The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

Today is a day for teabagging

15758596163

Posts

  • HunterHunter Chemist with a heart of Au Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Liberal movements would get a lot more headway if they dropped some of the "being a pussy" issues.

    Oh no, you don't get paid sick days I feel so terrible for you. It's like, you are not getting paid for work you are not doing.

    You do know there are lots of studies that show giving sick days actually increases productivity versus not having sick days, right? Like the fact you don't come in and share your infection with other co-workers as well as come in feeling like shit and getting dick done or worse fucking up and costing money.

    Hunter on
  • Bloods EndBloods End Blade of Tyshalle Punch dimensionRegistered User regular
    edited April 2009
    I wish I got sick enough to take sick days. :(

    Bloods End on
  • vsovevsove ....also yes. Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Yeah, people coming in when they're sick are a much bigger problem than people who stay home when they're sick.

    As Hunter said, guess what happens to their diseases! They share them with everyone else in the office, and instead of one or two sick people you end up with a dozen sick people. So you provide the ability for people to stay home without sacrificing too much.

    vsove on
    WATCH THIS SPACE.
  • JigrahJigrah Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Hunter wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Liberal movements would get a lot more headway if they dropped some of the "being a pussy" issues.

    Oh no, you don't get paid sick days I feel so terrible for you. It's like, you are not getting paid for work you are not doing.

    You do know there are lots of studies that show giving sick days actually increases productivity versus not having sick days, right? Like the fact you don't come in and share your infection with other co-workers as well as come in feeling like shit and getting dick done or worse fucking up and costing money.

    That is fine and dandy, but to ask for government regulation on that is ridiculous.

    Also the increase in productivity will depend on the industry you are in. Some jobs there are no ifs and or butts, by you not being there you cost a lot of productivity.

    Jigrah on
  • vsovevsove ....also yes. Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Hunter wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Liberal movements would get a lot more headway if they dropped some of the "being a pussy" issues.

    Oh no, you don't get paid sick days I feel so terrible for you. It's like, you are not getting paid for work you are not doing.

    You do know there are lots of studies that show giving sick days actually increases productivity versus not having sick days, right? Like the fact you don't come in and share your infection with other co-workers as well as come in feeling like shit and getting dick done or worse fucking up and costing money.

    That is fine and dandy, but to ask for government regulation on that is ridiculous.

    Also the increase in productivity will depend on the industry you are in. Some jobs there are no ifs and or butts, by you not being there you cost a lot of productivity.

    And by being there when you're sick you infect other people and cause an even greater loss of productivity.

    I mean... this is pretty simple stuff.

    vsove on
    WATCH THIS SPACE.
  • JigrahJigrah Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    vsove wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Hunter wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Liberal movements would get a lot more headway if they dropped some of the "being a pussy" issues.

    Oh no, you don't get paid sick days I feel so terrible for you. It's like, you are not getting paid for work you are not doing.

    You do know there are lots of studies that show giving sick days actually increases productivity versus not having sick days, right? Like the fact you don't come in and share your infection with other co-workers as well as come in feeling like shit and getting dick done or worse fucking up and costing money.

    That is fine and dandy, but to ask for government regulation on that is ridiculous.

    Also the increase in productivity will depend on the industry you are in. Some jobs there are no ifs and or butts, by you not being there you cost a lot of productivity.

    And by being there when you're sick you infect other people and cause an even greater loss of productivity.

    I mean... this is pretty simple stuff.

    If what you have is contagious then yes that increases the risk to others. I know at my work though (server) that hangovers are not contagious, and oh man would the system be exploited if there was government mandated paid sick days.

    Jigrah on
  • HunterHunter Chemist with a heart of Au Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    I have sent home lab techs on busy days because they were sick. There's no point in getting everyone sick or making someone get worse. One guy had a stomach flu so bad he was puking and going to the shitter like every 30 to 45 minutes. I couldn't let him work around high heat conditions on top of that because he was so obviously dehydrated he stopped sweating and was getting dizzy. Between him killing himself or possibly severely hurting another worker, it was better off to be a man down for a few days. To not pay the guy would be draconian, since he made every effort to be there even though he was sick as hell.

    Hunter on
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] new member
    edited April 2009
    The user and all related content has been deleted.

    [Deleted User] on
  • ackack Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    happiness comes out of shared misery the far side dont u know

    really wish i had easy access to unsmith

    ack on
  • vsovevsove ....also yes. Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Jigrah wrote: »
    vsove wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Hunter wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Liberal movements would get a lot more headway if they dropped some of the "being a pussy" issues.

    Oh no, you don't get paid sick days I feel so terrible for you. It's like, you are not getting paid for work you are not doing.

    You do know there are lots of studies that show giving sick days actually increases productivity versus not having sick days, right? Like the fact you don't come in and share your infection with other co-workers as well as come in feeling like shit and getting dick done or worse fucking up and costing money.

    That is fine and dandy, but to ask for government regulation on that is ridiculous.

    Also the increase in productivity will depend on the industry you are in. Some jobs there are no ifs and or butts, by you not being there you cost a lot of productivity.

    And by being there when you're sick you infect other people and cause an even greater loss of productivity.

    I mean... this is pretty simple stuff.

    If what you have is contagious then yes that increases the risk to others. I know at my work though (server) that hangovers are not contagious, and oh man would the system be exploited if there was government mandated paid sick days.

    So because some people might take advantage of a system, that's it? No reason to implement it?

    Because I'm pretty sure any system that takes care of people in any way is subject to exploitation. So we should just say 'sorry, you're on your own, everyone'?

    vsove on
    WATCH THIS SPACE.
  • HunterHunter Chemist with a heart of Au Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Hunter wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Liberal movements would get a lot more headway if they dropped some of the "being a pussy" issues.

    Oh no, you don't get paid sick days I feel so terrible for you. It's like, you are not getting paid for work you are not doing.

    You do know there are lots of studies that show giving sick days actually increases productivity versus not having sick days, right? Like the fact you don't come in and share your infection with other co-workers as well as come in feeling like shit and getting dick done or worse fucking up and costing money.

    That is fine and dandy, but to ask for government regulation on that is ridiculous.

    Also the increase in productivity will depend on the industry you are in. Some jobs there are no ifs and or butts, by you not being there you cost a lot of productivity.

    You just don't get it do you. It has been shown in work related studies that offering sick days over the course of a calendar year will increase productivity. You're talking about a loss of man hours over 1 or 2 days versus the potential net gain from all your employees over the course of the long term in which 1 person who is sick getting multiple people sick. You're also assuming that showing up to work = productivity. I assure you it does not. Attendance and work are not the same thing.

    The long term benefits are worth losing a man for a day or two and paying him to stay at home and keep his infection with him.

    Hunter on
  • JigrahJigrah Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Oh so you've actually fallen for the Reagan "welfare mother" sort of argument huh

    or the Bush 1 DRUG DEALER IN LAFYETTE PARK extension thereof

    I don't really know those arguments.

    Jigrah on
  • MysstMysst King Monkey of Hedonism IslandRegistered User regular
    edited April 2009
    so jigrah is a waiter

    Mysst on
    ikbUJdU.jpg
  • DichotomyDichotomy Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Mysst wrote: »
    so jigrah is a waiter

    I dunno, the word "waiter" implies a certain level of class

    Dichotomy on
    0BnD8l3.gif
  • HunterHunter Chemist with a heart of Au Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    If Typhoid Jigrah showed up on my work site all sick and infectious, I'd send him home or put him in the blast furnace to cure his ailment. Keep that shit to yourself. Nobody is that important in the grand scheme of things that they can't stay away for a day or two when they're really sick. Not the sniffles or a bit of a headache, but like hacking, puking, horrible earaches, diarrhea, and the like.

    Hunter on
  • JigrahJigrah Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Hunter wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Hunter wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Liberal movements would get a lot more headway if they dropped some of the "being a pussy" issues.

    Oh no, you don't get paid sick days I feel so terrible for you. It's like, you are not getting paid for work you are not doing.

    You do know there are lots of studies that show giving sick days actually increases productivity versus not having sick days, right? Like the fact you don't come in and share your infection with other co-workers as well as come in feeling like shit and getting dick done or worse fucking up and costing money.

    That is fine and dandy, but to ask for government regulation on that is ridiculous.

    Also the increase in productivity will depend on the industry you are in. Some jobs there are no ifs and or butts, by you not being there you cost a lot of productivity.

    You just don't get it do you. It has been shown in work related studies that offering sick days over the course of a calendar year will increase productivity. You're talking about a loss of man hours over 1 or 2 days versus the potential net gain from all your employees over the course of the long term in which 1 person who is sick getting multiple people sick. You're also assuming that showing up to work = productivity. I assure you it does not. Attendance and work are not the same thing.

    The long term benefits are worth losing a man for a day or two and paying him to stay at home and keep his infection with him.

    If it is beneficial to that industry they will develop it, if not they won't. That is the stance I am on. I understand what you are saying, it is quite clear.

    How many people do you know have the strong work ethic where they go to work even if they are sick? Have the option for paid sick days is a good thing, it just shouldn't be mandatory.

    Jigrah on
  • vsovevsove ....also yes. Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Hunter wrote: »
    If Typhoid Jigrah showed up on my work site all sick and infectious, I'd send him home or put him in the blast furnace to cure his ailment. Keep that shit to yourself. Nobody is that important in the grand scheme of things that they can't stay away for a day or two when they're really sick. Not the sniffles or a bit of a headache, but like hacking, puking, horrible earaches, diarrhea, and the like.

    Typhoid Jigrah made me laugh a lot more than it probably should have.

    vsove on
    WATCH THIS SPACE.
  • MrMonroeMrMonroe passed out on the floor nowRegistered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Conservative movements might still actually be popular with the majority of Americans if they had dropped the "suck it up, pussy, get a job" attitude towards genuinely sick and impoverished people.

    MrMonroe on
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] new member
    edited April 2009
    The user and all related content has been deleted.

    [Deleted User] on
  • Prester JohnPrester John Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Jigrah wrote: »

    If it is beneficial to that industry they will develop it, if not they won't. That is the stance I am on. I understand what you are saying, it is quite clear.

    How many people do you know have the strong work ethic where they go to work even if they are sick? Have the option for paid sick days is a good thing, it just shouldn't be mandatory.

    By the same token, I say get rid of OSHA altogether. If it's beneficial to industries to not have their workers get horribly maimed on the job, then they won't be so maimy.

    Who is John Galt???

    Prester John on
  • JigrahJigrah Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    Conservative movements might still actually be popular with the majority of Americans if they had dropped the "suck it up, pussy, get a job" attitude towards genuinely sick and impoverished people.

    Man when I look at impoverished and sick people I just see good labor pool. I am thinking making a business like in Gattica where I provide the tools for you to get a job, and you give me part of your pay check for X years.

    Is that even legal? Can I disguise it as a loan?

    Jigrah on
  • HunterHunter Chemist with a heart of Au Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    There's no need to put safety guards around that machinery. You've got two hands. You won't miss one if something accidentally happens, and I don't want to have to lay off 20 of you so I can afford to install the safety features. Now back to work you lazy bastards.

    Hunter on
  • MrMonroeMrMonroe passed out on the floor nowRegistered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Compassionate Conservatism boils down to saying, "look, I'm really sorry you got pregnant, I really am. But I mean, who wants to employ a bitch that got preggers? And while I really feel for you, (really!) you don't really deserve healthcare if you're not a contributing part of the workforce, so I'm going to have to ask you to leave and just go to the emergency room for everything you need."

    ps we're gonna compel you to carry the baby to term

    MrMonroe on
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] new member
    edited April 2009
    The user and all related content has been deleted.

    [Deleted User] on
  • JigrahJigrah Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Jigrah wrote: »

    If it is beneficial to that industry they will develop it, if not they won't. That is the stance I am on. I understand what you are saying, it is quite clear.

    How many people do you know have the strong work ethic where they go to work even if they are sick? Have the option for paid sick days is a good thing, it just shouldn't be mandatory.

    By the same token, I say get rid of OSHA altogether. If it's beneficial to industries to not have their workers get horribly maimed on the job, then they won't be so maimy.

    Who is John Galt???

    Well, if you have the capabilities for labor unions then yes, you really don't need OSHA. If you do not have the capabilities for labor unions then government rules are necessary. There are other variables thrown in there, but yah that.

    Jigrah on
  • MrMonroeMrMonroe passed out on the floor nowRegistered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Jigrah wrote: »
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    Conservative movements might still actually be popular with the majority of Americans if they had dropped the "suck it up, pussy, get a job" attitude towards genuinely sick and impoverished people.

    Man when I look at impoverished and sick people I just see good labor pool. I am thinking making a business like in Gattica where I provide the tools for you to get a job, and you give me part of your pay check for X years.

    Is that even legal? Can I disguise it as a loan?

    it's called "indentured servitude" and I think you missed the point of that movie

    MrMonroe on
  • JigrahJigrah Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Jigrah wrote: »
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    Conservative movements might still actually be popular with the majority of Americans if they had dropped the "suck it up, pussy, get a job" attitude towards genuinely sick and impoverished people.

    Man when I look at impoverished and sick people I just see good labor pool. I am thinking making a business like in Gattica where I provide the tools for you to get a job, and you give me part of your pay check for X years.

    Is that even legal? Can I disguise it as a loan?
    I..uh

    holy shit

    thanks for proving my idea that you've never studied history ever

    I mean, I know indentured servitude is illegal. Hopefully that is what you were talking about.

    Jigrah on
  • matthias00matthias00 Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    I think what Jigrah may be trying to say is that, if paid sick days were so beneficial to both the company and the employee in terms of productivity, then it shouldn't need to be mandated by the government, which is actually a sort of valid point... but he's just being terrible at explaining it? maybe?

    matthias00 on
  • HunterHunter Chemist with a heart of Au Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    Compassionate Conservatism boils down to saying, "look, I'm really sorry you got pregnant, I really am. But I mean, who wants to employ a bitch that got preggers? And while I really feel for you, (really!) you don't really deserve healthcare if you're not a contributing part of the workforce, so I'm going to have to ask you to leave and just go to the emergency room for everything you need."

    ps we're gonna compel you to carry the baby to term

    Also, don't expect us to want to provide social programs for that child or adequately fund schools. That money needs to go towards prisons if the little bastard gets out of line or the military should he reach 18.

    Hunter on
  • MrMonroeMrMonroe passed out on the floor nowRegistered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »

    If it is beneficial to that industry they will develop it, if not they won't. That is the stance I am on. I understand what you are saying, it is quite clear.

    How many people do you know have the strong work ethic where they go to work even if they are sick? Have the option for paid sick days is a good thing, it just shouldn't be mandatory.

    By the same token, I say get rid of OSHA altogether. If it's beneficial to industries to not have their workers get horribly maimed on the job, then they won't be so maimy.

    Who is John Galt???

    Well, if you have the capabilities for labor unions then yes, you really don't need OSHA. If you do not have the capabilities for labor unions then government rules are necessary. There are other variables thrown in there, but yah that.

    FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
    ail

    MrMonroe on
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] new member
    edited April 2009
    The user and all related content has been deleted.

    [Deleted User] on
  • JigrahJigrah Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »

    If it is beneficial to that industry they will develop it, if not they won't. That is the stance I am on. I understand what you are saying, it is quite clear.

    How many people do you know have the strong work ethic where they go to work even if they are sick? Have the option for paid sick days is a good thing, it just shouldn't be mandatory.

    By the same token, I say get rid of OSHA altogether. If it's beneficial to industries to not have their workers get horribly maimed on the job, then they won't be so maimy.

    Who is John Galt???

    Well, if you have the capabilities for labor unions then yes, you really don't need OSHA. If you do not have the capabilities for labor unions then government rules are necessary. There are other variables thrown in there, but yah that.
    lord god in heaven how did you even graduate high school

    I got really lucky, same thing is going to happen for college as well.

    Jigrah on
  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Just because you're right doesn't give you leeway to act like a petulant dick.

    This goes for 90% of the posters in this thread.

    Javen on
  • JigrahJigrah Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Javen wrote: »
    Just because you're right doesn't give you leeway to act like a petulant dick.

    This goes for 90% of the posters in this thread.

    Sorry Javen, I will try and not be such a dick to everyone.

    Jigrah on
  • HunterHunter Chemist with a heart of Au Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »

    If it is beneficial to that industry they will develop it, if not they won't. That is the stance I am on. I understand what you are saying, it is quite clear.

    How many people do you know have the strong work ethic where they go to work even if they are sick? Have the option for paid sick days is a good thing, it just shouldn't be mandatory.

    By the same token, I say get rid of OSHA altogether. If it's beneficial to industries to not have their workers get horribly maimed on the job, then they won't be so maimy.

    Who is John Galt???

    Well, if you have the capabilities for labor unions then yes, you really don't need OSHA. If you do not have the capabilities for labor unions then government rules are necessary. There are other variables thrown in there, but yah that.

    Not every facility that needs OSHA has labor unions or wants labor unions. OSHA is there because we are first world country that believes human lives are more important than bottom line dollars. Sure, you could save some money, but we as a country don't want a bunch of maimed citizens collecting social services money because XYZ Company didn't want to install some machine guards or give you goggles to wear while welding.

    Man, I'd love to see you spout off this nonsense at a mining or mineral processing plant. Those fuckers would eat you alive. MSHA is like OSHA standards on steroids. I had to do 20 hours of course work and safety lectures to be MSHA approved, and I still have to get tested on it every 2 years.

    Hunter on
  • JigrahJigrah Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Hunter wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »

    If it is beneficial to that industry they will develop it, if not they won't. That is the stance I am on. I understand what you are saying, it is quite clear.

    How many people do you know have the strong work ethic where they go to work even if they are sick? Have the option for paid sick days is a good thing, it just shouldn't be mandatory.

    By the same token, I say get rid of OSHA altogether. If it's beneficial to industries to not have their workers get horribly maimed on the job, then they won't be so maimy.

    Who is John Galt???

    Well, if you have the capabilities for labor unions then yes, you really don't need OSHA. If you do not have the capabilities for labor unions then government rules are necessary. There are other variables thrown in there, but yah that.

    Not every facility that needs OSHA has labor unions or wants labor unions. OSHA is there because we are first world country that believes human lives are more important than bottom line dollars. Sure, you could save some money, but we as a country don't want a bunch of maimed citizens collecting social services money because XYZ Company didn't want to install some machine guards or give you goggles to wear while welding.

    Man, I'd love to see you spout off this nonsense at a mining or mineral processing plant. Those fuckers would eat you alive. MSHA is like OSHA standards on steroids. I had to do 20 hours of course work and safety lectures to be MSHA approved, and I still have to get tested on it every 2 years.

    If MSHA didn't exist though, what do you think would be the standard, why wouldn't a union form?

    Jigrah on
  • Prester JohnPrester John Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    matthias00 wrote: »
    I think what Jigrah may be trying to say is that, if paid sick days were so beneficial to both the company and the employee in terms of productivity, then it shouldn't need to be mandated by the government, which is actually a sort of valid point... but he's just being terrible at explaining it? maybe?

    In some cases that may be true.

    In other cases, there are efficiencies to be had from imposing a uniform regulation, rather than allowing private actors to self-regulate piecemeal.

    Prester John on
  • HunterHunter Chemist with a heart of Au Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Hunter wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »

    If it is beneficial to that industry they will develop it, if not they won't. That is the stance I am on. I understand what you are saying, it is quite clear.

    How many people do you know have the strong work ethic where they go to work even if they are sick? Have the option for paid sick days is a good thing, it just shouldn't be mandatory.

    By the same token, I say get rid of OSHA altogether. If it's beneficial to industries to not have their workers get horribly maimed on the job, then they won't be so maimy.

    Who is John Galt???

    Well, if you have the capabilities for labor unions then yes, you really don't need OSHA. If you do not have the capabilities for labor unions then government rules are necessary. There are other variables thrown in there, but yah that.

    Not every facility that needs OSHA has labor unions or wants labor unions. OSHA is there because we are first world country that believes human lives are more important than bottom line dollars. Sure, you could save some money, but we as a country don't want a bunch of maimed citizens collecting social services money because XYZ Company didn't want to install some machine guards or give you goggles to wear while welding.

    Man, I'd love to see you spout off this nonsense at a mining or mineral processing plant. Those fuckers would eat you alive. MSHA is like OSHA standards on steroids. I had to do 20 hours of course work and safety lectures to be MSHA approved, and I still have to get tested on it every 2 years.

    If MSHA didn't exist though, what do you think would be the standard, why wouldn't a union form?

    Because the mining industry is international and unions are not wanted, needed, and beneficial in every country based on attitudes, costs and red tape. Unions are a whole different discussion topic depending if you're pro or anti union. I have mixed feelings on them due to personal interactions. As far as safety concerns, you need standard work practices to keep people safe and you need to give the tiger some teeth when it comes to citing and fining businesses for not following basic safety protocol. Hence OSHA and MSHA. Unions don't accomplish that, specifically if the union is corrupt and pro-management (ignores dangers) or corrupt and pro worker (over exaggerates claims or tries to blackmail businesses with fake safety hazards).

    Hunter on
  • Clint EastwoodClint Eastwood My baby's in there someplace She crawled right inRegistered User regular
    edited April 2009
    this has been another episode of "THATS OUR JIGRAH"

    rated tv ma

    Clint Eastwood on
  • JigrahJigrah Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Hunter wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Hunter wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »

    If it is beneficial to that industry they will develop it, if not they won't. That is the stance I am on. I understand what you are saying, it is quite clear.

    How many people do you know have the strong work ethic where they go to work even if they are sick? Have the option for paid sick days is a good thing, it just shouldn't be mandatory.

    By the same token, I say get rid of OSHA altogether. If it's beneficial to industries to not have their workers get horribly maimed on the job, then they won't be so maimy.

    Who is John Galt???

    Well, if you have the capabilities for labor unions then yes, you really don't need OSHA. If you do not have the capabilities for labor unions then government rules are necessary. There are other variables thrown in there, but yah that.

    Not every facility that needs OSHA has labor unions or wants labor unions. OSHA is there because we are first world country that believes human lives are more important than bottom line dollars. Sure, you could save some money, but we as a country don't want a bunch of maimed citizens collecting social services money because XYZ Company didn't want to install some machine guards or give you goggles to wear while welding.

    Man, I'd love to see you spout off this nonsense at a mining or mineral processing plant. Those fuckers would eat you alive. MSHA is like OSHA standards on steroids. I had to do 20 hours of course work and safety lectures to be MSHA approved, and I still have to get tested on it every 2 years.

    If MSHA didn't exist though, what do you think would be the standard, why wouldn't a union form?

    Because the mining industry is international and unions are not wanted, needed, and beneficial in every country based on attitudes, costs and red tape. Unions are a whole different discussion topic depending if you're pro or anti union. I have mixed feelings on them due to personal interactions. As far as safety concerns, you need standard work practices to keep people safe and you need to give the tiger some teeth when it comes to citing and fining businesses for not following basic safety protocol. Hence OSHA and MSHA. Unions don't accomplish that, specifically if the union is corrupt and pro-management (ignores dangers) or corrupt and pro worker (over exaggerates claims or tries to blackmail businesses with fake safety hazards).

    MSHA though is federal, I would not expect the same standards to be held internationally. If MSHA did not exist though, unions would (at least based on American legal system).

    Personally I haven't found my opinion on unions, there are a lot of problems with them, at the same time though they seem like the best vessel for strong middle class.

    Jigrah on
This discussion has been closed.