You smoke? You're fired!

[Tony]

No, but THERE IS NO COERCION HERE!

Yes there is. You just bury your head in the sand in the face of 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.

That's true, this guy is a criminal for coercing his employees to surrender their rights.

 

[Earthborn]

If Michael Jordan wanted to start talking about political issues, wouldn't the press give him more coverage?

Yes, but not because of any of his innate abilities.

And, of course, this is using a grossly distorted meaning of the word "power."

Just because I use the word in a slightly different way than you would, does not make it a 'grossly distorted meaning'.
You keep forgetting that words don't always have a single meaning, and people don't always share your definitions of them.

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

There is nothing to refute. It is just a list of your opinions.

No, but THERE IS NO COERCION HERE!

Irrelevant. It is not Username's argument that there is. It is his argument that there could be and that the government needs to protect people from that.

Really, you just keep misreading people. Read his argument again and try to get it into your head that maybe the first interpretation that pops into your head is simply incorrect. You are a dyslexic remember? You need to be more careful that you are not misreading people arguments.

It's because coercion has no part in negotiations.

Just because it shouldn't be a part of it, does not mean it never is.

The only two kinds of entities that initiate coercion are governments and criminals.

There you have it. Now you admit coercion can be part of negotiations: when dealing with criminals. Doesn't the government have a task protecting people from criminals?

If they use coercion, then the agreement is made under duress and is therefore void.

Which is only relevant if the government protects contract law and declares contracts void if they are made under duress. If the government wouldn't do that, the criminals will still treat the contract as valid in their own eyes.

 

[Snide]

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.

No disagreement here.

 

[shanek]

Yes, but not because of any of his innate abilities.

What "innate abilities" do employers have, other than their status as an employer? Much as Jordan has because of his celebrity status?

There is nothing to refute. It is just a list of your opinions.

It's a logical explanation of the employer/employee relationship and it debunks the claims of many in this thread.

Irrelevant. It is not Username's argument that there is.

Uh, yes it is. He said, "it is also the job of government to ensure that coercion is not used to arrive at the terms of the private contract." And Tony said it explicitly.

It is his argument that there could be and that the government needs to protect people from that.

Again, a distinction without a difference.

Just because it shouldn't be a part of it, does not mean it never is.

If it ever is, then a crime is being committed. But again, that's not the case with what we're talking about here!

Doesn't the government have a task protecting people from criminals?

Yes. Now, how has Weyco been involved in criminal activity?

If you'll read through the post of mine that you said was just a "list of opinions," you'll see that at no point is there any coercion here. The coercion would be involved in using the government to force the employer to give up some of its property to the employees that it doesn't want working for them.

 

[Snide]

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?

No, no, no, not sure if this is relevant to the point, none.

I'm not sure where the "he owes us his property" comes from, but it's probably something to do with what you said later:

You believe that employees have a right to the property of employers because employers have an advantage over them.

That wasn't directed at me, which is good, because it doesn't represent my belief. (Notice in my reply I specifically omitted that sentence where you mentioned property rights.) So I'll just assume I missed something. FWIW, I agree with that particular point.

But you haven't answered username's retort sufficiently, other than to point out username erred in verbiage choice. Of course Employers sign the paperwork. But the point is, or should have been, that usually they are the ones who write the agreement, leaving the prospective employee, with who knows how many other candidates willing to sign, in a virtual position of "take it or leave it." I find it hard to believe you have only signed "government-forced" agreements in your past employment, unless you've never worked for a company larger than your own. (My current job required non-compete, privacy, intellectual property...all that stuff. None if it could I bargain for. I either signed it, or they would offer the job to someone who would. Not that I'm griping...I gladly signed them. But I didn't have much of a "choice")

I expect you would agree with Williston's four-corners approach in reviewing such a contract, and I don't necessarily disagree here, but that seems to be the point that is escaping from this thread, and it's the most important.

Employers write the paperwork. It's not bargained-for in a pure sense of the term.

 

[TragicMonkey]

How about this?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050518/ap_on_fe_st/wrong_beer

DENVER - Ross Hopkins still likes to drink Bud, even though he says a brief tryst with a Coors beer cost him his job at a Budweiser distributor.

Hopkins, 41, is suing American Eagle Distributing Co., saying the company wrongly fired him for drinking Coors in a bar two years ago.

"They flat-out told me 'We're putting food on your table so you could put it on theirs?'" he said Tuesday. "I thought I could drink it, no problem.

Colorado law says workers cannot be fired for a legal activity while off duty and away from work. There are exceptions, such as when a worker's actions relate to an occupational requirement or create a conflict of interest.

In a court filing, American Eagle said Hopkins' termination "was necessary to avoid a conflict of interest with his responsibilities to American Eagle and/or the appearance of such a conflict of interest."

Hopkins, who was a warehouse supervisor for the distributor, said he was not wearing a uniform or representing American Eagle when he was at the bar in May 2003 with some co-workers. He said he had ordered a Budweiser but a waitress brought Coors. He decided to drink it because he didn't want to wait.

I suppose, in this vein, that if you worked for Ford and drove your wife's Toyota to work one day because your car (being a Ford) needed work, you could be fired. And why can't Kmart require all their workers to only purchase items from Kmart or be fired?

 

[Ian Osborne]

And why can't Kmart require all their workers to only purchase items from Kmart or be fired?

Or pay them with special K-Mart currency that can only be spent in K-Mart stores? It happened in the 19th Century, y'know...

 

[Earthborn]

What "innate abilities" do employers have

They may not have any innate abilities that are relevant. Which is the point!

Their ability to get what they want is simply based on the government allows them to have. If the government decides that they have too much, it can take of it away and give it to someone else.

That's why a comparison with Michael Jordan is inappropriate. The government can't take away a bit of his talents and give them to someone else.

You asked "What property of his are we entitled to?" The answer is simple: none, because the advantage he has is not transferable. The advantage an employer may have over an employee is to some degree transferable and therefore comparison falls flat.

It is possible to give an answer to "what property is the employee entitled to?" if one assumes the employee is entitled to anything. It may be some of the negotiating power the employer has.

Uh, yes it is. He said, "it is also the job of government to ensure that coercion is not used to arrive at the terms of the private contract."

No, it isn't. You just show your difficulty to read. Just because it is the government's job (in Username's opinion) to ensure there is no coercion does not mean that there is coercion.

In fact it if the government does its job, it means the exact opposite: there is no coercion because the government ensures there isn't.

And Tony said it explicitly.

Tony doesn't make Username's argument. He makes a completely different argument.

Again, a distinction without a difference.

I don't understand what you are trying to say? Where in that sentence do I make a distinction, and why should there be a 'difference' ?

I get a strong feeling you are misreading again.

Yes. Now, how has Weyco been involved in criminal activity?

That depends on the definition of 'criminal activity'. If discrimination of smokers is criminal activity, it has been involved in criminal activity. If discrimination of smokers is not criminal activity then it hasn't.

So whether one thinks it has been involved in criminal activity depends purely on one's personal political philosophy. Some will say yes, others will so no.

It's a logical explanation of the employer/employee relationship and it debunks the claims of many in this thread.

The logic of it depends too much on your own personal political philosophy. Someone who prefers slightly different definitions of 'right', 'priviledge' and 'the proper role of government' will not agree with your conclusion. Even if s/he agrees that your logic is sound when one uses your basic assumptions.

But not everyone uses the same basic assumptions, and your assumptions are not objective truth. Therefore your argument is simply a nice summary of your own political philosophy, which we already knew. It debunks nothing.

 

[Earthborn]

Or pay them with special K-Mart currency that can only be spent in K-Mart stores? It happened in the 19th Century, y'know...

Yes, it happened in the 19th Century when there was FREEEEEDOOOOOM and LIIIIIBEEEEERTYYYYY and the FREEEEE MAAAARKEEEET wasn't tied down by SOOOOOCIIIAAALIIIISM. The AAAAMEEEERIIIIICAAAAAN EEEEECOOOOONOOOOOOMYYYYYY was growing FAAAAASTEEEEER than ever before and HUUUUUNGRE was concurred and IIIIIMMIIIIIGRAAAAANTS from all over the WOOOOOOORLD came to AAAAMEEEERICAAAAAA to breath the FREEEEEE AAAAAAIIIIIIR!

Remember: even if your employer dominates every aspect of your life, it is still FREEEEEEDOOOOOOM because you agreed to it yourself FREEEEELYYYYY. And if you no longer like it, you can always QUUUUUUIIIIIIT and get AAAAAAANOOOOOOOTHEEEEEER JOOOOOOOOOOOB!

Good thing Shanek will not be able to read this because of his dyslexia.

 

[shanek]

I'm not sure where the "he owes us his property" comes from,

It comes from that rather lengthy descriptive post that I made above which no one has responded to or, apparently, even read.

But the point is, or should have been, that usually they are the ones who write the agreement, leaving the prospective employee, with who knows how many other candidates willing to sign, in a virtual position of "take it or leave it."

I have never been in such a situation in a job interview. And I've been on a lot of interviews.

Besides, no one has been able to show here that there was a contract at all. And some have acknowledged that there wasn't. So that leaves the agreement open-ended, subject to termination by either party for whatever reason they want.

Employers write the paperwork. It's not bargained-for in a pure sense of the term.

I have always been able to bargain whenever seeking a job. So is it that people can't do this, or just don't?

 

[shanek]

They may not have any innate abilities that are relevant. Which is the point!

Then I'm completely confused as to what the point is.

Their ability to get what they want is simply based on the government allows them to have.

No, it isn't. We are a nation of positive liberty. The government doesn't "allow" us to do anything. We do it because we're human beings with rights. The government can only act on the powers that we the people have granted it through our instrument, the Constitution.

You asked "What property of his are we entitled to?" The answer is simple: none, because the advantage he has is not transferable. The advantage an employer may have over an employee is to some degree transferable and therefore comparison falls flat.

Then the "advantage" itself is property-based. Which means that people with a lot of property somehow owe some of that property to people who don't have as much of it.

It may be some of the negotiating power the employer has.

But the employee has negotiating power!

In fact it if the government does its job, it means the exact opposite: there is no coercion because the government ensures there isn't.

Okay, fine. But again, where's the coercion here?

I don't understand what you are trying to say? Where in that sentence do I make a distinction, and why should there be a 'difference' ?

The difference between "could be" and "is" when speaking of a specific event as we are doing is no distinction at all. There either was coercion, or there wasn't.

I get a strong feeling you are misreading again.That depends on the definition of 'criminal activity'.

Activity that directly harms or threatens others through the initiation of force (or coercion or whatever you want to call it).

Someone who prefers slightly different definitions of 'right', 'priviledge' and 'the proper role of government' will not agree with your conclusion.

Fine; then let them explain why I am wrong. That's what debate is all about.

 

[Earthborn]

Then I'm completely confused as to what the point is.

I noticed.

The government doesn't "allow" us to do anything.

The government doesn't stop you from doing something, or the government allows you to do something. Same thing.

Then the "advantage" itself is property-based.

Yes, of course.

Which means that people with a lot of property somehow owe some of that property to people who don't have as much of it.

Some people believe that, yes.

But the employee has negotiating power!

Yes, but the point you consistently keep missing is that the employee often does not have as much of it.

Okay, fine. But again, where's the coercion here?

Read my sentence again: "there is no coercion because the government ensures there isn't."

Where does it say that there is? Or does it say that there isn't?

The difference between "could be" and "is" when speaking of a specific event as we are doing is no distinction at all.

We are not just talking about a specific event, we are also talking about how such events in general should be handled.
In employer/employee relations there could be coercion (if the government doesn't protect anyone against it) but that does not mean that in this particular case there is.

Activity that directly harms or threatens others through the initiation of force (or coercion or whatever you want to call it).

That's your definition, not everybody else's. And as I said, it depends on the definition used.

Fine; then let them explain why I am wrong.

You are not wrong. They are also not wrong. There is just disagreement.

 

[crimresearch]

"So whether one thinks it has been involved in criminal activity depends purely on one's personal political philosophy. Some will say yes, others will so no....

The logic of it depends too much on your own personal political philosophy. Someone who prefers slightly different definitions of 'right', 'priviledge' and 'the proper role of government' will not agree with your conclusion. Even if s/he agrees that your logic is sound when one uses your basic assumptions.

But not everyone uses the same basic assumptions, and your assumptions are not objective truth. Therefore your argument is simply a nice summary of your own political philosophy, which we already knew. It debunks nothing."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And of course, all you have to do to float that particular load, is to ignore the fact that the courts have ruled that there is nothing criminal about it.

Some skeptics we've got here...

 

[shanek]

The government doesn't stop you from doing something, or the government allows you to do something. Same thing.

No, because "allow" implies they have the legitimate authority to stop me. They don't.

Some people believe that, yes.

Our Constitution doesn't.

Read my sentence again: "there is no coercion because the government ensures there isn't."

Except that here the government hasn't done anything. There are people wanting the government to step in and make this illegal. But as of now, government has done nothing whatsoever about this situation. So again, I ask, where's the coercion?

In employer/employee relations there could be coercion (if the government doesn't protect anyone against it) but that does not mean that in this particular case there is.

Then I don't see the relevance of bringing up coercion with regards to this thread. If a business said, "Work for us or we'll kill your daughter," that would certainly be coercion and I think everyone here would be against it.

 

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by shanek
There is an agreement between employer and employee that the employee will not smoke, even on his own time. There is an agreement that the employee will take a drug test to confirm this. The condition of a violation of this agreement is termination of employment.

Um. There was no agreement. So erase that concept from your mind.

 

[crimresearch]

Yeah, there was...

Once the employer changed the conditions of employment, returning to work indicates a desire to be paid to work under those new conditions.

The fact that the agreement to accept new terms was motivated by self interest is a barely interesting bit of sophistry, but one that has nothing to do with reality, legality, or skepticism.

 

[shanek]

Um. There was no agreement. So erase that concept from your mind.

No, there is such an agreement, as it's a condition of continued employment. Being employed there means you agree to the conditions of employment. If you don't agree, you can always seek other employment options. Or get together with your co-workers and convince your employer to change his mind.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Yeah, there was...

Once the employer changed the conditions of employment, returning to work indicates a desire to be paid to work under those new conditions.

Good observation..



I'ts amazing that some people don't seem to get this...

 

[Snide]

Good observation..



I'ts amazing that some people don't seem to get this...

They get it. They just disagree that the returning employees had a fair choice.

 

[username]

Shanek:

There is an agreement between employer and employee that the employee will not smoke, even on his own time. There is an agreement that the employee will take a drug test to confirm this. The condition of a violation of this agreement is termination of employment.

• There is an agreement between employer and employee that the employee will provide sexual favors on demand, even on his own time. The condition of a violation of this agreement is termination of employment.
• There is an agreement between employer and employee that the employee will vote only for republicans. There is an agreement that the employee will take a the employer into the voting booth to confirm this. The condition of a violation of this agreement is termination of employment.

Would you assert the employer is within his rights for the above two conditions as well? If not, why not?