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.

 Seaward wrote:

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

The US is the world's largest economy, no doubt. Whether or not it is the world's strongest economy is an entirely separate issue.

Strength and size are not the same thing, as any of the many economist predicting future recessions will tell you.

In any case, the biggest issue with at-will employment is that enables any given employer to significantly hinder the ability of any given employee to find alternative employment. Thanks primarily to stigma associated with referring to past employers in a negative light, which the any extended variant of the phrase "He terminated me without cause." most assuredly does.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
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.

Bravo. Utterly hilarious.

 Seaward wrote:

Bravo. Utterly hilarious.

Welcome to ignore.

 dogma wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

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

The US is the world's largest economy, no doubt. Whether or not it is the world's strongest economy is an entirely separate issue.

Strength and size are not the same thing, as any of the many economist predicting future recessions will tell you.

Size doesn't matter? I jest...

In any case, the biggest issue with at-will employment is that enables any given employer to significantly hinder the ability of any given employee to find alternative employment. Thanks primarily to stigma associated with referring to past employers in a negative light, which the any extended variant of the phrase "He terminated me without cause." most assuredly does.

There's a difference between "being fired" and "being laid off".

Now, the lady in the OP was "laid off" as she didn't do anything wrong and I'd suspect that if her potential employer followup on her previous employment, I'm sure Dr. Knight wouldn't say she as "too hot to work for him".

I do think that had her attorney taken this case to federal court, they'd have an easier time with a sexual harasment case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ MGS: I find this statement telling:

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.

Now I'm getting closer to understanding ya'lls viewpoint on this.

 whembly wrote:

There's a difference between "being fired" and "being laid off".

True, but at-will employment isn't necessary for there to exist a provision allowing employers to terminate personnel due to financial necessity.

 whembly wrote:

@ MGS: I find this statement telling:

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.

Now I'm getting closer to understanding ya'lls viewpoint on this.

Am I wrong in this, for you personally? Is my view on the right here in the US flawed? It reads to me as what we Brits call 'I'm all right Jack', which means as long as my garden is rosy, screw the rest of them. I have been reasonably well paid at a middle management level of employment for a sizable part of my working life, I am financially usually better off if I would vote right wing, I continue to vote for the left because I think I hold a social conscience and wish for better conditions for the poorest elements whilst having little sympathy for the very rich complaining about taxes on the millions or billions they earn, they don't need that much money, noone really does. I think that enabling and elevating the rest of the nation I live in is ultimately enlightened self interest, crime rates will fall, quality of life for all will be improved.

I am not a communist, I believe in the free market and the innovation it brings. I do believe, fundamentally, that the government has an obligation to protect the vulnerable in society, empowering it's citizens to allow them to continue to improve and thrive. Protection via legislation for the disabled, elderly, minority, children etc (including people targeted by an unscrupulous employer, for a number of reasons including bizarre ones like 'she's too sexy', would also be covered under this mandate), is to my mind the mark of a civilized country and separates us from the lawless hellholes located in Africa, Asia and South America. The right will claim things like charities cover this perfectly well, but at the same time, promote the easy road of self promotion and greed, this leads to things like multiple bloated children's charities and rare and underfunded charities for prisoner rehabilitation or drug abuse help. I believe we need a bureaucracy to take those decisions with an arbitrary viewpoint, not the immediate emotional one of individuals.

Things like the Obama 'you didn't build this' comment that I saw immediately as 'you as an individual are not responsible for the infrastructure of this nation and we working together and supporting each other can achieve great things and influence further personal achievement', seems to have been latched onto as an insult for this group as 'you have no rights to claim any form of ownership or take pride in the fruits of your hard work'.

This read to me like Obama saying 'no man is an island, your business exists and you exist as a result of the country you grew up in and the people you have lived around' and the right wing jumping this and warping it to 'your hard work as an individual means nothing'.

I paid taxes gladly in the UK, I grumbled about how high it was, same as the rest of humanity, because it meant I could buy less beer and toy soldiers. But I realized it funds the British schools, hospitals, military and infrastructure. I'm quite happy with that, I understand that being a contributing member of my nation affords my nation greater power and improves my nation's standards for it's citizens. I stay informed politically and use my veto strategically to enable the party with the views closest to my own, ie whichever will protect the nationally owned resources of healthcare, education and military. I would like it to also own more direct services like water, trains and power resources, as I believe since those were sold off, their provision has suffered. I also believe that the government had no right to sell those off as they did not belong to them, I do appreciate that they were elected in and that's how our government works, but wonder what would have happened if the next government to the left had simply renationalized them.

I don't understand the hardened antagonism against the Government here in the US, it is elected by the people yet treated as the enemy of the people. I think the lack of viable foreign enemies nearby is partially to blame, you could do with a viable external threat to draw you all together a bit and stop the divide which seems to just be increasing at this time.

With the current resentment of contribution here you end up with the 'beggar's soup' fable, each of the beggars assuring the other they will contribute their ingredient, each one secretly holding back their own ingredient and then all of them sitting like fools to eat a bowl of hot water and tell each other how good it tastes, when if they had all contributed, they would have all benefited.

MGS I apologize for the so called "Libertarians" you've dealt with. Those guys are at best constitutionalists and at worst republicans who think my political affiliation's name is cool. The actual Libertarian mindset directly involves taking a rather large machete to the military budget, and all but stopping our little "foreign adventures", which when Dr. Paul espoused it during the campaign season was termed "isolationism". As far as rights go the libertarian follows what I like to call the "Your yard" theory. Which follows that whatever you do in your yard is your business till it effects me in some way. This extends to all rights. Which is why I voted for legalization of marijuana in my home state even though it not being legalized is probably better for me personally, and why I and others continue to vote for and support pro-choice legislation even though we find the practice mildly abhorrent.

That said while I think the government needs to be reduced drastically in no uncertain terms, it does have it's purposes. Providing for the common defense, ensuring the common good, providing for justice in the nation, these are things that the citizenry cannot do for itself, and that private industry cannot do.

As to the divide, I honestly think it's cultural. A lot of the power in this country is wielded by the high populace, urbanized coastal states, with special mention given to New York and California. Having lived across the country, south, north, east and west, I can honestly say that the ideals and culture of say California are very different from what certain members of the political and economic elite have dubbed "fly over country". It's that gap in identify and the perceived marginalization of "fly over country" that fuels the divide on one side at least.

As to antagonism I wonder about it sometimes, I'm not a huge fan of the US governments that have existed in my life time. Mostly due to blatant incompetence and spending that would make a drunken sailor blush.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

@ MGS: I find this statement telling:

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.

Now I'm getting closer to understanding ya'lls viewpoint on this.

Am I wrong in this, for you personally?

Personally? Yeah... I think you're painting this with a very wide brush. Let me tell you more about myself and realize, I'm NOT unique. I know people/family going/have gone through these.

I'm profoundly deaf and need powerful hearing aids to blow my eardrums. I don't use sign language and my mum made a conscious decision to send me to public school. As you can imagine the trials and tribulation growing up being different (being only deaf kid) had it's own hardship, but I'll be forever grateful for my mum doing this.

I'm 35 years old, divorced with two kids.

Currently in chapter 13 bankruptcy because I was a dumbshit with my money and the divorce only accelerated it.

Even after the bankruptcy is over, I'll still be in debt to my eyeballs because of my school loans.

I came from a lower-middle class family where we didn't have "all the nice middle-class" family usually have. I don't remember this, but when I was born and a few years afterwards, my mum and da were on food stamps. My parents divorced when I was 4-ish (I think... ) and my mum moved us back to MO to stay at her mom. My mother eventually remarried, worked her ASS off and went to school as an accountant, then went to get her Masters in International Tax something or another. *shrugs* she tells CEO what to do now... LOL. She travels ALL over the world now... recently UK, India and China. Point being... I saw first hand what hard work means and where it can take you simply by watching my mum. She taught me that I'm responsible for my well being and probably more importantly, she taught me what integrity really means.

I've worked at a movie theater (concession, usher, projectionist and supervisor), pizza delivery dude, desk clerk at college/Resident Assistant, helped friend in his lawn mowing business, nurmerous odd jobs, did IT contractual consulting, helpdesk analyst for fortune 100 company (Anheuser Busch)...

And now work for a major HealthCare organization in the IT department which is my career job.

So... I'll keep this concise. I'm Responsible for my FAILURES and my SUCCESSES. That doesn't mean I don't acknowledge any help I may have gotten along the way... it's just that there's nothing wrong with having PRIDE for any achievement you may have done. (which is why I and others and issues with obama's "you didn't build that" statement, but that's another conversation).

While this is an extremely Cliff Note on whembly's life... I wouldn't change a fething thing.

Does that help? Am I so different?

Is my view on the right here in the US flawed?

Yes, I believe it's flawed.

It reads to me as what we Brits call 'I'm all right Jack', which means as long as my garden is rosy, screw the rest of them.

Well... you're are going to have these sort of people in all walks of life in any part of the globe. I don't believe it's a majority here in the US.

I have been reasonably well paid at a middle management level of employment for a sizable part of my working life, I am financially usually better off if I would vote right wing, I continue to vote for the left because I think I hold a social conscience and wish for better conditions for the poorest elements whilst having little sympathy for the very rich complaining about taxes on the millions or billions they earn, they don't need that much money, noone really does.

That's your perogative to hold these views. We can have a civil debate, but I don't make it my life's mission to change people views.

I think when you get down to it... as a majority... people what things "to be better", whatever they may be. I think that's a natural view in life most of us share. I also think that people are naturarlly resistant to change and believe the status quo is "good enough" and fear any change may be worst off than they were before. An old saying comes to mind: "The grass isn't necessarily greener on the other side of the fence".

I think that enabling and elevating the rest of the nation I live in is ultimately enlightened self interest, crime rates will fall, quality of life for all will be improved.

Sure, I can ascribe to that.

I am not a communist, I believe in the free market and the innovation it brings.

Would never pin you as a commie. I've met some real commies in school... it's a religion. o.O

I do believe, fundamentally, that the government has an obligation to protect the vulnerable in society, empowering it's citizens to allow them to continue to improve and thrive.

And here's the crux of this debate. Who's right? Is there one way to run a society? One and only way to manage the free market? Frankly, I believe we need the liberals, leftest, indies and conservative to continue pushing their ideals in the political realms. This political "Arena" is what makes this country great. Are we perfect? No. Would I live anywhere else? Nope.

Protection via legislation for the disabled, elderly, minority, children etc

Those exists...

(including people targeted by an unscrupulous employer, for a number of reasons including bizarre ones like 'she's too sexy', would also be covered under this mandate),

As I mentioned earlier, she'd probably have a case in federal court. Nonetheless, if "at will" is really a problem, the society will change it.

is to my mind the mark of a civilized country and separates us from the lawless hellholes located in Africa, Asia and South America.

Well... I'm glad we're civilized then...

The right will claim things like charities cover this perfectly well, but at the same time, promote the easy road of self promotion and greed, this leads to things like multiple bloated children's charities and rare and underfunded charities for prisoner rehabilitation or drug abuse help.

That's people... not "the right". People are donkey-caves. Do you consider those on the "right" the boogeyman?

I believe we need a bureaucracy to take those decisions with an arbitrary viewpoint, not the immediate emotional one of individuals.

Those things do exists. We actually need BOTH. Some government bureaucracy and some charities...

Things like the Obama 'you didn't build this' comment that I saw immediately as 'you as an individual are not responsible for the infrastructure of this nation and we working together and supporting each other can achieve great things and influence further personal achievement', seems to have been latched onto as an insult for this group as 'you have no rights to claim any form of ownership or take pride in the fruits of your hard work'.
This read to me like Obama saying 'no man is an island, your business exists and you exist as a result of the country you grew up in and the people you have lived around' and the right wing jumping this and warping it to 'your hard work as an individual means nothing'.

sigh... no, I really think the angst from that comment was "You don’t get credit for your hard work". Obama’s words contain an undertone that business owners are selfish, that they are ungrateful toward those teachers and infrastructures who helped them along the way. Obama is a big government, social warfare politician... he's the guy that in 2008 that said "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." So, it's not hard to put 2 + 2 together and react this way. Remember, this was a political speech meant to rally the troops. I think the reaction would've been much different if the exact same speech were printed in a Op-ed page of a newspaper.

I know I'm not going to change your mind... so, let's agree to disagree eh?

I paid taxes gladly in the UK, I grumbled about how high it was, same as the rest of humanity, because it meant I could buy less beer and toy soldiers. But I realized it funds the British schools, hospitals, military and infrastructure. I'm quite happy with that, I understand that being a contributing member of my nation affords my nation greater power and improves my nation's standards for it's citizens. I stay informed politically and use my veto strategically to enable the party with the views closest to my own, ie whichever will protect the nationally owned resources of healthcare, education and military. I would like it to also own more direct services like water, trains and power resources, as I believe since those were sold off, their provision has suffered. I also believe that the government had no right to sell those off as they did not belong to them, I do appreciate that they were elected in and that's how our government works, but wonder what would have happened if the next government to the left had simply renationalized them.

That's what I call "engaging the political process". But, you also have to comes to terms that the majority may see things differently than you do.

I don't understand the hardened antagonism against the Government here in the US, it is elected by the people yet treated as the enemy of the people. I think the lack of viable foreign enemies nearby is partially to blame, you could do with a viable external threat to draw you all together a bit and stop the divide which seems to just be increasing at this time.

Aha... another salient observation. Yes, we do have an "antagonistic" relationship with our government and ALWAYS has been since day 1. Maybe we just different than the Brits in this regard...

*shrugs* I don't know what to add other than I believe most of us view the government with a suspicious eye.

With the current resentment of contribution here you end up with the 'beggar's soup' fable, each of the beggars assuring the other they will contribute their ingredient, each one secretly holding back their own ingredient and then all of them sitting like fools to eat a bowl of hot water and tell each other how good it tastes, when if they had all contributed, they would have all benefited.

Hmmm... I don't know if this is an "American Thing"... but, there's a large segment of people who will ALWAYS go the opposite way, even in detriment to their own situation. Some people are different because the WANT to be different.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
MGS I apologize for the so called "Libertarians" you've dealt with. Those guys are at best constitutionalists and at worst republicans who think my political affiliation's name is cool. The actual Libertarian mindset directly involves taking a rather large machete to the military budget, and all but stopping our little "foreign adventures", which when Dr. Paul espoused it during the campaign season was termed "isolationism". As far as rights go the libertarian follows what I like to call the "Your yard" theory. Which follows that whatever you do in your yard is your business till it effects me in some way. This extends to all rights. Which is why I voted for legalization of marijuana in my home state even though it not being legalized is probably better for me personally, and why I and others continue to vote for and support pro-choice legislation even though we find the practice mildly abhorrent.

That said while I think the government needs to be reduced drastically in no uncertain terms, it does have it's purposes. Providing for the common defense, ensuring the common good, providing for justice in the nation, these are things that the citizenry cannot do for itself, and that private industry cannot do.

As to the divide, I honestly think it's cultural. A lot of the power in this country is wielded by the high populace, urbanized coastal states, with special mention given to New York and California. Having lived across the country, south, north, east and west, I can honestly say that the ideals and culture of say California are very different from what certain members of the political and economic elite have dubbed "fly over country". It's that gap in identify and the perceived marginalization of "fly over country" that fuels the divide on one side at least.

As to antagonism I wonder about it sometimes, I'm not a huge fan of the US governments that have existed in my life time. Mostly due to blatant incompetence and spending that would make a drunken sailor blush.

Ditto sir... ditto...

To be fair... our country was kind of built on being against our government

Only in America.

 phantommaster wrote:
Only in the greatest country ever known to Mankind ever.

Fixed that for you

Mattman154 wrote:

 phantommaster wrote:
Only in the greatest country ever known to Mankind ever.

Fixed that for you

Luxembourg?

 dogma wrote:

Mattman154 wrote:

 phantommaster wrote:
Only in the greatest country ever known to Mankind ever.

Fixed that for you

Luxembourg?

Madagascar. It's exactly like it is in the movies.

Mattman154 wrote:

 dogma wrote:

Mattman154 wrote:

 phantommaster wrote:
Only in the greatest country ever known to Mankind ever.

Fixed that for you

Luxembourg?

Madagascar. It's exactly like it is in the movies.

Many, many crazy Lemurs there.

Here I though the "Greatest Country EVAR" was going to be Monaco.

 dogma wrote:

In any case, the biggest issue with at-will employment is that enables any given employer to significantly hinder the ability of any given employee to find alternative employment. Thanks primarily to stigma associated with referring to past employers in a negative light, which the any extended variant of the phrase "He terminated me without cause." most assuredly does.

Exactly. Right, so as an at will employee, my employer can terminate me at any time, without notice, without reason, and I bear the stigma.

The reverse is supposed to also work, i.e. as an employee, I'm supposed to be able to quit at any time, without notice and without stigma. But you know what every employer says who I've ever worked for? Unless you provide 2-week notice, you are deemed not-re-employable, unable to be rehired, etc.

What are the only things that most employers ask when they check your employment history (note, not the same as personal reference)? Employment dates, job title, and would you re-hire this employee. If they say no, would not re-hire, that is a huge red flag to your potential new employer... good luck getting that job. Or any job. Unless you have a good connection that can overcome a huge negative flag like that. Personally, I've always gotten all my jobs blind with no previous connection, so I would be utterly screwed by even one implied bad reference. So I have had to cede my right to at will employment, i.e. to quit at any time with no notice required, and always am forced to give at least 2 weeks notice even in completely untenable positions, in order to continue to be employable.

At will employment is like communism. Works well in theory, but then those in power become corrupted and abuse the system so they can take advantage of those with less power. Funny how that works...

Edit- reduce the quote pyramid...

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
How come we are becoming MORE misogynistic wwith time?

Because the concept "men are always wrong, and a burden to women" is such a common theme it should be a trope.

 Alfndrate wrote:
To be fair... our country was kind of built on being against our government

Wait till you take some college history courses and find out what it was really about!

 Ahtman wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
To be fair... our country was kind of built on being against our government

Wait till you take some college history courses and find out what it was really about!

Spoiler:

I'm just being playful, no offense meant

Because everything you learn in college is true; just like the Internet.

Well, it's slightly more true than the crap you learn in high school...

 d-usa wrote:
Well, it's slightly more true than the crap you learn in high school...

Your mileage and your professor may very.

Dude... That guy is a total tool...

 Ahtman wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
To be fair... our country was kind of built on being against our government

Wait till you take some college history courses and find out what it was really about!

Spoiler:

I'm just being playful, no offense meant

O.o someone thinks I'm younger than I am? Feth...

I graduated last May, and got out of there without taking a single American history course (Community college world history course via the internet while I worked at a Boy Scout Camp during the summer, that course was cake) Though I did have to take a political science course because it fit into my schedule better than the other "higher level" history courses.

My comment was more about 'Murica not liking the British rule and overthrowing that... I think it's time we start throwing Starbucks lattes into the Pacific, we'll call it the Seattle Cafe au Lai!