Lucky...

Why, yes...this thread IS about clean union elections - so why do you keep bringing up right to work states and wages? Actually the thread is entitled, Is anyone still stupid enough to believe that the Repubs are for worker's rights? The thread is about the Republican reaction to worker's rights and I used the union drive as an example. The thread title sets the stage for the thread intent. There is a vast difference bewteen worker treatement in RTW states (all red states) and non-RTW states, as well Repubs do all tehy can to thwart unions, so I'm drawing an argument that Republicans are against wrokers rights. You and others that want to debunk this can do so from 2 angles: - attempt to impeach my argument - create an affirmative defense to my assertions The former would be what a likely guilty defendant would do in a criminal charge using misdirection and smoke/mirrors, the latter the best defense where you get your own evidence from another source and create an independent argument. I see which you have tried.

Totally agree. Just as alcoholism is registered as a disease, any other anomoly must b e registered that way to get gov funding. It's all a fucking joke.

Praise Jebus, we're taking baby steps. Uh, the notion that Repubs are anti-union is prima fascie. No sake of argument, hell, they base their platform on busting unions and underpaying. OK, let's apply deduction to that. Where do workers get the most rights? Well, we've beaten it to death, but non-RTW states have the highest pay and safest working environments, and these 2 elements are the most important factors, so the connection is made that Repubs are against worker's rights. I'm not saying they hatethem, just that Repubs are pro-business and in order to make teh most profit they must control labor; nothing personal against labor, just for money. A deductive tool in logical reasoning is called a syllogism. It goes like this: Major premise: Unions give workers rights Minor premise: Republicans dislike unions Conclusion: Republicans dislike worker's rights I don't see how you can disconnect the two, if Republicans dislike unions, and unions are what enforce worker's rights, then Republicans are against worker's rights. Don't act as if I'm saying Republicans hate workers, they just hate paying workers so they use the fascism tool that the US has adopted since Reagan and they bust unions to exploit labor. How can you agree that Republicans hate unions, yet think they are for worker's rights? I have established that these RTW states which are exclusively red I believe are lower paying and far less safe. What part of the puzzle is missing?

The data is so massive that it infers there is a correlation between RTW states and low wages / poor safety regs. If you just resist to believe it, then I could have a notarized statement from every employer in RTW states saying they love to undermone employees and you could still believe otehrwise. There is a point at which we should believe OJ is guilty; get the analogy? Here is other supporting data to further establish RTW states, which are red states and Repubs are against worker's rights, to further convince objective people that all of this data correlates: 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, It's further away from reason to think that companies in RTW states don't take advantage of the laws to undermine their employees, than it is close to reason and not by just a little bit. If you're looking for a notarized affidavit, keep waiting, if you are willing to do what we all have to do when deciding issues, look at the great weight that represents a conclusion that RTW states pay less an are less safe, RTW states are red states, Repubs have done all they can to undermine workers, etc..... Can you refute any of the previous data and legislative acts? Eventualy one must be honest with themselves.

And they're not now? Hmmm, perhaps you missed that entire page where I posted all kinds of data to establish that RTW states pay far lower and have many more work-related fatalities. Hmmm, not needed now huh? Really? I guess low pay and on-the-job fatalities are overblown. Companies are greedy, you have to put them in a bind and leverage them to pay more, as companies try to put workers in a bind to get them to work cheaply. It's a 2-way street and calling abuse on both sides i probably fair. There is no congenial meeting when talking about millions of dollars. And as we see by the data, states that allow for RTW laws have fewer unions that are disempowered, so the abuses ring loudly that way. That we agree upon. If I worled for a company w/o a union and that co treated me great, I would reciprocate and chase away any union. Even tho SW Airlines is union, under Herb Keller they really didn't need one and there was no strife as far as I know. Companies beg for unions to come into their company by way of horrible treatment.

Yes I would say that. As for some particular stats, uh no. These aren't some stats, these are the most important stats when it comes to labor; wages and safety, can you think of any more important? OK, so why is it that RTW states fare the lowest with wages and safety? Is it that unions fight for wages and regulation? I think so. Can you argue that? Is it a coincidence that as I see it all or virtually all RTW states are red states? See there is just too much here to draw a casual conclusion that it is just coincidence. This is all inferential data, very strong inferential data that leads a reasonable person to conclude that Republicans aren't for labor. Answer the list of Repub goodies I listed and see if you can refute it.

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? Address those instead of running from them. Are they untrue? Answer these: Did the Republican Party: - Fight the minimum wage Bill - Pass the Overtime Bill - Fight organized labor laws - Kill the Ergonomics Bill - Disallow strikes by labor - Help bust unions - And every shot at labor they can? Please, if you are unawre I will post any cites you need me to. Just ask, I'm here to help . So go ahead and acquiesce or refute any of those. While you're at it, show me how the Dems may have ever done anything direct to harm labor. Please, your args about raise taxes, hurt business, hence close factories won't work unless you can cite how it has directly affected that. I'm looking for direct legislative acts aimed at labor, as in the Overtime Bill, now law that revoked overtime from millions of workers by way of shifting them to management, meaning they still have to work the hours, just w/o pay.

They harvest cacti in Nevada

and there are in Oregon and Washington, yet they have a great safety record. Done being silly yet?

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? 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?

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

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. 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....

Tuition - not here, it increased maybe 20% over 8 years of Clinton. What univ did you attend during Clinton years? Unfortunately it has become protocol, unspoken protocol as many negative things for the US have. It sounds nice, but it is an antiquation notion for most.

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

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.

Doubtful 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Here a go Willard, here's a little help for ya: http://www.shodor.org/interactivate/lessons/IntroStatistics/ Stats 101

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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? 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. 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. 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.