Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GSD]

Last reply then I'm out for the day.
Thanks all, this's been fun!

"$28,125... No big deal right? If someone screwed you out of that much, I somehow doubt it would be a little thing. Plus, they do that for every employee and probably other overtime pay dodging...."

If someone forced (note how I'm using the term here) me to give that up, yeah I'd be upset.

If someone said 'Hey, we'll pay you X amount for 40 hours of work a week, and not pay you overtime", I agreed to their terms, and then I still voluntarily (important) worked more than 40 hours, and didn't get paid the overtime, yeah I'd be upset, but wouldn't hold it against the company. We'd have a contract which both sides had agreed upon and were honouring.

Peace out y'all.

[Truean]

Last reply then I'm out for the day.
Thanks all, this's been fun!

"$28,125... No big deal right? If someone screwed you out of that much, I somehow doubt it would be a little thing. Plus, they do that for every employee and probably other overtime pay dodging...."

If someone forced (note how I'm using the term here) me to give that up, yeah I'd be upset.

If someone said 'Hey, we'll pay you X amount for 40 hours of work a week, and not pay you overtime", I agreed to their terms, and then I still voluntarily (important) worked more than 40 hours, and didn't get paid the overtime, yeah I'd be upset, but wouldn't hold it against the company. We'd have an agreement to which both sides had agreed upon and were honouring.

Peace out y'all.

A.) You aren't legally allowed to make that agreement and they know it. You can't contract around the law and such contracts are probably void for illegality. The law is not something you can voluntarily contract around. B.) "Voluntary?" No, "do this or we'll take away your job." <--- What part of this is voluntary. Even though the employment is at will, if you wanna call it a contract, then that's the company extorting something else out of you by threatening not to keep its end of the deal.

If I contract for X in exchange for Y and then say, "I'll only give you X if you give me Y + 1," then that's extortion. You can't change the deal after you've signed on the line. That "+1" is a breach of contract and you really can sue over it with all validity. A contract locks in terms and you can only change them for additional consideration (something given to the other side). You can't say, "well if you wanna keep this (threat of taking away) then you better...." You will lose that lawsuit.

But, again, this is an at will employment situation. Even so, they're ducking the law and the employee can't just do whatever. They are going back on their word.

[Criptfeind]

Internet? Nothing gets done on the internet/it's mostly a waste/a lot of talking. Constitutions and charters? Those existed then and didn't stop anything.

This is both true and missing the point. Laws are enacted (talk about a vast vast scale here, obviously we have a issue with corruption right now) via public opinion. Which can get itself known via the internet. Both laws and the internet are vastly powerful tools for good, but they need to be used. Which is what is going on right now. This topic is just a small part of the groups among the internet that talk about these things. It is part of the machine that can change or enhance peoples thoughts and eventually change laws. This topic itself is part of what changes laws. And then the laws are enacted for protection/exploitation depending on what made them. After all, if laws are useless, then what are you arguing for? You become no better then a blinded Libertarian who thinks everyone can perfectly protect themselves.

Unless we're talking about being forced to work against one's will and without pay or remuneration, 'economic slavery' is gross hyperbole and an insult to those who actually suffered under real slavery.

Okay. First off. It is in no way a gross hyperbole. I have not defined it at all, and so thus calling it as such at best you are straw manning me, and at worst you are stupid. It could be hyperbole. But in this case it is not. The simple thing I am saying is that economic slavery is a bad thing and it can exist. Once you want to argue those points you are free to, otherwise I insist you get your head from your backside.

Secondly: A insult? How is it a insult? At all? In anyway. The simple fact is it shares some characteristics (IE doing something you do not wish to do for someone else on threat.) Thus it shares a word. Not that they are the same thing in every way. And, even finishing with that, even if it is a insult. That does not mean it is not a issue. If you can convince me it is a insult I will use some other word for it, but the underlying fact of whether it is bad changes not a ounce.

And accepting that society has changed in fundamental ways over the course of 3000 years is also reasonable. If I am now wearing a helmet, running into a wall probably won't hurt as much.

Although there is a ring of truth in this, you forgot that the fundamental change is being shown in this case. The change you are claiming will defend us is exactly what you are fighting against, the idea that the company was wrong. That is your change. The fact that you are arguing against it shows two things. One, your argument is somewhat schizophrenic and incoherent. The change you belive will defend us is not set and stone and without us defending it it can and will revert.

voluntarily (important)

That is the whole point of this. The fact is, it is not voluntarily. If you don't think that, go back to some of the arguments you have flat out ignored (such as economic slavery) and argue against them.


Lulz at ignoring every argument against you with a no not true then running away.

[Truean]

Internet? Nothing gets done on the internet/it's mostly a waste/a lot of talking. Constitutions and charters? Those existed then and didn't stop anything.

This is both true and missing the point. Laws are enacted (talk about a vast vast scale here, obviously we have a issue with corruption right now) via public opinion. Which can get itself known via the internet. Both laws and the internet are vastly powerful tools for good, but they need to be used. Which is what is going on right now. This topic is just a small part of the groups among the internet that talk about these things. It is part of the machine that can change or enhance peoples thoughts and eventually change laws. This topic itself is part of what changes laws. And then the laws are enacted for protection/exploitation depending on what made them. After all, if laws are useless, then what are you arguing for? You become no better then a blinded Libertarian who thinks everyone can perfectly protect themselves.

The argument isn't "law is useless." The argument is, "you're completely misapplying the law." The constitution doesn't say your boss can't be a total bastard to you. It doesn't say a lot of things most people think it does. Most people don't understand it in the slightest. The constitution doesn't really do a whole lot of regulating labor practices.

Law matters, but those laws don't deal with what we're talking about at all. Saying vague and completely off point things like "guaranteeing personal liberties," doesn't do anything.

I get this all the time from people in my office. They've never taken a constitutional law course and they don't know. They go on a damn rant about what they think the law means. They're wrong. The law means a lot of things, but this is the problem with laypeople trying to apply it. They come up with all sorts of things like trying to apply slavery to this argument. Completely and totally off point.

The law at play here is wage and hour law.... It is not the constitution.

[Criptfeind]

It's hard to argue with a lawyer about laws.

So instead I will argue ignorance.


You have given GSD far far less benefit of the doubt then I did, which perhaps was a bad idea on my part, but I like to think my optimism will win out in the end. When the sun explodes. And I die happy. And you die stressed.

[Truean]

It's hard to argue with a lawyer about laws.

So instead I will argue ignorance.


You have given GSD far far less benefit of the doubt then I did, which perhaps was a bad idea on my part, but I like to think my optimism will win out in the end. When the sun explodes. And I die happy. And you die stressed.

You're probably right about the "me dying stressed," thing.

What can I say, it's really hard to just explain to people what it means when it appears they don't want to hear it. Everyone seems to have a preconceived notion these days and my experience is they just don't want to hear anything that doesn't line up with their beliefs. I'll explain what the law is and then they'll try to argue back that, essentially they don't agree with it or like it. Oftentimes, I don't agree with it or like it either. I sorta feel like a messenger with a bullseye on me.

[GlyphGryph]

Regulations are important because in order for employers to do the right thing, they need to be able to do the right thing while remaining competitive. If other people are allowed to treat their employees as expendable, they will tend to run more efficiently, pushing any ACTUAL alternatives out of business on the employment from. It becomes a race to the bottom, in a way.

You get employers who don't really want to treat their employees like shit, but if they spend the extra few dollars then their competition, who has no such qualms, lies to their applicants and doesn't reveal the full details of the jobs danger, is going to take their business.

[MonkeyHead]

Interesting Asexuality article.

[Levi]

Interesting Asexuality article.

Heh, at a certain point I sometimes wonder if we should give up classifying sexuality at all.  Too many choices!

[Truean]

Interesting Asexuality article.

Heh, at a certain point I sometimes wonder if we should give up classifying sexuality at all.  Too many choices!

Yeah, I can see this, kinda. I don't understand any of this, despite my numerous attempts to categorize things in this area, which is how my mind works. The only thing I know for sure is that I only like men. Other than that, I thought I knew some things, but evidently not. I even read the book Vector recommended to me and while I comprehend fully what the author was trying to say, it's not fitting into my head. From a different era? Well, at least it wasn't for lack of trying and I get that I don't get it. I think admitting you have a freaking problem, is the first step towards solving your freaking problem. Or something.

[GlyphGryph]

What book Vector recommended?

Also, /how/ do you know you only like men? Honestly, I've never quite understood the distinction. People are people, as long as they have the attractive bits and pieces I like, who cares what gender they are.

I suppose if you only like certain gender-specific features...

[Virex]

Isn't basing your sexual preferences predominantly on gender pretty sexist anyway? I mean, we (or at least the monosexual of us) are shutting out an entire gender a priori just because we're supposedly "not attracted to them"...


Or am I raving again?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Or am I raving again?

Yes.

[Nadaka]

Or am I raving again?

Yes.

Ditto.

[Levi]

Isn't basing your sexual preferences predominantly on gender pretty sexist anyway? I mean, we (or at least the monosexual of us) are shutting out an entire gender a priori just because we're "not attracted to them"...

Nah.  You are entitled to be attracted/not attracted to whatever without being sexist/racist/whateverist.

Its like the guy that doesn't date African girls isn't being racist, he just isn't attracted to them.