*


So more pay and vastly more safety isn’t worth 2 hours pay per month? And the red states want to help out the worker and bust unions because the repubs are for the working man, right? I pose the question once again: Is anyone still stupid enough to believe that the Repubs are for worker's rights?

If it is worth it to me or not is of no concern to you!

My question to you, since you seem so intent upon insulting anyone who disagrees with you, is this...
"Is anyone stupid enough to believe all the crap the unions dish out?"


Like I have asked several times now, take into consideration the types of jobs. Then take into consideration the environment. Alaska is not a RTW state, yet ranks 49th. Ever wonder why?

Now that you ahve posted the earnings/state, why not post the relative cost of living/state? Making twice as much money means nothing if the cost of living is twice as high. Typical union tactic.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Now that you ahve posted the earnings/state, why not post the relative cost of living/state? Making twice as much money means nothing if the cost of living is twice as high. Typical union tactic.

He has provided data to back his point. If you wish to make a point, it is up to you to provide the data to back it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[willard 0]

Quote

So more pay and vastly more safety isn’t worth 2 hours pay per month?

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't to me. You may feel differntly. How much are you willing to sell your right to work where you want without having to join a union? My rights aren't for sale, thank you.

Finish providing data that takes into account cost of living vs pay, and job risk vs incident rates. Then we'll have something to go on. Without something to provide a comparison neither your stats nor mine mean much of anything.

You still haven't answered the question I asked concerning your original post. Why do you think it is ok to take away a persons right to privacy by making their vote public, yet complain about wire taps? Right to privacy is right to privacy regardless of the situation.

[Lucky... 0]

Yep, that's exactly why I think at least 3 of the 4 non-RTW states are there at the bottom, Alaska, Montana and West Virginia, but if you know stats very well you understand MEAN, MEDIAN, MODE

MEAN - Arithmetic average

MEDIAN - The middle value

MODE - The grouping. There can be more than 1 of these.

With that, the grouping determines that in both wages and safety, non-RTW states are exceedingly better for the worker. Can you argue that? No.

There is far too large a sample size to attrubute it to chance, so I think the logical determinatation is that unions are good for workers, but the reds want to argue such miniscule things like privacy in voting over fair elections to prohibit worker organization. That arg is as out of gas as all the rest I've heard from that side, but congrats because they have worked on the apathetic masses.

Quote

Tell ya what. If having faith in the unions is what makes your clock tick, then have at it. As for myself I am perfectly capable of negotiating my own wages, benefits, etc. I don't need a union to do that for me. If I want to work for $12.50/hr or $25.50/hr is of no concern of yours.

Yep, but this thread isn't about your personal wishes, not that I reject your right to exert them, just that I have established that unions are good for workers/bad for businesses and that Republicans have doine all they can to defunct them.

Here's the chain of deduction:

red states are often RTW states----->RTW states provide less safety and less pay----->Republican politicians do all they can to dissect labor unions

With that, can you argue the chain of reasoning and/or can you argue that Republicans are for worker's rights?

This is why I ask the question:

Is anyone still stupid enough to believe that the Repubs are for worker's rights?

I'm not asking if unions are good or bad for whom, just that the Republican Party is out wipe out all unions; is that even anythung more than a moot point?

[SkyChimp 0]

Quote

Here's something else for you to chew on, here's a USA today wage assessment by state, the RTW states are emboldened.

Connecticut $56,409
New Jersey $56,356
Maryland $54,302
Massachusetts $52,713
New Hampshire $52,409
Alaska $52,391
Minnesota $50,750
Virginia $50,028 *
Colorado $49,248
Delaware $48,770
California $48,440
Hawaii $48,274
Washington $48,185
Illinois $47,367
Utah $46,709 *
Wisconsin $46,538
Michigan $46,291
Nevada $45,249 *
Rhode Island $45,006
New York $44,139
Indiana $43,323
United States $43,318
District of Columbia $43,215
Ohio $43,119
Kansas $43,113 *
Pennsylvania $42,952
Vermont $42,649
Oregon $42,593
Georgia $42,421 *
Iowa $42,278 *
Nebraska $41,984 *
Arizona $41,963 *
Wyoming $41,554 *
Missouri $40,870
Texas $39,967 *
Idaho $39,859 *
North Carolina $39,438 *
Maine $39,212
Florida $38,985 *
North Dakota $38,223 *
South Dakota $38,008 *
South Carolina $38,003 *
Tennessee $37,925 *
Kentucky $36,663
Alabama $36,131 *
Oklahoma $35,634 *
New Mexico $35,091
Montana $34,449
Louisiana $33,792 *
Arkansas $33,445 *
West Virginia $32,967
Mississippi $32,397 *

RTW states = *

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2005-11-29-wage_x.htm

This argument is getting silly, I have demonstrated why RTW states, whuch are wholly or virtually wholly Red states, are not for worker's rights. These states have amongst the lowest wages and have the highest rates of death on the job. If you want to go on with the silliness we can, but I mght just go back to the thread where the best agument against Hillary as pres is that she looks as if she has dirty underwear. CAN ANYONE SEE WHY I LEFT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY? THEY'RE ARGUMENTS ARE LAME AND BOORING AT BEST.

OMG....LOLOLOL I've never seen such skewed information before in my entire life. Your data proves nothing except your ability to put such a great SPIN on the topic!

Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?!

[kallend 2,150]

Please explain how the data are skewed. Do you claim that they are falsified? Are the RTW states misidentified?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

Now that you ahve posted the earnings/state, why not post the relative cost of living/state? Making twice as much money means nothing if the cost of living is twice as high. Typical union tactic.

He has provided data to back his point. If you wish to make a point, it is up to you to provide the data to back it.

It is he that is trying to make a point, not I. His assertion to prove....right? As I said, neither my data nor his means much without knowing all the facts.
What he is trying to prove, that workers are better off in non-RTW states, is an old and still ongoing debate. We won't settle it here, that is for certain.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Now that you ahve posted the earnings/state, why not post the relative cost of living/state? Making twice as much money means nothing if the cost of living is twice as high. Typical union tactic.

He has provided data to back his point. If you wish to make a point, it is up to you to provide the data to back it.

It is he that is trying to make a point, not I. His assertion to prove....right? As I said, neither my data nor his means much without knowing all the facts.
What he is trying to prove, that workers are better off in non-RTW states, is an old and still ongoing debate. We won't settle it here, that is for certain.

Lucky has provided data that show that accident rates are higher and incomes lower in RTW states. If you want to look at relative risk data and cost of living data, I would be interested to see it, but I don't see that it is Lucky's responsibility to provide it. Maybe comparative unemployment data would also be interesting.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

If it is worth it to me or not is of no concern to you!

Which is why I don't care how you feel about unions, just wondering if people are lame enough to think Republican politicians are for worker's rights?

Quote

My question to you, since you seem so intent upon insulting anyone who disagrees with you, is this...
"Is anyone stupid enough to believe all the crap the unions dish out?"

Just because you've been PWNED by this argument doesn't mean I'm insulting you, I'm not. And, no, I'm not that stupid, I do know they dis out *some* crap. Unlike you, I will address some criticisms of my ideologies, as there is no perfect system. The complaint I have of unions is that theymight sell-out 1 person to save 10. Sometimes the company wants to fire employee A, so they let employees B thru K go in a backroom deal with the union. But fortunately this is rare and the employee has the right to obtain his or her own counsel away from the union; that was a SCOTUS decision a while back.

So the crap ratio from RTW state's companies versus non-RTW states while in a union favors the union states by far and you can't argue that with data, just your opinion which you respectfully have the right to, just not universally accepted.

Quote

Like I have asked several times now, take into consideration the types of jobs. Then take into consideration the environment. Alaska is not a RTW state, yet ranks 49th. Ever wonder why?

And that's teh argument I've just made several times, there are 4 non-RTW states at the bottom, but at least 3 are heavy mining states. None the less, that can explain some placement both ways, but the evidence is overwhelming that RTW states have the mode that both they are known for low wages and for being unsafe.

Quote

Now that you ahve posted the earnings/state, why not post the relative cost of living/state? Making twice as much money means nothing if the cost of living is twice as high. Typical union tactic.

You mean to say the cost index is higher in non-RTW states? Look, I could do that and you still wouldn't be satisfied, so I think it's your turn to impeach the data I have posted. I've soent all morning compiling data and researching, it's your turn to impeach it, the proverbial burden lies with you.

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Now that you ahve posted the earnings/state, why not post the relative cost of living/state? Making twice as much money means nothing if the cost of living is twice as high. Typical union tactic.

He has provided data to back his point. If you wish to make a point, it is up to you to provide the data to back it.

It is he that is trying to make a point, not I. His assertion to prove....right? As I said, neither my data nor his means much without knowing all the facts.
What he is trying to prove, that workers are better off in non-RTW states, is an old and still ongoing debate. We won't settle it here, that is for certain.

Lucky has provided data that show that accident rates are higher and incomes lower in RTW states. If you want to look at relative risk data and cost of living data, I would be interested to see it, but I don't see that it is Lucky's responsibility to provide it. Maybe comparative unemployment data would also be interesting.

You are absolutely right, Kallend! He HAS provided data! But that data is only meaningful as presented if you are willing to ignore factors that have an effect on that data. As a scientist you should know that, and I believe you do, so why do you chose to ignore those factors?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't to me. You may feel differntly. How much are you willing to sell your right to work where you want without having to join a union? My rights aren't for sale, thank you.

But apparently your labor is and it might be cheap if you're in a RTW state.

Quote

Finish providing data that takes into account cost of living vs pay, and job risk vs incident rates. Then we'll have something to go on. Without something to provide a comparison neither your stats nor mine mean much of anything.

And it still wouldn't matter. In court, once a person makes a strong argument, the burden shifts to the other side, regardless of who has teh initial burden of proof. The burden has shufted my friend, be in denial as you wish.

Quote

You still haven't answered the question I asked concerning your original post. Why do you think it is ok to take away a persons right to privacy by making their vote public, yet complain about wire taps?

You have failed to answer virtually all of my questions, but I will argue based upon my ethics and that is to answer all of the questions asked of me.

Does a person have a right to privacy in a union election? Does a person have an expectation to privacy? Hmmm, interesting question that you have assumed they do. It is not a public election, so they don't automatically that inherent expectation or right as I know it. So are we taking anything away? Or is it that we have just dine it that way all along? I don't think anything is being revoked, so I don't think you are losing anything.

Quote

Right to privacy is right to privacy regardless of the situation.

This is one of the biggest fallacies I've read on this board yet. Are you aware of Katz v US? That refers to a person's Constitutional rights to privacy, however this is not a constitutional issue. Point I'm making is that privacy comes in some many flavors of expectations that you can't see straight after reviewing them all. An auto has virtually no expectation of privacy. A house and its curtilage has enormous privacy, but that can be revoked with a domestic call to the police (exigency) or a fleeing felon running thru it chased by police.

I belive you have no written guarantee of privacy in a union election.