Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

TAKE ACTION (barf alert!!!!!) ^ | recent | Some union thug

Posted on 06/07/2003 4:55:22 PM PDT by MonroeDNA

Take Action! Contact Rep. Inslee about IT offshoring

Representative Jay Inslee of Washington state says he does not think that offshore outsourcing of U.S. tech jobs is a problem. On a recent tour in India, he told Indian reporters and business leaders that he believes any U.S. state or federal legislation that aims to limit the transfer of U.S. jobs overseas will not go anywhere. He also discounted concerns about such offshoring among U.S. tech workers, saying, "People are worried about job security in the U.S. and therefore it is not terribly surprising to find a few people who will oppose outsourcing to other countries."

We think there are more than a few of us who oppose the wholesale shipment of tens of thousands of good IT jobs abroad, especially jobs that are paid for by U.S. taxpayer-funded projects. Please send a message to Rep. Inslee and help us to let him know that this is an issue of concern to consituents in his district, hundreds of thousands of IT workers throughout the United States, and millions of U.S. citizens.

Your message will be emailed to Rep. Inslee. While we have provided a sample letter, we encourage you to modify and customize this message, or swap it out with one of your own. Details about your own experiences in the tech industry will make your letter more powerful.

Dear [ Decision Maker ] ,

(Edit Letter Below) I am writing because I am increasingly concerned about the escalating practice of moving U.S.-based information technology (IT) and other computer service jobs abroad. I am aware that you have supported offshoring of IT jobs, particularly to India, and I'm strongly suggesting that you reconsider your position.

I understand from the Washington Alliance of Technology Workers and Forrester Research report that over the next 15 years 3.3 million U.S. service industry jobs and $136 billion in wages will likely move offshore to countries such as India, Russia, China, and the Philippines. The IT industry is already leading the initial exodus, with legal, accounting, and other sectors to follow.

Whether in highly visible corporations like Microsoft, or as part of other businesses such as an insurance company, IT work has fueled the aspirations of many local communities as well. It is in large part responsible for wealth creation in our country. While economic globalization may prove beneficial to multinational corporations, it is not at all clear that it will benefit most workers here or abroad. It is one thing to have access to cheaper goods, as globalization promises; it is another to have the jobs to pay for them. What we need for our future and security is for our jobs at all skill levels to stay here.

What is the future of our country if so many of our jobs, including government IT jobs, are moving offshore? It looks to me like a race to the bottom, with few social safety nets for the many workers who will be displaced.

My issue is not with IT workers in other countries, but with the practice of moving these jobs abroad with no apparent concern for U.S. workers, many of whom are highly trained and are now out of work.

Because this emerging issue is so important to our future, I urge you to support calls for an immediate congressional investigation into IT offshoring. We need to look much more closely at the ramifications of this disturbing trend -- on U.S. workers, the communities in which they live, and the future economic and technological security of this country.

For your research, I've included the following links:

Perilous Currents in the Offshore Shift

A new report projects federal spending on information technology outsourcing services will increase from $6.6 billion to nearly $15 billion by fiscal 2007.

The New HP Way: World's Cheapest Consultants

Forrester Research reference

TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Free Republic; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: unionthugs
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last
Major barf alert.

Just so you know who is behind all the IT job-loss posts. It's UNIONS!!!!

1 posted on 06/07/2003 4:55:23 PM PDT by MonroeDNA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: MonroeDNA
Marxism lives on...they never went away.
2 posted on 06/07/2003 4:56:17 PM PDT by MonroeDNA (Unions and Marxists say, " Workers of the world unite!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MonroeDNA
This is a serious problem for our economy.
3 posted on 06/07/2003 4:57:19 PM PDT by tkathy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tkathy
4 posted on 06/07/2003 4:58:41 PM PDT by MonroeDNA (Unions and Marxists say, " Workers of the world unite!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MonroeDNA
You have just outed yourself as a supporter of Jay Inslee - a left-wing democrat with a 11% Lifetime Rating from the American Conservative Union
5 posted on 06/07/2003 5:07:20 PM PDT by sarcasm (Tancredo 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
Please explain.

If he is anti-union, and pro-capitalist, then I will gladly donate to his campaign.

Now let's see you back your words up.
6 posted on 06/07/2003 5:10:22 PM PDT by MonroeDNA (Unions and Marxists say, " Workers of the world unite!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
Could it be that he outed himself as an opponent of Left-Wing Labor Unions? Be fair.
7 posted on 06/07/2003 5:12:05 PM PDT by Pukin Dog (Sans Reproache)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MonroeDNA
Gave you the link - if you know how to use it. Interesting, but nor surprising, that you are a supporter of a left-wing democrat.
8 posted on 06/07/2003 5:13:32 PM PDT by sarcasm (Tancredo 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
I don't care if he declares that he is a space alien.

If he is for individual freedom, and hates unions, he will get my vote.

And money. Which I can afford to give, because I am a union-free employer.

Then again, I am a capitalist.
9 posted on 06/07/2003 5:17:18 PM PDT by MonroeDNA (Unions and Marxists say, " Workers of the world unite!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MonroeDNA
There are a few so-called Conservatives who are blind on this issue. Say anything against their position, and they will instantly attack you. They are not interested in a dialog of any kind. You are either with them in support of Government protectionism (not a conservative idea) or you are lower than a snake's belly in their eyes. It serves no purpose to even try to communicate with them.
10 posted on 06/07/2003 5:17:58 PM PDT by Pukin Dog (Sans Reproache)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MonroeDNA
I guess you haven't checked the voting record of your hero - he's a solid member of the left-wing.
11 posted on 06/07/2003 5:20:16 PM PDT by sarcasm (Tancredo 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog
Thanks for your kind words. I agree with you for the most part, but I find it thrilling to challenge them on their Marxist protectionist views.

Survival of the fittest, including ideas.

Reagan knew this; challenge them on ideas, and they will always lose. They have nothing but tactics: intimidation, lies, and name calling. Reagan deplored their tactics, but welcomed their ideas. He knew their ideas would fail under scruitney.
Unions and marxists are built on a house of cards. Always, always, always challenge them.

That giant sucking sound is marxism imploding.
12 posted on 06/07/2003 5:26:59 PM PDT by MonroeDNA (Unions and Marxists say, " Workers of the world unite!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
If he hates unions, then no matter what his label, I will gladly donate to him.

Thanks for the insight. I will tell my sister, the CPA, and my brother, the CPA, and my other sister, the Professor of accounting, and my father, the Bell Labs EE, that they might want to check this guy out.

Ee all have our own small busineses, and can give to who we want; dounds like he needs some money, to combat the marxist union folks.

Be well.
13 posted on 06/07/2003 5:33:46 PM PDT by MonroeDNA (Unions and Marxists say, " Workers of the world unite!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MonroeDNA
He gets a 95% from Americans for Democratic Action - same as Maxine Waters.
14 posted on 06/07/2003 5:33:58 PM PDT by sarcasm (Tancredo 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
If he is against unions, that's good enough for me.

Then again, I am taking your word for it.

15 posted on 06/07/2003 5:38:51 PM PDT by MonroeDNA (Unions and Marxists say, " Workers of the world unite!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MonroeDNA
Marxist protectionist views


Marx, as far as I know, was an internationalist, and his (undiluted) philosophy was definitely anti-nationalistic.

Ever hear of Socialist International? They and their ilk are strident opponents of immigration controls, which they see as "racist."

In fact, it is through increased immigration that Marxists hope to finally achieve their goal of making the U.S. a socialist nation.

16 posted on 06/07/2003 5:40:12 PM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MonroeDNA
Take a look at what he voted for (except for #6) - you know what they say about a fool and his money don't you?
MonroeDNA - supporter of socialist proposals.



1.         HR  2356.  Campaign Finance Overhaul/Shays-Meehan Substitute.  Substitute amendment that would ban, beginning Nov. 6, 2002, any “soft money” contributions to national political parties but allow up to $10,000 in soft money donations to state and local parties for voter registration and get-out-the vote activities.  The bill would prevent issue ads from targeting specific candidates within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, also effective in 2002.  It would maintain the individual contribution limit of $1,000 per election for House candidates but raise it beginning Jan. 1, 2003, to $2,000 for Senate candidates. House and Senate amounts would be indexed for inflation.   Adopted 240-191.  February 13, 2002.  A yes vote is a +.


2.         HR 622.  Unemployment and Tax Benefits.  Thomas (R-CA) motion to accelerate a reduction in the 30 percent tax rate for individuals, provide a 30 percent bonus deduction for companies when they purchase equipment, create a refundable health insurance tax credit, and give a tax rebate to individuals who did not receive the total $300 rebate from last year’s tax package.  Motion agreed to 225-199.  February 14, 2002.  A no vote is a +.


3.         H Con Res 353.  Fiscal 2003 Budget Resolution.  Adoption of a concurrent resolution to provide $392.8 billion in discretionary defense spending, including a $10 billion anti-terrorism reserve account, and only $366.3 billion for non-defense discretionary spending in Fiscal Year 2003.   Non-defense discretionary spending would include new budget authority $37.7 billion for homeland security.  Adopted  221-209.  March 20, 2002.  A no is a +.


4.         HR  586.  Permanent Tax Cuts.  Thomas (R-CA) motion to make permanent the cuts in last year’s $1.35 trillion tax reduction package, which had been set to expire in 2010.  The package included reductions in income tax rates, tax breaks for married couples, elimination of the estate tax, doubling of the child tax credit, and expansion of pension and education savings provisions.  Motion agreed to 229-198.  April 18, 2002.  A no vote is a +.


5.         HR  2646.  Food Stamps.  Baca (D-CA) motion to instruct conferees to agree to Senate provisions that would give food stamps to recently arrived immigrant children, the disabled, refugees and legal permanent residents who have lived in the United States for at least five years or worked here for a total of 16 quarters or more.  Motion agreed to 244-171.   April 23, 2002.   A yes vote is a +.


6.         H J Res 87.  Nuclear Waste.  Passage of the joint resolution to approve a site at Yucca Mountain, NV as a repository for the nation’s spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.  Passed 306-117.  May 8, 2002.  A no vote is a +.


7.         HR 4546.  Fiscal 2003 Defense Authorization.  Adoption of a rule (H Res 415) which would exempt the military from key environmental laws including the Endangered Species Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.  Adopted 216-200.  May 9, 2002.  A no vote is a +. 


8.         HR  4546.  Abortions Overseas.  Sanchez (D-CA) amendment to the FY 2003 Defense Authorization Bill that would allow abortions at U.S. military medical facilities abroad if paid for by the patient and a doctor agrees to perform the procedure.  Rejected 202-215.   May 10, 2002.  A yes vote is a +. 


9.         HR  4566.  Fiscal 2003 Defense Authorization/Motion to Recommit.   Spratt (D-SC) motion to prevent spending any funds to develop nuclear-tipped ballistic missile interceptors.  Motion rejected 193-223.  May 9, 2002.  A yes vote a +.


10.       HR  4737.  Welfare Renewal.  Cardin (D-MD) substitute amendment that would increase childcare funding by $11 billion over the next five years, maintain the 30-hour-per-week work requirement on individual beneficiaries, and allow legal immigrants to receive benefits. Block grant funding would be increased annually to keep up with inflation, and education and training programs could count toward a state's participation rate.  Rejected 198-222.  May 16, 2002.  A yes vote is a +.


11.       HR  2143.  Estate Tax Repeal.  Passage of the bill that would permanently repeal the estate and gift tax contained in the 2001 tax cut law (PL 107-16).  Passed 256-171.  June 6, 2002.   A no vote is a +.


12.       HR  4019.  Married Couples Tax Relief.  Passage of the bill that would extend beyond 2010 breaks for married couples contained in last year’s $1.35 trillion tax cut law.  Passed 271-142.  June 13, 2002.  A no vote is a +.


13.       HR  4965.  Late Term  Abortion Ban.  Passage of the bill that would ban late-term abortions that its opponents call “partial birth” abortion.  The bill would allow the procedure only when necessary to save a woman’s life.  Those who perform the procedure for other reasons would face fines and up to two years in prison, although the woman would not be criminally liable.  The bill includes congressional findings to support the constitutionality of the measure.  Passed 274-151.  July 24, 2002.  A no vote is a +.


14.       HR 5005.  Homeland Security/Union Membership.  Shays (R-CT) amendment that would give federal employees who transfer into the Homeland Security Department the right to join a union.  The President could still deny employees the right to unionize when he certifies in writing that membership would hurt national security.  Adopted 229-201.  July 26, 2002.  A no vote is a +. 


15.       HR 5005.  Homeland Security/Civil Service Employment Regulations. Waxman (D-CA) amendment to ensure that Homeland Security Department employees are covered by Title 5 civil service employment rules, provide other employment protections, and bar pay reductions for federal employees who transfer into the new department.  Rejected 208-220.  July 26, 2002.  A yes vote is a +.


16.       HR 5005. Homeland Security/FOIA and Whistleblower Protections.  Schakowsky (D-IL) amendment to retain application of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to certain types of information on environmental and public health hazards and also allow remedies for retaliation against whistleblowers.  Rejected 188-240.  July 26, 2002.  A yes vote is a +. 


17.       HR  3009.  Trade Promotion/Andean Trade - Conference Report.  Adoption of the conference report on the bill that would allow special trade promotion authority for congressional consideration of trade agreements reached prior to June 1, 2005.  The bill would provide a tax credit of 65 percent of health insurance premiums to displaced workers, give benefits to “secondary” workers, and grant duty-free status to about 6,000 products from Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru through 2006, and offer duty-free entry for selected goods from developing countries.  The provisions could be devastating to U.S. shoe and textile industries, provides no real worker or environmental protections and grants wide discretion to the President. Adopted 215-212.  July 27, 2002.  A no vote is a +. 


18.       HR  4691.  Abortion Service Refusals.  Brown (D-OH) motion to prevent medical institution from withholding from patients medically appropriate information or services, and to allow states to enforce their laws and regulations on the subject.  Motion rejected 191-230.  September 25, 2002.  A yes vote is a +.


19.       HR  4600. Medical Malpractice Awards.  Passage of the bill to cap the amount plaintiffs and their attorneys could receive in successful medical malpractice cases. The bill would limit punitive damages to the greater of $250,000 or double economic damages and cap attorneys' contingency fees to 40 percent of the first $50,000 in damages, 33.33 percent of the next $50,000, 25 percent of the next $500,000, and 15 percent of any amount in excess of $600,000. The bill would supersede state laws on punitive damages but allow states to set higher limits for non-economic awards. It would require malpractice suits to be filed within three years of an injury or one year of its discovery, whichever is earlier. No punitive damages could be assessed against drug and medical device manufacturers if their products were approved by the Food and Drug Administration or are generally considered safe.  Passed 217-203.   September 26, 2002.  A no vote is a +.  


20.       H J RES  114.  Use of Force/Military Support for U. N. Resolution.   Spratt (D-SC) amendment that would authorize the U. S. military to support any new U. N. Security Council resolution that orders the elimination, by force if required, of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and the means of producing such weapons.  The President would be required to seek congressional authority before using military force against Iraq without such a U. N. resolution.  Rejected  155-270.  October 10, 2002.  A yes vote is a +.

17 posted on 06/07/2003 5:47:27 PM PDT by sarcasm (Tancredo 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
Call it what you will; anyone who belives that people should get rewarded based on ANYTHING other than individual merit, is anti-American.

Marxism is proud of their saying: "From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need."

Anyone who subscribes to this is evil.

18 posted on 06/07/2003 5:49:16 PM PDT by MonroeDNA (Unions and Marxists say, " Workers of the world unite!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
See tagline.
19 posted on 06/07/2003 5:54:11 PM PDT by MonroeDNA (Unions and Marxists say, " Workers of the world unite!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: MonroeDNA
You're the one who's supporting Jay Inslee - Socialist from Washington State. Sending lots of money to support his reelection?
20 posted on 06/07/2003 6:00:28 PM PDT by sarcasm (Tancredo 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson