- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 12/10/14 at 8:39 am to FalseProphet
quote:I don't buy that as a matter of routine. Nearly everyone is CAPABLE of developing employment options. But if not, or if they are unwilling to consider other options, then they are unfortunately constrained to circumstances of their employment. Life is not always fair, nor do folks always fully avail themselves of life's opportunities.
Some people just can't go work somewhere else, you dolt
Posted on 12/10/14 at 8:40 am to Jake88
So you are a fan of collective punishment?
Posted on 12/10/14 at 8:50 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:
So, for you anti-union folks who think these employees should be getting compensated, this is one good case of why you now see why unions get formed.
I read the thread yesterday and was thinking about it this morning. This is EXACTLY why unions were started in the first place.
See the Chicago meat packing industry where people who suffered accidents (like getting their finger cut off on the job) had to not only pay for their own medical treatment but also lost their job if they left "the line" at any time for any reason.
Posted on 12/10/14 at 8:52 am to samson'sseed
quote:Cost of doing business is collective punishment by your definition. Worker capability is collective punishment by your definition. Inability of bluecollars to attain CEO remuneration is collective punishment by your definition. All because you chose to make this about a working class slight, rather than bad general policy.
So you are a fan of collective punishment?
Posted on 12/10/14 at 9:01 am to samson'sseed
Should employees also pay workers for the time it takes them to commute to work? If Bob has a 45 minute drive to work and Ted has a 10 minute drive, should Bob get paid more money?
Posted on 12/10/14 at 9:03 am to samson'sseed
quote:
Employees driving to work and parking their cars is not company profit-related.
Neither is going through a security check.
How did this case make it all the way to the Supreme Court?
Posted on 12/10/14 at 9:20 am to samson'sseed
quote:
The Supreme Court upheld the right of employers to detain their workers without pay to make sure they aren't stealing.
Even Forbes Magazine, a conservative business publication, thinks this ruling was wrong.
Yet, the ruling was unanimous.
I find this ruling incredibly unfair. Only eggheads who have not worked a real job in decades could decide that a worker's time is not worth money.
It reminds me of slavery.
Workers aren't forced to work this job. Your socialist point of view is clouding your vision on this issue.
This is a good thing. It allows business owners to contract with employees who are willing to accept the terms of employment.
Posted on 12/10/14 at 9:25 am to moneyg
quote:
This is a good thing. It allows business owners to contract with employees who are willing to accept the terms of employment.
It leads to employees exercising their right to organize and join/form a union. It cuts both ways.
Posted on 12/10/14 at 9:39 am to a want
quote:
It leads to employees exercising their right to organize and join/form a union. It cuts both ways.
As much as I hate unions, wouldn't that be better than having the government unilaterally decide for everyone what must be done?
Posted on 12/10/14 at 9:47 am to moneyg
quote:
As much as I hate unions, wouldn't that be better than having the government unilaterally decide for everyone what must be done?
Agree. Given the choice, the spectre of unionization is preferable. That way the option of negotiation over this aspect the employment contract is at least up to the business & workers, and not then ruled out by law.
I do have a strong negative knee-jerk reaction to such passing of business costs onto workers. But I have to wonder, is their pay otherwise higher at this particular job than other comparable ones- meaning that perhaps they ARE compensated in a way for this hassle? Why put up with this, otherwise?
Posted on 12/10/14 at 9:52 am to moneyg
quote:
As much as I hate unions, wouldn't that be better than having the government unilaterally decide for everyone what must be done?
Laws protecting unions ARE government intervention.
The intent is to prevent businesses from becoming to powerful: to prevent monopolies, collusion, wage fixing/suppression, etc. IMO unions have largely outgrown their original purpose. There are a few instances where they still may be appropriate but for the most part, they are a detriment to everybody in the long run.
Posted on 12/10/14 at 9:53 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:
Why put up with this, otherwise?
Apparently they didn't. They sued for what they thought was owed them.
Posted on 12/10/14 at 9:53 am to FalseProphet
quote:
you dolt.
Tsk, tsk. Vitriol.
Posted on 12/10/14 at 10:24 am to samson'sseed
Big law firms hire PR firms to shape public opinion to try and create outrage around their case. Dollars to doughnuts that's what's really going on with this one.
Posted on 12/10/14 at 10:25 am to moneyg
quote:
Workers aren't forced to work this job. Your socialist point of view is clouding your vision on this issue.
TRUTH
Posted on 12/10/14 at 10:27 am to FalseProphet
quote:
Apparently they didn't. They sued for what they thought was owed them.
And now that the ruling has been made, they will continue to accept the conditions by working there.
Posted on 12/10/14 at 10:44 am to MMauler
quote:
I was a little surprised that Ruthie and the other two ignorant c*nts went with the majority.
All of those women are smarter than you and anyone else on this entire site. They just disagree with you on some things, that doesn't make them "ignorant c*nts"
Plus Ginsberg has a lot of good pro privacy and individual rights opinions, especially in the police/citizen context
Posted on 12/10/14 at 10:53 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Yes.
In essence gaining off-the-clock status to increase profits is the equivalent of compensation.
Would you say that "gaining off-the-clock status to decrease employee theft" is the equivalent of compensation?
Put another way, should these employees get more pay so that they steal less?
This post was edited on 12/10/14 at 10:56 am
Posted on 12/10/14 at 11:43 am to a want
quote:
Laws protecting unions ARE government intervention.
...at a very different scale. Again, ignoring my distaste for unions, at least there would be negotiation between the union members and the business. That's much better than a one size fits all governmental solution that you are suggesting.
In any event, threat of unionization is a terrible reason to support government intervention.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News