Speaking of propaganda...

candidone1 wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Perhaps there are some employers who provide benefits for their employees solely out of the goodness of their hearts. I've never worked for one, but I suppose there are some out there.

I think you're wrong to suggest that anyone in the business of business does anything "solely out of the goodness of their hearts". I think the tough love practices of a past generation have proven not only unproductive, but also unsuccessful in many respects--such as maintaining a positive work environment, creating lifelong employees, maximizing productivity and potential etc.

Providing health care is not an altruistic endeavor, nor is providing child care, or above competitive wages, or flex days, or vacation time, or anything along those lines.
Improving employer-employee relations through a more humanist approach has real and perceived benefits for both parties involved.
Again, examine the practices of the top employers in the US and you'll find a common thread--happy employees make productive employees which make increased profits.

But you are right....they don't have to do anything for their employees by law or some other moral imperative. They do it because it will, over the long term, be in the interests of the company to do so.

The only reason an employer would provide a health care plan to his/her employees is a) it is good business to attract and keep good employees and/or b) he actually cares about his employees and wants to be a good guy. This can be accomplished by the employer paying for all of it or arranging for a group plan by which the employees can purchase insurance at a lower cost than they could otherwise do. (There are far more of the latter plans than the former, but these cost the employer nothing other than the cost of forwarding the premiums and some record keeping.)

An employer can also realize that few employees need or could benefit from an employee plan--this is true when most employees are included on their spouse's plans etc.--and knows it benefits his employees more to simply pay them higher wages.

The employer only has so much money that can be allocated for employee expense so if you add a lot more benefits, the money has to come out of wages or people have to be laid off.

Things are not always so simple as those who have never been in business might think.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Why would anyone be shocked by what you said.

Any dope can work flipping burgers, just ask Gus.

If an employer wants competent employees, it would behoove the employer to offer the employees benefits. I wouldn't take a job that did not offer certain benefits. That's me though. I am sure there are people that have to take what ever work they can and that means employers can take advantage of them.

I have no idea where this insane idea came from the "conservatives" only think the employer is right and that all poor people should be shown no compassion. That's a ridiculous notion and I am sure snopes would like to know about it.

The fact remains though that employers have a minimum set of requirments to meet. Anything beyond that is at the employers decision. However, I do not see many drug users/high school dropouts/teen mothers/etc offering jobs with excellent benefits... do you? Is that common in your guys neck of the woods?

Generally, it is the conservatives who argue that the employer has no obligation to their employee above what MM said.
It is generally conservatives who argue that people are impoverished, poor, homeless, downtrodden etc because of choices they have made in their life.
It is generally conservatives who argue that the government has no obligation to help elevate the economic status of its impoverished or downtrodden citizens (because, they generally argue, that they are in that situation because of something they have or have not done)
It is generally conservatives who peddle the social and economic philosophies of tough love.

I say generally because conservatives generally adopt this stance and I have yet to see a liberal or left leaning A2K member stand simultaneously on the same social and economic pillars as the conservative members around here.

0 Replies

Hey, Foxfyre, ask McGentrix if that burger is up yet. I'm hungry as hell.

0 Replies

I'm quite fond of McG, Gus, but I'm not willing to gamble that he's a good cook.

0 Replies

I've never had a steak out better then what I can grill at home... But that's relaxation not work. Gus is just mad becasue he has to stop scrapping the grill to interject his comments on the McInternet.

Candidone... you are generalizing, why can't conservatives?

Generally, people ARE poor becasue of the decisions they make.
Generally, employers DO give benefits to their employees becasue they want to keep their employees. But, that has nothing to do with the government taxing rich people to give poor people a leg up now does it?
Generally, liberals believe the government should be in the business of re-distributing wealth instead of it's citizens doing so. Generally, that is the stupidest idea on the planet.
Generally, conservatives have had to work for the things they have and the homes they live in and the food they eat and the cars they drive.
Why should they be the only ones?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

. Gus is just mad becasue he has to stop scrapping the grill to interject his comments on the McInternet.

I'm impressed, McGentrix! Normally it takes you several days to formulate such an answer. Have we been upping the vitamins?

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Diest said...

Quote:
An employer does have a duty to their employees, and I'd love to hear anyone argue against that.

Tell me, what duty is that?

An employer is required to obey the labor laws, to provide a safe environment, and to pay what they said they would pay.

An employer is NOT obligated to provide day care for the employees kids, an employer is NOT obligated to provide healthcare (beyond workers comp),an employer is NOT obligated to provide any social services to their employees.

A company goes into business for one reason...to make a profit.
They dont go into business to provide social services to employees, they dont go into business because of some sense of moral duty, they go into business to make money, period.

If you dont like what the company is doing or not doing, dont work for them.

color added for ease of addressing points.

Red - I agree 100% that these things should be taken care of. I see this as a baseline.

Blue - These examples are certainly not expected, and I would desribe them as being the kind of bennefits that make an employer more appealing to potential talent etc.

Green - I think you miss the point. When I say that an employer has a duty to their employees, I am talking about security and compensation, not social programs. How many times have their been large lay-offs while upper management gets a raise?

Look at any large city of industry and tell me that mass unemployment is not the interest of the city/state/nation to address. If a company is playing a hand in ths kind of thing, I don't think it is unreasonable for government to put pressure on the bussiness.

No company would be anywhere without their base, they owe their success to their employees.

T
K
O

0 Replies

I just have this picture of Gus being half way to the scrap yard and turning his truck around so he can drive home and respond to McG.

Is there really enough valuable metal in a grill to make it worth scrapping?

0 Replies

So..

Employers have few if any responsibilities when it comes to employees but employees should work at a job that their employer doesn't care about them or else they are no good lazy libruls.

Do I have that right?

0 Replies

parados wrote:

So..

Employers have few if any responsibilities when it comes to employees but employees should work at a job that their employer doesn't care about them or else they are no good lazy libruls.

Do I have that right?

Nope.

But, coming from you that doesn't really surprise me.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

I just have this picture of Gus being half way to the scrap yard and turning his truck around so he can drive home and respond to McG.

Is there really enough valuable metal in a grill to make it worth scrapping?

Copper grills, yes.

0 Replies

Foxfyre - You seem to understand that employers bennefit from investing services into their employees, why is it then that you don't apply the same liberal ideas elsewhere in your political mantra?

It's not about a employer doing something out of their heart, it's just good bussiness to advocate for your employees and provide competitive compensation. You keep the best talent this way and you build loyalty and trust. This is important.

I've heard you more than once talk about how the USA took a wrong turn in the 1940s and since has been going downhill. You go on about values etc. Pick which side of your mouth you want to talk out of and stick with it. You lack a lot of consistancy.

T
K
O

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
Tell me, what duty is that?
An employer is required to obey the labor laws, to provide a safe environment, and to pay what they said they would pay.

An employer is NOT obligated to provide day care for the employees kids, an employer is NOT obligated to provide healthcare (beyond workers comp),an employer is NOT obligated to provide any social services to their employees.

A company goes into business for one reason...to make a profit.
They dont go into business to provide social services to employees, they dont go into business because of some sense of moral duty, they go into business to make money, period.

If you dont like what the company is doing or not doing, dont work for them.

That's innacurate and naive nearly to the point of hilarity.

What is the sole obligation of the government?
What are the sole obligations of parents?
What is the sole obligation of a school?
What is the sole obligation of a church?

I bet MM, if you did some research on the most desirable employers in the US, you'd find that they don't simply own up to the most most basic of expections.
I doubt very much that Google or Starbucks are considered top employers because they merely pony up a wage, obey labor laws, and make a safe environment.
No, these companies understand that happy employees make good, productive, long term, and committed workers.
I hear they also turn a profit.
*shock*

Heck, a friend of mine works at a local bike shop. His boss gives him a flexible health care plan--if he needs more money for, say, more dental work, he gets it. He bought him an i-pod, lends him the company vehicle for recreational purposes, and extends staff deals on products to people like me who should be paying full retail.
The owner takes a bit of a hit on his bottom line, but let me tell you, the morale in his shop is insanely high, employees want to do things for him because he does things for them. They are loyal, dedicated and don't need to be asked to put in some hours on a Sunday when the shop should be closed.

I never said an employer SHOULDNT provide those extra's for their employees,I said they arent obligated to.
There is a difference.

If an employer wants good employees, he will provide some extra benefits.

But,nothing says that an employer is obligated to.

0 Replies

The government does provide it's employees with excellent benefits.

Every citizen and non-citizen residing in the US is not a government employee though.

Personal responsibility is going the way of the polar bear of we don't do something about it soon! Won't you liberals do something about this great tragedy?

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Foxfyre - You seem to understand that employers bennefit from investing services into their employees, why is it then that you don't apply the same liberal ideas elsewhere in your political mantra?

It's not about a employer doing something out of their heart, it's just good bussiness to advocate for your employees and provide competitive compensation. You keep the best talent this way and you build loyalty and trust. This is important.

I've heard you more than once talk about how the USA took a wrong turn in the 1940s and since has been going downhill. You go on about values etc. Pick which side of your mouth you want to talk out of and stick with it. You lack a lot of consistancy.

T
K
O

I don't believe I said the USA took a wrong turn in the 1940's. In fact I am pretty sure that I have NOT said anything remotely like the USA took a wrong turn in the 1940's. I do believe events and policies addressing them in the 1940's set us on a path that has snowballed into some definite unintended consequences. I believe to stick one's head in the sand and refuse to see those negatives and how destructive they can be is not compassion but blind ideology that hurts people.

Also you do not not seem to understand the difference between investment and charity. Investment assumes a return on the capital that you put at risk. If you invest in your employees, you are expecting a return in productivity and profits. Sometimes the risk results in profit for the one putting their capital at risk and sometimes it is a gamble that loses. But it is not charity or benevolence.

Charity is a pure gift with no expectation of repayment. Charity can be noble and beneficial and can make the world a much more pleasant place to live in. A Christmas bonus to your employees can truly be benevolence in appreciation for a year's work well done. A bonus earned through meeting quotas or other goals is not benevolence but incentive to increase the profits for your employer.

Liberals seem to feel righteous when they can force other people to provide charity. They even take credit for the charity when they can do that.

Conservatives believe the only true charity is to give your own property out of your own free choice to give it.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
Diest said...

Quote:
An employer does have a duty to their employees, and I'd love to hear anyone argue against that.

Tell me, what duty is that?

An employer is required to obey the labor laws, to provide a safe environment, and to pay what they said they would pay.

An employer is NOT obligated to provide day care for the employees kids, an employer is NOT obligated to provide healthcare (beyond workers comp),an employer is NOT obligated to provide any social services to their employees.

A company goes into business for one reason...to make a profit.
They dont go into business to provide social services to employees, they dont go into business because of some sense of moral duty, they go into business to make money, period.

If you dont like what the company is doing or not doing, dont work for them.

color added for ease of addressing points.

Red - I agree 100% that these things should be taken care of. I see this as a baseline.

Blue - These examples are certainly not expected, and I would desribe them as being the kind of bennefits that make an employer more appealing to potential talent etc.

Green - I think you miss the point. When I say that an employer has a duty to their employees, I am talking about security and compensation, not social programs. How many times have their been large lay-offs while upper management gets a raise?

Look at any large city of industry and tell me that mass unemployment is not the interest of the city/state/nation to address. If a company is playing a hand in ths kind of thing, I don't think it is unreasonable for government to put pressure on the bussiness.

No company would be anywhere without their base, they owe their success to their employees.

T
K
O

REad your post again.
I think you got the red and blue mixed up.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Candidone... you are generalizing, why can't conservatives?

I have no problem with a generalization so long as it is not confused with a rule or a law of sorts and is articulated by some degree of supporting evidence and not unfounded prejudice.

McGentrix wrote:

Generally, people ARE poor becasue of the decisions they make.

Can this be supported by any data?
I'm sure this thread adequately demonstrates the dichotomous perspectives between leftists and the right wing, but I can likely cruise a2k a bit if you need some more support for my perspective.
I would appreciate some statistical data that shows that people are poor because of choices they make.

McGentrix wrote:

But, that has nothing to do with the government taxing rich people to give poor people a leg up now does it?
Generally, liberals believe the government should be in the business of re-distributing wealth instead of it's citizens doing so. Generally, that is the stupidest idea on the planet.

OK, so what is the difference between the government redistributing the wealth and the citizens doing so? "The government" is not some autonomous entity. It derives its income through taxation from the citizens. I appreciate that you'll argue that with private citizens redistributing the wealth, at least the contributions are voluntary and not, as Foxfyre earler stated, intended to subordinate or enslave the majority to the minority. But you can be sure that without a mandatory contribution to the endeavor to uplift the downtrodden, people like the socialist hating right wing will contribute little, if any, to these trolls who do nothing but sit on their butts and collect welfare (because, we know, that's the characterization and the subsequent generalization).

McGentrix wrote:

Generally, conservatives have had to work for the things they have and the homes they live in and the food they eat and the cars they drive.
Why should they be the only ones?

Wierd.
I'm very liberal.
I went to college for 2 years and university for 6. I own 2 houses, my car, my fleet of bikes and a woodworking shop.
Trust me, you're not the only ones.

Are you suggesting that there are no conservatives collecting welfare or are on some form of social assistance from the government or church?
Back that one up too while you're at it.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

parados wrote:
So..

Employers have few if any responsibilities when it comes to employees but employees should work at a job that their employer doesn't care about them or else they are no good lazy libruls.

Do I have that right?

Nope.

But, coming from you that doesn't really surprise me.

Oh.. so then a person is at fault or not if they are poor and refuse to work for an employer that doesn't care about them?

0 Replies

parados wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
parados wrote:
So..

Employers have few if any responsibilities when it comes to employees but employees should work at a job that their employer doesn't care about them or else they are no good lazy libruls.

Do I have that right?

Nope.

But, coming from you that doesn't really surprise me.

Oh.. so then a person is at fault or not if they are poor and refuse to work for an employer that doesn't care about them?

Maybe read more and misunderstand less. That might help you.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Generally, people ARE poor becasue of the decisions they make.

So, we can all agree then that Paris Hilton is rich because of her wonderful decisions?

0 Replies

Speaking of propaganda...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know