Silly woman.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

Doesn't she know she's not as important as her bosses? She should be lucky they deign to pay her at all!

Comments

[fornikate.livejournal.com]

what are you trying to say here exactly

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

But, once again, I'm not sure why you're using "the government says so" as the metric for if people count it as part of the money they're paid for a job.

But, once again, that's someone else's claim. If anything, my error was engaging it as if it made sense.

[lilenth.livejournal.com]

Yet apparently not so low that we couldn't go without your opinion on something that will never ever affect you ever.

Good on you jeff, not only do you support misogyny but you don't even have the balls to back up your claims to not be misogynistic.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The hell?

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Your question makes no sense.

[mikepictor.livejournal.com]

Sorry...I misread your comment. I thought you were indicating it was fair to drop it, because it only affects one gender (like it wasn't justified if it didn't apply equally to both)

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

"if she had some sort of employment agreement that her benefits wouldn't ever change, maybe she'd have a place for complaint in this scenario."

huh? what?

lets try

"if she had some sort of employment agreement that her benefits wages wouldn't ever change, maybe she'd have a place for complaint in this scenario."

cause usually wages are subject to change too?
how are benfits not like a wage?

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

the same place its implied that her wages are static....

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

...damn, ya beat me to it

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

for the union makes us strong....

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

by the choice of the employees.

citation needed!!

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

You said a few comments up:

"My tax bracket is based on my income. "

Which you should agree isn't correct. It's based upon your taxable income. The things you don't get tax-free, or tax-exempt

If the IRS calls your benefits tax-exempt income, your tax bracket is not based upon your income.

You, Jeff, were wrong.
Admit it.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

Yes. Unionization isn't good for employers.

I am being completely serious here: who gives a flying fuck about the employers?

If I could run a business by paying children a penny a day in conditions with a ludicrously high attrition rate that was not responsible for compensating them for, that would be incredible for my bottom line.

If you can't run a business without shitting on your employees, you do not deserve to be in business. Capitalism will always find a way to make a buck when it's mandated that they take care of their workers.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

I don't know why I'm even bothering trying to rationalize it on your terms when your terms aren't even correct.

I don't know why anyone bothers trying the same with you.

[american-geist.livejournal.com]

So it's entirely semantic. Right.

[lilenth.livejournal.com]

If you have to have it explained to you, the conversation is beyond you.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

how are benfits not like a wage?

You always get a wage, you don't always get benefits.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The law is tilted toward allowing for unions. If you're not unionized, it's because you have not made strides to be unionized, or the majority of employees have chosen not to. We, unfortunately, do not have a system where employers can opt out of union cooperation.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I'm not wrong. Benefits are not taxed because they're not wages. It's not part of my pay.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I am being completely serious here: who gives a flying fuck about the employers?

I do. Investors do. Other employers do. If they're smart, employees do.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Factually false.
Lots of people don't get wages.

Sometimes they are called "intern"

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Oooooh! I understand now.
When I say "citation needed" you think that just spewing more words that comee to your brain count.
Sorry Jeff, you are not a citation machine.

When I asked for a citation for your claim I didn't want you to simply say some more words that you happen to believe. I was asking for a citation to support your claim. In case you are going to try and weasle out by "forgetting" or not understanding:

You claimed that the majority of employees do not want to unionize and that THAT is why they don't have unions.
I require a CITATION to show that the majority of employees do not want unionization. Saying that they aren't in unions IS NOT a citation.

I know lots of people who'd like to be in unions but are afraid of losing their jobs if they start talking about it. So that's my anecdotal evidence--but I want a CITATION. Some sort of STUDY. Something to support the claim about "the majority of employees"

Again, the mind of Jeff is NOT a citation machine.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Now we're introducing interns into the discussion?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

You claimed that the majority of employees do not want to unionize and that THAT is why they don't have unions.
I require a CITATION to show that the majority of employees do not want unionization. Saying that they aren't in unions IS NOT a citation.

I'm sorry you think that people want unions, but can't habe them. Private sector union membership is under 7% (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm). To believe that a majority of them want to be in a union but cannot be in a union defies any logic or even basic critical thought, especially when the law is tilted toward allowing them to be in a union.

I know lots of people who'd like to be in unions but are afraid of losing their jobs if they start talking about it.

That's illegal.

Again, the mind of Jeff is NOT a citation machine.

Well, use your mind and we can figure it out pretty quickly.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

"That's illegal"

OMG! illegal actions! NOBODY EVER DOES THOSE AND GETS AWAY WITH IT!!

oh wait.
yes, they do.

So Jeff, please, keep it up, you are showing that you don't know WHAT THE FUCK A CITATION IS
Either that or you are unable to give one.

You should man the fuck up, admit you don't have a citation and that you are pulling shit out of the fucking air--OR provide the citation that makes you claim that.

And again, NO, that workers aren't in unions does not equal proof that they don't want them.


"Well, use your mind and we can figure it out pretty quickly"

This sounds like an admission that you don't have a citation.
Seriously, back your shit up or back the fuck down.
You are impressively obstinate.