Re: Which side are you on, boys?
 

Ms Slothrop is a blue-collar worker and a union member, and she called the guy audacious, so I'll stand with her. And I don't think they were earned. The guy got them on day one, and didn't get any more from working the rest of the year, so he wasn't working for them.

Suppose a company has Canadian owners, and gives everyone the day off on Canada Day, and Canadian Thanksgiving, and, uh, some third Canadian holiday like Poutine Day. No one earned those days off -- they're holidays. If someone decides to work on them anyway, it would be audacious to demand to be paid for it.

No, that's silly. Thanks for pointing that out.

Re: Which side are you on, boys?
 

Hey, I'm going there for lunch in an hour!

Re: Which side are you on, boys?
 

I was more thinking this:

https://a1cf74336522e87f135f-2f21ace...ol-scrooge.jpg

Re: Which side are you on, boys?
 

So someone's co-workers are all home sharing Poutine with their First Nations friends and saying everything in French, English and Innuit, but Roberta Cratchit is under the gun to finish sorting all your files alphabetically based on the last letter of the first word, the way you like them, and has to work the whole day and eat porridge at her desk for lunch and you aren't going to pay her?

Someone's audacious here, but it's not Roberta Cratchit.

Re: Which side are you on, boys?
 

I said they decide to work -- you changed that to "under the gun." If someone has to work then it really isn't a holiday, is it?

I have had so many co-workers who email from their vacations. No one makes them do it. It totally defeats the point. My rule is, I'm not responding to email during a vacation. If you need me, text or call me. Otherwise, it can wait until I'm back. I don't understand why more people don't that.

Re: Which side are you on, boys?
 

Fuck that. Real American lawyers in a border city- on american only holidays- Labor Day Memorial Day- Actual Thanksgiving day- we pack up some files and go visit canadian clients. My kids can't eat "day off."

Re: Which side are you on, boys?
 

Service economy, man.

Re: Sebby is a dumbass
 

Here it isn't even a consideration. They just aren't down here all that much outside of the public sector and the entertainment industry. I think some of the refinery workers may be unionized, but that's about it. Definitely not construction.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Export control is always tricky, but I think it's a perfectly legitimate question to ask since it's part of the job.

This is a HUGE issue right now in higher ed and research to the point that NIH sent out letters a few months ago about it: https://www.cogr.edu/sites/default/f...2008-20-18.pdf

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

No sewage smell today, Hank. Good octopus. You should come back.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

More on the Democrat-controlled media:

Atrios

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

the looniest of my FB/HS friends is posting a meme claiming the bombs were mailed BY Dems- nice plot, but I'd wait for some, ummm, evidence before sticking my neck out like that?

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Do you think s/he really believes that? I think a lot of conservatives see public political discourse foremost as an ideological battlefield where they want to push narratives for advantage, and where truth and reality do not really play into it. Like, there are a few dopes who really thought Hillary was running a sex ring out of a pizza place in NW DC, but I think most of the people who pushed that stuff did not believe it and pushed it for other reasons (fun, profit, partisan gain).

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

getting to the bottom of that would require talking to them. if you want I'll connect you, but I'm not up for that particular convo. this was the same person posting in 2015 that President Obama was going to get congress to grant him a third term.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

I was at a family reunion in a very red state a number of years ago, and heard quite a few stories -- conspiracy theories, really -- about how Obama was going to take people's guns away and/or make firearms or ammunition more expensive. I didn't really want to pursue that line of talk with most of the cousins who were on that kick (which was many if not most of the men but none of the women, for whatever reason). But one cousin who has been decently successful in the corporate world and otherwise seems like a reasonable guy explained to me how Obama was going to pass a tax on ammunition that was going to make it much more expensive, and so I asked him how Obama was going to do that, since the Constitution reserves taxing power to the Congress, which at that time was controlled by Republicans. He stopped and thought about it for a few moments, and allowed that that was a good question that he hadn't thought of and that he would have to look into that. From all of which I conclude that these sorts of stories are shibboleths told for purposes of group bonding, not necessarily as part of a search for the truths of the matters asserted.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

shibboleth? wait, are a MotT or are you a cultural appropriator?

Re: Sebby is a dumbass
 

This is confusing. A union project requires more of the money that is spent go to workers. A non-union job allows that money to be kept by the principals. Unless you're going to start arguing in favor of trickle down theory, how is there not much of a difference?

TM

Re: Which side are you on, boys?
 

You're fucking kidding, right? Since you sit in a position that permits you to actually be completely focused on vacation, you're going to forget what it was like to have pressure to show you're always working hard and on top of things or a boss who expects you to work on vacation even though she says you shouldn't?

You've changed, man. You've changed.

TM

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Why? It no longer matters what actually happened--only what you think happened or want to have happened. Any news to the contrary is summarily ignored.

TM

Re: Sebby is a dumbass
 

Trickle down works for the blow dealers, and my impression is people were focused on full employment for drug dealers (but not so much for the low-paid hookers - I think the hookers need a union before dealing with the likes of Slave and Adder).

Re: Which side are you on, boys?
 

These people ought to be able to get the work he gives them done during the day. They're clearly just lazy and that's why they have to work all the time to keep him happy.

Re: Sebby is a dumbass
 

If we're comparing a more expensive (union) job to a less expensive (non-union) job, obviously the former has more stimulus. But if we're talking about $100m of federal spending on infrastructure, whether it goes to union or non-union jobs would not seem to me to make much difference in the stimulative effect, as much as I like unions. Some non-zero difference on the margin, sure, but I think the difference will be pretty small.

Re: Which side are you on, boys?
 

Since I left a law firm, and thank God for that, I have worked at a number of different places, and I have not had a boss who expects me to work on vacation even though she says I shouldn't. But I've seen a lot of co-workers who don't step away from the job when they're out. That doesn't mean I've never been called or texted when I'm on PTO, and that's fine. If the ground rule is, I'm not checking email and you need to call or text, people don't call or text unless it's urgent.

Re: Sebby is a dumbass
 

To drive home TM's point, so you think the stimulus is the same if you spend $60M on materials, $30M on wages, and send $10m to the shareholders and if you spend $60M on materials, $10M on wages, and send $30M to the shareholders?

Re: Sebby is a dumbass
 

But the whole point is that the numbers aren't going to be that different. Union wages are not 3x non-union wages and -- more critically to this point -- the non-union contractors usually price lower. Do I think the stimulus is "the same"? No, and I said there's a non-zero difference, but it's small.

Re: Sebby is a dumbass
 

All other things being equal, union jobs are always more expensive than non-union jobs because they pay workers more. That's the entire point.

You have done nothing to clear up my confusion. Even if we lived in fiction land and you could spend the exact same amount of money on a union job or a non-union job, the union project would allocate a higher percentage of your spend to union salaries and that means that more money goes into the pockets of average people who will spend it (and will create a much higher stimulative effect) as opposed to the wealthy people pitching for the project, who will bank it.

TM

Re: Which side are you on, boys?
 

Oh. Well, if it didn't happen to you, then it surely doesn't happen at all. And if it doesn't happen at your level, it probably doesn't happen below. Have you been attending Sebby's cocktail parties too? Ease back.

TM

Re: Sebby is a dumbass
 

It's pretty common for union wages to be 2x to even 3x times non-union; you also regularly deal with a skill difference, because non-union contractors usually put fewer and less skilled people on the same job because they don't have union rules, including safety rules.

The profitability for nonunion contractors is significantly higher. Again, by a factor, maybe just a factor of 2 instead of 3, but a significant factor. Maybe you could argue that the non-union job should be 95M instead of 100M, but experience around here is that the graft cost for the non-union "privatization" contracts is a lot higher - Charlie's buddies are making a lot of money, but they've got to keep the Republican party and its candidates funded as a quid pro quo, and need to hire the right PR and lobbying firms with Charlie Baker's out of office friends. So even if the nonunion contractor makes more from the job, they have a lot of mouths to feed.

Re: Sebby is a dumbass
 

You're actually crazy.

Union wages are considerably higher than non-union wages. Who am I even talking to right now?

TM

Re: Sebby is a dumbass
 

This started from something Sebby said about the effectiveness of stimulus. If the entire point of making infrastructure spending go to union jobs is that they are more expensive and you think you get more of it, OK, but I think what actually happens is that Congress appropriates whatever it's going to appropriate and if it goes to union projects then there are fewer of them, and the same aggregate spending.

You guys keep explaining the concept to me as if I don't understand it. I get it. I just think the delta is pretty small. I concede I'm not backing that up with anything other than an intuition that in all the money spent on an infrastructure project on materials and land and etc., the delta between union and non-union wages is a pretty small thing. It's not small to the workers involved, but it does seem pretty small when you are trying to assess the stimulative effects. Also, (a) the money that goest to the wealthy has some stimulative effect, just not as much, and (b) if the non-union projects are really cheaper, then the mix of work is different -- e.g., your federal highway spending bill gets you 28 highway projects instead of 26, so more non-union workers are getting work than union workers are.

To this, GGG offers me a hypothetical where union wages are 3x non-union wages, and TM asserts theres "a much highly stimulative effect," as if just saying that way answers the question instead of restates it. Hey, I just spent a few minutes Googling and I couldn't find anything useful on point, so it's not like I'm saying anything new at this point either. If I were designing federal infrastructure spending packages, I would still steer the work to union shops, but I wouldn't tout the heightened stimulus effects as the reason to do it.

Re: Which side are you on, boys?
 

WTF? Of course it happens. I said two things: (1) I think the guy who left us and asked to be paid for holidays he didn't take was audacious. We paid him for his unused vacations. No one stopped him from taking those holidays. Hell, he could have used them in his last week. (2) I have seen many co-workers choose to keep doing work on vacation when they don't have to, usually by staying on email. They shouldn't.

Who put a stick up your ass? There are lots of people out there with crappy bosses who make them work on vacation. That's not what I was talking about.

Re: Sebby is a dumbass
 

If the wage differentials are that high, that starts to make a difference. Why are the graft costs higher for non-union jobs? Seems like politicians who like privatization are the cause of those, not whether the job is union or non-union.

Re: Sebby is a dumbass
 

Yes. The same aggregate spending yields a way lower multiplier when it comes to the economy because, although there may be more less-expensive jobs, the fact that they're not going to union contractors means a way higher percentage of the budget is going into the pockets of rich people who aren't trickling it the fuck down.

Well, it sure is hard to argue with intuition. Not sure why contractors and owners all over this country are trying to crush unions. It must be because they value the worker's right to work and not because they'll make tons more money with no collective bargaining.

Your argument is based on assumptions and zero facts in evidence. You have no idea if there will be a different number of jobs if union shops aren't being considered. My guess is that contractors who know they aren't competing with union shops charge whatever they would have charged and pocket even more. Otherwise, if the costs are simply passed on, why wouldn't they be ambivalent towards whether they're a union shop or not? And let's not even talk about the higher training that comes with union work, benefits, and long-term nature of union jobs.

I'm not really going to take your word for the stimulative effect of money in a union worker's pocket vs. that in an owner's pocket. Again, I think trickle down is complete bullshit and am surprised you are a proponent of it, even in this weird, roundabout way.

Sure thing. I'll get right on that research for you.

TM

*I try not to read that garbage anymore.

Re: Which side are you on, boys?
 

If you know it happens and you know why it happens, then I am at a loss to explain what the fuck you've been talking about since you said you didn't understand why people do it. I guess we're just talking about your crazy coworkers in your office. If that's the case, I'll go back to doing something more interesting, like organizing these almonds over here by size and color.

TM

Re: Sebby is a dumbass
 

Not it isn't. You just call the multiplier "way lower" and that cinches it.

Thanks, Thurgreed, the idea that contractors and owners want to crush unions because they'll make more money is both highly relevant to what I was saying and also is something that never occurred to me. Brilliant.

No one should "take my word" for it because I have been very explicit that I don't know and am just working through an argument here. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything -- I am asking to be persuaded, something you so far are failing at.

I am surprised you think I am a proponent of trickle down. I am now a proponent of stimulating the economy by paying for remedial reading instructions for you.

Re: Which side are you on, boys?
 

Here's what I said: "I have had so many co-workers who email from their vacations. No one makes them do it." I actually do think I understand why they do it. They're not crazy, but they're not good at taking a break from their jobs. If you feel like being a jackass instead of having a conversation, stick to your almonds.

Re: Sebby is a dumbass
 

On a large enough project, you are talking about hundreds to thousands of jobs. The small differences add up in volume.

Re: Sebby is a dumbass
 

Absolutely.

But if you are comparing different ways to spend a certain amount of government money, then you may be comparing more lower-paid jobs with fewer higher-paid jobs, and added differentials between costs of materials and the wages/profits that go to execs and owners, so it's not so simple.

Maybe the difference is not so small. If anyone can find actual research that addresses this, I'd be curious to see it. When I tried, I found some crap from Heritage and Cato that I didn't bother to share here.

Re: Sebby is a dumbass
 

Back in the day, the most effective part of the Dukakis campaign was his singular focus on "good jobs at good wages", and that was what stimulus was about.

If the slogan is "so-so jobs some of which will be at decent wages", well, ok then, but it doesn't seem like what people want from stimulus spending.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Or he watched the West Wing.