It's bullshit you don't have the right to waive your rights

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The OP is truly a moron.

Good to see you've honed your argument.

Clayton is a liberal and working on his GED so we expect very little from him.
It doesn't even cross his mind that an argument is necessary. That is very typical of liberalism. They feel they are right in their hearts.

 

[koshergrl]

That's right, we need to remove the laws that protect people from agreeing to their murder.

 

[Slyhunter]

My single biggest problem with labor protection laws comes down to this. They never take the worker's personal judgment into consideration. They never allow for the possibility that a worker might want to work off the clock for some reason, be it that they simply enjoy working or it helps them keep up with a large work load. They don't accept that maybe some people might prefer to work for less than the legal minimum wage for some reason. Maybe they want to be competitive in a secondary job. Maybe they feel uncomfortable making as much as more valuable employees. The law doesn't know their situation. Then there's the fact that working as a minor is so heavily regulated. I mean, yeah, forcing ten year olds to work in a textile mill is bad. Nobody but the most rabid capitalist denies that. But, you know, some of us actually wanted a job at 13.

Maybe, due to desperation, they might like being a indentured servant or slave. Cuzz it's better than starving. Who are we to keep these people from becoming slaves to their betters.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. Who are we to keep these people from becoming slaves to their betters.

the lower the wage the lower the price so govt has no right to side with workers over consumers in free world

 

[frigidweirdo]

They want 60 hour a week workers because it saves them money. Change that then. Make it cost the same to have two 40 hour a week workers than one 80 hour a week worker.

There's a lot of things I've seen here on USMB that I don't agree with you on, but this... this I do.

I've experienced it firsthand where the employer would rather work understaffed with overtime than hire any extra employees.
The only ways that I can think of to make two 40 hr. employees cost the same (or preferably less) than one 80 hr. employee is to either reduce the per employee costs to the employer (FICA, Unemployment Compensation, Worker's Compensation, Etc.) or raise overtime rates high enough to be prohibitive.
I can't see either of those being changed easily. Altering the first one would meet heavy resistance from the Fed. and state gov't.s (they'd lose revenue), and the second would be fought by every company with hourly employees.

Well this is a problem in the US, and seeing as big business controls almost everything the people are the ones who suffer.

I'm not sure exactly how it could be done, within this system, but something needs to be done to protect workers from working too much.

 

[frigidweirdo]

My single biggest problem with labor protection laws comes down to this. They never take the worker's personal judgment into consideration. They never allow for the possibility that a worker might want to work off the clock for some reason, be it that they simply enjoy working or it helps them keep up with a large work load. They don't accept that maybe some people might prefer to work for less than the legal minimum wage for some reason. Maybe they want to be competitive in a secondary job. Maybe they feel uncomfortable making as much as more valuable employees. The law doesn't know their situation. Then there's the fact that working as a minor is so heavily regulated. I mean, yeah, forcing ten year olds to work in a textile mill is bad. Nobody but the most rabid capitalist denies that. But, you know, some of us actually wanted a job at 13.

Allow people to do it, and companies will force people to do it. It's called capitalism.

I can't help ROTFLMAO.......

Allow people to do it ? Really. You are telling me that you want to disallow people from doing it ?

BTW: Not all companies do it. Nobody I've ever worked for has been the slave drive you guys describe.

Oh, so no one you've worked for has been a slave driver, so... it doesn't exist.

I've done it. In fact I quit my last job because they lost a member of staff and lumped the work around everyone else and it was too much. So I quit, and then they lumped the work around even more, but I didn't care, I was out of there.

Some companies are good companies that look after their workers. Other companies aren't. Like someone else said, when there is a genuine need then people are happy to do it. When it's all about saving money then people get angry.

And yes, I'm saying people should be disallowed from working so many hours a week for a long period of time. Cover, fine, but long term, no.

Like I've said before, the right wing want parents to bring up their kids properly. Then they want them to work loads.

Where's the balance here between society and work? Because it seems that many people look at one issue in isolation of all the other issues and never come to a point where anything makes any sense.

 

[Anathema]

If you have a contract, there's no debate - both parties are bound to their agreement. But most employees don't. That's what we're talking about here. And in that case, it's not apples and oranges, is the same concept of using the law to prevent competition you don't want to deal with.

Even before we chose to join the Union, when we were "Management" employees, there was an employment agreement that was signed at the time of hiring. It laid out the responsibilities and duties of the job, the hours, the pay and benefits package. So far as I'm concerned that's an employment contract and should be as legally binding as any Union contract. The reason we chose to join the Union was specifically because the Company was not dealing fairly with people, despite that employment agreement. Now they are forced to play by the rules, no matter how much the Company despises them.

I see a significant difference between competing corporations and employees in the same department of the same company. Additionally, it's not a matter of competition between employees. It's a matter of one person meeting the requirements of their job and then being expected to do more because another individual CHOOSES to exceed those expectations. I get paid to do 40 hours of work a week. So long as I'm doing my work to the best of my ability during those 40 hours, I should not be punished simply because someone else doesn't have a life and want's to hang around for another 10-20 hours a week, for free and waste their life at their desk.

 

[dblack]

I see a significant difference between competing corporations and employees in the same department of the same company.

I'm talking about private businesses. Would you be ok with the local groceries getting a law passed that bans the 24 hr stores, based on the same reasoning - that it setups up unreasonable expectations and "forces" them to go along or lose business?

 

[Anathema]

I'm talking about private businesses. Would you be ok with the local groceries getting a law passed that bans the 24 hr stores, based on the same reasoning - that it setups up unreasonable expectations and "forces" them to go along or lose business?

There is no expectation, nor is there any contractual or implied "fraternity" between different companies in different businesses. THAT is the difference.

In the workplace environment there is an implied (if not a contractual) fraternity between the employees doing the same job in the same department at the same company. Whether they like each other or not, there is an implication that the same rules apply to George and Fred equally because they do the same job in the same department in the same company. They're two players on the same team, not competitors.

In your corporate example there is no implied or contractual "fraternity" between the companies. They're not even in the same business. Even if they were, they would be competitors, not co-workers.

 

[dblack]

I'm talking about private businesses. Would you be ok with the local groceries getting a law passed that bans the 24 hr stores, based on the same reasoning - that it setups up unreasonable expectations and "forces" them to go along or lose business?

There is no expectation, nor is there any contractual or implied "fraternity" between different companies in different businesses. THAT is the difference.

In the workplace environment there is an implied (if not a contractual) fraternity between the employees doing the same job in the same department at the same company. Whether they like each other or not, there is an implication that the same rules apply to George and Fred equally because they do the same job in the same department in the same company. They're two players on the same team, not competitors.

In your corporate example there is no implied or contractual "fraternity" between the companies. They're not even in the same business. Even if they were, they would be competitors, not co-workers.

So you wouldn't be in favor of business using the same argument to justify similar laws?

 

[Anathema]

So you wouldn't be in favor of business using the same argument to justify similar laws?

As I've said several times, I don't believe that there is a legitimate comparison. Nor do I believe that the Federal Government has a legitimate power to regulate businesses in that fashion anyway.

 

[dblack]

So you wouldn't be in favor of business using the same argument to justify similar laws?

As I've said several times, I don't believe that there is a legitimate comparison. Nor do I believe that the Federal Government has a legitimate power to regulate businesses in that fashion anyway.

But they do have the power to regulate employees in that fashion?

 

[Anathema]

But they do have the power to regulate employees in that fashion?

Yes, but only because it's a matter of equal protection of citizens under the law. Corporations are not (or at least should not be treated as) citizens.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

seeing as big business controls almost everything.

100% stupid and liberal as always

1) a big business has to pay the highest wages possible or lose its employees. It has no control over what it pays. It always has to pay the highest possible in a highly competitive international marketplace.

2) a big business has to raise our standard of living at the highest possible rate or go bankrupt in a highly competitive international market place.

Who controls the market place? The employees and consumers of the world. Big business is merely their slave.

Now, do you have the IQ to understand?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

My single biggest problem with labor protection laws comes down to this. They never take the worker's personal judgment into consideration. They never allow for the possibility that a worker might want to work off the clock for some reason, be it that they simply enjoy working or it helps them keep up with a large work load. They don't accept that maybe some people might prefer to work for less than the legal minimum wage for some reason. Maybe they want to be competitive in a secondary job. Maybe they feel uncomfortable making as much as more valuable employees. The law doesn't know their situation. Then there's the fact that working as a minor is so heavily regulated. I mean, yeah, forcing ten year olds to work in a textile mill is bad. Nobody but the most rabid capitalist denies that. But, you know, some of us actually wanted a job at 13.

Allow people to do it, and companies will force people to do it. It's called capitalism.

I can't help ROTFLMAO.......

Allow people to do it ? Really. You are telling me that you want to disallow people from doing it ?

BTW: Not all companies do it. Nobody I've ever worked for has been the slave drive you guys describe.

Oh, so no one you've worked for has been a slave driver, so... it doesn't exist.

I've done it. In fact I quit my last job because they lost a member of staff and lumped the work around everyone else and it was too much. So I quit, and then they lumped the work around even more, but I didn't care, I was out of there.

Some companies are good companies that look after their workers. Other companies aren't. Like someone else said, when there is a genuine need then people are happy to do it. When it's all about saving money then people get angry.

And yes, I'm saying people should be disallowed from working so many hours a week for a long period of time. Cover, fine, but long term, no.

Like I've said before, the right wing want parents to bring up their kids properly. Then they want them to work loads.

Where's the balance here between society and work? Because it seems that many people look at one issue in isolation of all the other issues and never come to a point where anything makes any sense.

Sounds like you answered that question for yourself.

But you don't want to let others do the same.

Labor is a commodity just like anything else. It has a market. When times are tight, do employers pay more for the people they need....you bet they do.

As to ....it does not exist.

You are the one making blanket statements regarding employers and wanting to impose blanket provision on people who would like to work.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You admit that you don't care about the work you do. Why try to spin it?

I do care about the work I do. However, I care much more about ensuring that I get properly compensated for the work that I do. There are no freebees in life. If you want 110% out of me, you're going to have to compensate me for that extra 10%; and trust me it's going to cost you more than 10% beyond what my 100% compensation is.

My department currently has 8 employees. We're all offered 8 hours of Overtime a week. I don't work it. Why not?, you ask. Very simple.... 8 hours x 8 employees = 64 man hours = we need 2 more full time employees in the department.

Um no 80 hours would be 2 more full time employees

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

80 wouldn't be too terrible once you got used to it. Six twelves and an eight.

 

[Anathema]

Um no 80 hours would be 2 more full time employees

No. 41 hours is two more full time employees. 81 would be three. 121, four. You get the picture. If you have the availability of that much OT you need more FTEs.

 

[frigidweirdo]

seeing as big business controls almost everything.

100% stupid and liberal as always

1) a big business has to pay the highest wages possible or lose its employees. It has no control over what it pays. It always has to pay the highest possible in a highly competitive international marketplace.

2) a big business has to raise our standard of living at the highest possible rate or go bankrupt in a highly competitive international market place.

Who controls the market place? The employees and consumers of the world. Big business is merely their slave.

Now, do you have the IQ to understand?

I know enough to not bother dealing with people who insult.

Bye.

 

[frigidweirdo]

My single biggest problem with labor protection laws comes down to this. They never take the worker's personal judgment into consideration. They never allow for the possibility that a worker might want to work off the clock for some reason, be it that they simply enjoy working or it helps them keep up with a large work load. They don't accept that maybe some people might prefer to work for less than the legal minimum wage for some reason. Maybe they want to be competitive in a secondary job. Maybe they feel uncomfortable making as much as more valuable employees. The law doesn't know their situation. Then there's the fact that working as a minor is so heavily regulated. I mean, yeah, forcing ten year olds to work in a textile mill is bad. Nobody but the most rabid capitalist denies that. But, you know, some of us actually wanted a job at 13.

Allow people to do it, and companies will force people to do it. It's called capitalism.

I can't help ROTFLMAO.......

Allow people to do it ? Really. You are telling me that you want to disallow people from doing it ?

BTW: Not all companies do it. Nobody I've ever worked for has been the slave drive you guys describe.

Oh, so no one you've worked for has been a slave driver, so... it doesn't exist.

I've done it. In fact I quit my last job because they lost a member of staff and lumped the work around everyone else and it was too much. So I quit, and then they lumped the work around even more, but I didn't care, I was out of there.

Some companies are good companies that look after their workers. Other companies aren't. Like someone else said, when there is a genuine need then people are happy to do it. When it's all about saving money then people get angry.

And yes, I'm saying people should be disallowed from working so many hours a week for a long period of time. Cover, fine, but long term, no.

Like I've said before, the right wing want parents to bring up their kids properly. Then they want them to work loads.

Where's the balance here between society and work? Because it seems that many people look at one issue in isolation of all the other issues and never come to a point where anything makes any sense.

Sounds like you answered that question for yourself.

But you don't want to let others do the same.

Labor is a commodity just like anything else. It has a market. When times are tight, do employers pay more for the people they need....you bet they do.

As to ....it does not exist.

You are the one making blanket statements regarding employers and wanting to impose blanket provision on people who would like to work.

Do I allow others to answer? Er... this is an open forum, and you answered.

Yes, at times people can earn more or earn less based on the market.

I'm not making a blanket statement at all. I'm saying it happens. I didn't say all employers do it.