Idaho Sen. Craig accused of lewd behavior

Archive - Caveat Emptor!

Moderator: Super Moderators

Fotograf
Pirate
Posts: 23
Joined: 06-10-2001 02:00 AM

Post by Fotograf » 09-03-2007 05:00 PM

Another note...they call this a Right to Work state..that means these elite farmers and industrial hotshots here can pay below minimum wage (which is .50 an hour until the recent Fed bringing it up), here and get away with it.
Actually, Tiffany, the term "Right to Work" has to do with the state's laws about unions, not the minimum wage. In some states, if a certain kind of worker, e.g., an electrician, is represented by a union bargaining agreement then one must join the union and pay dues* in order to be employed in that capacity. In a "Right to Work" state the electrician would not have to join the union in order to work as an electrician. In other words, in a "Right to Work" state the law doesn't force him or her to join the union.

*There is another variation in some non-right to work states where the worker doesn't have to actually join the union but still has to pay dues to the union. In this case most people join so that they will at least be able to vote on union issues like strikes.

There is a federal minimum wage law that says everyone doing any covered work (some jobs are exempt) must be paid at least a certain amount. The feds increase this amount from time to time. States are freee to pass their own minimum wage laws too, but they can't be lower than the federal amount. They can be the same or higher. This law has nothing to do with unions, which are covered by the National Labor Relations Act as amended in 1947.

User avatar
IvyQ
Pirate
Posts: 3557
Joined: 03-22-2004 04:21 PM

The Unger Report

Post by IvyQ » 09-03-2007 05:20 PM

Telling the Kids about Republicans' 'Special Friends'

Day to Day, September 3, 2007 · Our humorist offers a timely guide to explaining the various details of scandals involving elected officials.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=14139160

:D :D :D Good one Brian Unger!

listen to at link.

User avatar
tiffany
Pirate
Posts: 18974
Joined: 06-28-2003 02:25 PM

Post by tiffany » 09-03-2007 08:11 PM

Like the Federal wage and hour law, State law often exempts particular occupations or industries from the minimum labor standard generally applied to covered employment. Particular exemptions are not identified in this table. http://www.dol.gov/esa/contacts/state_of.htm.

*********************
While Idaho leads the nation in new job growth, it has a far higher percentage of minimum-wage jobs than Washington. Minimum-wage positions make up just 2.4 percent of the jobs in Washington, while about 13 percent of the jobs in Idaho pay at or less than the proposed federal minimum wage, according to a study done for the state last year.

http://www.economist.com/debate/freeexc ... m_wage.cfm

Under the new Federal Minimum Wage hike:
Idaho Minimum Wage—The state minimum wage will conform to, and track with, the federal minimum wage, effective July 1, 2007. Currently the tip credit is 35 percent of the minimum wage; however, on July 1 that percentage is repealed and employers will be required to pay tipped employees wages of at least $3.35 per hour. Employers will be required to make up the difference if tips plus wages do not equal the state minimum wage.

http://www.bna.com/payroll/whatsnew/current.htm

Required is the interesting word here....many didn't think they were required before...

It is mostly in the tipped restaurant jobs but I have heard of others. A waitress here gets about $2.15 to $3.50 an hour plus her/his tips but if the tips do not equal their pay and they are not paid by the employer (which happens here) now they do have recourse.

This was shocking to me that this is done. In CA where I'm from all jobs are at or above the state's minimum wage including waitressing.

Craig like many of his fellow legislators have been hogging the money for themselves in this state and keeping many in poverty here. I am not happy about the politics of this state and it's good ole boys. Washington has caused many of the border towns with Idaho to make those employers in Idaho have higher wages which is good but Craig and the gang should not have gotten away with it to start with...They are the owners of the land here, the ranchers, the farmers, the elite. And in Craig's case the perverted.

******
Foto you are correct. When those who are working here for below minimim wage tell me about something I never heard about (coming from CA) they feel it is because it's a right to work state. I guess if they wanted to pay union dues they wouldn't have enough money to do so and they think that their employer is getting away with such low wages because the unions are not strong nor are there the kind of wages a union would ask for in this state
Last edited by tiffany on 09-03-2007 08:38 PM, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
tiffany
Pirate
Posts: 18974
Joined: 06-28-2003 02:25 PM

Post by tiffany » 09-03-2007 08:43 PM

What’s The Real Purpose Of "Right To Work?"
The "right to work" provision was never meant to make sure a person could keep a job. It was designed to weaken and destroy the principle of collective bargaining. It represents a state-sanctioned policy of worker suppression. Passed as political payback when labor’s enemies took over the Congress in 1947, it was described by one supporter as recognizing and dealing "with the dangerous expansion of unionism…"

Supporters claim that "right to work" is good for the state’s economic development and that we should tout it as an attraction to business. In fact, "right to work" is the opposite of cooperative economic policy. Data from the U.S. Department of Labor shows that annual pay for workers in "right to work" states ranks consistently below the national average. Sound economic development and job creation strategies should be based on such things as public investment in infrastructure and education that will attract stable businesses that pay decent wages and treat their workforce with dignity and fairness.

It's Really A 'Right To Work For Less'
It's no coincidence that some employer groups, big business and ultraconservative lawmakers back “right to work” laws because such laws weaken unions and in turn depress wages. Studies show that workers in “Right to Work” states earn significantly less, while workers in non-“right to work” states earn significantly more. A primary reason is that workers with a union contract earn higher pay—weakening unions lowers average pay. Workers of color and women workers who are union members make significantly higher wages.

http://www.fairwage.org/

Well one has bit the dust, wish the rest of them would take a hike...well hopefully I'll be taking a hike from this state. I do not like what I see here.

Biker
Pirate
Posts: 1786
Joined: 11-04-2006 08:39 AM

Post by Biker » 09-03-2007 08:50 PM

That's a damn shame, Miss Tiff. Idaho need more people like you.
Sorry to see you go.

Biker:(
"Bring me my broadsword and clear understanding".

Ian Anderson

User avatar
Corvid
Anchors Aweigh
Posts: 5678
Joined: 12-31-2002 03:00 AM

Post by Corvid » 09-03-2007 08:54 PM

"Well one has bit the dust, wish the rest of them would take a hike...well hopefully I'll be taking a hike from this state. I do not like what I see here."


Joolz and I have a plan.... join us.

User avatar
Corvid
Anchors Aweigh
Posts: 5678
Joined: 12-31-2002 03:00 AM

Post by Corvid » 09-03-2007 08:55 PM

;)

User avatar
tiffany
Pirate
Posts: 18974
Joined: 06-28-2003 02:25 PM

Post by tiffany » 09-03-2007 08:55 PM

Corvid wrote: "Well one has bit the dust, wish the rest of them would take a hike...well hopefully I'll be taking a hike from this state. I do not like what I see here."


Joolz and I have a plan.... join us.


lol...I know...hehehe.......my girlfriend keeps telling me to come there;)

User avatar
tiffany
Pirate
Posts: 18974
Joined: 06-28-2003 02:25 PM

Post by tiffany » 09-03-2007 08:56 PM

Biker wrote: That's a damn shame, Miss Tiff. Idaho need more people like you.
Sorry to see you go.

Biker:(


Not going yet Biker

Here's another stat...for Idaho...."The average worker in Idaho earns about $5,655 less a year than workers in other states"

(Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Dept of Commerce 2003)

User avatar
Corvid
Anchors Aweigh
Posts: 5678
Joined: 12-31-2002 03:00 AM

Post by Corvid » 09-03-2007 08:56 PM

Listen to her. ;)

User avatar
tiffany
Pirate
Posts: 18974
Joined: 06-28-2003 02:25 PM

Post by tiffany » 09-03-2007 08:59 PM

Corvid wrote: Listen to her. ;)


;)

Biker
Pirate
Posts: 1786
Joined: 11-04-2006 08:39 AM

Post by Biker » 09-03-2007 09:10 PM

Hokay...I'm listening.

~cups palm to ear~

Biker:)
"Bring me my broadsword and clear understanding".

Ian Anderson

User avatar
tiffany
Pirate
Posts: 18974
Joined: 06-28-2003 02:25 PM

Post by tiffany » 09-03-2007 09:10 PM

Biker wrote: Hokay...I'm listening.

~cups palm to ear~

Biker:)


wanna take a ride.......:D ;)

Biker
Pirate
Posts: 1786
Joined: 11-04-2006 08:39 AM

Post by Biker » 09-03-2007 09:20 PM

Only if I'm the Pilot. I trust my own skills only.

Biker:)
"Bring me my broadsword and clear understanding".

Ian Anderson

Fotograf
Pirate
Posts: 23
Joined: 06-10-2001 02:00 AM

Post by Fotograf » 09-04-2007 12:41 AM

To be fair and accurate on the comparison of Idaho and Washington jobs, especially with respect to the average amount of money earned by an individual, one must remember that Idaho has no cities the size of Seattle nor does it have the variety of jobs such a large urban environment offers. It stands to reason that a MicroSoft engineer would make a lot more than a ranch hand. Washington has a lot more MicroSoft engineers (or similar jobs) than Idaho. I guess I'd say that it is more accurate to compare Idaho to eastern Washington than all of Washington.

As for union jobs making more money than the same jobs in non-union environments, that is usually true. However, there has been an on-going disagreement about the advantage or disadvantage of this fact. The side one takes in this disagreement is usually determined first and then scrounged facts and "developed" logic are presented later, in support of the predetermined decision. In other words, the fight is not rational or solvable. The pro-union side says the employers want to increase profits and that's why they are shipping jobs overseas. The pro-business side says they have no choice but to ship the jobs overseas because they must compete globally and can't if they have to pay more for labor than anyone else. Getting higher wages on paper does no good if the job is gone.

The fact is that union membership in the US has declined from a high of around 35-38% in the 1950s to about 10-11% today. Most of this is due to relocation overseas of a significant portion of the manufacturing industry. Some of it is due to less interest in unions by younger employees and the fact that the industries that now form the mainstay of our economy (e.g., information, service and government) are traditionally non-union. The unions have made in-roads in government over the last 20 years and in teaching over the last 40.

Post Reply

Return to “Politics and Government Pre-2007”