Killary? Seriously?
Are you like the last dude on earth who still thinks she and Bill offed Vince Foster?
DrBoom
DrBoom
There's no winning with that douchenozzle. He's pro-Prius. Nothing else need be noted.
See responses elsewhere. If you think labor laws are immune to attack by lobbyist money...
But again, and I can't stress this enough - without the potential threat of a union, and the gains that unions have already made in your industry, your employer would have absolutely no incentive whatsoever to keep you happy.
LULZ - Every single German auto maker has union representation *on the board of directors*
No. Just no.
Holy crap! You work in the transportation industry and don't understand how you benefit from unions?
There's a reason methed-up truckers aren't doing 90mph in the middle of the day on their 28th hour behind the wheel, ad that reason is the Teamsters.
Your company follows labor laws strictly. Good for them. Now get it…
Care to take a guess as to why your benefits package stayed the same rather than eroding?
Dude.
As long as a full time job at minimum wage remains below the poverty line (essentially guaranteeing your business is subsidised by the gov't in the form of food stamps, welfare, etc) and CEO vs. Line worker pay is orders of magnitude higher than it is in every other developed nation on earth, your argument lacks…
Alternately would you prefer the serfdom of company towns and child labor?
Yes. Its a protection racket. But the thing its protecting against is the 1890s, which employers would be more than happy to return to.
Enjoy your weekend off from your 40 hr work week. Hug a union member for being willing to engage in the adversarial relationship while you reap the benefits.
I would agree that the hyperbole is pretty thick in this thread, and while our good man isn't explicitly any of the names he's been called...he's trending very close to some deep waters. Being called a racist or a xenophobe isn't going to help that though, and I definitely agree with you there. I think though that he…
If you're not seeing "there's a right way to do it" in his comments, then you kinda can't read...
A fair point.
For me, speculation from someone who obviously has the knowledge to make a considered, sober, non sensational opinion is within the bounds of acceptable behavior. Not so much for you, and that's understandable.
I feel where you're coming from, but I think the point of all of Dr. Gary's blogs is to do the opposite of speculate.
It means "Impractical". But they can't say that.
They want a car that you want to buy even though you're upside-down on your current ride.
They want a car that looks good enough that you ignore the fact that its got 2 doors and you've got 3 kids.
They want to design a car you want, not a shitty penalty box you have to…
It means "Impractical". But they can't say that.
They want a car that you want to buy even though you're upside-down on your current ride.
They want a car that looks good enough that you ignore the fact that its got 2 doors and you've got 3 kids.
They want to design a car you want, not a shitty penalty box you have to…
No. It's anti-choice.
Stings a little when rhetorical manipulation works against you, doesn't it?
Thing is...it takes all kinds.
Sure, people need to be reasonable. And I'd be willing to bet that most of them are. But equally, there need to be people agitated about this, so that AC actually does change their outmoded policy. Of everybody just remained reasonable, AC would see nothing wrong except one upset customer…
Share, please...why does Air Canada have this policy?