Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Non-Union guys, while they have to meet the same requirements for licensure, usually don't go through multi-year apprenticeships like the union guys do. Union ironworkers get 3-year apprenticeships with classes every saturday and direct supervision by a master ironworker while on the job site.
Thus a 1st year journeyman ironworker is better than a 1st year scab on average.
And how do you explain that little accident in the Big Dig tunnel( constructed by skilled and infallable union labor) a few years ago...
You know which accident.....The one where the roof fell in and killed a motorist.
The one where the unions quickly jumped and said " it's not our guys. It was management's fault. No , wait ....It was the panel manufacturer's fault.....No ,, it was the government's fault....
You still cannot get around the fact that probably 90% of all construction tradespeople are NOT union..
BTW you're so up on union shit then why is it you cannot use the term "scab" properly?
A scab is a person not a union member who crosses a picket line to take a job previously held by a union member.
A scab is NOT simply a worker who refuses to or is not required by law to join a union.
I have never been a union member,. Does that make ME a scab.. 93% of all private sector workers are non union. Does that make them all scabs?
So all that bullshit about "what business have you ever run" is exactly that, bullshit. Right? You couldn't run a one car funeral. If the mental capacity required is beyond reading and regurgitating sections of right wing propaganda, you can't fucking do it.
I bet you still live with Mom.
If you do not think government uses license fees to increase revenue ,you're in la la land.You go find where I specifically stated to implied government regulation is a "shakedown"..
I stated that certain governments use licensce fees as a means to increase revenue. That's not a "shakedown"..
A shakedown would be if a government officail in one way or another communcates to an individual or business that if they do not "play ball" that person or business can expect "trouble"....THAT would be a shakedown. And BTW, in some places that is exactly what does occur. It is done by certain unscrupulous employees of government that have too much authority and not enough oversight. And example would be the plumbing inspector who wants his palm greased to get to a job to perform and inspection in a timely manner.
The regualtion itself is not the shakdown. It is the individual employee that is the shaker-down.
Don't make shit up to support your weak assed argument. That the equivalent of having a battleship mouth and a rowboat ass.
Some Govt regulatory agencies collect fees, but none do it "to increase revenue"; they do it to help pay for their operations. The way you described it, as a payment for which they get nothing in return, is indeed a "shakedown". If the business doesn't "play ball" (by paying), they can expect "trouble" (in the form of the govt shutting their business down)
And fines relating to inspections, etc can be appealed. All you have to do is prove you followed the rules. It's not that hard.
Unless you're a stupid wingnut businessman who thinks some govt pencil pusher has the final say.
Look, it really doesn't matter what you think. Government regulation that is fair balanced and serves the public good is an essential function of government under the area of public safety or providing for the general welfare of the people.
Having a rouge employee of government knocking on doors of businesses looking for a "little something to speed things up" is a shakedown.
Now because you are a lib and a fan of big government, I will excuse your lack of comprehension skills.
If you go with union labor, your shit will be to code.
Every single building code is there because somebody, at LEAST one somebody fucking died.
Some Govt regulatory agencies collect fees, but none do it "to increase revenue"; they do it to help pay for their operations. The way you described it, as a payment for which they get nothing in return, is indeed a "shakedown". If the business doesn't "play ball" (by paying), they can expect "trouble" (in the form of the govt shutting their business down)
And fines relating to inspections, etc can be appealed. All you have to do is prove you followed the rules. It's not that hard.
Unless you're a stupid wingnut businessman who thinks some govt pencil pusher has the final say.
They do not use it to increase revenue?
Fees are part of government revenue, and any increase in fees increases revenue. They might claim the intent is not to increase revenue, but that is the inevitable result. Why esle have fees?
Some Govt regulatory agencies collect fees, but none do it "to increase revenue"; they do it to help pay for their operations. The way you described it, as a payment for which they get nothing in return, is indeed a "shakedown". If the business doesn't "play ball" (by paying), they can expect "trouble" (in the form of the govt shutting their business down)
And fines relating to inspections, etc can be appealed. All you have to do is prove you followed the rules. It's not that hard.
Unless you're a stupid wingnut businessman who thinks some govt pencil pusher has the final say.
They do not use it to increase revenue?
Fees are part of government revenue, and any increase in fees increases revenue. They might claim the intent is not to increase revenue, but that is the inevitable result. Why esle have fees?
The fees pay for the services the agency provides. Saying that their purpose is to increase revenues is wrong as even you acknowledge "the intent is not to increase revenue". If he had said "increasing revenue was the result", it would have left him without any way to tar the process without any evidence, as he tried to do.
Some Govt regulatory agencies collect fees, but none do it "to increase revenue"; they do it to help pay for their operations. The way you described it, as a payment for which they get nothing in return, is indeed a "shakedown". If the business doesn't "play ball" (by paying), they can expect "trouble" (in the form of the govt shutting their business down)
And fines relating to inspections, etc can be appealed. All you have to do is prove you followed the rules. It's not that hard.
Unless you're a stupid wingnut businessman who thinks some govt pencil pusher has the final say.
They do not use it to increase revenue?
Fees are part of government revenue, and any increase in fees increases revenue. They might claim the intent is not to increase revenue, but that is the inevitable result. Why esle have fees?
And I'm J. R. Ewing.Translation: I've never run a business
Oddball, ou're a fucking joke. I'm beyond running businesses. That's fucking work. I buy and sell them now. I could go to the bank tomorrow and withdraw more than your net worth from just one of my accounts. If i then burned all the cash, I'd still be worth at least 10 times more than you.
What business have you ever run shit for brains? You see, i think you're lying. No fucking actual businessperson would go straight to FDA as something that's hurting business. They'd think of something a little more relevant to themselves.
You still live with Mom, don't you?
They do not use it to increase revenue?
Fees are part of government revenue, and any increase in fees increases revenue. They might claim the intent is not to increase revenue, but that is the inevitable result. Why esle have fees?
The fees pay for the services the agency provides. Saying that their purpose is to increase revenues is wrong as even you acknowledge "the intent is not to increase revenue". If he had said "increasing revenue was the result", it would have left him without any way to tar the process without any evidence, as he tried to do.
Which is why California tried to tack an $18 fee on license plates to pay for state parks, because fees are only used to cover the costs of providing the service the agency provides.
Please explain the connection between the DMV and parks.
They do not use it to increase revenue?
Fees are part of government revenue, and any increase in fees increases revenue. They might claim the intent is not to increase revenue, but that is the inevitable result. Why esle have fees?
The fees pay for the services the agency provides. Saying that their purpose is to increase revenues is wrong as even you acknowledge "the intent is not to increase revenue". If he had said "increasing revenue was the result", it would have left him without any way to tar the process without any evidence, as he tried to do.
Which is why California tried to tack an $18 fee on license plates to pay for state parks, because fees are only used to cover the costs of providing the service the agency provides.
Please explain the connection between the DMV and parks.
The fees pay for the services the agency provides. Saying that their purpose is to increase revenues is wrong as even you acknowledge "the intent is not to increase revenue". If he had said "increasing revenue was the result", it would have left him without any way to tar the process without any evidence, as he tried to do.
Which is why California tried to tack an $18 fee on license plates to pay for state parks, because fees are only used to cover the costs of providing the service the agency provides.
Please explain the connection between the DMV and parks.
Try to pay attention wingnut!!
We're talking about BUSINESS regulations; not motor vehicle regulations
And state parks provide services to the public that need funding.
I am presently running a construction business....One that has been in more or less continuous operation since the late '80s.What business did you ever run oddball?
You're so full of fucking shit.
