Bitcoin Forum
December 05, 2016, 02:40:25 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: The Two Laws of All Civilization?  (Read 3644 times)
Anonymous
Guest

October 06, 2011, 10:00:28 PM
 #61

Assuming there are no other coercive factors and that the worker's labor is scarce enough, the employers will likely give into their requests.

If the employer fires them all, it usually means that there is enough content labor to replace them. I see nothing wrong with this.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480905625
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480905625

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480905625
Reply with quote  #2

1480905625
Report to moderator
1480905625
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480905625

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480905625
Reply with quote  #2

1480905625
Report to moderator
1480905625
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480905625

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480905625
Reply with quote  #2

1480905625
Report to moderator
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
October 06, 2011, 10:06:22 PM
 #62

...snip...

Out of curiosity, are workers who go on strike breaking your 'natural law?'

Not necessarily.  It depends upon the details.  Furthermore, it's very easy to end up violating one law while honoring the other.  One such example is the job of the tax collector in the New Testament, or the IRS agent today.  One one hand, acceptance of the position is an implicit agreement to obey the written edicts of government; while on the other one is literally taking the fruits of labors from citizens of that government, many of whom have never done you any personal harm, nor likely even the government or society at large. 

So how do people who organise a union in spite of the bosses objections rate if they go on strike?

Not enough details for the straw to burn.

Let's assume that the organing group honestly represents a majority of employees, and that they work in a normal factory on a production line.  Then whatever agreement that they had before can be boiled down to so much pay for being present and following directions for an hour at a time.  Your basic hourly wage earner.  Does that mean that said non-union employee has implicitly agreed to sell said employer his time indefinately?  Or is it an ongoing agreement that continues so long as both parties continue to agree?  I'd say the latter.  In such a case, the employee is not bound to not strike unless he has otherwise already agreed to such terms.  If he chooses to honor his agreement with the union brotherhood, and walk out at a particular time, the terms just changed.  So far, that particular union member has not violated the two laws as far as I can see.  If he is obligated to continue to work against his will, in the absence of his free and willful agreement to do so, it's slavery; which would put the employer in violation of the two laws.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
October 07, 2011, 07:30:16 AM
 #63

...snip...

Out of curiosity, are workers who go on strike breaking your 'natural law?'

Not necessarily.  It depends upon the details.  Furthermore, it's very easy to end up violating one law while honoring the other.  One such example is the job of the tax collector in the New Testament, or the IRS agent today.  One one hand, acceptance of the position is an implicit agreement to obey the written edicts of government; while on the other one is literally taking the fruits of labors from citizens of that government, many of whom have never done you any personal harm, nor likely even the government or society at large. 

So how do people who organise a union in spite of the bosses objections rate if they go on strike?

Not enough details for the straw to burn.

Let's assume that the organing group honestly represents a majority of employees, and that they work in a normal factory on a production line.  Then whatever agreement that they had before can be boiled down to so much pay for being present and following directions for an hour at a time.  Your basic hourly wage earner.  Does that mean that said non-union employee has implicitly agreed to sell said employer his time indefinately?  Or is it an ongoing agreement that continues so long as both parties continue to agree?  I'd say the latter.  In such a case, the employee is not bound to not strike unless he has otherwise already agreed to such terms.  If he chooses to honor his agreement with the union brotherhood, and walk out at a particular time, the terms just changed.  So far, that particular union member has not violated the two laws as far as I can see.  If he is obligated to continue to work against his will, in the absence of his free and willful agreement to do so, it's slavery; which would put the employer in violation of the two laws.

So if you are a member of a union on a non-union site, you have potentially entered an agreement that clashes with your employment contract.  And then you are free to choose which of the 2 agreements you honour.

OK - seems fair enough. 




MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
October 07, 2011, 12:53:15 PM
 #64

...snip...

Out of curiosity, are workers who go on strike breaking your 'natural law?'

Not necessarily.  It depends upon the details.  Furthermore, it's very easy to end up violating one law while honoring the other.  One such example is the job of the tax collector in the New Testament, or the IRS agent today.  One one hand, acceptance of the position is an implicit agreement to obey the written edicts of government; while on the other one is literally taking the fruits of labors from citizens of that government, many of whom have never done you any personal harm, nor likely even the government or society at large. 

So how do people who organise a union in spite of the bosses objections rate if they go on strike?

Not enough details for the straw to burn.

Let's assume that the organing group honestly represents a majority of employees, and that they work in a normal factory on a production line.  Then whatever agreement that they had before can be boiled down to so much pay for being present and following directions for an hour at a time.  Your basic hourly wage earner.  Does that mean that said non-union employee has implicitly agreed to sell said employer his time indefinately?  Or is it an ongoing agreement that continues so long as both parties continue to agree?  I'd say the latter.  In such a case, the employee is not bound to not strike unless he has otherwise already agreed to such terms.  If he chooses to honor his agreement with the union brotherhood, and walk out at a particular time, the terms just changed.  So far, that particular union member has not violated the two laws as far as I can see.  If he is obligated to continue to work against his will, in the absence of his free and willful agreement to do so, it's slavery; which would put the employer in violation of the two laws.

So if you are a member of a union on a non-union site, you have potentially entered an agreement that clashes with your employment contract.  And then you are free to choose which of the 2 agreements you honour.

OK - seems fair enough. 



Unless your employment contract is of a defined term, then it's ongoing and can be voided by either party at will.  This is why you can quit McDonalds without being sued and they can fire you so long as they still pay you for the time that you were there.  No matter how you try to spin it, yes it is fair enough in the standard conditions that I have presented.  However, if you signed a term contract, you can't change the terms of the employment until the term of the contract is complete.  So unions have no vector for organizing the US military, as an example.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
October 07, 2011, 12:59:24 PM
 #65

...snip...

Out of curiosity, are workers who go on strike breaking your 'natural law?'

Not necessarily.  It depends upon the details.  Furthermore, it's very easy to end up violating one law while honoring the other.  One such example is the job of the tax collector in the New Testament, or the IRS agent today.  One one hand, acceptance of the position is an implicit agreement to obey the written edicts of government; while on the other one is literally taking the fruits of labors from citizens of that government, many of whom have never done you any personal harm, nor likely even the government or society at large. 

So how do people who organise a union in spite of the bosses objections rate if they go on strike?

Not enough details for the straw to burn.

Let's assume that the organing group honestly represents a majority of employees, and that they work in a normal factory on a production line.  Then whatever agreement that they had before can be boiled down to so much pay for being present and following directions for an hour at a time.  Your basic hourly wage earner.  Does that mean that said non-union employee has implicitly agreed to sell said employer his time indefinately?  Or is it an ongoing agreement that continues so long as both parties continue to agree?  I'd say the latter.  In such a case, the employee is not bound to not strike unless he has otherwise already agreed to such terms.  If he chooses to honor his agreement with the union brotherhood, and walk out at a particular time, the terms just changed.  So far, that particular union member has not violated the two laws as far as I can see.  If he is obligated to continue to work against his will, in the absence of his free and willful agreement to do so, it's slavery; which would put the employer in violation of the two laws.

So if you are a member of a union on a non-union site, you have potentially entered an agreement that clashes with your employment contract.  And then you are free to choose which of the 2 agreements you honour.

OK - seems fair enough. 



Unless your employment contract is of a defined term, then it's ongoing and can be voided by either party at will.  This is why you can quit McDonalds without being sued and they can fire you so long as they still pay you for the time that you were there.  No matter how you try to spin it, yes it is fair enough in the standard conditions that I have presented.  However, if you signed a term contract, you can't change the terms of the employment until the term of the contract is complete.  So unions have no vector for organizing the US military, as an example.

You really really hate when someone agrees with you.  Why is that?

MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
October 07, 2011, 01:04:34 PM
 #66

...snip...

Out of curiosity, are workers who go on strike breaking your 'natural law?'

Not necessarily.  It depends upon the details.  Furthermore, it's very easy to end up violating one law while honoring the other.  One such example is the job of the tax collector in the New Testament, or the IRS agent today.  One one hand, acceptance of the position is an implicit agreement to obey the written edicts of government; while on the other one is literally taking the fruits of labors from citizens of that government, many of whom have never done you any personal harm, nor likely even the government or society at large.  

So how do people who organise a union in spite of the bosses objections rate if they go on strike?

Not enough details for the straw to burn.

Let's assume that the organing group honestly represents a majority of employees, and that they work in a normal factory on a production line.  Then whatever agreement that they had before can be boiled down to so much pay for being present and following directions for an hour at a time.  Your basic hourly wage earner.  Does that mean that said non-union employee has implicitly agreed to sell said employer his time indefinately?  Or is it an ongoing agreement that continues so long as both parties continue to agree?  I'd say the latter.  In such a case, the employee is not bound to not strike unless he has otherwise already agreed to such terms.  If he chooses to honor his agreement with the union brotherhood, and walk out at a particular time, the terms just changed.  So far, that particular union member has not violated the two laws as far as I can see.  If he is obligated to continue to work against his will, in the absence of his free and willful agreement to do so, it's slavery; which would put the employer in violation of the two laws.

So if you are a member of a union on a non-union site, you have potentially entered an agreement that clashes with your employment contract.  And then you are free to choose which of the 2 agreements you honour.

OK - seems fair enough.  



Unless your employment contract is of a defined term, then it's ongoing and can be voided by either party at will.  This is why you can quit McDonalds without being sued and they can fire you so long as they still pay you for the time that you were there.  No matter how you try to spin it, yes it is fair enough in the standard conditions that I have presented.  However, if you signed a term contract, you can't change the terms of the employment until the term of the contract is complete.  So unions have no vector for organizing the US military, as an example.

You implied that the two contracts clashed, when they did not.  The union member in the original strawman above did not have to violate one agreement to honor the other, he simply had to end the ongoing agreement.

You really really hate when someone agrees with you.  Why is that?

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!