willard

Good for her!

Now you've gone the whole nine yards. Youve resorted to name calling, false accusations based on assumptions, and otherwise lost your temper. That is not a good way to win any debate. As I have said, all you have shown is that the Repubs have been anti-union, something I agreed to so as to save argument. You have not shown anything at all that they are against workers rights. The logic you try to apply just doesn't hold water. Hypothetical situation: If group A is anti-union, yet does more to help the average worker than any other group, does that still mean they are against workers rights? According to your logic it does. I'm not saying the Republican party has a great history of working for the average Joe, but just because they are known anit-union doen't automatically make them against workers rights. As far as how much I paid my workers, where did you ever come up with $10/hr? Prevailing wage is almost always set according to union scale and I can assure you we paid a quite a bit more than $10/hr to our skilled workers. I am not against all unions, just those that rape their employees and the system more than the government ever thought of. As I said in a previous post I have friends who are bricklayers and laborers. Their union treats them well without screwing them over or trying to control the contactors. Like I said, keep believing what the unions are telling you if that is your choice. I am able to decide for myself. Just so you know, both my grandfathers were union members, my father was a union member, and I was a union member. So don't give me that "poor working stiff vs rich business owner" bullshit. More than once my father and I gave up our wages (yes, we were on the payroll too. In fact, I made LESS than our senior welder) so we wouldn't have to lay off anyone during hard times. I once went for SIX MONTHS without a paycheck, living off my savings. When did your union bosses ever do that for you? Now, if you don't mind, show me some evidence that the Repubs are against workers rights, not just against the unions. Because, regardless of what you think, unions and workers are only the same thing 30% of the time. Of course, you can always end this debate. Just Refer to the republican party as "Nazis" again and this thread will be all yours.

I know. Decades of work to earn our respect, then loses it in a matter of minutes. It's sad.

Glad to hear it. I'm all for a fair wage and benefits. As an employer I paid our experienced welders prevailing wage and their insurance, plus really good vacation package. (After 5 years they got three weeks paid, plus an extra 40 hrs pay each week. So, basically double pay while on vacation). But you had a choice. That is the point of RTW, to give workers that choice. The unions, knowing more members means more money coming in and more influence, don't want workers to have that choice. I agree, there are slackers both union and non-union.

There has been a lot of stuff posted all over the web concerning JZ and his article. It would be virtually impossible for any one person to read it all, but the underlying thoughts are the same and don't need repeated here. I myself was shocked to read the original piece by JZ. But after the initial shock wore off I realized that a good part of my anger wasn't just at what he had said, but because I had grown up reading his articles and stories. I had a respect for him the same as I did for many other outdoor writers who lived a life I envied. It's always a shock, and a disappointment, when the people you looked up to and thought of as bigger than life for so many years turn out to be human after all. I post this not a s condemnation nor an endorsement of what JZ wrote, but to point out that there is equally upsetting aspect to this incident.

If i don't like newspapers, it may be because of the ink, it may be because of the layout, there are any number of reasons. I may even start a campaign to have newspapers banned. But that doesn't mean I am against freedom of the press. Repubs may be against the unions, but hat doesn't mean they are against worker rights. That's a bullshit conclusion and you know it. Who's out of gas? You keep chanting the same ol' lines...."Repubs are against worker rights. RTW sates pay less and are less safe." But, as i have said to many times already, you have not provided any proof. It is not up to me to disprove your theory. If you make claims then the proof is for you to provide, which you have not done. Claims by the unions are not proof! They are just more claims. You can't make the claim that the only people who are for workers rights are the unions, yet that is essentially what you are saying. The unions represent what, 25%-30% of the workforce? That means 70%-75% are not union. Does that mean those 70% don't care about their rights in the workplace? No, it just means they have not chosen to let a union represent them. Not everyone wants to be in a union. For the unions to come into a shop on a 51%-49% vote and force the minority to join and give them money is a blatant violation of a workers right. Or are you going to say that workers don't have that right? You have made claims, resorted to calling Rebublicans "Nazis", and have presented no proof. As I said before, that is typical of the unions. Repeat a lie enough times and maybe someone will believe it. Like their claims about card counts. Are really so naive to think the unions only want this for expediency? Are you so naive to think they won't take notice of who refused to sign the cards? Time to step out of the union hall for a while and get back in touch with reality.

Looks like cost of living plays a rather large part of the difference in salaries. Of course, admitting that takes rather a lot of wind out of your 'assertions', so I understand why you didn't normalize for it, sort of like your constant arguments about the economy. Nice, a sample size of 1. Most of the deaths result from manual labor, not office managers I think we all agree, someone on your side made that assertion, so these are low paid workers in many cases anyway. I think Kallend's data read construction laborers were near the top of the list of most dangerous jobs. SO you have not tied in wage to your argument foe a few reasons, namely sample size of your data. Furthermore, you have not even touched the issue of safety, which Kallend debunked by posting that mine workers were far down on the list of most dangerous jobs. Instead of creating an entire argument, you're poking straws trying to pop the balloon. Do you really think Repubican politicians are here to help workers? If so, explain all of the legislative acts they have done. Do you think Republican politicians are pro-union? If so establish how? Gee, that's nice. Make claims about the Republican party, then instead of providing facts to back those claims you want others to prove they are false. It's not up to us to prove you are wrong. It's up to you to prove you are right. Typical union tactic.

Using your logic, PETA fights for animal rights, I dislike PETA, so I must be against all animal rights. Or newpapers stand for our right to free speech. I don't like newspapers, therefor I am against the right to free speech. That logic is faulty. Whether one group dislikes another doesn't determine whether they also are against what that group stands for. No, the only thing you have established is that you think there is a connection and that you think that union states are safey because of the unions. You have not proven anything yet, only presented some data that can be interpreted many ways (4 of the 5 least safe states are non-rtw), much less proven a cause-effect relationship between the unions and the safety-salary levels of those states. Keep trying, though. Maybe somewhere along the way you'll learn something the unions don't want people to know.

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. What you are showing is that the Republican party is anti-union. No problem, for the sake of argument I'll give you that. But being anti-union is not the same as being against workers rights. It is the unions who want to make all labor unionized without regard for the wishes of the individual worker. And it is the unions who want to strip away a workers privacy when voting for/against unionization. You still have to show where the Repubs are against worker rights, not just against the unions.

"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." Still waiting. I'll keep checking back in case you decide to put something up that can hold water.

You should be careful when issuing a challenge. Somebody may just take you up on it.

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.

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.

I've used an AR-15 to hunt woodchucks and shoot "pasture poodles". I felt ridiculously overgunned so I went back to my bolt actions and single shots. But I don't think it is my business to tell others they can't use an AR. As long as they use it responsibly they can use any legal firearm they want. I also feel JZ was well within his rights to express his opinion. I disagree that he is an asshole.

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.

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

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.

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. 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.

He has provided data to back his point. If you wish to make a point, it is up to you to provide the data to back it. It is he that is trying to make a point, not I. His assertion to prove....right? As I said, neither my data nor his means much without knowing all the facts. What he is trying to prove, that workers are better off in non-RTW states, is an old and still ongoing debate. We won't settle it here, that is for certain. Lucky has provided data that show that accident rates are higher and incomes lower in RTW states. If you want to look at relative risk data and cost of living data, I would be interested to see it, but I don't see that it is Lucky's responsibility to provide it. Maybe comparative unemployment data would also be interesting. You are absolutely right, Kallend! He HAS provided data! But that data is only meaningful as presented if you are willing to ignore factors that have an effect on that data. As a scientist you should know that, and I believe you do, so why do you chose to ignore those factors?

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

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't to me. You may feel differntly. How much are you willing to sell your right to work where you want without having to join a union? My rights aren't for sale, thank you. Finish providing data that takes into account cost of living vs pay, and job risk vs incident rates. Then we'll have something to go on. Without something to provide a comparison neither your stats nor mine mean much of anything. You still haven't answered the question I asked concerning your original post. Why do you think it is ok to take away a persons right to privacy by making their vote public, yet complain about wire taps? Right to privacy is right to privacy regardless of the situation.

According to Willard, the following = little in return for union due which are what, 2 hours pay per month: Connecticut $56,409 New Jersey $56,356 Maryland $54,302 Massachusetts $52,713 New Hampshire $52,409 Alaska $52,391 Minnesota $50,750 Virginia $50,028 * Colorado $49,248 Delaware $48,770 California $48,440 Hawaii $48,274 Washington $48,185 Illinois $47,367 Utah $46,709 * Wisconsin $46,538 Michigan $46,291 Nevada $45,249 * Rhode Island $45,006 New York $44,139 Indiana $43,323 United States $43,318 District of Columbia $43,215 Ohio $43,119 Kansas $43,113 * Pennsylvania $42,952 Vermont $42,649 Oregon $42,593 Georgia $42,421 * Iowa $42,278 * Nebraska $41,984 * Arizona $41,963 * Wyoming $41,554 * Missouri $40,870 Texas $39,967 * Idaho $39,859 * North Carolina $39,438 * Maine $39,212 Florida $38,985 * North Dakota $38,223 * South Dakota $38,008 * South Carolina $38,003 * Tennessee $37,925 * Kentucky $36,663 Alabama $36,131 * Oklahoma $35,634 * New Mexico $35,091 Montana $34,449 Louisiana $33,792 * Arkansas $33,445 * West Virginia $32,967 Mississippi $32,397 * RHODE ISLAND 1.3 1 NEW HAMPSHIRE 2.1 2 VERMONT 2.1 2 DELAWARE 2.2 4 MASSACHUSETTS 2.2 4 CALIFORNIA 2.4 6 MAINE 2.4 6 MICHIGAN 2.6 8 MARYLAND 2.9 9 MINNESOTA 2.9 9 NEW YORK 2.9 9 CONNECTICUT 3.1 12 ARIZONA 3.1 12* NEW JERSEY 3.1 12 WASHINGTON 3.2 15 WISCONSIN 3.2 15 ILLINOIS 3.4 17 OREGON 3.4 17 OHIO 3.6 19 PENNSYLVANIA 3.9 20 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 4.0 HAWAII 4.1 21 TEXAS 4.2 22* NORTH CAROLINA 4.5 24* VIRGINIA 4.6 25* NEBRASKA 4.8 26* COLORADO 4.9 27 UTAH 4.4 27* INDIANA 5.0 28 IOWA 5.1 29* FLORIDA 5.2 30* TENNESSEE 5.2 30* GEORGIA 5.3 32* NEVADA 5.3 32* SOUTH CAROLINA 5.4 34* OKLAHOMA 5.6 35* ARKANSAS 5.7 36* IDAHO 5.7 36* KANSAS 5.7 36* MISSOURI 5.7 36 SOUTH DAKOTA 5.8 40* LOISIANA 6.3 41* ALABAMA 6.4 42* NEW MEXICO 6.6 43 NORTH DAKOTA 6.6 43* MISSISSIPPI 7.0 45* KENTUCKY 7.6 46 WEST VIRGINIA 7.7 47 MONTANA 8.4 48 ALASKA 12.7 49 WYOMING 15.5 50* So more pay and vastly more safety isn’t worth 2 hours pay per month? And the red states want to help out the worker and bust unions because the repubs are for the working man, right? I pose the question once again: Is anyone still stupid enough to believe that the Repubs are for worker's rights? If it is worth it to me or not is of no concern to you! My question to you, since you seem so intent upon insulting anyone who disagrees with you, is this... "Is anyone stupid enough to believe all the crap the unions dish out?" Like I have asked several times now, take into consideration the types of jobs. Then take into consideration the environment. Alaska is not a RTW state, yet ranks 49th. Ever wonder why? Now that you ahve posted the earnings/state, why not post the relative cost of living/state? Making twice as much money means nothing if the cost of living is twice as high. Typical union tactic.

Great! Now take that data, as well as mine, and factor in the type of jobs that are found in each state. Just from a glance, I can see that the states where one would expect to find a higher percentage of white collar workers are also the states that have the lowest incident rates...NY, NJ,NH,Mass, RI, etc. Then take Wyoming. 15.5 deaths/1000 workers. Not good. But their main industries are mining and ranching, both considered dangerous jobs by anyones standards. Never said 3.4 was close to 4.6. That's why I corrected myself. Tell ya what. If having faith in the unions is what makes your clock tick, then have at it. As for myself I am perfectly capable of negotiating my own wages, benefits, etc. I don't need a union to do that for me. If I want to work for $12.50/hr or $25.50/hr is of no concern of yours.

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