hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 490 of 559 FirstFirst ... 390440480487488489490491492493500540 ... LastLast
Results 9,781 to 9,800 of 11179

Thread: US Politics Thread, 2.0

  1. #9781
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    21,647
    How many people in the national guard do you reckon voted for Trump?
    Look, the wages you withheld from the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of Hosts. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves for slaughter.

  2. #9782
    Jack Coutu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 9, 2011
    Location
    marketjacker
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    How many people in the national guard do you reckon voted for Trump?
    It's usually less right leaning than the rest of the forces, but I would imagine the resentment is going to motivate quite a large portion to be pissed if this goes through. It's not just a bad plan in terms of PR, but many states need those guard members on duty. One of my close friends is called up and thinks they will extend, but said that at this point he basically thinks they could do anything and no one would stop it since the whole operation has been a shitshow,

  3. #9783
    Kai's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 2, 2012
    Posts
    7,417
    Quote Originally Posted by Isyel View Post
    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...s-kick-in.html

    In late March, the Trump administration authorized the deployment of members of the National Guard to help local authorities conduct coronavirus tests, set up field hospitals, and perform other critical public health tasks that carried a risk of infection. More than 40,000 service members have been deployed in total, but Politico now reports that they will all be recalled on June 24—one day before the first group sent into the field would reach the 90-day active-duty minimum that’s required to qualify for GI Bill education benefits and for a retirement benefit that was also created in 2008.
    That's not even facepalm worthy.

    This is just how things work.

    "Policy says that if they hit 90 days it triggers X benefit, we haven't been funded for that so if we schedule an 89 day rotation then we're GTG." Result: National Guard only get called out for less than 3 months unless they're really really needed.

    There's honestly countless different examples of that sort of thing. Policy constraints like that are just something else you factor in while scheduling.

    It's no different to scheduling FIFO workers at a Mine site: you rotate them out on a schedule that doesn't hit thresholds for additional costs.

    The effect (and TBF often the point) of policies like that isn't to give the benefit to the individual, it's to force schedulers to limit the duration they task the individual without getting approval from someone important enough to sign off on the costs.

  4. #9784

    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Pizza delivery van
    Posts
    7,410
    The amazing strong country scenes "oh, we need to vote for him, he might be a senile rapist but the other guy is worse!" Should tell enough about the state of USA.

  5. #9785
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    21,647
    Truly inspirational

    Look, the wages you withheld from the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of Hosts. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves for slaughter.

  6. #9786

    Join Date
    November 5, 2011
    Posts
    13,614
    Quote Originally Posted by Kai View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Isyel View Post
    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...s-kick-in.html

    In late March, the Trump administration authorized the deployment of members of the National Guard to help local authorities conduct coronavirus tests, set up field hospitals, and perform other critical public health tasks that carried a risk of infection. More than 40,000 service members have been deployed in total, but Politico now reports that they will all be recalled on June 24—one day before the first group sent into the field would reach the 90-day active-duty minimum that’s required to qualify for GI Bill education benefits and for a retirement benefit that was also created in 2008.
    That's not even facepalm worthy.

    This is just how things work.

    "Policy says that if they hit 90 days it triggers X benefit, we haven't been funded for that so if we schedule an 89 day rotation then we're GTG." Result: National Guard only get called out for less than 3 months unless they're really really needed.

    There's honestly countless different examples of that sort of thing. Policy constraints like that are just something else you factor in while scheduling.

    It's no different to scheduling FIFO workers at a Mine site: you rotate them out on a schedule that doesn't hit thresholds for additional costs.

    The effect (and TBF often the point) of policies like that isn't to give the benefit to the individual, it's to force schedulers to limit the duration they task the individual without getting approval from someone important enough to sign off on the costs.
    Oh that's fine then. All good.

    Oh, wait, no it fucking isn't.

    It's like telling a friend of mine who was scheduled for 'full time' at walmart at 39 hours 50 minutes so that they dont have to give benefits that it's just how things are and should just deal with it. All good innit.

  7. #9787
    Kai's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 2, 2012
    Posts
    7,417
    The effect of policies like that isn't that they should get the benefit rather it's to stop planners scheduling them for >89 days at a time. Without policies like that what happens is planners just keep extending tours: this provides a well understood up front threshold that planners don't lightly cross.

    Overall that's better than the alternative. A per diem equivalent provides no incentive to the organisation to just keep extending by a day at a time: and that just fucking sucks.

    Given the planning assumptions when they were called up, honestly it makes sense that they were only a short term surge option.
    Last edited by Kai; May 21 2020 at 09:04:00 AM.

  8. #9788
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    21,647
    It is an exercise in power.

    Demobilising the national guard creates the impression things have got better.
    It reminds them who holds power over their benefits.
    They can claim they are saving tax payer's money as a deflection from the upwards flow of wealth they have created from this crisis.
    Look, the wages you withheld from the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of Hosts. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves for slaughter.

  9. #9789

    Join Date
    August 18, 2014
    Posts
    341
    Sorry but Andrew McCabe would like to interject on just how bullshit the idea that stopping short of ninety days is anything other than continuation of refusing to pay contractors after the work is done, etc, all part of the Art of the Deal...

  10. #9790
    Jack Coutu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 9, 2011
    Location
    marketjacker
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Kai View Post
    The effect of policies like that isn't that they should get the benefit rather it's to stop planners scheduling them for >89 days at a time. Without policies like that what happens is planners just keep extending tours: this provides a well understood up front threshold that planners don't lightly cross.

    Overall that's better than the alternative. A per diem equivalent provides no incentive to the organisation to just keep extending by a day at a time: and that just fucking sucks.

    Given the planning assumptions when they were called up, honestly it makes sense that they were only a short term surge option.
    So the policy is to protect them because otherwise they'd be given benefits, which would harm them more than anyone else? What the fuck are you arguing here? There is a way to handle this that doesn't involve the bullshit happening here. Deployment for 89 days is fucking insane. Like that one extra day was what the guards on the frontline of a pandemic are worried about. The vast majority of them are employed in industries that are shut down atm. What makes you think this is somehow a benefit to them?

  11. #9791
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    15,078
    In every industry and every field there are examples of management to the cost trigger thresholds of agreements/contracts.

    The most well-publicized example I can think of is professional sports, where teams have famously sat players in meaningless late season games so as not to trigger bonus clauses for certain stats they may be close to achieving.

    Low-paid minimum wage type jobs have done this for literally ever. I remember as a kid working at a big-box store, and that the rule was hard-coded, no working over 39 hours or else. They didn't want to pay any benefits.

    Businesses do it all the time, try to keep work below certain thresholds with employees or contractors or other companies, so as not to trigger additional costs.

    Not a shock really that the Federal Government does it too tbh, scummy tho it is in this case.


  12. #9792
    mewninn's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    3,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Truly inspirational


  13. #9793
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    15,494
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    How many people in the national guard do you reckon voted for Trump?
    You'd be surprised to learn that the army/etc is not actually a homogeneous group of rednecks.

    I've met a lot of service folks who don't think much of the Mandarin Mugabe in private.
    meh

  14. #9794
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    15,494
    Quote Originally Posted by Isyel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kai View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Isyel View Post
    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...s-kick-in.html

    In late March, the Trump administration authorized the deployment of members of the National Guard to help local authorities conduct coronavirus tests, set up field hospitals, and perform other critical public health tasks that carried a risk of infection. More than 40,000 service members have been deployed in total, but Politico now reports that they will all be recalled on June 24—one day before the first group sent into the field would reach the 90-day active-duty minimum that’s required to qualify for GI Bill education benefits and for a retirement benefit that was also created in 2008.
    That's not even facepalm worthy.

    This is just how things work.

    "Policy says that if they hit 90 days it triggers X benefit, we haven't been funded for that so if we schedule an 89 day rotation then we're GTG." Result: National Guard only get called out for less than 3 months unless they're really really needed.

    There's honestly countless different examples of that sort of thing. Policy constraints like that are just something else you factor in while scheduling.

    It's no different to scheduling FIFO workers at a Mine site: you rotate them out on a schedule that doesn't hit thresholds for additional costs.

    The effect (and TBF often the point) of policies like that isn't to give the benefit to the individual, it's to force schedulers to limit the duration they task the individual without getting approval from someone important enough to sign off on the costs.
    Oh that's fine then. All good.

    Oh, wait, no it fucking isn't.

    It's like telling a friend of mine who was scheduled for 'full time' at walmart at 39 hours 50 minutes so that they dont have to give benefits that it's just how things are and should just deal with it. All good innit.
    It's one year as a contractor then a 3 month forced holiday at the end *so the year timer resets for most game QA.

    You can thank Microsoft directly for that being a law, because they has so many "permanent temporary" workers in the 90s that most westerns states changed their laws because it was having public health impacts (temps didn't used to have to be provided health benefits).
    meh

  15. #9795

    Join Date
    August 18, 2014
    Posts
    341
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    In every industry and every field there are examples of management to the cost trigger thresholds of agreements/contracts.

    The most well-publicized example I can think of is professional sports, where teams have famously sat players in meaningless late season games so as not to trigger bonus clauses for certain stats they may be close to achieving.

    Low-paid minimum wage type jobs have done this for literally ever. I remember as a kid working at a big-box store, and that the rule was hard-coded, no working over 39 hours or else. They didn't want to pay any benefits.

    Businesses do it all the time, try to keep work below certain thresholds with employees or contractors or other companies, so as not to trigger additional costs.

    Not a shock really that the Federal Government does it too tbh, scummy tho it is in this case.
    It doesn't bother you in the slightest to see the federal government run like a for-profit business...?

  16. #9796
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    15,078
    Quote Originally Posted by Ego Proxy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    In every industry and every field there are examples of management to the cost trigger thresholds of agreements/contracts.

    The most well-publicized example I can think of is professional sports, where teams have famously sat players in meaningless late season games so as not to trigger bonus clauses for certain stats they may be close to achieving.

    Low-paid minimum wage type jobs have done this for literally ever. I remember as a kid working at a big-box store, and that the rule was hard-coded, no working over 39 hours or else. They didn't want to pay any benefits.

    Businesses do it all the time, try to keep work below certain thresholds with employees or contractors or other companies, so as not to trigger additional costs.

    Not a shock really that the Federal Government does it too tbh, scummy tho it is in this case.
    It doesn't bother you in the slightest to see the federal government run like a for-profit business...?
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    scummy tho it is...s
    Yes it bothers me, both when the Feds do it as well as well private companies do it.


  17. #9797
    Kai's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 2, 2012
    Posts
    7,417
    I'm arguing that what happens when you blow through thresholds like that is you look at the next threshold and go "well it looks like a 6 month long deployment it is then".

    The effect is "look the National Guard are designed as a temporary backstop unless you're in a major military crisis, they're not designed to be deployed for more than 3 months at a time unless absolutely necessary so don't do that unless you really can't help it".

    So they get the benefit of short deployment lengths rather than the benefits associated with long deployments.

    So them getting told to wrap it all up by day 89 is the system working as intended. Which is hardly facepalm worthy.

    Now, don't get me wrong, falling 1 Day short from hitting a threshold sucks serious balls. But systematically thresholds are always more about stopping people crossing them than they are about the associated benefits.

    The retarded bit is Trump doing this in the absence of any logic about if they're required to continue support or not.

    Also I did chuckle at what is essentially an argument for unlimited military budgets (ie. that decisions like this should not be made with reference to the associated financial cost).

    Aside: from the POV of someone who works 39.8hrs a week the benefit is that you won't ever be scheduled for 40+ hrs. Which realistically is the alternative. Now I know your putative friend wanted more hours so that advantage is meaningless to him, but nevertheless it exists.

  18. #9798
    Specially Pegged Donor Overspark's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    NL fuck yeah
    Posts
    3,782
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Yes it bothers me, both when the Feds do it as well as well private companies do it.
    I think the most important thing here is that you don't have to accept it from either of them. This is not how it is done all over the world, things simply don't have to work like that.

    The argument that it's OK for the government to do it because private companies do it only holds true if there isn't any other way of doing it, but that's not true. The system you describe, while indeed providing a reason not to go over certain arbitrary limits, is also providing a reason to go as close to these limits as is feasible, which clearly is an unwelcome side-effect. If you need penalties, make them sliding and slowly increasing, so that there are no artificial bumps that lead to unwelcome behaviour.

    No benefits when working 39 hour weeks sounds absolutely ludicrous to me. Over here you simply get benefits for the hours you work, and there are other rules to prevent insane hours. As a result part-time work is very common over here, I work a 32 hour week for example and there are plenty of people working even less.

    So IMHO this is absolutely a shitty way to go about things, and the excuse that other parties are just as shitty is a really bad excuse.

  19. #9799

    Join Date
    November 5, 2011
    Posts
    13,614
    Quote Originally Posted by Kai View Post
    Aside: from the POV of someone who works 39.8hrs a week the benefit is that you won't ever be scheduled for 40+ hrs. Which realistically is the alternative. Now I know your putative friend wanted more hours so that advantage is meaningless to him, but nevertheless it exists.
    Mate.

    That's some fantastically fucked up logic you've been conditioned into.

    So you should be grateful to the employer fucking you over for not fucking you over more? Wow. *Wow*

  20. #9800

    Join Date
    August 18, 2014
    Posts
    341
    Quote Originally Posted by Isyel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kai View Post
    Aside: from the POV of someone who works 39.8hrs a week the benefit is that you won't ever be scheduled for 40+ hrs. Which realistically is the alternative. Now I know your putative friend wanted more hours so that advantage is meaningless to him, but nevertheless it exists.
    Mate.

    That's some fantastically fucked up logic you've been conditioned into.

    So you should be grateful to the employer fucking you over for not fucking you over more? Wow. *Wow*
    But since you won't ever be scheduled for 40+ hours, you have the freedom in your schedule to get a second or even third part time job to secure the same benefits you would get if you had a nomal job that properly compensated you.

    Both Sides !

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •