I apologize for the sentiment. I waited a long time to have a team, and I bashed MLS constantly because it seemed they were trying to go everywhere but ATL. Now I want this league to grow and I wish every club could be like AUFC. It's not right for a 22 year-old league to have an expansion club with no titles yet as its flagship.
It's not right for a 22-year old league to abandon the city that created it. Imagine if the NHL abandoned Detroit or Toronto in 2015. Imagine if the NFL abandoned Green Bay or Pittsburgh. Columbus is synonymous with American soccer and they're gonna piss off everyone who remembers why Columbus Crew stadium is special.
You can forget this. The Nixon administration proposed this in the early 70's and you know how much the Republicans hate when Democrats use their ideas.
For me, it will always be the place where Gino Padula got red-carded for looking at Cuauhtemoc Blanco the wrong way, but snuck back onto the field to watch the rest of the game right in front of my seat. My wife took me on one of our first dates there. She has a signed jersey of Frankie. And I'm a relative newcomer.
Now that's a wife. I have a friend who waited on marriage until he found a woman who would think that his Chicago Bulls season tickets were not something to be worked around, but something cool, because that's what she always wanted. It took him more than a decade, but he found her, eventually.
Wait, wait, how is Atlanta the flagship? Plus Seattle has been the flagship (and LAG) since they came in as an expansion team, so the league is used to it.
How is capping an insurance premium you pay for a program that caps the benefit you receive class welfare?
Liberals always miss this point. Philosophically, you're clearly right. But you know what? I'm so old I remember back to 1983 when the rich and everyone else made a deal to raise SS taxes to plug the gaping chest wound in our budget caused by Reagan's tax cuts, with the understanding that when the bill for Baby Boomers' retirements came due we would make up the money via income taxes. Since the rich reneged on the deal, ******** 'em.
In addition to all of the inequities caused by RTW, it also means that an employer that wants to have a union shop cannot do so by government mandate. This smacks of big government and, yet, Republicans love this law.
I mean, I would vote for lifting the cap on the rich and for payroll taxes on capital gains (I am a no on means testing). But lets not bullshit ourselves, if that is class warfare, it is us that are waging the war, the social security program was not supposed to be that. It was wealth transfer from the young to the few lucky old. Now we can vote to make it wealth transfer from the upper income getters to all other workers, or non workers if we get rid of S.S. and go for UBI. selling that to AARP would be difficult.
I've never heard a compelling reason for an employer to actually want a union shop. I've never had a union job and have worked for a non union company for 20+ years prior to going on my sabbatical so I am biased. Doesn't help having a well known anti-union labor lawyer for an uncle either. I'm open to any insight you could offer me into such a position.
Because not all employers are money grubbing assholes. Some actually want to provide a living wage for their employers, as well as the other protections of unionization. It is also somewhat easier to provide one contract for everyone, as opposed to having to "negotiate" with each employer. There is a car dealership in Chicago that is running advertisements declaring that they are a proud union shop. There was a recent mechanics strike and their mechanics were picketing because it was required during then negotiations. Essentially their point was that they support the mechanics and looking forward to them getting the deal that they deserved. The contract was resolved, the strike ended and they were back to work. I am in a union (as an adjunct college professor), but my main job is at a very small organization. I have worked for union and non-union places. I have been a union steward in the past. If I was an employer, I would welcome the union. I believe in a (relatively) level playing field and ONLY organized labor can do that. The power differentials between employer and employee are so great that only be organizing can the employees have a chance.
I guess your mileage may vary. I’m in an industry that is heavily unionized yet our pay and benefits packages are and always have been well above the industry average. We actually recruit heavily from union shops so like I said YMMV
90% of all existing Bulls merchandise ever sold was sold between 1984 and 1998. Yeah, I made up that stat, but it really does seem like that.
Extremely well trained. Flexibility - if you need more workers for a two-week project, call the Union Hall Less turnover Higher Job satisfaction Easier have all employees under same agreement. Hiring is far easier
Booker agrees. Sen. Cory Booker puts marijuana legalization at the center of his new racial justice bill
I worked for Disney as a cast member a while back. I would have been working minimum wage, or slightly above, if not for the union. They have done fairly decently at getting the cast members to a somewhat livable wage. Of course, if you are in the college program or international program, you are not union and the pay you get is after you pay for rent.
Unfortunately this position won't be as effective in '18/20 as it could have been even as recently as last year. Several states have taken the initiative on their own, so the novelty is wearing off. As usual, the national Democrats arrive at issues a day late and a dollar short. Just in time to make it seem like you're following a trend, instead of leading it.
Thankfully, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions will continue to spout a bunch of Reefer Madness bullshit on the regular, which’ll keep legalization fresh and a little subversive.