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.
What about the union jobs in transport ? Wouldn't the pipeline destroy those jobs?
You know what makes this more insane (as if that were possible). Enbridge was given the green light to complete the Alberta Clipper and the Southern Lights pipelines. This in the same time period that enviro whackos spent targeting XL.
Check this out.
Alberta Clipper and Southern Lights - Enbridge Inc.
There weren't going to be very many jobs.
And Reagan did the most to destroy unions.
Reagan did nothing to destroy the unions. NOTHING. .
Using that logic why don't we just transport it with buckets and mules? just think how many "jobs" that would "create", of course then we'd have the PETA people freakin' out about the low wages the mules were getting.What about the union jobs in transport ? Wouldn't the pipeline destroy those jobs?
Using that logic why don't we just transport it with buckets and mules? just think how many "jobs" that would "create", of course then we'd have the PETA people freakin' out about the low wages the mules were getting.What about the union jobs in transport ? Wouldn't the pipeline destroy those jobs?
You know what makes this more insane (as if that were possible). Enbridge was given the green light to complete the Alberta Clipper and the Southern Lights pipelines. This in the same time period that enviro whackos spent targeting XL.
Check this out.
Alberta Clipper and Southern Lights - Enbridge Inc.
Are those to the tar sands ? That's the "sticking point. " ( see what I did there) .
Using that logic why don't we just transport it with buckets and mules? just think how many "jobs" that would "create", of course then we'd have the PETA people freakin' out about the low wages the mules were getting.What about the union jobs in transport ? Wouldn't the pipeline destroy those jobs?
I'm not talking about creating jobs , I'm talking about not destroying them.
The implication of this thread is that we are throwing jobs away . But are we really ? Once the pipeline is built those construction jobs are gone and the transport jobs are also gone .
Net loss of jobs ??
There weren't going to be very many jobs.
And Reagan did the most to destroy unions.
Reagan did nothing to destroy the unions. NOTHING. .
Wrong again.
"...Reagan,in any case, was a true ideologue of the anti-labor political right. Yes, he had been president of the Screen Actors Guild, but he was notoriously pro-management, leading the way to a strike-ending agreement in 1959 that greatly weakened the union and finally resigning under membership pressure before his term ended.
Reagan's war on labor began in the summer of 1981, when he fired 13,000 striking air traffic controllers and destroyed their union. As Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson noted, that was "an unambiguous signal that employers need feel little or no obligation to their workers, and employers got that message loud and clear -- illegally firing workers who sought to unionize, replacing permanent employees who could collect benefits with temps who could not, shipping factories and jobs abroad."
Reagan gave dedicated union foes direct control of the federal agencies that were designed originally to protect and further the rights and interests of workers and their unions.
Most important was Reagan's appointment of three management representatives to the five-member National Labor Relations Board which oversees union representation elections and labor-management bargaining, They included NLRB Chairman Donald Dotson, who believed that "unionized labor relations have been the major contributors to the decline and failure of once-healthy industries" and have caused "destruction of individual freedom."
Under Dotson, a House subcommittee found,the board abandoned its legal obligation to promote collective bargaining, in what amounted to "a betrayal of American workers."
The NLRB settled only about half as many complaints of employers' illegal actions as had the board during the previous administration of Democrat Jimmy Carter, and those that were settled upheld employers in three-fourths of the cases. Even under Republican Richard Nixon, employers won only about one-third of the time.
Most of the complaints were against employers who responded to organizing drives by illegally firing union supporters. The employers were well aware that under Reagan the NLRB was taking an average of three years to rule on complaints, and that in any case it generally did no more than order the discharged unionists reinstated with back pay. That's much cheaper than operating under a union contract.
The board stalled as long before acting on petitions from workers seeking union representation elections and stalled for another year or two after such votes before certifying winning unions as the workers' bargaining agents. Under Reagan, too, employers were allowed to permanently replace workers who dared exercise their legal right to strike.
Reagan's Labor Department was as one-sided as the NLRB. It became an anti-labor department, virtually ignoring, for instance, the union-busting consultants who were hired by many employers to fend off unionization. Very few consultants and very few of those who hired them were asked for the financial disclosure statements the law demands. Yet all unions were required to file the statements that the law required of them (and that could be used to advantage by their opponents). And though the department cut its overall budget by more than 10 percent, it increased the budget for such union-busting activities by almost 40 percent.
Union-busting was only one aspect of Reagan's anti-labor policy. He attempted to lower the minimum wage for younger workers, ease the child labor and anti-sweatshop laws, tax fringe benefits, and cut back job training programs for the unemployed. He tried to replace thousands of federal employees with temporary workers who would not have civil service or union protections.
The Reagan administration all but dismantled programs that required affirmative action and other steps against discrimination by federal contractors, and seriously undermined worker safety. It closed one-third of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's field offices, trimmed its staff by more than one-fourth and decreased the number of penalties assessed against employers by almost three-fourths.
Rather than enforce the law, the administration sought "voluntary compliance" from employers on safety matters - and generally didn't get or expect it. The administration had so tilted the job safety laws in favor of employers that union safety experts found them virtually useless.
The same could have been said of all other labor laws in the Reagan era. A statement issued at the time by the presidents of several major unions concluded it would have been more advantageous for those who worked for a living to ignore the laws and return "to the law of the jungle" that prevailed a half-century before.
Their suggestion came a little late. Ronald Reagan had already plunged labor-management relations deep into the jungle..."
Ronald Reagan's War on Labor (Labor) by Dick Meister
You know what makes this more insane (as if that were possible). Enbridge was given the green light to complete the Alberta Clipper and the Southern Lights pipelines. This in the same time period that enviro whackos spent targeting XL.
Check this out.
Alberta Clipper and Southern Lights - Enbridge Inc.
Are those to the tar sands ? That's the "sticking point. " ( see what I did there) .
Yuppers to the tar sands. And what people are not getting a grip on is that the oil is coming no matter what. America needs the crude.
Now I've been a conservationist for many a year and I've personally come to the conclusion that with todays technology pipelines are far safer than rail, transport trucks and barges in rivers. One barge leaking or sinking is a nightmare scenario in my mind.
Using that logic why don't we just transport it with buckets and mules? just think how many "jobs" that would "create", of course then we'd have the PETA people freakin' out about the low wages the mules were getting.What about the union jobs in transport ? Wouldn't the pipeline destroy those jobs?
I'm not talking about creating jobs , I'm talking about not destroying them.
The implication of this thread is that we are throwing jobs away . But are we really ? Once the pipeline is built those construction jobs are gone and the transport jobs are also gone .
Net loss of jobs ??
Well construction jobs are by their very nature temporary. And my issue with both rail and transport is that the crude is travelling thru very populated areas.
This was an epic disaster. Lac Megantic. 47 people died.
Lac-Mégantic rail disaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Using that logic why don't we just transport it with buckets and mules? just think how many "jobs" that would "create", of course then we'd have the PETA people freakin' out about the low wages the mules were getting.What about the union jobs in transport ? Wouldn't the pipeline destroy those jobs?
I'm not talking about creating jobs , I'm talking about not destroying them.
The implication of this thread is that we are throwing jobs away . But are we really ? Once the pipeline is built those construction jobs are gone and the transport jobs are also gone .
Net loss of jobs ??
Well construction jobs are by their very nature temporary. And my issue with both rail and transport is that the crude is travelling thru very populated areas.
This was an epic disaster. Lac Megantic. 47 people died.
Lac-Mégantic rail disaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We are talking jobs here , safety is something else . The environment is another factor .
Tar sand shit is nasty . Plus gas is$2 right now. Too low to make tar sand oil profitable .
There weren't going to be very many jobs.
And Reagan did the most to destroy unions.
Reagan did nothing to destroy the unions. NOTHING. .
Wrong again.
"...Reagan,in any case, was a true ideologue of the anti-labor political right. Yes, he had been president of the Screen Actors Guild, but he was notoriously pro-management, leading the way to a strike-ending agreement in 1959 that greatly weakened the union and finally resigning under membership pressure before his term ended.
Reagan's war on labor began in the summer of 1981, when he fired 13,000 striking air traffic controllers and destroyed their union. As Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson noted, that was "an unambiguous signal that employers need feel little or no obligation to their workers, and employers got that message loud and clear -- illegally firing workers who sought to unionize, replacing permanent employees who could collect benefits with temps who could not, shipping factories and jobs abroad."
Reagan gave dedicated union foes direct control of the federal agencies that were designed originally to protect and further the rights and interests of workers and their unions.
Most important was Reagan's appointment of three management representatives to the five-member National Labor Relations Board which oversees union representation elections and labor-management bargaining, They included NLRB Chairman Donald Dotson, who believed that "unionized labor relations have been the major contributors to the decline and failure of once-healthy industries" and have caused "destruction of individual freedom."
Under Dotson, a House subcommittee found,the board abandoned its legal obligation to promote collective bargaining, in what amounted to "a betrayal of American workers."
The NLRB settled only about half as many complaints of employers' illegal actions as had the board during the previous administration of Democrat Jimmy Carter, and those that were settled upheld employers in three-fourths of the cases. Even under Republican Richard Nixon, employers won only about one-third of the time.
Most of the complaints were against employers who responded to organizing drives by illegally firing union supporters. The employers were well aware that under Reagan the NLRB was taking an average of three years to rule on complaints, and that in any case it generally did no more than order the discharged unionists reinstated with back pay. That's much cheaper than operating under a union contract.
The board stalled as long before acting on petitions from workers seeking union representation elections and stalled for another year or two after such votes before certifying winning unions as the workers' bargaining agents. Under Reagan, too, employers were allowed to permanently replace workers who dared exercise their legal right to strike.
Reagan's Labor Department was as one-sided as the NLRB. It became an anti-labor department, virtually ignoring, for instance, the union-busting consultants who were hired by many employers to fend off unionization. Very few consultants and very few of those who hired them were asked for the financial disclosure statements the law demands. Yet all unions were required to file the statements that the law required of them (and that could be used to advantage by their opponents). And though the department cut its overall budget by more than 10 percent, it increased the budget for such union-busting activities by almost 40 percent.
Union-busting was only one aspect of Reagan's anti-labor policy. He attempted to lower the minimum wage for younger workers, ease the child labor and anti-sweatshop laws, tax fringe benefits, and cut back job training programs for the unemployed. He tried to replace thousands of federal employees with temporary workers who would not have civil service or union protections.
The Reagan administration all but dismantled programs that required affirmative action and other steps against discrimination by federal contractors, and seriously undermined worker safety. It closed one-third of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's field offices, trimmed its staff by more than one-fourth and decreased the number of penalties assessed against employers by almost three-fourths.
Rather than enforce the law, the administration sought "voluntary compliance" from employers on safety matters - and generally didn't get or expect it. The administration had so tilted the job safety laws in favor of employers that union safety experts found them virtually useless.
The same could have been said of all other labor laws in the Reagan era. A statement issued at the time by the presidents of several major unions concluded it would have been more advantageous for those who worked for a living to ignore the laws and return "to the law of the jungle" that prevailed a half-century before.
Their suggestion came a little late. Ronald Reagan had already plunged labor-management relations deep into the jungle..."
Ronald Reagan's War on Labor (Labor) by Dick Meister
What's the difference Timmy? you're experiencing a net loss of jobs by NOT using buckets and mules, right? following your line of reasoning we should do everything as inefficiently as possible since efficiency (pipeline) "destroys" jobs in inefficient modes (rail and truck transport). What you're missing is that efficient economies will redirect resources (which includes labor) to more efficient endeavors, so the guy that drove a truck transporting oil loses his job to a pipeline which then frees him up to transport something else in his truck which (due to it's nature) cannot be transported more efficiently using existing technology or maybe he finds a different field which utilizes his talents more fully than driving a truck.Using that logic why don't we just transport it with buckets and mules? just think how many "jobs" that would "create", of course then we'd have the PETA people freakin' out about the low wages the mules were getting.What about the union jobs in transport ? Wouldn't the pipeline destroy those jobs?
I'm not talking about creating jobs , I'm talking about not destroying them.
The implication of this thread is that we are throwing jobs away . But are we really ? Once the pipeline is built those construction jobs are gone and the transport jobs are also gone .
Net loss of jobs ??
And the damage from the train wrecks, or the barge spill that closed down the Mississippi River???
Really, you have your head so far up your ass with your partisan politics that you are starting to look like a fool...
But then, if you're a Democrat, you can't be too bright, anyway...
Union bosses, Democrats and their sycophantic followers on the Left have been allowed to rewrite history for 30 years. Despite evidence to the contrary (see chart at right), they have largely cast blame for the fall of unions on “The Reagan Era,” blaming Ronald Reagan (and, later, his Republican successors) for the massive decline in unionization. Sadly, for those of us in the union movement during the 80s and early 90s, like Pavlov’s dogs, we believed The Big Lie—unfortunately, many still do today—that Reagan and Republicans are the cause of the union movement’s demise. The fact of the matter is, by the time Ronald Reagan was sworn into office the die had already been cast: Private-sector union membership in the United States had already begun its free fall, aided by market forces and the deregulatory push that the Carter administration put in place.
And the damage from the train wrecks, or the barge spill that closed down the Mississippi River???
Really, you have your head so far up your ass with your partisan politics that you are starting to look like a fool...
But then, if you're a Democrat, you can't be too bright, anyway...
no, guy,, not very bright is still being a Republican after 2008, when you all fucked up... well, everything.
The thing is, a train car might be a bad spill and all, but containable. A pipeline bursting open or being blown up by a terrorist would spill a lot more crude into the water table, and that's the point.
There weren't going to be very many jobs.
And Reagan did the most to destroy unions.
Using that logic why don't we just transport it with buckets and mules? just think how many "jobs" that would "create", of course then we'd have the PETA people freakin' out about the low wages the mules were getting.What about the union jobs in transport ? Wouldn't the pipeline destroy those jobs?
I'm not talking about creating jobs , I'm talking about not destroying them.
The implication of this thread is that we are throwing jobs away . But are we really ? Once the pipeline is built those construction jobs are gone and the transport jobs are also gone .
Net loss of jobs ??
Well construction jobs are by their very nature temporary. And my issue with both rail and transport is that the crude is travelling thru very populated areas.
This was an epic disaster. Lac Megantic. 47 people died.
Lac-Mégantic rail disaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And the damage from the train wrecks, or the barge spill that closed down the Mississippi River???
Really, you have your head so far up your ass with your partisan politics that you are starting to look like a fool...
But then, if you're a Democrat, you can't be too bright, anyway...
no, guy,, not very bright is still being a Republican after 2008, when you all fucked up... well, everything.
The thing is, a train car might be a bad spill and all, but containable. A pipeline bursting open or being blown up by a terrorist would spill a lot more crude into the water table, and that's the point.
You're obviously not aware of the Lac Megantic disaster. 47 people died.
Or this one.
GOGAMA, Ont. – Another train derailment in northern Ontario has added new fuel to the ongoing debate over whether rail is a safe way of transporting crude oil.
First Nations and environmentalists are among those expressing alarm over Saturday’s derailment of a CN Rail train that causing numerous tank cars carrying crude oil to catch fire and spill into a local river system.
CN said Sunday there were 94 cars on the train, all carrying Alberta crude to Eastern Canada when approximately 30 of them derailed near Gogama, Ont, about 80 km south of Timmins. Some of the cars caught fire and some crude entered the Mattagami River System.
Safety concerns rise in wake of a CN train derailment in northern Ontario
