http://jezebel.com/creepy-quantified-se … map=%5B%5D
We all know that "voluntary" means do it or there is no promotion. That's the first problem.
Second, what right does a corporation have to know your personal habits? Is there no privacy anymore!?!?!?!? Remember in 1984 when all citizens were required to exercise every morning before the telescreen...
Employers should be able to dictate the requirements of employment. If I want to offer you a job, but you have to wear a pink shirt when you are at home, then that's a contract if you agree to it. People should be able to make contracts.
And..dictatorship. You just proved my point. A contract doesn't mean you get to control every aspect of my life. That's called slavery.
When unions were first formed, they were to protect the abuses of the worker from the employer. But as time passed, like some organizations, they become too powerful and corrupt. Then the balance of power moves the other way. it sounds as if the company wants to ensure their employee's healthfulness so they can make them more productive, thus increasing their bottom line. It's much like the insurance company ads where they want you to thrive...translation, stay healthy so that you don't file any claims and we can still charge exorbitant premium fees. It's still exploitation of the people. In an ideal world, there would be a balance of power where people where not be excessively exploited and companies could still make a reasonable profit.
No, it's not, because you aren't forced into agreeing.
The EMPLOYER owns the job, so the EMPLOYER should be FREE(that freedom thing) to dictate the requirements for the job. Potential employees are FREE to accept, reject, or counter-offer.
So you've given me another reason why capitalism is authoritarian.
FREEDOM is authoritarian. I'm the authority on the rules if you want to be in MY house. I'm the authority on the rules if you want to be on MY private property in MY company.
When you have freedom, you are the ultimate authority over your own domain.
I don't have to go to your house to eat . And to take that sort of attitude tells me a lot about how you treat people who have less power than you.
But again, I say thank you for showing me how authoritarian capitalism really is. You are going to be my example.
I also wonder if a boss should be able to beat you for insubordination, assuming you sign a contract authorizing him to?
How do I treat people with 'less power' than me? Please, I would love to hear details.
Do you disagree? Do you think that a guest at your home should be able to make the rules?
A contract cannot supercede law, but ideally, if you are stupid enough to sign a contract that you will allow someone to beat you, I'm not going to try and stop you.
I'm not arguing that a guest should "make the rules" in your house. What I'm saying is your attitude of complete power over all under you in your house disturbs me. If your parents live/lived with you, does that mean you can control what they say and do at all times? How they dress? What they watch?
What if there was no law against an employer beating an insubordinate employee? Let's say assault is illegal, but in certain circumstances like this, it wouldn't be "assault."
My attitude is that I have complete power over the RULES in my house. If you don't like my rules, you can leave. That's not power over people. Why does it disturb you? Either you are the AUTHORITY(authoritarian) in your house, or you are not.
If my parents wanted to come live with me, I certainly have the right to say 'Sure, but only if you wear blue shirts'. They can agree, or stay somewhere else. It doesn't mean I'm going to do that, but they have no right to make up the rules of my property.
As I said before, if you want to sign a contract allowing your employer to beat you, then go for it. I'm not going to try and stop you. You need to be responsible for your contracts, not me. So yeah, go for it. I have no problem with it.
YAY! I disagree with you... sort of.
Your parents choosing to live with you, yeah I agree there.
Your children are a little different because they didn't choose to live with you. So yeah, authoritarian over the adults that choose to be there yes... The kids a little different. So yeah, telling your kids they must wear blue shirts to live in the house, that might be considered... something else.
My attitude is that I have complete power over the RULES in my house. If you don't like my rules, you can leave. That's not power over people. Why does it disturb you? Either you are the AUTHORITY(authoritarian) in your house, or you are not.
I think you sound like a very controlling person. Feel free to shoot me.
Why would I shoot you?
Would you allow me to decide what the rules in your household are? If you had a business, would you allow me to tell you how to run it?
Why would you shoot her, she doesn't have a blue shirt maybe?
Re: the shoot you message, was only kidding.
No, I would not allow you to tell me the rules in my house. However, you are a stranger, my children, on the other hand, live here too. They didn't ask to be born, nor did they ask to be born to me. As a parent, my mission is to raise young people who are independent thinkers and who are, hopefully, also confident enough to challenge me, their mother. When this happens, we discuss it. I balance their safety and well being with the issues that they have raised. Ultimately it is my decision, but I pat myself on the back because at least they are confident enough, and in no way cowarded down, to raise the issues in the first place. Also, sometimes I'm wrong. And they, these bright and confident young adults, have brought this to my attention.
This applies in all walks of life- when the one who ultimately holds the power, wants the best outcome for all.
Ok, but that has nothing to do with what we have been talking about. You go out of your way to call me a controlling person, when you hold the same viewpoint that I do. Why?
You say that you agree with me, yet, your statement above does not sound like it comes from a man who wants to discuss the issues. On the contrary, you categorically state that you are an authoritarian, they like your rules or lump them. How can your children disagree with you or discuss problems, if they are faced with eviction for doing so? I think that's controlling.
This discussion isn't about children. It's about adults and contractual agreements.
All this talk about children is completely irrelevant.
So if the comparison with children and contractual obligations is irrelevant, why did you make it in the first place?
I didn't. I didn't say anything about children. YOU brought it up in the first place.
Actually Melissa Barrett brought up children. This is all you said about children.
"Children are, of course, a different matter, which is why we don't let them enter contracts in the first place."
Apologies, you are right, you mentioned the rules in your house- although you didn't specifically mention children. But you're a parent and you also mentioned your parents, so I assumed that the "rules" applied to family members which include children. If not, who, exactly did you mean: wife, mother, father? Either way, if they are family members do they not also have rights as you?
So family members then. Ok, so parents don't have rights?
The other poster brought up parents. I said that if my parents want to live in my house, they have to agree to the rules.
NOBODY has 'rights' to dictate how things are run in another person's private home or business.
Parents, and yes they have rights but he does too. In his hypothetical If they wanted to stay with him they would have to wear blue shirts. They also have the freewill to not stay with him.
Guests. In the original discussion I was referring to guests. If you want to come to my house, fine, but the rules are set by me. You have no right to setting them. That makes me the authoritarian in the interaction.
But why all this talk of homes?
A workplace is nobodies home and house rules cannot apply.
If you have somebody in your house to do work on it they aren't your guests and though you can make requests such as they don't smoke in your house or sit and watch the telly while you are paying them, the minute they leave your house they can do whatever they want, with whoever they want and however they want and you can't stop them.
The workplace should be a partnership with each side bringing something essential to the workplace, both sides equally important.
A home is like a business. I own my home. I own my business.
If I want to tell you that you can only come over to my house if you wear a blue shirt at the grocery store, and you sign a contract agreeing to that, then OF COURSE I can require you to do so.
Why are some of you so scared of letting people enter into contracts?
No problem at all with reasonable contracts.
A contract dictating what I wear outside work is unreasonable.
So, if I want to hire you to sit at a computer and click 'reset' if my server goes down... and I offer to pay you $150,000 per year, plus full benefits... but I say you have to wear a blue shirt whenever you go to the grocery store, you think that's unreasonable and nobody should be allowed to accept it?
Why shouldn't the two parties involved in the contract be the ones to decide whether or not it is reasonable?
I'll ask again. Why are you so scared of letting people enter into contracts? Why don't you think people should be empowered to decide for themselves?
No, I never said nobody should be allowed to accept it, that is your authoritarian interpretation of it.
I believe in freedom and especially freedom from oppression, you obviously don't and therefore we will never agree.
You said that you don't have a problem with reasonable contracts, and that the contract I listed would be unreasonable.
If you aren't saying nobody should be allowed to accept unreasonable contracts, what are you saying?
And LOL at you claiming you believe in freedom more than I do. That's choice.
I'm saying that an unreasonable contract is, well, unreasonable and probably wouldn't be upheld in any English court. That isn't the same as saying nobody should be allowed to accept.
And as for a belief in freedom, that isn't choice, you have clearly demonstrated that you pay lip service to it only and don't really believe in it.
It should be upheld. Don't you think two adults should be able to agree to that contract? Sorry for misunderstanding you, but I couldn't understand why you would respond to my post the way you did unless you thought those contracts shouldn't be valid.
Please expound on what freedoms I don't really believe in. I don't believe in the freedom to other people's stuff, so that doesn't count.
You do not believe in peoples freedom to live their life the way they chose when away from their employment.
Sure I do.
If someone wants to enter a contract, which states they will live their life a certain way when away from their employment, then I support that. I SUPPORT THEIR FREEDOM TO ENTER THAT CONTRACT.
The only other option is to say that they DONT have that freedom to enter that contract. Do you support their freedom to do so, or not?
No, the other option is to say that an employer has no right to push an unfair contract on an employee.
Remember a contract should be binding on both parties, I'll settle for having to wear a blue shirt at all times if the employer promises to hop around on one leg clucking like a chicken at all times.
The employer has no need to hop around on one leg, as he is getting no consideration for it. The employee, however, IS getting consideration. He's being paid.
With due respect Melissa, what planet do you live on where the employer gets no consideration for his labour?
He does get consideration. He gets to determine what the employee that works for him does.
An employer is "buying" the ability to decide what his employee has to do to receive his money.
How do you feel about employers or supervisors who "hit on" women employees? I guess if they don't like it they can quit and find a job somewhere else?
That constitutes sexual harassment and THAT is against the law. Such employers are highly liable and can be terminated for such an offense. Many employers are terminated for sexually harassing their employees.
Of course. It's just an example of a limitation on Jaxon's theory of the employer's right to make whatever rules he wants because he "owns the jobs." It is against the law in the United States, but not in all countries. [My question was addressed to Melissa, but she didn't bite.]
A discussion on what should be and what current law is are two separate issues.
From a freedom perspective, an employer should be able to hit on an employee. The only thing he shouldn't be able to do is cause harm to someone against their will.
I bit... I was just putting the kiddies to bed.
I don't think Jaxsom was arguing for allowing illegal behavior. I, however, was... in a way. I know the contracts wouldn't be legally and thus unenforceable, but I see absolutely no problem in... I will pay you x if you let me hit on you x times a day.
I don't think strippers, who take it every day, are being exploited or having their rights infringed. I think they agreed to it when they took on the job. I'm not a stripper... for obvious reasons... but I would hate to be told I couldn't do it because someone else was concerned about protecting my rights.
I'm not talking about strippers but rather about women employees in offices and factories who may be supporting families and who are forced with "putting out for their boss" or quitting and looking for a job elsewhere. You and Jaxon are trying to support a ridiculous extreme libertarian employer position. You're worrying about employer rights and forgetting employee rights.
Employee rights? Employees have the right to whatever is stated in their contract. Nothing more.
The 'ridiculous libertarian' view is the view that people should be FREE to make their own decisions. But no, you can't have that. No Ralph, you can't let me take a job that requires me to wear a blue shirt at the grocery store, now can you?
Wow, I've never been called a libertarian before... generally I get accused of being a liberal.
If a women gets hit on every day, and didn't agree to it, then the employer is wrong. If she agree to it and signed a contract agreeing to it, then that is her choice.
Should women be allowed to be harassed at work if they signed up to be factory workers and that's it?
Should women be allowed to be harassed at work if they signed a contract of their own free will to accept money to be hit on?
Absolutely, and I resent anyone trying to say I shouldn't be able to have that choice. (Even if I never decide to make it)
That's a far fetched example. Of course it happens every day without any contractual agreement because jobs are hard to find and families must be supported.
Actually, it's a pertinent point, although it is a far-fetched example (Mainly because the contract would be illegal)
But sexual harassment is an involuntary act. Signing a contract is a voluntary act.
If you are being harassed at work there are legal recourses... there are even legal recourses to protect you from taking legal recourses.
How you choose to handle it is also your decision...
And all of this is a digression anyway because the main point is an employer should have the right to request anything he likes in a contract and a potential employee should have the right to reject it or accept it.
That's an extreme libertarian view which is completely biased toward employers and inconsiderate of humane treatment of employees. Fortunately there are laws on the books that endeavor to prevent unsafe, immoral conditions in the workplace. (I say endeavor as a result of the fertilizer plant explosion in West, Texas.)
Completely biased, actually, towards freedom.
I hope you weigh in on that other thread, I want to understand why you want to keep me from agreeing to do what I want to do.
"Completely biased, actually, towards freedom."
Actually toward the abuse of employees by morally defective employers of which there are many ranging from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase to the West, Texas, fertilizer plant.
Toward the abuse of employers by not allowing them to control what they own.
Employees have no right to anything. Employers own the business, they should have every right to everything.
Can I have all the stuff in your house? I want it.
You really just like to make stuff up, don't you? Can't follow an argument through to the end, just change topic or make up a straw man.
Employers don't own employees. They pay them a contractually agreed-upon compensation for work done.
Going off on irrelevant and baseless tangents again as usual.............................
Not to digress and to stay on the subject at hand, Jaxson, what you have explained is elementary business and/or economic principle. The employer has something that the employee wants and the latter fulfills the former's need, pure and simple.
The average 6th grader and an astute 4th grader easily comprehend this principle. It is utterly futile to explain such a concept to Mr. Holden.
Why is that?
You could, as a potential employee also ask that the boss jump up and down on one foot once an hour instead of paying you an hourly wage. If he accepts, then he doesn't have to pay you a damn thing for working. If he doesn't you don't get the contract.
Would that be unfair?
It's sad Melissa... as a nation we have become so dependent on the Government making sure that we can't agree to do anything that could even be considered possibly bad, nobody even thinks before signing contractcs. They just know that the government will take care of them.
Yeah, don't think for a second that that little bit of cognitive dissonance is going to let you win any gun-control debates with me
I came up with an actual historic example of Henry Ford attempting to require his factory workers to go to church every Sunday which you have ignored only to come up with another unrealistic, theoretical example.
I generally agree that employers and employees should be free to enter into mutually agreeable employment agreements. However, that's not an absolute right and it assumes the availability of other job opportunities which is not always the case, especially in the case of undocumented immigrants who employers tend to take advantage of, and others who have no other viable choice.
Did the employees knowingly enter into an agreement to go to church?
If yes, then unionizing was a way to void a valid contract... (I'm assuming at the time it wasn't illegal)
If no, then he was expecting something that was above what they signed up for.
Undocumented workers (i.e. illegal immigrants) should not have the protection of the US constitution as they are not US citizens (And yes I know my liberal card is going to be taken away from me any second) In which case, they are taking advantage of a system as well... as they aren't paying income taxes on their pay. Also, illegal immigrants, I believe, have no legal standing to enter into employment contracts... nor should they.
As such, it is also unrelated to the topic, as before, illegal contracts are invalid from the start. Neither party can legally be held to one.
Undocumented workers are screwed because if they complain that their employer is violating the law, e.g., not paying them overtime or hitting on women workers, or requiring work in unsafe conditions they fear they will be deported. Wage and hour laws, and OSHA laws and sexual harrassment laws apply to every covered workplace regardless of whether the workers are citizens, green card holders or undocumented. However, it's well known that many employers skirt the law wrt undocumented workers.
Walmart has also been convicted of violating a number of laws in the case of employees who are U.S. citizens. For example, locking the doors at quitting time and keeping all employees in the store to straighten up stock without paying them for the time. Many accept this because they don't want to complain and lose their job. Some may have been aware of the illegal practice and took the job anyway, in effect, accepting the violation. Are you saying that their foreknowledge of the abuse and accepting the job anyway makes it okay? That's indefensible, in my opinion. That's like saying it's okay to be a crook so long as you don't get caught.
Um... they don't pay taxes... So yeah, not legally employed on either side. Both violating the law. Neither side deserves protection.
OHSA laws apply to cite safety... regardless of whether you are even employed there (Go figure)
Labor laws only apply to those who are working legally.
Walmart is violating labor laws in those cases... which has absolutely nothing to do with signing a contract. It is being done against their will and they didn't sign up for it. If they knowingly sign up for a certain situation that is stated in a contract then yes, they either quit or deal with it.
Hey if you are arguing that corporate america sucks, then I'm right there with you. However, if you say I can't sign a contract because you don't think it's fair... then those are MY rights you are stepping on.
"Labor laws only apply to those who are working legally."
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't believe that's correct.
I'm not a lawyer either... But illegal immigrants don't have the same rights as US citizens. That's just the way it is. Their rights wouldn't be violated if they didn't break the law to get the job in the first place. I have all the sympathy in the world for them, but they are breaking the law and therefore shouldn't be protected by the same law they are breaking.
I do know that OSHA follows work site not employees directly. I had that pounded into my head enough.
No, that's apprently not just the way it is:
From the Quincy, Illinois Chamber of Commerce:
Barring limited exceptions, the average workplace is subject to a wide variety of federal and state laws and regulations creating employee rights involving wage rates, hours of work, over time, civil rights, health and safety. Employer violations of these laws and regulations can be enforced by individual employees, employee representatives, like unions, and/or specific government agencies, like EEOC, OSHA, or the federal or state departments of labor. Do these types of rights also apply to illegal workers? The answer is “yes,” for the most part, especially in Illinois.
In 2009, an Illinois Appellate Court ruled that the Illinois Workers Compensation Act applied to injured employees, regardless of their immigration status. The court based its decision on the definition of “employee” in the Act, which contained the phrase “including aliens.” The court also found that nothing in the existing Federal Immigration Reform and Control Act precluded a state from applying its worker protection laws to illegal workers. As a result, an illegal worker employed in violation of federal law was eligible to receive workers compensation benefits, including an award for permanent total disability. The same reasoning would also seem to allow illegal workers to benefit from such laws like the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The operative definitions of “employee” in all of these laws focus on doing work for an employer, not the immigration status of the worker. In the federal sphere, a variety of federal courts in Illinois and other states have ruled that illegal workers are protected by and can enforce the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (governing wage rates, hours of work and overtime pay) and the employment anti-discrimination provisions of the federal civil rights laws, for example, for similar reasons.
http://www.quincychamber.org/current-is … -immigants
Wow, what an ignorant law. But ok. You're right.
Still doesn't matter.
You are talking about an employer violating rights involuntarily. Jaxsom and I are talking about the right to sign a contract to have those rights "violated" because we want to.
You do understand the difference... right?
Say you were willing to live in a glass house (violating privacy) and signed a contract with an employer that you would do so-on your time off-for an additional 120,000 a year.
Should I be able to tell you that you can't sign that contract because it violates your rights?
Please, dear God, a yes or no answer.
There ARE laws against some of those things, but there SHOULDN'T be.
The is-ought fallacy causes a lot of problems.
The biggest problem in this debate is that I don't think anyone is understanding the word voluntary, as in I CHOOSE TO DO THIS OF MY OWN FREE WILL.
Yes, corporations can and do violate rights...
However, they aren't violating rights if I voluntarily agree to something.
I don't care if the economy sucks, or I really really want a new car... or whatever. The factors, short of the legal definition of coercion, that I choose to do this are not my employers responsibility. Nor are they the concerns of anyone else.
You little libertarian you!
How dare you think people should be free to make choices!!!
Well, it's against the law... and like whoever said a 10 dollar recorder can take care of that.
I have been in those positions and handled them without being fired or quitting... but that's just me. I'm not overly offended by unwanted advances and a quick "Would you like me to shut that thing in the desk?" took care of it pretty quickly for me.
I understand other women are different and should handle it any way they see fit.
An employer doesn't have the right to force an employee to sign anything.
Yes or no, should a person have the right to enter into a contract that dictates their behavior outside of the workplace? If you love freedom as much as you claim, you have to say yes.
Yes, but that does not mean that I agree with the employer imposing unfair conditions on an employee.
YOU BELIEVE that a person has the right to enter a contract dictating what they do outside of work.
So do I.
But, because I believe that, you think that I don't believe in "peoples freedom to live their life the way they chose when away from their employment."?
Lol, I do believe in that belief. Nobody is forced to enter a contract dictating what they do outside of work, so they have the freedom to live their life the way they choose. If they choose the contract, then they have chosen to live their life that way too.
So tell me again John, what freedom don't I believe in? The first one you tried has fallen on its face.
How many people truly have the choice of whether to enter into a contract or not?
It may be different in the US but here in the UK we see hundreds of people applying for a single job. If an employer wants to impose ridiculous conditions on a prospective employee then most prospective employees are going to accept them as a better alternative to having nothing.
Anyone who is an adult and of sound mind has the choice.
Scarcity of jobs doesn't force anything. Start your own job if you don't like the options.
Oh yes, so the guy down the road who has no ability or opportunity to start a job of his own should just go out and start a job of his own!
In one way or another, he should take control of his life.
Nobody can force someone to accept a job. There is a choice. Take it, or don't. You can't deny that the person has a choice.
If that job didn't exist, the person would be even WORSE off, because he wouldn't have that choice.
So John, I'm still waiting. What freedoms don't I believe in? You were very critical of me, but the only thing you have come up with so far, you agreed with me on.
That's so easy it's hardly worth an answer - you don't believe in the freedom to live your life in the way that you chose.
That freedom might involve working for the ABC corporation and wearing a suit and tie to work, but at the weekend putting on my colours and riding my Hog, you wouldn't allow that.
Of course I do... I believe you have the freedom to live your life however you want, right up until you start encroaching on the rights of others.
You have the right to work for ABC corporation, wear a suit and tie to work, and ride your hog on the weekends, as long as you and ABC corporation both agree that you can do so.
I never said I wouldn't allow it, that's a lie.
But you are quite happy that the ABC corporation might not allow it!
ABC Corporation has the right to hire an employee or not. They have the right to require that employees not ride motorcycles or not.
The prospective employee has the right to accept the job or not. He DOES NOT have the right to force ABC Corporation to enter into a contract that he dictates.
But ABC have the right to force the employee into a contract!
Nope. The employee can accept or reject the contract.
Sure he can!
Don't you have a recession in the US any more? Back to full employment are you?
Yes, he can reject the contract. Thanks for agreeing with me again.
We don't have full employment. Know what I did? I started a business!
Say you live in an area with no jobs. I move into town and offer you a job, but say that if you accept it you can't ride a motorcycle. Are you any worse off having that offer of employment than you were before I came into town?
Of course I am worse off! I can no longer ride my bike.
No, you don't have to accept.
How are you any worse off? If you agree not to ride your bike, then you have a job. If you agree to that, then clearly the job is more important to you than riding your bike, so you are better off. If your bike were more important, you wouldn't accept, and you would be in the same position as before I came to town.
So how are you worse off by having a choice? That's ridiculous.
Yes, they can choose not to take the job, eventually lose their benefit, and become starving and homeless. It is a choice, but it can be a coerced one. Like the choice you have when someone points a gun at your head and asks for your wallet.
The default position is that there is no job though. It's an option more than default, you have to feel entitled to having someone else make a job for you to have that attitude.
I'll ask you too. Say you can't get work in your town. I show up, open a store, and offer you a job, but you have to wear blue shirts when you go shopping if you accept.
You are no worse off with that job offer than you were before I came. In fact, you are better off, because you have another option. Nobody can force you to take the job, you would be in the same position if I never offered it in the first place.
These entitlement mentalities disgust me. If you don't like what employers are offering you, then become an employer and provide better jobs. People are sickeningly disrespectful to those who are giving them opportunities to work.
And employers are sickeningly disrespectful of those who will come and make them rich!
There is no default position. People apply for jobs. The jobs should be ones a reasonable person would take. All of them.
There is not a right to any specific job. And there is not a right to treat your workers like your personal playthings either. You can reasonably only ask them to do things that are innately connected to doing the work.
Of course there is a default position. Jobs don't exist until someone creates them. The default position is no job.
There is a right to enter contracts. If I want to hire you, but require you to hop on one foot in front of my desk once a day, then you have to do that if you agree to the contract. You're an adult, you can make your own decisions.
No, it isn't. There is no "default" in this situation. Workers and employers need each other equally and in equal capacity.
And the reason you can't have any contract you want is because both slavery and indentured servitude are illegal.
You can hire workers, you can require them to work.
You can't make them adopt your religion, eat only yellow foods or any other arbitrary bollocks because you don't own them and you aren't allowed to. Even if you can get them to sign a contract to that effect,
Employers can require workers to work, workers can require employers to pay them--that is all.
You HAVE to have an employer for a job to exist.
So, without an employer, there is no job.
Were you born with a job? Were you born with an employee?
So you just don't believe in freedom? You don't think I should have the freedom to enter a contract saying I will wear a blue shirt whenever I go shopping?
And what about the default position of nobody to do the jobs?
Yet another reason why the capitalist market does not like full employment, it gives the worker power.
Yes, by default, there is no job, and no employee.
The only way for an employee to have a job is for an employer to offer it.
So, the employer is the catalyst that creates the opportunity for the employee.
Still waiting John, what freedoms don't I believe in? Or would you rather apologize for calling me hypocritical?
I apologise for nothing, you still haven't proved that you really believe in freedom for everybody, you've proved that you believe in freedom for corporate bosses, but not those who work for them.
And as you hold the worker in such low regard I'm sure you have plenty of examples of people who've made their fortunes without employing a single person.
What are you talking about? You agreed with me! You agreed that an employee should be able to enter a contract. The employer has the freedom to offer a contract. The prospective employee has the right to accept it or reject it. Heck, the prospective employee has a right to offer a contract, and the employer has a right to accept it or reject it.
Which right, specifically, don't I believe in then?
Also, John, it's a complete lie that i hold the worker in low regard. I hold workers in regard according to their work. Holding a worker in high regard doesn't mean that I allow him to set the rules for the business though.
No, just as long as he behaves like a good slave.
As long as he acts like a good employee. As long as he does his work, according to his contract, well.
Slaves don't get paid. Slavery is not voluntary.
So if I pay somebody a dollar a week they are getting paid and therefore are not a slave!
How many people volunteer to go to work and how many go to work to survive?
You've still to tell me on which planet the employers don't get paid.
On this planet employees don't pay their employers.
If you are paying your employer, you are doing it wrong...
Employees are assets. Just like any good asset they help their employer earn money... They do this by doing what their employer tells them to do. If they are unwilling to do this, they are no longer assets. Why would an employer want an employee that won't do what they agreed to do? Then they are liabilities. They are costing their employer money. A job is not welfare. Employers don't give you money for not doing what they need you to do.
On what planet do people get paid for not doing what their employer requires? I want to go there.
Then where do employers get the money to pay their employees? Do they have part time jobs to earn the money for that?
This is nothing to do with whether an employee does or doesn't do what an employer requires of him, it is all to do with what control an employer should have over an employees life.
In an ideal world there should be mutual respect between employer and employee with both sides working as a team to a common goal, not one side or the other trying their hardest to screw the other side into the ground.
Look at Germany where trade unions are almost none existent but where there is that mutual respect and that common goal and then look at the US and the UK where that master/servant ethos is firmly entrenched and then tell me which country has the more successful economy.
Employers get their money to pay their employees from their employees. Duh, it's simple.
When I was working for someone else, I distinctly remember paying him $20 per hour... then he turned around and gave me back $15 per hour.
That is the exact point I was making, it's a partnership, neither could survive without the other, but you would have all the power in the hands of the employer when if the truth were told, neither is more powerful than the other.
And you would be right... if the employee had used his time, effort, and money to create the opportunity in the first place. But he didn't, so you're wrong.
You're talking about a partnership, where the input/output of each partner is the same. It's ridiculous to say that the employer is no more important than the employee. I should be on the same standing in the company, after investing thousands of hours of my own work, and tens of thousands of dollars in creating the business, as the person who just showed up to take advantage of what I had made possible?
That does seem like a very strange thing to say.
The only way I can think of 'controlling' in a bad sense is the wish to control other people without their consent . . . which is what socialism is all about incidentally.
Innersmiff, you forgot to add, imho when it comes to socialism. That may seem like an odd statement to you, but this is based on my experiences as a daughter of a loving but controlling father, and a parent who often tries to find the balance. Perhaps you could offer your experiences of both to further enlighten us?
Socialism is defined by aggressive intervention in the economy, i.e. telling people what to do. There's no getting around that.
It doesn't take any particular past experience to see your statement was a strange thing to say, only a bit of logic. There are in fact only 3 things you could say on the subject:
1. The owner of the house has sole authority over it
2. An outside party or individual has authority over it
3. Nobody has authority over it.
If you're arguing for 2, the reasons given have to be completely arbitrary seeing as the individual has the right to their property. 3 would just be complete chaos.
So if by saying "I have authority over my own home" means I am a 'controlling' person, so be it. I wish very much to be able to have authority over myself and property, since it is my right. It seemed to me that you were insinuating that asserting that right was somehow a bad thing. You bring up your experiences, but the argument about how best to exercise that right is a completely different one. Honestly, what other option is there other than "I have complete authority over my home"?
Sooner, you didn't answer one of my questions.
How do I treat people under me? You said it disturbs you... what exactly about how I treat people disturbs you? Specifics please.
As your subjects. By your own words. I don't know if you are a benevolent dictator or not, but your view of your house is a dictatorship.
No, I don't view anyone as my subjects.
If someone is coming over to my house, they are a guest. Since it is my house, they have to play by the rules of my house or they are no longer welcome. That's a far cry from calling them my subjects.
Will you let me set the rules in your house? If not, then you are dictating the rules. So which is it, can I come over, eat all your food, and take your TV?
Professional boxers get beaten for money every day. That's their job, that's what they sign up for.
Or are they oppressed too?
Seriously, if you sign up for something, you make the willing choice to deal with it or quit. Personal responsibility.
That's not even close to the same. False analogies weaken your ethos drastically.
Perhaps it would hold if the boxing instructor could punch his fighters in the face if they didn't comply. Signing up to fight is not the same as enduring physical punishment from an employer.
If you are signing up to be physically abused at your job... does it really matter who is doing it? And yes, if a boxer doesn't listen to his trainer the end effect is getting punched in the face.
I'm curious why you feel the average person is too stupid to decide what they are willing to do for employment all on their own? Why do you feel they need someone to make that decision for them?
Are you signing up to be physically abused when you work at wal-mart?
How bout rape? How bout torture? What if you a sign a contract for those? Do you just say anything goes in employment?
I didn't realize the issues this forum would reveal. It's enlightening.
If that's what is in the employment contract, then yes.
Well, If wal-mart says that in order to accept the job, I will need to agree to be physically abused and I agree to that, then yes it's completely on me. There are people in certain industries that do agree to those terms, and I assume the payout is worth it to them. That is THEIR choice, not anyone else's.
Would I sign a contract for it, likely not. Should I choose to sign that contract of my own free will, however, then it certainly isn't anyone else's business.
Capitalism is authoritarian. There is no such thing as "authoritarian capitalism" because that would imply there is a capitalism that is not authoritarian.
This is Hans-Herman Hoppe's theory:
We live in a world of scarcity. When there is scarcity, there is conflict. Therefore, there necessarily needs to be rules (authority) to resolve those conficlts. It is our job to figure out whether we want one party or individual dictating the rules to everyone else or we work it through spontaneous order and contract. Since the first has inherent contradictions (the central authority is expected to resolve conflicts involving itself fairly?), we have to plump for the second, which means we have to declare the rights to our selves and property, and absolute authority over them.
Authority is a life necessity, and it is far better to have multiple agents of authority restricted to self and property than the two other options: an ultimate central authority or no rules whatsoever. So capitalism may be authoritarian, but it is the best kind of authoritarian.
Well, the sustainability of the resources is a problem. If your economic system requires massive consumption of scarce resources to function, you are going to end up destroying the planet.
Hans does make some sense. I don't think it's completely irrational. However, capitalism isn't truly multiple agents of authority (at least the way it's done in the United States). There are a handful of corporations that dominate everyone.
Good point; if the company demands that you exercise from 5 to 6, then you've earned an hour's pay. If they demand you consume this and that during the meal period, then you've earned another hours pay. Plus the "this and that" cost. If they want it written up, they can pay for the time you spend writing it. A company cannot decline to pay for time worked; if they are requiring certain actions they can pay for performing those actions.
Salaried folks might have a tough time here, but also have a shot at proving they don't fall under the laws for being salaried at all. It is also possible they could end up earning less than minimum wage, especially if their sleep time is arranged by the company.
The only way I can see requiring exercise is if your job is physical. So if you are a cop or security guard, it's good to be in shape; it's inherent in the job itself.
If you are a computer programmer, your exercise (unless you are ridiculously gluttonous) has a minimal effect on doing your job.
I disagree. I am with Jaxson, if you agree to do it then that is your choice.
There are plenty of companies that will fire you for your behavior off-duty. If my employer fires me because I was youtubed stupid drunk then that is his right. Yet I am not entitled to any hourly pay for being sober.
Companies should be free to choose who they hire and what conditions they put on the hiring... as long as they don't violate labor laws.
Particularly if this company is paying health insurance, has a public image as a "fit" company, or has employees constantly in the public eye.
As an employee, you are an asset. When you sign up for employment, the employer should tell you what that asset means to the company and you agree to either comply or find another job.
STOP AGREEING WITH ME! ITS FREAKING ME OUT!!!
This is all a little gray, but...
A company cannot, for instance, demand you be on the job 10 minutes before your pay starts every day. Just as they cannot ask you to work over without being paid; if a supervisor "allows" it and the company knows about it they can be heavily fined, with triple pay going to the employees so mistreated.
Bottom line; if a company has the right to demand you perform this or that task, you must be paid for doing it. No exceptions, although it can get a little gray in what a company can demand of a salaried employee.
#1 There are plenty of things people cannot agree to in contracts.
#2 The workplace control should go no further than the workplace
#3 companies should not be exploiting people's desperation for work to impose themselves on the private lives of their employees.
1 - I know, I'm talking about 'should be able to'.
2 - I disagree. If two people are willing to agree to a contract that the employee must wear a pink shirt while out shopping, then that contract should be fulfilled. We don't need the government to say what we can and can't agree to, that's not freedom.
3 - Always turning the good guys(the ones who made jobs, risked time/money/effort to create jobs) into the bad guys. If you don't like the terms of employment, find another job or create your own.
I never said we had to ban the practice that does not make it right or acceptable, creating a job does not make you a good guy, that is nonsensical, it makes you someone who wants to make money off employees, nothing wrong with that but it is certainly not a virtue.
People are desperate they lose the ability to negotiate and refuse to feed themselves and their families and some companies (bad ones) are leaping on the opportunity to exploit that hardship to force themselves into the private lives of other where they have no business being and if the trend continues it will become a common and accepted practice expanding ever more into the private lives of employees and the result is a loss of freedom, but obviously that is fine when it's a company doing it, that just drips hypocrisy.
The choice between unemployment and hunger or a company intruding in your private life is not freedom no matter how much those looking to profit from it will call it "choice".
An employer has no responsibility to provide jobs. He owns them. He controls them. A citizen has no right to the company at all.
You simply cannot say that people don't have a choice. They do. They can create their own business. They can find another job. If the employer didn't exist, they would be no worse off. It's an entitlement mentality that looks at jobs like that.
No freedom is lost. If I offer to pay you $20/hr, 5 days a week, 8 hours a day, to post on forums, but I want you to wear a pink shirt at the store, there's NO loss of freedom on your part, whether you accept or not.
Henry Ford tried to require his workers to go to church every Sunday. That and a number of workplace injustices with no opportunity for redress led to the unionization of all of his factory workers in the United States in 1940, the last of the auto companies to be unionized.
Cool, has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
Are you ever going to answer my other question Ralph?
"Cool, has nothing to do with what we are talking about."
Why would you say that Ford requiring his workers to go to church on Sundays has nothing to do with what you're talking about? They no doubt had heard about the policy, and if they didn't like it they could quit and find a job with GM whose treasurer was Jewish. (Henry didn't hire jews.)
No. I couldn't understand what you were driving at. You contradicted what John Bogle said about 401k plan ripoffs with a question that made no sense to me. And now that you bring up your unfounded assertions read this article by the Alan Sloan, Editor of Fortune magazine on corporate taxes:
http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/10/news/co … index.html
If you answer the question, I'll explain why John is wrong. You asked me to explain, so why don't you let me explain?
Did you read Sloan's article. Care to retract what you said about GE's taxes?
As I said I don't understand your question? I explained why your are full of crap as usual, and why John Bogle is correct. If you don't agree with Bogle, feel free to explain why. I'm not going to play twenty questions with you.
You expect me to counter a point made by somebody else, before you even give me the consideration of RESPONDING TO THE POINT I WAS MAKING WHEN YOU ASKED ME TO EXPLAIN IT???
If I pay you $500 to do a job, did I pay you $500 or did I pay you $74,389?
Okay, if you paid me $500 to do a job, you paid me $500 to do a job. What does that have to do with 401k providers ripping off participants?
The article you posted used the future potential value of money, rather than the current value of money. It calculated what the money you paid someone to manage your 401K this year for, out to 65 years of interest.
So it acted like you were paying someone $74,000, when in reality you were only paying them $500. Do you understand the difference between counting the current value of money, and what that money could be worth in 65 years?
The participant in a 401k plan doesn't only pay $500. He continues to pay the provider of the plan and the investment vehicle every year so long as he participates in the plan, for one year or 65 years. Many of the plan administrators and providers take a huge cut out of the return on the employee's investment, because regulations permit it, because employees are ignorant of the facts and because employers fail to consider the interest of their participating employees. This is a well known fact. Bogle has testified before Congressional committees on the need for reform of the rules to reduce costs and to increase participation so that more people with have something more than Social Security to live on in retirement.
Yes, I know. But each time he pays something, he pays the value he pays. NOT what that value would be worth after 65 years of investment at 8%. See the problem?
Yes, I see the problem quite clearly. An employee invests in an ill conceived ripoff 401k plan and the money is invested at 8%, and 2% goes to administration, trading costs, and sometimes to kickbacks to employers for signing up for a crappy plan. Or worse, one that also requires participants' savings to be invested in their own employer's stock. contrary to what any objective investment adviser would recommend. As Bogle has said, 401k plan costs are too high and participation is too low for the vehicle to be a substitute for a traditional defined benefit pension plan (although they have problems also).
That's not what I was talking about.
You pay 2% of the interest. The article represented that 2% not as face value, but as what it would be worth after 65 years of investment. Stop going off on tangents.
It's just the same as me claiming that I paid you $74,000 for doing a job, when I only paid you $500. Yeah, that $500 would have been worth $74000 after 65 years, but it's not.
I did explain why. You didn't understand, and asked me to explain. If you answer my question, I'll be able to explain. It's really pathetic to ask someone to explain and then refuse to answer a single question in return.
I don't know that voluntary means do it or there is no promotion, so everything you said after that isn't relevant.
Um. I'm trying to respond as nicely as possible, because I feel like you are intentionally misinterpreting me.
I was referring specifically to policies of corporations where they claim an employee can "voluntarily" do something, such as take a class, go to a luncheon, etc. They say voluntary as if it will have NO effect on the employee's future with the company, which is a complete lie. That's where voluntary came into play.
I can't imagine why you would answer in any way but nice. Let me help you with this, voluntary means "Done, given, or acting of one's own free will" it does not mean "do it or there is no promotion" that would be coercion. Since all of the employees are adding their data voluntarily nothing you said fits.
"Employees can voluntarily do action X, and whether they do or do not, it will have no effect on their employment."
So, the employer is REQUIRING action X be done in order to advance. It's only voluntarily in the sense that you are "choosing" to work at that corporation. Assuming people would want to advance, the actions are REQUIRED to go up the corporate ladder, but are not framed as such.
It would be like me saying, "Clint and friends, I'm offering a voluntary night program to help improve salesmanship. This is just extra, and it won't be counted against you if/when you decide to apply for a promotion," when in reality, I am very much holding it against you.
The voluntary for the exercise and what not is actually going to end up being required to advance at all in the future.
If you have the money and the power, you have OWNERSHIP over your life. The majority of people are afraid of their own power. Most people do not want the responsibility of working for themselves or creating jobs for other people. They subconsciously want to be taken care of.
Most people are also in the security mode. They want jobs that are secure. These jobs do not necessarily mean growth and creativity. They just want a job with guarantees. They also want to be safe, comfortable, and secure. They do not want to venture out of their particular comfort zone no matter how purgatorial or infernal it is.
I am digressing. Now, when one works for others, he/she has to agree to the corporate consensus in order to survive in that particular environment. He/she has to adopt the corporate language,mannerisms, and live by the corporate dictates. He/she becomes the organization person. In essence, when one works for others, he/she is OWNED in a way. There is no way to get around that fact. Even the most powerful person, in the corporation, unless he/she OWNS the corporation, must subvert part of his/her own identity to the corporate whole.
Most people are powerless. They would rather work for someone else and assume as little responsibility as possible than to either be an entrepeneur, taking risks and responsibility. The context here is power. Many people are loathe to take and/or afraid of their own power. That is why many people prefer to work for others than to work for themselves. What many people refuse to learn is that those who have the power MAKE the rules. If they want power, they have to TAKE and/or HAVE that power, pure and simple. Sadly, many people want to be taken care off hence the company person.
And we wonder why business in the US and the UK is in such a mess when people gladly give up so much control of their own lives to the corporations!
We'd all do a lot better to remember that though labour needs capital, capital needs labour just as much.
So John, with all your 'love of freedom', you don't believe that a corporation has the right to extend an offer to a prospective employee that says they can't ride a motorcycle outside of work.
Sounds like you really don't love freedom, you want to force people to be nice the way you think they should.
What possible interest could it be to my employer if I ride a motorbike outside work?
Have a look at Henry Ford who at one time sought to exercise such control over his workforce or any of the UK mill owners who tried to dictate how their workers lived? None of them that are still in business attempt to exercise such control any more.
It doesn't matter. If you believe in freedom, then you have to accept that they have the freedom to require that as part of the employment contract. They also have the freedom to run their business into the ground.
So, does an employer have the right to stipulate in an employment contract that anybody who accepts the contract can't ride a motorcycle? Yes or no?
I cannot recall the document or report but it is a fact that people who are unhealthy, obese, call in sick much more than those who regularly exercise and.or eat healthy. This was on a radio talk show as well. You can reject the employment offer or accept their rules. A free society. How are you a slave?
I don't deny this. If you are loaded with health problems, you can't work.
But requiring everyone to be in tip top shape and eat the corporate diet is authoritarian.
John, still waiting for you to say which freedom I don't believe in.
Good morning, I've told you plenty of times, if you stil haven't got it, reread the thread.
No, every time I've shown how you were wrong. You have AGREED with me each time.
Look, a man who is in servitude to a master can not by definition be free, even if it is his choice to enter into that servitude and even if he is free to leave it.
A man who agrees to work for a wage, and is free to stop working whenever he wants, is not in 'servitude'. Servitude is the state of being a slave. Slaves don't have the choice to leave.
Just keep on making up definitions.
John, it's sad that you have the gall to call me a hypocrite, but you won't even dare to back up your assertion by explaining exactly what freedoms I don't believe in. I guess if it makes you feel like you're winning the argument... o.O
a. A state of subjection to an owner or master.
b. Lack of personal freedom, as to act as one chooses.
By my book he is in a mutual agreement, so he has no master or owner.
By my book he is free to act as he chooses. He has the freedom to accept or reject whatever contract he wishes.
Therefore, he doesn't fit the definition of servitude.
Your arguments are particularly poor today.
But whilst he is in his masters employment hiss master can dictate how he lives his life, but you reckon that makes the employee a free man!! Wow.
Why he is employed, his employer can require him to do what he has contractually agreed to do, of his own free will. Nothing more.
That's like saying that, if you agree to answer my phones for me for $20/hr, that I'm 'dictating' how you live your life and have taken away your freedom by requiring you to answer phones.
Can you make your arguments any more ridiculous???
But that isn't the argument you were making, you were saying that an employer has the right to dictate what an employee does when not at work.
No, the employer has the right to offer a contract to someone. If the employee accepts it, then he has agreed, of his own free will, to conduct himself a certain way outside of work.
There is no force. An employee can quit, or a prospective employee can refuse the contract. 0 force. None. Zilch. Nada.
Admit it, you want to restrict the freedom of the employer. Come on, admit it, you want to tell the employer that he can't offer that contract.
In theory yes, but then how will he meet his commitments?
Doesn't matter. He could find another job, or start his own. We've been over this John.
You have the INSANE idea that having options enslave someone. If you had NO jobs available near you, then I offered you a job for $20/hr but you have to wear a blue shirt at the store, in your mind, I have ENSLAVED you by giving you another choice!
Get serious. You don't believe in freedom, you believe in RESTRICTING the freedoms of business owners.
No, I believe in equal freedom, not the right of the business owner to unfairly restrict the rights of the employee.
Once again, agreeing to a contract isn't having your rights restricted.
Should an employer be able to offer an employment contract, with the stipulation that the employee wear blue shirts when he isn't at work? Yes or no John.
No, most certainly not, can't you see that is a restriction of freedom?
THERE, at least you finally admitted it.
You believe in RESTRICTING the FREEDOM of a business. You DON'T believe they should have the FREEDOM to offer a contract.
Offering the contract is in no way a restriction of freedom. Who's the hypocrite now?
Oh bull again, I've never said that a business does not have the freedom to offer a contract, just that they have no right to use it to interfere in somebodies private life.
+1. They pay for your time on the job, so that is what they get.
How can a person have the FREEDOM to make people do things in their private life?
That is the FREEDOM to be a TYRANT and stop other people from being free in their own free time--which is a nonsense.
So you don't think I should have the freedom to accept a job that pays $20/hr, on contingency that I wear a blue shirt when I go shopping?
I WANT THAT JOB. Why won't you let me take it?
It's not being a TYRANT because I am FREE to REJECT the offer. I swear, how can you people be so afraid of letting people have the FREEDOM to DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES what kinds of CONTRACTS they want to enter?
What KIND of employer would dictate to a a potential employee what he should wear when he is not working? Shouldn't THAT be the pertinent question?
And if you disagree, then answer this- AS YOU APPEAR TO WANT TO SHOUT AT THE REST OF US- Where do an employers rights end, and an employees rights begin- or vice versa?
It doesn't matter, because we are talking about freedoms. We are talking about the freedom to do something, not whether or not it is the pertinent thing to do.
There are some here who think that I shouldn't be allowed to accept a contract saying that I will be paid $4000/month, for doing a job and wearing a blue shirt.
I CAPITALIZE IN PLACE OF BOLD, BECAUSE IT IS EASIER THAN TYPING <b></b> several times a sentence.
Employer and Employee rights end when they infringe on the right of the other.
An employer can offer the contract, including the requirement of wearing a blue shirt.
An employee can accept or reject the contract. Both are free, neither can be forced into an agreement.
Erm, yes it does matter, precisely because we are talking about freedoms. And as we are talking about freedoms, what is pertinent, is well, pertinent.
But I thought we were talking about employers having the right to tell employees what they should wear, on and off the job- I also seriously doubt that there are many employers who would pay somebody $4000 a month for a job which entailed wearing a blue shirt. Can we keep it real, Jaxson?
Why do you feel that you need to capitalise or bold your sentences? We're all capable of reading your words, they won't carry any more weight because you have decided to shout at the rest of us.
Employee and Employer rights end when they have infringed on each other- glad you agree, yet, I don't hear you talk, not once, about when employers have infringed on the rights of employees. Asking someone to work for a pittance, equivalent to that of slave labour- or starve- pretty much encroaches on the rights of employees, yet not once have you explored this.
Starvation and homelessness is a pretty effective way to be forced into an exploitative agreement. Some employers might also suggest that a workforce on strike is another way to force employers into agreement, but that, of course, is completely unacceptable- which is why the rights and power of the unions have been mostly withdrawn. Inequality and double standards, pure and simple- what's good for the employer is not permitted for the employee. Even though the employer needs the employee in order to make his own living.
I CAPITALIZE some of my words because some people here tend to MISS THE IMPORTANT POINTS otherwise.
What is pertinent has NOTHING to do with what a right is. I have the RIGHT to sell my products for 50% of what I pay for them, but that is not pertinent. Has NOTHING to do with rights.
If I offer to pay you $0.15/hr to do a job, I'm not infringing on your rights. Here, practice with me. "No" There, you turned it down, no rights infringed.
Whether or not you need the job doesn't matter. I could just close the business, then you wouldn't even have a choice. I could have never started the business in the first place, and you never would have had the choice. OFFERING THE JOB can only ADD to your available choices. IT CAN NEVER infringe on your right to choose. IT EXPANDS YOUR CHOICES.
I CAPITALIZE some of my words because some people here tend to MISS THE IMPORTANT POINTS otherwise.
What you might see as an important point, others might see as bullshit. You can SHOUT all you like, but others might still think that you're talking crap. See how that works? They can read it, haven't missed it, but disagree. ARE YOU WITH ME SO FAR?
Here practice with me?
Yep, in true Jaxson style, offer a completely ridiculous scenario, ask a question and then answer it yourself. Hilarious.
Whether or not you need the job doesn't matter.
This sentence completely sums up your lack of understanding when it comes to other people's lives. Of course it matters- People who don't need a job will not accept, nor be forced into, exploitative roles and agree to be paid less than they are worth in order to enrich greedy and unscrupulous people. JAXSON, THAT IS A POINT THAT YOU HAVE SO FAR MISSED!
Did you miss a word or something, because I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
Are there greedy, unscrupulous people? Yes
Does that have anything to do with rights? No.
The fact that you agree that there are greedy and unscrupulous people, but think that this has nothing to do with rights, suggests that you have missed more than a word or something.
Nope. I believe that people have the right to be greedy.
People also have the right to run their business poorly.
What is pertinent has nothing to do with rights, as I explained before.
People have the right to be greedy, yes. But do they have the right to exploit others and in so doing infringe upon their freedoms, no. Is that pertinent, yes.
Sorry, just being like you and answering my own questions.
You can't force someone to enter a contract, so you can't force them to give up their rights. That's where you are wrong.
Nobody has addressed this. Say you live in a town with no jobs at all. I move in and offer you a job, but you have to do X when you aren't at work.
I'm not infringing on your rights at all. The ONLY thing I have done is give you an option. You now have MORE choices than you did before.
If you say 'Well, I have NO CHOICE but to accept, since there are no other jobs', then I'll say 'Nevermind, I'll open up shop somewhere else.
See how nothing changed? You're only right if you feel entitled to a job.
Holly, you and I actually had this conversation on a personal level.
You felt that I was being exploited by MTurk/Hubpages and I didn't.
This is kind of like that...
I think I have the right to decide when I am being exploited/taken advantage of. I'm not sure why someone would want to take that right away from me. I'm free and over 21, I kinda like making decisions for myself.
I think that Mturk do exploit yes, that is my opinion- Don't I have the right to it? At no point were you urged by myself not to sign an agreement or enter into any contract with Amazon- that is completely your decision and I respect it. But that doesn't mean that I don't have the right to be vocal about Amazon's practices. I'm also over 21 and I kinda like to my own decisions too. My protesting their practices does not, in any way, equate to you having your freedoms violated or me making decisions for you.
But try to look at it from this angle- I do not have access to the public services which I once had, despite the fact that I have paid for them- why? Because of Tax avoiding corps like Amazon. Their practices have infringed upon my rights and freedoms and they are allowed to make massive profits at the expense of others because, well, they don't face any real opposition.
The workers at Primark in the UK have the right to enter into employment contracts with the company, even though the company is responsible for the exploitation and deaths of children from Bangalore- what about their rights and freedoms?
In other words Melissa, I can understand your reasons for working for MTurk and I certainly wouldn't critisise you for it or tell you that you shouldn't do it- I think people do what they need to do at the time, that's life, it's how we keep a roof over our kid's heads and put food on the table. However, I'll always be vocal about issues such as these because it's a matter of finding the balance when it comes to rights and freedoms. Your rights should be respected, so should mine and so should the rights of kids in Bangalore.
They are agruing for unscrupulosity, rejecting 2,000 years of Judaeo-Christian morality/ western civilization.
Things aren't good just because they are old. If you disagree, I've got some yogurt you would love.
Nope... I'm arguing for freedom of choice. Mainly MY choice, not any future employer's. I want the right to dictate my own job terms.
Not so sure what religion has to do with all this... but ok.
Nope. People cannot agree to surrender their human rights for money. (They can do it for love, religion or reasons of insanity if they so wish).
I would argue about that but it would be silly to.
But the right to make contracts is a basic human right... at least according to Hegel.... who kinda wrote the book on free will and human rights.
By denying someone the ability to freely enter a contract, you are violating their human rights.
That's quite the problem.
I'm no philosopher, but it seems to me that when the two parties to a possible contract are on unequal footing, and the rejection of a contract involves the likelihood that one will not be able to survive in some way (such as the inability to buy food or provide shelter for his/her children), then it becomes something beyond a simple contract. It becomes a way one person can have power over another and infringe upon their freedom.
Just my decidedly un-philosophical take on the matter.
In a capitalist economy, there are always other employers. Working for a specific employer isn't necessary.
There are other choices that can be made, so no one can be "forced" to accept any specific contract offered by a specific employer.
In a capitalist economy, there are always other employers. Working for a specific employer isn't necessary.
Yes Melissa, but in a crony capitalist society there is also no such thing as full employment, which shifts the power to the employer. People might not be physically forced to accept terms of employment, but they do have to chose between food and accommodation, or sometimes exploitation. There seems to be no equilibrium, unless of course you are employed by some kind of co-op, where all members have a say and appear to thrive. The benefits beyond the basic means of survival are mutual, a good business model, imho.
Yes, theoretically that is true. Unfortunately, the reality is that people's choices are often limited, by location, intellect, ability, or any number of factors. Jaxson will say that's their problem, and that is fine if he wants to believe that. It is, however, a problem for all of us, because the more other people's freedoms are limited by those who have the power, then the more likely it becomes that our own freedom will be eventually be limited in the same manner.
Have you no idea what the employment market is like at the moment, no idea how many people are unemployed in your own country? You can't have if you believe that one can just walk into another job. The days of full employment when that was possible are long gone, and gone at the behest of controlling employers.
I know there are a whole lot of jobs in the paper.
There is more competition for those jobs, but there's always competition.
And how many applicants for each job? One, ten, a hundred, a thousand?
But is the competition manageable? How many people applying for each job? 100, 300, 500 or more? There is competition and then there is unmanageable competition. Would you bother to write an article which was competing with Wikipedia? Or, to put it another way, how well would your article (resume) compare with National Geographic's when writing about toxic creatures from the Amazon?
There's no level playing field. Which is why so many people work for peanuts, they have no real choice.
*Shrugs* I've beat wiki before.
I figure if I couldn't compete with National Geographic, I probably should find something else to write about.
I couldn't find a job outside the house because of the kids. So I made my own job.
There are lots of things you can do rather than choosing a particular employer.
McDonalds is always hiring.
Melissa, my comments are *absolutely not* about making judgements about mothers who are unable to work outside the home. My comments *are absolutely* about fighting an elite who do not value mothers, or anyone else, despite their qualifications and experience. Just because you are a mother and may need to work at home, should not devalue your qualifications, experience and everything else that you can bring to a job.
There must be a niche that I have not explored, will be searching Wiki's database.
McDonald's can shove it! They've done enough damage!
Also, I've made my own employment for some years now too. I've supported both my son and daughter, alone- even managing to take them on overseas holidays. But not everyone is as fortunate as me. Not all people have a degree or a reasonable education. My world is not all about me, but those who've not had the same opportunities. Don't they deserve a reasonable life too?
They do deserve a reasonable life Holly, but they also have to be willing to be reasonable to do it.
Working for someone else means that you do what they want you to do. It has to be up to you (universal you, not specific you) to decide whether you are willing to do it for their price or not. Yes, economics can make the decision to say no harder but most of the times that is honestly people THINKING they have no options. There are always options.
If someone is scared that they won't be able to own a five bedroom house if they don't take the job, then that person really isn't under duress. They just think they are.
I joke about McDonalds, but seriously I could live on their salary and still pay all my bills if I needed to. I have the economic prowess of a carp, so if I could do it, anyone else could as well. It would require they restructure their life, but they could do it.
But we are talking, hypothetically, about somebody who is well qualified to do a job and does it conscientiously but is told by their employer that they are not allowed to (or must) do something that has no bearing on their ability to do their job.
Then they can find another job... or do what their employer says... or create their own job... or a billion other scenarios. That means they are free to choose.
If the employer says they need to do something to work for him, then it DOES have something to do with their job. Either they do it or they don't have a job.
And you consider that fair! Say an employer insisted that all workers attended his Christian church three times every Sunday, you wouldn't see that a restriction on the freedom of a none Christian?
If you agree to it when you sign the contract, then that's on you. You can't be forced into anything you willingly sign up for.
Hypothetical premise, John. The EEOC laws in the United States protect those who are discriminated against because of religion. You are going off on a tangent here. No one CARES about your religion or lack thereof. Dear, dear John, let the adults handle the conversation, hmmmmmm............
Hypothetical premises are an accepted form of terminal logical conclusion form debate, if you want to act superior to others and call yourself an adult in comparison you might at least want to learn how debate works. In the instance of being ignorant at least be respectful.
I KNOW how debate works. John has a habit of going off in tangents. It is quite commonplace for him. Wasn't talking to you, Josak. It was an A and B conversation between John and me so C your way out and address the subject at hand.
If you know how debate works then don't dismiss a point for being a textbook debate form, it was not tangential it was merely providing an example. I have already addressed the point at hand above from a purely factual basis but I will reiterate. Factually speaking with mathematical proof only fractions of a single percent of households leech of welfare without working.
Hardly me that has gone off on a tangent. The discussion was about whether or not an employer has the right to dictate an employees out of work activities. I didn't start banging on about the lazy and their entitlement mentality, which is all a myth anyway.
Really? Because I saw it as whether others had the right to dictate to me that I (universal I) could not voluntarily accept a contract that I was perfectly fine with because other people would have a problem with it.
The employer's rights-at the root of things-has absolutely nothing to do with it for me. It is the proposed infringement of my basic human right to freely enter contracts that bothers me. Historically, withholding that right has been applied only to people who were thought to be inferior (slaves, women, etc.)
It is a basic human right and one of the pillars of both democracy and socialism.
So, explain to me... in very simple words... why, in this case, you would wish to infringe upon my right to enter this contract?
If two consenting parties (me and the employer) wish to enter into a contract for something that is completely legal and voluntary (i.e. not coerced within the legal definition) then why would you deny that right based solely upon another's unwillingness to enter said contract?
In addition, why should the base reason for finding employment (need for money) be used as an example of coercion? Almost every person working is doing it because they need money. Does that mean that all employment contracts are fundamentally "coerced" except those entered into by people who have no need for money?
Since you have a problem with the detours of this thread, you obviously should have no problem at all answering the above questions directly... without using examples other than the ones given.
As I've said to Jaxson several times I have no wish infringe on your right to enter any contract.
That does not however make any contract fair or not result in a loss of freedom.
Recently a young guy knocked down (in his car) and killed a woman. He was so full of remorse that he begged the judge to send him to prison - the judge obliged. By your and Jaxson's reasoning, because he asked to be sent to prison no loss of freedom occurred!
Nope. He agreed to do something, that's not a loss of freedom. That's a manifestation of freedom.
So he was still able to sleep in his own bed, eat his own food, watch his own TV!
What strange ideas of freedom you have!
His loss of freedom was his freely made choice.
That's what happens when you choose to go to jail, I'm assuming he knew that.
That still doesn't alter the fact that he lost his freedom!
That is a result of his choice, he could of just as easily chose to go to a movie without the loss of his freedom.
But that STILL doesn't alter the fact that he lost his freedom!
Actually, I expect he would have preferred to stay at home with his girlfriend and go down the pub on a Friday night with his mates.
There we go, it always comes down to 'I know better what Jack wants than Jack does'.
Which is just another form of the same thing. Who are you to even unsurely think that you know better than I do what I want? What you think I should want should have NO bearing on what I am allowed to do.
I expect you would rather listen to reason and understand logical arguments when they are presented to you, but that has no bearing on what you actually do.
But I never mentioned what I thought you wanted!
Yes, you are right, I would rather listen to reason than all this guff about loss of freedom isn't really loss of freedom!
Sometimes doing what we want and doing what we consider the right thing are polar opposites.
And people should be FREE to do what they think is right, even if they don't necessarily want to.
No. loss. of. freedom.
I suspect your concept of freedom is as warped as your concept of socialism, that is very warped.
How is my concept of socialism warped?
Should someone be able to decide what they want to do or not? If so, that's freedom. If not, that's not freedom. He decided what he wanted to do. Therefore, freedom.
Yes, he wanted to have his freedom taken away from him.
As for your warped ideas of socialism, well look at any comment you make about what you perceive as socialism.
Like what comment?
He wanted to do a specific thing, and he did that. It's freedom. Freedom includes the freedom to enter contracts. If you want to complain that contracts limit your freedom to not uphold the contract, then I really don't know what to say to you. That's about as silly as saying that I played basketball yesterday, and doing that took away my freedom to play soccer simultaneously.
Umm... so no one should never choose what we think is right... because it limits our freedom to do what we want?
So if I want to go to jail because it is the right thing to do... I shouldn't be allowed to choose that because it limits what I want to do... which is going to jail because I think it is the right thing to do?
And that's freedom because?
Have you been drinking?
Sorry, impertinent of me, try this, I totally fail to follow the point you are trying to make.
Now you know what it's like to follow your points.
I just said essentially what you are claiming.
It doesn't make any sense... does it?
Well if I really express myself as unclearly as you managed . . .
I don't think I use double negatives though!
Going to jail results in a loss of freedom, but it was his choice to lose his freedom. He didn't have to.
Not only is that comment patronising GM, but your appear to want to derail John's arguments by comparing them to that of a child- whilst you are free to oppose and counter, making such insinuations only devalues your own arguments. We are all adults here, not children.
Why don't you try logic for a change?
Let's go back to my previous scenario. You live in a town where there are no jobs. I open a store, and offer to pay you $20/hr to answer phones, but you have to come to my church on Sunday if you accept.
Have I made your situation any worse by offering you a choice over what you previously had(no jobs to even apply to)?
+1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Some people have the powerless mentality while others have the power and can do mentality, no more, no less. If I was in a dire socioeconomic situation, you bet you #%$@, I would find a job. I CAN do, I am not the type of person who whine and complain, my parents taught me better!
Commonsense dictates that when one works for a corporation/company, he/she does as he/she is told. Such an entitlement mentality some people have. I was witness to that type of mentality while I was a supervisor. People thought THEY could do what THEY wanted. Well, not UNDER MY SUPERVISION, I told them that if they did not like working under me, THERE'S THE DOOR!
Oh, John, but don't you know? The young man who greets me at my local market every day can just quit and create his own job! Anyone can do it! Never mind that he has borderline intelligence and can't remember more than two or three instructions at a time. If he works hard enough, he can do it! It just takes perseverance, not whining!
Further, if his employer decides to require that he eat spinach for breakfast every day, and he wants to continue working there, then it is his choice! If he doesn't like it, he can just create a new job for himself! All he has to do is quit whining and just do it!
I'll just tell all those people that are constantly whinging about sending off hundreds of job applications and not even getting a thanks but no thanks for their efforts to stop moaning and start a rival to Microsoft.
He can mow lawns. He can walk dogs. He can deliver newspapers. He can shovel snow. He can paint houses. He can clean. He can babysit. He can trim trees.
There are lots of jobs he can do.
Melissa, you are beating a dead horse. No use of presenting an intelligent logical discourse. You and I know that there are various employment avenues. This is what makes America great. Some people have a get up and go mentality and make things happen while others have an entitlement mentality in which things must be THEIR way.
I am excluding the elderly and mentally/emotionally/physically challenged people who cannot help themselves and should have governmental protections. I am addressing the purely abled physically, intellectually/mentally, and emotionally. There is NO FATHOMABLE excuse for the latter, they can obtain employment, either their own or by working for corporations/companies.
To reiterate, when jobs were tough to find decades ago, I worked temporary until I could gain permanent employment. I did not sit on my duff, expecting my parents or anyone else to support me. There is NO EXCUSE that people cannot find any type of employment in this rollercoaster economy. There are people who are working, either in permanent, temporary, or their own employment.
Which beggars the question; Why is man not worth a wage which would meet the costs for his absolute basic subsistence?
And who will manage the business? To make enough money to live on doing those jobs, he will have to be able to schedule and keep appointments; thoroughly understand what needs to be done for each job and plan accordingly; know how long each job will take so he can properly keep them on his calendar; remember to take each person's name, number, and address; develop and keep a pricing schedule; learn to keep track of payments for tax purposes; on and on. I sincerely doubt he can do that. Yet, he has been denied disability three times. Why? Because he can work at a simple job like greeting people and retrieving carts.
Wow, there are lots of those jobs around. Most people think they are too good for them.
Newspaper route... be your own boss... the company even gives directions.
PP, you honestly aren't going to get anywhere with the disabled route with me. I have disabled children... they damn sure better work, not whine about how unfair life is, not whine if they aren't able to get disability. If he's borderline, he understands money=food. It's up to him to decide whether it's worth eating spinach.
Don't turn intellectual disabilities into reasons to be entitled. I don't want my kids to learn that.
You really aren't getting what I'm saying. He is not acting entitled. He is working. His employer can, if he chooses, infringe upon his personal freedom. You say he can choose to accept it or not. I say maybe he can; but maybe he can't.
I have disabled children (adults now), and they both work and do not receive disability, so don't tell me what card I'm trying to play.
I'm talking about reality for some people; you're talking about your own experiences, which are YOUR reality and no one esle's. You cannot accurately judge what others can and cannot do based upon your own life.
I am getting what you are saying PP.
I'm just disagreeing.
His employer cannot infringe on his personal freedom unless he lets him. Borderline DD is still capable of knowing when they don't want to do something. They are also capable of telling people to bugger off.
Absolute respect for people who do but from an economists perspective simply creating a job out of thin air for the unemployed population is a mathematical impossibility, all jobs require demand and demand is a finite resource even when optimized, demand is thin at the moment as any retailer can tell you, these have been tough years, unfortunately when employment drops off so does demand as fewer people have disposable income, can people find some work? absolutely, can a minority create sufficient work to get by? Yes, can this system provide for our 17.5% unemployed population to a sufficient extent to feed their families and themselves? No, economically impossible.
There are areas of the country that are lacking workers... Coincidentally, these areas often have cheap rent, utilities, and groceries.
My husband walked out of the door a week ago and came back with a job an hour later. They can't keep employees in this area... because they are all too lazy to actually work.
There are always opportunities to make money in service. Parents will always need babysitters. Yards always need mowing etc.
I'm not rolling in dough, but I am hiring someone to paint one of my bedrooms this summer... Simply because I am too lazy to do it myself.
With all respect anecdotal points don't change economic fact supply and demand is an unbreakable rule.
44% of American households receive some form of welfare (2010) of those 97% are in working households, receiving veterans benefits, disabled or elderly. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3677
(93% there +4% veterans benefits which were not included.)
This entitlement and laziness dogma exists mostly in the heads of others, the statistical fact is they are barely over 1% of households receiving without working and most are probably in genuine need while looking for a job and will get off it soon (I believe the average period is six weeks) leaving us with fractions of a percentage that actually are leeches, so small a factor as to be utterly irrelevant.
Maths is our friend.
Let's talk about Maths and need... If that's what you are going for.
The food stamp "need" programs is set up on a budget of "Low Cost" averages for the US. This "need" is apparently 764.00 in food per month for a family of four.
Who the hell spends 750.00 dollars a month on food? Oh... those who are buying frozen meals and junk foods.
Want to talk about the "rental" assistance numbers?
"Poverty" in America really doesn't mean poverty. It means no new car.
I have seen people on food stamps buying beer,wine coolers, soda, and other non-necessary items. Melissa is correct in her premise.
Food stamps are a trade-able resource, I have a friend who runs a grocery store who often gets paid in food stamps, he then uses those to buy other things which are not essentials once someone saw him buying something non essential (I forget what) and cussed him out about it. Ignorance is the foundation of this argument born from people (ironically enough) being too lazy to track down the freely available actual figures or think through what they are seeing without jumping to judgmental conclusions.
I say, even if someone is buying soda with food stamps, who are we to judge? Maybe they're buying it one time for a special occasion? Why do people care so deeply about someone spending a few dollars on junk food? Yet, CEO Charlie can get a $10 million dollar bonus after almost running the company into bankruptcy and getting a bailout and some of these same people are fine with that.
Yup ok first off just ignore the fact that these entitled people you are talking about make up probably less than half a percentage point of US households then move to a different argument, fine. Food stamps.
764 is the absolute maximum dictated by high requirement users (i.e pregnant mothers etc.) the AVERAGE given per person to in the US is $133 a month which comes to about $4.43 a day in food, which is just SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO luxurious
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/compare … amp;ind=26
Rental assistance is covered in the numbers I gave, fractions of one percent is what we are discussing, truly negligible numbers.
What I am saying is that they are likely living beyond their means in the first place. They aren't sponging off the system, they are making bad choices... and they will never learn to make better choices if they aren't required to deal with the consequences.
734 dollars is the amount total spent on food, the allotment is to account for their part and make up the difference. It was never ever intended to be the sole source of food budget.
So yes, there is a basic feeling of entitlement... not necessarily in receiving benefits but by assuming they should be able to live beyond their means.
If you make 1200 dollars a month... you can't live in a 1400 per month apartment. So instead of moving to a 400 dollar a month apartment, you apply for rental assistance.
If you make 1200 dollars a month, you can't spend 734 dollars a month on food. So instead of asking for food stamps, you need to investigate other ways of lowering food costs... etc.
I'm not saying there aren't poor people, I'm saying that they are many of them that aren't living like poor people... and are getting public aid to make up the difference.
BY UN standards over 15% of our population lives beneath the poverty line as in cannot regularly afford food and or housing (this includes with assistance). Shall we keep going round and round with accusations vs facts?
I know, I know, not eating and/or keeping a roof over your head is living beyond your means, those entitled ******!
Why can't they afford food and housing?
Because they spent their money unwisely or because they never had enough?
I've seen the system Josak. I know what's going on in it. We aren't talking families living under bridges. They RARELY get any help. I'm talking about working "poor" who have gotten themselves in the situation themselves.
I know what the poverty lines are... I also know that it's possible to have adequate food and shelter while living under them.
If you are talking about the "living under a bridge" poverty, then that's one thing. If you are using the "economic guidelines" to prove that families can't afford food and housing, then you are wrong. I have lived under the poverty line... Still had a roof and food. Gardened a lot... lived in a smaller house than I would have liked... bought clothes at yard sales... still had essentials.
Oh the unprovable personal anecdotes how they flow through this thread.
You said "they will never learn to make better choices if they aren't required to deal with the consequences." 15% of the population is living at the point where they cannot regularly afford food or shelter, in some areas it is (barely) enough in others nowhere near enough it is a national average by actual professionals who do this stuff for a living not anecdotal points that are perfectly explainable by regional context are irrelevant.
Homelessness and hunger are obviously insufficient consequences, not to mention the completely innocent children dragged into those same conditions (which would be why we have the lowest child well being in the OECD).
Not to mention you blatantly changed the argument, it was about entitlement and leeches now it's about people who fail to mange their money properly.
"In 2010, in the United States, the poverty threshold for one person under 65 was US$11,344 (annual income); the threshold for a family group of four, including two children, was US$22,133."
1842 dollars a month.
Seriously? You can't figure out how to make that work?
The entitlement argument was feeling an employeer owed you anything.
I never said leeches... but I did say not handling the money correctly. 1842 dollars can be sufficient to live with all necessities. IF YOU ARE WILLING TO MAKE CORRECT CHOICES.
How would you like me to prove my anecdotes?
But don't the govt use those figures when it comes to determining who needs social support?
Yep... because the government also doesn't know how to spend money.
As in, unless you are so many hundreds of times beneath the poverty line you are not eligible for support, irrespective of whether you have paid your dues when you were in a position to?
Never said you weren't eligible for support, you clearly are.
Just saying that your life isn't nearly as "impoverished" as you think it is... and saying that "poverty" isn't really children sorting through garbage cans for food.
Is there that in the US? Damn skippy there is... however they usually don't/can't get the help they need for a wide variety of reasons.
The "working poor" aren't nearly as in dire straights as the media portrays and many of them could pull themselves out with some better decision making.
So the "desperateness" for a job kinda dissolves... and you (universal) can be more selective in choosing a job. Hence, the employer has to be more considerate in how he treats his employees.
As there IS a way to solve the problem that you can control, you aren't really being forced to do anything against your will. You are just choosing to go against one comfort zone in favor of another.
+1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000-the main theme here is comfort and security zone. Many people do not wish to go and/or advance beyond their comfort/security zone. They are subconsciously content with their situation. If not, they would better themselves. As Larry Winget, author and financial guru, has aptly stated people are happy in their situation although they b------h and moan, if not, they would have improved their situation.
As already noted some areas yes some areas no. Average non central affordable housing (way more expensive if you live centrally) in the US is 1200 at the very lowest range it is 900 a month, basic utilities are 200, clothing is 30, transportation is 65 per month (more if you actually own a car) per person so $260, god knows how much on miscellaneous (estimates put that at about $250).
Not to mention mobile phones are pretty much necessary for so many jobs.
So that is 1710 which leaves less than 150 a month for food for four people ie. not enough and that is for the very wealthiest person beneath the poverty line obviously the vast majority are worse off than that.
Of course god forbid you get sick.
"So yes, there is a basic feeling of entitlement" ~ you 15 minutes ago.
Where you live is a choice, minimum wage is national.
I have a 2300 sq foot plus 4 bedroom flat... It costs 400 per month.
Hardwood floors, two fireplaces, pocket doors, two decks...
My utilities (Because I have 15 ft ceilings) 250 per month
Transportation... Because I CHOOSE to have a car... around 60 per month. Gas is only around 3.20 a gallon here, more if you go into the "big" towns
Food for five people... around 400 a month. That's because there's no room to garden... or it would be much less.
Clothing: I yard sale for fun... Probably 10 per month averaged over a year.
So yeah... Around 1120 a month for the basics.
Or...13,340 per year....
OR... you could CHOOSE to live in New York. Minimum wage still the same.
*edit... my cell phone (choice) 40 dollars a month.
What was I referring to when I said entitlement?
You know, maybe my comments are really sensitive as to what is happening in my own country. People who have suddenly lost their jobs, hard working people, are now being labelled as "scroungers". Unemployment amongst youngsters has hit a record high. In some regions that equates to more than a 1,000 young people applying for one job- if they don't get it, they are scroungers.
People claiming housing benefit, because rents in this country are so high ( our right wing govt. just loves to give tax payers money to greedy landlords) will shortly be faced (if UKIP have their way) with working for large corps to make the shortfall, free of charge. However, 80% of these people are also working full time- they are not scroungers, or shirkers, just paid well below what is needed to meet the costs of basic survival- because employers hold the balance of power and prefer massive profits to reasonable practice.
Then there are the graduates. One springs to mind, a student of geology, unemployed and claiming Job Seekers Allowance but also working voluntarily at a museum which gave her valuable experience to pursue the occupation, not only of her choice, but one which she had studied for and run up massive debts. Unfortunately, our govt. decided that she had to jack that, and work in poundland for three weeks, stocking shelves and sweeping the floor- no job at the end of it, just free labour.
Anyway, she took our govt, to court and won!
Melissa, you have exemplified the great American spirit. You CREATED a job because you indicated that you could not do outside work because you had children. Many people sadly are in the comfort and security mode. They want to be rescued and taken care off.
Sometimes a person has to risk in order to get what he/she wants. Many people prefer to remain in their comfort and security zone yet they complain that their employer is exploiting them and paying them peanuts. They want to be rescued and are afraid to take risks to obtain their desired job. One cannot have one's cake and eat it too. If one wants freedom, one just have to create his/her job.
If one continues to depend upon the corporation/company, he/she will ALWAYS be at the BEHEST of the corporate/company POWERS THAT BE so to speak. Thank you Melissa, I totally concur with your premise. People are too busy making excuses to fully accept responsibility for their lives. They still want to be babied.
In the late 1970s when jobs were difficult to find, I worked as a temporary typist, earning good pay. Now, I am writing for HubPages. Money can be earned, one just have to be CREATIVE in finding earning methodology. Complaining about the current socioeconomic situation is not going to change things and is an utter waste of time. One does not have to be poor if he/she does not want to. There are myriad avenues to earn a livelihood.
Does that not rather contradict the claim that the worker has freedom?
GM, with all due respect, that's rubbish. Yes you can create your own employment, just as Melissa and myself have. But what about those people who do not have a computer, or internet access, or a reasonable education- what about those people? How do they create their own employment?
Even if they are relatively competent when it comes to particular skills, there are other resources needed. In order to acquire those resources you have to some capital, however small, or a family which is willing to lend a helping hand. What if you have neither?
The world is so much bigger than those who occupy your own social circle, just because you cannot imagine being in their situation does not make their situation any easier.
You can buy a used laptop for under a hundred dollars. You can make 120 a week donating plasma. Almost all libraries have free wi-fi.
That wasn't being a smart ass... it's just showing that there are other ways.
I've never had to sell plasma... which is a damn good thing... but the option is there.
To some people a hundred dollars might as well be a thousand- sorry Melissa, but you are demonstrating that you can only see the situation based on your own circumstances. The fact that you can envisage raising $100, shows the disparity between you and others, you think that would always be achievable. You have family, friends, salable skills. I'm pretty sure that we're not allowed to sell any bodily parts or plasma in the UK- so the option isn't there for all, just because it's there for you. Are you suggesting that the black market in organs/plasma is ok for people who are less fortunate than yourself?
Libraries are being closed at an alarming rate in the UK. Because proponents of big govt. have decided that millionaires should receive a tax cut instead. That tax cut amounts to approx. £40,000 per year. The options are only there for you, not all. Walk in another man's shoes?
Do you have recycling centers in the UK. Do they pay? Are there parent's looking for babysitters? Do they pay?
You are seriously saying that there are no odd jobs at all in the UK?
As far as I'm aware, no, there are no recycling centres in the UK that pay. And, to be honest, even if there were, that's all taken care of because people who are unemployed work there as part of their workfare scheme. Any UK hubbers who wish to provide evidence to the contrary, feel free, I'd be more than interested.
And as far as babysitting jobs go, my social circle is made up of working people with children. They can no longer afford to go out, let alone pay for a babysitter.
People here mow their own lawns, walk the their own dogs, do their own repairs. The only the time they pay others to do jobs is when they need the skills which they haven't acquired themselves, or it is illegal to do the jobs without a licence. For example, gas fitting or electrical wiring.
I love you Holly.
Who's watching their kids for free while they work?
They go to school Melissa, or attend a surestart centre. This isn't the US, they cannot just leave their kids with unlicensed people- our laws are very strict in this regard, we can't just leave them with a nice, cheap neighbour.
And it isn't free, we have the highest cost when it comes to childcare in Europe.
Well, I guess my advice would be to move to areas where this kind of stuff is possible.
If there are no jobs in the UK that don't infringe on workers rights and no other opportunities to earn money other than those employers, then moving is really your (universal you) only option.
So in reality, we are talking about a very small amount of individuals with no marketable skills whatsoever who have somehow still managed to find employment in a company that against labor laws violates their basic human rights somehow.
That sounds like it should qualify for some type of asylum somewhere.
So in reality, we are talking about a very small amount of individuals with no marketable skills whatsoever who have somehow still managed to find employment in a company that against labor laws violates their basic human rights somehow.
How did you reach that conclusion?
I don't need to move and anyway, even if I were subject to some unscrupulous employer with no regard for other human beings, why should I have to leave my country of origin? Surely that should be him?
You shouldn't have to be subject to him. But he shouldn't have to change his business requirements to fit your opinions.
If you don't choose to abide by his rules (which is your choice) then you are choosing to not work for him. Neither of you owes the other anything.
I'm not saying that employers shouldn't be fair... I'm just saying they don't have to be fair. Your (universal) recourse is to not work for them.
Any other solution is asking for special treatment.
Choice is working for them or not. Choice isn't changing their company to fit your needs.
Some people believe an imbalance of power is acceptable, even to the point of exploitation, and that the primary responsibility for the exploitation lies with those who are exploited. They are, after all, deficient human beings who are just not motivated enough not to be exploited.
He offers the job, you decide whether or not to take it...
No balance of power issues.
Unless you think balancing power should mean that you have the right to tell a company how to run just because you want to work there.
Wow, the tunnel vision is astounding. I'm honestly flabbergasted. No, I don't believe I should have the right to tell a company how it should be run. But, I am not so arrogant to assume that other people can just quit a job and move on, like I have done in the past, when a company places demands upon them that are unreasonable, including some that have absolutely nothing to do with the quality or amount of work produced. Such as, I don't know, "give me a blow job and I'll make sure you continue to get health insurance. It's worth that much, isn't it?"
It's also illegal.
We aren't talking about illegal requirements.
We are talking about... originally... exercise... then making employees wear a blue shirt.
However it was your choice to either give the blowjob or quit.
Of course, such an employer would be QUITE LIABLE.............
Yes, if one could prove it. Again, it is a balance of power issue. An employer with a large amount of funds to counter a lawsuit. An employee who no longer has a job and no witnesses. Yeah, that's a scenario where real justice is likely to occur.
Or, you could by a $10 recorder, and then file a suit with the EEOC, and they will prosecute for you.
GUARANTEE you are going to get a settlement out of court if you have that recording.
Maybe, depends on what state you're in, but that is beside the point. The point I'm trying to make is there is often an imbalance of power between employer and employee, which sometimes limits people's choices.
No, it doesn't limit people's choices. Anyone who says so is lying. Any employee can quit any job at any time. If you are violating a contract, then you face those consequences.
But if all it takes to 'balance the power' between an employer and an employee is a $10 recorder... OH NO!
Recording a conversation without the consent of all parties is illegal in some states. I'm guessing someone thought it was an infringement upon their right to privacy.
I believe there are exceptions for recording illegal activity, but if not, then move to a state that protects freedoms.
Yes, your answer to everything. Quit, move, or start your own business.
Yup. I just moved states. Part of the consideration was how well freedoms are protected. There are certain states I would never live in, because they infringe on my rights.
People should take that into consideration. I would NEVER, EVER accept a job in a state if I'm not allowed to carry a recorder around in that state.
The last remark constitutes sexual harassment and is clearly against the law. Employers who practice sexual harassment are extremely liable under the EEOC law. Believe it or not, there are things that employers cannot do-there are employment and antidiscrimination laws.
Hmmm, so your premise is that if you don't like to be "ALWAYS be at the BEHEST of the corporate/company POWERS THAT BE so to speak" then one must just create your own job. Just like that. Fortunately for the corporate powers that be, not everyone is capable of doing that, because if they were, there would be no corporate powers that be now would there? Some people have limitations in intellect, frontal lobe functioning (planning, ability to see consequences in advance), communication (autism, Asperger's Syndome), a whole myriad of mental limitations that would prevent them from creating their own job that pays enough to sustain them, no matter how badly they wanted to.
Do you live in the real world? Do you understand that not everyone is like you? Are you properly grateful for the person who picks up your garbage, the employee who cleans the toilet you sit on at the mall, the janitor who cleans your child's school, the kitchen worker who prepares your elderly parents food at the hospital? Because someone has to do it and not everyone can be their own boss or the employer of others, at least not in the economic structure that currently exists in the U.S.
I believe that people who perform those important jobs deserve to be able to make enough money to eat nutritious food, get medical and dental care, and live a decent life by the standards of our civilized society, because every one of us in this society benefits from what they do.
When did people become so narcissistic, selfish, and lacking in common decency? I, for one, am sick of people defending those who exploit others by blaming the exploited.
We weren' t talking about the disabled. Obviously, they are a different circumstance.
I am indeed grateful for the people who do all those jobs. And they can eat nutritious food and live a decent life on minimum wage... if they are willing to adjust their lives to do it.
Can they also afford health and dental care? Who said they were disabled? Plenty of people have those maladies and cannot get disability. Therefore, they work at the jobs they are capable of doing, often jobs that pay minimum wage and have poor working conditions.. Yet, you claim that is their "choice."
Yep, they absolutely can.
I have no dental insurance and my teeth are cleaned, filled, etc. If there is a college within 30 miles of their house, theirs can be too.
Same with medical treatment.
If you are too disabled by intellectual issues to make choices then you should be protected. If not, then yes it is your choice.
Exactly. You think that employers should be restricted in their freedoms. You think they shouldn't be able to offer to pay someone to work for them, on the contingency that they wear blue shirts when they go shopping.
Since you believe in restricting them from doing so, YOU are the one who doesn't believe in freedom. I believe in their freedom to offer such a contract, and I believe in the freedom of a prospective employee to accept it or reject it. No freedoms are infringed in my scenario. In yours, the freedom of the employer is restricted.
Bravo John, Bravo.
Not in theory the employee is free to make a choice. He has no master and is not a slave. If he wants to meet his obligations he has the choice to seek employment elsewhere or abide by the employers wishes.
John thinks that everyone is entitled to a job, so if an employer isn't bending over backwards to give someone a job that pays a 'living wage', then the employer is restricting the employee's rights.
Then he claims that he believes in freedom and I'm a hypocrite
That's assuming that there is employment elsewhere and not hundreds of people all applying for the same job.
Doesn't matter, he can still quit, so he still has the choice.
Or, are you saying it is LITERALLY impossible for an employee to quit?
What does that have to do with the employees ability to choose?
To John and Sooner 28, what suggestions and implementations would YOU BOTH put in place for a more humane and equitable corporate environment?
I know you didn't ask me, but I try to pay those who work for me as much as I can, and be a good employer to them. The more employers that do that, the more other employers will have to keep up to remain competitive.
Capitalism must go. Beyond that, I don't know.
Exactly! This is why I can't understand those who think universal health care is a socialist plot. It is in the interests of capitalists to have a healthy work force but it is also in their interests not to have to pay for it.
YOU will do as I SAY if YOU want THE JOB. Well, DO YOU? I can get many people in YOUR place!
He/she who has the money and power have the goods. He/she owns the jobs and can set his/her rules regarding the work environment. Sad but true.
Welcome to the postmodern, 21st century workforce....................
Ugh. I would never consider dictating what my employees do on their own time. I only ask that they do the work they have agreed to do.
While Jaxson is right that a person can choose whether or not to work for someone who wants to dictate what they wear when they are not on the job, John is also right that an employer who dictates such a thing is infringing upon the employee's personal freedom. An employee's acceptance of such a contract does not make it less of an infringement. It merely makes it an infringement that he has agreed to. Most people would not be happy to agree to such an infringement in their personal lives, but might do so out of need for a job and a feeling that they have little or no choice. The employer, on the other hand, has a choice as to how much he/she wants to infringe upon the freedom of his employees. One who chooses to do such a thing while espousing how much they love freedom is, indeed, a hypocrite.
That's like saying that accepting a job offer is an example of the employer infringing on your right to sleep in and watch TV all day. It's not an infringement.
IF YOU AGREE TO DO SOMETHING, THEN YOU ARE DOING IT OF YOUR OWN CHOICE.
How is that hard to understand?
That's exactly what I said. If I agree to let you dictate to me that I should wear red underwear to bed, then I have agreed to let you infringe upon my personal freedoms, outside of work. It's still an infringement.
No, you haven't agreed to let me infringe on your freedoms. You have agreed to do something. HUGE difference.
In the US, we have freedom from warrantless searches. If a cop asks if he can search my house, I can refuse. No infringement. Or, I can let him in. Still, no infringement. I made the choice. An infringement is when you take the choice away from someone.
Is an employer infringing on your right to watch Soap Operas if your job requires you to be at work at 8AM?
If an employer makes something that you do on your personal time a condition of employment, and you agree to it, then you are agreeing to have your personal freedom restricted. Being on the job while soap operas are on TV is not the same thing. You are getting paid for your time at work.
You are also getting paid for wearing a blue shirt at the store, because that is part of your job. That is part of your employment contract. It's exactly the same. You aren't having a freedom infringed upon. YOU ARE AGREEING TO DO SOMETHING IN RETURN FOR MONEY.
Yes, agreeing to do something that infringes upon my personal freedom.
Just like agreeing to go to work infringes on your personal freedom to stay home o.O
No, it doesn't. I'm getting paid for being on the job.
You are getting paid for fulfilling your employment contract. It is exactly the same.
Yes, an employment contract that infringes upon my personal freedom. I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to agree to a contract that dictates what they do on their personal time. I'm saying let's not pretend it isn't an infringement upon their personal freedom. It is.
Your employment contract also 'infringes' upon your freedom to stay home and watch TV.
If the contract says you will get $XXX for doing A B and C, then there is NO DIFFERENCE between A, B, or C. They are all REQUIREMENTS for fulfilling the contract.
An infringement RESTRICTS your freedom. Since you have the FREEDOM to stay home and not go to work, the employment contract doesn't infringe on that right. Since you have the FREEDOM to not wear a blue shirt at the store, the employment contract doesn't infringe on that right. However, if you fail to do A B or C, then the employer no longer is required to pay you.
by Credence24 weeks ago
Well, folks, I confess to love the internet and the World Wide Web because I get to learn so much. What is this non-compete agreement concept? Please read the first two articles, the second is rather lengthy, for an...
by Holle Abee6 years ago
Fromm CNN and Maureen Dowd:http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/17/ … tml?hpt=C2
by kirstenblog6 years ago
Or would you accept a job where you are being asked to cover two positions, one of which is an hour away in decent weather (this is on foot, no car and I don't drive anyway) that will result in there being situations...
by Kathryn L Hill4 years ago
by Steven Escareno2 years ago
According to Young Turks, Abercrombie and Fitch got into a serious legal battle for NOT hiring a woman that wanted to wear her hijab if she was hired. She claimed that it's part of her religion, and how it...
by woolman607 years ago
Even as national Republican officials seek ways to limit damage from Rand Paul's unorthodox remarks, the Kentucky Senate nominee raised more eyebrows Friday by defending the oil company blamed for the Gulf oil...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.