A 7-Day Workweek Could Soon Be Legal in Wisconsin

[danielpalos]

It is libs who have contempt for working Americans, thinking they are too stupid to do anything without help from Big Daddy Government. Why do you oppose giving people a choice?

How much choice does labor get when exercising their legal rights regarding employment at will and unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in any at-will employment State.

Why does the right, as if by custom and habit until it is ingrained as a moral, prefer to bear false witness to our own laws on an Institutional basis and claim poverty is an Individual problem?

Can you be more specific?
What legal rights are employees in At Will states are being denied?

Forgetit. You thought you were dealing with a rational person.
An employee can leave any time for a better job. And they do it all the time.

I am trying to Establish this as a moral absolute in our Republic, Rabbi:

Unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in any at-will employment State.

That's a violation of Roberts Rules of Order. Thus invalid.

moral absolutes?

 

[OKTexas]

So, if I want to work 7 days a week, why shouldn't I be able to? The existing law sound pretty stupid. So, I have to get permission from the government to work on my day off?

That's stupid.

So many variables, so the living wage is a concept, a fantasy that has no basis in reality and the same can be said for the prevailing wage. It is all subject to change based on some bureaucrats opinion and not actual market forces, good riddance.

You mean some bureaucrats opinion that minimum wage is a living wage?

Got it.

There ya go again, moving those goal posts. We started talking about a "living wage", then you bring in "prevailing wage" and now you bring in "minimum wage", do you have A.D.D. or are you schizophrenic?

But ok let's talk about the "minimum wage", which is supposed to be the first rung on the wage ladder, a place to start when you lack experience and work history. No one was ever intended to be sustained on the "minimum wage", it's nothing but a starting place. Next?

I brought up the minimum wage that incorporates both the exact phrasing and the two law suits.
You have no firm stats on the age of people earning "minimum wage". Further, it's all (prevailing wage etc.) under the Motion 999.

The age of the minimum wage worker has no bearing on it's intended purpose as a starting point. If an older worker decides to apply for a job with the knowledge it only pays the minimum, that's not the employers problem, is it?

That was never the intended purpose of the minimum wage.

So what's the purpose, don't tell me what you think it's not without telling me what you think it is.

 

[danielpalos]

So, if I want to work 7 days a week, why shouldn't I be able to? The existing law sound pretty stupid. So, I have to get permission from the government to work on my day off?

That's stupid.

So many variables, so the living wage is a concept, a fantasy that has no basis in reality and the same can be said for the prevailing wage. It is all subject to change based on some bureaucrats opinion and not actual market forces, good riddance.

You mean some bureaucrats opinion that minimum wage is a living wage?

Got it.

There ya go again, moving those goal posts. We started talking about a "living wage", then you bring in "prevailing wage" and now you bring in "minimum wage", do you have A.D.D. or are you schizophrenic?

But ok let's talk about the "minimum wage", which is supposed to be the first rung on the wage ladder, a place to start when you lack experience and work history. No one was ever intended to be sustained on the "minimum wage", it's nothing but a starting place. Next?

I brought up the minimum wage that incorporates both the exact phrasing and the two law suits.
You have no firm stats on the age of people earning "minimum wage". Further, it's all (prevailing wage etc.) under the Motion 999.

The age of the minimum wage worker has no bearing on it's intended purpose as a starting point. If an older worker decides to apply for a job with the knowledge it only pays the minimum, that's not the employers problem, is it?

That was never the intended purpose of the minimum wage.

I believe a minimum wage should solve for poverty and a natural rate of unemployment.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Americans are overpaid and have it too easy.

That is an ongoing conservative theme.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You mean some bureaucrats opinion that minimum wage is a living wage?

Got it.

There ya go again, moving those goal posts. We started talking about a "living wage", then you bring in "prevailing wage" and now you bring in "minimum wage", do you have A.D.D. or are you schizophrenic?

But ok let's talk about the "minimum wage", which is supposed to be the first rung on the wage ladder, a place to start when you lack experience and work history. No one was ever intended to be sustained on the "minimum wage", it's nothing but a starting place. Next?

I brought up the minimum wage that incorporates both the exact phrasing and the two law suits.
You have no firm stats on the age of people earning "minimum wage". Further, it's all (prevailing wage etc.) under the Motion 999.

The age of the minimum wage worker has no bearing on it's intended purpose as a starting point. If an older worker decides to apply for a job with the knowledge it only pays the minimum, that's not the employers problem, is it?

That was never the intended purpose of the minimum wage.

So what's the purpose, don't tell me what you think it's not without telling me what you think it is.

The purpose is to prevent business from unfairly exploiting labor when business has an unfair advantage.

 

[danielpalos]

Socialism is only Bad for the Right when the least wealthy may benefit under or form of Capitalism.

 

[OKTexas]

There ya go again, moving those goal posts. We started talking about a "living wage", then you bring in "prevailing wage" and now you bring in "minimum wage", do you have A.D.D. or are you schizophrenic?

But ok let's talk about the "minimum wage", which is supposed to be the first rung on the wage ladder, a place to start when you lack experience and work history. No one was ever intended to be sustained on the "minimum wage", it's nothing but a starting place. Next?

I brought up the minimum wage that incorporates both the exact phrasing and the two law suits.
You have no firm stats on the age of people earning "minimum wage". Further, it's all (prevailing wage etc.) under the Motion 999.

The age of the minimum wage worker has no bearing on it's intended purpose as a starting point. If an older worker decides to apply for a job with the knowledge it only pays the minimum, that's not the employers problem, is it?

That was never the intended purpose of the minimum wage.

So what's the purpose, don't tell me what you think it's not without telling me what you think it is.

The purpose is to prevent business from unfairly exploiting labor when business has an unfair advantage.

Unfair advantage, how so?

 

[hortysir]

Liberals won't be happy until the one day work week with $2,000/hr minimum wage is in place.

But is that a "fair living wage"?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I brought up the minimum wage that incorporates both the exact phrasing and the two law suits.
You have no firm stats on the age of people earning "minimum wage". Further, it's all (prevailing wage etc.) under the Motion 999.

The age of the minimum wage worker has no bearing on it's intended purpose as a starting point. If an older worker decides to apply for a job with the knowledge it only pays the minimum, that's not the employers problem, is it?

That was never the intended purpose of the minimum wage.

So what's the purpose, don't tell me what you think it's not without telling me what you think it is.

The purpose is to prevent business from unfairly exploiting labor when business has an unfair advantage.

Unfair advantage, how so?

By having control of the jobs available vs. the people needing jobs.

 

[Papageorgio]

Wisconsin’s GOP is trying to nix an existing law that requires employers in the manufacturing and retail sectors to give employees at least 24 hours off during each consecutive seven-day period. Currently, for an employee to skip his or her weekly day off, an employer has to get approval from the state’s Department of Workforce Development. The Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce association—a staunch advocate of the bill—suggests that the step is onerous and unnecessary, since the department has approved 733 such requests over the past five years, a number they imply means that the department is rubber-stamping the requests. Supporters also suggest that the plan ultimately helps employees who want to work more hours.
Will Wisconsin Have 7-Day Workweeks - The Atlantic

Yep. The GOP is awesome.

Morons.

I worked over 90 days straight. Loved every minute of it. Glad I didn't work in Wisconsin where you aren't free to do what you want.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[The Rabbi]

You mean some bureaucrats opinion that minimum wage is a living wage?

Got it.

There ya go again, moving those goal posts. We started talking about a "living wage", then you bring in "prevailing wage" and now you bring in "minimum wage", do you have A.D.D. or are you schizophrenic?

But ok let's talk about the "minimum wage", which is supposed to be the first rung on the wage ladder, a place to start when you lack experience and work history. No one was ever intended to be sustained on the "minimum wage", it's nothing but a starting place. Next?

I brought up the minimum wage that incorporates both the exact phrasing and the two law suits.
You have no firm stats on the age of people earning "minimum wage". Further, it's all (prevailing wage etc.) under the Motion 999.

The age of the minimum wage worker has no bearing on it's intended purpose as a starting point. If an older worker decides to apply for a job with the knowledge it only pays the minimum, that's not the employers problem, is it?

Minimum wage isn't a "starting point". It wasn't created because it was a "starting point" geared for "younger workers".

It's not a starting point because you say so. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

So tell me all knowing one, if the minimum isn't the starting wage, what is? After all, there's only one direction to go from there.

It's the wage she's earned for the last 20 years and probably will until retirement.

 

[dblack]

There ya go again, moving those goal posts. We started talking about a "living wage", then you bring in "prevailing wage" and now you bring in "minimum wage", do you have A.D.D. or are you schizophrenic?

But ok let's talk about the "minimum wage", which is supposed to be the first rung on the wage ladder, a place to start when you lack experience and work history. No one was ever intended to be sustained on the "minimum wage", it's nothing but a starting place. Next?

I brought up the minimum wage that incorporates both the exact phrasing and the two law suits.
You have no firm stats on the age of people earning "minimum wage". Further, it's all (prevailing wage etc.) under the Motion 999.

The age of the minimum wage worker has no bearing on it's intended purpose as a starting point. If an older worker decides to apply for a job with the knowledge it only pays the minimum, that's not the employers problem, is it?

That was never the intended purpose of the minimum wage.

So what's the purpose, don't tell me what you think it's not without telling me what you think it is.

The purpose is to prevent business from unfairly exploiting labor when business has an unfair advantage.

If a business owner has an unfair advantage, if they've done something demonstrably wrong to achieve their economic power, then they should be tried, convicted and punished. Remedial tit-for-tat is weak tea.

 

[Papageorgio]

Only dirtbags take advantage of situations, whether they are the employers, the employees or the government. Being forthright and honest is my way of life. If I think im being taken advantage of, I will voice my opinion and work from their.

 

[The Rabbi]

Only dirtbags take advantage of situations, whether they are the employers, the employees or the government. Being forthright and honest is my way of life. If I think im being taken advantage of, I will voice my opinion and work from their.

Attention, reality: You always take advantage of the situation. That is human nature. You figure out what people's other options are and you offer the most attractive of those.

 

[Papageorgio]

Only dirtbags take advantage of situations, whether they are the employers, the employees or the government. Being forthright and honest is my way of life. If I think im being taken advantage of, I will voice my opinion and work from their.

Attention, reality: You always take advantage of the situation. That is human nature. You figure out what people's other options are and you offer the most attractive of those.

I do my job and do it well, I get paid what I agreed to, I don't take extra time off, I put over the required hours. They may take advantage of me but I don't know how.

 

[OKTexas]

The age of the minimum wage worker has no bearing on it's intended purpose as a starting point. If an older worker decides to apply for a job with the knowledge it only pays the minimum, that's not the employers problem, is it?

That was never the intended purpose of the minimum wage.

So what's the purpose, don't tell me what you think it's not without telling me what you think it is.

The purpose is to prevent business from unfairly exploiting labor when business has an unfair advantage.

Unfair advantage, how so?

By having control of the jobs available vs. the people needing jobs.

And that hasn't been the case since the first day someone went to work for someone else for compensation? Exactly how is that unfair?

 

[OKTexas]

There ya go again, moving those goal posts. We started talking about a "living wage", then you bring in "prevailing wage" and now you bring in "minimum wage", do you have A.D.D. or are you schizophrenic?

But ok let's talk about the "minimum wage", which is supposed to be the first rung on the wage ladder, a place to start when you lack experience and work history. No one was ever intended to be sustained on the "minimum wage", it's nothing but a starting place. Next?

I brought up the minimum wage that incorporates both the exact phrasing and the two law suits.
You have no firm stats on the age of people earning "minimum wage". Further, it's all (prevailing wage etc.) under the Motion 999.

The age of the minimum wage worker has no bearing on it's intended purpose as a starting point. If an older worker decides to apply for a job with the knowledge it only pays the minimum, that's not the employers problem, is it?

Minimum wage isn't a "starting point". It wasn't created because it was a "starting point" geared for "younger workers".

It's not a starting point because you say so. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

So tell me all knowing one, if the minimum isn't the starting wage, what is? After all, there's only one direction to go from there.

It's the wage she's earned for the last 20 years and probably will until retirement.

A little edamacation or want to could fix that.

 

[Disir]

You mean some bureaucrats opinion that minimum wage is a living wage?

Got it.

There ya go again, moving those goal posts. We started talking about a "living wage", then you bring in "prevailing wage" and now you bring in "minimum wage", do you have A.D.D. or are you schizophrenic?

But ok let's talk about the "minimum wage", which is supposed to be the first rung on the wage ladder, a place to start when you lack experience and work history. No one was ever intended to be sustained on the "minimum wage", it's nothing but a starting place. Next?

I brought up the minimum wage that incorporates both the exact phrasing and the two law suits.
You have no firm stats on the age of people earning "minimum wage". Further, it's all (prevailing wage etc.) under the Motion 999.

The age of the minimum wage worker has no bearing on it's intended purpose as a starting point. If an older worker decides to apply for a job with the knowledge it only pays the minimum, that's not the employers problem, is it?

Minimum wage isn't a "starting point". It wasn't created because it was a "starting point" geared for "younger workers".

It's not a starting point because you say so. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

So tell me all knowing one, if the minimum isn't the starting wage, what is? After all, there's only one direction to go from there.

It's called the least you can get away with paying someone.

 

[OKTexas]

There ya go again, moving those goal posts. We started talking about a "living wage", then you bring in "prevailing wage" and now you bring in "minimum wage", do you have A.D.D. or are you schizophrenic?

But ok let's talk about the "minimum wage", which is supposed to be the first rung on the wage ladder, a place to start when you lack experience and work history. No one was ever intended to be sustained on the "minimum wage", it's nothing but a starting place. Next?

I brought up the minimum wage that incorporates both the exact phrasing and the two law suits.
You have no firm stats on the age of people earning "minimum wage". Further, it's all (prevailing wage etc.) under the Motion 999.

The age of the minimum wage worker has no bearing on it's intended purpose as a starting point. If an older worker decides to apply for a job with the knowledge it only pays the minimum, that's not the employers problem, is it?

Minimum wage isn't a "starting point". It wasn't created because it was a "starting point" geared for "younger workers".

It's not a starting point because you say so. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

So tell me all knowing one, if the minimum isn't the starting wage, what is? After all, there's only one direction to go from there.

It's called the least you can get away with paying someone.

That's assuming someone will work for it, if they will then you have an employment contract, don'cha? Two parties agreeing to an established level of compensation. Now who the heck are you to say they can't do that?

 

[Disir]

I brought up the minimum wage that incorporates both the exact phrasing and the two law suits.
You have no firm stats on the age of people earning "minimum wage". Further, it's all (prevailing wage etc.) under the Motion 999.

The age of the minimum wage worker has no bearing on it's intended purpose as a starting point. If an older worker decides to apply for a job with the knowledge it only pays the minimum, that's not the employers problem, is it?

Minimum wage isn't a "starting point". It wasn't created because it was a "starting point" geared for "younger workers".

It's not a starting point because you say so. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

So tell me all knowing one, if the minimum isn't the starting wage, what is? After all, there's only one direction to go from there.

It's called the least you can get away with paying someone.

That's assuming someone will work for it, if they will then you have an employment contract, don'cha? Two parties agreeing to an established level of compensation. Now who the heck are you to say they can't do that?

If you are working for 7.25 an hour then it's not like you're holding all the cards. Now is it?