Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1. the republicans don't want deregulation... they do want to fix the overbearing regulations the fascist liberals have put in place in the last 30 years... not the FLSA..... /end thread
2. liberals are constantly enacting regulations ONTOP of regulations, with out ever READING the original regulation... regulations (rules/laws) are meant to be revised / reauthorized / increased /decreased /rescinded over time as the situation changes
3. by design this is supposed to be a republic, a small but efficient government, not an all powerful fascist/socialistic tyranny that the liberals keep pushing
If you really are a “working class hero” then you are a total sucker. You’re taking the side of the very people who are trying to make you work longer hours for lower pay. Do you enjoy working 12 hour days with no minimum wage laws, like working people did before the New Deal?
I swear, this country is the only country on the planet where everyone thinks they’re going to be the next Bill Gates or John D. Rockefeller, and votes accordingly.
I'm the person who started this thread. I'm retired so I'm not afraid that some manager may fire me for being disloyal. You Trump conservatives are afraid, afraid of the truth, afraid that someday enough of you will realize that there is no way to compete with the paltry wages that the Chinese pay their employees.
Your second sentence is a sad corruption of the Lords prayer, and you continue to blow smoke into the sight of those that you indoctrinate with false and irrelevant information.
The history of the Great Depression, and the origins of the New Deal, are a long and complicated story; and the AFL-CIO and other political allies aren't above distorting or ignoring facts that don't fit the doctrines they seek to spoon-feed to their loyalists. or to overplay the cultural prejudices upon which both sides played.
And FWIW, I grew up and went to high school in a community (Berwick,PA) where a lot of those prejudices existed; it mattered "which side of the forge" you lived on.
If Mr. afd wants to refute what I'm about to point out on a factual, specific case-by-case basis, he's welcome to do so -- but I don't think he can.
The unions love to spin the Great Myth that the Depression was an instantaneous event, linked to the stock market crash of 1929 -- that we were all dancing in speakeasies in October, and standing in bread lines by Christmas;
THE FACTS: With a couple of exceptions like automobiles, the economy (Main Street as opposed to Wall Street) held up pretty well until the fall of 1931 -- and it did not recover immediately after a miraculous "Hundred Days" -- that happened in the spring of 1935, after the Supreme Court consigned the National Recovery Act/Administration (NRA) to the trashbin.
OTOH, the prejudices of the day, particularly against the Southern and Eastern Europeans (mostly Catholic and Orthodox or Jewish) in the industrial North are well-documented; so is the rise and, for a time, strong influence wielded by a Detroiter named Father Charles Coughlin, and the development of strong, but separate capitalistic/entrepreneurial economies in "ethnic" communities and neighborhoods. But again, the story was, and is heavily "spun" for political purposes.
THE FACTS: the auto industry of the 1920's was partially unionized and subtly segregated; it used carpenters, upholsterers, sheet-metal workers and many other craft unions, the membership of which was predominately Protestant, and better-cushioned against a downturn. The "outsiders", including African-Americans, drew the roughest jobs in the foundries, etc. They pulled down more money when the factories worked overtime, but when the boom ended, they were the first to go.
For factual backup, check out the work linked below, a memoir written in 1945 by a Russian (Georgian) immigrant couple who, happily, were still around to present the facts for another thirty years. It was used in English Lit classes in a lot of communities where ethnic tensions persisted, mine among them. But the NEA has everything to gain by ignoring it.
The history of industrialization and urbanization in North America is long, grimy, bitter and occasionally, bloody. But a study of the facts, as opposed to the Leftist spin, reveals that the driving force, as always, was the recognition that as bad as it sometimes was, it was better than the bondage to the land and the agrarian subsistence that came before.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 02-26-2018 at 03:56 AM..
If you think this is exclusively a "right-wing" (there's that smear-word again, depicting all who don't swill the Lefties' Kool-Aid as a monolith) venue, you're free to spew, or to leave as you see fit. Those who refuse to swallow your nonsense aren't out to silence it (which is more than can be said for some of the people on the other side of the fence).
And, again, you fail to address the facts I posted and just spew the right-wing party line, while putting on amusing airs of self-importance. Again, the fact remains that the far-right supports regulating religion and consensual sex between adults, but has no interest in regulating things that matter, such as clear air, food, water, drugs, and so on.
This is a FACT - one you apparently don't like - and every time it comes up, you have simply launched into a predictable rant against "the left" and have failed to present a single fact to support your claims. Sorry, but not everyone in the world is interested in licking Trump's boots, and your laughably predictable right-wing rants make it clear where you stand on the political spectrum. Nobody is buying your claim to be an "independent libertarian." You're hard-right. Have a nice life.
And, again, you fail to address the facts I posted and just spew the right-wing party line, while pretending that this forum is anything but a right-wing haven. Your posts are laughable, you have nothing to support your position, and nobody is buying your attempt to hide your hard-right position by claiming to be a "libertarian."
Your opinion are irrelevant because you have no facts to support them. Have a nice life.
You're as welcome to address the specific facts in the post immediately above yours (#53) as is the OP; step into the ring anytime you like. But don't hide behind a penny-ante deflection to Trump and the worst "know-nothings" of the Religious Right, I didn't vote for either, (but will have to consider the former if it keeps Warren, Harris and the other slimy legatees of Obama and the Clintons out of power).
(BTW, please make an attempt to better define the smear-term "right wing" -- if you can.)
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 02-26-2018 at 05:55 AM..
The history of the Great Depression, and the origins of the New Deal, are a long and complicated story; and the AFL-CIO and other political allies aren't above distorting or ignoring facts that don't fit the doctrines they seek to spoon-feed to their loyalists. or to overplay the cultural prejudices upon which both sides played.
And FWIW, I grew up and went to high school in a community (Berwick,PA) where a lot of those prejudices existed; it mattered "which side of the forge" you lived on.
If Mr. afd wants to refute what I'm about to point out on a factual, specific case-by-case basis, he's welcome to do so -- but I don't think he can.
The unions love to spin the Great Myth that the Depression was an instantaneous event, linked to the stock market crash of 1929 -- that we were all dancing in speakeasies in October, and standing in bread lines by Christmas;
THE FACTS: With a couple of exceptions like automobiles, the economy (Main Street as opposed to Wall Street) held up pretty well until the fall of 1931 -- and it did not recover immediately after a miraculous "Hundred Days" -- that happened in the spring of 1935, after the Supreme Court consigned the National Recovery Act/Administration (NRA) to the trashbin.
OTOH, the prejudices of the day, particularly against the Southern and Eastern Europeans (mostly Catholic and Orthodox or Jewish) in the industrial North are well-documented; so is the rise and, for a time, strong influence wielded by a Detroiter named Father Charles Coughlin, and the development of strong, but separate capitalistic/entrepreneurial economies in "ethnic" communities and neighborhoods. But again, the story was, and is heavily "spun" for political purposes.
THE FACTS: the auto industry of the 1920's was partially unionized and subtly segregated; it used carpenters, upholsterers, sheet-metal workers and many other craft unions, the membership of which was predominately Protestant, and better-cushioned against a downturn. The "outsiders", including African-Americans, drew the roughest jobs in the foundries, etc. They pulled down more money when the factories worked overtime, but when the boom ended, they were the first to go.
For factual backup, check out the work linked below, a memoir written in 1945 by a Russian (Georgian) immigrant couple who, happily, were still around to present the facts for another thirty years. It was used in English Lit classes in a lot of communities where ethnic tensions persisted, mine among them. But the NEA has everything to gain by ignoring it.
The history of industrialization and urbanization in North America is long, grimy, bitter and occasionally, bloody. But a study of the facts, as opposed to the Leftist spin, reveals that the driving force, as always, was the recognition that as bad as it sometimes was, it was better than the bondage to the land and the agrarian subsistence that came before.
You are all over the place with your arguments. You wrap it up by giving us a book written by a Russian cook? What does that have to do with the original premise?
Ar you attempting to talk about a rags to riches story. If that's the case then you are just attempting to deflect from the original argument.
Look up the term non sequitur and that describes your arguments above.
It will also be curious because such a decision would apply the FAA, passed in 1924, to override the National Labor Relations Act, passed in 1935.
But then came Trump; in June, the Solicitor General’s office filed a new government brief taking the employers’ side. In other words, the government filed a brief specifically arguing against its own earlier brief, and refused to argue on behalf of the NLRB before the court. The government’s new brief proposed a new, narrow reading of the NLRA.
This was the ruling last year in the Eastern District Court of Texas which skirted the precedent of the DC Circuit Court. They want to avoid class actions, no different than individuals although that is a different discussion.
Remember Trump embarrassingly unqualified appointment to the DC Court that was withdrawn last year, they are searching far and wide to change labor rulings in favor of corporations.
Not to pry but it sounds like maybe you may never have been a salaried employee. Try telling your employer that you won't work overtime without pay if you're salaried. You won't have your job for long. Just ask any salaried attorney at a big law firm how that will fly.
Ultimately, of course, this will be up to the Supreme Court to decide. But, it is the President's attorneys who are arguing FOR this in front of the Supreme Court.
However, to be fair, if the court does agree, I doubt that the case will immediately filter down so that all employees automatically become salaried. There are reasons why some employers might prefer to keep certain types of employees on hourly pay; for instance, it makes it much easier to have part-time employees if you're paying them on an hourly basis. And, of course, it would have to be determined how the government would come up with a "minimum salary" to replace the "minimum hourly wage."
So, in that sense, I agree with you that this topic may be a little ahead of itself but if you are an employee of any type (hourly or salaried) it is smart to keep abreast of the goings on in DC related to your future employment prospects. That should apply regardless of which party is calling the shots.
Salaried employees aren't hourly so none of this applies.
1. the republicans don't want deregulation... they do want to fix the overbearing regulations the fascist liberals have put in place in the last 30 years... not the FLSA..... /end thread
2. liberals are constantly enacting regulations ONTOP of regulations, with out ever READING the original regulation... regulations (rules/laws) are meant to be revised / reauthorized / increased /decreased /rescinded over time as the situation changes
3. by design this is supposed to be a republic, a small but efficient government, not an all powerful fascist/socialistic tyranny that the liberals keep pushing
I think you are a NY State employee that could be covered by this change, are you exempt or non-exempt. If you are non-exempt then you enjoy the benefits for these fascist liberal rules, so your ready to take a cut for your ideals.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
