NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

[wahday]

I do not think that we should have a minimum wadge and I do not thing that there should be a regulated work week. Seriously, how many Planners do you know that limit themselves to a 40 hour work week? I know too many people who have been extremely successful because when they were young the tossed out the idea that they were only going to work 40 hours a week. For example, I work 3 days a week and sometimes those days are 14 to 15 hours long. But I spend the other 4 days with my family.

The 8 hour work day has its roots in Britain in the first part of the 19th century. It was a response to workers being REQUIRED to work 10-16 hours a day, 6 days a week (and many were children). Without a law restricting these hours, an employer could require a much higher weekly workload. Failure to do so could mean being fired. Now, if you also remove the minimum wage, the potential for abuse increases even more (because people would need even more hours just to make the money they make today with protections in place). Overall, the wage gap (that is, the gap between what people earn and what stuff costs) is widening and it is harder and harder fo people to meet their needs with the income from low paying jobs. This is the reason I have a job providing housing to WORKING people who cannot otherwise afford a home and the stability that offers.

But then again, if Unions are so wonderful, people will be falling over themselves to stay in and unions will have more money than ever before. OR, people will realize that some unions (Not all but some) don't represent the ideas and principles that they believe and get out.

I take issue with the argument that because there has been corruption and abuse in unions that we should hamstring them so severely that they cannot adequately advocate for workers’ rights (which I feel is what these legislations are doing now). Do we say the same about government? (I suppose some do, but most do not) I feel there is room for reform in unions, yes, but this is not the way. Growing up in and around Philadelphia and knowing people who grumbled about abuse and corruption in their unions, I am not so naïve as to think they are always the shining examples of workers’ rights they are intended to be. But at the same time, I don’t think you just throw the baby out with the bathwater, remove most protections, minimum wage and limits on work hours and expect to have a reasonable outcome.

 

[Blide]

It should also be noted that taking from one state directly weakens another. That's the main problem I see with the race to the bottom. For example, a blue state is not going to be able to support the education system a red state depends on if their tax base keeps getting siphoned to a red state. That's exactly what's going to happen if businesses continue to be drawn to red states for low taxes and regulations.

 

[michaelskis]

Tell me your kidding...

The 8 hour work day has its roots in Britain in the first part of the 19th century. It was a response to workers being REQUIRED to work 10-16 hours a day, 6 days a week (and many were children). Without a law restricting these hours, an employer could require a much higher weekly workload. Failure to do so could mean being fired. Now, if you also remove the minimum wage, the potential for abuse increases even more (because people would need even more hours just to make the money they make today with protections in place). Overall, the wage gap (that is, the gap between what people earn and what stuff costs) is widening and it is harder and harder fo people to meet their needs with the income from low paying jobs. This is the reason I have a job providing housing to WORKING people who cannot otherwise afford a home and the stability that offers.

So the answer to a government requirement is a government restriction? BRILLIANT! There are many places that will ‘mandate’ required overtime for salary employees to get particular projects done.
As for minim wage, if you work a full time job at minimum wage, you make about $15,115. A person making that cannot afford to buy a house, maintain a house, and live on. Your right, the cost of stuff and the buying power is getting increasingly larger. Because it costs us more money to make stuff thanks to things like taxes, benefit packages, golden parachutes, union wages, increased shipping, production, storage, and packaging costs because of governmental regulations, and more taxes.
Are there greedy business owners out there? I am positive of it. They are part of the problem and I doubt that anyone would argue that. But two stupids does not fix wrong. Government and forced union participation does not fix greed. Purchasing power does. If people don’t like how a company is operated, don’t shop in their stores or buy their products.

I take issue with the argument that because there has been corruption and abuse in unions that we should hamstring them so severely that they cannot adequately advocate for workers’ rights (which I feel is what these legislations are doing now). Do we say the same about government? (I suppose some do, but most do not) I feel there is room for reform in unions, yes, but this is not the way. Growing up in and around Philadelphia and knowing people who grumbled about abuse and corruption in their unions, I am not so naïve as to think they are always the shining examples of workers’ rights they are intended to be. But at the same time, I don’t think you just throw the baby out with the bathwater, remove most protections, minimum wage and limits on work hours and expect to have a reasonable outcome.

Now I am confused… so you are telling me that the way to fix corruption and abuse in unions is by requiring people to join a union if the work at a particular place? The right to work bill in Michigan only allows people to be in a union or not. It does not change OSHA laws, it does not change minim wage.

Like I said before, there are some good things that unions still do for some people. I don’t think that they should be prohibited but people should be given the option.

It should also be noted that taking from one state directly weakens another. That's the main problem I see with the race to the bottom. For example, a blue state is not going to be able to support the education system a red state depends on if their tax base keeps getting siphoned to a red state. That's exactly what's going to happen if businesses continue to be drawn to red states for low taxes and regulations.

Taking from one city into another city hurts one city… same thing with neighborhoods… Look at inner city schools compared to the higher income suburban schools. It is the way the world works. One place is always in competition with another and use goods and services as an incentive.

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

Taking from one city into another city hurts one city… same thing with neighborhoods… Look at inner city schools compared to the higher income suburban schools. It is the way the world works. One place is always in competition with another and use goods and services as an incentive.

So we are to assume you are a social darwinist as well as follower of Ayn Rand? You seem to believe in the benevolence of corporations and the fact they will always do the right thing. In American, I suggest you read up on the robber baron and the working conditions of the late 1800s. For modern day examples, I suggest you look at counties without strong labor/environmental protections.

Again you bring up the founding fathers and state's rights. We've covered this territory before. Next time before you try to bring up states rights, look at states that have weak environmental regulations/enforcement workplace protections and the right-to-work statutes..

 

[btrage]

So the answer to a government requirement is a government restriction? BRILLIANT! There are many places that will ‘mandate’ required overtime for salary employees to get particular projects done.
As for minim wage, if you work a full time job at minimum wage, you make about $15,115. A person making that cannot afford to buy a house, maintain a house, and live on. Your right, the cost of stuff and the buying power is getting increasingly larger. Because it costs us more money to make stuff thanks to things like taxes, benefit packages, golden parachutes, union wages, increased shipping, production, storage, and packaging costs because of governmental regulations, and more taxes.

Let me get this straight, just so I'm on the same page.

It is your belief that the reason wages are low (at least in terms of buying power), is that it cost private businesses more money to make stuff, due to government regulation, among other things?

And that if we reduced government oversight, it would be cheaper to make things, and private business would pass those savings on to its employees?

 

[hilldweller]

I don’t think that they should be prohibited but people should be given the option.

I agree. I don't see how it is constitutional to insist that an individual join and pay dues to an external organization in order to obtain a job.

 

[michaelskis]

So we are to assume you are a social darwinist as well as follower of Ayn Rand? You seem to believe in the benevolence of corporations and the fact they will always do the right thing. In American, I suggest you read up on the robber baron and the working conditions of the late 1800s. For modern day examples, I suggest you look at counties without strong labor/environmental protections.

Again you bring up the founding fathers and state's rights. We've covered this territory before. Next time before you try to bring up states rights, look at states that have weak environmental regulations/enforcement workplace protections and the right-to-work statutes..

You don't actually read my posts do you. If you did, I confirmed that there are greedy corporations and that if people actually gave a rip, they would not do business with them. I think that there needs to be increased education of what these companies do and let people decide where they want to spend their money.

Personally, I shop local, buy from farmers markets or directly from organic farms, and whenever possible, try to research a company before I do business with them. I don't trust the government to do the right thing for me... just look at Monsanto and Dow Chemical.

Let me get this straight, just so I'm on the same page.

It is your belief that the reason wages are low (at least in terms of buying power), is that it cost private businesses more money to make stuff, due to government regulation, among other things?

And that if we reduced government oversight, it would be cheaper to make things, and private business would pass those savings on to its employees?

Mostly it is taxes, but some of it is because of government regulation. There is also union influences and corporate greed that go into it too. For example, if you look at the distribution of most products, produces are taxed on the raw goods, taxed in the production of these raw goods, taxed in the shipping of those products (gas taxes, property taxes for national, regional, and local distribution centers), and then passed onto the consumer. In Michigan, business are also taxed on the personal property used to sell those goods to the end consumer. Then there is the labor costs. A substantial portion of GM's labor costs is in pension programs for employees that don't actually work for them anymore. All of these costs are added to the product. Every time the minimum wadge goes up, the prices tend to go up too because employers need to pay the new wage.

I believe in small business far more than major corporations. Will there be corporate greed. Sure. But I choose to spend my money with people who I know will benefit.

Both the republicans and democrats are spending out of control on things that they should not be spending money on. If they cut budgets and restructured the tax code so to fair tax or a flat tax, then I believe we would be in a better place.

 

[btrage]

I wonder if those at the top simply make too much money? I think they could easily spread that around to their employees and still be filthy rich.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/mcdonalds-8-25-man-8-050001809.html

Shareholders, not employees, have reaped the rewards. McDonald's, for example, spent $6 billion on share repurchases and dividends last year, the equivalent of $14,286 per restaurant worker employed by the company. At the same time, restaurant companies have formed an industrywide effort to freeze the minimum wage, whose purchasing power is 20 percent less than in 1968, according to the Economic Policy Institute, a think tank that advocates for low- and middle-income workers.

The money to help our workers is there, it's just not happening. The rich keep getting richer. This is great, but it can't be done at the expense of the middle class.

 

[wahday]

Originally posted by michaelskis
So the answer to a government requirement is a government restriction? BRILLIANT!

Did I say government restriction? What I said was “reform” and I think there are ways to do that. I also don’t think the right-to-work law addresses the problems sometimes faced with unions and the ensuing corruption. What it does is weaken their base and financial abilities, not make them better functioning organizations.

But here is what I was getting at with respect to “reform.” I work for a non-profit corporation which, like unions, must subscribe to certain regulations in order to continue enjoying our tax-free status. These regulations and requirements change from time to time in order to fix problems that were not anticipated when the status for these kinds of groups was first drafted. This happens all the time. We pass laws and then make modifications to those laws as their implementation illustrates unanticipated consequences. It’s fine tuning. I guess you could call that “more regulation” but I see it as a refinement of the system to make it function better, more fairly and more equitably.

Originally posted by michaelskis
As for minim wage, if you work a full time job at minimum wage, you make about $15,115. A person making that cannot afford to buy a house, maintain a house, and live on. Your right, the cost of stuff and the buying power is getting increasingly larger. Because it costs us more money to make stuff thanks to things like taxes, benefit packages, golden parachutes, union wages, increased shipping, production, storage, and packaging costs because of governmental regulations, and more taxes.

So, it’s - at least partly - the fault of the unions, with their insistence on safe working conditions, a 40 hour work week and minimum wage that is driving up the cost of living? I didn’t know that. I guess if they all worked for less then stuff would be cheaper, huh? Oh, but then people would be earning less, so they still would have to deal with the income gap and not be able to afford things. And those pesky taxes – what a drain on the economy! Building roads to transport items to market, provide subsidies to industries, move people to work and back, and pay for schools. We should definitely do away with that...(and yes, I am kidding about this...)

This seems to be a contradictory argument. On the on hand, you say the unions have been driving up the cost of things by insisting on higher wages, and making it more difficult for working people to meet their basic needs. On the other hand, if those workers didn't demand such high wages, stuff would cost less while at the same time giving them less money for their work to...continue not being able to afford things.

These supposed reasons for the high cost of stuff doesn't translate well to all items either. Consider housing, which is determined by the market and what it will bear. Especially the resale of existing homes. My house was built in 1907. Labor costs were very low then, as were materials. And yet, its a rather expensive house today and this has nothing to do with taxes, high labor wages, safety requirements or any of that.Its what the market will bear that sets that price and that is determined by a number of factors, none of which include "taxes, benefit packages, golden parachutes, union wages, increased shipping, production, storage, and packaging costs because of governmental regulations, and more taxes." No one even knows how much it cost to build that home back then.

Originally posted by michaelskis
Are there greedy business owners out there? I am positive of it. They are part of the problem and I doubt that anyone would argue that. But two stupids does not fix wrong. Government and forced union participation does not fix greed. Purchasing power does. If people don’t like how a company is operated, don’t shop in their stores or buy their products.

You don’t have to agree, but for clarity’s sake, the criticism of not requiring workers to pay the union dues centers on the “free-rider” phenomenon. Unless non-union employees pay fair share fees, they are benefiting from collective bargaining without paying union dues. Thus, the services provided to them by the union contract are being subsidized by paying union members. That’s argument, just so we are clear on what aspects of this the opponents are referring to. Personally, I agree with that sentiment.

I think the purchasing power argument is fraught with complications and, frankly, a bit naive. So many consumables are made of parts or labor or resources drawn from a myriad of sources and its unrealistic to think that the average consumer is able to research the construction of their tennis shoes enough to determine whether they can morally back their purchase or not. How about your power bill? Was any of that electricity made form coal? Where did it come from? Which company runs that mine? What are the working conditions for those workers? Who has the time and information necessary to do this? And often the information just isn't there. There is not requirement (sorry, meant "restriction") on food manufacturers to say where their corn comes from, so if non-GMO is important to me (or something similar), how could I find out?

Another good example is gasoline. There is a movement to encourage people to only buy at places where they know the oil has come from certain places. But it turns out, because of how refineries operate and how the system of supply is managed country-wide, that is is impossible to tell if a particular shipment or vendor of gas gets it from a specific place.

Originally posted by michaelskis
Now I am confused… so you are telling me that the way to fix corruption and abuse in unions is by requiring people to join a union if the work at a particular place?

No, I am saying that the right-to-work law does nothing to address these issues as I don't think not requiring people to pay union dues gets at the underlying issues. Its not even a red herring. Its a strategy to reduce the power and influence of unions. What it does is potentially reduce the union coffers and therefore the ability they have to advocate for their workers. Again, consider the “free-rider” argument here if you want to understand where the critics are coming from. There are other actions required to address union corruption.

Originally posted by michaelskis
The right to work bill in Michigan only allows people to be in a union or not. It does not change OSHA laws, it does not change minim wage.

My minimum wage comment was in response to your statement:

Originally posted by michaelskis
I do not think that we should have a minimum wadge and I do not thing that there should be a regulated work week.

 

[btrage]

I think all property should be taxed, regardless of who owns it. This means religious institutions, non-profits,etc. This would help wouldn't it?

 

[Blide]

You don't actually read my posts do you. If you did, I confirmed that there are greedy corporations and that if people actually gave a rip, they would not do business with them. I think that there needs to be increased education of what these companies do and let people decide where they want to spend their money.

That is a really idealistic way of viewing things. Most people are ignorant of or don't care about the awful things companies do as long as they're able to purchase things as cheap as possible. Just imagine if people cared enough to spend a little bit more to buy American goods, the country's economic situation would be entirely different than what it is now.

As it stands right now, most shareholders of companies only care about profits. It's never "just good enough" with companies as they're always looking for ways to improve profits. Labor becomes an obvious way of squeezing out more profits as the company's expansion slows. There are some companies like Costco that are under constant pressure to cut employee benefits so their profit margins will be more in line with their competition (Walmart / Sam's). It's disheartening how some companies just view their employees as numbers and not actual human beings.

 

[Suburb Repairman]

This is a really idealistic way of viewing things. Most people are ignorant of or don't care about the awful things companies do as long as they're able to purchase things as cheap as possible. Just imagine if people cared enough to spend a little bit more to buy American goods, the country's economic situation would be entirely different than what it is now.

As it stands right now, most shareholders of companies only care about profits. It's never "just good enough" with companies as they're always looking for ways to improve profits. Labor becomes an obvious way of squeezing out more profits as the company's expansion slows. There are some companies like Costco that are under constant pressure to cut employee benefits so their profit margins will be more in line with their competition (Walmart / Sam's). It's disheartening how some companies just view their employees as numbers and not actual human beings.

What you're getting at, and which I agree with, is that people will act in their own selfish self-interest. That is why sweat shop labor continues to exist--people don't care about the working conditions of who makes their product as long as they get it as cheap as humanly possible. M'skis and the people he associates with may be an anomaly in this regard, but that is fundamental human nature for most people. It is why Walmart exists. It is why so many consumer goods are outsourced for manufacture overseas. It is why so many people that show up at public meetings go on & on about their "prop-ty rights" and that they can "do wha' I want" with their land, but want to regulate the ever-loving daylights out of their neighboring property. To put it in planner terms, it is the "Tragedy of the Commons" applied to human labor as a resource.

Keep in mind that I'm far from pro-union, but pure right-to-work has critical problems as well. Things like definitions of work weeks, Federal Labor Standards, payment of overtime, working conditions, etc. are regulated for good reason--the free market failed in those arenas due to selfish actions. These regulations don't necessarily create a level playing field--they create an artificial bottom for the benefit of society.

 

[michaelskis]

Just so I am clear now, there have been several people who have criticized everything under the sun regarding EVIL corporations, but I have yet to hear a good argument on why giving someone the freedom to choose where they want to work is a bad thing.

Union people can go on being union people, but it is no longer a requirement. As for the free loader issue, the law DOSE NOT SAY THAT. (I hope I was clear there).

“Bargaining representative” means a labor organization recognized by an employer or certified by the commission as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of certain employees of the employer.

If I were a union rep, I would say, we are only here on the union members behalf.

 

[wahday]

I have yet to hear a good argument on why giving someone the freedom to choose where they want to work is a bad thing.

What is this in reference to? Are people not able to choose where they work?! I was not aware. The bill "is a government regulation of the contractual agreements between employers and labor unions that prevents them from excluding non-union workers or requiring fee payment to unions that have negotiated the labor contract the workers work under." What?! MORE regulation?!

Union people can go on being union people, but it is no longer a requirement. As for the free loader issue, the law DOSE NOT SAY THAT. (I hope I was clear there).

Not as clear as if you spelled it DOES, but...

I'm not sure if you expected the law to use the term "free-rider" but I think there is a pretty good case for that argument that free-riding occurs in states with RTW laws. Indeed, in the states with RTW laws, union membership has fallen. But of course, it is a complex issue. Here is some research that has been done by economists trying to understand this dynamic and if it is indeed an issue of note. The last one notes that up to 30 percent of covered members are true free riders in states with RTW laws. Not as significant as some have asserted, but not insignificant, either. My point simply being that we are not pulling this idea out of nowhere - its an actual phenomenon studied by economists:

Zax, Jeffery S. and Casey Ichinowski. "Excludability and the Effects of Free Riders: Right-to-Work Laws and Local Public Sector Unionization."
Davis, Joe C. and John H. Huston. "Right to Work Laws and Free Riding"
Chaison, Gary N. and Dileep Dhavale. "The Choice between Union Membership and Free-rider Status."

This last one has a link:
Sobel, Russell "Empirical Evidence on the Union Free Rider Problem: Do Right-to-Work Laws Matter?"

 

[Hink]

I think all property should be taxed, regardless of who owns it. This means religious institutions, non-profits,etc. This would help wouldn't it?

I believe only government should be tax exempt. Charities, churches, and the like although great institutions... should not be tax exempt.... explain to me why they should be different from a business?

 

[michaelskis]

What is this in reference to? Are people not able to choose where they work?! I was not aware. The bill "is a government regulation of the contractual agreements between employers and labor unions that prevents them from excluding non-union workers or requiring fee payment to unions that have negotiated the labor contract the workers work under." What?! MORE regulation?!

It was governmental regulation that granted them the power and protection to require people to join the union if they worked at a union shop in the first place. Before that, a business owner could just fire people if they tried to form a union in fear that if the union got too big, they would have more control than the business owner. Now it provides people the freedom to choose. So, no it is not more governmental regulation.

I'm not sure if you expected the law to use the term "free-rider" but I think there is a pretty good case for that argument that free-riding occurs in states with RTW laws. Indeed, in the states with RTW laws, union membership has fallen. But of course, it is a complex issue. Here is some research that has been done by economists trying to understand this dynamic and if it is indeed an issue of note. The last one notes that up to 30 percent of covered members are true free riders in states with RTW laws. Not as significant as some have asserted, but not insignificant, either. My point simply being that we are not pulling this idea out of nowhere - its an actual phenomenon studied by economists:

Zax, Jeffery S. and Casey Ichinowski. "Excludability and the Effects of Free Riders: Right-to-Work Laws and Local Public Sector Unionization."
Davis, Joe C. and John H. Huston. "Right to Work Laws and Free Riding"
Chaison, Gary N. and Dileep Dhavale. "The Choice between Union Membership and Free-rider Status."

This last one has a link:
Sobel, Russell "Empirical Evidence on the Union Free Rider Problem: Do Right-to-Work Laws Matter?"

I am sure that free-riding does exist some places. But the bill does not require it as some people claim it does.

Perhaps we should just all become owners or CEO's of businesses since that is where all the money is.

 

[btrage]

Perhaps we should just all become owners or CEO's of businesses since that is where all the money is.

Are you saying this facetiously? I can't tell. Because this is clearly not a possibility. I'm with you on the RTW legislation, but I also think that corporate greed, at the expense of labor, is destroying our middle class. There's a shit load of money in this country, but it's all tied up in Wall Street and at the tops of the corporate ladders. Capital NEEDS labor.

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

-Abraham Lincoln

 

[ColoGI]

Are you saying this facetiously? I can't tell. Because this is clearly not a possibility. I'm with you on the RTW legislation, but I also think that corporate greed, at the expense of labor, is destroying our middle class. There's a shit load of money in this country, but it's all tied up in Wall Street and at the tops of the corporate ladders. Capital NEEDS labor.

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

-Abraham Lincoln

BTW, the brownshirts in Michissippi not only have the RTW and the likely abortion ominbus "success", but my sister may have just lost her job of 24 years as a speech pathologist because there will no longer be special education services in Michissippi for kids under 6, presumably to drive poor people out of the state. She was told by administration that there is a good chance there will be a vote to ensure she can't get her pension until 65 either. I suspect her daughter - also a teacher - is next.

I'm not hopeful there will be a run on torches and pitchforks in that state to take back democracy, which is one of the reasons why I left.

 

[michaelskis]

Are you saying this facetiously? I can't tell. Because this is clearly not a possibility. I'm with you on the RTW legislation, but I also think that corporate greed, at the expense of labor, is destroying our middle class. There's a shit load of money in this country, but it's all tied up in Wall Street and at the tops of the corporate ladders. Capital NEEDS labor.

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

-Abraham Lincoln

Maybe not corporate CEOs, but I am a big supporters of smaller businesses. That was one of the things that I loved best about my last job. It was an employee owned company and a great system for who was 'running' the place. Anyone could work their way up if they wanted to and worked hard enough.

I totally agree with the corporate greed thing. There are too many major corporations out there that line the pockets of the CEO's and board members. That is why whenever possible, I shop local or eat local. It is also the reason that I don't attend professional sporting events. I rather pull up a bar stool and watch the game on a big screen. Beer is cheaper too!

 

[wahday]

It was governmental regulation that granted them the power and protection to require people to join the union if they worked at a union shop in the first place. Before that, a business owner could just fire people if they tried to form a union in fear that if the union got too big, they would have more control than the business owner. Now it provides people the freedom to choose. So, no it is not more governmental regulation.

Well, I was being a little sarcastic, but the language is a verbatim description of the bill I saw in an article describing it. Still, in terms of the definition of "regulation," it certainly is:

Regulation is the promulgation, monitori and enforcement of rules. Regulation creates, limits, or constrains a right, creates or limits a duty, or allocates a responsibility.

This bill certainly fulfills this definition. It is not a repeal of a law. It is the addition of a new one that modifies a pre-existing one. That's more regulation in that it "creates" the right of a worker to not join a union and also "limits" the right of unions to compel membership.

I am sure that free-riding does exist some places. But the bill does not require it as some people claim it does.

Perhaps we should just all become owners or CEO's of businesses since that is where all the money is.

I'm not sure you know what "free riding" is. Its not something a bill can require - its a side-effect. Free riding is what occurs when workers who are not part of a union reap the benefits of the collective bargaining agreements negotiated by that union. So, a worker at a given employer enjoys security of wages, pensions, etc. that were negotiated by the union but never had to pay the dues that go to paying for the collective bargaining process (lawyers fees, PR/Marketing monies for the campaigns, etc.).

The bill does not "require" free riding, it creates the potential for free riding by allowing people to opt out of paying dues. How could one "require" free riding anyway?

Just to be clear, this impacts the types of jobs where only union workers can be hired (though that will now change). Such an arrangement is called a "union shop." Many industries have such arrangements.

Not sure what you are getting at with the CEO comment. People are not saying unions should get more power and higher wages. Critics of these bills are arguing that this takes power away from the unions. I think those critics are ok with the current arrangement (though I am personally dismayed but some unions' cases of corruption, which RTW bills do not address in any way)

 

[michaelskis]

I'm not sure you know what "free riding" is. Its not something a bill can require - its a side-effect of RTW legislation. Free riding is what occurs when workers who are not part of a union reap the benefits of the collective bargaining agreements negotiated by that union. So, a worker at a given employer enjoys security of wages, pensions, etc. that were negotiated by the union but never had to pay the dues that go to paying for the collective bargaining process (lawyers fees, PR/Marketing monies for the campaigns, etc.).

The bill does not "require" free riding, it creates the potential for free riding by allowing people to opt out of paying dues. Just to be clear, this impacts the types of jobs where only union workers can be hired (though that will now change). Such an arrangement is called a "union shop." Many industries have such arrangements.

Not sure what you are getting at with the CEO comment. People are not saying unions should get more power. Critics of these bills are arguing that this takes power away. I think those critics are ok with the current arrangement (though I am personally dismayed but some unions' cases of corruption, which RTW bills do not address in any way)

I understood what you met. I have seen drafts of bills that would require nonunion and union people to receive the same pay and benefits, but it was not included in the bill. I guess my questions regarding it are as follows:

If the union employee has a higher level of pay and benefits than a non union person, if corporations are so greedy why would the spend the extra money on the nonunion person?
When it does occur, is it the fault of the employee who does not want to join the union and help pay for political campaigns or other activities that he does not support, or is it the fault of the employer?
Why would it be wrong for a nonunion employee to negotiate* with the employer for the same package as the union employees? They just to the negotiating themselves.

 

[wahday]

If the union employee has a higher level of pay and benefits than a non union person, if corporations are so greedy why would the spend the extra money on the nonunion person?

I am not clear on what you are asking here. You said in the first sentence that the nonunion person earns less. But in the second you imply that the employer will pay more on that employee. ??

When it does occur, is it the fault of the employee who does not want to join the union and help pay for political campaigns or other activities that he does not support, or is it the fault of the employer?

Well, it’s the dues that go to pay for the union’s work for collective bargaining activities. The employer never pays toward the union dues (it would suggest influence pedaling). I’m not sure I would call it a “fault” though. It’s a consequence and I don’t necessarily fault an employee who takes the savings in union dues by not paying. However, I think these folks maybe do not realize that the working conditions, pensions, pay rates, and other worker protections are often things that have been negotiated over many years and for which they gain notably. For employers that have a union shop (an agreement btw employer and employee that says they can only hire union workers), compelling new employees to join the union and pay union dues is the way they continue to fulfill this requirement. My friend who used to work for a university library had to do this when he was hired, for example.

Why would it be wrong for a nonunion employee to negotiate* with the employer for the same package as the union employees? They just to the negotiating themselves.

In free-riding, the nonunion employee is not negotiating their own contract independent of the union. The union advocates for ALL workers and that nonunion worker would enjoy whatever terms were negotiated by the union on their behalf (again, often over the course of a long period of time and beginning well before new hires come on board). However, the nonunion worker would not have contributed to the union coffers if they opted out. One could see this as representation without taxation in a manner of speaking (not that union dues are taxes – I’m just taking liberties here)

Nonunion employees statistically have lower levels of education (this is not just my impression but a researched reality) and are likely less familiar with the contract negotiation process than the union organization which has institutional knowledge, experience and capacity exceeding that of most individuals.

I think a question you are getting at is why would an employer hire union over nonunion workers? I think that is a reasonable question and one that the internets may have some insight about. Maybe someone else can chime in on that one.

 

[Bubba]

OK, looks like the RTW/Michigan debate has taken over this thread (for now), and, I have to admit, as much as I tried to ignore it, the wharrgarbl from both sides of the debate has been a bit deafening (note - I'm not addressing that last comment to anything anyone has posted here). I don't have a dog in the fight (thus the trying to ignore it)...but the most even-handed take I've seen on it has been from a labor relations attorney I know (corporate counsel for a company with a lot of unionized employees, including in Michigan). So, to summarize everything I've seen from him on the debate over the last few days:

Ultimately, it's not that big of a deal.

I now return y'all to your regularly scheduled slap-fight.

 

[michaelskis]

Wow… now that is stupid. Governor Snyder will likely veto gun bill.

This would have changed the way people could carry in schools. Right now, according to an Attorney General ruling, a person is permitted by right to open carry if they have a CPL within public schools. LINK

The proposed bill would have required them to conceal it in schools and permit it in other ‘restricted’ places, unless those places were on private property and the owner posts no weapons at the door.

So people will still be able to open carry in public school areas if they have their CPL, but they cannot carry if they go into most restaurants that serve alcohol or arenas even if the owners say it is ok.

BILLIANT! :not:

 

[btrage]

Wow… now that is stupid. Governor Snyder will likely veto gun bill.

This would have changed the way people could carry in schools. Right now, according to an Attorney General ruling, a person is permitted by right to open carry if they have a CPL within public schools. LINK

The proposed bill would have required them to conceal it in schools and permit it in other ‘restricted’ places, unless those places were on private property and the owner posts no weapons at the door.

So people will still be able to open carry in public school areas if they have their CPL, but they cannot carry if they go into most restaurants that serve alcohol or arenas even if the owners say it is ok.

BILLIANT! :not:

The only time I want a gun in any school is if a peace officer is carrying it.

 

[michaelskis]

The only time I want a gun in any school is if a peace officer is carrying it.

Well, the bill would have made it harder for people to carry guns in schools. Right now, anyone with a CPL can open carry there. At least the new bill would have required advanced training, and from what a cop friend tells me, it would have been about the same as what they have to do. But, he is going to veto it.

 

[btrage]

Well, the bill would have made it harder for people to carry guns in schools. Right now, anyone with a CPL can open carry there. At least the new bill would have required advanced training, and from what a cop friend tells me, it would have been about the same as what they have to do. But, he is going to veto it.

That's my understanding as well. I think it's obvious that his decision was impacted by the events of last Friday. It was good timing on the RTW legislation, but bad timing on this issue.

 

[Hink]

So people will still be able to open carry in public school areas if they have their CPL, but they cannot carry if they go into most restaurants that serve alcohol or arenas even if the owners say it is ok.

BILLIANT! :not:

I want to keep guns away from alcohol. I don't care if you think you are careful. Or you think you wouldn't do something stupid. The second you put a gun in a place with alcohol you allow a situation to occur that wouldn't occur if a gun wasn't there. A beating might happen, but a shooting death won't.

I am not for ridiculous gun restrictions, but the idea that putting more guns into our society instead of properly regulating those that are in it, is astounding to me.

I think concealed carry is fine in some places. Keep it out of public spaces, parks, buildings, etc. Keep them away from alcohol. Keep them out of schools. I think that unless you want to hire specific peace officers to protect a location, guns should not be there.

I am not against guns... I hunt. My married family is REALLY involved in the gun business. I own guns. But even I am reasonable enough to understand that there is no need for assault type weapons. I can come up with no good reason other then "pleasure". If that is the argument, then there should be more nudity on the tv. That brings a lot of people "pleasure". And please note - that type of pleasure cannot kill... except your eyes....

 

[ColoGI]

The only time I want a gun in any school is if a peace officer is carrying it.

Pleasepleaseplease let this be the turning point against the gun fetishists. We are all tired of their widdle fears requiring them to be armed to the teeth. Please.

 

[btrage]

I am not against guns... I hunt. My married family is REALLY involved in the gun business. I own guns. But even I am reasonable enough to understand that there is no need for assault type weapons. I can come up with no good reason other then "pleasure". If that is the argument, then there should be more nudity on the tv. That brings a lot of people "pleasure".

Now we're talking!!

 

[Blide]

Still amuses me that CU made some dorms where guns are allowed. Unsurprisingly no one has opted to live there. Most students who would stay in dorms aren't old enough to get a concealed weapon permit to make use of those dorms.

 

[michaelskis]

I want to keep guns away from alcohol. I don't care if you think you are careful. Or you think you wouldn't do something stupid. The second you put a gun in a place with alcohol you allow a situation to occur that wouldn't occur if a gun wasn't there. A beating might happen, but a shooting death won't.

I am not for ridiculous gun restrictions, but the idea that putting more guns into our society instead of properly regulating those that are in it, is astounding to me.

I think concealed carry is fine in some places. Keep it out of public spaces, parks, buildings, etc. Keep them away from alcohol. Keep them out of schools. I think that unless you want to hire specific peace officers to protect a location, guns should not be there.

I am not against guns... I hunt. My married family is REALLY involved in the gun business. I own guns. But even I am reasonable enough to understand that there is no need for assault type weapons. I can come up with no good reason other then "pleasure". If that is the argument, then there should be more nudity on the tv. That brings a lot of people "pleasure". And please note - that type of pleasure cannot kill... except your eyes....

I agree that alcohol and guns don't mix. I personally do not think that a person should be permitted to carry (open or concealed) of they have anything to drink or had anything that could alter a persons mind including many medications (medical pot). However I think that is where the line should be. There are so many regulations on CPL's, that I don't think that it should be about place as much as it should be about the person with the advanced licence. I have seen too many situations where someone gets drunk at a summer BBQ. However, the were smart enough to leave their weapon at home.

For me, if I am going to have one drink, even at a friends house, the guns stay locked up in the safe at home.


I also find it interesting that some places in TX has a program that permit teachers to conceal if they have a CPL and advanced training.

 

[Hink]

I have seen too many situations where someone gets drunk at a summer BBQ. However, the were smart enough to leave their weapon at home.

For me, if I am going to have one drink, even at a friends house, the guns stay locked up in the safe at home.


I also find it interesting that some places in TX has a program that permit teachers to conceal if they have a CPL and advanced training.

You are making my point. You are saying that you have good judgement. The law does not care about your judgement. They set rules. A guy passes the test and maybe doesn't have as good of judgement as you... then what? I mean he only had one drink...

Sometimes regulations are too restrictive. Sometimes they aren't strict enough. But many of the gun laws are in place because many of the people who buy guns are stupid. We unfortunately in this country have to have laws that set a standard for the lowest denominator at the cost of those who wouldn't need such regulations.

I wouldn't ever steal from anyone. Why do I need a law that says this is illegal? I have good judgement.

 

[Maister]

You are making my point. You are saying that you have good judgement. The law does not care about your judgement. They set rules. A guy passes the test and maybe doesn't have as good of judgement as you... then what? I mean he only had one drink...

Sometimes regulations are too restrictive. Sometimes they aren't strict enough. But many of the gun laws are in place because many of the people who buy guns are stupid. We unfortunately in this country have to have laws that set a standard for the lowest denominator at the cost of those who wouldn't need such regulations.

I wouldn't ever steal from anyone. Why do I need a law that says this is illegal? I have good judgement.

and why the heck do we have such low speed limits? I can drive quite safely at much higher speeds than most posted speed limits.

 

[imaplanner]

You are making my point. You are saying that you have good judgement. The law does not care about your judgement. They set rules. A guy passes the test and maybe doesn't have as good of judgement as you... then what? I mean he only had one drink...

Sometimes regulations are too restrictive. Sometimes they aren't strict enough. But many of the gun laws are in place because many of the people who buy guns are stupid. We unfortunately in this country have to have laws that set a standard for the lowest denominator at the cost of those who wouldn't need such regulations.

I wouldn't ever steal from anyone. Why do I need a law that says this is illegal? I have good judgement.

Most people think they have good judgement even when they don't. And even people with good judgement can snap and go nuts. On another forum I was having a discussion about this with some gun nuts, and it seems the main argument from the gun nuts needing to have assault weapons and high capacity magazines is that they need it to fight against a tyranical US government. I'm sorry, but that is not only not a good reason, but shows a lack of good judgement IMO, making the case that the very people most inclined to own assault weapons are the very people who should not be allowed to own assault weapons.

Yet at the same time, I feel like not having anyone with protection at schools is clearly a problem. Personally, I would just tax the heck out of assault weapons and use the money to fund security personel at schools.

 

[otterpop]

I wish the incident at Sandy Hook Elementary would be a turning point that causes this country to find ways to curtail rampant gun violence, especially these mass killings. But I don't think it will be. We will talk about it for a while, then it will be forgotten a few days after the victims are buried. I hope I am wrong.

It isn't just a matter of making guns harder to obtain or banning assualt weapons. It reaches further. Into how we diagnose and treat mental illness. Into how we raise our children. Into how we treat our fellow man. Into how we are a nation whose culture is violent and bellicose. Americans will say they love peace, but we have a jacked up military industrial complex and cannot go very long without killing a lot of people in other countries. And killing a lot of people in our own country. It is what we do. We want peace and damned if we aren't going to keep killing you people until you give it to us.

We need to take a long, uncomfortable look at who we are as a nation and as a people. We won't like what we will see and so we will turn away from solutions. To help fix this mess would require hard work and sacrifice and we as a people aren't too inclined to do either for very long.

I am not against guns. I like them. My son and I go shooting. I appreciate them as finely crafted machines. I read books about them. I can identify many guns with one look. I come from a family of gun nuts.

In the past eighteen months I have bought two guns. Eighteen months ago I bought my son his first rifle. When I went to buy the rifle I thought I would have to fill out some paperwork and come back in a few days once the background check was done. From the time I left on my lunch hour until I had the rifle was thirty-eight minutes. Let me repeat that - THIRTY EIGHT MINUTES!!!! No one should be able to purchase a gun on their lunch hour. It takes longer to buy a car. Or have lunch at Perkins.

About a month ago I bought a pistol. On a Saturday. It took about an hour. Come on.

And there should not be an exception for gun show sales. Sorry, no. I've been to enough gun shows to tell you-all that a lot of those people should not only not have guns, they shouldn't be running around loose, unless under a doctor's care and serious pharmaceuticals. And those are the dealers! Nutjobs and paranoids among them and they have dealer licenses.

The answer isn't more guns. The answer sure isn't more people with carry permits. I really don't know what the answer is. It is so complex an issue. To help solve the problem of violence and mass killings would require so much by so many. I don't see that happening.

 

[michaelskis]

You are making my point. You are saying that you have good judgement. The law does not care about your judgement. They set rules. A guy passes the test and maybe doesn't have as good of judgement as you... then what? I mean he only had one drink...

Sometimes regulations are too restrictive. Sometimes they aren't strict enough. But many of the gun laws are in place because many of the people who buy guns are stupid. We unfortunately in this country have to have laws that set a standard for the lowest denominator at the cost of those who wouldn't need such regulations.

I wouldn't ever steal from anyone. Why do I need a law that says this is illegal? I have good judgement.

Yea… I don’t see where the argument is. I think that if you have anything to drink, you should not carry. I think it should be law.
I have seen people who have been carrying (somewhat concealed) in bars drinking. If they have a CPL, they risk losing it. Or they just don’t care.

I wish the incident at Sandy Hook Elementary would be a turning point that causes this country to find ways to curtail rampant gun violence, especially these mass killings. But I don't think it will be. We will talk about it for a while, then it will be forgotten a few days after the victims are buried. I hope I am wrong.

It isn't just a matter of making guns harder to obtain or banning assualt weapons. It reaches further. Into how we diagnose and treat mental illness. Into how we raise our children. Into how we treat our fellow man. Into how we are a nation whose culture is violent and bellicose. Americans will say they love peace, but we have a jacked up military industrial complex and cannot go very long without killing a lot of people in other countries. And killing a lot of people in our own country. It is what we do. We want peace and damned if we aren't going to keep killing you people until you give it to us.

We need to take a long, uncomfortable look at who we are as a nation and as a people. We won't like what we will see and so we will turn away from solutions. To help fix this mess would require hard work and sacrifice and we as a people aren't too inclined to do either for very long.

I am not against guns. I like them. My son and I go shooting. I appreciate them as finely crafted machines. I read books about them. I can identify many guns with one look. I come from a family of gun nuts.

In the past eighteen months I have bought two guns. Eighteen months ago I bought my son his first rifle. When I went to buy the rifle I thought I would have to fill out some paperwork and come back in a few days once the background check was done. From the time I left on my lunch hour until I had the rifle was thirty-eight minutes. Let me repeat that - THIRTY EIGHT MINUTES!!!! No one should be able to purchase a gun on their lunch hour. It takes longer to buy a car. Or have lunch at Perkins.

About a month ago I bought a pistol. On a Saturday. It took about an hour. Come on.

And there should not be an exception for gun show sales. Sorry, no. I've been to enough gun shows to tell you-all that a lot of those people should not only not have guns, they shouldn't be running around loose, unless under a doctor's care and serious pharmaceuticals. And those are the dealers! Nutjobs and paranoids among them and they have dealer licenses.

The answer isn't more guns. The answer sure isn't more people with carry permits. I really don't know what the answer is. It is so complex an issue. To help solve the problem of violence and mass killings would require so much by so many. I don't see that happening.

I agree that there needs to be better screening before people can buy guns or get a CPL, including mental competency. I also agree that there needs to be more done to address mental illness in the US.

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

Jeez, and I thought we might get by not talking about gun control-silly me:not:
Regarding mental health-It's a complicated issue full of good ideas gone wrong. Add to this that the the feds and state governments have been defunding mental health programs for years.

 

[ofos]

Jeez, and I thought we might get by not talking about gun control-silly me:not:
Regarding mental health-It's a complicated issue full of good ideas gone wrong. Add to this that the the feds and state governments have been defunding mental health programs for years.

Breaking my self-imposed boycott of political threads just to say that the quick fix of gun control will be more of a feel good effort than anything else if mental health isn't also seriously addressed again and I just don't see that happening. I know I'm stepping on "free speech" here but I also think that the glorification of violence in movies and video games plays a part in these disasters for people who can't clearly see the line between fantasy and reality.

 

[michaelskis]

Breaking my self-imposed boycott of political threads just to say that the quick fix of gun control will be more of a feel good effort than anything else if mental health isn't also seriously addressed again and I just don't see that happening. I know I'm stepping on "free speech" here but I also think that the glorification of violence in movies and video games plays a part in these disasters for people who can't clearly see the line between fantasy and reality.

I agree that you might be correct in many regards. For my family, we don't let our kids watch much TV or movies, and thus another reason that we will not permit video games. We did buy the oldest a Nerf dart game for Christmas, but it is step one on teaching him about guns and marksmanship. We will have very strict rules and if he breaks the rules, he will have to watch me break his gun into many little pieces with my shop vice.

 

[ColoGI]

the quick fix of gun control will be more of a feel good effort than anything else if mental health isn't also seriously addressed again and I just don't see that happening. I know I'm stepping on "free speech" here but I also think that the glorification of violence in movies and video games plays a part in these disasters for people who can't clearly see the line between fantasy and reality.

Control of large magazines and semi-automatic machines designed for the sole purpose of killing lots of people (including children) is not a feel-good effort. It is common sense. Few things are simpler than that.

Also, in addition to glorification of violence in movies and video games, the corporate media are always there with their 24/7 coverage that attracts advertisers.

And it is politically taboo, but I agree that the health care in this country needs overhaul, including mental health. No other developed country on the planet is so backward as us. This backwardness is part of the gun problem, IMHO.

 

[btrage]

Control of large magazines and semi-automatic machines designed for the sole purpose of killing lots of people (including children) is not a feel-good effort. It is common sense. Few things are simpler than that.

Also, in addition to glorification of violence in movies and video games, the corporate media are always there with their 24/7 coverage that attracts advertisers.

And it is politically taboo, but I agree that the health care in this country needs overhaul, including mental health. No other developed country on the planet is so backward as us. This backwardness is part of the gun problem, IMHO.

I'm somewhat naive when it comes to mental health care in this country. What actually needs to be done to improve our care? Is it simply making mental health care covered under more health insurance plans?

 

[Hink]

I'm somewhat naive when it comes to mental health care in this country. What actually needs to be done to improve our care? Is it simply making mental health care covered under more health insurance plans?

A good portion is making quality care available to those who need it... or in many cases, those who need it for someone they love. Insurance premiums, access to care, and the stigmatization of that care are all problems.

 

[mgk920]

Control of large magazines and semi-automatic machines designed for the sole purpose of killing lots of people (including children) is not a feel-good effort. It is common sense. Few things are simpler than that.

Also, in addition to glorification of violence in movies and video games, the corporate media are always there with their 24/7 coverage that attracts advertisers.

And it is politically taboo, but I agree that the health care in this country needs overhaul, including mental health. No other developed country on the planet is so backward as us. This backwardness is part of the gun problem, IMHO.

I'll jump in here. Pretty much everything that is being proposed in the line of 'gun control' would have had zero effect on any of the mass killings over at least the past couple of decades - they are 100% 'feel good' ideas.

Limiting the size of magazines? The bad guy will just bring more magazines. They take at most a second or two to change out. Smaller ones would probably be easier to carry, too.

Preventing the mentally ill from owning and carrying? The most recent bad guy owned no firearms and was denied one from a commercial retailer a few days before the attack via a background check. That law worked. He stole his weapons and ammo.

'Assault' weapon ban? Sounds like going after cosmetically dressed up common deer hunting rifles. OK, then what? Besides, what IS an 'assault weapon'?

'Gun-Free School' zone? Did THAT do any good? Also, the doors on the building were buzzer-locked during the day, like most school doors are nowadays. For the attacker, that was no problem - a couple of quick shots and the door was open. IMHO, at least principals should have ready access to (in a locked safe in his or her office perhaps) and proficiency in the use of deadly force. That would have saved lives.

Yes, I agree that our mental health system is seriously broken and needs fixing. What exactly, I don't know. For as long as there have been people, people have been 'snapping' and going berserk. The worst ever school mass killing in USA history was in 1927 (in Bath, MI), at a time when fully automatic weapons (ie, Thompson sub-machine guns) were completely legal and unregulated. The attacker used bombs.

Mike

 

[ColoGI]

Pretty much everything that is being proposed in the line of 'gun control' would have had zero effect on any of the mass killings over at least the past couple of decades - they are 100% 'feel good' ideas.

Limiting the size of magazines? The bad guy will just bring more magazines.

Mike

I do appreciate the scare quotes around 'gun control'. That's all we need, right there. Anyhoo, here in America - and I don't live too far from the theater in Aurora (gosh, we all know what that means, don't we) - the white male in last week's killing, or the week before, or the month before, or the month before that, used a large capacity clip or even a legal drum magazine to kill.

More and more people don't care any more about gun fetishist's fee-fees. Semi-auto weapons and large clips are part of the problem. The sane walking among us see that. Full stop. We need to restore sanity to this country. The NRA and their corporate lobbyists are funding a minority of voters. They can go away now.

 

[mgk920]

Also, unlike many others in here, I will *never* blame inanimate objects for the damage done when someone misuses them. Period.

Mike

 

[imaplanner]

I do appreciate the scare quotes around 'gun control'. That's all we need, right there. Anyhoo, here in America - and I don't live too far from the theater in Aurora (gosh, we all know what that means, don't we) - the white male in last week's killing, or the week before, or the month before, or the month before that, used a large capacity clip or even a legal drum magazine to kill. .

Swapping out a magazine might take only a few seconds, but that IS a big difference. No civilian in a civilized society needs a magazine that can fire off 40 or 50 rounds in under a minute without pausing to reload.

More and more people don't care any more about gun fetishist's fee-fees. Semi-auto weapons and large clips are part of the problem. The sane walking among us see that. Full stop. We need to restore sanity to this country. The NRA and their corporate lobbyists are funding a minority of voters. They can go away now.

I agree. Nobody is going to ban all guns and the gun nuts are not the victims here. Gun-fetishers and their fantasies about overthrowing our own government are a clear minority and its about time we ignore them.

 

[ColoGI]

Also, unlike many others in here, I will *never* blame inanimate objects for the damage done when someone misuses them. Period.
Mike

I like it - since assault weapons don't cause damage, we can restrict them. Outstanding.

Excellent, too, that I'm glad we can discuss inane gun fetishists and their white fears and how that doesn't need to drive policy any more, as they are a voting minority and declining in number. So we can tighten some of these inane and dangerous ALEC- and NRA-based inane laws.

And also how civil society can discuss the fact that white men mass murders would have killed fewer people with a steak knife, machete, brass knuckles, box cutter, ice pick, tazer, tweezers, tire iron, twitter hash tag, Bruce Lee-wielded nunchucks, man purse with rolls of pennies inside. Civil society is tired of the inanity. Our country is sick and needs help, and this symptom is a good way to start taking our country back.

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

I'm somewhat naive when it comes to mental health care in this country. What actually needs to be done to improve our care? Is it simply making mental health care covered under more health insurance plans?

First, there is no link between violent video games and mass murders. I think there are several studies to this effect. As for the mental health care, it's several fold. A lot of the old institutions got shut down for several reasons. They were trying lessen the stigma of mental illness that isolating the mentally ill caused. Sadly, governments took this ball and ran with it and closed the institutions and didn't come up with an effective Plan B, making sure people took their meds.The net result is that prison now became the homes for the mentally ill.

I've noticed that some insurance companies now cover conseling services and employers offer these types of services through the local mental health clinic. This is a relatively recent event. Other problems include the realization that some people are so mentally ill that they need to be isolated from the general public because they pose a harm to both themselves and others. There is still a pretty significant stigmatization of the mentally ill and their families. There is also a severe lack of understanding about mental illness, the different types and treatments. The toll it takes on the families of the mentally ill.

 

[Dan]

Thought you might want to know what the spin regarding Newtown is like in a very left-leaning community.

On the local community radio station, the growing meme is "Why is nobody morning for the thousands of innocent children that the United States is targeting in drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan?" There's some talk of the need for gun control, and hypothesis of the underlying reasons for such massacres, but otherwise it's all about drones and Afghanistan. It's the same kind of tu quoque argument, whataboutism, or appeal to hypocrisy that I've been seeing from the far right with dismissive statements like "Why is nobody mourning for the millions of innocent babies we kill every year through abortion?"