|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 11 2015 05:53 RCMDVA wrote:
The problem is the word marriage itself is inherently religious.
All the government cares about are tax related issues, who can inherit what, and who gets the survivor social security benefits.
So the government using the word "marriage" is a big conflict... when it does nothing to enforce a marriage (the vows).
It's not inherently religious. It's inherently social. The government's duties strike closer to the heart of marriage than Paul's bible verses about a man clinging to his wife after he outgrows his mother. Marriage is everywhere a contract relation between people, hence bride price, dowries, paternity, adultery, inheritance, and the rest of it. Religion simply creeps in to the noumenal aspects of people's lives
|
On February 11 2015 05:48 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2015 05:32 Millitron wrote:On February 11 2015 04:45 Simberto wrote:
Also, there is a commitment to marriage that isn't there to other ways of people living together. You commit to spending a long period of time with each other. Of course there are ways to break that commitment, but they are complicated and ensure that noone gets run over. One of the main problems here is monetary. If a couple live together, rather often one of them pursues a career and the other tends to run the household etc.... Now, without a legally recognized marriage this leads to an imbalance in power. Because should the person with the career, who is the main income producer of that household, decide that he no longer wants this arrangement, he can have the same standard of living with any other person. While his spouse suddenly sits on the street after 20 years of not working a job that gains money. A marriage license protects against that. We still have to do pre-nuptial agreements to achieve this. Marriage itself doesn't really protect anyone. There's no reason standard contract law can't cover this. On February 11 2015 04:51 ZasZ. wrote:On February 11 2015 04:41 Millitron wrote:On February 11 2015 04:37 Nyxisto wrote:
Because marriage is an important social institution that helps people living their lives and makes them less dependent of outside help, and the government has an interest in strengthening these things? Like are you trolling me right now? Its fine being a social institution, I'm not against monogamy. Getting rid of the governmental aspect of it would not remove people's desire to be in monogamous relationships. That's an innate human desire, people don't need a tax break to incentivize it. There's already enough incentive, between fulfilling an innate human desire and being able to pool resources. I get what you are trying to say, but disagree with a couple of things. First, marriage is not "pretty unrelated" to raising children. Just because gay couples cannot biologically produce a child with both of their DNA doesn't mean that they won't seek a donor or surrogate and bring a child into the world that otherwise would not exist. Likewise, just because some heterosexual married couples choose not to have children does not mean birthrates would be completely unaffected if marriage were abolished as an official institution. Second, even if we acknowledge that marriage as a government institution isn't necessary, abolishing it entirely would be way more difficult than simply allowing gays to marry, which is why I don't see your position as a valid argument for why the Supreme Court shouldn't be proceeding in the way it has been. Just because there may be a lofty, desirable, almost unattainable outcome out there doesn't mean we can't go for the easily attainable short-term outcome that helps fix some of the inequality issues currently affecting U.S. citizens. By all means, campaign for the government butting out of people's personal lives, I am right with you on that one, but in the mean time we could, you know, let gay people be happy together. People will always want to be monogamous, a piece of paper giving them tax cuts won't change that. Any marriages lost due to lack of tax breaks were pretty clearly only in it for said tax breaks. If you want to help families raising kids, go ahead and give them tax breaks. Include gay people too. But the tax breaks should be tied to parenthood, not spousehood. Allowing gay people to marry the way the Supreme Court has been doing it has two problems. First, its constructionist BS (we've been over this already so I'm not going to get into it). Second, it deincentivizes working towards that lofty outcome. Many people will be satisfied with the roughshod fix the SC is pulling, and will stop pressuring for a true fix to the system. The easy, kinda crappy solution prevents the harder, better solution from being implemented. On February 11 2015 04:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
The part that really blows my mind about the gay marriage debate is how it makes Conservatives/Republicans start demanding the government go into churches and tell them what they can and can't do.
How is that not fundamentally against the core of their ideology? Yeah, I don't get it either. If a church wants to perform gay weddings, who are republicans to stop them? It's the exact kind of infringing on religious freedom thing that they usually rail against. Well maybe I do get it. The bible belt tends to only care about its specific sect of Christianity, and any other sects or religions are practically cults as far as they're concerned. It's not only about tax breaks, and you know that. Regardless of whether or not it's a good idea, there is legitimacy associated with obtaining a marriage license. It's an official commitment to one another, rather than just living in the same household, and provides a modicum of insurance since it is rather difficult to get out of. Of course monogamous relationships would still exist without it, but there are benefits other than tax breaks to the government at least recognizing a marriage as legitimate. I get what you are saying about removing some of the incentive for marriage reform if gay marriage is approved, and that may be a valid argument if we weren't talking about civil rights here. However, continuing to discriminate against a specific group in order to further a greater political agenda against marriage as an institution is kind of deplorable. You fix the problem you can fix now, and yeah you may have to work harder to address the bigger issue, which I'm not convinced is an issue to begin with. Totally agree about Churches, as well. Legal marriage and religious marriage should be two completely different things, and if churches do not want to marry certain couples that should be completely up to them. But that same couple should be able to get a legal marriage easily. It's up to them as individuals and partners to reconcile their being gay with wanting to be married in a church for whatever ungodly reason. Let crazy religious people be crazy religious people, but gay couples should have access to the same legal rights and title that heterosexual couples have access to.
If a couple is only staying together because its tough to get out of the marriage, they probably shouldn't have been incentivized to get together in the first place. Further, if a couple wants to draw up their own contract that enforces the kind of commitment you're talking about, that's fine. I'm not saying you should stop people committing to each other.
I'm not saying we should get rid of the incentive just because gays can get married now. I'm saying it because straight people probably shouldn't have in the first place.
Gay people absolutely deserve the same access to legal institutions as straight people. I'm just not convinced that marriage should've been a legal institution in the first place.
On February 11 2015 06:06 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2015 05:53 RCMDVA wrote:
The problem is the word marriage itself is inherently religious.
All the government cares about are tax related issues, who can inherit what, and who gets the survivor social security benefits.
So the government using the word "marriage" is a big conflict... when it does nothing to enforce a marriage (the vows). It's not inherently religious. It's inherently social. The government's duties strike closer to the heart of marriage than Paul's bible verses about a man clinging to his wife after he outgrows his mother. Marriage is everywhere a contract relation between people, hence bride price, dowries, paternity, adultery, inheritance, and the rest of it. Religion simply creeps in to the noumenal aspects of people's lives
He's got a point though. The word marriage is pretty heavily tied into religion. It's pretty poor form for the government to use the word period. I know gay rights people tend to hate the term "civil union", because its practically separate-but-equal bullshit, but honestly its a better term for the institution in general, gay or straight. And because it's a new term, you wouldn't have the religious right bitching about the LGBT New World Order corrupting the definition of marriage or whatever. They can keep their word, gays get the exact same rights, even the same title as straight people. It's a win-win.
|
On February 11 2015 06:06 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2015 05:53 RCMDVA wrote:
The problem is the word marriage itself is inherently religious.
All the government cares about are tax related issues, who can inherit what, and who gets the survivor social security benefits.
So the government using the word "marriage" is a big conflict... when it does nothing to enforce a marriage (the vows). It's not inherently religious. It's inherently social. The government's duties strike closer to the heart of marriage than Paul's bible verses about a man clinging to his wife after he outgrows his mother. Marriage is everywhere a contract relation between people, hence bride price, dowries, paternity, adultery, inheritance, and the rest of it. Religion simply creeps in to the noumenal aspects of people's lives
Yeah marriage long predates any traditional religion which is part of what makes Christian claims of ownership of "Marriage" so unbelievably ridiculous on its face
"Marriage has always been..." is almost universally a dumb way to start a sentence when it's coming from a Conservative/Republican.
Practically none of the people who say shit like that have even the slightest clue about Marriage's history.
|
Well you can have legal marriage which includes gay people and you can have religious marriage where the churches can do what they want, shouldn't pose that much of a problem.
|
There are plenty of churches that have been performing gay marriages for years now, legally recognized or not. I handed out programs at a lesbian wedding taking place at an Episcopal church in Ohio.....when I was like 9 years old in 1998 lol. The religious//legal distinction still comes from an unconstitutional place.
|
A Papa John’s pizza franchise in New York must pay its workers nearly $800,000 in unpaid wages over allegations the business underpaid employees and failed to pay overtime, a state judge ruled last week.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman in December sued Emstar Pizza Inc., which operates seven Papa John’s franchise locations in Brooklyn and Queens, alleging that Emstar underreported hours worked by employees over the past six years, rounded employee hours down to the nearest hour, and did not pay overtime.
“This judgment sends a clear message that like every other business in New York, fast food employers must follow the law,” Schneiderman said in a statement. “This Papa John’s franchisee brazenly violated the law, shaving employees’ hours and avoiding paying overtime by various means, including giving managerial sounding titles such as ‘head driver.’”
Source
DURHAM, N.C. — Durham police have charged two employees with stealing money and pizza bags from a Papa John's restaurant on West Main Street last week.
Kenneth Jamal Graves, 19, of Massey Avenue in Durham, and Todd Phillip Bryan, 31, of Pine Hill Drive in Chapel Hill, are both charged with larceny by an employee.
Graves was arrested Tuesday morning on Cecil Street, thanks to a Crime Stoppers tip, police said.
Source
Steal at least $800,000 from your employees and you get a fine (sort of), steal ~$1000 from your employer and you're a felon and go to prison...
Sounds like justice right?
|
On February 11 2015 06:16 Nyxisto wrote:
Well you can have legal marriage which includes gay people and you can have religious marriage where the churches can do what they want, shouldn't pose that much of a problem.
And that's fine, as long as everyone recognizes the legal marriage for what it is and cannot deny them their due benefits/rights. Which is the whole point of this gay marriage discussion.
|
On February 11 2015 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +A Papa John’s pizza franchise in New York must pay its workers nearly $800,000 in unpaid wages over allegations the business underpaid employees and failed to pay overtime, a state judge ruled last week.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman in December sued Emstar Pizza Inc., which operates seven Papa John’s franchise locations in Brooklyn and Queens, alleging that Emstar underreported hours worked by employees over the past six years, rounded employee hours down to the nearest hour, and did not pay overtime.
“This judgment sends a clear message that like every other business in New York, fast food employers must follow the law,” Schneiderman said in a statement. “This Papa John’s franchisee brazenly violated the law, shaving employees’ hours and avoiding paying overtime by various means, including giving managerial sounding titles such as ‘head driver.’” SourceShow nested quote +DURHAM, N.C. — Durham police have charged two employees with stealing money and pizza bags from a Papa John's restaurant on West Main Street last week.
Kenneth Jamal Graves, 19, of Massey Avenue in Durham, and Todd Phillip Bryan, 31, of Pine Hill Drive in Chapel Hill, are both charged with larceny by an employee.
Graves was arrested Tuesday morning on Cecil Street, thanks to a Crime Stoppers tip, police said. SourceSteal at least $800,000 from your employees and you get a fine (sort of), steal ~$1000 from your employer and you're a felon and go to prison... Sounds like justice right?
That's what happens when you treat corporations like people. The employees responsible for underpaying should be punished as well, just fining the company does no good.
|
On February 11 2015 06:06 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2015 05:53 RCMDVA wrote:
The problem is the word marriage itself is inherently religious.
All the government cares about are tax related issues, who can inherit what, and who gets the survivor social security benefits.
So the government using the word "marriage" is a big conflict... when it does nothing to enforce a marriage (the vows). It's not inherently religious. It's inherently social. The government's duties strike closer to the heart of marriage than Paul's bible verses about a man clinging to his wife after he outgrows his mother. Marriage is everywhere a contract relation between people, hence bride price, dowries, paternity, adultery, inheritance, and the rest of it. Religion simply creeps in to the noumenal aspects of people's lives
You see where I said the word? The word, the entomology of the word marriage is religious.
I'm not talking about the meaning of marriage. // edit that's up to you and whatever higher power you believe in. or whatever pre-nup you signed.
|
On February 11 2015 06:35 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2015 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:A Papa John’s pizza franchise in New York must pay its workers nearly $800,000 in unpaid wages over allegations the business underpaid employees and failed to pay overtime, a state judge ruled last week.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman in December sued Emstar Pizza Inc., which operates seven Papa John’s franchise locations in Brooklyn and Queens, alleging that Emstar underreported hours worked by employees over the past six years, rounded employee hours down to the nearest hour, and did not pay overtime.
“This judgment sends a clear message that like every other business in New York, fast food employers must follow the law,” Schneiderman said in a statement. “This Papa John’s franchisee brazenly violated the law, shaving employees’ hours and avoiding paying overtime by various means, including giving managerial sounding titles such as ‘head driver.’” SourceDURHAM, N.C. — Durham police have charged two employees with stealing money and pizza bags from a Papa John's restaurant on West Main Street last week.
Kenneth Jamal Graves, 19, of Massey Avenue in Durham, and Todd Phillip Bryan, 31, of Pine Hill Drive in Chapel Hill, are both charged with larceny by an employee.
Graves was arrested Tuesday morning on Cecil Street, thanks to a Crime Stoppers tip, police said. SourceSteal at least $800,000 from your employees and you get a fine (sort of), steal ~$1000 from your employer and you're a felon and go to prison... Sounds like justice right? That's what happens when you treat corporations like people. The employees responsible for underpaying should be punished as well, just fining the company does no good.
What does any of that have to do with treating corporations like people? The franchise isn't likely to be a corporation (at least not a c-corp) anyways.
|
On February 11 2015 07:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2015 06:35 Millitron wrote:On February 11 2015 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:A Papa John’s pizza franchise in New York must pay its workers nearly $800,000 in unpaid wages over allegations the business underpaid employees and failed to pay overtime, a state judge ruled last week.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman in December sued Emstar Pizza Inc., which operates seven Papa John’s franchise locations in Brooklyn and Queens, alleging that Emstar underreported hours worked by employees over the past six years, rounded employee hours down to the nearest hour, and did not pay overtime.
“This judgment sends a clear message that like every other business in New York, fast food employers must follow the law,” Schneiderman said in a statement. “This Papa John’s franchisee brazenly violated the law, shaving employees’ hours and avoiding paying overtime by various means, including giving managerial sounding titles such as ‘head driver.’” SourceDURHAM, N.C. — Durham police have charged two employees with stealing money and pizza bags from a Papa John's restaurant on West Main Street last week.
Kenneth Jamal Graves, 19, of Massey Avenue in Durham, and Todd Phillip Bryan, 31, of Pine Hill Drive in Chapel Hill, are both charged with larceny by an employee.
Graves was arrested Tuesday morning on Cecil Street, thanks to a Crime Stoppers tip, police said. SourceSteal at least $800,000 from your employees and you get a fine (sort of), steal ~$1000 from your employer and you're a felon and go to prison... Sounds like justice right? That's what happens when you treat corporations like people. The employees responsible for underpaying should be punished as well, just fining the company does no good. What does any of that have to do with treating corporations like people? The franchise isn't likely to be a corporation (at least not a c-corp) anyways.
Its holding a company responsible when a company is nothing more than a collection of individuals. The company can't feel shame or guilt. Fining a company for the misdeeds of its employees does nothing to the specific people responsible. Its like in elementary school when one kid would act up and the teacher would cancel recess for the whole class, except even worse because there's no guarantee that the person responsible is one of the ones who will feel the sting of the fine.
What are the odds that any exec who knew about or even ordered this wage theft will lose any money?
|
I can't believe I'm agreeing with Millitron in part lol. I think a very good argument can be made in favor of the idea that the corporate entity diffuses too much liability in the event of fraud or reckless financial indifference.
|
On February 11 2015 07:21 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2015 07:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 11 2015 06:35 Millitron wrote:On February 11 2015 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:A Papa John’s pizza franchise in New York must pay its workers nearly $800,000 in unpaid wages over allegations the business underpaid employees and failed to pay overtime, a state judge ruled last week.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman in December sued Emstar Pizza Inc., which operates seven Papa John’s franchise locations in Brooklyn and Queens, alleging that Emstar underreported hours worked by employees over the past six years, rounded employee hours down to the nearest hour, and did not pay overtime.
“This judgment sends a clear message that like every other business in New York, fast food employers must follow the law,” Schneiderman said in a statement. “This Papa John’s franchisee brazenly violated the law, shaving employees’ hours and avoiding paying overtime by various means, including giving managerial sounding titles such as ‘head driver.’” SourceDURHAM, N.C. — Durham police have charged two employees with stealing money and pizza bags from a Papa John's restaurant on West Main Street last week.
Kenneth Jamal Graves, 19, of Massey Avenue in Durham, and Todd Phillip Bryan, 31, of Pine Hill Drive in Chapel Hill, are both charged with larceny by an employee.
Graves was arrested Tuesday morning on Cecil Street, thanks to a Crime Stoppers tip, police said. SourceSteal at least $800,000 from your employees and you get a fine (sort of), steal ~$1000 from your employer and you're a felon and go to prison... Sounds like justice right? That's what happens when you treat corporations like people. The employees responsible for underpaying should be punished as well, just fining the company does no good. What does any of that have to do with treating corporations like people? The franchise isn't likely to be a corporation (at least not a c-corp) anyways. Its holding a company responsible when a company is nothing more than a collection of individuals. The company can't feel shame or guilt. Fining a company for the misdeeds of its employees does nothing to the specific people responsible. Its like in elementary school when one kid would act up and the teacher would cancel recess for the whole class, except even worse because there's no guarantee that the person responsible is one of the ones who will feel the sting of the fine. What are the odds that any exec who knew about or even ordered this wage theft will lose any money?
It's not a large company so the 'exec' is likely the owner.
Edit: yeah a guy and his estranged wife own them.
Corporate personhood doesn't mean that you can't go after specific individuals anyways. Those aren't mutually exclusive things.
|
On February 11 2015 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +A Papa John’s pizza franchise in New York must pay its workers nearly $800,000 in unpaid wages over allegations the business underpaid employees and failed to pay overtime, a state judge ruled last week.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman in December sued Emstar Pizza Inc., which operates seven Papa John’s franchise locations in Brooklyn and Queens, alleging that Emstar underreported hours worked by employees over the past six years, rounded employee hours down to the nearest hour, and did not pay overtime.
“This judgment sends a clear message that like every other business in New York, fast food employers must follow the law,” Schneiderman said in a statement. “This Papa John’s franchisee brazenly violated the law, shaving employees’ hours and avoiding paying overtime by various means, including giving managerial sounding titles such as ‘head driver.’” SourceShow nested quote +DURHAM, N.C. — Durham police have charged two employees with stealing money and pizza bags from a Papa John's restaurant on West Main Street last week.
Kenneth Jamal Graves, 19, of Massey Avenue in Durham, and Todd Phillip Bryan, 31, of Pine Hill Drive in Chapel Hill, are both charged with larceny by an employee.
Graves was arrested Tuesday morning on Cecil Street, thanks to a Crime Stoppers tip, police said. SourceSteal at least $800,000 from your employees and you get a fine (sort of), steal ~$1000 from your employer and you're a felon and go to prison... Sounds like justice right?
I know you don't like me responding to you but those are apples to oranges comparisons. Show me employees getting arrested for slacking on the clock or employers merely fined for physically taking money out of employee's wallets.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 11 2015 07:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2015 07:21 Millitron wrote:On February 11 2015 07:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 11 2015 06:35 Millitron wrote:On February 11 2015 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:A Papa John’s pizza franchise in New York must pay its workers nearly $800,000 in unpaid wages over allegations the business underpaid employees and failed to pay overtime, a state judge ruled last week.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman in December sued Emstar Pizza Inc., which operates seven Papa John’s franchise locations in Brooklyn and Queens, alleging that Emstar underreported hours worked by employees over the past six years, rounded employee hours down to the nearest hour, and did not pay overtime.
“This judgment sends a clear message that like every other business in New York, fast food employers must follow the law,” Schneiderman said in a statement. “This Papa John’s franchisee brazenly violated the law, shaving employees’ hours and avoiding paying overtime by various means, including giving managerial sounding titles such as ‘head driver.’” SourceDURHAM, N.C. — Durham police have charged two employees with stealing money and pizza bags from a Papa John's restaurant on West Main Street last week.
Kenneth Jamal Graves, 19, of Massey Avenue in Durham, and Todd Phillip Bryan, 31, of Pine Hill Drive in Chapel Hill, are both charged with larceny by an employee.
Graves was arrested Tuesday morning on Cecil Street, thanks to a Crime Stoppers tip, police said. SourceSteal at least $800,000 from your employees and you get a fine (sort of), steal ~$1000 from your employer and you're a felon and go to prison... Sounds like justice right? That's what happens when you treat corporations like people. The employees responsible for underpaying should be punished as well, just fining the company does no good. What does any of that have to do with treating corporations like people? The franchise isn't likely to be a corporation (at least not a c-corp) anyways. Its holding a company responsible when a company is nothing more than a collection of individuals. The company can't feel shame or guilt. Fining a company for the misdeeds of its employees does nothing to the specific people responsible. Its like in elementary school when one kid would act up and the teacher would cancel recess for the whole class, except even worse because there's no guarantee that the person responsible is one of the ones who will feel the sting of the fine. What are the odds that any exec who knew about or even ordered this wage theft will lose any money? It's not a large company so the 'exec' is likely the owner. Corporate personhood doesn't mean that you can't go after specific individuals anyways. Those aren't mutually exclusive things.
that's fine and dandy for clearly defined corporate structures but with the fancy shit they do nowadays it's often hard to keep track of who controls what.
|
On February 11 2015 07:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2015 07:21 Millitron wrote:On February 11 2015 07:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 11 2015 06:35 Millitron wrote:On February 11 2015 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:A Papa John’s pizza franchise in New York must pay its workers nearly $800,000 in unpaid wages over allegations the business underpaid employees and failed to pay overtime, a state judge ruled last week.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman in December sued Emstar Pizza Inc., which operates seven Papa John’s franchise locations in Brooklyn and Queens, alleging that Emstar underreported hours worked by employees over the past six years, rounded employee hours down to the nearest hour, and did not pay overtime.
“This judgment sends a clear message that like every other business in New York, fast food employers must follow the law,” Schneiderman said in a statement. “This Papa John’s franchisee brazenly violated the law, shaving employees’ hours and avoiding paying overtime by various means, including giving managerial sounding titles such as ‘head driver.’” SourceDURHAM, N.C. — Durham police have charged two employees with stealing money and pizza bags from a Papa John's restaurant on West Main Street last week.
Kenneth Jamal Graves, 19, of Massey Avenue in Durham, and Todd Phillip Bryan, 31, of Pine Hill Drive in Chapel Hill, are both charged with larceny by an employee.
Graves was arrested Tuesday morning on Cecil Street, thanks to a Crime Stoppers tip, police said. SourceSteal at least $800,000 from your employees and you get a fine (sort of), steal ~$1000 from your employer and you're a felon and go to prison... Sounds like justice right? That's what happens when you treat corporations like people. The employees responsible for underpaying should be punished as well, just fining the company does no good. What does any of that have to do with treating corporations like people? The franchise isn't likely to be a corporation (at least not a c-corp) anyways. Its holding a company responsible when a company is nothing more than a collection of individuals. The company can't feel shame or guilt. Fining a company for the misdeeds of its employees does nothing to the specific people responsible. Its like in elementary school when one kid would act up and the teacher would cancel recess for the whole class, except even worse because there's no guarantee that the person responsible is one of the ones who will feel the sting of the fine. What are the odds that any exec who knew about or even ordered this wage theft will lose any money? It's not a large company so the 'exec' is likely the owner. Edit: yeah a guy and his estranged wife own them. Corporate personhood doesn't mean that you can't go after specific individuals anyways. Those aren't mutually exclusive things.
Corporations do tend to never have an exec held accountable though. Holding a corporation accountable does nothing to prevent corporations from breaking the law, because corporations don't have feelings. You can't shame them, you can't make them feel guilty, you can't jail them.
|
On February 11 2015 06:38 RCMDVA wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2015 06:06 IgnE wrote:On February 11 2015 05:53 RCMDVA wrote:
The problem is the word marriage itself is inherently religious.
All the government cares about are tax related issues, who can inherit what, and who gets the survivor social security benefits.
So the government using the word "marriage" is a big conflict... when it does nothing to enforce a marriage (the vows). It's not inherently religious. It's inherently social. The government's duties strike closer to the heart of marriage than Paul's bible verses about a man clinging to his wife after he outgrows his mother. Marriage is everywhere a contract relation between people, hence bride price, dowries, paternity, adultery, inheritance, and the rest of it. Religion simply creeps in to the noumenal aspects of people's lives You see where I said the word? The word, the entomology of the word marriage is religious. I'm not talking about the meaning of marriage. // edit that's up to you and whatever higher power you believe in. or whatever pre-nup you signed.
How is the etymology of the word religious?
|
On February 11 2015 07:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2015 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:A Papa John’s pizza franchise in New York must pay its workers nearly $800,000 in unpaid wages over allegations the business underpaid employees and failed to pay overtime, a state judge ruled last week.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman in December sued Emstar Pizza Inc., which operates seven Papa John’s franchise locations in Brooklyn and Queens, alleging that Emstar underreported hours worked by employees over the past six years, rounded employee hours down to the nearest hour, and did not pay overtime.
“This judgment sends a clear message that like every other business in New York, fast food employers must follow the law,” Schneiderman said in a statement. “This Papa John’s franchisee brazenly violated the law, shaving employees’ hours and avoiding paying overtime by various means, including giving managerial sounding titles such as ‘head driver.’” SourceDURHAM, N.C. — Durham police have charged two employees with stealing money and pizza bags from a Papa John's restaurant on West Main Street last week.
Kenneth Jamal Graves, 19, of Massey Avenue in Durham, and Todd Phillip Bryan, 31, of Pine Hill Drive in Chapel Hill, are both charged with larceny by an employee.
Graves was arrested Tuesday morning on Cecil Street, thanks to a Crime Stoppers tip, police said. SourceSteal at least $800,000 from your employees and you get a fine (sort of), steal ~$1000 from your employer and you're a felon and go to prison... Sounds like justice right? I know you don't like me responding to you but those are apples to oranges comparisons. Show me employees getting arrested for slacking on the clock or employers merely fined for physically taking money out of employee's wallets.
You know we have nothing to say to each other yet you continue responding and threatening to report me for sending PM's asking why you insist on responding to some semblance of my point (which you never answered).
My only responses to you will consist of letting you know I won't play your games and I continue not to understand why you insist on playing what you would likely assert are mine.
|
This is all horseshit. Employees, officers, owners, and agents of corporations will always be liable for their own criminal actions and fraudulent actions -- regardless of corporate liability. Period. And before one you asks about the wage theft issue, guess what? It's generally not a crime. There has to be a penal statute on point designating it as a crime for it to be criminal. Generally speaking, employers who fuck with their employees' earnings are subject to incredibly stiff civil penalties where the employee typically will recover a multiple of what was owed plus an award for attorney fees and costs. In other words, the employee will be just fine.
|
On February 11 2015 08:28 xDaunt wrote:
This is all horseshit. Employees, officers, owners, and agents of corporations will always be liable for their own criminal actions and fraudulent actions -- regardless of corporate liability. Period. And before one you asks about the wage theft issue, guess what? It's generally not a crime. There has to be a penal statute on point designating it as a crime for it to be criminal. Generally speaking, employers who fuck with their employees' earnings are subject to incredibly stiff civil penalties where the employee typically will recover a multiple of what was owed plus an award for attorney fees and costs. In other words, the employee will be just fine.
That's my point. Employers have to have been stealing money for an extended time, it has to be egregiously obvious, the employee generally has to have a good-great history, and virtually no one is going to take a case for a few thousand dollars so they have to find several other employees who care about a small chance at a few thousand dollars and justice more than they care about the potential of losing their job and not getting any money.
Xerox is a great example of wage theft where they had hundreds of employees just in my own building that they told to work off the clock every day. But with a turnover over 50% there is virtually no one who would have a chance as a named plaintiff.
Not to mention "Justice" and "The law" are not synonymous. There are plenty of ridiculously unjust things that were/are should be criminal and just actions that are/were/shouldn't be illegal.
Just because the law was followed/broken does not mean one's/the laws actions were justified (which seems particularly hard for some lawyers to see).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
