Shops could face legal action over 'lads' mags'

[MrJonno]

So, if a job is a privilege, then I should be allowed to revoke that privilege at will, right? That's' the meaning of "privilege.

If you do you will be relieved of the privilege of your profits to pay the unfairly dismissed employee

[Seth]

And nobody who used to work for me will have a job either, dunce.

Kill the kine that tread the grain and see how much bread gets made whydoncha?

Unstable employment is also certainly worst for society than no employment at all, at least you can make an attempt to budget on welfare and no one will give you a mortgage

Who ever told you that you have a right to have a mortgage? The US policy enacted by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and their minions promising everyone a house with government loan guarantees is precisely what caused the recent and ongoing economic crisis.

Economically speaking, it's a Very Bad Thing for too many people to own homes. It makes the workforce less mobile and it stresses the economy when things get tough. The vast majority of people should be what I am..."Renters." That way they are free to pick up and move around the country to where the jobs are without being burdened with a home that's underwater that they can't sell. Renters don't go bankrupt nearly as often, and if they do their impact on the economy is very small because they haven't borrowed huge sums of money that they can't pay back when the company they work for goes under because it's too burdened with regulations and extraneous, redundant, non-productive employees they are required to employ as a social welfare benefit.

Farming is basically a state run enterprise anyway either with direct state employment or just paying farmers to grow out of taxes

Maybe in your neck of the woods, but not around here.

And if you want the State controlling the food supply, I suggest you take the Wayback Machine and return to the Ukraine circa 1932, where Stalin starved more than 12 million Ukrainians to death quite deliberately by taking all their crops for redistribution elsewhere.

I can't think of a more fuckwitted proposition than state-run agriculture. It's a certain path to despotism, tyranny and genocide, as anybody in Somalia can tell you.

[Seth]

So, if a job is a privilege, then I should be allowed to revoke that privilege at will, right? That's' the meaning of "privilege.

If you do you will be relieved of the privilege of your profits to pay the unfairly dismissed employee

Why? On what basis does an employee claim an obligation on my part to pay them perpetually? Show your work.

[PsychoSerenity]

So, if a job is a privilege, then I should be allowed to revoke that privilege at will, right? That's' the meaning of "privilege.

If you do you will be relieved of the privilege of your profits to pay the unfairly dismissed employee

Why? On what basis does an employee claim an obligation on my part to pay them perpetually? Show your work.

On the basis that you are running a business and paying employees using government sanctioned currency, and government protection of your rights as a business owner, which also come with certain other obligations.

By all means set up a business and run all your transactions, including paying employees, with "Seth Coins". Then you can write whatever rights or reservations you like into the contracts that nobody else will sign ever.

[Collector1337]

So, if a job is a privilege, then I should be allowed to revoke that privilege at will, right? That's' the meaning of "privilege.

If you do you will be relieved of the privilege of your profits to pay the unfairly dismissed employee

Why? On what basis does an employee claim an obligation on my part to pay them perpetually? Show your work.

On the basis that you are running a business and paying employees using government sanctioned currency, and government protection of your rights as a business owner, which also come with certain other obligations.

By all means set up a business and run all your transactions, including paying employees, with "Seth Coins". Then you can write whatever rights or reservations you like into the contracts that nobody else will sign ever.

Using the same money as everyone else doesn't mean anything...

[PsychoSerenity]

Why? On what basis does an employee claim an obligation on my part to pay them perpetually? Show your work.

On the basis that you are running a business and paying employees using government sanctioned currency, and government protection of your rights as a business owner, which also come with certain other obligations.

By all means set up a business and run all your transactions, including paying employees, with "Seth Coins". Then you can write whatever rights or reservations you like into the contracts that nobody else will sign ever.

Using the same money as everyone else doesn't mean anything...

Really? Is denial that the best you can do? If it genuinely didn't mean anything then it wouldn't be a problem using an alternative currency. But clearly it does mean something. It means that you're playing by the rules of society. And one of the rules is that you can't take the benefits without also accepting the responsibilities.

[Seth]

So, if a job is a privilege, then I should be allowed to revoke that privilege at will, right? That's' the meaning of "privilege.

If you do you will be relieved of the privilege of your profits to pay the unfairly dismissed employee

Why? On what basis does an employee claim an obligation on my part to pay them perpetually? Show your work.

On the basis that you are running a business and paying employees using government sanctioned currency, and government protection of your rights as a business owner, which also come with certain other obligations.

How does any of that obligate me to provide for an employee in perpetuity?

By all means set up a business and run all your transactions, including paying employees, with "Seth Coins". Then you can write whatever rights or reservations you like into the contracts that nobody else will sign ever.

Worked that way for milennia, still works that way in many parts of the world. It's called "free market barter and trade." I do it all the time, bypassing the coin of the realm and all the associated paperwork and reporting.

Traded a scope for an AR-15 upper just the other day. Nobody knows about it but myself and the guy I traded with.

[Seth]

Why? On what basis does an employee claim an obligation on my part to pay them perpetually? Show your work.

On the basis that you are running a business and paying employees using government sanctioned currency, and government protection of your rights as a business owner, which also come with certain other obligations.

By all means set up a business and run all your transactions, including paying employees, with "Seth Coins". Then you can write whatever rights or reservations you like into the contracts that nobody else will sign ever.

Using the same money as everyone else doesn't mean anything...

Really? Is denial that the best you can do? If it genuinely didn't mean anything then it wouldn't be a problem using an alternative currency. But clearly it does mean something. It means that you're playing by the rules of society. And one of the rules is that you can't take the benefits without also accepting the responsibilities.

So your rational argument supporting a perpetual obligation to provide for an employee boils down to "because I say so?"

That's really the best you can do?

[PsychoSerenity]

So your rational argument supporting a perpetual obligation to provide for an employee boils down to "because I say so?"

That's really the best you can do?

But it's not me, it's society, it's democracy, it's a system of laws created over a period of time by people cooperating together to achieve more than they could alone.

[Collector1337]

Why? On what basis does an employee claim an obligation on my part to pay them perpetually? Show your work.

On the basis that you are running a business and paying employees using government sanctioned currency, and government protection of your rights as a business owner, which also come with certain other obligations.

By all means set up a business and run all your transactions, including paying employees, with "Seth Coins". Then you can write whatever rights or reservations you like into the contracts that nobody else will sign ever.

Using the same money as everyone else doesn't mean anything...

Really? Is denial that the best you can do? If it genuinely didn't mean anything then it wouldn't be a problem using an alternative currency. But clearly it does mean something. It means that you're playing by the rules of society. And one of the rules is that you can't take the benefits without also accepting the responsibilities.

So, it would seem everyone from the UK worships government and "society."

What a joke. You make me laugh. But on the inside, I cry for you.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

So your rational argument supporting a perpetual obligation to provide for an employee boils down to "because I say so?"

That's really the best you can do?

But it's not me, it's society, it's democracy, it's a system of laws created over a period of time by people cooperating together to achieve more than they could alone.

It's also the bedrock of a culture where goods can be bought on credit. No job security = no credit cards, mortgages, loans, etc.

It should be a reciprocal arrangement. The employer provides the job with an agreed salary and a measure of security. The employee provides the labour, turns in on time, is competent and doesn't fuck up too much. Both parties agree on terms up front that are legislatively approved. Everything runs smoothly unless one side grabs too much power and exploits the other - this can be employers issuing summary dismissals without cause to long-serving employees OR with unions making unfair demands. Either is poison. That is why at least minimal government guidelines are needed - to keep things ticking over nicely.

[Seth]

So your rational argument supporting a perpetual obligation to provide for an employee boils down to "because I say so?"

That's really the best you can do?

But it's not me, it's society, it's democracy, it's a system of laws created over a period of time by people cooperating together to achieve more than they could alone.

And what's the ethical and moral basis for this collective decision?

What's the unintended consequence of mandating that an employer support every employee he hires for life? Just what's happening in France right this minute...Young people with no work experience are not being hired by anybody and the unemployment rate for young people is skyrocketing...and they are beginning to riot.

Why would a business owner take a chance on hiring an untested, unknown new worker when there are thousands of older, experienced, seasoned workers available? Moreover, those older workers usually have families to support, and if the employer is going to be required to support that person for life, then it's in his interest to hire someone who is not only proven and experienced, but someone who is a net positive to society because he's a stable family man.

That's just one of the unintended consequences of this sort of socialist stupidity.

[JimC]

So your rational argument supporting a perpetual obligation to provide for an employee boils down to "because I say so?"

That's really the best you can do?

But it's not me, it's society, it's democracy, it's a system of laws created over a period of time by people cooperating together to achieve more than they could alone.

And what's the ethical and moral basis for this collective decision?

What's the unintended consequence of mandating that an employer support every employee he hires for life? Just what's happening in France right this minute...Young people with no work experience are not being hired by anybody and the unemployment rate for young people is skyrocketing...and they are beginning to riot.

Why would a business owner take a chance on hiring an untested, unknown new worker when there are thousands of older, experienced, seasoned workers available? Moreover, those older workers usually have families to support, and if the employer is going to be required to support that person for life, then it's in his interest to hire someone who is not only proven and experienced, but someone who is a net positive to society because he's a stable family man.

That's just one of the unintended consequences of this sort of socialist stupidity.

It is certainly possible for employment laws to tip too far in the direction of protection for workers, at the expense of the ability of a business to run efficiently. It may well be that is happening in France. If so, the answer is in the hands of voters at their next election...

It is also very clearly possible for the balance to be obscenely in the other direction. Recall the deaths in Bangladesh recently, when a shonky building collapsed...

[Seth]

So your rational argument supporting a perpetual obligation to provide for an employee boils down to "because I say so?"

That's really the best you can do?

But it's not me, it's society, it's democracy, it's a system of laws created over a period of time by people cooperating together to achieve more than they could alone.

It's also the bedrock of a culture where goods can be bought on credit. No job security = no credit cards, mortgages, loans, etc.

That's the very best reason NOT to have such a social system. Almost all of the problems we face economically and socially flow directly from the deficit spending culture. Once upon a time people saved up their money and THEN bought what they wanted.

It should be a reciprocal arrangement. The employer provides the job with an agreed salary and a measure of security. The employee provides the labour, turns in on time, is competent and doesn't fuck up too much. Both parties agree on terms up front that are legislatively approved. Everything runs smoothly unless one side grabs too much power and exploits the other - this can be employers issuing summary dismissals without cause to long-serving employees OR with unions making unfair demands. Either is poison. That is why at least minimal government guidelines are needed - to keep things ticking over nicely.

It is a reciprocal arrangement. The employer hires the employee to do labor X for compensation A. If the employee does not perform labor X, then the employer doesn't pay compensation A. The employer doesn't agree to pay compensation A for a lifetime, he agrees to pay for labor X. And if labor X no longer needs to be done, then the employer doesn't need the employee any longer and the employer will need to try to market his skills to another employer.

[Seth]

So your rational argument supporting a perpetual obligation to provide for an employee boils down to "because I say so?"

That's really the best you can do?

But it's not me, it's society, it's democracy, it's a system of laws created over a period of time by people cooperating together to achieve more than they could alone.

And what's the ethical and moral basis for this collective decision?

What's the unintended consequence of mandating that an employer support every employee he hires for life? Just what's happening in France right this minute...Young people with no work experience are not being hired by anybody and the unemployment rate for young people is skyrocketing...and they are beginning to riot.

Why would a business owner take a chance on hiring an untested, unknown new worker when there are thousands of older, experienced, seasoned workers available? Moreover, those older workers usually have families to support, and if the employer is going to be required to support that person for life, then it's in his interest to hire someone who is not only proven and experienced, but someone who is a net positive to society because he's a stable family man.

That's just one of the unintended consequences of this sort of socialist stupidity.

It is certainly possible for employment laws to tip too far in the direction of protection for workers, at the expense of the ability of a business to run efficiently.

Or at all, and yes it's possible, and indeed it happens all the time under the system called "socialism."

It may well be that is happening in France. If so, the answer is in the hands of voters at their next election...

And therein lies the flaw in "democracy." The tyrannical mob can make whatever rules it wants with complete disregard for the rights and property of the individual and in defiance of the physical laws of the universe, in this case, economic law.

It is also very clearly possible for the balance to be obscenely in the other direction. Recall the deaths in Bangladesh recently, when a shonky building collapsed...

Strawman. We're not discussing unsafe working conditions or contractor fraud (which the company leasing the building may well not even know about), we're discussing the relationship between the employer and employee and you're supposed to be trying to morally and ethically (and economically) justify burdening an employer with a lifetime of support of every employee he hires.