December 8, 2011 at 11:41 pm
Hi,
Quote: "how is it anyone else's business to interfere and forcibly prohibit the transaction?"
What I think about this: it is not anyONE's business, but a more fundamental issue.
Mind you, I am European, not American; and there is a growing cultural difference between the two.
The real question here is how much influence, power we allow 'the collective' to have versus our 'individual' free choice.
A thought: when the population density gets higher, the 'collective' rule gets more necessary, at the cost of individual freedom. Even in labor issues.
Nice discussion, by the way. So far respectful.
December 9, 2011 at 3:59 am
Evil Kraig F
(...)As to a right to complain, I would disagree with that. Heck, I disagree with the removal of capital punishment, instead of a $0.15 bullet we spend 2 million dollars in case of the occassion a jury of people too bored or stupid to get out of jury duty got it wrong keeping someone incarcerated until they die of natural causes.
(...)
Your post seemed a little high on double negatives for me to get in general. I will comment on the above though - even in Texas (i.e. a fairly gung ho place with regard to human life) it costs (on average, depends on life span) three times as much to execute someone as to incarcerate them for the rest of their days. Court stuff is REALLY expensive. I thought everyone understood that by now. If you didn't I hope you do now. Check it out online - the only reason to keep capital punishment is your own personal hard on for that type of thing (you might note my distaste!).
December 9, 2011 at 7:06 am
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (12/8/2011)
Tony Palmeri (12/8/2011)
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (12/7/2011)
(...) Fair argument, but moral principles are arbitrary. (...)Some of us don't think so.
But that topic is *way* beyond the scope of a Forum Post here 🙂
If you have a quick example, I'd like to hear it. Don't forget that different cultures/ethnic groups/religions view things differently. While I might not agree with other views, I don't want their moral principle pushed on me, any more than they want mine on them.
We may need to differentiate between moral principles and the application of those principals. Take the eskimo practice of killing children, particularly female. That wasn't done because they didn't care for their children because in other cases everything possible is done to protect them. Rather, due to the lifestyle, shortage of food, and high casualty rate among men there were times when drastic measures were needed to ensure the survival of the family. Even then, another family adopting the child was preferred. The practice actually came from respect for life but due to situation the lives of the many needed to take precedence over the life of the one. Take a look at the first chapter of "Politically Correct Death" by Francis Beckwith (which is where I got that example from.) It's a pro-life book on abortion but the first chapter deals just with ethics in general and why moral relativism doesn't stand up to scrutiny. In a debate that has been far more emotional than it should be it's a book that draws just from ethics logic and has been criticized as being too logical by opponents.
December 9, 2011 at 12:03 pm
call.copse (12/9/2011)
Evil Kraig F
(...)As to a right to complain, I would disagree with that. Heck, I disagree with the removal of capital punishment, instead of a $0.15 bullet we spend 2 million dollars in case of the occassion a jury of people too bored or stupid to get out of jury duty got it wrong keeping someone incarcerated until they die of natural causes.
(...)
Your post seemed a little high on double negatives for me to get in general.
Hm, might be the reason for the lack of comments on it in general. Sorry about that. I probably got a little too caught up in the language of it and possibly missed a step or two.
I will comment on the above though - even in Texas (i.e. a fairly gung ho place with regard to human life) it costs (on average, depends on life span) three times as much to execute someone as to incarcerate them for the rest of their days. Court stuff is REALLY expensive. I thought everyone understood that by now. If you didn't I hope you do now. Check it out online - the only reason to keep capital punishment is your own personal hard on for that type of thing (you might note my distaste!).
Oh, I've read through it. I'm familiar with the average of 14 (17?) years worth of Appeals, etc etc. This is because we've allowed the system to go far beyond its purpose. I'm not against the distaste personally. What I'm against is the cost of incarcerating someone who we have decided should *never* be allowed to re-enter society. Ever. This person can never be allowed out of confinement. I'm looking for other options than me paying for their relaxation time for a few decades. A higher-speed death penalty process would assist in this.
However, I won't go further on that, at least not in this discussion. We're certainly jumping the rails here taking a conversation on freedoms into one on the death penalty. It was merely one example I wanted to use. In hindsight, not a wise one. There were others that I knew wouldn't provoke the same visceral reactions this one can.
Never stop learning, even if it hurts. Ego bruises are practically mandatory as you learn unless you've never risked enough to make a mistake.
For better assistance in answering your questions[/url] | Forum Netiquette
For index/tuning help, follow these directions.[/url] |Tally Tables[/url]
Twitter: @AnyWayDBA
December 12, 2011 at 3:33 am
Evil Kraig F
I'm looking for other options than me paying for their relaxation time for a few decades. A higher-speed death penalty process would assist in this.
So you'd like to go to a China style 'shoot people at the drop of a hat' scenario? Forgive me if I don't go with you on that trip. If you fail to immediately see the problems with going that way I am unlikely to make any headway in convincing you - still, life is likely to get cheaper before it gets more expensive it is fair to say. Personally I think given the reported nature of US State Pens execution is a very easy let off.
I agree this is not the time or place though. At the end of the day I am a science geek. I would consider myself relatively utilitarian - what actually produces the best results for society overall is the question that needs to be combined with our ethics (whether from nature or nurture) for me. We are a long way from that position in our political thinking.
December 22, 2011 at 2:43 pm
On the other hand, employers sometimes see a salary as a way to push workers to their limits, burn them out, and impose strict requirements on the work needed for deadlines, themselves often arbitrary.
I have work that qualify for Slavery scheduled for next month to March so I will be talking to both HR and legal and looking for new employment next year.
Kind regards,
Gift Peddie
January 3, 2012 at 12:25 pm
Gift Peddie (12/22/2011)
On the other hand, employers sometimes see a salary as a way to push workers to their limits, burn them out, and impose strict requirements on the work needed for deadlines, themselves often arbitrary.
I have work that qualify for Slavery scheduled for next month to March so I will be talking to both HR and legal and looking for new employment next year.
I wonder what your definition of the term 'slavery' is.
Here's what I pulled from Wikipedia, and I think this is an accurate definition:
"Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property to be bought and sold, and are forced to work. Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to demand compensation."
I don't know if you were being facetious, or just too-loose with your choice of words.
January 3, 2012 at 2:04 pm
Tony Palmeri (1/3/2012)
Gift Peddie (12/22/2011)
On the other hand, employers sometimes see a salary as a way to push workers to their limits, burn them out, and impose strict requirements on the work needed for deadlines, themselves often arbitrary.
I have work that qualify for Slavery scheduled for next month to March so I will be talking to both HR and legal and looking for new employment next year.
I wonder what your definition of the term 'slavery' is.
Here's what I pulled from Wikipedia, and I think this is an accurate definition:
"Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property to be bought and sold, and are forced to work. Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to demand compensation."
I don't know if you were being facetious, or just too-loose with your choice of words.
It is funny to quote pre President Lincoln definition of the word but I am talking about a schedule that will require me to put in more than forty hours of overtime a week because my manager knows my overtime is free. I have decided the overtime if needed must be paid or I will be looking for other employment. I did 95 percent of the department’s work that took our biggest account to production but the team got credit for it.
The overtime for that work was used to hire a contractor who barely worked and was not here most of the time he was employed by the company, meaning my unpaid time was wasted while I watched. My overtime for any work will be paid if all employees are created equal.
:hehe:
Kind regards,
Gift Peddie
January 3, 2012 at 10:55 pm
Gift Peddie's comment goes a good way to explaining why I'm a contractor. I do my hours and walk out the door. No more working for free - that's for suckers.
Gift - People get exploited because they allow themselves to get exploited. It's insidious - bad managers first give you more work than you can complete in your regular work hours, then when you meet the objectives, they pile it on further. With such treatment, sooner or later they'll be a crisis when you can't deliver. So you're better off to precipitate the crisis earlier before it affects your health.
So you actually have four options:
1) Quit and get a job elsewhere. If you don't like the idea of being out of work and aren't confident in your ability to secure work, you'll never make it as a contractor.
2) Precipitate a crisis by failing to deliver within the unreasonable time constraints. If you're doing considerable overtime and you're technically competent, what are they going to do? Fire you? They won't be able to find anyone else who'll do so many hours for free and then there's the learning curve of picking your stuff up - it won't happen.
3) Suck it up, be unhappy, be stressed and fall ill.
4) Go and find a job in a jurisdiction that doesn't permit excessive overtime, like the Netherlands, i.e. get out of the USA! In the EU, there's the Working Time Directive which puts a limit on the number of hours any employee can work. Some countries (like the UK) have clauses where an employee can contract out of its provisions, but many others don't, and not all the EU countries have poor economies.
January 4, 2012 at 8:36 am
Gift - People get exploited because they allow themselves to get exploited. It's insidious - bad managers first give you more work than you can complete in your regular work hours, then when you meet the objectives, they pile it on further. With such treatment, sooner or later they'll be a crisis when you can't deliver. So you're better off to precipitate the crisis earlier before it affects your health.
I have to agree because I think the work is in the wrong category and scoped as such so I will just wait for when the duration pressure is applied, then I will ask that the work be taken back to the correct category so the scope and duration be changed as needed.
Then there was the contractor who comes in an hour after I get here leave almost the same time with me or a little later and took regular two hour lunches and paid sick time off on my unpaid overtime. I was a contractor who took fulltime employment because of the current US economy, who knows if my manager is just extracting the paid time off.
There is nobody in the company who can do the job because I am doing actual development of compiled code not doing what is in the requirements.
🙂
Kind regards,
Gift Peddie
March 31, 2016 at 6:32 am
Stand up to their employer? That would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
March 31, 2016 at 6:43 am
It's funny how this is both timely and dated. The U.S. Department of Labor is in the process of issuing final regulations that will expand the number of employees who are eligible for overtime (FLSA non-exempt), as opposed to throwing even more workers under the 'you are management' bus. The way these proposed regulations were written is that just about everyone who isn't making $50,000 a year will have to be paid time and a half for hours worked over 40 in a week. And it's indexed for inflation.
Next time someone tells you there's no difference between Democratic and Republican priorities, mention this.
March 31, 2016 at 7:29 am
For those of you who routinely work overtime, does your boss ask you to work overtime, or do you simply feel compelled to put in extra hours when working on a task that's considered overdue by your boss?
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
March 31, 2016 at 8:37 am
MattieNH (3/31/2016)
It's funny how this is both timely and dated. The U.S. Department of Labor is in the process of issuing final regulations that will expand the number of employees who are eligible for overtime (FLSA non-exempt), as opposed to throwing even more workers under the 'you are management' bus. The way these proposed regulations were written is that just about everyone who isn't making $50,000 a year will have to be paid time and a half for hours worked over 40 in a week. And it's indexed for inflation.Next time someone tells you there's no difference between Democratic and Republican priorities, mention this.
Shouldn't be based on salary. I worked at a company where toward my last couple of years they expected you work 60 hour work weeks while getting paid for 40 hours. I made close to 90K a year there. We should have been eligible for OT since even the C-level positions expected this from the employees.
March 31, 2016 at 8:47 am
Hi Lynn,
I agree completely; there are lots of jobs that pay more than $50,000 that don't (or shouldn't) qualify as exempt from overtime.
There is currently an incredibly low weekly wage that allows employers to classify an employee as exempt. All this is doing is raising that amount, which hasn't been raised in years, and indexing it. It doesn't mean that $50,000 a year automatically makes you exempt. It just makes it a whole lot harder to classify an employee making $30,000 exempt.
Mattie
Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 88 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply