Servants - yes or no?

[Alceste]

Work retail long enough, and you would feel like a veritable slave.

I've worked in retail, but for small business owners. I didn't feel like a slave. Then again, I won't work for people who don't value what I bring to the table and treat me with respect, and I also live in an area where 9 times out of 10 if you get any work at all you are directly employed by the business owner. It's hard to be obnoxious to your employees when your own livelihood completely depends on their job satisfaction. It's way easier for "middle managers" to be obnoxious to their underlings, since they get their paycheck no matter what.

 

[Draka]

I've worked in retail and food service and I can't say either of them made me feel like a slave at all. Shoot, I was in the military and I didn't feel like a slave there either. Funny, but I kinda thought that slaves didn't get the luxury of choosing their employment and getting paid for it and receiving certain benefits for it. I chose all my forms of employment. I received benefits of at least some kind from all my jobs. Shoot, I still get benefits from having had served in the military. How many slaves can claim that?

 

[Revoltingest]

This is a stupid argument....

I'll be clearer this time....if you won't be civil, I won't be responding.

 

[Draka]

I'll be clearer this time....if you won't be civil, I won't be responding.

If you have that attitude there are many here you will never respond to.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you have that attitude there are many here you will never respond to.

But there are plenty of civil people remaining.

I believe in giving feedback when I think it might be productive.
It works on occasion, & some people really do try to accommodate my ultra thin skin.
(Groundskeepers are a notoriously sensitive bunch. All those years of being a servant, eh?)

 

[Wirey]

But there are plenty of civil people remaining.

I believe in giving feedback when I think it might be productive.
It works on occasion, & some people really do try to accommodate my ultra thin skin.
(Groundskeepers are a notoriously sensitive bunch. All those years of being a servant, eh?)

Name one time your feedback was productive. I told you I had crabgrass in my backyard and you tricked me into sucker punching that cop. I still have crabgrass, and now it's really hard to eat corn on the cob.

 

[Revoltingest]

Name one time your feedback was productive. I told you I had crabgrass in my backyard and you tricked me into sucker punching that cop. I still have crabgrass, and now it's really hard to eat corn on the cob.

Of course, that is the only stellar example I have of the value of feedback.
I'd rather not mention names of posters I've tussled with (& reconciled with) here,
& I can't recall any from our old haunt. But ya know what....I recall how you assisted
in getting the chip off of Bob's shoulder there. You ruined a great flame war, bub!

 

[Wirey]

That doesn't sound like something I would do.

 

[Revoltingest]

That doesn't sound like something I would do.

Before your brain thingie, you were the most caring, sensitive, sophisticated, tolerant, giving,
learned, calm, & engaging fellow. It was said that Gandhi was a Nazi skinhead compared to you.

 

[Gui10]

What do you think of the idea of having servants?

If you could afford it , would you have them?

I am thinking of servants such as butlers, cleaners, chefs, door openers etc..

Would you really want to have these people in your home attending to your every need, and what do you think of those people that have such staff?

another question, should they be allowed at all in the first place?

If it is treated like a job, there I have absolutely no objection to it, willing you want to pay this person a competitive annual salary...

 

[InsurgoInsurgiInsurrect]

This example is contrived at best. And it makes no sense. Who built the houses for the guy's greatgrandfather? Why the assumption that if we had an island of 10 people, the organization would automatically end up like this? With 9 people doing everything and 1 doing nothing? If you're going to make an example like this, at least try one that makes even a little sense. Including "back massages" is exactly the kind of facetious detail I was referring to in your previous posts. You're arguments are based on your own ill-founded prejudices, but you prefer to tell everyone else that they are being over-emotional or erroneously rationalizing their own points.



You're making a colossal leap in logic here. In the scenario you are describing, the one rich guy DOES exploit the others while he does nothing. He IS lazy and rich. But that is NOT what all people are like. I have said this to you many times, and you refuse to address this point. You can't paint everyone the same like that. This thread is about the idea that IF one had enough money, do they think it's WRONG to hire domestic workers. That's what we're talking about. Having money to hire people doesn't make you super rich. That was something I addressed before too but you brushed that aside.



Explain how Zuckerberg is a "leech". And then link it to the debate itself which is still to do with whether or not it is inherently wrong to hire domestic workers.

You are responding to my response to Revolt and not my response to you. These are two separate conversations. If you want to argue with me than do so but Revoltingest is a big, big boy mate. I am not even sure you are following that debate... I think he is and is bowing out but that is his MO so far as I can tell.

 

[InsurgoInsurgiInsurrect]

I'll be clearer this time....if you won't be civil, I won't be responding.

Really? The statement after that is that I think you are smart enough to get the argument and are just trolling which is beyond civil... So I simplify again to a simple example we can discuss and you duck that and won't respond. Point taken. Ultra thin skin? you? lol. You don't have a dog in this race beyond pride and you can keep that canine, pride is more than useless.

 

[InsurgoInsurgiInsurrect]

The idea that some people should be entitled to luxury at the expense of others for whatever reason is something many will rationalize in detail but is obviously wrong.

Just to reiterate my point of view. I see the very idea of servants as obviously wrong.

We can rationalize all day and play semantics but this seems obvious to me. If people don't get that I can hire someone to do my lawn for me but that someone is not a servant and is compensated as well or better than me then I think you are missing the gist of my argument.

Should there be a class of people called servants who lack education, inheritance or some other highly valued societal skill that is currently respected in capitalism be subjugated to work for masters who have more freedoms than they do? The answer is no. If you clean toilets and barely speak english in america you still should have a place to sleep and access medical care and doctors just like the people you work for.

Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of education or success at the game of capitalism.

Capitalism in america will always have winners and losers but the losers are still entitled to shelter, health care, retirement and every other basic right the winners enjoy. If you employ servants who ultimately lack the ability to have a baby without being bankrupted or whose children might die because they can't afford to take them to a hospital you can rationalize all day why you are offering $20 and they need $20 and volunteer to do whatever it is you want them to do for $20 but if you have health care and they don't than you are enjoying basic rights like having and raising healthy children that you are essentially arguing they should not have because they can't afford it and if they choose to have and raise children despite not being able to afford it than they deserve whatever comes their way.

It is really a basic equality argument than I am making. I am not sure how you can't see that. And if you disagree with it than do so proudly and openly and say you think a CEO should be able to have 5 kids all on first class medical insurance and who will go through ivy league colleges while the girl that scrubs your floors should not really be allowed to have 1 kid because she scrubs floors and can't afford to have a kid and medically or educationally provide for that kid.

Say what you feel.

 

[LongGe123]

You are responding to my response to Revolt and not my response to you. These are two separate conversations. If you want to argue with me than do so but Revoltingest is a big, big boy mate. I am not even sure you are following that debate... I think he is and is bowing out but that is his MO so far as I can tell.

You aren't a politician by any chance are you? Because that was absolutely superb evasion right there. I don't think it really matters who is in which conversation. I made a point about your analogy, why don't you just respond to that? And FFS, drop the sad little patronizing crap like adding "mate" to everything. It's belittling and serves no useful purpose.

I've asked you in other posts before, and so I will again, in the hopes that this time you will answer. Why do you insist on painting everyone the same? In your arguments and logic, all people with money are the same, exploiting in the same way, and following the same flawed justification you described them using. Will you please address this point? How can you say that, for example, me hiring a part time cleaner to come every Wednesday afternoon is the same thing as an evil overlord CEO overseeing 20,000 child laborers making wallets in some sweatshop? I think you're argument invites the idea of over-simplification.

 

[Draka]

I also have not seen any response to the post I made about the fact that many times people are dealing with a maid service company. The part-time maid that is servicing several homes actually works for a maid service which handles her calls and her pay and provides her insurance and other regular employee benefits like any other job. So Joe Shmoe who has her clean his house on Tuesdays and Fridays doesn't worry about whether or not she has insurance or whatnot.

Let's not also forget that those others who are running a maid service business on their own are doing just that. Running their own business. A business like any other. If they are in business for themselves then they are responsible for handling things like paying for their own insurance, taxes, social security, and so on and so forth, just like any other person in business for themselves has to do. If they have a service they offer to several clients then they are a business and they are responsible for themselves. This is different than if someone is working solely for one employer. See the difference?

 

[LongGe123]

If she lived with you, I doubt she would be agency, right? Usually agency staff would come and go since they would probably go to more than one place

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Servants have the same employment rights as everyone else.
50 years ago in the UK, that might not have been true, but employment law has come along way since then.

Employment law might be a minefield, but it is based on personal rights.
An employee always has the ultimate power of walking away.

At an interview I was once asked why I wanted the job (as a line manager)... My answer was that I was not sure I did. It changed the entire situation. It then became them trying to convince me it was a good idea to join them.

There are two sides in every employment opportunity. Domestic employees have learnt to negotiate with the best of them.

 

[otokage007]

Why not? They are servants not slaves. If they have no problem on serving u and their jobs are not harming them, then yes, they should be allowed. Plus I have a girl that cleans my house, and I'm grateful, and she seems happy with the amount I pay her.

Plus, for some, to be "servants" is the job of their life. For example, a cook probably prefers to be the personal cook of... I don't know, let's say Britney Spears, than the cook of a restaurant.

 

[InsurgoInsurgiInsurrect]

You aren't a politician by any chance are you? Because that was absolutely superb evasion right there. I don't think it really matters who is in which conversation. I made a point about your analogy, why don't you just respond to that? And FFS, drop the sad little patronizing crap like adding "mate" to everything. It's belittling and serves no useful purpose.

I've asked you in other posts before, and so I will again, in the hopes that this time you will answer. Why do you insist on painting everyone the same? In your arguments and logic, all people with money are the same, exploiting in the same way, and following the same flawed justification you described them using. Will you please address this point? How can you say that, for example, me hiring a part time cleaner to come every Wednesday afternoon is the same thing as an evil overlord CEO overseeing 20,000 child laborers making wallets in some sweatshop? I think you're argument invites the idea of over-simplification.

How do you intend I do that? If you can't follow the presented argument and instead argue with responses directed at other people and your own strawman arguments that how should I effectively respond?

 

[Kathryn]

I need to call some servants - oops, I mean a lawncare company - to come mow my grass while I'm on vacation.

I also need to get a servant - oops, I mean an oil change technician - to change the oil in my car.

Then I'm going to get a servant - oops, I mean a stylist - to cut and style my hair.

And today I've lined up a servant - oops, I mean a massage therapist - to give me a massage.

Look how many local jobs and companies I'm supporting!