The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » More good news for employers! (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4 [Next]
GlenD
View Profile
Inner circle
LosAngeles, Ca
1298 Posts

Profile of GlenD
It won't be long before we have "the worker"; those that distribute the government cheese and the "the non worker"; those that stand in line to collect the government cheese.
"A miracle is something that seems impossible but happens anyway" - Griffin

"Any future where you succeed, is one where you tell the truth." - Griffin (Griffin rocks!)
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On 2011-09-05 20:08, LobowolfXXX wrote:
The DSM4's definition of "alcohol abuse," btw, is "repeated use despite recurrent adverse consequences." If that's not enough to cost you a job DRIVING TRUCKS, it sure ought to be. Any the very least, any government organization that mandates his retaining his job ought to indemnify the company for any damages he causes in the future if he's kept on. Of course, that indemnification would just be paid for by tax dollars, so...

Maybe the EEOC could give him a desk job at his current salary.


This is an interesting issue. I honestly gave no thought to the substance of the claim that the worker was disabled. That's the difference between you lawyers and the rest of us.

My point was the simple question "punishing" someone for what they are rather than what they do. I agree with your logic regarding the disability claim.

But as Balducci points out, there seems to be a lot of information not covered in the original link.

John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2011-09-05 23:21, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
My point was the simple question "punishing" someone for what they are rather than what they do.


This is a very interesting issue to me, both philosophically and legally. By far the best professor I had in law school taught both advanced criminal law and a moral philosophy seminar. One of the issues that came up in criminal law was the constitutionality (and basis) for criminalizing convicted sex offenders from being within X number of yards from a park, or from a school, or whatever, which I think is tangentially related to the question we're discussing (though, obviously, we're not talking about criminalization).

An interesting line of inquiry into the suggestion was that criminalization was justified based on a "risk creation" theory. If the notion is that the habitual sex offender has almost irresistible impulses to reoffend when in the proximity of children, and we're not going to keep him in prison for life, then it's reasonable to criminalize his choice to put himself in that position.

Without using some sort of "risk creation" model, it's hard to justify criminalizing drunk driving. In principle, at least, someone might conceivably have a blood alcohol content of, say, 0.24 (triple the legal limit in California) and obey all traffic laws. He hasn't caused any damage, and he hasn't violated any traffic laws (other than driving with a BAC of 0.08 or higher), but most people would agree that it's reasonable to criminalize his choice to drive, even though he's driving just fine. Partly, this is because we think that exposing people to certain levels of risk should subject one to punishment, even if the risk never eventuates; partly, it's because the risk itself is so great that we don't want to wait until a traffic accident occurs before we step in. This rationale, I think, at a minimum justifies a decision for the guy in this thread to lose his driving job.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
No, landmark, employers have not stopped hiring because they don't want to hire alcoholics, employers have stopped hiring because the overall federal regulatory climate is extremely hostile, and the administration's tone, theme, and policies bode ill for any kind of job-creating endeavor. The example offered is just one illustration of the way the government makes commerce unnecessarily difficult.
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Interesting thoughts on the criminalization of behaviors, Lobo.

On a very simple level, sanctions and the threat of sanctions act as negative reinforcers for various behaviors. And other behaviors are rewarded in different ways. In general, the behaviors you reward you see more of, and those you "punish" you see less of.
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5021 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
On 2011-09-06 05:54, Woland wrote:
No, landmark, employers have not stopped hiring because they don't want to hire alcoholics, employers have stopped hiring because the overall federal regulatory climate is extremely hostile, and the administration's tone, theme, and policies bode ill for any kind of job-creating endeavor. The example offered is just one illustration of the way the government makes commerce unnecessarily difficult.

I don't believe that there is any evidence that government regulations, whether I approve of them or not affects the number hired. But I'm willing to be convinced.
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Friction, my dear landmark, friction. Young children across the country have this summer been issued summons for selling lemonade . . . there is altogether too much government interference in every detail of personal and economic life . . . you have to ask yourself why anyone would risk their savings, their family's future, in order to go into business in this climate . . .
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On 2011-09-05 23:36, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-09-05 23:21, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
My point was the simple question "punishing" someone for what they are rather than what they do.


This is a very interesting issue to me, both philosophically and legally. By far the best professor I had in law school taught both advanced criminal law and a moral philosophy seminar. One of the issues that came up in criminal law was the constitutionality (and basis) for criminalizing convicted sex offenders from being within X number of yards from a park, or from a school, or whatever, which I think is tangentially related to the question we're discussing (though, obviously, we're not talking about criminalization).

An interesting line of inquiry into the suggestion was that criminalization was justified based on a "risk creation" theory. If the notion is that the habitual sex offender has almost irresistible impulses to reoffend when in the proximity of children, and we're not going to keep him in prison for life, then it's reasonable to criminalize his choice to put himself in that position.

Without using some sort of "risk creation" model, it's hard to justify criminalizing drunk driving. In principle, at least, someone might conceivably have a blood alcohol content of, say, 0.24 (triple the legal limit in California) and obey all traffic laws. He hasn't caused any damage, and he hasn't violated any traffic laws (other than driving with a BAC of 0.08 or higher), but most people would agree that it's reasonable to criminalize his choice to drive, even though he's driving just fine. Partly, this is because we think that exposing people to certain levels of risk should subject one to punishment, even if the risk never eventuates; partly, it's because the risk itself is so great that we don't want to wait until a traffic accident occurs before we step in. This rationale, I think, at a minimum justifies a decision for the guy in this thread to lose his driving job.


This is a difficult area. What are the justifiable sources of these inferences? Personality tests? Genetic screening? Statements of loved ones? Enemies? Verbalized self-doubts?


John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5021 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
On 2011-09-06 08:02, Woland wrote:
Friction, my dear landmark, friction. Young children across the country have this summer been issued summons for selling lemonade . . . there is altogether too much government interference in every detail of personal and economic life . . . you have to ask yourself why anyone would risk their savings, their family's future, in order to go into business in this climate . . .

So lemonade stands are dwindling because the kids are unwilling to hire alcoholics. Perhaps if they got liquor licenses . . . they could drink on the job?

Again, please show me a pattern of companies not hiring workers because of excessive government regulation. Businesses will hire as many or as few workers they need to make a profit. Period.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Ok Landmark, now you've got to be just intentionally doing this.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Police have been shutting lemonade stands in the U.S. for years, probably decades. Couple of quick examples from 2003 and 2005:

---

Girl's lemonade stand back in business
06/21/2003

Forget about the Gulf of Mexico. Who cares about the breathtaking sunsets. Never mind the romantic lure of the Naples Pier.

Something sour has put Naples on the map.

Naples police busted Avigayil on June 13 for selling lemonade without a city permit.

---

Food Vendor Calls Police On Kids' Stand

POSTED: 10:32 am EDT August 3, 2005

SALEM, Mass. -- Lemonade left a sour taste in the mouths of some Salem youngsters over the weekend.

NewsCenter 5's Jim Boyd reported that an adult food vendor, upset that the kids were "stealing" his customers on the Salem Common, called police and had their lemonade stand shut down.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On 2011-09-05 11:31, Woland wrote:

Quote:
The federal government has sued a major trucking company for its firing of driver with an admitted alcohol abuse problem.

Alcoholism is classified as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the suit maintains, and therefore employees cannot be prohibited even from driving 18 wheelers due to their histories of abuse.


Here's another good one. The "relief from disability" program that rearmed thousands of convicted, and often violent, felons.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/felons.htm

Wacky stuff! Is the above program still around, or has the law been changed?
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
What about restoring a felon's right to vote? Are you in favor of that or against it?
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5021 Posts

Profile of landmark

Please, I'm well aware of the lemonade stand stories.

And they have nothing to do with companies supposedly not hiring people because of government regulation, which was the premise of the OP "And you wonder why nobody is hiring?" The actual issue of whether a company should be forced to hire someone they don't want to, such as an alcoholic, is interesting and worth discussing; but to claim that it is the reason that companies are not hiring, is just propaganda.
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5021 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
On 2011-09-06 20:53, Woland wrote:
What about restoring a felon's right to vote? Are you in favor of that or against it?

What would be the argument for not restoring it once the sentence is served?
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2551 Posts

Profile of critter
Quote:
On 2011-09-06 20:25, balducci wrote:
...SALEM, Mass. -- Lemonade left a sour taste in the mouths of some Salem youngsters over the weekend.

NewsCenter 5's Jim Boyd reported that an adult food vendor, upset that the kids were "stealing" his customers on the Salem Common, called police and had their lemonade stand shut down...


It's almost as if this Boyd guy were on some sort of a witch hunt.

Too bad. He's a pretty good musician: http://www.myspace.com/jimboydband
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On 2011-09-06 22:42, landmark wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-09-06 20:53, Woland wrote:
What about restoring a felon's right to vote? Are you in favor of that or against it?

What would be the argument for not restoring it once the sentence is served?

I have no strong opinion on the matter.

But in response to your question, from an article (check it out!) in Time:

Roger Clegg, president of the conservative advocacy group Center for Equal Opportunity, neatly puts it, "If you aren't willing to follow the law, you can't claim the right to make the law for everyone else."

[The article gives some other reasons, and looks at both sides.]
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Well, landmark, if there is no argument for not restoring the right to vote to felons who have completed their terms, why note restore the right to keep & bear arms?
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
In this article, landmark, you might find some insight as to why excessive and capricious government regulation depresses hiring:

Quote:
The man in the aisle seat is trying to tell me why he refuses to hire anybody. His business is successful, he says, as the 737 cruises smoothly eastward. Demand for his product is up. But he still won’t hire.

“Why not?”

“Because I don’t know how much it will cost,” he explains. “How can I hire new workers today, when I don’t know how much they will cost me tomorrow?”

He’s referring not to wages, but to regulation: He has no way of telling what new rules will go into effect when. His business, although it covers several states, operates on low margins. He can’t afford to take the chance of losing what little profit there is to the next round of regulatory changes. And so he’s hiring nobody until he has some certainty about cost.

It’s a little odd to be having this conversation as the news media keep insisting that private employment is picking up. But as economists have pointed out to all who will listen, the only real change is that the rate of layoffs has slowed. Fewer than one of six small businesses added jobs last year, and not many more expect to do so this year. The private sector is creating no more new jobs than it was a year ago; the man in the aisle seat is trying to tell me why.

He is trim and white-haired and bursting with energy. He’s proud of the business he has built: not large by the way things are measured these days, but certainly successful. He shows me sales figures, award citations, stories from trade magazines. I congratulate him, then turn to the window and enjoy the view for a bit. We are flying over the Midwest, away from the setting sun and toward the darkness. America stretches beneath us in every direction, flat and broad and beautiful. My seat-mate has just discovered that I am a law professor: That is the reason for his discourse.
Party Doesn’t Matter

“I don’t understand why Washington does this to us," he resumes. By "us," he means people who run businesses of less- than-Fortune-500 size. He tells me that it doesn’t much matter which party is in office. Every change of power means a whole new set of rules to which he and those like him must respond. ‘‘I don’t understand,” he continues, “why Washington won’t just get out of our way and let us hire.”

There are a lot of responses I could offer at this point. But I am interested now; I prefer to let him talk.

It isn’t just hiring that is too unpredictable, he says. He feels the same way about investing. He has never liked stock markets; he prefers to put cash directly into businesses he likes in return for a small stake, acting, in short, as a small- time venture capitalist.

“Can’t do that now,” he says. For people like him -- people who aren’t filthy rich -- it has become too hard to pick winners. But he doesn’t blame the great information advantages enjoyed by insiders. He blames Washington, once more, for creating a climate of uncertainty.


The rest is here.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » More good news for employers! (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.22 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL