Mike Rowe Supports Walmart In New Initiative And The Haters Go Wild

[BigBoxaJunk]

As far as environmental control, same thing. It should be no more or no less legal for companies to do what the smelting plant did in Poland than individuals. But to get that we don't need armies of regulators to do to every industry what the EPA is doing to coal.

So you believe that the White River flowing through Indianapolis would be just as clean today if the EPA was never formed and the Clean Water Act was never promulgated?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Extort? Its not extortion when you have to force a company to do the right thing because they wont do it on their own. Prime example....You know how many people are still walking around after 40yrs ago they were told asbestos was perfectly safe to breathe in ? I give you a clue...not alot of them and many that are still alive are laying in the hospital or at home dying from it. I still to this day have to fight my employer over asbestos in some of our installations...and I work for a freakin federal agency. Im the unit union rep AND the President of the Indiana Chapter. Ill stick with my brothers and sisters to keep it safe instead of relying on pinhead managers that push pencils at a desk and dont care about anything except the "numbers". You call it extortion....I call it survival.

It's extortion when you shut your employer down for more wages and benefits without providing commensurate increases in productivity and savings to "pay" for your increases in benefits. It's extortion when you refuse to consider the good of the company along with what you perceive are your "rights" to more pay and benefits. It's plain stupid to be so militantly obstinate in your demands that you force a company to shut down rather than accept the realities that more production expenses increase product costs and diminish the profits that allow the company to exist and expand. The general reputation for thuggery, sloth, and self-centeredness that characterized the auto workers and steel workers unions has splashed on the rest of union labor, along with your adoption of their rhetoric - which sounds a lot more like communism than capitalism.

If major unions had the sense God gave a goose, they'd pay attention to all the business aspects of their companies and work with them to maximize profits, increase productivity, and maximize profitability so that there would be more money to pass around, instead of blindly forcing companies to increase their prices to satisfy your demands until customer (the ones who ultimately pay for your pay and benefits) can no longer afford your products and go elsewhere. Then you ***** about losing your jobs.

I don't call that survival - but it has become self-selection on the march toward extinction.

 

[jamil]

So you believe that the White River flowing through Indianapolis would be just as clean today if the EPA was never formed and the Clean Water Act was never promulgated?

Now there you go again. I'm not apposed to some laws that prohibit or limit companies and individuals disposing of stuff in a way that negatively affects others. We don't need an EPA that's powerful enough to collapse an entire industry to do that.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Maybe you had better read my post AGAIN. I work for a FEDERAL AGENCY. I am in a FEDERAL UNION. There are many FEDERAL UNIONS. I DONT work for a for profit business such as Walmart. "My place of employment" is unsafe by FEDERAL standards and I HAVE EVERY RIGHT to make it safe for ALL EMPLOYEES including myself. I am responsible for safety of the National Airspace System along with 1000's of others. If you you have flown out of Indianapolis to the west, Your pilot used my equipment that I am responsible for to Navigate! So how much exactly is that worth to you? (to pay me)? Over 50% of my electronics classes are engineering level classes. I am on call 24/7 and respond to the scene within 30mins. How much is that worth to you? Finally, would you be happy if your wife/kids/parents/siblings had to work in areas with asbestos because their employer was too lazy, didnt want to spend the $ to correct it? What would be your attitude if it was proven their employers' reckless disregard for life was the reason they were laying in bed at home dying of cancer from asbestos? You might want to try walking in another mans shoes before you form your "opinions".....and thats exactly what it is, your opinion BUT my rights!

You should not have to work any place you believe to be unsafe. You do realize you don't have to, I hope. I don't think you were sold into servitude to work for the .gov. You have options. If your employer is allowing people to work in unsafe conditions, the people should get up and exercise their right to find employment with an employer that offers better working conditions. If you believe in property rights then you cannot believe you have the right to make any employer do anything. Your union does have the ability, probably the duty, to negotiate the asbestos mediation, maybe as part of compensation package.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Now there you go again. I'm not apposed to some laws that prohibit or limit companies and individuals disposing of stuff in a way that negatively affects others. We don't need an EPA that's powerful enough to collapse an entire industry to do that.

I hear you, I am wired to think in an overtly logical way, or as my wife would say, an overtly nonemotional way. But it's good to know that, although we differ in opinion on particulars, we're closer than we both might think as far as the big picture.

 

[steveh_131]

Now there you go again. I'm not apposed to some laws that prohibit or limit companies and individuals disposing of stuff in a way that negatively affects others. We don't need an EPA that's powerful enough to collapse an entire industry to do that.

I've got a good idea for a law.

Don't damage other people or property.

Wait, that law already exists. Let's just use our criminal and Civil courts to properly enforce it. No more government agencies are necessary.

 

[jamil]

I've got a good idea for a law.

Don't damage other people or property.

Wait, that law already exists. Let's just use our criminal and Civil courts to properly enforce it. No more government agencies are necessary.

Exactly what I was thinking. The EPA can suck my gas fumes.


To all. Sorry that I've been kind of pissy in several of my posts. I'm just in an xbox-one induced ornery mood today.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

I've got a good idea for a law.

Don't damage other people or property.

Wait, that law already exists. Let's just use our criminal and Civil courts to properly enforce it. No more government agencies are necessary.

Environmental laws existed in America before the Constitution was written, because even then people had the good sense to see that there are those who would damage them and their property if there was not sufficient and effective prohibitions in place.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

To all. Sorry that I've been kind of pissy in several of my posts. I'm just in an xbox-one induced ornery mood today.

No offense taken, Yer just keepin' the conversation lively. I like that.

 

[steveh_131]

Environmental laws existed in America before the Constitution was written, because even then people had the good sense to see that there are those who would damage them and their property if there was not sufficient and effective prohibitions in place.

There are already laws against damaging people and property. And enforcement mechanisms. More bloated and ineffective government agencies are not necessary.

 

[jamil]

Environmental laws existed in America before the Constitution was written, because even then people had the good sense to see that there are those who would damage them and their property if there was not sufficient and effective prohibitions in place.

See? We're not advocating no laws. We just want government to stay the hell away from the market. That doesn't mean that society can't make rules that individuals and companies don't get to poop in our food.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

See? We're not advocating no laws. We just want government to stay the hell away from the market. That doesn't mean that society can't make rules that individuals and companies don't get to poop in our food.

We all owe a debt of gratitude to the Federal Government for making sure that our food contains no more than the acceptable level of insect parts and rat feces - Dale Gribble

I know Dale said it a little differently, but I always liked that one.

 

[jamil]

We all owe a debt of gratitude to the Federal Government for making sure that our food contains no more than the acceptable level of insect parts and rat feces - Dale Gribble

I know Dale said it a little differently, but I always liked that one.

As far as the government keeping our food at acceptable levels of disgusting things, or really any of the things we think that government has done so well on our behalf I say this:

We didn't HAVE to kill the fly with a sledge hammer. That was just the compromise we voted on.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

As far as the government keeping our food at acceptable levels of disgusting things, or really any of the things we think that government has done so well on our behalf I say this:

We didn't HAVE to kill the fly with a sledge hammer. That was just the compromise we voted on.

The way I've always looked at these things is this:

Government of the people, by the people, and for the people seems like an awesome concept, until you meet the people. (I should copyright that)

 

[RockofStrength]

The way I've always looked at these things is this:

Government of the people, by the people, and for the people seems like an awesome concept, until you meet the people. (I should copyright that)

Which is why it was only partially governed by the people, originally. Letting the average Joe elect Senators was a major shift in power towards the teeming masses.

 

[Tsigos]

I've got a good idea for a law.

Don't damage other people or property.

Wait, that law already exists. Let's just use our criminal and Civil courts to properly enforce it. No more government agencies are necessary.

Do we all get free attorneys to pay for the years of litigation if we choose to privately enforce the law? Or did you mean the government could seek criminal prosecution? If so, who is going to monitor for criminal wrongdoing?

Let's expand this thinking and get rid of traffic enforcement. We'll just wait until someone is killed in a wreck and then use our criminal and civil code to prosecute the negligent party. Surely, this will deter others from breaking traffic laws.

 

[jamil]

Do we all get free attorneys to pay for the years of litigation if we choose to privately enforce the law? Or did you mean the government could seek criminal prosecution? If so, who is going to monitor for criminal wrongdoing?

Let's expand this thinking and get rid of traffic enforcement. We'll just wait until someone is killed in a wreck and then use our criminal and civil code to prosecute the negligent party. Surely, this will deter others from breaking traffic laws.

I get the feeling that litigation would be much easier and affordable in Steve's world than yours.

 

[steveh_131]

Do we all get free attorneys to pay for the years of litigation if we choose to privately enforce the law? Or did you mean the government could seek criminal prosecution?

I don't understand your question. Criminal and civil litigation take place constantly in our society. Why are they an unreasonable enforcement mechanism?

If so, who is going to monitor for criminal wrongdoing?

Just like every other type of criminal wrongdoing. The injured party pursues it.

Let's expand this thinking and get rid of traffic enforcement. We'll just wait until someone is killed in a wreck and then use our criminal and civil code to prosecute the negligent party.

I agree.

Surely, this will deter others from breaking traffic laws.

Traffic regulations and money collection don't improve road conditions. I've provided evidence of this in several threads. So yes, I believe that the danger of death or heavy financial loss is a much better deterrent for irresponsible driving than being jacked for $150 on the side of the road.

I get the feeling that litigation would be much easier and affordable in Steve's world than yours.

We rely on civil and criminal litigation in every other area of our society. Why are we pretending like it's not a viable system?

 

[Tsigos]

I don't understand your question. Criminal and civil litigation take place constantly in our society. Why are they an unreasonable enforcement mechanism?



Just like every other type of criminal wrongdoing. The injured party pursues it.



I agree.



Traffic regulations and money collection don't improve road conditions. I've provided evidence of this in several threads. So yes, I believe that the danger of death or heavy financial loss is a much better deterrent for irresponsible driving than being jacked for $150 on the side of the road.



We rely on civil and criminal litigation in every other area of our society. Why are we pretending like it's not a viable system?

Do you really believe most individuals have millions of dollars and would be able to front the cost of proving that some large corporation broke the law? You must not be familiar with the legal system. It is not like a Judge Judy episode. The types of trials that you are talking about would take years to prepare for with likely millions of dollars spent in expert testimony and discovery. Depending on the level of damages to the individual, the cost of litigation might make it unfeasible to obtain a remedy.

What happens when you are successful in prosecuting a claim and the corporation (or the negligent driver in your traffic scenario) just files bankruptcy? What good does that do? Who would pay for the clean-up costs, medical bills etc.?

The entire reason we came up with regulatory bodies in the first place was because what you proposed did not work. The people decided to act collectively through government to better protect themselves from the dangers of pollution (and reckless/drunken driving).

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

The entire reason we came up with regulatory bodies in the first place was because what you proposed did not work. The people decided to act collectively through government to better protect themselves from the dangers of pollution (and reckless/drunken driving).

When these arguments are brought up, I wonder how much thought is given to the fact that ALL of us alive in the US today have grown up enjoying the safety and good health provided by those evil government agencies for all these years.

Like Jack Nicholson's character in A Few Good Men, all the people who have worked to provide you with that safety and good health, and now have to hear you question the manner in which they provided it, would probably prefer that you just said "Thank You".