Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8871 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-14-2018 12:31 AM
177 online now:
PaulK, xongsmith (2 members, 175 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 841,909 Year: 16,732/29,783 Month: 720/1,956 Week: 223/331 Day: 1/98 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
4Next
Author Topic:   Corporatocracy Wins Again
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 58 (744891)
12-16-2014 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by New Cat's Eye
12-16-2014 9:32 AM


Okay, then how would you change the text of the law?

I imagine the law in question is several thousand pages long; editing the text itself is probably beyond my ability and patience.

Nevertheless, I think we can still have a reasonable discussion about what laws are good laws, which laws are bad laws, and which laws need changing.

I thought the supreme court made an adequate argument, did you read it?

Not entirely.

Do you have a link?

What I said is that employers should be expected to treat their employees decently, and part of that involves paying them for the time they require them to be at work.

I don't think anyone has disagreed with that.

Then what are you getting at in this thread?


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-16-2014 9:32 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-16-2014 3:53 PM Jon has responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 32 of 58 (744892)
12-16-2014 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by ringo
12-16-2014 10:54 AM


I would take the queue time as an opportunity to hang out with my co-workers rather than as an inconvenience.

I would take it as a half hour of pay I am losing from my other part-time job that isn't being compensated for by the employer demanding that I wait in line to satisfy their curiosity.


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by ringo, posted 12-16-2014 10:54 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by ringo, posted 12-17-2014 10:50 AM Jon has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 58 (744893)
12-16-2014 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Jon
12-16-2014 3:30 PM


I imagine the law in question is several thousand pages long; editing the text itself is probably beyond my ability and patience.

Nevertheless, I think we can still have a reasonable discussion about what laws are good laws, which laws are bad laws, and which laws need changing.

In my opinion, there's no point in discussing the quality of laws if we are not looking at the text of the legislation.

I thought the supreme court made an adequate argument, did you read it?

Not entirely.

Do you have a link?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-433_5h26.pdf

Let me know which parts you disagree with.

Then what are you getting at in this thread?

They ought to pay them, but they're not legally required to nor should they be.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Jon, posted 12-16-2014 3:30 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Jon, posted 12-17-2014 4:02 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 58 (744943)
12-17-2014 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by ringo
12-16-2014 10:54 AM


I would take the queue time as an opportunity to hang out with my co-workers rather than as an inconvenience.

I don't want my employer scheduling mandatory fun for me. To be frank, this stuff matters primarily to hourly employees who may very well have second jobs. I find it absolutely bizarre that an employer would find ways to occupy an hourly employee's free time without compensating him.

The statute as I understand it, is intended to identify things like walking to work or standing in a clock out line that are not productive for the employer. I have some sympathy for that. But I have no sympathy for an employer who occupies employees for activities that do benefit the employer without providing compensation.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by ringo, posted 12-16-2014 10:54 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by petrophysics1, posted 12-17-2014 5:01 AM NoNukes has responded
 Message 38 by ringo, posted 12-17-2014 10:58 AM NoNukes has responded

  
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 58 (744945)
12-17-2014 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by NoNukes
12-17-2014 2:21 AM


Why not to be an employee
NoNukes,

I haven't been an employee since April 1985.

I make contracts with people.

Let's see how that works compared to you or others more or less.

I only work by the day, the rate is $1250/day. No half days no standby no anything else.

To come to the location you pay me $1.00/mile, at my present location I drove 876 miles to get here.

You have to pay within 10 days of my invoice.

I get no vacation...I don't work I don't get paid.

No medical or other crap like retirement. I do that myself.

You don't pay unemployment insurance or disability, that's all stuff I do.

Either of us can cancel this contract at anytime for no reason.

This is only for adults, if you are a child of the state, or need people to take care of you, get used to kissing someone's ass.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by NoNukes, posted 12-17-2014 2:21 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Theodoric, posted 12-17-2014 8:53 AM petrophysics1 has not yet responded
 Message 43 by ringo, posted 12-18-2014 10:49 AM petrophysics1 has not yet responded
 Message 48 by NoNukes, posted 12-22-2014 3:50 PM petrophysics1 has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5777
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 36 of 58 (744954)
12-17-2014 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by petrophysics1
12-17-2014 5:01 AM


Re: Why not to be an employee
That would be the difference than an employee and an employer. Do you expect your employees to spend uncompensated time at work?

I don't think you made the point you think you are making.

Edited by Theodoric, : Employer should have been employee oops


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by petrophysics1, posted 12-17-2014 5:01 AM petrophysics1 has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 15567
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 37 of 58 (744961)
12-17-2014 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Jon
12-16-2014 3:31 PM


Jon writes:

ringo writes:

I would take the queue time as an opportunity to hang out with my co-workers rather than as an inconvenience.


I would take it as a half hour of pay I am losing from my other part-time job that isn't being compensated for by the employer demanding that I wait in line to satisfy their curiosity.

Well, I can see it wouldn't be much fun waiting in line with you.

Is your time really that valuable, Mr. Self-Important?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Jon, posted 12-16-2014 3:31 PM Jon has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15567
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


(1)
Message 38 of 58 (744962)
12-17-2014 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by NoNukes
12-17-2014 2:21 AM


NoNukes writes:

I don't want my employer scheduling mandatory fun for me.


I'm talking about making the best of a "bad" situation.

You're probably the guy who waits five minutes in line at the supermarket and then wastes another five minutes whining to the cashier about it. And I'm always behind you.

But I'm busy talking to the cute chick who's rolling her eyes at your antics.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by NoNukes, posted 12-17-2014 2:21 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Jon, posted 12-17-2014 4:05 PM ringo has responded
 Message 49 by NoNukes, posted 12-22-2014 3:53 PM ringo has responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 58 (744987)
12-17-2014 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by New Cat's Eye
12-16-2014 3:53 PM


http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-433_5h26.pdf

Let me know which parts you disagree with.

It's one big rambling excuse for them not doing the right thing.

Then what are you getting at in this thread?

They ought to pay them, but they're not legally required to nor should they be.

Then that's the argument you need to make.


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-16-2014 3:53 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-18-2014 9:22 AM Jon has acknowledged this reply

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 58 (744988)
12-17-2014 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by ringo
12-17-2014 10:58 AM


I'm talking about making the best of a "bad" situation.

That would be accomplished by either paying the people for waiting in line or hiring more screeners so that there isn't a line in the first place.


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by ringo, posted 12-17-2014 10:58 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by ringo, posted 12-18-2014 10:45 AM Jon has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 58 (745026)
12-18-2014 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Jon
12-17-2014 4:02 PM


Given your response to the Supreme Court's argument, I'll refrain from making mine.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Jon, posted 12-17-2014 4:02 PM Jon has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15567
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 42 of 58 (745036)
12-18-2014 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Jon
12-17-2014 4:05 PM


Jon writes:

ringo writes:

I'm talking about making the best of a "bad" situation.


That would be accomplished by either paying the people for waiting in line or hiring more screeners so that there isn't a line in the first place.

I'm talking about ME making the best of a bad situation. It's much more practical to change my own attitude than to try to change the company's policy.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Jon, posted 12-17-2014 4:05 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Jon, posted 12-18-2014 12:16 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15567
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


(3)
Message 43 of 58 (745039)
12-18-2014 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by petrophysics1
12-17-2014 5:01 AM


Re: Why not to be an employee
petrophysics1 writes:

To come to the location you pay me $1.00/mile, at my present location I drove 876 miles to get here.


I presume you drove on roads that you built yourself? Or do you have a childlike dependency on the state's roads?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by petrophysics1, posted 12-17-2014 5:01 AM petrophysics1 has not yet responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 58 (745048)
12-18-2014 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by ringo
12-18-2014 10:45 AM


I'm talking about ME making the best of a bad situation. It's much more practical to change my own attitude than to try to change the company's policy.

Personally I can agree. I am not one to push back.

But I can easily understand others pushing back, and I even appreciate the fact that they do.

Just because I am the bend-over-and-take-it type doesn't mean I expect everyone else to be.

Jon


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by ringo, posted 12-18-2014 10:45 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by ringo, posted 12-18-2014 12:24 PM Jon has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15567
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 45 of 58 (745049)
12-18-2014 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Jon
12-18-2014 12:16 PM


Jon writes:

But I can easily understand others pushing back, and I even appreciate the fact that they do.


In the long run, the pushing back costs you just as much as what the company is doing. Ultimately, the individual pays for everything.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Jon, posted 12-18-2014 12:16 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Jon, posted 12-18-2014 2:38 PM ringo has responded

  
Prev12
3
4Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018