 
Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman
Post Number: 2211
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 04, 2007 - 11:45 pm: |    |
quote:They're the stockholders' business.
Only if it is a public company and corporate funds were used to make the contribution. The Dems have as many large corporate donors as Republicans. |
Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman
Post Number: 2212
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 04, 2007 - 11:48 pm: | |
quote:But if it weren't for jerk bosses and crappy companies, unions wouldn't exist.
It is not a question of the right for unions to exist, but the option to join or not should rest with the employee. The Big 3 are paying billions of dollars for the health care of their retirees, are they crappy? |
Number1
Member
Username: Number1
Post Number: 20
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 05, 2007 - 12:04 am: | |
^^^^^^^^^^^
Exactly PG
Its not about eliminating unions. Its about giving workers a choice. Why shouldn't a worker have the right to choose whether they want to be in a union or not? |
Novine
Member
Username: Novine
Post Number: 93
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 05, 2007 - 12:13 am: | |
"Its not about eliminating unions. Its about giving workers a choice."
No, it's not. The people pushing right-to-work have made it clear that they want unions abolished. |
Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman
Post Number: 2215
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 05, 2007 - 12:15 am: | |
Right to work laws do not abolish unions. What are the unions afraid of? If they provide value to the employee, people will join. If not, they won't. |
Classico
Member
Username: Classico
Post Number: 56
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 05, 2007 - 12:36 am: | |
Right to work for less is more like it.
Let's see. Right to work allows workers to pay nothing and get all the benefits of union memberships. The right to earn less and receive shittier benefits. Lowered safety and health standards are a given not to mention.
Federal law already protects workers who don’t want to join a union to get or keep their jobs. So all this talk about "individual freedom" is bullshit.
I'm not one who thinks unions are the cure all, but this Right to work talk is getting old fast. Every Neo-con from coast to coast I'm sure would love it to go through, what else is new. Sound's like a quick fix to a situation that needs more than a quick fix. |
Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman
Post Number: 2219
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 05, 2007 - 1:00 am: | |
quote:Federal law already protects workers who don’t want to join a union to get or keep their jobs.
Actually it doesn't. If you are in a "union shop" you either join or get fired. Or, in some cases, you pay the dues anyway and are represented by the union in bargaining but are not an official "member." A distinction without a difference.
As a practical matter, if you are working on the line in a UAW plant, you are going to be in the union.
(Message edited by perfectgentleman on September 05, 2007) |
Number1
Member
Username: Number1
Post Number: 21
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 05, 2007 - 1:15 am: | |
Workers are not forced to work under conditions that they find unacceptable in Right to Work States. They are free to find another employer or leverage their bargaining power by joining a union (which is still acceptable in Right to Work states).
Some of the fastest growing states are Right to Work States. They are Texas, Nevada, and Georgia. |
Rb336
Member
Username: Rb336
Post Number: 1902
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 05, 2007 - 9:30 am: | |
Actually, according to OSHA, the Georgetown Toyota plant has a relatively large number of injury accidents, and workers have sued over overtime compensation, work conditions and other issues |
Novine
Member
Username: Novine
Post Number: 95
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 05, 2007 - 9:50 am: | |
"Right to work laws do not abolish unions."
You're correct but it doesn't change the fact that the goal of people pushing right-to-work is to destroy unions. From your comments, I would say that you're one of those people. |
Mcp001
Member
Username: Mcp001
Post Number: 2956
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2007 - 12:21 am: | |
Has anyone stopped to consider that Right-to-Work laws just might help employees (and ultimately, unions)?
Currently if you are working for an employer, and that employer had a closed-shop agreement, then as a condition of employment you must join that particular union.
If there is an agreement that mandates membership, then where is the incentive for that union to take an interest in representing those employees if those employees have no choice but to join a union to work for that particular employer?
What reason does it have to spend the dues it collects on issues and candidates that actually perform?
By consistently making it necessary to keep their members satisfied, you are not only creating more productive employees but also strong union members as well. |
Jerome81
Member
Username: Jerome81
Post Number: 1612
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2007 - 12:59 am: | |
thank you for making the point Mcp.... it was missed, and now I don't have to type much  |
Charlottepaul
Member
Username: Charlottepaul
Post Number: 1625
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Friday, September 07, 2007 - 7:01 pm: | |
THREAD JACK
"(right to work =)The right to earn less and receive shittier benefits."
If you don't like your job or it isn't safe, then get a better one or a different one--it is the beauty of this country. Artificially inflated wages or benefits (a.k.a. earning more than one would be if not in a union) defeats the purpose of our capitalistic society--deal with it! |
Novine
Member
Username: Novine
Post Number: 111
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Friday, September 07, 2007 - 11:20 pm: | |
"Artificially inflated wages or benefits (a.k.a. earning more than one would be if not in a union) defeats the purpose of our capitalistic society"
You can say the same about child labor laws, anti-discrimination laws, workplace safety regulations - all work against the "free market". |
Warrenite84
Member
Username: Warrenite84
Post Number: 148
Registered: 01-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, September 08, 2007 - 2:22 am: | |
Mcp, if the workers in a union shop were not satisfied with their union's ability to work on their behalf, they can vote to have the union de-ceritfied.
They can then choose to be represented by another union.
Ultimately, the dues paying member is the customer.
How can you people whine about two hours a month?
I think it's a pretty good deal: better pay and benefits, tighter health and safety regulations, and protection from lousy bosses who know less about the business than you do.
The only way the American car companies can survive is to provide top of the line quality coupled with innovative features and styling. The unionized workers can do only so much.
It's up to upper management to lead the charge and see to it that the driftwood be trimmed from hourly and salary alike. |
Frankg
Member
Username: Frankg
Post Number: 21
Registered: 08-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, September 08, 2007 - 9:09 am: | |
I was watching that local PBS show last night and they were talking about, among other things, the possibility of a right to work (for less) law in Michigan. You realize people are really biased and/or uninformed when they say something really whacky. Like this guy said that Volkswagon moved their HQ out of Michigan because Michigan isn't a right to work (for less) state! Can you believe that crap? Like VW is worried about their executives organizing a union? Oh please. This right to work (for less) drive in Michigan is a bunch of hype that isn't based on objective research. |
Mcp001
Member
Username: Mcp001
Post Number: 2974
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 08, 2007 - 9:26 am: | |
Warrenite84, do you know how the rules are stacked against the members in regards to decertifying?
This was one of the ideas that were bandied about several years ago, but didn't go anywhere because of it. |
Gps
Member
Username: Gps
Post Number: 8
Registered: 08-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, September 08, 2007 - 12:15 pm: | |
I think the proof is in the pudding when it comes to union vs. non-union shops.
If unions hurt the companies then obviously those companies will not be competitive and will loose market share, and will make an inferior product. Oh wait, that's already happening in the auto industry!
Michigan is loosing economically because it is trying to be a socialist state in a capitalist country. The sooner Michigan institutes this right to work law the better.
It could make existing businesses more competitive while drawing new businesses, therby increasing demand for workers and keeping wages and property values up. |
Charlottepaul
Member
Username: Charlottepaul
Post Number: 1627
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, September 08, 2007 - 12:36 pm: | |
"You can say the same about child labor laws, anti-discrimination laws, workplace safety regulations - all work against the 'free market'."
Novine, don't worry--we have the government programs to address your issues and even a minimum wage! The unions creating artificially higher wages then raises costs for many other things in the region, healthcare for example, making it difficult for those with non union jobs to be able to afford healthcare. |
Novine
Member
Username: Novine
Post Number: 115
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, September 08, 2007 - 9:10 pm: | |
You're right, if we were all making Wal-Mart wages and Wal-Mart benefits, all would be good in the world. We would all enjoy the benefits of cheap goods because those altruistic companies would pass along the savings to the customers, not to their stockholders. Will you be willing to lead the way by offering to take less in pay and have your benefits cut? |
Classico
Member
Username: Classico
Post Number: 57
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 1:54 am: | |
Exactly Novine. It amazes me why some do not see this.
"If you don't like your job or it isn't safe, then get a better one or a different one--it is the beauty of this country. Artificially inflated wages or benefits (a.k.a. earning more than one would be if not in a union) defeats the purpose of our capitalistic society--deal with it!"
.....and if you don't like the union don't work there. Non-union members benefit by everything the union negotiates and the union also has to represent them if the get fired or written up. Also wouldn't you say refusal join undermines all the hard work into providing better working conditions for all involved? It doesn't make it easier I'll tell you that.
I love how the anti-union conservative movement has successfully used this "right-to-work" language to convey false images of what their positions really are. |
Novine
Member
Username: Novine
Post Number: 118
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 2:17 am: | |
Charlottepaul, I'm glad that you brought up that annoying minimum wage. I don't know why we haven't learned from the Mexicans or the Chinese. I mean if a guy in Ciudad Juárez wants to work for a dollar an hour or a guy in Beijing wants work for a dollar a day, why don't we allow a guy in Detroit do the same? We'll show the Mexicans and Chinese and beat them at their own wage game. When we're all working for a dollar a day, American products will rule! |
Charlottepaul
Member
Username: Charlottepaul
Post Number: 1651
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 5:34 pm: | |
Wage is relative. If we all worked for a dollar an hour, a gallon of milk would prob. be a penny. What would be stupid is that we would all be paid the same rate. Some people have more valuable skills, knowledge, etc. than others. Let the person's ability determine his wage--not the government or the union. Down with artificially inflated wages! |
Novine
Member
Username: Novine
Post Number: 120
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 12:36 am: | |
That's an interesting economic theory. Last time I checked, the non-union cows worked for free. So shouldn't the milk be free too? Oh right, wages are just one component of product cost.
The irony is that many of our Republican friends are getting to see their theory of individual worth backfire on them. I'm sure that many of you chafed at the guys in the shop and on the line earning wages and benefits that you considered beyond what someone of less education and "skills" should be entitled to earn. You probably felt a bit of smug satisfaction at watching those wages and benefits take a hit as globalization led to those jobs being outsourced. But then you discovered that just as manufacturing jobs can be outsourced to Mexico, so can your jobs be outsourced to India or China too. Even if the guy in Bangalore has limited English, he's willing to work for a lot less than you do and for companies that are only concerned about the short-term bottom line, we'll your in trouble. In the long-run, it's likely that many in the skilled trades will be better positioned to get through globalization. Why? Because when you need someone to fix your toilet or repair your car, it's pretty difficult to outsource that work. But if you're an engineer or in IT, well, your worth may not be worth as much as you thought it was. |
Trainman
Member
Username: Trainman
Post Number: 520
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 11, 2007 - 11:31 pm: | |
It is illegal in Michigan to compete with SMART and DDOT.
It is time to change the law and honor state funding to protect present union agreements by proudly voting NO next August 2010 to defeat the SMART property tax.
But, do not just vote NO. Vote HELL NO by supporting the link under DETROIT LINKS.
The new SMART management presently rejects the protection of state funding to acquire federal transit grants by not attacking MDOT and SEMCOG. State grants to get new busses are being cut and we need the Transportation Riders United. But, where is this group? Why do they keep wearing rose colored glasses? |
Charlottepaul
Member
Username: Charlottepaul
Post Number: 1683
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Friday, September 14, 2007 - 7:12 pm: | |
"But then you discovered that just as manufacturing jobs can be outsourced to Mexico, so can your jobs be outsourced to India or China too."
NOPE. My job could never legally be outsourced to another country--architect. |
Hardhat
Member
Username: Hardhat
Post Number: 211
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 14, 2007 - 7:41 pm: | |
Charlottepaul:
"My job could never legally be outsourced to another country--architect."
Your have blinders on when it comes to the value of unions and your lack of concern about the affect of outsourcing on this nation.
And the above comment was downright foolish.
Your "I got mine" mentality is evident, and it's sadly all too prevalent in this country.
Secondly, if you don't think that architectural work can be outsourced over high-speed data hookups to some sharp Indian in Bombay, you're nuts. And that goes for all kinds of other professions. We've just seen the initial round in what will certainly be an historic shift of good paying jobs, in all manner of fields, abroad to low-wage nations.
Novine: I'm extremely impressed with your logic and how you present your point of view. Very well done.
(Message edited by hardhat on September 14, 2007) |
Romanized
Member
Username: Romanized
Post Number: 243
Registered: 02-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 14, 2007 - 10:22 pm: | |
Why liberals bash globalization, I do not know. Those countries that benefit should stay poor and backwards? Globalization has raised living standards all over the world.
Also, jobs are being lost due to government and union manipulation. Just look at the backward economies in Africa. They prove that when government artificial sets wages and/or prices they create severe shortages. Shortages either of goods and services and/or jobs, which is exactly what is happening to Detroit. |
Kslice
Member
Username: Kslice
Post Number: 152
Registered: 04-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, September 15, 2007 - 12:14 am: | |
"Globalization has raised living standards all over the world."
If standards of living are being raised, how can these companies still pay 10 cents an hour to make something in China or India? Hmm? How do these people support these "raised standards" when they make so little money?
They don't. The world is round and always will be. Companies are the new oppressors of people, not governments. Nike would be totally screwed if China had a minimum wage similar to ours, and they're not about to let that happen.
Oh, and BTW, Detroit is the most liberal big city in America. |
Novine
Member
Username: Novine
Post Number: 139
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, September 15, 2007 - 1:21 am: | |
Hardhat: Thanks.
"Why liberals bash globalization, I do not know. Those countries that benefit should stay poor and backwards? Globalization has raised living standards all over the world."
The problem isn't with globalization, it's the exploitation, as Kslice stated. When a company leaves the US and sets up shop elsewhere so that it can pay some poor guy pennies an hour to work in conditions that would be illegal in the US and results in environmental damage and destruction and you say "hey, what's the problem?" That's the problem. Your mentality was what supported the slave trade, child labor and environmental destruction all in the name of "progress". |
Novine
Member
Username: Novine
Post Number: 140
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, September 15, 2007 - 1:37 am: | |
"NOPE. My job could never legally be outsourced to another country--architect."
That's rich, we're getting lectured on the virtues of the free market by a guy working in a profession that depends on government-imposed licensing requirements to limit employment in his field (and consequently boost up salaries) and also that uses government regulation to generate work (many communities will mandate certain work be done by registered architects). I wonder how Charlottepaul would feel if we did away with all of that government regulation and let any guy with a straight-edge and a set of colored pencils do work as an "architect"? |
Ray
Member
Username: Ray
Post Number: 1009
Registered: 06-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, September 15, 2007 - 3:05 am: | |
I'm all in favor of the unions. I travel to right to work states down south, and all you see there are new factories and lots of jobs. Since I hate people, especially factory workers, I really appreciate the union and the massive economic destruction it has wreaked on south east michigan. |
Eec
Member
Username: Eec
Post Number: 146
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, September 15, 2007 - 9:35 am: | |
The smear campaign is working. A bunch of people badmouthing unions while enjoying the benefits they have because of unions. You think employers offer health care, safe work environments, and paid vacation out of the goodness of their hearts? Those things were fought for by unions, and then extended to non-union jobs when they became de rigueur. But we've had a widespread smear campaign for, literally, a century against organized labor, and you guys are buying it.
If people get together and bargain collectively for more wages, how is that an artificially inflated wage any more than a federal minimum wage, or a lawyer who charges $100 per hour? The lawyer charges it because people will pay it. The union gets paid what the company will pay. But by bargaining collectively, they have a little more power. Instead of the people who actually do the work getting paid one one-thousandth of what the CEO makes, they get to be paid one one-hundreth. And then some of you complain about "artificially inflated wages."
Are wages always going to go up? No. The situation right now is one where labor is cheaper elsewhere, and the local unions have to realize this. But that doesn't mean they're no longer relevant. Right now, with the control big business has over our lives, unions are as necessary as they've ever been. They SHOULD be down in those Southern states organizing so as to bring their workers' pay up to where it should be. But too many of those workers, like too many of you, have bought the propaganda and are too willing to bleat out "Unions baaad!" |
Frankg
Member
Username: Frankg
Post Number: 25
Registered: 08-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, September 15, 2007 - 9:52 am: | |
I just find it interesting that it is big business pushing this through, not civil liberties organizations. That alone should tell you something.
Why aren't these same groups protesting mandatory franchise fees? For example, if you start a Hungry Howie's pizza shop, you have to pay several thousand dollars for regional advertising. You'd think if these business people are all about the concept of free choice they'd first try to eliminate these mandatory fees for businesses.
In Michigan, right to work (for less) laws will NOT bring in more business, anyway. Unemployment is high right now so employers in Michigan have the upper hand when it comes to wages. Besides, unions are no longer driving wages in manufacturing. Unions are very lucky to hang on to what they've got. So to push this idea as bringing business in to Michigan is ridiculous.
What is next? That people can opt out of paying taxes? |
Charlottepaul
Member
Username: Charlottepaul
Post Number: 1687
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, September 15, 2007 - 12:49 pm: | |
"That's rich, we're getting lectured on the virtues of the free market by a guy working in a profession that depends on government-imposed licensing requirements to limit employment in his field (and consequently boost up salaries) and also that uses government regulation to generate work (many communities will mandate certain work be done by registered architects)."
Very interesting point. Nonetheless, I am not yet an 'architect' as I only have the professional degree and not the license. Therefore, I am not yet privy to all of the government secured institutions of my profession. Obviously then my wage is not governmentally regulated making your point moot. Where I am at now in the field allows anyone in the free market to compete for my job. One doesn't need a degree to 'draw pretty pictures.'
"I wonder how Charlottepaul would feel if we did away with all of that government regulation and let any guy with a straight-edge and a set of colored pencils do work as an "architect"?"
Ah, but the government does step into many professions. Unlike the unions though, NOT to regulate wages, but to ensure the safety of the general public. Many professions from doctors to engineers are licensed for this reason. |
Novine
Member
Username: Novine
Post Number: 142
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, September 15, 2007 - 7:13 pm: | |
"Very interesting point. Nonetheless, I am not yet an 'architect' as I only have the professional degree and not the license."
While I assumed you were a registered architect, the fact that you personally are not doesn't take away from my comment which is directed at YOUR profession. And it's doubly-ironic when you act as if you get NO benefit from belonging to a profession that operates in that way. Just as you don't see the benefits of unions also accruing to non-union people, you apparently think that whole licensing scheme for architects has zero impact on your wages. At least I can see that you're consistently blind to reality.
"Ah, but the government does step into many professions. Unlike the unions though, NOT to regulate wages, but to ensure the safety of the general public."
So what? The impact is the same. It causes wages to be higher than they otherwise would be by limiting the number of people who can be in the profession or limiting access to the work or by mandating work only be done by certain people. Apparently, as long as having rules benefits you and your profession, they're OK. But if they might benefit some guy working the line at the auto plant or some women working the checkout at the grocery store, well, we can't have that! |
Charlottepaul
Member
Username: Charlottepaul
Post Number: 1697
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, September 15, 2007 - 7:30 pm: | |
Even a level V architect according to CNN doesn't make more than $72,486 in the 75 percentile. http://swz.salary.com/salarywi zard/layouthtmls/swzl_compresu lt_national_DD19000046.html There are you happy with the fact that architects don't make that much?
"It causes wages to be higher than they otherwise would be by limiting the number of people who can be in the profession or limiting access to the work or by mandating work only be done by certain people. Apparently, as long as having rules benefits you and your profession, they're OK. But if they might benefit some guy working the line at the auto plant or some women working the checkout at the grocery store, well, we can't have that!"
Actually Novine this is one of the biggest misconceptions of the architecture profession. Even with the supposed government profession protecting regulations that you allude to, someone can build any damn building that he pleases WITHOUT an architecture professional. |
Romanized
Member
Username: Romanized
Post Number: 244
Registered: 02-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 16, 2007 - 8:50 am: | |
"Companies are the new oppressors of people, not governments."
Who is forcing these people to work for these companies? So in that case how are the companies oppressing anyone. And if the pay is so horrid and didn't raise living standard people most certainly would/could have stayed in their agrarian lifestyles.
Do not substitute over-heated rhetoric for cogent arguments. |
Lilpup
Member
Username: Lilpup
Post Number: 2789
Registered: 06-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, September 16, 2007 - 10:34 am: | |
Oh, please. The corporate presence in farming is as strong as it is anywhere else. Farms that have been in families for generations are going under thanks to the combination of corporate competition in farming and corporate development of open land, forcing evaluations and taxes higher on remaining farmland.
Furthermore, the US has strayed so far from the economics of an agrarian lifestyle that the return to it by a common worker is virtually impossible.
When unions were at their peak it was beneficial to leave the agrarian lifestyle, but now there's little chance of wholly going back. The closest thing available to many now is city farming, large backyard gardens, and even container gardens for those who don't have land. |
Kslice
Member
Username: Kslice
Post Number: 153
Registered: 04-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, September 16, 2007 - 11:17 am: | |
The fact remains, China has a very low standard of living, one of the worst in the world.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/g csebitesize/geography/images/g _cod_iql_06.gif
It is different than Africa though, since there is poverty but stability. This creates the perfect place for modern day companies to manufacture their goods. I'm sure the people of China would love to quit and find a new job, unfortunately most of the jobs over there pay the same (as they are communist).
Food isn't china's problem, they have plenty of that. their problems are overpopulation, contamination, and communism. |
Romanized
Member
Username: Romanized
Post Number: 245
Registered: 02-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 16, 2007 - 11:42 am: | |
First off I didn't say anything about farming here. I was talking about people overseas. Once again, you need to listen.
The fact is China standard of living is rising. Not over night but incrementally thanks to globalization. This would be greatly helped by them getting rid off their socialist practices. At the same time the US will not be helped by the quasi-socialist policies of our government regarding unions. |
Lilpup
Member
Username: Lilpup
Post Number: 2792
Registered: 06-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, September 16, 2007 - 12:02 pm: | |
It doesn't matter if it's overseas or here - the effect is the same wherever corporations begin to dominate the economy, if there is no restraint in place.
Unrestrained capitalism is worse than socialism.
What gave the US it's strength in the past was restrained capitalism. When the restraints become too weak, as they have recently, society begins to break down, just as we're seeing in the US and the ever growing income gap. If things continue as they are going now the US will destabilize. |
Romanized
Member
Username: Romanized
Post Number: 246
Registered: 02-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 17, 2007 - 8:39 am: | |
"What gave the US it's strength in the past was restrained capitalism."
Prove it, since virtually every economist disagrees. This country pulled ahead in the 18th century when government generally mined it's business. It's been steadily falling off since the 1960's when me had an orgy of socialism. Government intervention restrains growth and invention with one hand and creates dangerous bubbles that burst with the other. The fed has crippled the dollar through market manipulation. The congress has destroyed millions of jobs through minimum wage legislation and industry regulations. And the government spends and prints money like their playing monopoly. The only hope for this country is to go back to the policies of old that built this country into an economic powerhouse.
You still didn't answer who is holding people in these factories against their will. Unlike the government, cooperation with corporations is voluntary. |
New threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.