You smoke? You're fired!

[shanek]

2- Smokers who are working for a company where this was not stated, but are now suddenly having this ultimatum thrust on them.

1) 15 months notice is "suddenly"? 2) As I pointed out above, the employees do not have a right to the company's property. Forcing the company to keep them employed when they don't want to is a kind of reverse slavery.

 

[shanek]

I see, so you think rights are absolute. lol. Thanks for ensuring I don't waste any more time in this thread. It's probably a good thing I skipped roughly pages 5-9 as well, as I suspect it's more of the same.

Amazing...a long, thought-out-logical post, and you take one sentence, respond with "lol", and then try and claim that you're wasting time trying to debate with us.

 

[shanek]

Absolutely correct.

Then it's a part of the normal business negotiations. The free market in action.

 

[Snide]

Then it's a part of the normal business negotiations. The free market in action.

Agreed. And the negotiations were fair for all parties involved thanks to the unions, providing evidence that unions can be useful when not abused.

 

[shanek]

Agreed. And the negotiations were fair for all parties involved thanks to the unions, providing evidence that unions can be useful when not abused.

Sure. A union is, after all, a group of employees. Many, many employees banding together can be quite powerful. The problem with unions comes in when they're made political entities.

 

[Snide]

Sure. A union is, after all, a group of employees. Many, many employees banding together can be quite powerful. The problem with unions comes in when they're made political entities.

No doubt, but I also have a problem with the opposite: quashing unions. Not sure about the best way to prevent that from happening.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

No doubt, but I also have a problem with the opposite: quashing unions. Not sure about the best way to prevent that from happening.

It happens by the union not letting itself be quashed.

 

[Snide]

It happens by the union not letting itself be quashed.

I mean before they even get started...sorry.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I mean before they even get started...sorry.

That would be, because people don't want to join the union?

I think a lot of people see it as somebody else with their hand out, and horror stories about unions driving companies into the dirt..

 

[Snide]

Once you understand this, you see why the argument that employers have an advantage is a red herring. Having an advantage over someone doesn't mean they have a right to your property. That's just plain Marxist Socialism.

The stuff above this was all 101 of course, but I can't fully agree with this conclusion.

Specifically,

1) That employers have an inherent bargaining advantage (I'm talking companies larger than your business) is not a red herring. Unless you are referring to a specific argument in this thread, in which case please let me know so I can follow.

2) Just because one does not like the notion that in general, employers have an "unfair" bargaining advantage, does not mean that one is a Marxist Socialist, any more than believing you shouldn't bear false witness against your neighbor means one is a Deist.

edited for clarity

 

[Snide]

That would be, because people don't want to join the union?

That's one reason, but not all of them.

Edited to add: I see you added another comment, and I agree that can happen. But what I'm referring to of course is that when people do try to unionize, with good reason and in good faith, they are too easily quashed by corporate tactics. It's not always a bad thing necessarily, but as a general principle, I don't particularly like it (that it's so easy).

 

[Solitaire]

Then they'll all be shooting themselves in the foot, closing themselves off from a pool of good workers. This would leave the door wide open for competition to come in, grab these good workers, and give the other companies a run for their money. Heck, those workers themselves could even get together and do it.

One of the amazing things is that this does not happen ever.
Take a look at women... They say they work twice as hard as a man.
But they only get 69 cents on the dollar a man makes, right? So...
If I started a business I'd higher only women and I'd be rich, right?
But this never happens. It's impossible. The universe won't allow it.
That's why you never see such a sucessfull business plan.
Universes are such funny things...

P.S. I didn't sleep last night, so if this does not make sense, it won't make sense to me tomorrow either. But if it does make sense, score!

 

[Snide]

One of the amazing things is that this does not happen ever.
Take a look at women... They say they work twice as hard as a man.
But they only get 69 cents on the dollar a man makes, right? So...
If I started a business I'd higher only women and I'd be rich, right?
But this never happens. It's impossible. The universe won't allow it.
That's why you never see such a sucessfull business plan.
Universes are such funny things...

P.S. I didn't sleep last night, so if this does not make sense, it won't make sense to me tomorrow either. But if it does make sense, score!

I think what you are saying is that market forces don't always take care of things in the real world...or universe.

I tend to agree, but nothing else does either.

 

[shanek]

The stuff above this was all 101 of course, but I can't fully agree with this conclusion.

Specifically,

1) That employers have an inherent bargaining advantage (I'm talking companies larger than your business) is not a red herring. Unless you are referring to a specific argument in this thread, in which case please let me know so I can follow.

2) Just because one does not like the notion that in general, employers have an "unfair" bargaining advantage, does not mean that one is a Marxist Socialist, any more than believing you shouldn't bear false witness against your neighbor means one is a Deist.

edited for clarity

Okay.

Dr. Michio Kaku is an extremely intelligent and educated individual. He has many advantages over the rest of us. What property of his are we entitled to?

Emanuel Ax is a very gifted individual in demand the world over. What property of his are we entitled to?

Michael Jordan was born with innate talent that allowed him to rise to stardom quickly and retire early. What property of his are we entitled to?

At what point does someone with more advantages than us owe us his property? And how much of his property do we get?

 

[shanek]

One of the amazing things is that this does not happen ever. Take a look at women... They say they work twice as hard as a man. But they only get 69 cents on the dollar a man makes, right?

Only because so many of them have been out of the work force for so long raising a family. When you group together men and women of similar work histories, their pay is quite comparable.

 

[Tmy]

And while MLB has no salary cap, it does have "luxury taxes," again through no meddling of the government, and it at least has helped some teams like mine (Twins) remain competitive...not perfect, but better than what the NHL has had happen.

The luxury tax is only a couple years old. baseball is doing extermely well despite having no cap AND having the strongest sports union. As for the cost of players, that has more to do with reckless owners rather than union influance.

 

[username]

Okay.

Dr. Michio Kaku is an extremely intelligent and educated individual. He has many advantages over the rest of us. What property of his are we entitled to?

You are resorting to canned rhetoric again, not addressing the actual point made.

Employers have more bargaining power than employees. That is why employee wannabes sign paperwork and employers do not.

It is the job of government to enforce the terms of private contracts, but it is also the job of government to ensure that coercion is not used to arrive at the terms of the private contract.

When one party has significantly more power coercion can and often is used.

What part of this does your dogma not understand?

 

[shanek]

You are resorting to canned rhetoric again, not addressing the actual point made.

No, I'm not. I'm taking your claim to its logical conclusion. You believe that employees have a right to the property of employers because employers have an advantage over them. I'm wondering how far this concept goes.

Employers have more bargaining power than employees. That is why employee wannabes sign paperwork and employers do not.

Employers don't sign paperwork??? Are you out of your mind, or just totally ignorant of the subject?

Besides, the only paperwork I ever had to sign to get a job was the forms mandated by the government.

It is the job of government to enforce the terms of private contracts, but it is also the job of government to ensure that coercion is not used to arrive at the terms of the private contract.

Now this is rhetoric. You just can't point to any coercion, except for this "advantage" you only want to talk about on your own terms, and I have shown conclusively that there is none. Resort to all the name-calling ("dogma") you want, but it doesn't change the facts.

 

[Earthborn]

I'm taking your claim to its logical conclusion.

No, you weren't. Username argued that employers have an advantage of power, not of talent. The government cannot take away some of Michael Jordan's talent away and give to someone else, so the advantage he has is fixed. An advantage of power is something completely different and if one person has too much power over another, it is possible to make that person a little less powerful and the other a bit more powerful.

You just can't point to any coercion, except for this "advantage" you only want to talk about on your own terms, and I have shown conclusively that there is none.

Are you saying that even if the government does not prevent people from coercing other, there will not be any coercion? I thought it was your belief that the government is needed to prevent coercion?

I think that if there is no coercion between the employer and the employees it is partly because the government forbids it. I thought that was you believe as well, and it is exactly what Username is arguing here.

Perhaps you are once again trying too hard to disagree with someone again, blinding you for the fact that the person you disagree with actually agrees with you. Wouldn't be the first time you misread what someone wrote.

 

[shanek]

No, you weren't. Username argued that employers have an advantage of power, not of talent. The government cannot take away some of Michael Jordan's talent away and give to someone else, so the advantage he has is fixed. An advantage of power is something completely different and if one person has too much power over another, it is possible to make that person a little less powerful and the other a bit more powerful.

This is a distinction without a difference. If Michael Jordan wanted to start talking about political issues, wouldn't the press give him more coverage? Wouldn't more people seek out his opinion? And doesn't he have a lot more money? Just because he chooses not to use it doesn't mean he doesn't have power.

And, of course, this is using a grossly distorted meaning of the word "power." Power is based on authority, the ability to use force. Neither Jordan nor the business has that.

Why won't anyone respond to that multi-paragraph description I wrote and try and refute that?

Are you saying that even if the government does not prevent people from coercing other, there will not be any coercion?

No, but THERE IS NO COERCION HERE!

I think that if there is no coercion between the employer and the employees it is partly because the government forbids it.

No, it's not. It's because coercion has no part in negotiations. The only two kinds of entities that initiate coercion are governments and criminals. If they use coercion, then the agreement is made under duress and is therefore void.