If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#341
|
|||
|
|||
Immigration Patrols On Domestic Amtrak
In article ,
Hatunen wrote: Do the proceeds from postage sales go into Treasury, and are they earmarked somehow for wages? I don't know the details and am too lazy to research them, but, presumably, yes. Merritt |
#342
|
|||
|
|||
Immigration Patrols On Domestic Amtrak
Merritt Mullen wrote:
"Adam H. Kerman" wrote: The post office is NOT a public corporation or any kind of corporation. It's a government agency. Till the Nixon administration, it was a cabinet-level executive department. It is a government agency in the common meaning of the word, but it is legally defined as "an independent establishment of the executive branch." The law (39 U.S.C, sec. 201) says: "There is established, as an independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States, the United States Postal Service." I know, picky, picky. As you say it not any kind of corporation, such as Amtrak is, and its employees are government employees paid by the Treasury Department. Amtrak employees are not government employees and they are paid by the corporation, not by the Treasury. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Every time I point out that the same thing about Amtrak, except it's a corporation... oh never mind. |
#343
|
|||
|
|||
Immigration Patrols On Domestic Amtrak
Hatunen wrote:
Merritt Mullen wrote: "Adam H. Kerman" wrote: The post office is NOT a public corporation or any kind of corporation. It's a government agency. Till the Nixon administration, it was a cabinet-level executive department. It is a government agency in the common meaning of the word, but it is legally defined as "an independent establishment of the executive branch." The law (39 U.S.C, sec. 201) says: "There is established, as an independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States, the United States Postal Service." I know, picky, picky. More than "picky, picky". As I said, "agency" has a specific legal meaning that does not apply to independent units such as the USPS or the Federal Reserve. If you're talking about things like civil service pay grades, the postal service isn't subject to that (thanks to much better representation by postal unions than civil service unions years ago). There's some flexibility in management pay as well. There's independent purchasing and sometimes independent contruction of major facilities, assuming the post office isn't in a court house or a Roosevelt-era building. Most of the postal budget isn't subject to annual appropriation from Congress. But otherwise, the post office is subject to any other law that any other federal executive agency is subject to, like preferences for military veterans, participation in the Thrift Savings Plan. As you say it not any kind of corporation, such as Amtrak is, and its employees are government employees paid by the Treasury Department. Amtrak employees are not government employees and they are paid by the corporation, not by the Treasury. Do the proceeds from postage sales go into Treasury, and are they earmarked somehow for wages? Gosh, I can't remember now. I'll have to ask. I do know that, depending on how big they want to pretend the federal deficit is in any particular year, sometimes the post office is on budget, and sometimes it's not. |
#344
|
|||
|
|||
Requirements to have Social Security Numbers
Hatunen wrote:
And, under changing requirements of identification for employment, for giving evidence that one is part of the SS system and has an SS number. For about the last fifteen years I have had to present by SS card to propective empoyers. Needless to say, they are easily fakeable, but the potential empoyers still photocopy my SS card and birth certificate for their records. I believe it gets them off the hook on certain federal requirements. Hardly. Demanding a birth certificate would put an employer on the hook for violating civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in hiring older Americans. |
#345
|
|||
|
|||
Requirements to have Social Security Numbers (was: Rules for border crossings into the United States)
On Aug 2, 5:40 pm, "Stephen Sprunk" wrote:
I doubt they type _anything_ into their computers other than the fact they've admitted a person with your name on a particular date. It's only the folks whose entry they _deny_ that get detailed records. A coworker of mine, who is a Canadian citizen, was denied entry once; now he has to have a green card to travel to the US even for vacation because some agent flagged him as a "foreign worker" despite him never having held a job in the US in his life (and has no intention of ever doing so). They must (if sent to secondary) be typing something, because they knew my previous place of employment and asked me why I'm not working there anymore, why I changed jobs. The date that I changed jobs. They had the exact location of my employment and exact duties of my job, which would have been in that letter I got from my employment before holidays a couple of years ago. The officer asked me what I did for a living, etc, then asked for proof, I gave him the letter, he looked at the letter for a minute, then started typing stuff in. Then he handed me my papers back and started typing more things in (for a few minutes) before telling me I could go. They also have details of my commercial crossings too, since the last time I crossed (recently) he asked if I had any of those things with me on "this trip" (since it was a rare time for me not to be in the commercial lane). So I figure with my commercial stuff, that's definitely keyed in by someone in some detail, that they know what I'm carrying, even if it's only by Tariff code. S. |
#346
|
|||
|
|||
Rules for border crossings into the United States (was: Immigration patrols on domestic Amtrak)
On Aug 2, 5:44 pm, "Stephen Sprunk" wrote:
Canada's lax border controls are why the US has tightened up its side. As far as I can tell, all that Canada cares about is that you're not going there to seek employment. Since I'm living in Canada, it's not something they'd worry about with me, it seems to me the only thing they really care about is that I'm not importing tons and tons of duty/tax free stuff on holidays. (That's why they impose limits). Do they enforce them? No, not really. I declare honestly, and I'm over the limit on all my short (under 7 day) trips, when I get to 7 days where the limit goes from $200 or something like that, to $750, I rarely have that much stuff. I've often brought back $60 on a few hour trip (limit being $20, if I recall correctly). I declare it, every time, expecting to pay taxes, they don't seem to want to bother with that. However my former boss would tell a different story. She likes to go with friends and not declare how much they really spent, but butter it down to the maximum limit per person, and the one time she declared $20 over the $200 limit (which was $20 for herself, even though her passengers were under their $200 allowance), they put them in secondary and took the seats out of the car, took everything out, gave it a nice little search. She got mad at me for telling her to "be honest". I said, "you've been lying to them for the whole time I've known you, they probably know that, and you've just given them a reason to search your car. Be honest always and they probably won't pay attention, if you pay taxes, so be it." I've never had a problem with bringing stuff back... I also don't go there exclusively to shop, I just like grocery shopping for snacks for the cupboard that aren't sold in Canada if I happen to be down there. S. |
#347
|
|||
|
|||
Immigration Patrols On Domestic Amtrak
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 05:00:33 GMT, Merritt Mullen
wrote: In article , Hatunen wrote: Do the proceeds from postage sales go into Treasury, and are they earmarked somehow for wages? I don't know the details and am too lazy to research them, but, presumably, yes. I don't think I care to proceed on your uncaring assumptions. You cared enough to make the flat our assertion, "As you say it [the postal service] not any kind of corporation, such as Amtrak is, and its employees are government employees paid by the Treasury Department." -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN ) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |
#348
|
|||
|
|||
Immigration Patrols On Domestic Amtrak
On 04 Aug 2007 05:33:53 GMT, "Adam H. Kerman"
wrote: Hatunen wrote: Merritt Mullen wrote: "Adam H. Kerman" wrote: The post office is NOT a public corporation or any kind of corporation. It's a government agency. Till the Nixon administration, it was a cabinet-level executive department. It is a government agency in the common meaning of the word, but it is legally defined as "an independent establishment of the executive branch." The law (39 U.S.C, sec. 201) says: "There is established, as an independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States, the United States Postal Service." I know, picky, picky. More than "picky, picky". As I said, "agency" has a specific legal meaning that does not apply to independent units such as the USPS or the Federal Reserve. If you're talking about things like civil service pay grades, the postal service isn't subject to that (thanks to much better representation by postal unions than civil service unions years ago). Teh legaal term "agency" has nothing to do with pay grades. There's some flexibility in management pay as well. There's independent purchasing and sometimes independent contruction of major facilities, assuming the post office isn't in a court house or a Roosevelt-era building. Most of the postal budget isn't subject to annual appropriation from Congress. But otherwise, the post office is subject to any other law that any other federal executive agency is subject to, like preferences for military veterans, participation in the Thrift Savings Plan. Even private delivery companies are subject to laws. As you say it not any kind of corporation, such as Amtrak is, and its employees are government employees paid by the Treasury Department. Amtrak employees are not government employees and they are paid by the corporation, not by the Treasury. Do the proceeds from postage sales go into Treasury, and are they earmarked somehow for wages? Gosh, I can't remember now. I'll have to ask. I'd honestly like to know. -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN ) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |
#349
|
|||
|
|||
Requirements to have Social Security Numbers
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 04:57:17 GMT, Merritt Mullen
wrote: In article , Hatunen wrote: And, under changing requirements of identification for employment, for giving evidence that one is part of the SS system and has an SS number. Why not just tell them your number, let them punch it into the computer and let the SSA come back with the name of the holder of that number (or vice versa, for that matter). Why trust a battered piece of paper that has been in someone's wallet for years? For about the last fifteen years I have had to present by SS card to propective empoyers. You seem to be fairly unusual in that regard given the responses I have seen so far on this group. As I said the federal government does not ask that of their prospective employees. I wassn't applying to the federal government. -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN ) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |
#350
|
|||
|
|||
Requirements to have Social Security Numbers
On 04 Aug 2007 05:47:19 GMT, "Adam H. Kerman"
wrote: Hatunen wrote: And, under changing requirements of identification for employment, for giving evidence that one is part of the SS system and has an SS number. For about the last fifteen years I have had to present by SS card to propective empoyers. Needless to say, they are easily fakeable, but the potential empoyers still photocopy my SS card and birth certificate for their records. I believe it gets them off the hook on certain federal requirements. Hardly. Demanding a birth certificate would put an employer on the hook for violating civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in hiring older Americans. Nevertheless, they do. -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN ) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How bad is Amtrak? | Odysseus | Cruises | 22 | December 18th, 2006 02:33 AM |
OT - Amtrak | Duh_OZ | Air travel | 1 | November 29th, 2006 04:10 PM |
Kenya to Request Patrols of Somalian Waters | Mark O. Polo | Cruises | 4 | November 15th, 2005 04:21 AM |
Amtrak NYC to DC - $$$$ | [email protected] | USA & Canada | 23 | May 13th, 2004 09:25 PM |
Amtrak | Mike Steen | Cruises | 2 | April 6th, 2004 02:15 AM |