Lucky...

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. 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?

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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? 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. You impart the same things they do, must be an absolute mystery. 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. If you have a point to make about agency fees why not tell us instead of your song and dance. 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. 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.

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. Unless the states excluded indicate high injury/death in RTW states. 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. What is at the averages? Are you saying 4.6 and 3.4 are close? They’re not in these terms.

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. 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 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. 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." 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.

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?

You did both of your parents. What does that mean? Did you knock them off? We'll have to call you Menendez I'm jokin man not diminishing your hard work to become a lawyer. Local univ tuition has increased 85% since your pres took office, making the payback much higher. The prob with that is that we become a classist and even caste system with that mentality. We have become like that a large degree already. Think of a kid trying to buy a house; not gonna happen. The classes are becoming more and more defined, class mobility is becoming extinct.

And I would then say the next step after the ER visit would be no follow-up visit unless the child is dying on the doorstep, followed by one of your collegues pursuing them for years to collect the costs for said care. I never said they wouldn't get emergency care, just not follwo-up care and the ER care would cost. ER care is required until you can get the stiff to walk teh fuck out of the hospital. Insurance provides such luxuries like follow-up visits, you know, things that other countries prvide as basics, they are gold-lined luxuries here. It's funny to have a conversation with a rich guy trying to defend the rights of the rich. The rights of the rich in the US are inherent, I would rather defend teh rights of the poor since they are the ones being shat upon. Perhaps you are familiar with the movie, The Rainmaker, which, as I recall, was about a guy who had insurance but the ins co decided not to pay for treatment so the insured patient died. Perhaps you are familiar with the 9-0 2-prong decision where: - HMO's can't be sued in state court - HMO's can deny doctor-ordered care and can't be sued for it Not being picky here, but if you could keep it in context it wouldbe great. I know you're not misquoting me or trying to deceive, just embolden the passage in question and post the entire sentence. I think the gov has a basic repsonsibility to the people to provide care, where they get the money I don't care. The rich object to fucking minimum wage increases to 7 bucks an hour, so do we need to go further with that argument? I don't believe that you are poor, you're value is probably tied up in assets. I drive a $500 car, nuff said. I bounce from contract job to another, as my career sucks. I served in the military, yet I have had no medical benefits forever now. The patriotic are teh ones who are rich and probably have never served, just get served by the fascist-leaning rules of this country. Rich is subjective and comes in degrees, occasionally you get poor redneck hillbillies to buy into protections for the rich. These are the real fools, you can't blame the rich for stacking the deck. They use the poor by exploiting their labor for cheap, then lobbying to keep the rules stacked their way by hooking up with legislators. Again, the minimum wage BS. Most rich got that way by exploitation of the poor or by their predecesors doing so, so yes, there should be a larger portion of their income paid int the tax pool, defense (offense) speding curtailed and redirected to medical care for all citizens. Nothing capricious and arbitrary, this is wealth redistribution that I propose, but our current wealth redist is far less than other countries, hence we have the most rich people of any country and we are only 4.5% of teh world's poulation. Get it? Do you think the poor person wanting medical attention for themselves and their family are wanting to punish anyone? They just want to be cared for. You call it punishment in order to thro a negative spin, if it were viewed as helping your fellow countrymen then perhaps it would be more pallatable,but I don't care about that, I just think it's pathetic that this country decides who gets medical attention and who does not. Your words: punsh, reward...... I guess compassion is not in your vocabulary. With the tax loopholes they do not, this is the problem. Who do you think objects to a flat tax? The corps do. If they paid the same tax rate w/o writeoffs, we would have more revenue for Bush to fire back at the corps., things would be good, right? Of course you don't want a sliding tax scale. I think thise who have the most should pay the most. I thought you were dirt poor. Hmmm, so much for that plea. Understood, the rich usually do not.

I don't aggre with you, as businesses might then be forced to reduce other costs, like huge CEO salaries. Either way, even if you are right, this edistribution allows for money to circulate and be distributed to the poor who would otherwise suffer. Hey, we're in a country where the rich fought tooth and nail to refuse federal minimum wage increasses to just 7 bucks an hour, I think speaks volumes of your beloved rich. Hell, it was so pathetic that many sttaes strted passing state minimums due to this admins corrupt nature and refusal to do the right thing..... just pathetic.

As it happens, I have spent lots of time in steel mills, and have also been in a deep pit coal mine, including crawling through galleries only 18 inches high at the coal face. (Also been in an iron mine, silver mine and a salt mine, but the coal mine was nastiest by far). Then you should know that there will always be risks involved in those jobs, and the responsibility for safety falls squarely in the lap of everyone involved. I have been involved in investigating industrial accidents both in factories and at mine sites. The overwhelming majority of the time the accident was the direct result of a worker ignoring basic rules of safety. Accidents don't "just happen". They are the end result of a long chain of events, and that chain can be broken at any link and the accident prevented. I employers are SO wonderful and safety conscious, I wonder why the Congress felt it necessary to pass the Occupational Safety and Health Act in 1970, and for the president to sign it into law? Because, in case you missed it in my last post, "The overwhelming majority of the time the accident was the direct result of a worker ignoring basic rules of safety." Humans, being humans, do stupid things. OSHA was created to remove as much of the opportunity for stupid mistakes as possible and to reduce the impact of any accidents that did occur. OSHA is aimed not only at an employer, but at an employee as well. But even OSHA can only do so much. Did you know that even after electric headlamps became available and affordable, many miners resisted the change and wanted to stay with carbide lamps, even though they could have lethal consequences if mathane gas had accumulated in a mine? I'm not saying corps used to ignore safety in favor of profits. That is a well documented fact. But it wasn't a Democrat thing or a Republican thing, it was something that went on regardless of political affiliation. It's just too bad that it took some tragic incidents, both in the workplace and on the picket lines, to bring change. Wrong again, the vast grouping of workplace accidents happens in RTW states, inferring non-union. Wrong about what? That the majority of accidents are because an employee ignored safety procedures? I think you should check the statistics, because that reamark was obviously made without data to back it up. On the other hand, I can provide proof that your assertion is BS. http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshstate.htm OSHA website with data on nonfatal injury and illness from 2005 showing number of injuries/illnesses per 100 full-time workers. As you will see, the national average of states included is 4.6 The average of the 19 RTW states included is 3.4, well below the national average. Hmmmm....seems you were wrong, doesn't it? Let me guess, you got your figures from a unions website? The RTW states not included, reasons not given, are typical farming/ranching states so we can safely assume their incident rate would be similar to other farming/ranching states. Those similar states had incidence rates close to the national average. If you want to prove a point, do it with facts and not with opinion. 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/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb0186.pdf Also, don't provide some partial list of states with your data. Fuck,

As it happens, I have spent lots of time in steel mills, and have also been in a deep pit coal mine, including crawling through galleries only 18 inches high at the coal face. (Also been in an iron mine, silver mine and a salt mine, but the coal mine was nastiest by far). Then you should know that there will always be risks involved in those jobs, and the responsibility for safety falls squarely in the lap of everyone involved. I have been involved in investigating industrial accidents both in factories and at mine sites. The overwhelming majority of the time the accident was the direct result of a worker ignoring basic rules of safety. Accidents don't "just happen". They are the end result of a long chain of events, and that chain can be broken at any link and the accident prevented. I employers are SO wonderful and safety conscious, I wonder why the Congress felt it necessary to pass the Occupational Safety and Health Act in 1970, and for the president to sign it into law? Don't forget OSHA and Clinton initiated the Ergonomics Bill for repetitive motion injuries, which Bush struck down. Repubs looking out for workers again. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. I don't know. But let's assume that he did. Did you read the entire bill? I know I didn't, therefor I am in no position to play critic of whether it was the right thing to do or not. I'm pretty sure you haven't read the entire bill yourself. I am also assuminh the bill was struck down on it's own merits, which is rare these days since virtually every bill that goes before the President is attached to other bills. Maybe Bush liked the bill from OSHA, but it was attached to something that he would not sign. I don't know, and neither do you, so that leaves neither of us in a position to pass judgement on the case. Yes, Clinton and OSHA worked on it, it made its way thru Congress as I recall and Bush kileld it. He said it was bad for business. It provided a fasttrack for carpel tunnel injuries and other repetitive motion injuries. 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. Remember, Republicans are for workers, just chant that and it will become true. 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. ______________________________________________________________ Here's your hero at work, helpin out a workin man: http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/laws-government-regulations/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. More Republicans helpin out a working man. Are you seriously goona keep saying the Repubs are good for the workin man? Let's sort some things out: - Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. -----> Oh, he did - I am also assuminh the bill was struck down on it's own merits, which is rare these days since virtually every bill that goes before the President is attached to other bills. -----> I wouldn't say bad merit, but bad for the Republican agenda, rode alone, no piggyback - Maybe Bush liked the bill from OSHA, but it was attached to something that he would not sign. I don't know, and neither do you,... ----> It rode alone, Bush said it was bad for business. Quit defending the crazy notion that Repubs are somehow for the workin man.

Meanwhile 8 years later he trippled the debt, so where is the greatness? Sounds as if the whole plan was worthless since the outcome was disaster. When we have the richest people on earth collected here in the US and kids w/o medical attention, 50Million people, that's 1/6 w/o any medical care, most of the rest have some watered down version of some f/n HMO, who can refuse to lay for doctor-ordered care, when we have all that the rich should contribute, esp considering they usually get that way by using the services of teh poor with little return. Do you envision this utopian society where 1% have everything and the rest are scum-suckers begging for a handout? If we keep going like this we will have that. Are the rules not pegged the way of the corporation and the rich quite enough for your liking?

Yea, you should stick to smileys, leave the other keys alone. I impeached your source as a, how do you put that, flip-flopper.

As it happens, I have spent lots of time in steel mills, and have also been in a deep pit coal mine, including crawling through galleries only 18 inches high at the coal face. (Also been in an iron mine, silver mine and a salt mine, but the coal mine was nastiest by far). Then you should know that there will always be risks involved in those jobs, and the responsibility for safety falls squarely in the lap of everyone involved. I have been involved in investigating industrial accidents both in factories and at mine sites. The overwhelming majority of the time the accident was the direct result of a worker ignoring basic rules of safety. Accidents don't "just happen". They are the end result of a long chain of events, and that chain can be broken at any link and the accident prevented. I employers are SO wonderful and safety conscious, I wonder why the Congress felt it necessary to pass the Occupational Safety and Health Act in 1970, and for the president to sign it into law? Because, in case you missed it in my last post, "The overwhelming majority of the time the accident was the direct result of a worker ignoring basic rules of safety." Humans, being humans, do stupid things. OSHA was created to remove as much of the opportunity for stupid mistakes as possible and to reduce the impact of any accidents that did occur. OSHA is aimed not only at an employer, but at an employee as well. But even OSHA can only do so much. Did you know that even after electric headlamps became available and affordable, many miners resisted the change and wanted to stay with carbide lamps, even though they could have lethal consequences if mathane gas had accumulated in a mine? I'm not saying corps used to ignore safety in favor of profits. That is a well documented fact. But it wasn't a Democrat thing or a Republican thing, it was something that went on regardless of political affiliation. It's just too bad that it took some tragic incidents, both in the workplace and on the picket lines, to bring change. Wrong again, the vast grouping of workplace accidents happens in RTW states, inferring non-union.

As it happens, I have spent lots of time in steel mills, and have also been in a deep pit coal mine, including crawling through galleries only 18 inches high at the coal face. (Also been in an iron mine, silver mine and a salt mine, but the coal mine was nastiest by far). Then you should know that there will always be risks involved in those jobs, and the responsibility for safety falls squarely in the lap of everyone involved. I have been involved in investigating industrial accidents both in factories and at mine sites. The overwhelming majority of the time the accident was the direct result of a worker ignoring basic rules of safety. Accidents don't "just happen". They are the end result of a long chain of events, and that chain can be broken at any link and the accident prevented. I employers are SO wonderful and safety conscious, I wonder why the Congress felt it necessary to pass the Occupational Safety and Health Act in 1970, and for the president to sign it into law? Don't forget OSHA and Clinton initiated the Ergonomics Bill for repetitive motion injuries, which Bush struck down. Repubs looking out for workers again.

As it happens, I have spent lots of time in steel mills, and have also been in a deep pit coal mine, including crawling through galleries only 18 inches high at the coal face. (Also been in an iron mine, silver mine and a salt mine, but the coal mine was nastiest by far). Then you should know that there will always be risks involved in those jobs, and the responsibility for safety falls squarely in the lap of everyone involved. I have been involved in investigating industrial accidents both in factories and at mine sites. The overwhelming majority of the time the accident was the direct result of a worker ignoring basic rules of safety. Accidents don't "just happen". They are the end result of a long chain of events, and that chain can be broken at any link and the accident prevented. This thread is about clean union elections, RTW states have the highest rates of injury and death as well as being below the national average for wages. Address that.

Not everyone wants to be in a union. Sounds like they are trying to protect worker's rights. Exactly right. A worker has more to fear from pro-union people if he votes against the union (or resfuses to sign a petition) than he ever would from an employer if he voted in favor of a union. Oh yes, employers are SO benign. Try Googling "Haymarket riots". Kallend, we could sit at our computers for years posting links to sites listing violence by both sides. As far as Haymarket, correct me if I am wrong, as I remember from a paper I wrote concerning that in high school, it was the protest organizers who were ultimately found responsible for the violence that led to a police officer being murdered. As a said before, the only thing I would fear from an employer is loss of a job. Piss off a union enough and you could very well lose your life. Improper working conditions, care of employers, kill or maim dozens of workers in the US each year, in coal mines, steel mills, etc. Misfeasance or malfeasance, dead is still dead. Granted, there are instances even today where working conditions are less than mandated. But it is also upon each and every worker to make his job as safe as possible. To trust only in one's employer or union for safety is foolhardy. Have you ever worked in a steel mill or coal mine? Have you ever set foot in a steel mill or coal mine? As far as I know, this thread is about privacy in voting for or against unions in a workplace. Workplace safety is a whole bucket of worms in itself. But just ironically the vast grouping of workplace injuries occurrs in RTW states...... as well RTW states all have wages below the national average. Just our RTW Republican brothers looking out for us, huh?

Yea, well when we have a country revoking the right of workers to organize and we are the richest country in teh world that won't give its poor medical care, it's easy to invoke the concept that the rich and well off exploit the workers. Much poorer countries extend medical benefits to their poor. You want to believe that this is teh land of opportunity, go right ahead, the truth is far different for many peolple.

Yes, and that is what this admin has failed to do, if they wanna spend out their ass, they should raise taxes, but that would raise hell with the neo-cons. It's just all bad news man. If Bush cut military spending he could cut taxes and still manage the debt. He's a idiot.

Not at all, I posted the entire abstract articel as pulled up from your reference, I then researched your author and found just 2 years ago he said Bush went too far on the tax cuts. I impeached your reference by using your author, who is a very biased individual that earlier thought Bush's tax cuts were bad. Suck it up man, I exposed your reference.

Ben Stein article on US economic recovery under Bush administration; says recovery is not perfect, but economy, adjusted forinflation and growth in population, is considerably stronger now than during Clinton administration; holds Bush's immense tax cuts and budget deficits stopped gathering recession dead in its tracks; drawing OK, there was a recesion during Bush, but not from CLinton. As for stopped deficits, there will still be a deficit at the end of this year and there was for last year, so your point is moot with no real benefit. If Bush had another 8 years and he maintained his growth, then maybe he could undo his damage, but for now it's moot as he will leave office at least 5 trillion more in debt, virtually doubled that of when he entered office. Your little accomplishments are meaningless when the net is disaster and that's with 4 years being solely Repub run, 2 having a mixed Congress. To disply facts in the form of an argument you need to illustrate how much was lost during 911 and the total impact, not just throw up some website where a guy says Bush is doing well. After more research in Ben Stein, he is a California social liberal, and a fiscal conservative. SO he thinks gays should have rights and there should be no txes, so of course he's gonna say that tax cuts are great. Quite a bit of bias there with no data to support his claim, just his opinion. http://www.benstein.com/bio.html Furthermore, he voted for Bush in 04: http://www.benstein.com/103104bush.html Hahahahahahaha, your own cite contradicts itself. He writes here in 04 that Bush went too far on taxes: I think he's done well with an economy he inherited with real problems of a collapsing stock market and a gathering recession, although I do think he went too far on taxes. He's not perfect. He's not George Washington. He's George W. Bush, who happened to be President on 9/11 and has responded to it superbly. He's not Abe Lincoln. He's just the best guy out there in an uncertain and dangerous world. He's in it for America, not to fulfill a boyhood dream, and I want to keep him on the job. But if his opponent wins, God bless him, too. He'll need it. So your own cite is a guy who is a fiscal conservative who voted for Bush, said 2 yeas ago he went too far with tax cuts, now praises him. What a joke.