Hmm. I think they'd be in different unions. Custodial and food service staff for sure. QA testers maybe?

The OP was talking about the skill level of the job (does it require specialized training), you're talking about the individual's experience level. Those are unrelated. You're arguing something nobody else is and may already agree with.

Oh, and the master electrician continues to benefit from the union, probably more than anyone else due to seniority. And the union handles his pension. At least that's how it was last I heard.

And you have a statistically significant number of samples? You need a lot of data points to infer general opinions for a group, let alone an individual.

Anyhow, I performed the recommended search. The relevant first-page results included billionaires worrying about the flagging job market, recommending increasing the minimum wage, and encouraging job creation.

It is never wise to tell yourself that you know what a stranger is thinking. The results will reflect you more than them.

I didn't say that all unions made sense or had a reason to exist, I stated their traditional (original) purpose.

That's not really true, but whatever.

I think the problem is that you took a discussion about skilled labor and inserted experience into it. The discussion wasn't about "high-end", by which you seem to mean "experienced", it was about positions that require specialized training. Skilled labor includes doctors and electricians. Apprentice and Master electricians both perform skilled labor. The Apprentice has just started and has specialized skills but no experience. The Master has thousands of hours of experience. The master is your "high-end" labor, but is still just skilled labor.

What no person has is telepathy.

Sometimes, I know what my wife is thinking. I don't know what you're thinking, though sometimes I can infer your reasoning. I could not begin to tell you what someone I've never spoken to is thinking. The best anyone can do is guess what a stranger thinks, and that guess will reflect their own thoughts more than anything else.

70ms seems unrealistic. Steam Home Streaming has lower latency than that. And Gizmodo's review says 30ms for streaming when using an included dongle.

Didn't read the letter? Apple is allowed to brief the White House but can't talk to Congress.

Don't be silly, the aristocracy would be instantly abolished once the new States are under the Constitution.

My question is whether or not England comes in as one single State, or if it should be broken up a bit. Will it be the States of Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and England, or ...I dunno, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wessex, East Anglia, Mercia, and Northumbria?

Where's AniMoJo? I want his input on what we'll call where his home.

A. The UK does have oil. Plenty.

B. Agreed. I too remember the indignity Dolly Madison was forced to endure as she rescued priceless works of art from the White House as the filthy Brits set it aflame. We should have taken it quietly in '44, but that's in the past. States 51-54 are the future.
3. This is the best damn idea you've ever had!

In civil suits, yes. I don't think this is a civil suit. The IPT hears complaints against the government, and I don't think they're considered lawsuits (but may be wrong). I expect that the proceedings are secret though, so's the FISA court here. But this is an American company.

Now, note the second paragraph of the letter where they point out that Apple was told they could talk to the White House, but not Congress. That's a problem. Congress has oversight and investigations powers. They can call the AG into a hearing and won't take, "The UK told Apple to tell me not to say", as an answer. There are things the AG doesn't have to tell Congress, but I don't think this is one of them. Nobody in the Federal government is a party to the argument, it isn't diplomatic exchanges between heads of state, it isn't private executive communication, it's a formal report from a private American company about what another government is trying to make them do. Congress is already allowed to investigate dealings between American companies and foreign governments. They've passed laws about it.

Apple isn't charged with any crimes but would be if they spoke to Congress. If Congress wants to talk to them, and Apple won't, Apple will be charged with a crime. Congress wants to talk to them. Ouch.

Note the word "subsidiary".

USA is an initialism. Did you mean these United States of America?

Can the US pass and enforce a law that requires UK companies to violate UK law within the UK? A law that says, "you can't talk to Parliament"?

That's what these members of Congress are complaining about. The UK telling Apple and the White House that they can't talk to Congress about something.