Workers
July 28, 2016 at 4:25 p.m.
By -
Imagine this scenario: The country's average worker only wants a secure job for the next two years anyway, maybe paying like the one he has now or a little better, but the economy is shaky at best. The average employer foresees layoffs looming large because sales are down almost to nothing, if not coming to that already. The big three domestic automakers not only employ their own workers, but peripheral support industries and more workers yet. As you know, the same domestic automakers are now asking for large sums of public money, and we're not getting anything for that exchange - the big three just want to remain in business longer, but with no strings attached. The system didn't change at all - just the names.[[In-content Ad]]If any worker gets a domestic new or used car most often they get a loan from the bank or S & L making that industry content for a time. Also, this customer has to do business with the insurance, fuel, sales taxes (state), and even the local BMV license branch. If working in a florist shop for instance, how can the worker be protected against layoffs just because they bought a new car? All businesses have to pay a tax, S.S., insurance and etc., to go into business. Look at your check stub, or do you have automatic deposit? Anyway, this money goes involuntarily somewhere else now, how would that be any different?
Can the lawmakers place a preference on this newly "indebted" worker, backing their job? Not much different than any state- or federal-level employees (police or the military) - then not going bankrupt, producing fewer foreclosures. I know doing that will shift more power to the lawmakers at the expense of the many supervisors. Obviously, unions lose more control yet, as their root purpose vanishes, having a government agency standing between the worker and their supervisor more than the likes of OSHA, as beneficial as that is to a worker.
However, a more critical balance is needed to prevent the average worker from "milking the system" or taking advantage of being shielded from layoffs for the three years contracted. Almost every employee would be guaranteed that way. Many new GM, Chrysler or Ford products would be in the company parking lot or on the road owned by employees trying to creep over the threshold of vesting in the 401k (which most often is two years), by then the fiscal threat should long be over. The more fiscally secure person may buy foreign cars yet, however truly being a rarity as in '58, not the norm as today.
If buying a used car, the same worker could be granted a year and a half exemption being laid off (for lack of work only) but not exempted for being fired for doing something clearly wrong. I'm not sure how many years to guarantee the worker if a year-round dwelling is purchased by them, maybe seven. The state has the power to make you into a jury member, some cases life or death of someone else, surely the federal government can do most anything to its citizens, as they already have. As you know, as soon as an infant is born they are issued a SSN before getting out of the hospital, and just visiting Canada or Mexico requires a passport now.
I (a taxpayer) almost forgot, Merry Christmas.
R.E. Snizek
Warsaw, via e-mail
Latest News
E-Editions
Imagine this scenario: The country's average worker only wants a secure job for the next two years anyway, maybe paying like the one he has now or a little better, but the economy is shaky at best. The average employer foresees layoffs looming large because sales are down almost to nothing, if not coming to that already. The big three domestic automakers not only employ their own workers, but peripheral support industries and more workers yet. As you know, the same domestic automakers are now asking for large sums of public money, and we're not getting anything for that exchange - the big three just want to remain in business longer, but with no strings attached. The system didn't change at all - just the names.[[In-content Ad]]If any worker gets a domestic new or used car most often they get a loan from the bank or S & L making that industry content for a time. Also, this customer has to do business with the insurance, fuel, sales taxes (state), and even the local BMV license branch. If working in a florist shop for instance, how can the worker be protected against layoffs just because they bought a new car? All businesses have to pay a tax, S.S., insurance and etc., to go into business. Look at your check stub, or do you have automatic deposit? Anyway, this money goes involuntarily somewhere else now, how would that be any different?
Can the lawmakers place a preference on this newly "indebted" worker, backing their job? Not much different than any state- or federal-level employees (police or the military) - then not going bankrupt, producing fewer foreclosures. I know doing that will shift more power to the lawmakers at the expense of the many supervisors. Obviously, unions lose more control yet, as their root purpose vanishes, having a government agency standing between the worker and their supervisor more than the likes of OSHA, as beneficial as that is to a worker.
However, a more critical balance is needed to prevent the average worker from "milking the system" or taking advantage of being shielded from layoffs for the three years contracted. Almost every employee would be guaranteed that way. Many new GM, Chrysler or Ford products would be in the company parking lot or on the road owned by employees trying to creep over the threshold of vesting in the 401k (which most often is two years), by then the fiscal threat should long be over. The more fiscally secure person may buy foreign cars yet, however truly being a rarity as in '58, not the norm as today.
If buying a used car, the same worker could be granted a year and a half exemption being laid off (for lack of work only) but not exempted for being fired for doing something clearly wrong. I'm not sure how many years to guarantee the worker if a year-round dwelling is purchased by them, maybe seven. The state has the power to make you into a jury member, some cases life or death of someone else, surely the federal government can do most anything to its citizens, as they already have. As you know, as soon as an infant is born they are issued a SSN before getting out of the hospital, and just visiting Canada or Mexico requires a passport now.
I (a taxpayer) almost forgot, Merry Christmas.
R.E. Snizek
Warsaw, via e-mail
Have a news tip? Email [email protected] or Call/Text 360-922-3092