Rockin' in the free world since 2005.

[Total: 7    Average: 3.9/5]
77 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 3881
Rating: 3.9
Category:
Date: 01/20/14 12:42 PM

77 Responses to WI Reps Drafting Bill For 7-Day Work Week [Pic+]

  1. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    January 20, 2014 at 12:43 pm
    Link: WI Reps Drafting Bill For 7-Day Work Week - On behalf of anti-union business lobby. But they`re just trying to give businesses options.
  2. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36196 posts
    January 20, 2014 at 1:17 pm

    This is where I get to say "told`ya so"
  3. Profile photo of whodat6484
    whodat6484 Male 30-39
    3907 posts
    January 20, 2014 at 1:39 pm
    Sure, while you`re at let`s get rid of those pesky child labor laws as well. But why stop there? I bet companies could increase their profits if they didn`t have to worry about OSHA, the EPA and all those other useless safety regulations which can be quite costly when they`re forced to adhere to them to make sure employees and the environment are safe.
  4. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 20, 2014 at 1:42 pm
    I don`t get it; what exactly is wrong with this?

    Do you guys think that companies are suddenly going to ask employees to work 7 days/week?
  5. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 20, 2014 at 1:44 pm
    All this amounts to is government allowing more people to make more choices about their own lives. Since when is that a bad thing?
  6. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5877 posts
    January 20, 2014 at 1:55 pm
    I can see where a mandated 24-hour off time would be a pain in the ass. Most of us, at times, have to work 6 or 7 days a week.

    Also take into account that there many factories that have gone to a 12 hour shift that, while it requires working 7 days in a row, the employees love because it ALSO gives you 7 days in a row OFF every 4 weeks. (in addittion to two 3 day and one 1 day period off).
  7. Profile photo of DuckBoy87
    DuckBoy87 Male 18-29
    3147 posts
    January 20, 2014 at 1:56 pm
    The only problem I see with this is that it should be 6 days, not 7.

    I`ve had to work 12 days in a row before. I`ll admit I became a tad delirious by day 10, and my boss only did it because of an emergency, and made it 6 days one week, and 6 days the next (but 12 in a row).

    But reading this, it says it`s optional and can`t be forced. Any company that tries to force this on people will be, undoubtedly, be sued. And there is a mandatory 24 hour rest period in between the weeks. Essentially it`s an 8 day week.

    I know a lot of companies have a mandatory 9 on, 3 day off cycle. How is that any different
  8. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36196 posts
    January 20, 2014 at 2:07 pm

    "while you`re at let`s get rid of those pesky child labor laws as well." Actually, the abolition of child labor laws is in the Libertarian Charter. Getting rid of public schools has also been recommended by the Republican Party.

    They are taking us back 150 years. There will be no middle class and why educate your kids... there won`t be any jobs they need "learning" for.
  9. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5877 posts
    January 20, 2014 at 2:10 pm
    Gerry1of1-"This is where I get to say "told`ya so""

    Why would a `told`ya so` be necessary. Nowhere in the bill is it forcing anyone to work more. It`s just removing an unneccesary law that`s making it difficult to have more options for shift-workers.
  10. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 20, 2014 at 2:15 pm
    @Gerry

    Actually, the abolition of child labor laws is in the Libertarian Charter.
    As it should rightfully be. Is it worse to allow someone to voluntarily do something, or to force someone not to do something? Allowing people to make their own choices does not ensure that they will make those choices.

    Getting rid of public schools has also been recommended by the Republican Party.
    Well they`re a complete failure. I don`t know anyone who looks at the public school system and thinks it`s successful.

    There will be no middle class and why educate your kids... there won`t be any jobs they need "learning" for.
    Right now, there`s a shrinking middle class, a failing education system, and a stagnant economy. As we continue toward liberalism, these trends also continue; it isn`t a coincidence.
  11. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5877 posts
    January 20, 2014 at 2:16 pm
    Gerry1of1-"Getting rid of public schools has also been recommended by the Republican Party."

    Incorrect, getting rid of the Department of Education has been recommended. That does not equate `getting rid of public schools`.

    Leave it to the states. Basically we are taxed for education, send that money to the DOE, and they send 81% of it back. Why not just keep it local and save some money?
  12. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    January 20, 2014 at 4:17 pm
    But reading this, it says it`s optional and can`t be forced. Any company that tries to force this on people will be, undoubtedly, be sued.

    That is at best very naive. Of course it will be forced - what would be the point of it otherwise? Any employee who objects would just be downgraded and forced out. That`s easily done in a variety of ways.

    And there is a mandatory 24 hour rest period in between the weeks.

    That`s what exists now. It`s what they`re proposing to get rid of.

    Do you guys think that companies are suddenly going to ask employees to work 7 days/week?

    There won`t be any asking involved.

    More likely is that low-end employees will be required to be available to work as and when demanded by their employers, any time, any day. No regular days off. No reliability or consistency. Much less control over your own life - your employer dominates your life every day.
  13. Profile photo of whodat6484
    whodat6484 Male 30-39
    3907 posts
    January 20, 2014 at 4:47 pm
    Yeah, they say "it`s optional and can`t be forced" but that brings up another problem, which is the main argument against it.

    "Workers who take their mandated rest days could be skipped over for promotion, denied privileges allowed to workers who work a 7-day week or could see sharp reductions in their schedule until they no longer have enough hours to make ends meet, financially."

    I`ve seen sh*t like this happen when I worked at Target after I EASed from the Marines. People who submitted time off requests for unpaid time off, to go on vacation, would be scheduled for significantly fewer hours after returning from their vacation for the next month or so. These people were hard workers and all had spotless performance records but it was obvious that they were being punished for taking some time off.
  14. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 20, 2014 at 5:12 pm
    @Angillion

    Any employee who objects would just be downgraded and forced out.
    This, of course, carries with it the implication that someone wants to replace the person "forced" out. With this in mind, we can see how the current situation removes that persons choice to work the number of hours/week they currently want to.

    Again, the question at hand is which is more acceptable:

    1. Government, in an effort to protect you, forces you to work only a maximum number of hours during some timespan; or,

    2. Government removes the regulation and allows each person to decide how many hours they want to work each week.

    There`s no modern precedent that suggests that removing this law will suddenly increase the number of hours of work expected from each employee in any given week.
  15. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 20, 2014 at 5:16 pm
    @Angillion

    Much less control over your own life - your employer dominates your life every day.
    You`re confusing control with choice. In you`re (unfounded) hypothetical, you`ve voluntarily sacrificed control of your life in exchange for a given wage and benefits; this already happens. Nurses, doctors, and many other medical staff are put "on-call" and are expected to work in a moments notice.

    While these people have certainly lost an element of control, it has been completely voluntary.

    On the other hand, the person - right now - who wants to work seven days/week, has that choice removed involuntarily. I simply suggest that this is the greater evil.
  16. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 20, 2014 at 5:21 pm
    Ultimately, this is nothing more than an overreaction.

    There are already states that do not have laws regulating the "one day in seven" time off. Despite this, their standard work weeks are still 40 hours.

    There is absolutely no reason to suspect that WI would suddenly deviate from the previously-observed path.

  17. Profile photo of Runemang
    Runemang Male 30-39
    2676 posts
    January 20, 2014 at 5:42 pm
    I`ve researched a lot of labor law, and I gotta tell ya ... you would probably be STUNNED at how few rights workers really have. Unless someone does something "because you`re __________ (black, hispanic, female, homosexual, handicapped, etc, etc, etc)" ... you`re screwed. Your choice is do what the employer says or go find another job. It sucks, no doubt, but there it is.
  18. Profile photo of Draculya
    Draculya Male 40-49
    14544 posts
    January 20, 2014 at 6:14 pm
    "Even God said rest on the seventh day,"

    ORLY?
  19. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5877 posts
    January 20, 2014 at 6:35 pm
    Angilion-"Of course it will be forced"

    From the viewpiont of most manufacturing jobs, where the plant runs non-stop, the exising law (24 hour break every 7 days) LIMITS the options for employees possible rotations.

    For simplicities sake, take a plant that needs 10 employees to run it and is run 24/7. By far most shift work is on a 28 day rotation. So, 10 jobs x 28 days = 6720 man hours, or each worker working 168 hours in a cycle, or averaging 42 hours a week.

    Those requirements will not change, as the worker will still work the same number of hours, but by deeming a 24 hour break every 7 days limits the possible permutations of shift schedules.

    SOME workers prefer a schedule where they work 7 in a row that also gives them OFF 7 in a row....not possible with the existing WI law.
  20. Profile photo of DuckBoy87
    DuckBoy87 Male 18-29
    3147 posts
    January 20, 2014 at 6:36 pm
    Let`s say the mother of a family needs to pick up a job to help make ends meet. She needs to be home to send the kids off to school and be home to pick them up from the bus stop, or whatever.

    Let`s say the bus picks the kids up at 7:30 and drops them off at 3:30. The mother can only work 8-3, but should start at 8:30 and get back by 2:30 to ensure that if the school bus is late/early she can be ready to send off/pick up her kids. In this hypothetical, the father is unavailable to send off/pick up but is available for the weekend.

    Anyway, so the mother only has 6 hours to work during the weekday. 30 hours a week. It`d be impossible for her to be full time, even if she worked 16 hours on the weekend. That would bring her to 34 hours.

    She could hire a costly babysitter, defeating the purpose of working full time, or she could work 7 days a week, be full time, and not have to pay for a sitter.
  21. Profile photo of McDuff73
    McDuff73 Male 30-39
    870 posts
    January 20, 2014 at 7:31 pm
    Business has always had to be dragged kicking and screaming into treating its employees fairly. In the UK labor movement had to fight to secure holidays, sick pay, overtime pay, weekends, a minimum wage, paid leave, improved safety standards, health benefits and child labor laws and despite the claims of business none of this negatively affected them in the long run, but somehow this is being hailed as a freedom for employees, what planet do you have to be on to see the potential for exploitation as beneficial to the employee?
  22. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 20, 2014 at 7:44 pm
    @McDuff

    Business has always had to be dragged kicking and screaming into treating its employees fairly.
    If we took all of the injustices of businessmen and businesswomen, and compared them to the injustices of government, which do you suppose would be worse?

    I can quit a job far easier than I can quit a government.
  23. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 20, 2014 at 7:57 pm
    The thing that really gets me about this whole "evil businesses" thing is that it`s all completely voluntary.

    There`s no big conspiracy among business owners to screw employees over. No, we are all competing with each other for the best employees; it`s the very reason that most jobs already pay more than the minimum wage.

    You, the consumer or the employee, can punish me if you feel that I`ve done you some injustice. You can stop working with me and go to my competitors.

    You can break up a predatory business. Try breaking up with a predatory government.
  24. Profile photo of McDuff73
    McDuff73 Male 30-39
    870 posts
    January 20, 2014 at 8:49 pm
    Its not a competition HumanAction as to which is the worst, this is a clear cut case of businesses using influence to gain favourable legislation in fact its business and politicians being in bed together by the looks of it. But that aside business is about making as much money as they can no matter what, the UK legislation I mentioned highlights some of poor practice businesses will got to and that can often be at the expense of the workforce hence the reason why protective legislation needs to be enacted.
    Somehow claiming this wont lead to exploitation or this is about `freedom` for employees is naive.
  25. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 20, 2014 at 8:56 pm
    @McDuff

    business and politicians being in bed together
    Who`s fault is this? Is it the fault of business owners, who have no moral obligation (or power), or is it the fault of government who has both a moral obligation and a monopoly on power?

    why protective legislation needs to be enacted
    Some legislation makes sense; this law doesn`t.

    ]quote]Somehow claiming this wont lead to exploitation or this is about `freedom` for employees is naive.
    There are dozens of other states that do not any labor law comparable to the one in Wisconsin. Strangely, their workers aren`t being horrifically abused at the hands of merciless and evil business owners.

    What a strange paradox we`ve uncovered.
  26. Profile photo of McDuff73
    McDuff73 Male 30-39
    870 posts
    January 20, 2014 at 8:57 pm
    The idea that work is voluntary is ridiculous, people have to work to get by otherwise they have a habit of dying of cold and hunger etc...
    This also has nothing to do with consumers, its about employers trying to shaft their employees, look at the recent Grangemouth farce in Scotland to see how employers screw employees.
  27. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 20, 2014 at 8:59 pm
    @McDuff

    Seriously though, you`re concerns are unfounded as they`ve already been shown to be untrue. There are many states without a "One Day of Rest in Seven" law and they are doing just fine.

    There is absolutely no reason to suspect that removing this law will lead to some great departure from this already observed outcome.
  28. Profile photo of McDuff73
    McDuff73 Male 30-39
    870 posts
    January 20, 2014 at 9:03 pm
    funny how your responses always let business off the hook, if they are doing a deal I`d say its 50/50 the businesses are greasing the skids of those politicians more than likely.

    `Some legislation makes sense; this law doesn`t`
    in your opinion, in mine it most definately does having witnessed exploitation by employers and given the history of business practice.

    I dont know what labor laws are in place in other states neither have I recently run a poll on wether workers have been exploited I suspect neither have you, so I`ll take your assertion that they arent with a pinch of salt.
  29. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 20, 2014 at 9:03 pm
    @McDuff

    The idea that work is voluntary is ridiculous
    You can quit your job at any time; that means that it is voluntary. Every single job you`ve ever had, you chose to apply to; that`s a voluntary process.

    If you quit the government, you will be arrested or fined.

    its about employers trying to shaft their employees
    Do you seriously not blame government at all here? I mean, honestly, the government is the one removing this law - which you are so vehemently opposed to. Yet somehow, you`re blaming business owners.

    look at the recent Grangemouth farce
    We`ve established that bad businesses exist already. (See: Beating a Dead Horse). However, they are being punished. What about government?
  30. Profile photo of McDuff73
    McDuff73 Male 30-39
    870 posts
    January 20, 2014 at 9:07 pm
    http://tiny.cc/xpt09w

    http://tiny.cc/iqt09w

    http://tiny.cc/wrt09w

    some articles about exploitation of workers by American business.
  31. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 20, 2014 at 9:07 pm
    @McDuff

    funny how your responses always let business off the hook
    No, they don`t. However, I don`t come with the assumption that business owners owe me or anyone else something; you apparently do.

    You seem to think that the sole purpose and responsibility of business owners is to provide cushy, happy, wonderful jobs with amazing benefits for every single person. Guess what? Business owners are just people; they owe you exactly nothing.

    You want to work for them? Great! You and they will come to a point of agreement on the compensation you will receive. Every part of this process is VOLUNTARY.
  32. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 20, 2014 at 9:09 pm
    some articles about exploitation of workers by American business.
    My God man, the horse; it`s dead. You can stop beating it.

    Let me just say this - there are bad businesses in this world. I know, I`ve already said it, but it apparently hasn`t sunk in yet so I`ll say it some more.

    There are bad businesses in this world.
    There are bad businesses in this world.
    There are bad businesses in this world.

    (One for each link).

    However, you can leave a business at any time. Your interactions with that business are voluntary. If you work for them, you do so voluntarily. If you buy their product or service, you do so voluntarily.

  33. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5877 posts
    January 20, 2014 at 9:21 pm
    Remember, HumanAction, that to McDuff a worker getting paid for what they agreed to work for is `explotation`.

    For that matter, any worker that has to actually PERFORM work rather than the business sending a check to him for play World of Warcraft is `explotation` to McDuff.
  34. Profile photo of McDuff73
    McDuff73 Male 30-39
    870 posts
    January 20, 2014 at 9:26 pm
    Where do you get the ridiculous idea that I think

    "You seem to think that the sole purpose and responsibility of business owners is to provide cushy, happy, wonderful jobs with amazing benefits for every single person"

    Thats not what I`ve said at all maybe thats the problem here your lack of comprehension!?
    What I do think is that businesses need to treat their employees like humans and not chattel to be used to turn a profit at whatever cost to the employees, hence the reason why I think fair and reasoned protections need to be put in place, because as you have agreed and history has shown, business hasnt always been very forthcoming when it comes to treating its employees fairly.

    As for this dubious concept that work is a voluntary thing try giving yours up and see how quickly the state turns on you and then the media and anyone else that wants to label you a sponger etc... work is most certainly not a voluntary thing these days by any stret
  35. Profile photo of McDuff73
    McDuff73 Male 30-39
    870 posts
    January 20, 2014 at 9:29 pm
    "For that matter, any worker that has to actually PERFORM work rather than the business sending a check to him for play World of Warcraft is `explotation` to McDuff"

    Lol talk about hyperbole, and we arent talking simply about wages Megrendel its also about working conditions etc.. which companies are able to change at a whim these days.
  36. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36196 posts
    January 20, 2014 at 10:19 pm

    MeGrendel, Newt Gingrich when running for Prez stated that he would eliminate the DOE and public schools. That children had "a right to the education their parents could afford" but it shouldn`t be a pubic burden.

    And yes, the DOE sucks.
  37. Profile photo of whodat6484
    whodat6484 Male 30-39
    3907 posts
    January 20, 2014 at 10:23 pm
    This is why I work union. In order for any business to succeed you need workers to do the grunt work. If a GC tries to pull some sh*t on me I can tell them "f*ck you I`ll grab my tools and go home right now" because without me the job won`t get done and he`ll lose, not me. I can always go back to the hall and get another job, sometimes right away, sometimes in a matter of days.
  38. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 20, 2014 at 10:34 pm
    @McDuff

    What I do think is that businesses need to treat their employees like humans and not chattel to be used to turn a profit at whatever cost to the employees
    So, you think business owners are there to provide cushy, happy, wonderful jobs with amazing benefits for employees. I`m not sure where you think I`ve erred.

    hence the reason why I think fair and reasoned protections need to be put in place
    ... as determined by you. Your "fair and reasoned" is far different from my "fair and reasoned."

    business hasnt always been very forthcoming when it comes to treating its employees fairly
    The government you would so blindly trust has been far worse. By your own admission, they have bedded corporations. So, it stands to reason that, at this time, any government action would serve to benefit their bedmates.
  39. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 20, 2014 at 10:39 pm
    @McDuff

    As for this dubious concept that work is a voluntary thing
    Ah, now I see where you are confused. Allow me to clarify:

    Work is voluntary. If you do not go to work, you will not be arrested or fined; there will be no force committed against you by an aggressor to ensure that you resume working.

    However, you will suffer consequences if you are unable to provide for yourself in lieu of your unemployment. This is your own fault; the business is not at fault for your lack of preparation.

    On the other hand, if you fail to pay your taxes, or if you violate the law - regardless of whether or not it is just - you will be arrested or fined. Someone from the government will come and use force against you to ensure that you resume paying taxes.

    I hope this helps to clarify what is, and what isn`t, voluntary.
  40. Profile photo of Sleepyhallow
    Sleepyhallow Male 50-59
    1983 posts
    January 20, 2014 at 10:43 pm
    Why is it that conservatives always insist on going backwards?

    Looking to overturn Child Labor Laws next, no doubt.
  41. Profile photo of McDuff73
    McDuff73 Male 30-39
    870 posts
    January 20, 2014 at 11:03 pm
    "So, you think business owners are there to provide cushy, happy, wonderful jobs with amazing benefits for employees. I`m not sure where you think I`ve erred"

    nope you were wrong the first time and wrong this time, being treated like a human being means not exploiting them for your own gain.

    It is very clear that our definitions of fair and reasonable are very far apart.

    Why are you assuming that I have a blind faith in the goverment and that somehow that supports your idea that this law is good for employees? Politicians are open to corruption much like business is.
  42. Profile photo of McDuff73
    McDuff73 Male 30-39
    870 posts
    January 20, 2014 at 11:07 pm
    The very fact as you point out that there are consequences of not working is evidence that in fact work is not voluntary and is in fact a necessity for survival, and no-one blamed business for that, please dont add ridiculous claims to the discussion that no one made.
    As for tax, in the UK its your bill for being a part of society that birthed you educated you protected you from fires crime and ill health and provided you with transport networks etc...
  43. Profile photo of McDuff73
    McDuff73 Male 30-39
    870 posts
    January 20, 2014 at 11:13 pm
    what your point of view boils down to HumanAction is you agree companies at times treat their employees badly exploiting them, you just dont think there should be laws preventing that exploitation, because you think people are free to come and go as the please in the job market and that this freedom will somehow regulate bad behaviour in employers despite the historic evidence to show otherwise where there are no protecting legislation.
  44. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 12:30 am
    Let`s say the mother of a family needs to pick up a job to help make ends meet. She needs to be home to send the kids off to school and be home to pick them up from the bus stop, or whatever.

    Let`s say the bus picks the kids up at 7:30 and drops them off at 3:30. The mother can only work 8-3, but should start at 8:30 and get back by 2:30 to ensure that if the school bus is late/early she can be ready to send off/pick up her kids.

    And since she`ll be required to work on demand 7 days a week, she can`t plan anything with regular hours. Which means she can`t send off or pick up her kids at all or she can`t work.
  45. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 6:18 am
    @McDuff

    The very fact as you point out that there are consequences of not working is evidence that in fact work is not voluntary and is in fact a necessity for survival
    OK, so you`re still confused on what is, and what is not voluntary.

    Failure to complete a voluntary action will lead to consequences; this does not suddenly make the action involuntary.

    For example, I can go on a voluntary hunger strike. Of course, the consequence could be as extreme as death. However, my hunger strike is still voluntary.

    Why?

    It is voluntary because, with my own free will, I chose not to eat. Similarly, if you choose not to work, that is voluntary. Yes, there will be consequences. However, you were not forced.
  46. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 6:23 am
    @McDuff

    because you think people are free to come and go as the please in the job market and that this freedom will somehow regulate bad behavior
    Ah, you somewhat understand my perspective, except you aren`t grasping the reasoning.

    I don`t think regulations should be removed because everything will suddenly be happy and merry. There are two reasons I think regulations like this one should be removed:

    1. Government has a propensity to cause far more damage when "fixing" an "inequality" than the problem they`re solving; and,

    2. Legislation can only ever remove or transfer choice, and I don`t think it is morally acceptable for government to tell me what I can and cannot do - provided my actions do not infringe on the rights of others.

    The lesser of two evils is allowing individuals and businesses to operate as they see fit, because people have the choice to walk away.
  47. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5877 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 7:09 am
    Gerry1of1-"Newt Gingrich when running for Prez"

    Ah, that explains it. I never paid Newt any mind.

    I AM familiar with the Republican stance on the DOE, though.

    Angilion-"And since she`ll be required to work on demand 7 days a week"

    Sorry, you must be reading different legislation than I am. They are not demanding ANYone work MORE hours. But just have more options when it comes to scheduling those hours.

    Many shiftworkers PREFER a schedule where they work 7 days in a row, as it also gives them 7 doays OFF in a row. I`ve worked that shift. The 7 days off is nice, but the one 24-hour turnaround was a bear.

    Currently, in WI, workers are not allowed such a shift.
  48. Profile photo of McDuff73
    McDuff73 Male 30-39
    870 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 7:44 am
    @HumanAction, yes the world is black and white as you seem to think and eating and working equate to exactly the same thing.
    I have no choice but to work if I don`t work I will suffer therefor its not a voluntary action I am compelled to do so not by someone else but by the possible consequences.

    I think I`m more than grasping what your claiming I just don`t agree with your claim.
    Government may not be perfect and may not always get things right but they also do get things right, on balance I would rather protections which are transparent were put in place by those I elect to govern than wealthy corporations which will benefit from having no oversight and no duty of care, and I certainly don`t agree that the lesser of two evils is letting business do what it wants as we both agree they have a predisposition to exploit their workforce.
  49. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 8:11 am
    @McDuff

    Do you choose to go to work every morning? As in, do you set your alarm clock, wake up, get ready, and go to work every morning without the threat of someone coming to hurt you should you fail to do so?

    Yes, you do. No one is going to come for you if you don`t go to work. No one is going to lock you in prison, freeze your bank accounts, or beat up you.
  50. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 8:13 am
    @McDuff

    The problem I see is that you seem to think that natural circumstances are the same as compelling force.

    If I jump off the top of the Empire State building, the natural circumstance (gravity) pretty much ensures I`ll die. However, that`s not the same as someone pushing me.
  51. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 8:14 am
    @McDuff

    but they also do get things right
    Like what?

    The FDA, OSHA, EPA, DOE? I can demonstrate how each one of these programs causes far more harm than the problems they allegedly fix.
  52. Profile photo of papajon0s1
    papajon0s1 Male 40-49
    578 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 10:22 am
    Oddly I have not heard this discussed in my home state of WI. Will investigate...
  53. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 6:35 pm
    Sorry, you must be reading different legislation than I am. They are not demanding ANYone work MORE hours.

    Oh my, I am so dreadfully sorry that you have failed to understand my post. Please accept my humble apologies for your incompetence.

    See, I can be sarcastic too. You obviously think it`s useful, so I thought I`d be like you when replying.

    I never said ANYthing about ANYone working MORE hours (I can shout RANdom parts of words, too).

    Although that would happen too, it`s not the issue I was referring to. You did not read that in my post. You also don`t have a reply for the issue I actually raised - if you don`t work fixed days, let alone fixed hours, you can`t do anything at regular times.
  54. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 6:37 pm
    And please, don`t pretend this is about giving workers more choice. You can`t possibly be so isolated from the world that you believe that. It`s a silly lie.
  55. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 7:24 pm
    @Angillion

    And please, don`t pretend this is about giving workers more choice.
    Oh I agree completely. I highly doubt that the intention here is to give people more choice; however, it is the outcome.
  56. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 7:28 pm
    For anyone who thinks that the existing law is a good thing, I have to ask, what if it was changed to 3 days, or 4?

    You see, then you would say that people can`t get by on that; it isn`t fair. How can someone possibly survive while only working 3 days a week?

    The problem is that we`ve only changed an arbitrarily set variable; we`ve left the fundamental concept in place (that government can, in an attempt to protect you, limit the number of days you can work per week).

    The point I`m making is that you actually probably only agree with the fundamental concept so long as it meets your own subjective notion of rightness; in other words, it`s not a principled argument.
  57. Profile photo of McDuff73
    McDuff73 Male 30-39
    870 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 3:31 am
    HumanAction so only other human interaction can be considered a compelling force? so tomorrow when you wake up and your choice of wether to breathe or not comes up that compelling urge to draw in a deep breath or die will be you making a voluntary choice to breath and not you being compelled for fear of death to draw breath.

    Seems you just dont like anything about government and that taints your perspective like you were claiming incorrectly earlier I cant see any wrong with the government, it would appear everything they do is wrong to you.
  58. Profile photo of McDuff73
    McDuff73 Male 30-39
    870 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 3:35 am
    As for the law your opinion of rightness is no more legitimate than anyone else whos expressed one here, arguing what ifs is trite and serves no purpose and adds nothing to the discussion unless of course we look at the other end what if your corporation mandated you must work for 28 days in every month, see just as trite.
    The law set in place is as a protection from exploitation, its necessary as you have already admitted business has a history of exploiting its workforce, you apparantly just dont care about that, you appear to care more about your own right to work as many hours as you can and to hell with anyone else.
  59. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 6:37 am
    @McDuff

    OK, I`m done with the voluntary stuff. I`ve explained it enough; if you still think that choosing not to breathe is the same as a government agent arresting you, well more power to you; I won`t change your mind. You`re wrong, but I`ll never convince you of that.

    it would appear everything they do is wrong to you.
    Well...

    Iraq.
    Afghanistan.
    Housing Market Collapse.
    Fiat Currency (Mandatory Inflation).
    Pilfered Social Security.
    Useless Public Education.
    Most Expensive Public Healthcare System on Earth. (Before Obamacare - it`ll get worse).
    Drug War.
    NSA.

    I mean, I could do this all day; that is the problem.
  60. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 6:41 am
    @McDuff

    As for the law your opinion of rightness is no more legitimate than anyone else whos expressed one here
    I couldn`t agree more. This is why we should let people CHOOSE rather than making their choices for them; we can`t possibly know what everyone thinks is correct. The best course then is to let everyone choose.

    its necessary as you have already admitted business has a history of exploiting its workforce
    We`ve done this; you`re just repeating yourself now. Yes, *some* (KEY WORD ALERT) businesses will exploit workers, just like *some* governments will exploit their citizens.

    Which is worse? Me, I prefer businesses. I can walk away from a business.

    you appear to care more about your own right to work as many hours as you can
    I care about liberty; you apparently do not. You want to control people; I do not.
  61. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5877 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 7:58 am
    Angilion-"if you don`t work fixed days, let alone fixed hours."

    This legislation has nothing to do with eliminating `fixed` days or hours. A Rotating Shift Schedule is also considered `fixed`.

    Most do not work `banker`s` horus. I never held a Monday-Friday job until I was 40. Shiftwork is awesome, especially 12 hr ones. What`s not to love about 183 scheduled days off instead of the measly 104 you get working Mon-Fri?

    Angilion-"you can`t do anything at regular times."

    Actually, shift work means having MORE chances of doing things at regular times. Working Mon-Fri, I have to schedule time off to go to the Dentist. On shift work I used to schedule it when a day off fell on a week-day. Plus, while I worked some weekends, my other weekends were longer. (again, MORE days off)
  62. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5877 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 8:37 am
    McDuff73-"you appear to care more about your own right to work as many hours as you can"

    And you`re for taking peoples rights away? (oh, you only like `certain` rights....typical lib...`MY rights are inviolate, YOUR rights are negotiable")
  63. Profile photo of McDuff73
    McDuff73 Male 30-39
    870 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 8:42 am
    @HumanAction `if you still think that choosing not to breathe is the same as a government agent arresting you` you were the one claiming starving yourself is akin to working!

    `I mean, I could do this all day; that is the problem`

    You could so could I but why not start listing the failings of corporations while your at it after all you want them having more control only problem is corporations are not as accountable nor are they as transparent as Government has to be.
  64. Profile photo of McDuff73
    McDuff73 Male 30-39
    870 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 8:48 am
    `I care about liberty; you apparently do not. You want to control people; I do not`

    Wrong I simply dont want corporations being in control , I want a fully accountable transparent elected body of which corporations will never be,
    and yes I do keep repeating the point business exploits people because you so easily dismiss it as you attack government failings. As for choice people do choose they choose to elect representatives who will enact what they want them to if business doesn`t corrupt them. (oh look business that you so revere using its wealth and influence to manipulate wouldnt it be good to just let them have carte blanche to do as they wish)
  65. Profile photo of McDuff73
    McDuff73 Male 30-39
    870 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 8:51 am
    @Megrendel `And you`re for taking peoples rights away? (oh, you only like `certain` rights....typical lib...`MY rights are inviolate, YOUR rights are negotiable")

    firstly I dont consider the term liberal disparaging, its a label I wear with pride thanks.
    Show me where I said my rights should be adhered to whilst yours shouldnt or are you just playing the old hyperbole game again, you dont half like to exagerrate to make your point now do you pity your comment adds nothing to the discussion.
  66. Profile photo of McDuff73
    McDuff73 Male 30-39
    870 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 8:53 am
    @HumanAction I dont think we will agree on any of the points discussed but thanks for taking the time out to discuss them at least, and not just attempting to throw crappy insults about instead.
  67. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 9:53 am
    @McDuff

    you were the one claiming starving yourself is akin to working!
    You misunderstand; I was claiming that CHOOSING not to breathe is similar to CHOOSING not to work, in that they both have severe consequences, yet are still decisions that can be made by each person. I did this to illustrate the difference between choosing to accept negative consequences as opposed to be forced to accept negative consequences. In the former case, you have free will.

    problem is corporations are not as accountable
    How so? I see successful lawsuits brought against corporations all the time. Additionally, I see corrupt CEO`s going to jail. If a business kills someone, they are punished severely. If a government kills someone... well, oh well.



  68. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 9:57 am
    @McDuff

    not start listing the failings of corporations while your at it
    Sure; businesses fail all the time, and that sucks; people lose their jobs as a result. However, it`s isolated to that business. When the government fails, it hurts everyone.

    You seem to be operating under an assumption that there is a perfect scenario where government can make some laws to ensure that no one gets hurt; it won`t happen. Instead, we should be concerned with mitigating damage done when an institution fails. When one business fails, it is far less destructive than when one government fails.

    Wrong I simply dont want corporations being in control
    They`re not; they can`t compel you to do anything.

  69. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 10:00 am
    @McDuff

    oh look business that you so revere using its wealth and influence to manipulate wouldnt it be good to just let them have carte blanche to do as they wish
    I agree that this happens all the time and it is a terrible thing; we shouldn`t let it be this way.

    But, who`s fault is it really? Who has the moral obligation to protect citizens, business or government? Who has the force capable of stopping the other if it becomes corrupt?

    Of course the answer is government. Government is the authority figure in the relationship. If they`ve formed some predatory relationship that exploits the rest of us, who is more responsible?

    Certainly the government is.

    I dont think we will agree on any of the points discussed but thanks for taking the time out to discuss them at least
    I agree, and thanks to you as well.
  70. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5877 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 10:01 am
    McDuff73-"firstly I dont consider the term liberal disparaging, its a label I wear with pride "

    See, the pretty much demonstrates all anyone need to know about you. (btw...you don`t have to label yourself as such, it comes across quite clearly.)

    McDuff73-"Show me where I said my rights should be adhered to whilst yours shouldnt "

    Quote McDuff: "you apparantly just dont care about that,you appear to care more about your own right to work as many hours as you can and to hell with anyone else"

    You state that he should not have the right to work as many hours as he wants to. Inferring that the state has the obligation to limit his choice to work more than five days in a row.
  71. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5877 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 10:08 am
    McDuff73-"problem is corporations are not as accountable "

    Said by someone who has obviously not worked a job where you have to follow Codes of Federal Regulations. Believe me, there are millions of pages of such regulations, and they must be followed.

    See, every single job is covered by these CFR`s. Every single worker and business is held accountable by laws and regulations.

    In some cases there is too much regulation. The WI law in question is just superfluous, over restrictive and silly.
  72. Profile photo of McDuff73
    McDuff73 Male 30-39
    870 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 10:56 am
    @MeGrendel `You state that he should not have the right to work as many hours as he wants to. Inferring that the state has the obligation to limit his choice to work more than five days in a row`

    So show me how thats me (as you claimed) enforcing my right and not the government enforcing a group right by dint of being elected to office by a majority? or should government not rule by majority like other democracies or republics do?

    `See, the pretty much demonstrates all anyone need to know about you`
    I would suggest that your implications about the term liberal say a hell of a lot more about you.

    `See, every single job is covered by these CFR`s. Every single worker and business is held accountable by laws and regulations. `

    ahh because no company ever has breached regulations or broken laws covering their specific field. Nor have they ever used money and corruption to have regulations changed to suit their own needs.
  73. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5877 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 12:58 pm
    McDuff73-" government enforcing a group right by dint of being elected to office by a majority? or should government not rule by majority "

    And yet, you`re arguing against just that. A group of duly elected officials in WI want to update the law. (Oh, you only want YOUR `duly elected officials` to have that privilege)

    McDuff73-"I would suggest that your implications about the term liberal "

    ...is dead on accurate.

    McDuff73-"ahh because no company ever has breached regulations "

    Then using your `logic`, the said law is useless because companies will just break them. (You`re not really very good at this, are you? If you can`t be consistent, at least try to be entertaining. So far you`ve only managed to be tedious.)
  74. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 8:31 pm
    Oh I agree completely. I highly doubt that the intention here is to give people more choice; however, it is the outcome.

    No, it isn`t. When people have to work whatever days they are told to work, with different days and different numbers of days per week, that is not more choice. Not for employees, anyway. More choice for employers, yes. There`s always more peasants to use.
  75. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 8:42 pm
    Actually, shift work means having MORE chances of doing things at regular times.

    Well, that`s just silly blather.

    I`ll go back to the original example - someone who wants to send their child to school and pick them up, Mon-Fri. She`s available to work 0830-1430 Mon-Fri and longer hours at the weekend.

    Her employer goes to 7 day shiftwork.

    This week she`s working 0830-1430 Mon, Wed, Thur, Fri and 0900-1700 Sat. So she can send off and pick up her child.

    What`s she working next week? No way of knowing. It could be any time, any day. Whatever her employer chooses to impose on her.

    Maybe she`ll be able send off and pick up her child. Maybe not.

    Same thing every week.



    To claim that having irregular hours means having MORE chances of doing things regularly is so obviously wrong that I`m at a loss to describe how wrong it is.
  76. Profile photo of McDuff73
    McDuff73 Male 30-39
    870 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 8:58 pm
    "And yet, you`re arguing against just that. A group of duly elected officials in WI want to update the law. (Oh, you only want YOUR `duly elected officials` to have that privilege)"

    Wrong again, where did I say I wouldn`t abide by the rule, I can challenge a piece of legislation without breaking the law. And are you not doinghe exact thing your attacking me for, you want your rights over anyone else lol.

    McDuff73-"I would suggest that your implications about the term liberal "

    ...is dead on accurate.

    Ahh there you go and thats why you have added nothing to the discussion, your myopic to anyone that doesnt share your values, such is the behaviour of a hypocrit.

  77. Profile photo of McDuff73
    McDuff73 Male 30-39
    870 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 9:01 pm
    Then using your `logic`, the said law is useless because companies will just break them. (You`re not really very good at this, are you? If you can`t be consistent, at least try to be entertaining. So far you`ve only managed to be tedious.)

    yes because the fact that companies break laws means we shouldnt have them, thats a stunning piece of `logic` right there, we should remove all laws that have ever been broken.
    If you find discourse tedious maybe move on and stop wasting our time with your inane posts?

Leave a Reply