Way to cite statistics like they are somehow meaningful to this discussion.
I checked the stats. Those casualties? They are inclusive of all casualties since time immemorial in Az.
Check this out:
In 2011, the agency recorded 4,693 fatal work injuries nationally. The new report showed that in 2012, that number decreased by about 300 to 4,383. The labor bureau said that number is the “second lowest preliminary total since (the report) was first conducted in 1992.” In Arizona, data indicated there were 37 workplace fatalities in 2012, compared to the previous year’s 65. https://www.azpm.org/p/top-health/2013/8/29/26439-workplace-deaths-down-in-arizona-us/
So I guess we better get construction workers and lineman some swat gear since the death toll just keeps rising.
Police Officers and Fireman enjoy a relatively safe workplace environment. Your statistic proves it ..
agreed .. until one realizes that M Night Sham-alot is still making money and i want everyone to know that he sucks and the village-idiot was his nadir (heh) not his zenith
oops! marked your post funny and realized the notation would be construed as funny (haha) instead of funny (man that tastes funny - eww) my apologies
but hey! i give you points for using that that typy-thing on the tele-radio-vision thing on your desk/lap/car. when god created my internet, he did it when i was already an adult -- thus wasting 17 or 18 years of solid porn opportunities .. and in my world - that is no kind of god to imagine
the great difference in creationists and people who think is that thinkers can imagine the most fabulous and set out to disprove it whereas creationists read aesop's fables and set out to prove them.
naa nadir is prescient .... it means the lowest .. as in "im a lowly human who cannot understand:
that death is just that ...
that the mysticism i crave is answered in the beauty of natural laws and the exploration and further understanding of those laws
that everlasting life devalues existence and makes us wasteful of time, energy and resources
that snakes don't really talk, that whales don't really serve as vacation rentals and that try as i might, living 800 years has thus far been a fantasy of some and the goal of d. cheney (the man without a pulse)
exactly! counselor might even suggest, "asked and answered" as the article explains filming on a public street ... sooner or later folks, we are all going to realize that if the *copyright owner* had wanted to protect the value of that copyright, they would have filmed on a green/blue/chartreuse screen in a lot that was owned/leased/bartered for in private. since we, the people, own the street ... and we, the people have a right to photo stuff on the street ... and the supremes say that there is no expectation of privacy on the street ... copyright infringement due to photos/videos/elaborate origami of said street are baseless
hmm i said i live six blocks from mcdonalds ... you said you were six blocks from me ... either you work at mcdonalds ... or you are likely wrong ... creepy? not really
Unions are the furthest thing from the destruction of the american manufacturing environment. NAFTA and every trade agreement that promotes the benefits of moving a plant to a needy third world country has been the primary cause of the transfer of manufacturing jobs from here to *there*. Without the tax incentives given to businesses that move to targeted countries and systematic deregulation of pension protection programs these factories could not have made the move and these jobs would still be here. China may be able to produce the widgets cheaper than we did, however they could not have had the import advantage until Reagan and Clinton assured that protective trade practices were repealed in the laws like NAFTA. The only things that seem to remain protected are the fat subsidies that we pay to industries that haven't needed protection in more than 3 decades. When was the last time you heard of a major oil company or multinational agri-farmer go out of business?
On the other hand, with the destruction of of a national manufacturing base we have seen the near destruction of the auto industry, the complete removal of most electronics manufacturing as well as a host of other *labor intensive*, low value jobs. I don't mean to sound conspiratorial but it doesn't strike anyone as odd that the US automakers experience a higher part failure rate than foreign manufacturers experience? Afterall, aren't most of the parts that go into an american made vehicle made somewhere else? One would think that if you were in control of the quality of the parts going to your competitor that at the very least you would cherry pick the parts and at worse? Oh I don't know - maybe you would revert to lead based paint in children's toys -- because what? you didn't get the memo that there are laws about that? Listen, if we give up all the manufacturing jobs, if we let them build it all, then all they have to worry about is supply lines -- america can be lead around all day long if we cannot control the basis for the well-being of our own people.
Now, are unions a little too 20th century? A little too mafia-hindered? Probably, but lets not blame them for what they didn't have a part in creating. Unions do really poorly when plants go out of business. Unions do really well when all their members are gainfully employed. Thus we come to the perception of unions protecting the lazy and the inept.
Are you freaking joking me? You mean that your supervisor or the manager at your place of employment didn't immediately get the police involved with the destruction of property claim? How bout the negligent driving? How bout wreckless endangerment? And you are telling me that there wasn't a single crime that they could have been charged with that would have nullified their union protection? Well sir, I would say 1. You haven't read your employment contract 2. the employees that were goofing off / destroying equipment / acting like idiots should have been immediately placed on no-pay leave while the HR department went over to finance and got their final checks written up. I have been a member of a union and while it is true that the employer was obligated to train / re-train and then go through seemingly insurmountable processes to get rid of some people, they were able to do it in cases of gross negligence in no time. In cases of poor training, yeah -- it's a pain that some reap the benefit of the protections that others had to live without long before they were ever able to have the security of mind that comes with the idea that a small mistake wouldn't cause their family to lose everything. I think Uninos, like all power centers are out of control. I think employers who fail to recognize and reward good employees do a disservice to their customers and themselves because happy well-trained and safe workers are generally more likely to do a good job for the employer. I think the Information Age makes it easy for me to negotiate my own wages and protect myself from the evils of an oppressive industry. Likewise, the spread of information has made the protections afforded us by licensed *bounty hunters* *hair stylists* and other dangerous professions is probably at least AS destructive a force -- and the force that is used in that regard is one that benefits only those already licensed. A union cannot and does not prevent people from working in a field that they want to work in. At most they make working in those fields a safer more equitable arrangement than would otherwise exist
I have belonged to a union and my father was a member of a union. I worked for a long time for a college in Washington State and was a member of the Washington Educators Association. This is the union that protects teachers in k-12 and Colleges and Universities. My father was a lifelong member of an Operating Engineers union (Local 701).
Insofar as I have experienced unions as a member and a dependent, I will say that the professional associations that manage certain careers have far more power than any union has had in the last 80 years and quite possibly ever.
Licensing bodies like the ABA AMA and Appraisers for that matter hold the keys to employment for the entirety of that field. No union could possibly tell you that you cannot operate a backhoe or drive a forklift, a union's power is limited to the employer that is part of the union's shop. And even that is limited these days as unions almost always have to allow a prospective employee to join the union if the employer wishes to hire that person. This is certainly true in education where membership in the union is both voluntary and unnecessary to be eligible for the benefits and protection of the union while at the job and even after if you have a grievance.
A traditional union would be useless to a non-member and in fact would most likely be quite a hindrance to an employee who shirked the union membership for employment (they are called scabs and while there are rules against it, scabs are often informally blacklisted when discovered).
The problem with Unions today is the same problem that plagues FDR and the new deal programs that saved the working class during the last depression. We forget our history. In the information age, there is little time to look at any problem deeply enough to really understand the reasons that certain programs and safeguards exist. In theory we all know that unions improved working conditions and saved lives as we became an industrial power after the first world war. We can see that 16 hour days in unsafe factories which were employing children as young as 7 or 8 in hazardous jobs was a bad idea. What we don't see is the root of that problem. That employers who are left to their own devices will extract the most production out of as few people and as cheaply as possible because the financial benefit is too great to pass up. Without regulatory agencies, enforcement agencies and a coordinated, educated workforce, you cannot prevent employers from returning to the days of company towns and exploited workers.
That being said, we need to re-evaluate the way we regulate ourselves. It seems rudimentary to institute unbiased and independent review of employee qualifications and working conditions. How does a licensing agency qualify as independent if it is made up of the very people that benefit from the scarcity of qualified workers? A union of workers in the information age does more than just preserve its members, it routinely trains and motivates new members through apprenticeship programs and education. A licensing agency on the other hand seems more involved with the limiting of the pool of available resources, often by means that have little to do with the improvement of the existing workforce. Look at the number of rules and regulations that proactively prevent otherwise capable people of going into a field based solely on unrelated events that have occurred in their lives. Tell me when the last time you heard a union tell someone that the possession of marijuana charge they had 5 years ago prevents them from working for them? Ask that same question of CPAs Attorneys Insurance Agents Nurses etc etc. What really drives me nuts it that it is these same pseudo managers that are members of the service-licensing industry that decry unions as too powerful. Just compare the real power of a union to a regulatory or license granting group and see if you don't come to the same conclusion that I have: Unions only wish they could be that powerful -- and it's a good thing they aren't that powerful. Likewise, licensing agencies should be free of conflicts of interest that arise from the scarcity of resources under their purview. A free and independent watchdog who serves to promote the growth and accessibility of services would best serve the overall economy. There is a reason that unions spend a great deal of time negotiating training and upgrades to the existing workforce's skill set as well as working closely with trade schools and apprenticeship programs to assure that the workers that do join are as qualified to be on the job as the non-union workers who learn their trade either less formally or simply on-the-job.
Everything I say can be held against me in a court of law and by my employer.
The truth is, whether you are online making statements or on the street corner playing town-crier, our communications have direct and real financial impacts. A journalist who blogs for free is no less developing their professional craft than any blogger or any other unpaid writer. If the economic litmus test is financial impact, then it's a no-brainer: protection via shield laws will apply to all.
I worry more about what they aren't telling us: is there something in the latest TSA bill they know will negate this? Are there further plans to quash even more civil liberties than have already be seriously restricted or just plain vanished? OR is this all just smoke and mirrors to get through another legislative session appearing to watch out for our interests while pocketing millions in lobbying perks?
BestNetTech has not posted any stories submitted by the truck living next door (r.walker).
Re: The citizen have caused their own problems
Hey Whatever ...
Way to cite statistics like they are somehow meaningful to this discussion.
I checked the stats. Those casualties? They are inclusive of all casualties since time immemorial in Az.
Check this out:
In 2011, the agency recorded 4,693 fatal work injuries nationally. The new report showed that in 2012, that number decreased by about 300 to 4,383. The labor bureau said that number is the “second lowest preliminary total since (the report) was first conducted in 1992.”
In Arizona, data indicated there were 37 workplace fatalities in 2012, compared to the previous year’s 65.
https://www.azpm.org/p/top-health/2013/8/29/26439-workplace-deaths-down-in-arizona-us/
So I guess we better get construction workers and lineman some swat gear since the death toll just keeps rising.
Police Officers and Fireman enjoy a relatively safe workplace environment. Your statistic proves it ..
Re: Copyright and content producers
agreed .. until one realizes that M Night Sham-alot is still making money and i want everyone to know that he sucks and the village-idiot was his nadir (heh) not his zenith
Re:
oops! marked your post funny and realized the notation would be construed as funny (haha) instead of funny (man that tastes funny - eww) my apologies
but hey! i give you points for using that that typy-thing on the tele-radio-vision thing on your desk/lap/car. when god created my internet, he did it when i was already an adult -- thus wasting 17 or 18 years of solid porn opportunities .. and in my world - that is no kind of god to imagine
the great difference in creationists and people who think is that thinkers can imagine the most fabulous and set out to disprove it whereas creationists read aesop's fables and set out to prove them.
subtle differences
Re: Re: Re: Re: Intelligent Design
naa nadir is prescient .... it means the lowest .. as in "im a lowly human who cannot understand:
that death is just that ...
that the mysticism i crave is answered in the beauty of natural laws and the exploration and further understanding of those laws
that everlasting life devalues existence and makes us wasteful of time, energy and resources
that snakes don't really talk, that whales don't really serve as vacation rentals and that try as i might, living 800 years has thus far been a fantasy of some and the goal of d. cheney (the man without a pulse)
Re: Re:
exactly! counselor might even suggest, "asked and answered" as the article explains filming on a public street ... sooner or later folks, we are all going to realize that if the *copyright owner* had wanted to protect the value of that copyright, they would have filmed on a green/blue/chartreuse screen in a lot that was owned/leased/bartered for in private. since we, the people, own the street ... and we, the people have a right to photo stuff on the street ... and the supremes say that there is no expectation of privacy on the street ... copyright infringement due to photos/videos/elaborate origami of said street are baseless
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who cares about the legality of the takedowns...
hmm i said i live six blocks from mcdonalds ... you said you were six blocks from me ... either you work at mcdonalds ... or you are likely wrong ... creepy? not really
Re: Re: Re: Re:
really? were u trying really really hard? cuz u shld get a stickr or sumthin
Re: Unions
Unions are the furthest thing from the destruction of the american manufacturing environment. NAFTA and every trade agreement that promotes the benefits of moving a plant to a needy third world country has been the primary cause of the transfer of manufacturing jobs from here to *there*. Without the tax incentives given to businesses that move to targeted countries and systematic deregulation of pension protection programs these factories could not have made the move and these jobs would still be here. China may be able to produce the widgets cheaper than we did, however they could not have had the import advantage until Reagan and Clinton assured that protective trade practices were repealed in the laws like NAFTA. The only things that seem to remain protected are the fat subsidies that we pay to industries that haven't needed protection in more than 3 decades. When was the last time you heard of a major oil company or multinational agri-farmer go out of business?
On the other hand, with the destruction of of a national manufacturing base we have seen the near destruction of the auto industry, the complete removal of most electronics manufacturing as well as a host of other *labor intensive*, low value jobs. I don't mean to sound conspiratorial but it doesn't strike anyone as odd that the US automakers experience a higher part failure rate than foreign manufacturers experience? Afterall, aren't most of the parts that go into an american made vehicle made somewhere else? One would think that if you were in control of the quality of the parts going to your competitor that at the very least you would cherry pick the parts and at worse? Oh I don't know - maybe you would revert to lead based paint in children's toys -- because what? you didn't get the memo that there are laws about that? Listen, if we give up all the manufacturing jobs, if we let them build it all, then all they have to worry about is supply lines -- america can be lead around all day long if we cannot control the basis for the well-being of our own people.
Now, are unions a little too 20th century? A little too mafia-hindered? Probably, but lets not blame them for what they didn't have a part in creating. Unions do really poorly when plants go out of business. Unions do really well when all their members are gainfully employed. Thus we come to the perception of unions protecting the lazy and the inept.
Are you freaking joking me? You mean that your supervisor or the manager at your place of employment didn't immediately get the police involved with the destruction of property claim? How bout the negligent driving? How bout wreckless endangerment? And you are telling me that there wasn't a single crime that they could have been charged with that would have nullified their union protection? Well sir, I would say 1. You haven't read your employment contract 2. the employees that were goofing off / destroying equipment / acting like idiots should have been immediately placed on no-pay leave while the HR department went over to finance and got their final checks written up. I have been a member of a union and while it is true that the employer was obligated to train / re-train and then go through seemingly insurmountable processes to get rid of some people, they were able to do it in cases of gross negligence in no time. In cases of poor training, yeah -- it's a pain that some reap the benefit of the protections that others had to live without long before they were ever able to have the security of mind that comes with the idea that a small mistake wouldn't cause their family to lose everything. I think Uninos, like all power centers are out of control. I think employers who fail to recognize and reward good employees do a disservice to their customers and themselves because happy well-trained and safe workers are generally more likely to do a good job for the employer. I think the Information Age makes it easy for me to negotiate my own wages and protect myself from the evils of an oppressive industry. Likewise, the spread of information has made the protections afforded us by licensed *bounty hunters* *hair stylists* and other dangerous professions is probably at least AS destructive a force -- and the force that is used in that regard is one that benefits only those already licensed. A union cannot and does not prevent people from working in a field that they want to work in. At most they make working in those fields a safer more equitable arrangement than would otherwise exist
@ sam
I have belonged to a union and my father was a member of a union. I worked for a long time for a college in Washington State and was a member of the Washington Educators Association. This is the union that protects teachers in k-12 and Colleges and Universities. My father was a lifelong member of an Operating Engineers union (Local 701).
Insofar as I have experienced unions as a member and a dependent, I will say that the professional associations that manage certain careers have far more power than any union has had in the last 80 years and quite possibly ever.
Licensing bodies like the ABA AMA and Appraisers for that matter hold the keys to employment for the entirety of that field. No union could possibly tell you that you cannot operate a backhoe or drive a forklift, a union's power is limited to the employer that is part of the union's shop. And even that is limited these days as unions almost always have to allow a prospective employee to join the union if the employer wishes to hire that person. This is certainly true in education where membership in the union is both voluntary and unnecessary to be eligible for the benefits and protection of the union while at the job and even after if you have a grievance.
A traditional union would be useless to a non-member and in fact would most likely be quite a hindrance to an employee who shirked the union membership for employment (they are called scabs and while there are rules against it, scabs are often informally blacklisted when discovered).
The problem with Unions today is the same problem that plagues FDR and the new deal programs that saved the working class during the last depression. We forget our history. In the information age, there is little time to look at any problem deeply enough to really understand the reasons that certain programs and safeguards exist. In theory we all know that unions improved working conditions and saved lives as we became an industrial power after the first world war. We can see that 16 hour days in unsafe factories which were employing children as young as 7 or 8 in hazardous jobs was a bad idea. What we don't see is the root of that problem. That employers who are left to their own devices will extract the most production out of as few people and as cheaply as possible because the financial benefit is too great to pass up. Without regulatory agencies, enforcement agencies and a coordinated, educated workforce, you cannot prevent employers from returning to the days of company towns and exploited workers.
That being said, we need to re-evaluate the way we regulate ourselves. It seems rudimentary to institute unbiased and independent review of employee qualifications and working conditions. How does a licensing agency qualify as independent if it is made up of the very people that benefit from the scarcity of qualified workers? A union of workers in the information age does more than just preserve its members, it routinely trains and motivates new members through apprenticeship programs and education. A licensing agency on the other hand seems more involved with the limiting of the pool of available resources, often by means that have little to do with the improvement of the existing workforce. Look at the number of rules and regulations that proactively prevent otherwise capable people of going into a field based solely on unrelated events that have occurred in their lives. Tell me when the last time you heard a union tell someone that the possession of marijuana charge they had 5 years ago prevents them from working for them? Ask that same question of CPAs Attorneys Insurance Agents Nurses etc etc. What really drives me nuts it that it is these same pseudo managers that are members of the service-licensing industry that decry unions as too powerful. Just compare the real power of a union to a regulatory or license granting group and see if you don't come to the same conclusion that I have: Unions only wish they could be that powerful -- and it's a good thing they aren't that powerful. Likewise, licensing agencies should be free of conflicts of interest that arise from the scarcity of resources under their purview. A free and independent watchdog who serves to promote the growth and accessibility of services would best serve the overall economy. There is a reason that unions spend a great deal of time negotiating training and upgrades to the existing workforce's skill set as well as working closely with trade schools and apprenticeship programs to assure that the workers that do join are as qualified to be on the job as the non-union workers who learn their trade either less formally or simply on-the-job.
*professionals*
Everything I say can be held against me in a court of law and by my employer.
The truth is, whether you are online making statements or on the street corner playing town-crier, our communications have direct and real financial impacts. A journalist who blogs for free is no less developing their professional craft than any blogger or any other unpaid writer. If the economic litmus test is financial impact, then it's a no-brainer: protection via shield laws will apply to all.
I worry more about what they aren't telling us: is there something in the latest TSA bill they know will negate this? Are there further plans to quash even more civil liberties than have already be seriously restricted or just plain vanished? OR is this all just smoke and mirrors to get through another legislative session appearing to watch out for our interests while pocketing millions in lobbying perks?