Laid-Off Americans, Required to Zip Lips on Way Out, Grow Bolder

[Machismo]

So folks are supposed to make their decision to deal with a company who is engaged in the practice while the same company is refusing to let folks know they are engaged in this practice so they can make that decision. Amusing.

If the former employees wish to inform people, they can do so. It's as simple as that. Furthermore, what they are doing is not harmful in any way, so there's no reason to restrict such an action, other than to force your agenda onto them.

[Pangean]

If the former employees wish to inform people, they can do so. It's as simple as that. Furthermore, what they are doing is not harmful in any way, so there's no reason to restrict such an action, other than to force your agenda onto them.

And some libertarians wonder why folks mock them for being fantasists. Wonder no more.

[Machismo]

And some libertarians wonder why folks mock them for being fantasists. Wonder no more.

I'm not a libertarian. However, I'll side with freedom, almost every single time.

What did the company do that was actually harmful? Not a god damned thing. They simply found a cheaper, more efficient means to create a product.

[Pangean]

I'm not a libertarian. However, I'll side with freedom, almost every single time.

What did the company do that was actually harmful? Not a god damned thing. They simply found a cheaper, more efficient means to create a product.

Of course you aren't. You are just as much a fantasist as one. Feel better now? What did the company do wrong? They hired non-Americans to replace Americans doing the job using a law that is supposed to not allow this. I appreciate that's ok with you. Not so for me.

[Machismo]

Of course you aren't. You are just as much a fantasist as one. Feel better now? What did the company do wrong? They hired non-Americans to replace Americans doing the job using a law that is supposed to not allow this. I appreciate that's ok with you. Not so for me.

Is what they did harmful in any way? Nope.

Once again, just because someone does something you don't like, that's not justification for you to use the government to stop them.

[Faerillis]

In almost every possible case, there is an alternative.

I love that you cite Flint, Michigan as an example, since it was that very same government that you want to protect you... that caused the problem. You also cited public transportation, which is often a government-forced monopoly. Once again, government is the problem, not the solution.

You muppet, you can't be serious.

First off, you ignore my actual arguments to fight what you think are easier topics. Second the actual arguments you're raising against the points you created are still complete bullshit!

I use Flint as an example of a situation where your normal, market alternatives to a product necessary for life aren't readily available. The point of this was to demonstrate how your idea of Voting With Your Wallet falls apart if there aren't alternatives. I could have used any number of examples for other goods but recognized that with your ideology, anything less than absolutely essential would have been written off as unnecessary for the sake of your ideological expedience.

The point you chose to raise was that it was the a project led by the government of Flint that has caused this problem. This is partly true but negligence within a system is not the same as negligence built into a system — negligence is an argument against itself, it does not however speak to a problem with government itself. But lets look at what could have solved/prevented this problem, shall we Muppet? If there were not only strong regulations in place but actually enforced, they would have been treating the water to prevent corrosion to the pipes.

So yes, negligent government officials (in this case Emergency Financial Managers, who are known to be dubious as they are unelected and tend to serve the good of businesses and not people) were the problem. Better government policies and enforcement of those policies however would have answered that particular problem.


I did not cite Public Transportation. Public Transportation was not my argument. I cited a company called GIRO which develops Route Measurement Software — now I don't actually have a problem with GIRO, in fact they're not a particularly notable company one way or another, but lets say I did because it makes a good example; how would I vote with my dollar? My point, referencing Public Transportation was to point out that companies like GIRO, and other tech companies like those talked about in the article, don't sell their products to End Consumers. They sell them to other businesses.

Public Transportation is moreorless a necessity in cities. But when you give your money to a Public Transportation Company, your dollar doesn't just to support them. It goes to support the people they got their Computers from. It goes to the people they got their Software from. It goes to the company that does their IP work. It goes to the company they get the paper to print their tickets on. It goes to the company they get the ink to print those tickets on. It goes to the company they get their fuel from. It goes to the company they get their buses from. It goes to the company that repairs those buses. It goes to the company that sells the steel to the company they get their buses from. It goes out into a great nebulous void of untraceable intricacies. Voting With Your Dollar requires you to know literally every facet of the business you're buying even the absolute most trivial thing from, which they aren't required to make public. And it doesn't matter if its Public Transportation, Wal-Mart, McDonalds or even the little fucking Mom-and-Pop corner store on your street, the entirety of that statement holds for all of them.

But that's the point you ignored because... well your argument clearly doesn't really hold up there, does it?

Instead you talk about how Public Transportation and other such programs are government-forced monopolies. Which is inaccurate. They are Government Monopolies. They aren't Forced. See there is a concept in... well really it's just generally sound thought... called a NATURAL Monopoly. No you may be confused and thinking I'm talking about a tree growing a little thimble, race car and stove-top hat pieces — I mean, that's the degree of comprehension Libertarian ideas tend to betray — but that's not what I'm talking about here.

See in cases like Roads, Sewage, Water, Public Transportation there just isn't a sensible way to have competition — at least not in anyway that provides any benefits to the general population. See if there are 5 different Public Transportation companies in my city and I have to jump around their different routes to get close to where I'm going, I'm not only going to have to pay multiple fares but I'm going to have to pay multiple fares that are priced differently. If they aren't priced differently and are all willing to accept their competitor's fares, then it is still effectively operating as a singular company (so a monopoly) BUT aren't nearly as efficient as separate entities. Sewage? Same sort of deal, if all the sewers don't end up linking up it's just going to be far more inefficient and involve a lot more construction than is otherwise necessary. Roads? Exact same point. Water? Exact same point.

These are naturally occurring Monopolies. More than that they are monopolies on necessities of life. So the Government handles them to prevent people being priced out of life within cities and ensure people end up getting less screwed over than they would otherwise. Now you may be going "There's no competition so how do we know it's less screwed over?" Well there's a good point. If only there were some way we could have different people take over these systems every so often. And maybe we'd find some way of seeing which of these candidates to take over the system has an agenda that is supported by the most people in the area? Hell maybe because these are so important we should give people a chance to get off work early enough to make sure they get to get ther..... Ok you know what that's getting tiring. Yes there is competition in Government Monopolies. We call them ELECTIONS.

[Pangean]

Is what they did harmful in any way? Nope.

Once again, just because someone does something you don't like, that's not justification for you to use the government to stop them.

Was it harmful to lay off people? Yeah I think firing folks is harmful. I also have no issue having the government stopping them for doing what they did.

[Machismo]

Was it harmful to lay off people? Yeah I think firing folks is harmful. I also have no issue having the government stopping them for doing what they did.

How is it harmful? Choosing to end a voluntary relationship is not harm.

Is your barber harmed if you choose to go to a different one?

Is Comcast harmed when you change to Verizon?

[Illuminance]

We're screwed from both ends. Low skill jobs are being outsourced. High skill jobs are being in-sourced via H1B. Americans are going to need to stick to professions that absolutely can't rely on foreign workers at the rate things are going.

[Machismo]

You muppet, you can't be serious.

First off, you ignore my actual arguments to fight what you think are easier topics. Second the actual arguments you're raising against the points you created are still complete bullshit!

I use Flint as an example of a situation where your normal, market alternatives to a product necessary for life aren't readily available. The point of this was to demonstrate how your idea of Voting With Your Wallet falls apart if there aren't alternatives. I could have used any number of examples for other goods but recognized that with your ideology, anything less than absolutely essential would have been written off as unnecessary for the sake of your ideological expedience.

The point you chose to raise was that it was the a project led by the government of Flint that has caused this problem. This is partly true but negligence within a system is not the same as negligence built into a system — negligence is an argument against itself, it does not however speak to a problem with government itself. But lets look at what could have solved/prevented this problem, shall we Muppet? If there were not only strong regulations in place but actually enforced, they would have been treating the water to prevent corrosion to the pipes.

So yes, negligent government officials (in this case Emergency Financial Managers, who are known to be dubious as they are unelected and tend to serve the good of businesses and not people) were the problem. Better government policies and enforcement of those policies however would have answered that particular problem.


I did not cite Public Transportation. Public Transportation was not my argument. I cited a company called GIRO which develops Route Measurement Software — now I don't actually have a problem with GIRO, in fact they're not a particularly notable company one way or another, but lets say I did because it makes a good example; how would I vote with my dollar? My point, referencing Public Transportation was to point out that companies like GIRO, and other tech companies like those talked about in the article, don't sell their products to End Consumers. They sell them to other businesses.

Public Transportation is moreorless a necessity in cities. But when you give your money to a Public Transportation Company, your dollar doesn't just to support them. It goes to support the people they got their Computers from. It goes to the people they got their Software from. It goes to the company that does their IP work. It goes to the company they get the paper to print their tickets on. It goes to the company they get the ink to print those tickets on. It goes to the company they get their fuel from. It goes to the company they get their buses from. It goes to the company that repairs those buses. It goes to the company that sells the steel to the company they get their buses from. It goes out into a great nebulous void of untraceable intricacies. Voting With Your Dollar requires you to know literally every facet of the business you're buying even the absolute most trivial thing from, which they aren't required to make public. And it doesn't matter if its Public Transportation, Wal-Mart, McDonalds or even the little fucking Mom-and-Pop corner store on your street, the entirety of that statement holds for all of them.

But that's the point you ignored because... well your argument clearly doesn't really hold up there, does it?

Instead you talk about how Public Transportation and other such programs are government-forced monopolies. Which is inaccurate. They are Government Monopolies. They aren't Forced. See there is a concept in... well really it's just generally sound thought... called a NATURAL Monopoly. No you may be confused and thinking I'm talking about a tree growing a little thimble, race car and stove-top hat pieces — I mean, that's the degree of comprehension Libertarian ideas tend to betray — but that's not what I'm talking about here.

See in cases like Roads, Sewage, Water, Public Transportation there just isn't a sensible way to have competition — at least not in anyway that provides any benefits to the general population. See if there are 5 different Public Transportation companies in my city and I have to jump around their different routes to get close to where I'm going, I'm not only going to have to pay multiple fares but I'm going to have to pay multiple fares that are priced differently. If they aren't priced differently and are all willing to accept their competitor's fares, then it is still effectively operating as a singular company (so a monopoly) BUT aren't nearly as efficient as separate entities. Sewage? Same sort of deal, if all the sewers don't end up linking up it's just going to be far more inefficient and involve a lot more construction than is otherwise necessary. Roads? Exact same point. Water? Exact same point.

These are naturally occurring Monopolies. More than that they are monopolies on necessities of life. So the Government handles them to prevent people being priced out of life within cities and ensure people end up getting less screwed over than they would otherwise. Now you may be going "There's no competition so how do we know it's less screwed over?" Well there's a good point. If only there were some way we could have different people take over these systems every so often. And maybe we'd find some way of seeing which of these candidates to take over the system has an agenda that is supported by the most people in the area? Hell maybe because these are so important we should give people a chance to get off work early enough to make sure they get to get ther..... Ok you know what that's getting tiring. Yes there is competition in Government Monopolies. We call them ELECTIONS.

Government is force.

Until you realize that one single point, nothing else even matters.

[Pangean]

How is it harmful? Choosing to end a voluntary relationship is not harm.

Is your barber harmed if you choose to go to a different one?

Is Comcast harmed when you change to Verizon?

It cuts off their incomes and benefits till they find other employment if they can. That's harm. And I don't consider the employment relationship to be the same as the business customer relationship. In fact I am more than happy to have the employers being required to demonstrate cause when they fire someone. I am all about using the government to level the playing field in this area.

[Wildtree]

Some things don't add up with this stuff..

Effectively an employer cannot import foreign workers if the job can be done by the available work force present.

Sauce: http://hiring.monster.com/hr/hr-best...s-workers.aspx

Employers who want to hire noncitizens who live outside the United States to work temporarily in the US must show their actions will not negatively affect the job opportunities, wages or working conditions of workers already residing here by demonstrating there are not enough such workers available and that the proposed wages and working conditions meet regional standards.

The employer must also actively attempt to recruit workers already residing in the US to fill the position, including newspaper and radio advertising. Employers must also provide free, approved housing for workers unable to go home each day, as well as certain types of transportation, workman's compensation or equivalent insurance and appropriate tools and supplies at no cost. Employers must also show that the position is not open because of a strike or lockout.

Additionally, regarding the wages:
https://www.uscis.gov/eir/visa-guide...b-requirements

Requirement 4 - You must be paid at least the actual or prevailing wage for your occupation, whichever is higher.

prevailing wage is the common wage paid in the field/company.

So, if there are companies that are under scrutiny, they're factually breaking immigration and labor laws.
Those NDA's should therefore be null and void.

[Machismo]

It cuts off their incomes and benefits till they find other employment if they can. That's harm. And I don't consider the employment relationship to be the same as the business customer relationship. In fact I am more than happy to have the employers being required to demonstrate cause when they fire someone. I am all about using the government to level the playing field in this area.

That's not leveling the playing field, it's unbalancing it. Should all employees be forced to demonstrate cause before they quit working for an employer? After all, if you want a level playing field, then it only seems fair that employees be required to do so.

If not paying someone is harming them, then are you harming a business when you choose to not patronize them?

[Illuminance]

Effectively an employer cannot import foreign workers if the job can be done by the available work force present.

That's how the H1B is supposed to be used by law, but in reality companies do not follow that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/us...mmigrants.html

[Pangean]

That's not leveling the playing field, it's unbalancing it. Should all employees be forced to demonstrate cause before they quit working for an employer? After all, if you want a level playing field, then it only seems fair that employees be required to do so.

If not paying someone is harming them, then are you harming a business when you choose to not patronize them?

Sure it is. It requires them to follow a process to justify their actions. I also have no problem requiring employees to give multiple month notices to leave a company and the reason why. Yet another process. And back to the business-customer nonsense. If I was the only customer it would indeed harm them. However thats not the case in any of the examples of what you gave.

[Machismo]

Why do you feel the government is necessary in all of that? How much government intervention will make you happy?

It's a voluntary relationship, one that should be able to be ended by either for whatever reason they wish. It's the same as with a company and a customer.

You want to take freedom away from everyone, just to make yourself feel better. No thanks.

[Wildtree]

That's how the H1B is supposed to be used by law, but in reality companies do not follow that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/us...mmigrants.html

yep, that's why these companies need to have the crap fined out of them.

[Wildtree]

I am going to have to call bullshit here. In order to get an H1B you have to be paid more than the median salary for a particular industry, approximately 15% or more. So this can't be for direct money related reasons. There is some part of this story that is not being told.

As someone who once was trying to get an H1B, H1B are extremely difficult to get and the amount that can be issued per year is capped.

Well, only employers can apply for those visas. And employers bending/ignoring the laws, that's what goes on.

[Pangean]

Why do you feel the government is necessary in all of that? How much government intervention will make you happy?

It's a voluntary relationship, one that should be able to be ended by either for whatever reason they wish. It's the same as with a company and a customer.

You want to take freedom away from everyone, just to make yourself feel better. No thanks.

Well I obviously disagree to the nature of the relationship and why government should be involved. I do not see it the same as a customer and business relationship and explained why. I have no problem with limiting freedom in a country that is governed by a social contract. You seem to think your boogeyman "taking freedom" is an argument. It's a fucking bumper sticker.

[cordrann]

If not paying someone is harming them, then are you harming a business when you choose to not patronize them?

Are you for real? The number one easiest way to harm any business is to make the conscious decision to not patronize them. Your idealistic nonsensical ideology smacks of someone in their late teens or early twenties with zero life experience.