we're not talking about building codes were not talking about drivers permits we're not talking about garbage collection.
we're talking about an archeological dig, and putting an undue burden on a family, such that the law is very likely to cause the next archeological find to end up ina trash bag and never be seen again. i brought up the example of mandated storm shelters...which cost >4k$ for the "cheap" ones...as another example of the "there ought to be a law" mentality. its easy to say. but paying for it isnt.
i use "homeless" as a generic term. the law in atlanta forbids giving to any panhandlers, homeless, beggars, etc. essentailly no handouts to anyone...by a private citizen anyway.
why's it got to be a theocrat? why is a theocrat automatically an evil thing that will do bad things? why not just anyone-who-will-do-bad-things-and-abuse-power-and-enforce-vendettas?
everywhere i've lived its been the homeowners responsibilty. now, the city may do it initially, and may repair it as needed...but the law on the books says its you, and if you look, i bet your taxes are paying for it.
while the project is held up they arent making money. yet they still have to pay their workers. or they can lay them off. and they (the company) has to pay the cost of the research too.
its a double jeapardy burden on the company, effectively punishing them for "doing the right thing"... and you think that's right and fair?
bugger off.
its like the morons around here who all of a sudden want to "make it a law for everyone to have tornado shelters....but they have to pay for it them themselves". if "the law" wants to require people to do something that costs money, then "the law" needs to pay for it. otherwise "the law" can go bugger itself.
if its valuable and likely to make money, you (or the property owner) wont be allowed to profit from it. instead it will be siezed or claimed under another law.
opting out is a privilidge. theyve already taken it upon themselves to protect you, already taken the power for themselves to ALLOW you to see it. that's the problem. its like googles "safe search" being on by default that then went to being mandatory and cannot be disabled. you no longer get to choose it for yourself...you only get to have what they allow you to have, while they lie to you saying "oh, youre still free to make your own choice, we're just being helpful." and that privilige can be revoked at any time.
if they had a problem with it, they should never have accepted the job.
its one thing if a job changes from what it once was (coffee barista that an owner said had to start weaing skimpy clothing, because he was changing the company's focus).
its completely another to get a job as a "booth babe" and then complain about being told to be attractive. it would be equally stupid for the SI swimsuit models to complain about having to wear skimpy bikinis during the photoshoots after having accepted the money and signed the contract.
Successful Saleswomen: tend to be young, attractive ladies Successful women realtors/leasing agents: tend to be young, attractive ladies Successful women lawyers: tend to be attractive ladies (young or old) At a restruant, see who gets the bigger tips at the end of the night (pun not intended): the attractive one, or the homely one, assuming equal service.
that's a humanist point of view, not a business one.
the business point of view is that as a business owner i want to maximize profit. paying an employee to not be present/productive is a revenue loss. if an Y employee can be present 30 more days a year than X employee (clever letters, no?), thats better for my bottom line. Just like hiring an employee whos healthy and strong as an ox, instead of one who's got tons of mental/physical health problems. If an individual is going to cost me more money, or not make me as much money, why would i hire said person?
Its nothing personal, its just good impartial business.
now, the good "management style" or "HR" point of view is another matter, and would advocate taking care of your people in order to hang onto talent etc etc...but thats another topic. but this stuff is another reason feminists are wrong, and women should not be treated differently in the workplace: men should get paternity leave too equal and comensurate (sp?) with their wive's maternity leave. and most wives would love such a thing.
because the exact number was the point i was making..... you people cant see the forest because the trees are in the way.
there are two genders. that is the design, that is the evolution of the species. the others are biological accidents. at this point in society i dont even care which one your body says it is, or which one your mind thinks it is. pick one.
and once you have done so, shutup about it and dont be so damned embarrassed about what you picked, or let others coerce you into being embarrassed. stand up and a be a man, or woman. its like that crap about people taking away your self-esteem....its SELF-esteem, only you can take it away, and if youre going to let other people coerce you into feeling worthless, you need to grow a pair (figuratively speaking). the world and civilization isnt here to coddle you. its a rough place and civilization is a thin veneer, and the more we read about NSA spying, about rich/corporations buying elections, and other misc garbage, the more that veneer gets stripped away to reveal how the world truly works. we can try to tell everyone that they are special snowflake but in the end its a lie and a waste of time.
once again i almost agreed with you. then, once again, you had to throw in antoher ignorant libertarian remark. you still dont have a damn clue what you're talking about when it comes to that.
this doesnt stop unpaid internships. RTFA. this stops unpaid interns being used as free labor for activites that cannot be considered educational or relevant to the entire point of the internship. two film school students being given an internship on a movie and being used as unpaid labor instead of being TAUGHT THINGS. that is the sort of thing being stopped. not unpaid internships as a whole, but those which are simply trying to get free labor and not fulfilling the educational requirement.
this doesnt stop unpaid internships. RTFA. this stops unpaid interns being used as free labor for activites that cannot be onsidered educational. two film school students being given an internship on a movie and being used as unpaid labor instead of being TAUGHT THINGS. that is the sort of thing being stopped. not unpaid internships as a whole, but those which are simply trying to get free labor and not fulfilling the educational requirement.
2 off top of my head: to promote interest in job fields to pre-vet individuals who are interested in a job field
there are many paid internships. there are many more unpaid ones. unpaid ones are well known for being abused and doing nothing educational or related to the students curriculum, instead being simply a source of free labor.
Slashdot Mirror
you completely missed the point, even though you just refuted your own point.
we're not talking about building codes
were not talking about drivers permits
we're not talking about garbage collection.
we're talking about an archeological dig, and putting an undue burden on a family, such that the law is very likely to cause the next archeological find to end up ina trash bag and never be seen again. i brought up the example of mandated storm shelters...which cost >4k$ for the "cheap" ones...as another example of the "there ought to be a law" mentality. its easy to say. but paying for it isnt.
i use "homeless" as a generic term. the law in atlanta forbids giving to any panhandlers, homeless, beggars, etc. essentailly no handouts to anyone...by a private citizen anyway.
im not a libertarian, but i do get tired of these ignorant /.'ers trying to tell libertarians what they believe.
why's it got to be a theocrat?
why is a theocrat automatically an evil thing that will do bad things?
why not just anyone-who-will-do-bad-things-and-abuse-power-and-enforce-vendettas?
everywhere i've lived its been the homeowners responsibilty. now, the city may do it initially, and may repair it as needed...but the law on the books says its you, and if you look, i bet your taxes are paying for it.
in Atlanta, and most cities, its illegal to give anything to homeless folks.
while the project is held up they arent making money. yet they still have to pay their workers. or they can lay them off. and they (the company) has to pay the cost of the research too.
its a double jeapardy burden on the company, effectively punishing them for "doing the right thing"... and you think that's right and fair?
bugger off.
its like the morons around here who all of a sudden want to "make it a law for everyone to have tornado shelters....but they have to pay for it them themselves". if "the law" wants to require people to do something that costs money, then "the law" needs to pay for it. otherwise "the law" can go bugger itself.
if its valuable and likely to make money, you (or the property owner) wont be allowed to profit from it. instead it will be siezed or claimed under another law.
because repressing sexuality and telling everyone how bad it is does wonders for the numbers of incidents of rape and abuse, right??
opting out is a privilidge. theyve already taken it upon themselves to protect you, already taken the power for themselves to ALLOW you to see it. that's the problem. its like googles "safe search" being on by default that then went to being mandatory and cannot be disabled. you no longer get to choose it for yourself...you only get to have what they allow you to have, while they lie to you saying "oh, youre still free to make your own choice, we're just being helpful." and that privilige can be revoked at any time.
pics or didnt happen
if they had a problem with it, they should never have accepted the job.
its one thing if a job changes from what it once was (coffee barista that an owner said had to start weaing skimpy clothing, because he was changing the company's focus).
its completely another to get a job as a "booth babe" and then complain about being told to be attractive. it would be equally stupid for the SI swimsuit models to complain about having to wear skimpy bikinis during the photoshoots after having accepted the money and signed the contract.
Successful Saleswomen: tend to be young, attractive ladies
Successful women realtors/leasing agents: tend to be young, attractive ladies
Successful women lawyers: tend to be attractive ladies (young or old)
At a restruant, see who gets the bigger tips at the end of the night (pun not intended): the attractive one, or the homely one, assuming equal service.
the list goes on and on.
that's a humanist point of view, not a business one.
the business point of view is that as a business owner i want to maximize profit.
paying an employee to not be present/productive is a revenue loss.
if an Y employee can be present 30 more days a year than X employee (clever letters, no?), thats better for my bottom line.
Just like hiring an employee whos healthy and strong as an ox, instead of one who's got tons of mental/physical health problems.
If an individual is going to cost me more money, or not make me as much money, why would i hire said person?
Its nothing personal, its just good impartial business.
now, the good "management style" or "HR" point of view is another matter, and would advocate taking care of your people in order to hang onto talent etc etc...but thats another topic. but this stuff is another reason feminists are wrong, and women should not be treated differently in the workplace: men should get paternity leave too equal and comensurate (sp?) with their wive's maternity leave. and most wives would love such a thing.
because the exact number was the point i was making.....
you people cant see the forest because the trees are in the way.
there are two genders. that is the design, that is the evolution of the species. the others are biological accidents. at this point in society i dont even care which one your body says it is, or which one your mind thinks it is. pick one.
and once you have done so, shutup about it and dont be so damned embarrassed about what you picked, or let others coerce you into being embarrassed. stand up and a be a man, or woman. its like that crap about people taking away your self-esteem....its SELF-esteem, only you can take it away, and if youre going to let other people coerce you into feeling worthless, you need to grow a pair (figuratively speaking). the world and civilization isnt here to coddle you. its a rough place and civilization is a thin veneer, and the more we read about NSA spying, about rich/corporations buying elections, and other misc garbage, the more that veneer gets stripped away to reveal how the world truly works. we can try to tell everyone that they are special snowflake but in the end its a lie and a waste of time.
pick one and stop being so damned sensitive.
expressing sexual attraction means they are objects?
you just demeaned 99% of the human race.
and taken all together they represented 0.0001% of the population.
it does however cover 99.999% of the job
once again i almost agreed with you. then, once again, you had to throw in antoher ignorant libertarian remark. you still dont have a damn clue what you're talking about when it comes to that.
you're an idiot.
this doesnt stop unpaid internships.
RTFA.
this stops unpaid interns being used as free labor for activites that cannot be considered educational or relevant to the entire point of the internship. two film school students being given an internship on a movie and being used as unpaid labor instead of being TAUGHT THINGS. that is the sort of thing being stopped. not unpaid internships as a whole, but those which are simply trying to get free labor and not fulfilling the educational requirement.
yes. fetching someone's coffee or being an unpaid janitor is really "educational" and totally "valuable experience" for a film school intern.
this doesnt stop unpaid internships.
RTFA.
this stops unpaid interns being used as free labor for activites that cannot be onsidered educational. two film school students being given an internship on a movie and being used as unpaid labor instead of being TAUGHT THINGS. that is the sort of thing being stopped. not unpaid internships as a whole, but those which are simply trying to get free labor and not fulfilling the educational requirement.
That's called volunteering and is not a "job".
2 off top of my head:
to promote interest in job fields
to pre-vet individuals who are interested in a job field
there are many paid internships. there are many more unpaid ones. unpaid ones are well known for being abused and doing nothing educational or related to the students curriculum, instead being simply a source of free labor.