> So apparently TNA isn't going to help with Zema Ion's medical bills from his appendicitis and tumor issues and has a fund raiser set up here: https://www.giveforward.com/fundraiser/6hd2/zematna?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Share&utm_campaign=Isupport
If he was Canadian he wouldn't need a fundraiser. Just saying. Hope things work out for him though. The lack of medical coverage in a sport where guys beat the shit out of their bodies is pretty ludicrous.
Part of me feels horrible that he has a tumor in his colon. Hopefully it is not cancerous. He is a great performer I believe and should be showcased more than he is.ReplyDelete
Another part of me thinks that he was a bit irresponsible not getting health insurance. It's for reasons like this that paying what might be seemingly high payments for insurance would be worth it in the end. Hopefully things work out for the better for him.
If he was Canadian wouldn't he have to wait months to see a doctor?ReplyDelete
I'll always love wrestling but these guys are treated worse than circus animals. Actors and pro athletes have unions. Maybe its time for wrestlers to get oneReplyDelete
I don't know how the American health care system works, but should TNA pay for his medical bills? Did they pay for that guy who broke his neck?ReplyDelete
Could he even afford proper health care on a TNA salary?ReplyDelete
Can't believe this has (as of this posting) 6 up-votes. You are on a global network that affords you access to accurate information. Utilize it.ReplyDelete
For those wondering, the Affordable Healthcare Act came into effect on January 1st, 2013. Although implementation won't be at 100% until the start of 2014, Zima certainly could've bought healthcare coverage at a reasonable price.ReplyDelete
Coming in 2013: The Health Insurance Marketplace
Individuals and small businesses can buy affordable and qualified health benefit plans in this new transparent and competitive insurance marketplace.
You can read more here:
the right to toss out uneducated opinions as fact is what makes Americans Americans.ReplyDelete
We pride ourselves on that.
In all seriousness, I've read and heard before of long wait times for specialists in Canada because the supply is smaller due to less spending. This is not true?ReplyDelete
We also pride ourselves on not knowing the difference between a question and an opinion.ReplyDelete
you assuming the phrase "transparent and competitive" is a legit concept. It is not. Until government exchanges are up and running, there is no incentive for private insurers to offer "transparent and competitive" policies for individuals. I worked in healthcare and I can assure you that health insurers look at those who want an individual policy to purchase as being high risk because very few people who are under 50 and in good health will seek to purchase health insurance. It is the whole point of the ACA. LIke auto insurance, risk must be spread out to contain costs. Currently it is not. Being a wrestler and a young male, the odds of Zema Ion finding health insurance for under 1000 a month are almost nil. On a TNA salary health insurance would be cost prohibitive.ReplyDelete
There is a reason that the rest of the industrialized world has a single payer health insurance system and it is not that the United States is right and every other country is wrong. Our cost per capita is the highest in the industrialized world. While a small portion of that is due to innovation and technology, the majority is due to administrative costs (15-20% at private companies vs. 7% for medicare) and profit.
I live in Michigan and was friends with many hockey players and others who lived in Canada (including my aunt). No, in general it is not, particularly for emergency and life-threatening care.ReplyDelete
it was more about the up votes, not your questionReplyDelete
How was Rush's broadcast yesterday?ReplyDelete
true, they aren't meeting benchmarks, but the wait time in America ain't great either. Some specialists take 2 months to see a patient and that can be for more serious care. I didn't say they were perfect, I just take issue with those who like to act like Canadians hate their healthcare because it jibes with their ideology down in the states.ReplyDelete
So what you're saying is that even though the government website says this is implemented as of 01/01/13, Obama's government is already late in getting this out? Shocking!!ReplyDelete
Right, but the original poster wasn't comparing anything to the US yet you still said he made an uninformed opinion. You're wrong.ReplyDelete
This warms my heart. Everyone loves a redemption story, I know I do.ReplyDelete
Too bad he didn't have Damien with him.
Insurance and prescription companies are totally out of control in the US. Nothing will get fixed until they get regulated, they are worse than the banks.ReplyDelete
No disagreement there, but that doesn't change the fact that the Government was unable (according to Comdukakis) to implement the law by the time it says on their website it would be implemented. I don't want to hear anymore excuses from the overpaid, overstuffed, government.ReplyDelete
Try to decipher from this http://healthreform.dc.gov/DC/Health+Reform what he would have qualified for.ReplyDelete
A line in the AHAPPA (which I was a huge supporter of) doesn't necessarily make it true. America still has the highest insurance costs in the world (I can probably find a source if I need to) and I assume that his rates would have been astronomical... that said he should still know to buy it on his own given his profession (not that his profession was responsible for what is wrong with him now)
They absolutely need to unionize, as do many other industries (particularly retail and food service workers) but it seems unlikely at this point... it is going to take the U.S. government going to something less primitive and discompassionate like virtually every other industrialized country in the world has done.
Also, thank you for calling it by its correct name and not Obamacare... that is essentially a slur at this point.
Were these medical problems caused by wrestling?ReplyDelete
A couple of things:ReplyDelete
1. There are non-profit sources out there that will guide you in order to figure out where you fit and what you qualify for under the healthcare act.
2. I agree that a union in this medium is necessary. It's crazy to think that if all wrestlers banded together, like the actors guild, paid dues, etc, that they might be able to fund their own healthcare with the negotiated help of WWE, TNA, ROH, etc. The key here is the WWE though as they are essentially the NFL.
3. Disagree 100% on fast food and retail. Those are low skill jobs, by unionizing them, you're going to increase costs considerably. What's next, supermarket unions? No thank you.
4. I'm a staunch independent. Believe in small government (mostly), low taxes, don't care about gay marriage (marry who you want) and think wrestlers should unionize, but not retail/fast food. I don't have a real party that represents me. However, though I think Obama has done mostly a terrible job, I thought Bush was worse. I try to stay out of insulting any of the politicians thus I won't call it "Obamacare", but I also won't call Tea Party members "t-baggers". I think stopping the insults is the first step to trying to reach some consensus, although you'll never have 100% agreements, nor should you.
As someone who has great health care and insurance AND already higher taxes than I want to pay...Obama can the AHA can go fuck themselves. That is allReplyDelete
You probably got to pull down more than 750 a week to buy health careReplyDelete
I'm sure he's making enough.ReplyDelete
I think its crazy how little TNA guys make. Like you would just assume that by virtue of being on TV and touring these guys would at minimum make very high 5 figures or low 6 figures (the mid card dudes anyways). Its mind blowing to me that in a profession that dangerous, where the organizers/promoters will gleefully toss you aside like garbage if you get hurt, guys risk that shit for less money than guys who clean up my office. It really makes me think I should have far more appreciation for the guys in TNA (and ROH and I bet even half the WWE roster) who really are just doing this because they love it, and not to make money.ReplyDelete
Some of the supermarkets in cali have unions. A few years ago they went on strike. It was odd.ReplyDelete
Some people have a hard time with reading comprehension. Probably a Canadian thing.ReplyDelete
Are you? I heard that low-card guys get paid pennies.ReplyDelete
I'm going to be a little bit more angry at the people that have been fucking us for decades, not the government that's finally trying to protect it's populace.ReplyDelete
According to DM and a few shoots I've caught the UPPER midcard guys get 750 a show. The low end dudes get much less. Zema might not even make 3k a monthReplyDelete
Yeah from taking too many atomic dropsReplyDelete
Those people are not always, but in many cases, one in the same. If you think the government is "finally trying to protect it's populace", you're being naive. You'll learn as you get older.ReplyDelete
TNA aren't the WWE by any stretch of the imagination, but they are on in quite a few different countries. Do they just have really shitty deals with the various channels? Considering they film once and that goes to numerous countriesyou would think that it would make them a decent wack.ReplyDelete
If he does make it into the next rumble they should just play up his rehabilitation, give him a fluke win and let him challenge for the world title. Showing one of pro-wrestlings most infamous drug addicts pulling himself together would make a great and compelling story that would be a lot better then whatever thrown together sort elimination chanceReplyDelete
Considering the money TNA's pissed away on nothing over the years, couldn't they cover this? Being seen as a company that will take care of your employees isn't the worst thing in the world.ReplyDelete
Most of which would have to go to the insurance, making it pointless to even work. The independent contractor thing has to die. At least most of the WWE talent is paid enough to afford things like this, and the WWE will cover things that go above and beyond... but it sets a god awful industry standard for other promotions.ReplyDelete
This is interesting:ReplyDelete
Again, thanks for the education on this.
The exchanges were never planned to be implemented in 2013.ReplyDelete
Supermarkets in Mass. are unionized as well. And the world still has not ended.ReplyDelete
Which costs, for the workers (union dues) or the consumers (price point)? The point of unionization isn't to keep costs low for consumers. That's exactly why someone working in retail can't make a living wage -- it's been a rush to the bottom for the last thirty years at the expense of wages.ReplyDelete
And you're entirely wrong on fast food and retail being low skill. Many companies in these industries require some kind of education to advance beyond the bottom rungs. You can't get promoted to being store management for any company in almost any industry today without some kind of business degree, and an Associates won't even cut it in most cases.
The "customer service" part of these companies (fast food and retail) usually is low-skill. Anything beyond that is either management or at the business' choice.ReplyDelete
Most of fast food stores have 1 manager per shift, the rest are hourlies. So, yeah, it's low skill work.ReplyDelete
Mass. is ranked among the highest states to live in on an annual basis. I lived there for a year, no thanks.ReplyDelete
Where does the management come from? They don't just appear out of the blue one day. College grads with business degrees aren't knocking each other over to work fast food.ReplyDelete
That also doesn't negate the fact that skill isn't a requirement for unionization; if anything, low skill workers are even more in need of a collective bargaining group to support them because they're a group that stands to have the least protection in the workplace.
So you're going to sacrifice the consumer in order to have unions in McDonalds and TJ Maxx? There's a reason why (among other reasons) most of the heaviest unionized states also rank among the highest cost of living states.ReplyDelete
And the business models for most of these stores are such that you don't need a college degree. You work your way up through the ranks, learn the systems and you can run the store or the cookie cutter fast food joint. They're built as low-cost machines.
but it is important to note that those states with the lowest per capita incomes are also those who have Right to work laws and the lowest union membership. Those states with higher union membership tend to have higher incomes.ReplyDelete
You're right, they've been trying to protect us since the beginning of civilization.ReplyDelete
That is the point of the "social contract", an organization is great than the individual parts. And we have rules in this society to prevent the powerful from destroying the weak.
That's why we have laws, they're not there to destroy our freedoms, they're there to ensure the survival of our liberty. In a truly "free" society, the strong would rule and the weak would take whatever scraps they could get.
You're a small government guy, right? I'm just curious if part of that is a belief in less regulation.
P.S. And you're really going to go with the "you're too young to understand such things" argument? Really guy?
and yes I would pay a few cents more per burger or for clothes so that someone could have health care, make more money, and work full time. and a few cents more is all it would take per product when you do the math. It is why I always get irritated with those that claim minimum wage increases would bankrupt companies. A small business with 10 employees would have an additional cost of 40.00 dollars a day with a 50 cent increase in minimum wage. A business like McDonalds could make that up in 1 hour just by raising the price of each item by 5 cents.ReplyDelete
I don't normally use that argument, but seeing that there are countless of examples of how governments have trampled their populace vs. how governments have protected their populace, it was a statement that screamed young ideology and naivete. I apologize and won't use it again in the future.ReplyDelete
I think government should have a hand in regulation, but I think it should come at a smaller scale meaning local government. The federal government should be there to protect the basic freedoms of equality and freedom, but not be in every facet of your life.
You're right, unions are fucking stupid and anything that keeps the prices down is a-ok. I mean, just because the workers have no power or aren't organized doesn't mean that their lives are in danger or anything like that.ReplyDelete
Oh wait. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Savar_building_collapse
I'm not saying to sacrifice the consumer, you're simply putting the consumer above the worker. In an ideal situation there would be a mutually beneficial outcome where we could keep prices cheap and pay everyone a living wage. But very few companies are willing to operate with a conscience like Costco or Hobby Lobby, so it's a pipe dream.ReplyDelete
I've worked in these jobs off and on to pay for college. To become store management in anything other than a franchise operation it's a necessity to have some kind of college education. I saw people with these companies for years passed over by someone hired within only a year or two's time BECAUSE that person had an education. I'll concede that if its a franchise or owned by a smaller company that holds a number of franchises, you're probably right. But go to a Walmart or a Target or a Wawa (I'm showing my location bias here, but whatever) and all members of store management have college educations.
We've had a string of really shitty governors.ReplyDelete
Plus the gerrymandering fucked us hard in the senate.
the problem with local regulation is that you get a hodgepodge. We have a very mobile population and in a global economy, much less a nationwide economy in a huge country like the US, having different regulations for 50 different states, or 1000 different cities is problematic. We already have companies shopping states and communities based on who will give them tax breaks, free land, or has the most arduous laws for union organizing. do we really want one city able to offer less pollution regulation than another in order to attract industry (and pollution is one area where it impacts other communities that have no say).ReplyDelete
You're right, cause the health insurance reform was for you. Having health care for everybody doesn't result in an overall healthier more productive society.ReplyDelete
But hey, put your trust in government to protect us... ;-)ReplyDelete
By your thought process, you might as well introduce...the New...World...Order...Brotha!ReplyDelete
Government isn't perfect, I'm not saying it is. We need reform badly, but just because the system if broke and bent doesn't mean we should throw it away. Especially when we've seen the consequences of uninhibited corporate greed.ReplyDelete
We elect the people who get put into office. We support the parties that nominate those people. If there's a failing on the part of the government it's as much a failure on the part of the people as it is the system.ReplyDelete
BTW, I'm against big corporation in the same way I'm against big government.ReplyDelete
I was watching this awesome documentary about indie record stores and how corporate America has essentially bought radio. The Telecommunications Act of 1996, signed by Bill Clinton, basically gave corporations the power to buy as many radio stations as they wanted and pushed out many independent stations. Now, about 10 companies own all of public media. I find that disgusting. I'm 100% against monopolization. I try to be consistent, but I fail everyday being human and all.
So, my point, putting faith in a huge faceless government is like putting faith into a huge faceless corporation.
Right, but the bigger the government, the more people are put "into office" that we didn't vote for. How many "Czar's" has Obama created? How many people were put into important positions by Bush that we have no idea about?ReplyDelete
LOL. no, but I am firm believer in lots of regulation. I wish I didn't have to be, but under the American system of capitalism (privatize the profit, socialize the risk through tax breaks, government bailouts, etc.) our business owners and leaders have repeatedly shown they will screw over this nation and their local communities if they can. Whether it is working the worker to death under horrid conditions, dumping toxic waste in our water, sending jobs overseas and devastating a community, etc. our business leaders do it. I don't have a better system, but capitalism has shown itself to fail in a country as large as ours and in a global marketplace. It's a dandy system in the local village when you want to buy apples and you can compare prices and quality while also being aware that Farmer Ted treats his workers badly and uses pesticides while Farmer Fred treat Little Jimmy great and has chemical free apples. Once you move to huge, industrial and post-industrial nations like ours, the system is broken. Marx was very much correct in his assessment of capitalism, he was just wrong about the end and the solution (or at least so far). Religion (and technology) are the opiates of the masses. The Republicans have used the poor folks on the religious right for 34 years, taking their money, distracting them by paying lip service to their pet issues like school prayer, abortion, etc. all while using their votes to elect reps who give business whatever they want. And the rest of us just gleefully tweet on our iphones while downloading some music while wages continue to drop vs. inflation, job security is non-existent, health care gets more expensive, and income equality is the worst it has been in history in this country.ReplyDelete
Did you read this thread? Go ahead and check out my comments and tell me where I said unions are fucking stupid. Go, I'll wait here.ReplyDelete
Government's trampling peoples rights isn't a problem that will be solved by having less government. The populace just needs to be in better control of our government.ReplyDelete
My main point is that laws are put in place to prevent anybody from trampling our rights, from our neighbors or foreign powers or corporations or even the government itself.
I don't believe that a large, powerful government, is necessarily a tyrannical government. I don't think that abolishing public schools and trains are going to prevent governmental abuses.
I'm a pretty hardcore socialist, just to set the record straight here.
And what regulations do you believe in? Just curious.
but with a huge faceless government, at least we get a vote. You point that as "bad" deregulation. I would argue that almost all privatization and deregulation under Reagan (who really started the push), Bush the first, Clinton, Dubbya, and Obama has been counterproductive. the media is the best example, but also the airline industry is another deregulation disaster.ReplyDelete
Well, we've had this back and forth before and we'll agree to disagree since I know you're a Keynisian economics guy and those have shown to fail across Europe. There's no perfect system. Globalization has destroyed much of the smaller government approach, so I'll give you that, but I can't give up hope that it can return at some point in my lifetime. Globalization has encouraged more poverty and more corporation dominance. BTW, you want to talk environmental destruction, someone should be punishing India and China because they don't give a fuck.ReplyDelete
whenever you have a profit motive, you will cut corners. I'm not in favor of cutting corners in educating our children, building our bridges, keeping our building structurally sound, etc. You make some great examples. It is like the post office. It wasn't broken, the GOP wanted to privatize it so they passed a law making them the only agency or company that has to pay for Future pension obligations now, and then point to the huge deficit as to why it's broken. Well imagine how broken it will be when UPS, Fed Ex, or whoever decide it isn't profitable to deliver to rural areas. government isn't designed to be profitable or the most efficient, it's designed to provide the best service to the people that need it, or in some cases everyone, regardless of cost. You can't run government like a business. While there are certainly many, many examples of government waster, privatizing many government operations is NOT the answer. We had mass privatization in Iraq and literally (and the correct way, not Gorilla Monsoon) hundreds of billiions of dollars were paid and not accounted for. Unpatriotic companies (capitalists) STOLE from us, the taxpayer. And nothing was done because, like with most privatization, the groups involved were well connected.ReplyDelete
You do realize this argument runs counter to your smaller government argument? The Telecomm Act of 1996 was designed to deregulate the communications industry (i.e. less government interference), which it did. Previous to that, there were government-mandated limits on the number of media outlets that could be owned in one geographic region by a company.ReplyDelete
This isn't meant as a personal attack. I just wanted to know if you recognized this contradiction.
So you want 100% regulation? Wouldn't that give all of the power to the government and create a huge state of bureaucracy? Ever seen the movie Brazil, that's from our era.ReplyDelete
It does. I'm not a black and white guy on everything. I wrote in another post on this thread that I try to be consistent, but I fail every day...sigh.ReplyDelete
absolutely. And China's pollution impacts California. It travels that far. As for Europe, much of their issue is newer members of the EU dragging down stronger countries. But countries like Sweden and Germany are doing fine and I think great examples of how to run a smaller economy. the truth is our country is just too big. Plain and simple.ReplyDelete
not 100% regulation. but when there is reason, then regulate. We have regulations, because there was a need. If 1890 there wasn't companies making people work 18 hour days, 7 days a week in filthy conditions, we wouldn't need worker protections. If companies didn't drop toxins in our water, we wouldn't need to have laws that prevent that. I would love it companies acted like good citizens and paid their workers fairly, took care of their communities, remember to be good neighbors, etc. Evidence shows they don't.ReplyDelete
I also don't agree with this. I'm not a fan of Obama. The guy straight up lied in many cases to get elected. The point here is, civic engagement is the only way to prevent government abuse, not just destroying government at every opportunity. That isn't just limited to people protesting and shit, it also means a free, unbiased press (believe me, the honeymoon is over after the AP fiasco), people staying active at the local level as well as the national (because those votes are even more important), and holding politicians to their promises. People will often waffle on a candidate because he's a lesser of two evils. Don't. If he lied, don't vote for him. I didn't vote for Obama a second time.ReplyDelete
not to mention that of a big part of the deficit was started by patently illegal behavior by Enron that cost that state hundreds of billions, both the government and residents. Take away Enron's criminal acts, and I think Gray Davis (my former boss technically, although I was low level so I never met him) serves two terms and the deficit is nowhere near what it is. that said, prop 13 makes the state overly-reliant on sales and income tax, so when a recession hits, the state is usually hit harder than other states who have more recession proof sources of income (property taxes tend to go down slower due to lag time in reassessing property).ReplyDelete
"Should" is a loaded word. I think almost everyone would agree that they "should" in a moral sense.ReplyDelete
But no, they are not legally obligated to because Zema Ion's condition didn't occur because of his job. They had to pay for Jesse Sorensen's medical bills because it happened at work.
It's one of those things that should NEVER work and should be considered a universally terrible idea...ReplyDelete
but somehow you know a healthy Jake would make it work.
Yeah, I think it's important to have at least some regulation, especially in sensitive industries, but as Commie was getting at with businesses that employ lots of workers -- doing the "right thing" isn't always hard, especially when our own personal definition of what that is can slide around freely if nobody is checking up on us once in awhile, but doing what's best for everyone? That's a lot harder.ReplyDelete
That's (ideally) why I am generally happy with the mechanism of paying taxes to begin with -- you're really going to count on me to be proactively charitable year after year and take care of those adequately who have less with extra money I have? It's in our own human nature to do what is best for ourselves first, and I'll just spend it on crap I don't need. Now taxes not being properly distributed is another issue and one that needs addressing, but I don't think regulation and taxes should always be seen as intrusions or blockades to progress -- sometimes they are necessary for ensuring a base standard of life for everyone -- that's a notion I support and can make concessions to achieve.
Someone NEEDS to print this out in 900-size bold, and have it flash on every possible medium for a minute every day.ReplyDelete
Great movie btw lol. I saw that in a film class and it sort of blew my mind.ReplyDelete
Depends on how I feel, this beats out Time Bandits as my favorite Gilliam flick.ReplyDelete
I've got an IOU from the state for my tax return. Wonder what would happen if I gave them one? California definitely isn't for everyone. You really have to be laid back to stomach some ofthis shit. Plus the weed helps.ReplyDelete
I was like six when all that Enron shit went down, so my understanding is...minimal.
Still, the West Coast is the Best Coast.
But we have control (supposedly) of how governments run. We are (supposedly) a democratic nation. We don't have that same control of corporations.ReplyDelete
You were speaking against unions for low-skill jobs. I was exaggerating for dramatic effect, just like in infomercials.ReplyDelete
Working in a garment factory doesn't require a four year education.
I know that the conditions of a factory and the conditions of retail are different. But unions are formed to protect those who don't have the individual strength to protect themselves.
We also spend the highest per capita on health care yet, by all standards, we're lagging behind a huge chunk of the developed world.ReplyDelete
Or even the not-so-developed world. Look at Cuba.ReplyDelete
We should all stop arguing about politics and agree on the awesomeness of Faux Tony Schiavone:ReplyDelete
At Nathans. "Ill have the Man of a Thousand Holds meal please". Cashier seems puzzled. "ITS THE CORN DOG & FRIES MEAL" I SCREAM. #LuvDean— Faux Tony Schiavone (@SchiavoneTony) May 18, 2013
I always liked Ion. Hope he ends up okay.ReplyDelete
I agree. But I also take it further.ReplyDelete
Food, shelter, education, healthcare. Without these basic needs, a person cannot function. Nobody in this country should worry about how they're going to eat tonight, or where they're going to sleep tonight.
People complain about government efficiency, but poverty induced obesity and homelessness are going to cost us more money in the long term in healthcare costs and reduced productivity then giving people an apartment and a fucking salad.
Getting enough food to eat should be a measurement of success in the 21st fucking century. Sleeping inside is not an accomplishment, it's a basic human right. The vast majority of our population should be putting their efforts towards creating masterpieces of art or invention, or scientific discovery, not working hand-to-mouth.
If they are independent contractors they probably don't even qualify for Social Security and Meidicare... depending upon the way they handle their taxes... very sad.ReplyDelete
Technically they came up with the Teabagger themselves... it apparently took someone telling them that Teabagging is a sex act...ReplyDelete
Do unions require people to be at a job for a certain amount of time before they join or anything like that (I know next to nothing about unions)? Because if so it would be kind of pointless to try it in the fast food business with all the turnover they have.ReplyDelete
Ya but thank of that sweet, sweet Bullet Train coming to California. Bakersfield to Merced babyReplyDelete
All these comments make me think New York isn't so bad after all.ReplyDelete
An trait common among all homo sapiens is greed and deceipt. I hate to be cynical, but humans run governments.ReplyDelete
depends on the laws in the state. in closed shop states, someone must join the union to work at a business that has a union. If you wanted to work for GM in Michigan, you had to join the union when you were hired and pay dues (or opt out and pay a slightly lower fair share fee that went to the charity of your choice as payment for the union negotiating your contract and benefits). Now Michigan, like most southern states and some others, are right to work states. Right to work means you can't force someone to join the union. The problem becomes free riders. Plenty of folks are happy to have the union negotiate higher wages, a decent health care plan, safe conditions, etc. but if they aren't forced to pay dues, they will free ride and not do so. Right to work laws are primarily designed for 2 purposes. The first is to hurt union membership and lessen the ability of unions to support Democratic candidates for office. The 2nd is to discourage union membership because it tends to result in lower wages, which makes businesses donating to the GOP happy. The National Labor Relations Board has become ineffective over the past 30 years and has allowed blatant intimidation of workers who try to organize, up to and including termination or threatening to close factories or offices if workers vote to unionize.ReplyDelete
So for fast food in a non RTW state, dues would be paid, turnover or not. In a RTW state, their would be no chance because very few workers would pay union dues on a minimum wage paycheck.
C'mmon, if you're going to play the intimidation card, be fair and play both. It's not like unions have a history of being saints with folks that legit don't want to join. Not everyone has to be categorized as a "free rider". I get what you're saying but your response is a tad one-sided.ReplyDelete
OK, thanks. I'm learning all kinds of shit on the blog today!ReplyDelete
yeah i'm old. Turn 40 this summer. I was 26 and 27 during that period with businesses voluntarily turning lights down, rolling blackouts, energy costs 10 times what they were. Here was a system with regulation where the regulators were tricked by crooks into thinking there really was a power crisis. I never had rolling blackouts at my apartment though because I lived 2 blocks from a hospital and those areas were exempt because of the needed medical equipment.ReplyDelete
There is lots l love about California. I like how liberal folks are in many places (but contrary to popular belief, they are very conservative in the farm country, the small towns, Orange County, and the suburbs of San Diego). I like the variety of entertainment so close by (mountains, oceans, amusement parks, museums, aquariums, etc.). But when I go back to visit i hate the traffic, the crowds. Too much hustle and bustle.
The Smartest Guys In The Room is a fascinating documentary.ReplyDelete
I'm speaking recent history. Yes there was a time where unions could intimidate prospective voters on whether to unionize, but these days the power is all with business. And let's not forget that in the first part of the 20th century those who tried to unionize were beaten, shot with fire hoses, even killed, all with the tacit or open approval of government and the law enforcement. But since the 80s and the unions massive loss of power (starting with Reagan squashing the air traffic controller strike), unions have been on the defensive and subject to much intiimidation and illegal tactics.ReplyDelete
I got one of my professors to show that in one of my public administration classes for my masters.ReplyDelete
There were some disturbing reports in the Sandy aftermath about unions intimidating workers from other states that came in to help. Look it up, it happened.ReplyDelete
Yep, everyone should see that doc at least once in their life. Should be used as a learning tool of what to look for and how to prevent shit like that from happening again.ReplyDelete
I don't necessarily agree that they should. They should likely have insurance for their wrestlers but that can be tricky since wrestling is such a risky thing anyway. We saw how many of the Lloyds of London guys managed to spend years not wrestling based on injuries that magically cleared up with their policies ending. TNA would lose a lot of existing talent if they had their guys fully insured. Angle for one would probably get to spend the rest of his life on disability. With Ion's issue just being health related, I don't think TNA should go out of pocket. I felt the same way about Kamala.ReplyDelete
What was the name of that one? I think I started to watch it once.ReplyDelete
I Need That Record.ReplyDelete
I take it you don't work in social services then. Or believe in civil liberties. Cuomo should be strung up a fucking tree.ReplyDelete
At its core, wrestling is no different than a carny act and the fans are rubes.ReplyDelete
During the Monday Night Wars, wrestlers' union was the fact that there are two giant companies vying against each other, and they'll throw big bucks around to stop someone from defecting/joining the other side.
DIDN'T JESSE NEAL APPLY FOR FOOD STAMPS?!ReplyDelete
750 IS SUCH BULLSHIT. DONT THE NXT GUYS MAKE 500 A SHOW?
THIS IS THE BEST COMMENT I EVER SEENReplyDelete
Silly rabbit! Wrestlers aren't employees!ReplyDelete
Hooray for Capitalism.ReplyDelete
Who's with me?
No. He should make it to the final two, have a couple hope spots, but ultimately get dumped clean by Stone Cold. Who then cuts an anti-yoga promo on Jake.ReplyDelete
I refuse to believe that those are the only motivations for people.ReplyDelete
I don't do everything to only benefit myself. And I'm not an especially moral person.
You're also not in a position of power. I'm not saying every single senator, congress-person and government employee is evil; but special interests are a helluva drug.ReplyDelete
That's why we need an open government and an educated populace.ReplyDelete
People will be fucking you if they're in government or corporations. The solution isn't limiting their power, it's motivating the populace to stand up for themselves.
Is there a Hollywood celebrity for this cause? Somebody call Christan Slater to speak on their behalf. Let's have a tribute album while we're at it. Nothing but covers of Jim Johnston shit.ReplyDelete
I kicked him $20. I've met him at the local International Wrestling Cartel shows and he seems like a nice guy. I hope things turn out ok.ReplyDelete
My point was, if he got injured wrestling, they should pay. If he's just sick, he could've paid for health insurance like anybody else. I don't feel any worse for than I would if the guy that makes my sandwich at wawa has the same problem.ReplyDelete
Well, if the wrestling thing doesn't work out, he's always got his singing career to fall back on.ReplyDelete
In all of mankind's history, there has never been more damage done than by people who "thought they were doing the right thing." - Lucy Van PeltReplyDelete
I think the celebrities are still dealing with bullying. Then they have to take on Abercrombie.ReplyDelete
I've seen a supermarket worker strike. They brought in management to do menial labor, and had ridiculous sales like a gallon of milk for 9 cents in get people to cross the picket lines and shop there.ReplyDelete
Nothing makes me happier than seeing a NY sports team eliminated. Have a nice off-season Knicks!!
New York Pricks. I wish them well in their future endeavors.ReplyDelete
I'm so happy they're gone. Carmelo-led teams continue to be overrated once the play-offs start.ReplyDelete
Free rider is actually the specific term in the economic / political science context, he's not using it as a pejorative. Look up the public goods and rational man / rational choice theories.ReplyDelete
As an example, I attend a university in Pennsylvania where there isn't a mandate for professors to join the union. So they don't have to pay dues to receive the benefits that are given to the group collectively, hence they are free riders.
I'm with ya.ReplyDelete
Everyone's a commie idealist until they actually have to deal with it.
I'm aware of that. I usually put things in quotes when referencing the post I'm responding too, but re-reading my post, I can see how it came off as not acknowledging the correct usage of the term.ReplyDelete
For anyone interested, look up the Ludlow Massacre if you need concrete example of what he's referring to.ReplyDelete
Let's be honest, Kurt's fucking nuts. That guy will wrestle until he's dead.ReplyDelete
I don't think that's an unfair comment. It's not as if anybody goes into the wrestling business saying, "So wait, I'm going to get injured?!?!?" or "Let me get this straight, you're not providing health insurance?!?!?"ReplyDelete
It's certainly lopsided, then. Didn't Kurt Angle brag about how he gets paid more in TNA than CM Punk did during his most successful year in WWE?ReplyDelete
Yeah, you wouldn't.ReplyDelete
"Burn baby burn" that was unbelievable audioReplyDelete
Hhh to young wrestler asking that question: "you don't love this business!ReplyDelete
Did someone delete my comment about Cuomo needing to get hanged? Cuz he does.ReplyDelete
Sure it is.ReplyDelete
So happy a Midwest team took em outReplyDelete
3-9 in elimination games.ReplyDelete
That was a fantastic documentary, it pushed me to take part in Record Store Day.ReplyDelete