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

[Lucky... 0]

Thanks for your contribution, with a couple more posts like this, posts with no impeaching data, you willbe right up with the rest of them.

Do me a favor and post some impeaching data.

[willard 0]

Quote

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.

What you have provided is skewed. If you can't see that, then I can't help you. I have nothing here to prove...you do. The are several good cost of living comparison calculators on the web, use them. I did.

And, for the last time, why are you willing to give up my right to privacy in a union vote when you complain about Bush and his illegal wiretaps?? You're skirting the very issue you started this thread on.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

We won't settle it here, that is for certain.

Finally, something true.

We won't settle it because you won't:

- Provide counter data to impeach or mitigate mine

- Concede to obvious reasoning that safety and pay are of the most important elements of a workplace to an employee, and that RTW states offer the least to all of it

[willard 0]

Quote

Thanks for your contribution, with a couple more posts like this, posts with no impeaching data, you willbe right up with the rest of them.

Do me a favor and post some impeaching data.

You have got to be kidding! You made the claims, posted some interesting but meaningless (in the form you posted) data, and now you want me to provide proof that you are wrong? You haven't even proven you're right.

[Lucky... 0]

Since when do I have the duty to do 40 hours of research? This is not a dissertation, it's a fucking posting board. If you want to hold me to some crazy standard where I have to spend the month tyring to convince you that Republicans are not for working people, then you might be dissapointed. For all intents and purposes, I have establihsed that the trend, the mode of poor working conditions belongs to primarily RTW states.

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

We won't settle it here, that is for certain.

Finally, something true.

We won't settle it because you won't:

- Provide counter data to impeach or mitigate mine

- Concede to obvious reasoning that safety and pay are of the most important elements of a workplace to an employee, and that RTW states offer the least to all of it

Using your own data, 4 of the 5 most dangerous places to work are NON-RTW STATES!

Happy now?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

What you have provided is skewed. If you can't see that, then I can't help you. I have nothing here to prove...you do.

Not skewed, that's a proactive means, I think you mean misleading, partial or incomplete. I disagree, wages and safety are primary, not obscure.

Quote

The are several good cost of living comparison calculators on the web, use them. I did.

Oh, then post them with an argument. And if the COL is higher in non-RTW states it might be that residents have more money so costs are higher. Even that data won't estblish much in regard to Republicans not being for workers.

Quote

And, for the last time, why are you willing to give up my right to privacy in a union vote when you complain about Bush and his illegal wiretaps?? You're skirting the very issue you started this thread on.

Because you have no right to union election privacy that I'm aware of. The SCOTUS has said that DUI stops where cops forcibly draw blood, there is less invasion than there is gain inpublic safety. I feel the same way, there is less intrusion in disclosing your vote than there is in ensuring a fair election since the safety data shows life is at risk, I think the need for workplace safety exceeds your right to a uniin election.

Also, I don;t recall there being the big hoopla about dislcosed elections, wasn't it more about if the drive had over 50% cards signed that would suffice in leiu of an election? I think so, so there would actually be no election, just a card drive - go back and read the original article.

Learn the jurisdictions:

- Government

- Business

These are wolrds apart.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Thanks for your contribution, with a couple more posts like this, posts with no impeaching data, you willbe right up with the rest of them.

Do me a favor and post some impeaching data.

You have got to be kidding! You made the claims, posted some interesting but meaningless (in the form you posted) data, and now you want me to provide proof that you are wrong? You haven't even proven you're right.

I could post 400 pages of stuff and you wouldn't concede.

So the average pay and rate of deaths at work are just incidental?

RIGHTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

We won't settle it here, that is for certain.

Finally, something true.

We won't settle it because you won't:

- Provide counter data to impeach or mitigate mine

- Concede to obvious reasoning that safety and pay are of the most important elements of a workplace to an employee, and that RTW states offer the least to all of it

Using your own data, 4 of the 5 most dangerous places to work are NON-RTW STATES!

Happy now?

I've pionted that out several times, using your argument, it's due to them having a lot of mines. When interpreting stat, which I'mm gonna go out on a limb here and guess you haven't, you look for a large sample size and then look for a mode. If someone wants to impeach them they can try to by way of establishing heavy industry there, etc.

It's called the mode, look at the mode for low wages and high death rates and any objective person would see that thse are most commonly, not exclusively, RTW states.

[willard 0]

Using your own data, 4 of the 5 most dangerous places to work are NON-RTW STATES!

[Lucky... 0]

Here a go Willard, here's a little help for ya:

http://www.shodor.org/interactivate/lessons/IntroStatistics/

Stats 101

[willard 0]

Quote

Here a go Willard, here's a little help for ya:

http://www.shodor.org/interactivate/lessons/IntroStatistics/

Stats 101

Thanks, but not needed.
As I have pointed out, many times, the data you have presented, as presented, is meaningless. What you appear to be saying with it is that New Hampshire is a safer place to work than Alaska, which it is. But when you look at the type of workers in each state it becomes obvious that you are comparing apples to oranges. A mistake while shuffling papers at a desk rarely results in anything more than a paper cut. A mistake while aboard a crab boat can easily result in death.
You asserted that union workers are safer than non-union workers, yet you haven't presented anything to back it up.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

RTW states all have wages below the national average.

Is that wages before or after union dues for those in a union?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[sundevil777 102]

All wood burns states Sir Bedevere, therefore he concludes all that burns is wood...

Ohio is a RTW state, and there are lots of unions. You are quite right to assert that there is no reason to attribute the membership in the RTW states as the cause of some difference in safety and payrates. What bullshit. That would, as you said, assume no other important drivers in the result.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Thanks, but not needed.

Doubtful

Quote

As I have pointed out, many times, the data you have presented, as presented, is meaningless.

Hmm, the issue is whether Republicans are for workers, I have established that all or virtually all RTW states are red states, wages are lower and working conditions in RTW states are far less safe as a mode or means interpretation, so I have made the connection. If you wish to be obscure in your interpretation then we are back at the gay rights thread where someone suggested 2 straight guys would marry to gain 5th rights against being compelled to testify against each other. It appears that runs across the spectrum with cons, they use obscure arguments rather than obvious ones when trapped. What skychimp said is what you are saying; nothing. You post no data, just try to use a small sample size of my data to make it representational of the whole, a major fallacy to any statistician.

Meaningless data is data that is of a small sample size, you are using data in a small sample size format.

Quote

What you appear to be saying with it is that New Hampshire is a safer place to work than Alaska, which it is.

Actually no, you are saying that. I'm saying that as a whole, in the statistical means and mode format, RTW states pay much less and far more dangerous in the workplace.

Quote

But when you look at the type of workers in each state it becomes obvious that you are comparing apples to oranges.

You are limiting the data, I'm using all data dichotomized into RTW states vs non-RTW states and drawing a comparison. You are limiting the data when you look at 1/50th of it and compare it to another 1/50th of it.

Quote

A mistake while shuffling papers at a desk rarely results in anything more than a paper cut. A mistake while aboard a crab boat can easily result in death.

Sure, and Michigan with all of their auto plants has be inherently dangerous too, yet they are huge pro-uniuin and are the 8th safest state to work as far as fatalities, whereas Mississippi is 45th and what do they do that’s more dangerous?

See, we can pick apart the stats and both make arguments, but if we look at the stats as a whole, we can derive a conclusion you refuse to concede to…..the truth. Kentucky; they are not a RTW state yet they have a poor fatality record and would seem to be no more than averagely dangerous. So there are aberations to every aspect of stats which is why you get a large sample size.

Quote

You asserted that union workers are safer than non-union workers, yet you haven't presented anything to back it up.

No, I’ve presented that as a means and a mode that RTW states have notably higher fatalities at work, rendering the obvious conclusion that unions ensure safety at a better rate than do non-union shops.

[Lucky... 0]

Unions I've been in charge 2 hours per month, so do the math. At $20/hr that's 480/yr; all you guys can do is to split hairs rather than to look at the entire argument.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

You are quite right to assert that there is no reason to attribute the membership in the RTW states as the cause of some difference in safety and payrates.

Yea, just a coincidence that the grouping of RTW states exhibits low pay and low safety. Just a crazy coincidence. Your buddy would have it that we dissect the states to examine each, I say we use the larget sample size.

You contribute as much as Willard, no contradictory statistics, data, nothing...... I'm so used to it

[sundevil777 102]

Perhaps RTW states are more rural, with more farming, which might be more dangerous, or who knows what else might be influencing the result.

You don't know, you have presumed. Of course it is easy to assume a link, people make similar assumptions about cause and effect all the time, doesn't make them any more right than you.

So, why do witches burn? (Cleese's beanie would make a pretty good frap hat).

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Perhaps RTW states are more rural, with more farming, which might be more dangerous, or who knows what else might be influencing the result.

You don't know, you have presumed. Of course it is easy to assume a link, people make similar assumptions about cause and effect all the time, doesn't make them any more right than you.

So, why do witches burn?

The 10 most dangerous jobs
Occupation Fatalities per 100,000
Timber cutters 117.8
Fishers 71.1
Pilots and navigators 69.8
Structural metal workers 58.2
Drivers-sales workers 37.9
Roofers 37
Electrical power installers 32.5
Farm occupations 28
Construction laborers 27.7
Truck drivers 25

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; survey of occupations with minimum 30 fatalities and 45,000 workers in 2002

Mining is the most perilous industry as a whole to work in, according to the BLS.

There were 23.5 deaths in mining for every 100,000 workers in 2002, the BLS said. That was just slightly ahead of agriculture, forestry and fishing, where there were 22.7 deaths for every 100,000 workers.

...

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

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

You are quite right to assert that there is no reason to attribute the membership in the RTW states as the cause of some difference in safety and payrates.

Yea, just a coincidence that the grouping of RTW states exhibits low pay and low safety. Just a crazy coincidence. Your buddy would have it that we dissect the states to examine each, I say we use the larget sample size.

You contribute as much as Willard, no contradictory statistics, data, nothing...... I'm so used to it

And all you are contributing is statistics that don't prove squat. You are still comparing apple to oranges.

You keep saying the Republican party is against workers rights, safety, and decent wages. Is that another assumption of yours or do you have something to prove it? From your original post I gather they are protecting a workers privacy. Whether or not you think that privacy is a right is irrelevent.

Your union-biased reasoning does not hold water.

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

Perhaps RTW states are more rural, with more farming, which might be more dangerous, or who knows what else might be influencing the result.

You don't know, you have presumed. Of course it is easy to assume a link, people make similar assumptions about cause and effect all the time, doesn't make them any more right than you.

So, why do witches burn?

The 10 most dangerous jobs
Occupation Fatalities per 100,000
Timber cutters 117.8
Fishers 71.1
Pilots and navigators 69.8
Structural metal workers 58.2
Drivers-sales workers 37.9
Roofers 37
Electrical power installers 32.5
Farm occupations 28
Construction laborers 27.7
Truck drivers 25

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; survey of occupations with minimum 30 fatalities and 45,000 workers in 2002

Mining is the most perilous industry as a whole to work in, according to the BLS.

There were 23.5 deaths in mining for every 100,000 workers in 2002, the BLS said. That was just slightly ahead of agriculture, forestry and fishing, where there were 22.7 deaths for every 100,000 workers.

Interesting. Thanks, Kallend.

I would guess that there aren't a relatively large number of timber cutters in Rhode Island.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Perhaps RTW states are more rural, with more farming, which might be more dangerous, or who knows what else might be influencing the result.

You don't know, you have presumed. Of course it is easy to assume a link, people make similar assumptions about cause and effect all the time, doesn't make them any more right than you.

So, why do witches burn?

The 10 most dangerous jobs
Occupation Fatalities per 100,000
Timber cutters 117.8
Fishers 71.1
Pilots and navigators 69.8
Structural metal workers 58.2
Drivers-sales workers 37.9
Roofers 37
Electrical power installers 32.5
Farm occupations 28
Construction laborers 27.7
Truck drivers 25

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; survey of occupations with minimum 30 fatalities and 45,000 workers in 2002

Mining is the most perilous industry as a whole to work in, according to the BLS.

There were 23.5 deaths in mining for every 100,000 workers in 2002, the BLS said. That was just slightly ahead of agriculture, forestry and fishing, where there were 22.7 deaths for every 100,000 workers.

Interesting. Thanks, Kallend.

I would guess that there aren't a relatively large number of timber cutters in Rhode Island.

But there are in Michigan, Maine and Minnesota. Not many in Nevada, either.

...

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

[Lucky... 0]

Yea, could have it all laid out in a 75-page report and you would defer to.....

So, why do witches burn?

So when you deal with people who are unwilling to address issues imperically, well, you're masturbating.

Quote

...who knows what else might be influencing the result.

Exactly, but let's just rule out the notion that RTW states have less regulation than do other states. We want to build our arguments from the top down, so we will conclude that it couldn't be that uniions have anything to do with safety, no way.

What a joke....

[Lucky... 0]

There ya go throwing in facts. Kallend, this group deals in cliches, quit with the data already

- Timber cutters 117.8

I bet Oregon and Washington has a lot of those, yet a very high safety record. Whereas the Carolinas don't fare as well and are RTW states, I'm assuming they have some timber farming.

- Fishers 71.1

Lot of those off the west coast and NE, yet theyare amongst the safest. Hmmmmm

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

And all you are contributing is statistics that don't prove squat.

Yes, the FACT that RTW states are far less safe and pay less as a whole means zip. Hell, we're only talking about 200,000+ million jobs, can we have a descent sample size here?

Quote

You keep saying the Republican party is against workers rights, safety, and decent wages.

The Nazi Party:

- Fought the minimum wage Bill

- Passed the Overtime Bill

- Fights organized labor laws

- Killed the Ergonomics Bill

- Disallows strikes by labor

- Helps bust unions

- And every shot at labor they can,

But I guess that's purely coincidental too, huh?

So to add that the RTW states, which I believe are exclusively red states, provides far lower wages and has a far worse safety record as for workplace fatalities is just also coincidental

Really, don't you think it looks silly arguing a position that makes Republicans the beacon for workers?