Lucky...

Just like you keep running from the fact that in was the Dems that prevented the Min wage law from being passed years ago but keep including it as a bad thing Repubs did? Well here's a little news I had forgotten about: http://www.cnn.com/US/9608/20/minimum.wage.sign/ Clinton signs minimum wage increase So just a year before your issue in question CLinton did sign a piggybacked min wage increase, then the Rpugs wanted more tax freebies to they wrote another one apparently. So to say CLinton "WOULD HAVE" vetoed it but it dies in Congress is to say that he had just a year prior folded into the Repubs in order to give workers 90 cents an hour. Your point is meaningless.

Just like you keep running from the fact that in was the Dems that prevented the Min wage law from being passed years ago but keep including it as a bad thing Repubs did? A piggybacked bill that fails can be done so for so many reasons, to alow a standalone like Kennedy shows true colors. If I offered to give you a car you would accept it, but if I then made the contention that I would be allowed to fuck your old lady once a week you would tell me to fuck off. If you want to pretend that standalone bills are teh same as piggybacked bills, enjoy. The fact that the Repubs want the min wage to accompany tax cuts shows they don't want it, but they are willing to deal it. Clinton, in 97, had turned the corner on the debt and it was looking better, he eventually tyrned it horizontal and refused to be irresponsible by biting the bait and fucking up the debt recovery. http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm Can you understand or are you going to live in your world of mocrocosms?

And you live in California, I live in a red state. ALtho I do agree that the Repubs who are outspoken here are not teh garden variety Repubs.

Woaw, woaw, let's keep her on track here. OK, you want to call Kennedy a POS, good, no prob and drunk too, if that makes ya happy. When Congress votes themselves a payraise it's usually accross teh board and is a non-partisan issue, the question here is that of whether there isa partisan devide when dealing with working falimies and legislation. Your point, true or not, has zero to do with this thread. Perhaps start a thread about fat cat Congressmen and their pay raises.

The last President to kill a raise in min wage was CLINTON. The Issue was on the floor and the two sides could not agree. Congress voted 282-143 to increase the Federal Minimum wage a dollar. HR3846, which later became HR3081. Republicans wanted the increase to take three years, Democrats wanted it done in two. Republicans said OK, two but wanted tax cuts to help small business absorb the extra cost, Democrats called it a deal breaker. Clinton said he would VETO any bill that had tax cuts in it, so both bills died in Congress. Right, HR 3081, a bill introduced by Republican Rick Lazio to benefit business owners, essentially the rich, then Congress piggybacked HR 3846 on top of it instead of letting it ride alone. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:H.R.3081: When bills get too bogged down with contradictory legislation they often die. Clinton did not threaten to kill a min wage increase, he killed a fat bill that contained the wage increase bill. That is far different than killing a standalone bill. Love how you say it became 3081, it was pulled it 3081 probably by Republican Lazio to make it more desirable for Clinton. If the Reoubs wanted 3846 passed they would have let it stand alone, but they wanted to make a deal, that’s how Congress works and you know it. They didn’t have to do that with Bush in office, as they knew he would kill it. For the Repubs to give a dollar over 2 years as compared to the immediate raping they could do with the tax breaks would have been dimes for dollars. Small businesses would have 10-folded their benefit and the debt would have climbed again. Clinton did plenty for workers and the poor, but would not have jeopardized the work he had done to kill the deficit, which he did. Absorb the cost??? Nice one, pay one dollar 2 years later for immediate cash, do you think Clinton was that stupid? Here, I’ll dangle the fish. This is from when? Can you provide cites as I do? Was this the min wage under Clinton or now? So let’s see, we have massive debt and deficit, if we raise wages and reduce taxes guess which way it goes? This illustrates that the Repubs are irresponsible fiscal leaders. Again, was this some excerpt from then or now??? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/20/AR2006122001784.html The president's backing greatly enhances the prospects for congressional approval next year of the first hike in the federal minimum wage since 1997. He stressed, however, that it should be accompanied by tax breaks and regulatory relief that would cushion the blow for small businesses. So there was a wage increase in 97. Who passed that one and when? "Minimum wage workers have waited almost 10 long years for an increase -- we need to pass a clean bill giving them the raise they deserve as quickly as possible," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), who sponsored legislation to increase the wage that failed in Congress earlier this year. Right, so Kennedy wants a clean bill, not some fucking trade off BS…….oh, here ya go: Democrats have pledged to reinstate budget rules that would require that any tax cut be offset by equivalent tax increases or spending cuts. Some Democrats say they do not want to complicate their effort to raise the minimum wage by linking that issue to business tax breaks, as Bush and many Republicans are insisting. House Democrats will vote early next month on a stand-alone wage increase, leadership aides said. "Let's be clear, given that nearly a decade has passed since the last minimum wage increase, no one can seriously believe that the proposed increase will harm the small-business sector," said Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), the incoming chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee. "A minimum wage increase should not and need not be conditional on other legislation or policy changes." So it’s clear that the Dems want a standalone and the Repubs want to use it as a fish to dangle and you still want to pretend that Repubs have worker’s interests in mind? Whatever works fro ya bro. This brings her home for ya: But House Democrats concede that the situation may be different in the Senate. Earlier this year, Senate Republicans voted down a stand-alone wage hike, and Democrats may need 60 votes to break a filibuster if they try to pass a minimum wage increase without tax cuts. Senate Finance Committee aides are already looking for small-business tax breaks that the incoming committee chairman, Max Baucus (D-Mont.) wants passed regardless of minimum wage legislation. White House officials, meanwhile, say they are still working to identify tax cuts they would like to see accompany a minimum wage increase. This will bring it home: "America's workers deserve a clean vote on a $7.25 increase, with no strings attached," AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney said. "Such an increase helps everyone and hurts no one." Afl-cio and the Dems want a standalone, Bush the crimrepubs want to piggyback it on huge tax cuts. Are still wanting to argue your silly point?

Perhaps embellished, maybe not. So what happened, were your feelings hurt? Were you beat to shit in the parking lot? Were your tires slashed like I had management do to me? I used to play a lot of street ball, and altho I was never in a fight, I've had my nose broken, foot broken, 100's if not 1,000's of abrasions, lacerations, etc. And your feelings were hurt? Granted we all have the right to work in a harassment-free environment, fuck dude, we're guys, we get radical at times. I think I wrote that they are all inherently liars or something to that effect. I think I have cops at about 10-20% good. But we can be absolute if you need to skew it for your point. Hell, why not, you are the guy who quoted fragments of a rhetorical question as if I meant just that fraction. Then as claimed that 3 people could be each up to 100% responsible for an act or event, you tried to claim that it must accumulate to only 100%. It took a practicing lawyer and PhD univ professor to make you see the light, then recanted. So I'm not saying you're wrong by way of your argumentation style, just that I expect the kind of argument that I'm reading here. 1) You're back to quoting fragments w/o "..." and w/o putting teh arg in context. 2) This is just argumentative. Filling out a card is experient and allows for 100% traceability. Some have argued that signing up could be done while an employee is on vacation, but that could be rectified if the person came back and disagreed. Card submission is 100% accurate and people who dissent the union can simply claim they are still thinking about the card submission. To refuse to submit a card isn't necessarily a no vote. Back to fragments I see. I do post personal experiences, but that is 1 event, so to make an argument you must gather a lot of data, the more the better. I don't stand alone and say it that it happened to me therefore it is law. Perhaps you missed the pages of data in this thread. I wrote as posted by you: "My professional interactions with cops, which have spanned years, are more convincing to me than a flowery story where 1 union guy strongarmed you. " Yes, and if you can interpret, I did write that it is more convincing to me, not that since it happened to me everyone should consider it judicial notice. There is a HUGE difference. I asked in the last post to ask someone to provide cites to union violence and its frequency. Someone wrote: Total BS, I like getting my paychecks. The COMPANY, not a union made them possible. I wrote: Silly me, and here I thought the worker made them happen, but what do I know? Divinci wrote: Clearly not much about economics. You must have missed the pages of data I posted, so let's quit the flogging of the dog and talk union stuff and the Republicans 'taking care' of labor..... or is it too ugly to explain to the board how raising the min wage 2 bucks over 3 years (or whatever the prop was) is a bad thing for labor, so they killed it so as to help labor. It was a fucking standalone bill to my knowledge, so the result was standalone, not influenced by piggybacked legislation, a thing most hate. Then talk ergo bill, talk OT Law. These are issues that I can't recall anyone even addressing in 10 fucking pages, anyone but me. Cite of RTW states http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm Cite of Erg Bill that Bush and the Repubs killed : http://hr.blr.com/news.aspx?id=7664 The Clinton administration rules would have required businesses to change work stations to reduce injuries and compensate injured workers. The Labor Department estimated the changes would have cost businesses $4.5 billion, but would save them $9 billion by preventing injuries. Businesses estimated the cost at $100 billion. The Democrat-controlled Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee voted 11-10 along party lines for the bill, which was sponsored by Sen. John Breaux, D-La. Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao announced in April that her agency was pursuing voluntary guidelines for certain industries with high injury rates. That announcement came as a disappointment to labor unions, Democrats and some Republicans, who had requested sweeping regulations. Cite of Congress killing Erg Bill: http://www.allbusiness.com/...ations/783718-1.html The U.S. Senate and House of Representatives both voted to disapprove the OSHA ergonomics standard in March. President Bush signed the legislation to disapprove the bill, which makes the OSHA regulation null and void. Any future ergonomics rule that is "substantially similar" cannot be passed without an act of Congress. Cite of RTW / non-RTW states wages: http://www.usatoday.com/...005-11-29-wage_x.htm 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 = * Cite of rate of fatalities for RTW / non-RTW 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* The graphs show that wages in non-RTW states are considerably higher and unemployment is ¼ to ½ % higher in non-RTW states, very negligible. http://www.giveupblog.com/...just-ripped-off.html Perhaps you guys are right, workplace safety is more a red state issue than a RTW state issue. The top 21 most dangerous states are red states: http://www.giveupblog.com/.../05/mine-safety.html Cite establishing union work environments are safer: http://www.trinity.edu/...R_Workers%20Comp.pdf This study estimates union effects on workers' compensation indemnity claims in 1977-92, based on individual panel data constructed from the March Current Population Survey. Union members were substantially more likely to receive workers' compensation benefits than were similar nonunion workers, and they were more sensitive to variation in benefit levels and waiting periods. The authors suggest that differences in union, as compared to nonunion, workplaces arise because workers are provided with information from their union representatives, supervisors are more likely to inform injured workers about workers' compensation filing procedures and less likely to discourage workers from filing claims, workers are less likely to fear being penalized for filing claims, and management has less discretion and ability to monitor workers and penalize them for questionable claims. The findings suggest that communication of relevant information to workers is an important determinant of workers' compensation recipiency. Cite establishing Bush and the goon Repubs in Congress has chopped mine safety funds: http://www.mineweb.net/...whats_new/769204.htm The two men urged that Congress re-review its recent action regarding MSHA. For instance, next year's MSHA budget has a $4.9 million cut in real-dollar terms while MSHA staffing has been downsized by 170 positions since 2001, according to Miller and Owens. "We are also concerned that MSHA has injected political considerations into its safety enforcement program," the lawmakers asserted. Under new procedures, the draft report and conclusion of professional investors regarding a serious or fatal accident can be subject to reconsideration by political appointments in the U.S. Department of Labor, who decide if any action is taken against a mining company. In a news release, the NGO declared, "It is no coincidence that the Sago mine produced safety infractions at several times the industry norm, and that it is a non-union mine, where workers did not enjoy the job protection to speak out. Concerns about safety and health risks are one of the most compelling reasons why workers seek unions on the job in the first place." Companies cannot exist w/o employees. This is a very symbiotic relationship and the unions want to keep it mutually symbiotic. I’ve posted all kinds of data, so either address it, the 3 questions or run ‘long.

Now you're speaking for people crossing picket lines. Since neither of us can do that, let's look at the drop in unionization and the successful union busting and we can see that it isn't hard for people to cross union lines. If it were, these union's strikes would be successful. Again, speaking for others. Yea, that was credible and it was 1 if it even happened. I can tell you stories from management, but I choose to deal with larger sample sizes. Management doesn't work that way, the get the courts tofuck all dissenters. There is union violence, at least from union members. When was the last time? Can you cite union violence? Is it daily or occassional? Is it fabricated? I don't mind talking about union violence, as rare as it is, but the thread is about Republicans fucking labor.

Sure, I have no prob with that, but Willard wanted to eliminate them from teh equation, saying that they don't neccessarily lead to worker rights, I want them included. But then you have to address all of those other union-related issues with data. OK, sure and we have to weigh that against the right to organize unimpeded. It wasn't my diversion, I just got used to Willard insisting the union issue was just some wild opinion, so I omitted it to reveal the 3 major Republican fuckings of labor that have no union connection. Perhaps you can explain how these are not fuckings to labor from Republicans: - OT Law - Erg Bill - Min Wage Bill Nothing backfired, just guys like you running from the union issues and the 3 Repub gifts. As well, commentators adding nothing but trying to impeach the individual, not the issue(s).

Yea, when will those stupid Americans figure it out?

This is meaningless in the debate as to whether Reoublican politicians fuck workers or not. I realize it's easier than explaining the 3 leg acts, and I am fascilitating your diversion from that. Even Willard has acknowledged that Repubs dislike unions, I think it's obvious that majopr businesses operate off that same platform or for some reason they fight union drives with their life and do what thye can to but unions once thney get established in a co. So, ok, the fucking company would buy the union drivers lunch, which explains why union reps aren't allowed in co property. If aperson is such a fucking pussy that they can't tell the co no or tell the union no then they surely deserve to get punked like a bitch. But the issue here is: Is anyone still stupid enough to believe that the Repubs are for worker's rights? So even if we pretend that comanies welcome unions with open arms, explain how the non-union legislative acts by the Repugs do anything but fuck workers: - Killed min wage incr - Killed the Erg Bill - Drove the OT Law down our throats until it passed This 10-page thread has boiled down to this, I've even pretended that companies want to give worker's rights and that unions have no positive effect on employee's rights to get this set of questions answered, so explain how these acts have helped workers and their intent by the Repubs was to help workers. All I've heard is: - Keeps businesses rich so they keep open and provide worker's jobs. Don't throw in the union voting privacy, Willard, even tho he acknowledges Repubs hate unions, he wants it taken out of the equation so I did and we're down to this - quit playing hide the sausage and reason how these acts have helped workers. Again, this is meaningless since we have removed unions from this arg, at least temporarily, explain teh 3 non-union issues and the Repubs fight for worker's rights. As I read it, the unions wanted signed ballots or a petition to act in leiu of voting, as teh Dems, wow I don't mean that the dems and the unions have the same agenda, no way, sorry Wllard, but the Dems have had enough of fixed elections ot last a lifetime. If you have cards and know teh number of workers in a plant, there is a finite # of cards required and there can be no fix. If there is an election by secret ballot, the count can be fixed. When we get the Nazi maggots out of power in 08 things will change, so enjoy your version of paradise Being more affraid of unions over the company is like being more affraid of criminals over cops. Cops have far more reaching power than do criminals, and the company has farmore reaching power than does the union. It's a goodies, I know I'm a success in taht you dislike it.

My professional interactions with cops, which have spanned years, are more convincing to me than a flowery story where 1 union guy strongarmed you. Either way, I have posted a mountain of data that is just ignired, so until it is empirically addressed, the burden still lies upon your side. If you guys had an idea how the scientific approach worked, a scientists posts his ideas in a journal to be peer-reviewed, then they refute or agree with them in whatever part or degree. Here we have guys citing 1 incident as representative of the whole and refusing to addreess the empirical data. And then you skew what I wrote by interpreting thsi: "Just because it SUPPOSEDLY happened that a union guy strongarmed you doesn't mean they all, most do, many do." as me calling you al liar. Can you understand when I laugh at the approach? Come on, addess teh 3 golden legislative points and how teh Repub side was for worker's rights. Silly me, and here I thought the worker made them happen, but what do I know?

Hell just look to the last time this bill came up. It was the SAME bill but the Dems voted it down refusing to allow for tax breaks for small business. NOW they are willingt o talk about it. Why when it was a Repub congress it was bad, but now the SAME bill is OK? This vague, I really want to address it, post citations and show me what you're taling about.

That's exactly the point - I can take the same data and make the exact opposite inferences with the same veracity as yours. Please do then. Why is it the guys on the other side only talk about what they could do? Also, if you posted the entire though I wrote, it should have been the one where I stated that people are sent to death row on inferential evidence, circumstantial evidence, yet you have no qualms with that, yet want to reject my mountain of evidence that Repubs are against worker's rights. WHy don't you answer the 3 non-union questions that Willard refused to? - Ergonomics Bill - OT LAw - Min Wage incr Dying to hear teh Repub take on these and how the passing/killing of them helped workers.

What was that in reply to?

Maybe. Right, not exactly wrong, just radical. With businesses making massive profits and workiers w/o healthcare in many circumstances, it just doesn't hold water. If businesses were on the way out they might have a point. By businesses I mean large corps who are subject to unionization. This is just more tired trickle-down, supply side horseshit that has been debunked since Hoover. When you throw cash at businesses by way of grant or tax breaks you produce a bigger produce that will spend when it feels like it, when you throw cash at people in need you create consumers who will immediately spend teh cash, immediatley stimulating the economy. The last 4 presidents over 26 years have established that. I disagree, if you are talking about garden variety Repubs. Altho Nixon started OSHA, that was the day b4 the neo-con. Neo-cons are a different Republican than the old Eisenhower, who despised the Mil Ind Complex, neo-cons are all about that. I think if you got inside a neo-cons mind he/she would despise the entire list. This right here is brilliant; it goes far deeper than just worker's rights. This describes utilitarianism and the fact that Repubs are for that and Dems are for individual rights. Of course. Unless you knwo some real moderate Repubs, t ehy despise all that you listed.

They would investigate it and they do have a vested interest in killing the union, so why wouldn't they? Who's side ar ethey on, the unions? I don't know that I wrote that you WOULD be made managament, but you could be. It's not an automatic that you would be, just good start. Union election by way of cards still would hav privacy, if you do not submit a card that does not mean you dislike teh union, you just are not decided and don't want to submit a card yet. Yes, there would be a higher rate of unionization dueto honest elections. Being more affraid of unions over the company is like being more affraid of criminals over cops.

OK, so I know your unfounded opinion, I just would like to see you support it. Not gonna happen? That's called a concession. BTW, the 3 matters have no union affilition. I don't need to, these aren't union issues, yet Dems/unions seem to deplore OT Law and Repubs love it, the reciprocal for the other 2, but I guess that's just chance too. Great, now we're getting somewhere, I'll post my side, you post yours: - Ergonomics Bill ----- makes it harder and take longer for workes to get medical attention for repetitive motion injuries, like striking a welding rod accrossa seam. - Overtime law ----- Revokes overtime rights for many workers who management unilatterally labels as management, yet these employees have to work the overime for free. - Min wage bill ----- Isn't it obvious? If not, I'll spell it out for everyone: The poorest of the poor have basically no money, yet paying them an additonal 2 bucks over what, a 3-year increase period will kill business owners and consumers. This shows a real hate for poor people by anyone pathetic enough to support killing this bill. And then when poor working mothers say fuck it and quit working because welfare pays more, the same humanitarians cry foul again. There ya go Willard, and that just scrapes teh surface as to the cons of these acts, if you reply (yea right) I will list more comprehensive details upon your list of why the erg bill is bad, the OT law is good and the min wage bill is bad. Yes, I made the assertions, then I established via data how unions help workers, Repubs hate unions, Repubs wrote and passed the OT law, killed the Erg bill and the Min Wage bill. Once you respond and have made valid pints the burden shifts to you, you have decided to acquiesce. You're a victim. We're you the guy wishing I would die just a week ago, now you're feelings are hurt? I haven't bashed anyone here, just legislators. Nice misdirection attempt, just shows you are unable to represent your side of the 3 non-union issues. It's up to you to extrapolate and compile the data, then make your argument, not mine. I would absolutely love to hear an argument establishing how Repubs have been good for labor.

Why don't you address your original post, which you seem to avoid. How can taking away a persons right to privacy is good for them? You have managed to use this thread to bash everyone from George Washington to Bush's dog, yet you haven't explained your logic behind your original post. The country is run on deprivations of everything from privacy to all kinds of things and it uses weights to determine which loss is greater. Any loss of privacy is minimal to being able to organize and gain benefits and worker protection, IMO. Furthermore, there is really no loss of privacy in that there would be no vote under the proposed legislation, the cards would simply substitute as votes, so a non-submission of a card would act as a no vote w/o having to vote, no revealement of privacy. You could tell the union guys that you are still thinking abiout it, if they get nasty tell the co and they will be fired. EITHER WAY, I HAVE REMOVED ALL UNION ISSUES FROM THE FINAL 3, WHY NOT ANSWER THEM? WHAT IS THE PROBLEM, IS IT THAT THERE IS NO WAY TO ANSWER THEM AND STILL IMMUNIZE THE REPUBS FROM THE FACT THAT THEY FUCK LABOR?

Excuse me, Sir, but the unions are NOT the only groups and people who are for workers rights. That thinking is so far out in left field that if you truly feel that way then there is nothing anyone could ever say or present to you to convince you that unions are anything less than a god. I think unions are wholly for workers, but to remain 100% objective and away from union bias, I wrote: but to satisfy you I will only list legislation that is w/o union consideration OK, so all the issues I have were filtered to remove union consideration and you still refuse to answer them. Willard, you are starting to look PWNED here.

An argument from any source that is biased that is true is still true. If the NAACP cited the Rodney King case and others as factually correct and claimed the police can be brutal to blacks, they are still correct even tho they have an agenda. Answer the 3 issues and quit running Willard.

Again, I'm asking you to address these standalone; will you? You still have avoided like the plague the 3 items that are non-union related: - Ergonomics Bill - Overtime law - Min wage bill Are you gonna address these or continue to run from them? Also, after addressing how these Republican goodies are good for workers, introduce some of your own, some things that are good for workers that are ideas of teh Repubs. Come on Willard, these are union-free issues, why ot get to the meat of, Is anyone still stupid enough to believe that the Repubs are for worker's rights? This will let this issue rest here if you can successfully explain how these 3 very recent Republican issues have helped or at least not hurt businesses.

Here's a more comprehensive list of Bush and Worker safety: · Killed Workplace Ergonomic Protections - The Bush administration started its assault on worker safety soon after taking office joining with anti-worker business groups to repeal OSHA’s ergonomics standard. The standard, 10 years in the making, would have required employers to protect workers from the nation’s biggest job safety problem - injuries caused by heavy lifting and repetitive work. The administration’s promised “comprehensive plan” to address ergonomic hazards has turned out to be a sham. In 3 years, only one voluntary enforceable guideline – for nursing homes- has been issued. · Repealed Recordkeeping for Ergonomic Injuries – Adding insult to injury, the Bush administration repealed the OSHA rule requiring musculoskeletal disorders to be identified on the workplace injury log. Instead of requiring hazards to be eliminated, they are hoping reports of injuries will simply disappear. · Shut Down All New Workplace Safety and Health Rules – The Bush administration killed dozens of worker protection measures under development at OSHA and MSHA, including rules on cancer causing substances, reactive chemicals, and infectious diseases such as TB. They have even refused to issue a rule requiring employers to pay for personal protective equipment, particularly important for immigrant and low wage workers. This Bush administration has the worst record on safety rules in OSHA’s entire history, with no plans to issue any new rules during its 4 year term. · Favored Employer Voluntary Programs over Enforcement and Excluded Workers and Unions – The administration has made expanding voluntary programs and outreach to employers a top priority. Bush’s OSHA has set up partnerships and alliances with dozens of employers, largely excluding unions. Union representatives critical of the administration have been removed from all agency advisory committees in an attempt to silence opposition. · Tried to Dismantle Worker Safety and Health Training Programs – While expanding outreach to employers, the Bush administration has tried to gut the training and education programs for workers, proposing to slash the worker training budget by 75% and eliminate funding for union run programs. Thus far, unions have successfully fought these cuts, but the administration’s efforts to eliminate these important worker programs continue. · Appointed an Industry Anti-ergo Leader as DOL’s Chief Lawyer – A few weeks after killing the OSHA ergonomics standard, the President nominated Eugene Scalia, one of the leaders of the industry campaign to kill the ergonomics standard, as the chief lawyer at the Department of Labor. Scalia called ergonomics “quackery” and “junk science” and claimed workers injuries weren’t real. · Moved to Slash the Job Safety Budget – For 3 years straight President Bush proposed to cut the OSHA, MSHA and NIOSH budgets, reducing money for enforcement and standards programs in favor of voluntary assistance programs for employers. Due to the unions’ efforts, the Congress has rejected these proposed cuts and maintained the budgets for the job safety agencies.

And I know of a cop who blew away a person in cold blood, therefore all cops do that. Just because it SUPPOSEDLY happened that a union guy strongarmed you doesn't mean they all, most do, many do. If you went to teh company you would have his ass, remember theunion drive usually occurs on co property and they look for dissenters to use as poster children. Yes, they assault you at payday time, every week. Regardless, how is it that Republcians have done things for workers?

All I've done is post citation after another, perhaps you can build an argument by way of comprehensively making a point. 97, the Congress was Repub controlled, so who write it, who voted for it, etc...?

You still have avoided like the plague the 3 items that are non-union related: - Ergonomics Bill - Overtime law - Min wage bill Are you gonna address these or continue to run from them? Also, after addressing how these Republican goodies are good for workers, introduce some of your own, some things that are good for workers that are ideas of teh Repubs.