S.19.4-2: LABORER Act (Statute)

[Dr. MB]

How many have been in a position where they had a say in hiring/firing employees? 

The poor bosses :cry:

[Dr. MB]

How many have been in a position where they had a say in hiring/firing employees? 

The poor bosses :cry:

If someone lacks any experience and understanding of how the process works, they have no business speaking on an issue they aren't informed about.

Only black people should have a say on civil rights issues.

[Dr. MB]

How many have been in a position where they had a say in hiring/firing employees? 

The poor bosses :cry:

If someone lacks any experience and understanding of how the process works, they have no business speaking on an issue they aren't informed about.

Only black people should have a say on civil rights issues.

Madam President: It is unreasonable to claim that only experts in a particular field can comment on that policy area.

It is unreasonable for people who have never had any real life experience with the issues you speak so negatively about to push policy on said issues.

Going back to what I said, you could twist and turn this logic as many times as you want to justify any position.

Healthcare? Uh oh, I’m not a doctor or health insurance executive!

Abortion? Never had one, never performed one, no say!

Immigration? Never crossed the border, my family’s been here for hundreds of years.

Even if you do take that position, if you have no real life experience you have no say, that still narrows the “unaffected” group to a very small number of people. Everyone knows someone who has a job (even if they’re unemployed themselves) and most people know someone who has been fired from a job. If not, they hear stories. It’s not as if West Midlander and Leinad and whoever else do nothing but sit in a dark room disconnected from the outside world. Sh!t logic with no basis in reality doesn’t disprove this in any way.

[Dr. MB]

How many have been in a position where they had a say in hiring/firing employees? 

The poor bosses :cry:

If someone lacks any experience and understanding of how the process works, they have no business speaking on an issue they aren't informed about.

Only black people should have a say on civil rights issues.

Madam President: It is unreasonable to claim that only experts in a particular field can comment on that policy area.

It is unreasonable for people who have never had any real life experience with the issues you speak so negatively about to push policy on said issues.

Going back to what I said, you could twist and turn this logic as many times as you want to justify any position.

Healthcare? Uh oh, I’m not a doctor or health insurance executive!

Abortion? Never had one, never performed one, no say!

Immigration? Never crossed the border, my family’s been here for hundreds of years.

Even if you do take that position, if you have no real life experience you have no say, that still narrows the “unaffected” group to a very small number of people. Everyone knows someone who has a job (even if they’re unemployed themselves) and most people know someone who has been fired from a job. If not, they hear stories. It’s not as if West Midlander and Leinad and whoever else do nothing but sit in a dark room disconnected from the outside world. Sh!t logic with no basis in reality doesn’t disprove this in any way.

The left consistently uses that sort of logic with abortions.

"No vagina? You don't get a say!"

And I'm opposed to that. You, on the other hand, clearly have some sort of double standard.

If someone lacks any experience and understanding of how the process works, they have no business speaking on an issue they aren't informed about.

[Dr. MB]

Since debate has died down again, I motion for a direct vote of cloture.

When debate on legislation has halted for longer than 24 hours and the legislation has been on the floor for more than 72 hours but no more than 336 hours, any Delegates may motion for cloture. Upon the concurrence of two-thirds of the Chamber of Delegates, the Chamber of Delegates shall end debate.

Debate hasn't died down, we are waiting on you guys to answer questions and address points that have been made.

Hmmm...there were plenty of things you also didn't reply to.

[Dr. MB]

Already addressed. I'm done answering your questions since you're going to keep repeating the same points.

Unions, historically, have been regulated unfairly under anti-trust legislation intended to regulate trusts. Unions have been corrupt in some instances in the past but I believe regulation of unions is sufficient today. Furthermore, the POWER Act protects the rights of workers to report abuse by corporation and union officials without penalty.

Reporting is no guarantee anything will be done about it. It's also not a valid argument to make when union leaders are notorious for intimidating union members, many of which will be unlikely to report abuse for that reason.

The same can be said for corporations but worse. What's your point besides: only unions should come under scrutiny?

Not saying that at all.

However no one should have as much trust as you are putting in unions to do the right thing. Especially when history proves that they shouldn't have as much power as you want to give them.

and you support giving more power to the corporations...........

[Dr. MB]

If joining a union is so great

You've gone over this...quite a few times.

And yet you still want to defend extortion...


Why do you hate workers? Why don't you trust them to make the right decisions for themselves?

And why exactly do you trust the employers to make the right decisions?

Anyway uhhhhhhhhh basically we’ve gone over this. The only reason you’re doing this is so it takes longer to get passed because you know it will and this is all you can do to stop it.