Private Sector screwing up

Walmart is notorious for these practices. No one forces people to work there. People could choose other employment if they wanted.
yes, in theory, we all have the choice... but when you got mouths to feed without any kind of specialized skill set or college education, etc, i'm not sure there's really a choice and these companies know that.
 
most companies (mine included) make you wait for a time before being eligible for any benefits. And if they don't like it they can always find other work that offers what they need. Ain't America great?
yeah, that's true. There's usually about a 90-day trial period.
 
yes, in theory, we all have the choice... but when you got mouths to feed without any kind of specialized skill set or college education, etc, i'm not sure there's really a choice and these companies know that.

To quote a genius philosopher from thus site: whelp, that's the system we got.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
any idea why?
it's obviously to protect the company... but the employee knows when that trial period is over, they'll receive the benefit thus they're still protected.

peasant insurance aint doing that... that's pure and simply for the company and not the one being insured.
 
it's obviously to protect the company... but the employee knows when that trial period is over, they'll receive the benefit thus they're still protected.

peasant insurance aint doing that... that's pure and simply for the company and not the one being insured.

Why does the employee agree to sign up for COLI?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
yes, in theory, we all have the choice... but when you got mouths to feed without any kind of specialized skill set or college education, etc, i'm not sure there's really a choice and these companies know that.

Exactly, your benefit from the employment exceeds the perceived costs. So you are in a better position for being employed there correct? Ultimately, even though you are receiving a net benefit, you just want more. That is human nature, but it doesn't mean the employer is being unethical for not providing it. They are putting you in a better position than you were without them.
 
Exactly, your benefit from the employment exceeds the perceived costs. So you are in a better position for being employed there correct? Ultimately, even though you are receiving a net benefit, you just want more. That is human nature, but it doesn't mean the employer is being unethical for not providing it. They are putting you in a better position than you were without them.
oh yeah, you're better off.. no doubt.. just don't think there should be such an ever-growing gap between the CEOs and his/her employees.

if the company grows in worth, to me, that means the employees should as well.
 
they DON'T.. hence the court decision

First, you're banking on Michael Moore's sorry ass to be remotely truthful, and second, you're arguing against the rules which say that the employee must consent. Irma's just arguing for free money that the has no right to.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
First, you're banking on Michael Moore's sorry ass to be remotely truthful, and second, you're arguing against the rules which say that the employee must consent. Irma's just arguing for free money that the has no right to.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
this has nothing to do with your opinion of michael moore... the court sided with the employee, don't forget that
 
First, you're banking on Michael Moore's sorry ass to be remotely truthful, and second, you're arguing against the rules which say that the employee must consent. Irma's just arguing for free money that the has no right to.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
i don't disagree there either, as far as her trying to get the money. but the company has no ethical right to profit off of an employees death either
 
this has nothing to do with your opinion of michael moore... the court sided with the employee, don't forget that

Courts are dead wrong every day, which is why people settle all the time, even when right.

The law requires consent from the employee. Don't forget that, while you're whining about two consenting companies entering into a contract in which each believes they'll profit - legally.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Courts are dead wrong every day, which is why people settle all the time, even when right.

The law requires consent from the employee. Don't forget that, while you're whining about two consenting companies entering into a contract in which each believes they'll profit - legally.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
that's all we have to go on is the courts, in this example. they said there was no consent... again i'm not talking about what's legal... i'm talking about what's ethical. slavery was legal at one time, but it didn't make it ethical.
 
that's all we have to go on is the courts, in this example. they said there was no consent... again i'm not talking about what's legal... i'm talking about what's ethical. slavery was legal at one time, but it didn't make it ethical.
They made it up. It was he said, she said and they mysteriously laid the burden of proof on the defendant, which is utter garbage. Now they simply get a signature and avoid this kind of frivolous suit.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
They made it up. It was he said, she said and they mysteriously laid the burden of proof on the defendant, which is utter garbage. Now they simply get a signature and avoid this kind of frivolous suit.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
and you have no idea what was said in that courtroom. for all you know somebody from the company with power said there was no consent.
 

VN Store



Back
Top