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

[Amused]

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.

You made a voluntary mutual employment agreement with the company. It doesn't matter if it was with one person, or a group. Your boss can be one person, or 50. It's irrelevant. Your mutual agreement was with the company.

By your twisted logic, a union should have FEWER rights than an individual employee because they are a group, rather than an individual.

What you fail to realize is a group is made up of individuals. They do not lose their rights simply because they chose to gather and form a company.

 

[Flyback]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

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?

Why should they represent you?

(Side note: you wouldn't happen to be arguing for utilitarianism, would you? I find your "many vs one" thoughts to hint in that direction.)

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

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?

Why should they represent you?

(Side note: you wouldn't happen to be arguing for utilitarianism, would you? I find your "many vs one" thoughts to hint in that direction.)

No, I want to know why a corporation gets treated as a separate person, essentially giving additional protection and rights to the people who own it, who already have all the rights of 'being persons'.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

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?

Why should they represent you?

(Side note: you wouldn't happen to be arguing for utilitarianism, would you? I find your "many vs one" thoughts to hint in that direction.)

No, I want to know why a corporation gets treated as a separate person, essentially giving additional protection and rights to the people who own it, who already have all the rights of 'being persons'.

Now you're not making any sense.

What we have is an employment agreement between two parties. You want to make one party face more restrictions in terminating that agreement than another party. Thus giving one group more rights while taking rights away from another.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Amused
Now you're not making any sense.

What we have is an employment agreement between two parties. You want to make one party face more restrictions in terminating that agreement than another party. Thus giving one group more rights while taking rights away from another.

Actually, I think what I said was I wanted to places restrictions on the rights of both parties, but largely from the standpoint that one party isn't really in an 'equal' position at all without restrictions.

This is closely related, but not identical to the issue of corporations having 'rights', which they don't need, because as you mentioned, they are owned and run by people. These people have all the rights needed.

In your own words, why is it that it is foolish not to incorporate?

And, for the record, I never said the corporation should represent me, that would be foolish. Those are words that Flyback put in my mouth, intentionally or otherwise.

 

[Flyback]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Amused
Now you're not making any sense.

What we have is an employment agreement between two parties. You want to make one party face more restrictions in terminating that agreement than another party. Thus giving one group more rights while taking rights away from another.

Actually, I think what I said was I wanted to places restrictions on the rights of both parties, but largely from the standpoint that one party isn't really in an 'equal' position at all without restrictions.

This is closely related, but not identical to the issue of corporations having 'rights', which they don't need, because as you mentioned, they are owned and run by people. These people have all the rights needed.

In your own words, why is it that it is foolish not to incorporate?

And, for the record, I never said the corporation should represent me, that would be foolish. Those are words that Flyback put in my mouth, intentionally or otherwise.

My mistake. I read your "Who, btw should represent me..." as a rhetorical question suggesting the "one shareholder" represent you. (I thought it otherwise obvious that you represent your self as do the other workers, if that is in fact what you are really asking.)

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Amused
Now you're not making any sense.

What we have is an employment agreement between two parties. You want to make one party face more restrictions in terminating that agreement than another party. Thus giving one group more rights while taking rights away from another.

Actually, I think what I said was I wanted to places restrictions on the rights of both parties, but largely from the standpoint that one party isn't really in an 'equal' position at all without restrictions.

This is closely related, but not identical to the issue of corporations having 'rights', which they don't need, because as you mentioned, they are owned and run by people. These people have all the rights needed.

In your own words, why is it that it is foolish not to incorporate?

And, for the record, I never said the corporation should represent me, that would be foolish. Those are words that Flyback put in my mouth, intentionally or otherwise.

If an entity has no rights how can it enter into a legal agreement? Your argument makes no sense. If a corporation has no rights because it is a group of people, then a union has no rights either... wait.

See what happens when you paint yourself into a corner? We keep going around in circles.

A group of people have the same rights as an individual... because it is nothing more than a group of individuals.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Flyback
My mistake. I read your "Who, btw should represent me..." as a rhetorical question suggesting the "one shareholder" represent you. (I thought it otherwise obvious that you represent your self as do the other workers, if that is in fact what you are really asking.)

Then don't let the shareholders represent themselves collectively😉

What I'm saying is a large corporation is the exact reason for a union.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Amused
Now you're not making any sense.

What we have is an employment agreement between two parties. You want to make one party face more restrictions in terminating that agreement than another party. Thus giving one group more rights while taking rights away from another.

Actually, I think what I said was I wanted to places restrictions on the rights of both parties, but largely from the standpoint that one party isn't really in an 'equal' position at all without restrictions.

This is closely related, but not identical to the issue of corporations having 'rights', which they don't need, because as you mentioned, they are owned and run by people. These people have all the rights needed.

In your own words, why is it that it is foolish not to incorporate?

And, for the record, I never said the corporation should represent me, that would be foolish. Those are words that Flyback put in my mouth, intentionally or otherwise.

If an entity has no rights how can it enter into a legal agreement? Your argument makes no sense. If a corporation has no rights because it is a group of people, then a union has no rights either... wait.

See what happens when you paint yourself into a corner? We keep going around in circles.

A group of people have the same rights as an individual... because it is nothing more than a group of individuals.

You've repeatedly attacked unions as undeserving of any sort of rights.

Given the fact that corporatism clearly and obviously came first, and had a head start, unionization was necessary.

I haven't painted myself in a circle at all - I'm saying - and using your own logic to do it - that there is no validity to giving business owners a layer of protection from their own actions, in the form of a fake person (the corporation). If you believe in personal responsibility, let people take responsibility.

Since scales and power vary, I think it's a good bet that two-way collective action is the better solution. So I'd suggest you quit whining about unions, and instead make specific suggestions and demands as to what constitutes equal power between a corporation and a union.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Amused
Now you're not making any sense.

What we have is an employment agreement between two parties. You want to make one party face more restrictions in terminating that agreement than another party. Thus giving one group more rights while taking rights away from another.

Actually, I think what I said was I wanted to places restrictions on the rights of both parties, but largely from the standpoint that one party isn't really in an 'equal' position at all without restrictions.

This is closely related, but not identical to the issue of corporations having 'rights', which they don't need, because as you mentioned, they are owned and run by people. These people have all the rights needed.

In your own words, why is it that it is foolish not to incorporate?

And, for the record, I never said the corporation should represent me, that would be foolish. Those are words that Flyback put in my mouth, intentionally or otherwise.

If an entity has no rights how can it enter into a legal agreement? Your argument makes no sense. If a corporation has no rights because it is a group of people, then a union has no rights either... wait.

See what happens when you paint yourself into a corner? We keep going around in circles.

A group of people have the same rights as an individual... because it is nothing more than a group of individuals.

You've repeatedly attacked unions as undeserving of any sort of rights.

Given the fact that corporatism clearly and obviously came first, and had a head start, unionization was necessary.

I haven't painted myself in a circle at all - I'm saying - and using your own logic to do it - that there is no validity to giving business owners a layer of protection from their own actions, in the form of a fake person (the corporation). If you believe in personal responsibility, let people take responsibility.

Since scales and power vary, I think it's a good bet that two-way collective action is the better solution. So I'd suggest you quit whining about unions, and instead make specific suggestions and demands as to what constitutes equal power between a corporation and a union.

Wow, when have I said that??? I believe unions have the same rights as anyone else. I only do not believe unions should have special rights.

And when you use stupid anti-capitalist buzz words like "corporatism" you really destroy any credibility.

The law has nothing to do with "power." The government is not here to make things "fair." Only free and equal.

It's painfully clear you have no concept of the US and it's founder's ideals.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Amused
Wow, when have I said that??? I believe unions have the same rights as anyone else. I only do not believe unions should have special rights.

And when you use stupid anti-capitalist buzz words like "corporatism" you really destroy any credibility.

The law has nothing to do with "power." The government is not here to make things "fair." Only free and equal.

It's painfully clear you have no concept of the US and it's founder's ideals.

FTR, this thread was about a Canadian scab law.

I don't mean 'corporatism' in an anti-capitalist sense, I mean it in an anti-corporatism sense, the way it should be meant. Free exchange is a great thing. Corporatism (and again, I'm not talking about a business with 3 employees being incorporated, though I question the legitimacy of the institution) is the state of affairs where a small number of firms exert influence on the whole market, and the system is designed to perpetuate this.

In reality though, employees and employers will never be equal and employment will always be in a state which is not quite voluntary, and not quite coerced. Employers will always maintain the right to change terms of employment, and employees never will.

If you go back to my first post, what you will see is that I am not against scab labour. I am for collective bargaining, when the employees of a firm feel they are not being treated fairly as individuals.

If instead of getting riled up because I represented a moderate opinion, and you want a very libertarian one to prevail, you had paid attention, or asked questions, you would have got the following:

I think using scab labour is the closest equivalent right firms have to 'going on strike'. Essentially it's replacing a worker without firing them.

When a strike is started, scabs should be allowed right away, but there should be a time-limit on both the strike and the scab labour (the same limit). The longer a company uses scabs, and the better they perform, the weaker the bargaining position of the union. The reverse is true, too. If the two sides refuse to work out a settlement, there should be an arbitrated one (not mediated), with some sort of opt-out clause (how you would structure such a settlement is beyond my skill, I won't lie, but I don't know everything).

Now you've avoided undue interruption to the business, both sides have rights, and no one is forced into a long-term solution they don't want.