Employers Should Not Be Able To Intimidate With Political Views

Okay since you said you explained it in a satisfactory mannor I will be more precise.

How exactly would a law regarding opinions and hostile work environments be more effective to enforce through specificity?

What mechanisms would be implemented to better police employers by specifically naming opinions in hostile work environment law?

 

What mechanisms are created to better enforce rules against hostile work environments with regard to political beliefs?

 

That's a straw man I don't believe that I didn't say anything to that effect.

An employer cannot force you to do anything because employment with them is voluntary.

 

No you said it does not follow. Why?

 

If "They need us, we don't need them" is true, then why are you there? Why are you messing with people who you think steal from you? I wouldn't. That's why I would never hire anyone who thinks a job is a one-way street, and he doesn't have to hold up his end of the deal.

You use a double standard that places all the burden and obligation on others, and lets you go around hating your customer. I sincerely hope everyone you buy from in life feels that way about you as a customer too.

 

I explained

 

So you don't believe that an employer should be able to dictate the political views of their employees?

 

No. You merely asked questions. You did not explain WHY it does not follow.

 

Because the commons have been enclosed. The primitive accumulation of capital has made capital the basis of all social organization. Meaningful escape from the social organization of capital is not possible because capital has colonized everything.

And a boss is more comparable to a louse on my crotch than a customer.

Labour isn't capital. Not a single political economist has ever thought that. Ricardo, Bohm-Bawerk, Smith, Marx, Proudhon, George, etc, every single branch of economic thought accepts a fundamental difference between labour and capital. "Revenue" as a concept is nothing but a further elaboration of where the bosses' share goes, and unions have power with or without a government through strikes and sabotage.

And I don't want employers to have power. I've made it very clear that I feel nothing but hatred and contempt for employers. Employers having no power is the point.

 

My apologies it doesn't seem to follow. You can show it to follow by answering those questions I've asked.

 

They can't employment is voluntary.

 

You still did not say WHY it does not follow. You only asked questions. If you say something does not follow, you should be able to articulate why.

 

it is a means in which to gain capital. It is something of value that you can provide or sell to the highest bidder.

without government interference you can simply fire them all for striking. Unskilled labor is almost infinitely replaceable.

Will Revenue is the amount of money that comes in we subtract costs and labor is one of those costs whatever's left is profit. Profit isn't stolen wages because it was never wages.

so you're not satisfied with the amount of power you have you want all of it. That won't translate to a functional economy.

 

I am asking you, do you think that employers should be able to dictate the political views of their employees?

 

this is becoming tedious.

It doesn't follow because you did not explain how making the lawnmower specific creates mechanisms to better enforce it and since it's your entire claim that it's easier to enforce you must articulate that.

the reason why someone asks a question is because they're trying to understand. The reason why I ask the questions I did is it because the answers to them which you did not provide which was the point in the first place was because your claim did not follow.

Now that I have painstakingly explain this is though you are a three-year-old you should be able to answer the questions.

 

It's a stupid question.

They can't because employment is voluntary. The only way they could is if employment was involuntary and that is slavery. so are you asking me if I'm for slavery?

 

LOL @ lawnmower specific!

I have said that when laws are more specific, they make the interpretation of the easier and the enforcement of the law easier. I will explain with an example. If there was a law that simply said

"It shall be illegal to discriminate"

That is a law. However, because the law is so general and so vague, it makes it difficult for a court to decide if discrimination has taken place and enforcement difficult because everyone discriminates in some fashion. Enforcement becomes impossible because you would have to put everyone in jail

However if the law says

"It shall be illegal to discriminate based on race"

That is still somewhat general, however, it is easier for courts to interpret and it makes enforcement more realistic because it narrows the scope of discrimination to certain instances.

 

No it is not stupid. You just want to evade answering the question.

 

Oops, sorry about that. I should proof read a little better before posting. Lol.

Examples help.

I follow.

Okay so you're talking about making political opinion a protected class like race?

That explains the confusion because I was going by the guidelines regarding hostile work environment.

I disagree with making political opinion a protected class.

 

Wouldn't it be hilarious if you one day decided to start a small business

 

I've answered it several times. No I don't think an employer should be able to force you to do anything they're not allowed to employment is voluntary.

The question is based on a contingency that doesn't exist at least not in our country.

My apologies for saying your question was stupid. It was merely irrelevant.

 

"Employers having no power is the point"
And at that point you will have no employers. And.... no economy, no jobs, no progress- just a horde of whining freeloaders who hate to work and think there is a super-parent out there somewhere whose sole purpose is to take over where their mom and dad left off and support them forever.

The least respectable of all men are those who believe that others should support them and refuse to carry their own weight. These are the real parasites, the spoilers in our midst who undermine the strength of the people and of the nation.

I would feel sorry for your condition in life- but, I see you have that taken care of that yourself.

 

Not really in the mood to address "Communists are freeloaders" for the millionth time this week. It'd be cool if y'all would think for yourselves and formulate arguments that are at least original or interesting instead of vomiting up cliches.

I've considered starting a cooperative with a few friends, but a cooperative has no bosses.

I don't think your first sentence is relevant to any issues we actually care about or really worth responding to. Without government interference, the union can just beat the everloving **** out of the bosses and burn their property down if they do that, which I'm not necessarily opposed to. I'm an anarchist and a communist who thinks that class warfare is the only fundamental truth of capitalism, of course I want all power to the workers.

 

cliches are cliches because you can't argue against it.

so it goes uncontested. Glad you agree with me.

we went through this already when the workers can be uncivilized so can the employers. They hire people to beat the crap out of anyone that tries that it's all history.

that's a contradiction you cannot to be for authoritarian dictatorship like communism and also an anarchist. What it sounds like by what you're talking here is fascist communism.

despite that system failing every single time no matter who tries it? Why don't you move to Venezuela if you think that's so great.

 

Why am I arguing with someone so ignorant he doesn't even know that anarchist communism is a centuries old body of thought that predates statist communism?