Ohio miners forced to attend Romney rally without pay...

[Tal]

LMAO at Bolty saying my post is a personal attack, but Deebye's post above me isnt' a personal attack. Bullshit.

Which will more likely get you punched in the mouth if you said it to a guy in a bar?

"I don't think your intelligent"

Or

"F*ck off"

That's the difference.

[FireIceTalon]

LMAO at Bolty saying my post is a personal attack, but Deebye's post above me isnt' a personal attack. Bullshit.

Which will more likely get you punched in the mouth if you said it to a guy in a bar?

"I don't think your intelligent"

Or

"F*ck off"

That's the difference.

I think the first one is much more offensive to be honest. I've been told to "fuck off" plenty of times in my life, and I don't sweat it - I usually take it at face value and realize the person is probably angry and just let them be. In fact, probably a good percentage of the time, I deserved it. I don't really consider that a personal attack so much as it is telling someone to get lost. But telling someone they are unintelligent IS a personal attack (and a very subjective one at that), especially if you do it first. Furthermore, it is usually a sign the person knows they are losing an argument and they have to resort to an ad hominem to make themselves feel better, which I'm sure was the case with Deebye. In person, if someone tells me that I have no intelligence, I will tell them to f off IF I'm in a good mood. If I'm in a not so good mood, I might spit in their face.

[Taem]

I can't believe I'm responding to this thread, but I feel bothered enough to make a reply! Eye for an eye is a good way to start a war. Tell me, is that your personal preference for dealing with conflict, or is this some sort of Communism rhetoric talking?

Jesting aside, here at the Lounge, some level of decency is expected. You can make your posts without using profanities and still get your points made. You can be caustic, like I just was, or you can be crude by using swear words. The way your acting is childish and vulgar and I don't appreciate it. If you can't be civil, then why not say nothing? You'll keep more friends that way if you do. Like Eppie, I think you make some valid points, but I can't even see them when I start reading your vulgarity because there really is no reason for it, and I honestly can't take you seriously. I'm not saying this to pick a fight, but to answer your question of why you perceive it that everyone here is against you - I don't feel that's true; people are just reacting to what you are putting out. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure most users here would agree with me.

Anyways, this is a general statement to you FIT, and has nothing to do with whatever personal spat is going on in this thread, so don't think I'm taking sides.

[FireIceTalon]

Hello, comrade Meat.

Well, to answer your first question yes, I do believe in Eye for an eye - and that is more of a personal thing than it is a political one, in my case. That being said, I generally try to avoid such circumstances to begin with. I will try not to take someone else's eye out first, if I can help it (sometimes I do, but hey, no one is perfect, right?). But one of my strongest values is justice (Tyreal would be proud!), and if I see something that is unjust going down, be it to me personally or someone else, I feel compelled to step in. Just how I am. I realize that this can lead to conflict but sometimes you have to fight fire with fire, ya know? But believe it or not, I really do not care for personal confrontation, and when it does happen, I usually find it regrettable. I am not some drunk or psychologically disturbed wack job that is a magnet for trouble or lives on the fringes of society, I am actually a pretty normal and civil human being, who happens to have very radical and eccentric views of our world and our history.

If one is civil with me, I will act the same in return. If one disagrees with my views, fine, but debate my views and leave me out of it personally. The minute you attack me personally, this changes the whole course of the conversation, but most of the time I will just ad hominem you back once then ignore you from there on out. Do I have a very strong personality? Yep, and I am the first to admit it. Am I very dogmatic in my politics? Very often so. But I think in general I am pretty good about limiting my attacks to my opponents views, and not my opponents themselves. Even in that thread last week, you didn't see me telling Ashock that he was mentally deranged and needed therapy even though I dont agree with anything he ever says regarding politics, nor did you see me comparing anyone to the Norway killer no matter how much I may despise their political views. And in this thread, I didn't call out DeeBye ever personally (telling him to fuck off in response is NOT a personal attack, and had the situation been reversed, I'd have expected the same thing), even after he said I basically have no intelligence (which is no bearing on the topic and is completely subjective in nature, not to mention downright incorrect).

And yes, I do think there is a very strong bias against me here, because of my extremely radical and revolutionary views - and it just mirrors our political culture in this country: if one is a Communist, Socialist, or any type of radical leftist, they automatically are discredited and don't have anything of merit to be considered in any political or sociological discussion within the context of the two-party system - they are just some crazy person whose thoughts are grounded in being a blood-soaked and iron fisted tyrant. Sigh. We have been ostracized, stereotyped, and misconstrued for so long now comrade, that sometimes I can't help but be dogmatic and even resentful towards those who propagate these social norms. And I think some people here think I don't even really hold these views, and that I say this stuff just to troll "So and so attacked FIT first, FIT responded in kind, but I don't like FIT anyways because he's a radical and I hate his politics so only his post gets censored". That is how I see it, mate. And yes, it does make me resentful and more aggressive in my views, and how I express them.

In short (and this is to everyone here), treat me with respect, and I will do the same for you (even if discussions become a bit heated at times, this is fine, that is just the nature of politics!), even if we cannot come to an agreement in our views, which is likely as I realize my views are exorbitantly radical and outside the norm of our political culture.

[Archon_Wing]

Actually, fuck off is not the personal attack, as opposed to calling someone with a lack of intelligence. Still, telling someone to fuck off is a sign of anger, lack of respect, and aggression and gets one punched. :p

It begs the question why any of the managers said the event was mandatory, if nothing was done anyways if you didn't go.

Unless this is one of those "mandatory" but not mandatory things where it's like "It's not mandatory for you to go, but it isn't mandatory for you to be employed by us either!"

So what does mandatory mean anyways? It may not mean forced, but at the minimum it insinuates that it's required of a worker there. Someone probaly just was really crappy of getting the point of "We need to do this...." instead of rawr mandatory.

[DeeBye]

So DeeBye, think we'll see a NHL lockout this season?

I'm not sure, and to be honest I'm conflicted about if I even care. I love NHL hockey, but I'm a Leafs fan and I'll have to be subjected to a really disappointing season if they avert a lockout.

I'm also a London Knights fan, and during the last NHL lockout there was great emphasis on junior hockey so I got to watch one of the best junior teams ever defeat Sidney Crosby to win a Memorial Cup.

[LennyLen]

It begs the question why any of the managers said the event was mandatory, if nothing was done anyways if you didn't go.

Something that hasn't been brought up yet, which is very important, is were those managers instructed to tell staff that, or did they take it upon themselves to tell the staff.

I'm a manager at my workplace, but I certainly don't have the authority to make anything mandatory. I just ensure that staff are doing the jobs they were hired to do and make critical decisions.

[shoju]

That's not such an empty threat. In an environment where jobs are fragile and scarce, and bosses are looking to get rid of employees anyway, this kind of intimidation can be quite serious. And it seems clear from what's been said by both sides that, at minimum, workers were told this is what they were doing today, without pay. The mine was closed specifically to get workers out to the rally. I know what I'd think if my boss told me attendance was mandatory; I'd assume I have to go, or risk being fired.

Considering that Ohio is one of the states where At Will firing is still very much a thing, Yes. It's an empty threat.

Don't like the way you walk into work? Fired
Don't like the shirt color you wear? Fired
Don't like your political affiliations? Fired

and they just have to give a reason that isn't against the law. "Not performing to expectations" is vague enough that it covers.

Ohio employment laws suck. I assure you, we are the ass crack of the US. Politically (Go look at just how awfully important this state is for elections) Employment, Jobs, Education, etc...

Does it make it right? No.
Does it make me care? Not until someone actually gets fired for not showing up. Sorry, I just don't. I see all kinds of incredibly terrible things within employment in this state, and in my own position.

When someone gets fired, I will have a problem with it. I sympathize with them that they lose a day of work and pay because of a political rally, and I feel bad that there case will get used by both sides in the upcoming election ads.

Until then? They have a job. Their bosses are terrible. I'm not surprised, or appalled. It's one of the things that needs changed in the states employment laws.

[FireIceTalon]

Mhm, you WILL care if it happens to YOU though, right? Ohio State laws aren't the fundamental problem, and changing them isn't going to solve a damn thing, and apathy sure as hell won't either. It is almost akin to trying to put a band-aid on a huge, life threatening cut. Capitalism and the laws (state and federal alike) designed to uphold and maintain its social relations, are the problem.

[eppie]

Considering that Ohio is one of the states where At Will firing is still very much a thing, Yes. It's an empty


Does it make me care? Not until someone actually gets fired for not showing up. Sorry, I just don't. I see all kinds of incredibly terrible things within employment in this state, and in my own position.

When someone gets fired, I will have a problem with it. I sympathize with them that they lose a day of work and pay because of a political rally, and I feel bad that there case will get used by both sides in the upcoming election ads.

Until then? They have a job. Their bosses are terrible. I'm not surprised, or appalled. It's one of the things that needs changed in the states employment laws.

I also find this a bit of a strange way of reasoning. This is not about a days of pay or employment in general, this is anti democratic north korea style. If this story is only partly true you as an american should be very very worried. Something we in europe are already for a long time, especially when talking about the republican party. If you are ok with all the lying and religious extremism it is the same kind of apathy a citizen of af ghanistan or north korea shows. I can tell you that, because of the us being a super power, it scares me as european a lot. With the candidates the gop has brought forward the last fifteen years they just show they don't care about anyone else......in other words a big middle finger to the rest of the world.

[Nystul]

I also find this a bit of a strange way of reasoning. This is not about a days of pay or employment in general, this is anti democratic north korea style.

It's nothing of the sort. It's a management team pulling some shenanigans on their workers. And as such things go, this one doesn't make me bat an eye. At worst some people wasted a few hours of their lives because they were told the rally was mandatory when it shouldn't be. It's not like they are actually going to vote based on what some idiot manager tells them. Ask them in a few weeks what their biggest concern about work is and it probably won't be this.

Ohio coal mines seem like a good candidate for organized labor though. I was mildly surprised that they aren't union.

[FireIceTalon]

Unions have been greatly weakened by all the austerity in the last 25+ years, although perhaps their weakening should be more attributed to firing or dismissal of members who were more radical. Back when I was a Democrat in the late 1990's-mid 2000's, and a Social-Democrat, in around early 2010, I supported unions pretty strongly.

But ever since moving further to the left and becoming radicalized, I no longer do. I respect what they accomplished for the working class coming out of the Industrial Revolution era, but they have really lost touch with their roots and they are now merely a pacifying tool much in the same way that the welfare state is. In short, they are ineffective in the long run, since they try to reconcile the interests of both labor and capital - materially impossible.

[Jester]

Considering that Ohio is one of the states where At Will firing is still very much a thing, Yes. It's an empty threat.

Don't like the way you walk into work? Fired
Don't like the shirt color you wear? Fired
Don't like your political affiliations? Fired

and they just have to give a reason that isn't against the law. "Not performing to expectations" is vague enough that it covers.

I believe you entirely. But that seems to make my point, not yours. Isn't this threat extremely credible? They tell you the rally is mandatory. You don't show up. They notice. Then they fire your ass on some flimsy excuse, or no excuse at all - downsizing being very common. That's not an empty threat. That's the opposite of an empty threat.

Does it make me care? Not until someone actually gets fired for not showing up. Sorry, I just don't. I see all kinds of incredibly terrible things within employment in this state, and in my own position.

I'm confused. You say it's terrible, but you don't care unless someone is fired? Part of the problem of crappy employment law is that it lets employers walk all over their employees, which they go along with out of fear of losing their job. That doesn't make it right. That actually seems to make it extra-wrong.

Until then? They have a job. Their bosses are terrible. I'm not surprised, or appalled. It's one of the things that needs changed in the states employment laws.

I'm not sure I understand your position. You're hard-boiled cynical about it, which seems very reasonable, and seem to think this is a travesty, which it is... and therefore, you don't care, doesn't matter, what's the big deal? I can't put those two things together. If you're telling me the system is screwed up, and employers can abuse it? I agree entirely. If you're telling me that it doesn't matter? I don't see why not.

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

Ah, but crappy employment laws go hand-in-hand with Capitalism's purpose, which is to maximize profits, not to meet social needs or preserve workers rights/wages.

[kandrathe]

It is always wrong to use threat and intimidation to "force" people to do things against their will. Such as the times when I have been threatened by union workers and organizers. It is almost as bad as where the government uses laws to force people to adhere to their thinking (e.g. forcing the non-profit Catholic organizations to provide birth control coverage in their insurance plans). It's easier to quit your job, than to quit your country. I think we can agree that this kind of tyranny smells bad by whomever is peddling it.

In our state, we've have a series of strong union stands that have devastated towns, families and businesses (not just the ones in the dispute). The latest drama here is the year long lock out of the union at Crystal Sugar.

And Loch, it was only morally wrong if the owner didn't give advance notice. I don't think it is necessarily wrong legally. The employees work by free choice, and the owners employ by free choice. If the owners decide to lock the place up for a day or a week, or a month. They might be violating some contracts, but that's why we have courts. They are certainly violating the normal spirit of the employment agreement, but in the end (like at Crystal Sugar) the employees need to decide whether they will work, or work elsewhere.

[eppie]

Ohio coal mines seem like a good candidate for organized labor though. I was mildly surprised that they aren't union.

I thought unions were illegal in the US.

---

the employees need to decide whether they will work, or work elsewhere.

Or work not at all and let their families starve??

I see in this thread a lot of comments made by people (such as myself by the way) who are pretty well off. People who can't really grasp how life can be when you have to struggle every day to give your kids some decent cloths.


Well, at least we might get Romney as president now. A person in the middle of real life who understands the common man.

[kandrathe]

I see in this thread a lot of comments made by people (such as myself by the way) who are pretty well off. People who can't really grasp who life can be when you have to struggle every day to give your kids some decent cloths.

Are you offering to buy my kids some clothes?

[Jester]

It is always wrong to use threat and intimidation to "force" people to do things against their will. Such as the times when I have been threatened by union workers and organizers.

Threatened with what? Breaking your legs? Or striking? It's illegal to threaten someone with violence. Work stoppage, though, well, that's well within a worker's rights, and if an employer don't like it, as you said:

They might be violating some contracts, but that's why we have courts. They are certainly violating the normal spirit of the employment agreement, but in the end ...

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

employees work by free choice

Incorrect, they work because their survival depends on it. Workers do not have self determination under Capitalism.

[LennyLen]

Incorrect, they work because their survival depends on it. Workers do not have self determination under Capitalism.

I've walked out of multiple jobs without a minute's notice when an employer has made a choice that doesn't sit well with me. And yes, I'm from a 'capitalist' country.