0 Nerd-Its - +

RE: Impact of Obama

Comment a comment by Dwayne Sudduth (ldsudduth), published on 23 November 2009
Navigate to the top level to view all replies to the article 3D Mandelbrot Images
Navigate up one level to see this comment's parent.
other nerds have left 3 comments below

Not so. Dr George Tiller was murdered by a religious anti-abortion zealot just this past May.

I’ll stand corrected on that—I did an internet search and came up with ‘1993’ as the last time a Doctor was murdered by an anti-abortion protestor.

But you somehow think it’s ok for GM to “rape” its US workers by stopping benefits to which they were promised as part of their employment offer. That’s a rather bizarre contradiction.

We’ll have to agree to disagree here..I don’t see that a ‘Union Contract’ (which I consider to be a level of extortion) to be an ‘Employment Offer’. An offer is something I can make a counter offer to. With Union Contracts, you can’t; neither side can vary from the ‘contract’. And they can’t stop or change the costs to benefits for those under ‘Contract’ without renegotiating said contract.

By the same token, the Union can ‘rape’ GM for a combined salary (wages + benefits) for their union workers that averages around $73 per hour; while an accountant or network administrator or (pick a worker here) gets a combined salary that is substantially less in combined salary and benefits. That hardly seems fair does it? But GM needs to do that so they can offset what the Union has extorted from them in some manner.

Companies don’t have consciences, and their directors are legally required to put the company’s financial best interest at the center of their decision-making—even when that runs counter to their own conscience (so long as it’s not illegal).

Exactly my point—during tough economic times, actions need to be take to preserve the company—and try to preserve jobs as well. To do anything else is not acting in the best interests of all—employees OR investors.

If the company unilaterally decides to drop benefits, or change them to be paid for by the employee, it’s no different than simply deciding unilaterally to reduce your salary. Now, as a conservative, especially one with the weird anti-labor ideas that so many “libertarian” conservatives have, you might think it’s ok for the company to do that.

The company should be able to take whatever actions are necessary to preserve jobs.

When Insurance company X increases it’s rates to a company by a factor of 5 (as they did in my case—
from 8K per year total cost to almost 48K per year) I certainly can’t expect my employer to pick up that tab. Since I’m a contractor, it would have effectively erased much of the profit they make for my position. You can certainly bet they can’t go back to the employer and increase their hourly rate by a factor of 5. Oddly enough, when I sought insurance on my own, I actually found it for about the same cost ($15 more per month) than I was paying before. That becomes a Tax Deduction for me next year, so it’s a ‘net gain’ on my salary anyway.

. The government is the people. It’s not some separate aristocracy that decides on rules for the plebes with a different rule for the elite.

Wait a minute Scott—I believe you took the position in a posting some time ago (and I don’t have time to search for it right now) that my position that an elected official should be doing ‘the will of the people’—meaning the will of the majority of their constituents was an incorrect position; that (parapphrasing your point) our Elected ones need to be doing what is best for the people regardless of how the people feel about it. How do you now say that the government is the people?

Now, it’s easy to lose control of the government. But the government is still the proper place for that function.

The people lost control of the Government years and years ago. However, are you saying the government should set wages across the board for everyone? Yourself included? We probably agree on one point—these multi-millon dollar salaries (and Parachutes) for most of the senior ‘executive’ types are probably not only undeserved, but unearned as well, and the government should have taken action to quash that.

And btw.. not all Libertarians are ‘Anti Government’, minarchists are just against governments so large (like ours is becoming) that is sucks up all of the income people and businesses earn just to keep itself moving. Government role is the protection of life, liberty, and property of the individual. Anything else is neither warranted or necessary.

Thread parent sort order:
Thread verbosity:
2 Nerd-Its - +
RE: Impact of Obama by scottb :: NR7

Exactly my point—during tough economic times, actions need to be take to preserve the company—and try to preserve jobs as well. To do anything else is not acting in the best interests of all—employees OR investors.

Except that the fiduciary responsibility of those who take those actions bind them to consider the investors interests over those of the employees. If there are two available actions, one that helps both employees and investors and another that helps only the investors, but helps them more than the first, then they’re legally bound to take the second action, at the expense of the employees.

Now, it’s true that such a situation isn’t always the case. Often, what’s good for the investors is good for the employees. The problem is that there are no decision-makers in the process for whom the employees’ interests are paramount.

The company should be able to take whatever actions are necessary to preserve jobs.

But that’s not what they do. The company takes whatever actions are necessary to preserve profits. That may or may not require them to preserve jobs. In today’s world, it often more effective to cut jobs.

When Insurance company X increases it’s rates to a company by a factor of 5 (as they did in my case—from 8K per year total cost to almost 48K per year) I certainly can’t expect my employer to pick up that tab.

You can expect them to find an alternative insurer, or in some other way continue to provide you with the benefits they offered you when you signed up. Unilaterally deciding to discontinue the benefits with no compensation isn’t acceptable.

Wait a minute Scott—I believe you took the position in a posting some time ago (and I don’t have time to search for it right now) that my position that an elected official should be doing ‘the will of the people’—meaning the will of the majority of their constituents was an incorrect position; that (parapphrasing your point) our Elected ones need to be doing what is best for the people regardless of how the people feel about it. How do you now say that the government is the people?

I’m sure I did. I do hold a position close to that, and I don’t see any conflict.

It’s wrong to construe “the will of the people” to mean “the majority rule”. A major motivation behind a representative democracy (as opposed to a direct democracy) is precisely to avoid “the tyranny of the majority”. A representative democracy protects against that because the representatives are not supposed to simply implement the majority opinion.

That doesn’t preclude the representative government from being “the people”. It’s not as if they’re elected from a separate caste of people or anything. The incredible range of cranks and weirdos that we manage to elect (and often re-elect) is a pretty good indicator of that.

And btw.. not all Libertarians are ‘Anti Government’

I know. I just don’t care for the use of the term “libertarian”, for much the same reasons I don’t like the term “agnostic”. It seems like it’s mostly used by people who want to distance themselves from a more accurate label.

The Showcase

Nerd-Its   Nerd Trends   Last Ten  

  1. RE: Please read the Book of Mormon! // Jake is way off base in God before Country in the Military
  2. RE: Discussing Book of Mormon anachronisms in God before Country in the Military
  3. RE: Discussing Book of Mormon anachronisms in God before Country in the Military
  4. RE: Discussing Book of Mormon anachronisms in God before Country in the Military
  5. RE: Discussing Book of Mormon anachronisms in God before Country in the Military
  6. RE: Now it's, "Please watch Expelled"? in God before Country in the Military
  7. RE: Please read the Book of Mormon! // Jake is way off base in God before Country in the Military
  8. But she didn't do the right thing right in Nurse Does "Right Thing", Goes To Jail
  9. RE: Please read the Book of Mormon! // Jake is way off base in God before Country in the Military
  10. RE: nerdy? in God before Country in the Military

What is OmniNerd?

Omninerd_icon Welcome! OmniNerd's content is generated by nerds like you. Learn more.

Voting Booth

Legalizing medical marijuana?

26 votes, 1 comment