The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[larrymcg421]

[DaddyTorgo]

Spending as a % of GDP looks screwy as a result of the recession though...best to overlay a line of "total govt. spending" on top of that to show its rate of actual $-change too.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Spending as a % of GDP looks screwy as a result of the recession though...best to overlay a line of "total govt. spending" on top of that to show its rate of actual $-change too.

Sure, I just thought it was worth noting that spending as a % of GDP has actually gone down under Obama.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Sure, I just thought it was worth noting that spending as a % of GDP has actually gone down under Obama.

So the Republicans in Congress aren't actually spending wildly like we were all led to believe? NOTE: I think they have been horrible at the fiscal responsibility they preach.

Where is 2011 on that chart?

The biggest thing I take away from the last couple of years is the $3.8 trillion budget submitted by Obama on $2.2 trillion in revenue. 42% deficit!

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

So the Republicans in Congress aren't actually spending wildly like we were all led to believe? NOTE: I think they have been horrible at the fiscal responsibility they preach.

Where is 2011 on that chart?

The biggest thing I take away from the last couple of years is the $3.8 trillion budget submitted by Obama on $2.2 trillion in revenue. 42% deficit!

You'd rather "austerity" cutbacks? Talk to the Europeans before you get so giddy about that idea...it doesn't work and only makes things worse.

Not trying to say that that's the ONLY reason we deficit-spent (I'm not stupid, it's a problem exacerbated by both parties), but it's a contributor. Might/would have been less deficit-spending without the recession.

[RainMaker]

Until tax revenues go up somehow, the deficit is going to be really high. Unless the public is willing to cut SS, Medicare, and the Defense budget.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

You'd rather "austerity" cutbacks? Talk to the Europeans before you get so giddy about that idea...it doesn't work and only makes things worse.

Not trying to say that that's the ONLY reason we deficit-spent (I'm not stupid, it's a problem exacerbated by both parties), but it's a contributor. Might/would have been less deficit-spending without the recession.

The longer we wait, the worse it's going to get when things finally do happen. Either the government we'll live within its means, or we'll go bankrupt. And the longer we wait, the harder the fall.

And yes, the public's insistence on Social Security and Medicare and other entitlement programs and the sanctity of the defense budget (although curiously the one thing in all this the Federal Government is constitutionally obligated to provide) is a huge factor here.

[cuervo72]

Not about the presidency per se, but darned does the First Lady campaign via TV shows. iCarly, Biggest Loser, now Restaurant Impossible (though Cory Booker's been on that one too).

[stevew]

Old people and wars are destroying this country.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I'm a bit surprised that Obama did this. It's obviously well within his rights to do so, but given his comments in the past related to Bush doing the same thing and his campaign of 'change', this seems to be more of the same old thing that Obama promised wouldn't happen during his campaign.

Obama invokes executive privilege as Holder faces contempt vote | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm a bit surprised that Obama did this. It's obviously well within his rights to do so, but given his comments in the past related to Bush doing the same thing and his campaign of 'change', this seems to be more of the same old thing that Obama promised wouldn't happen during his campaign.

Obama invokes executive privilege as Holder faces contempt vote | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

Saw this a little earlier and was reading through some of the comments at the bottom. And the basic reaction seems to be "Well Bush did it more" yeah well "Clinton did it also". I hope the resident liberals here on FOFC (who I really believe are far more educated than the idiots on yahoo comments) will give me a better explanation on this than "Obama is better than Bush."

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

Saw this a little earlier and was reading through some of the comments at the bottom. And the basic reaction seems to be "Well Bush did it more" yeah well "Clinton did it also". I hope the resident liberals here on FOFC (who I really believe are far more educated than the idiots on yahoo comments) will give me a better explanation on this than "Obama is better than Bush."

Not familiar with the particulars of the situation, but unless there really is some sort of reason I'm doubting you'll find us resident liberals knee-jerk defending it.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm a bit surprised that Obama did this. It's obviously well within his rights to do so, but given his comments in the past related to Bush doing the same thing and his campaign of 'change', this seems to be more of the same old thing that Obama promised wouldn't happen during his campaign.

Obama invokes executive privilege as Holder faces contempt vote | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

I'm not surprised at all. This is from the man that promised that his presidency would be the most transparent in history and, well, has basically gone the complete opposite of it from the very beginning. And it's election season, don't want too many ugly things rising to the surface that may hurt his chances of re-election.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Not familiar with the particulars of the situation, but unless there really is some sort of reason I'm doubting you'll find us resident liberals knee-jerk defending it.

Generally speaking, most of the feedback from the liberal side has been disappointment or no comment at all from what I've seen.

[JPhillips]

Following in the steps of Citizen's United, the Supremes reached beyond the questions of a case and found a way to rewrite the law in favor of current conservative thinking. On the question of whether or not unions needed a clear opt-out clause, they decided that unions must have an opt-in clause, and they made a clear threat that they're willing to make right to work the national standard.

“[C] compulsory fees constitute a form of compelled speech and association that imposes a ‘significant impingement on First Amendment rights,’” the Court said, quoting an earlier case. “Our cases to date have tolerated this ‘impingement,’ and we do not revisit today whether the Court’s former cases have given adequate recognition to the critical First Amendment rights at stake.”

[PilotMan]

If employees have the choice to opt out within the same group, that will be the death knell of the modern labor union. Especially ones of which I belong.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Following in the steps of Citizen's United, the Supremes reached beyond the questions of a case and found a way to rewrite the law in favor of current conservative thinking. On the question of whether or not unions needed a clear opt-out clause, they decided that unions must have an opt-in clause, and they made a clear threat that they're willing to make right to work the national standard.

This fucking court is a sick fucking joke. Of course the joke is on the 99%.

[RainMaker]

Why shouldn't an employee be able to decide whether they want to be part of a union or not?

[miked]

I didn't think it was opting out of the unions. In the case, didn't the union assess members and nonmembers $25M so they could lobby? With very little notice to opt out of the ridiculous cost?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Why shouldn't an employee be able to decide whether they want to be part of a union or not?

Although not really what this case was about, it's actually a difficult problem. If people can get the same benefits from not being in a union that they can from being in a union, obviously, not many people will join the union. That will eventually lead to the union falling apart and now no one will enjoy the benefits of collective bargaining.

There isn't an obvious answer, IMO.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by miked

I didn't think it was opting out of the unions. In the case, didn't the union assess members and nonmembers $25M so they could lobby? With very little notice to opt out of the ridiculous cost?

Indeed. That's why its a Free Speech issue. Because they were, without much notice, assigning increased dues on members and non-members alike for lobbying purposes.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Indeed. That's why its a Free Speech issue. Because they were, without much notice, assigning increased dues on members and non-members alike for lobbying purposes.

Well that's not necessarily cool.

I take back the REASON for my outrage (but not the substance of it I have a feeling).

[Grover]

I'd like to thank my state senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins for voting down the bill that would have granted equal pay to women.

What an embarrassment to have these two women represent the state of Maine.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Well that's not necessarily cool.

I take back the REASON for my outrage (but not the substance of it I have a feeling).

Would it lessen it even more to realize it was a 7-2 decision, with Sotomayor and Ginsburg concurring with the majority?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Indeed. That's why its a Free Speech issue. Because they were, without much notice, assigning increased dues on members and non-members alike for lobbying purposes.

It still doesn't excuse the overreach from an opt-out to an opt-in.

edit: That part of the decision was 5-4.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Grover

I'd like to thank my state senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins for voting down the bill that would have granted equal pay to women.

What an embarrassment to have these two women represent the state of Maine.

This is hilarious, in a really really depressing way.

There shouldn't be a woman in the state of Maine that ever votes Republican again.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It still doesn't excuse the overreach from an opt-out to an opt-in.

edit: That part of the decision was 5-4.

That was dicta. Alito said it approaches, if not crosses, First Amendment rights, but didn't specifically strike down prior decisions on the matter.

Basically:

By authorizing a union to collect fees from nonmembers and permitting the use of an opt-out system for the collection of fees levied to cover nonchargeable expenses, our prior decisions approach, if they do not cross, the limit of what the First Amendment can tolerate. The SEIU, however, asks us to go farther. It asks us to approve a procedure under which (a) a special assessment billed for use in electoral campaigns was assessed without providing anew opportunity for nonmembers to decide whether they wished to contribute to this effort and (b) nonmembers who previously opted out were nevertheless required to pay more than half of the special assessment even though the union had said that the purpose of the fund was to mount a political campaign and that it would not be used for ordinary union expenses. This aggressive use of power by the SEIU to collect fees from nonmembers is indefensible.

To respect the limits of the First Amendment, the union should have sent out a new notice allowing nonmembers to opt in to the special fee rather than requiring them to opt out. Our cases have tolerated a substantial impingement on First Amendment rights by allowing unions to impose an opt-out requirement at all. Even if this burden can be justified during the collection of regular dues on an annual basis, there is no way to justify the additional burden of imposing yet another opt-out requirement to collect special fees whenever the union desires.

Opt-in for the special assessment here. For regular dues the opt-out still stands, though Alito isn't a fan.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It still doesn't excuse the overreach from an opt-out to an opt-in.

Overreach? To make it easier for people to NOT get fucked out of more money by their union? Yeah, no.

Hell, I'd prefer it if the ability for unions to collect special assessments for political purposes be banned entirely. (Technically, I'd prefer it if unions were utterly destroyed, but that's a different discussion.)

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Technically, I'd prefer it if unions were utterly destroyed, but that's a different discussion.

What's the matter - you don't like your 40hr work week? You'd rather work 60 for less pay?

1. Unions Gave Us The Weekend: Even the ultra-conservative Mises Institute notes that the relatively labor-free 1870, the average workweek for most Americans was 61 hours — almost double what most Americans work now. Yet in the late nineteenth century and the twentieth century, labor unions engaged in massive strikes in order to demand shorter workweeks so that Americans could be home with their loved ones instead of constantly toiling for their employers with no leisure time. By 1937, these labor actions created enough political momentum to pass the Fair Labor Standards Act, which helped create a federal framework for a shorter workweek that included room for leisure time.
2. Unions Gave Us Fair Wages And Relative Income Equality: The relative decline of unions over the past 35 years has mirrored a decline in the middle class’s share of national income. It is also true that at the time when most Americans belonged to a union — a period of time between the 1940′s and 1950′s — income inequality in the U.S. was at its lowest point in the history of the country.
3. Unions Helped End Child Labor: “Union organizing and child labor reform were often intertwined” in U.S. history, with organization’s like the “National Consumers’ League” and the National Child Labor Committee” working together in the early 20th century to ban child labor. The very first American Federation of Labor (AFL) national convention passed “a resolution calling on states to ban children under 14 from all gainful employment” in 1881, and soon after states across the country adopted similar recommendations, leading up to the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act which regulated child labor on the federal level for the first time.
4. Unions Won Widespread Employer-Based Health Coverage: “The rise of unions in the 1930′s and 1940′s led to the first great expansion of health care” for all Americans, as labor unions banded workers together to negotiate for health coverage plans from employers. In 1942, “the US set up a National War Labor Board. It had the power to set a cap on all wage increases. But it let employers circumvent the cap by offering “fringe benefits” – notably, health insurance.” By 1950, “half of all companies with fewer than 250 workers and two-thirds of all companies with more than 250 workers offered health insurance of one kind or another.”
5. Unions Spearheaded The Fight For The Family And Medical Leave Act: Labor unions like the AFL-CIO federation led the fight for this 1993 law, which “requires state agencies and private employers with more than 50 employees to provide up to 12 weeks of job-protected unpaid leave annually for workers to care for a newborn, newly adopted child, seriously ill family member or for the worker’s own illness.”

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

This is hilarious, in a really really depressing way.

There shouldn't be a woman in the state of Maine that ever votes Republican again.

Thankfully what we learned from Wisconsin's state senators when they killed the states equal pay act is that there isn't actually a wage gap between men and women, and even if there was it would be a good thing due to men needing to make more money as family bread winners.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

What's the matter - you don't like your 40hr work week? You'd rather work 60 for less pay?

1. Unions Gave Us The Weekend: Even the ultra-conservative Mises Institute notes that the relatively labor-free 1870, the average workweek for most Americans was 61 hours — almost double what most Americans work now. Yet in the late nineteenth century and the twentieth century, labor unions engaged in massive strikes in order to demand shorter workweeks so that Americans could be home with their loved ones instead of constantly toiling for their employers with no leisure time. By 1937, these labor actions created enough political momentum to pass the Fair Labor Standards Act, which helped create a federal framework for a shorter workweek that included room for leisure time.
2. Unions Gave Us Fair Wages And Relative Income Equality: The relative decline of unions over the past 35 years has mirrored a decline in the middle class’s share of national income. It is also true that at the time when most Americans belonged to a union — a period of time between the 1940′s and 1950′s — income inequality in the U.S. was at its lowest point in the history of the country.
3. Unions Helped End Child Labor: “Union organizing and child labor reform were often intertwined” in U.S. history, with organization’s like the “National Consumers’ League” and the National Child Labor Committee” working together in the early 20th century to ban child labor. The very first American Federation of Labor (AFL) national convention passed “a resolution calling on states to ban children under 14 from all gainful employment” in 1881, and soon after states across the country adopted similar recommendations, leading up to the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act which regulated child labor on the federal level for the first time.
4. Unions Won Widespread Employer-Based Health Coverage: “The rise of unions in the 1930′s and 1940′s led to the first great expansion of health care” for all Americans, as labor unions banded workers together to negotiate for health coverage plans from employers. In 1942, “the US set up a National War Labor Board. It had the power to set a cap on all wage increases. But it let employers circumvent the cap by offering “fringe benefits” – notably, health insurance.” By 1950, “half of all companies with fewer than 250 workers and two-thirds of all companies with more than 250 workers offered health insurance of one kind or another.”
5. Unions Spearheaded The Fight For The Family And Medical Leave Act: Labor unions like the AFL-CIO federation led the fight for this 1993 law, which “requires state agencies and private employers with more than 50 employees to provide up to 12 weeks of job-protected unpaid leave annually for workers to care for a newborn, newly adopted child, seriously ill family member or for the worker’s own illness.”

So in other words what you're trying to say is that unions destroyed America?

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

What's the matter - you don't like your 40hr work week? You'd rather work 60 for less pay?

I will not discount the fact that unions were both necessary and did some good at one point in our history.

However, I do believe they are now relics who benefit neither employee nor business. Most have become far too interested in building and maintaining power & wealth for themselves, not for their members.

[JediKooter]

Not really trying to get into a pro-con union debate, but, the problem with the unions of today is, they cater to the crappy workers. In other words, instead just admitting that union employee X, doesn't show up on time, takes more breaks than he should, or just does a shitty job overall, they will protect that employee to the bitter end.

Quite frankly, the union should be setting much higher standards for its members and let the dead weight go. By not severing ties with that dead weight and protecting people like that, it only perpetuates the myth that unions are no good.

However, I do feel unions still serve a purpose, especially in this day where salaries have stagnated while the CEOs continue to make more and more money and refuse to award their workers. Though, there are a couple of industries where I think unions should not be allowed and that is government jobs or jobs that deal with national security and that's because of the unions protecting the worst of the employees.

And that's my opinion on unions, this day, June 22nd, two thousand and twelve.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Most have become far too interested in building and maintaining power & wealth for themselves, not for their members.

Something that's been largely true during the lifetime's of the large majority of their current members (unless the average age is a lot older than I can imagine)

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Overreach? To make it easier for people to NOT get fucked out of more money by their union? Yeah, no.

Hell, I'd prefer it if the ability for unions to collect special assessments for political purposes be banned entirely. (Technically, I'd prefer it if unions were utterly destroyed, but that's a different discussion.)

So as long as you agree it's okay for the Supremes to go beyond the questions of the case to determine the law?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

I will not discount the fact that unions were both necessary and did some good at one point in our history.

However, I do believe they are now relics who benefit neither employee nor business. Most have become far too interested in building and maintaining power & wealth for themselves, not for their members.

And do you really think that if unions were completely destroyed, companies wouldn't try to roll back some of the rights that the unions fought for in the past?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

So as long as you agree it's okay for the Supremes to go beyond the questions of the case to determine the law?

Dicta happens ALL the time from Marbury v. Madison and prior!

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Dicta happens ALL the time from Marbury v. Madison and prior!

Maybe I have that part wrong, but what I have read has the opt-in part of the decision, specifically as it relates to these contributions, as decided 5-4 and binding. Is that not correct?

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

And do you really think that if unions were completely destroyed, companies wouldn't try to roll back some of the rights that the unions fought for in the past?

How many industries / professions are there right now (in the US) that are not unionized? Are they suffering in squalor, working 80 hours a week alongside children, being paid pennies?

You really think companies are going to ban together and somehow manage to overturn federal labor laws (that apply to EVERYONE, not just union workers)?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Maybe I have that part wrong, but what I have read has the opt-in part of the decision, specifically as it relates to these contributions, as decided 5-4 and binding. Is that not correct?

From the LA Times article on it:

In California and most states that bargain with public-sector unions, dissident employees must affirmatively opt out if they do not want their share of the fees to pay for politics. Alito said the right rule might require unions to get an affirmative "opt in" from employees before they can collect full fees.

Supreme Court rules against union on nonmember fees for politics - latimes.com

"might" is never binding.

Dicta however can be persuasive, so Sotomayor and Kagan wrote that the SEIU was wrong in not issuing a seperate special assessment notice, but wasn't a fan of Alito's opt-in dictum language.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

How many industries / professions are there right now (in the US) that are not unionized? Are they suffering in squalor, working 80 hours a week alongside children, being paid pennies?

You really think companies are going to ban together and somehow manage to overturn federal labor laws (that apply to EVERYONE, not just union workers)?

Without the threat of union political activity, then I would expect federal labor laws to be weakened. Furthermore, I think you're crazy if you don't think companies would try to take advantage of the lack of a union workforce to try and maximize their profits. That doesn't mean we're going to go back to the 1800's as in your ridiculous strawman example, but I'd expect certain things like overtime regulations, safety regulations, etc to be seriously curtailed if unions completely vanished.

[ISiddiqui]

From SCOTUS blog on the case:

Justice Alito announced the second opinion of the day, in Knox v. Service Employees International Union. By a vote of seven to two, the Court reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case for further consideration. It held that the case is not moot; five members of the Court further held that the First Amendment does not allow a public-sector union to require objecting non-members to pay a special fee for the purposes of financing the union’s political and ideological activities. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Ginsburg joined. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Kagan.

What is in bold is the holding. The rest is dictum.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Without the threat of union political activity, then I would expect federal labor laws to be weakened. Furthermore, I think you're crazy if you don't think companies would try to take advantage of the lack of a union workforce to try and maximize their profits. That doesn't mean we're going to go back to the 1800's as in your ridiculous strawman example, but I'd expect certain things like overtime regulations, safety regulations, etc to be seriously curtailed if unions completely vanished.

A lot more companies would treat their employees like WalMart.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

From SCOTUS blog on the case:



What is in bold is the holding. The rest is dictum.

I'm still confused. What's the precedent going forward, an opt-out or an opt-in?

[Swaggs]

I would imagine that without unions (and we are already starting to see this more and more, in my experience), you will see a lot fewer full-time (40-hour/week) workers that receive benefits and more part-time workers without company-provided healthcare, pensions, matching 401K, etc. Probably more contract workers that have to pay their own taxes (as opposed to payroll taxes) without benefits.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

And do you really think that if unions were completely destroyed, companies wouldn't try to roll back some of the rights that the unions fought for in the past?

This. It'd be the thing that the companies would do on Day 1.

Fuck - I'm not unionized. Nobody in family is unionized. Nobody in my family has ever been unionized.

But I've got huge respect for what unions have done, and continue to do.

That being said, I agree with what Jedi says about unions not setting high enough standards for their workers and for protecting lazy/crappy employees. That's the single biggest issue that I think people have with them - if you fix that I imagine the % of people with a positive impression of unions would be in the like...80% range.

[JPhillips]

I don't like a few things about corporations, therefore, all corporations should be destroyed.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Without the threat of union political activity, then I would expect federal labor laws to be weakened. Furthermore, I think you're crazy if you don't think companies would try to take advantage of the lack of a union workforce to try and maximize their profits. That doesn't mean we're going to go back to the 1800's as in your ridiculous strawman example, but I'd expect certain things like overtime regulations, safety regulations, etc to be seriously curtailed if unions completely vanished.

A slippery slope to counter a strawman. Delicious.

[chadritt]

Ive spent almost my entire career working non-union. Its amazing to me just how differently some non-union shops can treat you. Ive had places where we worked minimum of 60 hour weeks and usually more for no OT and most people were getting paid VERY little. Heck, my first job was usually 70 - 80 hour work weeks and even one 100 hour week that almost got me fired since I complained.

I worked one job for 2 weeks that got flipped union after I left, the union saw my time cards and flipped out over what they termed abuse but my employer just saw as "the way things are". I think I got more money in retroactive pay than I had on my original paychecks

Im working my first union job right now and I work my 50 hours and then im expected to go home. If I work a 6th day I not only get paid for it, which is a luxury in non-union shops, but I get paid extra. On top of that Ive earned enough hours that I will be receiving a fantastic healthcare plan which would be unaffordable for me otherwise and a pension plan. I get the issues some people have with the union, employers especially arent too happy about it, but man its great for me as a worker.

Should probably answer the obvious question: I work in post production for reality TV shows and a large majority are still not covered by the various entertainment guilds and unions though that is slowly changing.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Not really trying to get into a pro-con union debate, but, the problem with the unions of today is, they cater to the crappy workers. In other words, instead just admitting that union employee X, doesn't show up on time, takes more breaks than he should, or just does a shitty job overall, they will protect that employee to the bitter end.

Quite frankly, the union should be setting much higher standards for its members and let the dead weight go. By not severing ties with that dead weight and protecting people like that, it only perpetuates the myth that unions are no good.

However, I do feel unions still serve a purpose, especially in this day where salaries have stagnated while the CEOs continue to make more and more money and refuse to award their workers. Though, there are a couple of industries where I think unions should not be allowed and that is government jobs or jobs that deal with national security and that's because of the unions protecting the worst of the employees.

And that's my opinion on unions, this day, June 22nd, two thousand and twelve.

+1

I will also add that the union leaders are out for power. That means having more union members, which means you protect those that are your own.

I sell to the construction industry and it is crazy how many people are not trained properly, or do not care about their performance. They don't worry about it because the next day, they'll be at another jobsite pulling down some cash.

Heck, even some of the things we say the big bad evil corporations would take away (like safety equipment) if unions went away, would not be used by the workers anyway. Many things are only used on jobsites due to union regulations. It's nuts.