IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags fired , smoke

Reply
Old 16th May 2005, 07:34 PM   #361
crimresearch
Alumbrado
 
crimresearch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,600
Quote:
Originally posted by Ian Osborne
Surely the wider issue is what right employers have to intrude into people's private lives outside the workplace?
Hasn't that been pretty well covered?

When those activities have some impact on the workplace, there has to be a balance struck between competing interests, and the current law lays out some pretty clear lines, regarding that balance.
crimresearch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2005, 07:35 PM   #362
Ian Osborne
JREF Kid
Tagger
 
Ian Osborne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 8,406
Quote:
Originally posted by Diogenes
It is understandable that smokers are pretty much a lone voice in the wilderness, when it comes to these issues. I really don't see the ACLU jumping on this. Not very PC, and all.
That's why other examples of potential employer intrusion are necessary. It's easy to dismiss this one offhand.

"When they came for the Jews I did not protest because I was not a Jew", etc...
__________________
"Faith without doubt leads to moral arrogance, the eternal pratfall of the religiously convinced" - Joe Klein, Time magazine

"The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan
Ian Osborne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2005, 08:29 PM   #363
crimresearch
Alumbrado
 
crimresearch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,600
Quote:
Originally posted by Diogenes
.... It is understandable that smokers are pretty much a lone voice in the wilderness, when it comes to these issues. I really don't see the ACLU jumping on this.
Not very PC, and all.
As pointed out in the ACLU article, it has nothing to do with them not wanting to help smokers.

It has to do with them recognizing that this applies to weight, height, sex, beauty, aptitude, disability, and all sorts of other factors over which an employer can legitimately discriminate, as well as them recognizing exactly what can and can't be done under the law.
crimresearch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2005, 08:58 PM   #364
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
Originally posted by Ian Osborne
Surely the wider issue is what right employers have to intrude into people's private lives outside the workplace?
They can intrude into whatever areas the employees voluntarily agree to allow them to intrude in. Geez, it's not like it's a tough concept...
shanek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2005, 01:48 AM   #365
Ian Osborne
JREF Kid
Tagger
 
Ian Osborne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 8,406
Quote:
Originally posted by shanek
They can intrude into whatever areas the employees voluntarily agree to allow them to intrude in. Geez, it's not like it's a tough concept...
I knew you were going to say that
__________________
"Faith without doubt leads to moral arrogance, the eternal pratfall of the religiously convinced" - Joe Klein, Time magazine

"The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan
Ian Osborne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2005, 05:38 AM   #366
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 17,440
Quote:
Originally posted by crimresearch
As pointed out in the ACLU article, it has nothing to do with them not wanting to help smokers.

......... as well as them recognizing exactly what can and can't be done under the law.
Good point /s, and what I was alluding to.. It's not about helping smokers, it's about helping them smoke..
__________________
" The main problem I have with the idea of heaven, is the thought of
spending eternity with most of the people who claim to be going there. "
Skeptical Greg is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2005, 05:57 AM   #367
Snide
Illuminator
 
Snide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,197
Quote:
Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
Well what about a maximum wage? Why should people who happen to have talent in a particular field, say acting or sport, be able to hold film companies or sports teams to ransom to pay huge salaries?
We are seeing this already in sports, and it has helped football and basketball immensely, while baseball suffers somewhat without it, and hockey...well, need I say more?
Snide is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2005, 06:54 AM   #368
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
 
Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,408
Quote:
Originally posted by Ian Osborne
I knew you were going to say that
Like a switch, he turns off his brain. Who needs thinking when you have a bunch of platitudes?
__________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle

Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company. - Mark Twain
Tony is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2005, 07:05 AM   #369
bigred
Penultimate Amazing
 
bigred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 18,992
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You smoke? You're fired!

Quote:
Originally posted by shanek
Consider that assault includes things like cutting off ears. And also include the common law. What is your answer?
?? I did consider it (in fact stated it) and answered. What part of my answer don't you get?
bigred is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2005, 07:09 AM   #370
bigred
Penultimate Amazing
 
bigred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 18,992
Quote:
Originally posted by Phrost
But the problem is that you're still taking away the freedom of the business owner to decide who they employ. ]
But that is not necessary a "problem." Again, it depends on the specifics.

And this brings up a point I often see ignored or not understood in general: freedoms are not absolute. As it relates to this thread, employers are not free to hire, fire, or ignore anyone, ie on any whim they desire. Race, gender, and age are the most obvious examples, but are not (or should not be) the only ones.


Quote:
It's perfectly legal to crusade for the legalization of child pornography. But as a business owner, the activities of your employees outside of work has a direct effect on your success. If you discovered that a prominent child porn advocate was on your staff, do you really feel you should be forced to keep him?
Oh cmon, that's hardly the same thing as smoking and I think (or would hope) you know it.
bigred is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2005, 07:28 AM   #371
crimresearch
Alumbrado
 
crimresearch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,600
As it relates to this thread, employers are not free to hire, fire, or ignore anyone, ie on any whim they desire. Race, gender, and age are the most obvious examples, but are not (or should not be) the only ones.

And exactly what part of 'Yes they are' is it that you are incapable of grasping?

Employers are legally free to do exactly that...
If they want an all black cast for a play, they can hire an all black cast...if one of the cast members balloons up to 300 pounds, they can fire them...if the lead actor lied about her age and gender and is only 14, they can fire her...if the ushers show up reeking after joining a religious cult that bans bathing, the employer can fire them too.

The number of reasons for which an employer may *not* legally fire someone is so small, that the ACLU was able to count them on the fingers of one hand, and have some left over.

And I will repeat...for those who are so outraged that real life isn't living up to your idealistic fantasies...what have you done to change it?
Helped the ALU draft that model labor law? Worked in the field of wrongful terminations? Gotten active in anything?
crimresearch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2005, 07:55 AM   #372
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
Originally posted by Ian Osborne
I knew you were going to say that
Well, it's true. If I invite you into my home, you can come in. That doesn't mean you get to break in. So many people in this thread are trying to paint a voluntary agreement as something that is done by force. That's just ridiculous.
shanek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2005, 07:56 AM   #373
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
Originally posted by Snide
We are seeing this already in sports, and it has helped football and basketball immensely, while baseball suffers somewhat without it, and hockey...well, need I say more?
Correct me on this if I'm wrong, but those are rules imposed by the league on its members, which, of course, the members agree to by being members, and not a law imposed upon them by government, correct?
shanek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2005, 08:21 AM   #374
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
Originally posted by bigred
And this brings up a point I often see ignored or not understood in general: freedoms are not absolute. As it relates to this thread, employers are not free to hire, fire, or ignore anyone, ie on any whim they desire. Race, gender, and age are the most obvious examples, but are not (or should not be) the only ones.
As this dangerous and erroneous conclusion seems to be pervasive in this thread, I think it would be good to go over the difference between a right and a privilege.

A right is something you can do without permission. You can do it without permission because it does not affect the person or property of others.

A privilege is something you need permission to do, as it involves intruding on the person or property of others.

So, above I mentioned that I can invite you into my home, but you can't break in. That's because my home is my property, and so you entering my home is a privilege, not a right. You need permission. But a privilege can be revoked any time; I can kick you out whenever I want.

In a business transaction, we have two (or more) players essentially exchanging privileges. You don't have a right to take money from my pocket, because my money is my property, but I have the right to give it to you. You getting my money is a privilege. I don't have a right to take your property, but you have the right to give it to me. Me getting your property is a privilege. So we can both agree that I will give you a certain amount of money in exchange for a certain amount of your property. But if we don't reach an agreement, no such transaction takes place.

In this case, we have an employee's body (and everything that goes with it: the ability to think, to labor, to type, to speak, to sell, whatever), which is his property, and we have Weyco's money and resources, which is their property. Employment is an economic transaction. If I'm employed, then I'm giving my employer some of my property: the portion of my body and mind that we agree on. In return, I'm given some of the employer's property, which consists not only of the wages and benefits I get, but also the use of a portion of their office space, computers, Post-It notes, etc.

So, by taking the job, I'm giving my employer privileges over my body. I agree, for example, that my physical body will be in their building from 8am to 5pm. But I don't have to show up. I can decide not to show up if I want. But, of course, if I don't, they'll most likely fire me.

Either side can terminate the agreement whenever they want. I can up and quit for no reason, or they can up and fire me for no reason. I can up and quit because they have no right to my property, even the portion of it I've agreed to let them use. They can up and fire me because I have no right to their property, even the portion of it they've agreed to let me use. These are privileges, not rights.

So, just as they can demand that I show up from 8 to 5, or even demand that I come into work next Saturday, they can demand that I submit to a drug test to see if I've been smoking. But I don't have to comply. If I don't, they'll most likely fire me, but that's because I don't have a right to their job.

It works the other way, too. I can go and demand a raise. But the company doesn't have to comply. If they don't, I can quit if I want, but that's because they don't have a right to my labor.

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.
shanek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2005, 08:21 AM   #375
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
 
Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,408
Quote:
Originally posted by shanek
Well, it's true.
Yes, it's true that you're willfully ignorant.
__________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle

Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company. - Mark Twain
Tony is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2005, 08:52 AM   #376
bigred
Penultimate Amazing
 
bigred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 18,992
Quote:
Originally posted by shanek
No; they are people who have voluntarily agreed to work for someone. If they don't like the conditions of doing so, they're free to go elsehwere. Why you fail to grasp this concept is beyond me.
Actually I think you and others are failing to grasp something, so can we pls clarify what we're talking about here, ie:

1 - Smokers who apply for a job where it is stated up front that you may not smoke anywhere at any time

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


They are hardly the same thing.
bigred is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2005, 09:02 AM   #377
crimresearch
Alumbrado
 
crimresearch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,600
How is 15 months of company paid smoking cessation classes and support groups being 'suddenly thrust' upon the employees?
crimresearch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2005, 09:32 AM   #378
bigred
Penultimate Amazing
 
bigred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 18,992
Quote:
Originally posted by shanek
As this dangerous and erroneous conclusion seems to be pervasive in this thread,
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.
bigred is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2005, 09:37 AM   #379
crimresearch
Alumbrado
 
crimresearch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,600
Don't read the pages that contain inconvenient facts, and just assume that everyone else is making easily refuted absolutist arguments, so that you can leave the thread in 'victory', hey?

Poor excuse for skepticism, but an effective tactic.
crimresearch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2005, 10:42 AM   #380
Snide
Illuminator
 
Snide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,197
Quote:
Originally posted by shanek
Correct me on this if I'm wrong, but those are rules imposed by the league on its members, which, of course, the members agree to by being members, and not a law imposed upon them by government, correct?
Absolutely correct. And unlike many form contracts an employee signs with a new employer, these have actually been bargained for (not presented as "take it or leave it").

And they are working wonderfully for the NFL and NBA. The NHL, the "minor" league of the "big four," which is also the one that probabaly needs salary caps the most because of lack of TV revenue, is out of action, and further alienating its fans, in large part because the union wants no salary caps.

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.
Snide is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2005, 10:43 AM   #381
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
Originally posted by bigred
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2005, 10:45 AM   #382
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
Originally posted by bigred
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2005, 10:46 AM   #383
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
Originally posted by Snide
Absolutely correct.
Then it's a part of the normal business negotiations. The free market in action.
shanek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2005, 10:59 AM   #384
Snide
Illuminator
 
Snide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,197
Quote:
Originally posted by shanek
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.
Snide is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2005, 11:06 AM   #385
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
Originally posted by Snide
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.
shanek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2005, 11:08 AM   #386
Snide
Illuminator
 
Snide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,197
Quote:
Originally posted by shanek
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.
Snide is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2005, 11:18 AM   #387
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 17,440
Quote:
Originally posted by Snide
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.
__________________
" The main problem I have with the idea of heaven, is the thought of
spending eternity with most of the people who claim to be going there. "
Skeptical Greg is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2005, 11:47 AM   #388
Snide
Illuminator
 
Snide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,197
Quote:
Originally posted by Diogenes
It happens by the union not letting itself be quashed.
I mean before they even get started...sorry.
Snide is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2005, 12:03 PM   #389
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 17,440
Quote:
Originally posted by Snide
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..
__________________
" The main problem I have with the idea of heaven, is the thought of
spending eternity with most of the people who claim to be going there. "
Skeptical Greg is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2005, 12:04 PM   #390
Snide
Illuminator
 
Snide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,197
Quote:
Originally posted by shanek
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2005, 12:06 PM   #391
Snide
Illuminator
 
Snide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,197
Quote:
Originally posted by Diogenes
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).
Snide is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2005, 02:22 PM   #392
Solitaire
Neoclinus blanchardi
 
Solitaire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,580
Quote:
Originally posted by shanek
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!
__________________
Currently thinking up a new signature line.
Solitaire is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2005, 02:34 PM   #393
Snide
Illuminator
 
Snide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,197
Quote:
Originally posted by Synchronicity
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.
Snide is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2005, 05:28 PM   #394
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
Originally posted by Snide
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2005, 05:30 PM   #395
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
Originally posted by Synchronicity
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.
shanek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2005, 07:27 PM   #396
Tmy
Philosopher
 
Tmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 6,487
Quote:
Originally posted by Snide


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.
__________________
"Common sense is something that skeptics can and should do without." -shanek
Tmy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2005, 07:54 PM   #397
username
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 837
Quote:
Originally posted by shanek
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?
username is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2005, 08:41 PM   #398
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
Originally posted by username
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
shanek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2005, 09:35 PM   #399
Earthborn
Terrestrial Intelligence
 
Earthborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 6,399
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
__________________
Perhaps nothing is entirely true; and not even that!
Multatuli
Earthborn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2005, 05:29 AM   #400
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
Originally posted by Earthborn
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?

Quote:
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!

Quote:
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.
shanek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:02 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.