Comment Re:A time out is the right solution. (Score 1) 218
Got a source for that claim? I'm trying to figure out how she would have faked phone records that were not in her possession. The phone company holds records, not the caller.
They're trying to mine the market's volatility for money.
You mean like Day Traders were doing 10 years ago? You don't need to be an HFT to make money from volatility.
Martha Stewart went to jail because she had money in IMClone, and was called before the news was out by somebody telling her an FDA trial had a failed result. She sold immediately, and then we she realized she had fouled, faked her phone records about the call. Gotta play fair... they are watching.
Er, no. Martha Stewart went to jail for Obstruction of Justice. She was never convicted of anything else, including insider trading.
I wonder if that's a potential possible conflict free source, as you say.
Yes, it would be conflict free. At that point it would be no different from you donating your wife's organs when she dies.
Interesting how that article mostly ignores the influence of the USA in the events, unlike this one.
referencing WW2. The Shah (his son) was installed in 1941. I'm not seeing where the US was there before 1942.
By the way, will you answer the question of What is "actually happening to the US middle class"?
I thought it was obvious from the first two times I ignored that question that I was not going to. It is like prodding someone for what is "actually happening to the Earth's climate": either you're truly not paying attention, in which case here is not the place to start, or you're trolling.
Aside from what the other two responders said, lets just say I may not know which thing you're talking about or may not agree with your analysis. So just give a quick single paragraph. Otherwise you're the one coming across as a troll, mentioning some vague problem but not giving any elaboration or details on the issue. Kind of like Franz Kafka's "The Trial".
The "rules" Iran is accused of breaking are not vague, but rather spelled out in clear terms. In accordance with Article 42 of Iran's Safeguards Agreement, and Code 3.1 of the General Part of the Subsidiary Arrangements (also known as the "additional protocol") to that agreement, Iran is obliged to inform the IAEA of any decision to construct a facility which would house operational centrifuges, and to provide preliminary design information about that facility, even if nuclear material had not been introduced. This would initiate a process of complementary access and design verification inspections by the IAEA.
No, a cartel comprises members which own the means of production.
No, a cartel comprises a group that seeks to control a resource. In this case, labor. Although it's easy to argue that labor is part of the means of production.
Your implication is absurd. You do not get to work somewhere just because "you want to". The employer has to want you to work there. And one of the things that the employer will care about in deciding whether to employ you is how you will get along with fellow employees. Now, if all your fellow employees have a particular union arrangement (e.g. Equity) and you don't want to play along with them, they won't play along with you. This will harm the company, so the company will ultimately expect that you join the union.
Welcome to the real world, where not everyone is paid the same amount. Yet for some strange reason, it still seems to work just fine.
No. It it is not even legal to employ only union workers. Of course, it is not legal to force people to work with you either, which is why Equity union members won't work alongside you.
But it is legal for employees to negotiate to require a new employee to join the union after some time... again, freedom of association.
Don't you contradict yourself here? First you say it is not legal only union workers, then you say it can be required to have the employees join the union. And seriously, you're saying that forcing the employees to join the union is a point in favor of freedom of association? You have an interesting definition of freedom.
Here is what I am for: Allowing people, voluntarily (which includes right of refusal) to group bargain for pay and benefits with an employer.
What I am not for: Union shops where people have to be part of a union to work. Workers able to set up a union and have the union automatically represent everyone at the employer. Unions restricting geographically where members can work. Unions boycotting an employer because they have non-union labor. Unions able to say all employees must be part of the union.
By the way, will you answer the question of What is "actually happening to the US middle class"?
You have switched between complaining about anti-cartel(?) law, union behaviour (which you are partly implying is only possible because of union law), and union law.
Well, why not? A union is a form of cartel, after all.
Well, if you won't deal with them, why should they deal with you?
And even if they want to work with you? The union has the ability to prohibit it's member from working for you, even if they want to. You really don't know much about unions in the US.
Do you want employers and employees to be forced to accept any particular worker? What exactly are you proposing?
You're missing the meaning entirely. We have these things called union shops in the US. If you want to work in them, you have to be a member of the union. This is regardless of what you may want. So if you want to work for an employer, you have to join the union.
Seriously?
Yes. Especially since you continue to evade the question.
The formation of a corporation is collective decision-making and bargaining by owners of the means of production. Major shareholders are the rich guys, and even minor shareholders have a certain degree of control of the means of production. These are the powers exerted over the worker which he counters with collective bargaining.
By exercising monopoly control over the access to the labor for entire regions? Something that if the owners did, would be ruled illegal. Want wiring done in an area? You have to use local labor. Want to use a specific person? All the labor will be forced to boycott you if he isn't a member of the local. Or for the individuals: Want to work at a union shop? You have to join the union. The employer wants to higher you? Too bad, the law says if a simple majority of the employees want to unionize, everyone is forced to be part of the union. Control of the production is irrelevant if it is not controlled by a monopoly. Control of the Labor has been consolidated under monolithic monopolistic unions in several areas.
It is pretty much only the US middle class which considers the US to be marked by "doing our best at what we do". If what you said were true, you would see precisely the opposite thing happening to what is actually happening to the US middle class.
What is "actually happening to the US middle class"?
The workers experiencing the worst treatment may no longer be in the US and the UK, and certain Unions may be old enough that they have become inefficient, but the nature of business has not changed.
With union representation at such a low, it appears it has changed. In the US at least. I don't have the numbers for the UK. Maybe they are needed in other countries, but not in the US anymore.
"Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love." -- Albert Einstein
