Worker protection?
Legislature doesn't much like that either, in that management calls the shots on such issues. Today, John Brummett writes again about an issue we've discussed -- the lack of a death benefit for workers killed on the job when they have no dependents. It deprived benefits for parents of a young man killed by a faultily rigged woodchipper in a Deltic Timber mill. Sen. Shane Broadway would provide a $50,000 benefit, since the workers comp system prevents lawsuits in such cases. He doesn't stand a chance against the bosses.







Comments
I would ask our leggies one thing: What has all our anti-labor, pro-management laws and rulings brought us? New factories and bidness are not flocking here, in fact they bypass here because only an obviously ignorant work force would tolerate such conditions. Today's jobs are not for the ignorant.
Posted by: Lwood
|
March 24, 2007 01:08 PM
It's still very much a plantation mindset here, LWood. As long as the rich continue to get richer, the leg doesn't see a problem.
I'm retired, but if I were starting a business, and I've owned a couple, there's no way I'd start it here. Anyone but a fool would go where 1) incomes are above average, 2) workers have above-average educations, and 3) people who aren't white protestant republicans are tolerated.
Posted by: Crazy Horse
|
March 24, 2007 04:48 PM
Horse, my old econ proff from the 60s lectured us twice about sawmill town economics and a little politics. He mentioned that those of us who planned to remain needed to learn it cause that's the way things are. Of course he encouraged us to be sawmill managers.
Sure enough I come to UoA-Fay and while in a labor relations class a kid with a new Camero takes issue with the proff's attitudes about workers...he spurts out something like "my diddy owns uh sawmill and he said those thangs about worker involvement don't ever work out."
Posted by: Lwood
|
March 24, 2007 06:18 PM