Shops could face legal action over 'lads' mags'

[Seth]

I'd be more in favour of losing all of those tiresome celebrations of rich people flaunting their largesse such as Hello!. Which the writer Tom Wolfe famously described as "plutography". When asked about this, he said "Pornography is written material devoted to sex, plutography is written material devoted to rich people".

The purpose of this tactic has been known since Roman times. Conspicuous consumption combined with bread and circuses is intended to pacify the proletariat by giving them "hope" that they too can become one of the rich flaunters...or at least dream about it.

[Seth]

Nobody starves in America. Nobody.

False

Prove it. Show me one person in the US in the last 25 years who has starved to death because nobody would give them food. Just one.

And don't point to some elderly person who starved to death because their relatives forgot about them and they couldn't call for help, that doesn't count because if anybody had known about it they would have taken immediate action.

Um, you said 'nobody'.

Pettifoggery. Look it up.

[Seth]

My children went to a school once where it turned out that one of the mothers (who also worked as a classroom assistant there) was having an affair with the husband of one of the teachers. When it all came to be known, everyone (other parents included) put pressure on the assistant teacher to resign, to ease the feeling of tension in the school but the school couldn't have sacked her. She did leave voluntarily but that's because she knew if she stayed she would get daggers every day from parents and co-workers.

P.S. how did this get from there to here?????

It's about employee /employer rights, an employee has a right to have a reasonably constructive environment and an employer has duty to ensure it happens.

And employee has a right to a reasonably SAFE workplace, and that's it. If I want to tell an employee to sit at a desk and not move or speak during his/her shift, I have every right to make that demand and fire them if they refuse to comply. It's MY business, not theirs.

You're overstating the case. That isn't it, under current law. But, you may be referring to what you think "should" be the case.

Really? Cite a law that says I can't direct an employee to sit silently and still at a desk. Do I have to allow 2 15 minute breaks and one 30 meal break? Yes, but otherwise if I want you to play mannequin while you're at work, I believe I can do so.

[Kristie]

Most Wal-mart employees are eligible for food stamps. I guess that's "pretty good pay".

Plus, most don't get full time hours, so they're no eligible for full benefits. Most store like them only give supervisors and management 40 hours.

Well, you can blame Obamacare for that, a practice that's going to expand significantly in the next year. Small business can neither afford to pay for the mandatory health care or the fines, so they will skirt the law (legally) by cutting worker's hours and hiring more temp part time workers to cover shifts.

That's the Liberal Progressive Marxist's fault.

I can't blame Obamacare for that. It's been that way for as long as I can remember.

[Seth]

Most Wal-mart employees are eligible for food stamps. I guess that's "pretty good pay".

Plus, most don't get full time hours, so they're no eligible for full benefits. Most store like them only give supervisors and management 40 hours.

Well, you can blame Obamacare for that, a practice that's going to expand significantly in the next year. Small business can neither afford to pay for the mandatory health care or the fines, so they will skirt the law (legally) by cutting worker's hours and hiring more temp part time workers to cover shifts.

That's the Liberal Progressive Marxist's fault.

I can't blame Obamacare for that. It's been that way for as long as I can remember.

Gee, and you still don't understand the causal connection? It's because WalMart doesn't think it ought to be forced to pay for their employee's health care, and they are right. You're right it's been going on since the government mandated that large employers offer HMO coverage for full-time employees, which was the first iteration of socialized medicine. This came from the socialist objection to the original "health care perks" system which started during WWII, when FDR froze wages to keep companies from luring valuable executives and engineers away from defense industries. So, what they did instead of offering higher wages was to offer health care coverage, which wasn't considered "wages." The Marxists objected for a long time that this wasn't "fair" to the proletariat and convinced the government that mandating health coverage for all full time employees of companies that employ more than 50 people was a good idea.

It wasn't. That policy is directly causally connected to the outlandish and excessive cost of medical care today. The HMO paradigm removed all impetus to NOT consume medical resources, since you were pre-paying for medical care every month anyway. This caused workers to consume medical care at an ever increasing rate, stressing the system through the supply/demand curve. Because health care consumers don't have to consider the costs of their medical care because they've pre-paid for it at a fixed rate, they have no compunctions about wasting precious medical resources on trivialities that in past years would have been treated at home or ignored...like the common cold...that it's utterly unnecessary to see a doctor about.

So, the demand for medical care rose drastically, and as a result the cost of medical care rose as a function of basic supply/demand economics.

When I was a kid, my parents "joined" a medical center by paying a small fee to become a member, but they had to pay all our medical bills themselves, nobody else paid for them. As a result, we were very frugal and wise in making health care choices so that they didn't overspend on unnecessary care.

I've followed that paradigm most of my life. Only when I was a public employee (police officer and later a dispatcher) did I have paid health care. It was great. Cost me $27 a month for nearly unlimited care. When I quit, the bill went from $27/mo to $375/mo under COBRA, which lasted 18 months. Since then I've paid for my own care entirely in cash, at a rate I pre-negotiate with my health care provider for a substantial discount (40% or so a least) for cash. I put the money I would have spent on "insurance" (really pre-paid health care) in the bank, where it sits awaiting a catastrophic medical problem. It's over $125,000 at the moment.

Health care "insurance" is a giant scam cooked up by the insurance industry and the government to steal money from credulous workers and transfer it to the insurance companies.

Obamacare just makes it much, much, much worse.

[Pappa]

Most Wal-mart employees are eligible for food stamps. I guess that's "pretty good pay".

Plus, most don't get full time hours, so they're no eligible for full benefits. Most store like them only give supervisors and management 40 hours.

Well, you can blame Obamacare for that, a practice that's going to expand significantly in the next year. Small business can neither afford to pay for the mandatory health care or the fines, so they will skirt the law (legally) by cutting worker's hours and hiring more temp part time workers to cover shifts.

That's the Liberal Progressive Marxist's fault.

Seth, it's been going on a lot longer than Obamacare, and it's not confined to small businesses. It's been SOC at Starbucks and Waterstones for over a decade. While I wouldn't call it a loophole, it's a good example of large companies like these using the letter of the law to circumvent the spirit of the law.

[MrJonno]

Really? Cite a law that says I can't direct an employee to sit silently and still at a desk. Do I have to allow 2 15 minute breaks and one 30 meal break? Yes, but otherwise if I want you to play mannequin while you're at work, I believe I can do so.

Try that here and you won't have your business bar running a prison shop

[JimC]

Really? Cite a law that says I can't direct an employee to sit silently and still at a desk. Do I have to allow 2 15 minute breaks and one 30 meal break? Yes, but otherwise if I want you to play mannequin while you're at work, I believe I can do so.

Try that here and you won't have your business bar running a prison shop

Whether that's true or not, he would be demonstrably an arsehole employer...

Not that Seth would be an employer anyway...

[rainbow]

I would say that an employee has a duty to investigate the terms of employment before taking up that employment. If they are likely to be offended by girlie magazines, they shouldn't chose a job in a place that sells them.

[MrJonno]

Really? Cite a law that says I can't direct an employee to sit silently and still at a desk. Do I have to allow 2 15 minute breaks and one 30 meal break? Yes, but otherwise if I want you to play mannequin while you're at work, I believe I can do so.

Try that here and you won't have your business bar running a prison shop

Whether that's true or not, he would be demonstrably an arsehole employer...

Not that Seth would be an employer anyway...

Well initially you would be sued for constructive dismissal (making working conditions so poor that the person is forced to resign) the prison sentence would only come if Seth failed to pay up/shot the former employee

[Coito ergo sum]

Most Wal-mart employees are eligible for food stamps. I guess that's "pretty good pay".

Plus, most don't get full time hours, so they're no eligible for full benefits. Most store like them only give supervisors and management 40 hours.

Most Wal-Mart employees are not eligible for food stamps.

And, it's an overstatement to say that "most" don't get full time hours.

The question, really, is whether Wal-Mart is paying less than average for similar jobs at other companies. If they're not, why single out Wal-Mart?

And, those complaining about Wal-Mart pay scales ought to specify what they think the various jobs are worth? Sweep the floor at Wal-Mart and make $40k a year? What?

Look - jockeying a cash register is not a breadwinner job. One ought to be moving along past high school and summer job stuff at some point in time. Being a check-out person is great for a second income for the family - part time, extra money - flexibility. That kind of thing. But, if you mandate that Wal-Mart pay cashiers $40k a year, then how much ought bank tellers and such make? $80k? Are we just going to set a rule that no matter how dopey a person's job, it's got to make breadwinner "support a family" wages? Criminy - these are jobs for kids.

[Coito ergo sum]

My children went to a school once where it turned out that one of the mothers (who also worked as a classroom assistant there) was having an affair with the husband of one of the teachers. When it all came to be known, everyone (other parents included) put pressure on the assistant teacher to resign, to ease the feeling of tension in the school but the school couldn't have sacked her. She did leave voluntarily but that's because she knew if she stayed she would get daggers every day from parents and co-workers.

P.S. how did this get from there to here?????

It's about employee /employer rights, an employee has a right to have a reasonably constructive environment and an employer has duty to ensure it happens.

And employee has a right to a reasonably SAFE workplace, and that's it. If I want to tell an employee to sit at a desk and not move or speak during his/her shift, I have every right to make that demand and fire them if they refuse to comply. It's MY business, not theirs.

You're overstating the case. That isn't it, under current law. But, you may be referring to what you think "should" be the case.

Really? Cite a law that says I can't direct an employee to sit silently and still at a desk. Do I have to allow 2 15 minute breaks and one 30 meal break? Yes, but otherwise if I want you to play mannequin while you're at work, I believe I can do so.

The case you overstated was the assertion that all you have to provide is a reasonably safe workplace and "that's it." That isn't it. You have to pay minimum wage, overtime compensation, obey child labor laws, not discriminate in violation of civil rights laws, comply with the FMLA if applicable, acccommodate disabled workers, let employees attend jury duty, rehire uniformed servicepersons, etc, etc. etc. - there is a ton you have to do.

You can direct en employee to sit silently at a desk, and they can get up and leave. That's true. If they get up and leave, you can fire them for insubordination or failure to perform the assigned task. However, if you have 5 white guys and one black woman in the department, and you make the black woman sit silently at her desk while allowing the white men to go about their business normally, you may have a problem.

You only have to allow 2 15 minute breaks if state law requires it. Most US state laws do not require it. Federal law does not require it. Most state laws require at least a lunch break of 30 minutes if the employee works more than 4-6 hours depending on the state.

[MrJonno]

Look - jockeying a cash register is not a breadwinner job..

You really believe that?, many adults arent going to ever to have jobs that are that much more exciting than that. As Seth said (don't agree with him much) supermarkets arent going to employ students they are going to employ people who really need the job and are likely to work hard in it (ie breadwinners). It's unacceptable that any company can pay someone for any full time job where they don't earn enough to at least rent the smallest room and basic food . They of course do in the UK and its disgrace ,but the government (tax payer) tops up their wages so they don't starve

The days of most 18-21 years old having part time jobs while they study is long long gone, without a lot of personal contacts I doubt if many 21 years will have done any paid work when they leave university, if they are lucky they would have done some work experience

[Coito ergo sum]

Look - jockeying a cash register is not a breadwinner job..

You really believe that?, many adults arent going to ever to have jobs that are that much more exciting than that. As Seth said (don't agree with him much) supermarkets arent going to employ students they are going to employ people who really need the job and are likely to work hard in it (ie breadwinners). It's unacceptable that any company can pay someone for any full time job where they don't earn enough to at least rent the smallest room and basic food . They of course do in the UK and its disgrace ,but the government (tax payer) tops up their wages so they don't starve

The days of most 18-21 years old having part time jobs while they study is long long gone, without a lot of personal contacts I doubt if many 21 years will have done any paid work when they leave university, if they are lucky they would have done some work experience

Believe it? I know it for a fact.

Just because one is an adult doesn't mean one is a primary breadwinner. Not all jobs have to be able to support a family, and not all of them are worth it. If I can't hire a person to clean my house or mow my yard on a "part time" basis at a price I feel is acceptable to pay for lawn mowing or house cleaning, then I'm not going to hire them. Period.

Supermarkets do hire students. They also hire homemakers who want to make some extra money on the side.

How much is enough to rent the smallest room and basic food? Here in the states, "the smallest room" is generally pretty darn cheap. If I were up against it here, I could find a small place for a few hundred a month, and food is thankfully still very cheap, if you're careful.

The days of 18-21 year olds having part time jobs is gone where you live because of the economic policies that you favor. Such part time jobs are not gone here, yet. But, we're headed down that path. Having people reach the age of 21 without knowing how to be gainfully employed is shameful. It's poor public policy.

[MrJonno]

Having people reach the age of 21 without knowing how to be gainfully employed is shameful. It's poor public policy.

As a society we are going to have to accept that more and more people will never work, economically they are surplus to requirement, technology makes most the non-skilled jobs obsolete. That doesn't stop them having needs even through aren't needed and that will be everyone problem.

Does anyone in a 100 years time think think even 50% of people wlll actually work?, maybe we will have to ban all full times jobs who knows but its a problem that one day will need to resolved