MSNBC suspends prime-time TV host Keith Olbermann

[quote name='UncleBob']Should you be allowed to quit an employer who donates large sums of money to political causes you disagree with? Should you be allowed to quit if you work on commission/tips and your employer decides to close on Sundays - the day where you make 75% of your income?[/QUOTE]
Person != Company. Srsly.
 
So, you feel that two parties should be allowed to enter an agreement, but only one of those parties should be allowed to terminate the agreement?
 
Bob, companies are not people. The two parties are not equal. Companies are in and of themselves contracts (and here's the important part) and are themselves bound contractually. A contract does not get the same rights as a person when contracting.

Just so I understand where the lines are:

Should I be able to sell my children to a company? I have "title". Can I transfer that title for proper consideration?
Should I be able to take a loan out on my child's earnings while the child is under age?
Should a company be able to fire me because my spouse votes a certain way?

Just curious.
 
And yet, I was accused of being off topic when I was talking about workers rights...

Now bob is talking about the at-will work state....oh boy...
 
[quote name='speedracer']Bob, companies are not people.[/quote]

Curious... in your world, are companies ran by evil space aliens, robots or robot-alien hybrids? Also, what color is the sky there. I bet it's pretty.

Should I be able to sell my children to a company? I have "title". Can I transfer that title for proper consideration?
Click to expand...

Umm... people aren't property? You can't sell your child to a company or to another individual.

Should I be able to take a loan out on my child's earnings while the child is under age?
Yes, if you and the child are willing to sign for the loan and there's a legally authorized loan outfit willing (and stupid enough) to take the risk.

Should a company be able to fire me because my spouse votes a certain way?
Click to expand...
In theory, yes. Oddly enough, we have secret ballots here in the US.

Should you be able to quit your job because the spouse of the company's president went on TV and made disgustingly racial remarks about Obama?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Curious... in your world, are companies ran by evil space aliens, robots or robot-alien hybrids? Also, what color is the sky there. I bet it's pretty.[/quote]
In my world, we have contract law. Companies are run by agents of the company and have to satisfy that contractual, legal requirement.

I wish I could make up more questions, but I can't even think of anything crazier than I already have. You've totally removed the need for consideration, which is the basis of American contract law. The only viewpoint I can think of that's close is illiberal democracy, but that doesn't even fit. Maybe competitive authoritarianism?

Anybody got any idea what the hell it is bob is closest to? It's not fascism, it's too anarchic. It's not corporatism, corporatism supporters would blush at the thought of some of his opinions. It's not indentured servitude because it's ingrained in the state.
 
[quote name='speedracer']In my world, we have contract law. Companies are run by agents of the company and have to satisfy that contractual, legal requirement.[/QUOTE]

And this contractual, legal requirement is one set up by the State that requires the agents of this company (which, yes, are people) to associate with individuals (employees) that they may otherwise choose not to.

Your entire argument is "It's right because it's the law, dummy!". Well, it's right to round up and deport all illegal immigrants because it's the law. See how easy it is to stand back and say "the law is the law and the law cannot be changed."

If two parties enter into an agreement, both parties should be able to terminate that agreement under the same conditions, unless the agreement between those two parties dictates otherwise.

This is a pretty simple idea - and it's almost what we've got now - except instead of the individual agreement dictating otherwise, it's the State saying "Whoops, no... you can't do that. But you can." - thus just another example of our government treating people differently - not equally.
 
[quote name='UncleBob'] thus just another example of our government treating people differently - not equally.[/QUOTE]
Person != Company.
Your entire argument is "It's right because it's the law, dummy!".
Click to expand...
No, it's because contracts are not people and do not have the same rights. Contracts (or Principal), when contracting, do not have the right to refuse commerce in certain situations. It's not just that it's the law and therefore perfect before all things great and small. Agents, as people, bring with them baggage that all people have. Therefore, in order to best perfect the execution of their duties (ie making money), laws have been established that require specific action. It's not the kind of stuff that Joe Ditch Digger runs into too often, but Joe Agent On Behalf Of Principal is a job that (usually) pays very well because of the liability potential from imperfect contract satisfaction.

These laws didn't occur in a vacuum. Laws like these are created in response to specific problems where agents screwed up and materially affected others. I don't like the decision you made as the agent! I'm suing your face off!

The powers that be saw that everyone's life would be easier if rules were put in place. It would make uniform best practices code so that everyone knew what the rules were.

Rule #1. Person =! Company.

Chief Justice Marshall (the big cheeze himself):
"A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of creation confers upon it, either expressly, or as incidental to its very existence. These are such as are supposed best calculated to effect the object for which it was created."
Click to expand...

*sigh*

edit: Just to add, it's an either or proposition. Either corporations are people, which means they are bound by things like the Civil Rights Amendment, or they're not, which means they're bound by charter (and therefore things like the Civil Rights Amendment). There is a contractual limit where America has said you cannot get consideration and therefore cannot contract. The right to be a damned librul or conservative is one of those.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Person != Company.

No, it's because contracts are not people and do not have the same rights. Contracts (or Principal), when contracting, do not have the right to refuse commerce in certain situations. It's not just that it's the law and therefore perfect before all things great and small. Agents, as people, bring with them baggage that all people have. Therefore, in order to best perfect the execution of their duties (ie making money), laws have been established that require specific action. It's not the kind of stuff that Joe Ditch Digger runs into too often, but Joe Agent On Behalf Of Principal is a job that (usually) pays very well because of the liability potential from imperfect contract satisfaction.

These laws didn't occur in a vacuum. Laws like these are created in response to specific problems where agents screwed up and materially affected others. I don't like the decision you made as the agent! I'm suing your face off!

The powers that be saw that everyone's life would be easier if rules were put in place. It would make uniform best practices code so that everyone knew what the rules were.

Rule #1. Person =! Company.

*sigh*[/QUOTE]
Hold your horses there. So is it People != Company or People =! Company. You fucking got me confused. :D
 
[quote name='dohdough']Hold your horses there. So is it People != Company or People =! Company. You fucking got me confused. :D[/QUOTE]
if not people != company:
smackMe()
 
Somehow, you guys have managed to throw Contracts, Statutes, and Constitutional law into a blender creating something that makes absolutely no sense in any one of those respective legal areas...

I feel compelled to at least scratch the surface though. First off, contracts are merely agreements, not entities of any kind. A contract is an agreement by which 2 parties enter and suffer a legal benefit or legal detriment in exchange for each other. Furthermore, you can contract to give up your Constitutional rights in a contract and still be bound to the contract. If you want a specific example of this with regard to free speech, look no further than your common non-disclosure agreement.

Olbermann gave up a part of his free speech when he signed his employment contract which stated that he was not able to donate to political parties. He breached his contractual agreement and thus MSNBC was able to suspend him as a result.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Somehow, you guys have managed to throw Contracts, Statutes, and Constitutional law into a blender creating something that makes absolutely no sense in any one of those respective legal areas...[/QUOTE]
I didn't realize until I was in it that the pit was bottomless. I mean I knew, but I never quite believe it.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Stuff[/quote]

Everything you posted sounds good and makes a lot of sense.

As long as you ignore the fact that both sides of an agreement are made by people.

I mean, if you totally throw out the fact that one side of the employment agreement consists of people, then, yeah, I can see how you're perfectly okay with not extending them the same rights as the other side.

I just don't agree with that. I don't agree with the idea that because someone decides to start up a business (be it to contribute to society by filling a need for a product/service, creating jobs, etc. or to make a better life for one's self and one's family) - I don't think that means a person should have to give up his or her rights. You might be okay with that. We can have different opinions on when it's okay for the government to forcefully decide that one person is undeserving of rights. For example, if someone steals from you or injures you, then I'd be okay with the government denying them rights. Apparently, if someone offers you a job, then you're okay with the government denying them rights. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

edit: Just to add, it's an either or proposition. Either corporations are people, which means they are bound by things like the Civil Rights Amendment, or they're not, which means they're bound by charter (and therefore things like the Civil Rights Amendment). There is a contractual limit where America has said you cannot get consideration and therefore cannot contract. The right to be a damned librul or conservative is one of those.
Click to expand...

You do realize that the text of the civil rights amendment doesn't actually mention anything about individuals or private groups of individuals having to treat anyone any particular way, right? It wasn't until some time later that the courts and legislation forced an expansion on this idea...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I mean, if you totally throw out the fact that one side of the employment agreement consists of people acting as the agents for a contractually bound organization that truly exists only on paper, then, yeah, I can see how you're perfectly okay with not extending them the same rights as the other side.[/quote]
ftfy
I just don't agree with that. I don't agree with the idea that because someone decides to start up a business (be it to contribute to society by filling a need for a product/service, creating jobs, etc. or to make a better life for one's self and one's family) - I don't think that means a person should have to give up his or her rights. You might be okay with that. We can have different opinions on when it's okay for the government to forcefully decide that one person is undeserving of rights. For example, if someone steals from you or injures you, then I'd be okay with the government denying them rights. Apparently, if someone offers you a job, then you're okay with the government denying them rights. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Click to expand...
I'm not in perfect agreement with a lot of things in the world dude. But we've had the alternative and it was awful for everyone. We decided there are some things we find that consideration cannot be satisfactory for anyone so we prohibit its contractual exchange. Prostitution is one (sorta). I think people should have the right to sell themselves. I think it's an infringement on liberty to stop it. But you're coming from where ANY AND ALL limitations are infringements on liberty and in the grand Randian tradition, taking it just a little too far.

Without honest consideration and checks, capital would gobble up democracy in a heart beat. You can bitch for sure, but it is something obviously meant to be decided by government. And as long as everyone's bound by the same rules and it doesn't materially interfere with commerce (which is theoretically the point, right?), I just don't see the problem outside some weird phantom lost right to fire your gay married socialist janitor.
You do realize that the text of the civil rights amendment doesn't actually mention anything about individuals or private groups of individuals having to treat anyone any particular way, right? It wasn't until some time later that the courts and legislation forced an expansion on this idea...
Click to expand...
Dirty secret: The truth is no one actually knows for sure what any law says until the Supremes get ahold of it. Until then everyone postures and says they know how the Supremes will interpret and therefore you should listen to them (and pay them).
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Somehow, you guys have managed to throw Contracts, Statutes, and Constitutional law into a blender creating something that makes absolutely no sense in any one of those respective legal areas...

I feel compelled to at least scratch the surface though. First off, contracts are merely agreements, not entities of any kind. A contract is an agreement by which 2 parties enter and suffer a legal benefit or legal detriment in exchange for each other. Furthermore, you can contract to give up your Constitutional rights in a contract and still be bound to the contract. If you want a specific example of this with regard to free speech, look no further than your common non-disclosure agreement.

Olbermann gave up a part of his free speech when he signed his employment contract which stated that he was not able to donate to political parties. He breached his contractual agreement and thus MSNBC was able to suspend him as a result.[/QUOTE]

Quoted for truth and accuracy. It seems to have been lost in the discussion, being last on the page didn't help either.
 
Me n old Bob were kind of past that.
[quote name='RedvsBlue']I feel compelled to at least scratch the surface though. First off, contracts are merely agreements, not entities of any kind. A contract is an agreement by which 2 parties enter and suffer a legal benefit or legal detriment in exchange for each other.[/quote]
It's called consideration. And since the very VAST majority of contracts entered into between people and companies are standard form contracts, the question of unconscionability becomes an issue.
Furthermore, you can contract to give up your Constitutional rights in a contract and still be bound to the contract. If you want a specific example of this with regard to free speech, look no further than your common non-disclosure agreement.
Click to expand...
Your right to speak is not infringed by an NDA. Your employment can be terminated. There's a difference there. You cannot contract away the right to speak. Well, you could, but it would be unenforceable as unconscionable.
Olbermann gave up a part of his free speech when he signed his employment contract which stated that he was not able to donate to political parties. He breached his contractual agreement and thus MSNBC was able to suspend him as a result.
Click to expand...
What we're debating isn't whether they could do it. It's whether they should do it or whether it should be protected. Is it unconscionable to contract the restriction of political donation? Is it unconscionable to contract the restriction of religious beliefs? Should it be? Et cetera.
 
Yeah I don't quite understand what he's trying to get at, plenty of us said that he should have known better and that he knew the rules when he started working for MSNBC. Some of us just simply don't think you shouldn't be able to contract away something like the right to donate to politicians.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Me n old Bob were kind of past that.

It's called consideration. And since the very VAST majority of contracts entered into between people and companies are standard form contracts, the question of unconscionability becomes an issue.

Your right to speak is not infringed by an NDA. Your employment can be terminated. There's a difference there. You cannot contract away the right to speak. Well, you could, but it would be unenforceable as unconscionable.

What we're debating isn't whether they could do it. It's whether they should do it or whether it should be protected. Is it unconscionable to contract the restriction of political donation? Is it unconscionable to contract the restriction of religious beliefs? Should it be? Et cetera.[/QUOTE]

Did they really restrict political donation, or did they simply screen it? Does anyone have a case of them denying permission to one political affiliation over another? If Olbermann had asked permission would he have been approved to donate to said canidates? Permission could have been granted after his work is screened to make sure these donations can't be thrown back at MSNBC or (NBC) as inappropriate.

Noone really knows anything about requesting permission that was mentioned, they are just assuming he would have been denied. It seems to me, the new management wanted to send a message that you cannot simply disobey the terms of your contract, and that he has authority over your contract.

I know you are saying this specific case isn't really what you are arguing anymore, but you are making an argument against a hypothetical scenario in which they restrict all political donations.

As for whether or not they can contract your right to donate away. Does anyone know if this is a company wide policy or just for their newspeople? Can you not see where MSNBC has a legitimate interest in who these newspeople donate to? They are the face of MSNBC's news network. These days entire companies are bashed left and right for the personal decisions of individuals in the company let alone news anchors who can be identified very very easy by the general public.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Olbermann gave up a part of his free speech when he signed his employment contract which stated that he was not able to donate to political parties.[/QUOTE]

Now do you get why this is a corptocracy?
 
[quote name='speedracer']ftfy[/quote]

Basically, what you're saying, is that you're 100% okay with the government deciding when people count as people and when people don't count as people.

Good to know.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Did they really restrict political donation, or did they simply screen it? Does anyone have a case of them denying permission to one political affiliation over another? If Olbermann had asked permission would he have been approved to donate to said canidates? Permission could have been granted after his work is screened to make sure these donations can't be thrown back at MSNBC or (NBC) as inappropriate.[/quote]
My understanding is that he had to request permission. I don't think there was a case of anyone being denied. Scarborough apparently asked for and got permission to donate to a Republican friend of his.
Noone really knows anything about requesting permission that was mentioned, they are just assuming he would have been denied. It seems to me, the new management wanted to send a message that you cannot simply disobey the terms of your contract, and that he has authority over your contract.
Click to expand...
My problem is with the ability of an employer to even ask, much less require permission. As long as the information is publicly available, I have no problem with it. If they tried to hide it, that would be a different story in my mind.
I know you are saying this specific case isn't really what you are arguing anymore, but you are making an argument against a hypothetical scenario in which they restrict all political donations.
Click to expand...
Asking for permission implicitly means you need it (by threat of termination) to participate in the political process. The Supreme Court has over and over said that donation is protected as free speech. Like I said before, free speech doesn't mean you can just blab whatever you want (ie violate an NDA). But it puts us (IMO) in very dangerous territory. On one hand, you have Bob saying that a company can basically require that your spouse votes a certain way or you can be terminated. On the other, I'm saying the personal, non-material opinions and speech of an agent should not be allowed to be dictated by a company.

If I work for Exxon and I'm on every news outlet every night talking about how Exxon eats babies and hates freedom and puppies, that's material to the business and I think action is appropriate. If I donate to the Sierra Club, I don't think that's material to base a firing on.
As for whether or not they can contract your right to donate away. Does anyone know if this is a company wide policy or just for their newspeople? Can you not see where MSNBC has a legitimate interest in who these newspeople donate to? They are the face of MSNBC's news network. These days entire companies are bashed left and right for the personal decisions of individuals in the company let alone news anchors who can be identified very very easy by the general public.
Click to expand...
My wife was a journalist and says that some journalists refuse to even vote because they feel like it crosses some ethical line. Obviously the type of employment plays an issue here, but I feel like publicly available disclosure covers the bases.
[quote name='UncleBob']Basically, what you're saying, is that you're 100% okay with the government deciding when people count as people and when people don't count as people.

Good to know.[/QUOTE]
My car is not a person. It does nothing until I act as an "agent" on its behalf to initiate its actions, but that doesn't entitle my car to rights as a person. Because it's not a person. It's a thing. It has inputs and outputs and a function. My car cannot fire me for wishing I had good public transportation.

But a person is driving the car! The car, sadly, is still not a person.
 
And because there was no way on this earth that it was going to end here, someone found that Joe Scarborough made a political donation that apparently wasn't told to the NBC peeps.
Alabama campaign finance records show he made a $5,000 donation to an Alabama state legislative candidate. Scarborough claims it was his wife's donation.
Click to expand...
http://gawker.com/5683290/msnbc-might-as-well-suspend-joe-scarborough-too

I guess Joe says his wife made the donation... in his name? This is why this is stupid.
 
[quote name='speedracer']My car is not a person. It does nothing until I act as an "agent" on its behalf to initiate its actions, but that doesn't entitle my car to rights as a person. Because it's not a person. It's a thing. It has inputs and outputs and a function. My car cannot fire me for wishing I had good public transportation.

But a person is driving the car! The car, sadly, is still not a person.[/QUOTE]

That's a great analogy!

I completely get what you're trying to say now!

Because, I remember this one time, I was acting as an agent on behalf of my car when suddenly government officials pulled me over and forced me start to act as an agent on behalf of my car along with a bunch of people who had political view points that differ from me. I mean, I hear about these stories all the time... I totally get it now. Acting as an agent on behalf of something (a car, a company, etc.) means that the government can come in and take away one's rights to freedom of association and it's all good. Thank you for clearing that up.
 
[quote name='speedracer']And because there was no way on this earth that it was going to end here, someone found that Joe Scarborough made a political donation that apparently wasn't told to the NBC peeps.

http://gawker.com/5683290/msnbc-might-as-well-suspend-joe-scarborough-too

I guess Joe says his wife made the donation... in his name? This is why this is stupid.[/QUOTE]

If he can dodge a dead woman in his office there is no question he could have dodged something like piddling that.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']That's a great analogy!

I completely get what you're trying to say now!

Because, I remember this one time, I was acting as an agent on behalf of my car when suddenly government officials pulled me over and forced me start to act as an agent on behalf of my car along with a bunch of people who had political view points that differ from me. I mean, I hear about these stories all the time... I totally get it now. Acting as an agent on behalf of something (a car, a company, etc.) means that the government can come in and take away one's rights to freedom of association and it's all good. Thank you for clearing that up.[/QUOTE]I wish that you had it your way and that Wal-Mart was the most left wing radically liberal company on earth.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']That's a great analogy!

I completely get what you're trying to say now!

Because, I remember this one time, I was acting as an agent on behalf of my car when suddenly government officials pulled me over and forced me start to act as an agent on behalf of my car along with a bunch of people who had political view points that differ from me.[/quote]
If you drive a car, the government requires licensing and you don't get to choose who you share the public roads with. Indeed, agents of all stripes could be sharing the road and not even know it. Chaos!
I mean, I hear about these stories all the time... I totally get it now. Acting as an agent on behalf of something (a car, a company, etc.) means that the government can come in and take away one's rights to freedom of association and it's all good. Thank you for clearing that up.
Click to expand...
Freedom eagle cries a single tear for the legal document denied Constitutional rights.
 
[quote name='speedracer']If you drive a car, the government requires licensing and you don't get to choose who you share the public roads with. Indeed, agents of all stripes could be sharing the road and not even know it. Chaos![/QUOTE]

Oddly enough, nothing's stopping Olbermann from sharing the public airwaves, after obtaining the proper licensing, of course.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Oddly enough, nothing's stopping Olbermann from sharing the public airwaves, after obtaining the proper licensing, of course.[/QUOTE]
Oh Jeebus...learn what a barrier to entry is.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Oddly enough, nothing's stopping Olbermann from sharing the public airwaves, after obtaining the proper licensing, of course.[/QUOTE]
You should find a country that caters to your specific taste of anarchy. Rules (or "laws" as we call them) do nothing but prevent you from a perfect existence.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Me n old Bob were kind of past that.

It's called consideration. And since the very VAST majority of contracts entered into between people and companies are standard form contracts, the question of unconscionability becomes an issue.

Your right to speak is not infringed by an NDA. Your employment can be terminated. There's a difference there. You cannot contract away the right to speak. Well, you could, but it would be unenforceable as unconscionable.

What we're debating isn't whether they could do it. It's whether they should do it or whether it should be protected. Is it unconscionable to contract the restriction of political donation? Is it unconscionable to contract the restriction of religious beliefs? Should it be? Et cetera.[/QUOTE]

Yes, believe me, I know what consideration is. Unfortunately though, most people who haven't studied law take consideration as the same plain English term they're used to which would have made my statement confusing.

With regard to a NDA, yes you are in fact giving away your right to free speech about a particular thing. Normally, we are allowed to speak about whatever we want without reprisal but when you sign an NDA you are submitting yourself to reprisal. Whether or not it is unconscionable is a much deeper analysis than the few facts I gave.

I agree that debating whether they should do it or not is the question but my stance is that at the end of the day he took those millions of dollar from NBC from being employed by them. In taking that money and signing their contracts, he knew he was giving up something.
 
[quote name='camoor']Now do you get why this is a corptocracy?[/QUOTE]

I understand where you are going and I might be more inclined to side with you in this case if we were talking about a rank and file, minimum wage employee, but we're talking about someone who makes millions of dollars a year. I know this treads on an idea of selling your soul for a paycheck but he's not exactly taking the paycheck from MSNBC just to get by week to week.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']I understand where you are going and I might be more inclined to side with you in this case if we were talking about a rank and file, minimum wage employee, but we're talking about someone who makes millions of dollars a year. I know this treads on an idea of selling your soul for a paycheck but he's not exactly taking the paycheck from MSNBC just to get by week to week.[/QUOTE]

OK, fair enough.

I agree it's more relevant when rank-and-file Walmart employees are corraled into backrooms and told to vote Republican. The unfortuate thing is that's not news, it's just business as usual.
 
[quote name='camoor']OK, fair enough.

I agree it's more relevant when rank-and-file Walmart employees are corraled into backrooms and told to vote Republican. The unfortuate thing is that's not news, it's just business as usual.[/QUOTE]

Now there's some middle ground we can agree on. Unfortunately, its more subtle than that though. Believe me, as a former Target team leader I know all about the subtle ways they influence you on the evils of unions. My own personal feelings about unions aside, Target (and I can only assume Walmart as well) downright indoctrinates their people against unions.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Yes, believe me, I know what consideration is. Unfortunately though, most people who haven't studied law take consideration as the same plain English term they're used to which would have made my statement confusing.[/quote]
Fair enough.
With regard to a NDA, yes you are in fact giving away your right to free speech about a particular thing. Normally, we are allowed to speak about whatever we want without reprisal but when you sign an NDA you are submitting yourself to reprisal. Whether or not it is unconscionable is a much deeper analysis than the few facts I gave.
Click to expand...
Fair enough I guess.
I agree that debating whether they should do it or not is the question but my stance is that at the end of the day he took those millions of dollar from NBC from being employed by them. In taking that money and signing their contracts, he knew he was giving up something.
Click to expand...
Now I'm not arguing that he isn't an idiot for signing his contract... Srsly, WTF Olbermann? How do you not go over that thing with a fine toothed comb and an attorney or 4?
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Now there's some middle ground we can agree on. Unfortunately, its more subtle than that though. Believe me, as a former Target team leader I know all about the subtle ways they influence you on the evils of unions. My own personal feelings about unions aside, Target (and I can only assume Walmart as well) downright indoctrinates their people against unions.[/QUOTE]

Judging by the insanity that's constantly streaming from UncleBob, I'm guessing Wally World does something stronger.

I'm thinking hypnotic toad, the rat trick from 1984, or something in the water.
 
[quote name='camoor']Judging by the insanity that's constantly streaming from UncleBob, I'm guessing Wally World does something stronger.

I'm thinking hypnotic toad, the rat trick from 1984, or something in the water.[/QUOTE]

Actually, I'm a good fit for Walmart, as I disliked the idea of unions before I started working there. In high school, I remember driving by the folks picketing at the local Snap-On tools plant for more wages/benefits thinking that, considering they were working in frickin' Mount Carmel, Illinois, they were doing pretty good and that I couldn't believe they wanted more.

Side note - a few years later, Snap-On closed the plant and now all those picketing had lost their jobs. Hope those couple of years worth of extra benefits were worth it.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Actually, I'm a good fit for Walmart[/QUOTE]

You capitulate to the desires of the wealthy elite, only to stand up when you are fighting for their rights to exploit you (and you look swell in a blue vest)?

How's your health insurance?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You capitulate to the desires of the wealthy elite, only to stand up when you are fighting for their rights to exploit you (and you look swell in a blue vest)?

How's your health insurance?[/QUOTE]

Pretty figgin' good, actually. In fact, we're dropping my wife's insurance this year and adding her to ours, since we're getting much better pricing and coverage than what she's got now. She used to have really good insurance (with only a $10 co-pay on her birth control) until that company pulled out of the state of Illinois due to the harsher Illinois law. Since the Federal Government is blocking interstate commerce in the Health Insurance market, we had no choice but to go with the coverage she's got now. We're quite glad to be getting rid of it and swapping her to Walmart's insurance this year. Thanks for asking, really.

PS: We don't have blue smocks anymore (and haven't for awhile now). But I wear a tie anyway, so, meh...
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Now there's some middle ground we can agree on. Unfortunately, its more subtle than that though. Believe me, as a former Target team leader I know all about the subtle ways they influence you on the evils of unions. My own personal feelings about unions aside, Target (and I can only assume Walmart as well) downright indoctrinates their people against unions.[/QUOTE]
I remember those videos well.

BTW I believe Texas still requires smocks.
 
Bob is lucky enough to get enough hours to qualify for insurance apparently, I'll never forget about the conservation I had once with the lady in the jewelery department about how they'd only give her just enough hours to keep her under full time. Wonder why....
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Pretty figgin' good, actually. In fact, we're dropping my wife's insurance this year and adding her to ours, since we're getting much better pricing and coverage than what she's got now. She used to have really good insurance (with only a $10 co-pay on her birth control) until that company pulled out of the state of Illinois due to the harsher Illinois law. Since the Federal Government is blocking interstate commerce in the Health Insurance market, we had no choice but to go with the coverage she's got now. We're quite glad to be getting rid of it and swapping her to Walmart's insurance this year. Thanks for asking, really.[/QUOTE]

you had no choice before, but you do now?

explain, please.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']you had no choice before, but you do now?

explain, please.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, I meant we had no choice but to lose her previous, better insurance (well, no choice other than to move into a state they offered coverage in). The coverage she's got now isn't *horrible*, but, for example, offers zero co-pay on her birth control. Bleh. We'll be happy to get her on Walmart insurance. We're actually saving money, have a lower deductible, she'll have dental insurance that covers routine visits 100%, more prescription coverage (including her birth control), etc., etc. It's not quite as good as what she had before her previous insurer pulled out of the state, but it's quite a bit better than what she's sporting now.
 
[quote name='Clak']Bob is lucky enough to get enough hours to qualify for insurance apparently, I'll never forget about the conservation I had once with the lady in the jewelery department about how they'd only give her just enough hours to keep her under full time. Wonder why....[/QUOTE]

I'm not "lucky". I've worked hard to get where I am in the company. Thank you very much.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Sorry, I meant we had no choice but to lose her previous, better insurance (well, no choice other than to move into a state they offered coverage in). The coverage she's got now isn't *horrible*, but, for example, offers zero co-pay on her birth control. Bleh. We'll be happy to get her on Walmart insurance. We're actually saving money, have a lower deductible, she'll have dental insurance that covers routine visits 100%, more prescription coverage (including her birth control), etc., etc. It's not quite as good as what she had before her previous insurer pulled out of the state, but it's quite a bit better than what she's sporting now.[/QUOTE]

...so in the interim, you what?

here's what i'm trying to get at: what were the circumstances that mandated she stay on crappycare™ instead of immediately jump from the "previous, better" coverage to your insurance?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']...so in the interim, you what?

here's what i'm trying to get at: what were the circumstances that mandated she stay on crappycare™ instead of immediately jump from the "previous, better" coverage to your insurance?[/QUOTE]

Had to wait for open enrollment. Without a status change (new marriage, baby, job status change, etc...), you can only enroll in company insurance once a year. We missed signing her up last year (honestly, our own fault... we were given plenty of time to do it, open enrollment lasts about a month), so had to wait for it to start this year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top