Employers Should Not Be Able To Intimidate With Political Views

OK. Since you don't understand, let me put it like this. Currently there is quite a bit of noise made about the rising assertiveness of China. China is in a position to increasingly assert itself because of the economic power that came about from firms outsourcing their manufacturing capabilities to China. You said companies will just pack up and go overseas if their are strict laws that prohibit them from using economic coercion to shape their employees political views. I am asking you if you think that capitalists are willing to give an unlimited amount of economic power to China?

 

The more specific laws are, the harder it is to break them.

By crafting legislation that specifically prohibits discrimination by employers based on an employees political views.

 

Laws already exist.

such a fear would be paranoid and thus not reasonable.

I can't believe someone could say something so stupid a republic is not a democracy we have never lived in a democracy democracy is a dictatorship where the majority dictates to the minority. So in the democracy you living in fear wouldn't matter if there was not enough of you.

the majority begs to differ there is no law if it was unacceptable it would be illegal.

laws already specifically for forbid ALL harassment by employers. So it's covered.

having to repeat that there are already laws that forbid what you want forbidden without any acknowledgement of that statement is not only exceedingly frustrating but it is not civil debate.

It is grandstanding if you want to grandstand then just let me know and I'll stop talking to you.

You can say it a thousand times it doesn't make it true

Is there are already rules in place against making a hostile work environment they don't specify how the environment is hostile so it's already covered. Adding Superfluous language to this code will not make it any more difficult for employers to engage in this sort of behavior.

 

Funny. It wasnt long ago the violent alt left was advocating firing people for their political views.

 

why does specificity make them harder to break explain.

you will have to explain how this makes it harder for the law to be violated.

 

No, not "you" as in "you, this singular person", but you as in "the collective working class". The bosses are parasites. The production of goods and services is done entirely by the workers. Capitalists exist only to manage capital because capital has been cut off from the commons and put under the dictatorial rule of the bosses. If the boss dropped dead, nothing would really change for the workers at all. If all the workers dropped dead, the boss would be ****ed.

 

Wrong. IF a person has a REASONABLE fear that they will be denied of their economic sustenance, that is NOT paranoid, that is a legitimate fear.

I can't believe someone could be so stupid as to not understand the words that we live in a democracy that is in a republic. It is a democracy in the sense that we give people the right to choose the people in the legislative branch and the executive head. The legislators so chosen then vote on the legislation that will govern society. The executive head enforces that legislation. This is a ridiculous discussion as far as I am concerned. It is simple elementary civics.

 

I will tell you why. It is one thing to have a law. The legislative branch is responsible for crafting legislation. It is another thing to interpret the law. The judicial branch is responsible for interpretation of the law. It is still another thing to enforce the law. The executive branch is responsible for enforcing the law.

WHEN LAWS ARE AS SPECIFIC AS POSSIBLE, IT MAKES THE INTERPRETATION OF LAW AND ENFORCEMENT OF LAW CLEARER BECAUSE SPECIFIC INTENT IS ARTICULATED. That is why it is harder to break. If all that was needed was to have laws then people would automatically follow and there would be no need for a judicial branch to interpret and an executive branch to enforce the laws.

 

no employers are hosts.

Or automation at the expense of the employer not the employee.

No right to work states are a capitalist idea. If employees are valued by their skill and labor they can be competitive.

If he was the owner the business would be no more that would change things for the workers.

What? Unskilled labor is everywhere. He'd just hire more.

 

As I have said again and again in this thread, IT IS NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT OR LEFT, EMPLOYERS SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DISCRIMINATE IN THIS WAY, PERIOD.

 

Nobody has a reasonable fear of that. There isn't a faction that can do that.

A constitutional republic isn't a democracy.

I didn't say we didn't elect representatives. Representatives do not rule the constitution does. We do not vote on that. So we are not a democracy.

The what votes on legislation? If its anything but the people it's not a democracy.

I can't believe you ****ed it up.

 

It is right and left. You want to take away an employer's right to decide who they employ. I want to preserve it. Preserving rights is conservative. Eliminating them is not.

 

Okay, let me try articulating the same thing in a different way, because it seems like you think I was saying something entirely different.

Labour is the production of goods and services itself. In ancient times, labour and raw materials were really all that went into a good, people who interacted with the marketplace generally made their wares themselves. In the industrial revolution, a new form of production was born wherein machinery could be used to multiply the good produced by the same amount of labour. However, this machinery, identified by Marx as Capital, has always been privately owned, therefore in order to sell their labour and thus make a living, those who do not own capital must submit to the rule of a boss. This boss makes his living off of the difference between the value his workers produce for his company through their labour and what they are paid. Therefore, profit is unpaid wages.

The asymmetrical power relationship here makes unions necessary to create a more fair exchange.

 

It is a democracy in the sense that we elect the legislators and executive head. It is not a pure democracy, just like we do not have pure free markets.

 

This is no more than garbage that you are putting forward.

 

How?

all you did was declare it's harder to break specific laws you didn't explain why.

Okay.... that doesn't explain why it's harder to break either.

 

So you don't like it but can you argue against it?

I don't care what opinion you hold about the things I say.

 

Its not a democracy in the least. We do not vote on our executive based on demographics we do it based on the Electoral College.

 

No I did explain why. And actually you sound like another poster that has a strategy of engaging in merry go round discussions. I believe you have an alternate ID.

 

Yeah, I can argue against it. People that believe employers should be able to dictate political beliefs to their employees are not conservatives, they are corporate fascists.

 

Well they sell their labor. Labor is capital. Marx was a bit of a kook.

Incorrect wages are paid out of revenue and so is profit.

But they don't. Only through government do unions have any power. And if they have the power the employer doesn't.

 

You dont have to work for them. They arent really facists.

 

it may be a satisfactory explanation for you but it doesn't follow.

I don't. Perhaps your ability to debate is just poor. It makes more sense than a conspiracy against you.

 

People that believe that employers should be able to dictate the political views of their employees ARE NOT CONSERVATIVE, THEY ARE CORPORATE FASCISTS.

 

Why?