Discussion about hot topics trending today

[aretood2]

How are their rights taken away? They are free to protest to their heart's content. They just can't do it on their employer's time, dime and stage unless the employer agrees.

Are they not free to protest on their own?

Back in good ol' 1787 your employers' impact in your daily private activities was nearly non-existent. The only threat to your personal liberty was from the Government, and thus they created a system to defend against that. However today, a teacher having a drink at a bar on Saturday night can get fired should someone snap a picture of it and post it online. A cop making a terrible joke to disarm a bad situation can get canned despite past exemplary service. And an office employee with an unpopular POV can get demonized and tossed on the street for having that unpopular opinion. In essence, the threat the founders feared from government is now coming from companies.

It's a whole new world than the one that existed back then. Personally, I think we need to expand some constitutional protections into the private sector. Government based employees have had them, and so should private based employees.

[Annoyed]

Back in good ol' 1787 your employers' impact in your daily private activities was nearly non-existent. The only threat to your personal liberty was from the Government, and thus they created a system to defend against that. However today, a teacher having a drink at a bar on Saturday night can get fired should someone snap a picture of it and post it online. A cop making a terrible joke to disarm a bad situation can get canned despite past exemplary service. And an office employee with an unpopular POV can get demonized and tossed on the street for having that unpopular opinion. In essence, the threat the founders feared from government is now coming from companies.

It's a whole new world than the one that existed back then. Personally, I think we need to expand some constitutional protections into the private sector. Government based employees have had them, and so should private based employees.

You're still not explaining how their right to protest is being taken away. Can they not go stand on a streetcorner, buy media time (they can certainly afford it) or engage in any one of a number of other ways to protest?

Regarding the example of a teacher, do you have an example of that happening? I find that one far fetched. The police officer case I remember; wasn't that rather poor judgement in the performance of his duties. If I screwed up on that order of magnitude, I'd be looking for a new job, too.

Regarding the office worker with the unpopular opinion, you mean like that guy at Google who was recently shown the door after disagreeing with all the politically correct BS at that company? Should he have been protected as you would like to see the NFL players prote3cted?

[Gatefan1976]

You're still not explaining how their right to protest is being taken away. Can they not go stand on a streetcorner, buy media time (they can certainly afford it) or engage in any one of a number of other ways to protest?

Regarding the example of a teacher, do you have an example of that happening? I find that one far fetched. The police officer case I remember; wasn't that rather poor judgement in the performance of his duties. If I screwed up on that order of magnitude, I'd be looking for a new job, too.

Regarding the office worker with the unpopular opinion, you mean like that guy at Google who was recently shown the door after disagreeing with all the politically correct BS at that company? Should he have been protected as you would like to see the NFL players prote3cted?

You are missing the point by trying to "debunk" the examples.
You can get fired for what you do on your own time.
You can get fired for what you say on your own time.
You can get fired for not answering the phone when it is work.
You can get fired for not being available 24/7 if work wants it.

The US constitution does a pretty good job of not allowing the government to do it, yet people willingly allow a different system to do it. If you would not allow such dominance from your government, why would you allow it from your employer?

[Annoyed]

You are missing the point by trying to "debunk" the examples.
You can get fired for what you do on your own time.
You can get fired for what you say on your own time.
You can get fired for not answering the phone when it is work.
You can get fired for not being available 24/7 if work wants it.

The US constitution does a pretty good job of not allowing the government to do it, yet people willingly allow a different system to do it. If you would not allow such dominance from your government, why would you allow it from your employer?

Because the government can't fire you, your employer can. At the end of the day, you need to put food on the table/etc. You can't terminate your relationship with the government. Either side of an employer/employee relationship can sever the relationship at will. This is a double edged sword.

The only power the "people" have is if they bind together into a union. (Which I am not opposed to, in the private sector)
But unions have lost their influence in this country over the past 50 years or more for a number of reasons including free trade deals & misbehavior on the part of the unions themselves.

At the end of the day, that's why it has to be accepted. At the end of the day, you have to be able to support yourself.

[aretood2]

Because the government can't fire you, your employer can. At the end of the day, you need to put food on the table/etc. You can't terminate your relationship with the government. Either side of an employer/employee relationship can sever the relationship at will. This is a double edged sword.

The only power the "people" have is if they bind together into a union. (Which I am not opposed to, in the private sector)
But unions have lost their influence in this country over the past 50 years or more for a number of reasons including free trade deals & misbehavior on the part of the unions themselves.

At the end of the day, that's why it has to be accepted. At the end of the day, you have to be able to support yourself.

Do you know why you can't quit the government? Look up Social Contract theory. The problem is that every employer is doing the same thing. You can't live without working. The level of impact and control they have over your life reaches the level of governance. What's the point of having freedom of speech, if the consequence of using it is starving to death on a bench a park because you lost your job and couldn't pay the bills?

[Gatefan1976]

Because the government can't fire you, your employer can. At the end of the day, you need to put food on the table/etc. You can't terminate your relationship with the government.

Actually, you can do it, by either changing government, or by moving country. Neither may always be viable, granted, but it is an -error- to believe that you have no option

Either side of an employer/employee relationship can sever the relationship at will. This is a double edged sword.

No, it's not double edged, it has been -made- double edged by ridiculous "at will employment" LAWS (that's important, it's governmental law that allows this foolishness). At will laws allow for virtual slavery because, as you say, you need to provide an income to survive and the threat of what amounts to whimsical termination is a power that corporations and businesses should never have been allowed to wield.

The only power the "people" have is if they bind together into a union. (Which I am not opposed to, in the private sector)

Not entirely true. You can use the power of the people, via government and the judicial branch to reign in business, to remove "at will" laws and tighten regulation on the various "big" institutions. Corporations may be big, but in comparison to nations, they are nothing. Corporations -know this-, which is why you have the swamp and lobbying. IF trump actually did "drain the swamp", it would be fantastic for you, but trump is a dyed in the wool swamp creature, has been his entire life and is never going to change.

But unions have lost their influence in this country over the past 50 years or more for a number of reasons including free trade deals & misbehavior on the part of the unions themselves.

Free trade deals have nothing to do with unions, unions aren't even in their league at all. Misbehaviour of unions, sure.
I am curious to know what you think are the main reasons unions have failed in the USA so badly, when they perform fairly well elsewhere.

At the end of the day, that's why it has to be accepted. At the end of the day, you have to be able to support yourself.

No, it need not be accepted. Vast swathes of the modern Western world make it work just fine, the US has basically become a throwback and given your size, political clout, and GDP, I simply don't know why beyond the attitude of "we must accept it"

Do you know why you can't quit the government? Look up Social Contract theory. The problem is that every employer is doing the same thing. You can't live without working. The level of impact and control they have over your life reaches the level of governance. What's the point of having freedom of speech, if the consequence of using it is starving to death on a bench a park because you lost your job and couldn't pay the bills?

Exactly.
The dominion of government feared by the FF has just been allowed to fester in the "free market". Just because the tyranny is dressed in a different suit does not mean it is not tyranny.

[Womble]

No, I just don't expect anything better

Because you never learn. So many years of butting heads, you still don't know my MO. I don't go for low-hanging fruit.

Well, given I know the symbolism involved, no.
Nice dodge, but no points.

If you buy self-explanation over obvious context in one case, why not in another?

How about, no one will pay attention?

That would mean that "getting attention" justifies whatever means one chooses. Shock jocks FTW. I can buy it as the NFL players' motivation, I am not buying that you are comfortable enough with such an attitude.

Or Kaepernick did it before Cage became a TV thing?

I was just demonstrating how easy it was to find a form of protest that would be effective and on-point. A bullet hole-ridden hoodie would have packed the right punch even before Luke Cage screened on Netflix. So would a T-shirt with the faces of police brutality victims. Any number of alternatives were available, yet they went for the national anthem - is it because they were unimaginative morons or is it because the real agenda is not 'police brutality"?

Sure man, take the blue pill.

Whichever pill you take, you're not seeing with your own eyes. The Matrix is a poor analogy to the real world.

It's not, both were misunderstood by small minded little fools, and still are.

Reminds me of an old Russian joke about the Kremlin walls. A child asks his father why the Kremin has high walls. "So that bad people couldn't climb over them" says the father, and the child promptly asks "From which side?"

Which side are the small-minded fools misinterpreting the obvious? The ones who remember that the national anthem is the symbol for the state, or the ones buying into any arcane explanations that leave the "protesters" looking good?

You would not even be a footnote, just a sad, confused little man condemned to an eternity of torment, but nice attempt.

You absolutely suck at sarcasm

[Annoyed]

I am curious to know what you think are the main reasons unions have failed in the USA so badly, when they perform fairly well elsewhere.

There was a lot of corruption & mob/mafia influence in past decades, and some of the unions, such as U.A.W. got so greedy they damned near drove their employers out of business. (GM & Chrysler would have gone bankrupt if not for govt. bailouts in 1979 & 2008.) At their peak, for example, they had contracts giving the guy who pushes the broom at an auto plant was making $80 bucks an hour in wages and benefits. And then there is the govt. employee unions, whose greed is easily on a par with the UAW.

This behavior left a bad taste in many people's mouths.

[Gatefan1976]

There was a lot of corruption & mob/mafia influence in past decades, and some of the unions, such as U.A.W. got so greedy they damned near drove their employers out of business. (GM & Chrysler would have gone bankrupt if not for govt. bailouts in 1979 & 2008.) At their peak, for example, they had contracts giving the guy who pushes the broom at an auto plant was making $80 bucks an hour in wages and benefits. And then there is the govt. employee unions, whose greed is easily on a par with the UAW.

This behavior left a bad taste in many people's mouths.

So, like your corporations, you left them unregulated?
Or are the folks of the USA more prone to corruption?
As for the 80 bucks an hour for the broom pusher, that got debunked when you brought it up last time. The figure of 80 bucks an hour was if you divided all the money spent in pay equally across all people working for the company, -including- the white collar executives.
Do you honestly think that happened?

[Gatefan1976]

Because you never learn. So many years of butting heads, you still don't know my MO. I don't go for low-hanging fruit.

My fruit would disagree.........

If you buy self-explanation over obvious context in one case, why not in another?

Such as?

That would mean that "getting attention" justifies whatever means one chooses. Shock jocks FTW. I can buy it as the NFL players' motivation, I am not buying that you are comfortable enough with such an attitude.

I'm not exactly "comfortable" with it, but given the current political climate of the US, I -do- understand it.
That does not mean I think it is "right" however.

I was just demonstrating how easy it was to find a form of protest that would be effective and on-point. A bullet hole-ridden hoodie would have packed the right punch even before Luke Cage screened on Netflix. So would a T-shirt with the faces of police brutality victims. Any number of alternatives were available, yet they went for the national anthem - is it because they were unimaginative morons or is it because the real agenda is not 'police brutality"?

What do you think the "real agenda" is?
Should we have shirts of the little girl crying to her mother "don't fight mummy, I don't want you to be dead too" after she saw her father get shot by the cops?
Do we print a shirt with cops standing on the hood of a car spraying bullets into it?
I get "shock and awe" as a tactic, but when the target has been repetitively and contimually painted as either the other, or "not real American", will the sight elicit empathy, or chuckles that another "darky" got what was coming to them?

Whichever pill you take, you're not seeing with your own eyes. The Matrix is a poor analogy to the real world.

I was actually thinking of Alice in wonderland.

Reminds me of an old Russian joke about the Kremlin walls. A child asks his father why the Kremin has high walls. "So that bad people couldn't climb over them" says the father, and the child promptly asks "From which side?"

We have similar jokes about why Canberra is the Capital

Which side are the small-minded fools misinterpreting the obvious? The ones who remember that the national anthem is the symbol for the state, or the ones buying into any arcane explanations that leave the "protesters" looking good?

It IS the symbol for the state, but the attacks on it have been framed in terms of lacking patriotism, and the flag, nor the anthem represent patriotism. The pledge of allegiance would do that, which is why I WTF at what Tood said.
"Arcane explanations"? Kaepernick made his goal quite clear, there was nothing "arcane" about it. If you want an arcane explanation, I would look to the symbolism of the action itself. Kaepernick is neither sitting, nor standing, he is, essentially at "half mast", and I assume we all know what a flag at half mast represents. I do not know if that is his reasoning, in fact I doubt it is, but the symbology, intentional or not is pretty clear.
But that is indeed an arcane explanation, one that kaepernick has not even offered himself to my knowledge.

You absolutely suck at sarcasm

Yep, I'm terrible at it.

[garhkal]

So, like your corporations, you left them unregulated?
Or are the folks of the USA more prone to corruption?

Compared to folk elsewhere, imo those in the US are NOT as corrupt. BUT i do feel unions have gotten so unregulated and powerful, that we need to reign them the hell in..

[SoulReaver]

Compared to folk elsewhere, imo those in the US are NOT as corrupt. BUT i do feel unions have gotten so unregulated and powerful, that we need to reign them the hell in..

so unions should be regulated but the infinitely more powerful megacorps should not?
that's so-called "laissez faire" capitalism showing its true colours with its double standards

btw labour law in your country clearly says that in the private sector employers can fire their employees on a whim without justification (as in, the employee can return to work the next day to have one of the company security guards tell them they got 15 minutes to pack their stuff in a box & gtfo) and when that happens no union can save them
this fact alone proves that employee unions in the private sector have 0 power contrary to your claim

[Annoyed]

so unions should be regulated but the infinitely more powerful megacorps should not?
that's so-called "laissez faire" capitalism showing its true colours with its double standards

btw labour law in your country clearly says that in the private sector employers can fire their employees on a whim without justification (as in, the employee can return to work the next day to have one of the company security guards tell them they got 15 minutes to pack their stuff in a box & gtfo) and when that happens no union can save them
this fact alone proves that employee unions in the private sector have 0 power contrary to your claim

That's not quite accurate. A Union can have a CBA (Collective Bargaining Agreement) which does specify the circumstances under which an employee can be fired, and the agreement is binding.
As I've said, I'm not opposed to unions in the private sector.* My opposition to unions is for those in the public sector, for the simple reason that if the union in a private company negotiates a deal which causes that company's product to cost more or be of lower quality, I can simply go buy that product from another company. I have no such choice with the government and it's unions.

*In most cases. The U.A.W. would be the exception here. Their collective greed drove GM and Chrysler to bankruptcy, and those businesses should have failed as a result, but they got Bush II to go along with the "too big to fail" argument, so they were bailed out by the taxpayers. The taxpayers have no business bailing out a failed private business under any circumstances.

It should also be noted that Chrysler was bailed out not once, but twice. 1979 under President Peanut Farmer and again in 2007/8 by Bush II.

[SoulReaver]

That's not quite accurate. A Union can have a CBA (Collective Bargaining Agreement) which does specify the circumstances under which an employee can be fired, and the agreement is binding.
As I've said, I'm not opposed to unions in the private sector.* My opposition to unions is for those in the public sector, for the simple reason that if the union in a private company negotiates a deal which causes that company's product to cost more or be of lower quality, I can simply go buy that product from another company. I have no such choice with the government and it's unions.

*In most cases. The U.A.W. would be the exception here. Their collective greed drove GM and Chrysler to bankruptcy, and those businesses should have failed as a result, but they got Bush II to go along with the "too big to fail" argument, so they were bailed out by the taxpayers. The taxpayers have no business bailing out a failed private business under any circumstances.

It should also be noted that Chrysler was bailed out not once, but twice. 1979 under President Peanut Farmer and again in 2007/8 by Bush II.

"I'm in a bad mood you're fired"

now gimme just one example in the US where a union successfully forced the employer to change his mind in such a context

(of cos public sector doesn't count - police unions etc.)

[SoulReaver]

That's not quite accurate. A Union can have a CBA (Collective Bargaining Agreement) which does specify the circumstances under which an employee can be fired, and the agreement is binding.
As I've said, I'm not opposed to unions in the private sector.* My opposition to unions is for those in the public sector, for the simple reason that if the union in a private company negotiates a deal which causes that company's product to cost more or be of lower quality, I can simply go buy that product from another company. I have no such choice with the government and it's unions..

"I'm in a bad mood you're fired"

now gimme just one example in the US where a union successfully forced the employer to change his mind in such a context
public sector doesn't count of course

The taxpayers have no business bailing out a failed private business under any circumstances.

agree 200% on this one (especially big businesses)