Jump to content

Republicans De-Regulated Gov. Hands-Off Strikes at Home


Recommended Posts

While the right preaches deregulation of businesses, they support the murder of consumers in the process. From bridge collapses, Texas factory fires, and now building collapses. Reminds me of their capitalist cousin in Bangladesh.

 

Dozens of paramedics and fire crews were on the scene working to find those trapped, city Fire Commissioner Lloyd Ayers said. At least five people were taken to hospitals, officials said.

 

The collapse involved a four-story building that once housed a first-floor sandwich shop. It collapsed, sending tons of debris onto a Salvation Army corner thrift store next door. The two are adjacent to an adult bookstore and theater that had been taken down earlier.

 

Witnesses said they heard a loud rumbling sound immediately before the collapse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the government should be in charge of renovating privately owned buildings and businesses, dumbass?

 

You think more regulations will prevent fires from happening, and buildings from collapsing?

 

NEWSFLASH! Those things have always happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You think more regulations will prevent fires from happening, and buildings from collapsing?

 

YES. Certainly more saftey and building code regulations and stricter enforcement of those regulations would.

 

NEWSFLASH! Those things have always happened.

 

So let's just do away with all regulations. :wacko:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YES. Certainly more saftey and building code regulations and stricter enforcement of those regulations would.

 

 

So let's just do away with all regulations. :wacko:

 

Horse puckey. No amount of federal regulation will ever stop accidents from happening.

 

These things are local issues.

 

I don't need the Federal Government wiping my ass for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Horse puckey. No amount of federal regulation will ever stop accidents from happening.

 

Wingnut logic. If we can't stop all accidents, let's not bother trying to stop any.

It's like saying we can't stop all murders, so why bother having laws against them.

 

These things are local issues.

 

Since when has infrastructure (bridges, tunnels, etc.) been a 'local' issue?

 

I don't need the Federal Government wiping my ass for me.

 

I'm sure that's a dirty job that rarely gets done. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Horse puckey. No amount of federal regulation will ever stop accidents from happening.

 

These things are local issues.

 

I don't need the Federal Government wiping my ass for me.

LMAO!! That has to be the most idiotic comment of the month. The cemetary is full of workers who failed to follow government regulations.

 

 

Here we got ourselves an idiot that breaks all the rules of the road, is a danger to anyone around him, and has always failed to followed the rules set down in society. Tsk! Guess that is why he calls himself a "nut."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wingnut logic. If we can't stop all accidents, let's not bother trying to stop any.

It's like saying we can't stop all murders, so why bother having laws against them.

 

 

Since when has infrastructure (bridges, tunnels, etc.) been a 'local' issue?

 

 

I'm sure that's a dirty job that rarely gets done. :D

Where did I say that, fruitcake? What I said is it is a local issue, and the Federal Government has no Constitutional Authority regulating private buildings, and or businesses. It is a local issue.

 

Are most bridges, tunnels, etc privately owned, dumbass? The OP talks of privately owned buildings, and busnesses, as well. Reading comprehension skills much?

 

You are right. I have never needed the Fed to wipe my ass for me, and never will. Obviously you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LMAO!! That has to be the most idiotic comment of the month. The cemetary is full of workers who failed to follow government regulations.

 

so show us where federal regulations have prevented fires, and buildings from collapsing.... Until then, you are the idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LMAO!! That has to be the most idiotic comment of the month. The cemetary is full of workers who failed to follow government regulations.

 

 

Here we got ourselves an idiot that breaks all the rules of the road, is a danger to anyone around him, nd has always failed to followed the rules set down in society. Tsk!

Perhaps you can point out what regulations were eliminated, which lead the collapse of this building in the OP.

nothing on your story indicates that happened, and you provided no link to support your theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While the right preaches deregulation of businesses, they support the murder of consumers in the process. From bridge collapses, Texas factory fires, and now building collapses. Reminds me of their capitalist cousin in Bangladesh.

 

Bangladesh is "Capitalist?"

 

Can't you moonbats even tell believable lies?

 

 

Bangladesh’s economic freedom score is 52.6, making its economy the 132nd freest in the 2013 Index. Its overall score has decreased by 0.6 point since last year, reflecting declines in labor freedom and monetary freedom that counterbalance a notable improvement in freedom from corruption. Bangladesh is ranked 28th out of 41 countries in the Asia–Pacific region.

http://www.heritage.org/index/country/bangladesh

 

Whatever you call it, it ain't Free Market Capitalism.

 

You think more regulations will prevent fires from happening, and buildings from collapsing?

 

YES. Certainly more saftey and building code regulations and stricter enforcement of those regulations would.

 

Bangladesh already has strict building codes.

 

Why didn't they prevent it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While the right preaches deregulation of businesses, they support the murder of consumers in the process. From bridge collapses, Texas factory fires, and now building collapses. Reminds me of their capitalist cousin in Bangladesh.

 

Dozens of paramedics and fire crews were on the scene working to find those trapped, city Fire Commissioner Lloyd Ayers said. At least five people were taken to hospitals, officials said.

 

The collapse involved a four-story building that once housed a first-floor sandwich shop. It collapsed, sending tons of debris onto a Salvation Army corner thrift store next door. The two are adjacent to an adult bookstore and theater that had been taken down earlier.

 

Witnesses said they heard a loud rumbling sound immediately before the collapse.

 

It must have been really hard for you to fight against your fellow communists in Vietnam. Oh wait, you just pretend to be a vet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every commercial building that is legally built in this country has to follow federal and whatever state regulations there are for the particular building. On top of that these things are supposed to be checked by government inspectors. If something collapsed then its really the government's fault for not inspecting the work correctly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Made in Bangladesh: The Terror of Capitalism

 

 

"On Wednesday, April 24, a day after Bangladeshi authorities asked the owners to evacuate their garment factory that employed almost three thousand workers, the building collapsed. The building, Rana Plaza, located in the Dhaka suburb of Savar, produced garments for the commodity chain that stretches from the cotton fields of South Asia through Bangladesh’s machines and workers to the retail houses in the Atlantic world. Famous name brands were stitched here, as are clothes that hang on the satanic shelves of Wal-Mart. Rescue workers were able to save two thousand people as of this writing, with confirmation that over three hundred are dead. The numbers for the latter are fated to rise. It is well worth mentioning that the death toll in the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in New York City of 1911 was one hundred and forty six. The death toll here is already twice that. This “accident” comes five months (November 24, 2012) after the Tazreen garment factory fire that killed at least one hundred and twelve workers.

The list of “accidents” is long and painful. In April 2005, a garment factory in Savar collapsed, killing seventy-five workers. In February 2006, another factory collapsed in Dhaka, killing eighteen. In June 2010, a building collapsed in Dhaka, killing twenty-five. These are the “factories” of twenty-first century globalization – poorly built shelters for a production process geared toward long working days, third rate machines, and workers whose own lives are submitted to the imperatives of just-in-time production. Writing about the factory regime in England during the nineteenth century, Karl Marx noted, “But in its blind unrestrainable passion, its wear-wolf hunger for surplus labour, capital oversteps not only the moral, but even the merely physical maximum bounds of the working-day. It usurps the time for growth, development and healthy maintenance of the body. It steals the time required for the consumption of fresh air and sunlight…. All that concerns it is simply and solely the maximum of labour-power that can be rendered fluent in a working-day. It attains this end by shortening the extent of the labourer’s life, as a greedy farmer snatches increased produce from the soil by reducing it of its fertility” (Capital, Chapter 10).

These Bangladesh factories are a part of the landscape of globalization that is mimicked in the factories along the US-Mexico border, in Haiti, in Sri Lanka, and in other places that opened their doors to the garment industry’s savvy use of the new manufacturing and trade order of the 1990s. Subdued countries that had neither the patriotic will to fight for their citizens nor any concern for the long-term debilitation of their social order rushed to welcome garment production. The big garment producers no longer wanted to invest in factories – they turned to sub-contractors, offering them very narrow margins for profit and thereby forcing them to run their factories like prison-houses of labour. The sub-contracting regime allowed these firms to deny any culpability for what was done by the actual owners of these small factories, allowing them to enjoy the benefits of the cheap products without having their consciences stained with the sweat and blood of the workers. It also allowed the consumers in the Atlantic world to buy vast amount of commodities, often with debt-financed consumption, without concern for the methods of production. An occasionally outburst of liberal sentiment turned against this or that company, but there was no overall appreciation of the way the Wal-Mart type of commodity chain made normal the sorts of business practices that occasioned this or that campaign.

Bangladeshi workers have not been as prone as the consumers in the Atlantic world. As recently as June 2012, thousands of workers in the Ashulia Industrial Zone, outside Dhaka, protested for higher wages and better working conditions. For days on end, these workers closed down three hundred factories, blocking the Dhaka-Tangali highway at Narasinghapur. The workers earn between 3000 taka ($35) and 5,500 taka ($70) a month; they wanted a raise of between 1500 taka ($19) and 2000 taka ($25) per month. The government sent in three thousand policemen to secure the scene, and the Prime Minister offered anodyne entreaties that she would look into the matter. A three-member committee was set up, but nothing substantial came of it.

Aware of the futility of negotiations with a government subordinated to the logic of the commodity chain, Dhaka exploded in violence as more and more news from the Rana Building emerged. Workers have shut down the factory area around Dhaka, blocking roads and smashing cars. The callousness of the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers Association (BGMEA) adds fire to the workers’ anger. After the protests in June, BGMEA head Shafiul Islam Mohiuddin accused the workers of being involved in “some conspiracy.” He argued that there is “no logic for increasing the wages of the workers.” This time, BGMEA’s new president Atiqul Islam suggested that the problem was not the death of the workers or the poor conditions in which workers toil but “the disruption in production owing to unrest and hartals [strikes].” These strikes, he said, are “just another heavy blow to the garment sector.” No wonder those who took to the streets have so little faith in the sub-contractors and the government.

Attempts to shift the needle of exploitation have been thwarted by concerted government pressure and the advantages of assassination. Whatever decent lurks in Bangladesh’s Labour Act is eclipsed by weak enforcement by the Ministry of Labour’s Inspections Department. There are only eighteen inspectors and assistant inspectors to monitor 100,000 factories in the Dhaka area, where most of the garment factories are located. If an infraction is detected, the fines are too low to generate any reforms. When workers try to form unions, the harsh response from the management is sufficient to curtail their efforts. Management prefers the anarchic outbreaks of violence to the steady consolidation of worker power. In fact, the violence led the Bangladeshi government to create a Crisis Management Cell and an Industrial Police not to monitor violations of labour laws, but to spy on worker organisers. In April 2012, agents of capital kidnapped Aminul Islam, one of the key organisers of the Bangladesh Center for Worker Solidarity. He was found dead a few days later, his body littered with the marks of torture.

Bangladesh has been convulsed this past months with protests over its history – the terrible violence visited among the freedom fighters in 1971 by the Jamaat-e-Islami brought thousands of people into Shanbagh in Dhaka; this protest morphed into the political civil war between the two mainstream parties, setting aside the calls for justice for victims of that violence. This protest has inflamed the country, which has been otherwise quite sanguine about the everyday terror against its garment sector workers. The Rana building “accident” might provide a progressive hinge for a protest movement that is otherwise adrift.

In the Atlantic world, meanwhile, self-absorption over the wars on terror and on the downturn in the economy prevent any genuine introspection over the mode of life that relies upon debt-fueled consumerism at the expense of workers in Dhaka. Those who died in the Rana building are victims not only of the malfeasance of the sub-contractors, but also of twenty-first century globalisation."

................counterpunch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps you can point out what regulations were eliminated, which lead the collapse of this building in the OP.

nothing on your story indicates that happened, and you provided no link to support your theory.

 

I guess this request for information to back up your claims was a bit too much to expect, right Shintao?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So a building that was being demolished collapsed, it was a demolition accident.

 

"Police described the collapse as an "industrial accident." The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has been told it was an accident at a demolition site,"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

YES. Certainly more saftey and building code regulations and stricter enforcement of those regulations would.

 

 

So let's just do away with all regulations. :wacko:

 

 

So it's all or nothing? There is no middle ground?

 

The truth is that government regulations stifle innovation. For example Volvo in the 1970s, before seat belts were mandated by our benevolent government was far ahead of the curve in offering safety innovations. When the government interfered and mandated that seat belts be in every single car sold in the U.S. innovation in that area was stifled. Creating a better seat belt no long became a financial incentive for anyone since everyone was mandated to have seat belts that meet the government standard.

 

Lovers of ever growing and encroaching government love to think that the only way for people to not be chopped in half every five minutes while at work is for the government to step in and force their safety standards on everyone. They love to point out that workplace fatalities have declined sharply since the formation of OSHA, which is true, as evidenced by this graph showing the rate of decline since 1971.

 

Workplace-Fatalities-since-1971.jpg

 

 

But what they don't love to show you is the rate BEFORE OSHA.

 

Workplace-Fatalities-since-1933_1.jpg

What is that? There is no discernible difference in the rate before and after the formation of OSHA? How can that be?

 

It can be because the free market, when left to its own devices largely takes care of itself. The facts are that there is not an infinite amount of labor and it is expensive and time-consuming to hire and train new employees. Employers are motivated to provide better work environments in order to both attract and keep quality workers. They were doing it long before the government said they must and they continue to do it not BECAUSE of government but DESPITE government. The only thing we will never know is if workplaces would be safer if OSHA hadn't been formed as technology sped up innovation in all areas instead of being stifled in some.

 

It's easy for lefties who hate success to demonize faceless individuals in corporate offices as if they would feed their employees through meat grinders at the end of every day if it would improve their stock by a quarter of a point but that's just asinine jealousy and bigotry on display. Yes, profit is a motive but you can't make a profit if you don't attract and maintain a quality workforce. If you don't provide an environment in which people want to work the competition certainly will. Those are the facts, Jack. I'm sorry if they don't fit with your "all rich people are mass-murdering psycopaths" world view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

deregulation had nothing to do with this accident. first it was not a building collapse. the building being demolished was not property being taken apart and debris caused adjacent buildings to be damaged or collapse but it was from the debris. knowing philly the demolition company was probably a minority owned company with all minority workers who have jobs because of affirmative action and are too stupid to operate the equipment they were operating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The construction company taking down the building is Griffin Campbell Construction, a non-union shop.

Plato Marinakos Jr. is the architect supervising the demolition. The claim is Marinakos signed off on blueprints he had never seen for the demolition and acted as the expeditor for the permitting process.
Griffin Campbell Construction had all necessary PERMITS AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY GOVERNMENT to conduct the demolition.

The demolition was clearly regulated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the government should be in charge of renovating privately owned buildings and businesses, dumbass?

 

You think more regulations will prevent fires from happening, and buildings from collapsing?

 

NEWSFLASH! Those things have always happened.

State and city government does .

 

I know you think the feds shouldn't worry about bridges and highways .

 

So the state should raise the hell out of taxes to do it them selves .

 

More regulation? How about throwing out tea party officials and get a vote in the house to repair infrastructure ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. 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.   Paste as plain text instead

  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...