Ron Paul Revolution!!!!

[angelofdeath]

There is nothing wrong with an employer asking and paying accordingly for an employee working extra hours, Frankie had said 'work extra hours or get fired' that is completely different.

 

I have also never had a job that I didn't sign a contract of employment, they state the working hours say 37.5hours anytime between 8-8. Also stating in most contracts is a notice saying if the employer wants to change hours there is a period of notice to the employee.

 

I wouldn't take a job if there wasn't a contract otherwise I wouldn't have a leg to stand on and all power would be held by the employer.

 

Also your trying to say that no one would work if all employers paid 3 bucks an hour, how would they survive they would have to work for those wages. There wouldn't be a choice because you don't believe in welfare either.

 

could you survive on 3$ an hour? i doubt it. if i had to make 3$ an hour, i wouldnt work. i'd stay home and twiddle my thumbs all day if that was my only choice. and if you leave the welfare state in tact, everyone would simply 'work' for the govt, as in collect a check. as you can make much more than 3$ an hour and get to stay home. assuming it was even possible for a brain surgeon to make 3$ an hour in the insane never-would-ever-happen situation you are talking about. wages are determined by productivity.

it does make for a nice tale though.

 

lets not forget it is perfectly legal to pay brain surgeons minimum wage right now. if your theory was actually true, that without a minimum wage law, everyone would make 1 cent an hour, everyone in the entire country that works, would be making the minimum wage, RIGHT FREAKING NOW. yet some how brain surgeons make much more than minimum wage, even though it is perfectly legal to pay someone just minimum wage and no more. why do they and everyone else with a productivity higher than minimum wage, make more than minimum wage? because the value is determined by the market place by ones productivity. its basic econ decy.....very simple stuff. even though parroting back some marxist mantra is more fashionable these days.

 

sounds like a contract, a private association agreement works pretty good, eh?

its because of this free association that you 'have a leg to stand on,' yet from your arguments you act as though you only have it because of some government edict. in america it is perfectly legal to hire someone without a written contract. and they are on the same footing. if they dont like what goes on, they leave

 

i think franktronics example was just misunderstood, his was the bare bones basic gist of the matter.

[Decyferon]

Government has nothing to do in the contract between me and my employer.

 

And in essence I agree with you on the minimum wage argument, a brain surgeon wouldn't work for minimum wage, that just protects the lowest paid so people aren't earning 3 dollars an hour.

[cuntflaps]

Watch Ron Paul's Speech After New Hampshire Primary

 

[angelofdeath]

Government has nothing to do in the contract between me and my employer.

 

And in essence I agree with you on the minimum wage argument, a brain surgeon wouldn't work for minimum wage, that just protects the lowest paid so people aren't earning 3 dollars an hour.

 

YES!

we are in agreement!

private associations are better than government oppression and your rights CAN be protected in a free society/situation!

 

as for the minimum wage...

if you concede that wages are determined by productivity, you by extension also then believe the minimum wage acts as hurdle instead of a floor. and that if one has a productivity of 5$ an hour, if an employer pays him 50$ an hour, he is losing money, and will go out of business. phrased differently, if a person, say a person who just broke one of their arms and has no other skills than that of a carpenter, and has a productivity of lets assume 5$ per hour now instead of 25$... the minimum wage just outlawed his job. if the minimum wage is 10$ per hour, and a persons productivity is only 5$ per hour, how can you as an employer pay him more than what he his is capable of producing?

if you pay his more than he is worth, you are losing money. if this is kept up, you will be in trouble financially.

 

i ask you to use your logic the next time you hire someone to say fix your plumbing or fix your roof. just go ahead and pay 10 times what the market rate is, and then come on here and tell us how good you feel for now 'exploiting' the workers and how much better off you are financially.

[Decyferon]

no we arent in agreement AOD, all I am saying is anyone that enters any position of work without a contract of employment is making a bad move. In fact I bet that having a contract of employment is probably due to government legislature. Just government plays no part in the actual contracct between me and the employer.

 

Wages may be determined by productivity however what if that jobs productivity would only determine a $2 an hour wage? no one would be able to do that job because they couldnt survive, so minimum wage isn't a hurdle. The empoyer would still need the job done it just means they count it into their overheads and actually pay a worker a living wage.

 

Also with disability laws in place and equality in the work place companies actually get tax breaks etc for having hired disabled workers.

 

Also you wont go out of business, maybe if you are selling your product at the price it costs you to produce but that would be madness, you take into account your costs, and then mark up by 50%+ so you are still making a profit just less.

[angelofdeath]

no we arent in agreement AOD, all I am saying is anyone that enters any position of work without a contract of employment is making a bad move. In fact I bet that having a contract of employment is probably due to government legislature. Just government plays no part in the actual contracct between me and the employer.

 

i might be splitting hairs, but every time you interact with someone in an economic transaction you are contractually bound. when i was hired at certain jobs, i never signed a piece of paper stating my hours, but of course we talked hours, pay, etc etc. we shook hands and i started working and they started paying.

now, you say that if an employer breaks a contract, by threatening you with job loss for not working extra-contract hours (and it is) but i'd imagine if you or your buddies get together, break the contract and demand to make 100 an hour instead of 10, that this is not 'worker tyranny' forced on the employer. it is 'justice.'

you cant have it both ways.

 

Wages may be determined by productivity however what if that jobs productivity would only determine a $2 an hour wage? no one would be able to do that job because they couldnt survive, so minimum wage isn't a hurdle. The empoyer would still need the job done it just means they count it into their overheads and actually pay a worker a living wage.

 

its quite simple. if a job pays 2$ an hour and that is equal with productivity, someone who has a productivity of 1000 per hour would not work it.

 

lets go out on a limb and say that digging a house foundation with a teaspoon has a productivity of 2$ an hour. and thats a stretch. what would happen? well, what did happen? EARTH MOVING EQUIPMENT. CAPITAL INVESTMENT. workers can then use these tools, which were brought onto the scene by evil money grubbing capitalists to boost worker productivity. now instead of the worker using a teaspoon to dig a house foundation, he can make 30$ an hour and work in an air conditioned bull dozer cab.

 

but another effect of the minimum wage is that what is someone really wants to work for said amount? why should we interfere with this contract? what if some grandma wants to be paid 2$ an hour to knit socks. who are you to forbid this transaction?

 

Also with disability laws in place and equality in the work place companies actually get tax breaks etc for having hired disabled workers.

 

i must of missed your point on this one.

 

 

Also you wont go out of business, maybe if you are selling your product at the price it costs you to produce but that would be madness, you take into account your costs, and then mark up by 50%+ so you are still making a profit just less.

 

what about all the taxes, insurances, mandates, regulation compliance costs, expenses, employer matching taxes, FICA withholdings, medicare, workmans comp etc, costs?

what if the 'mark up of 50%' is to much? what if people wont pay it? say i hire to you to fix my house. you own a company. you pay your employees $100 per hour. their productivity is 5$ an hour. 2 employees do the job. the job takes 8 hours. the market puts a price of 20$ total on this job. for all 8 hours. the taxes and regulatory compliance, along with their benefits and vacation packages cost you atleast 50$ more an hour per employee. you lose hundreds or thousands of dollars a day. you say this is a working business model.

i say its a failure

 

you cannot pay a worker more than their productivity.

 

i'll say it again, next time you hire a plumber, pay them 10 times as much so you are doing your part in paying people MORE than their productivity. but then again, you'd view the plumber as ripping you off anyway. so you are just like everyone else, wants to pay the cheapest amount possible for a good or service and receive the highest for your own goods and services. and what balances this out is the market place and prices.

 

i'd love to see you run a business.

you can hire me, pay me 1000$ an hour when my productivity is 30-40$ and we'll see how long you stay in business.

[Decyferon]

I wouldnt pay you $1000 an hour if your producitivty was $40 I would pay you around $40 an hour, however if your productivity was $2 I would pay you minimum wage so you could live.

[angelofdeath]

I wouldnt pay you $1000 an hour if your producitivty was $40 I would pay you around $40 an hour, however if your productivity was $2 I would pay you minimum wage so you could live.

 

haha, i love it.

you concede the point, then try to take the moral do gooder high ground.

well, what if i cant live on minimum wage? you have to pay me 40$ an hour when my productivity is 2$.

 

there is hope for you decy, you seem to accept the arguments, but your hardwiring of leftism cant concede it all the way. yet.

give it time

[Decyferon]

AOD the realist in me will never go away, the things you want are great in theory I just dont have enough confidence in humanity to actually believe they would work if implimented.

 

Also you probably couldnt live on min wage however that is the legal minimum, what if government didnt get involved and as a society we just said that no one would work for less than say $10 an hour, we just decided that some everyone could at least live a bit that is what 90% of society agreed, would you think that is wrong?

[angelofdeath]

Also you probably couldnt live on min wage however that is the legal minimum, what if government didnt get involved and as a society we just said that no one would work for less than say $10 an hour, we just decided that some everyone could at least live a bit that is what 90% of society agreed, would you think that is wrong?

 

i think it is perfectly fine for people to contract at whatever rate they want. if everyone agreed to said arrangement, fine. it could never happen, but hey, whatever dreams float your boat.

since you openly stated you would pay me the least amount possible, you successfully demonstrated your inner capitalist pig. that is, dun dun dun.... self interest.

 

my basic philosophy is people can do whatever they want so long as they do no harm to anyone else. if 'everyone' wants to pay no less than 10$ an hour that is fine, but dont come trying to throw me in jail or my employer in jail if i want to work for 9.99$ and my employer wants to pay me that amount.

[Decyferon]

im not saying people dont want to make money, I have never stated that, if your worth $50 an hour I will pay that because that is what your worth, my arguement is that if you are only worth $2 an hour then a minimum wage allows you to actually have a chance of getting by.

[angelofdeath]

im not saying people dont want to make money, I have never stated that, if your worth $50 an hour I will pay that because that is what your worth, my arguement is that if you are only worth $2 an hour then a minimum wage allows you to actually have a chance of getting by.

 

i merely trying to show you that when you pay someone with a 1$ productivity rate per hour a wage of 10 per hour instead, you are overpaying for the labor, just like if you buy a 50$ pair of shoes for 100$. you are losing money. you lose less, but you are still losing money. now there may be ways to off set this. perhaps you can figure these ways out in your own business. perhaps you can pay all your 50$ an hour employees 50 cents an hour less and then you can shift this money to low productivity worker. or perhaps you can just really be a benevolent person and just give the non productive worker all of your wages you receive as the owner.

 

the way people 'get by' in society is to increase their productivity. people who make minimum wage are a small portion of the population. and they dont normally make it for long. most minimum wage earners are teenagers. they have little productivity. the funny thing is, there are exemptions to the minimum wage. such as hiring teenagers during the summer. if a law needs an exemption, it shouldnt be law. their are no exemptions to my laws.... if you murder someone you go to jail. the reason they put in an exemption in the min wage for teenagers and training purposes and the like was because no one would hire those people.

 

typically as people get older, they make more $$$. its not because employers are just more benevolent. its because as you get more experience your productivity increases.

[Decyferon]

I suppose your right, however most people would consider threat of being fired as a threat against their livlihood and therefore their property, but that is just a matter of perspective.

[Realism]

I've noticed an enormous number of those who blindly supported Obama last time around have completely disowned him and shifted this blind support to Ron Paul.

 

This isn't directed towards anyone in this thread, but just an annoying trend I've noticed. I like some of Paul's ideas, but I am convinced that 1) they would not hold up in real situations, especially due to him needing to contend with a Congress that wouldn't want to play ball 2) he won't secure the nomination anyway. I will say I'm surprised at how well he has done so far though.

[UPS!]

''They keep saying were dangerous, well theyre right, we are dangerous to the Federal Reserve and the Status Quo''

 

Gatta love the old bird, dudes a straight gangster freedom fighting mother fucker anyway you cut it.

Sometimes the phrase ''Just crazy enough to work'' can apply.

In this case, thats where my votes going.

[angelofdeath]

I suppose your right, however most people would consider threat of being fired as a threat against their livlihood and therefore their property, but that is just a matter of perspective.

 

very well may be, but its not a legitimate actual threat of force. because the employee has no right to force themselves on the employer in the first place. the both parties must agree.

 

there is a divide on what is force and what it isnt with many people.

force is rape, murder, theft, fraud, initiated aggression. force is not someone ceasing a voluntary association or having to pay a high price for prescription drugs, gas, etc.

[Decyferon]

I disagree AOD, the example was being told to work more hours or lose your job, if my job is 9-5 then why the hell would I work more hours?

 

To threaten me with dismissal because I refuse to work more than my hours that were agreed upon is a threat, plain and simple.

 

You say the employee has no right to force themselves on the employer, what right does the employer have to force their will on me?

[angelofdeath]

I disagree AOD, the example was being told to work more hours or lose your job, if my job is 9-5 then why the hell would I work more hours?

 

To threaten me with dismissal because I refuse to work more than my hours that were agreed upon is a threat, plain and simple.

 

You say the employee has no right to force themselves on the employer, what right does the employer have to force their will on me?

 

 

i think you are just reading more into it. if a contract is broken, yes. absent this contract, if an employer asks you to work more hours for more money, you can. if dont want to and he says you are fired, you are forgetting that he can cease the relationship for whatever reason he wants, just like you can cease the relationship for whatever you want. what if an employer fires you because you screw something up? what if you quit because you dont like the color shirt your employer wears? all are just examples of ceasing the relationship. what if your contract says you are to be paid X amount of money, but you demand more and say you are going to quit if you dont get it? why is that ok, but if an employer wants you to work more, and says he'll fire you, isnt?

 

we are just talking about technical aspects of voluntary associations.

 

you are also refusing not to accept that the employer owns the company, owns the property and voluntarily contracted with you to work at this business. the association is totally voluntary. you can leave, he can fire you. its that simple. for whatever reason.

 

what if we inverted your logic and said that employers have a right to force you to work at their business whether you want to or not? if an employer cannot voluntarily terminate a relationship, he is just as enslaved as a worker who is forced to work at a business is.

 

it might be a 'threat' but it is not a threat that is considered coercion or initiated aggression or a violation of NAP because you have a right to leave.

[Decyferon]

basically anyone stupid enough to enter work without a contract of employment deserves to be fucked over by their employer, it is their own stupid fault for not getting in writing the terms and conditions of the employment.

 

It is straight against the law for an employer to do what you are suggesting, this is why if an employer wants to terminate your position then they need a valid reason for doing so, and to have followed the disciplinary procedures within that business. Sometimes this is really frustrating for the employer but they have to do it. I do not know what kind of lala land people live in if they think it is fine for an empoyer to fire you for not working more hours.

 

If my contract states I get paid X amount for the hours I work I can, if I want hand in my notice (another thing that is always in a contract of employment) and leave. If I just quit and walk out then the employer can give bad references, reclaim overpayment of wages back from me etc. An employer can request that you change your working hours (again it would be in the contract) subject to them giving you relevant notice, generally 4 weeks.

 

If you think an empoyer can do whatever the hell they want due to them owning the business then I would have to say I would not want to live in that type of society because employers would fuck their staff left right and centre.

 

So as far as I am concerned props to the government for having employment laws.

[Decyferon]

I watched loads of Milton Friedman lecturers to increase my knowledge of what I was arguing against (I mean why watch stuff that supports my point of view).

 

Again a lot of what he says sounds good in theory, jusst not in practise. But on a personal level I cannot stand the guy, nasty smarmy ass (doesn't help his cause that Margaret Thatcher liked him).

[angelofdeath]

basically anyone stupid enough to enter work without a contract of employment deserves to be fucked over by their employer, it is their own stupid fault for not getting in writing the terms and conditions of the employment.

 

It is straight against the law for an employer to do what you are suggesting, this is why if an employer wants to terminate your position then they need a valid reason for doing so, and to have followed the disciplinary procedures within that business. Sometimes this is really frustrating for the employer but they have to do it. I do not know what kind of lala land people live in if they think it is fine for an empoyer to fire you for not working more hours.

 

If my contract states I get paid X amount for the hours I work I can, if I want hand in my notice (another thing that is always in a contract of employment) and leave. If I just quit and walk out then the employer can give bad references, reclaim overpayment of wages back from me etc. An employer can request that you change your working hours (again it would be in the contract) subject to them giving you relevant notice, generally 4 weeks.

 

If you think an empoyer can do whatever the hell they want due to them owning the business then I would have to say I would not want to live in that type of society because employers would fuck their staff left right and centre.

 

So as far as I am concerned props to the government for having employment laws.

 

i guess in the US there isnt this police state governing employer and employee relationships.

in all blue collar jobs in america, basically you can leave whenever you want and the employer can fire you whenever you want. there are plenty of laws regulating all these, mostly in favor of the employee, but the reality is as i said it was. sure you have to have a 'valid' reason for terminating someone, which all employers have on EVERY employee. then comes that one day when they get rubbed the wrong way and the employee is shit canned.

 

having seen the hiring and firing various employees over the years and being highly involved in the process... you make it sound like a free exchange between 2 people is a bad thing.

 

the logic that says you must force yourself on an employer, also must mean it is legitimate that an employer can force you into an association with him. i dont know what you call that in the UK, but in the US its called slavery.

 

you simply refuse to acknowledge a basic concept of rights and associations.

you claim you have a right to work at someone business, on their property and that you can enslave the employer to you. i say this is just as illegitimate as if the employer enslaved you to the company. both parties must be free to leave. if you arent free to leave/terminate the relationship, you are a slave, on either end, employee or employer.

 

by your logic, if you hire someone to fix your plumbing, you cannot tell them to get out of your house if they piss you off. according to you they have a right to stay in your house and work whether you like it or not. and heaven forbid if there 'contract' says they are to work 9-5 and they screw everything up and dont finish they just call it quitting time and go to the bar and get drunk and come back in on monday to finish it up, all the while reserving the right to sue you if you hire someone else to finish the job.

 

many times i've had an implicit contract where my hours were say 8-6. m-f. then the boss man says...'hey look, i really need you to start working saturdays.' i did it. i could of left if i wanted to. he could of said, alright well, i need someone to work 6 days a week and told me to take a hike. you see, despite what the leftists and hollywood movies portray, an employee/employer relationship is mutually beneficial. how can we deduce this? because if it wasnt beneficial, the employee wouldnt of taken the job, and the employer wouldnt of hired the employee.

[Decyferon]

but what you have stated there AOD is different, your employer asked you if you were able to work more hours, you agreed to this, he didnt say work more hours or I will fire you, there is a distinct difference in the 2 situations, even you must be able to see that.

 

I can get a job with an employer and work within the terms of my employment. The employer does not have a right to just fire me for no reason, and me refusing to work additional hours outside my contracted hours is not a justifiable reason to fire someone. I am not enslaving the employer I am just getting them to operate within the guidelines of the law. If I commited gross misconduct i.e stealing then they would have every right to fire me there and then.

 

In both instances the employer and employee have a right to terminate the employment, no one is a slave, but the employer has to have a reason to fire you which the additional hours arguement is not.

 

I know people that have hired a plumber or builder to do some work and it hasn't been up to standard or what was promised and they have fired the plumber or builder because they have not completed the work to a satisfactory standard, that is absolutely fine. However I also know people who have gotten rid of builders for less than justified reasons and have had to pay money out to compensate the builder/plumber.

 

Also plumbers tend to get paid for the job a whole, not the hours they work so for them it is different, it benefits them to finish as quick as possible, I am not going to take money back off them if I say oh well you said that would take 8 hours but you sfinished in 5.

 

I do not understand why you are so keen for companies to do whatever they want, fire people for no reason etc it makes no sense to me. I will 99% of the time be behind the individual not the business, I have stopped many people from being fired in previous jobs because I would point out where the company hasnt followed the correct procedures etc and that if they tried terminating the contract then they would be up in court for unfair dismissal.

 

Most of my knowledge is in the field of financial services/insurance/customer service so I talk more from those business perspectives than say a building trade perspective.

[Decyferon]

@Decy

haha thats fair enough. I'm not asking you to like him. I just think he offered a good explanation of some of the things that I have said in this thread before (which may or may not have been deleted due to overzealous bannings).

 

Interestingly though, I basically did the same thing. That is the story of how I became an anarchist. I fashioned myself to be a solid social democrat or perhaps even a Marxist. I had read a lot of Marxist and neo-Marxist theory and really saw its worth and thought 'if I'm going to defend this I need to tackle the strongest arguments against it'. So I began by taking a look at Friedman, and came to very similar conclusions as you. Then I moved on to Hayek and thought 'this guy makes a lot of sense but the outcomes of his theory would be horrible'. After that I moved on to Mises and was pretty amazed at how completely solid his theory of Human Action and Praxelogy was, but I was still not convinced. Finally I read Rothbard and thought 'some of these arguments are actually irrefutable'. Even still I hated myself for thinking this! I continued to argue for Marxist theory etc for at least another 6 months while having an uneasy sense that I was fighting a losing battle. Then eventually I caved. I understand that most people would think that I am a kook for advocating libertarian anarchism, but I challenge them to seriously investigate the theory themselves. If they come to a different conclusion I would love to hear about it.

 

I am not the 100% lefty that people probably think I am, as I have said many times before I do like to play a bit of devils advocate on here otherwise it would just be a bunch of us agreeing and slapping each other on the back!

 

I dont really consider myself left or right, I just look at what I personally think would work best and take the ideas from there.

[Decyferon]

I do agree to a degree. Without a contract of employement then you are right, an employer has the right to basically do whatever they want as does the empoyee, however I find it silly to discuss things that aren't based in real life.

 

Employment law is a fact of reality and is something all employers are bound by. A cash in hand job is generally a job that isn't offical so you are right you have no leg to stand on as an employee and cash in hand jobs are generally used so the employer can pay substandard wages or avoid the issues of paying tax. Hence why they tend to be illegal (well over herre at least)

[Decyferon]

I agree with that definition yes, however I cannot take the aspect of law out of the equation purely because I think, in relation to employment, the law is correct.

 

Just look back to Victorian times where working conditions were awful, wages awful and the employers were basically slave drivers, if you removed employment law from society nowadays do you think that this would benefit the employee?

 

I know the arguement may come back saying 'oh but the employee can leave if they want' my response to this is they cannot because working conditions will be just a shit elsewhere and people need money to live. If I could live without working then I would, the ONLY reason I work is to provide a means to survive on - nothing else, workign does not benefit in anyway other than money to live on.

 

This is my problem with the free market arguement, AOD will argue that there would not be collusion between employers to push down wages and increase profits, I would disagree with this because if employers could pay their staff nothing they would.

[angelofdeath]

but what you have stated there AOD is different, your employer asked you if you were able to work more hours, you agreed to this, he didnt say work more hours or I will fire you, there is a distinct difference in the 2 situations, even you must be able to see that.

 

i know there is a difference and said so. i said that he could of just as easily said 'saturdays or you are gone' and that is within his rights. if i didnt want to work saturdays, even though this was against the original contract implicit verbal 'contract,' he still has a right to tell me to take a hike.

 

The employer does not have a right to just fire me for no reason, and me refusing to work additional hours outside my contracted hours is not a justifiable reason to fire someone.

 

then to be logically consistent, if you believe you have a right to be chained to your employer, you must ALSO BELIEVE HE CAN FORCE YOU TO WORK FOR HIM. its that simple, brother. if one person can use force, why cant another?

 

I am not enslaving the employer I am just getting them to operate within the guidelines of the law.

 

ok, so then what you are saying is you have a right to a job no matter what so long as you dont engage in 'gross misconduct.' why dont you support suing employers if they are downsizing, laying off workers or going out of business? after all, you have a 'right' to work there.

 

you are gravely mistaken if you think following an arbitrary government 'law' is some how morally justified

[angelofdeath]

I am not the 100% lefty that people probably think I am, as I have said many times before I do like to play a bit of devils advocate on here otherwise it would just be a bunch of us agreeing and slapping each other on the back!

 

whether playing devils advocate occasionally or not, i know full well, since all your economic arguments are that of a statist....on all issues economic, you are definitely leftist/intellectually marxist.

[angelofdeath]

Discussing employment without recognising this core leaves us arguing from a position of legal positivism which would see an employer-employee relationship as whatever the law says it is. Yet this would not be at all a satisfying definition as it cannot account for the full range of employer-employee relationships that occur within society, of which many are cash based or informal operating outside of the legally defined framework.

 

amen to this.

just wanted to single this out, especially the first line.

this is the part decy cant seem to wrap his head around.

[Decyferon]

because if a company is laying off workers they have to pay redundancy to compensate the employee, if the company cannot afford to pay them then there are routes the worker can go down to claim money back. Businesses go out of business it is a completely different situation to what we have been discussing.

 

I have a right to have a job and not be exploited by the boss, simple as that, I would absolutely LOVE to have an employer try and tell me they will fire me if I dont work extra hours. I could pay off plenty of debts with the payout I would be rewarded.

 

If you think an employer has a right to tell you to take a hike then that is fine, I'm not gonna be pushed around like that. Also it is not within the employers right to tell you to work saturday or fire you, if they give you adequate notice of a change in your working hours then yes that is fine but if your boss comes to you on thursday and says work saturday or your fired then the employer would not havea leg to stand on.

[Decyferon]

whether playing devils advocate occasionally or not, i know full well, since all your economic arguments are that of a statist....on all issues economic, you are definitely leftist/intellectually marxist.

 

economically yes, but not for the full spectrum of my political viewpoints