Ugh. Canada may soon have outlawed "scab" workers.

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Full anti-scab legislation is not a good idea. Unions don't 'own' companies, and they shouldn't.

On the other hand, I don't think businesses should be allowed to fire and replace an entire workforce at will. When you eliminate the ties (pensions, etc) between businesses and workers, you shift the level of commitment required massively in favour of the business. People change their lives for careers, but businesses don't have to do that to take on a new employee.

This makes the illusion of equality pretty thin.

Now, unions holding companies hostage is another matter.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,920
14,195
146
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Full anti-scab legislation is not a good idea. Unions don't 'own' companies, and they shouldn't.

On the other hand, I don't think businesses should be allowed to fire and replace an entire workforce at will. When you eliminate the ties (pensions, etc) between businesses and workers, you shift the level of commitment required massively in favour of the business. People change their lives for careers, but businesses don't have to do that to take on a new employee.

This makes the illusion of equality pretty thin.

Now, unions holding companies hostage is another matter.

Bullsh!t. Equality means a worker may quit at any time for any reason, therefore a business should be able to terminate at any time for any reason.

That, and only that is true equality under the law. If you don't think turnover is hard on a business, you know nothing about business.

What you want is more right for workers, and less rights for businesses. You want one group of people to have a right that necessitates the loss of a rights for another group.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Full anti-scab legislation is not a good idea. Unions don't 'own' companies, and they shouldn't.

On the other hand, I don't think businesses should be allowed to fire and replace an entire workforce at will. When you eliminate the ties (pensions, etc) between businesses and workers, you shift the level of commitment required massively in favour of the business. People change their lives for careers, but businesses don't have to do that to take on a new employee.

This makes the illusion of equality pretty thin.

Now, unions holding companies hostage is another matter.

Bullsh!t. Equality means a worker may quit at any time for any reason, therefore a business should be able to terminate at any time for any reason.

That, and only that is true equality under the law. If you don't think turnover is hard on a business, you know nothing about business.

What you want is more right for workers, and less rights for businesses. You want one group of people to have a right that necessitates the loss of a rights for another group.
When's the last time a business moved, made its kids change schools, and changed its hours of operation for an employee?
 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,924
45
91
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Full anti-scab legislation is not a good idea. Unions don't 'own' companies, and they shouldn't.

On the other hand, I don't think businesses should be allowed to fire and replace an entire workforce at will. When you eliminate the ties (pensions, etc) between businesses and workers, you shift the level of commitment required massively in favour of the business. People change their lives for careers, but businesses don't have to do that to take on a new employee.

This makes the illusion of equality pretty thin.

Now, unions holding companies hostage is another matter.

Bullsh!t. Equality means a worker may quit at any time for any reason, therefore a business should be able to terminate at any time for any reason.

That, and only that is true equality under the law. If you don't think turnover is hard on a business, you know nothing about business.

What you want is more right for workers, and less rights for businesses. You want one group of people to have a right that necessitates the loss of a rights for another group.
When's the last time a business moved, made its kids change schools, and changed its hours of operation for an employee?

Do you think a business would take firing their entire workforce lightly? :confused: Do you know how much it costs a company to hire a new person?

So many people here have the attitude that their employer doesn't care about them, so they shouldn't care about their employer. That's absolutely not true! No employer wants to lose an employee, because that employee takes with them knowledge and training. That's not cheap or easy to replace. If someone left the project I work on, it'd take 6 months easily for their replacement to make any real contributions. People think that companies will just lay off half their workforce if it can save them a buck. Absolutely not true! There is not a company in the world that wants to lay off employees, because every business wants to grow. Any company would rather put those people in a position where they could be productive than lay them off, but sometimes you just can't grow.

Nowadays, I think employees have a much lower level of commitment to their employers than vice versa. Benefits are increasing while the average length of time an employee stays with a company is decreasing.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,920
14,195
146
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Full anti-scab legislation is not a good idea. Unions don't 'own' companies, and they shouldn't.

On the other hand, I don't think businesses should be allowed to fire and replace an entire workforce at will. When you eliminate the ties (pensions, etc) between businesses and workers, you shift the level of commitment required massively in favour of the business. People change their lives for careers, but businesses don't have to do that to take on a new employee.

This makes the illusion of equality pretty thin.

Now, unions holding companies hostage is another matter.

Bullsh!t. Equality means a worker may quit at any time for any reason, therefore a business should be able to terminate at any time for any reason.

That, and only that is true equality under the law. If you don't think turnover is hard on a business, you know nothing about business.

What you want is more right for workers, and less rights for businesses. You want one group of people to have a right that necessitates the loss of a rights for another group.
When's the last time a business moved, made its kids change schools, and changed its hours of operation for an employee?

What does that have to do with equality under the law?

 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Full anti-scab legislation is not a good idea. Unions don't 'own' companies, and they shouldn't.

On the other hand, I don't think businesses should be allowed to fire and replace an entire workforce at will. When you eliminate the ties (pensions, etc) between businesses and workers, you shift the level of commitment required massively in favour of the business. People change their lives for careers, but businesses don't have to do that to take on a new employee.

This makes the illusion of equality pretty thin.

Now, unions holding companies hostage is another matter.

Bullsh!t. Equality means a worker may quit at any time for any reason, therefore a business should be able to terminate at any time for any reason.

That, and only that is true equality under the law. If you don't think turnover is hard on a business, you know nothing about business.

What you want is more right for workers, and less rights for businesses. You want one group of people to have a right that necessitates the loss of a rights for another group.
When's the last time a business moved, made its kids change schools, and changed its hours of operation for an employee?

What does that have to do with equality under the law?
It means that pure at-will employment is a very artificial equality.

If you want to know my opinion, I've never seen a business run by the owner that needed any sort of control. I suspect this is because businesses run by the owner never worry specifically about their next quarter's accounting profits.

Businesses run by accountants, and CEOs with performance incentives, and that sort of thing are able to beneift from irrationally treating employees like dead-weight costs.

It's possible that the solution has nothing to do with scabs, but with removing the legal entity called the 'corporation', and it's separate existence.
 

meltdown75

Lifer
Nov 17, 2004
37,558
7
81
This will come back, and next time it will be more specific. If the services performed by the striking workers are essential to the economy, there will be certain provisions which will keep them on the job in a limited capacity.

Big victory for big business and another shaft for working class folks.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,920
14,195
146
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Full anti-scab legislation is not a good idea. Unions don't 'own' companies, and they shouldn't.

On the other hand, I don't think businesses should be allowed to fire and replace an entire workforce at will. When you eliminate the ties (pensions, etc) between businesses and workers, you shift the level of commitment required massively in favour of the business. People change their lives for careers, but businesses don't have to do that to take on a new employee.

This makes the illusion of equality pretty thin.

Now, unions holding companies hostage is another matter.

Bullsh!t. Equality means a worker may quit at any time for any reason, therefore a business should be able to terminate at any time for any reason.

That, and only that is true equality under the law. If you don't think turnover is hard on a business, you know nothing about business.

What you want is more right for workers, and less rights for businesses. You want one group of people to have a right that necessitates the loss of a rights for another group.
When's the last time a business moved, made its kids change schools, and changed its hours of operation for an employee?

What does that have to do with equality under the law?
It means that pure at-will employment is a very artificial equality.

If you want to know my opinion, I've never seen a business run by the owner that needed any sort of control. I suspect this is because businesses run by the owner never worry specifically about their next quarter's accounting profits.

Businesses run by accountants, and CEOs with performance incentives, and that sort of thing are able to beneift from irrationally treating employees like dead-weight costs.

It's possible that the solution has nothing to do with scabs, but with removing the legal entity called the 'corporation', and it's separate existence.

Almost every business you have seen run by the onwer was incorporated. Only a fool does not incorporate.

There is no such thing as "artificial" equality. What a nonsense made up phrase to make up for a logical fallacy. Either one group of people has more rights than another, or you have equality under the law. Be VERY careful when you start giving one group more rights than another. The ball can swing both ways and soon you'll have a class system under the law.

There is no such thing as "social justice." There is only equality under the law. The Founding Fathers were no idiots. They knew the outcome of giving one group more rights than another.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Full anti-scab legislation is not a good idea. Unions don't 'own' companies, and they shouldn't.

On the other hand, I don't think businesses should be allowed to fire and replace an entire workforce at will. When you eliminate the ties (pensions, etc) between businesses and workers, you shift the level of commitment required massively in favour of the business. People change their lives for careers, but businesses don't have to do that to take on a new employee.

This makes the illusion of equality pretty thin.

Now, unions holding companies hostage is another matter.

Bullsh!t. Equality means a worker may quit at any time for any reason, therefore a business should be able to terminate at any time for any reason.

That, and only that is true equality under the law. If you don't think turnover is hard on a business, you know nothing about business.

What you want is more right for workers, and less rights for businesses. You want one group of people to have a right that necessitates the loss of a rights for another group.
When's the last time a business moved, made its kids change schools, and changed its hours of operation for an employee?

What does that have to do with equality under the law?
It means that pure at-will employment is a very artificial equality.

If you want to know my opinion, I've never seen a business run by the owner that needed any sort of control. I suspect this is because businesses run by the owner never worry specifically about their next quarter's accounting profits.

Businesses run by accountants, and CEOs with performance incentives, and that sort of thing are able to beneift from irrationally treating employees like dead-weight costs.

It's possible that the solution has nothing to do with scabs, but with removing the legal entity called the 'corporation', and it's separate existence.

Almost every business you have seen run by the onwer was incorporated. Only a fool does not incorporate.

There is no such thing as "artificial" equality. What a nonsense made up phrase to make up for a logical fallacy. Either one group of people has more rights than another, or you have equality under the law. Be VERY careful when you start giving one group more rights than another. The ball can swing both ways and soon you'll have a class system under the law.

There is no such thing as "social justice." There is only equality under the law. The Founding Fathers were no idiots. They knew the outcome of giving one group more rights than another.
I fully understand why people incorporate - and I'll admit I am using the word as a euphemism for 'large corporations'. As to the legal protections of incorporation, I have issues with some of them, but it's a complex web, to be sure. Let's start with your true statement: "Only a fool does not incorporate". Employees and proprieters are equal under the law. So what happens when you incorporate?

The way the system functions now, is to give corporations the same rights as it gives people. This isn't equality, because corporations aren't people. It isn't functional equality, because the cost of changing jobs/employees is rarely equal. An employee can be replaced with someone qualified, in a relatively short period of time, at a similar cost, unless they have a ridiculously specific skillset (in which case they probably should be tied by contract to the position), or the employer is significantly underpaying the market for that position.

I agree with you as far as not allowing employees the rights that would let them hold employers hostage. I don't agree with pure at-will employment, because it imposes a greater risk of loss on employees than employers. This is one of the reasons for mandated or contracted severance pay, notice laws, etc. In fact, I would probably balance a severance/notice system with a notice system for employees that made it very difficult to not train replacements before leaving.

edit - to fix italics

BTW, I'd love to know what your perspective is on these things. You actually come off as pretty intelligent and capable of thought, but I find you take a very ideological position that ignores reality, and doesn't leave much room for a real discussion.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,920
14,195
146
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Full anti-scab legislation is not a good idea. Unions don't 'own' companies, and they shouldn't.

On the other hand, I don't think businesses should be allowed to fire and replace an entire workforce at will. When you eliminate the ties (pensions, etc) between businesses and workers, you shift the level of commitment required massively in favour of the business. People change their lives for careers, but businesses don't have to do that to take on a new employee.

This makes the illusion of equality pretty thin.

Now, unions holding companies hostage is another matter.

Bullsh!t. Equality means a worker may quit at any time for any reason, therefore a business should be able to terminate at any time for any reason.

That, and only that is true equality under the law. If you don't think turnover is hard on a business, you know nothing about business.

What you want is more right for workers, and less rights for businesses. You want one group of people to have a right that necessitates the loss of a rights for another group.
When's the last time a business moved, made its kids change schools, and changed its hours of operation for an employee?

What does that have to do with equality under the law?
It means that pure at-will employment is a very artificial equality.

If you want to know my opinion, I've never seen a business run by the owner that needed any sort of control. I suspect this is because businesses run by the owner never worry specifically about their next quarter's accounting profits.

Businesses run by accountants, and CEOs with performance incentives, and that sort of thing are able to beneift from irrationally treating employees like dead-weight costs.

It's possible that the solution has nothing to do with scabs, but with removing the legal entity called the 'corporation', and it's separate existence.

Almost every business you have seen run by the onwer was incorporated. Only a fool does not incorporate.

There is no such thing as "artificial" equality. What a nonsense made up phrase to make up for a logical fallacy. Either one group of people has more rights than another, or you have equality under the law. Be VERY careful when you start giving one group more rights than another. The ball can swing both ways and soon you'll have a class system under the law.

There is no such thing as "social justice." There is only equality under the law. The Founding Fathers were no idiots. They knew the outcome of giving one group more rights than another.
I fully understand why people incorporate - and I'll admit I am using the word as a euphemism for 'large corporations'. As to the legal protections of incorporation, I have issues with some of them, but it's a complex web, to be sure. Let's start with your true statement: "Only a fool does not incorporate". Employees and proprieters are equal under the law. So what happens when you incorporate?

The way the system functions now, is to give corporations the same rights as it gives people. This isn't equality, because corporations aren't people. It isn't functional equality, because the cost of changing jobs/employees is rarely equal. An employee can be replaced with someone qualified, in a relatively short period of time, at a similar cost, unless they have a ridiculously specific skillset (in which case they probably should be tied by contract to the position), or the employer is significantly underpaying the market for that position.

I agree with you as far as not allowing employees the rights that would let them hold employers hostage. I don't agree with pure at-will employment, because it imposes a greater risk of loss on employees than employers. This is one of the reasons for mandated or contracted severance pay, notice laws, etc. In fact, I would probably balance a severance/notice system with a notice system for employees that made it very difficult to not train replacements before leaving.

edit - to fix italics

BTW, I'd love to know what your perspective is on these things. You actually come off as pretty intelligent and capable of thought, but I find you take a very ideological position that ignores reality, and doesn't leave much room for a real discussion.

Many people are more unconvinced by laws that others. The poor man is harder pressed to pay child support. The man with a family is harder pressed to do jail time for a crime.

But one thing is certain (or should be) and that's equality under the law. How hard pressed you are personally is irrelevant. It does NOT earn you more rights than another person.

Think long and hard about a system that grants more rights to one group at the expense of the rights of another group.

You may think it's ideological... and maybe it is. But THAT is the reality that exists. Life is NOT fair. It never was, and it never will be. For anything to be "fair" you have to cripple another person. How "fair" is that to him?

History has taught us that equality under the law is the ideal to strive for. Trust me, you don;t want to start taking away one group's rights just to grant special rights to another. Start down that path and it WILL come back to bite you.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Full anti-scab legislation is not a good idea. Unions don't 'own' companies, and they shouldn't.

On the other hand, I don't think businesses should be allowed to fire and replace an entire workforce at will. When you eliminate the ties (pensions, etc) between businesses and workers, you shift the level of commitment required massively in favour of the business. People change their lives for careers, but businesses don't have to do that to take on a new employee.

This makes the illusion of equality pretty thin.

Now, unions holding companies hostage is another matter.

Bullsh!t. Equality means a worker may quit at any time for any reason, therefore a business should be able to terminate at any time for any reason.

That, and only that is true equality under the law. If you don't think turnover is hard on a business, you know nothing about business.

What you want is more right for workers, and less rights for businesses. You want one group of people to have a right that necessitates the loss of a rights for another group.
When's the last time a business moved, made its kids change schools, and changed its hours of operation for an employee?

What does that have to do with equality under the law?
It means that pure at-will employment is a very artificial equality.

If you want to know my opinion, I've never seen a business run by the owner that needed any sort of control. I suspect this is because businesses run by the owner never worry specifically about their next quarter's accounting profits.

Businesses run by accountants, and CEOs with performance incentives, and that sort of thing are able to beneift from irrationally treating employees like dead-weight costs.

It's possible that the solution has nothing to do with scabs, but with removing the legal entity called the 'corporation', and it's separate existence.

Almost every business you have seen run by the onwer was incorporated. Only a fool does not incorporate.

There is no such thing as "artificial" equality. What a nonsense made up phrase to make up for a logical fallacy. Either one group of people has more rights than another, or you have equality under the law. Be VERY careful when you start giving one group more rights than another. The ball can swing both ways and soon you'll have a class system under the law.

There is no such thing as "social justice." There is only equality under the law. The Founding Fathers were no idiots. They knew the outcome of giving one group more rights than another.
I fully understand why people incorporate - and I'll admit I am using the word as a euphemism for 'large corporations'. As to the legal protections of incorporation, I have issues with some of them, but it's a complex web, to be sure. Let's start with your true statement: "Only a fool does not incorporate". Employees and proprieters are equal under the law. So what happens when you incorporate?

The way the system functions now, is to give corporations the same rights as it gives people. This isn't equality, because corporations aren't people. It isn't functional equality, because the cost of changing jobs/employees is rarely equal. An employee can be replaced with someone qualified, in a relatively short period of time, at a similar cost, unless they have a ridiculously specific skillset (in which case they probably should be tied by contract to the position), or the employer is significantly underpaying the market for that position.

I agree with you as far as not allowing employees the rights that would let them hold employers hostage. I don't agree with pure at-will employment, because it imposes a greater risk of loss on employees than employers. This is one of the reasons for mandated or contracted severance pay, notice laws, etc. In fact, I would probably balance a severance/notice system with a notice system for employees that made it very difficult to not train replacements before leaving.

edit - to fix italics

BTW, I'd love to know what your perspective is on these things. You actually come off as pretty intelligent and capable of thought, but I find you take a very ideological position that ignores reality, and doesn't leave much room for a real discussion.

Many people are more unconvinced by laws that others. The poor man is harder pressed to pay child support. The man with a family is harder pressed to do jail time for a crime.

But one thing is certain (or should be) and that's equality under the law. How hard pressed you are personally is irrelevant. It does NOT earn you more rights than another person.

Think long and hard about a system that grants more rights to one group at the expense of the rights of another group.

You may think it's ideological... and maybe it is. But THAT is the reality that exists. Life is NOT fair. It never was, and it never will be. For anything to be "fair" you have to cripple another person. How "fair" is that to him?

History has taught us that equality under the law is the ideal to strive for. Trust me, you don;t want to start taking away one group's rights just to grant special rights to another. Start down that path and it WILL come back to bite you.
Forgive me for shifting focus, I'm really more interested in why corporations get to be people too;), and I think it is very related to the notion of 'equality' between people.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,920
14,195
146
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Forgive me for shifting focus, I'm really more interested in why corporations get to be people too;), and I think it is very related to the notion of 'equality' between people.

Because corporations ARE people.

Seriously, companies are made of people. Employment is a MUTUAL agreement. Not an entitlement, nor slavery. It is a mutual agreement between two people. If one person can break that agreement at will, the opposite party MUST have the same right... or you have inequality under the law.

Equality under the law is not just for individuals. It can be for a group who gather together voluntarily as well.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Forgive me for shifting focus, I'm really more interested in why corporations get to be people too;), and I think it is very related to the notion of 'equality' between people.

Because corporations ARE people.

Seriously, companies are made of people. Employment is a MUTUAL agreement. Not an entitlement, nor slavery. It is a mutual agreement between two people. If one person can break that agreement at will, the opposite party MUST have the same right... or you have inequality under the law.

Equality under the law is not just for individuals. It can be for a group who gather together voluntarily as well.
I mean why they get to be completely independent entities. (Independent of their owner).

My place of employment is incorporated, but my contact and agreements are with the company owner, not 'the company'. Legally though, this is not the case, and is an advantage to the company.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,920
14,195
146
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Forgive me for shifting focus, I'm really more interested in why corporations get to be people too;), and I think it is very related to the notion of 'equality' between people.

Because corporations ARE people.

Seriously, companies are made of people. Employment is a MUTUAL agreement. Not an entitlement, nor slavery. It is a mutual agreement between two people. If one person can break that agreement at will, the opposite party MUST have the same right... or you have inequality under the law.

Equality under the law is not just for individuals. It can be for a group who gather together voluntarily as well.
I mean why they get to be completely independent entities. (Independent of their owner).

My place of employment is incorporated, but my contact and agreements are with the company owner, not 'the company'. Legally though, this is not the case, and is an advantage to the company.

Why is that an advantage? You have a voluntary mutual employment agreement with them. If you may terminate that agreement at any time, why can't they? Why do you want special rights while at the same time taking their rights away?

Because you're thinking of yourself, and don;t care who's bull gets gored, so long as it isn't yours. Not to be rude, but that's the reason.

Start your own business in a state where it's near impossible to fire an employee without mounds of paperwork and you'll quickly be singing a different tune.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: Amused
Why is that an advantage? You have a voluntary mutual employment agreement with them. If you may terminate that agreement at any time, why can't they? Why do you want special rights while at the same time taking their rights away?

Because you're thinking of yourself, and don;t care who's bull gets gored, so long as it isn't yours. Not to be rude, but that's the reason.

Start your own business in a state where it's near impossible to fire an employee without mounds of paperwork and you'll quickly be singing a different tune.
Why is it an advantage? If it weren't why would people do it? Corporations aren't people; the people who own them are people, and are perfectly capable of acting as such, but better off not having to do so.

Don't try to lecture me about it being impossible to fire an employee. 'With cause' should always be a no brainer, and so should 'laid off' or 'position eliminated', though mutual notice laws aren't a bad thing in cases without cause.

I'm not particularly thinking of myself - my relationship with my employer is not adversarial.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,920
14,195
146
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Amused
Why is that an advantage? You have a voluntary mutual employment agreement with them. If you may terminate that agreement at any time, why can't they? Why do you want special rights while at the same time taking their rights away?

Because you're thinking of yourself, and don;t care who's bull gets gored, so long as it isn't yours. Not to be rude, but that's the reason.

Start your own business in a state where it's near impossible to fire an employee without mounds of paperwork and you'll quickly be singing a different tune.
Why is it an advantage? If it weren't why would people do it? Corporations aren't people; the people who own them are people, and are perfectly capable of acting as such, but better off not having to do so.

Don't try to lecture me about it being impossible to fire an employee. 'With cause' should always be a no brainer, and so should 'laid off' or 'position eliminated', though mutual notice laws aren't a bad thing in cases without cause.

I'm not particularly thinking of myself - my relationship with my employer is not adversarial.

What if I just don't like the person? What if they annoy the living fsck out of me? What if I know they are stealing but I can't legally prove it? What if they gave my daughter the clap?

In a mutual agreement it doesn't matter who or what the agreement is with. Both entities should have the same right to terminate at will, or not.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Amused
Why is that an advantage? You have a voluntary mutual employment agreement with them. If you may terminate that agreement at any time, why can't they? Why do you want special rights while at the same time taking their rights away?

Because you're thinking of yourself, and don;t care who's bull gets gored, so long as it isn't yours. Not to be rude, but that's the reason.

Start your own business in a state where it's near impossible to fire an employee without mounds of paperwork and you'll quickly be singing a different tune.
Why is it an advantage? If it weren't why would people do it? Corporations aren't people; the people who own them are people, and are perfectly capable of acting as such, but better off not having to do so.

Don't try to lecture me about it being impossible to fire an employee. 'With cause' should always be a no brainer, and so should 'laid off' or 'position eliminated', though mutual notice laws aren't a bad thing in cases without cause.

I'm not particularly thinking of myself - my relationship with my employer is not adversarial.

What if I just don't like the person? What if they annoy the living fsck out of me? What if I know they are stealing but I can't legally prove it? What if they gave my daughter the clap?

In a mutual agreement it doesn't matter who or what the agreement is with. Both entities should have the same right to terminate at will, or not.
For starters, the company shouldn't be allowed to fire someone for sleeping with your daughter. But maybe you should be allowed to do so. This is a big part of what I mean by saying the 'company is not a person: you are'.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,920
14,195
146
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Amused
Why is that an advantage? You have a voluntary mutual employment agreement with them. If you may terminate that agreement at any time, why can't they? Why do you want special rights while at the same time taking their rights away?

Because you're thinking of yourself, and don;t care who's bull gets gored, so long as it isn't yours. Not to be rude, but that's the reason.

Start your own business in a state where it's near impossible to fire an employee without mounds of paperwork and you'll quickly be singing a different tune.
Why is it an advantage? If it weren't why would people do it? Corporations aren't people; the people who own them are people, and are perfectly capable of acting as such, but better off not having to do so.

Don't try to lecture me about it being impossible to fire an employee. 'With cause' should always be a no brainer, and so should 'laid off' or 'position eliminated', though mutual notice laws aren't a bad thing in cases without cause.

I'm not particularly thinking of myself - my relationship with my employer is not adversarial.

What if I just don't like the person? What if they annoy the living fsck out of me? What if I know they are stealing but I can't legally prove it? What if they gave my daughter the clap?

In a mutual agreement it doesn't matter who or what the agreement is with. Both entities should have the same right to terminate at will, or not.
For starters, the company shouldn't be allowed to fire someone for sleeping with your daughter. But maybe you should be allowed to do so. This is a big part of what I mean by saying the 'company is not a person: you are'.

Splitting hairs. If he sleeps with the daughter of any person in the company who has the authority to fire him, they should be allowed to. It doesn't matter how many people have the authority. It's still an agreement between the employee and the company. Both should have the right to terminate the agreement at will, or not.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Amused
Why is that an advantage? You have a voluntary mutual employment agreement with them. If you may terminate that agreement at any time, why can't they? Why do you want special rights while at the same time taking their rights away?

Because you're thinking of yourself, and don;t care who's bull gets gored, so long as it isn't yours. Not to be rude, but that's the reason.

Start your own business in a state where it's near impossible to fire an employee without mounds of paperwork and you'll quickly be singing a different tune.
Why is it an advantage? If it weren't why would people do it? Corporations aren't people; the people who own them are people, and are perfectly capable of acting as such, but better off not having to do so.

Don't try to lecture me about it being impossible to fire an employee. 'With cause' should always be a no brainer, and so should 'laid off' or 'position eliminated', though mutual notice laws aren't a bad thing in cases without cause.

I'm not particularly thinking of myself - my relationship with my employer is not adversarial.

What if I just don't like the person? What if they annoy the living fsck out of me? What if I know they are stealing but I can't legally prove it? What if they gave my daughter the clap?

In a mutual agreement it doesn't matter who or what the agreement is with. Both entities should have the same right to terminate at will, or not.
For starters, the company shouldn't be allowed to fire someone for sleeping with your daughter. But maybe you should be allowed to do so. This is a big part of what I mean by saying the 'company is not a person: you are'.

Splitting hairs. If he sleeps with the daughter of any person in the company who has the authority to fire him, they should be allowed to. It doesn't matter how many people have the authority. It's still an agreement between the employee and the company. Both should have the right to terminate the agreement at will, or not.
Wait, now anyone at the company should be allowed to fire him? I thought the corporation was a person? What if firing him is bad for the corporation?
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,145
10
81
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Amused
Why is that an advantage? You have a voluntary mutual employment agreement with them. If you may terminate that agreement at any time, why can't they? Why do you want special rights while at the same time taking their rights away?

Because you're thinking of yourself, and don;t care who's bull gets gored, so long as it isn't yours. Not to be rude, but that's the reason.

Start your own business in a state where it's near impossible to fire an employee without mounds of paperwork and you'll quickly be singing a different tune.
Why is it an advantage? If it weren't why would people do it? Corporations aren't people; the people who own them are people, and are perfectly capable of acting as such, but better off not having to do so.

Don't try to lecture me about it being impossible to fire an employee. 'With cause' should always be a no brainer, and so should 'laid off' or 'position eliminated', though mutual notice laws aren't a bad thing in cases without cause.

I'm not particularly thinking of myself - my relationship with my employer is not adversarial.

What if I just don't like the person? What if they annoy the living fsck out of me? What if I know they are stealing but I can't legally prove it? What if they gave my daughter the clap?

In a mutual agreement it doesn't matter who or what the agreement is with. Both entities should have the same right to terminate at will, or not.
For starters, the company shouldn't be allowed to fire someone for sleeping with your daughter. But maybe you should be allowed to do so. This is a big part of what I mean by saying the 'company is not a person: you are'.

Splitting hairs. If he sleeps with the daughter of any person in the company who has the authority to fire him, they should be allowed to. It doesn't matter how many people have the authority. It's still an agreement between the employee and the company. Both should have the right to terminate the agreement at will, or not.
Wait, now anyone at the company should be allowed to fire him? I thought the corporation was a person? What if firing him is bad for the corporation?

wow are you really this ignorant?

where did he say anyone should be allowed to fire him? anyone with the power to fire others should be allowed to fire for whatever reason.

 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,920
14,195
146
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Amused
Why is that an advantage? You have a voluntary mutual employment agreement with them. If you may terminate that agreement at any time, why can't they? Why do you want special rights while at the same time taking their rights away?

Because you're thinking of yourself, and don;t care who's bull gets gored, so long as it isn't yours. Not to be rude, but that's the reason.

Start your own business in a state where it's near impossible to fire an employee without mounds of paperwork and you'll quickly be singing a different tune.
Why is it an advantage? If it weren't why would people do it? Corporations aren't people; the people who own them are people, and are perfectly capable of acting as such, but better off not having to do so.

Don't try to lecture me about it being impossible to fire an employee. 'With cause' should always be a no brainer, and so should 'laid off' or 'position eliminated', though mutual notice laws aren't a bad thing in cases without cause.

I'm not particularly thinking of myself - my relationship with my employer is not adversarial.

What if I just don't like the person? What if they annoy the living fsck out of me? What if I know they are stealing but I can't legally prove it? What if they gave my daughter the clap?

In a mutual agreement it doesn't matter who or what the agreement is with. Both entities should have the same right to terminate at will, or not.
For starters, the company shouldn't be allowed to fire someone for sleeping with your daughter. But maybe you should be allowed to do so. This is a big part of what I mean by saying the 'company is not a person: you are'.

Splitting hairs. If he sleeps with the daughter of any person in the company who has the authority to fire him, they should be allowed to. It doesn't matter how many people have the authority. It's still an agreement between the employee and the company. Both should have the right to terminate the agreement at will, or not.
Wait, now anyone at the company should be allowed to fire him? I thought the corporation was a person? What if firing him is bad for the corporation?

What does company policy have to do with law? Obviously it's up to the company to decide who can hire and fire employees. Or is the government now supposed to govern private company's policies?

You're reaching now. And it ain't pretty.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: Amused
What does company policy have to do with law? Obviously it's up to the company to decide who can hire and fire employees. Or is the government now supposed to govern private company's policies?

You're reaching now. And it ain't pretty.
Just decide if a corporation is a person or not. My employment agreement is with my boss, but legally that is not true, and protects him should there be a breakdown.

I'm not reaching for anything, I just think that a corporation and its employees can never be equal. But an employee and another person can be.
 

Flyback

Golden Member
Sep 20, 2006
1,303
0
0
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Amused
What does company policy have to do with law? Obviously it's up to the company to decide who can hire and fire employees. Or is the government now supposed to govern private company's policies?

You're reaching now. And it ain't pretty.
Just decide if a corporation is a person or not. My employment agreement is with my boss, but legally that is not true, and protects him should there be a breakdown.

I'm not reaching for anything, I just think that a corporation and its employees can never be equal. But an employee and another person can be.

The corporation you deal with represents the shareholders. It is a "person" if only to legally act on their behalf, without their physical presence (aka through proxy). The acting hierarchy of managers then acts in place of the shareholders, as a manifestation of those shareholders in the body known as the "corporation".

Do they [shareholders] have a right to equality, then?
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: Flyback
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Amused
What does company policy have to do with law? Obviously it's up to the company to decide who can hire and fire employees. Or is the government now supposed to govern private company's policies?

You're reaching now. And it ain't pretty.
Just decide if a corporation is a person or not. My employment agreement is with my boss, but legally that is not true, and protects him should there be a breakdown.

I'm not reaching for anything, I just think that a corporation and its employees can never be equal. But an employee and another person can be.

The corporation you deal with represents the shareholders. It is a "person" if only to legally act on their behalf, without their physical presence (aka through proxy).

Do they [shareholders] have a right to equality, then?
There's only one shareholder.

Who, btw should represent me, or more specifically the multiple mes that comprise the workforce?