uscitizen
Villified User
Nope and the government does not give me a dime for oil , mining and timber leases either.
Slaving for 28.8 hours ?
- Thread starter uscitizen
- Start date
Nope and the government does not give me a dime for oil , mining and timber leases either.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Oh my God! They didn't raise their pay! Oh the horror!
So, you have some sort of right to get paid extra whenever your hours are extended? I think you have a right to quit. You don't have a right to take more from you employer.
So, you have some sort of right to get paid extra whenever your hours are extended? I think you have a right to quit. You don't have a right to take more from you employer.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
Not necessarily. Not if regulation could be crafted in such a way as to ensure that wages and salaries were raised at the same time as hours were cut.
American business has traditionally been all about cutting the cost of labor. European business has traditionally been legislatively prevented from cutting the cost of labor beyond certain limits.
Why not? If you are PRODUCING MORE for your company in those longer hours then you DESERVE a CUT of it....it is NOT SUPPOSE TO BE A ONE WAY STREET, water....
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
Not necessarily. Not if regulation could be crafted in such a way as to ensure that wages and salaries were raised at the same time as hours were cut.
That level of regulation of the economy would not be accepted by the American public and is dangerous anyway as history has shown us.
American business has traditionally been all about cutting the cost of labor. European business has traditionally been legislatively prevented from cutting the cost of labor beyond certain limits.
And that has harmed their ability to be competitive.
That level of regulation of the economy would not be accepted by the American public and is dangerous anyway as history has shown us.
American business has traditionally been all about cutting the cost of labor. European business has traditionally been legislatively prevented from cutting the cost of labor beyond certain limits.
And that has harmed their ability to be competitive.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
But you seem to feel that the employer has the right to take as much from employees as he or she can get away with.
Realistically, the overwhelming majority of Americans are wage earners, not business owners. This is unlikely to change any time in the foreseeable future. I believe that simple justice demands that we acknowledge in our public policy the rights of the employed as well as the rights of the employer.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
Why not? If you are PRODUCING MORE for your company in those longer hours then you DESERVE a CUT of it....it is NOT SUPPOSE TO BE A ONE WAY STREET, water....
You don't have a RIGHT to have it. You have good reason to demand it but not a right. Informal social controls should be the key here.
You don't have a RIGHT to have it. You have good reason to demand it but not a right. Informal social controls should be the key here.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
I stipulated earlier, however, that they are competitive. They are not dominant, no, but that's immaterial. Dominance is not necessary for a healthy economy.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
But you seem to feel that the employer has the right to take as much from employees as he or she can get away with.
Realistically, the overwhelming majority of Americans are wage earners, not business owners. This is unlikely to change any time in the foreseeable future. I believe that simple justice demands that we acknowledge in our public policy the rights of the employed as well as the rights of the employer.
Does not the employee also have the power to demand of his employer as much as he can get away with especially with collective bargaining.
Such negotiations should have the force of persuasion and mutual agreement behind them not the force of law.
Realistically, the overwhelming majority of Americans are wage earners, not business owners. This is unlikely to change any time in the foreseeable future. I believe that simple justice demands that we acknowledge in our public policy the rights of the employed as well as the rights of the employer.
Does not the employee also have the power to demand of his employer as much as he can get away with especially with collective bargaining.
Such negotiations should have the force of persuasion and mutual agreement behind them not the force of law.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
Without the force of law, they do not work. There's too much power in the hands of the employer, too little in the hands of the employed. Unions can only exist with the support of law.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
I stipulated earlier, however, that they are competitive. They are not dominant, no, but that's immaterial. Dominance is not necessary for a healthy economy.
they are competitive especially in some sectors. My original point in this thread was that this was part of the reason the US is dominant. I never said Europe was not competitive at all. As for the value of dominance for the typical American such as Rob this dominance is necessary to preserve our gluttonous lifestyles. Switch to a European model and much must be given up.
they are competitive especially in some sectors. My original point in this thread was that this was part of the reason the US is dominant. I never said Europe was not competitive at all. As for the value of dominance for the typical American such as Rob this dominance is necessary to preserve our gluttonous lifestyles. Switch to a European model and much must be given up.
I am not saying the government has a part of this but IT IS NOT A ONE WAY STREET....it is a mutual agreement when you work for someone, and ethics do and should come in to play....and so should give and take...and the attitude like waters is why our wages are going down, this defeatist, business rules all CRAP...just like with our government letting business RULE ALL, and I say, BULLSHIT....that is not what has made America a strong and prosperous nation....we'd be in China if that is what they want...imo.
Given up, to some.... found unnecessary, to most....thus their choice.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
Without the force of law, they do not work. There's too much power in the hands of the employer, too little in the hands of the employed. Unions can only exist with the support of law.
With the force of law then the victor shall always be the party who has the greater ability to force those in negotiations to accept the terms of the dominant group. This is not just at all.
Beyond that let us ask why negotiations must always be made between equal entrants. Why does an employer have greater leverage in negotiations is it because they have done something illegitimate or unfair? Sometimes this is the case but not always and to mandate the employee must have equal influence in decisions to be made requires the forced limitation of influence of the employer.
With the force of law then the victor shall always be the party who has the greater ability to force those in negotiations to accept the terms of the dominant group. This is not just at all.
Beyond that let us ask why negotiations must always be made between equal entrants. Why does an employer have greater leverage in negotiations is it because they have done something illegitimate or unfair? Sometimes this is the case but not always and to mandate the employee must have equal influence in decisions to be made requires the forced limitation of influence of the employer.