LTS

Hmm, I don't turn the air conditioning on for that level of warmth... which it was here yesterday too. Although if I hike 9.5 miles round-trip I'm not getting anywhere that looks as nice as that!

Also.. is his name LeSean or LeShawn? Cuz her lawyer wrote it as LeShawn. Are we even talking about the same person? And yes... it doesn't really matter, but man... if his name is LeSean.. at least spell it right. I have a million crazy theories on this. I can't wait to find out which one is accurate.

Education is a business. Even a non-profit corporation is..... a corporation. They have revenue, expenses, tax filings, etc. They are a business. Let's replace every time i used corporate with "management". Does that help? In other Union news... and NYS news... and government interference news... https://reason.com/blog/2018/07/10/post-janus-public-sector-unions-want-tax

Running a business is the ultimate level of independence. You are your own boss and responsible for your own outcomes. It's not the only level. You NEED a Union is different from wanting to be in a Union. You NEED a Union if you are beholden to corporate greed and cannot easily transfer your skillsets into another industry that would remove you from that situation. You NEED a Union if you are not a hard worker and want to have additional protections against losing your job because of it. As for ignoring entire things and you reference it from above. What Unions am I missing?

I find this very entertaining... https://www.bardown.com/leo-komarov-provided-an-extra-explanation-for-brad-marchand-s-licking-1.1135629 "Leo Komarov: Marchand is a good friend of mine, probably that’s why he licked me. But I’m married, we have children, so he doesn’t have any chance"

No, I am quite certain I said, "I have worked hard enough to make sure that I do not need to be in a Union." I then followed up by saying that people either have not worked hard enough to run a business on their own or choose not to do so. At no point, and I've underscored this at every turn, did I said it had to do with being a hard worker. You can work hard and be in a Union. And as I said before, you must work harder if you don't want to be in that Union. Let's try this another way... let's assume a person has a certain level of work ethic. That is to say the output of their work will equal X. Those who wish to not be beholden to corporate structures must be their own boss. The requirement to be their own boss would add Y to the equation. They will still accomplish X because that's who they are. Those who wish to work in an environment where the Union represents their needs will still have a work output of X, but they will not have the Y. Those who wish to work in an environment where no Union exists but are not their own boss will still have a work output of X. They will also not be protected by a Union looking out for them. As I referenced, I work in a corporate structure. One that is seeing a routine system of layoffs across the industry, not just within my company. I protect myself by working harder and adding more value to the corporation than my co-workers. There is no guarantee that will be enough and I accept that. I also run a side business which I could potentially turn into a full-time business if needed. I also have a skill set that would allow me to move elsewhere if needed and gain employment. I have worked hard enough to put myself in that position. The Union provides a certain level of protection against those layoffs. It also may protect someone who does not work as hard as someone else should a layoff be required. The ultimate bottom line of course is to be your own boss, which, in general, is the hardest amount of work overall (and also the greatest risk).

Well, regardless of not having said anything in the past. This is in the open now. In one way or another it will be addressed. Just waiting to see how it plays out.

I would also think that the Rangers would not be a team Callahan wants to go back to. They aren't going to win anything while he's under contract. If he's providing 16 teams they would most likely be playoff favorites wouldn't you think?

Some of them don't. This isn't even in question. My wife was a teacher. I have a lot of teacher friends and a lot of administrator friends. There are teachers who work hard. There are teachers who care. There are also a lot of teachers who are there to collect the paycheck and are barely capable of teaching. They are protected by the union, despite many of their fellow teachers wishing they could be removed. When it comes to lesson planning, team work, etc. The teachers who work really don't like the one's who don't put in the same effort. The key is striking the perfect balance between taking care of employees and running a business. I understand your choice. How protected are those benefits? In order to to continue to fund those benefits for you someone must be still paying for them. You read articles like this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/get-there/wp/2017/01/27/in-unprecedented-move-pension-plan-approves-benefit-cuts-for-retired-iron-workers/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2c964b5241d0 And you wonder, how much control do you have over your future? If the money was in YOUR account and you were drawing from a 401k for example you'd not be subjected to the decisions of others. In your case you paid into a fund that is managed by others and manages the fund as a whole for a group. As such it is beholden to the group and not you. If the group aligns with your needs then there is no problem, but as soon as that changes... you are stuck. If you have been able to take the money that you paid into those funds and instead fund your own accounts would you be better or worse off at the moment? Unions are important for finding a balance with corporate operations. At the same time, that does not make them necessary. A corporation can provide the same benefits without a Union ever having existed. The problem is, as people will point out, that it rarely happens. So, we enter into an adversarial relationship in which two sides argue for how much of the relative success of the company should each be entitled to. But, in global economics, when a Union demands too much compensation here the corporation can choose to move its operations to a more business friendly country. So those Unions workers are left looking for work and end up with 0% of the pie.

The key to understanding where things are going finding an estimation in the change of income levels within the state. The median salary has increased but that would be expected overall. I am looking for any evidence that shows the lower income brackets are increasing while the upper brackets are decreasing. This is what would show the exodus of money from the state. I'm speculating until I can find the evidence. There are areas growing. Buffalo is a notable. Every time I look for jobs I am getting hits in Buffalo, not Rochester. There's certainly small pockets that may grow. The question is how is it growing? Rochester has been building new houses like crazy. Henrietta, Greece, Penfield, Webster have been building like crazy. If the population of Rochester is declining who is buying those houses? I would consider leaving for California if for no other reason that the jobs are there. I worry about how much I pay in taxes after I secure a job. While searching i may choose a location that has lower taxes. Of course, some moving to CA may really not care about the taxes at all. They just want a job.

That is one hell of a read. I've not got any commentary on it other than I wouldn't 100% dismiss it...

Callahan has a NMC/NTC - he has to provide 16 teams he's willing to be traded to. Do you think he's listing Ottawa as one of them? So, Callahan most likely has to go somewhere else and that team has to move players to Ottawa who are not protected. So, they've got to get very creative. At the same time, if they intend on keeping Karlsson they will have to get even more creative after this season. If they sign Karlsson to even a $10M contract their cap hits for the foreseeable future is about $56M for 11 players. 5 forwards, 4 defense, 2 goalies. Give them $24M to play with in the following year to sign another 10-12 players. Could be tough... not impossible, but it would be interesting. So, who will be the third party that can help facilitate this trade? My guess it has to be one or two of Callahan, Palat, Johnson, and Killorn that get moved. Curious how much overlap their list of teams they are willing to be traded to would be.

It's not what I meant to suggest. I think winning/losing plays into whether or not players are willing to bite their tongue about a situation. It doesn't make the situation go away. If players have a problem with each other they will continue to have a problem with each other. However, when the team is winning they are less likely to say anything because they might upset the locker room and cause the team to start losing. If they are already losing then there's no need to hold their tongue because the team is already losing. The concept that winning cures anything is incorrect is what I am getting at. A turd is a turd, even if you put Eau d' Winning on it. It's just less likely to be considered something that should be flushed because it doesn't smell as bad at the moment. But when the perfume wears off...

Wow. I mean... they are going to be up against it in cap space. How could they possibly land Karlsson at this point? They don't have the space to add him at the moment... they only have $3.4M open. They have to move a salary or two. Unless the players with NTC/NMC waive or don't eliminate Ottawa as a landing spot they only players they can move are: Miller - $5.25M Gourde - $1M Paquette - $1M Point - $700k Andreoff - $700k Conacher - $700k Koekkoek - $865k Dotchin - $812k They would have to get super creative.. they aren't moving Miller after they just signed him are they? The rest of the players barely clear enough space if you move ALL Of them and then they don't have enough for a team.

Gerbe was a center. So.... Here's what i would suspect would happen. Training camp opens and the front office decides who they think is going to be their starting lineup. At that point, all players who have to clear waivers that have trade value will be shopped. If no trades happen before the start of the season then they will remain in Buffalo while others who are starters will be sent down along with any players who are unlikely to be claimed. The team will continue to look to move them or call them up as needed. They aren't going to waive Bailey or Baptiste or anyone if there is a trade value out there. Even if the trade value is a 3rd rounder in 2021.

It's what happens in January as well. The puppies are hypothetical. None of you deserve real puppies. ? Well, I've known professors, doctors, and others who have been married but their spouses spend most of the time in another state. Everyone has their own kind of relationship. You could argue that's not the norm but it doesn't make it workable. It's certainly not something I would participate in for an extended time. But the people I know, they do it year after year after year. What they do for personal interaction is an answer I don't have. They could be cheating, they might be fine with it. Who knows...

I'm going to selectively comment rather than quote everything. With regards to the competition and men who identify as women competing as women. I'm not sure there's a good answer. Do we need to divide the sports into testosterone levels above X and below X? I mean, if a female is born with abnormally high testosterone and wins would anyone say she had an unfair advantage? I honestly don't know enough behind the science of all of it. Are there instances of the opposite occuring where a trans-gender male (do I have that right?) wants to compete in male sports as opposed to female sports? It's unfortunate but there very well may be instances of people completely making up their identification just to try and win in youth sports. There's plenty of evidence to show that people do all kinds of insane stuff when it comes to youth sports. The question about prisons, etc. is a bit easier for me. If you went out and committed a violent crime I would not be too concerned with where you think you should be or even how you want to identify. I have very little tolerance for violent criminals or listening to their complaints.

Not being interdependent or independent of corporate greed. Not being reliant upon a Union to hopefully represent your needs over the needs of others in the Union. All of that said, if you are happy with your situation then that's fine. My statement extends to the fact that is takes a lot of work to get yourself into a position where you aren't dependent on a corporate structure or depending on a Union to make sure you don't get screwed by the corporate structure.

The locker room issues don't go away. The only thing winning does is reduce the chance that someone wants to speak out and potentially upset the winning ways. When you are losing there's nothing to worry about. Speak out, be miserable, yell at each other. You are already losing.

Given that the only place I've even heard anything about this whole thing is on this forum I am going to go ahead and say that they are fine. This place could concoct a problem theory on 16 puppies being rescued from a burning building.

I don't think any of them are considered to be an "elite" shot. Okposo is a workhorse. Pominville is past his prime and I'm not sure he was an elite shot ever, and Moulson scored around the net and on the PP.

Irritable Brain Syndrome? ? I think you should stop analyzing things and move to Hollywood. Also.. I'm joking with you.

Not just Kodak.. Bausch & Lomb, Xerox, and more. Kodak has been under for a long time. The decline from 2010 to now doesn't explain all of it. Kodak was estimated at 120k employees in 1973, 86k in 1998 and 19k in 2011. Sure it's declined, but so have a lot of others. It's done nothing to replace the lost industry. While NYS has increased by 2.4%, it is behind the national average of 5.5%. So, everywhere is growing, but NYS slower than the average. In addition, most of the growth is downstate with around 4.1% growth (533k people) whereas upstate lost 1% (61,668). The real measure of course is to determine how the economic levels have changed. I have not found a good chart on that. Overall, more people leave NYS for other states. http://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2017/sep/29/edward-cox/new-york-has-most-people-leaving-other-states-coun/

I would say yes. I know it sounds strange but to a certain degree, yes. It's not the same as not being a hard worker. But, in some sense, people in Unions need them because they haven't put in the work to be able to operate independently or choose not to do so. I have chosen a path that allows me to operate more independently. At the moment I still am beholden to the whims of a large corporation. I recognize I can be fired for any reason. But my path is of my own choosing. Generally speaking I make sure I work harder than others and demonstrate more value. To this point, that has been a good strategy. I don't think anyone would argue that one of the flaws of Unions is that it protects those who don't work as hard. They level the playing field for ALL workers and as such the one's who stand out are sometimes brought down a peg while those who play the system continue to be employed. I'm not arguing there aren't internal union pressures to those people who tend to not put in their fair share, but when the Union needs to face the Corporation, that person is as protected as the star worker. We all know that corporations and unions CAN work out their differences without a strike. However, the strike is a negotiating tactic and the willingness to strike will vary from union to union based on its constituency.

Too much anger... you need to relax.