Wrong question: Who is being harmed by not allowing two people who love each other get married and enjoy the benefits of being married, just because they have the same genitalia.
Wow, way to partially quote me. I made the joking reference to execution, but if you actually read my comment, the actual danger is that most of them believe that the employer should be able to simply get rid of any worker who makes any reference to unionization. Meaning that, while you free marketers give lip service to the idea of collective bargaining, you don't think that it should actually happen. Meaning that the idea of it, from your perspective, is completely worthless. What good is the right to collective bargaining if any employer is just going to take his ball and go home? Especially to those who need the right to collectively bargain the most: the unskilled and lightly skilled laborers who, on their own, have almost no bargaining power at all?
You seem to have this idea that everything must be taken completely literally. Maybe you should brush up on your reading comprehension.
Again, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS. You have your psychological experiment, but no evidence to back up the assertion that it will actually happen. Further, there's no evidence to suggest on what kind of a timeline this would happen. They may eventually break up, but that could be decades, and by that time, most of the damage would have already been done.
2). You claim it's in their "best interest", but in reality, it's in their best interest to cooperate and keep salaries down.
3). You have no timetable for this, so while it might eventually break down, that could be years, or decades before it happens, and the majority of the damage to workers could already be done.
No, just no. You keep rallying about how the "free market" needs time to work. We don't always have time. Letting the "free market" take it's sweet time doesn't actually guarantee that it will work out in our favor. You have a hope that it will, but no evidence. And I don't have any interest in placing my future employment prospects in the hands of your religious faith.
And you also seem to have this, "Well, that sucks for them, but fuck them" attitude for those that get caught up in the mess and are harmed in the meantime. Which is the biggest thing I hate about these "Wait and See!" approaches.
According to the articles, these agreements kept the companies from extending an offer to candidates even if they came to them through the public job postings you mentioned.
For all their talk about desiring "free markets", Republicans and Libertarians usually shy away from the "perfect information" requirement to the point of pretending it doesn't exist entirely.
Except, for there to be an actual free market, the players involved need to have perfect information. These agreements kept secret deny that information.
Yeah, I have to call bullshit on that one. The Constitution does authorize the President issuing Executive Orders, and it does authorize the creation of Cabinet departments.
And as for the IRS, the 16th Amendment takes care of that one.
Probably because these "private contracts" exist only to keep our employment opportunities down. There is absolutely nothing of value to us in this collusion.
Go fuck yourself, troll. There was absolutely nothing in his post, nor in any opposition to bullshit like these actions, that even stated anything similar.
Quit making the intellectually bankrupt argument that any regulation is the government mandating every bit of your life. It's not.
This is very relevant, and remember that true free market proponents are not against collective bargaining, just against government intervention that manipulates the power of these collectives artificially.
While they're not against collective bargaining, they're against anything that would actually give the union clout. Most of them think it's perfectly fine for an employer to summarily execute^W fire anyone who even breathes a word of organization. They basically say, "You can have your union, you just can't let it have any effect on negotiations."
No. Just no. Essentially, you're saying that corporations should not have to work as hard to actually keep their employees. That just seems flat out wrong.
These agreements infringe upon the employee's Right to Work.
In my opinion, the agreements shouldn't prevent Apple from hiring a Google employee (or even offering a great deal)
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong question: Who is being harmed by not allowing two people who love each other get married and enjoy the benefits of being married, just because they have the same genitalia.
Anti-trust laws, for one.
And yes, a law against these would be a perfectly good thing to enact.
Wow, way to partially quote me. I made the joking reference to execution, but if you actually read my comment, the actual danger is that most of them believe that the employer should be able to simply get rid of any worker who makes any reference to unionization. Meaning that, while you free marketers give lip service to the idea of collective bargaining, you don't think that it should actually happen. Meaning that the idea of it, from your perspective, is completely worthless. What good is the right to collective bargaining if any employer is just going to take his ball and go home? Especially to those who need the right to collectively bargain the most: the unskilled and lightly skilled laborers who, on their own, have almost no bargaining power at all?
You seem to have this idea that everything must be taken completely literally. Maybe you should brush up on your reading comprehension.
Completely ignoring barriers to entry in doing so, and again, no timeline for how long it would happen.
And no guarantee that they would also not join the cartel. Startups are not usually known for paying extremely high salaries.
Again, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS. You have your psychological experiment, but no evidence to back up the assertion that it will actually happen. Further, there's no evidence to suggest on what kind of a timeline this would happen. They may eventually break up, but that could be decades, and by that time, most of the damage would have already been done.
A lot more legit than your "We'll just sit around and wait for the cartels to implode on their own." strategy.
And I'm guessing the cartel didn't ask for this at all, right? They just woke up one morning and it happened?
News flash: Your capitalist utopia is a sham, because you people keep forgetting that companies will continue working to keep their cartels in place.
1). You have no evidence for this.
2). You claim it's in their "best interest", but in reality, it's in their best interest to cooperate and keep salaries down.
3). You have no timetable for this, so while it might eventually break down, that could be years, or decades before it happens, and the majority of the damage to workers could already be done.
It can be traced back to them going public.
No, just no. You keep rallying about how the "free market" needs time to work. We don't always have time. Letting the "free market" take it's sweet time doesn't actually guarantee that it will work out in our favor. You have a hope that it will, but no evidence. And I don't have any interest in placing my future employment prospects in the hands of your religious faith.
And you also seem to have this, "Well, that sucks for them, but fuck them" attitude for those that get caught up in the mess and are harmed in the meantime. Which is the biggest thing I hate about these "Wait and See!" approaches.
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. YOU'RE WRONG.
According to the articles, these agreements kept the companies from extending an offer to candidates even if they came to them through the public job postings you mentioned.
For all their talk about desiring "free markets", Republicans and Libertarians usually shy away from the "perfect information" requirement to the point of pretending it doesn't exist entirely.
But, it's still a free market. Nobody put a gun to anybody's head. Everybody was free to take or reject all offers.
According to this agreement, the employers were NOT FREE to extend any offers to competitor's employees.
Except, for there to be an actual free market, the players involved need to have perfect information. These agreements kept secret deny that information.
Yeah, I have to call bullshit on that one. The Constitution does authorize the President issuing Executive Orders, and it does authorize the creation of Cabinet departments.
And as for the IRS, the 16th Amendment takes care of that one.
No, it shouldn't. You're completely ignoring the huge imbalance of power in these relationships.
Further, the existence of unions is public. The existence of shit like this is not.
This isn't the free market
Yes it is. This is exactly what the free market leads to. This is a failure of the free market.
Honestly, give me one good reason why this isn't an action of the free market? It's two companies colluding of their own "free will".
Bullshit. The "agreement" also applied if someone from Google voluntarily applied at Apple (for example) through one of those public job postings.
That is completely and utterly false, and is an intellectually bankrupt argument made by people who have the agenda to remove any and all regulation.
Probably because these "private contracts" exist only to keep our employment opportunities down. There is absolutely nothing of value to us in this collusion.
Go fuck yourself, troll. There was absolutely nothing in his post, nor in any opposition to bullshit like these actions, that even stated anything similar.
Quit making the intellectually bankrupt argument that any regulation is the government mandating every bit of your life. It's not.
This is very relevant, and remember that true free market proponents are not against collective bargaining, just against government intervention that manipulates the power of these collectives artificially.
While they're not against collective bargaining, they're against anything that would actually give the union clout. Most of them think it's perfectly fine for an employer to summarily execute^W fire anyone who even breathes a word of organization. They basically say, "You can have your union, you just can't let it have any effect on negotiations."
Because apparently banding together to leverage more power than you could individually is seen as "being weak" and "SOCIALIZM!!!"
If they are willing to keep paying me during that period, I guess it's not terrible, but I still don't like the idea of allowing this shit.
No. Just no. Essentially, you're saying that corporations should not have to work as hard to actually keep their employees. That just seems flat out wrong.
These agreements infringe upon the employee's Right to Work.
In my opinion, the agreements shouldn't prevent Apple from hiring a Google employee (or even offering a great deal)
Except... that's what they do.