NAI blocked by House Amendment
06-12-2014, 07:59 PM
#21
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Originally Posted by captjns
How many chest beaters are banging the doors, in their own backyards demanding that outsourced cabin crew employed by their own airlines be paid at least what their mainline (?) counter parts are?
06-13-2014, 07:50 AM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,524
Originally Posted by captjns
The irony of all these posts is pure hypocrisy claiming unfair labour laws abroad. How many chest beaters purchase goods from Home Depot, K-Mart, Walmart, or even Lowes, whose wares are manufactured overseas with cheap labor in China, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Mongolia by in-prisoned North Koreans, to name a few?
How many chest beaters are banging the doors, in their own backyards demanding that outsourced cabin crew employed by their own airlines be paid at least what their American counter parts are?
How many chest beaters are banging the doors, in their own backyards demanding that outsourced cabin crew employed by their own airlines be paid at least what their American counter parts are?
That doesn't fit your narative though. You are trying the worn out populist debate trick of claiming hypocrisy and then using it, mother of all argumentative outrages it is, to disgard the entirety of the rest of the discussion. Sadly, that methodology is supericially effective in "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" as nothing, and I mean nothing gets people riled up and full of righteous indignition more than pointing out something apparently hypocritical. It effectively ends all discussion and debate despite the fact that it does absolutely nothing in and of itself to argue for, much less prove, one's case.
So even if your assumption was correct and there really was hypocrisy WRT, say, inhumane child labor/environmental or whatever laws as they applied to things on the shelves of Wal Mart or whatever, you still wouldn't have made your case as to why we should permit the already illegal NAI model to be illegally approved.
The best you could even come close to "proving" would be the particular Wal Mart goods in question should be denied entry, and that's assuming it was even true in the first place.
The emirati airlines flagrantly violate US labor standards and other things that are laws here but not there, but they aren't directly violating our laws in doing so. Same for the Wal Mart goods. That may make them wrong, but legal. NAI, OTOH, is already illegal. Sad that we have to pass laws to enforce existing laws though, especially about this.
If you are trying to make the case for some sort of mandate (law or no law) of being forced to allow everything if we allow anything, and then using that line of thinking to point out supposed hypocrisy, and then using that to justify your premise of allowing everything despite the law just to appear not to be hypocritical, well, that's a pretty big stretch. Which is why no one is falling for it.
06-13-2014, 09:52 AM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: B-737NG preferably in first class with a glass of champagne and caviar
Posts: 5,926
Originally Posted by gloopy
If the goods you mention are already in violation of US law, policy and agreements, then those particular goods should be denied entry to the US.
That doesn't fit your narative though. You are trying the worn out populist debate trick of claiming hypocrisy and then using it, mother of all argumentative outrages it is, to disgard the entirety of the rest of the discussion. Sadly, that methodology is supericially effective in "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" as nothing, and I mean nothing gets people riled up and full of righteous indignition more than pointing out something apparently hypocritical. It effectively ends all discussion and debate despite the fact that it does absolutely nothing in and of itself to argue for, much less prove, one's case.
So even if your assumption was correct and there really was hypocrisy WRT, say, inhumane child labor/environmental or whatever laws as they applied to things on the shelves of Wal Mart or whatever, you still wouldn't have made your case as to why we should permit the already illegal NAI model to be illegally approved.
The best you could even come close to "proving" would be the particular Wal Mart goods in question should be denied entry, and that's assuming it was even true in the first place.
The emirati airlines flagrantly violate US labor standards and other things that are laws here but not there, but they aren't directly violating our laws in doing so. Same for the Wal Mart goods. That may make them wrong, but legal. NAI, OTOH, is already illegal. Sad that we have to pass laws to enforce existing laws though, especially about this.
If you are trying to make the case for some sort of mandate (law or no law) of being forced to allow everything if we allow anything, and then using that line of thinking to point out supposed hypocrisy, and then using that to justify your premise of allowing everything despite the law just to appear not to be hypocritical, well, that's a pretty big stretch. Which is why no one is falling for it.
That doesn't fit your narative though. You are trying the worn out populist debate trick of claiming hypocrisy and then using it, mother of all argumentative outrages it is, to disgard the entirety of the rest of the discussion. Sadly, that methodology is supericially effective in "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" as nothing, and I mean nothing gets people riled up and full of righteous indignition more than pointing out something apparently hypocritical. It effectively ends all discussion and debate despite the fact that it does absolutely nothing in and of itself to argue for, much less prove, one's case.
So even if your assumption was correct and there really was hypocrisy WRT, say, inhumane child labor/environmental or whatever laws as they applied to things on the shelves of Wal Mart or whatever, you still wouldn't have made your case as to why we should permit the already illegal NAI model to be illegally approved.
The best you could even come close to "proving" would be the particular Wal Mart goods in question should be denied entry, and that's assuming it was even true in the first place.
The emirati airlines flagrantly violate US labor standards and other things that are laws here but not there, but they aren't directly violating our laws in doing so. Same for the Wal Mart goods. That may make them wrong, but legal. NAI, OTOH, is already illegal. Sad that we have to pass laws to enforce existing laws though, especially about this.
If you are trying to make the case for some sort of mandate (law or no law) of being forced to allow everything if we allow anything, and then using that line of thinking to point out supposed hypocrisy, and then using that to justify your premise of allowing everything despite the law just to appear not to be hypocritical, well, that's a pretty big stretch. Which is why no one is falling for it.
On the other hand Kmart, Walmart engage entities beyond the boarders of the US that force children into essentially slave labor. Its a shame that US regulators refuse to do what they're paid to do... regulate. Too bad children don't have a choice.
Children Found Sewing Clothing For Wal-Mart, Hanes & Other U.S. & European Companies - National Labor Committee
06-13-2014, 10:23 AM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: B-737NG preferably in first class with a glass of champagne and caviar
Posts: 5,926
Originally Posted by CanoePilot
Any American who goes and flies for this airline should be blacklisted the same as a scab.
!
06-13-2014, 11:39 AM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,524
Originally Posted by captjns
Big difference here... NIA hires adults who have a choice. You are in fear of your livelihood.
At least a scab has the decency to wait til you're on strike. NAI pilots will do it, illegally, tomorrow if given the chance.
06-13-2014, 11:40 AM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,524
Originally Posted by captjns
On the other hand Kmart, Walmart engage entities beyond the boarders of the US that force children into essentially slave labor. Its a shame that US regulators refuse to do what they're paid to do... regulate. Too bad children don't have a choice.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
vagabond
Hangar Talk
14
04-25-2007 09:09 AM
