NRS 608.160 Taking or making deduction on account of tips or gratuities unlawful; employees may divide tips or gratuities among themselves.
1. It is unlawful for any person to:
(a) Take all or part of any tips or gratuities bestowed upon his employees.
(b) Apply as a credit toward the payment of the statutory minimum hourly wage established by any law of this State any tips or gratuities bestowed upon his employees.
2. Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to prevent such employees from entering into an agreement to divide such tips or gratuities among themselves.
Every state has laws that protect working people, and in every state there are those who consider these laws to be inconvenient at best. It is their belief that any law that prevents the employer from being able to take money from those who work for them at a whim is wrong. In plainer language they consider such protections to be “socialist claptrap”, “communist propaganda”, and other assorted descriptions. The fact that such laws exist, are on the books and are enforceable…let’s put it this way, to them it is extremely ill-mannered to even bring them up in conversation.
Terry Graves is one of the board members of the Henderson Chamber of Commerce here in Southern Nevada. I have known him for over 2 years and in all that time, even though I strongly support business and he knows it, he hasn’t forgiven me for introducing AB 357, a bill that would have stopped the violation of the above law.
According to Terry and every other Republican in any position of leadership, any politician who stands against businesses violating employee protection laws is, by definition, an enemy. It is the same mentality union members run into when they refuse to steal from their employer by the various assorted methods their associates have cooked up. It is the same mentality Frank Serpico ran into when he decided to refuse the offered bribe money his fellow cops were taking. It is the reason Sue Lowden, the Nevada State Party Chair said of me, “He’s too honest, we can’t trust him.” The world of politics has become a sewer and the rats are running the system.
Not every politician is dishonest or hypocritical, but damn few aren’t, and it is up to the voter to do the weeding. Unfortunately that requires work and the ability to read. Why do you think politicians talk so loudly about improving education but rarely do anything to do so?
When I stood up and declared my intention to represent all my constituents regardless of their race, age, sex, income or power, I immediately alienated every member of my Assembly Caucus except for two people, Lynn Stewart and Garn Maybe. It should be noted that Garn retired and was replaced by yet another hypocrite NeoCon. The party tried to replace Lynn but lost badly. Sometimes good people actually get a second chance.
Employee protection laws exist because for too long employers considered those people working for them to be little more than just another one of their possessions; beasts of burden at best. Well, the law says different. If you don’t like what the law says, change it through the legislative or initiative process. You do not have the option to simply ignore it…or you shouldn’t have. Two of my fellow Republican scholars agreed with that attitude wholeheartedly, that is until I proposed a law that would have inconvenienced them; immigration reform that would have targeted those employers who knowingly violate America’s immigration laws. It seems they were enjoying the benefits of hiring illegal aliens at a small fraction of the minimum wage and since the people working for them were illegal, they were also profiting by not having to pay taxes, benefits, etc. Isn’t it interesting that folks who call themselves constitutional scholars can so readily violate the constitution when that violation puts cash into their pocket?
The problem is that we as Americans have become so used to our representatives being lying two-faced hypocrites that we don’t know how to handle it when we actually get one that doesn’t fit that mold. The media certainly can’t. They have used the line “We can’t find anything,” meaning scandal, “So they must be hiding something,” and then go to press with the assumption that that individual is guilty before proved innocent. We saw this with the treatment of Sarah Palin. The political parties are very aware of this and will treat those who run for office accordingly. They will decide who may upset those business interests and organizations that donate to the party and work to trash that person’s reputation all for a few more campaign dollars. Whether or not such action is moral or even right is beside the point, its politics.
It shouldn’t be that way, but it is. The sad part is that it has become accepted.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Monday, November 17, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
The First Amendment
The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
A lot of people have issued opinions on what the above paragraph actually means. The majority of the opinions, including those psychotic ramblings from the Warren court, have been agenda driven. So, let’s take a look at the words from outside the box. The English language, especially during the late 1700’s was direct and to the point. If you approach a statement written by a personality such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison or John Adams with the assumption that these men were not writing in code, but wishing to make their intention as clear as possible, you are most likely going to wind up exactly where they were.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,”
During the time of the American Revolution, England had a state religion, the Church of England, established by King Henry the 8th for the sole purpose of allowing the King to divorce and remarry. The writers of our constitution wanted to ensure that Congress could not do what Henry did. They understood that a theocracy and freedom were incompatible concepts.
“or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
They also understood that in order to be truly free, the citizens of this new nation had to be allowed to worship as they saw fit. The Puritans and the Quakers of Pennsylvania were the last to sign off on this concept. They saw groups such as the Anabaptists and the Catholics as heretics and wanted nothing more than to tell them how to pray properly. We have much the same attitude going on today, but it is groups such as People for the American Way, the ACLU, NOW, and other atheistic organizations clamoring to remove that right. To them, all they see is the first half of the sentence. Whether they choose to agree or not, this statement is utterly true, it is not the American way to live without faith. The freedom to worship, or to not worship, as one sees fit, is one of the chief stones in the bedrock of our country’s foundation.
“or abridging the freedom of speech”
This is the big one that every armchair lawyer and their cousin quote, as if it is the only sentence within the amendment. You will notice that the writers of the constitution did not get to this portion until after they dealt with the freedom of religion. Sequence of thought is as important to the English language as is context. Being able to express oneself as a free citizen was important, just not as important as being able to worship without the government looking over your shoulder.
If you look at the letters of John Adams, Franklin, and the other founders, you will see them exercising this freedom with free flowing prose and quite often biting criticism. What you never see is the outrageous lie that today’s media and politicians are fond of using. Freedom of speech does not give us a right to lie. If Madison and his compatriots thought lies were a virtue, lying would have been mentioned. No, what is being said here is that congress cannot write a law that puts barriers in the way of Americans being able to voice their opinion in open and honest debate. When a citizen is sued over expressing an honest opinion or a student is either failed or thrown off a campus for being politically incorrect, those individuals’ rights have been “abridged”. In today’s language, they have been trampled upon. Political correctness is not American in any way shape or form and if the founding fathers were alive today, those who exercise political correctness would probably be tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail.
“or of the press;”
This portion is another sentence that many place over the religion clause, and again, you need to be cognizant of sentence structure. Regardless, the ability to report freely on what is happening, even if such reporting embarrasses the wealthy or the powerful, such reporting can not be constricted by any law. Those media heads that have fired writers and reporters because they have chosen to report the truth have violated this clause of the constitution. This clause does not give the media the right to lie. It is their duty to report the truth and to let the people choose what to believe. Many in today’s media would consider that an undue infringement on their freedoms.
“or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,”
Every 60’s radical, especially William Ayers, knows this clause. They quoted it ad nauseum while fling bottles, rocks, and fecal matter at the police during the Vietnam War era riots. A riot is not a peaceful assembly and therefore, by definition, is removed from the protection of the First Amendment. What the framers of our constitution had in mind was to prevent congress from being able to send troops to a gathering of townsfolk, whether it be in the village square or in a home to break up the meeting.
A meeting of employees in any given company to discuss whether or not they should create or join a union is covered under this right. Sending the boys out late at night to plant a burning cross onto someone’s lawn is not.
“and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
In my state of Nevada, I am ashamed to have been a member of the political party that has worked overtime to eliminate this right from Nevadans. The ability of the people to have a say in the fundamental decisions that affect their lives is, by its placement as the capstone in this amendment, one of the most important rights we have.
The current Assembly Minority Leader Heidi Gansert and the Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio, worked together to craft a bill that greatly restricted the ability of an initiative petition to be approved for placement on the ballot in any given election. They did so under urging from the GOP party leadership because of the growing power of the Democrat party in the state’s two urban areas, Las Vegas and Reno. What was surprising is that the Democrat party leadership went right along with them, forming a Nevada version of the axis of evil.
We are seeing more and more moves in this direction and it is happening all across this nation in both local and national politics. The powerful elite in politics do not want the citizens of this country to have a voice. They care nothing for your wants, needs, desires or rights. What they want is for you to vote for them and to then shut up.
America needs to wake up. If the percentage of already registered voters who actually voted increased by only 25%, we would see a dramatic shift in the political picture of this country. If that percentage doubled, we would probably have begun the process of getting our country back. At the very least, the politicians would begin to listen.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
A lot of people have issued opinions on what the above paragraph actually means. The majority of the opinions, including those psychotic ramblings from the Warren court, have been agenda driven. So, let’s take a look at the words from outside the box. The English language, especially during the late 1700’s was direct and to the point. If you approach a statement written by a personality such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison or John Adams with the assumption that these men were not writing in code, but wishing to make their intention as clear as possible, you are most likely going to wind up exactly where they were.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,”
During the time of the American Revolution, England had a state religion, the Church of England, established by King Henry the 8th for the sole purpose of allowing the King to divorce and remarry. The writers of our constitution wanted to ensure that Congress could not do what Henry did. They understood that a theocracy and freedom were incompatible concepts.
“or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
They also understood that in order to be truly free, the citizens of this new nation had to be allowed to worship as they saw fit. The Puritans and the Quakers of Pennsylvania were the last to sign off on this concept. They saw groups such as the Anabaptists and the Catholics as heretics and wanted nothing more than to tell them how to pray properly. We have much the same attitude going on today, but it is groups such as People for the American Way, the ACLU, NOW, and other atheistic organizations clamoring to remove that right. To them, all they see is the first half of the sentence. Whether they choose to agree or not, this statement is utterly true, it is not the American way to live without faith. The freedom to worship, or to not worship, as one sees fit, is one of the chief stones in the bedrock of our country’s foundation.
“or abridging the freedom of speech”
This is the big one that every armchair lawyer and their cousin quote, as if it is the only sentence within the amendment. You will notice that the writers of the constitution did not get to this portion until after they dealt with the freedom of religion. Sequence of thought is as important to the English language as is context. Being able to express oneself as a free citizen was important, just not as important as being able to worship without the government looking over your shoulder.
If you look at the letters of John Adams, Franklin, and the other founders, you will see them exercising this freedom with free flowing prose and quite often biting criticism. What you never see is the outrageous lie that today’s media and politicians are fond of using. Freedom of speech does not give us a right to lie. If Madison and his compatriots thought lies were a virtue, lying would have been mentioned. No, what is being said here is that congress cannot write a law that puts barriers in the way of Americans being able to voice their opinion in open and honest debate. When a citizen is sued over expressing an honest opinion or a student is either failed or thrown off a campus for being politically incorrect, those individuals’ rights have been “abridged”. In today’s language, they have been trampled upon. Political correctness is not American in any way shape or form and if the founding fathers were alive today, those who exercise political correctness would probably be tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail.
“or of the press;”
This portion is another sentence that many place over the religion clause, and again, you need to be cognizant of sentence structure. Regardless, the ability to report freely on what is happening, even if such reporting embarrasses the wealthy or the powerful, such reporting can not be constricted by any law. Those media heads that have fired writers and reporters because they have chosen to report the truth have violated this clause of the constitution. This clause does not give the media the right to lie. It is their duty to report the truth and to let the people choose what to believe. Many in today’s media would consider that an undue infringement on their freedoms.
“or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,”
Every 60’s radical, especially William Ayers, knows this clause. They quoted it ad nauseum while fling bottles, rocks, and fecal matter at the police during the Vietnam War era riots. A riot is not a peaceful assembly and therefore, by definition, is removed from the protection of the First Amendment. What the framers of our constitution had in mind was to prevent congress from being able to send troops to a gathering of townsfolk, whether it be in the village square or in a home to break up the meeting.
A meeting of employees in any given company to discuss whether or not they should create or join a union is covered under this right. Sending the boys out late at night to plant a burning cross onto someone’s lawn is not.
“and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
In my state of Nevada, I am ashamed to have been a member of the political party that has worked overtime to eliminate this right from Nevadans. The ability of the people to have a say in the fundamental decisions that affect their lives is, by its placement as the capstone in this amendment, one of the most important rights we have.
The current Assembly Minority Leader Heidi Gansert and the Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio, worked together to craft a bill that greatly restricted the ability of an initiative petition to be approved for placement on the ballot in any given election. They did so under urging from the GOP party leadership because of the growing power of the Democrat party in the state’s two urban areas, Las Vegas and Reno. What was surprising is that the Democrat party leadership went right along with them, forming a Nevada version of the axis of evil.
We are seeing more and more moves in this direction and it is happening all across this nation in both local and national politics. The powerful elite in politics do not want the citizens of this country to have a voice. They care nothing for your wants, needs, desires or rights. What they want is for you to vote for them and to then shut up.
America needs to wake up. If the percentage of already registered voters who actually voted increased by only 25%, we would see a dramatic shift in the political picture of this country. If that percentage doubled, we would probably have begun the process of getting our country back. At the very least, the politicians would begin to listen.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Do politicians lie?
Do politicians lie or are they merely forgetful? After listening to the latest batch of political ads, perhaps the question should be rephrased to, do politicians know how to tell the truth?
Out here in Nevada we have a woman who sounds like she should be living in the Deep South. Her accent is so up front she makes Paula Dean of the Food Network sound like a Midwesterner. Dina Titus is running against incumbent Congressman Jon Porter and the TV ads are flying fast and furious.
Porter ran an ad dripping with noir images in black and white. One of the indictments against Titus was that she voted to give herself a 300% raise in her legislative pension. On its face this is true. Titus was a member of the Nevada Legislature that raised the pension from 25 cents to 75 cents. What Porter’s ad doesn’t mention is that the raise was passed with nearly unanimous support from both parties. There are plenty of other bits of baggage he could go after, but why tell the truth when lies are so much more interesting?
Titus responds with the same old lefty talking point that Porter voted in lockstep with Bush. She fails to mention that every single bill the Democrats are complaining about are also bills the majority in Congress passed. The majority happens to be Democrat. In essence, do what I say, don’t do what I do. She also claims she passed a property tax cap. Well…not exactly. She wanted a much higher cap and argued for that and then grudgingly accepted a compromised that violates a provision in the Nevada Constitution. She claims to be in favor of reducing the tax burden on working families, but she also proposed a tax on weight and distance for commercial trucking while insisting the tax would not affect the costs to consumers. An economics professor should know that business does not pay taxes without passing the cost along. If a tax is raised on shipping groceries, won’t the price on those goods go up? Most certainly.
Local politics or national, the lies and half truths continue. The real problem is, if someone comes along and actually tells it like it is, their own party will turn on them. I know, it happened to me. More on that later. I’m shopping for body armor.
Out here in Nevada we have a woman who sounds like she should be living in the Deep South. Her accent is so up front she makes Paula Dean of the Food Network sound like a Midwesterner. Dina Titus is running against incumbent Congressman Jon Porter and the TV ads are flying fast and furious.
Porter ran an ad dripping with noir images in black and white. One of the indictments against Titus was that she voted to give herself a 300% raise in her legislative pension. On its face this is true. Titus was a member of the Nevada Legislature that raised the pension from 25 cents to 75 cents. What Porter’s ad doesn’t mention is that the raise was passed with nearly unanimous support from both parties. There are plenty of other bits of baggage he could go after, but why tell the truth when lies are so much more interesting?
Titus responds with the same old lefty talking point that Porter voted in lockstep with Bush. She fails to mention that every single bill the Democrats are complaining about are also bills the majority in Congress passed. The majority happens to be Democrat. In essence, do what I say, don’t do what I do. She also claims she passed a property tax cap. Well…not exactly. She wanted a much higher cap and argued for that and then grudgingly accepted a compromised that violates a provision in the Nevada Constitution. She claims to be in favor of reducing the tax burden on working families, but she also proposed a tax on weight and distance for commercial trucking while insisting the tax would not affect the costs to consumers. An economics professor should know that business does not pay taxes without passing the cost along. If a tax is raised on shipping groceries, won’t the price on those goods go up? Most certainly.
Local politics or national, the lies and half truths continue. The real problem is, if someone comes along and actually tells it like it is, their own party will turn on them. I know, it happened to me. More on that later. I’m shopping for body armor.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
A woman President?
Sarah Palin is being called the girl of Conservatives dreams. That may be so. She refuses to be part of the mansion crowd. During her tenure as an Alaskan Mayor she actually cut her own salary as part of a cost-cutting package for the city. She opted out of being driven about in a limo, choosing rather to drive herself. She has five kids, one of them born with downs, and she did not even consider an abortion after the tests showed what her developing child would be. No, the Dems would not like this lady at all. The problem is, the GOP leadership doesn't like her either.
She dared to challenge the intrenched earmark system and worst of all, she won. Fortunately for her she did so in the most indepentminded state in our union, Alaska. If she had tried to do so in my state, her results would have been like mine. One term and out. Lucky for Sarah, not too many Alaskan votes can be bought.
I like this woman. Her husband and kids are undeclared independants and that's just fine with her. She has already gotten a lot of pressure from the GOP leadership about that, but she won't interfere in that decision. Good for her. She is willing to begin cutting at the very top. This frightens the water out of people like Cheny and Kennedy. The top, according to them is supposed to be sacrosanct, as untouchable as God. Not according to Sarah Palin. If pain has to occure, it begins with her. Frankly, I would rather see her as the President instead of McCain, and with McCain's age, it just may happen.
She dared to challenge the intrenched earmark system and worst of all, she won. Fortunately for her she did so in the most indepentminded state in our union, Alaska. If she had tried to do so in my state, her results would have been like mine. One term and out. Lucky for Sarah, not too many Alaskan votes can be bought.
I like this woman. Her husband and kids are undeclared independants and that's just fine with her. She has already gotten a lot of pressure from the GOP leadership about that, but she won't interfere in that decision. Good for her. She is willing to begin cutting at the very top. This frightens the water out of people like Cheny and Kennedy. The top, according to them is supposed to be sacrosanct, as untouchable as God. Not according to Sarah Palin. If pain has to occure, it begins with her. Frankly, I would rather see her as the President instead of McCain, and with McCain's age, it just may happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
