Unions: Where did the U.S.A. go wrong?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The difference between the production of Starbucks Coffee and Starbucks Fair-Trade Coffee is 1 cent per cup.

Source?

Best I can tell from google, starbucks pays top dollar for it's non fair trade coffee--not surprising that their costs don't go up much from buying fair trade coffee (6% of the coffee they buy apparently). I don't think this helps whatever point beskar is trying to make--something like "increasing sweatshop wages 5 fold will only lead to a 1 cent increase in price"? I hope that's not the point he's trying to make...

[Beskar]

Best I can tell from google, starbucks pays top dollar for it's non fair trade coffee--not surprising that their costs don't go up much from buying fair trade coffee (6% of the coffee they buy apparently). I don't think this helps whatever point beskar is trying to make--something like "increasing sweatshop wages 5 fold will only lead to a 1 cent increase in price"? I hope that's not the point he's trying to make...

It was an article I read a while ago. When Starbucks first started releasing a 'Fair-Trade' range locally, and there was a big hoohaa, because it only cost Starbucks 1p to do Fair-Trade, and they charged an extra 10p per cup.

You, being so full of your regard for humanity, probably volunteered for a month or more to help feed the hungry. Right?

You probably was sarcastic when you wrote this, but it actually correct. I been doing charity work since 13, which involves assisting with the homeless, providing food, collecting/performing and community work.

Again, Beskar, why don't you share your thoughts on the video I posted? Or does the fact that unions are choosing more jobs for themselves over the safety of ill children conflict with your worldview too much?

Actually, no. I pretty much shrugged it off as something minor. It was a very biased article. From what I skimmed read, there is a bill which will allow non-trained medical professionals to administrate this drug. However, the unions said they oppose it, most likely due to complications, legal risks, etc and that a trained professional should deal with it, aka, just hire a school nurse to deal and look after the patient.

Makes sense. The alternative is, to simply train teachers to a certificated first-aid standard then there would be no issues then either. But I am guessing this costs money and school don't want to pay for that.

There isn't enough in the article for me to give a more meaningful answer.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Actually, no. I pretty much shrugged it off as something minor. It was a very biased article. From what I skimmed read, there is a bill which will allow non-trained medical professionals to administrate this drug. However, the unions said they oppose it, most likely due to complications, legal risks, etc and that a trained professional should deal with it, aka, just hire a school nurse to deal and look after the patient.

Makes sense.

No. It. Doesn't. Did you even read the article? Schools can't afford to hire more people now. The medical professionals -

Epilepsy advocates like the Epilepsy Foundation and physicians groups like the California Medical Association have lined up to support the bill.

- support allowing lay people with some training and not just nurses to administer the drug. The union claims about concern for medical issues have got nothing to back them up; the people who actually know something about the medical issue support this bill.

And just because something makes a bunch of greedy idiots look like a bunch of greedy idiots doesn't mean it is biased.

The alternative is, to simply train teachers to a certificated first-aid standard then there would be no issues then either. But I am guessing this costs money and school don't want to pay for that.

The alternative this bill provides for is to let teachers get some simple training - they don't have to have a certificate in first aid - to administer this drug. That's what the schools, doctors, and parents want.

The unions oppose that simple, effective solution because it doesn't result in them getting more jobs.

The bottom line is that unions are opposing a bill that makes it much easier to care for children with potentially deadly conditions because it doesn't let them make more money. Can you give a meaningful response to that?

Oh stop it. That they do that horrible work out of necessity doesn't make it any more right.

Everyone works because they need to. And it being right isn't the point. The point is that Beskar's plan to force a minimum wage would result in those desperate workers losing their jobs. How will taking the jobs from them help their situation?

And in the apparel industry, those jobs usually pay more than the local average.

CR