More stupid crap to talk about

Battletard · **Posted:** Thu Oct 06, 2011 6:25 pm

Aestu wrote:

It is a violation of the law. Firing people for taking sick leave is illegal.

Some states have different laws regarding that. Some employers can fire an employee at any time, for any reason or none at all.

Aestu · **Posted:** Thu Oct 06, 2011 6:27 pm

Not quite. At-will employment means you can fire for any or no reason, but you can't fire for illegal reasons because that would contravene federal laws such as the Civil Rights Act.

Battletard · **Posted:** Thu Oct 06, 2011 6:49 pm

Aestu wrote:

Not quite. At-will employment means you can fire for any or no reason, but you can't fire for illegal reasons because that would contravene federal laws such as the Civil Rights Act.

Wouldn't the right to terminate employee for no reason be a way around that?

Not disagreeing with you regarding sick leave termination btw.

Aestu · **Posted:** Thu Oct 06, 2011 6:56 pm

Yes, yes it would.

Necrachilles · **Posted:** Thu Oct 06, 2011 7:53 pm

Weena · **Posted:** Thu Oct 06, 2011 8:32 pm

Quote:

This is "I got mine".

There is no way you would say this if you found yourself unhireable for any number of unfair reasons outside your control, such as chronic illness, Jim Crow, religious discrimination or slander.

I walked into a liquor store looking for work. I was stonewalled by the Asian fellow who simply said "we're a family business".

He wasn't going to hire me simply because I wasn't born in the right family.

I said, "Okay." and went on my way.

It's his/his family's business, and they can decide to run it however they want.

I probably can't get a job with Curves either, for the simple fact I was born with a penis.

Quote:

To say, "You don't have a right to be employed" then argue that society has no obligation to alleviate the conditions of underemployment is to argue that people don't have a right to life either.

It adds up to the same thing, doesn't it?

It's not. And even if it was, it's a moot point.

Because there is a ridiculously large pool of employers, the vast majority of which who only care about your ability to perform the tasks required.

Quote:

Weena wrote:

I'd like to opt out of a lot of these 'social contracts' I never wanted to sign in the first place.

Too bad for all practical purposes, I can't.

Ted Kaczynski did. You can too.

Your life would really suck, though. Because life with no social contract sucks.

I'm not even sure 'you can be a violent criminal' warrants a response.

I also never blanket stated all 'social contracts' are bad. You don't harm me, I don't harm you is a social contract, and a good one. Nobody is at a loss.

When most people bring up 'social contract' though, what they mean is a situation where someone/ a group of people is/are benefiting at the expense of someone else/ another group of people. Usually because they for some reason perceive the latter is already benefiting at the expense of the former.

Aestu · **Posted:** Thu Oct 06, 2011 8:55 pm

That's the point though...despite those anecdotes, you still "got yours".

What if you were falsely accused of rape or assault or some other stigmatic crime? What if you had leprosy? What if your credit history was slandered?
Why would a business take a chance on you if they could just as easily hire someone else?

You think piss tests are stupid, don't you? Because you can do your job regardless of how you amuse yourself? Businesses don't agree...they are wrong but they don't agree...and they would just as easily refuse to give people a chance for even stupider reasons regardless of "hiring the best man out of self interest". The only reason they don't is because there are laws against it.

I gave the example of Jim Crow. The fact is, people aren't rational, and history clearly shows that mutual self-interest isn't enough to keep things going.

I was referring to how Ted Kazcynzki left his home and went and lived in the forests of Montana by himself. The mail bombs were purely incidental.

Weena wrote:

When most people bring up 'social contract' though, what they mean is a situation where someone/ a group of people is/are benefiting at the expense of someone else/ another group of people.

Other people's difficulties are yours whether you realize it or not.

"Die in a corner" isn't a realistic solution to problems.

Battletard · **Posted:** Fri Oct 07, 2011 4:11 am

Weena wrote:

When most people bring up 'social contract' though, what they mean is a situation where someone/ a group of people is/are benefiting at the expense of someone else/ another group of people. Usually because they for some reason perceive the latter is already benefiting at the expense of the former.

Pay workers 10.00 / hr to put up with moron customers, asshole managers, unreasonable workloads and lengthened / shortened shifts to avoid paying overtime....

....Buy a third yacht and invite all yo bitchez over for filet mignon surf and turf and drink $1,000 a bottle Champagne.

(See also: 'trickle down economics')

Agreed, they have no moral obligation to society.

A better summary of 'social contract' would be, you are not required to live here, you ARE required to live by our laws if you choose to live here. You are free to leave and live elsewhere, and we really don't give a dead man's last fuck if you follow their laws or not cause it's not our problem anymore. TTYL.

Weena · **Posted:** Fri Oct 07, 2011 9:45 pm

Quote:

I gave the example of Jim Crow. The fact is, people aren't rational, and history clearly shows that mutual self-interest isn't enough to keep things going.

This is arguing in favor of limited government and constitutionalism.

If people are irrational, than a government run by people is irrational.

Quote:

What if you were falsely accused of rape or assault or some other stigmatic crime?

If I'm falsely accused, then I'm pretty sure there's isn't record of it available to the employer.

Quote:

What if you had leprosy?

If I don't get a job someplace, I get a job some other place.

If it's leprosy to the point of being disabled, I certainly don't have the government play Robin Hood for me.

Quote:

What if your credit history was slandered?

Almost a moot point. Like before, if I don't get a job someplace, I get a job some other place.

Quote:

Why would a business take a chance on you if they could just as easily hire someone else?

Maybe because I display an eagerness to work, I'm more qualified, I'm well dressed and polite, I'm persistent.

Maybe because we both share a fondness for facial hair. Maybe a million reasons.

Quote:

You think piss tests are stupid, don't you? Because you can do your job regardless of how you amuse yourself? Businesses don't agree...they are wrong but they don't agree...and they would just as easily refuse to give people a chance for even stupider reasons regardless of "hiring the best man out of self interest". The only reason they don't is because there are laws against it.

I do think piss tests are stupid in most cases. But I think telling an employer they cannot piss test someone is completely retarded.

You're also blanket statementing all businesses.

Quote:

Agreed, they have no moral obligation to society.

Because I think this may be sarcastic -

There's a difference between what people ought to do, and what people ought to be made to do.

Battletard · **Posted:** Fri Oct 07, 2011 9:57 pm

Weena wrote:

There's a difference between what people ought to do, and what people ought to be made to do.

So do you agree or disagree that the notion of trickle down economics is complete and utter horse shit?

Weena · **Posted:** Fri Oct 07, 2011 9:59 pm

What do you think the answer is?

Mns · **Posted:** Fri Oct 07, 2011 10:07 pm

Weena wrote:

Quote:

What if you had leprosy?

If I don't get a job someplace, I get a job some other place.

If it's leprosy to the point of being disabled, I certainly don't have the government play Robin Hood for me.

Serious Question: Do you even know what leprosy is?

Battletard · **Posted:** Fri Oct 07, 2011 10:10 pm

Mns wrote:

Weena wrote:

Quote:

What if you had leprosy?

If I don't get a job someplace, I get a job some other place.

If it's leprosy to the point of being disabled, I certainly don't have the government play Robin Hood for me.

Serious Question: Do you even know what leprosy is?

Means if Wal Mart won't hire him because he has leprosy, he works at Target and spreads leprosy to everyone that works there or shops there. And then thousands of people have leprosy, and the government doesn't play Robin Hood for them.

Aestu · **Posted:** Fri Oct 07, 2011 11:44 pm

Weena wrote:

Quote:

I gave the example of Jim Crow. The fact is, people aren't rational, and history clearly shows that mutual self-interest isn't enough to keep things going.

This is arguing in favor of limited government and constitutionalism.

Jim Crow was de facto first and de jure second. There need be no laws for racism to hold a group back.

Weena wrote:

If people are irrational, than a government run by people is irrational.

You could apply that logic to all human activities. The purpose of laws and institutions is to overcome the worse elements of human nature by way of the better, through laws and other agreements.

Weena wrote:

Quote:

What if you were falsely accused of rape or assault or some other stigmatic crime?

If I'm falsely accused, then I'm pretty sure there's isn't record of it available to the employer.

Only because there are laws against disclosure and laws against not hiring someone for any criminal history short of a felony. What if there weren't and it somehow became privately held knowledge that someone said something about you? Why would any employer take that risk?

Weena wrote:

Quote:

What if you had leprosy?

If I don't get a job someplace, I get a job some other place.

Almost a moot point. Like before, if I don't get a job someplace, I get a job some other place.

I do think piss tests are stupid in most cases. But I think telling an employer they cannot piss test someone is completely retarded.

You're also blanket statementing all businesses.

What if all businesses have such rules? This applies to many fields where there are universal restrictive regulations.

Weena wrote:

If it's leprosy to the point of being disabled, I certainly don't have the government play Robin Hood for me.

Not my point. My point is that leprosy is relatively benign but has a massive stigma attached to it.

Weena wrote:

Quote:

Why would a business take a chance on you if they could just as easily hire someone else?

Maybe because I display an eagerness to work, I'm more qualified, I'm well dressed and polite, I'm persistent.

Jim Crow says hi. Also, Chinese railroad workers. Hell the Army didn't want to hire gays. What about people with AIDS? If there weren't laws against it you can damn well bet the same businesses now burrowing into people's credit history and piss would be hiring "agencies" to compile lists of who has AIDS.

History shows that stupidity is stronger than greed.

Aestu · **Posted:** Fri Oct 07, 2011 11:52 pm

Battletard wrote:

Means if Wal Mart won't hire him because he has leprosy, he works at Target and spreads leprosy to everyone that works there or shops there. And then thousands of people have leprosy, and the government doesn't play Robin Hood for them.

Actually, leprosy isn't that virulent or contagious. It is, however, severely deforming and grotesque, and until very recently, lepers were exiled to squalid colonies. What if you come down with leprosy - do you really think people will give you a fair shake, that there will always be a way out?

To think there is no such thing as a no-win scenario...is sheltered.

Also See: The Elephant Man

Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

More stupid crap to talk about

Who is online