Trumps Pick for Labor Department Head

Andrew Puzder

President-elect Donald Trump is expected to name fast-food executive Andrew Puzder, a vocal critic of substantially increasing the minimum wage and an opponent of rules that would make more workers eligible for overtime pay, as head of the Labor Department, according to a Republican briefed on the decision.

It has been mentioned that this appointment falls in with a pattern of putting in the fox to guard the hen house.
I see it as his strategy for putting knowledgeable people in these positions. I think it gives them insight into the service they will be doing for the public.

As the head of a fast-food company, Puzder is a supporter of the approach touted by Trump on the campaign trail that lowering taxes for corporations and the wealthy and loosening regulations for businesses can boost job creation. He is a strong opponent of the Affordable Care Act, which he claims has hurt the restaurant industry because higher health premiums have left consumers with less money to spend.

Source

Posted here

a reply to: slapjacks
Yea, I saw. No information and an unrelated Youtube video, no thank you.

I'm starting to wonder if Trump wants a larger unionized work force. Given the latest events, I think this would be a fairly logical conclusion.

a reply to: JinMI

The federal government has extreme amount of waste. This is needed to bring it under control. Keep in mind that fast food workers have low level skills. It's not like he will pay government workers 8 dollars an hour. They would be qualify for the market going rate for their skill sets. This is just more fear mongering.

a reply to: amfirst1

It's not like he will pay government workers 8 dollars an hour.

I wouldn't oppose that starting wage for government employees!

This guy is totally going to have the average Joe workers best interests in mind.

totally

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: slapjacks
Yea, I saw. No information and an unrelated Youtube video, no thank you.

If I could give this comment 100 stars, I would. I hope that your thread does not get closed or removed because of that one.

On topic, though, I am withholding any concerns about this guy. From what I read, I think that he'll do fine where he's at. Some of what he opposes are things out of his control, and some of the stuff I agree with.

But, if the goal is a strong union force of workers, I would oppose that vehemently. I hope that is not really the end game...it doesn't sound like it to me.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

It will not be removed. No worries there.

I also am. Anything is pure speculation at this point, including were unions go from here.

I do find it odd that he is putting people that have bucked the system into the system. Kind of a poetic justice about it.

Because lowering taxes on corporations results in more jobs and doesn't go to line the CEO's pockets.

Yeah. That's always worked so well in the past.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I don't necessarily oppose unions when they are small and local, no bigger than the entity they bargain against, but when they get as large as the UAW, for example, and hold the bargaining rights across all the auto companies, I fail to see how this does not constitute a monopoly in its own right and conflict of interest.

And I think it's a mistake to have ever allowed government employees to unionize. When that happened, they became entities who effectively began electing those with whom they then bargained for their contracts and it cut out the taxpayer in the equation who was the real employer paying for it all.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: slapjacks
Yea, I saw. No information and an unrelated Youtube video, no thank you.

Fantastic response! Wish I could like this one more than once!

a reply to: underwerks

It has to be done in tandem with some judicious deregulation.

Part of the problem with the Obama era is that the regulatory agencies stopped being an agency composed of people who were there to make sure rules were followed and became a place that was inherently automatically hostile to industry from the outset.

It used to be that inspectors were composed of teams of people who had some who knew the industries they were charged with regulating, so they understood the realities of what went on in them. When you have people who don't understand the business trying to regulate it, they make stupid rules that do a lot more harm than good.

For example, you get ones like the idiots regulating biotech who seem locked into the mindset that more is always better even though if you know a thing about vaccines, you know that more isn't at all always better and can, in fact, turn out to be toxic.

originally posted by: MrPlow
This guy is totally going to have the average Joe workers best interests in mind.

totally

well at least he is a businessman which makes him more qualified than Obama`s secretary of labor who is a civil rights lawyer.a lawyer knows nothing about running a business, a lawyer knows nothing about the challenges working people face.

a reply to: ketsuko

I agree. As someone who has only seen a union from the outside in, the larger ones seem to do a disservice to the worker.

originally posted by: Tardacus

originally posted by: MrPlow
This guy is totally going to have the average Joe workers best interests in mind.

totally

well at least he is a businessman which makes him more qualified than Obama`s secretary of labor who is a civil rights lawyer.a lawyer knows nothing about running a business, a lawyer knows nothing about the challenges working people face.

...except for the fact that he has dedicated his life to standing up for people's rights...including in the workforce.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: ketsuko

I agree. As someone who has only seen a union from the outside in, the larger ones seem to do a disservice to the worker.

Great oxymoron there.

a reply to: odzeandennz

Well you see my experience on the matter so please, fill me in and straighten me out.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

except in America nobody has the constitutional right to have a job, if standing up for people`s rights is all it takes to be qualified to be the secretary of labor then there`s a huge pool of candidates to choose from who know nothing about operating a business.
Being a successful businessman doesn`t automatically mean that you deprive workers of their constitutional rights or that you violate labor laws,or violate their civil rights.

A successful businessman knows how to grow a company and create jobs, a lawyer knows nothing about that.

There`s a reason it`s named the department of labor,and not the department of civil rights,not the department of downtrodden workers who need representation from a lawyer.

I heard that ANDREW PUZDER wants fast food restaurants to have automated terminals so patrons can order their own food. Can you imagine how long that line would be? LOL.