Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 01-06-2019, 03:54 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick Broomstick is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 27,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by griffin1977 View Post
The big difference here is the public will be overwhelmingly for the strikers. They aren't after a pay raise, they just want to not have to go to work without getting paid. Almost everyone can sympathize with that.
Really? I think it more likely that there's a contingent out there that won't give a f*** as long as their income is untouched and view government workers as sub-human servants.
  #52  
Old 01-06-2019, 03:57 AM
Eonwe's Avatar
Eonwe Eonwe is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Burlington VT
Posts: 8,484
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff View Post
$26 Billion to reduce 'Anchor Babies' is a drop in the Bucket. Our Public Schools suffer from a huge amount of illegal children attending for the 'Free Breakfast' and 'Free Lunch' provided by the Feds. If you won't feed your darned kids, get back home.
I am not conceding that there’s any truth to this (the idea that immigrants are coming to America for EBT benefits is laughable), but I just have to question the logic and morality of anyone who would spend $26 billion dollars so they didn’t have to feed kids lunch.
  #53  
Old 01-06-2019, 04:34 AM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 15,301
Quote:
Originally Posted by griffin1977 View Post
The big difference here is the public will be overwhelmingly for the strikers. They aren't after a pay raise, they just want to not have to go to work without getting paid. Almost everyone can sympathize with that.
But the PATCO strikers were not asking for a pay raise. Kind of the opposite: they wanted fewer hours (in a high-stress job). Their misfortune was that Reagan was able to sub for them using USAF personnel, which is why he was able to fire them.
  #54  
Old 01-06-2019, 05:08 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 24,376
What's the size of the air travel industry now vs in 1981, both in absolute terms as well as a percentage of people's travel? Would it even be feasible to do the same thing now as was done then? Could all the ATCs be replaced?
  #55  
Old 01-06-2019, 05:31 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon Lord Feldon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 6,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
This is not as true as one might think. Following previous shutdowns, congress passed a bill paying workers for their time. But there's no guarantee this will happen during the current or future shutdowns.
There's no guarantee that furloughed workers will be paid, but AFAIK the government can't renege on paying people who have already worked, because they're owed a debt.

Which is, I think, the rationale for the whole "shutdown" concept as we've had it since the Carter administration. If people weren't legally entitled to pay for their labor, there would be no need to furlough the non-essential employees.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 01-06-2019 at 05:36 AM.
  #56  
Old 01-06-2019, 05:33 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick Broomstick is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 27,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
What's the size of the air travel industry now vs in 1981, both in absolute terms as well as a percentage of people's travel? Would it even be feasible to do the same thing now as was done then? Could all the ATCs be replaced?
We couldn't immediately replace all 11,000 fired ATC's in 1981 even with utilizing military ATC's - because the military needs some, too. Right now the system needs about 15,000 controllers on duty any given day.

It takes 3 years to train a new controller.

At best, if you fired all the current ATC's, or they all walked off the job (or just a large percentage of them) you'd be under-staffed for three years which means either limiting flights or accepting greater risk. In practice, it took about 10 years to fully re-staff the ATC system after 1981. I don't see where we'd do it any faster these days.
  #57  
Old 01-06-2019, 05:39 AM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan Alessan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 23,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Feldon View Post
There's no guarantee that furloughed workers will be paid, but AFAIK the government can't renege on paying people who have already worked, because they're owed a debt.

Which is, I think, the rationale for the whole "shutdown" concept as we've had it since the Carter administration. If people weren't legally entitled to pay for their labor, there would be no need to furlough the non-essential employees.
Can Congress, say, decide to offer interest-free loans to federal workers working without pay, equal to the amount of money they would have been making?
  #58  
Old 01-06-2019, 05:52 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 24,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
We couldn't immediately replace all 11,000 fired ATC's in 1981 even with utilizing military ATC's - because the military needs some, too. Right now the system needs about 15,000 controllers on duty any given day.

It takes 3 years to train a new controller.

At best, if you fired all the current ATC's, or they all walked off the job (or just a large percentage of them) you'd be under-staffed for three years which means either limiting flights or accepting greater risk. In practice, it took about 10 years to fully re-staff the ATC system after 1981. I don't see where we'd do it any faster these days.
Thanks.

Question is - is the general public more used to air travel as a "right" nowadays, that they'd put up with more than a few days of that level of reduction? I don't know about the US, but for us, air travel was much more of a luxury back then, there weren't budget airlines or near as much air travel - buses and trains and roadtrips were still a viable option for holidays. Business travel wasn't as much of a thing, either.

Last edited by MrDibble; 01-06-2019 at 05:55 AM.
  #59  
Old 01-06-2019, 07:17 AM
enipla enipla is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 13,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff View Post
... 26 Billion for the wall is small-potatoes. Why are you HONESTLY opposed?
Because the wall is a stupid idea that will have environmental impacts for... ever.

There are better ways to do this.
__________________
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from here.
  #60  
Old 01-06-2019, 07:55 AM
griffin1977 griffin1977 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
But the PATCO strikers were not asking for a pay raise. Kind of the opposite: they wanted fewer hours (in a high-stress job). Their misfortune was that Reagan was able to sub for them using USAF personnel, which is why he was able to fire them.
They were negotiating for a pay raise as well as shorter hours.

That is a huge difference to "we want to get paid for working". There would be massive public support for them.
  #61  
Old 01-06-2019, 08:21 AM
griffin1977 griffin1977 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
Can Congress, say, decide to offer interest-free loans to federal workers working without pay, equal to the amount of money they would have been making?
Can Congress do anything (except launch an oversight investigation) without having it run past the Senate and approved by the president?
  #62  
Old 01-06-2019, 08:53 AM
Jonathan Chance Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,073
Nope. Any official act needs to pass both the house and the Senate and end up on the President's desk. He may veto it - God knows - but it still has to take that path.
  #63  
Old 01-06-2019, 09:00 AM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan Alessan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 23,786
They should try. I mean, they should force the Republicans to shoot down a new bill to pay federal workers every day. Why not?
  #64  
Old 01-06-2019, 09:05 AM
Jonathan Chance Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,073
Oh, hell yes. No disputing that. Put them on record as not wanting to pay people for their work. Them's some nice optics, there.
  #65  
Old 01-06-2019, 09:18 AM
griffin1977 griffin1977 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
Really? I think it more likely that there's a contingent out there that won't give a f*** as long as their income is untouched and view government workers as sub-human servants.
They'll give a fuck when they can't fly to visit Grandma. And the vast majority of people (even on the right) will blame the government, not the workers. Whether your in rural Mississippi or the upper east side EVERYONE will be pissed off at all the branches of government.

Even the threat of that will end the shutdown
  #66  
Old 01-06-2019, 09:32 AM
Falchion Falchion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 977
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
This is not as true as one might think. Following previous shutdowns, congress passed a bill paying workers for their time. But there's no guarantee this will happen during the current or future shutdowns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
While that has been the case in prior shutdowns there is no guarantee that that will happen. Congress has to authorize the back pay every time.
I don't believe this is true. See, for example, the OPM Guidance on Shutdowns from 2015. "Excepted" employees (i.e., those who are working) are guaranteed to be paid when funding is restored because their agency has incurred a financial obligation to them that must be settled. (Uncertainty over when they get paid, of course, can cause a lot of anxiety).

Furloughed employees are the more interesting category. There is no obligation to pay them for the time they spent not working. In every prior shutdown they have been paid, but there is no guarantee that this will happen.

Last edited by Falchion; 01-06-2019 at 09:33 AM.
  #67  
Old 01-06-2019, 09:42 AM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan Alessan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 23,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falchion View Post
Furloughed employees are the more interesting category. There is no obligation to pay them for the time they spent not working. In every prior shutdown they have been paid, but there is no guarantee that this will happen.
It's an interesting question. Do you pay an employee for their work, or for being your employee?
  #68  
Old 01-06-2019, 11:22 AM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 30,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
We couldn't immediately replace all 11,000 fired ATC's in 1981 even with utilizing military ATC's - because the military needs some, too. Right now the system needs about 15,000 controllers on duty any given day.

It takes 3 years to train a new controller.

At best, if you fired all the current ATC's, or they all walked off the job (or just a large percentage of them) you'd be under-staffed for three years which means either limiting flights or accepting greater risk. In practice, it took about 10 years to fully re-staff the ATC system after 1981. I don't see where we'd do it any faster these days.
Easy. We get Mexican ATCs to land the planes.
  #69  
Old 01-06-2019, 01:10 PM
DWMarch DWMarch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Nanaimo, BC
Posts: 2,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
Easy. We get Mexican ATCs to land the planes.
Brilliant! Since Mexicans are willing to work for less than Americans and the American ATCs aren't making anything it means the Mexican ATCs would have to pay to work. And boom, Mexico just paid for the wall!
  #70  
Old 01-06-2019, 02:50 PM
suranyi suranyi is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
It's not a 13th Amendment breach because the workers have another option, they can quit. They choose to stay Federal employees in the expectation that they will eventually be paid, and also for the other benefits. (and for the fact that if they quit, getting reinstated would be really difficult)

However there do seem to be laws on this, https://thinkprogress.org/federal-wo...-dee44a7ea97b/ , and it appears that the ones who were forced to work without pay may eventually collect double the wages they were owed.
This is what I think will happen, if the shutdown lasts more than a few weeks: Federal employees will start quitting en masse. It would be the natural thing to do. If I had a job where I was expected to work without getting paid, with no prospects for getting paid indefinitely, and I had bills piling up, I would get another job that would actually pay me.
__________________
Right now, it’s Girls’ Generation. Tomorrow, it’s Girls’ Generation. Forever, it’s Girls’ Generation!
  #71  
Old 01-06-2019, 09:53 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager Voyager is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 44,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
We couldn't immediately replace all 11,000 fired ATC's in 1981 even with utilizing military ATC's - because the military needs some, too. Right now the system needs about 15,000 controllers on duty any given day.

It takes 3 years to train a new controller.

At best, if you fired all the current ATC's, or they all walked off the job (or just a large percentage of them) you'd be under-staffed for three years which means either limiting flights or accepting greater risk. In practice, it took about 10 years to fully re-staff the ATC system after 1981. I don't see where we'd do it any faster these days.
From here (graph)

In 1981, 281 million passengers were carried in the US. In 2017 it was 849 million.
In 1981 there seemed to be 12,000 ATC union members. The BLS reports 22,000 ATCs, more or less, in 2017.

So it would indeed be a nightmare.
  #72  
Old 01-07-2019, 10:56 AM
Steve MB Steve MB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 13,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff View Post
Why are you HONESTLY opposed?
Historical precedent:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudyard Kipling
And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane
.
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.
  #73  
Old 01-07-2019, 12:13 PM
wguy123 wguy123 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
I find it laughable that conservatives, who normally screech about wasteful spending, are practically lining up to throw tax money at such a dubious enterprise as The Wall. And I stated why I'm honestly opposed. It's a misbegotten waste of money and resources.
It is amazing. When it is something conservatives oppose, even something that cost a million dollars, they yell about fiscal responsibility. But, when it is $26 BILLION for a wall it's a "rounding error."
  #74  
Old 01-07-2019, 12:25 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 15,301
To repeat, about a thousand miles of the US/Mexico border is the Colorado and Rio Grande. You cannot build on someone else's property, so this wall would end up block US citizens from access to the rivers. What is not incredibly stupid about that?



Meanwhile, it occurs to me that the Rs have long wanted to squeeze down the government. What better way to do that, while also kneecapping the deepstate than to make federal employees want to leave? All those workers who would rather not work for him anyway will wander off, and only the people who are loyal to him will stay. What a great way to clean house.
  #75  
Old 01-07-2019, 01:28 PM
Johnny L.A. Johnny L.A. is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NoWA
Posts: 60,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
To repeat, about a thousand miles of the US/Mexico border is the Colorado and Rio Grande. You cannot build on someone else's property, so this wall would end up block US citizens from access to the rivers. What is not incredibly stupid about that?
I'm not seeing the problem. By and large, people in that region want the government to seize their lands and cut them off from the un-seized property on the other side of the wall. This is why they voted for Trump. If they didn't want their land seized, they wouldn't have voted for him. Shouldn't they get what they asked for?
  #76  
Old 01-07-2019, 01:35 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot Buck Godot is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by griffin1977 View Post
They'll give a fuck when they can't fly to visit Grandma. And the vast majority of people (even on the right) will blame the government, not the workers. Whether your in rural Mississippi or the upper east side EVERYONE will be pissed off at all the branches of government.
Maybe not after Fox runs the following story.

Lazy spoiled elite federal workers are lying to to enable terrorists to sneak weapons on planes and prevent you from seeing your grandma and. We have video of an employee who called in "sick" yet is seen jogging, to the Whole Foods. Real American coal miners have lost their entire job, yet these government prima donnas can't stand a mere 3 weeks off the government teet, spending your tax money on fancy tofu dogs. Is Soros behind this? Some people say yes!

Last edited by Buck Godot; 01-07-2019 at 01:35 PM.
  #77  
Old 01-07-2019, 01:53 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 15,301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny L.A. View Post
I'm not seeing the problem. By and large, people in that region want the government to seize their lands and cut them off from the un-seized property on the other side of the wall. This is why they voted for Trump. If they didn't want their land seized, they wouldn't have voted for him. Shouldn't they get what they asked for?
right
  #78  
Old 01-07-2019, 01:54 PM
JcWoman JcWoman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
TMeanwhile, it occurs to me that the Rs have long wanted to squeeze down the government. What better way to do that, while also kneecapping the deepstate than to make federal employees want to leave? All those workers who would rather not work for him anyway will wander off, and only the people who are loyal to him will stay. What a great way to clean house.
Well, the idiot did promise during his campaign that he was going to "drain the swamp". At the time I thought he meant congress and lobbyists and such. Maybe we're now seeing that he actually meant the entire governmental system in DC.

I'm mostly joking. I really don't think he's smart enough to play this much of a long game.
  #79  
Old 01-07-2019, 02:48 PM
John Bredin John Bredin is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Des Plaines, IL (Chicago)
Posts: 1,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
We couldn't immediately replace all 11,000 fired ATC's in 1981 even with utilizing military ATC's - because the military needs some, too. Right now the system needs about 15,000 controllers on duty any given day.

It takes 3 years to train a new controller.

At best, if you fired all the current ATC's, or they all walked off the job (or just a large percentage of them) you'd be under-staffed for three years which means either limiting flights or accepting greater risk. In practice, it took about 10 years to fully re-staff the ATC system after 1981. I don't see where we'd do it any faster these days.
I'm picturing suddenly subbing in Air Force controllers in 2019 being less like doing so in 1981 (airline deregulation was only 1978) and more like the Army Air Mail fiasco of 1934.

Last edited by John Bredin; 01-07-2019 at 02:48 PM.
  #80  
Old 01-07-2019, 03:02 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 15,301
One passenger at Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport, Anna Gedstad, in a Sunday tweet, which has since gone viral, that a TSA agent responded to her question about removing her laptop from its case by saying, "I don't care, I'm not getting paid."
We don't need no stinkin' strike!
  #81  
Old 01-07-2019, 03:04 PM
Gorsnak Gorsnak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Saskaboom
Posts: 9,083
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Thanks.

Question is - is the general public more used to air travel as a "right" nowadays, that they'd put up with more than a few days of that level of reduction? I don't know about the US, but for us, air travel was much more of a luxury back then, there weren't budget airlines or near as much air travel - buses and trains and roadtrips were still a viable option for holidays. Business travel wasn't as much of a thing, either.
Just looked it up, and US air passenger-miles went from 191 billion in 1980 to 670 billion in 2016, a 3.5-fold increase. By contrast, passenger-miles in light vehicles have gone from 2011 billion in 1980 to 3045 billion in 2016, a factor of onlly 1.5.
Source

I think pretty obviously air travel plays a relatively larger role in today's society than that of 1980.
  #82  
Old 01-07-2019, 05:41 PM
Johnny L.A. Johnny L.A. is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NoWA
Posts: 60,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
Texas and Arizona voted for Trump.
  #83  
Old 01-07-2019, 05:58 PM
bump bump is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 16,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff View Post
Out of a Federal Budget approaching 5 Trillion Dollars; why are some so opposed to 26 Billion spent on 'Infrastructure' ?
A) You can't look at it as 25 billion out of a 5 trillion budget. It's more like 25 billion out of a 1.2 trillion budget, since most of the Federal budget is mandatory spending on Social Security, Medicare and other programs that are required to be funded. The discretionary portion is about 1.2 trillion.

B) Because 25 billion is a COLOSSAL amount of money in any real sense. More than NASA gets, and in the ballpark of what the DoE and HUD are slated to get. It's the amount of the ENTIRE budget of the state of Georgia.

And to spend that much on something that all sane people agree is not going to be helpful, and that the landowners on the border don't want, and that is slated to be a massive boondoggle is just irresponsible.
  #84  
Old 01-07-2019, 07:16 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by wguy123 View Post
It is amazing. When it is something conservatives oppose, even something that cost a million dollars, they yell about fiscal responsibility. But, when it is $26 BILLION for a wall it's a "rounding error."
Example: John McCain complaining about $50,000 to study explosive detection methods.
  #85  
Old 01-07-2019, 07:44 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 15,301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny L.A. View Post
But when you look at the districts along the Mexican border, they all look blue, except for the expansive one that covers half of southern NM.
  #86  
Old 01-07-2019, 07:57 PM
Johnny L.A. Johnny L.A. is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NoWA
Posts: 60,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
But when you look at the districts along the Mexican border, they all look blue, except for the expansive one that covers half of southern NM.
And the majority of voters voted against Trump, but we're stuck with him anyway.
  #87  
Old 01-07-2019, 07:58 PM
DinoR DinoR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
We've pointed this out before but the vast majority of illegal immigrants come through legal points of entry and overstay visas.
That's overstating the issue of visa overstays. A fact check of the issue shows a lot of older data. Estimates tend to point to overstays accounting for a percentage of illegal aliens in the low 40s. It's a big chunk. A statement like "nearly half" is supportable. A slight majority might be possible. "Vast majority" is a claim that's pretty clearly false based on the best data available.

There's still a big point that a wall at the border isn't that effective given even those numbers. There's also the real prospect that those wishing to enter adjust behavior and affect the numbers. When we tweaked asylum processing in 2009 asylum claims went way up. With the overloaded immigration courts handling the claims it's now a good way to enter for 2-3 years legally while waiting for a hearing.* We can reasonably expect people to adjust their behaviors if we build more wall. Maybe that's even more asylum claims or finding areas that are still open. I was joking with my sister over Christmas about visits to the San Diego Zoo going way up if we had a wall stretching along the entire border. People don't walk all the way from Central America to the US border if they are easily dissuaded. "Shit. Wall. Guess I need to walk home now."

Overstating the case against the wall with claims that are clearly false doesn't help the argument.

* The darkly humorous part of the partial shutdown is that the immigration courts are not essential employees. The backlog is growing as the shutdown continues. Cases that aren't happening because of the shutdown are being rescheduled...at the end of the very long and growing waiting line. Trump is effectively giving extensions to remain in the US to a chunk of asylum claimants every day.

Last edited by DinoR; 01-07-2019 at 07:59 PM.
  #88  
Old 01-07-2019, 08:38 PM
asterion asterion is online now
2012 SDMB NFL Salary Cap Champ
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 11,603
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
But when you look at the districts along the Mexican border, they all look blue, except for the expansive one that covers half of southern NM.
NM-2 went Democratic this year. It can happen, but it needs strong turnout in Las Cruces (and it's even better if NMSU students register there instead of voting absentee somewhere else), and enough people in other areas like Alamogordo and Clovis and Hobbs to go against the general Republican lean in those cities. Little Texas is hard to overcome most years.
  #89  
Old 01-07-2019, 11:02 PM
kaylasdad99 kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 30,576
Quote:
Originally Posted by griffin1977 View Post
Also, as of today, the striking government employees can just say "Hey, its what the POTUS said he f*cking wanted"

Quote:
Along with saying the word “fuck” at least three times throughout the meeting, the president bizarrely stated that he did not want to call the partial government shutdown a “shutdown,” according to the source. Instead, he referred to it as a “strike.” (Many of the federal employees affected by the weeks-long shutdown have been working without pay. That is essentially the opposite of a strike.)

ttps://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-referred-to-shutdown-as-strike-in-profanity-laced-meeting-with-democratic-leaders?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny L.A. View Post
In 1981, Reagan fired 11,300 air traffic controllers who went on strike.
And that’s how the America-hating fuckstick thinks he’s going to get out of paying those workers who have to report to their jobs: he’s calling it a strike so he can fire them when the shutdown is over.

I know, how stupid would anyone have to be to think this would work? Well, we haven’t yet plumbed the depths of this asshole’s stupidity, so I couldn’t say.

Last edited by kaylasdad99; 01-07-2019 at 11:05 PM.
  #90  
Old 01-07-2019, 11:40 PM
jasg jasg is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Upper left hand corner
Posts: 5,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by DinoR View Post
That's overstating the issue of visa overstays. A fact check of the issue shows a lot of older data. Estimates tend to point to overstays accounting for a percentage of illegal aliens in the low 40s. It's a big chunk. A statement like "nearly half" is supportable. A slight majority might be possible. "Vast majority" is a claim that's pretty clearly false based on the best data available.
In another thread, I posted some 2016 DSHS reports that show illegal entries of 170,000 and 739,000 visa overstays.
  #91  
Old 01-08-2019, 02:22 PM
Hari Seldon Hari Seldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Trantor
Posts: 12,348
The constitution clearly provides that policy is made by congress and the president should carry it out. Nobody seems to have pointed this out, although Alesan certainly hinted at it. Proposing such a wall is entirely congress's prerogative and it is about time the turtle came out of his shell and admitted it.
  #92  
Old 01-08-2019, 02:45 PM
Pardel-Lux Pardel-Lux is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Berlin
Posts: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
What other compromises might there be? Build a very short wall?
I suggest building a wall 60 ft. long, 3 ft. deep and 3000 miles high. That would be some tourist attraction and would put the name Trump forever in the books.
__________________
Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber. Plato
  #93  
Old 01-08-2019, 02:51 PM
Kearsen Kearsen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: austin texas
Posts: 1,795
Quote:
Originally Posted by griffin1977 View Post
Actually looking for a factual answer, but figure it will get GDey anyway....

Given Trump has said he's happy to shut down the government indefinitely. Is it remotely possible that some of the "essential government employees" that are currently working for free could decide, en masse, that they aren't doing so anymore (I am not sure strike is the right word, as they deciding to not to work for free is hardly a strike IMO).

Is this something thats been discussed during this, or other shutdowns? Is there a union that represents a large enough portion of them to make a difference? (TSA agents have apparently been calling in sick during the shutdown). A mass walk out by them alone would shutdown the airline network, and definitely force an end to the shutdown IMO.
Maybe they should do away with the TSA all together, flying might be a bit more enjoyable ...
__________________
Kearsen
aka...RollingRock
  #94  
Old 01-08-2019, 02:58 PM
Pardel-Lux Pardel-Lux is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Berlin
Posts: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
Do you pay an employee for their work, or for being your employee?
In Europa at least you pay an employee for being your employee (thus the right to get paid during the yearly holidays) and a free-lancer or an external contractor for his work, work which will have to be measured according to the contract signed either by the hour or by results achieved plus expenses incurred. Is it not like that in the USA?
__________________
Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber. Plato
  #95  
Old 01-09-2019, 07:07 PM
griffin1977 griffin1977 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,285
In depth discussion of this here (I'm clearly not the only person to have this thought):
Quote:
Neither Young nor any of his partners in union leadership, however, will urge their members to do the one thing that would seem most natural for employees facing the same treatment in the private sector: If they don’t pay you, stay home.

“We can’t call or advocate for a strike,” Young said.

Since the enactment of the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947, federal employees have been legally prohibited from striking. That law was intended to prevent public-sector workers from leveraging a work stoppage that could cripple the U.S. government or major industries in negotiations for better pay, working conditions, and benefits. But it likely did not envision a scenario where the government would require its employees to work without paying them, as is the case now.
.
.

If they don’t show up, “they’d be considered absent without leave,” said Jacque Simon, the policy director for the American Federation of Government Employees, by far the largest union representing federal employees. “When they’re told to come to work, they are required to come to work.” An awol designation could lead to disciplinary action, including termination. For longtime government employees, that could put in jeopardy a federal pension they’ve spent a career accruing, union leaders said.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...strike/579793/

Still seems to me, seeing as they are clearly the wronged party here, and have the power to cause enough disruption to absolutely force someone to cave. They should be discussing some kind of joint action, whatever the law says. Even the threat of a mass resignation, mass sick-out, or mass strike (whatever the Taft-Hartley Act says. Would be enough. If it was me I'd be pressing my union rep to organize that (its not of course, and I understand why someone wouldn't do that)

Does the Taft-Hartley Act say anything about industrial action that falls short of an outright strike? Like an organised sick out?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:34 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017