ENDA - the end of indepent thought?

[7xstall]

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.

but that last sentence, that's where the problem with broad, sweeping legislation lies. "I WOULD DEFINE..."

a superstitious boss might not want a lefty (which i happen to be) in cust service. fine, maybe i can convince him otherwise but it's not for the government to decide for him... there is never, ever a rational basis for anyone to impose their will on another person against their will.





.

 

[medicineman]

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!






.

I'm not sure what you're smoking, did you say fainess reports volunteered by companies? Ha Ha Ha Ho Ho Ho He HE HE ~LOL~, ROFL. I believe you are Delusional.

 

[7xstall]

I'm not sure what you're smoking, did you say fainess reports volunteered by companies? Ha Ha Ha Ho Ho Ho He HE HE ~LOL~, ROFL. I believe you are Delusional.

oh no, these would be complaints voluntarily logged by the workers! they could go to whatever.com and file an anonymous complaint that the organization collecting complaints would have to verify to some degree and then the complaint is part of that company's overall score.

it's for the people, by the people.






.

 

[medicineman]

oh no, these would be complaints voluntarily logged by the workers! they could go to whatever.com and file an anonymous complaint that the organization collecting complaints would have to verify to some degree and then the complaint is part of that company's overall score.

it's for the people, by the people.

And then what? Say a company has a bad score in a town of 30,000, but there are only a few companies in that town and the one with the bad score is the only one hiring and you need a job. Supply and demand would always allow the bad companies to treat their workers like shit, and with no real oversight (Like unions), the other companies could care less about their rating, it's all about the bottom line, remember. You actually believe managers have a streak of decency. Here's the facts. The CEO is beholding to the stockholders so they tell him they want dividends. To get the dividends and assure himself a fat paycheck, he must make the employees work harder for less, as in cutting their medical benefits or hrs. To make the workers work harder, he shits on upper management which immediately runs down hill, Now this is the way it really works, and all that feel good, lets write a letter bull, is out to lunch.



.

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

 

[7xstall]

consumers would care... unless you're saying you don't care. i would care.

even a short-term, 5% boycott can do serious damage. a lot more damage than paying some high dollar lawyer to "make it disappear", which is how it works now.






.

 

[fdd2blk]

i'm really high. happy harvest!!!

 

[7xstall]

i'm really high. happy harvest!!!

lol

happy harvest to you, fdd. i almost did some cutting this morning after that beautiful full moon.

one more day.






.

 

[medicineman]

consumers would care... unless you're saying you don't care. i would care.

even a short-term, 5% boycott can do serious damage. a lot more damage than paying some high dollar lawyer to "make it disappear", which is how it works now.






.

Boycott, isn't that similar to a strike only from the other end. A strike by disgrunteled employees without strikebreakers is the way to go. If you can stop their operation, you'll get results. Now I realize this must only be done under dire conditions, and if you research strikes in America, you'll generally find they were justified by the employees and that management could have met the demands of the workers without any significant alterations to their operations or bottom lines. Remember Chavez and the grape boycotts, do you know how hard that was and what it took to forge change. If the workers would have been allowed to strike without replacements, the grapes rotting on the vines would have been incentive enough to move the rich land owners. If you can't hit their bottom lines, they are very reluctant to change. I also abhor frivolous strikes and think there should be arbitration for menial disputes.

 

[Kant]

i'm really high. happy harvest!!!

about how much did you yield off those bad boys?

 

[Dankdude]

Well I fired the lazy shit, He cussed me and the boss out, but I can't help it when it cost my boss money as well as my finish early bonus. So it looks like This job will finish Monday.
But at the end of the day, I got a 50 cent an hour raise. So I'm happy.

 

[closet.cult]

listen, this bill is a joke. it is based on the mistaken belief of people like social activists and democrats that you can legislate thoughts.

there are two scenarios here. one: someone fired for being gay. if you hired him, and they do a good job, you wont fire him for being gay. and if you did, how would the gay man prove that was the reason for the firing? a big court case...blah blah blah...a waste of time and money for your 'disenfranchisement'.

then there is scene two: someone is NOT hired because they're gay. simple: how do you prove that is why you were not hired?

so this legislation seeks to force a business owner to hire anyone that walks thru the door. absolute bullshit! if you're worried about rights, you've just trampled all over the rights of the business owner.

i'll put it very simply: i, as a business owner, who went thru the blood, sweat and tears and risk of starting up my business, have every right to hire whoever the hell i want to for a position. and i every right to turn down whoever the hell i want to for a position.

you cannot write a bill that pretends you have the capability of looking into my brain and knowing the reason i refused to hire someone. complete bullshit!

this is an opening of the door to frivolous lawsuits that drag guilty AND non-guilty business owners into court, to fight assholes who simply want to find a way to 'get-back' at someone who they felt discriminated against them. they may be right about the discrimination, they may not be. it does NOT matter. you DO NOT put these kinds of 'thought' legislation into law!

hasn't anyone read Ayn Rand's 'the fountainhead' or 'atlas shrugged'?

there are better solutions to fight descrimination then more bullshit legislation from thinly disguised socialists. socialism does not work! maybe in a small community of people. but a great nation like the united states or...ahem, Russia, it fails because it results in a loss of liberty.

now, i'm sure there's many that will argue the benifits of the socialistic and even a communist government. well, fuck off! i choose liberty for all it's downfalls. let's work out the kinks we have in this system, not revert back to the shit that already failed miserably.

 

[7xstall]

you got it, closet. it's nothing but a feel good piece of crap pandering legislation that punishes people for trying to run a business.






.

 

[JohnnyPotSeed1969]

they should be denied that job if the employer does not agree with the lifestyle choice of job candidates

you can't force people to accept something and you shouldn't even want to.

that is discrimination. and you just contradicted yourself. have a nice day

 

[7xstall]

that is discrimination. and you just contradicted yourself. have a nice day

did you know you have a Thomas Jefferson quote under your post? you should check out some of the stuff that guy wrote... very cool stuff.






.

 

[7xstall]

wow, Johnny, that was the easiest debate i never had! lol








.

 

[medicineman]

listen, this bill is a joke. it is based on the mistaken belief of people like social activists and democrats that you can legislate thoughts.

there are two scenarios here. one: someone fired for being gay. if you hired him, and they do a good job, you wont fire him for being gay. and if you did, how would the gay man prove that was the reason for the firing? a big court case...blah blah blah...a waste of time and money for your 'disenfranchisement'.

then there is scene two: someone is NOT hired because they're gay. simple: how do you prove that is why you were not hired?

so this legislation seeks to force a business owner to hire anyone that walks thru the door. absolute bullshit! if you're worried about rights, you've just trampled all over the rights of the business owner.

i'll put it very simply: i, as a business owner, who went thru the blood, sweat and tears and risk of starting up my business, have every right to hire whoever the hell i want to for a position. and i every right to turn down whoever the hell i want to for a position.

you cannot write a bill that pretends you have the capability of looking into my brain and knowing the reason i refused to hire someone. complete bullshit!

this is an opening of the door to frivolous lawsuits that drag guilty AND non-guilty business owners into court, to fight assholes who simply want to find a way to 'get-back' at someone who they felt discriminated against them. they may be right about the discrimination, they may not be. it does NOT matter. you DO NOT put these kinds of 'thought' legislation into law!

hasn't anyone read Ayn Rand's 'the fountainhead' or 'atlas shrugged'?

there are better solutions to fight descrimination then more bullshit legislation from thinly disguised socialists. socialism does not work! maybe in a small community of people. but a great nation like the united states or...ahem, Russia, it fails because it results in a loss of liberty.

now, i'm sure there's many that will argue the benifits of the socialistic and even a communist government. well, fuck off! i choose liberty for all it's downfalls. let's work out the kinks we have in this system, not revert back to the shit that already failed miserably.

It's good to be king, er, the boss. But you don't own people, or at least you shouldn't. You are deserving of a days work for a days pay and that pay should be negotiable. Just because you have worked hard to build your business, should not make you above the law. Most people work hard, in fact, workers now must work about 25% more to accrue the same spending power they had in the 70s. It is a busines owners market. With cheap illegal labor everywhere (you know damn well if someone is illegal), the price of labor is decreasing daily. So quit sniveling and treat your employees fairly and I'm sure if you are intelligent enough, you will be sucessful. JMO.

 

[closet.cult]

It's good to be king, er, the boss. But you don't own people, or at least you shouldn't. You are deserving of a days work for a days pay and that pay should be negotiable. Just because you have worked hard to build your business, should not make you above the law. Most people work hard, in fact, workers now must work about 25% more to accrue the same spending power they had in the 70s. It is a busines owners market. With cheap illegal labor everywhere (you know damn well if someone is illegal), the price of labor is decreasing daily. So quit sniveling and treat your employees fairly and I'm sure if you are intelligent enough, you will be sucessful. JMO.

it's hard to retort such a convoluted argument. the boss is not a king. he is a manager and a leader. you could say the same for a general. in both cases, you set the bar to the hieght YOU decide and choose a staff which meets it. if un-qualified members are forced on our team i doubt we will meet our objectives.

look, bosses do not wish to be above the law. what we say is: the law is wrong. just like the law prohibiting marijuana. law-makers have fucked up all kinds of laws, havn't they.

the spirit of this law is noble. it ATTEMPTS to level the field of descrimination. it fails because it infringes on the rights of the business owner, and this is key: if one man works and risks over the success of a buisness venture, HE holds all the rights. to suggest another man has rights to the benifits of your risks, and taken none himself, is the most ludicris idea of backward, socialist, communistic bullshit.

you seriously need to read 'the fountainhead' by Ayn Rand. its about how exactly this type of thinking can spiral out of control into socialism. she should know. she escaped from communist Russia at its worst and fell in love with good ol' capitalistic, democratic America.

 

[medicineman]

it's hard to retort such a convoluted argument. the boss is not a king. he is a manager and a leader. you could say the same for a general. in both cases, you set the bar to the hieght YOU decide and choose a staff which meets it. if un-qualified members are forced on our team i doubt we will meet our objectives.

look, bosses do not wish to be above the law. what we say is: the law is wrong. just like the law prohibiting marijuana. law-makers have fucked up all kinds of laws, havn't they.

the spirit of this law is noble. it ATTEMPTS to level the field of descrimination. it fails because it infringes on the rights of the business owner, and this is key: if one man works and risks over the success of a buisness venture, HE holds all the rights. to suggest another man has rights to the benifits of your risks, and taken none himself, is the most ludicris idea of backward, socialist, communistic bullshit.

you seriously need to read 'the fountainhead' by Ayn Rand. its about how exactly this type of thinking can spiral out of control into socialism. she should know. she excaped from communist Russia at its worst and fell in love with good ol' capitalistic, democratic America.

As I said, it's good to be king. Now if you are a good king, then the need for laws governing your behavior are not of necessity. But what about all those greedy employee hating bad kings, that would fire someone because he didn't like the way they parted their hair or other frivolous measures. there needs to be rules, (call them laws if you will), that will reward the good kings and punish the bad ones, just as rules apply to employees. The fact that you are king will always guarantee you the lions share of the income, if you are successful, if not, well, thats called failure.

 

[7xstall]

i've never seen a bad boss get very far in life... they usually self-destruct while in some mid-management role at another guy's business.






.

 

[medicineman]

i've never seen a bad boss get very far in life... they usually self-destruct while in some mid-management role at another guy's business.






.

Believe it or not,7X, I have a 2 year degree in Business management, It's called Management, Business and industry, Included quite a few psych classes and human behavior classes. I long ago lost the document, as being single and moving so many times I lost track of a lot of my "stuff". The reason I'm even telling you this is you seem to think I am ignorant of a bosses responsibilities. I was grooming for a mid management position in So. Cal. Edison. By the time I recieved my degree (Night school), I already had made up my mind that overt ass kissing was not on my schedule. I watched how the mid managers had to suck ass to every one above them and the only ones that were successful were the ones that stepped on the others backs. A bunch of fucking puke heads. Thats about the same time I discovered LSD and my whole world changed. No longer beholden to the corporate Giants, I set out on my own path, IE I quit the Edison company. The story gets way more interesting, but that's why I have such a disdain for managers, capiche.