Topic: advertising first, product second

[Crash]

In the current economic climate, especially, people will take whatever job they can get. Do you think most people work at Walmart out of some lifelong aspiration?
The rest of your statements and accusation in this paragraph are wholly unsupported by what I've said. And again, I find them absolutely remarkable coming from a forum admin. I think you do yourself a great disservice and disgrace yourself with your argument.

You're essentially saying "I want to be the little king of my castle and to hell with my obligations, nomatter how trivial they may be, to hell with everyone else's rights and, to anyone who disapproves, well I'm going to call them everything under the sun until they agree or go away".

I'm not saying that you should work for any random company, I'm saying that people in general might take up any job that is available out of desperation and in that situation the employer might be reasonable or unreasonable. In that way it is like rolling a dice. I wonder whether you've intentionally misinterpreted.

Would you rather people didn't seek employment and instead of taking the only job that was available to them were financed by the state? These people, if they are providing a useful service to the employer, deserve protection from the state in return for paying their taxes rather than being a burden on the state's finances.
We don't live in the perfect world, where employment supply far outstrips demand and where you can work for the company of your dreams just by preference. We're talking about the *real world* here.
The situation you describe is highly desirable, I agree. I would love to live in that world where you could cherry-pick a firm to work for but that's not how the employment market works. And then ... what happens after doing the research that you feel is a bare minimum about the company, you work for it and then things turn bad. What happens when the company misrepresents itself or is taken over by another or has a change of management. Did you enter into that contract freely and with full knowledge?

No-one is stating that there should be a set amount paid to each employee - you've desperately pulled that argument out of some orifice. We're talking about parallel pay, not a set/fixed amount of pay. By saying 'If I pay equally I might have to employ half as many people', that is totally false and is a complete sham of an argument. You must be aware of that. By paying two people the same figure for the same work, it does not follow in any way that you are only able to employ a smaller number. If one person demands twice as much, you let him go because he isn't economical.

By saying "Right" I don't know if you're being sarcastic because it seems the text you're responding to is reasonable and fairly-well considered.

A contract of employment is just that, a contract, but one which an employee may not enter freely but due to economic need/duress. You say you know these things and yet you take no account of them.

You're saying that employees shouldn't be required to possess liability insurance for their employees? I'd love to come and work for you.

The following is not an observation. It is a ridiculous, intentionally inflammatory and childish statement that has no bearing in facts despite your claim.
>>> "You are so used to being govt children, you don't know any other way. You have given up so many rights, that Americans take for granted"

If you don't know what a quango is, Google it.

[-<WillyP>-]

Look, you continue to say that I am saying this or that when I have said nothing of the kind. I have repeatedly corrected you, yet you continue to read into what I wrote, only what you want to believe.

Your entire discussion is based on gross distortions of what I am telling you. Is your reading comprehension that low, or are you doing this deliberately? There isn't any point in further discussion if you cannot read what I wrote.

[Scyphi]

*sighs*

Y'know, if you two were politicians, I wouldn't vote for either of you, because it's clear to me that you two just aren't willing to come to a consensus, even when it's already clear to me that you both already support the same darn thing (minimalistic government). There have even been instances where the two of you have outright agreed with each other, but overlook at it to continue to jib at each other.

This is exactly why I hate politics, because this is all politics is. Two people claiming to be educated adults trying to bash each other down just so to get a shot at glory.

It is NOT NOT NOT the US govt's job to right every wrong! Scyphi, all due respect, but your whole post, your attitude, is what is wrong in this country. You have grown up knowing only the liberal, socialist attitude you are expressing.

To which I respond with another quote from yourself:

...you are missing the point completely. Don't you even read what you are responding to?

Oh yes. You missed my point. What I was saying was exactly what you're looking for me to say, which is for the government to keep out of private affairs. I support that one hundred percent. What I was ALSO saying is that you HAVE to concede that sometimes the government is just going to have to get involved every now and then, or everything in this country WILL go to heck. For them to sit back and do nothing makes one wonder why you even have the government. And America HAS been down that road once before. I'm assuming you know enough American history WillyP to remember the original Articles of Confederation America came up with PRIOR to the writing of the constitution? In those articles, the federal government had next to no power, and it wasn't long before everyone saw that unless they changed that VERY soon, the whole union would fall apart, and that's why they wrote the darn constitution in the first place. And I KNOW that had they not done that, America WOULD have fallen apart. It is simply NOT POSSIBLE for the government to play next to no role in the affairs of the country, and if you can't see that, I honestly have to question how well you truly understand how this government is supposed to work.

I am also honestly offended that you feel the need to call me a liberal Democrat, because I certainly don't support them, nor the republicans, nor any political party in America at the moment, because, quite frankly, I can't see any of them making anything any better in this country, and they're all too busy arguing and bickering with each other (much like what we're doing right now, BTW) anyway to really seem to care (though I REALLY hope that some part of them DO care, and if so, they need to listen to that part more).

The problem is that you don't know what freedom is. One of your political parties uses the word "Freedom" to instill fear. "Do this, support us or your american freedoms will be taken away" and so forth.

That would be the liberal party, the Democrats, which I assume would be your party if you were an American citizen. This is what I fight against.

The republicans, Tea party people, and just about everybody, are all guilty of this. It's traditional political mudslinging, and is as old as the country itself. The idea is for one politician to try and portray his opponent in as bad a light as possible so to get the voters to vote for him instead of the opponent, and one thing that gets a major response from the populace is to suggest that the electing your opponent will rob you of your freedom. It's very rarely ever true, but they're ALL guilty of doing this. I would sincerely hope WillyP that you are not caught up in that fanaticism.

As a business owner IF I make childish, senseless business decisions, I won't be a business owner for long, I'll be bankrupt.

I think we'd ALL be amazed at the things business owners can get away with at times that undermine the system, whether it be good or bad, and are not only still in business, but are quite successful. Walmart, the very subject that instigated this argument, is even an example of this. Basically, what you say is true, but only to a certain extent. Again, I can site the choice of business owners back in the Industrial Revolution as examples. Some of the things they did back then were atrocious in comparison to the here and now that we wouldn't tolerate for a second because it's just flat out wrong. Heck, even the people back then couldn't tolerate it, but there wasn't much they could do about it at the time except protest. It wasn't until the government finally heard their calls and interfered, putting a stop to it, that things turned around. Proof that business owners CAN and WILL get away with murder if they know how to play their cards. This is exactly WHY the government must step in every now and then. I don't expect you to like it, because I certainly won't, and yes, there will be a lot of little affairs they'll want to mess with that they don't need to, but I'm not talking about the little affairs and never were. I'm talking about the BIG things, things that sometimes the citizens of this nation simply don't have enough power to change unless they get the government to side with them.

If you cannot see that logic WillyP, and again say I'm rooting for total governmental domination (which is AGAIN not my point at ALL) then, as much as I hate to say it, I have no hope for you.

Please don't prove me right on that, because this is one area I don't WANT to be right on.

You determine your employer by a roll of the dice? I don't think so.

This is, admittedly, a bad analogy. I saw Crash's point, but WillyP clearly did not, so...yeah. Hopefully Crash's further explanation of the matter in his later post clarifies what he was trying to say. I'll help by quoting what he says:

We don't live in the perfect world, where employment supply far outstrips demand and where you can work for the company of your dreams just by preference. We're talking about the *real world* here.
The situation you describe is highly desirable, I agree. I would love to live in that world where you could cherry-pick a firm to work for but that's not how the employment market works. And then ... what happens after doing the research that you feel is a bare minimum about the company, you work for it and then things turn bad. What happens when the company misrepresents itself or is taken over by another or has a change of management. Did you enter into that contract freely and with full knowledge?

Listen to what he's saying here, WillyP. Despite your apparent belief, he DOES know what he's talking about here. He's being realistic. I, too, would love to see the better world you describe, but I gotta be realistic too, and say that it can either never happen, or be really hard to create in our world. Preferably the latter as there's something to hope for with that, but my point is why can't you see this?

The following is not an observation. It is a ridiculous, intentionally inflammatory and childish statement that has no bearing in facts despite your claim.
>>> "You are so used to being govt children, you don't know any other way. You have given up so many rights, that Americans take for granted"

It's also not true. One could argue, WillyP, that by being raised American, you don't know any other way yourself. Whether or not that's a good thing or a bad thing is a debate I really don't think needs to be answered, nor, for that matter, CAN be answered. Just...try to be a bit more open to an outsider's point of you. Often times, the outsider looking in can see truths the insiders cannot, thus it can very well be the outsiders who could make all the difference. Of course they're not always going to be right, but keep in mind that they're not always going to be wrong, too. You just have to take the time and stop and think about it, and I mean REALLY think about it. Furthermore, how do you know that Americans themselves haven't lost many rights of our own that others (like the UK) might take for granted? It's an argument that can really and easily go both ways, so one can easily turn that statement against you.

Of course I am biased!

That's not a good thing, especially in this instance.

This is the greatest country in the world, no doubt about it.

Yes, but it could be greater, and arguing pointlessly over it won't make it that way. You want to make the world a better place? Then the best course of action is to stop talking about it, and actually DO something about it. THAT is what freedom is, BTW, the right that you CAN make a difference, but ONLY if you make the effort to. You can't sit back and expect things to fix themselves. (heh, considering my earlier comments about my hatred for politics, maybe this is advice I need to follow myself )

But, I am right.

Are you? That's really the question here, who is right about this? Speaking rhetorically, are any of us right? Or could we ALL be wrong? And how would we ever know for certain without a perfect knowledge about...well...everything? These are all points we need to consider in a civilized debate over subjects like this. To automatically presume that you know best is an unwise practice, because how would you really know?

Look, you continue to say that I am saying this or that when I have said nothing of the kind. I have repeatedly corrected you, yet you continue to read into what I wrote, only what you want to believe.

Your entire discussion is based on gross distortions of what I am telling you. Is your reading comprehension that low, or are you doing this deliberately? There isn't any point in further discussion if you cannot read what I wrote.

Right back at ya, WillyP. This makes me really think you're just going to more or less ignore what I've said here like before, but I want believe you're better than that WillyP, and somebody's gotta try.

You're essentially saying "I want to be the little king of my castle and to hell with my obligations, nomatter how trivial they may be, to hell with everyone else's rights and, to anyone who disapproves, well I'm going to call them everything under the sun until they agree or go away".

Now I gotta criticize you, Crash. Yes, WillyP has been a little reckless with his comments and at times purposely inflammatory, but that doesn't mean you need to be either. Furthermore, it's not true. It's not that he thinks he knows best and everybody else is just simply wrong, he just feels very strongly about this subject (obviously ) and sees our comments going against all of that, when they really aren't as much as is clearly thought. The same bounces back to us, of course, though. The best way to avoid these kind of situations is to consider all the sides of the argument and consider the possibility that the other side might actually have some points that need considering too, and to not just simply ignore them. I know we've ALL been guilty of this more than once, but there's enough hard feelings bouncing around now that I'd be surprised if there suddenly wasn't, and after all, we're only human, so of course we're not going to be able to handle this perfectly. Still, we really ought to try, probably harder than we've been trying.

I could say more, but I've already said more than I intended, so I just end it here. But I will say that from what I read (albeit briefly) about a quango, I think you'd like it, WillyP.

[Crash]

I wasn't going to reply but Scyphi has made it worthwhile.

Oh, I absolutely agree with WillyP that it would be good if it were possible for everyone to go about their business the way they wanted to. I would genuinely want that too.
I am all in favour of slim government and teachers deciding what goes on in schools and doctors what goes on in hospitals but this isn't a narrow issue of teaching or treatment methods. It's a bigger matter that shouldn't necessarily just be lumped in with government aggrandizement because it affects almost everyone nearly every day.
The problem is that you have to legislate for people who are just more evil than we would like to recognise and who mistreat their employees in dreadful and shameful ways. It happens all the time and EU legislation here has made *massive* inroads into that problem.

I completely appreciate WillyP's point and I should have said that, I just think there are considerations that are even more important and therefore make it impossible.
You can't be in a position where you allow employers to make completely malevolent decisions that affect the employee. Like I say, t's not a contract that's really been entered into freely by both parties.

I don't see how rolling a dice is a bad analogy though. Your boss is something you have very little control over (by definition) or choice in. It is really luck of the draw how well you see eye-to-eye. The fact that that wasn't clear to everyone how it was relevant is a different matter.

And I apologise for paraphrasing Willy's argument. All I wanted to do was exaggerate the point to make the point how different a perspective it was from where I was sitting.

[Scyphi]

Well, I'm glad to see I did something right.

I think we can all agree that we agree with what WillyP's saying. We all want exactly what you want, WillyP. All we're trying to say is that there are other factors that need to be considered too.

As for the rolling the dice analogy, it wasn't that the analogy itself was bad (maybe I should have phrased that differently) it was more of how you used it. You knew what you were getting at, and I obviously got it, but WillyP didn't, and misconstrued it to mean something else, and in retrospect, I can see how that could be done. Otherwise, the analogy is solid.

[-<WillyP>-]

Again, you are saying I have said things when I clearly did not. I am not going to go through your post line by line and point out everything you have said.

Exaggerating my points beyond all reason does not prove your points.

[Scyphi]

Well, if we're really missing your points, and it bugs you that much, maybe you should consider going through line by line and point out everything you're trying to say (or not say), because if this really isn't what you're saying (we gotta be close, though), I am interested in trying to figure out what you ARE saying. I promise to be patient and non-inflammatory if you do.

In our defense, though, we're not purposely "exaggerating" your points, at least I'm not. I'm just calling it as I see it, which doesn't necessarily mean I've been doing it right.

If you don't want to, though, I'm willing to let the subject drop here and now. It's probably gone on long enough anyway.

Admittedly, all I really care about all of this is that we walk away from this as civilized people, and not angry at each other. That's really the big reason why I even let myself get involved in the first place.

[TechPro]

* TechPro assumes a "mock" voice ...

I would like to thank all of you for coming to my press conference.  At this time I would like to say ....  I have no comment on the matter.




 

[Scyphi]

Is that really all you had to say?

[-<WillyP>-]

What I am trying to say is that an employer (unless that employer is tax-payer funded) should have a right to employ or not employ, to promote or not to promote anyone based on whatever criteria that employer should choose, even if that criteria may be unfair, or discriminatory, or a bad business decision. The business owner(s) owns the business.

Personally, I strongly believe best business practice would be to promote based on performance or other genuine job qualifications, not on gender or the owners personal prejudice. I think we are in agreement on this. What we don't agree on is what the role of the federal govt should be in this particular matter.

[Scyphi]

Okay, yeah, we are in agreement with this. We're just saying that said business owner still can't be given TOO much liberty, otherwise bad things will happen. This would be where the government would step in. HOWEVER, that does NOT mean the government plays that big a role in the matter, in fact, I doubt the government would play that big a role at all. All that would be required of them is the occasional monitoring, and they don't even really need to do that. Heck, the citizens, as you said, would probably do much of it on their own, which, from what I understand, is exactly what I want.

Lemme clarify how I see this before you start jumping to conclusions about that. Let's say we've got your basic business owner running his business. About the full extent of the government's involvement in his business is the various permits, licensing, and taxes that come from owning a business. Beyond that, it's not the government's business, so they stay out of it and let the business owner to his own devices. He hires who he wants, does what he wants, and so forth.

Now let's say the business owner starts doing some undesirable practices, strong discrimination, dirty dealing, whatever bad things we generally don't like business owners doing. Somebody finds out about it and catches on to his actions. At this point various outcomes could come about. One would be the owner losing his job and getting replaced by someone else. Probably common in big businesses, with their management hierarchies and the such. Two would be word getting around about said owner's actions, it hurts business, and the business begins to struggle, and assuming that the owner doesn't do enough to turn things around, goes out of business. Ideally, this is the outcome we'd except in the American free market, but sometimes it doesn't, especially when said bad actions could be good for profits and the powers that be of the business, being greedy, look the other way. Which leads to the third outcome that we apparently disagree or misunderstand on. The government steps in.

Stick with me on this, because they aren't going to do that, though, unless it's brought to their attention, and that's probably going to be done by the citizens disgruntled by these bad actions. Exactly what happened in the Walmart case we were discussing when this all began. Certain employees didn't like what they thought Walmart to be doing, so they pretty much asked the government to step in by taking the matter to court. With the Walmart case, it can be debated whether or not Walmart was really guilty of anything, and whether or not the end outcomes of the attempted suing was the right choice, but that's not our issue. Back to our hypothetical case, if our disgruntled citizens can present enough evidence to convince the government there's wrong doing afoot, it's then the government's job to step in and say to the business owner "Hey man, cut this out now or there's going to be trouble!"

BUT NOT BEFORE.

This is ALL I've personally been trying to say (besides trying to keep the peace). I hear what you're saying WillyP, and totally on board with the idea that the government needs to stay out of business affairs. They totally should stay out of the affairs of businesses because they don't own the business, the owner does, as you've said. The only time I would want them to step in is in instances like what I described above, and that's probably only going to be in rare instances, and ONLY as a last resort, when everything else has failed to produce results. Otherwise the government is to BACK OFF from the affairs of privately owned business.

I can't vouch for Crash, but I strongly suspect this is pretty much what he's been trying to say too (if not, he's free to correct me).

My guess the subject came up is because your comments WillyP seemed to suggest more than once that you were not considering this possibility, and were saying that whether or not the business owner was making bad choices of any sort, it wasn't ever the government's spot to interfere, they just had to sit back and watch, and hope things resolve themselves. And with little affairs I can totally see that. They SHOULD stay out of the little and even medium affairs usually. I was just thinking about the big matters, and knew business owners could get away with such things if the government didn't DO something about it, and I think Crash did too, so we were trying to point this out so it'd still be considered.

Why you responded back the way you did only you can say WillyP. Maybe you saw it as attacks against your arguments, trying to shoot down the whole idea of the government staying out (when we really weren't), or maybe you really don't agree, and think even this is too far (if so, then whether or not I actually agree with it, I say "okay, you're welcome to believe that" and leave it at that, just so long no new arguments erupt over our differing opinions), I don't really know at this point. Just know that I, at the very least, am not deliberately trying to oppose you. I'm just pointing out my views on the matter, and how I see it should be handled, which, you gotta admit, even if you still don't agree, it's not that far off from it.

On the subject of discrimination, however, there's no argument. Right or wrong, that's really the employer's choice, and if wrong, the best way to handle it is to A: get the business owner to change his mind, or B: get a job somewhere else where this isn't a problem. And yeah, a business owner is going to be at least a little discriminatory when picking his employees, that's just a fact of life. For example, one could argue that not hiring bad workers is discriminatory, but no one is going to want to hire them because they're bad workers. Furthermore, every job is specialized for certain people, and some people don't make the qualifications. Like I couldn't get a job as a nuclear physicist because I don't meet their qualifications. One could argue that's discriminatory, but I'd rather have that than a bunch of untrained people making a mess of things. Those who say otherwise are, quite simply, aren't thinking logically.

So I guess the only matter left in question, WillyP, is the role of the government in business, and whether or not we're in agreement of my interpretation of the events or not. I won't hold it against you if you say no, just so long as you aren't harsh about it. we've had enough harshness in this thread already, I really don't think we need more.

Anyway, that's my two bits. Take 'em or leave 'em. 

[-<WillyP>-]

TL;DR

I read the first part, here's the thing, Scy, govt does interfere. There is a law called Equal Opportunity Employment Act. It is law. And you are practically forced to practice reverse discrimination as a result. If you don't believe that, Google it.

There is a mountain of paperwork associated with hiring employees. And one misstep could spell big trouble for everyone, employer, and employees too, who suffer along with the business especially in smaller companies like mine where payroll is a huge portion of cash flow. I am not jumping to conclusions, I have been there.

Owners don't lose their job over this. Being a business owner is not a job. What usualy happens is the company gets fined, which could lead to bankruptcy, foreclosure, or in the case of publicly traded companies, loss of stock value.

[Scyphi]

I take it you don't like this law, but judging from your description, I suppose I can see why. Filling out all those forms sounds a lot like filing taxes.

I read the first part

I do hope you still read all of it anyway, though. Still, I think we're closer than ever to seeing eye to eye. At the very least, the tension has been reduced immensely, and I'm glad for that much. I really don't like to see fighting on this forum. I know it can be above such things.

[Crash]

"you are practically forced to practice reverse discrimination as a result" - I wasn't aware of that.

To be fair, our EU legislation is well-drafted, partly because it has to be translated into so many languages and so much money goes into its drafting. It really does mean just what it says and it doesn't go to those lengths by going so far as to create an equal but opposite injustice.

Perhaps it's the half-way house that we all want because it shouldn't curtail any employer's legitimate interest in business efficacy. Having said that, I've only studied employment cases as a launchpad to explain more general principles of how EU and national laws compound (but what I have seen of them certainly supports what I said).

[-<WillyP>-]

Well look at Walmart, they spent millions on this stupid case even though it went nowhere. Just like rape, it is a heinous crime, but all a woman has to do is threaten to yell rape and the man is ruined. Who knows what Walmart did or didn't do, but you can bet people who are looking for an excuse to hate Walmart aren't going to let this die. People who are indifferent to Walmart won't know what to think but if a lie is repeated often enough...