|
On March 26 2013 14:30 NHL Fever wrote:
This is handled by contracts. You sign a contract that outlines terms of employment and terms of termination. No employer who want to keep decent people, will offer contracts that include 'you can be fired for anything'. If they did, nobody would work for them and they would go out of business. Overall economic output would actually increase, as employers could fire people who are terrible employees according to the terms of their contract.
I tend to stay out of this kind of debate, but I wanted to point out that this is factually wrong. Contracts that allow the employer to terminate employment for any reason or for no reason are very common, and in the United States the right to do so is (to the best of my knowledge) actually enshrined in law. And yet people still go to America to find work.
|
On March 27 2013 05:34 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 05:28 farvacola wrote:On March 27 2013 05:24 Kaitlin wrote:On March 27 2013 04:47 NHL Fever wrote:On March 27 2013 04:43 Kaitlin wrote:
Out of curiosity, how do you feel about increasing taxes in the top 1% and nobody else ? I think that's probably a much more complicated question than that. I favor progressive taxation. But by taxing only the top 1% more, you can actually wind up just taxing the middle class more and shifting money even more into the hands of the elite. So it depends on your goals and specific type of taxes. We could go more into it. Progressive taxation is a different matter, and there's nothing wrong with that. My point simply was that the post I quoted was all about standing up for the minority, so I wondered if his logic only applied for minority groups of which he was a member. It seems everybody was all for increasing taxes on ONLY the top 1%, which is nothing but another minority group. Increasing taxes on everyone, even with a bit of a larger increase on the top earners, would be consistent with the approach of protecting minorities. But that's not what people seem to favor. I think people aren't being very consistent in their values. That would probably have something to do with people having different conceptions and weightings of the notion of "minority". If you are of the mind that we are to regard black Americans, the disabled, or gays and the rich as minorities of equitable consideration, then I am to consider your standard of consistency irrelevant. So, it's not a matter of "minority rights", it's picking and choosing what groups we choose to give special treatment to and which we can feel free to discriminate against with a clear conscious. Continuing with your logic, each person is free to choose which groups deserve "equitable consideration", so you can't be terribly surprised when others have different opinions of whether your favored "minorities" deserve special treatment.
Each person is free to form their own opinions, and I am in no way surprised that some people disagree. That has nothing to do with how incomparable "the rich" are with other minority groups.
|
On March 27 2013 05:41 AmericanUmlaut wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2013 14:30 NHL Fever wrote:
This is handled by contracts. You sign a contract that outlines terms of employment and terms of termination. No employer who want to keep decent people, will offer contracts that include 'you can be fired for anything'. If they did, nobody would work for them and they would go out of business. Overall economic output would actually increase, as employers could fire people who are terrible employees according to the terms of their contract. I tend to stay out of this kind of debate, but I wanted to point out that this is factually wrong. Contracts that allow the employer to terminate employment for any reason or for no reason are very common, and in the United States the right to do so is (to the best of my knowledge) actually enshrined in law. And yet people still go to America to find work.
"Right to work" laws. People are still willing to work for these businesses because employment opportunities are so competitive. For people who don't have a high school education, suffer from mental illness, have been in prison, and so on, there is reluctance to hire. Furthermore, with the importance of work that is emphasized by culture and laws, being without work is seen as a "disease." People would rather look like productive members of society than find an employer that cares about their employees' futures and safety.
|
On March 27 2013 05:41 AmericanUmlaut wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2013 14:30 NHL Fever wrote:
This is handled by contracts. You sign a contract that outlines terms of employment and terms of termination. No employer who want to keep decent people, will offer contracts that include 'you can be fired for anything'. If they did, nobody would work for them and they would go out of business. Overall economic output would actually increase, as employers could fire people who are terrible employees according to the terms of their contract. I tend to stay out of this kind of debate, but I wanted to point out that this is factually wrong. Contracts that allow the employer to terminate employment for any reason or for no reason are very common, and in the United States the right to do so is (to the best of my knowledge) actually enshrined in law. And yet people still go to America to find work.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment
I had no idea this existed in the United States until there was a discussion about Zynga demanding its old employees give back their unvested shares prior to the IPO or be fired, thus losing them anyway. This was cool, apparently, because California's an "at will" state.
Scary.
|
On March 27 2013 04:43 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2013 11:09 shinosai wrote:I can certainly see the argument for public washrooms. I don't think I would agree with those in private institutions. I don't think any private business should be forced into this choice. In fact if they don't want to build bathrooms at all....let them. If they want to hire only white people, let them. If they want to discriminate in any way they want, I say let them because they are private businesses. Let them make whatever choice they want on their own premises, and deal with the consequences of it. Those consequences would be a smaller potential hiring pool, less customers, and a bad reputation. The businesses that allow and accommodate for as many as possible will have the upper hand, so let the social and real market sort that out. I don't think I've ever seen a minority that was actively discriminated against use this argument. But it does come up a lot. In every LBGT thread on team liquid, it comes up. And every single time, the same refutation occurs: Capitalism does not fix discrimination if the people being discriminated against are a minority. It didn't fix it in the 1950's and it won't fix it now. Think about it: If everyone in the community dislikes black people (time machine!) and if discrimination against black people is normalized, then there are no consequences to discriminating against black people. It's easy to say things like this when you will never have to worry about being fired from your job for simply being who you are. It is my opinion that this argument can only work for those who have privilege and are unable to see it. Out of curiosity, how do you feel about increasing taxes in the top 1% and nobody else ?
Fair game, but only because it makes the best financial sense - not because I feel like the top 1% are not entitled to their wealth. The vast majority of the wealth in the US is at the top. It's logically sound to tax where most of the wealth is. If the majority of the wealth was in the middle, it'd make sense to increase the taxes in the middle.
Little off topic, so let's not continue this convo. I just figured I'd answer your curiosity.
edit: I just read your other post.
Progressive taxation is a different matter, and there's nothing wrong with that. My point simply was that the post I quoted was all about standing up for the minority, so I wondered if his logic only applied for minority groups of which he was a member. It seems everybody was all for increasing taxes on ONLY the top 1%, which is nothing but another minority group. Increasing taxes on everyone, even with a bit of a larger increase on the top earners, would be consistent with the approach of protecting minorities. But that's not what people seem to favor. I think people aren't being very consistent in their values.
Human/civil rights are not in the same category as taxation. We do not, for example, tax people because they are black or Christian. We tax them based on their wealth, which is not the same thing as their race, religion, gender, sexuality, religious beliefs, or identity. The former you can change, the latter is who you are.
|
On March 27 2013 05:24 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 04:47 NHL Fever wrote:On March 27 2013 04:43 Kaitlin wrote:
Out of curiosity, how do you feel about increasing taxes in the top 1% and nobody else ? I think that's probably a much more complicated question than that. I favor progressive taxation. But by taxing only the top 1% more, you can actually wind up just taxing the middle class more and shifting money even more into the hands of the elite. So it depends on your goals and specific type of taxes. We could go more into it. Progressive taxation is a different matter, and there's nothing wrong with that. My point simply was that the post I quoted was all about standing up for the minority, so I wondered if his logic only applied for minority groups of which he was a member. It seems everybody was all for increasing taxes on ONLY the top 1%, which is nothing but another minority group. Increasing taxes on everyone, even with a bit of a larger increase on the top earners, would be consistent with the approach of protecting minorities. But that's not what people seem to favor. I think people aren't being very consistent in their values.
Your analogy is completely fallacious. Being rich is not a biological/genetic/physical characteristic or a personal belief. Taxation isn't based on a human/personal characteristic but on revenue/wealth. It's also not done to harm a category of people for being who they are as people, but to collect money.
|
On March 27 2013 05:56 bonifaceviii wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 05:41 AmericanUmlaut wrote:On March 26 2013 14:30 NHL Fever wrote:
This is handled by contracts. You sign a contract that outlines terms of employment and terms of termination. No employer who want to keep decent people, will offer contracts that include 'you can be fired for anything'. If they did, nobody would work for them and they would go out of business. Overall economic output would actually increase, as employers could fire people who are terrible employees according to the terms of their contract. I tend to stay out of this kind of debate, but I wanted to point out that this is factually wrong. Contracts that allow the employer to terminate employment for any reason or for no reason are very common, and in the United States the right to do so is (to the best of my knowledge) actually enshrined in law. And yet people still go to America to find work. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employmentI had no idea this existed in the United States until there was a discussion about Zynga demanding its old employees give back their unvested shares prior to the IPO or be fired, thus losing them anyway. This was cool, apparently, because California's an "at will" state. Scary.
If you don't like it, then you can apply for a job which does have a good employment contract, or negotiate for one.
California in particular, is home to many tech companies that offer contracts with good severance packages for educated/skilled prospective emploees.
|
On March 27 2013 04:47 NHL Fever wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 04:22 Shiori wrote:
The progress of society did erode those attitudes. It eroded them by making it illegal to actually infringe upon the rights of someone else. Absolutely. But here's where the argument breaks down. It's not your right to go into a private business. It infringes absolutely nobody's right to throw them off your property. Just like you are not infringing anyone's rights if you tell strangers to leave your home. It doesn't matter why you are telling them to leave, they have to leave. Show nested quote +
Are you seriously contending that people were just going to gradually wake up one day and decide "Hey, those black people? They're alright." And while it's true that A then B doesn't imply A causes B, it's not like there aren't good reasons to suppose laws against racism result in the discouraging of racist practices/attitudes. Compare a child who grows up in a society where keeping black people out of restaurants is okay versus a society in which such a thing isn't permitted. It doesn't take a genius to figure out which child is more likely to think there's something about black people that sets them apart. Besides, we have eons of human history filled with discrimination which was sharply curbed directly after the various civil rights movements. A then B doesn't mean A causes B, but there are pretty good reasons to think the civil rights movements had something to do with changing the attitudes of societies.
And then you go on to insinuate that because the ACLU is "busy" we have worse problems with racism than we did before laws against racism were implemented? Come on. We don't have nearly the problems these days as we did when there were segregated schools, buses, washrooms, and God knows what else. The reason the ACLU is so busy is because people can actually have some recourse when someone discriminates against them; that wasn't always the case.
This is akin to arguing that the creation of a police department indicates that murder should be legal since the brand new police department is so busy arresting murderers.
I'm not saying the ACLU being busy means you actually have more problems, I'm saying the perception is widely held by many people that those problems are still here and keeping them down, and they are enlisting the agencies like the ACLU like never before. The laws have obviously not fixed that, even if it is just a perception. They have reinforced that perception. So there are two problems here. One is that obviously for the countless minorities who believe it, to them the issue has not been solved. The second is that America is not the only country on earth, and plenty of countries evolved their views without massive civil rights movements. So the laws are both not effective (assuming we believe the near-constant statements from minority groups), and not necessary. They do however introduce all kinds of collateral damage, and in have probably made your (not being in the US I say your) racism problem permanent. Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 04:46 Iyerbeth wrote:
I don't much slippery slope arguments, and I personally prefer to deal with the problems people face, rather than some principal of freedom - especially when the driving cause for that freedom has nothing to do with people. I don't think it's acceptable for anyone to be oppressed or discriminated against in any way for a second longer than is necessary, and the idea of waiting on the whims of a theoretical free market, I find to be disgusting.
To be clear, I'm describing my opinion on your proposal, rather than meaning to attack you personally. Fair points, I don't take it as an attack at all. My counter argument is simply that in a free system nobody does need to be discriminated against. They have absolutely no compulsion to go to establishments that don't accept them. The establishment should be free to conduct it's own private affairs to its liking, and the customers should be free to not go there. It's about the most free choice for everyone. Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 04:43 Kaitlin wrote:
Out of curiosity, how do you feel about increasing taxes in the top 1% and nobody else ? I think that's probably a much more complicated question than that. I favor progressive taxation. But by taxing only the top 1% more, you can actually wind up just taxing the middle class more and shifting money even more into the hands of the elite. So it depends on your goals and specific type of taxes. We could go more into it.
Actually, it *is* your right to go into a business. Where are you coming from insinuating that a business owner doesn't owe anything to the public? Quite the contrary, the courts have held that business owners owe certain degrees of care to people who are on the premises, even trespassers. Business owners also, as I've mentioned multiple times before, have a basic, minimum obligation not to harm public society. It is clear, as I've mentioned before and you've so conveniently ignored, that discrimination can create inferiority complexes in children. Whether or not you continue to insist that "discrimination exists regardless and can't be eliminated" does not mean that children, in today's society, are much less likely to be told "you can't do this because you're black/hispanic/asian/arab/persian/jewish/whatever else." You continue to hold some incorrect notion that property used for residence can be treated in the same manner as property held for business. As pointed out by many, this has never been the case, regardless of discrimination laws.
The reason for the attack on your credibility is because one needs to keep a realistic view in a debate. When one goes to an extreme end of the spectrum such as you, basically ignoring all historical evidence for a theoretical premise that could never, ever hold true in today's society, it becomes ridiculous. Call that another baseless attack, if you will, but the comment on "only taking econ 101" was not groundless. Econ 101 (or any Intro to Econ Course) explains all the theories behind the free market maximizing benefits to society, etc. and how capitalism and free trade always ends up with a better result. Almost every single econ class you will take beyond Econ 101 are "why the free market is actually broken in these cases, all the reasons why government intervention is necessary and why the free market is completely broken due to barriers in society." Of course, the classes still hold the premise "less regulation is better" and "the absolute minimum amount of regulation to simply keep the free market on course" is best, but the type of theories you advocating are very, very basic. And quite harmful.
Much of what you advocate is that "discrimination reduces business opportunities" and "people would simply find better employers" have not held true in the past. Discrimination was ever so prevalent and in many cases did not by any means put those who discriminated at a disadvantage. If a market is saturated, public views do not view discrimination as a bad thing because it is ingrained in society, it is an "employers market", there are barriers to entry, or really any sort of market failure, your entire theory breaks down. And those all exist. I mean, you go off saying "no one would ever work for an employer that could fire you for any reason" when the largest economy in the United States (California) has at will employment! You state that the laws have made discrimination worse when the country has arguably gone through one of the most progressive generation shifts since its founding, a society where discrimination is openly frowned upon by peers when even our grandparents possibly were the ones actively *doing* the discrimination! I mean, we have a President who's partially black, a person who would have had to sit at the back of the bus when he was extremely young! Quite frankly, none of what you are saying is reflected in society today or has been shown in history.
TLDR:
1. You're wrong about rights concerning businesses and you're for some reason mixing up residential property rights and business property rights, which are not the same. Businesses by their very nature have an obligation to society.
2. You're ignoring the harmful effects of de jure discrimination on children. People also owe a greater degree of care to children.
3. Your arguments about freedom rely almost entirely upon free market theory without any barriers, which history has shown does not end up happening.
4. Your assumption of increased productiveness is flawed because it does not account for lack of stability, which most economic theory shows is harmful to society.
5. Your claim that discrimination is as prevalent as ever is downright crazy when we are living in one of the most progressive eras ever. The reference to the ACLU has little to no relevance.
6. History has shown that "loss of business" is not an effective enough deterrent. Many people will also rally around the discrimination which can counter the effect (ie. see people rallying around Chick-Fil-a for simply their beliefs on gay marriage, and they aren't even actively discriminating).
7. Your claim no one would work for an employer that could simply fire you for no reason is ridiculous when almost the entire country is "at will" employment. Even more evidence all you're speaking from is theory without much actual evidence to back up what you're saying.
On March 27 2013 07:56 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 05:56 bonifaceviii wrote:On March 27 2013 05:41 AmericanUmlaut wrote:On March 26 2013 14:30 NHL Fever wrote:
This is handled by contracts. You sign a contract that outlines terms of employment and terms of termination. No employer who want to keep decent people, will offer contracts that include 'you can be fired for anything'. If they did, nobody would work for them and they would go out of business. Overall economic output would actually increase, as employers could fire people who are terrible employees according to the terms of their contract. I tend to stay out of this kind of debate, but I wanted to point out that this is factually wrong. Contracts that allow the employer to terminate employment for any reason or for no reason are very common, and in the United States the right to do so is (to the best of my knowledge) actually enshrined in law. And yet people still go to America to find work. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employmentI had no idea this existed in the United States until there was a discussion about Zynga demanding its old employees give back their unvested shares prior to the IPO or be fired, thus losing them anyway. This was cool, apparently, because California's an "at will" state. Scary. If you don't like it, then you can apply for a job which does have a good employment contract, or negotiate for one. California in particular, is home to many tech companies that offer contracts with good severance packages for educated/skilled prospective emploees.
Sure, if you can find one. The vast, vast majority of companies still have employment contracts that contain "at will employment" wording. You'd be hard pressed to find any employer that does not have this. I've had 6 jobs in CA before, all have had such wording, whether it was an arcade/fast food/grocery store (worked at all in high school), a valet service (college), local CPA firm (college), or a Fortune 100 company (post-college). Even with CA (specifically Silicon Valley) being home to many tech opportunities, it still makes up a very tiny minority of overall employment in the state.
These are also upper-tier jobs. Keep in mind the vast majority of the population will not get jobs with nice severance packages, etc. While you can make the argument "don't be one of those people" it is clear that we *need* blue-collar workers for a functioning society. If it's needed, then they need to be protected, even if at only a limited extent.
|
On March 27 2013 13:43 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 07:56 sunprince wrote:On March 27 2013 05:56 bonifaceviii wrote:On March 27 2013 05:41 AmericanUmlaut wrote:On March 26 2013 14:30 NHL Fever wrote:
This is handled by contracts. You sign a contract that outlines terms of employment and terms of termination. No employer who want to keep decent people, will offer contracts that include 'you can be fired for anything'. If they did, nobody would work for them and they would go out of business. Overall economic output would actually increase, as employers could fire people who are terrible employees according to the terms of their contract. I tend to stay out of this kind of debate, but I wanted to point out that this is factually wrong. Contracts that allow the employer to terminate employment for any reason or for no reason are very common, and in the United States the right to do so is (to the best of my knowledge) actually enshrined in law. And yet people still go to America to find work. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employmentI had no idea this existed in the United States until there was a discussion about Zynga demanding its old employees give back their unvested shares prior to the IPO or be fired, thus losing them anyway. This was cool, apparently, because California's an "at will" state. Scary. If you don't like it, then you can apply for a job which does have a good employment contract, or negotiate for one. California in particular, is home to many tech companies that offer contracts with good severance packages for educated/skilled prospective emploees. Sure, if you can find one. The vast, vast majority of companies still have employment contracts that contain "at will employment" wording. You'd be hard pressed to find any employer that does not have this. I've had 6 jobs in CA before, all have had such wording, whether it was an arcade/fast food/grocery store (worked at all in high school), a valet service (college), local CPA firm (college), or a Fortune 100 company (post-college). Even with CA (specifically Silicon Valley) being home to many tech opportunities, it still makes up a very tiny minority of overall employment in the state.
All of my post-college jobs in Silicon Valley have offered at least some sort of severance package, and state-funded unemployment insurance is also available. In fact, at-will employment is part of the reason for Silicon Valley's success which allows companies to offer cushy jobs with benefits like severance pay, comprehensive health/dental/vision insurance, etc. in the first place.
On March 27 2013 13:43 FabledIntegral wrote:
These are also upper-tier jobs. Keep in mind the vast majority of the population will not get jobs with nice severance packages, etc. While you can make the argument "don't be one of those people" it is clear that we *need* blue-collar workers for a functioning society. If it's needed, then they need to be protected, even if at only a limited extent.
If they "needed" such "protection", then they wouldn't agree to at-will employment in the first place.
Denying employers the ability to offer at-will employment contracts simply results in economic inefficiency, and empirical studies have verified that implied contracts causes lower employment rates, lower wages, lower productivity, and greater outsourcing to part-time employees.
Essentially, taking away at-will employment forces productive employees (who would be retained anyway) to subsidize unproductive employees (who would otherwise be more easily replaced).
|
On March 27 2013 15:35 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 13:43 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 27 2013 07:56 sunprince wrote:On March 27 2013 05:56 bonifaceviii wrote:On March 27 2013 05:41 AmericanUmlaut wrote:On March 26 2013 14:30 NHL Fever wrote:
This is handled by contracts. You sign a contract that outlines terms of employment and terms of termination. No employer who want to keep decent people, will offer contracts that include 'you can be fired for anything'. If they did, nobody would work for them and they would go out of business. Overall economic output would actually increase, as employers could fire people who are terrible employees according to the terms of their contract. I tend to stay out of this kind of debate, but I wanted to point out that this is factually wrong. Contracts that allow the employer to terminate employment for any reason or for no reason are very common, and in the United States the right to do so is (to the best of my knowledge) actually enshrined in law. And yet people still go to America to find work. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employmentI had no idea this existed in the United States until there was a discussion about Zynga demanding its old employees give back their unvested shares prior to the IPO or be fired, thus losing them anyway. This was cool, apparently, because California's an "at will" state. Scary. If you don't like it, then you can apply for a job which does have a good employment contract, or negotiate for one. California in particular, is home to many tech companies that offer contracts with good severance packages for educated/skilled prospective emploees. Sure, if you can find one. The vast, vast majority of companies still have employment contracts that contain "at will employment" wording. You'd be hard pressed to find any employer that does not have this. I've had 6 jobs in CA before, all have had such wording, whether it was an arcade/fast food/grocery store (worked at all in high school), a valet service (college), local CPA firm (college), or a Fortune 100 company (post-college). Even with CA (specifically Silicon Valley) being home to many tech opportunities, it still makes up a very tiny minority of overall employment in the state. All of my post-college jobs in Silicon Valley have offered at least some sort of severance package, and state-funded unemployment insurance is also available. In fact, at-will employment is part of the reason for Silicon Valley's success which allows companies to offer cushy jobs with benefits like severance pay, comprehensive health/dental/vision insurance, etc. in the first place. Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 13:43 FabledIntegral wrote:
These are also upper-tier jobs. Keep in mind the vast majority of the population will not get jobs with nice severance packages, etc. While you can make the argument "don't be one of those people" it is clear that we *need* blue-collar workers for a functioning society. If it's needed, then they need to be protected, even if at only a limited extent. If they "needed" such "protection", then they wouldn't agree to at-will employment in the first place. Denying employers the ability to offer at-will employment contracts simply results in economic inefficiency, and empirical studies have verified that implied contracts causes lower employment rates, lower wages, lower productivity, and greater outsourcing to part-time employees. Essentially, taking away at-will employment forces productive employees (who would be retained anyway) to subsidize unproductive employees (who would otherwise be more easily replaced).
... how can you try to counter me with saying "all my jobs in Silicon Valley" when my post clearly addressed that Silicon Valley and tech jobs specifically making up a minority of the overall job pool? It's really not relevant. It's saying 0.0001% of jobs have this addressed no problem. Ok... what's the point?
Also, I'm not sure why you attribute it specifically to Silicon Valley success. At-will employment is a United States doctrine, not a California doctrine. California is one of the states with the most "limited" forms of at will employment as it also takes into account employers not acting in good faith when terminating. At the same time, I was never even arguing that at-will employment was a bad thing... I think it's a good thing :S.
|
On March 27 2013 15:56 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 15:35 sunprince wrote:On March 27 2013 13:43 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 27 2013 07:56 sunprince wrote:On March 27 2013 05:56 bonifaceviii wrote:On March 27 2013 05:41 AmericanUmlaut wrote:On March 26 2013 14:30 NHL Fever wrote:
This is handled by contracts. You sign a contract that outlines terms of employment and terms of termination. No employer who want to keep decent people, will offer contracts that include 'you can be fired for anything'. If they did, nobody would work for them and they would go out of business. Overall economic output would actually increase, as employers could fire people who are terrible employees according to the terms of their contract. I tend to stay out of this kind of debate, but I wanted to point out that this is factually wrong. Contracts that allow the employer to terminate employment for any reason or for no reason are very common, and in the United States the right to do so is (to the best of my knowledge) actually enshrined in law. And yet people still go to America to find work. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employmentI had no idea this existed in the United States until there was a discussion about Zynga demanding its old employees give back their unvested shares prior to the IPO or be fired, thus losing them anyway. This was cool, apparently, because California's an "at will" state. Scary. If you don't like it, then you can apply for a job which does have a good employment contract, or negotiate for one. California in particular, is home to many tech companies that offer contracts with good severance packages for educated/skilled prospective emploees. Sure, if you can find one. The vast, vast majority of companies still have employment contracts that contain "at will employment" wording. You'd be hard pressed to find any employer that does not have this. I've had 6 jobs in CA before, all have had such wording, whether it was an arcade/fast food/grocery store (worked at all in high school), a valet service (college), local CPA firm (college), or a Fortune 100 company (post-college). Even with CA (specifically Silicon Valley) being home to many tech opportunities, it still makes up a very tiny minority of overall employment in the state. All of my post-college jobs in Silicon Valley have offered at least some sort of severance package, and state-funded unemployment insurance is also available. In fact, at-will employment is part of the reason for Silicon Valley's success which allows companies to offer cushy jobs with benefits like severance pay, comprehensive health/dental/vision insurance, etc. in the first place. On March 27 2013 13:43 FabledIntegral wrote:
These are also upper-tier jobs. Keep in mind the vast majority of the population will not get jobs with nice severance packages, etc. While you can make the argument "don't be one of those people" it is clear that we *need* blue-collar workers for a functioning society. If it's needed, then they need to be protected, even if at only a limited extent. If they "needed" such "protection", then they wouldn't agree to at-will employment in the first place. Denying employers the ability to offer at-will employment contracts simply results in economic inefficiency, and empirical studies have verified that implied contracts causes lower employment rates, lower wages, lower productivity, and greater outsourcing to part-time employees. Essentially, taking away at-will employment forces productive employees (who would be retained anyway) to subsidize unproductive employees (who would otherwise be more easily replaced). ... how can you try to counter me with saying "all my jobs in Silicon Valley" when my post clearly addressed that Silicon Valley and tech jobs specifically making up a minority of the overall job pool? It's really not relevant. It's saying 0.0001% of jobs have this addressed no problem. Ok... what's the point? Also, I'm not sure why you attribute it specifically to Silicon Valley success. At-will employment is a United States doctrine, not a California doctrine. California is one of the states with the most "limited" forms of at will employment as it also takes into account employers not acting in good faith when terminating. At the same time, I was never even arguing that at-will employment was a bad thing... I think it's a good thing :S.
You gave anecdotal experiences, I did the same. It's rather foolish of you to cherry pick that part of my post to attack when you did the same, especially when I made an empirical argument in the second part of my post.
My point is that employees don't actually need the "protection" you talked about before; if they truly did, they would negotiate for it. And on top of that, studies on the subject show that worse outcomes result when you take at-will employment away.
If you agree that at-will employment is a good thing, and "protecting" employees from it is unnecessary, then we have nothing to argue about.
|
On March 27 2013 16:48 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 15:56 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 27 2013 15:35 sunprince wrote:On March 27 2013 13:43 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 27 2013 07:56 sunprince wrote:On March 27 2013 05:56 bonifaceviii wrote:On March 27 2013 05:41 AmericanUmlaut wrote:On March 26 2013 14:30 NHL Fever wrote:
This is handled by contracts. You sign a contract that outlines terms of employment and terms of termination. No employer who want to keep decent people, will offer contracts that include 'you can be fired for anything'. If they did, nobody would work for them and they would go out of business. Overall economic output would actually increase, as employers could fire people who are terrible employees according to the terms of their contract. I tend to stay out of this kind of debate, but I wanted to point out that this is factually wrong. Contracts that allow the employer to terminate employment for any reason or for no reason are very common, and in the United States the right to do so is (to the best of my knowledge) actually enshrined in law. And yet people still go to America to find work. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employmentI had no idea this existed in the United States until there was a discussion about Zynga demanding its old employees give back their unvested shares prior to the IPO or be fired, thus losing them anyway. This was cool, apparently, because California's an "at will" state. Scary. If you don't like it, then you can apply for a job which does have a good employment contract, or negotiate for one. California in particular, is home to many tech companies that offer contracts with good severance packages for educated/skilled prospective emploees. Sure, if you can find one. The vast, vast majority of companies still have employment contracts that contain "at will employment" wording. You'd be hard pressed to find any employer that does not have this. I've had 6 jobs in CA before, all have had such wording, whether it was an arcade/fast food/grocery store (worked at all in high school), a valet service (college), local CPA firm (college), or a Fortune 100 company (post-college). Even with CA (specifically Silicon Valley) being home to many tech opportunities, it still makes up a very tiny minority of overall employment in the state. All of my post-college jobs in Silicon Valley have offered at least some sort of severance package, and state-funded unemployment insurance is also available. In fact, at-will employment is part of the reason for Silicon Valley's success which allows companies to offer cushy jobs with benefits like severance pay, comprehensive health/dental/vision insurance, etc. in the first place. On March 27 2013 13:43 FabledIntegral wrote:
These are also upper-tier jobs. Keep in mind the vast majority of the population will not get jobs with nice severance packages, etc. While you can make the argument "don't be one of those people" it is clear that we *need* blue-collar workers for a functioning society. If it's needed, then they need to be protected, even if at only a limited extent. If they "needed" such "protection", then they wouldn't agree to at-will employment in the first place. Denying employers the ability to offer at-will employment contracts simply results in economic inefficiency, and empirical studies have verified that implied contracts causes lower employment rates, lower wages, lower productivity, and greater outsourcing to part-time employees. Essentially, taking away at-will employment forces productive employees (who would be retained anyway) to subsidize unproductive employees (who would otherwise be more easily replaced). ... how can you try to counter me with saying "all my jobs in Silicon Valley" when my post clearly addressed that Silicon Valley and tech jobs specifically making up a minority of the overall job pool? It's really not relevant. It's saying 0.0001% of jobs have this addressed no problem. Ok... what's the point? Also, I'm not sure why you attribute it specifically to Silicon Valley success. At-will employment is a United States doctrine, not a California doctrine. California is one of the states with the most "limited" forms of at will employment as it also takes into account employers not acting in good faith when terminating. At the same time, I was never even arguing that at-will employment was a bad thing... I think it's a good thing :S. You gave anecdotal experiences, I did the same. It's rather foolish of you to cherry pick that part of my post to attack when you did the same, especially when I made an empirical argument in the second part of my post. My point is that employees don't actually need the "protection" you talked about before; if they truly did, they would negotiate for it. And on top of that, studies on the subject show that worse outcomes result when you take at-will employment away. If you agree that at-will employment is a good thing, and "protecting" employees from it is unnecessary, then we have nothing to argue about.
Yours is clearly one concentrated industry and by no means the mainstream. My anecdotal experience clearly covered a wide range of "general" types of jobs. Mine's far more relevant... you have a niche market...
And I do think employees need protection. I also think at will employment is a good concept. At will employment does not protect an employer from being sued, which is a good thing. I can see that I maybe insinuated I was referring specifically to at will employment although it was not my intention. My intention was that you simply cannot leave the majority of the population at the mercy of the free market.
|
On March 10 2013 19:15 xwoGworwaTsx wrote:
Anti-LGBT laws include, but are not limited to, the following: sodomy laws penalizing consensual same-sex sexual activity with fines, jail terms, or the death penalty, anti-'lesbianism' laws, and higher ages of consent for same-sex activity.
Laws like this make me sick. I recently found out that anti-sodemy laws are still on the books in some parts of the US, and that makes me so mad I want to punch a hole in the wall. The thought of a gay couple going to jail over a consensual sexual activity is sickening to me.
|
On March 29 2013 01:47 codonbyte wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2013 19:15 xwoGworwaTsx wrote:
Anti-LGBT laws include, but are not limited to, the following: sodomy laws penalizing consensual same-sex sexual activity with fines, jail terms, or the death penalty, anti-'lesbianism' laws, and higher ages of consent for same-sex activity.
Laws like this make me sick. I recently found out that anti-sodemy laws are still on the books in some parts of the US, and that makes me so mad I want to punch a hole in the wall. The thought of a gay couple going to jail over a consensual sexual activity is sickening to me.
If they're on the books, it's just as a historical curiosity. The Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional, so they are not enforced in any way. Maybe some state legislatures haven't gotten around to formally removing them, but I think it's pretty standard to essentially treat a law as gone when it's ruled unconstitutional, rather than formally repealing it.
|
On March 29 2013 02:07 aristarchus wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2013 01:47 codonbyte wrote:On March 10 2013 19:15 xwoGworwaTsx wrote:
Anti-LGBT laws include, but are not limited to, the following: sodomy laws penalizing consensual same-sex sexual activity with fines, jail terms, or the death penalty, anti-'lesbianism' laws, and higher ages of consent for same-sex activity.
Laws like this make me sick. I recently found out that anti-sodemy laws are still on the books in some parts of the US, and that makes me so mad I want to punch a hole in the wall. The thought of a gay couple going to jail over a consensual sexual activity is sickening to me. If they're on the books, it's just as a historical curiosity. The Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional, so they are not enforced in any way. Maybe some state legislatures haven't gotten around to formally removing them, but I think it's pretty standard to essentially treat a law as gone when it's ruled unconstitutional, rather than formally repealing it.
Wait... so laws are never removed when they're found to be unconstitutional? That concerns me. What if some DA were to decide one day to enforce the law, and what if for some reason the supreme court at that time decided to find the law constitutional? I know it's far fetched, but I worry about these things, lol.
|
On March 29 2013 03:09 codonbyte wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2013 02:07 aristarchus wrote:On March 29 2013 01:47 codonbyte wrote:On March 10 2013 19:15 xwoGworwaTsx wrote:
Anti-LGBT laws include, but are not limited to, the following: sodomy laws penalizing consensual same-sex sexual activity with fines, jail terms, or the death penalty, anti-'lesbianism' laws, and higher ages of consent for same-sex activity.
Laws like this make me sick. I recently found out that anti-sodemy laws are still on the books in some parts of the US, and that makes me so mad I want to punch a hole in the wall. The thought of a gay couple going to jail over a consensual sexual activity is sickening to me. If they're on the books, it's just as a historical curiosity. The Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional, so they are not enforced in any way. Maybe some state legislatures haven't gotten around to formally removing them, but I think it's pretty standard to essentially treat a law as gone when it's ruled unconstitutional, rather than formally repealing it. Wait... so laws are never removed when they're found to be unconstitutional? That concerns me. What if some DA were to decide one day to enforce the law, and what if for some reason the supreme court at that time decided to find the law constitutional? I know it's far fetched, but I worry about these things, lol.
If anyone tried to arrest someone for it, the local judge would instantly throw out the charges, just like if someone tried to arrest you for violating a law that didn't exist. Even the supreme court is really hesitant to overturn it's own precedent. Sure, the supreme court could change it's mind, but that's always true about everything.
Mississippi just finally got around to ratifying the amendment that banned slavery, because once enough states ratified it it went into effect and everyone stopped worrying about voting on it. Removing the laws might be a good symbolic move, but it's purely symbolic.
|
|
|
Thanks sooo much for posting this, thoroughly enjoyed the article! 
|
Netherlands6142 Posts
|
Great, now we just need Dave Agema to get on board. I'm thinking about making a move on him myself, entice him into the sweet world of gayness with my raw, steaming manliness.
More on topic, good on you NZ, for some reason the country always struck me as very religious and quite socially conservative, so I'm pleasantly surprised by this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
