We REALLY need to stop supporting this company.

[Anachronism]

That's not a rights issue. That's a matter of civil law. You aren't making any points. You just don't understand the legal definition of rights. All laws are not rights.

Correct. Torts aren't the same as rights.

 

[ThePresident777]

That's not a rights issue. That's a matter of civil law. You aren't making any points. You just don't understand the legal definition of rights. All laws are not rights.

The topic is about GC trying to force employees to give up their right to court. As I said before, in a country that is truelly free, it is impossible to sign away your rights and the government is obligated to prosecute all rights violations. Rights are not individual. They are collective. If one person's rights are successfully violated then everyone's rights are weakened and at risk.

 

[madbass6]

Actually, no. Incomes for most Americans have barely budged since the '70s. That's 0.47% growth since the '60s for middle-income households. And as you can see, the rich have gotten a whole lot richer.

View attachment 775065

Invalid Link Removed

Ok" Verry kool analysis!
and this has to do with topic in hand in what way again ?

 

[blue4]

Probably because of their insane protection of the incompetent and lazy, making bad employees unfireable, and the fact that unions have the unions best interests in mind, not the worker either.

Right outta 1977. I enjoy no protection from being fired for laziness, only being fired without cause.

 

[DigitalMan]

The topic is about GC trying to force employees to give up their right to court. As I said before, in a country that is truelly free, it is impossible to sign away your rights and the government is obligated to prosecute all rights violations. Rights are not individual. They are collective. If one person's rights are successfully violated then everyone's rights are weakened and at risk.

Labor agreements of all shapes and sizes have included agreement to arbitration. By your definition no two parties could ever agree to arbitration and all arbitration clauses would be illegal.

 

[Anachronism]

The topic is about GC trying to force employees to give up their right to court. As I said before, in a country that is truelly free, it is impossible to sign away your rights and the government is obligated to prosecute all rights violations. Rights are not individual. They are collective. If one person's rights are successfully violated then everyone's rights are weakened and at risk.

The miscommunication here is that DigitalMan is discussing rights and law as they exist in the American legal system, while you want to theorize about some hypothetical country that is "truelly free"

 

[Michael B]

If we all stopped shopping there we would be causing them to lose their jobs. I would love to support them in some way if I could but this may be difficult. Think of the varied opinions on this site alone. Unfortunately in this market others would fill the positions.

 

[ThePresident777]

The miscommunication here is that DigitalMan is discussing rights and law as they exist in the American legal system, while you want to theorize about some hypothetical country that is "truelly free"

You're point?

Labor agreements of all shapes and sizes have included agreement to arbitration. By your definition no two parties could ever agree to arbitration and all arbitration clauses would be illegal.

True. Surrendering your right to trial as a condition for employment, as a condition to do business, is not freedom. In a country that is truely free, non-freedom is not legal (except as a deserved punishment).

 

[ThePresident777]

If we all stopped shopping there we would be causing them to lose their jobs. I would love to support them in some way if I could but this may be difficult. Think of the varied opinions on this site alone. Unfortunately in this market others would fill the positions.

Slavery or jobs?

 

[Michael B]

Slavery or jobs?

I thought i was the biggest lefty on here!
It's like boycotting a retailer because they cut health care. Then you realize that pretty much every publically traded company that doesn't have a hard time hiring is doing it. Sure I avoid Walmart unless my car is broken down at 2 AM. For stuff like this it is probably better to recognize that perhaps unions are needed again.

 

[Menorahman]

The notion that the consumer has control over the amount of employees a company hires is ignorant and exaggerated.

A business hires as few people as possible period. No matter how much business they get, if they only needed 2 people per store, that's the way it would be. If they really didn't have the money to pay employees, then they would have a much larger problem.

The whole 'job creators' fad is terrible.

 

[ThePresident777]

I thought i was the biggest lefty on here!
It's like boycotting a retailer because they cut health care. Then you realize that pretty much every publically traded company that doesn't have a hard time hiring is doing it. Sure I avoid Walmart unless my car is broken down at 2 AM. For stuff like this it is probably better to recognize that perhaps unions are needed again.

American Revolutionary War, Civil War, Labor Wars (labor was actually attacked by private security, state troopers, and national guard, just for protesting), WW2.......practically every right we have is a result of violence. Today we have the easy way out. We have Democracy, of a sort. No need to so much as give a dirty look. A lamb could solve these problems. Yet, here we are paralyzed and it's not because corporations have a gun to our heads. We simply have no confidence.

 

[Menorahman]

Workers need to wake up and realize that the only way to get power is for everyone to stop working. If all of a sudden every GC, Walmart, and McDonalds employee didn't go in, they would be treated better because the companies would have no choice.

 

[ThePresident777]

The notion that the consumer has control over the amount of employees a company hires is ignorant and exaggerated.

A business hires as few people as possible period. No matter how much business they get, if they only needed 2 people per store, that's the way it would be. If they really didn't have the money to pay employees, then they would have a much larger problem.

The whole 'job creators' fad is terrible.

The customer is the job creator, not the boss. The customer "hires" the boss.

 

[Fleebag]

Have a coke and carrot and shut the front door!

 

[BassAt33]

So far my Bass was purchased from Sweetwater, and my Amp, Strap, Flats, and stand were bought from Locally owned music shops

 

[DigitalMan]

You're point?




True. Surrendering your right to trial as a condition for employment, as a condition to do business, is not freedom. In a country that is truely free, non-freedom is not legal (except as a deserved punishment).

Aren't people free to enter into agreements? Your argument is really about leverage.

 

[ThePresident777]

Aren't people free to enter into agreements? Your argument is really about leverage.

Free to be a slave?

 

[Michael B]

American Revolutionary War, Civil War, Labor Wars (labor was actually attacked by private security, state troopers, and national guard, just for protesting), WW2.......practically every right we have is a result of violence. Today we have the easy way out. We have Democracy, of a sort. No need to so much as give a dirty look. A lamb could solve these problems. Yet, here we are paralyzed and it's not because corporations have a gun to our heads. We simply have no confidence.

I don't disagree. I have hope in our current system though. It's just a matter of priority for everyone.

 

[DigitalMan]

Free to be a slave?

Hyperbole much?