Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm fairly sure the Canadian Civil Code is bigger than the Code of Hammurabi, and yet much, much better.

I'm also pretty sure your government is bigger than his was, and yet that yours is much better than his was.

I'm going nitty-gritty into this case and, really, this isn't about "at will" employments.

After refreshing on current sexual harassment laws and federal statutes... I think the Iowa SC is wrong and had she sued under federal law, she'd likely win some damages. Lemme elaborate...

It seems strange to me at least that all of this is all okay because she faced the more severe employment consequences, which is being potentially subjected to sexual advances from Dr. Knight... the basis of her termination.

If anything, the Iowa SC should've stated: if the husband (Dr. Knight) decides he has to fire this woman to mitigate his wife’s jealousy. It shouldn't be her fault to pay the price for Dr. Knight's problems.

From a legal employment standpoint, Dr. Knight was within his rights as he could terminate anyone under the state's "at will" doctrine. However, she may had Federal (or even Civil) recourse to sue Dr. Knight and according to the legal community, they were sort of baffled that her attorney sued under state law.

whembly wrote:
Woah dude...

Let me first say this... "good for you".

Now, answer me this, are you experiencing anything like this here in the states?

No, but I don't doubt it exists here, only as I suggested, far more basic and less Machiavellian, they just fire your ass or, to reduce their problems like paying your insurance, they just pressure your workload and working life until you resign. Far easier to get away with it here than in the UK.

Seaward wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I've been reading your responses, they don't contain anything other than 'big government bad'

Because big government is bad.

No it isn't.

Seaward wrote:

and 'Business owners can do whatever they want'.

Within the law as it currently stands, yes.

And that's not good news if the business owner is a prick and someone who relies on that wage to live is being bullied by them.

Seaward wrote:

You've argued that circularly for several pages, not giving an inch of ground or recognizing the other side. You absolutely do not see any problem whatsoever with the current situation and believe that anyone who does it 'wrong so there'.

Stating the same thing over and over until you get it is not a circular argument, no matter how much you wish it to be so. But you're right, I do not see a problem with the current situation, and you have yet to demonstrate one.

Please see the original post and the contents for a simple example of how an employer can abuse an employee and leave them in financial difficulties.

Seaward wrote:

It's unnecessary legislation for you, because apparently you don't need it.

On the contrary. It's unnecessary legislation for everyone, unless you can demonstrate a massive epidemic of people being fired without cause.

Should we only legislate against other personal injustices if there are 'epidemics'? Or should we ensure legislation is there to protect people from the extreme cases?

Seaward wrote:

I think it would be found very necessary for the next woman fired for having 'out of this world hooters', when she's more concerned with paying the bloody electricity bill.

You assume that will be the case. That you are treating this as a common occurrence is something I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry about. It made national headlines precisely because it is so freakishly rare.

How rare is it? If a crime is a rare occurrence, should we rule out bothering to legislate against it? Prevention is usually better than cure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
nite all.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
No it isn't.

Yes, it is.

And that's not good news if the business owner is a prick and someone who relies on that wage to live is being bullied by them.

It's not government's job to fix that.

Please see the original post and the contents for a simple example of how an employer can abuse an employee and leave them in financial difficulties.

An extremely rare and localized example.

Should we only legislate against other personal injustices if there are 'epidemics'? Or should we ensure legislation is there to protect people from the extreme cases?

You'd have a point if vanquishing an employer's ability to fire employees - or an employee's ability to leave without notice - at will were government's job. It's not. As this is one isolated incident, it's not a compelling reason to suddenly overthrow the US system in favor of British labor laws.

How rare is it? If a crime is a rare occurrence, should we rule out bothering to legislate against it? Prevention is usually better than cure.

Rare enough that it, once again, made national news.

The idea that corporations and business are somehow people with rights that shouldn't be oppressed by the evil government might be the single dumbest motion that has ever come from conservatives. They are more concerned about protecting artificial legal entities than actual people.

But whatever, USA USA USA!

 d-usa wrote:
The idea that corporations and business are somehow people with rights that shouldn't be oppressed by the evil government might be the single dumbest motion that has ever come from conservatives. They are more concerned about protecting artificial legal entities than actual people.

But whatever, USA USA USA!

Thanks for your input on the matter. I'll give it the same consideration I usually do.

Are you going to back up your statement from page 4 about he US being the worlds strongest economy? Or are you going to ignore all the evidence and facts that were posted showing that statement to be wrong.

You know, like you usually do.

 d-usa wrote:
Are you going to back up your statement from page 4 about he US being the worlds strongest economy? Or are you going to ignore all the evidence and facts that were posted showing that statement to be wrong.

You know, like you usually do.

What, you actually doubt that we're the world's strongest economy? Our GDP is nearly double that of the next closest competitor.

 d-usa wrote:
The idea that corporations and business are somehow people with rights that shouldn't be oppressed by the evil government might be the single dumbest motion that has ever come from conservatives. They are more concerned about protecting artificial legal entities than actual people.

But whatever, USA USA USA!

It's not so much that corporations are people with rights, but that they are, legally, persons. The word 'person' and 'personnality' has a different meaning in legalese, it's root basically translate to 'mask' or 'costume', and refers to the ability to obtain representation and demand rights.

It's a legal fiction, and it's perfectly appropriate to say that a corporation is a legal person. Of course, the nature of the person changes the rights, just like being a criminal restrict them, etc... It's also why 'fetus aren't persons so they can't have rights' is the dumbest pro-choice argument possible (not because it's factually wrong, but simply because we decide what has legal personnality. If tomorrow we decide to allow dog owners to sue as representative of the dogs, then dogs just became persons).

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Are you going to back up your statement from page 4 about he US being the worlds strongest economy? Or are you going to ignore all the evidence and facts that were posted showing that statement to be wrong.

You know, like you usually do.

What, you actually doubt that we're the world's strongest economy? Our GDP is nearly double that of the next closest competitor.

I provided sources showing that statement to be false. As a whole we are behind the European Union. And we are not nearly double that of 3rd place. Per capita we are anywhere between 8th or 14th based on who is doing the ranking.

So for the third time: are you going to provide some sources or are going to keep on rejecting reality and substituting your own?

2012 GDP for the US is estimated at 15.7 trillion. China, the next-closest, is 8.3 trillion. Per capita GDP is irrelevant to the claim at hand, which involves the strongest economy, not the strongest adjusted economy.

 Seaward wrote:
Yes, it is.

Great story. Compelling and rich.

It's not government's job to fix that.

And your position is that it's no one's job to fix that. Again, it's whoever's most able to fix it that hold the responsability.

An extremely rare and localized example.

And...? Crimes and infractions do not need to be frequent to be codified. There hasn't been many cases of parent's whoring off their children up here in the last century, while there's still a specific article for it in the Criminal Code.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
And...? Crimes and infractions do not need to be frequent to be codified. There hasn't been many cases of parent's whoring off their children up here in the last century, while there's still a specific article for it in the Criminal Code.

Presumably because that was, at one time, something of an issue, and an issue that people actually wanted to stop. I still have not granted the premise that we should be preventing employers for firing employees for anything but reasons that you happen to approve of. Largely because I find it absurd.

 Seaward wrote:
2012 GDP for the US is estimated at 15.7 trillion. China, the next-closest, is 8.3 trillion. Per capita GDP is irrelevant to the claim at hand, which involves the strongest economy, not the strongest adjusted economy.

4th time: got any sources for that?

The European Union is at 18.1 trillion, so that makes the US #2. By the time you a adjust that for actual purchasing power (what economists use) China is a lot closer to us as well.

 Seaward wrote:
Presumably because that was, at one time, something of an issue, and an issue that people actually wanted to stop. I still have not granted the premise that we should be preventing employers for firing employees for anything but reasons that you happen to approve of. Largely because I find it absurd.

Yeah, God knows there was an epidemic of children being whored off in Canada in the 1830s.

By the definition you've given, no reason should be valid at all to prevent an employer from firing an employee, because it's always for anything but reasons that someone will happen to not approve of. You don't even leave place for anti discrimination or anti harassment laws... Which honestly is pretty neanderthal of you.

 d-usa wrote:
4th time: got any sources for that?

The European Union is at 18.1 trillion, so that makes the US #2. By the time you a adjust that for actual purchasing power (what economists use) China is a lot closer to us as well.

World Bank count? They've got us at 15.09 trillion. The more recent number's from CNN.

And I wasn't aware you were seriously putting 27 separate nations up against one by means of trying to win an argument over which country had the strongest economy. By that logic, we could also combine Asia and Africa and we'd drop down to third!

 Seaward wrote:
And I wasn't aware you were seriously putting 27 separate nations up against one by means of trying to win an argument over which country had the strongest economy. By that logic, we could also combine Asia and Africa and we'd drop down to third!

''United States'' kinda semantically refers to a Union of States...

How dare we compare a federation of states to a federation of states. Sad that 27 states are beating 50?

And per capita economic strength is important, unless you want to argue that it is okay to have a weaker average as long as you have the population numbers to make up for it.

 d-usa wrote:
How dare we compare a federation of states to a federation of states...

The United States is a nation state. Are you contending the same about the EU?

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
How dare we compare a federation of states to a federation of states...

The United States is a nation state. Are you contending the same about the EU?

I'm ready to contend that the US are about as culturally and ethnically homogeneous as the EU.

I'm also ready to contend that you are using the terms States and Nation-States, knowing that they are inherently vague, exchangeable and/or overlapping, but will refuse to admit it because it would undermine your point.

A good amount of this is off topic and one of the central disagreements on this page boils down to people comparing different things using different definitions and calling each other out for it.

The parts of an on-topic discussion I'm seeing here are also getting hostile. So folks either need to move on to another discussion or refocus and try to be friendly.

Thanks.

I shall accept that cue and take my leave...

It all comes down to ones opinion on big government in this thread. And I doubt anybody will be swayed by arguing.

 AustonT wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

That's nonsense. The bottom rungs of the payscale hold the entire economy together, fueling the buying and selling and provide the infrastructure necessary to allow a nation to function.

Yeah you're right. That IS nonsense.

So, AustonT, you actually think 3.4 million people will buy five times more than the other 330 million people in America - or on a per capita basis, 5,000 times more? Because right now they control five times more wealth than the rest of the country, or 5,000 times more on a per capita basis.

That's a big part of the stagnation of the American economy. The people with the money are not spending it at anything close to the speed the rest of the population would IF they had it.

Let's make that into a concrete example for you. The average American goes out to eat twice a week, spending around $25 bucks per outing. For a 1%er to spend a proportional amountm they would need to go out to eat for every meal (10x as often) and drop $2500 per outing. Short of political fund-raisers, I don't think there's any restaurant that costs THAT much.

I see you've mastered the art of abandoning reality in the search of the one true hyperbole. I suppose by discarding both common sense and context you can happily chatter away at your keyboard under the belief that 330M Americans represent the "bottom rungs" of the economy rather than the 12-oddM minimum wage workers we were actually discussing. But do go on, I would want to let the actual conversation get in the way of your pontificating.

I'm so very glad you established where the delineation occurs in the debate but felt somehow unable to let the rest of us know until you're confronted with some figures and then you simply inform us you've been having that 'other' discussion along different rules.

When the 6 immediate family members who own Walmart own more money than the entire lower 30% of your nation's population, you chose to place 'your qualifying line' lower than everyone else and lambaste them for their idiocy, after we'd not actually established a quantitative figure for the entire debate. I think I was certainly operating under the notion of 'low pay' rather than precisely the minimum or below, but I'm glad you have set the standard in the conversation. Where would we be without your flawless logic?

Some of us are so sharp we could just cut ourselves.

Vulcan wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

I see you've mastered the art of abandoning reality in the search of the one true hyperbole. I suppose by discarding both common sense and context you can happily chatter away at your keyboard under the belief that 330M Americans represent the "bottom rungs" of the economy rather than the 12-oddM minimum wage workers we were actually discussing. But do go on, I would want to let the actual conversation get in the way of your pontificating.

I suppose I could bring it down to that level. Given that six members of the Walton family have as much wealth as the poorest 70 million Americans, to get down to that bottom 12 million we would only need one Walton (who would probably control MORE wealth that that bottom 12 million, but we'll go ahead and call it equivalent).

Do you actually think that one Walton spends more than those twelve million in the bottom percentile? Really? He'll spend over $600,000,000 a week on groceries (or $50 per person out of that 12 million you specified)? You sure about that?

A twofer! What a Christmas delight!
/claims lower class is the life blood of the economy
/pulls Walton family out of ass

Well, since someone pulled this gem out just before my reply:

"When the 6 immediate family members who own Walmart own more money than the entire lower 30% of your nation's population..."

How could I NOT pick on the Waltons?

/blithy ignores the middle class

Hunh.

Well, in my first contibution to this post pyramind I said:

"So, AustonT, you actually think 3.4 million people will buy five times more than the other 330 million people in America..."

That 330 million covering everyone NOT in the upper class... including the Middle Class.

Your response?

"I see you've mastered the art of abandoning reality in the search of the one true hyperbole. I suppose by discarding both common sense and context you can happily chatter away at your keyboard under the belief that 330M Americans represent the "bottom rungs" of the economy rather than the 12-oddM minimum wage workers we were actually discussing. But do go on, I would want to let the actual conversation get in the way of your pontificating."

So I replied referring specificaly to "the 12-oddM minimum wage workers we were actually discussing"

And instead of coming back with facts, or even rhetoric, you choose insults.

I can only assume you have NO facts to back up your position and are forced to admit I am right in the most insulting way possible.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ratbarf wrote:
They should be protected under current labor law, but pretending as though companies should be giving them the same perks as you'd find used to recruit and retain high-end talent is a little absurd.

Kinda curious to see where anyone made the claim they should.

All we've said is that the lower class should have the right to earn a living wage - that is, $22,000, or the poverty level, which translates as $11/hour full time - without fear of being fired for no good reason at all. It's hardly 'the same perks used to recruit and retain high-end talent'.

 Seaward wrote:

And that's not good news if the business owner is a prick and someone who relies on that wage to live is being bullied by them.

It's not government's job to fix that.

Why not? What good are they for if they don't support justice or fairness? The government should protect the people from exploitation and harassment. They do not exist solely to help individuals exploit others to their advantage. There's a balance between having a strong economy and maintaining a healthy society, the two support each other. No wonder a handful of super rich own most of the wealth in the US while a large number can't even afford basic healthcare. It's a capitalist utopia.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

And that's not good news if the business owner is a prick and someone who relies on that wage to live is being bullied by them.

It's not government's job to fix that.

Why not? What good are they for if they don't support justice or fairness? The government should protect the people from exploitation and harassment. They do not exist solely to help individuals exploit others to their advantage. There's a balance between having a strong economy and maintaining a healthy society, the two support each other. No wonder a handful of super rich own most of the wealth in the US while a large number can't even afford basic healthcare. It's a capitalist utopia.

There is a cultural divide going on here between us Brits and the certain Americans we are having this conversation with. The form of conservative libertarianism you and I are, I think, arguing against doesn't exist in any significant number in the UK but living here and especially in central Pennsylvania where this mindset is fairly prominent, let me act as an interpreter for a moment.

I suspect seaward is of the peculiar and endemic American group that wants a Government so minimized that is effectively just a military protecting against overseas threats. This group, that I've encountered a few times has dreamy ideals about the Old West and law being maintained by angry groups of farmers with guns. They tend to have lofty and, to my mind, nonsensical ideas about personal freedom. A bit like 'that old guy' in Britain who talks about the good old days when people had respect and didn't swear and knew their place etc, but lived in abject poverty, died in workhouses, lost 10 out of their 14 kids before 12 years of age, that sort of thing.

The extreme conservative/libertarians over here cling to this ideal with religious fervor about absolute 'freedom' with total conviction and will not be swayed that the government can do good in the nation. They rant and rave about the evils of government and paying taxes, until a natural disaster flattens their home at which time they all start screaming about FEMA response times and demanding help because 'they pay their taxes' but of course they have demanded lower and lower taxes and bigger and bigger military, so other organizations here are dramatically underfunded and unable to help them. I saw all this last year during the flooding in central PA Then they complain that the private insurance they hold so dear over government aid has discovered a loophole or utilized it's small print and not paid them, quelle surprise...

Basically, every man is an island for this political/cultural viewpoint. To be fair it's easy to see how this specific view could have come around in a country the size of a continent which has only recently come out of a couple of hundred years of near lawlessness in many of it's vast regions. I personally understand the near nietzschean philosophy this represents but find it entirely contradictory to the Judeo-Christian morality many of the same proponent claim as their own.

Having gone a few pages with Seaward, I realize it's absolutely pointless to continue. His mind is utterly set that this was a rightful decision and that this was no crime and you or I typing to him will not make a jot of difference. I'd like to thank whembly for conceding that it was a 'bad thing' that happened.

Take this solace Howard, the right wing is dying in the US in its current incarnation. The middle aged WASP male is a dwindling breed. This mindset will continue to die out and become more and more fringe. We're seeing it become more hardline and ridiculous because of the underswell of panic as it's being moved away from mainstream thinking and that is just music to my ears. The Republicans, including sensible economic conservatives who I have considerable time for, have handed the reins of their power over to the fringe teapartiers who want to scream a lot about personal freedom whilst seeking to take away a woman's right to chose or peoples very rights in what to believe religiously or who to love. We will rebuild out of the financial and military disasters they've subjected this country to without them as they stand in the corner with their arms folded muttering, getting quieter and quieter with the passing of time. Soon enough all that will remain is a dusty tricorn hat and a faded badly spelled angry sign.

MGS, you keep using the phrase libertarian, I don't think it means quite what you think it means At least in America, a country you now call home, libertarian has (at least in recent years) come to mean those of us that don't want to see lots of government spending (this means military spending too), but are more liberal than just 'pure' conservatives. Boils down to fiscally conservative, but socially liberal.

But other than that, I do understand the gist of your post (thankfully you used conservative as well).

 Alfndrate wrote:
MGS, you keep using the phrase libertarian, I don't think it means quite what you think it means At least in America, a country you now call home, libertarian has (at least in recent years) come to mean those of us that don't want to see lots of government spending (this means military spending too), but are more liberal than just 'pure' conservatives. Boils down to fiscally conservative, but socially liberal.

But other than that, I do understand the gist of your post (thankfully you used conservative as well).

We also have a lot of guys who say they are libertarian, but what they really mean is "I want less government messing with what I like and more government stopping what I don't like"

 d-usa wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
MGS, you keep using the phrase libertarian, I don't think it means quite what you think it means At least in America, a country you now call home, libertarian has (at least in recent years) come to mean those of us that don't want to see lots of government spending (this means military spending too), but are more liberal than just 'pure' conservatives. Boils down to fiscally conservative, but socially liberal.

But other than that, I do understand the gist of your post (thankfully you used conservative as well).

We also have a lot of guys who say they are libertarian, but what they really mean is "I want less government messing with what I like and more government stopping what I don't like"

This is also true lol.

 Alfndrate wrote:
MGS, you keep using the phrase libertarian, I don't think it means quite what you think it means At least in America, a country you now call home, libertarian has (at least in recent years) come to mean those of us that don't want to see lots of government spending (this means military spending too), but are more liberal than just 'pure' conservatives. Boils down to fiscally conservative, but socially liberal.

But other than that, I do understand the gist of your post (thankfully you used conservative as well).

I was referencing my experiences with individuals who call themselves libertarian. Whilst decrying all government spending on the poor or social programs or overseas aid, they were all very keen on a strong military.

There was also a very strong hypocrisy about their notion of social libertarianism (they would never describe themselves as liberal as it was a 'dirty word' that represented weakness, like 'progressive' or 'socialist') so for example they absolutely believed you should be free to do what the hell you want in terms of arming yourself to the teeth, dodging taxes and doing someone else over to get ahead but against the freedom to marry who you wanted, the freedom of a woman to decide on whether she gives birth, the freedom to smoke weed or the freedom to practice a faith that was not Christianity, if you actually asked them directly. Basically it was all about freedom to be just like us or else...

I'm sure there are smart libertarians out there, but in terms of who I've met face to face... erm... there was a massive contradiction in their ethos. Lots of scrawny little weasel-men with scraggly beards, baseball caps drawn too far down over their eyes, very large dead eyed wives and shack-bunker-houses in the PA mountains. Lots of talk about freedom from Gu'munt, talk about how Obama is the risen Satan and desire to own more and more lethal weaponry for 'the day we rise up'...
I remember one bright spark who was sat at the far end of the staff room table who suddenly piped up with 'All o you English are pussies! Cos you gave up yer guns to yur gu'munt!'
And he only shushed when I pointed out that he wasn't allowed to bring his precious gun into work and so it was in his truck and that I 'could close the distance between him and me in about 5 seconds and break him into very small bits and his gun would still be in his truck, did that make me a pussy?' at which point he laughed his idiot laugh and said 'You're alright man, you're alright' which made me feel really special...

The conservatives from the same area seemed better dressed, felt they were closer to God than anyone else and more snobbish. They were the ones who ranted about 'killing unborn babies' and 'the sanctity of marriage' and the dangers of 'drugs'.

I don't mind sensible fiscal conservatives, never have. Wanting to be careful about how we spend the money we spend is fairly logical to me. I personally tend to disagree with some of them when it comes to my taxes funding 20 something aircraft carriers when the rest of the world combined has about 12 at the rate of 1 or 2 per nation, when we could drop half, remain utterly dominant and fund hospitals and enable our workforce with the money that would save us.