Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (266354)	12/29/2005 3:48:26 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573695

Tell me again how bad 80% of Americans (your so-called "have nots") have it. My guess is the worker's described below are making ~$300 per month for a 6 days work week. Workers protest months' salary default By Bassma Al Jandaly and Diaa Hadid, Staff Reporters gulf-news.com Dubai: Hundreds of workers refused to work for the second day yesterday, claiming months of unpaid wages, even though their company filed a complaint against them. Sixty-five steel fitters from a contracting company refused to work on Tuesday, claiming that they were going without salary for three months, were not given health insurance, lived in overcrowded rooms and were not given overtime. But the company filed a complaint against five steel fitters and accused them of inciting their colleagues not to work. In the letter, the company's general manager said the five men had hindered work, delaying the company's project. But yesterday, more workers, some 300, from the same company, refused to work. They told Gulf News that they will take their complaint to police. A labour official involved in the case said the company paid on time but had not yet received proof that the workers were paid for October and November. The company's executive director said the steel fitters were not telling the truth. He said while there was a delay in salaries, some were not yet paid for October and November, and this was regular feature. "There's always a delay in payments but that's because of administrative procedures." Many of the men who refused to work yesterday were forced to protest by their colleagues, he said. "The Pakistani and Bengali workers later told us that they were beaten by the Indians to prevent them from taking buses to work." He said the men's worker accommodation was fine and was inspected several months ago by labour officials. The executive director said he hoped to amicably resolve the dispute with the five steel fitters but said he was concerned about workers "setting a precedent by pressuring companies to give into unfair demands by refusing to work". ------------------------------------------- The employers here are amazing. "Yes, there was a delay in paying salaries, but that's OK because there's always a delay in paying salaries."

To: Road Walker who wrote (266354)	12/29/2005 4:56:56 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573695

re: The level of the GDP determines the affordability of the spending. No it doesn't. It determines the affordability of the military spending considered in isolation. Obviously if we are greatly increasing money spent on a lot of other things we have less money available for defense spending even if the burden of the defense spending itself is not heavy in historical terms. re: Our military is much smaller than it used to be despite Iraq and other situations like Afghanistan. Are you including the contractors whose functions used to be performed by military personnel? 100,000+ in Iraq. I wasn't at the time I made the statement but it is still true even when DoD civilian employees and deployed contractors and are considered. re: I think you don't support us being in Iraq, but do you support us not even having the capability to wage a campaign like Iraq should a situation come along that you feel would better justify war? Again, the contractors are a huge portion and are a "variable expense" only required when there is action. Also the expensive is a lot higher in an active war... ordinance, travel, higher war zone salaries... Iraq ain't military business as usual. I said (to Ted) "I understand you are against the war in Iraq and think we should leave ASAP. Well that would reduce costs but other than that I find it hard to find any serious cuts left. Trimming here and there, pushing even harder to eliminate wastes and needless expense, sure, but that's a change at the margin not a major reduction..." You replied and that started our current conversation. In other words I am saying that other than the possibility of greatly reducing or ending our involvement in Iraq I don't see the reasonable possibility for large scale defense cuts. If you did make large cuts in addition to ending the "variable expense" of Iraq, I think you would greatly reduce our ability to wage a campaign like Iraq which is why I asked - " I think you don't support us being in Iraq, but do you support us not even having the capability to wage a campaign like Iraq should a situation come along that you feel would better justify war?"