2010 Midterm Elections Thread

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

This is true, but they're not doing it because living off public aid is so awesome and you can buy Cadillacs and Air Jordans on food stamps. Different than what I'm talking about. I'm addressing people who think that life being poor is so totally easysauce.


Ha! Is gay marriage legal in Sweden? Tell her I'd take a husband or a wife >.>

It has been legal for quite sometime, under different terminology, but it is now called marriage and not civil union, domestic partnership, or a registered partnership, and marriage has been made gender neutral. Even the Church of Sweden supported the change, though they are no longer the official government sanctioned church, and there has been an increase in more Evangelical, Charismatic, and Pentecostal congregations in Scandinavia who oppose a lot of the moves toward equality. Gay couples can adopt kids no problem, serve in the military which is no longer mandatory for men, medical procedures for those who are transgendered and lesbians who want to be inseminated are covered by the government, men who have had sex with men (and women who have been with men who have been with men) can donate blood with some conditions, and I'm really happy there is a progressive place like this.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

No, my point was directed to EW who was stating that unions' purposes were X when in reality X was a side effect and their purpose was Y. It was a poor argument and one that is not conducive to claiming a logical discussion.

Now as for your point, not necessarily. Unions protect their workers and ensure that their workers get hired even at high wages. You may disagree with the goal or the results, but the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. As long as they're actually getting hired and 'the little guy' can join the union then it does work in 'the little guy's' best interest.
Or, for the sake of logical grounds, the important part is that it can work in his best interest. And then it's up to data to determine if it does. Anecdotes about 98 dollars an hour and drinking beer are as useful as "welfare queens" buying lobsters and driving brand new SUVs.

Though I know it was a move to prevent unionizing my former place of employment, our benefits were amazing. Even before the spectre of a union came in we were allowed full benefits for 80 hours in a month at the same cost as full time employees, bereavement pay, jury duty pay covered the same as an hourly wage, extra pay for working Sunday, a full 8 hour of personal time as an anniversary of hire date and our birthday (even if you were part time) and if one exhausted their medical leave for an illness or surgery of their own or covered by FMLA relationships there was not just a bank people could donate to, but also pay would be arranged when everything was exhausted. I miss paying $3.28 a week for full medical, dental, vision, pharmacy, and extra things like Aflac, where my deductible was maybe $25 dollars but may have increased to still be under $100. We also had 401K, stock options, money for college if related to your job, and real paths to moving up that came from internal hires.

I miss that company so much I would still work there part time just for the benefits, sadly I live about 100 miles away from the nearest location.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by VandalSquirrel

It has been legal for quite sometime, under different terminology, but it is now called marriage and not civil union, domestic partnership, or a registered partnership, and marriage has been made gender neutral. Even the Church of Sweden supported the change, though they are no longer the official government sanctioned church, and there has been an increase in more Evangelical, Charismatic, and Pentecostal congregations in Scandinavia who oppose a lot of the moves toward equality. Gay couples can adopt kids no problem, serve in the military which is no longer mandatory for men, medical procedures for those who are transgendered and lesbians who want to be inseminated are covered by the government, men who have had sex with men (and women who have been with men who have been with men) can donate blood with some conditions, and I'm really happy there is a progressive place like this.

The blood donation rule is probably among the most ridiculous things that we have in place here.

Though I know it was a move to prevent unionizing my former place of employment, our benefits were amazing. Even before the spectre of a union came in we were allowed full benefits for 80 hours in a month at the same cost as full time employees, bereavement pay, jury duty pay covered the same as an hourly wage, extra pay for working Sunday, a full 8 hour of personal time as an anniversary of hire date and our birthday (even if you were part time) and if one exhausted their medical leave for an illness or surgery of their own or covered by FMLA relationships there was not just a bank people could donate to, but also pay would be arranged when everything was exhausted. I miss paying $3.28 a week for full medical, dental, vision, pharmacy, and extra things like Aflac, where my deductible was maybe $25 dollars but may have increased to still be under $100. We also had 401K, stock options, money for college if related to your job, and real paths to moving up that came from internal hires.

I miss that company so much I would still work there part time just for the benefits, sadly I live about 100 miles away from the nearest location.

Sounds like a place that is worth while. I'm still figuring out the new job and how the benefits work. I get real health insurance in Dec.

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

The blood donation rule is probably among the most ridiculous things that we have in place here.




Sounds like a place that is worth while. I'm still figuring out the new job and how the benefits work. I get real health insurance in Dec.

I would like blood donation to screen based on risky behavior of all people, and not because a dude is with another dude, one time, or regularly. A woman in what she believes is a monogamous relationship can be at risk from her partner and two men who have only been with each other for a long time and aren't IV drug users are not really a problem. I bet a lot of people have anonymous risky sex (say anal without a condom) and don't admit it when they donate blood and this is why blood is tested, people lie.

That job was surprisingly in retail of all things, and I think they realized retail brings out the shitty in customers and used generous benefits to compensate for douchebaggery.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by VandalSquirrel

I would like blood donation to screen based on risky behavior of all people, and not because a dude is with another dude, one time, or regularly. A woman in what she believes is a monogamous relationship can be at risk from her partner and two men who have only been with each other for a long time and aren't IV drug users are not really a problem. I bet a lot of people have anonymous risky sex (say anal without a condom) and don't admit it when they donate blood and this is why blood is tested, people lie.

That job was surprisingly in retail of all things, and I think they realized retail brings out the shitty in customers and used generous benefits to compensate for douchebaggery.

Either the test works or it doesn't and banning all gay men, all men who've had sexual encounter's with men and all women who've had... etc. Really, the way STDs work you've eliminated anyone who's had sex with someone who's also had sex with someone else. Ever. Or you test and you let everyone except people who know they're positive give.

I'm impressed that retail turned out so well, most just compensate by hiring new people when the old ones burn out.

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Either the test works or it doesn't and banning all gay men, all men who've had sexual encounter's with men and all women who've had... etc. Really, the way STDs work you've eliminated anyone who's had sex with someone who's also had sex with someone else. Ever. Or you test and you let everyone except people who know they're positive give.

I'm impressed that retail turned out so well, most just compensate by hiring new people when the old ones burn out.

They were kind of funny in a couple ways with the health insurance. Birth control was only covered with medical documentation, but that was because Viagra was also. I don't know any woman who was denied birth control with a letter from a doctor and this might have changed to no restrictions. It was quite common on a lot of health plans and I know of some that cover only certain pills and not others and those people go to Planned Parenthood and get what they need. I think the cost of bc monthly is a far better cost than a pregnancy and another dependent for an insurance plan, but like I said, no one was denied with their doctor saying it was medically needed. They also offered Plan B in our pharmacies (when it was still prescription only) and the health insurance covered it which is funny because they didn't cover birth control pills.