03-27-2003, 11:53 AM | #51 |
Galvatron
Join Date: January 22, 2002
Location: california wine country
Age: 60
Posts: 2,193
|
My second guess was you were an 'employer'. Giving one party excessive authority over another is bad in any situation, as it leads to abuse. Fair labor laws are their because employers have abused employees in the past. Since the the power equation of employers and employees the employers have the overwelming balance of power I see no problem with current US labor laws. There is nothing in the law saying you can not fire someone, you just have to have a reasonable reason. Do you think employer actions like those taken against Cerek's wife or the security guard at the mall are reasonable?
__________________
“This is an impressive crowd, the haves and the have mores. <br />Some people call you the elite. <br />I call you my base.”<br />~ George W. Bush (2000) |
03-27-2003, 12:32 PM | #52 |
Zhentarim Guard
Join Date: February 24, 2003
Location: Indiana
Age: 61
Posts: 358
|
I'm not sure what is accomplished by the ad hominem. Are you trying to discredit the argument by pointing out a potential conflict of interest?
Additionally, whatever abuses employers have committed pales beside the way the government abuses the employees. Seriously, through payroll taxes, you lose about 15% of your money straight off the top. Between payroll taxes, workman's comp, and unemployment, you are somewhere around 25%. This is not counting any possible income tax. In other words, if not for the gov't payroll taxes and mandates, in only six hours, you could have the same "pre-tax" income you now have in 8. If your employer tried to force you to work an extra two hours for free, you would hear nothing but cries of oppression, yet when the government does it, you simply hear nothing. Compounding the problem is that taxes on corporations and investment capital increases the cost of consumer goods by somewhere between 400% and 800%. In other words, because of government, you pay 32 cents for a 4 cent can of tomato sauce. Just imagine how much better off you would be if your paycheck went 8x further. Taking it to the lowest level, imagine a $6.00 per hour ditch digger. Without the payroll taxes, he would be making $8.00 per hour. If not for the 800% increase in the prices of goods, cet. par., this ditchdigger would have the means to live the lifestyle of a current day CEO making a cool $125k per year. Alternatively, he could live the same lifestyle he has now working less than an hour a day. Not too shabby, eh? The upshot of all this is that whatever abuses employers have perpetrated upon employees are nothing compared to the abuses the government has perpetrated. They are not even in the same league. Most people see no problem with government forcing them, presumably since they got to vote on which taskmaster weilds the whip, yet have no problem screaming foul when an "evil" employer decides to replace someone with another, more qualified person, or even to phase out the position entirely. It is usually incredibly poor form to use anecdotes as the main thrust of the argument, but I'll bite. No Cerek's wife was not treated fairly, and neither was the security guard. What difference does that make? I will await your argument that because one person treated another unfairly, it is justified to empower a third person to treat a fourth person unfairly. A 42 year old guy at my wife's company just died of cancer. A local 35 year old tv personality with no symptoms dropped dead on a basketball court of a massive heart attack. Several of my friends and colleagues have already been planted at an early age due to heart disease, heart attacks, auto accidents and cancer. Some people are smarter, or faster, better looking than others. What do all these have in common? None of them are fair. In the grand scheme of things, the unfairness done to Cerek's wife wouldn't even show up in the background clutter of the unfairness of life. Life is not fair, and the sooner you learn that, the better. [ 03-27-2003, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: Thorfinn ] |
03-27-2003, 12:50 PM | #53 | |
Symbol of Cyric
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: NY
Age: 48
Posts: 1,190
|
Thorfin, just my [img]graemlins/twocents.gif[/img] but it seems to me like you are not being considerate of the fact that others might not agree with you. Others are just as right to their opinions as you are to you, but statements like
Quote:
Thanks
__________________
[img]\"http://www.bethspage.us/sig.jpg\" alt=\" - \" /> |
|
03-27-2003, 12:55 PM | #54 | |
Galvatron
Join Date: January 22, 2002
Location: california wine country
Age: 60
Posts: 2,193
|
Quote:
__________________
“This is an impressive crowd, the haves and the have mores. <br />Some people call you the elite. <br />I call you my base.”<br />~ George W. Bush (2000) |
|
03-27-2003, 01:05 PM | #55 |
Zhentarim Guard
Join Date: February 24, 2003
Location: Indiana
Age: 61
Posts: 358
|
Hmmm. I had not meant to be insulting, but merely making the point that calling attention to unfairness in some employer-employee relationships is not only a poor reason to grant some people the privilege of being unfair to others, but that the unfairness is utterly trivial. I'm making a guess here, but I would bet Cerek would think the unfairness of losing the $500 would be preferable to the unfairness of her getting hit by a bus. In most places, she could file in small claims court and get back the money anyway -- most states require the employer to pay out the two weeks regardless of whether or not they walk you out the door immediately.
"Unfair" is just not a very strong argument, particularly when your solution to unfairness is more unfairness. [ 03-27-2003, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: Thorfinn ] |
03-27-2003, 01:07 PM | #56 | |
Zhentarim Guard
Join Date: February 24, 2003
Location: Indiana
Age: 61
Posts: 358
|
Quote:
|
|
03-27-2003, 01:21 PM | #57 | |
Galvatron
Join Date: January 22, 2002
Location: california wine country
Age: 60
Posts: 2,193
|
Quote:
You do know your labor history don't you? How employers used to require 12 hour workdays. And that when early labor organizers worked to change this practice (amoung others) the companies would hire thugs to do everything from intimadation to outright murder of these organizers?
__________________
“This is an impressive crowd, the haves and the have mores. <br />Some people call you the elite. <br />I call you my base.”<br />~ George W. Bush (2000) |
|
03-27-2003, 01:24 PM | #58 | |
Galvatron
Join Date: January 22, 2002
Location: california wine country
Age: 60
Posts: 2,193
|
Quote:
__________________
“This is an impressive crowd, the haves and the have mores. <br />Some people call you the elite. <br />I call you my base.”<br />~ George W. Bush (2000) |
|
03-27-2003, 01:34 PM | #59 |
Symbol of Cyric
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: NY
Age: 48
Posts: 1,190
|
Just in case anyone is interested, you can find information about the history of labor in the US here: http://www.aflcio.org/trivia/links.htm
And,in my opinion, arguing that one injustice should be ignored because of others is just not a solid arguement. Why bother doing anything then? Why bother trying to stop torture by one government when there are other governments doing it? Why try to stop rape when there are people being murdered? One does not cancel out the other. Anyway, the site is a link of other sites with Labor hitory information. Very interesting. Anyone curious, go check it out.
__________________
[img]\"http://www.bethspage.us/sig.jpg\" alt=\" - \" /> |
03-27-2003, 01:38 PM | #60 | |||
40th Level Warrior
Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I am no fan of bloated government, so I don't want anyone to get that mistaken. But, your notion of the benevolent nature of employers ignores reality. I won't bother to dig up the hundreds of articles of massive worker accidents in mines or construction sites or chemical factories or packing industries that existed in history - and still largely do exist. Suffice to say you could find some time well-spent with Sinclair's The Jungle. On a more reflective note, I will point out that the corporate form of business promotes abuse of the worker. Why? Because a Board of Directors has one prevailing duty: value of the stock. This duty is dictated by law based on the Board's position as a FIDUCIARY of the stockholders. Because of this duty, and because all of the board members can deflect liability (both moral and legal) by simply saying "the board voted," the Board will choose to take actions (or *not* take actions) as a group that no one of them would dare decide on his/her own. Quite simply, 20 men/women sitting around a table will decide to undertake evil actions no one of them would undertake alone. As for your comment that life isn't fair, I agree. But we can try. |
|||
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Chocolate health" news somehow mutated into "Who has the best" debate | Larry_OHF | General Discussion | 34 | 03-25-2007 03:55 AM |
Searching for "Star Blazers" aka "Uchuu Senchen Yamato," or "Space Battleship Yamato" | Skydracgrrl | Entertainment (Movies, TV Shows and Books/Comics) | 3 | 12-17-2004 01:38 PM |
Searching for "Star Blazers" aka "Uchuu Senchen Yamato," or "Space Battleship Yamato" | Skydracgrrl | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 0 | 12-02-2004 09:27 PM |
status on "pool of twilight" & "EOB4, xanathar's revenge"? | manikus | Dungeon Craft - RPG Game Maker | 0 | 05-03-2003 07:28 PM |
How's This For A "First" Speech Topic? | Moni | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 33 | 09-20-2002 03:42 PM |