From: Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) on


Donna Evleth wrote:
>
> > From: "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)"
> > <tribuyltinafpant(a)yahoo.co.uk>
> > Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave to
> > those who come after us.
> > Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe,alt.activism.death-penalty
> > Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:48:43 +0000
> > Subject: Re: Dutch McDo's 'wrong' to fire worker over cheese slice...
> >
> >
> >
> > Donna Evleth wrote:
> >>
> >>> From: "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)"
> >>> <tribuyltinafpant(a)yahoo.co.uk>
> >>> Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave to
> >>> those who come after us.
> >>> Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe,alt.activism.death-penalty
> >>> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 12:16:41 +0000
> >>> Subject: Re: Dutch McDo's 'wrong' to fire worker over cheese slice...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Donna Evleth wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> From: "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)"
> >>>>> <tribuyltinafpant(a)yahoo.co.uk>
> >>>>> Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave
> >>>>> to
> >>>>> those who come after us.
> >>>>> Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe,alt.activism.death-penalty
> >>>>> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:11:00 +0000
> >>>>> Subject: Re: Dutch McDo's 'wrong' to fire worker over cheese slice...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Donna Evleth wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> From: "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)"
> >>>>>>> <tribuyltinafpant(a)yahoo.co.uk>
> >>>>>>> Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we
> >>>>>>> leave
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>> those who come after us.
> >>>>>>> Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe,alt.activism.death-penalty
> >>>>>>> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 14:10:58 +0000
> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: Dutch McDo's 'wrong' to fire worker over cheese slice...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "tim...." wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)"
> >>>>>>>> <tribuyltinafpant(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>> news:4B603511.C9863FF9(a)yahoo.co.uk...
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "tim...." wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "Gregory Morrow" <rrrrrrrrrorrr(a)rrrnrjj.fi> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>> news:AJqdnURCYeG8uP3WnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com...
> >>>>>>>>>>> Earl Evleth wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 27/01/10 12:19, in article
> >>>>>>>>>>>> DsCdnWI0k5Crgv3WnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d(a)earthlink.com, "Gregory Morrow"
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <rrrrrrrrrorrr(a)rrrnrjj.fi> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> But the court said in its written judgement: "The dismissal was
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> too
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> severe a measure. It is just a slice of cheese," reports AFP news
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> agency.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> A reprimand was more in order.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Drastic treatment of workers is a hallmark of modern,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> profits-are-everything Capitalism. Basically
> >>>>>>>>>>>> terrorize the workers.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> To repeat, Capitalism has no social goals, it lacks
> >>>>>>>>>>>> human empathy. It ranks with Fascism in that regard.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> This kerfuffle is something I'd expect in the US, not in the EU
> >>>>>>>>>>> where
> >>>>>>>>>>> worker - protection laws are stronger...
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I wonder if this Dutch McDo's worker belonged to a union...???
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> When you have courts that enforce employment rights properly,
> >>>>>>>>>> individually,
> >>>>>>>>>> you don't need to belong to a union.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> What is in the contract?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The contract will be based upon the national law.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> There may or may not be a form employment contract. Under the
> >>>>>>> freedom to contract doctrine, generally people can define their
> >>>>>>> contracts as they see fit.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> If there are rules for firing, then those
> >>>>>>>>> rules must be followed.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The problem is that those rules will allow firing for an offence, the
> >>>>>>>> severity of which is subjective.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That sort of contract is just asking for the court to become
> >>>>>>> involved. The problem with "firing" is that the person goes to get
> >>>>>>> another job and they have to explain that they were "fired". If
> >>>>>>> they were "laid off" or something like that, that would be
> >>>>>>> different. So "firing" is beyond just at will employment.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It is common for managers to over rate the
> >>>>>>>> severity of any particular offence for their own purposes. Thus the
> >>>>>>>> courts
> >>>>>>>> are there to reverse the decision if the manager gets it wrong.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The problem is that the employer should have the right to lay off
> >>>>>>> employees as he sees fit within whatever rules the contract
> >>>>>>> defines. Generally I would side with the employer on this because
> >>>>>>> no one should be forced to continue to employ someone against their
> >>>>>>> will.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> If the work is at will, then the employer
> >>>>>>>>> should be able to fire the worker for any reason or no reason at
> >>>>>>>>> all.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Such contracts are completely banned in most European countries - even
> >>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>> the UK which has one of the most lax set of employment rights.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The default situation should be that the employer can let people go
> >>>>>>> for any reason or no reason. Anything else is ridiculous:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment
> >>>>>>> #begin quote
> >>>>>>> At-will employment is a doctrine of American law that defines an
> >>>>>>> employment relationship in which either party can break the
> >>>>>>> relationship with no liability, provided there was no express
> >>>>>>> contract for a definite term governing the employment relationship
> >>>>>>> and that the employer does not belong to a collective bargain
> >>>>>>> (i.e., has not recognized a union). Under this legal doctrine:
> >>>>>>> � any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is
> >>>>>>> free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no
> >>>>>>> cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or
> >>>>>>> otherwise cease work.[1]
> >>>>>>> #end quote
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Regarding unions, they are a form of collusion which
> >>>>>>>>> interferes with the market. This is no different from any sort of
> >>>>>>>>> monopoly and should be limited.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It is (limited).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Unions use their monopoly powers to extract wages from employers.
> >>>>>>> This is anti-competitive, no different to that situation that
> >>>>>>> Liberals complain about, the company with the monopoly.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I thought the employers and the unions bargained, to come up with
> >>>>>> contracts
> >>>>>> that both sides could live with.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Unions are monopolies. I would replace the term "bargain" with
> >>>>> "extortion".
> >>>>
> >>>> Kook alert. This is a rant. Not rational.
> >>>>
> >>> What are you taking issue with?
> >>>
> >>> 1) Unions are often monopolies in an industry or even across
> >>> several or many industries.
> >>>
> >>> 2) When such a monopoly exists, the union can have the power to
> >>> require compliance from the company, I've explained this in detail
> >>> in others posts.
> >>>
> >>> 3) If you demand something and the other side has no choice, that
> >>> isn't a bargain.
> >>>
> >>> 4) Whether you think it goes to the point of being "extortion", I
> >>> think that's worth discussing.
> >>>
> >>> 5) So what is "Kook Alerted"?
> >>
> >> Your use of the word extortion. This can occur on the side of the employer
> >> as well.
> >>
> > Is the word "kooky" or not? You are now saying that it can occur on
> > the side of the employer.
>
> The way you used it was blatantly biased, and therefore "kooky".
>
And then you used it the same way. At most my comment was
hyperbole. It certainly isn't something that has been refuted time
and again. I limit "Kook Alerts" to things like that, or things
that are just insane or inane.




> >> Some employers like to use illegal immigrant labor because it is
> >> cheap. The employer demands certain working conditions, sometimes fatiguing
> >> and/or dangerous, the illegal immigrant employee has no choice but to comply
> >> if he or she wants to go on working.
> >>
> > Or see "Grapes of Wrath". I didn't deny this by not bringing it up
> > out of the blue.
>
> I saw "Grapes of Wrath" in real life, not just "the movie".
>
The Grapes of Wrath was based on the sort of thing that really
happened.


> Or even the
> book. Real life, in a park in downtown Bakersfield in 1938. BTW, the Okies
> of the Dust Bowl era were not illegal migrants.
>
It's not really important to the point whether they were legal or
not.




> >> Employers have been hiring illegal
> >> immigrants and imposing substandard working conditions for decades.
> >> Traditionally, the immigrant, if caught, is deported to where he came from,
> >> little or nothing happens to the employer, who will then turn around and
> >> hire other illegals. This certainly responds to your point 3 above.
> >>
> > It doesn't change what I said from being true to not being true.
>
> Everything you say is true, Billy, we all know that by now.
>
I believe what I say is true or I wouldn't say it, unless this is a
Socratic moment or something.




--
"Gonna take a sedimental journey", what Old Man River actually
said.
From: Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) on


Donna Evleth wrote:
>
> > From: "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)"
> > <tribuyltinafpant(a)yahoo.co.uk>
> > Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave to
> > those who come after us.
> > Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe,alt.activism.death-penalty
> > Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:38:28 +0000
> > Subject: Re: Dutch McDo's 'wrong' to fire worker over cheese slice...
> >
> >
> >
> > John Rennie wrote:
> >>
> >> Earl Evleth wrote:
> >>> On 28/01/10 21:11, in article hjsr1k0uv9(a)news5.newsguy.com,
> >>> "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <evgmsop(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> She was a bit startled when I pointed out that
> >>>> she would not be able to use her electric typewriter, either. (She
> >>>> worked at home, typing scripts for free-lance screen-writers!)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Reminds me, we still have ours. An IBM selectric, which had a correcting
> >>> tape, a big thing at the time. It is down stairs in the cave.
> >>>
> >>> We had it with a French key board since generally the French keyboard is a
> >>> bit more universal than the American. The only problem is that several of
> >>> the letters are in different location, but when typing I can switch over
> >>> from the English to the French sequence in a minute or so. I only type using
> >>> the French sequence. Occasionally the Mac switches over without my noticing
> >>> until I hit the "m" or "a", or whatever.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Blah, blah, blah. You did your best to miss the point, Earl.
> >> The lady possessed an IQ of 160 (snipped by you) and yet was
> >> quite dumb.
> >>
> > IQ might not measure your knowledge of which products you own use
> > mains power, I'm suspecting.
>
> Please explain this sentence.
>
She had a claimed IQ of 160 and she didn't know that an electric
typewriter used mains power. So if she really had such an IQ,
obviously IQ isn't a measure of such arcane knowledge. The comment
was droll, sarcastic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mains_power
#begin quote
Mains is the general-purpose alternating current (AC) electric
power supply. In the US, electric power is referred to by several
names ncluding household power, household electricity, powerline,
domestic power, wall power, line power, AC power, city power,
street power, and grid power. In Canada, it is often called hydro,
because much of the Canadian electrical generating capacity is
hydroelectric.
#end quote






--
"Gonna take a sedimental journey", what Old Man River actually
said.
From: Mxsmanic on
Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) writes:

> She had a claimed IQ of 160 and she didn't know that an electric
> typewriter used mains power. So if she really had such an IQ,
> obviously IQ isn't a measure of such arcane knowledge.

Obviously. Intelligence and knowledge are two different things.
From: Mxsmanic on
Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) writes:

> But it evens out in that both sides have the same rights.

If the only way to exercise a right is to live under a bridge, it's not really
a right.

> That's not a real argument for doing that though.

I wasn't arguing in favor of it, just pointing out how a company can get away
with it.
From: Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) on


Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) writes:
>
> > She had a claimed IQ of 160 and she didn't know that an electric
> > typewriter used mains power. So if she really had such an IQ,
> > obviously IQ isn't a measure of such arcane knowledge.
>
> Obviously. Intelligence and knowledge are two different things.
>
Assuming the claim is an actual fact.



--
"Gonna take a sedimental journey", what Old Man River actually
said.