how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to Omega
Re: Complaining about work... said by Omega:It still upsets me that with so many unemployed, these union employees were complaining about paid overtime. Yea, I'm sure they weren't complaining about their paychecks. I agree. Most of us work UNPAID overtime when it comes up. If these people cannot deal with doing some extra work and getting time-and-a-half for their trouble they can quit and make room for someone else who is willing to do the job.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| said by pnh102:If these people cannot deal with doing some extra work and getting time-and-a-half for their trouble they can quit and make room for someone else who is willing to do the job. Would you get rid of minimum wage because there are always people who would work for less? | |
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by amigo_boy:Would you get rid of minimum wage because there are always people who would work for less? I would definitely support a repeal of the Federal minimum wage because of 10th amendment concerns.
And while states and possibly local governments should have the power to enact minimum wages on their own choosing, this power still doesn't reflect the fact that like any price floor, a minimum wage prices many types of unskilled laborers out of the market. While this isn't a huge problem in most cities, outside of those places the artificially high prices for labor encourage employers to hire illegal labor which will work for less than the minimum wage.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by pnh102:this power still doesn't reflect the fact that like any price floor, a minimum wage prices many types of unskilled laborers out of the market. Thanks. That's what I wanted to bring to light. Your comments in support of forced overtime (or, lack of employee rights) is part of a larger lassez faire view which contributes to growing CEO pay disparity (compared to the average worker), and isn't shared by a large majority of Americans.
Regarding the use of the 10th amendment, the problem with leaving labor laws to each individual state is that it would create a race to the bottom. Where employers would migrate to the states most favorable to their interests -- even if it means going back to 80-hour work weeks and unsafe working conditions.
We see that already today as states and localities give away tax breaks (shifting the cost of government to employees) to lure business. I suspect it's only the fact that labor standards are set at a federal level that we haven't seen those basics (which we take for granted) thrown into the kitty. | |
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
1 edit | said by amigo_boy:Thanks. That's what I wanted to bring to light. Your comments in support of forced overtime (or, lack of employee rights) is part of a larger lassez faire view which contributes to growing CEO pay disparity (compared to the average worker), and isn't shared by a large majority of Americans. How is it forced? If an employee doesn't like the terms under which he is employed then he can quit and find a job that is more suited to his working preferences. I mean, work cannot be fun and games for everyone, hence the reason it is called "work."
And as for your claim that a "large majority of Americans" don't agree with me, first, that sounds more like a personal opinion than a fact, and second, why does it matter? I do not see the power to regulate wages and compensation (unless of course it involves someone who travels across state lines or abroad as part of his job) listed in the US Constitution so as per the 10th Amendment, it is a state responsibility, or a local one, if the state allows for it.
said by amigo_boy:Regarding the use of the 10th amendment, the problem with leaving labor laws to each individual state is that it would create a race to the bottom. Where employers would migrate to the states most favorable to their interests -- even if it means going back to 80-hour work weeks and unsafe working conditions. And quite a few salaried employees work 80 hours a week now, without payment for that extra time, all because of federal labor law. Now granted these workers too could switch jobs, but it serves mainly to illustrate that a top-down Federally-imposed "solution" doesn't work for this particular group of people either.
From what it looks like in these workers' "plight" they have it quite good.
said by amigo_boy:We see that already today as states and localities give away tax breaks (shifting the cost of government to employees) to lure business. I suspect it's only the fact that labor standards are set at a federal level that we haven't seen those basics (which we take for granted) thrown into the kitty. Well the idea that companies pay tax to begin with is also wrong because any tax that is paid is simply shifted to the customers of those companies. That in turn leads to higher prices and it allows for companies based in lower tax jurisdictions to have a price advantage.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by pnh102:And as for your claim that a "large majority of Americans" don't agree with me, first, that sounds more like a personal opinion than a fact, I based my claim on the fact that we don't see any movement to repeal labor laws.
The kind of statement you made ("work the hours or leave") can make people all goose-bumply. But, it comes from a much larger deregulatory view which isn't widely held. (The term "irrelevant fringe" is forming on my lips...  .).
It's like opinion polls. I'm sure if we asked "should people be allowed to work for any amount of money they're willing to receive," there would be 99% support. But, when we start talking about the devils in the details their opinions change.
For example, employees giving their labor at unlivable wages, obtaining societal subsidization (Medicaid), which translates into subsidizing the labor that the employer receives.
Or, when we see those socially-subsidized labor savings accrue to executives in the form of CEO pay increasing from 33 times the average worker's pay in 1973, to 300 times the average worker's pay in the year 2000.
said by pnh102:I do not see the power to regulate wages and compensation Again, that comment is part of a larger worldview that would repeal the departments of education, energy, housing, labor, environmental protection, agriculture, fish and game, parks, and commerce. (Probably more that I can't think of at the moment.).
The term "irrelevant fringe" comes to mind once again.
But, considering how the federal government was used to negotiate free trade agreements to the detriment of workers, it would be highly convenient for the federal government's role in labor commerce to be limited only to states.
The federal government leveled the playing field for commercial and financial markets, making their trade with foreign countries less risky. But, labor markets were mostly left unaffected. The result is Americans forced to pay for sewers, trash collection, animal welfare, environmental protection, etc. And then "allowed" to compete with workers who don't.
You'll say the federal government has a constitutional mandate to regulate international commerce. But, labor is a form of commerce, and largely interstate considering the national character of business. It would be influenced interstate even greater if states engaged in the kind of unregulated race to the bottom you support (for labor and dozens of other aspects of American life).
said by pnh102:Well the idea that companies pay tax to begin with is also wrong because any tax that is paid is simply shifted to the customers of those companies. (Chuckle).
The same could be said for the income tax paid by employees. If they didn't have to pay income tax, their salary demands would drop by an equal amount. Which would be a savings to the company, passed onto the customer as lower prices.
So, we could say customers who buy goods are really paying the income tax of employees since that tax is baked into their salaries, paid for by the cost of the goods.
Of course, I doubt any tax savings in your case or mine would actually be represented in the price of the goods. We'd just see more of phenomenon we've seen for the past 30 years. CEO pay rising from 33 times the average worker's pay in 1977 to 300 times the average worker's pay in the year 2000.
| | |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by amigo_boy:I based my claim on the fact that we don't see any movement to repeal labor laws. Well heck, lots of people want low taxes, but there's no move to lower taxes. Lots of people want the recently passed healthcare law repealed but there's no move to repeal it. Lots of people want free beer but there's no move to enact that either.
said by amigo_boy:The kind of statement you made ("work the hours or leave") can make people all goose-bumply. But, it comes from a much larger deregulatory view which isn't widely held. (The term "irrelevant fringe" is forming on my lips... .). Again, your statement doesn't stand as you cannot provide anything other than your own opinion as "proof." Your fringey opinion is no more or less valid than mine.
said by amigo_boy:It's like opinion polls. I'm sure if we asked "should people be allowed to work for any amount of money they're willing to receive," there would be 99% support. But, when we start talking about the devils in the details their opinions change. And again, you've provided no poll, no citation, no formal research, no nothing to back up your assertion.
said by amigo_boy:Or, when we see those socially-subsidized labor savings accrue to executives in the form of CEO pay increasing from 33 times the average worker's pay in 1973, to 300 times the average worker's pay in the year 2000. So?
said by amigo_boy:Again, that comment is part of a larger worldview that would repeal the departments of education, energy, housing, labor, environmental protection, agriculture, fish and game, parks, and commerce. (Probably more that I can't think of at the moment.). Hardly, please show me the part of the US Constitution that empowers the federal government to regulate wages and compensation for workers who work in a single state. While the federal government may have de facto authority because no one has successfully challenged minimum wage laws, there is still no power listed in the US Constitution that grants this authority.
said by amigo_boy:You'll say the federal government has a constitutional mandate to regulate international commerce. But, labor is a form of commerce, and largely interstate considering the national character of business. Someone going to work in the same state in which he lives is not interstate commerce.
said by amigo_boy:The same could be said for the income tax paid by employees. If they didn't have to pay income tax, their salary demands would drop by an equal amount. Which would be a savings to the company, passed onto the customer as lower prices. Well I'd love to see the income tax lowered or repealed too.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by pnh102:Well heck, lots of people want low taxes, but there's no move to lower taxes. Lots of people want the recently passed healthcare law repealed but there's no move to repeal it. Lots of people want free beer but there's no move to enact that either. Which tends to mean that "wanting something" and getting into the details of what that means (reduced social services, reduced standard of living) is another thing.
The fact that we don't see any movement to repeal labor laws. Nor any movement to repeal all the things you say exceed the federal government's authority.
IMO, that helps to judge your opinion as being part of an irrelevant fringe.
said by pnh102:Your fringey opinion is no more or less valid than mine. How so? That's like saying that just because 99.9% of the population believe the earth is round, doesn't discredit your opinion that it's flat?
I think it's quite important that, when advancing the notion that workers should have no rights protected by the federal government, you hold similar beliefs about the illegal nature of the Departments of Energy, parks and forests, wildlife, education, health, environment, transportation, housing, communications (and a dozen other things I can't even think of at the moment).
It helps to understand who relevant your views are.
said by pnh102:said by amigo_boy:Or, when we see those socially-subsidized labor savings accrue to executives in the form of CEO pay increasing from 33 times the average worker's pay in 1973, to 300 times the average worker's pay in the year 2000. So? Again, that helps to identify how to treat your views.
The goose-bumply exhortation that "workers have no rights. Leave if you aren't willing to do more for less" is part of the same mindset that defends CEO pay climbing from 33 times the average worker's pay in 1973 to 300 times the average worker's pay in the year 2000.
I'm not criticizing you. Just encouraging you to make it clear where you're coming from. I.e., plant yourself firmly within the margin.
said by pnh102:Hardly, please show me the part of the US Constitution that empowers the federal government to regulate wages and compensation for workers who work in a single state. I would say it's the interstate commerce clause. You'll disagree with that. But, you can only make your argument fly because labor is regulated at the federal level.
If it weren't, we'd see how it affects interstate commerce. (In much the same way that foreign labor affects American labor in a race to the bottom, economic disruption, undermining the interests of the nation.).
said by pnh102:said by amigo_boy:You'll say the federal government has a constitutional mandate to regulate international commerce. But, labor is a form of commerce, and largely interstate considering the national character of business. Someone going to work in the same state in which he lives is not interstate commerce. If it's changing jobs from a tech job to flipping hamburgers because the employer left the state for a state with a lower standard of living, that definitely would be a matter of interstate commerce. | |
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by amigo_boy:How so? That's like saying that just because 99.9% of the population believe the earth is round, doesn't discredit your opinion that it's flat? And again, you haven't shown me where in the Constitution the federal government is granted the power to regulate wages and compensation for workers who work within a single state. Are you going to show me this proof, or are you going to just continue making up silly analogies that beat around the bush?
said by amigo_boy:I think it's quite important that, when advancing the notion that workers should have no rights protected by the federal government, you hold similar beliefs about the illegal nature of the Departments of Energy, parks and forests, wildlife, education, health, environment, transportation, housing, communications (and a dozen other things I can't even think of at the moment). True. How dare I choose to be dissenting.said by amigo_boy:Again, that helps to identify how to treat your views. And why is it wrong for CEOs to be compensated in whatever way they can negotiate with the companies for which they work? If you don't like it then perhaps you can become an investor in these companies and gun for lower CEO pay.
said by amigo_boy:The goose-bumply exhortation that "workers have no rights. Of course you continue to neglect the fact that most workers in this country would love to have the same "protection" afforded to the whiners who work for Frontier and get paid overtime. The rest of us working stiffs, thanks to federal regulations, don't get paid squat for the extra time we put in at work.
said by amigo_boy:I would say it's the interstate commerce clause. You'll disagree with that. But, you can only make your argument fly because labor is regulated at the federal level. But as you've argued before, you think just about everything is interstate commerce. Again, why bother even having states if everything falls under the interstate commerce clause and thus can be federally regulated?
said by amigo_boy:If it's changing jobs from a tech job to flipping hamburgers because the employer left the state for a state with a lower standard of living, that definitely would be a matter of interstate commerce. Uh, no. Even if the employee moves to a different state in order to work, he's still working within a state.
I'll be fair and grant to you the notion that any US resident who regularly crosses state lines or international borders as part of his job is subject to having those work rules regulated at the federal level. But if that's not the case, then no dice.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by pnh102:said by amigo_boy:How so? That's like saying that just because 99.9% of the population believe the earth is round, doesn't discredit your opinion that it's flat? And again, you haven't shown me where in the Constitution the federal government is granted the power to regulate wages and compensation for workers who work within a single state. Are you going to show me this proof, or are you going to just continue making up silly analogies that beat around the bush? How can I show you proof when you don't believe the federal government has the power to regulate education, energy, transportation, communications, parks and forests, wildlife, the environment, food and drug, aviation (and dozens of other things I can't think of at the moment.)?
Revel in your belief system. I don't want to try to change it. Being that deeply into the margin, I don't believe it could be changed.
That's what I wanted to help you bring to light for others. To help them understand where your goose-bumply "leave if you don't want to work 20 hours a day" comes from. | |
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by amigo_boy:How can I show you proof ... Very easily. Go look at a copy of the US Constitution. Find the language that says the federal government can regulate wages and compensation of people who work within a single state. Post it here. Done.
Here are some examples. Say someone tells you that in the USA, the government has a sovereign right to regulate the content of speech. You go and point to the First Amendment which clearly states otherwise. Done.
Say someone believes that in the USA, soldiers can be quartered in your house during times of peace without your consent. Third Amendment. Done.
Say someone believes that in the USA, slavery is legal. 13th Amendment. Done.
Say someone tells you that it is perfectly legal for a state to coin its own currency or enact its own bankruptcy laws or immigration laws that run counter to federal laws. Article 1 clearly states otherwise.
Again, I can't object to the Federal Government regulating wage and compensation for employees who travel between states or inside and outside of the country as part of their job because that is clearly interstate commerce. But as for those who work within one state, I'm still waiting.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
1 edit | said by pnh102:Here are some examples. (Chuckle.).
You're using mainstream examples? Why not the ones I've enumerated, which place you in the margins?
said by pnh102:But as for those who work within one state, I'm still waiting. The problem is, you're still waiting for proof concerning the departments of education, energy, transportation, communications, parks and forests, wildlife, the environment, food and drug, aviation (and dozens of other things I can't think of at the moment.)?
There's no way to provide proof to someone whose worldview puts them that far into the margin.
That's why you want to use other, clearer, mainstream examples to avoid the obvious problem with the above examples.
That's ok. I just wanted to help contextualize your comment about workers having no rights to a 5-day work week, time off, etc. | |
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by amigo_boy:(Chuckle.). You're using mainstream examples to hide your non-mainstream views? The fact that I can back up my statements with fact shows that while my views may not be mainstream, they are correct. going back to your reasoning, 500 years ago a majority of people really did believe the world was flat instead of spherical. The minority that held the latter view may have been non-mainstream, but they were in the right.
said by amigo_boy:The problem is, you're still waiting for proof concerning the departments of education, energy, transportation, communications, parks and forests, wildlife, the environment, food and drug, aviation (and dozens of other things I can't think of at the moment.)? Yes, as a matter of fact I am waiting for those too. But I am making it easy for you by only asking you to address this one single issue. How hard could it be to just show everyone here the part of the Constitution that grants this particular authority to the Federal Government? Just show me proof that the federal government can regulate wages and compensation of workers who work within a single state and I'll be happy.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by pnh102:said by amigo_boy:The problem is, you're still waiting for proof concerning the departments of education, energy, transportation, communications, parks and forests, wildlife, the environment, food and drug, aviation (and dozens of other things I can't think of at the moment)? Yes, as a matter of fact I am waiting for those too. But I am making it easy for you by only asking you to address this one single issue. But, I've admitted that I can't. There's no way to prove that labor involves interstate commerce to someone who believes the federal government has no legal power to be involved in education, energy, transportation, communications, parks and forests, wildlife, the environment, food and drug, aviation, housing, banking, stock markets, etc.
That's like the flat-earther saying "prove to me you can travel around the earth." There's no way to prove that to someone whose worldview involves something much more foundational and deeply marginalized.
Again, I'm not trying to challenge your worldview. I believe it speaks for itself.
I just wanted to help you voice that worldview, to help contextualize your comment that workers have no right to 5-day work weeks, time off, safe working conditions, etc. | |
|
