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 13th May 2005, 01:22 PM   #161
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
But where does their right to enforce that agreement end.
When you get fed up and walk out the door.
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 13th May 2005, 01:23 PM   #162
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
Originally posted by Tony
It doesn't?

So a business can force you to convert to a religion and not speak your mind? 1st amendment.

A business can force you to give up your guns? 2nd amendment.

A business can quarter it's soliders, against your will, at your house? 3rd amendment.

A business can serach your house and your property without a warrent? 4th amendment.

A business can compell you to implicate yourself in a crime? 5th amendment.

A business can delay justice and your day in court? 6th amendment.

A business can prevent you from voting?
No, it can't. And this business isn't preventing people from smoking. It's only refusing to keep on people who smoke as employees.
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 13th May 2005, 01:24 PM   #163
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
Originally posted by Tony
Now you're contradicting yourself.
No, I'm not. You only wish I were.

Quote:
According to you, it's a voluntary arrangement, those other employees don't have to do anything.
That's right; they don't. But if they don't, production suffers. One of those three things is going to happen; there's just no other option.

Quote:
The thing about a psuedo-libertarian dictatorship was in response to your statement regarding congressional genocide. Keep up.
I never said anything about "congressional genocide." Stop lying. I was making a parody of how Congress exempts itself from laws. But keep it up; you only show how desperate you're becoming.
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 13th May 2005, 01:25 PM   #164
username
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 837
Quote:
Originally posted by Tony
I can come up with a rebuttal, all you say in response to it would be more theory and dogma. Ultimately, talking with you is as wasteful as talking to a fundie. Neither of you are prepared to think outside your self imposed box.
Unfortunately I would agree here. Shanek I do like you and I don't think I have ever said an insulting word to you on these forums so please don't take my agreement here as an insult. I really do believe though that you are caught up in libertarian theory and dogma to the point that real world examples of it not working aren't taken into account.

Quote:
A business can serach your house and your property without a warrent? 4th amendment.
Unfortunately this is what is being argued for. Regulating private behavior and searching the employee's body to enforce the regulation. Arguing that the employee voluntarily gives up this right as if there were no coercion involved.

It is indeed a sad day to see libertarians arguing in favor of such a position. Libertarians were supposed to be the great hope of liberty lovers and it appears they have become unwitting advocates of corporate fascism under the dilusion the typical employee and employer have equal power in negotiating favorable contract terms.
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 13th May 2005, 01:26 PM   #165
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
 
Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,408
Quote:
Originally posted by shanek
No, it can't.
So a business DOES have to respect the constitutional rights of their employees. Thank you.

Quote:
And this business isn't preventing people from smoking. It's only refusing to keep on people who smoke as employees.
Umm, they don't smoke as employees. They smoke as free people on their own time on their own property.
__________________
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 13th May 2005, 01:27 PM   #166
Nyarlathotep
Philosopher
 
Nyarlathotep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,500
Quote:
Originally posted by shanek
When you get fed up and walk out the door.
So in other words, in libertarian-land my employer CAN tap my phone and monitor my home e-mails.

Yow.
__________________
Why stay sane in a sick world?
Nyarlathotep 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 13th May 2005, 01:28 PM   #167
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
Originally posted by username
Unfortunately this is what is being argued for. Regulating private behavior and searching the employee's body to enforce the regulation. Arguing that the employee voluntarily gives up this right as if there were no coercion involved.
There isn't. Either side has the right to terminate their voluntary agreement for whatever reason they choose, absent a contract stating otherwise. Nothing is being coerced.
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 13th May 2005, 01:29 PM   #168
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
So in other words, in libertarian-land my employer CAN tap my phone and monitor my home e-mails.
No, they can't, because that's your property.
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 13th May 2005, 01:32 PM   #169
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
 
Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,408
Quote:
Originally posted by shanek
No, I'm not. You only wish I were.
Yes you are, I demonstrated how you were.

Quote:
That's right; they don't. But if they don't, production suffers. One of those three things is going to happen; there's just no other option.
Ok, since the employees don't have to work harder and an employee doesn't have to work on his day off, production suffers.

Quote:
I never said anything about "congressional genocide." Stop lying.
That's not a lie, I got you wrong. Sorry.

Quote:
I was making a parody of how Congress exempts itself from laws.
Got it.

Quote:
But keep it up; you only show how desperate you're becoming.
Believe that if it makes you feel better. Meanwhile, I'll laugh at your fundamentalism.
__________________
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 13th May 2005, 01:32 PM   #170
Nyarlathotep
Philosopher
 
Nyarlathotep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,500
Quote:
Originally posted by shanek
No, they can't, because that's your property.
Okay, thanks for clarifying because your first repsonse made it sound like they could.

In that case isn't my blood every bit as much my property as my private communications from home?
__________________
Why stay sane in a sick world?
Nyarlathotep 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 13th May 2005, 01:34 PM   #171
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
 
Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,408
Quote:
Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
So in other words, in libertarian-land my employer CAN tap my phone and monitor my home e-mails.

Yow.
It's neo-feudalism.
__________________
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 13th May 2005, 01:35 PM   #172
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
 
Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,408
Quote:
Originally posted by shanek
There isn't. Either side has the right to terminate their voluntary agreement for whatever reason they choose, absent a contract stating otherwise. Nothing is being coerced.
See what I'm talking about, username. He ALWAYS reverts back to his dogma, he refuses to think.
__________________
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 13th May 2005, 01:45 PM   #173
crimresearch
Alumbrado
 
crimresearch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,600
'Dogma' being Tonyspeak for inconvenient facts...like the fact that Tony *did*bring up the courts in this thread, and was wrong about Shanek's quote, and unable to produce evidence that there is a legal or Constitutional right to force employers to hire smokers.


And for his next trick he will pronounce himself abused by all of these demands for evidence, and run away in a flurry of ad homs.

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 13th May 2005, 01:50 PM   #174
username
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 837
Quote:
Originally posted by shanek
There isn't. Either side has the right to terminate their voluntary agreement for whatever reason they choose, absent a contract stating otherwise. Nothing is being coerced.
OK,

If an employer were to tell me that my employment would be terminated unless I agreed to include unlimited sex as part of the deal would you support the *legal* right of the employer to even suggest those terms?
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 13th May 2005, 01:56 PM   #175
crimresearch
Alumbrado
 
crimresearch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,600
What is so hard about sticking to the facts?

This is about smoking, not sex.

I tried to get you to keep it on the level of opinions on how things ought to be ideally, but you, like Tony, wanted to to trump up this proclaimed Constitutional right, and invented legal restrictions of an employer's refusing to hire smokers.

Where are these laws and these cases that support your assertions about *smoking*?
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 13th May 2005, 01:57 PM   #176
username
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 837
Quote:
Originally posted by Tony
See what I'm talking about, username. He ALWAYS reverts back to his dogma, he refuses to think.
I agree, this is going back to dogma. The same dogma I used to preach until I realized the world this dogma creates isn't one anybody would actually want to live in.

Let's hold to an ideological theory and keep it pure even if it means that we can get fired for picking our nose in our car and we have to routinely submit to fingernail scrapings to determine if there is any mucus present under them.

Let's wait for a tight employment market and have to agree to give our firstborn to the CEO as a sex worker in order to retain employment. It would be a voluntary contract between 2 equals with no coercion involved right? I mean, I could just leave. No pressure.
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 13th May 2005, 02:00 PM   #177
SezMe
post-pre-born
Moderator
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 25,178
Quote:
Originally posted by shanek
Funny; every time I had such benefits, they always cost 2-3 times as much as I could get on my own. Of course, they covered things such as chiropractic...
Well, there's proof that you live in an alternative universe. I am self-employed and my insurance is 3+ times what a group policy would cost - much as Nyarlathotep's experience. I just don't believe your assertion, shanek.
SezMe 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 13th May 2005, 02:00 PM   #178
username
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 837
Quote:
Originally posted by Tony
It's neo-feudalism.
Quite right. I called it corporate fascism, but they both result in the same thing.

It's libertarianism - civil liberties.
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 13th May 2005, 02:01 PM   #179
crimresearch
Alumbrado
 
crimresearch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,600
" I realized the world this dogma creates isn't one anybody would actually want to live in. "


Sorry, all I could hear was your 'WOO WOO WOO WOO WOO WOO WOO WOO WOO WOO WOO WOO WOO WOO WOO WOO!!!'

Did you say something useful in the middle of that?
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 13th May 2005, 02:02 PM   #180
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 username

Let's wait for a tight employment market and have to agree to give our firstborn to the CEO as a sex worker in order to retain employment. It would be a voluntary contract between 2 equals with no coercion involved right? I mean, I could just leave. No pressure.
Wrong!

What you just described is coercion


Come again?
__________________
" 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 13th May 2005, 02:03 PM   #181
username
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 837
Quote:
Originally posted by crimresearch

I tried to get you to keep it on the level of opinions on how things ought to be ideally, but you, like Tony,
And I told you that after being insulted twice by you that I was done having any discussion on this topic with you.

I disagree with Shanek just as much as you on this issue, but Shanek has never insulted me twice in a row or even once that I recall.
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 13th May 2005, 02:04 PM   #182
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
 
Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,408
Quote:
Originally posted by shanek
And the employee does?
Yes.

Quote:
This is just an example of how one-sided you are. You assume the employee is in the worst possible straits, while the employer is sitting pretty.
No, I recognize reality. If the employer wasn't atleast partially "sitting pretty", then WTF is he doing in business in the first place? You assume desirable jobs are flowing like milk and honey.

Quote:
No, it's not. It's name-calling. This in no way whatsoever represente feudalism.
It mirrors feudalism. It's not 100% exactly like, I never said it was.






For sake of clarity, here's the original article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4213441.stm

Quote:
1) Is there a contract holding the employment agreement to a certain term?
No, the article mentions nothing of a contract.

Quote:
2) If the answer to #1 is "yes," is there anything in the contract where the employee agrees to not smoke?
No.

Quote:
3) If the answer to 1 is "no," then how does either side not have the ability and the right to terminate the agreement at any time they want, for whatever they want?
For the same reason that you comming into my house and not making a contract with me not to rob you doesn't give me the right to rob you.

Quote:
4) Can the employer force the employee to stay and work for him under any conditions, or does this restriction on their arrangement only work one way?
Who said anything about letting the employee work under any condition? We're talking about what employees do away from work on their own time.
__________________
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 13th May 2005, 02:12 PM   #183
Thanz
Fuzzy Thinker
 
Thanz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,891
Quote:
Originally posted by shanek
There isn't. Either side has the right to terminate their voluntary agreement for whatever reason they choose, absent a contract stating otherwise. Nothing is being coerced.
I understand this to be generally true in the U.S. Here is a link that explains the "employment at will" doctrine.

http://jobsearchtech.about.com/od/la...l/aa092402.htm

In Ontario, where I live, the common law has developed to imply certain terms into an unwritten contract for employment. One of those terms is that an employee will not be fired without cause unless reasonable notice is given. You can still be fired, but the employer needs to give you adequate notice or payment in lieu of notice.
__________________
"I am totally with Thanz on this one." -- Yahzi
Thanz 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 13th May 2005, 02:13 PM   #184
username
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 837
Quote:
Originally posted by Diogenes
Wrong!

What you just described is coercion


Come again?
Please understand that I am genuinely confused that you would view my example as coercion, but not firing an employee who refuses to change his legal, private behaviors and submit to testing to ensure compliance.

My point was that employers usually have more power than employees in an employment situation. This is why labor unions came about.

The counter argument seems to be that employment is a voluntary contract between 2 equal parties therefore any terms agreed to are valid (libertarian dogma).

My ultimate point is that the terms of the employment contract (like agreeing to give up the first born for sex work) is the kind of thing that people agree to only because of the imbalance of power between the employee and employer.

If we believe (as I believe you and Shanek do) that the employer has the right to include not smoking on private time as a condition of employment then it seems there is no limit to what terms an employer can require.

What an employee will agree to depends upon how much he needs the job. The tighter the employment market, the more unreasonable the demands can become.

This will lead to corporate fascism or neo-feudalism, whichever term you prefer.

What a person does on his own time is of no legitimate concern of any employer therefore my opinion is that hiring practices may not discriminate against legal, private behaviors.

Not as a formal policy anyway.
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 13th May 2005, 04:43 PM   #185
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
Originally posted by Tony
Yes you are, I demonstrated how you were.
No, you just asserted it.

[qoute]Ok, since the employees don't have to work harder and an employee doesn't have to work on his day off, production suffers.[/quote]

Or, the other workers pull together, or the guy comes in on his day off, because they believe in what they're doing and want the company to succeed. Is this really such a foreign concept for you?
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 13th May 2005, 04:44 PM   #186
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Okay, thanks for clarifying because your first repsonse made it sound like they could.
They can ask you if they can, and they can fire you if you don't agree, but they can't force their way onto your property.

Quote:
In that case isn't my blood every bit as much my property as my private communications from home?
Yes. And you're perfectly within your rights to walk on out the door.

You know, if you work at most jobs, they won't let you sit around all day and twiddle your thumbs. Most of them want you to do work, and will actually fire you if you don't do this. If the above is an abrogation of property rights, then what I just mentioned is slavery!

Do people really not see the fallacy here?
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 13th May 2005, 04:46 PM   #187
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
Originally posted by username
If an employer were to tell me that my employment would be terminated unless I agreed to include unlimited sex as part of the deal would you support the *legal* right of the employer to even suggest those terms?
They're most likely opening themselves up to a civil suit in that case. Of course if they do anything that causes physical or emotional damage they're responsible.
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 13th May 2005, 04:50 PM   #188
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
Originally posted by SezMe
Well, there's proof that you live in an alternative universe. I am self-employed and my insurance is 3+ times what a group policy would cost - much as Nyarlathotep's experience. I just don't believe your assertion, shanek.
The plan I was under with at my last job was $850/month. The insurance I have now that I'm self-employed is $150/month. And for all the stuff I use, it has the same benefits—actually, the copay is a bit lower. It just doesn't have chiropractic and all sorts of other things included with it that I'll never need or use. That's the difference. Plans that include those things cost more, for obvious reasons. And when I was working, I wasn't given the choice of plans that didn't include those things or opting out and buying my own insurance (well, I could have opted out, but it's not like I could have gotten that $850/month for myself).
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 13th May 2005, 04:51 PM   #189
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
Originally posted by username
Let's wait for a tight employment market and have to agree to give our firstborn to the CEO as a sex worker in order to retain employment. It would be a voluntary contract between 2 equals with no coercion involved right? I mean, I could just leave. No pressure.
Um, excuse me, but there's a 3rd person involved there who didn't give consent.
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 13th May 2005, 04:57 PM   #190
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
Originally posted by Tony
No, I recognize reality. If the employer wasn't atleast partially "sitting pretty", then WTF is he doing in business in the first place?
Let me clue you in on something: Running a business is rough. Particularly a small business. In fact, in many cases the people employed by a small businessman make more money than he does. And they get a reliable paycheck every week; his pay rises and drops with the market situation. He may even go for a month or more with no pay at all.

Quote:
You assume desirable jobs are flowing like milk and honey.
No, I don't; I just reject your assumption that business owners are all fat cats with limousines and private jets.

Quote:
No, the article mentions nothing of a contract.
Then either side can terminate the agreement any time they want.

Quote:
For the same reason that you comming into my house and not making a contract with me not to rob you doesn't give me the right to rob you.
Can the weaseling; no one's being robbed here. But if you come into my house, you will not smoke or do drugs, you will not talk sports, and you will not juggle open umbrellas. You don't like it, there's the door. My house, my rules. And I can eject you at any time, just as you can leave at any time.

Quote:
We're talking about what employees do away from work on their own time.
I was pointing out that you're a biased hypocrite, giving the employees "rights" you won't give the empolyer.
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 13th May 2005, 04:58 PM   #191
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
Originally posted by Thanz
In Ontario, where I live, the common law has developed to imply certain terms into an unwritten contract for employment. One of those terms is that an employee will not be fired without cause unless reasonable notice is given. You can still be fired, but the employer needs to give you adequate notice or payment in lieu of notice.
Does it go the other way round? Can an employee just up and quit or does he have to give notice?
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 13th May 2005, 05:05 PM   #192
username
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 837
Quote:
Originally posted by shanek
They're most likely opening themselves up to a civil suit in that case. Of course if they do anything that causes physical or emotional damage they're responsible.
And limiting what a person may do on their own time isn't going to qualify as an event that causes emotional damage?
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 13th May 2005, 05:06 PM   #193
username
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 837
Quote:
Originally posted by shanek
Does it go the other way round? Can an employee just up and quit or does he have to give notice?
In most cases no. If you work at Burger King you can get away with it, but in a professional position you would be shooting yourself in the foot to not give notice.
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 13th May 2005, 05:12 PM   #194
crimresearch
Alumbrado
 
crimresearch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,600
Quote:
Originally posted by username
And I told you that after being insulted twice by you that I was done having any discussion on this topic with you.

I disagree with Shanek just as much as you on this issue, but Shanek has never insulted me twice in a row or even once that I recall.
If you don't want to be insulted like that, then quit fabricating things I never said, and I won't be compelled to 'insult ' you by pointing your strawmen out.
You are 'done with me' because you aren't here for facts or civil discourse, and I have kept this entire exchange on that basis, while you have not.
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 13th May 2005, 05:16 PM   #195
username
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 837
Quote:
Originally posted by shanek
Um, excuse me, but there's a 3rd person involved there who didn't give consent.
Fine, then go back to my example of the employee who has to consent to sex with the boss or they lose their job.

Explain why this is wrong in your view since it would just be part of an employment contract.

You appear to be missing the point entirely here. It is not reasonable to attach conditions to employment that are not related to the job one does.

Smoking is a non issue for employers. If they don't like smoking they can prohibit it while the employee is on the clock or on the property.

When employees consent to unreasonable demands they do so because of coercion, not free will. They look at the employment market and determine that if they lose their job they may end up losing their home before they can get another job. So, they comply with the absurd demands of their employer. Should they have to?

The employment contract is not a contract between equals. If it was there would never have been a labor movement.

I still find it incredible that a self proclaimed libertarian would take such an anti civil rights position.
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 13th May 2005, 05:16 PM   #196
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
Originally posted by username
And limiting what a person may do on their own time isn't going to qualify as an event that causes emotional damage?
Depends on the limitation, I would think. In any case, that's something to be awarded damages in civil court, not to force continued employment.
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 13th May 2005, 05:19 PM   #197
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
Originally posted by username
In most cases no. If you work at Burger King you can get away with it, but in a professional position you would be shooting yourself in the foot to not give notice.
I'm talking about what the law says, not what would the professional consequences be.
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 13th May 2005, 05:23 PM   #198
username
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 837
Quote:
Originally posted by crimresearch
If you don't want to be insulted like that, then quit fabricating things I never said, and I won't be compelled to 'insult ' you by pointing your strawmen out.
You are 'done with me' because you aren't here for facts or civil discourse, and I have kept this entire exchange on that basis, while you have not.
Sure you have. Let's recap:

I said: I think you are contradicting yourself in this paragraph.

You said: Uhhmmm... You've crossed the line from discourse to debate tactics...you are making up things I never said, and then arguing against them.

I said: I may have misunderstood your argument. Please don't assume that a misunderstanding means I am resorting to dishonest tactics.

you said: So, you have no links to any facts, but think that dredging up an extreme example and demanding that I provide court cites for your strawman, isn't dishonest?

You've made the extreme assertions here, you provide the evidence.

And while you are at it...Grow up.

My last post to you said: Ok, so you have now twice insulted me while not adding anything to the discussion.
Discussion (with you) is over.

And it is.
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 13th May 2005, 05:24 PM   #199
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
Originally posted by username
Fine, then go back to my example of the employee who has to consent to sex with the boss or they lose their job.
Already have.

Quote:
Explain why this is wrong in your view since it would just be part of an employment contract.
Hold on, stop moving the goalposts! You never said it was a part of any contract. That changes everything, and if the person didn't like that, they wouldn't sign the contract.

Quote:
You appear to be missing the point entirely here. It is not reasonable to attach conditions to employment that are not related to the job one does.
Shouldn't it be between employees and employers to decide that for themselves?

Quote:
Smoking is a non issue for employers.
Apparently, some of them don't feel that way.

Quote:
When employees consent to unreasonable demands they do so because of coercion, not free will.
Balderdash. Socialist apologetics, nothing more.

Quote:
The employment contract is not a contract between equals.
Already rebutted.

Quote:
If it was there would never have been a labor movement.
Again, balderdash. The labor movement was a political movement used by the Socialists to get their policies enacted.

Quote:
I still find it incredible that a self proclaimed libertarian would take such an anti civil rights position.
Civil rights have nothing to do with this.
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 13th May 2005, 05:28 PM   #200
username
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 837
Shanek,

Let's just deal with the main points of our disagreement and leave all satellite issues aside, OK?

If I understand your position correctly your main point is that the employment contract is freely entered into by both parties and both parties are free to make whatever demands they wish and both parties are free to accept or reject the other's demands as they wish.

Is this a correct understanding of your argument?

Cuz if that is your position then my main argument is that the employment contract is rarely entered into by parties with equal power and government has a valid interest in ensuring the more powerful party doesn't take advantage of the weaker party.
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
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 03:59 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.