Print

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

[shadenight123]

oh i was waiting for that argument to come by! (i'm from savona btw, where the ship was supposed to dock).
it's actually quite worse than what the translation to english actually made it seem.
(seems difficult, but it is).

he moved the boat near the coast to say "hello there" and have passenger wave.
hit a rock.
obviously.
not only but the guy which was meant to look out for stuff like that wasn't there.
the captain was elsewhere, and basically the ship was on autopilot.
yeah, i'm not sounding strange. He moved the boat near coast for "let's wave" and left the ship on autopilot.

and, to break a lance: no, the guys on board, and i mean the crew members, did their jobs. The tv show clearly recordings of those poor folks getting addressed, and helped in line, and moved carefully to the lifeboats.
The captain decided not to warn the passengers because he thought they could hold up till port.
that's the stalling of two hours.

and furthermore, to become a ship captain you need to have gone through the nautical school. (which is, mind you, high school. aka from 13 to 18) then you become 3rd degree officer.
then you work on board and after 24 months you get the possibility to do an exam to become 2nd degree officer.
from there onwards, you can "mark" yourself as "yes, if there is a captain job i'd gladly take it!".
in the end though the one who decides is the "ARMATORE" (the guy who finances the ship). so...not on merit, but on luck or favours.

[GSD]

I'm reviving a dead discussion because I feel there was a huge point being missed.

In regards to:
http://gma.yahoo.com/chicago-woman-fired-doing-lunch-wins-unemployment-claim-145926016--abc-news.html

So a government puts in place regulations on private companies, which progressives are in favour of, limiting how much work an employee can do over their lunch hour.

A woman doesn't follow these government-imposed regulations, and so the company fires her.

And you solely blame the company? Should the governmental system which put stupid regulations in place not share some portion of the blame? If you're a fan of strict regulations on businesses, you can't complain when they follow them. I would imagine that if such a silly regulation didn't exist, no company would have any problem with employees working over their lunch hour.

[DJ]

The problem is that the company is putting so much work on her that she *has* to work on lunch break.

[GSD]

I would say that the problem is that that she got fired because of an arbitrary law. If the law didn't exist, she might be overworked, but she'd still employed at the company (or free to leave the company of her own volition if she feels she's being given too much work).

But I concede this is a matter of opinion.

[Truean]

I'm reviving a dead discussion because I feel there was a huge point being missed.

In regards to:
http://gma.yahoo.com/chicago-woman-fired-doing-lunch-wins-unemployment-claim-145926016--abc-news.html

So a government puts in place regulations on private companies, which progressives are in favour of, limiting how much work an employee can do over their lunch hour.

A woman doesn't follow these government-imposed regulations, and so the company fires her.

And you solely blame the company? Should the governmental system which put stupid regulations in place not share some portion of the blame? If you're a fan of strict regulations on businesses, you can't complain when they follow them. I would imagine that if such a silly regulation didn't exist, no company would have any problem with employees working over their lunch hour.

The company absolutely and completely was not trying to comply with the regulations. They were trying not to get caught breaking them. They overloaded her with work which effectively forced her to work on her lunchbreak. They do this with all their employees and the only reason it was an issue with her is that her desk is right up front where people can see. They even state this in the article:

"The prominent location of Smiley's desk, 'which was directly at the front door of the office, made this particularly important for her,' according to the human resources director in the court filing. She and Smiley had 'many discussions ... over her eating breakfast at her desk,' the filing states. "

No, they aren't stupid regulations. You pay people overtime for above 40 hour weeks or you should put them on salary. It isn't a stupid regulation, it's basic employment law dating back several decades and people should comply. Failure to comply will result in fines penalties and orders. "I don't want to pay" isn't a good excuse. The company knew of the law before it started hiring people and just because it doesn't want to follow it doesn't mean it can break it for no reason. Though I typically don't practice a lot of employment law; I would have no problem filing a civil suit against a company for this. We're talking basic wage and hour laws here and a concerted company policy to avoid compliance and not get caught. Their primary focus isn't on compliance with the law; it is on NOT GETTING CAUGHT.

They didn't care if she worked on her lunch break and in fact WANTED her to, but they just didn't want her working at her desk where people COULD SEE her doing it....

Absolutely and completely 100% the company's fault. A court of law is not going to sanction a company policy designed specifically to endrun the law. The law says "shall" which means will. It is not optional.

You cannot say "we fired her for not following the rules," when you yourself are not following the rules.... Tad hypocritical? The company does not make the law, the state does and that's been how it is forever.

[Frumple]

... the bigger problem is that they were trying to deny her unemployment on trumped up charges (Insubordination my arse, more or less) for doing something both directly beneficial to the company and likely necessary to do the work, and doing it gratis.

This isn't an issue of government regulation, it's an issue of a company being nasty and rightfully getting bit in the arse for it.

So yeah, I'd say the company can shoulder a helluva' lot of blame for that one.

I would imagine that if such a silly regulation didn't exist, no company would have any problem with employees working over their lunch hour.

Well of course they wouldn't have any problem in that case; there would be no lunch hour and trying to eat something to avoid passing out from low blood sugar would get you fired. So would actually passing out from low blood sugar. That'd be why it was regulated (Not the blood sugar particularly, but you get the point), because companies were refusing to actually give workers a chance to eat.

Also ninja'd et al, but whatever.

[Nadaka]

I'm reviving a dead discussion because I feel there was a huge point being missed.

In regards to:
http://gma.yahoo.com/chicago-woman-fired-doing-lunch-wins-unemployment-claim-145926016--abc-news.html

So a government puts in place regulations on private companies, which progressives are in favour of, limiting how much work an employee can do over their lunch hour.

A woman doesn't follow these government-imposed regulations, and so the company fires her.

And you solely blame the company? Should the governmental system which put stupid regulations in place not share some portion of the blame? If you're a fan of strict regulations on businesses, you can't complain when they follow them. I would imagine that if such a silly regulation didn't exist, no company would have any problem with employees working over their lunch hour.

No. I place no blame on the government for placing limits on the amount of work a person can be forced to perform. Without those labor laws, that same company might require her to work 16 hours a day without a break. With labor laws, my boss tells me we have 80 hours of work to do this week. I ask if overtime is approved, 95% of the time the answer is no and the deadline gets pushed back. 5% of the time I get over time. If I have plans I can refuse to work the over time. This isn't a silly law. It was hard fought for and won with the blood and deaths of many workers. People in favor of deregulation like this are sorely uneducated on the history of labor, health and workplace safety revolution in the late 19th and early 20th century that allowed the US to rise up from being a sweat shop backwater to a world power.

[Truean]

I'm reviving a dead discussion because I feel there was a huge point being missed.

In regards to:
http://gma.yahoo.com/chicago-woman-fired-doing-lunch-wins-unemployment-claim-145926016--abc-news.html

So a government puts in place regulations on private companies, which progressives are in favour of, limiting how much work an employee can do over their lunch hour.

A woman doesn't follow these government-imposed regulations, and so the company fires her.

And you solely blame the company? Should the governmental system which put stupid regulations in place not share some portion of the blame? If you're a fan of strict regulations on businesses, you can't complain when they follow them. I would imagine that if such a silly regulation didn't exist, no company would have any problem with employees working over their lunch hour.

No. I place no blame on the government for placing limits on the amount of work a person can be forced to perform. Without those labor laws, that same company might require her to work 16 hours a day without a break. With labor laws, my boss tells me we have 80 hours of work to do this week. I ask if overtime is approved, 95% of the time the answer is no and the deadline gets pushed back. 5% of the time I get over time. If I have plans I can refuse to work the over time. This isn't a silly law. It was hard fought for and won with the blood and deaths of many workers. People in favor of deregulation like this are sorely uneducated on the history of labor, health and workplace safety revolution in the late 19th and early 20th century that allowed the US to rise up from being a sweat shop backwater to a world power.

Yes, the free market fails due to the basic flaw of assuming "perfect information," "symmetrical bargaining power," and "perfect price sensitivity." There isn't a reason (and don't say "supply and demand" like it's a magic incantation, I used to do that in college too) besides "screw you, do it or else." That's unfortunately all that works. A free market is where all players have equal bargaining power, because there are many players in the market. Here, that's just not the case. The phrase, "Free Market" is used too often in situations where it simply doesn't apply at all. It's a technical term that has been thrown around and bastardized until it doesn't mean anything other than "well let the businesses do whatever they want. No.

I will show you several court cases of companies forcing people to work in conditions that killed them. Forget the workplace accident prevention measures. I'm talking they send a guy into an oil storage tank (20 ft tall) with a sandblaster to clean it for 30 years WITH NO RESPIRATOR. He dies of silicosis related lung disease. The respirator would've cost them next to nothing, especially compared with his life.... Company answer, "it's cheaper." They then made it hell on his widow to get any sort of money for the fact that they slowly killed him for their profit so she doesn't have to live in the gutter....

I happily drag companies into court and call them on the carpet for what they do. Otherwise they'd be the de facto government. They're dangerously close to that now. "We want to make all the money in the world," isn't a good reason to do whatever you want, including illegal things.

Look, all ye libertarians, at the fruits of deregulation. What we are living in now is but a taste of what is to come if we don't reverse course and actually regulate these companies again.

[RedKing]

Despite their fear of it, libertarians should take a good long look at modern China. It's a environment of utterly unregulated workplaces and cut-throat capitalism. I've seen guys welding on the side of a skyscraper while sitting on a bamboo scaffold 30 stories up, no safety harness and no welder's mask or goggles. The bamboo scaffolding thing actually isn't that big of a deal...they're amazingly strong as long as you're not trying to haul multiple tons of equipment up them. The lack of safety harnesses is a problem. Deaths from accidental falls are not rare. The lack of eye protection is downright criminal. Without eye protection, you can expect the average welder to suffer permanent retinal damage in a short amount of time. Probably looking at enough blindness to impair or even end their welding career after 5-10 years. Companies don't care because people are plentiful. They can grab the next peasant who illegally leaves his hukou and moves to the city, give him a torch and send him up the scaffold. He can learn from watching the others.

It's a place where there are two distinct classes emerging: workers (whose standard of living *is* better than what they left, but has a whole new range of horrible things to it. And now they can't even grow enough food to subsist.) and ultra-millionaires. Ayn Rand would get positively orgasmic from living in Shanghai or Guangdong.

[GSD]

Point 1:
I make these arguments because I want this to be a 'discussion' thread, and keep it from being a 'let's all agree with each other about items in the news' thread.

Point 2:
I consider myself neither a libertarian, nor 'sorely uneducated' on history, so please watch the personal accusations.

Point 3: Go easy on the shouting and the preaching. I'm just here for fun discussion.

Just a few responses, in no particular order:
 
"I will show you several court cases of companies forcing people to work in conditions that killed them..."

You make many good points about problems inherent in a free market, don't dirty them with half-truths. Companies compel, and I'm sure in some unfortunate cases intimidate their employees. But until you can cite a gun being held to a person's head, you can't claim they 'force' them. It's a minor point, but there's an important distinction, and I trust you're better than that.

"Well of course they wouldn't have any problem in that case; there would be no lunch hour"

I've heard the argument that without the government we'd be all slaves to companies before, and my simplest response is, do you really think that little of your boss, and yourself?

"Yes, the free market fails due to the basic flaw of assuming..."
And a regulated market fails due to other flaws. Neither is perfect in all aspects, but that doesn't mean the free market should be surrendered.

Any further points I have to make are dependant upon matters of opinion that we're unlikely to sway eachother on.

[justinlee999]

I don't know but it seems like China is taking the worst of Communism and Capitalism and putting it in one country.

[Nadaka]

The reason that people think so little of their bosses is that it is inherent in the system to squeeze as much from labor as possible in order to grow capital. It has a track record several thousand years long, since the very conceptualization of the market. It is what happens, not only in dirty third world countries but in the US here and now. It happens every single time. Regulation is the only thing keeping things from being as bad as they were a century ago when people protesting their exploitation, demanding a living wage and the right to not be worked to death were gunned down and murdered right here in the US with government approval.

[Frumple]

I've heard the argument that without the government we'd be all slaves to companies before, and my simplest response is, do you really think that little of your boss, and yourself?

I think both history and current events lead me to say yes, I think that little of corporations and companies. The issue is only sometimes with "my" boss; the problem usually lies in theirs. And that boss's boss, and so on. Nadaka put this point even more clearly.

I'm also very much aware that if there weren't hard, enforced, limits on how far all companies can push their workers, there wouldn't be any other option for me. It's not a matter of "I'm not going to take this" when every other choice leads to the same thing. The choice between starvation and drastically reduced lifespan/vicious medical issues isn't a choice people need to be forced to make. If corporations had their way, that would be exact choice most people would be staring at. It's also the choice far too many people are forced to make right now.

It's really hard to drum up moral support for deregulation, t'be frank. The human species has had many, many, years and plenty of current examples to demonstrate exactly what we do in that situation, and it's very much not pretty.

[alway]

Point 1:
I make these arguments because I want this to be a 'discussion' thread, and keep it from being a 'let's all agree with each other about items in the news' thread.

Point 2:
I consider myself neither a libertarian, nor 'sorely uneducated' on history, so please watch the personal accusations.

Point 3: Go easy on the shouting and the preaching. I'm just here for fun discussion.

Just a few responses, in no particular order:
 
"I will show you several court cases of companies forcing people to work in conditions that killed them..."

You make many good points about problems inherent in a free market, don't dirty them with half-truths. Companies compel, and I'm sure in some unfortunate cases intimidate their employees. But until you can cite a gun being held to a person's head, you can't claim they 'force' them. It's a minor point, but there's an important distinction, and I trust you're better than that.

"Well of course they wouldn't have any problem in that case; there would be no lunch hour"

I've heard the argument that without the government we'd be all slaves to companies before, and my simplest response is, do you really think that little of your boss, and yourself?

Any further points I have to make are dependant upon matters of opinion that we're unlikely to sway eachother on.

On the first point: do you honestly believe threatening someone with living in abject poverty for the remainder of their lives is not a threat? Even when food, housing, and medical attention require money? And don't give BS about finding another job, as in many cases, particularly for older workers, that is impossible to do.

If you believe companies won't make workers the equivalent of slave labor, I suggest you read up on your 19th century history. It isn't an issue of hypotheticals here; it happened in the past, and if left unregulated, will happen again.

[GSD]

"The choice between starvation and drastically reduced lifespan/vicious medical issues isn't a choice people need to be forced to make."

You forgot the third option of finding another employer who'd love to have access to your skills and knowledge. I'm not claiming it's easy, especially given the economy, but in today's world, changing jobs/locations is easier than it's ever been in history.

The only forced monopoly is government.

"And don't give BS about finding another job" = "And don't give a perfectly valid response because that would be hard to argue."

"If left unregulated, will happen again."
You believe it would happen again. I believe it would not. Until we have a time machine, all either of us have is opinion, not fact.