Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
I haven't only had low level jobs. Even in the white collar, professional world I was told how it's going to be.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Most free states run by Republicans. Least free states run by Democrats.
- Thread starter Twilight Hue
- Start date
There are many low level white collar jobs.
If someone is really valuable, they have more power.
Lesser folk must shop for the best job. Liberty is not
government stepping in to coerce business into making
all things equal & fair.
A possibility would be that government would hire or
otherwise support people who can't cut it in the
business world. Such wards would have the kind
of guaranteed provided "liberty" that you want.
Last edited:
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Im sure they said the same when it comes to OSHA. And much like ending at will employment it was necessary.
Liberty isn't do whatever I want. It's a two way street and conflicting interests do happen. At will employment is abusive. Any reason and without notification isn't liberty.
And even when I was valuable, where it mattered (like my pay) I was still told how it's going to be.
I've nothing to add.
No, I'm just not foolish enough to think that the only threats to our freedom come from government, or that repealing laws that limit the ability of corporations to infringe on our freedoms increases "liberty."
And the straw man makes his appearance.
No, that showed up here:
But what I said isn't a straw man. It's a fair restatement of your position in this thread: that reduction in regulation necessarily implies an increase in liberty. There seems to be no room in your worldview that maximal freedom might include the government preventing private entities from infringing on the freedom of others.
You think you're fair.
I see less going on.
Of course you do.
Edit: but by all means, please prove me wrong: give us a few examples of laws you think promote liberty by preventing businesses from infringing on liberty.
Last edited:
esmith
Veteran Member
It appears that you think that some States do not allow unions.
That is a fallacy as far as I know.
I think you are confused about States with "right-to-work" laws.
Right-to-work only means that to work at a company that has a union you do not have to belong to that union.
Right to Work Laws.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
1) Most jobs are low level jobs though. They are not the exception, they are the rule. Meaning that employees in general don't have much of a negotiation power.
2) Selecting who you are going to work for depends on the current state of the economy where you live. Sometimes you can't afford to be a choser and other times there isn't much of a distinction between the ones available.
3) I like the system we have in Brazil. In simple terms, both the employee and the employer need to let the other part know they want to terminate the contract around 30 days in advance, unless there is a just cause (think of the employee stealing from the employer, just to cite one example). The employer can also immediately fire the employee for any other reason in which case the wage for those 30 days is still owed to the employee as if they had worked those 30 days. The employee can also quit right away, in which case, the wages for those 30 days will be discounted from whatever the employer owes to the employee.
This isn't a lack of liberty in the context of the study in the OP.
But the legal right to apply for jobs wherever one wants is
liberty. If one wants to bargain harder, one must offer greater
value. Being of low value isn't something to be cured by
having government imposing restrictions upon business.
The worker has the liberty to improve & negotiate.
Liberty isn't about government providing largesse, even
if that's something we decide is good.
People have the liberty to move to where jobs are. But about
this....one thing that interferes with this liberty is government.
It imposes high real estate transfer costs upon home sellers.
And if the market is down, & one borrowed from government
(eg, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac), government will not bargain
to reduce principal for underwater buyers, thereby trapping
them in a location.
Private lenders to bargain principal & interest. Been there
& done that. This is liberty.
That is a case where the country decided that a reduction
in liberty is of value. But it is still a reduction in the liberty
of the business...one that is not reciprocal. And again,
this is confusing worker security with liberty.
From post #91...
I sense that some here are confusing liberty with morality.
And this leads them to believe that which is more moral,
has greater liberty. Not so. Tis better to recognize that
sometimes restricting liberty is useful, eg, licensing of
professions such as doctors, lawyers, CPAs.
We'll have no total liberty in any government. I favor
balancing liberty & limitations more on the side of liberty.
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
No, I know for a fact that many US companies do not allow unions, and they are backed by the States in their power to fire anybody who tries.
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
The context of the study is that banning women from divorcing their husbands increases liberty for all, so I would chance the argument that its premise is largely self-serving gobbledygook to begin with.
That is not the context.
That is one element that you've focused upon...& misunderstood.
To marry with greater restriction on divorce is just an option for
some people with backward religious beliefs.
It's analogous to Sharia Law. I favor the liberty for 2 parties to
voluntarily agree to its ruling, instead of using governmental law.
Think of it as like agreeing to arbitration or mediation.
As long as Sharia Law isn't imposed upon the unwilling, it enhances
liberty for some religious folk.
On the licensing of professions like engineering:
If you want to enter a building but don't because you aren't sure whether it's structurally sound, your liberty has been reduced just as much as if the government passed a law saying that you can't enter the building.
Professional licensing addresses these sorts of concerns, and by doing so, advances liberty. It does so by putting restrictions on professionals in regulated professions; the trick is striking a balance so that liberty is maximized.
Perhaps you begin to understand that liberty is merely freedom
to do things. I too favor limiting liberty in some areas, eg,
professional licensing where the profession poses significant
risks to customers & the public.
Too many lefties don't understand that Libertarians are not
anything-goes anarchists. Some regulation enhances the
not-swinging-one's-arms-into-a-neighbor's nose philosophy,
eg, regulating toxic waste, which doesn't belong in rivers.
esmith
Veteran Member
Don't know where you get your information from, but suggest you do a little better research.
Employers' Rights and Unions | LegalMatch.
Clown College - Circopedia
Oh, come on....someone was going to post it.
I just said what everyone else was thinking....all in good fun, of course.
"Right to work" laws are expressly about interfering with that liberty.
Forming a union is one way that employees and employers can define their relationship. If enough of the workers hold enough clout for the employer to freely agree to their terms (e.g. "we'll have a collective agreement spelling out workers' rights and pay" and "all workers must belong to the union as a condition of employment"), then that's the relationship.