Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 33 to 40 of 50

Thread: Dems and obama out to destroy even MORE jobs

  1. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 1997
    Posts
    3,031

    Re: Dems and obama out to destroy even MORE jobs

    "Willing" to do a job and accepting a job because he/she simply has little or no other choice are two different things.

    I was suggesting setting up a hiring freeze and reducing numbers by attrittion. You aren't really destroying the jobs of those who already work there, and you're not shutting the place down.
    Those few people that wish to work in the coal mines simply have to wait alittle longer until the hiring freeze ends.

  2. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    9,507

    Post Re: Dems and obama out to destroy even MORE jobs

    Hey Bigeasy... it is settled law that yes, govt. does have a right to "shut down" things that are either dangerous or illegal. Or against the public good.
    Besides... you're exaggerating, as usual- nobody is going to "shut down" the coal mines! However, as with tobacco, we can make it unprofitable for them to exist!

    Why is it that you guys make everything about the first ammendment? As if we have a right to do whatever we want just because we're Americans and we're free!

    Pollution laws were enacted because some things trump your first ammendment right to "freedom". I certainly think we'd be a much better country if Republicans weren't always looking our for #1... instead of what's better for the country as a whole.

    And I still don't understand how that mentality co-exists with a religious mindset.

  3. #35
    Join Date
    Dec 1997
    Posts
    3,031

    Re: Dems and obama out to destroy even MORE jobs

    How easily he forgets Prohibition.

  4. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,781

    Post Re: Dems and obama out to destroy even MORE jobs

    you are denying people the opportunity to work when they desperately need jobs... whether you shut them down or you enact draconian measures that force it out of business the bottom line result is the same, it goes away...

    you've got people who need jobs, you have people who need cheap energy and those important things are being taken away by those who claim that coal will destroy the planet... saying they have scientific proof that it will when in fact they have no proof... all these politicians are looking for is more power and kick backs from other more expensive sources of energy that will replace the coal... screw the rest of us...

    so go ahead and associate and align yourselves with that elite side all you want... I'll stay on the side of common sense and compassion for those poor folks needing a job

    oh and by the way...prohibition sucked too... had about as much success as these crazy leftist policies in place now that kill jobs...

  5. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    9,507

    Post Re: Dems and obama out to destroy even MORE jobs


  6. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 1997
    Posts
    3,031

    Re: Dems and obama out to destroy even MORE jobs

    How is this any different than say, an airline retiring its older planes in favor of new planes?
    A massive airliner retirement is about the same as laying off coal miners. They are doing this due to economic and environmental factors.

    Boeing 727 and 707s had flight engineers, as did DC8s. During thier time, they were the gleaming flagships of airlines all over the world.
    These days, they are considered old noisy gas guzzlers, while an Airbus A230, Boeing 737 or 757 can do the same job, with less noise, don't consume as much fuel, and need only a pilot and copilot for a job that was once done by aircraft that had a flight crew of three. (Let's leave flight attendants out of this because the number of flight attendants needed is based on capacity.)
    Additionally, some airports have noise/pollution restrictions on the older aircraft to such that they are no longer economically feasable for use on today's airlines.

    The airlines and thier employees had to go through the same tough decisions.
    Tell the 707/727/DC8/etc. flight engineers they are phasing out (destroying thier jobs in the process) that position and if they want to remain within the airline, they would have to find another position within the company, retire, or accept a lay-off.
    This is exactly what the airlines have to do when they retire an older aircraft type for a newer one.

    Should an airline retain these aircraft in order to save the flight engineers' jobs or those that are only qualified to fly those aircraft types during a recession, or retire these aircraft in favor of newer more environmentally friendly aircraft?

  7. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,781

    Post Re: Dems and obama out to destroy even MORE jobs

    Merry Christmas Jolau...

    it's way different... an internal decision by the business owners versus government opression... and just because you retire an airplane that does not mean you still don't need mechanics and other personell that the older planes needed...

    there was nothing positive economically with what obama did to the coal miners other than pay back the warmers and other political brownie points.. coal creates cheap energy and provides jobs...it is being taken away all in the name of junk science

    these decisions by the airline industry are made internally that save the airline money... obama is standing in the way of employers who want to hire and workers needing a job... there is nothing good about this unless you believe in junk science and simply just enjoy seeing someone's livelyhood stripped from them

  8. #40
    Join Date
    Dec 1997
    Posts
    3,031

    Re: Dems and obama out to destroy even MORE jobs

    Certainly environmental factors (IE: Government, be it local ordinances to federal regulations.) made some contribution to the airlines' decision to retire the older aircraft.
    Yes, mechanics and flight attendants aren't effected much, however I'm concentrating solely on the fate of flight engineers (and in some cases flight navigators.) A position on an aircraft that has since been delegated to onboard computers and modern avionics. Also pilots that fly these older aircraft that have yet to be certified to fly any new aircraft.

    I still wonder where you get this idea that unemployed people want to be coal miners.
    I seriously doubt that the people getting laid off at K-mart are going to line up to work at a coal mine a day after losing thier job at K-mart.
    If anything, they'd probably see if Walmart, Target, Kohls, etc. is hiring. For all we know, Best Buy will take over the property, and they could wait a while and see if Best Buy will hire them.
    The coal mine is probably going to be way down (if not dead last) in thier list of jobs to apply for.
    They might even land another job sometime before the thought of applying at the coal mine even crosses thier mind.

    Also, what if Obama's intention is to also have the coal mines streamline and modernize thier operations so they don't need so many miners? The mine is more efficient, the mine's output is the same (therefore environmentalism and the use of coal as a fuel is not a factor), the mine is doing it with fewer employees, the mine is getting paid the same, but doesn't have to spend as much in payroll, and the mine is more profitable because of it.

    I think sometimes the government steps in because private businesses aren't doing what is best.
    Look at thier new rules about taxiway congestion.
    People complain about having to wait several hours for thier airplane to take off (or in some cases several hours for a gate to be available so they can get off thier plane) due to bad weather.
    They complain to the airline and the airline does nothing. Since thier plane was delayed due to weather, all the airline can do is book them for the next available flight. The airline has no obligation to give them a hotel let alone a free meal.
    These passengers then complain to the Department of Transportation and lobby the government for a "Passenger Bill Of Rights", and said bill gets passed. The "Passenger Bill Of Rights" makes it harder for the airlines to make a profit, they layoff some portion of thier work force, etc. Does this mean the government by passing the "Passenger Bill Of Rights" is the cause of all these people losing thier jobs because of this?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •