MO Can Fire You For Being Gay, But Wants To Make Gun Owners A Protected Minority

[Full-Auto]

As an overall principle, I agree with that... but I think workers should have some protection against capricious and evil bosses.

I think we should have a law that you should be able to show cause for firing someone. If you fired someone for something, you shold be able to show a good reason for doing so.

"At Will" Employment has been a disaster for the middle class in this country.

You have got to be kidding, i should also tell you, you are full of shit, because there is no way you can demonstrate at will employment has been disastrous. None Zip Nadda

Joe you are like are politicians, just throw something out there that sounds good.

Between 1980 and 2012, middle class wages have increased 1% when adjusted for inflation. Comare that to the period of 1932-1980, when Unions became the rule and we had strong workers rights, Middle Class salaries increased 50%.

Fact is, strong worker rights make better bosses, and better bosses make better companies.

All you so called "conservatives" think it's a wonderful day when a boss can shit on his employees, but really, you are just pushing this country towards the kind of European socialism you dread.

Unions have never reached even half of all employment.

Thanks for playing..................

 

[The T]

You have got to be kidding, i should also tell you, you are full of shit, because there is no way you can demonstrate at will employment has been disastrous. None Zip Nadda

Joe you are like are politicians, just throw something out there that sounds good.

Between 1980 and 2012, middle class wages have increased 1% when adjusted for inflation. Comare that to the period of 1932-1980, when Unions became the rule and we had strong workers rights, Middle Class salaries increased 50%.

Fact is, strong worker rights make better bosses, and better bosses make better companies.

All you so called "conservatives" think it's a wonderful day when a boss can shit on his employees, but really, you are just pushing this country towards the kind of European socialism you dread.

Unions have never reached even half of all employment.

Thanks for playing..................

What Joey doesn't understand is that profit is a strong motivator in it's own right...and what do Unions do everytime the minimum wage goes up?

What do unions do to employers when Unions throw fussfits?

 

[Full-Auto]

Between 1980 and 2012, middle class wages have increased 1% when adjusted for inflation. Comare that to the period of 1932-1980, when Unions became the rule and we had strong workers rights, Middle Class salaries increased 50%.

Fact is, strong worker rights make better bosses, and better bosses make better companies.

All you so called "conservatives" think it's a wonderful day when a boss can shit on his employees, but really, you are just pushing this country towards the kind of European socialism you dread.

Unions have never reached even half of all employment.

Thanks for playing..................

What Joey doesn't understand is that profit is a strong motivator in it's own right...and what do Unions do everytime the minimum wage goes up?

What do unions do to employers when Unions throw fussfits?

I am waiting to hear youve never been in a union..

No never..

 

[The T]

Unions have never reached even half of all employment.

Thanks for playing..................

What Joey doesn't understand is that profit is a strong motivator in it's own right...and what do Unions do everytime the minimum wage goes up?

What do unions do to employers when Unions throw fussfits?

I am waiting to hear youve never been in a union..

No never..

Indeed. I haven't and never will being in a 'Right to Work' State...but have worked for companies that have to deal with them...

 

[JoeB131]

The plural of anecdote is not proof.
I've seen state workers grossly incompetent who could not be fired.
Overall the system works better in an at will setting.
I am sorry if you are one of the incompetents who needs union protection to earn a salary. Maybe counseling?

Actually, I'm fantastic at my job. When I've lost jobs, it's because the morons in corner offices made horrible decisions and either the whole company went out of business or they had to lay lots of people off to stay afloat.

I'm just curious how you could see "grossly incompetant state workers who could not be fired" unless you are actually working at a state agency. Now, I haven't worked for the Government since I left the military, but I've seen as many people who were grossly incomptetant who couldn't be fired because they were sleeping with the boss or were the boss' golfing buddy. So it really cuts both ways, doesn't it.

How about this. If you want to fire someone, you need to document their negligence or incompetence. That actually sounds kind of reasonable.

 

[JoeB131]

[
Unions have never reached even half of all employment.

Thanks for playing..................

Never said they did. When it was at it's height, though, is when we had our greatest economic prosperity.

You see, the benefit of a high level of unionization is that all the places that don't have them still need to match what they provide to stay competitive. More to the point, when you have a highly compensated workforce, you have higher consumer demand and everyone kind of makes out...

 

[JoeB131]

[
What Joey doesn't understand is that profit is a strong motivator in it's own right...and what do Unions do everytime the minimum wage goes up?

What do unions do to employers when Unions throw fussfits?

That would assume - again, that management knows what it is doing.

My first job out of the Army in 1992 was working for a distribution house that felt that the best way to get more work out of people was to work them ridiculously long hours rather than hire enough people. And they made short term profit, until these people started either having a high turnover rate or made mistakes because at the end of a 12 hour second shift, they were getting all bleary-eyed.

The owners were two inbed idiots from Wisconsin who inherited the company from Mommy and Daddy the second year I worked there. They were out of business before the third year I worked there. Just one horrible decision after another until their creditors liquidated their sorry asses.

 

[Full-Auto]

[
Unions have never reached even half of all employment.

Thanks for playing..................

Never said they did. When it was at it's height, though, is when we had our greatest economic prosperity.

You see, the benefit of a high level of unionization is that all the places that don't have them still need to match what they provide to stay competitive. More to the point, when you have a highly compensated workforce, you have higher consumer demand and everyone kind of makes out...

another fallacy.

However I can agree that unions helped shape our laws for labor.

 

[The T]

[
Unions have never reached even half of all employment.

Thanks for playing..................

Never said they did. When it was at it's height, though, is when we had our greatest economic prosperity.

You see, the benefit of a high level of unionization is that all the places that don't have them still need to match what they provide to stay competitive. More to the point, when you have a highly compensated workforce, you have higher consumer demand and everyone kind of makes out...

another fallacy.

However I can agree that unions helped shape our laws for labor.

True. Now unions have become a liability...in fact they are corporations unto themselves. Thier commodity is labor. Can we ( using Statist standards ), call them "Big Labor"?

 

[Seawytch]

How about this. If you want to fire someone, you need to document their negligence or incompetence. That actually sounds kind of reasonable.

And that is exactly how you do it. What I have seen is that people are just too damn lazy to do the work required to get rid of someone. That want the ability to just say "you're fired" without justification. Well, sorry, but if you are about to put someone out of work, you should have to justify it. It should be hard!

 

[JoeB131]

[
Unions have never reached even half of all employment.

Thanks for playing..................

Never said they did. When it was at it's height, though, is when we had our greatest economic prosperity.

You see, the benefit of a high level of unionization is that all the places that don't have them still need to match what they provide to stay competitive. More to the point, when you have a highly compensated workforce, you have higher consumer demand and everyone kind of makes out...

another fallacy.

However I can agree that unions helped shape our laws for labor.

Since it's born out by history, not really.

The problem is, we are allowing the wrong driver. We assume that if we reward greed, greed will produce good results. Which is crap.

Greed will do whatever it has to do to get more. And if scruples make you relucatant to poison the water supply, you are going to be at a disadvantage to the guy who is willing to do that.

Unless you have laws that slap down the guy who poisons the water supply hard.

 

[The T]

Never said they did. When it was at it's height, though, is when we had our greatest economic prosperity.

You see, the benefit of a high level of unionization is that all the places that don't have them still need to match what they provide to stay competitive. More to the point, when you have a highly compensated workforce, you have higher consumer demand and everyone kind of makes out...

another fallacy.

However I can agree that unions helped shape our laws for labor.

Since it's born out by history, not really.

The problem is, we are allowing the wrong driver. We assume that if we reward greed, greed will produce good results. Which is crap.

Greed will do whatever it has to do to get more. And if scruples make you relucatant to poison the water supply, you are going to be at a disadvantage to the guy who is willing to do that.

Unless you have laws that slap down the guy who poisons the water supply hard.

You assume that there are those that want bad water/air/environment.

 

[JoeB131]

[
True. Now unions have become a liability...in fact they are corporations unto themselves. Thier commodity is labor. Can we ( using Statist standards ), call them "Big Labor"?

Whatever turns you on.

So did the Unions crash the banks or was that big corporations?

Did the unions move all those jobs overseas?

Did the unions go into companies like Mitt Romney did, loot them for their assets and then saddle them down with tons of debt?

 

[JoeB131]

another fallacy.

However I can agree that unions helped shape our laws for labor.

Since it's born out by history, not really.

The problem is, we are allowing the wrong driver. We assume that if we reward greed, greed will produce good results. Which is crap.

Greed will do whatever it has to do to get more. And if scruples make you relucatant to poison the water supply, you are going to be at a disadvantage to the guy who is willing to do that.

Unless you have laws that slap down the guy who poisons the water supply hard.

You assume that there are those that want bad water/air/environment.

I assume that if it doesnt' effect you, you usually don't give a shit.

 

[Full-Auto]

Never said they did. When it was at it's height, though, is when we had our greatest economic prosperity.

You see, the benefit of a high level of unionization is that all the places that don't have them still need to match what they provide to stay competitive. More to the point, when you have a highly compensated workforce, you have higher consumer demand and everyone kind of makes out...

another fallacy.

However I can agree that unions helped shape our laws for labor.

Since it's born out by history, not really.

The problem is, we are allowing the wrong driver. We assume that if we reward greed, greed will produce good results. Which is crap.

Greed will do whatever it has to do to get more. And if scruples make you relucatant to poison the water supply, you are going to be at a disadvantage to the guy who is willing to do that.

Unless you have laws that slap down the guy who poisons the water supply hard.

I am not interested in revisionist history. The union played their role. They were not the cause.

 

[The T]

Since it's born out by history, not really.

The problem is, we are allowing the wrong driver. We assume that if we reward greed, greed will produce good results. Which is crap.

Greed will do whatever it has to do to get more. And if scruples make you relucatant to poison the water supply, you are going to be at a disadvantage to the guy who is willing to do that.

Unless you have laws that slap down the guy who poisons the water supply hard.

You assume that there are those that want bad water/air/environment.

I assume that if it doesnt' effect you, you usually don't give a shit.

Affects every human on the planet. I happen to belive in good stewardship of the planet. YOU may take what you just wrote and place it in a warm dark place.

 

[Full-Auto]

You assume that there are those that want bad water/air/environment.

I assume that if it doesnt' effect you, you usually don't give a shit.

Affects every human on the planet. I happen to belive in good stewardship of the planet. YOU may take what you just wrote and place it in a warm dark place.

Its like saying Hunters dont care.

I have asked many times.

When has the left ever presented a issue honestly?

 

[JoeB131]

I am not interested in revisionist history. The union played their role. They were not the cause.

You're not interested in any kind of history, except the fantasy about America being built by guys with bibles and muskets...

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

I know, where the hell did that come from?

What a loon.

And PS..what the hell do the two things have to do with each other?

The MO House wants to make it illegal to fire a gun owner for being a gun owner, but it is still perfectly legal to fire someone who is gay just for being gay. They want to grant protected minority status, on par with race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, disability or age to gun owners, but still want to be able to fire the queers.

That's okay with you?

owing a gun is protected by the constitution being queer isnt

Youdo realize the COTUS

A) doesnt protect rights from anyone but the government
B) DOESNT limit rights

I would say gays have a right to be gay. Just as we all have a right to do whatever as long as it doesnt interfere with the rights of others

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

How about this. If you want to fire someone, you need to document their negligence or incompetence. That actually sounds kind of reasonable.

And that is exactly how you do it. What I have seen is that people are just too damn lazy to do the work required to get rid of someone. That want the ability to just say "you're fired" without justification. Well, sorry, but if you are about to put someone out of work, you should have to justify it. It should be hard!

What? You ha e that completely backwards. If i own a business and want to just fire someone out of the blue hey guess what? Its my property and should be my right. Now surely if someone operated like that word would get around and people would stopwanting to work there......

Or do you also favor forcing employees to document their reasons for wanting to quit a job and then having to prove they have cause?