US Politics April: A Series of Fantastically Bad Ideas

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > US Politics April: A Series of Fantastically Bad Ideas

«‹›153 »

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

Why did Obama autograph a football and just leave it there? Clearly he's Hitler.

# ? Apr 6, 2014 05:12

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 24, 2024 04:23

ComradeCosmobot: Dec 4, 2004; USPOL July

HootTheOwl posted:

Please, D&D has the best food derails.

It's telling that the California Politics thread died due to never-ending food derails.

# ? Apr 6, 2014 05:29

Jerry Manderbilt: May 31, 2012; No matter how much paperwork I process, it never goes away. It only increases.

ComradeCosmobot posted:

It's telling that the California Politics thread died due to never-ending food derails.

It didn't die, it just got deported to Tourism and Travel.

# ? Apr 6, 2014 05:31

ComradeCosmobot: Dec 4, 2004; USPOL July

Jerry Manderbilt posted:

It didn't die, it just got deported to Tourism and Travel.

And it still has food derails (which, granted, probably says more about California than it does about D&D).

# ? Apr 6, 2014 05:43

Oracle: Oct 9, 2004

quote:

Chris Christe posted:
I'm married with one 2 year old child, our household income is $46,000, and HOLY poo poo THE CONSTANT FINANCIAL STRESS ARRGHGHGHG.

My wife isn't politically obsessed like I am but is also a pretty reliable Republican voter. To try and make sure she's a filthy bleeding heart socialist RINO like me, I remind her sometimes that there's a light at the end of the tunnel we have (vastly increased income post-residency, probably very close to that top 5% level) and that for most people in our income situation there is none. They will always be lower middle class.
God drat this is just so sad, I figured you must have been at least close to the top tax bracket.

Its ok, he's one of them thar 'temporarily inconvenienced millionaires' you read about from time to time.

# ? Apr 6, 2014 05:49

Gygaxian: May 29, 2013

As a Utahn, I'd like to formerly apologize for Jon McNaughton's paintings. He's a Mormon artist, and gets a lot of his money from Mormons with a Constitution fetish. The few Mormon liberals here in Utah (like me) hate him more than you can imagine. He's like Glenn Beck, if Beck vomited on a canvass.

# ? Apr 6, 2014 06:00

SnakePlissken: Dec 31, 2009; by zen death robot

Gygaxian posted:

As a Utahn, I'd like to formerly apologize for Jon McNaughton's paintings. He's a Mormon artist, and gets a lot of his money from Mormons with a Constitution fetish. The few Mormon liberals here in Utah (like me) hate him more than you can imagine. He's like Glenn Beck, if Beck vomited on a canvass.

Really reminds me of some of the larger illustrations from the old "Mad" magazine, minus the humor. Imagine a video of just panning that painting, focusing on various points of interest, with that Michael Savage guy ranting for your soundtrack. And maybe Pat Boone's metal album behind that. Forever.

# ? Apr 6, 2014 06:50

Pythagoras a trois: Feb 19, 2004; I have a lot of points to make and I will make them later.

Oracle posted:

quote:
God drat this is just so sad, I figured you must have been at least close to the top tax bracket.

Its ok, he's one of them thar 'temporarily inconvenienced millionaires' you read about from time to time.

For such an astute poster this can't be true, it would take such denial to think Republican policies would help someone that poor in that living situation.

Let's play a game. If you have enough cognitive dissonance to believe that your 46k a year will afford your kid a charter school, what else would you also be likely to believe?

Pythagoras a trois fucked around with this message at 11:12 on Apr 6, 2014

# ? Apr 6, 2014 11:08

SavageBastard: Nov 16, 2007; Professional Lurker

Cheekio posted:

quote:
Its ok, he's one of them thar 'temporarily inconvenienced millionaires' you read about from time to time.

For such an astute poster this can't be true, it would take such denial to think Republican policies would help someone that poor in that living situation.

Let's play a game. If you have enough cognitive dissonance to believe that your 46k a year will afford your kid a charter school, what else would you also be likely to believe?

He mentions "finishing residency" which I presume means that he's a doctor and will soon be making a minimum wage of about $160,000 and potentially a lot more. So he is living the American Bootstrapping Dream firsthand wherein because doctors make each other go through the ritual hazing of residency they then feel entitled and like they've "been there" for the rest of their lives.

# ? Apr 6, 2014 12:04

esto es malo: Aug 3, 2006; Don't want to end up a cartoon

In a cartoon graveyard

Is the gun obsession because he's a trauma surgeon?

# ? Apr 6, 2014 12:20

The Warszawa: Jun 6, 2005; Look at me. Look at me.

I am the captain now.

Obama is issuing executive orders to address the gender wage disparity, albeit only within federal contracting.

quote:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Lacking congressional support to raise wages or end gender pay disparities, President Barack Obama is again imposing his policies on federal contractors, in keeping with presidents' tradition of exerting their powers on a fraction of the economy they directly control.

Obama will sign an executive order Tuesday barring federal contractors from retaliating against employees who discuss their pay with each other. The order is similar to language in a Senate bill aimed at closing a pay gap between men and women. That measure is scheduled for a vote this week, but is unlikely to pass.

The president also will direct the Labor Department to adopt rules requiring federal contractors to provide compensation data based on sex and race.

He plans to sign the two executive orders during an event at the White House where he will be joined by Lilly Ledbetter, whose name appears on a pay discrimination law Obama signed in 2009.

The moves showcase Obama's efforts to seek action without congressional approval and demonstrate that even without legislation, the president can drive economic policy. At the same time, they show the limits of his ambition when he doesn't have the support of Congress for his initiatives.

Republicans say Obama is pushing his executive powers too far and should do more to work with Congress. His new executive orders are sure to lead to criticism that he is placing an undue burden on companies and increasing their costs.

Federal contracting covers about one-quarter of the U.S. workforce and includes companies ranging from Boeing to small parts suppliers and service providers. As a result, presidential directives can have a wide and direct impact. Such actions also can be largely symbolic, designed to spur action in the broader economy.

"This really is about giving people access to more information both to help them make decisions at the policy level but also for individuals," said Heather Boushey, executive director and chief economist at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth. She has been working with the administration to get compensation information about the nation's workforce.

"This is definitely an encouraging first step," she said.

Federal contractors, however, worry that additional compensation data could be used to fuel wage related lawsuits, said James Plunkett, director of labor policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

What's more, he said, such orders create a two-tiered system where rules apply to federal contractors but not to other employers. Those contractors, knowing that their business relies on the government, are less likely to put up a fight, he said.

"Federal contractors ultimately know that they have to play nicely to a certain extent with the federal government," he said.

In a separate action Monday, Obama intends to announce 24 schools that will share more than $100 million in grants to redesign themselves to better prepare high school students for college or for careers. The awards are part of an order Obama signed last year. Money for the program comes from fees that companies pay for visas to hire foreign workers for specialized jobs.

The moves represent a return to economic issues for the president after two weeks devoted almost exclusively to diplomacy and the final deadline for health insurance coverage. A trip to Asia in two weeks is sure to change the focus once again.

Still, Obama has declared this a year of action, whether Congress supports him or not.

In February, Obama signed an executive order increasing the hourly minimum wage for federal contractors from $7.25 per to $10.10. While White House officials estimated such an increase would affect only a small percentage of federal contract workers, they said the move could encourage states or individual businesses to act on their own to increase workers' wages.

Obama has also pushed his workplace initiatives beyond just federal contractors where possible.

Last month he instructed the Labor Department to come up with new workplace overtime rules for all employers, a power the administration has under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

But presidents have most direct power over the workforce that is paid with taxpayers' money.

Obama's go-it-alone strategy is hardly new.

The most enduring workplace anti-discrimination laws began with an executive order signed by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in June 25, 1941, outlawing discrimination based on race, color, creed and national origin in the federal government and defense industries.

President John F. Kennedy broadened that in 1961 with an order that required government contractors to take affirmative action to ensure hiring "without regard to their race, creed, color or national origin."

President George W. Bush also acted on his own when he ordered federal contractors to ensure that their workers were in the country legally by requiring the use of an electronic employment-verification system.

Jeffrey Hirsch, a former lawyer with the National Labor Relations Board, said presidential executive orders that affect federal contracting workforces can over time demonstrate that those practices are less onerous than initially imagined.

"It's an important step in implementing things in a broader scale," said Hirsch, now a professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law.

Through executive actions, Obama also has drawn attention to areas where he has chosen not to act on his own.

The White House has resisted pressure from gay rights advocates who want have Obama to sign an anti-discrimination executive order that would protect gays and lesbians working for federal contractors. The White House wants the House to approve a Senate-passed bill extending those protections to all Americans.

On Friday, the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights group, criticized the White House for saying such an executive order would be redundant if Congress were to pass a White House-supported bill. It's an argument the White House has not made when it comes to minimum wage or anti-"gag rule" orders imposed on federal contractors.

# ? Apr 6, 2014 19:29

Shifty Pony: Dec 28, 2004; Up ta somethin'

I was under the impression that discussing pay rates was already protected activity?

# ? Apr 6, 2014 19:52

Boywhiz88: Sep 11, 2005; floating 26" off da ground. BURR!

Shifty Pony posted:

I was under the impression that discussing pay rates was already protected activity?

Hahahaha, nope! It's a huge no-no in pretty much any corporation.

# ? Apr 6, 2014 19:54

Fried Chicken: Jan 9, 2011; Don't fry me, I'm no chicken!

Shifty Pony posted:

I was under the impression that discussing pay rates was already protected activity?

It is, but go ahead and try to assert that right and see where it gets you.

Boywhiz88 posted:

Hahahaha, nope! It's a huge no-no in pretty much any corporation.

Yeah, the NLRB has said workers can talk about it and the company can't punish you, but try it and see how that shakes out. It's regarded as rude to talk how much you make in general and in practice your boss can punish you for it pretty easily

It's kinda like crossing the street without looking. In theory, as a pedestrian you have the right of way. In practice, knowing that you had the right of way will be cold comfort as you recover in the hospital

Fried Chicken fucked around with this message at 20:10 on Apr 6, 2014

# ? Apr 6, 2014 20:07

Captain_Maclaine: Sep 30, 2001; Every moment that I'm alive, I pray for death!

Shifty Pony posted:

I was under the impression that discussing pay rates was already protected activity?

I believe it technically is, but good luck actually invoking the law when, a few weeks after your boss finds out you've been doing that, you get fired for some other totally-not-related-we-swear reason.

# ? Apr 6, 2014 20:08

ChipNDip: Sep 6, 2010; How many deaths are prevented by an executive order that prevents big box stores from selling seeds, furniture, and paint?

Boywhiz88 posted:

Hahahaha, nope! It's a huge no-no in pretty much any corporation.

Those policies are pretty much universal, but they are technically illegal.

http://www.twc.state.tx.us/news/efte/salary_discussions.html

quote:

Look familiar? Chances are good that most companies have either a formal policy similar to the one above, or else have a tradition or practice of responding to pay and benefit discussions with disciplinary action. Those same companies would likely be surprised to learn that such policies generally violate federal labor law. Indeed, the National Labor Relations Act contains a provision, Section 7 (29 U.S.C. � 157), that gives all employees the right to "engage in concerted activities", including the right to discuss their terms and conditions of employment with each other. Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA (29 U.S.C. � 158(a)(1)) makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer to deny or limit the Section 7 rights of employees. Based upon those two provisions, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has taken the position for decades now that employers may not prohibit employees from discussing their pay and benefits, and that any attempts to do so actually violate the NLRA. Courts have basically uniformly supported that position. Moreover, those particular sections of the NLRA apply to both union and non-union employees, so there is no exception made for companies where the employees are non-unionized.

# ? Apr 6, 2014 20:08

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Captain_Maclaine posted:

I believe it technically is, but good luck actually invoking the law when, a few weeks after your boss finds out you've been doing that, you get fired for some other totally-not-related-we-swear reason.

Indeed. To do otherwise would jeopardize the sacred freedoms allowed to you in a right-to-work state.

# ? Apr 6, 2014 20:11

Shifty Pony: Dec 28, 2004; Up ta somethin'

Nessus posted:

Indeed. To do otherwise would jeopardize the sacred freedoms allowed to you in a right-to-work state.

You mean at-will employment, right?

ChipNDip posted:

Those policies are pretty much universal, but they are technically illegal.

http://www.twc.state.tx.us/news/efte/salary_discussions.html

I really wish that the law were written or interpreted in in such a way that having such a policy on the books was grounds for judgement against the company in cases alleging the offence. If having a policy against sexual discrimination in promotions is enough to get you out of a class action it only seems fair.

Shifty Pony fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Apr 6, 2014

# ? Apr 6, 2014 20:31

anonumos: Jul 14, 2005; Fuck it.

Right-to-work = no "union shops", ie. employees can work without signing onto the local union
At Will = we can fire you at any time and you can leave us at any time. (We dare you.)

# ? Apr 7, 2014 00:27

Pythagoras a trois: Feb 19, 2004; I have a lot of points to make and I will make them later.

SavageBastard posted:

quote:
For such an astute poster this can't be true, it would take such denial to think Republican policies would help someone that poor in that living situation.

Let's play a game. If you have enough cognitive dissonance to believe that your 46k a year will afford your kid a charter school, what else would you also be likely to believe?

He mentions "finishing residency" which I presume means that he's a doctor and will soon be making a minimum wage of about $160,000 and potentially a lot more. So he is living the American Bootstrapping Dream firsthand wherein because doctors make each other go through the ritual hazing of residency they then feel entitled and like they've "been there" for the rest of their lives.

That'd be too perfect, the fabled temporarily embarrassed millionaire as played by the grad student. Would make sense of all that light at the end of the tunnel stuff that most poverty stricken families don't go on about.

# ? Apr 7, 2014 02:21

Fuck You And Diebold: Sep 15, 2004; by Athanatos

So in good news it looks like in MN we're going to raise our minimum wage (though only to $9.50) and tie it to inflation! Been working on this project a few months and we'd been getting pushback from some of the centrist DFLers on tying it to inflation, good to see it happen finally.

# ? Apr 7, 2014 06:40

Redeye Flight: Mar 26, 2010; God, I'm so tired. What the hell did I post last night?

gently caress You And Diebold posted:

So in good news it looks like in MN we're going to raise our minimum wage (though only to $9.50) and tie it to inflation! Been working on this project a few months and we'd been getting pushback from some of the centrist DFLers on tying it to inflation, good to see it happen finally.

Yeah, I've been getting and sending e-mail correspondence on this for quite a while. $9.50 isn't an out-of-poverty wage, of course, but it's a considerable increase from the prior state minimum wage, which was actually below the national level ($6.15, which is a joke, and one of the things that made me disappointed in my state). If the national wage goes up, of course, that'll have to be changed again, but indexing the minimum wage to inflation is a big win.

# ? Apr 7, 2014 13:15

Sephiroth_IRA: Mar 31, 2010

Shifty Pony posted:

I was under the impression that discussing pay rates was already protected activity?

They can just make up some other reason to fire you, like the coffee you made that morning sucked or your shirt was wrinkled.

edit: that said it's still a good idea to find out how much other people are making. Some co-workers of course wouldn't dare talk about it but some do.

Sephiroth_IRA fucked around with this message at 14:36 on Apr 7, 2014

# ? Apr 7, 2014 14:30

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

Fried Chicken posted:

Yeah, the NLRB has said workers can talk about it and the company can't punish you, but try it and see how that shakes out. It's regarded as rude to talk how much you make in general and in practice your boss can punish you for it pretty easily

It's kinda like crossing the street without looking. In theory, as a pedestrian you have the right of way. In practice, knowing that you had the right of way will be cold comfort as you recover in the hospital

Is it really? I thought it was purely as a means by which companies can control wage/salary negotiations/expectations. Or has social mores turned it into something rude as a result of it being prohibited under company policies for so long?

# ? Apr 7, 2014 14:34

Iunnrais: Jul 25, 2007; It's gaelic.

At this point, the only way to get rid of salary secrecy would be a law mandating that your coworkers' salary information be posted on the same wall as the other mandated employment posters in the breakroom.

# ? Apr 7, 2014 14:38

Sephiroth_IRA: Mar 31, 2010

gradenko_2000 posted:

Is it really? I thought it was purely as a means by which companies can control wage/salary negotiations/expectations. Or has social mores turned it into something rude as a result of it being prohibited under company policies for so long?

Your employer got where they are today because of hard work, risk taking and sacrifice, there are no exceptions. They never took a handout or inherited the company from a family member. There's also a lot of tricks companies use, like telling every new hire that they're paid more than other workers because their resume/interview were very impressive and they don't want anyone getting upset or pissed off.

Iunnrais posted:

At this point, the only way to get rid of salary secrecy would be a law mandating that your coworkers' salary information be posted on the same wall as the other mandated employment posters in the breakroom.

edit: Actually I think this solution makes the most sense. nm.

Sephiroth_IRA fucked around with this message at 14:45 on Apr 7, 2014

# ? Apr 7, 2014 14:40

Big_Daddy_Fabio: Oct 26, 2010

And in piss poor news, the Kansas state legislature voted last night to increase school funding as required by the state Supreme Court, but in doing so, they removed teacher tenure, ended due process for teachers, and added a proviso that requires the renegotiation of every teacher's contract by setting their base pay to $0. The cherry on top of this poo poo Sunday is they only managed to pass it by threatening to primary the few moderate Republicans left in the state. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/05/1289986/-Kansas-State-House-in-an-Education-Showdown-on-a-Saturday-night I graduate from college this December, and was thinking about leaving Kansas because of recent changes to the state retirement plan. Now, I'm fairly sure I've got no choice.

# ? Apr 7, 2014 14:42

Gumbel2Gumbel: Apr 28, 2010

Yeah salary secrecy is basically designed to keep employers' ability to grind money out of people who are bad at haggling which is pretty much everyone in America who hasn't had a sales job before.

# ? Apr 7, 2014 15:04

BUSH 2112: Sep 17, 2012; I lie awake, staring out at the bleakness of Megadon.

Big_Daddy_Fabio posted:

And in piss poor news, the Kansas state legislature voted last night to increase school funding as required by the state Supreme Court, but in doing so, they removed teacher tenure, ended due process for teachers, and added a proviso that requires the renegotiation of every teacher's contract by setting their base pay to $0. The cherry on top of this poo poo Sunday is they only managed to pass it by threatening to primary the few moderate Republicans left in the state. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/05/1289986/-Kansas-State-House-in-an-Education-Showdown-on-a-Saturday-night I graduate from college this December, and was thinking about leaving Kansas because of recent changes to the state retirement plan. Now, I'm fairly sure I've got no choice.

God Bless America (except for those godless secular atheist unionized teacher thugs) :patriot:

# ? Apr 7, 2014 15:04

Fried Chicken: Jan 9, 2011; Don't fry me, I'm no chicken!

gradenko_2000 posted:

Is it really? I thought it was purely as a means by which companies can control wage/salary negotiations/expectations. Or has social mores turned it into something rude as a result of it being prohibited under company policies for so long?

Is there any point in history where bragging about how much you have and how much better off you are than your fellows not been considered rude? It is the moral of several mythological stories and fables.

# ? Apr 7, 2014 15:05

Sephiroth_IRA: Mar 31, 2010

Are teachers in other countries unionized? I saw this 20/20 (I know, I know) documentary that put some of the blame on teachers unions.

They made the point that kids in other countries are free to choose what school they want to go to which creates competition, an idea I agreed with because I hate the idea that some kids are stuck in schools based on where they were born and how much of a house/neighborhood they could afford. I also think allowing people to choose would create more diversity and would automatically do away with bad teachers/bad schools/etc, it would also make well performing schools bigger and afford them more assets. I see a whole range of benefits to doing this.

Then it went off about how unions create a lot of problems but never mentioned whether the great schools in other first world countries had unionized teachers or not. I couldn't help but feel that the latter was much less of a problem than the former because I can't think of one bad teacher I ever had growing up, they all (seemed to) loved their jobs and had to put up with quite a bit.

I put most of my failings in school (high school mostly) on testing in elementary & middle school, not on my teachers. I never did homework or studied in middle school but because tests were easy for me I always scored 4.0s, which bumped into advanced classes/the next grade level. When I entered high school every assignment was weighted and I had developed zero study skills from earlier grades (I also never did homework and other assignments) so I started failing classes despite high test scores.

Sephiroth_IRA fucked around with this message at 15:13 on Apr 7, 2014

# ? Apr 7, 2014 15:05

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

Fried Chicken posted:

Is there any point in history where bragging about how much you have and how much better off you are than your fellows not been considered rude? It is the moral of several mythological stories and fables.

Not all discussion of how much you're making is bragging, though.

# ? Apr 7, 2014 15:10

Gumbel2Gumbel: Apr 28, 2010

Fried Chicken posted:

Is there any point in history where bragging about how much you have and how much better off you are than your fellows not been considered rude? It is the moral of several mythological stories and fables.

"But even when I was in grammar school, I suspected that warnings about words that nice people never used were in fact lessons in how to keep our mouths shut not just about our bodies but about many, many things-- perhaps too many things."

Kurt Vonnegut always applies. People talking about how much they get paid leads to some people organizing for higher wages, not just the slim percentage of people who make a lot of money. That's the reason it's forbidden.

# ? Apr 7, 2014 15:12

Pythagoras a trois: Feb 19, 2004; I have a lot of points to make and I will make them later.

Gumbel2Gumbel posted:

Yeah salary secrecy is basically designed to keep employers' ability to grind money out of people who are bad at haggling which is pretty much everyone in America who hasn't had a sales job before.

I interviewed at a company that had open salaries. They said when the policy was first implemented, no one looked up each others numbers out of courtesy, so they had to direct people to actually check them. It was great for them, they could tell their employees exactly what they were worth, and use relative salaries to incentivize people to be more valuable to the company whatever way they could come up with.

No surprise, the interview process to get in the door took months and months and I had to jump on other opportunities.

edit:

Fried Chicken posted:

Is there any point in history where bragging about how much you have and how much better off you are than your fellows not been considered rude? It is the moral of several mythological stories and fables.

It's been mentioned, but bragging is a different thing entirely. You can communicate your job title to others by bragging about it, or you can not be a dick and just tell people who would benefit from the knowledge you're an XY or Z.

Pythagoras a trois fucked around with this message at 15:19 on Apr 7, 2014

# ? Apr 7, 2014 15:13

joepinetree: Apr 5, 2012

Sephiroth_IRA posted:

Are teachers in other countries unionized? I saw this 20/20 (I know, I know) documentary that put some of the blame on teachers unions.

They made the point that kids in other countries are free to choose what school they want to go to which creates competition, an idea I sort of agreed with because I hate the idea that some kids are stuck in schools based on where they were born and how much of a house/neighborhood they could afford.

Then it went off about how unions create a lot of problems but never mentioned whether the great schools in other first world countries had unionized teachers or not. I couldn't help but feel that the latter was much less of a problem than the former because I can't think of one bad teacher I ever had growing up, they all (seemed to) loved their jobs and had to put up with quite a bit.

The "blame the unions" bit is BS, but because they are a politically relevant force in this country they get attacked ridiculously.

As for your question: Sweden has a voucher system that allows kids to choose their schools, and Sweden also has very strong teacher's unions. The reasons the union did not oppose the voucher system there is pretty simple: labor laws were fairly strong and the union was strong enough to negotiate with private schools. Meanwhile, in the US "school choice" is just a codeword to bust the teachers union and/or have the state finance religious or for profit schools, while increasing funding inequality. In other words, no one opposes "school choice" in the US based on the abstract idea of school choice, but on the concrete fact that it is pretty explicitly designed to divert money from public, unionized schools to non-unionized and frequently either religious or for profit charter schools.

# ? Apr 7, 2014 15:15

Gumbel2Gumbel: Apr 28, 2010

Cheekio posted:

I interviewed at a company that had open salaries. They said when the policy was first implemented, no one looked up each others numbers out of courtesy, so they had to direct people to actually check them. It was great for them, they could tell their employees exactly what they were worth, and use relative salaries to incentivize people to be more valuable to the company whatever way they could come up with.

No surprise, the interview process to get in the door took months and months and I had to jump on other opportunities.

That's a great point. Companies that are proud of how they treat their employees will definitely brag about it.

# ? Apr 7, 2014 15:16

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

gradenko_2000 posted:

Is it really? I thought it was purely as a means by which companies can control wage/salary negotiations/expectations. Or has social mores turned it into something rude as a result of it being prohibited under company policies for so long?

No its considered rude on its own merits totally outside of the fact companies discourage it in order to reduce employee bargaining power.

Far too many people put far too much emotional stock into salary as a measure of a person's worth, so discussing it has always been considered extremely rude, even if the person you're speaking with works at a different company or in a different field.

# ? Apr 7, 2014 15:17

Sephiroth_IRA: Mar 31, 2010

joepinetree posted:

The "blame the unions" bit is BS, but because they are a politically relevant force in this country they get attacked ridiculously.

As for your question: Sweden has a voucher system that allows kids to choose their schools, and Sweden also has very strong teacher's unions. The reasons the union did not oppose the voucher system there is pretty simple: labor laws were fairly strong and the union was strong enough to negotiate with private schools. Meanwhile, in the US "school choice" is just a codeword to bust the teachers union and/or have the state finance religious or for profit schools, while increasing funding inequality. In other words, no one opposes "school choice" in the US based on the abstract idea of school choice, but on the concrete fact that it is pretty explicitly designed to divert money from public, unionized schools to non-unionized and frequently either religious or for profit charter schools.

So there's no one out there that wants kids/parents to have the ability to choose which public school they attend? That's the main problem I have. All you would have to do is give every kid a subsidy and make it illegal for schools to discriminate based on zip code. If some kids have to travel a little further they should get an extra subsidy for the gas.

If a parent wants to send their kid to a private school fine but they shouldn't be given a subsidy for that unless there are certain considerations.

Sephiroth_IRA fucked around with this message at 15:21 on Apr 7, 2014

# ? Apr 7, 2014 15:18

Neremworld: Dec 3, 2007; by exmarx

Fried Chicken posted:

Is there any point in history where bragging about how much you have and how much better off you are than your fellows not been considered rude? It is the moral of several mythological stories and fables.

I told everyone I worked at at Krogers how much more I made at Walmart doing an easier job and it got one of the floor managers super pissed off at the company because I had been making like two dollars more then him pushing carts because Krogers pays all of its employes like they're slaves. Which is the entire reason I bitched to him because I thought the policy of paying EVERYONE non-salaried minimum wage was a bunch of poo poo.

# ? Apr 7, 2014 15:18

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 24, 2024 04:23

Alec Bald Snatch: Sep 12, 2012; by exmarx

Iunnrais posted:

At this point, the only way to get rid of salary secrecy would be a law mandating that your coworkers' salary information be posted on the same wall as the other mandated employment posters in the breakroom.

This is basically how it works for public sector workers, except everyone can read the salary poster.

Alec Bald Snatch fucked around with this message at 15:22 on Apr 7, 2014

# ? Apr 7, 2014 15:20

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > US Politics April: A Series of Fantastically Bad Ideas

«‹›153 »