Previous 31 - 40 Next
In response to:

Dishonest Educators

Dot462 Wrote: Jan 09, 2013 12:43 PM
Interesting Frontline report on public TV last night about Michelle Rhee and her time as chancellor of the D.C. schools. Apparently, there was alleged a lot of erasing going on with the standardized tests. Investigation did not seem to prove anything, There were wild upswings in achievement levels year-to-year. Frontline did not tell me what happened to the scores after Rhee was ejected (along with the mayor who had hired her). From what I saw on this program, the students were mainly unmanageable, not following directions, listening to Ipod during class, dressing like hoodlums. I hope Rhee is successful in her new endeavor.
In response to:

A Man's Home Is His Subsidy

Dot462 Wrote: Jan 09, 2013 12:31 PM
This proves, as all subsidies prove, that if you pay people to do something, you will get what you pay for. If you pay people to stay in subsidized housing, they will diligently work to maintain that subsidy. John is right, as usual, that such subsidies sap incentive (although the example of the woman who developed a website shows she could turn her innovation to something profitable). Most people get other subsidies besides Section 8, so their incentive is to maintain that and not work or take work under the table (off the books).
In response to:

What Does 'Right to Work' Really Mean?

Dot462 Wrote: Jan 02, 2013 9:45 PM
Under right-to-work, employment is at will. That is, the employer can terminate somebody for any reason and the employee can quit for any reason. If the termination violate the employee's civil rights (discrimination because of sex, age, ethnicity, race, etc), then the employee can seek remedy in court. People have been let go for engaging in union activities on employer time and on employer property without permission.
In response to:

What Does 'Right to Work' Really Mean?

Dot462 Wrote: Jan 02, 2013 9:39 PM
Once a union has gained bargaining rights, they can negotiate a contract which says that a new employee must join the union within a certain time period, or be a nonmember under "agency shop." If the contract negotiated says dues are deducted from the employee's wages and remitted to the union, that is because the union has negotiated certain benefits and wages and if employees were not to join the union they would be "free riders." Private business owners can hire whomever they want. If they want union employees, they can hire them. That's how it works in Nevada, a right-to-work state. An employee doesn't have to be a union member to be hired.
In response to:

A Hundred Percent of Nothing

Dot462 Wrote: Dec 19, 2012 4:18 PM
Like several posters here, I'm glad I'm old so maybe I won't live to see the destruction of this country due to the same policies that destroyed Detroit. When Dr. Williams and Dr. Sowell are gone, who's going to take their place? Mr. Obama could learn so much from Dr. Williams' book Race and Economics, but he doesn't read that sort of thing, I'm sure.
In response to:

An Honest Liberal Writes about Gun Control

Dot462 Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 1:37 PM
The Jews illustrated this in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. A small group of brave people with guns obtained from killing Germans individually held off the German army for over a month. They proved that self defense and fighting back was preferable to going passively to the trains for transport to a death camp. The fact that most Israelis today are members of the military reserve and have received training in weapons and have weapons at home has resulted in less gun violence on the streets of Israel. They don't just conceal their weapons; they carry them in the open on the street. An AK is a fine deterrent to street crime. Unfortunately, a gun isn't a good defense against a bomb.
In response to:

NRA Derangement Syndrome

Dot462 Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 1:15 PM
The irrational Twitter posts cited are useless and dangerous (when encouraging violence against gun owners and the NRA). What do they want done? Confiscate all the guns? Impossible with more than 200 million guns out there. We have over 300 million people in this country. If even less than 1% of them are mentally ill, that's a lot of people. Can psychiatrists identify the ones who might shoot up a place? Not likely. Lock up all the mentally deranged? Impossible. Who decides they're mentally deranged? If those irrational Twitter posters know how to stop these shootings, I want to know about it.
Doug4749 is correct (below). One way the employer can protect themselves from this type of employe is to put them in a job which is extremely boring, or even to go so far as they do in New York with teachers that they can't fire -- put them in a room without any books, TV, radio, anything for 8 hours a day. The employee continues to get paid, but the hope is that they eventually decide it's not worth it. At least, they wouldn't be performing badly on the job, such as they could in building cars.
The NLRA as amended would have to be repealed, which would be a good thing, but not likely to happen. When the NLRA was initially passed, it caused so much trouble with strikes that it was necessary to pass further legislation to restrict union behavior (Taft-Hartley). Over the years, this legislation and its continual tweaking have led to a mess of regulation that discourages anything but an adversarial relationship between unions and employers. The arbitrary and capricious rulings of the NLRB have been partisan, generally anti-employer, and now even more so because of Obama's appointments to it.
This type of ruling is the main reason why employers should not agree to binding arbitration in union contracts. Arbitrators are trained to compromise. They are not bound by rules of evidence, as in a court. Unfortunately, if employers become intransigent about an issue like this, in which these employees were on video drinking out of bottles hidden in paper bags and smoking what looked like home-rolled cigarettes (maybe something other than tobacco?), the NLRB regulations require the employer to pretty much give in or face a violation of not bargaining in good faith. "Good faith" means there must be a compromise, which I suppose in this case is loss of wages for a long time (maybe two years?).
I've read Atlas every year since 1960 and it never gets old for me. It seems to be even more relevant now. If she were not already dead, Rand would have had apoplexy over Obama, Pelosi and Reid, plus the stupidity of some of the rich people who seem to apologize for being rich and want to give it all away and don't mind if they're taxed because they feel guilty about making money.
Previous 31 - 40 Next