Print

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

[GSD]

"Lulz at ignoring every argument against you with a no not true then running away."
I apologize profusely for having other things to do in a day besides chat online for your amusement. I'm a terrible person.

"First of all, no one is insulting you personally..."

Later...

"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."

I rest my case.

CriptFeind, no, a company not paying for work done over a lunch hour in 21st century America is not the same thing as slavery that has occured throughout history, claimed hundreds of millions of lives, and wiped out entire races from the planet. I made the point earlier that it's a huge stretch to claim so, and I stand by that point. If you want to describe the company's actions in some way that doesn't use the inflammatory term 'slavery', I'd be happy to have that discussion.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'd rather talk with your more civil colleagues.

[EveryZig]

I think we should refer to it as economic coercion, so we can debate the actual subject instead of semantics.

That said, the 'just quit the bad job' thing is still bs, as for many people quitting their job is a massive risk at best due to the difficulty of getting any job at all.

[GSD]

So, we need regulations to make jobs easier/safer on people so that they don't need to face the risk of looking for a different job. I get that argument.

Too many regulations however, can have unintended consequences, such as the lady being fired for trying to work 41 hours instead of 40.

My argument is that we should work to trim back or limit regulations that are producing unintended and unwanted consequences. My belief is that we'd find we don't need nearly as many as we think we do.

[Heron TSG]

She wasn't being fired for trying to work 41 hours. She was fired because she was doing more than 40 in the public eye. The reason for this was because they gave her more than 40 hours. They just didn't call it that. There's only so much work a human can do in 40 hours, no matter how good they are. They weren't even paying her for more than 40 hours.

[Nadaka]

So, we need regulations to make jobs easier/safer on people so that they don't need to face the risk of looking for a different job. I get that argument.

Too many regulations however, can have unintended consequences, such as the lady being fired for trying to work 41 hours instead of 40.

My argument is that we should work to trim back or limit regulations that are producing unintended and unwanted consequences. My belief is that we'd find we don't need nearly as many as we think we do.

You are going to have to provide very specific cases instead of generally assuming that. The overtime limit is definitely not such a law, as the "unintended" (actually it is very intentional) consequences of removing it will cause dramatic reduction in hundreds of millions of people quality of life, funnel funds to the wealthy as they can lay off half their workers and demand an extra 40 hours a week per worker, etc.

[GSD]

In a theoretical world in which the regulation demanding lunch hours had not been written (horrors upon horrors I know, but bear with me) the company would be delighted that she was working over her lunch hour. Because, you know, they're evil and stuff.

I'm not saying employees shouldn't get lunch hours. I'm saying that by making lunch hours a law, unintended consequences result.

"...it will cause dramatic reduction in hundreds of millions of people quality of life, funnel funds to the wealthy as they can lay off half their workers and demand an extra 40 hours a week per worker, etc."
This is your belief as to what will happen. Having worked at various types of jobs for 10 years now, and seeing how much the success of a company relies on the skills and attitudes of its employees, I believe differently. Bosses/managers aren't evil and they're not stupid.

[kaijyuu]

The case you seem to be trying to make is that these laws somehow get in the way of the employee; I don't buy that. Unless they have some sort of investment in the company itself, they just show up to do their job and get their paycheck. No one wants to work harder so that their company will have a slightly higher profit margin. If the employee wants more hours so that they can boost their own paycheck, that's up to the employer (as it should be) as to whether they'll be given those hours or not. No law gets in the way of that; overtime is not illegal.

[Vector]

Everything can be corrupted.  The question is as to which modes of corruption you open yourself to.  Well, unless you have a polity, in which case everything is different... but the truth is, laws are not written for best-case scenarios.

[GSD]

Also, I was asked for specific examples.
Here's an entire 14-page book on government regulations regarding hair braiding in Virginia.

http://www.dpor.virginia.gov/dporweb/bnc_braid_regs.pdf

Because of these regulations, someone wanting to braid hair in Virginia has to pay thousands of dollars for a license before braiding hair.

Is this really neccessary?

[Pnx]

So... topic change. That horrible company known as Foxconn has installed anti-suicide nets at its factories.

First up, that article is well over a year old. Secondly I'd like to quote:

Foxconn is also raising its employees wages.  And its brought in a host of experts including Buddhist monks to release the souls of the dead from purgatory and to flood the plant floors with soothing melodies.  It also has created "anger rooms" in which its employees can beat away their rage and frustration.

In a theoretical world in which the regulation demanding lunch hours had not been written (horrors upon horrors I know, but bear with me) the company would be delighted that she was working over her lunch hour. Because, you know, they're evil and stuff.

I'm not saying employees shouldn't get lunch hours. I'm saying that by making lunch hours a law, unintended consequences result.

I'm a little confused by this part, how exactly would it be better if there weren't regulations for lunch hours?

Also, I was asked for specific examples.
Here's an entire 14-page book on government regulations regarding hair braiding in Virginia.

http://www.dpor.virginia.gov/dporweb/bnc_braid_regs.pdf

Because of these regulations, someone wanting to braid hair in Virginia has to pay thousands of dollars for a license before braiding hair.

Is this really neccessary?

This also seems rather beside the point, yes it does seem to be an unnecessary regulation, but that doesn't mean all regulations are unnecessary.

[GSD]

"This also seems rather beside the point, yes it does seem to be an unnecessary regulation, but that doesn't mean all regulations are unnecessary"

I never claimed all regulations were unneccessary, but welcome to conservatism my friend.

"I'm a little confused by this part, how exactly would it be better if there weren't regulations for lunch hours?"
My argument is that because of the law stating that employees have to take lunch hours, the company fired her for working on her lunch hour. I'm not saying the world would be better without it, I'm saying it had a consequence (her firing) which was unintended by those who wrote the regulation.

[Heron TSG]

welcome to conservatism my friend.

I'm confused, now. Are you saying that you sounded like you were claiming that because you're conservative, or are you calling Pnx conservative?

In other news about deregulation, the new mayor of this town has decided to comb through our old laws. Today the city council overturned a 1920's policy that enacted a 9:00 PM curfew on black people, for "public safety". Sure is a good thing that hasn't been enforced in living memory, because damn.

[GSD]

I'm calling myself a conservative, a believer in the notion that bigger government isn't always a better thing.

[kaijyuu]

I find it very difficult to believe that any company would fire and employee for working too hard. It was an obvious excuse.

No law was broken on her part, because A) she was punched out, and B) she wasn't being forced to work (not directly anyway). Given the court ruling, I think it save to assume that some wackiness was going on there on the part of the company; they ruled she was fired for a stupid reason. So you can take from that, that working during your lunch hour is not an offense that can get you fired. No unintended consequence here except the company being stupid.


I was technically fired from a job at a pizza place for a dress code violation. That wasn't the real reason I was fired; I was fired because I'm a terrible driver that had cost the company quite a bit from my fender benders. But the technicality is what's on the books, not the accidents. Companies use small, stupid regulations to fire people all the time. Most often there's a better reason but for whatever reason they can't immediately use it. But sometimes a higher up is just pissed off at an employee and wants to get rid of them. The latter is probably what happened with the women getting fired for working during her lunch break, and she won a court case saying that was unreasonable.

[GSD]

Fair enough. I'm just going by what was stated in the article, and you're right, we have no way of knowing what actually went on in the company.

This whole discussion began when I asked if people thought the government had any responsibility in what happened. My question's been answered, and I think all the arguments relevant to the debate have been made.

Thank you all for your time.