Election Thread

[SwissMercenary]

Is that even close to remotely possible in your understanding of the current employment landscape in America? I'm not advocating gutting all employment law, but just pointing out that the current employment regulations meant to "protect" workers from employer abuse also harm employees and cost people jobs and income. In my world employer and employee are an equal relationship, but perhaps others have a more abusive one. I'd tell you that the 1950's are over, and any employer who treats their employees poorly will probably fail in other endeavors. Get out, and find a reasonable, respectful relationship. You don't need to be anyone's slave.

The 1900's, and the 1950's are indeed over. I don't have any problems with wide-spread employee abuse today. As you've said, isolated cases.

What I want to see, is for things to not change from the way they are, in any major way. Regulations meant to 'protect' workers causing more harm? Could you give some very wide-spread examples of those? Isolated cases, or an over-the-top regulation here or there don't really count, right?

When you sign your name, you had better take the time to know to what you are agreeing.

And if people could do so, people wouldn't hire lawyers to dechiper half of the legalspeak thrown at us. As the saying goes, half the population is below average, and the average is not good.

Like Forest says... Stupid is as stupid does. Elderly or not, its your life. By the way, I'm moving very close to elderly, so I know what I'm talking about. You seem to want to protect everyone from what "might" happen, and the reality is "you can't", but you can and will drive us bankrupt trying.

I don't see how outlawing 'Opt-out' contracts for certain essential services and weekly meat processing plant inspections are bankrupting anyone.

It's hardly protecting people from what 'might' happen, seeing as how these things have happened and do happen on an enormous scale. This isn't outlawing knives because two children managed to cut themselves last year - this is closer to outlawing pointing your gun at random people on the street.

Since, it's not your money. Like the new MADD campaign... Outfit every single new motor vehicle with an expensive drunk driver detector ("Interlocks cost offenders about $1,000 a year in installation, monitoring and monthly fees."). Let's punish everyone for the crimes of the few.

I can't see how this is at all relevant to your claims, seeing as how this doesn't punish everyone - only the people who have already proven themselves to be dangerous behind the wheel.

And in what I'm talking about, it isn't even punishments. Slaughterhouses should be inspected on a regular basis anyways. Employers should not expect their employees to pull off 60 hour work weeks for 4$/hour. A bank with a conscience should provide you the option of getting that all-so-important credit card without selling your personal information to thir parties, even if that means they'll charge more.

And... the world is a dangerous place, so remember hot coffee is hot and sometimes its scalding hot. Don't put it between your legs.

You might want to note that the McDonalds Hot Coffee case wasn't as clear cut as you'd like it to think. For one thing, their coffee was not suitable for drinking at the temperature they serve it. It caused significant burns, which required skin grafts, if I'm not mistaken. And none of this would have happened if they had only served their coffee at the temperature that everybody else does. This wasn't even the first case wherein someone was burnt by their coffee, so they really should have known better. And lastly, the reason it went to court, was because they refused an out-of-court settlement (And the court award was appropriately reduced in an appeals court).

I really can't see how anyone could have any sympathy for McDonalds, there.