Turnover Rate?

[ChockJockey]

If you truly despise the "menial" workers here, then perhaps YOU should move on to a form of self-employment where you can call all the shots and be as condescending as you wish without reprisal, just bear in mind that not too many people would patronize you with your attitude.

I was thinking of going into business for myself, I really was until I found out how so very difficult the various governmental entities made it for me. The regulations were stifling.

First, it turns out you can't dump toxic waste products into public bodies of water or dry riverbeds. Big Brother will come down on you because it supposedly corrupts something called "groundwater", which is obviously some fantasy cooked up by bleeding heart socialists...I mean, how can there be water in the ground? There's only dirt down there. Don't believe me? Get a shovel and try it yourself. Ain't nothing in the Constitution says a well-meaning businessman can't dump petroleum-based waste products into the ground...that's where they came from in the first place.

So then some fascist broad from "Child Protective Services" showed up and told me I wasn't allowed to employ homeless children for 16 hours a day in my coal and uranium mines. I didn't see what the big deal was because I only ended up losing three of them to occupational mishaps, and they were slackers anyhow. One of them made up this thing called "diabetes" and kept asking for all this special treatment. Turns out he was a drug addict, I found his needles and vials and trashed them, hell, I did the kid a favor. I told that lady and them cops that there's no thing as "child labor laws" in the Constitution and if I'd rather have 'em making me money working for me than me spending tax dollars to "feed" and "educate" them that's MY business. They gave me jive because I wasn't even paying them minimum wage. Well what the hell else am I supposed to do when I can be thrown in jail for employing people that are in the country illegally? It's nuts!

Oh, and then - get this - and then I start getting calls and letters from all these government acronyms and sleazeball lawyers trying to assassinate my character because the goods I import and sell from the Far East contained deadly and dangerous amounts of lead. Duh, they're lead toys. I would have had it say so on the packaging but then GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS would have kept me from selling them at all, and I feel that as a job creator and businessman the good I bring the community through my free market activities more than compensates for any potential and alleged harm that comes from what I sell. Lead is natural. It's like olive oil or aloe vera. So what a few kids have some rare creepy lead allergy? I've got shareholders to satisfy. Now those jerks in Washington are telling me I have to "recall" my products. Did Thomas Jefferson "recall" the Declaration of Independence? I think not.

Wake up America!

 

[Dont call me Shirley]

I was thinking of going into business for myself, I really was until I found out how so very difficult the various governmental entities made it for me. The regulations were stifling.

.......................

Wake up America!

I may have to steal that for my FB page!

 

[ChockJockey]

I may have to steal that for my FB page!

Cheers!

 

[N965VJ]

I don't hold a view that would oppose the AMA the ATA or any other group that citizens or businesses want to join so long as government compliance and regulation isn't in any part of the equation.

The Air Transport Association (or Airlines for America as they now call themselves) has been very happy to have the costs of screening transferred to the TSA, with a budget now approaching $9 billion a year, ten times what was spent on screening in 2000 (GAO). Oh, and we also get erosion of our freedom and liberties, Red Team test failure scores off the charts, and never-ending mission creep into venues that have nothing to do with commercial aviation.

 

[767one]

He might find eye drops in his coffee too, He sounds like an arrogant sexist Oink....!

Very well said! I was the most junior f/o on the list from 1973 to 1978 so I ended up flying with most of the captains that no other f/o would bid with (or they would call in sick). When flying with one of the worst of these guys I overheard one of the f/a's tell another that this particular captain must be immune to the visine because he was up to 12 drops and complementing her on the coffee!

Merry Christmas!

 

[CallawayGolf]

I was thinking of going into business for myself, I really was until I found out how so very difficult the various governmental entities made it for me. The regulations were stifling.

First, it turns out you can't dump toxic waste products into public bodies of water or dry riverbeds. Big Brother will come down on you because it supposedly corrupts something called "groundwater", which is obviously some fantasy cooked up by bleeding heart socialists...I mean, how can there be water in the ground? There's only dirt down there. Don't believe me? Get a shovel and try it yourself. Ain't nothing in the Constitution says a well-meaning businessman can't dump petroleum-based waste products into the ground...that's where they came from in the first place.

So then some fascist broad from "Child Protective Services" showed up and told me I wasn't allowed to employ homeless children for 16 hours a day in my coal and uranium mines. I didn't see what the big deal was because I only ended up losing three of them to occupational mishaps, and they were slackers anyhow. One of them made up this thing called "diabetes" and kept asking for all this special treatment. Turns out he was a drug addict, I found his needles and vials and trashed them, hell, I did the kid a favor. I told that lady and them cops that there's no thing as "child labor laws" in the Constitution and if I'd rather have 'em making me money working for me than me spending tax dollars to "feed" and "educate" them that's MY business. They gave me jive because I wasn't even paying them minimum wage. Well what the hell else am I supposed to do when I can be thrown in jail for employing people that are in the country illegally? It's nuts!

Oh, and then - get this - and then I start getting calls and letters from all these government acronyms and sleazeball lawyers trying to assassinate my character because the goods I import and sell from the Far East contained deadly and dangerous amounts of lead. Duh, they're lead toys. I would have had it say so on the packaging but then GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS would have kept me from selling them at all, and I feel that as a job creator and businessman the good I bring the community through my free market activities more than compensates for any potential and alleged harm that comes from what I sell. Lead is natural. It's like olive oil or aloe vera. So what a few kids have some rare creepy lead allergy? I've got shareholders to satisfy. Now those jerks in Washington are telling me I have to "recall" my products. Did Thomas Jefferson "recall" the Declaration of Independence? I think not.

Wake up America!

Having a little trouble accepting that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land are we? There is nothing complicated here. The Tenth Amendment is quite clear on the scope of powers that have been granted to the federal government:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Unless you want to twist and distort the clear language of this provision, then all of the items you mention are powers that have NOT be granted to the United States by the people or by the Constitution that they ratified as the supreme law of the land. States may decide to enact laws according to their individual constitutions so long as those laws do not violate a constitutional right already granted to the people of the United States. So, absent a specifically enumerated provision in the Constitution and an individual State law, then the freedom of the people of the United States cannot be infringed upon by a government that derives it power and right to exist from the people and by the Constitutional limits that have been placed upon our federal servants in the three branches of government.

Of course the Constitution is not unalterable. The framers of the Constitution recognized that the people of the United State may need from time to time to grant or repeal specific powers to the federal government. If such a need should arise (like protecting ground water or whatever), then there is a process that must legally be followed in order for the United States government to act in order to fulfill the wishes of a super-majority of the people. The process is intentionally long and demanding because protecting the rights and freedoms of the people is never something that the federal government can infringe upon without substantial popular support. This is what the Constitution outlines as the only amendment process that can be followed in order to change the enumerated powers that have been granted:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

So if you have a concern about ground water, toxic waste, child labor exploitation, and the safety of imported products, then you have a lot of work ahead of you if you want to grant the United States the authority to act in a Constitutionally permissible manner. In order for any request to be considered you need to have 67 US Senators and 288 US Representatives call for a Convention to discuss the issue(s) or you need to have 33 state legislatures make an application to Congress to call for the same. Then once the Conventional delegates determine the proper language then the proposed amendment needs to go out for ratification by the legislatures of 38 States. Only then can you see the powers and infringements on personal/corporate freedoms become a legal function of the United States.

Given the arduous journey that lies ahead I propose that you bifurcate your efforts because the constitutional amendment may not make it in your lifetime. So, you might want to avoid buying products/services from companies that do not follow your definitions of right and wrong conduct be it who they choose to employee or the processes they engage in that do not meet with your personal standards. Then you can also seek to form or support a consumer advocacy group that can put more pressure on these questionable businesses and perhaps change their practices through economic hardship rather than legislative action. You could also petition your own state leadership to pass legislation in your state that would ban such activity if there is enough support for the cause within your own state of residence. Other states might follow suit or they might be glad to accept relocating businesses seeking the freedoms to operate in a way they prefer. The point is that any of these actions a fully permissible by the Constitution. Congress and/or the President assuming powers that have not been granted to them by the Constitution is by definition illegal and unconstitutional.

 

[Dog Wonder]

From the scholar who claimed the Bill of Rights isn't even part of the Constitution.

 

[SparrowHawk]

From the scholar who claimed the Bill of Rights isn't even part of the Constitution.

The Bill of Rights was NOT part of the COTUS as written and ratified

The Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and ratified by conventions in eleven states in the name of "the People".

The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. These limitations serve to protect the natural rights of liberty and property.

The amendments were introduced by James Madison to the 1st United States Congress as a series of legislative articles. They were adopted by the House of Representatives on August 21, 1789,formally proposed by joint resolution of Congress on September 25, 1789, and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments on December 15, 1791, through the process of ratification by three-fourths of the States.

As you can see from the above our long winded colleague is absolutely correct in his assertion that the "Bill of Rights" was not part of the Constitution in its original form. In fact over 4 years transpired before the first ten amendments became part of the COTUS.

 

[CallawayGolf]

From the scholar who claimed the Bill of Rights isn't even part of the Constitution.

The Constitution in its original form was resolved and submitted on September 17th, 1787.

The Bill of Rights, or the first Ten Amendments if you prefer, were ratified on December 15, 1791. (Hint: look up the definition of an amendment and see what it means)

That would be approximately 1,550 days during which the Constitution existed without the Bill of Rights. In the context of understanding the intended meaning of the Constitutional delegates and signers of the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights wasn't even a glimmer in their eye on September 17th, 1787.

Keep trying, but you are going to have to do a lot better next time.

 

[blue collar]

... the first ten amendments became part of the COTUS.

I think that is what dog was saying, if you re-read his statement..

As far as golf is concerned, I'm not sure what a constitutional scholar is doing working at US Air. I wonder why he hasn't legally challenged all of these transgressions? I mean, since he knows it all...

 

[CallawayGolf]

The Bill of Rights was NOT part of the COTUS as written and ratified

The Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and ratified by conventions in eleven states in the name of "the People".

The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. These limitations serve to protect the natural rights of liberty and property.

The amendments were introduced by James Madison to the 1st United States Congress as a series of legislative articles. They were adopted by the House of Representatives on August 21, 1789,formally proposed by joint resolution of Congress on September 25, 1789, and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments on December 15, 1791, through the process of ratification by three-fourths of the States.

As you can see from the above our long winded colleague is absolutely correct in his assertion that the "Bill of Rights" was not part of the Constitution in its original form. In fact over 4 years transpired before the first ten amendments became part of the COTUS.

Hey, look how much we concur on the facts today. Maybe it's the season of celebrating the Lord's birth.

 

[SparrowHawk]

The Constitution in its original form was resolved and submitted on September 17th, 1787.

The Bill of Rights, or the first Ten Amendments if you prefer, were ratified on December 15, 1791. (Hint: look up the definition of an amendment and see what it means)

That would be approximately 1,550 days during which the Constitution existed without the Bill of Rights. In the context of understanding the intended meaning of the Constitutional delegates and signers of the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights wasn't even a glimmer in their eye on September 17th, 1787.

Keep trying, but you are going to have to do a lot better next time.

Hey! Don't be Shi**y! You made your point. The last line of this post is one of the reasons the Labor/Management relations at US are where they are. I've done business with many companies both significantly larger and smaller than US Airways and I've NEVER seen a more blatant example of what I call "Smartest Guy In The Room" Syndrome. The attitude that no human being alive or otherwise not working at US Airways could possibly have a good idea is alive and well in Tempe, AZ. They are the Bethlehem Steel of aviation. I had "The Steel" as a customer for many years, right up until their demise in 2003 and the similarities in attitude are striking.

Both treated employees like crap and then wrung their hands wondering why they were despised by so many. The list goes on and on actually and I wouldn't be surprised if US Airways fate is similar to Beth Steel.

 

[Dog Wonder]

Cut and paste from Wikipedia will get you a quick trip out of 1L

So the first ten amendments to the Constitution aren't part of the Constitution?

So much for freedom of speech, free press, separation of church and state, and due process. being guaranteed by the Constitution.

Not to mention the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Cut and paste from Wikipedia will get you a quick trip out of 1L

So the first ten amendments to the Constitution aren't part of the Constitution?

So much for freedom of speech, free press, separation of church and state, and due process. being guaranteed by the Constitution.

Not to mention the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

They were NOT part of the original COTUS. They were and are Amendments to the Original COTUS. Like the Golfster said there were 1,500 plus days were the Bill of Rights did not exist.

 

[LD3]

How many flies have dropped since this thread turned?