Jump to content


Marlins Under Investigation For Alleged Federal Wage Violations


DcFishFan
 Share

Recommended Posts


Everybody cooperates. There's no point in not cooperating -- if you don't, they'll just subpoena your records and they'll get them.

 

The Giants settled one deal involving low-paid employees with DOL for a half-million. But, that's just a good example of what DOL does for a living. They take a complaint from some disgruntled ex-employee, "investigate" with the purpose of finding rule violations no matter how minor, threaten to sue the employer, and extract a settlement because litigating against the bottomless pockets of the feds is unending and very expensive and it's just plain cheaper and less distracting and aggravating to settle.

 

The bozo bureaucrats then happily move on to their next victim, secure in the knowledge that they have once again justified the ridiculous cost of their existence. At least as it will be portrayed by the media to the gullible public.

 

As if baseball is the only bunch of employers who have ever been accused of abusing unpaid interns and then been subjected to inquisition by the feds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In case anyone thinks that petty government bureaucrats don't harass businesses, I'll give you two examples from my personal experience.

 

33 years ago, I had about 20 employees in Minnesota, 5 of whom were women, two of them secretaries. I hired a third secretary, most of whose time would be spent on stuff I needed to be done.

 

Along the way, while ordering business cards for sales employees (you know, people who actually need them,) this chick decides she should have some, too. And promoted herself to "Assistant to the CEO." Funny, my card didn't even say "CEO." I owned the joint, didn't matter what my card said.

 

Cost? About $150 (in 1980, so about $500 today.) Now, $500 might sound like a bit much for cards, but these were 4-process cards. Emboss the logo, apply gold and then silver foil, then print card. Embossing and foiling are very expensive, few printers do it.

 

When brought to my attention along with some other goofy stuff she had done, I fired her. She filed a "sex discrimination" complaint with the state EEOC, apparently under the hilariously mistaken belief that if she had had sex with me and I later took some adverse employment action against her she had experienced sex-based employment discrimination. See how that works in the mind of the feeble?

 

State EEOC calls me. I question their seriousness. They suggest settling for $50,000. I said not one penny. They threatened to investigate. I told them to have at it.

 

So they did. Talked to at least a dozen employees, including all of the females, which included a couple of ex-girlfriends with whom I'd had, uh, a "personal" relationship. All they discovered was that everybody thought that the fired secretary seemed to think she was entitled and superior, was not a very good employee and they were glad she was gone.

 

The chief moron at the EEOC calls me back. Now they think I should settle for $5,000 or they might start a formal complaint. I tell her my offer remains zero. Never heard from them again.

 

There's just nothing like wasting dozens of hours and thousands of taxpayer dollars on total BS, while also wasting the time of an employer and employees.

 

In the early '90s in a different business here in Florida, I had about 25 employees, about 5 of them hourly. Shortly after one of the clock-punchers left, out of the clear blue sky the federal DOL Wage and Hour Division shows up. In person. Probably the same DOL office involved in the current Marlins witch-hunt.

 

They want to investigate hours and pay, citing no complaint and giving no basis to do so, other than that they can if they wish. OK, whatever, no problem. I tell my on-staff CPA to give them anything they want. They interview everyone. I ignore them. Most of my people were wage-and-hour exempt sales or administrative/management types, but no current hourly employee had any complaint, nor could they find anything wrong.

 

I know that because I never heard another peep out of them. More thousands of taxpayer dollars wasted for nothing. More wasted employer and employee time for nothing.

 

Why did they show up? Some knucklehead ex-employee called them trying to stir up trouble.

 

This sort of crap happens every day. Disgruntled ex-employees think they can call out the hounds of the government because they feel some imaginary wrong. Those misguided chumps, being ignorant usually don't know what they're talking about. But, the petty government bureaucrats love that sort of stuff, especially when it's a high-profile employer with deep pockets and there's a chance of some cheap publicity.

 

Your government at work, burning your cash for nothing of any benefit to you, but of great benefit to them because it serves to justify their existence and the continued funding of their nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The system may not be perfect and it may not always work, but it is there for a good reason.

 

 

 

Not perfect? Of course not, we're talking about the government.

 

There for a good reason? Is that what you call a government that can never stop tinkering with us on an ever-larger scale?

 

I'd say that you have a much too benign view of government bureaucrats and their petty fiefdoms who spend most of their time "investigating" and settling with their investigative targets with the purpose of justifying next year's budget and appropriations so as to grow their budgets and fiefdoms, or at least make sure that they don't shrink.

 

When DOL's 93 billion dollar "Budget in Brief" runs about 100 pages, there may be a problem.

 

About the only useful thing DOL does is provide economic statistics, and that function could easily be rolled into another department. 99.6% of the DOL should be abolished. The stats cost about 250 million.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The system may not be perfect and it may not always work, but it is there for a good reason.

 

 

 

Not perfect? Of course not, we're talking about the government.

 

There for a good reason? Is that what you call a government that can never stop tinkering with us on an ever-larger scale?

 

I'd say that you have a much too benign view of government bureaucrats and their petty fiefdoms who spend most of their time "investigating" and settling with their investigative targets with the purpose of justifying next year's budget and appropriations so as to grow their budgets and fiefdoms, or at least make sure that they don't shrink.

 

When DOL's 93 billion dollar "Budget in Brief" runs about 100 pages, there may be a problem.

 

About the only useful thing DOL does is provide economic statistics, and that function could easily be rolled into another department. 99.6% of the DOL should be abolished. The stats cost about 250 million.

 

 

I hope you aren't suggesting that there should be no government oversight on business. If the DOL is abolished who keeps businesses in check to make sure they don't go completely the opposite way and create dangerous working conditions for their employees ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do want to say I think there may be too much government regulation, but none at all can't be good either. There has to be a balance.

 

When I was a teen, I worked after school for a veteranarian. Once a month the area Vets got together and set prices for their services and set pay scales for their workers. I have no idea if that was illegal and they should have been investigated, but if you worked hard, it didn't matter as there was no chance of getting a raise and as a consequence, there was a lot of turnover in personnel.

 

I think one of the problems we have in the workforce today is the stagnation of wages. There is no incentive to work harder since there is virtually no chance of promotion or higher wages from working hard. And since there is so much unemployment people work just hard enough to maintain their positions, because there is little incentive to work hard. Even getting more education isn't the answer as we have so many young college graduates that can't even find a job right now.

 

How do we strike a balance and get people motivated which in turn that productivity will create more wealth, etc. ? I am not a business person or well versed in economics, so excuse if my ideas or questions are naïve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The system may not be perfect and it may not always work, but it is there for a good reason.

 

Not perfect? Of course not, we're talking about the government.

 

There for a good reason? Is that what you call a government that can never stop tinkering with us on an ever-larger scale?

 

I'd say that you have a much too benign view of government bureaucrats and their petty fiefdoms who spend most of their time "investigating" and settling with their investigative targets with the purpose of justifying next year's budget and appropriations so as to grow their budgets and fiefdoms, or at least make sure that they don't shrink.

 

When DOL's 93 billion dollar "Budget in Brief" runs about 100 pages, there may be a problem.

 

About the only useful thing DOL does is provide economic statistics, and that function could easily be rolled into another department. 99.6% of the DOL should be abolished. The stats cost about 250 million.

I hope you aren't suggesting that there should be no government oversight on business. If the DOL is abolished who keeps businesses in check to make sure they don't go completely the opposite way and create dangerous working conditions for their employees ?The employees will.

Lol. Not in ...'s world, which surely does not include unions, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the DOL gets a complaint and can't tell the bogus ones from the legitimate (there really are some) so they check it out. In your case, ... , they send an investigator but eventually stop pursuing it, presumably because they decided it has no merit. And yet you're pissed. And in your case, squall, they send some papers, don't even investigate, and also decide to stop pursuing it, and you're pissed too.

 

Whether or not government is too big overall, history shows there has to be some way to protect employees from abuse. I was an employer too for many years and it's a pain to be investigated, but not all employers are saints like we obviously are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the DOL is abolished who keeps businesses in check to make sure they don't go completely the opposite way and create dangerous working conditions for their employees ?

 

That's not what DOL does, you're talking about OSHA -- you know, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 99% of which should also be abolished.

 

Why is it so hard for people to understand that most (not all) employers aren't interested in screwing employees over?

 

If you underpay people, they leave. Hiring and training people is expensive and turnover is disruptive. Henry Ford didn't go to a $5/day wage rate (double the prevailing rate) because he was some sort of altruist, he did it because he was sick and tired of 75% turnover/year.

 

If you have unsafe work conditions, your insurance rates go through the roof, not to mention that you develop a bad reputation.

 

The bad actors generally put themselves out of business over time with no government action required.

 

Meanwhile, government tries to "fix" a $2 problem by throwing $100 of taxpayer money at it, leaving society in general worse off. And the government "fixes" and "fixers" never go away, they only grow their fiefdoms over time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The system may not be perfect and it may not always work, but it is there for a good reason.

 

 

Not perfect? Of course not, we're talking about the government.

 

There for a good reason? Is that what you call a government that can never stop tinkering with us on an ever-larger scale?

 

I'd say that you have a much too benign view of government bureaucrats and their petty fiefdoms who spend most of their time "investigating" and settling with their investigative targets with the purpose of justifying next year's budget and appropriations so as to grow their budgets and fiefdoms, or at least make sure that they don't shrink.

 

When DOL's 93 billion dollar "Budget in Brief" runs about 100 pages, there may be a problem.

 

About the only useful thing DOL does is provide economic statistics, and that function could easily be rolled into another department. 99.6% of the DOL should be abolished. The stats cost about 250 million.

 

I hope you aren't suggesting that there should be no government oversight on business. If the DOL is abolished who keeps businesses in check to make sure they don't go completely the opposite way and create dangerous working conditions for their employees ?

 

 

The employees will.

 

 

 

 

But management will just fire them if they say anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, as much as I would like to join the big gov hate bandwagon, I have actually seen entire career fields worth of businesses screw their employees, so no, you can't really convince me that if an employer can save some money by cutting corners that they won't do it, even if it is illegal. One example of this is the dental nursing profession. They aren't paid well, often don't have good education levels (many I've met haven't finished high school) and dropping one job for another isn't as simple as some of you make it out to be, expecially if you're taking care of a family and are just making enough to get by. Furthermore, quitting also has the wonderful effect of getting you blackballed, mainly because dentists tend to know each other, so don't expect to be able to take your 10 years of experience to another practice after your boss "fired" you (aka: you gave him your two week notice and he tells you to pack your stuff and leave... It happens). I'm not going to get too into all the illegal things I've seen these people do just because they know that they can get away with it, but it really puts a damper on the "employers are really looking out for you" mentality. And you as an outsider can't report them because that will just lead to a light fine and them finding a reason to fire said employee (if you look hard enough, or fabricate it, you can always find justifiable reasoning for firing someone).

 

So, yeah, maybe it's not perfect, but some regulation is needed, because like it or not, there are a lot of jackass employers and even some that aren't jackasses but are simply looking for the cheapest way to cut corners, like using an unfiltered commercial grade generators from bunnings (home depo?) to run certain dental equipment. Yay for oil in the mouth. I understand that that would be OSHA in the US, but the point still stands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there is a complaint, they have to investigate. Blame it on the ex-employees, not the government. The system may not be perfect and it may not always work, but it is there for a good reason. I would say if someone has a better idea they should let it be known to the agencies/head honchos it concerns.

 

But they don't investigate. They send papers with fines and a few lines to sign on.

 

 

"..." said they investigated him. An investigation doesn't have to be someone actually at the job site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, as much as I would like to join the big gov hate bandwagon, I have actually seen entire career fields worth of businesses screw their employees, so no, you can't really convince me that if an employer can save some money by cutting corners that they won't do it, even if it is illegal. One example of this is the dental nursing profession. They aren't paid well, often don't have good education levels (many I've met haven't finished high school) and dropping one job for another isn't as simple as some of you make it out to be, expecially if you're taking care of a family and are just making enough to get by. Furthermore, quitting also has the wonderful effect of getting you blackballed, mainly because dentists tend to know each other, so don't expect to be able to take your 10 years of experience to another practice after your boss "fired" you (aka: you gave him your two week notice and he tells you to pack your stuff and leave... It happens). I'm not going to get too into all the illegal things I've seen these people do just because they know that they can get away with it, but it really puts a damper on the "employers are really looking out for you" mentality. And you as an outsider can't report them because that will just lead to a light fine and them finding a reason to fire said employee (if you look hard enough, or fabricate it, you can always find justifiable reasoning for firing someone).

 

So, yeah, maybe it's not perfect, but some regulation is needed, because like it or not, there are a lot of jackass employers and even some that aren't jackasses but are simply looking for the cheapest way to cut corners, like using an unfiltered commercial grade generators from bunnings (home depo?) to run certain dental equipment. Yay for oil in the mouth. I understand that that would be OSHA in the US, but the point still stands.

 

You assume that because something is illegal, it is wrong. No one is forced to take a job; no one is forced to stay at a job. And yea, there are assholes, but those assholes are proprietors in their businesses and should be able to hire or fire anyone they'd like without having to explain themselves to you or anyone else. Furthermore, if I want to take a job at a certain set of terms like a wage below 7 dollars, why are you denying me a job with your overreached laws? Dont you care about poor people?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, as much as I would like to join the big gov hate bandwagon, I have actually seen entire career fields worth of businesses screw their employees, so no, you can't really convince me that if an employer can save some money by cutting corners that they won't do it, even if it is illegal. One example of this is the dental nursing profession. They aren't paid well, often don't have good education levels (many I've met haven't finished high school) and dropping one job for another isn't as simple as some of you make it out to be, expecially if you're taking care of a family and are just making enough to get by. Furthermore, quitting also has the wonderful effect of getting you blackballed, mainly because dentists tend to know each other, so don't expect to be able to take your 10 years of experience to another practice after your boss "fired" you (aka: you gave him your two week notice and he tells you to pack your stuff and leave... It happens). I'm not going to get too into all the illegal things I've seen these people do just because they know that they can get away with it, but it really puts a damper on the "employers are really looking out for you" mentality. And you as an outsider can't report them because that will just lead to a light fine and them finding a reason to fire said employee (if you look hard enough, or fabricate it, you can always find justifiable reasoning for firing someone).

 

So, yeah, maybe it's not perfect, but some regulation is needed, because like it or not, there are a lot of jackass employers and even some that aren't jackasses but are simply looking for the cheapest way to cut corners, like using an unfiltered commercial grade generators from bunnings (home depo?) to run certain dental equipment. Yay for oil in the mouth. I understand that that would be OSHA in the US, but the point still stands.

 

You assume that because something is illegal, it is wrong. No one is forced to take a job; no one is forced to stay at a job. And yea, there are assholes, but those assholes are proprietors in their businesses and should be able to hire or fire anyone they'd like without having to explain themselves to you or anyone else. Furthermore, if I want to take a job at a certain set of terms like a wage below 7 dollars, why are you denying me a job with your overreached laws? Dont you care about poor people?

 

 

You think there are so many jobs out there that job hunters can be choosey? It hasn't been that way in this country for quite awhile. I'm guessing you aren't actually one of those poor people you're concerned about - a low-wage employee who was screwed by an employer and found himself unemployed and unemployable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, as much as I would like to join the big gov hate bandwagon, I have actually seen entire career fields worth of businesses screw their employees, so no, you can't really convince me that if an employer can save some money by cutting corners that they won't do it, even if it is illegal. One example of this is the dental nursing profession. They aren't paid well, often don't have good education levels (many I've met haven't finished high school) and dropping one job for another isn't as simple as some of you make it out to be, expecially if you're taking care of a family and are just making enough to get by. Furthermore, quitting also has the wonderful effect of getting you blackballed, mainly because dentists tend to know each other, so don't expect to be able to take your 10 years of experience to another practice after your boss "fired" you (aka: you gave him your two week notice and he tells you to pack your stuff and leave... It happens). I'm not going to get too into all the illegal things I've seen these people do just because they know that they can get away with it, but it really puts a damper on the "employers are really looking out for you" mentality. And you as an outsider can't report them because that will just lead to a light fine and them finding a reason to fire said employee (if you look hard enough, or fabricate it, you can always find justifiable reasoning for firing someone).

 

So, yeah, maybe it's not perfect, but some regulation is needed, because like it or not, there are a lot of jackass employers and even some that aren't jackasses but are simply looking for the cheapest way to cut corners, like using an unfiltered commercial grade generators from bunnings (home depo?) to run certain dental equipment. Yay for oil in the mouth. I understand that that would be OSHA in the US, but the point still stands.

 

You assume that because something is illegal, it is wrong. No one is forced to take a job; no one is forced to stay at a job. And yea, there are assholes, but those assholes are proprietors in their businesses and should be able to hire or fire anyone they'd like without having to explain themselves to you or anyone else. Furthermore, if I want to take a job at a certain set of terms like a wage below 7 dollars, why are you denying me a job with your overreached laws? Dont you care about poor people?

 

 

You think there are so many jobs out there that job hunters can be choosey? It hasn't been that way in this country for quite awhile. I'm guessing you aren't actually one of those poor people you're concerned about - a low-wage employee who was screwed by an employer and found himself unemployed and unemployable.

 

 

 

 

I don't think you understand me. You shouldn't (and thankfully don't) have a right to a job because a job is dependent on someone else providing it for you. It's logically inconsistent with other rights that we have, like property rights for example. A job is an exchange of service for money. No rational human being would ever take a job that didn't make them better off than they'd be if they didn't have the job. Furthermore, there are no laws in this country that bind an employee to his employer unless voluntarily agreed to by contract. So people take jobs on their own accord, and they aren't physically coerced into them. If you don't like the terms of a job, don't take it or quit. You aren't owed any more than the right to choose when to take or not take a job, and the benefits you receive for the work you perform. You aren't owed the courtesy of being kept on a job despite being bad at it, or despite it not being beneficial to the company. Likewise, you don't owe any company your business when they need customers.

 

And I don't understand how you'd be 'screwed' by your employer, unless you're forced to work there against your will or if you aren't paid the agreed-upon amount. Again, you don't have a right to a job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, as much as I would like to join the big gov hate bandwagon, I have actually seen entire career fields worth of businesses screw their employees, so no, you can't really convince me that if an employer can save some money by cutting corners that they won't do it, even if it is illegal. One example of this is the dental nursing profession. They aren't paid well, often don't have good education levels (many I've met haven't finished high school) and dropping one job for another isn't as simple as some of you make it out to be, expecially if you're taking care of a family and are just making enough to get by. Furthermore, quitting also has the wonderful effect of getting you blackballed, mainly because dentists tend to know each other, so don't expect to be able to take your 10 years of experience to another practice after your boss "fired" you (aka: you gave him your two week notice and he tells you to pack your stuff and leave... It happens). I'm not going to get too into all the illegal things I've seen these people do just because they know that they can get away with it, but it really puts a damper on the "employers are really looking out for you" mentality. And you as an outsider can't report them because that will just lead to a light fine and them finding a reason to fire said employee (if you look hard enough, or fabricate it, you can always find justifiable reasoning for firing someone).

 

So, yeah, maybe it's not perfect, but some regulation is needed, because like it or not, there are a lot of jackass employers and even some that aren't jackasses but are simply looking for the cheapest way to cut corners, like using an unfiltered commercial grade generators from bunnings (home depo?) to run certain dental equipment. Yay for oil in the mouth. I understand that that would be OSHA in the US, but the point still stands.

 

You assume that because something is illegal, it is wrong. No one is forced to take a job; no one is forced to stay at a job. And yea, there are assholes, but those assholes are proprietors in their businesses and should be able to hire or fire anyone they'd like without having to explain themselves to you or anyone else. Furthermore, if I want to take a job at a certain set of terms like a wage below 7 dollars, why are you denying me a job with your overreached laws? Dont you care about poor people?

 

 

You think there are so many jobs out there that job hunters can be choosey? It hasn't been that way in this country for quite awhile. I'm guessing you aren't actually one of those poor people you're concerned about - a low-wage employee who was screwed by an employer and found himself unemployed and unemployable.

 

 

 

 

I don't think you understand me. You shouldn't (and thankfully don't) have a right to a job because a job is dependent on someone else providing it for you. It's logically inconsistent with other rights that we have, like property rights for example. A job is an exchange of service for money. No rational human being would ever take a job that didn't make them better off than they'd be if they didn't have the job. Furthermore, there are no laws in this country that bind an employee to his employer unless voluntarily agreed to by contract. So people take jobs on their own accord, and they aren't physically coerced into them. If you don't like the terms of a job, don't take it or quit. You aren't owed any more than the right to choose when to take or not take a job, and the benefits you receive for the work you perform. You aren't owed the courtesy of being kept on a job despite being bad at it, or despite it not being beneficial to the company. Likewise, you don't owe any company your business when they need customers.

 

And I don't understand how you'd be 'screwed' by your employer, unless you're forced to work there against your will or if you aren't paid the agreed-upon amount. Again, you don't have a right to a job.

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but so much of what you say is simply not the real world. I'm just not up to it all - maybe someone else here will give it a shot.

 

But just let me straighten this much out. This discussion was never about a right to a job. From the beginning this thread has been about investigating possible cases of abuse or injustice to employees and whether there is a need to protect them from it. There is. There seem to be those on this thread who think that employees don't need that protection. They do. The country where employees are never unjustly screwed must be the same one where there are so many jobs that an employee can easily leave one for another with no problems. I don't know where that is, but I know it isn't here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, as much as I would like to join the big gov hate bandwagon, I have actually seen entire career fields worth of businesses screw their employees, so no, you can't really convince me that if an employer can save some money by cutting corners that they won't do it, even if it is illegal. One example of this is the dental nursing profession. They aren't paid well, often don't have good education levels (many I've met haven't finished high school) and dropping one job for another isn't as simple as some of you make it out to be, expecially if you're taking care of a family and are just making enough to get by. Furthermore, quitting also has the wonderful effect of getting you blackballed, mainly because dentists tend to know each other, so don't expect to be able to take your 10 years of experience to another practice after your boss "fired" you (aka: you gave him your two week notice and he tells you to pack your stuff and leave... It happens). I'm not going to get too into all the illegal things I've seen these people do just because they know that they can get away with it, but it really puts a damper on the "employers are really looking out for you" mentality. And you as an outsider can't report them because that will just lead to a light fine and them finding a reason to fire said employee (if you look hard enough, or fabricate it, you can always find justifiable reasoning for firing someone).

 

So, yeah, maybe it's not perfect, but some regulation is needed, because like it or not, there are a lot of jackass employers and even some that aren't jackasses but are simply looking for the cheapest way to cut corners, like using an unfiltered commercial grade generators from bunnings (home depo?) to run certain dental equipment. Yay for oil in the mouth. I understand that that would be OSHA in the US, but the point still stands.

 

You assume that because something is illegal, it is wrong. No one is forced to take a job; no one is forced to stay at a job. And yea, there are assholes, but those assholes are proprietors in their businesses and should be able to hire or fire anyone they'd like without having to explain themselves to you or anyone else. Furthermore, if I want to take a job at a certain set of terms like a wage below 7 dollars, why are you denying me a job with your overreached laws? Dont you care about poor people?

You think there are so many jobs out there that job hunters can be choosey? It hasn't been that way in this country for quite awhile. I'm guessing you aren't actually one of those poor people you're concerned about - a low-wage employee who was screwed by an employer and found himself unemployed and unemployable.

 

 

I don't think you understand me. You shouldn't (and thankfully don't) have a right to a job because a job is dependent on someone else providing it for you. It's logically inconsistent with other rights that we have, like property rights for example. A job is an exchange of service for money. No rational human being would ever take a job that didn't make them better off than they'd be if they didn't have the job. Furthermore, there are no laws in this country that bind an employee to his employer unless voluntarily agreed to by contract. So people take jobs on their own accord, and they aren't physically coerced into them. If you don't like the terms of a job, don't take it or quit. You aren't owed any more than the right to choose when to take or not take a job, and the benefits you receive for the work you perform. You aren't owed the courtesy of being kept on a job despite being bad at it, or despite it not being beneficial to the company. Likewise, you don't owe any company your business when they need customers.

 

And I don't understand how you'd be 'screwed' by your employer, unless you're forced to work there against your will or if you aren't paid the agreed-upon amount. Again, you don't have a right to a job.

 

I'm sorry, but so much of what you say is simply not the real world. I'm just not up to it all - maybe someone else here will give it a shot.

 

But just let me straighten this much out. This discussion was never about a right to a job. From the beginning this thread has been about investigating possible cases of abuse or injustice to employees and whether there is a need to protect them from it. There is. There seem to be those on this thread who think that employees don't need that protection. They do. The country where employees are never unjustly screwed must be the same one where there are so many jobs that an employee can easily leave one for another with no problems. I don't know where that is, but I know it isn't here.

 

Clearly it's not the real world when things like minimum wage exist. I qualify my statements; I speak of how things should be if we're going to be consistent with the values we pretend to respect. Think of what rights are, and how inconsistently they are applied to people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there is a complaint, they have to investigate. Blame it on the ex-employees, not the government. The system may not be perfect and it may not always work, but it is there for a good reason. I would say if someone has a better idea they should let it be known to the agencies/head honchos it concerns.

 

 

This is the correct answer, and why we have these agencies in the first place. They have to investigate. If they find nothing, no big deal. But as it is there's a lot of abuse of unpaid internships (which have replaced a lot of entry level jobs), so it's worth investigating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A little OT, but here's a good example of federal "regulators" run amok.

 

Permit not needed for stormwater runoff, court says

October 30, 2013

By Kate Campbell

 

Threatened with huge fines and possible imprisonment, West Virginia poultry producer Lois Alt decided to stand up to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in court. In a case with implications for livestock producers in California and nationwide, Alt tried to sort out whether stormwater discharges from her farm actually require a federal permit. Her case won support from the West Virginia and American Farm Bureaus, which intervened in the court case on her behalf.

 

Last week, Alt won an important decision when the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia ruled against EPA, saying that ordinary stormwater from Alt's farmyard is exempt from National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit requirements.

 

Alt filed suit against EPA in June 2012, after the agency threatened her with $37,500 in fines each time stormwater came into contact with dust, feathers or small amounts of manure on the ground outside of her poultry houses as a result of normal farm operations. EPA also threatened separate fines of $37,500 each day if Alt failed to apply for an NPDES permit for such stormwater discharges.

 

"This lawsuit was about EPA's tactic of threatening farmers with enormous fines in order to make them get permits that are not required by law," American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman said. "Lois Alt was proud of her farm and her environmental stewardship, and she stood her ground. We're proud to have supported her effort."

 

Alt operates an eight-house chicken farm with a ventilation system and a covered litter storage shed, a compost shed and feed storage bins. Some particles of manure have been spilled and feathers have escaped the chicken houses. And, on occasion during rainstorms, runoff has flowed across a neighboring grassy pasture and into Mudlick Run, which is designated a "water of the United States" under the Clean Water Act.

 

Alt said when she first received notice of violation from EPA, she asked what she could do to comply with regulations, but she said, "They couldn't tell me anything. All they could say repeatedly was, 'Get a permit,' no matter which direction I went. We knew it was not right."

 

In ordering Alt to seek a permit, EPA took the legal position that the Clean Water Act exemption for "agricultural stormwater discharges" does not apply to farms classified as "concentrated animal feeding operations," except for areas where crops are grown. In other words, any areas at a CAFO farm where crops are not grown, and where particles of manure are present, would have required a permit for rainwater runoff.

 

"We are pleased the court flatly rejected EPA's arguments and ruled in favor of Lois Alt," Stallman said. "The outcome of this case will benefit thousands of livestock and poultry farmers who run their operations responsibly and who should not have to get a federal permit for ordinary rainwater from their farmyards."

 

Kari Fisher, associate counsel for the California Farm Bureau Federation, said the case is important for California livestock producers with concentrated animal feeding operations.

 

"The Alt case reiterates that producers do not have to obtain a federal permit for ordinary agricultural stormwater or rainwater leaving the farm," Fisher said. "It also reaffirms that incidental litter or manure are related to raising poultry and therefore are related to agriculture."

 

AFBF attorney Danielle Quist said in standing up to the EPA, Alt put herself in a difficult position, but didn't want other farmers and ranchers who are good stewards of the environment to face a similar predicament.

 

"She didn't want other farmers to be bullied by the EPA," Quist said. "She stood up for herself, but she also stood up for others. This is a terrific win for farmers and ranchers in West Virginia and nationwide."

 

(Kate Campbell is an assistant editor of Ag Alert. She may be contacted at kcampbell@cfbf.com.)

 

Permission for use is granted, however, credit must be made to the California Farm Bureau Federation when reprinting this item.

 

http://www.agalert.com/story/?id=6056

 

Imagine that. There are a few feathers on a chicken farm. And some manure, too!

 

How many daily $37,500 fines would the typical operation be able to stand before they were bankrupt? A month's worth? Two months?

 

The article doesn't say how much, but it cost her more than 5 bucks and 5 minutes to fight off the blockheads at the EPA over rainwater.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...