Many companies (meaning their insurance providers) do offer short-term and long-term paid disability. I'm not positive but I'm fairly sure that pregnancy is covered.
So, once again, we're looking at taking care of those in the lower classes. I personally don't believe it's right to require a private company to pay maternity leave. They are forced under the law to adhere to equal opportunity employment practices, yet at the same time we want to essentially punish them (via leave dollars) for hiring women between the ages of 18 and 45. That's crap, you can't have it both ways. It's one or the other, either they have the choice NOT to hire women to protect themselves from maternity costs or they have the choice to hire women and refuse to pay for maternity leave.
I despise welfare, but this is one of those times when welfare is in the best interest of society. Take away the checks from those blatantly cheating the system (illegals and cheaters) and apply that money to a program for maternity leave. Pay women $1400/month for 4-5 months starting about a month before their due date. In cases where they are medically unable to work earlier in their term, they'd qualify for early payments. The money is there, it's just a matter of our government putting their money where their mouth is.
"Worse than traitors in arms are the men who pretend loyalty to the flag, feast and fatten on the misfortunes of the nation while patriotic blood is crimsoning the plains." -- Abraham Lincoln
how christian of you... put women out on the street for having a child.
Once again reading something into it that's not there. My comment was not condoning businesses for not providing leave. It was encouraging employees to leave those businesses without leave high and dry without employees. I stated that those who want to offer leave would be more attractive to employees.
I guess it's OK to be judgemental of someone who claims to be a Christian. Just don't let the Christian start judging you, huh?
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I used the FMLA when I first got sick. I did not get paid time off, but I did not have to worry about losing my job. I am very glad it existed. Actually, the law held me a position for a year. I also got short term disability, but that only covered 20 piad days. My long term disability turned me down. I fought them, but I never got it...the US gov. found me disabled to this day, yet my insurance, that I paid into, turned me down. An R.N. at their company made the decision, in spite of lots of doctors reports. I kept asking "since when can RN's practice medicine?".
It's interesting to realize that there is a tendency in this country to place companies and business rights ahead of the health of the majority of citizens of the country.
Huh? What business right is being put ahead of what citizen right here????
That's not a right. There's no right to "high profits" in this country, thankfully. Ask the thousands of businesses that go under every day here in America due to their losses.
is being placed ahead of human dignity and respect for child-rearing and family values.
Human dignity??? Where do you find dignity in demanding payment from someone for zero effort?
Child-rearing and family values??? Did those things not exist before the Family Leave Act? Did that piece of paper invent them?
Look, I'm all for paid maternity and paternity leave. It's something, as a business owner, that I'm proud to offer my employees without a single string attached for as long as they reasonably request it. But please don't talk to me about "dignity" or "family values". If I, for instance, got married tomorrow and had a kid, how would you feel if I withheld the salaries of my workers to pay for it??? Would there be "dignity" there? Would there be "family values" there?
That's not a right. There's no right to "high profits" in this country, thankfully. Ask the thousands of businesses that go under every day here in America due to their losses.
Human dignity??? Where do you find dignity in demanding payment from someone for zero effort?
Child-rearing and family values??? Did those things not exist before the Family Leave Act? Did that piece of paper invent them?
Look, I'm all for paid maternity and paternity leave. It's something, as a business owner, that I'm proud to offer my employees without a single string attached for as long as they reasonably request it. But please don't talk to me about "dignity" or "family values". If I, for instance, got married tomorrow and had a kid, how would you feel if I withheld the salaries of my workers to pay for it??? Would there be "dignity" there? Would there be "family values" there?
there is dignity in treating people like they and their needs matter. that someone who has put in a lot of work to help make you wealthy needs time to recover from a physically and emotionally draining process and get back on their feet and ensure their child's health and well being. to tell them that they needs to choose between that and their paycheck deprives them of the respect and dignity that they deserve as a human being. to fire someone summarily for having a child is sickening, and taking away medical leave is firing these women in everything but name. it's a disgusting practice.
these things existed prior to the act, but there were 2 crucial differences between now and then: 1) women in the workplace was not widely accepted and 2) you could still support a family on one income then. now women are in the workplace and need to be to support a family.
if your business is going to go under becos of that paid leave, you can fire her. that's firing for just cause. but otherwise, it is not a matter of making your business work. it is a matter of you being more concerned about your bottom line than treating your workers humanely. that and about half the people pushing for this repeal are doing it not to protect businesses but as an underhanded attempt to force women back into the kitchen where they think they belong. but you support people's right to deprive others of their rights, becos the right prejudice is more important to protect than the right to childbirth right?
there is dignity in treating people like they and their needs matter.
Hehe....so how does that apply to your law that just creates a blanket enforcement on business owners, regardless of "them and their needs"?
that someone who has put in a lot of work to help make you wealthy needs time to recover from a physically and emotionally draining process and get back on their feet and ensure their child's health and well being. to tell them that they needs to choose between that and their paycheck deprives them of the respect and dignity that they deserve as a human being.
to fire someone summarily for having a child is sickening. and taking away medical leave is firing these women in everything but name. it's a disgusting practice.
these things existed prior to the act, but there were 2 crucial differences between now and then: 1) women in the workplace was not widely accepted and 2) you could still support a family on one income then. now women are in the workplace and need to be to support a family.
if your business is going to go under becos of that paid leave, you can fire her. that's firing for just cause. but otherwise, it is not a matter of making your business work. it is a matter of you being more concerned about your bottom line than treating your workers humanely. that and about half the people pushing for this repeal are doing it not to protect businesses but as an underhanded attempt to force women back into the kitchen where they think they belong. but you support people's right to deprive others of their rights, becos the right prejudice is more important to protect than the right to childbirth right?
Soulsinging, someday you'll probably realize that the right to prejudice stems from exactly the same things that the right to childbirth does. And if you want to take away one from someone, don't be surprised when that someone takes away the other from you.
Look, practically speaking you're probably entirely right on the motives issue. Most of the people opposed to this law are probably opposed to it for backwards social reasons or simply those who seek to protect businesses from any intervention while hypocritically supporting that intervention elsewhere. But I'm not concerned with their motives since I'm not going to be helping them. I'm concerned with my own motives, my own business, my own families and friends affected by these situations.
You're trying to make a blanket value statement above that says that business owners "owe" soon-to-be mothers and fathers their jobs or their paychecks or whatever, simply because they've had a baby. This is fraught with logical problems:
First, you want to pretend that every employee "contributes to profits". That's not true, just like not every executive "contributes to profits". There are people in my own business who are economic costs to me, and are only here because I believe they have potential to be otherwise. If one of them requested family leave, I'd grant it, but I certainly wouldn't grant it because they've "contributed to my profits". They haven't.
Secondly, you've linked the act of one person having a baby to a financial obligation of another person unrelated to the choices of the first. That's simply ridiculous. If I pushed you or others here hard enough on this issue, you'd fall back to the same old "we're a society" or "human have to work together" positions that would, in essence, justify the very example you ignored in my previous post -- withholding paychecks from people because I had a baby.
Is it disgusting to fire a woman for having a baby? In most cases, of course (the only justifiable case would be one wherein the baby or the act of childbirth made future job performance impossible). But is it not also disgusting to hire a woman simply because she had a baby? Should mothers be given preferential hiring treatment simply because they're mothers, even in positions where having a child is completely irrelevant to performance? I would certainly hope you'd have a problem with legislation that forced hiring quotas on companies instructing them to hire 90% mothers. Yet you're justifying that as well with your arguments.
The fact that there are now more women in the workplace is completely irrelevant to the morality of these choices. It's either right or it's wrong, regardless of scale. Certainly having a greater proportion of female employees is going to make this more of an issue, but it doesn't change the fundamental morality. Before FLA, billions of men and millions of women throughout history had to make choices between work and family, just like they have to make choices between everything else in their lives and family. After FLA, those same choices still exist, except now men and women have the ability to use government force to push the costs of their choices onto others in society. FLA will not and cannot make for a society that will value families more, or magically increase "human dignity". Those qualities stem from personal moral choices, and FLA, at best, simply pushes the costs of those choices elsewhere and, at worst, pretends those choices do not exist or are irrelevant to their effects.
Once again, society is going to deem their employment a "right" and in the process attempt to take true rights away from a sector of that society. And, in this case, they're playing a direct game of logical russian roulette. If it is their "right" to demand employment regardless of economic effort, merit or value and regardless of the personal will of the employer, they simply open the door for those employers to one day demand employees regardless of economic effort, merit, value and regardless of the personal will of the employees.
ffg, there are severals federal laws & guidelines 'imposed' on employers such as the minimum wage, etc. Do you feel that all laws and guidelines 'imposed' on companies should be 'done away with'? Do you feel that all business owners have the same moral code as you and should be able to run their companies unchecked?
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
ffg, there are severals federal laws & guidelines 'imposed' on employers such as the minimum wage, etc. Do you feel that all laws and guidelines 'imposed' on companies should be 'done away with'?
I think laws and guidelines "imposed" on companies that would not be acceptable to the citizens imposing them if they were imposed upon those very same citizens should certainly be done away with.
Again, if anyone here is ok working for no pay when their employer has a child, or if anyone here is ok with their employer declaring that they have a "right" to the employee's labor, regardless of the employee's will, I'll allow a consistency that addresses my arguments above.
Do you feel that all business owners have the same moral code as you
Of course not. I also don't feel that all mothers or father as the same moral code as me or each other. I'm not looking to force my moral code on anyone. I'm simply asking to be free to act out my own.
If soulsinging, or you, or anyone else wishes to start a company and give mothers or father indefinite leave for child-rearing, I'll fiercely support your rights to do so.
should be able to run their companies unchecked?
No. Every employer runs checked by their employees and their customers. It's inherent to the system. I'd ask you what checks exist on these employees when they can simply use the armed force of the government to extract their will from their employers?
I think laws and guidelines "imposed" on companies that would not be acceptable to the citizens imposing them if they were imposed upon those very same citizens should certainly be done away with.
Crazy runaway sentence there, ffg, but I think, after reading it several times, I know what you are getting at. I have to say apples and oranges. How about this..........if a company requires the serves of others to run the company, then they need to pay for those serves. Payment includes a salary that meets the minimum wage or more and basic human rights such as, you guessed it, the ability to dedicate a reasonable amount of time to family, whether it be sickness or pregnancy without the fear of losing one's job or income.
Again, if anyone here is ok working for no pay when their employer has a child, or if anyone here is ok with their employer declaring that they have a "right" to the employee's labor, regardless of the employee's will, I'll allow a consistency that addresses my arguments above.
Again, apples and oranges. Your logic doesn't hold water here. If you, by divine intervention, become pregnant, because you own your company, you will still be drawing profit even if you decide to take a couple of months off to 'bond' with your child. Yes, you don't have a 'right' to your employee's labor, you must pay for it, monetarily and through basic human rights.
Of course not. I also don't feel that all mothers or father as the same moral code as me or each other. I'm not looking to force my moral code on anyone. I'm simply asking to be free to act out my own.
Sure, as long as your free will does not impose on basic human rights.
If soulsinging, or you, or anyone else wishes to start a company and give mothers or father indefinite leave for child-rearing, I'll fiercely support your rights to do so.
Who said anything about 'indefinite' leave as it pertain to pregnancy?
No. Every employer runs checked by their employees and their customers. It's inherent to the system. I'd ask you what checks exist on these employees when they can simply use the armed force of the government to extract their will from their employers?
No, how about using natural law to extract basic human rights? It's always a pleasure 'sparing' with you, ffg!
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Crazy runaway sentence there, ffg, but I think, after reading it several times, I know what you are getting at. I have to say apples and oranges. How about this..........if a company requires the serves of others to run the company, then they need to pay for those serves. Payment includes a salary that meets the minimum wage or more and basic human rights such as, you guessed it, the ability to dedicate a reasonable amount of time to family, whether it be sickness or pregnancy without the fear of losing one's job or income.
Sorry for the awkward wording! Now, these things are not "apples and oranges" just because you want them to be.
The example you give above is no different than what I mentioned earlier. You're still dictating to a business what it's "payment" should be. If you use that as part of a negotiation as a potential employee, I completely support your right to do so and think you are wise to do so. However, once you translate that into law and back it with force, you're no longer negotiating. You're simply making demands and threatening violence in order to achieve your "right", which in turn begs the question: how has that not granted a reciprocal right for the employee to demand your labor as his "right", regardless of your will?
As much as you want it to be, paid time off is not a "right", just like unpaid time on is not a "right". The latter is slavery. The former is theft. You cannot change it by dressing it up with words like "human right" or, as others might, "common good" or "social obligation".
Allowing employees flexible schedules to accomodate the other pressures and obligations in their lives is both common sense and logical practice as a business owner, in general terms. However, allowing others to make value assessments based on their terms, just as you wish to make value assessments based on your terms is both common sense and logical practice as a human being.
I don't believe anyone should be in the practice of firing women or men who wish to take time off to celebrate or recouperate from child birth. As soulsinging said in his post, it is certainly disgusting. But just because something is disgusting doesn't mean it should be met with something equally disgusting.
Again, apples and oranges. Your logic doesn't hold water here. If you, by divine intervention, become pregnant, because you own your company, you will still be drawing profit even if you decide to take a couple of months off to 'bond' with your child.
What??? This is a silly generalization. My business may very well continue to make a profit if I took a couple of months off, but many would not. Furthermore, many of the mothers and fathers this law applies to will continue to make a profit through their own means if they took a couple of months off. Regardless, profit, or the lack thereof, does not a morality make.
Again, I think you're saying "apples and oranges" simply because you want these things to be different. They are not. They share the same fundamentals: people using the act of childbirth to demand the payments or labor of others.
Yes, you don't have a 'right' to your employee's labor, you must pay for it, monetarily and through basic human rights.
Hehe...exactly. I don't have a "right" to my employee's labor. If I have a child, and I take two months off, I cannot ban my employees from quitting, nor can I force them to work without pay. That is slavery. That is putting the costs of my obligations and responsibilities on another against their will. That is a fundamental breech of morals and human rights.
Sure, as long as your free will does not impose on basic human rights.
Again, this is not a "basic human right". There's no justification for that.
Who said anything about 'indefinite' leave as it pertain to pregnancy?
I did. That's something, as a business owner, I would not allow. I wouldn't allow one of my employees to have a child and simply walk out the door and tell me they'll "be back someday", all the while expecting pay until they return.
However, if you wanted to run your business that way, I'm completely fine with that. I may think it unwise, but it's not my right to attempt to force you to change.
No, how about using natural law to extract basic human rights?
How about it? I'm unsure what you're asking here.
It's always a pleasure 'sparing' with you, ffg!
The pleasure is all mine! I'm always happy to see you posting.
If I pushed you or others here hard enough on this issue, you'd fall back to the same old "we're a society" or "human have to work together" positions that would, in essence, justify the very example you ignored in my previous post -- withholding paychecks from people because I had a baby.
bad analogy, becos i would also ensure your ability to keep your income if you had a baby. you're talking about taking MORE money in your example. i never said women deserve a pay raise for having a baby, i said they should not have to take a pay cut or lose their job for it.
I would certainly hope you'd have a problem with legislation that forced hiring quotas on companies instructing them to hire 90% mothers. Yet you're justifying that as well with your arguments.
i oppose quotas in every way, shape, and form. but this has nothing to do with hiring. it's a protection against prejudicial dismissal, which is already widely recognized in many parts of the united states under title ix. once again, you are making paranoid 1984-style arguments based on fear, not reality. protection for mothers in no way means communism is inevitable. you sound like joseph mccarthy. i'll refer to my own authority, the breakfast club:
"how come andrew gets to get up? if he gets up, we'll all get up! IT'LL BE ANARCHY!"
your fears are ridiculous. we have a right and a left in this country for a reason, they balance each other, so that we can do the greatest good for the greatest number in the middle. swing too far one direction, the opposition will pull it back. this is long term social dynamics that have always occurred. i think you need to relax a bit and stop seeing everything in black and white, there are a lot of colors in this world and you're missing out on them.
also, the "system you referred to is not what i propose. read more carefully. i specifically said that if keeping on a pregnant woman will kill a business, they have legal protection for firing her. if they have that need, they can exercise it. but yes, some of their "needs" are being restricted. why? becos a COMPANY IS NOT A PERSON AND DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHTS OF A HUMAN BEING.
The example you give above is no different than what I mentioned earlier. You're still dictating to a business what it's "payment" should be. If you use that as part of a negotiation as a potential employee, I completely support your right to do so and think you are wise to do so. However, once you translate that into law and back it with force, you're no longer negotiating. You're simply making demands and threatening violence in order to achieve your "right", which in turn begs the question: how has that not granted a reciprocal right for the employee to demand your labor as his "right", regardless of your will?
Ha ha! Who's threatening violence? There is no violence. If you wish to run a business that refuses to provide basic human rights and a salary, your business fails, plain and simple. If you wish to set up a slave operation, you will have to go elsewhere. No gun to the head, ffg.
As much as you want it to be, paid time off is not a "right", just like unpaid time on is not a "right". The latter is slavery. The former is theft. You cannot change it by dressing it up with words like "human right" or, as others might, "common good" or "social obligation".
Do you think a salary is a right? Wouldn't, by your definition, that be theft as well. What's the difference between paying your employee with money & providing your employees with health insurance, FLMA, etc? It's all a means to the same end. It's all money in the end. What right does that employee have to your money? Maybe the fact that he/she provides a service to you that comes at a cost.
Allowing employees flexible schedules to accomodate the other pressures and obligations in their lives is both common sense and logical practice as a business owner, in general terms. However, allowing others to make value assessments based on their terms, just as you wish to make value assessments based on your terms is both common sense and logical practice as a human being.
I agree. If only all business owners had the same considerations for their employees. The sad fact is that is not the case! And do we let these business continue unchecked?
I don't believe anyone should be in the practice of firing women or men who wish to take time off to celebrate or recouperate from child birth. As soulsinging said in his post, it is certainly disgusting. But just because something is disgusting doesn't mean it should be met with something equally disgusting.
What is disgusting? Not allowing business to take advantage of their employees? If you want to split hairs, tell me how you feel about incarcerating people that their 'free will' to inflict harm on others, such as rape or murder? On second, thought, maybe I don't want to know .
What??? This is a silly generalization. My business may very well continue to make a profit if I took a couple of months off, but many would not. Furthermore, many of the mothers and fathers this law applies to will continue to make a profit through their own means if they took a couple of months off. Regardless, profit, or the lack thereof, does not a morality make.
How is it silly? You just showed above that your analogy doesn't 'hold water'. I would also say that as a business owner, you have some luxuries many of your 'worker-bees' do not.
Again, I think you're saying "apples and oranges" simply because you want these things to be different. They are not. They share the same fundamentals: people using the act of childbirth to demand the payments or labor of others.
No, I say apples and oranges because it is just that. Providing an employee a salary and benefits is just the cost of doing business here, imo. If you do not like what it entails to run a business here, go open shop in China.
I did. That's something, as a business owner, I would not allow. I wouldn't allow one of my employees to have a child and simply walk out the door and tell me they'll "be back someday", all the while expecting pay until they return.
However, if you wanted to run your business that way, I'm completely fine with that. I may think it unwise, but it's not my right to attempt to force you to change.
No one is suggesting that. You are crying wolf. Yes, there are those that would erroneously expect that, but most people just want simple basic rights, that's all. btw, how do you/would you handle military personnel? They might get 'sent away' for a while? You have a problem holding positions for them?
The example you give above is no different than what I mentioned earlier. You're still dictating to a business what it's "payment" should be. If you use that as part of a negotiation as a potential employee, I completely support your right to do so and think you are wise to do so. However, once you translate that into law and back it with force, you're no longer negotiating. You're simply making demands and threatening violence in order to achieve your "right", which in turn begs the question: how has that not granted a reciprocal right for the employee to demand your labor as his "right", regardless of your will?
Ha ha! Who's threatening violence? There is no violence. If you wish to run a business that refuses to provide basic human rights and a salary, your business fails, plain and simple. If you wish to set up a slave operation, you will have to go elsewhere. No gun to the head, ffg.
As much as you want it to be, paid time off is not a "right", just like unpaid time on is not a "right". The latter is slavery. The former is theft. You cannot change it by dressing it up with words like "human right" or, as others might, "common good" or "social obligation".
Do you think a salary is a right? Wouldn't, by your definition, that be theft as well. What's the difference between paying your employee with money & providing your employees with health insurance, FLMA, etc? It's all a means to the same end. It's all money in the end. What right does that employee have to your money? Maybe the fact that he/she provides a service to you that comes at a cost.
Allowing employees flexible schedules to accomodate the other pressures and obligations in their lives is both common sense and logical practice as a business owner, in general terms. However, allowing others to make value assessments based on their terms, just as you wish to make value assessments based on your terms is both common sense and logical practice as a human being.
I agree. If only all business owners had the same considerations for their employees. The sad fact is that is not the case! And do we let these business continue unchecked?
I don't believe anyone should be in the practice of firing women or men who wish to take time off to celebrate or recouperate from child birth. As soulsinging said in his post, it is certainly disgusting. But just because something is disgusting doesn't mean it should be met with something equally disgusting.
What is disgusting? Not allowing business to take advantage of their employees? If you want to split hairs, tell me how you feel about incarcerating people that used their 'free will' to inflict harm on others, such as rape or murder? On second thought, maybe I don't want to know .
What??? This is a silly generalization. My business may very well continue to make a profit if I took a couple of months off, but many would not. Furthermore, many of the mothers and fathers this law applies to will continue to make a profit through their own means if they took a couple of months off. Regardless, profit, or the lack thereof, does not a morality make.
How is it silly? You just showed above that your analogy doesn't 'hold water'. I would also say that as a business owner, you have some luxuries many of your 'worker-bees' do not.
Again, I think you're saying "apples and oranges" simply because you want these things to be different. They are not. They share the same fundamentals: people using the act of childbirth to demand the payments or labor of others.
No, I say apples and oranges because it is just that. Providing an employee a salary and benefits is just the cost of doing business here, imo. If you do not like what it entails to run a business here, go open shop in China.
I did. That's something, as a business owner, I would not allow. I wouldn't allow one of my employees to have a child and simply walk out the door and tell me they'll "be back someday", all the while expecting pay until they return.
However, if you wanted to run your business that way, I'm completely fine with that. I may think it unwise, but it's not my right to attempt to force you to change.
No one is suggesting that. You are crying wolf. Yes, there are those that would erroneously expect that, but most people just want simple basic rights, that's all. btw, how do you/would you handle military personnel? They might get 'sent away' for a while? You have a problem holding positions for them?
Hehe...exactly. I don't have a "right" to my employee's labor. If I have a child, and I take two months off, I cannot ban my employees from quitting, nor can I force them to work without pay. That is slavery. That is putting the costs of my obligations and responsibilities on another against their will. That is a fundamental breech of morals and human rights.
Again, this is not a "basic human right". There's no justification for that.
who says freedom is a basic human right? i didnt get the memo that said human beings can never have any restrictions on their behavior... in fact, quite the opposite.
bad analogy, becos i would also ensure your ability to keep your income if you had a baby. you're talking about taking MORE money in your example. i never said women deserve a pay raise for having a baby, i said they should not have to take a pay cut or lose their job for it.
How would you "ensure my ability to keep your income"??? Would you force my customers to continue to buy my products? Would you force my employees to work for zero pay? Or would you legally obligate me to continue writing myself paychecks that would simply bounce?
I'm not talking about raises in my example. I'm talking about the fundamental nature of what you're doing: using the childbirth of one person to create the obligation of another, all in the name of something twisted you refer to as "rights".
i oppose quotas in every way, shape, and form. but this has nothing to do with hiring. it's a protection against prejudicial dismissal, which is already widely recognized in many parts of the united states under title ix. once again, you are making paranoid 1984-style arguments based on fear, not reality. protection for mothers in no way means communism is inevitable. you sound like joseph mccarthy. i'll refer to my own authority, the breakfast club:
Dude, if you want to talk about whether or not this is legal within the existing system, or has lots of precedent to support it, you and I will find little disagreement.
There's nothing McCarthy-istic about my arguments. I'm not afraid of communism -- I completely support your rights to be as communistic as you'd like with any who may agree with you and to desire to live in that fashion. Furthermore, I'm not arguing out of some 1984-style fear here. I'm arguing out of 1984-style logic that says you cannot have your cake and eat it too, that you cannot hold a morality that assigns things as "good" or "bad" only by the particular names of their victims and perpetuators.
"how come andrew gets to get up? if he gets up, we'll all get up! IT'LL BE ANARCHY!"
your fears are ridiculous. we have a right and a left in this country for a reason, they balance each other, so that we can do the greatest good for the greatest number in the middle. swing too far one direction, the opposition will pull it back. this is long term social dynamics that have always occurred. i think you need to relax a bit and stop seeing everything in black and white, there are a lot of colors in this world and you're missing out on them.
also, the "system you referred to is not what i propose. read more carefully. i specifically said that if keeping on a pregnant woman will kill a business, they have legal protection for firing her. if they have that need, they can exercise it. but yes, some of their "needs" are being restricted. why? becos a COMPANY IS NOT A PERSON AND DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHTS OF A HUMAN BEING.
Hehe..."we have a right and a left in this country for a reason, they balance each other"??? You make it sound as if there's no progression then, as if it's simple trade back and forth and a zero-sum game. It certainly is not. Also, please do not speak to me about "a lot of colors in this world". It's laws like these that assume singular desires for people, assume singular needs for people, assume singular obligations for people, assign singular values to people and make singular demands of people in black and white terms. Conversely, it's opinions like mine that allow people to hold their desires, to determine their needs, to choose their obligations, and to reject the demands that violate them based on their own individual terms.
Now, I'm going to tell you something and I'd really appreciate it if you to listen: you cannot arrest a company without a person doing time. You cannot fine a company without a person paying that cost. People like you, who are so quick to refer to "society" as if it were a singular human being with a singular face with a singular voice speaking singular desires treat a "company" as if it were an inhuman machine. Your principles are little different than those that came before you who wished to define the human as inhuman in order to completely wash your hands of the moral crimes you may commit against them.
How would you "ensure my ability to keep your income"??? Would you force my customers to continue to buy my products? Would you force my employees to work for zero pay? Or would you legally obligate me to continue writing myself paychecks that would simply bounce?
I'm not talking about raises in my example. I'm talking about the fundamental nature of what you're doing: using the childbirth of one person to create the obligation of another, all in the name of something twisted you refer to as "rights".
Dude, if you want to talk about whether or not this is legal within the existing system, or has lots of precedent to support it, you and I will find little disagreement.
There's nothing McCarthy-istic about my arguments. I'm not afraid of communism -- I completely support your rights to be as communistic as you'd like with any who may agree with you and to desire to live in that fashion. Furthermore, I'm not arguing out of some 1984-style fear here. I'm arguing out of 1984-style logic that says you cannot have your cake and eat it too, that you cannot hold a morality that assigns things as "good" or "bad" only by the particular names of their victims and perpetuators.
Hehe..."we have a right and a left in this country for a reason, they balance each other"??? You make it sound as if there's no progression then, as if it's simple trade back and forth and a zero-sum game. It certainly is not. Also, please do not speak to me about "a lot of colors in this world". It's laws like these that assume singular desires for people, assume singular needs for people, assume singular obligations for people, assign singular values to people and make singular demands of people in black and white terms. Conversely, it's opinions like mine that allow people to hold their desires, to determine their needs, to choose their obligations, and to reject the demands that violate them based on their own individual terms.
Now, I'm going to tell you something and I'd really appreciate it if you to listen: you cannot arrest a company without a person doing time. You cannot fine a company without a person paying that cost. People like you, who are so quick to refer to "society" as if it were a singular human being with a singular face with a singular voice speaking singular desires treat a "company" as if it were an inhuman machine. Your principles are little different than those that came before you who wished to define the human as inhuman in order to completely wash your hands of the moral crimes you may commit against them.
as i said, if your pregnancy is harming your business's ability to operate, you're free to fire yourself
there is no singular value assigned here. it is an expression of the majority's will in what they want from their government. our government responds to majority sentiment and if the majority says this is their will, that is what will be done. our government also offers protection for minority views if they have a compelling interest and need such protection. but im sorry, your case is not very compelling when we're comparing "i might not make as large a profit this quarter" to "i might not be able to feed my baby."
now before you bring up slavery (your favorite response to the majority argument) let me point out that slavery was not a majority view. it only benefited a small, elite minority and the enslaved never got to voice their opinion. thus, the system YOU are advocating is more akin to slavery... a small, powerful minority (the business owners) suppressing the popular will of the people (everyone who works for a business owner, people not in business, joe citizen, etc) to serve their personal interest. furthermore, as i acknowledged, there is a hedge against majority tyranny when it is clearly in the wrong... as when blacks are enslaved. your scenario does not fit this standard. the "oppression" of corporate profits is not very compelling, and as i pointed out, those are the only ones who would suffer. those whose business would fail if they had to pay such salaries would be able to fire such women rather than lose their business.
the company pays fines out of its profits (or shifts the cost among its employees). peopel jailed for corporate misfeasance are jailed becos they were HUMANS who committed crimes. the "company" cannot be jailed becos it is not a person. the people committing the acts are held responsible becos they did the acts, not becos they are in any sense the company.
you live in a democracy. it means you don't always get your way. your slippery slope argument is laughable. to say that someone protecting the rights of pregnant mothers is a moral crime while throwing mothers out into the streets to starve with their children is a moral right shows just how detached from reality your logic is.
You did, the instant you decided that slavery is wrong.
Can you name me one restriction on your free behavior?
i didn't say slavery was wrong. you're saying there is no "objective" morality and nobody can impose their will on another. so what right does an enslaved person have to deny one who believes in slavery the right to exercise that belief? you see how your logic can cut both ways and become utterly ridiculous and impracticable?
i can name dozens... i cannot murder, i cannot steal, i cannot beat people up, take drugs, etc etc. these are all socially imposed restrictions on behavior and something tells me you agree with many of them. or do you think murder should be legal?
No apologies, I just noticed the atrocious misspelling in my post to you, services not serves!
It is apples and oranges due to what I said earlier about YOU not losing an income due to owing your own business.
But that was a silly generalization, and laws such as these make no differentiation between mothers and fathers who may be profitting without their jobs or paychecks.
See my questions to soulsinging: are you also going to guarantee my income by forcing people to buy my products or focing my employees to work for nothing?
Ha ha! Who's threatening violence? There is no violence. If you wish to run a business that refuses to provide basic human rights and a salary, your business fails, plain and simple. If you wish to set up a slave operation, you will have to go elsewhere. No gun to the head, ffg.
Sorry, this doesn't work. If I threaten to kill you, but give you the option to give me your first born and you acquiesce, that doesn't absolve me of being violent. If I plant land mines around your home, thereby giving you the option to only die if you choose to come out, that doesn't absolve me of being violent.
You cannot pass a law that will require my business to fail by magic. You can only pass a law that allows armed men to confiscate my property or to imprison me or to forcibly redirect my path and thereby cause that business to fail. Do not lie to me and, more importantly, do not lie to yourself: the only legitimacy most of your laws truly have is the force behind them.
Do you think a salary is a right? Wouldn't, by your definition, that be theft as well. What's the difference between paying your employee with money & providing your employees with health insurance, FLMA, etc? It's all a means to the same end. It's all money in the end. What right does that employee have to your money? Maybe the fact that he/she provides a service to you that comes at a cost.
A salary is not a "right". I think you're bastardizing something important here, or I'm misunderstanding you.
The exchange of value for value, in the context of labor, is a right. Your labor is your property. You, as the only possible agent of that labor, are the only possible owner. You may choose to exchange that labor, if you wish. However, you have no right to force an exchange on another for the very same reason that other has no right to force that labor. All parties in an exchange have a fundamental right to assess the value of everything involved in an exchange and to determine their participation accordingly. Any deviation that pretends such rights do not exist logically erases those rights for any party in the exchange.
So, if your question is: "is an agreed upon salary for work performed a right", the answer is yes. If your question is: "is a contractually obligated salary, potentially irrelevant to performance a right", the answer is yes. However, if your question is: "is payment without consideration to value a right", the answer is emphatically no.
I agree. If only all business owners had the same considerations for their employees. The sad fact is that is not the case! And do we let these business continue unchecked?
Of course not. We refuse to exchange our labor with them.
What is disgusting? Not allowing business to take advantage of their employees? If you want to split hairs, tell me how you feel about incarcerating people that used their 'free will' to inflict harm on others, such as rape or murder? On second thought, maybe I don't want to know .
I have nothing but disdain for people who use "free will" in any process that pretends it doesn't exist in another. That is what rapists do. That is what murderers do. And all too often that is what lawmakers do.
How is it silly? You just showed above that your analogy doesn't 'hold water'. I would also say that as a business owner, you have some luxuries many of your 'worker-bees' do not.
Of course I have some luxuries that "worker-bees" do not. However, there are many workers elsewhere who would benefit from this law that have more luxuries than I have. Regardless, where were these "worker-bees" when I invested many efforts in my business that they did not, which is how I earned those luxuries in the first place?
Just because someone has luxuries that you don't have doesn't entitle you to their property or labor.
No, I say apples and oranges because it is just that. Providing an employee a salary and benefits is just the cost of doing business here, imo. If you do not like what it entails to run a business here, go open shop in China.
Sigh....I would have thought the "put out or get out" arguments were beneath you, baraka.
Employee salaries and benefits are definitely a "cost of doing business here", as they should be. However, I would not have accepted the argument that slavery was a "cost of living here" for some 200 years ago, nor would I allow it to be justified as such.
You know the saying, ffg........you rights end, blah, blah, blah....
Yes, my rights end where yours begin. And since you have the right to forcibly extract value from me simply because you have a child, the same would go for me.
No one is suggesting that. You are crying wolf. Yes, there are those that would erroneously expect that, but most people just want simple basic rights, that's all. btw, how do you/would you handle military personnel? They might get 'sent away' for a while? You have a problem holding positions for them?
I would certainly hold a position for someone who's military obligation would take them "away" for awhile. Similarly to the example of this thread, however, I would not hold it forever.
Really?
Yes, really. I mean, I do believe that human rights extend from natural law, if that's what you're getting at. I'm not sure how you see that in relation to this topic.
Ok, then let's get it on record then. Yes or no, is slavery wrong?
you're saying there is no "objective" morality and nobody can impose their will on another.
I'm saying the opposite. There is an objective morality. It is part of an objective reality wherein people can certainly impose their will on another's behavior, but they cannot impose their will onto another's will.
so what right does an enslaved person have to deny one who believes in slavery the right to exercise that belief?
By simply putting the slaveowner in chains and seeing what he values, of course.
you see how your logic can cut both ways and become utterly ridiculous and impracticable?
No.
i can name dozens... i cannot murder, i cannot steal, i cannot beat people up, take drugs, etc etc. these are all socially imposed restrictions on behavior and something tells me you agree with many of them. or do you think murder should be legal?
I don't think murder should be legal. Murder should be completely unsactioned by a society that values life, just as violence should be completely unsactioned by a society that values peace.
With that in mind, let me ask you this: do you believe that the theft of property should be illegal?
I'm saying the opposite. There is an objective morality. It is part of an objective reality wherein people can certainly impose their will on another's behavior, but they cannot impose their will onto another's will.
what proof do you have that this is universal objective morality? who said so? you? why do you get to decide for me what morality is considered objective?
I don't think murder should be legal. Murder should be completely unsactioned by a society that values life, just as violence should be completely unsactioned by a society that values peace.
ah, so you agree that societies can set and enforce standards of behavior amongst their citizens and it's only a matter of degrees that you are arguing here... that you don't like the degree to which we are proposing to do it. how is this little justification any different from a rule that says termination due to pregnancy should be completely unsanctioned by a society that values families and good parenting?
With that in mind, let me ask you this: do you believe that the theft of property should be illegal?
yes, theft as defined by the members of its society should be illegal. there is no inherent human right to personal property (human society was built initially by collective efforts of tribes) though, so theft is subject to the definition a given society places upon it. government ordered benefits advocated with the support of a majority of the people upon a business that CHOOSES to run its business in this country by its law is therefore NOT theft. the business chose to operate here and can respect the rules. if said business feels our laws of operation are immoral, it is free to take its business elsewhere. nobody said you have the RIGHT to run a private business free of restriction.
i wont answer your slavery question becos i can already see what you're trying to do with it and im not playing your word games. i already know what you are going to argue if i say yes and what you will argue if i say no, cos ive seen it 100 times from you. my answer is irrelevant becos you're solely trying to set me up to discredit me and my answer says nothing about the issue at hand. suffice to say the horrible oppression you suffer at the hands of government regulation of your business is not even comparable to slavery at the fact that you act like such regulation is some horrible cross you have to carry continues to both amuse and disgust me.
But that was a silly generalization, and laws such as these make no differentiation between mothers and fathers who may be profitting without their jobs or paychecks.
See my questions to soulsinging: are you also going to guarantee my income by forcing people to buy my products or focing my employees to work for nothing?
You are avoiding the point. Your questions are not relevant to the concern of providing workers with basic human rights, such as payment for their services which entail benefits. You would make a good lawyer with all your misdirection. Here's a question for you: Do you feel that it is OK for a large corporation to 'take advantage' of their employees? You can insert whatever you like for 'take advantage'. I'm guessing (hoping) your answer is no. If it is no, what solution do you have other than telling folks not to work or shop there? What should happen to a large corporation has 'swindled' their employees?
Sorry, this doesn't work. If I threaten to kill you, but give you the option to give me your first born and you acquiesce, that doesn't absolve me of being violent. If I plant land mines around your home, thereby giving you the option to only die if you choose to come out, that doesn't absolve me of being violent.
You cannot pass a law that will require my business to fail by magic. You can only pass a law that allows armed men to confiscate my property or to imprison me or to forcibly redirect my path and thereby cause that business to fail. Do not lie to me and, more importantly, do not lie to yourself: the only legitimacy most of your laws truly have is the force behind them.
Ha ha Well according to you it does work, at least for the workers. You are forcing workers to settle for sub-par benefits. You use the force of your 'paper muscles'. You say shut up or get lost! It is MY right to run my business as I see fit and abuse folks so I can meet my bottom line. No lies here, ffg, just playing devil's advocate. You should know a little about that . Why does your logic only apply to the business owner and not the workers?
The exchange of value for value, in the context of labor, is a right. Your labor is your property. You, as the only possible agent of that labor, are the only possible owner. You may choose to exchange that labor, if you wish. However, you have no right to force an exchange on another for the very same reason that other has no right to force that labor. All parties in an exchange have a fundamental right to assess the value of everything involved in an exchange and to determine their participation accordingly. Any deviation that pretends such rights do not exist logically erases those rights for any party in the exchange.
So, if your question is: "is an agreed upon salary for work performed a right", the answer is yes. If your question is: "is a contractually obligated salary, potentially irrelevant to performance a right", the answer is yes. However, if your question is: "is payment without consideration to value a right", the answer is emphatically no.
Come on now, you know that this issue is not black and white! How can you paint every situation with the same brush. You know good and well that people take jobs all the time under false pretenses. How do you rectify that? Oh yeah, the can leave that job. If only it was that simple for everyone.
I have nothing but disdain for people who use "free will" in any process that pretends it doesn't exist in another. That is what rapists do. That is what murderers do. And all too often that is what lawmakers do.
Kind of what you are doing with your argument? You say 'if you don't like the way I treat you as an employee, leave' and I say 'if you do not want to run your business ethically and the US people vote for legislation to provide for the workers and you don't agree with it, leave'. I understand where you are coming from, but you'll have to forgive me. Like Soulsinging stated earlier, I have a bit more concern for the struggling mother & father than the wealthy business owner that loses a bit of profit. Don't get me wrong, I have no issues with wealthy, successful people. I take issue when their profit are make on the backs of the working class and they feel no obligation to provide reasonable compensation for those worker's services.
Of course I have some luxuries that "worker-bees" do not. However, there are many workers elsewhere who would benefit from this law that have more luxuries than I have. Regardless, where were these "worker-bees" when I invested many efforts in my business that they did not, which is how I earned those luxuries in the first place?
Just because someone has luxuries that you don't have doesn't entitle you to their property or labor.
Sigh....I would have thought the "put out or get out" arguments were beneath you, baraka.
Employee salaries and benefits are definitely a "cost of doing business here", as they should be. However, I would not have accepted the argument that slavery was a "cost of living here" for some 200 years ago, nor would I allow it to be justified as such.
Nice esoteric insult, ffg. I'm sorry I have shattered your image of me.;) I think I'd like to turn that statement back on you. You say, 'no one is forcing you to work for a company that doesn't provide you benefits, leave and go elsewhere.' I say 'no one is forcing to you stay in a country who's laws you don't agree with, leave and go elsewhere'. What's good for the goose...........
Yes, my rights end where yours begin. And since you have the right to forcibly extract value from me simply because you have a child, the same would go for me.
How about, you are forcing labor without paying for it's value. Just a little twist on perspective.
Yes, really. I mean, I do believe that human rights extend from natural law, if that's what you're getting at. I'm not sure how you see that in relation to this topic.
That's what I've been getting at and I'm not sure how you DON'T see it as relevant.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
why do you get to decide for me what morality is considered objective?
I don't, nor do I have any desire to.
ah, so you agree that societies can set and enforce standards of behavior amongst their citizens and it's only a matter of degrees that you are arguing here...
No. I agree that people can determine what they value as a group and accept standardized approaches to situation. You view law as restrictive dissension. I view law as contractual agreement.
that you don't like the degree to which we are proposing to do it.
No. I don't like the contradictions inherent to what you're proposing.
how is this little justification any different from a rule that says termination due to pregnancy should be completely unsanctioned by a society that values families and good parenting?
Because this society doesn't value families and good parenting, at least as some kind of generalized average. Our families have never been in worse shape, arguably, and our parenting has never been worse.
Rather, this society values money and jobs.
yes, theft as defined by the members of its society should be illegal.
Hehehehe...nice work on the caveat
Please answer this question directly: if the members of society determine that black people cannot own land, and forcibly take that land from them, is that theft?
there is no inherent human right to personal property (human society was built initially by collective efforts of tribes)
Umm...then there would be no inherent human right to life, since human life was built initially by collective efforts of progentiors. From that then, there is no inherent right to owning one's labor, which in turn means there's no inherent crime to slavery.
though, so theft is subject to the definition a given society places upon it. government ordered benefits advocated with the support of a majority of the people upon a business that CHOOSES to run its business in this country by its law is therefore NOT theft. the business chose to operate here and can respect the rules. if said business feels our laws of operation are immoral, it is free to take its business elsewhere. nobody said you have the RIGHT to run a private business free of restriction.
i wont answer your slavery question becos i can already see what you're trying to do with it and im not playing your word games. i already know what you are going to argue if i say yes and what you will argue if i say no, cos ive seen it 100 times from you. my answer is irrelevant becos you're solely trying to set me up to discredit me and my answer says nothing about the issue at hand. suffice to say the horrible oppression you suffer at the hands of government regulation of your business is not even comparable to slavery at the fact that you act like such regulation is some horrible cross you have to carry continues to both amuse and disgust me.
I don't compare your positions to slavery. I'm telling you your positions make slavery possible. Do you understand?
Your questions are not relevant to the concern of providing workers with basic human rights, such as payment for their services which entail benefits. You would make a good lawyer with all your misdirection. Here's a question for you: Do you feel that it is OK for a large corporation to 'take advantage' of their employees? You can insert whatever you like for 'take advantage'. I'm guessing (hoping) your answer is no. If it is no, what solution do you have other than telling folks not to work or shop there? What should happen to a large corporation has 'swindled' their employees?
I fell is is equally OK for a large corporation to "take advantage" of their employees as it is for those employees to "take advantage" of that corporation. Here are some specific examples:
If I steal from my employers, my employers may steal from me.
If I extract labor from my employers, my employers may extract labor from me.
If I expect my choices to carry obligations for my employer, my employer can expect their choices to carry obligations from me.
I believe refusal of labor or consumer activity is the ultimate and only moral check on an employer, in nearly every case. However, there are extreme cases of violent behavior by employers (and employee unions as well) wherein I would support the intervention of the state or a similar body. For example, actual employee slavery is a place where I feel state-sponsored action both acceptable and morally correct. Willful pollution is also a similar example, but that would have to be addressed in much more detail since corporations are too often simply treated as scapegoats there.
If you want to give me specific examples of corporations taking advantage of employees, which certainly happens in ways I consider wrong, I'll certainly give you my opinion.
Ha ha Well according to you it does work, at least for the workers. You are forcing workers to settle for sub-par benefits. You use the force of your 'paper muscles'. You say shut up or get lost! It is MY right to run my business as I see fit and abuse folks so I can meet my bottom line. No lies here, ffg, just playing devil's advocate. You should know a little about that . Why does your logic only apply to the business owner and not the workers?
It applies to both. No worker is forced to settle for sub-par benefits in the absence of slavery. You, and others, seem to treat money as power without understanding what the root of all money is: labor. If the value of your labor is actually greater than the benefits you are receiving, by definition you'll be able to find fair payment.
Yeah, I'm lost too. Bastardizing what? oh and a BIG :eek: to your salary is not a right comment.
Bastardizing what it means to have a right to payment. That right extends from the value of your labor and the agreements you have with exchanging partners, not the payment itself. If you ignore the value of labor and the will of the exchanging partners, you've misrepresented that right.
Come on now, you know that this issue is not black and white! How can you paint every situation with the same brush.
Because 1+1 always equals two, baraka.
You know good and well that people take jobs all the time under false pretenses. How do you rectify that? Oh yeah, the can leave that job. If only it was that simple for everyone.
What "false pretenses" do people take jobs under?
That has work so well, definitely the reason Wal-Mart is such a huge failure. :rolleyes:
It does work well. What you don't like is that people are willingly working and shopping at a place that we deem as bad, but they deem as good. That said, many opinions are changing and Wal-Mart is currently having some serious business problems right now as it loses ground to preferrable (at least to me) retailers like Target.
Kind of what you are doing with your argument? You say 'if you don't like the way I treat you as an employee, leave' and I say 'if you do not want to run your business ethically and the US people vote for legislation to provide for the workers and you don't agree with it, leave'.
There's a key difference, baraka. You tie yours to land, I don't.
I understand where you are coming from, but you'll have to forgive me. Like Soulsinging stated earlier, I have a bit more concern for the struggling mother & father than the wealthy business owner that loses a bit of profit.
I think if you consider my viewpoints, you'll find that I have equal concern for each.
Don't get me wrong, I have no issues with wealthy, successful people. I take issue when their profit are make on the backs of the working class and they feel no obligation to provide reasonable compensation for those worker's services.
Me too!! I also take issue with the reverse.
Nice esoteric insult, ffg. I'm sorry I have shattered your image of me.;) I think I'd like to turn that statement back on you. You say, 'no one is forcing you to work for a company that doesn't provide you benefits, leave and go elsewhere.' I say 'no one is forcing to you stay in a country who's laws you don't agree with, leave and go elsewhere'. What's good for the goose...........
Again, I think you're denying the difference between land and employment.
How about, you are forcing labor without paying for it's value. Just a little twist on perspective.
Whoah...where am I forcing labor without paying for it's value?? I would never support that -- it's inherent to my arguments here.
That's what I've been getting at and I'm sure how you DON'T see it as relevant.
It's relevant in the case that all the rights we're discussing are related to natural law. But I think you're trying to invent a right out of the natural process of childbirth. Perhaps you could just explain yourself.
I fell is is equally OK for a large corporation to "take advantage" of their employees as it is for those employees to "take advantage" of that corporation. Here are some specific examples:
If I steal from my employers, my employers may steal from me.
If I extract labor from my employers, my employers may extract labor from me.
If I expect my choices to carry obligations for my employer, my employer can expect their choices to carry obligations from me.
I believe refusal of labor or consumer activity is the ultimate and only moral check on an employer, in nearly every case. However, there are extreme cases of violent behavior by employers (and employee unions as well) wherein I would support the intervention of the state or a similar body. For example, actual employee slavery is a place where I feel state-sponsored action both acceptable and morally correct. Willful pollution is also a similar example, but that would have to be addressed in much more detail since corporations are too often simply treated as scapegoats there.
If you want to give me specific examples of corporations taking advantage of employees, which certainly happens in ways I consider wrong, I'll certainly give you my opinion.
It applies to both. No worker is forced to settle for sub-par benefits in the absence of slavery. You, and others, seem to treat money as power without understanding what the root of all money is: labor. If the value of your labor is actually greater than the benefits you are receiving, by definition you'll be able to find fair payment.
Bastardizing what it means to have a right to payment. That right extends from the value of your labor and the agreements you have with exchanging partners, not the payment itself. If you ignore the value of labor and the will of the exchanging partners, you've misrepresented that right.
Because 1+1 always equals two, baraka.
What "false pretenses" do people take jobs under?
It does work well. What you don't like is that people are willingly working and shopping at a place that we deem as bad, but they deem as good. That said, many opinions are changing and Wal-Mart is currently having some serious business problems right now as it loses ground to preferrable (at least to me) retailers like Target.
There's a key difference, baraka. You tie yours to land, I don't.
I think if you consider my viewpoints, you'll find that I have equal concern for each.
Me too!! I also take issue with the reverse.
Again, I think you're denying the difference between land and employment.
Whoah...where am I forcing labor without paying for it's value?? I would never support that -- it's inherent to my arguments here.
It's relevant in the case that all the rights we're discussing are related to natural law. But I think you're trying to invent a right out of the natural process of childbirth. Perhaps you could just explain yourself.
Ah and sadly, we make no new ground. I understand what you are saying, but from your responses to mine, I'm afraid you can't see how some of us find your logic inconsistent. And I'm afraid you have misunderstood some of my points. We will have to agree to disagree for right now. I've run out of time, so until next time, ffg..................
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
No. I agree that people can determine what they value as a group and accept standardized approaches to situation. You view law as restrictive dissension. I view law as contractual agreement.
your distinction has no meaning. you have a contractual agreement with the united states... you will abide by its laws as decided by its citizens and representatives and in return it will offer you the benefits of united states citizenship. we covered this just the other day. you whined about how you never signed the contract so you're not really a citizen so it's just wrong that you have to pay taxes. it applies equally well to me whining about how i never signed a contract saying i was a citizen so it's wrong for them to arrest me for murder. so which is it? if you're going to say you didn't "contract" with the government how can you expect accountability for murderers from that government? like i said, you are not arguing some principle, you are just arguing the extent... you cant have it both ways with the government being legitimately empowered via contract with the people when you agree with what it's doing and illegitimate when you dont like what it's doing. you either give credibility to the us government by contract or you dont. if you do, then you have to accept that its laws might occasionally burden you, but at other times will benefit you. that is the give and take (compromise remember) of any social organization. not everyone can get exactly what they want all the time.
Because this society doesn't value families and good parenting, at least as some kind of generalized average. Our families have never been in worse shape, arguably, and our parenting has never been worse.
Rather, this society values money and jobs.
all of this is true. the point people are arguing here is societal values are and should be changing. that family and parenting should be placed ahead of the almighty dollar and protected more than profits. thus is the nature of discourse. people talk and decide the best course of action.
Please answer this question directly: if the members of society determine that black people cannot own land, and forcibly take that land from them, is that theft?
no. im not going to play that game with you becos this is a ridiculous hypothetical that we both know will never come true here. im well aware that not all of my stances are perfectly consistent in ideology. this is my beef with you... such stances are not feasible in the real world. i have my ideological leanings, but recognize that concessions must be made for practical reasons. ideally, no one would ever be able to tell you what to do with your business, but ideally nobody would ever be hungry, or get divorced, or get sick either. how's that for a moral absolute: sometimes life is a bitch, suck it up.
I don't compare your positions to slavery. I'm telling you your positions make slavery possible. Do you understand?
possible? maybe. likely? not hardly. this is where your thinking becomes black and white... it's either slavery or it isnt. it's not that simple.
do YOU understand that your positions are realistically creating a kind of slavery? when you talk about abuse of power and taking by force, you ignore so much. yes, government uses force to limit your business practices, but what you dont understand is that that government was created by the weak and powerless to protect against the more dangerous evil of people like you that own businesses using the force of economic pressure to essentially enslave those who do not have the strength to protect themselves. slavery was only defeated through this process of the weak banding together to restrain the strong. government in a capitalist economy is essentially a mediator. i appreciate that you personally would not do such things, but you cannot deny that historically, those in positions of absolute power often abuse that power. so who should have the greater power? private companies that could wield absolute control over their workers if unchecked, or a government that is answerable by election to its people?
I haven't even read all the debate...all I know is that my sudden illness shouldn't had lost me my job. If it wasn't for FMLA they could had canned me.
For the record, it did not mean they had to hold my job and therfeore no one doing the work. They hired someone to do it. All the FMLA allowed was that within a year if I was able to returned to work and they had to give me comparable job with the same pay i left with. It did not leave my company hanging. Plus, they did not pay me...so just how did it harm them...it didn't, period!!!!
I think its unfair if someone, or thir kid, gets sick and time has to be taken off, people's jobs should not be in jeopardy, no more than when someone goes off to the military.
Its easy for the naysayer to be against it until they or a close family member gets sick and they have to be the sole care taker. I don't think there is an insurance to cover taking care of a sick relative.
I never returned to my job, but they did fill the position...all I was promised, by the FMAL law is that if I returned thye had to give me either the same job or a comparable with the pay I left with and the seniority.
To not have this FMLA, people have to be caught between caring for their loved on and losing their job. WTF!!! It si then they need their job more than ever.
I wish people here would think before they spout off stuff they think they will never have to deal with.
Its easy to spout off when you are on the other side...what cracks me up more is that think they immune from this.
When it happens tp you, your opinion will change.
So...in my opinion. shut the f'uck up til you know what you are talking about.
Comments
So, once again, we're looking at taking care of those in the lower classes. I personally don't believe it's right to require a private company to pay maternity leave. They are forced under the law to adhere to equal opportunity employment practices, yet at the same time we want to essentially punish them (via leave dollars) for hiring women between the ages of 18 and 45. That's crap, you can't have it both ways. It's one or the other, either they have the choice NOT to hire women to protect themselves from maternity costs or they have the choice to hire women and refuse to pay for maternity leave.
I despise welfare, but this is one of those times when welfare is in the best interest of society. Take away the checks from those blatantly cheating the system (illegals and cheaters) and apply that money to a program for maternity leave. Pay women $1400/month for 4-5 months starting about a month before their due date. In cases where they are medically unable to work earlier in their term, they'd qualify for early payments. The money is there, it's just a matter of our government putting their money where their mouth is.
Once again reading something into it that's not there. My comment was not condoning businesses for not providing leave. It was encouraging employees to leave those businesses without leave high and dry without employees. I stated that those who want to offer leave would be more attractive to employees.
I guess it's OK to be judgemental of someone who claims to be a Christian. Just don't let the Christian start judging you, huh?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Huh? What business right is being put ahead of what citizen right here????
the business's right to higher profits is being placed ahead of human dignity and respect for child-rearing and family values.
That's not a right. There's no right to "high profits" in this country, thankfully. Ask the thousands of businesses that go under every day here in America due to their losses.
Human dignity??? Where do you find dignity in demanding payment from someone for zero effort?
Child-rearing and family values??? Did those things not exist before the Family Leave Act? Did that piece of paper invent them?
Look, I'm all for paid maternity and paternity leave. It's something, as a business owner, that I'm proud to offer my employees without a single string attached for as long as they reasonably request it. But please don't talk to me about "dignity" or "family values". If I, for instance, got married tomorrow and had a kid, how would you feel if I withheld the salaries of my workers to pay for it??? Would there be "dignity" there? Would there be "family values" there?
there is dignity in treating people like they and their needs matter. that someone who has put in a lot of work to help make you wealthy needs time to recover from a physically and emotionally draining process and get back on their feet and ensure their child's health and well being. to tell them that they needs to choose between that and their paycheck deprives them of the respect and dignity that they deserve as a human being. to fire someone summarily for having a child is sickening, and taking away medical leave is firing these women in everything but name. it's a disgusting practice.
these things existed prior to the act, but there were 2 crucial differences between now and then: 1) women in the workplace was not widely accepted and 2) you could still support a family on one income then. now women are in the workplace and need to be to support a family.
if your business is going to go under becos of that paid leave, you can fire her. that's firing for just cause. but otherwise, it is not a matter of making your business work. it is a matter of you being more concerned about your bottom line than treating your workers humanely. that and about half the people pushing for this repeal are doing it not to protect businesses but as an underhanded attempt to force women back into the kitchen where they think they belong. but you support people's right to deprive others of their rights, becos the right prejudice is more important to protect than the right to childbirth right?
Hehe....so how does that apply to your law that just creates a blanket enforcement on business owners, regardless of "them and their needs"?
Soulsinging, someday you'll probably realize that the right to prejudice stems from exactly the same things that the right to childbirth does. And if you want to take away one from someone, don't be surprised when that someone takes away the other from you.
Look, practically speaking you're probably entirely right on the motives issue. Most of the people opposed to this law are probably opposed to it for backwards social reasons or simply those who seek to protect businesses from any intervention while hypocritically supporting that intervention elsewhere. But I'm not concerned with their motives since I'm not going to be helping them. I'm concerned with my own motives, my own business, my own families and friends affected by these situations.
You're trying to make a blanket value statement above that says that business owners "owe" soon-to-be mothers and fathers their jobs or their paychecks or whatever, simply because they've had a baby. This is fraught with logical problems:
First, you want to pretend that every employee "contributes to profits". That's not true, just like not every executive "contributes to profits". There are people in my own business who are economic costs to me, and are only here because I believe they have potential to be otherwise. If one of them requested family leave, I'd grant it, but I certainly wouldn't grant it because they've "contributed to my profits". They haven't.
Secondly, you've linked the act of one person having a baby to a financial obligation of another person unrelated to the choices of the first. That's simply ridiculous. If I pushed you or others here hard enough on this issue, you'd fall back to the same old "we're a society" or "human have to work together" positions that would, in essence, justify the very example you ignored in my previous post -- withholding paychecks from people because I had a baby.
Is it disgusting to fire a woman for having a baby? In most cases, of course (the only justifiable case would be one wherein the baby or the act of childbirth made future job performance impossible). But is it not also disgusting to hire a woman simply because she had a baby? Should mothers be given preferential hiring treatment simply because they're mothers, even in positions where having a child is completely irrelevant to performance? I would certainly hope you'd have a problem with legislation that forced hiring quotas on companies instructing them to hire 90% mothers. Yet you're justifying that as well with your arguments.
The fact that there are now more women in the workplace is completely irrelevant to the morality of these choices. It's either right or it's wrong, regardless of scale. Certainly having a greater proportion of female employees is going to make this more of an issue, but it doesn't change the fundamental morality. Before FLA, billions of men and millions of women throughout history had to make choices between work and family, just like they have to make choices between everything else in their lives and family. After FLA, those same choices still exist, except now men and women have the ability to use government force to push the costs of their choices onto others in society. FLA will not and cannot make for a society that will value families more, or magically increase "human dignity". Those qualities stem from personal moral choices, and FLA, at best, simply pushes the costs of those choices elsewhere and, at worst, pretends those choices do not exist or are irrelevant to their effects.
Once again, society is going to deem their employment a "right" and in the process attempt to take true rights away from a sector of that society. And, in this case, they're playing a direct game of logical russian roulette. If it is their "right" to demand employment regardless of economic effort, merit or value and regardless of the personal will of the employer, they simply open the door for those employers to one day demand employees regardless of economic effort, merit, value and regardless of the personal will of the employees.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I think laws and guidelines "imposed" on companies that would not be acceptable to the citizens imposing them if they were imposed upon those very same citizens should certainly be done away with.
Again, if anyone here is ok working for no pay when their employer has a child, or if anyone here is ok with their employer declaring that they have a "right" to the employee's labor, regardless of the employee's will, I'll allow a consistency that addresses my arguments above.
Of course not. I also don't feel that all mothers or father as the same moral code as me or each other. I'm not looking to force my moral code on anyone. I'm simply asking to be free to act out my own.
If soulsinging, or you, or anyone else wishes to start a company and give mothers or father indefinite leave for child-rearing, I'll fiercely support your rights to do so.
No. Every employer runs checked by their employees and their customers. It's inherent to the system. I'd ask you what checks exist on these employees when they can simply use the armed force of the government to extract their will from their employers?
Crazy runaway sentence there, ffg, but I think, after reading it several times, I know what you are getting at. I have to say apples and oranges. How about this..........if a company requires the serves of others to run the company, then they need to pay for those serves. Payment includes a salary that meets the minimum wage or more and basic human rights such as, you guessed it, the ability to dedicate a reasonable amount of time to family, whether it be sickness or pregnancy without the fear of losing one's job or income.
Again, apples and oranges. Your logic doesn't hold water here. If you, by divine intervention, become pregnant, because you own your company, you will still be drawing profit even if you decide to take a couple of months off to 'bond' with your child. Yes, you don't have a 'right' to your employee's labor, you must pay for it, monetarily and through basic human rights.
Sure, as long as your free will does not impose on basic human rights.
Who said anything about 'indefinite' leave as it pertain to pregnancy?
No, how about using natural law to extract basic human rights? It's always a pleasure 'sparing' with you, ffg!
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Sorry for the awkward wording! Now, these things are not "apples and oranges" just because you want them to be.
The example you give above is no different than what I mentioned earlier. You're still dictating to a business what it's "payment" should be. If you use that as part of a negotiation as a potential employee, I completely support your right to do so and think you are wise to do so. However, once you translate that into law and back it with force, you're no longer negotiating. You're simply making demands and threatening violence in order to achieve your "right", which in turn begs the question: how has that not granted a reciprocal right for the employee to demand your labor as his "right", regardless of your will?
As much as you want it to be, paid time off is not a "right", just like unpaid time on is not a "right". The latter is slavery. The former is theft. You cannot change it by dressing it up with words like "human right" or, as others might, "common good" or "social obligation".
Allowing employees flexible schedules to accomodate the other pressures and obligations in their lives is both common sense and logical practice as a business owner, in general terms. However, allowing others to make value assessments based on their terms, just as you wish to make value assessments based on your terms is both common sense and logical practice as a human being.
I don't believe anyone should be in the practice of firing women or men who wish to take time off to celebrate or recouperate from child birth. As soulsinging said in his post, it is certainly disgusting. But just because something is disgusting doesn't mean it should be met with something equally disgusting.
What??? This is a silly generalization. My business may very well continue to make a profit if I took a couple of months off, but many would not. Furthermore, many of the mothers and fathers this law applies to will continue to make a profit through their own means if they took a couple of months off. Regardless, profit, or the lack thereof, does not a morality make.
Again, I think you're saying "apples and oranges" simply because you want these things to be different. They are not. They share the same fundamentals: people using the act of childbirth to demand the payments or labor of others.
Hehe...exactly. I don't have a "right" to my employee's labor. If I have a child, and I take two months off, I cannot ban my employees from quitting, nor can I force them to work without pay. That is slavery. That is putting the costs of my obligations and responsibilities on another against their will. That is a fundamental breech of morals and human rights.
Again, this is not a "basic human right". There's no justification for that.
I did. That's something, as a business owner, I would not allow. I wouldn't allow one of my employees to have a child and simply walk out the door and tell me they'll "be back someday", all the while expecting pay until they return.
However, if you wanted to run your business that way, I'm completely fine with that. I may think it unwise, but it's not my right to attempt to force you to change.
How about it? I'm unsure what you're asking here.
The pleasure is all mine! I'm always happy to see you posting.
bad analogy, becos i would also ensure your ability to keep your income if you had a baby. you're talking about taking MORE money in your example. i never said women deserve a pay raise for having a baby, i said they should not have to take a pay cut or lose their job for it.
i oppose quotas in every way, shape, and form. but this has nothing to do with hiring. it's a protection against prejudicial dismissal, which is already widely recognized in many parts of the united states under title ix. once again, you are making paranoid 1984-style arguments based on fear, not reality. protection for mothers in no way means communism is inevitable. you sound like joseph mccarthy. i'll refer to my own authority, the breakfast club:
"how come andrew gets to get up? if he gets up, we'll all get up! IT'LL BE ANARCHY!"
your fears are ridiculous. we have a right and a left in this country for a reason, they balance each other, so that we can do the greatest good for the greatest number in the middle. swing too far one direction, the opposition will pull it back. this is long term social dynamics that have always occurred. i think you need to relax a bit and stop seeing everything in black and white, there are a lot of colors in this world and you're missing out on them.
also, the "system you referred to is not what i propose. read more carefully. i specifically said that if keeping on a pregnant woman will kill a business, they have legal protection for firing her. if they have that need, they can exercise it. but yes, some of their "needs" are being restricted. why? becos a COMPANY IS NOT A PERSON AND DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHTS OF A HUMAN BEING.
No apologies, I just noticed the atrocious misspelling in my post to you, services not serves!
It is apples and oranges due to what I said earlier about YOU not losing an income due to owing your own business.
Ha ha! Who's threatening violence? There is no violence. If you wish to run a business that refuses to provide basic human rights and a salary, your business fails, plain and simple. If you wish to set up a slave operation, you will have to go elsewhere. No gun to the head, ffg.
Do you think a salary is a right? Wouldn't, by your definition, that be theft as well. What's the difference between paying your employee with money & providing your employees with health insurance, FLMA, etc? It's all a means to the same end. It's all money in the end. What right does that employee have to your money? Maybe the fact that he/she provides a service to you that comes at a cost.
I agree. If only all business owners had the same considerations for their employees. The sad fact is that is not the case! And do we let these business continue unchecked?
What is disgusting? Not allowing business to take advantage of their employees? If you want to split hairs, tell me how you feel about incarcerating people that their 'free will' to inflict harm on others, such as rape or murder? On second, thought, maybe I don't want to know
How is it silly? You just showed above that your analogy doesn't 'hold water'. I would also say that as a business owner, you have some luxuries many of your 'worker-bees' do not.
No, I say apples and oranges because it is just that. Providing an employee a salary and benefits is just the cost of doing business here, imo. If you do not like what it entails to run a business here, go open shop in China.
:shocked: You know the saying, ffg........you rights end, blah, blah, blah....
No one is suggesting that. You are crying wolf. Yes, there are those that would erroneously expect that, but most people just want simple basic rights, that's all. btw, how do you/would you handle military personnel? They might get 'sent away' for a while? You have a problem holding positions for them?
Really?
The pleasure is all mine! I'm always happy to see you posting.[/quote]
Yay!
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
No apologies, I just noticed the atrocious misspelling in my post to you, services not serves!
It is apples and oranges due to what I said earlier about YOU not losing an income due to owing your own business.
Ha ha! Who's threatening violence? There is no violence. If you wish to run a business that refuses to provide basic human rights and a salary, your business fails, plain and simple. If you wish to set up a slave operation, you will have to go elsewhere. No gun to the head, ffg.
Do you think a salary is a right? Wouldn't, by your definition, that be theft as well. What's the difference between paying your employee with money & providing your employees with health insurance, FLMA, etc? It's all a means to the same end. It's all money in the end. What right does that employee have to your money? Maybe the fact that he/she provides a service to you that comes at a cost.
I agree. If only all business owners had the same considerations for their employees. The sad fact is that is not the case! And do we let these business continue unchecked?
What is disgusting? Not allowing business to take advantage of their employees? If you want to split hairs, tell me how you feel about incarcerating people that used their 'free will' to inflict harm on others, such as rape or murder? On second thought, maybe I don't want to know
How is it silly? You just showed above that your analogy doesn't 'hold water'. I would also say that as a business owner, you have some luxuries many of your 'worker-bees' do not.
No, I say apples and oranges because it is just that. Providing an employee a salary and benefits is just the cost of doing business here, imo. If you do not like what it entails to run a business here, go open shop in China.
You know the saying, ffg........you rights end, blah, blah, blah....
No one is suggesting that. You are crying wolf. Yes, there are those that would erroneously expect that, but most people just want simple basic rights, that's all. btw, how do you/would you handle military personnel? They might get 'sent away' for a while? You have a problem holding positions for them?
Really?
Yay! mine too
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
who says freedom is a basic human right? i didnt get the memo that said human beings can never have any restrictions on their behavior... in fact, quite the opposite.
How would you "ensure my ability to keep your income"??? Would you force my customers to continue to buy my products? Would you force my employees to work for zero pay? Or would you legally obligate me to continue writing myself paychecks that would simply bounce?
I'm not talking about raises in my example. I'm talking about the fundamental nature of what you're doing: using the childbirth of one person to create the obligation of another, all in the name of something twisted you refer to as "rights".
Dude, if you want to talk about whether or not this is legal within the existing system, or has lots of precedent to support it, you and I will find little disagreement.
There's nothing McCarthy-istic about my arguments. I'm not afraid of communism -- I completely support your rights to be as communistic as you'd like with any who may agree with you and to desire to live in that fashion. Furthermore, I'm not arguing out of some 1984-style fear here. I'm arguing out of 1984-style logic that says you cannot have your cake and eat it too, that you cannot hold a morality that assigns things as "good" or "bad" only by the particular names of their victims and perpetuators.
Hehe..."we have a right and a left in this country for a reason, they balance each other"??? You make it sound as if there's no progression then, as if it's simple trade back and forth and a zero-sum game. It certainly is not. Also, please do not speak to me about "a lot of colors in this world". It's laws like these that assume singular desires for people, assume singular needs for people, assume singular obligations for people, assign singular values to people and make singular demands of people in black and white terms. Conversely, it's opinions like mine that allow people to hold their desires, to determine their needs, to choose their obligations, and to reject the demands that violate them based on their own individual terms.
Now, I'm going to tell you something and I'd really appreciate it if you to listen: you cannot arrest a company without a person doing time. You cannot fine a company without a person paying that cost. People like you, who are so quick to refer to "society" as if it were a singular human being with a singular face with a singular voice speaking singular desires treat a "company" as if it were an inhuman machine. Your principles are little different than those that came before you who wished to define the human as inhuman in order to completely wash your hands of the moral crimes you may commit against them.
You did, the instant you decided that slavery is wrong.
Can you name me one restriction on your free behavior?
as i said, if your pregnancy is harming your business's ability to operate, you're free to fire yourself
there is no singular value assigned here. it is an expression of the majority's will in what they want from their government. our government responds to majority sentiment and if the majority says this is their will, that is what will be done. our government also offers protection for minority views if they have a compelling interest and need such protection. but im sorry, your case is not very compelling when we're comparing "i might not make as large a profit this quarter" to "i might not be able to feed my baby."
now before you bring up slavery (your favorite response to the majority argument) let me point out that slavery was not a majority view. it only benefited a small, elite minority and the enslaved never got to voice their opinion. thus, the system YOU are advocating is more akin to slavery... a small, powerful minority (the business owners) suppressing the popular will of the people (everyone who works for a business owner, people not in business, joe citizen, etc) to serve their personal interest. furthermore, as i acknowledged, there is a hedge against majority tyranny when it is clearly in the wrong... as when blacks are enslaved. your scenario does not fit this standard. the "oppression" of corporate profits is not very compelling, and as i pointed out, those are the only ones who would suffer. those whose business would fail if they had to pay such salaries would be able to fire such women rather than lose their business.
the company pays fines out of its profits (or shifts the cost among its employees). peopel jailed for corporate misfeasance are jailed becos they were HUMANS who committed crimes. the "company" cannot be jailed becos it is not a person. the people committing the acts are held responsible becos they did the acts, not becos they are in any sense the company.
you live in a democracy. it means you don't always get your way. your slippery slope argument is laughable. to say that someone protecting the rights of pregnant mothers is a moral crime while throwing mothers out into the streets to starve with their children is a moral right shows just how detached from reality your logic is.
i didn't say slavery was wrong. you're saying there is no "objective" morality and nobody can impose their will on another. so what right does an enslaved person have to deny one who believes in slavery the right to exercise that belief? you see how your logic can cut both ways and become utterly ridiculous and impracticable?
i can name dozens... i cannot murder, i cannot steal, i cannot beat people up, take drugs, etc etc. these are all socially imposed restrictions on behavior and something tells me you agree with many of them. or do you think murder should be legal?
But that was a silly generalization, and laws such as these make no differentiation between mothers and fathers who may be profitting without their jobs or paychecks.
See my questions to soulsinging: are you also going to guarantee my income by forcing people to buy my products or focing my employees to work for nothing?
Sorry, this doesn't work. If I threaten to kill you, but give you the option to give me your first born and you acquiesce, that doesn't absolve me of being violent. If I plant land mines around your home, thereby giving you the option to only die if you choose to come out, that doesn't absolve me of being violent.
You cannot pass a law that will require my business to fail by magic. You can only pass a law that allows armed men to confiscate my property or to imprison me or to forcibly redirect my path and thereby cause that business to fail. Do not lie to me and, more importantly, do not lie to yourself: the only legitimacy most of your laws truly have is the force behind them.
A salary is not a "right". I think you're bastardizing something important here, or I'm misunderstanding you.
The exchange of value for value, in the context of labor, is a right. Your labor is your property. You, as the only possible agent of that labor, are the only possible owner. You may choose to exchange that labor, if you wish. However, you have no right to force an exchange on another for the very same reason that other has no right to force that labor. All parties in an exchange have a fundamental right to assess the value of everything involved in an exchange and to determine their participation accordingly. Any deviation that pretends such rights do not exist logically erases those rights for any party in the exchange.
So, if your question is: "is an agreed upon salary for work performed a right", the answer is yes. If your question is: "is a contractually obligated salary, potentially irrelevant to performance a right", the answer is yes. However, if your question is: "is payment without consideration to value a right", the answer is emphatically no.
Of course not. We refuse to exchange our labor with them.
I have nothing but disdain for people who use "free will" in any process that pretends it doesn't exist in another. That is what rapists do. That is what murderers do. And all too often that is what lawmakers do.
Of course I have some luxuries that "worker-bees" do not. However, there are many workers elsewhere who would benefit from this law that have more luxuries than I have. Regardless, where were these "worker-bees" when I invested many efforts in my business that they did not, which is how I earned those luxuries in the first place?
Just because someone has luxuries that you don't have doesn't entitle you to their property or labor.
Sigh....I would have thought the "put out or get out" arguments were beneath you, baraka.
Employee salaries and benefits are definitely a "cost of doing business here", as they should be. However, I would not have accepted the argument that slavery was a "cost of living here" for some 200 years ago, nor would I allow it to be justified as such.
Yes, my rights end where yours begin. And since you have the right to forcibly extract value from me simply because you have a child, the same would go for me.
I would certainly hold a position for someone who's military obligation would take them "away" for awhile. Similarly to the example of this thread, however, I would not hold it forever.
Yes, really. I mean, I do believe that human rights extend from natural law, if that's what you're getting at. I'm not sure how you see that in relation to this topic.
Ok, then let's get it on record then. Yes or no, is slavery wrong?
I'm saying the opposite. There is an objective morality. It is part of an objective reality wherein people can certainly impose their will on another's behavior, but they cannot impose their will onto another's will.
By simply putting the slaveowner in chains and seeing what he values, of course.
No.
I don't think murder should be legal. Murder should be completely unsactioned by a society that values life, just as violence should be completely unsactioned by a society that values peace.
With that in mind, let me ask you this: do you believe that the theft of property should be illegal?
what proof do you have that this is universal objective morality? who said so? you? why do you get to decide for me what morality is considered objective?
ah, so you agree that societies can set and enforce standards of behavior amongst their citizens and it's only a matter of degrees that you are arguing here... that you don't like the degree to which we are proposing to do it. how is this little justification any different from a rule that says termination due to pregnancy should be completely unsanctioned by a society that values families and good parenting?
yes, theft as defined by the members of its society should be illegal. there is no inherent human right to personal property (human society was built initially by collective efforts of tribes) though, so theft is subject to the definition a given society places upon it. government ordered benefits advocated with the support of a majority of the people upon a business that CHOOSES to run its business in this country by its law is therefore NOT theft. the business chose to operate here and can respect the rules. if said business feels our laws of operation are immoral, it is free to take its business elsewhere. nobody said you have the RIGHT to run a private business free of restriction.
i wont answer your slavery question becos i can already see what you're trying to do with it and im not playing your word games. i already know what you are going to argue if i say yes and what you will argue if i say no, cos ive seen it 100 times from you. my answer is irrelevant becos you're solely trying to set me up to discredit me and my answer says nothing about the issue at hand. suffice to say the horrible oppression you suffer at the hands of government regulation of your business is not even comparable to slavery at the fact that you act like such regulation is some horrible cross you have to carry continues to both amuse and disgust me.
You are avoiding the point. Your questions are not relevant to the concern of providing workers with basic human rights, such as payment for their services which entail benefits. You would make a good lawyer with all your misdirection. Here's a question for you: Do you feel that it is OK for a large corporation to 'take advantage' of their employees? You can insert whatever you like for 'take advantage'. I'm guessing (hoping) your answer is no. If it is no, what solution do you have other than telling folks not to work or shop there? What should happen to a large corporation has 'swindled' their employees?
Ha ha Well according to you it does work, at least for the workers. You are forcing workers to settle for sub-par benefits. You use the force of your 'paper muscles'. You say shut up or get lost! It is MY right to run my business as I see fit and abuse folks so I can meet my bottom line. No lies here, ffg, just playing devil's advocate. You should know a little about that
Yeah, I'm lost too. Bastardizing what? oh and a BIG :eek: to your salary is not a right comment.
Come on now, you know that this issue is not black and white! How can you paint every situation with the same brush. You know good and well that people take jobs all the time under false pretenses. How do you rectify that? Oh yeah, the can leave that job. If only it was that simple for everyone.
That has work so well, definitely the reason Wal-Mart is such a huge failure. :rolleyes:
Kind of what you are doing with your argument? You say 'if you don't like the way I treat you as an employee, leave' and I say 'if you do not want to run your business ethically and the US people vote for legislation to provide for the workers and you don't agree with it, leave'. I understand where you are coming from, but you'll have to forgive me. Like Soulsinging stated earlier, I have a bit more concern for the struggling mother & father than the wealthy business owner that loses a bit of profit. Don't get me wrong, I have no issues with wealthy, successful people. I take issue when their profit are make on the backs of the working class and they feel no obligation to provide reasonable compensation for those worker's services.
I see nothing wrong with this.
Nice esoteric insult, ffg. I'm sorry I have shattered your image of me.;) I think I'd like to turn that statement back on you. You say, 'no one is forcing you to work for a company that doesn't provide you benefits, leave and go elsewhere.' I say 'no one is forcing to you stay in a country who's laws you don't agree with, leave and go elsewhere'. What's good for the goose...........
That's what I've been getting at and I'm not sure how you DON'T see it as relevant.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Identity.html
I don't, nor do I have any desire to.
No. I agree that people can determine what they value as a group and accept standardized approaches to situation. You view law as restrictive dissension. I view law as contractual agreement.
No. I don't like the contradictions inherent to what you're proposing.
Because this society doesn't value families and good parenting, at least as some kind of generalized average. Our families have never been in worse shape, arguably, and our parenting has never been worse.
Rather, this society values money and jobs.
Hehehehe...nice work on the caveat
Please answer this question directly: if the members of society determine that black people cannot own land, and forcibly take that land from them, is that theft?
Umm...then there would be no inherent human right to life, since human life was built initially by collective efforts of progentiors. From that then, there is no inherent right to owning one's labor, which in turn means there's no inherent crime to slavery.
I don't compare your positions to slavery. I'm telling you your positions make slavery possible. Do you understand?
Can you tell me specifically what I'm avoiding?
I fell is is equally OK for a large corporation to "take advantage" of their employees as it is for those employees to "take advantage" of that corporation. Here are some specific examples:
If I steal from my employers, my employers may steal from me.
If I extract labor from my employers, my employers may extract labor from me.
If I expect my choices to carry obligations for my employer, my employer can expect their choices to carry obligations from me.
I believe refusal of labor or consumer activity is the ultimate and only moral check on an employer, in nearly every case. However, there are extreme cases of violent behavior by employers (and employee unions as well) wherein I would support the intervention of the state or a similar body. For example, actual employee slavery is a place where I feel state-sponsored action both acceptable and morally correct. Willful pollution is also a similar example, but that would have to be addressed in much more detail since corporations are too often simply treated as scapegoats there.
If you want to give me specific examples of corporations taking advantage of employees, which certainly happens in ways I consider wrong, I'll certainly give you my opinion.
It applies to both. No worker is forced to settle for sub-par benefits in the absence of slavery. You, and others, seem to treat money as power without understanding what the root of all money is: labor. If the value of your labor is actually greater than the benefits you are receiving, by definition you'll be able to find fair payment.
Bastardizing what it means to have a right to payment. That right extends from the value of your labor and the agreements you have with exchanging partners, not the payment itself. If you ignore the value of labor and the will of the exchanging partners, you've misrepresented that right.
Because 1+1 always equals two, baraka.
What "false pretenses" do people take jobs under?
It does work well. What you don't like is that people are willingly working and shopping at a place that we deem as bad, but they deem as good. That said, many opinions are changing and Wal-Mart is currently having some serious business problems right now as it loses ground to preferrable (at least to me) retailers like Target.
There's a key difference, baraka. You tie yours to land, I don't.
I think if you consider my viewpoints, you'll find that I have equal concern for each.
Me too!! I also take issue with the reverse.
Again, I think you're denying the difference between land and employment.
Whoah...where am I forcing labor without paying for it's value?? I would never support that -- it's inherent to my arguments here.
It's relevant in the case that all the rights we're discussing are related to natural law. But I think you're trying to invent a right out of the natural process of childbirth. Perhaps you could just explain yourself.
Ah and sadly, we make no new ground. I understand what you are saying, but from your responses to mine, I'm afraid you can't see how some of us find your logic inconsistent. And I'm afraid you have misunderstood some of my points. We will have to agree to disagree for right now. I've run out of time, so until next time, ffg..................
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
your distinction has no meaning. you have a contractual agreement with the united states... you will abide by its laws as decided by its citizens and representatives and in return it will offer you the benefits of united states citizenship. we covered this just the other day. you whined about how you never signed the contract so you're not really a citizen so it's just wrong that you have to pay taxes. it applies equally well to me whining about how i never signed a contract saying i was a citizen so it's wrong for them to arrest me for murder. so which is it? if you're going to say you didn't "contract" with the government how can you expect accountability for murderers from that government? like i said, you are not arguing some principle, you are just arguing the extent... you cant have it both ways with the government being legitimately empowered via contract with the people when you agree with what it's doing and illegitimate when you dont like what it's doing. you either give credibility to the us government by contract or you dont. if you do, then you have to accept that its laws might occasionally burden you, but at other times will benefit you. that is the give and take (compromise remember) of any social organization. not everyone can get exactly what they want all the time.
all of this is true. the point people are arguing here is societal values are and should be changing. that family and parenting should be placed ahead of the almighty dollar and protected more than profits. thus is the nature of discourse. people talk and decide the best course of action.
no. im not going to play that game with you becos this is a ridiculous hypothetical that we both know will never come true here. im well aware that not all of my stances are perfectly consistent in ideology. this is my beef with you... such stances are not feasible in the real world. i have my ideological leanings, but recognize that concessions must be made for practical reasons. ideally, no one would ever be able to tell you what to do with your business, but ideally nobody would ever be hungry, or get divorced, or get sick either. how's that for a moral absolute: sometimes life is a bitch, suck it up.
possible? maybe. likely? not hardly. this is where your thinking becomes black and white... it's either slavery or it isnt. it's not that simple.
do YOU understand that your positions are realistically creating a kind of slavery? when you talk about abuse of power and taking by force, you ignore so much. yes, government uses force to limit your business practices, but what you dont understand is that that government was created by the weak and powerless to protect against the more dangerous evil of people like you that own businesses using the force of economic pressure to essentially enslave those who do not have the strength to protect themselves. slavery was only defeated through this process of the weak banding together to restrain the strong. government in a capitalist economy is essentially a mediator. i appreciate that you personally would not do such things, but you cannot deny that historically, those in positions of absolute power often abuse that power. so who should have the greater power? private companies that could wield absolute control over their workers if unchecked, or a government that is answerable by election to its people?
For the record, it did not mean they had to hold my job and therfeore no one doing the work. They hired someone to do it. All the FMLA allowed was that within a year if I was able to returned to work and they had to give me comparable job with the same pay i left with. It did not leave my company hanging. Plus, they did not pay me...so just how did it harm them...it didn't, period!!!!
I think its unfair if someone, or thir kid, gets sick and time has to be taken off, people's jobs should not be in jeopardy, no more than when someone goes off to the military.
Its easy for the naysayer to be against it until they or a close family member gets sick and they have to be the sole care taker. I don't think there is an insurance to cover taking care of a sick relative.
I never returned to my job, but they did fill the position...all I was promised, by the FMAL law is that if I returned thye had to give me either the same job or a comparable with the pay I left with and the seniority.
To not have this FMLA, people have to be caught between caring for their loved on and losing their job. WTF!!! It si then they need their job more than ever.
I wish people here would think before they spout off stuff they think they will never have to deal with.
Its easy to spout off when you are on the other side...what cracks me up more is that think they immune from this.
When it happens tp you, your opinion will change.
So...in my opinion. shut the f'uck up til you know what you are talking about.