Private Sector screwing up

#101
#101
paul1454 said:
Walmart is notorious for these practices. No one forces people to work there. People could choose other employment if they wanted.
Click to expand...
yes, in theory, we all have the choice... but when you got mouths to feed without any kind of specialized skill set or college education, etc, i'm not sure there's really a choice and these companies know that.
 
#102
#102
utvolpj said:
most companies (mine included) make you wait for a time before being eligible for any benefits. And if they don't like it they can always find other work that offers what they need. Ain't America great?
Click to expand...
yeah, that's true. There's usually about a 90-day trial period.
 
#103
#103
Cash Vallin said:
yes, in theory, we all have the choice... but when you got mouths to feed without any kind of specialized skill set or college education, etc, i'm not sure there's really a choice and these companies know that.
Click to expand...

To quote a genius philosopher from thus site: whelp, that's the system we got.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#106
#106
volinbham said:
any idea why?
Click to expand...
it's obviously to protect the company... but the employee knows when that trial period is over, they'll receive the benefit thus they're still protected.

peasant insurance aint doing that... that's pure and simply for the company and not the one being insured.
 
#108
#108
Cash Vallin said:
it's obviously to protect the company... but the employee knows when that trial period is over, they'll receive the benefit thus they're still protected.

peasant insurance aint doing that... that's pure and simply for the company and not the one being insured.
Click to expand...

Why does the employee agree to sign up for COLI?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#109
#109
Cash Vallin said:
yes, in theory, we all have the choice... but when you got mouths to feed without any kind of specialized skill set or college education, etc, i'm not sure there's really a choice and these companies know that.
Click to expand...

Exactly, your benefit from the employment exceeds the perceived costs. So you are in a better position for being employed there correct? Ultimately, even though you are receiving a net benefit, you just want more. That is human nature, but it doesn't mean the employer is being unethical for not providing it. They are putting you in a better position than you were without them.
 
#111
#111
paul1454 said:
Exactly, your benefit from the employment exceeds the perceived costs. So you are in a better position for being employed there correct? Ultimately, even though you are receiving a net benefit, you just want more. That is human nature, but it doesn't mean the employer is being unethical for not providing it. They are putting you in a better position than you were without them.
Click to expand...
oh yeah, you're better off.. no doubt.. just don't think there should be such an ever-growing gap between the CEOs and his/her employees.

if the company grows in worth, to me, that means the employees should as well.
 
#113
#113
Cash Vallin said:
they DON'T.. hence the court decision
Click to expand...

First, you're banking on Michael Moore's sorry ass to be remotely truthful, and second, you're arguing against the rules which say that the employee must consent. Irma's just arguing for free money that the has no right to.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#115
#115
BigPapaVol said:
First, you're banking on Michael Moore's sorry ass to be remotely truthful, and second, you're arguing against the rules which say that the employee must consent. Irma's just arguing for free money that the has no right to.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
this has nothing to do with your opinion of michael moore... the court sided with the employee, don't forget that
 
#116
#116
BigPapaVol said:
First, you're banking on Michael Moore's sorry ass to be remotely truthful, and second, you're arguing against the rules which say that the employee must consent. Irma's just arguing for free money that the has no right to.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
i don't disagree there either, as far as her trying to get the money. but the company has no ethical right to profit off of an employees death either
 
#117
#117
Cash Vallin said:
this has nothing to do with your opinion of michael moore... the court sided with the employee, don't forget that
Click to expand...

Courts are dead wrong every day, which is why people settle all the time, even when right.

The law requires consent from the employee. Don't forget that, while you're whining about two consenting companies entering into a contract in which each believes they'll profit - legally.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#119
#119
BigPapaVol said:
Courts are dead wrong every day, which is why people settle all the time, even when right.

The law requires consent from the employee. Don't forget that, while you're whining about two consenting companies entering into a contract in which each believes they'll profit - legally.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
that's all we have to go on is the courts, in this example. they said there was no consent... again i'm not talking about what's legal... i'm talking about what's ethical. slavery was legal at one time, but it didn't make it ethical.
 
#121
#121
Cash Vallin said:
that's all we have to go on is the courts, in this example. they said there was no consent... again i'm not talking about what's legal... i'm talking about what's ethical. slavery was legal at one time, but it didn't make it ethical.
Click to expand...
They made it up. It was he said, she said and they mysteriously laid the burden of proof on the defendant, which is utter garbage. Now they simply get a signature and avoid this kind of frivolous suit.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#123
#123
BigPapaVol said:
They made it up. It was he said, she said and they mysteriously laid the burden of proof on the defendant, which is utter garbage. Now they simply get a signature and avoid this kind of frivolous suit.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
and you have no idea what was said in that courtroom. for all you know somebody from the company with power said there was no consent.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top