For that matter, the corporations could provide all of the housing for their employees, all of the utilities, and even groceries. Of course, we will let the corporations deduct the cost (plus a healthy profit) from the paychecks of the worker. Oh wait, didn't this country try all that before?
People who don't think they are getting a fair shake from their employers have an avenue of protest available to them, they can quit. In addition to getting rid of mandatory overtime, I would like to see minimum wage and other distortions of the labor market removed. Allow the price of labor to be determined the same way most prices are, whatever the market will bear. On a related note, I think we should get rid of rediculous subsidies.
Why do any of you even bother responding to TJ in discussion threads. He is a hyperbolic, ultra-conservative caricature, not a rational person who is offering any rational opinion. On the topic - this is the issue that can win the election for the Democrats. If they go to states with strong unions and promise to repeal this, they will get the endorsements they need. SM, what is more important - a perfect market or allowing people to earn enough of a wage to survive? The past has shown us that perfect capitalism creates huge disparities (which in turn either require greater federal spending to suppor these people or creates an underclass that threatens stability).
None of these posts explain how this is fair for our first response and other public safety employees. What does profit have to do with protecting americans? Also, if the job market were better, maybe people could just up and quit there jobs and find another one easily, but somebody seems to have spoiled that party. If there's no minimum wage, what's to stop companies from agreeing to a maximum wage? That'll be nice, people making 3 dollars an hour, no overtime, no benefits, etc. The future sure does sound great!
Thank you! At least StupidMoniker made an attempt to argue the other way... however much the vast majority who know about this (most people don't) might disagree with him, but he didn't address this at all. Why on earth wouldn't he want those who put their lives on the line for us and don't work for the private sector to work for nothing? Does he want them to say, "Sorry, I know you have that gigantic fire roaring towards your community, but we only work 40 hours a week. Good luck with the water hose." Unbelieveable!
The people. No one has to work at a job that they feel they are being unfairly compensated for. If no one will work for a company at a certain wage, then they will offer higher wages (or they will go out of business, because someone needs to do the labor). At some point the wages will be raised to the point that the people are willing to work for. That is the market price for their labor. That is what stops companies from agreeing to a maximum wage. Here is a crazy idea, have the people work for a salary. That way, they make the same amount of money no matter what, and can decide whether that yearly salary is worth doing the work for, just like any other salaried position. That is how you make this fair for not only first respone workers, but also factory workers, construction workers, computer programmers, astronauts, teachers, and fast-food employees. Does that seem like a reasonable solution?
Poof. As usual. And Stupid apparently forgot that, especially since 9/11 (It changed everything!!), we are, at the very least, supposed to respect those who risk their lives to keep us safe. Soldiers, firemen and policemen especially. Or, you know, we could just got to whatever the market will bear. I'm sure there are lots of kids straight out of college who always wanted to be firemen. They'll probably work cheap. Screw the guys who know how to do it and have been risking their lives to keep us safe. What about those frat kids over there? It's not like they can get any other jobs these days. Let them hold the hoses. p.s. The terrorists DID win. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a damned idiot. If we didn't have proof before, this thread was it. And if that wasn't proof enough, the posts by STUPID Moniker and Trader_Stupid were double proof. God bless this poor, poor country. If He exists (and I'd sure like to think He does) He must be so goddamned disappointed.
Where did I disrespect emergency services personnel? I just said that they could reasonably be salaried personnel instead of waged (actually I said EVERYONE could be salaried). That way the people interested in doing any job would have a good idea of exactly how much they would get in a year and could then decide if that amount was enough for them to take the job. There is nothing to suggest if that is more, less, or equal to what anyone makes now. I also never suggested changing the mandatory requirements and training for taking any job. Of course the evil demons who somehow come into power in every hiring position will always work together to gouge the poor proletariat, not to mention somehow maximize their own success by hiring only those who are unable to correctly do their jobs, unless the benevolent government with the help of the great and honorable labor unions can protect the poor, helpless, incompetent in all but a single very specialized niche, and apparantly lacking in free will working man. Please oh brotherhood of unions and federal government, save us from the evils of the free market and her human resource management spawn.
Stupid: Capitalism, when abused as it is being right now, can actually be used to rip off workers. I know you don't believe this. I know you feel you're on a team and you gotta defend that team no matter what kind of evil **** they do. But any system can and will be used to rip off workers. It's one thing when regular workers get ripped off, but in the face of 9/11 especially, it is APPALLING when people who risk their lives for our safety get ripped off. But don't talk to me. Talk to the fireman who started the thread. Do you think he's greedy? Do you think he's lazy? Do you think he's trying to get over on the system? Do you think he's unpatriotic? Do you think he ought to "take one for the team?" Do you think, in the interest of spending our limited budget more wisely on tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent, we ought to cut pay to people who risk their lives to protect us (let's not forget - at a far lower wage than the investor class who enjoyed the benefits of the tax cuts which made paycuts for firemen and the rest necessary)? 9/11 changed NOTHING. In fact it was only an excuse to make it worse. And the incredible gall is that the people in charge have bastardized the deaths of those innocent people to make the rich richer at the expense of the people who risk their lives to keep the rest of us safe. You and Jorge should be ashamed of yourselves for showing your faces in this thread to say anything but that you were disappointed in the government's actions here. If you defend it, don't ****ing EVER talk about 9/11 or the people who died that day trying to save those people ever again. We now know where your loyalties lie. Money is far more important to you people than American lives. And, in case you didn't know, that exact line of thinking has a lot to do with why we were attacked in the first place. Thank goodness we had firemen and soldiers and policemen ready to respond to the attack. I'm sorry so many of them died, but I guess that's just what the market bears, right? Keep this **** up and no matter how great their commitment to helping people is, they won't be there next time to die on unpaid overtime.
Stupid Moniker please cite the example of a country with a more prosperous economy than the U.S. (current or historical) that was more prosperous because it practiced a more pure form of capitalism. Or is the U.S. practicing the most pure form of capitalism. Or did we practice a more pure form of capitalism in the past and therefore were more prosperous. This is a serious question, not sarcastic.
It's either naively idealistic or deliberately obtuse to think that lesser restrictions on the economic giants would not lead to even greater abuses and exploitation of the workers.
Of course history proves that this idea doesn't work, and companies have been guilty in the past of wage fixing, pirce fixing etc.
I think the of eliminating overtime idea is proposterous. Having made low wages for the first six years of my working career doing what you would call "college jobs", and now having an actual career and getting beaten down by the tax man since I've moved up a couple of tax brackets, my question is...what more do they want? It is ridiculous the amount of taxes paid in this country, even when I work overtime, Uncle Sam has his hand out right away pulling money out of my pocket. Now Big Brother is trying to strip me of my right to work overtime...that is complete and utter bullsh!t. While I will not venture to say that anyone's view is wrong, I think as hard-working Americans this is something that we all need to come together on and let our voices be heard. I have emailed the Bush administration to voice my displeasure of this presumed bill that they want to pass. Since that time that venue has been closed so I have faxed them to again voice my displeasure. And how hypocritical that our public servants were glorified as heroes and saviors after the gruesome and terrible events of September 11th, and now Uncle Sam has his hand dipping into their pockets. I am not one who is big on politics, my view is that no matter what you're intentions are going into the office as a voice of the people, you can easily be swayed by "fringe" benefits, kickbacks or whatever the hell capitalist corporations do to "control" votes. This is a simple case of that now, the corporations have slipped in enough money that the government has the gaul to try to pull a fast one on the American people and it is a bitter pill that will not be swallowed. Having spoken with people in the upper percentage, some in that exclusive 1%, and discussed the role of government and how it affects their wealth, not one of them has really complained about the amount of taxes that they pay, simply because they can write so much of it off as business expense, charitable gift, etc. Yes the upper percentage does pay more taxes, but there are plenty of loopholes to help them out. I see this as yet another in the never ending game of circle jerk between the exculsive club of ultra rich people, corporations and the government. I ask you to not take my diatribe as a means of demeaning my country, I love my country, enough that I enrolled in the military, but was not able to fulfill my would-be obligations due to unforseen circumstances. Nonetheless it is a great country, however even Utopia had its flaws. This is one of those things that I just cannot agree with and refuse, as is my God-given and Constitutional right to go along with. If this measure were to pass I would lose what respect I have left of the governement and give up hope in believing that this great country of ours really gives a damn about a hard-working schmoe like myself and everyone else who busts their hump to provide for their families and make ends meet..
Here is a crazy idea, have the people work for a salary. That way, they make the same amount of money no matter what, and can decide whether that yearly salary is worth doing the work for, just like any other salaried position. That is how you make this fair for not only first respone workers, but also factory workers, construction workers, computer programmers, astronauts, teachers, and fast-food employees. Does that seem like a reasonable solution? This assumes that there's basically free movement of labor, which simply isn't true. To change jobs, there has to be a constant market for other jobs (there isn't right now), easy/cheap/fast training, etc. Changing jobs often requires a great deal of time and effort. Once you have a job, you can't just drop it the next day if the employer changes the rules and makes you work more hours. The situation you describe is the "ideal", but it's not reality - companies can and will abuse their employees. It's happened throughout history, it happens now, and it would happen even more under these new rules. You can say people will only work if they feel that its worth it, but if they have to make a choice between losing their house or working for crap wages, they have no choice but to pick the latter. You can argue "well, then its worth it" certainly, but fair market prices work when both parties truly have a choice whether to employ or not. That's not the case when an individual has short-term obligations that have to be met, which virtually everyone does. In that scenario, you have a situation where one party is at a significant disadvantage compared to the other, and that leads to abuse by the party with the advantage. Incidentally, I think this is a big part of the reason unions got formed.
