Dear spunkets,
"'Now you're saying FMLA is about entitlements.'
"The act goes beyond rights protection."
You're not kidding. However, you cited no court cases where whatever rights you think the FMLA may have vindicated were upheld by the courts. This isn't a codification of rights that arose from the common law.
As far as I can see, it is nothing more than the creation of entitlements.
Twelve weeks a year of no-notice, no-fault, no-consequence intermittent leave. If the employee doesn't come in Monday or Tuesday, but is able to make it in on Wednesday, the employee is not obligated to notify the employer ahead of time that he will be back on Wednesday. If the employee shows up on Wednesday, he must be paid for the day, even if the employer, anticipating several days of break in service, has done the responsible thing and hired a temp.
This pattern may continue until the 12 weeks per year are used up.
If it's highly burdensome on the employer, tough. After all, he's just an authoritarian bozo out to dump toxic waste in the water and pay everyone in company script. Right?
I don't blame you for wanting to drop the FMLA from the conversation. Just another left-wing law to steal from business and give to "the deserving." It's for the chil'run, right??
"They're not insults. They're my apprasal and anology of the employer's actions here."
You weren't analogizing from these previous arguments to current employers' actions in this case, you were equating my arguments with those justifying the use of company script, the dumping of toxic waste, and the hiding of the effects of asbestos.
You said,
"Your argumnets are the same as those put forth by the bozos paying in script,..."
Quite insulting. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
Your arguments remind me of certain sorts of folks, but I have refrained from saying of whom or what they remind me. Why? Because I prefer to keep the conversation civil, and do not want to offer offense, even though the comparisons I have in mind seem quite valid to me.
"'I suppose this is because you have a very narrow range of vision, and don't acknowledge that other people of good will have radically different perspectives about these questions than you.'
"That's right."
Unlike you, I can credit you with good will. Unlike you, I can see your point, even though I disagree with it, and can think that you hold it in good faith.
So you don't acknowledge that other people of good will may have radically different perspectives about these questions than you.
Sorta sad.
"'Park your vehicle off the company premises. Problem solved. ...You don't like that? Get another job.'
"IOWs, let 'em eat cake."
In other words, don't force your employer to enable your rights. Your employer isn't going to buy you a printing press, nor is he going to pay for your attorney when you have the right to counsel when you're arrested for driving drunk to or from work.
"I see no threat from folks carrying their firearms in their vehicle and leaving them there before entering the workplace."
Here is something from an article that was posted a few days ago here on FreeRepublic:
"In 2003, Doug Williams, an employee at a Lockheed Martin plant in Meridian, Miss., left the building, retrieved a shotgun and a semiautomatic rifle from his truck and returned, shooting 14 workers and killing six."
It happens.
Here's the link to the original article:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=677&e=21&u=/usatoday/20041210/bs_usatoday/companiesthatbangunsputondefensive
"Park offsite? How long before the local ne'r do wells figure out that line of cars that appears and changes with the shift contains goodys?"
Hmm... If the ne'er-do-wells figure the guns are in the vehicles parked off-site, what will happen when you force companies to let these folks park on-site?
Do you think that the ne'er-do-wells might figure out that there are guns in some of those cars being parked in company parking lots? Even some ne'er-do-wells can read, and see this debate raging on.
So now, the company must not only suffer the presence of firearms on its property, when it doesn't want them. Now, the company must be concerned about the possibility that the ne'er-do-wells will figure out that the guns are in the COMPANY'S parking lot.
Of course, the first time someone breaks into a vehicle and steals a firearm from the company lot, the company will be held legally responsible for the consequential damages, unless it can prove it took every precaution possible to prevent that.
Again, the law will be used to coerce the company into helping to pay for the exercise of someone else's rights. And to pay when the exercise of that right goes awry.
"'It just means that I think a business owner has a right to say what stuff can and can't be brought on his property.'
"Seems to me, that some folks are being dictated to by the trial lawyers and leftists."
Seems to me that some folks just want the freedom to decide who can bring what onto their property, free from dictates of do-gooders of the left or the right.
sitetest
And since the big corporations and their underpaid,understaffed,under-equpted and unarmed security are afraid of ___________ the right to keep and use ________ will be effectively destroyed.
I thought situations such as this was why certain things were RECOGNIZED,not granted, as rights.
Must have been some other land , some other time.
Knowing that the bad guys whom you, in general,cannot identify soley from appearance, will carry ________ despite laws to the contrary, and that certained licensed persons whom you ,in general, cannot identify from appearance, it is reasonable to assume that ANY person you meet may be carrying ________,and to govern your own actions accordingly.
This would recommend being polite and respectful to all ,neither offering nor accepting insult, and basically minding your own business.
I'd rather not change the topic and comment before I've read and considered it.
"In other words, don't force your employer to enable your rights."
The right exists w/o either the govm't, or the employer enabling any decision, or action on the part of the employee. The right is enabled by the employee's recognition and decisions. IOWs the enabling and consequences for the decision are his responsibility. When an employer refrains from interfering with the decision, because it's not his to make, he's not enabling-He's honoring the employee's right.
"It happens. "
Rarely. I posted the FBI findings.
Usual-9 months before return for postal
3 months-earliest. Now I'll show that this nut should have been dismissed at least a year prior to the postal. From Yahoo:
" "When I first heard about it, he was the first thing that came to my mind," said Jim Payton, a retired plant employee who worked with Williams for about a year.
He said Williams had talked about wanting to kill people. "I'm capable of doing it," Payton quoted Williams as saying.Yahoo link.
The article has some fastinating comments from the killer made to several folks at the plant prior to the postal. Sound like a hard working loyal employee, or a head case? Lockhead-Martin's HR dept sucks. They should have IDed this guy. It's not any gun policy that's important, it's the homicidal maniac poicy. LM was content with them.
"Hmm... If the ne'er-do-wells figure the guns are in the vehicles parked off-site, what will happen when you force companies to let these folks park on-site?
Eenie, meanie, miney, moe... There's nothing distinguishing, or remarkable about them to betray what they contain.
"Of course, the first time someone breaks into a vehicle and steals a firearm from the company lot, the company will be held legally responsible for the consequential damages, unless it can prove it took every precaution possible to prevent that. "
Park at your own risk. Who's your enemy, your employees, or the trial lawyers?
"Seems to me that some folks just want the freedom to decide who can bring what onto their property, free from dictates of do-gooders of the left or the right."
The employees agree to keep the firearms out of the workplace and in their vehicles. They otherwise stick to business.
From the Yahoo article:
"Paul Viollis, president of Risk Control Strategies in New York. "For legislation to permit employees and contractors to bring loaded firearms to work in vehicles is blatantly irresponsible."
As I said, the employees have been doing this for a long time before CCW was ever enacted. Target shooting and hunting were the primary after work activities. Kids used to carry guns and ammo on city busses. Viollis isn't an expert. He's a control freak trying to drum up business and vanquish citizen's rights. A VPC nut and propagandist.
"Quite insulting. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. "
I've addressed the facts of the matter and the relevant points. If the find the analogies presented are improper then point out how that is so. The employees here are deamonized as incapable of civil behavior, self control, and postals ready to go off at any time. They are considered statistical event generators. Still no concern is shown for how they've been maligned, just how you've been offended by having certain points brought to light. The focus is on those arguments and points.
The fundamental argument of the folks contained within the analogies is that they all justified their decisions and actions solely on their singular claim of superior right, ignored, or dismissed the rights of their fellows and were motivated to maximize their personal gain. They treated their employees as the equivalent of serfs, or property.
Good will does not consist of acknowledging perspective, it consists of honoring their rights and allowing them to exercise them. The right to life and the right to self defense, trumps the property right claimed by the employer. The employer is attempting to usurp the employee's significant rights by prior restraint. The employees kept their guns in the car, they did not bring them into the workplace. They're used off hours.
The employer's not happy with that, nor the legislature's failure to eliminate them everywhere.