T1B

Papa Willie wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2019 3:29 pm

So now his workers will make less per week

No they won’t. These were salaried employees getting their workload reduced.

The solution is to "limit the number of hours staffers work to 42 or 43 each week to ensure they’re making the equivalent of $15 an hour," he told the Register's Brianne Pfannenstiel.

Do you even read the stuff you link?

What part of salaried employees are you failing to understand?

60 hours a week= x$
43 hours a week= also x$

The staffers are getting paid the same regardless of working 60 hours or 43.

Nobody in these articles is earning an hourly rate. Sorry you had to find out this way, as opposed to actually reading what you post.

Poor Bernie. He can’t even keep his own union campaign workers happy, yet we should trust him. Further he is complaining that a union employee went to the media as a negotiating tactic? Really? That is naive at best and completely disingenuous. Bernie has commented on past union negotiations that didn’t involve him. Why is it ok for other unions to speak to the press, but not his union employees? Just another example of liberal hypocrisy.

Also got to love the fact that the Socialist Sanders made well over a million but can’t even bring himself to donate more than $19,000 to charity. He wants you and your money to fund his pipe dreams, but not him or his money.

Papa Willie wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2019 6:07 pm
Again - do you seriously think he'll pay to get more help?

If he needed to work his staffers 60 hours a week, I imagine he would need to for the campaign.

Of course that is irrelevant to your horseshit assertion that these workers were going to make less money when their workload was reduced. But since we are friends, I am more than happy to answer your red herring :wink:

R-Jack,

I get what you are saying in that these positions are salaried. But does just calling jobs salaried exempt employers from the “living wage” crap? If so then Wal-Mart, McDonalds, the local car wash, etc should make all employees salaried. Just say the full time salary is $16,000 per year and call it done.

Give a blue collar schlub $50 and he'll spend it (likely locally and in the very near future).
Give a billionaire another billion and he'll move it offshore to some tax haven.


Why do you hate stimulating the economy?

Papa Willie wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2019 9:01 pm
Jesus Fuck. Has living in the land of shit & needles mind-fucked you, too? Answer ONE (1) fucking question. Do you think he'll hire extra people to offset the lost work?

I answered it already. It’s not my fault you keep failing at reading.

Left Seater wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2019 9:07 pm R-Jack,

I get what you are saying in that these positions are salaried. But does just calling jobs salaried exempt employers from the “living wage” crap? If so then Wal-Mart, McDonalds, the local car wash, etc should make all employees salaried. Just say the full time salary is $16,000 per year and call it done.

There is that. I don’t think you can offer a salary below minimum wage, regardless of the rate. The bulk of this workforce is part time so it doesn’t make sense to do so.

Either way, it won’t change the fact ‘Spray can’t comprehend how working less doesn’t take money out of a salaried employee’s paycheck.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2019 9:31 pm Give a blue collar schlub $50 and he'll spend it (likely locally and in the very near future).
Give a billionaire another billion and he'll move it offshore to some tax haven.


Why do you hate stimulating the economy?

Yep

I agree on the salary needing to at least be minimum wage, but $16,000 covers that at current minimum wages (Federal.)

As far as part time positions go those don’t belong in the living wage discussions as by definition those jobs are not meant to support a family. $30 an hour at 20 hours per week is still just a touch over $15K per year. And even AOC isn’t dumb enough for pushing for $30 an hour for part time unskilled labor.

Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2019 10:22 pm

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2019 9:31 pm Give a blue collar schlub $50 and he'll spend it (likely locally and in the very near future).
Give billionaire another billion and he'll move it offshore to some tax haven.


Why do you hate stimulating the economy?

Yep

Giving away money or redistribution of money isn’t an economic stimulator. No surprise Screwy missed that.

Left Seater wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2019 10:31 pm

Giving away money or redistribution of money isn’t an economic stimulator. No surprise Screwy missed that.

You will die alone and heirless and be remembered kindly by NO ONE, you greedy, amorphous blob.

Enjoy your life as the giant, pampered man-baby you are, while you can. There's nothing after that.

You are so wrong, but hey keep telling yourself that.

In reality I donate at ton of time and money to charity every year. I have asked for those here that want to get involved to let me know and I would get them linked in. Kids with parents who are worthless and dogs get all kinds of attention from the Seaters.

Difference between the Seaters and you and liberals is you believe that he government should handle charity and we believe that the government should not be involved at all. But when you remove government we the individuals need to step up and support charities with cash, time, sweat and knowledge.