ENDA - the end of indepent thought?

[medicineman]

Actually, I don't smoke. It makes me paranoid. Every once in a while I might try a new crop, but basically when I'm posting on this site I am as sober as a person can be. I haven't had a drink (Of alcohol) in over 15 years, and basically gave up pot smoking then also. I grow for my friends and if my arthritus gets too bad, I'll take a few tokes. So any delusional thinking is not to be blamed on being stoned as I assume you must be, because sometimes you don't make sense with your contradictory thought patterns.


then it's kool aid, and you've been drinking too much.

be a friend and show me where my thoughts appear to contradict so i can ponder these things under the cloud of another sticky bowl.

I already did in the previous post:
If you chose to let people be as they are and let the people that run the world be themselves and pick and choose as they please, aren't you actually thwarting possibilities for all those that didn't fit the elites criteria? With your "freedom" agenda, you would be dampening any freedoms of the people that didn't fit their mold. That is why there must be fairness doctrines in the workplace. Everyone needs a job regardless of their sexual orientation or political beliefs. Yes they should keep them away from the workplace and try and do their jobs without their mindsets interfering, But your freedom for all bullshit will never work in this society. Maybe in a Hitlerian society, or a plutocracy, but without a fairness doctrine, this would be hell for a certain % of the populace.

Now tell me that doesn't describe how your freedom agenda would not be freedom for those not chosen by the freedom of those in charge. It would be like in school where you picked sides for a game. At the end of the picking, there would be a few million left out in the cold. We can't run our corporations like a schoolyard game. Corporations should have a moral conscience. Something they totally lack as the bottom line is the only goal, damn the people, full steam ahead. Lack of some kind of fairness doctrine in corporate rule would be devastating for a % of the populace.,Actually, we need stronger rules on corporations, make them responsible to more than their stockholders like the environment and the community in which they operate. If you can't agree with this, then I'm afraid you are a plutocracyst. Happy motoring.




.

...........................

 

[7xstall]

i'll go with your schoolyard analogy. the one thing that makes my take on it so different from yours is that there will be many games, many, many games and no one can be left out. the reason is simple, everyone is capable of doing something that needs to be done and that value makes them part of the big puzzle. no extra pieces.

i am in no way advocating plutocracy, or any return to the era of kings and serfs. what i am hoping for is more of a natural socialism, i guess you could call it that. right now our society rewards selfishness and ego-centric behavior. we need to learn some manors and have respect for people. it is proven that laws can't do that but i would argue that a lack of laws and regulation can. by forcing an overseeing structure on society we are asking for individuals, in fact demanding them, to slack off in their very important duty towards their brothers and sisters.

that's what i think is at the core of our differences, med. to me government represents a failure on my part as an individual to look out for my fellow humans and to you (more generally - all leftists) it represents the license to conveniently avoid those duties.






.

 

[medicineman]

i'll go with your schoolyard analogy. the one thing that makes my take on it so different from yours is that there will be many games, many, many games and no one can be left out. the reason is simple, everyone is capable of doing something that needs to be done and that value makes them part of the big puzzle. no extra pieces.

i am in no way advocating plutocracy, or any return to the era of kings and serfs. what i am hoping for is more of a natural socialism, i guess you could call it that. right now our society rewards selfishness and ego-centric behavior. we need to learn some manors and have respect for people. it is proven that laws can't do that but i would argue that a lack of laws and regulation can. by forcing an overseeing structure on society we are asking for individuals, in fact demanding them, to slack off in their very important duty towards their brothers and sisters.

that's what i think is at the core of our differences, med. to me government represents a failure on my part as an individual to look out for my fellow humans and to you (more generally - all leftists) it represents the license to conveniently avoid those duties.






.

The problem is, 7X, the people in charge now do not have a social conscience. Why does a CEO need 30 million bucks a year? wouldn't a million suffice, hell how about 300 thousand. The guys at the top, the elites could care less about anything but their start times on the golf course, their stock portfolios, the completion of their new yacht, when that Lambo will be delivered, Etc. they will not notice the figures that show 20% more Americans live in poverty than 10 years ago. This is why this country is going down the shitter, just like Rome, Greed is taking the drivers seat.

 

[7xstall]

The problem is, 7X, the people in charge now do not have a social conscience. Why does a CEO need 30 million bucks a year? wouldn't a million suffice, hell how about 300 thousand. The guys at the top, the elites could care less about anything but their start times on the golf course, their stock portfolios, the completion of their new yacht, when that Lambo will be delivered, Etc. they will not notice the figures that show 20% more Americans live in poverty than 10 years ago. This is why this country is going down the shitter, just like Rome, Greed is taking the drivers seat.

you'll notice that the decline coincides with increased government intervention. you know that the government feeds this cycle, left and right. you know that the left and right are doing the same thing as the CEOs.






.

 

[medicineman]

you'll notice that the decline coincides with increased government intervention. you know that the government feeds this cycle, left and right. you know that the left and right are doing the same thing as the CEOs.






.

I've never been for big government, just smarter government. Could we lose billions in war spending and giveaways to corporations, hell yes. could the government be trimmed down to its fighting weight, hell yes. I could put together a plan for government within 2 wks. that would eliminate about 75% of its weight and still perform the needed functions, some old and a few new. There would be massive unemployment during the rearangement, but in the end, there would be near full employment as the illegals would be returned to their countries and the unemployed could begin building the fences, I knew you'd like that one. I would levey all the corporations that do business in the USA and do production in foriegn countries or with foriegn workers. A few billion would be used for drug treatment and re-aligning drug abusers to fit into society. Some drugs like Pot would be legal to grow your own, but huge retailers of the drug would not be allowed, maybe a government store, but cut out the large drug dealers. If a grower grew a little more than his own usaqge, then selling of small quanities would be legal. but moving tons would net you a large jail vacation. See, I'm barely into my re-organization and already I've got a grip on the drug problem

 

[ViRedd]

Med sez ...

"Actually, I don't smoke. It makes me paranoid."

If you'd grow something besides that crummy WW, you might enjoy the high more. Personally, I think someone sold you some beans from a sack of Mexican Schwag and represented them as White Widow. Say the word Med ... and I'll get some REAL pot snob beans to ya.

On the employer/employee thing: What if a very productive employee came to work with his head shaven one day. Then the next day, he came in wearing a shirt with a swastika on the front. The employer asked him to go home an change clothes. The employee refuses. The employer tells the employee that he is driving business away. Does the employer have the right to discriminate against the employee? Should the employee be disiplined for insubordination ... or fired?

Vi

 

[medicineman]

Med sez ...

"Actually, I don't smoke. It makes me paranoid."

If you'd grow something besides that crummy WW, you might enjoy the high more. Personally, I think someone sold you some beans from a sack of Mexican Schwag and represented them as White Widow. Say the word Med ... and I'll get some REAL pot snob beans to ya.

On the employer/employee thing: What if a very productive employee came to work with his head shaven one day. Then the next day, he came in wearing a shirt with a swastika on the front. The employer asked him to go home an change clothes. The employee refuses. The employer tells the employee that he is driving business away. Does the employer have the right to discriminate against the employee? Should the employee be disiplined for insubordination ... or fired?

Vi

Leave it to you to come up with an outrageous example. The employer has rights as well as the employee. if either infringe upon the others rights then an arbitration should be done. In this blatant case, I believe the employer has every right to send the employee home for the swastica, but the shaven head is the free will of the employee. there are lots of balding men that prefer to just shave it all off, and as for swastica tatoos, they should be covered up with clothing. when a person mutilates himself to the point that clothing cannot cover the tattoos, then the person has relegated himself to the ranks of Drug dealer or gangster and is exempt from the work place. Would you hire Mike Tyson to work a counter in your store? He may be looking for a job, maybe selling houses to all those uptight elites along the coast of Ca., ~LOL~.

 

[Kant]

Med sez ...

"Actually, I don't smoke. It makes me paranoid."

If you'd grow something besides that crummy WW, you might enjoy the high more. Personally, I think someone sold you some beans from a sack of Mexican Schwag and represented them as White Widow. Say the word Med ... and I'll get some REAL pot snob beans to ya.

On the employer/employee thing: What if a very productive employee came to work with his head shaven one day. Then the next day, he came in wearing a shirt with a swastika on the front. The employer asked him to go home an change clothes. The employee refuses. The employer tells the employee that he is driving business away. Does the employer have the right to discriminate against the employee? Should the employee be disiplined for insubordination ... or fired?

Vi

That really depends. If the business has a dress code then yeah, the employer has every right to reprimand the employee but if not then the employee has every right to wear shirts with swastikas.

 

[medicineman]

That really depends. If the business has a dress code then yeah, the employer has every right to reprimand the employee but if not then the employee has every right to wear shirts with swastikas.

I'm pretty sure the employer would win in court if he sent the employee with the swastica home if he was in the customer area, if the only people to see this employee were the other employees or like he worked on a construction site or an out door job maybe he'd have the right to wear a swastica, but if it would/could affect the business owners money flow, then you know who'd win.

 

[7xstall]

That really depends. If the business has a dress code then yeah, the employer has every right to reprimand the employee but if not then the employee has every right to wear shirts with swastikas.

so, the dress code that a reasonable person has in the form of rational expectations does not suffice?






.

 

[Kant]

so, the dress code that a reasonable person has in the form of rational expectations does not suffice?

what's rational about determining a person's employment, based on some criteria that is otherwise irrelevant to the job?

 

[7xstall]

what's rational about determining a person's employment, based on some criteria that is otherwise irrelevant to the job?

who decides what criteria is relevant to the job?






.

 

[medicineman]

who decides what criteria is relevant to the job?






.

I'm thinking it should be a joint effort between the employer and employee. They both have inherent rights. There should be a set of rules for employees, and inversly one for employers. IE: you can't fire an employee because he parts his hair on the wrong side, or because you woke up on the wrong side of the bed or because your wife didn't give you any last night etc. and the employee can't come in drunk, or late, or naked, except if he works in the porn industry, etc. There are certain "Rules" that should apply to both parties. Afterall, isn't it a partnership, employees do work and employers pay them, a working relationship that entails subtle rules. To be fired because your boss is in a bad mood and you just happened to be coming back from the bathroom is not a good relationship and should not be tolerated, Now if that was your 15th time to the bathroom and you didn't have Diarea, maybe he would be right. Workers should have some rights on the job other than recieving a paycheck for hours worked. Example: a safe environment.

 

[7xstall]

i agree, once the person has passed the threshold of being a potential employee and has become an employee they are now working together.

however, there shouldn't be any government mandates that attempt to short circuit that process of passing through... the employer has to be free to open or close the door to whomever they please because the partnership must be on their terms in order for it to function.






.

 

[ViRedd]

i agree, once the person has passed the threshold of being a potential employee and has become an employee they are now working together.

however, there shouldn't be any government mandates that attempt to short circuit that process of passing through... the employer has to be free to open or close the door to whomever they please because the partnership must be on their terms in order for it to function

Yeppers, I couldn't agree more. The employer has taken the risk of opening and operating the business and should have the say-so. His rules hold sway over the employees.

Now then ... you guyz have accepted the shaved head and the swastika on the shirt. The next day, your very best employee comes to work with a shirt, that on the front says: "Repent Now!" And on the back side is printed the words: "Jesus Is Your Savior!" Now what?

Vi

 

[medicineman]

i agree, once the person has passed the threshold of being a potential employee and has become an employee they are now working together.

however, there shouldn't be any government mandates that attempt to short circuit that process of passing through... the employer has to be free to open or close the door to whomever they please because the partnership must be on their terms in order for it to function.






.

Well, it has always been that way as far as I'm concerned, no-one ever told anyone they had to hire me personally. There was a draft from the union Hall and the union had to certify that who they sent out could do the job. But there was always a probationary period whereas the employer could fire you for any reason. untill you passed a certain time limit, I believe in my case it was 90 days. I never worried about it because I always gave 100% of what was expected. I expect you are referring to affirmative action and such programs that give a hand up to minorities just because they are minorities. Well hang in there brothers for it won't be long before us white dudes are the minority, then we can take advantage.

 

[Dankdude]

What ever I have to fire an employee tomorrow because he didn't show up to work today and didn't call in, he was supposed to pick up 5 gallons of paint on the way in. This has put the job two days behind schedule.
But since I am the crew foreman that responsibility falls on my shoulders.

But I disagree with 7x's premise, there should always be the existence of the Equal Opportunity Employment Act.
No employer should be allowed to discriminate against any ethnic or religious group. Of course I'm sure that 7x wouldn't know about EOEA, since I doubt that he has ever ran a Business or employed anyone outside of the Illegal he picks up at home depot to do his landscaping.

 

[Kant]

who decides what criteria is relevant to the job?

i agree, once the person has passed the threshold of being a potential employee and has become an employee they are now working together.

however, there shouldn't be any government mandates that attempt to short circuit that process of passing through... the employer has to be free to open or close the door to whomever they please because the partnership must be on their terms in order for it to function.

yeah. the employer will define what's relevant to a given job but even the employers need to stay rational about what they define as relevant.

example: a rational employer won't consider being left handed relevant for someone who is in costumer service but it would be relevant for an athlete.

In a general sense i would define relevant as something that directly effects how a person preforms the job.

 

[medicineman]

What ever I have to fire an employee tomorrow because he didn't show up to work today and didn't call in, he was supposed to pick up 5 gallons of paint on the way in. This has put the job two days behind schedule.
But since I am the crew foreman that responsibility falls on my shoulders.

But I disagree with 7x's premise, there should always be the existence of the Equal Opportunity Employment Act.
No employer should be allowed to discriminate against any ethnic or religious group. Of course I'm sure that 7x wouldn't know about EOEA, since I doubt that he has ever ran a Business or employed anyone outside of the Illegal he picks up at home depot to do his landscaping.

Been there, done that. I never liked firing dudes unless they were complete dufusses. I ran concrete crews for 12 years, then ran a gas station for 9 years I only fired employees for work related issues. Example: I had an attendant that was a great employee as long as he had his pot, I actually went and got him some if he ran out because this guy made me money. If he didn't have pot, he was a grouchy little asshole. I valued his employment so highly that I allowed him to smoke all he wanted. He was so affable and had all the customers eating out of his hand, but I would have fired him had he started costing me money. There was a little deal that almost cost him his job, I started coming up short about 4-5 bucks every time he worked. I asked him and he said yeah, he was taking lunch money. I said well you know that is a firing offense, But heres the deal, you take a 5.00 draw every day and we wont tell your wife, I'll just pay for it myself. His wife scrutinized his paycheck and if there were too many draws, she let him have it. I loved that kid, but still, in business, you have to stay alert. I actually fired my own stepson because he didn't do the job. He was a lazy little asshole that had been spoiled rotten by his dad that had won custody, but when he turned 14 the dad said, you go to your mothers now, I can't deal with you, so we inherited this little monster that my wife was heartbroken over and he turned out to be schizophrenic, like his dad. I tried to work him in, but he was in-capable of doing the job. I had a huge fight with his mother over the firing, but it was for the business, he was running off customers because he wouldn't get off his dead ass and go wait on them, Adios compadre.

 

[7xstall]

What ever I have to fire an employee tomorrow because he didn't show up to work today and didn't call in, he was supposed to pick up 5 gallons of paint on the way in. This has put the job two days behind schedule.
But since I am the crew foreman that responsibility falls on my shoulders.

But I disagree with 7x's premise, there should always be the existence of the Equal Opportunity Employment Act.
No employer should be allowed to discriminate against any ethnic or religious group. Of course I'm sure that 7x wouldn't know about EOEA, since I doubt that he has ever ran a Business or employed anyone outside of the Illegal he picks up at home depot to do his landscaping.

lol, if only you knew.... lol

anyway, i think these acts and regs don't do near as much as conscience itself can do. as i put it before, rather eloquently if i do say so myself; "harmony existed long before government came along with it's many books of synthetic conscience."

just imagine an independent, private organization that publishes score cards on companies rating them based on the number of fairness complaints. are we even allowed to have access to this government info now? ha, go try to find it under all the layers of government BS and come tell us what you find on a few big names!






.