You Gotta Love the Bush Family Values
May 10, 2007 by Roger
Seed Newsvine
Should anyone be surprised that Jeb Bush, the President’s brother and the former President’s son (oh gosh, I should leave him out of this mix) decided to go to work for a firm that is deeply involved in ethics abuse? Frankly, but quite unfortunately, I am not. While it must be difficult to turn away $37,000 per day as a salary, one must wonder what Jeb Bush must do to earn that kind of money. I hope it is to clean up the company Tenet Healthcare but somehow I doubt it.
I am constantly reminded by the antics of the Bush family that one should never tie one’s shoes in a watermelon patch. It gives the impression that one is about to steal watermelons, even if the intent is to simply tie one’s shoes. Appearances is everything in this world. We live and die by appearances. So Jeb, stop bending over to tie your shoes–You are in the middle of the watermelon patch.
| A senior member of the Bush dynasty is about to get a large sum of money from a company with a history of ethical violations. |
| Jeb Bush, the president’s brother and former governor of Florida, is up for election Thursday as a director of troubled hospital chain Tenet Healthcare (THC – Cramer’s Take – Stockpickr – Rating). Assuming he’s waved through, his pay in his first year would come to nearly $37,000 a day. |
| This is the same Tenet that had to pay $900 million to Uncle Sam last summer to settle charges that it had overbilled Medicare and Medicaid over many years. |
| Nine hundred million dollars. |
| The U.S. attorneys announcing the settlement accused the company of “fraud” and trying to “manipulate and cheat the system.” |
| Mike Leavitt, the Health and Human Services Secretary appointed by Jeb’s brother George, said the company had “fraudulently abused the Medicare program.” |
| It’s also the same Tenet that just paid $80 million to the IRS after an audit found it owed back taxes |
|
| |
 |
|
Posted in Bush, Politics, cheating, ethics, family values, greed, morality, values | 12 Comments
Leave a Reply
Looking for a scandal huh? The guy got a job and hopefully he will clean up the company if there is any scandals going on there.
If he had gotten a job @ Wal-Mart you would be saying that WM was full of scandals b/c they had to pay out some money to plaintiffs and the gov’t in the past. I don’t know a lot about Jeb so I’ll sit and wait for him to start doing some stupid stuff.
If he had gotten a job @ Wal-Mart you would be saying that WM was full of scandals
No, but I would accuse Wal-Mart of being anti-union to the point of being illegally hostile to union organizing efforts at Wal-Mart stores. Don’t get me started on that one…
No, but I would accuse Wal-Mart of being anti-union to the point of being illegally hostile to union organizing efforts at Wal-Mart stores.
Nothing wrong with an employer wanting his business to be non-union. Maybe he wants to stay competitive in the market and he know that unions will put undue burdens on his business.
Don’t get me started on that one…
Why not? LOL
Nothing wrong with an employer wanting his business to be non-union.
Labor laws also acknowledge that the exploited workers may have their opportunity to organize. There are procedures established to regulate what workers and companies can do in the organization process. Wal-Mart consistently and illegally violates the rights of workers to organize. I’ll post some stuff about that soon.
Labor laws also acknowledge that the exploited workers may have their opportunity to organize.
Please define exploited worker? Is someone who is paid at least $5.15 an hour and gets all of the gov’t mandated stuff like lunch breaks, unemployment insurance, etc an exploited worker?
Now what you get are a group of power and money hungry union execs that try and convince workers that they are being “exploited.” If they don’t like the pay and benefits, they can go elsewhere. They don’t have a RIGHT to that job like it belongs to them. That position belongs to the company and they should be the one setting the wages and benefits and not some union president that only wants to fatten his pockets.
Be consistent a little bit. You don’t want my moral beliefs forced upon you by the gov’t, but you want a union forced upon an employer. What’s the difference? They are both the gov’t forcing things upon people that they may or may not want.
Do you support a federally mandated “livable wage.”
Please define exploited worker?
By definition anyone working for another is exploited. Most people living in the United States may not understand or accept their exploitation but give the bosses half a chance and they will lie, cheat, and rob their work force of everything they have or might gain. Denial ain’t just a river in Africa my friend.
you want a union forced upon an employer
Who ever said anything about forced? Collective bargaining has as its foundation the concept that workers bargain together with their bosses in order to obtain fair and reasonable treatment for themselves and their fellow workers. The concept of collective bargaining does not suddenly appear without good cause. All one need do is look at the abuses of labor in the 19th century to understand why workers decided to create organizations that protected their interests. Forced? Only if one considers the fact that when united workers are a strong force to be reckoned with. Without the benefit of the union workers have been traditionally dealt with arbitrarily and perniciously by their bosses.
I have walked the picket line in solidarity with my colleagues. I have witnessed first hand the power of organization not to extract from the bosses things we were not entitled to but to gain a reasonable wage increase and to protect contract language that the bosses would take away. The last time I took to the picket lines the bosses gave themselves a 27% increase in pay while offering us a 1% raise. That’s fair and equitable in your book?
It is foolhardy to assume that one can simply pick up and leave a job if one is dissatisfied with the treatment of one set of bosses. The bosses at the next destination may be better or worse. With the protection of the union one stands a chance of working in a reasonable workplace.
All one need do is look at the behavior of the bosses to understand exploitation. In the United States wages in non right to work states are higher than those in right to work states. In fact, companies pulled out of union states so as to find a cheaper work force in order to line the bosses pockets with gold. Now, even right to work states do not provide enough relief for the greed of the bosses and jobs are exported off shore to places where there are no collective bargaining possibilities, no child labor laws, no restrictions on hours worked, and no compassion for the worker. The bosses just get richer on the sweat of their exploited labor force.
Do you support a federally mandated “livable wage.”
Yes!!!
By definition anyone working for another is exploited.
That’s strong language. Who’s being exploited more the guy that doesn’t have a job or the guy that makes $10 an hour plus benefits sweeping floors at the offices?
The last time I took to the picket lines the bosses gave themselves a 27% increase in pay while offering us a 1% raise. That’s fair and equitable in your book?
It is foolhardy to assume that one can simply pick up and leave a job if one is dissatisfied with the treatment of one set of bosses. The bosses at the next destination may be better or worse. With the protection of the union one stands a chance of working in a reasonable workplace.
Depends on who defines fair. If you don’t like your wage, you should seek employment somewhere else. It’s that simple. To say that an employer MUST give in to your demands (by laws) is almost as absurd as saying that you MUST give in to the employer’s demands and remain at that job (by law).
What amazes me is how some people think. They think that there must be 10 steps before and employer can terminate an employee, but that an employee should be able to just up and leave w/o giving a two weeks’ notice. That doesn’t make any since to me. You can’t have it both ways. Either they can both terminate employment as they see fit or they both must jump through hoops.
Let’s say that an employer sees a homeless man on the side of the road and decides to hire him. He asks him how much he makes a day. The guys says that he make $10 a day by picking up loose change and cans. The employer then gives the guy a job making $5.15 an hour or $41.20 a day. Now is that guy being exploited? He’s making $30+ more than he was making before.
Now, even right to work states do not provide enough relief for the greed of the bosses and jobs are exported off shore to places where there are no collective bargaining possibilities, no child labor laws, no restrictions on hours worked, and no compassion for the worker.
You’re proving my point. Overregulation and taxing of businesses is making companies move out of the country in order to be able to compete in the market. Now you got a bunch of people that have NO job and NO benefits rather than the “exploited” wage and benefits that they were getting before.
Take a look at the US car manufactures Ford, GM and Chrysler. They are closing down plants and laying off works left and right. All the while Toyota and Nissan are building new plants (in non union states like MS) and hiring people at good wages and benefits. MS is getting a Nissan plant less than an hour from my house and they are starting people out at $36K a year. For MS that’s darn good money. We have a low cost of living b/c we aren’t as socialist as states like CA or NY.
Do you support a federally mandated “livable wage.”
Yes!!!
Please define what’s livable. Here in MS livable could $8 an hour while in CA it’s $15 an hour. Then you gotta factor in things like family size. A family of 4 could need $30K in MS while a family of four could need $50K in states like CA. So should a single mother make twice as much (by law now) as a married woman who also has a husband with a similar income?
If anything, the minimum wage should be a state issue that is set by the state legislatures.
Please tell me where in the constitution the federal gov’t has the authority to set wages?
Since we have a minimum wage, should we also have a federal maximum wage? I don’t think that a drive thru cashier should be able to make more than $8 an hour, so should I lobby congress for that? I don’t think that some teachers should make more than $30K a year, so I need to call my senator.
Got any new gun control posts? Those are always fun…LOL
Who’s being exploited more the guy that doesn’t have a job or the guy that makes $10 an hour plus benefits sweeping floors at the offices?
What tastes better apples or oranges? Your are not comparing equivalent conditions. The guy without a job may be between jobs, a child, a thief, independently wealthy or any one of a number of things that have no bearing on his employment status. By definition, however the person making the $10 per hour plus benefits sweeping floors is exploited if he is working for the company for whom he is sweeping. By definition the state of employment is a dialectic between exploiter/exploited with the only possible synthesis that benefits both is the dignity of the collective bargaining process.
Please tell me where in the constitution the federal gov’t has the authority to set wages?
It is the commerce clause giving Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce. This is why both the feds and the state assemblies can and do pass minimum wage laws.
By definition, however the person making the $10 per hour plus benefits sweeping floors is exploited if he is working for the company for whom he is sweeping.
If the guy can’t sweep worth a darn, is he exploiting his employer? IF a unionized teacher can’t teach her own students how to tie their shoes, is she exploiting her employer? Remember that he employer is you, I, and every other taxpayer.
It is the commerce clause giving Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce. This is why both the feds and the state assemblies can and do pass minimum wage laws.
I am so tired of the commerce clause being used to justify big gov’t.
Like I have said before, why is the gov’t getting involved in the private financial decisions between an employer and a prospective employee?
If the minimum wage is so GREAT, why don’t’ we have a maximum wage for every occupation?
Like Walter Williams said, if the mw is so great, why don’t’ we just advise every poor nation to have a minimum wage and we can stop giving them money. If unions are so great, whey don’t’ we just advise every poor country to unionize their work force and make them pay a “livable wage?”
If the guy can’t sweep worth a darn, is he exploiting his employer?
No, he should be trained to sweep better or be fired. Remember, unions do not protect incompetency. Quite the contrary, but they do protect workers from frivolous and capricious treatment by the bosses. A strong union position on the guy that can’t sweep is to remediate the problem, create a reasonable paper trail that speaks to the infraction and what the company did to correct the problem. If the problem cannot be corrected then let the fellow go. You seem to think that unions bar the employer from taking any action and this is simply not the case. What they do is make sure that the process is fair and that the problem is a real problem.
I am so tired of the commerce clause being used to justify big gov’t.
Gosh, I am surprised. Of all people to cherry pick the Constitution? The only appropriate remedy to the application of the commerce clause is to amend the Constitution to eliminate it from legal consideration. Sorry, that isn’t about to happen.
Furthermore, the commerce clause does not justify big government, rather it is the foundation of the economic system of the nation by assuring some degree of uniformity in commercial transactions across the fifty states.
Remember, unions do not protect incompetency.
Oh so that’s why it take an act of Congress to fire a teacher in NY. Come on now.
Gosh, I am surprised. Of all people to cherry pick the Constitution?
Oh I’m not cherry picking. I understand that you have to respect the whole document. At the same time I be on the opposite side of a mw.
Furthermore, the commerce clause does not justify big government, rather it is the foundation of the economic system of the nation by assuring some degree of uniformity in commercial transactions across the fifty states.
Truck drivers that travel the country. Yeah;I could see it, but the 17 year old hs senior that works at the market down the street. Nope I don’t see it there. If that’s the reason, then the federal gov’t should tell states that they can’t have a wage higher than the current mw.
Could you imagine if everyone in Calif. with a family of four made $50k? I hire many people, including sole bread winners in California at $10 to $12 per hour, and they make it work. We do offer full benefits, overtime and a prosperous ESOP.
What irks me is the introduction at Walmart of the “self service” checkout aisles. I refuse to use them at all. I will not enable Walmart to hire less people on their staffs due to these checkout systems. It is bad enough I frequent an employer who seeks part time employees so as to avoid paying benefits, and pays minimal wages while garnering massive amounts of profits. Typical of an employer who treats its employee base as expenditures rather than investments.