This intrigues me. How would you resolve the situation where two parties can freely enter into a situation which would be viewed as reprehensible (slavery, etc) by outside parties? Without actively legislating morality there will always be border cases which will offend. If the best way to further my goals/desires is to enter effective slavery or indentured servitude for a period of time, how would you prevent me? (I'm just assuming here that you would not want this to occur based on your comments)
The only real solution I could see from your POV would be to try and provide alternative situations which would be more beneficial to the potential slave so that they have no desire to engage in the offensive action. No clue how to do that though.:)
While I won't argue with it being vague, unless he personally hosted his blog and it contained no ads at all and he wrote about nothing "newsworthy" ever, I have no problem considering it a "non-CNN outlet". He might have a case; I doubt it would be winnable though.
You would prefer that we go through and try to legislate away all potentially harmful contract terms that two parties could possibly agree upon? We do have laws about unconscionable contracts and the like already, how far would you want to go?
If you have a contract "at will" does not apply; contract law applies. "At will" exists to provide for general terms in the absence of mutually agreed upon terms (a contract). Some states are not "at will" and provide a different set of general terms which are stricter but which will also be superseeded by a valid contract. Thats why I also mentioned that in his example, if there *was* a contract, it would almost certainly include a "follow the employee policy handbook or be fired" clause, in which case the act of breathing would be a firing offense.
Most states are "at will" which means both the employer and employee can terminate employment for any reasoning barring those that have been ruled ilegal (typically relating to discrimination). Even two weeks notice is just customary/polite and not mandatory.
I could be fired today because my boss has an upset stomach. Conversely, if find a better job, I can quit today with no (legal) repercussions.
Uhm, yes? Assuming that you're in an 'at will' employment state. Otherwise, the contract you signed would have had a "must follow all policies in employee handbook" provision and you'd still be fired.
They'd quickly run out of employees, but it isn't "unfair".
I actually like the orginal X-box controller better than any of its contemporaries. The only quibble I have about it is the way the black and white buttons line up, but its no worse than the horrible layouts on the other controllers.
Side note: amusing to see someone I know commenting on here.:)~
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't it be The White Stuff?
Then you get a ticket. :P
A contract that says you will be fired if you breathe does not give the conditions of your death, it only implies a very short period of employment. :P
The only real solution I could see from your POV would be to try and provide alternative situations which would be more beneficial to the potential slave so that they have no desire to engage in the offensive action. No clue how to do that though. :)
Are you trying to disparage the effort put in by our robot brothers?!
While I won't argue with it being vague, unless he personally hosted his blog and it contained no ads at all and he wrote about nothing "newsworthy" ever, I have no problem considering it a "non-CNN outlet". He might have a case; I doubt it would be winnable though.
You would prefer that we go through and try to legislate away all potentially harmful contract terms that two parties could possibly agree upon? We do have laws about unconscionable contracts and the like already, how far would you want to go?
If you have a contract "at will" does not apply; contract law applies. "At will" exists to provide for general terms in the absence of mutually agreed upon terms (a contract). Some states are not "at will" and provide a different set of general terms which are stricter but which will also be superseeded by a valid contract. Thats why I also mentioned that in his example, if there *was* a contract, it would almost certainly include a "follow the employee policy handbook or be fired" clause, in which case the act of breathing would be a firing offense.
If that's the contract you signed, whose fault is it?
Most states are "at will" which means both the employer and employee can terminate employment for any reasoning barring those that have been ruled ilegal (typically relating to discrimination). Even two weeks notice is just customary/polite and not mandatory. I could be fired today because my boss has an upset stomach. Conversely, if find a better job, I can quit today with no (legal) repercussions.
Uhm, yes? Assuming that you're in an 'at will' employment state. Otherwise, the contract you signed would have had a "must follow all policies in employee handbook" provision and you'd still be fired. They'd quickly run out of employees, but it isn't "unfair".
Comcast has been doing this for at least 8 months (thats how long they've been in my market) so it's not like this is something new...
Something discussed in an average Economics class a decade ago is patentable now as "novel"?
And already fixed. :)
I actually like the orginal X-box controller better than any of its contemporaries. The only quibble I have about it is the way the black and white buttons line up, but its no worse than the horrible layouts on the other controllers.
Side note: amusing to see someone I know commenting on here. :)~