Will unemployment benefits be extended?

[Benvolio]

No. Discrimination lawsuits are what a company pays for wrongdoing.

From the company's point of view the lawsuits, most of which are unsuccessful, are just part of what it pays for labor. No way to avoid them When someone else is promoted others probably think they should have gotten it. Protected people--almost everyone--are likely to think it is illegal discrimination.One employee pats another on the butt or tells a dirty story, "sexual harassment", the employer gets sued.
So when the employer decides what he can afford to pay, the suits, settlements, attorneys fees, and insurance against it, are all part of the total cost of labor to be considered. Why do you think plaintiffs' lawyers are among democrat biggest donors? Part of the cost of labor is given to the lawyers.

 

[opinterph]

From the company's point of view the lawsuits, most of which are unsuccessful, are just part of what it pays for labor. No way to avoid them When someone else is promoted others probably think they should have gotten it. Protected people--almost everyone--are likely to think it is illegal discrimination.One employee pats another on the butt or tells a dirty story, "sexual harassment", the employer gets sued.
So when the employer decides what he can afford to pay, the suits, settlements, attorneys fees, and insurance against it, are all part of the total cost of labor to be considered. Why do you think plaintiffs' lawyers are among democrat biggest donors? Part of the cost of labor is given to the lawyers.

Your statements suggest that you don’t understand the principles of employment law.

The way to avoid liability for violations of employment law is to establish and adhere to policies that prohibit such violations. An employee cannot sue the employer for discrimination without obtaining a right to sue letter from the EEOC. That helps to prevent superfluous lawsuits, but the prevailing party in a judgment may also seek damages to cover attorney fees involved in bringing or defending the case. Thus, an employee who advances a case without merit can be compelled to cover the employer’s attorney fees.

With regard to sexual harassment, employers must take proactive steps to inform employees that such behavior is not allowed in the workplace and follow up to investigate and respond appropriately to any allegations. Employers must also exercise due diligence in the hiring process to determine if the employee-recruit’s history includes elements that may reasonably be held to represent a threat to the safety of others in the workplace. If an employer follows the law, it is the employee who will be liable for acts of sexual harassment; however, the employer can be held responsible if he/she fails to respond to reports of such activity in the workplace.

Persons who are unable or unwilling to follow simple rules of fair treatment should probably avoid operating a business.

 

[HenryReardon]

.
Trickle down was never our word or or our theory. It is you nasty epithet for the system which is responsible for the standard of living we enjoy. Our words are free enterprise, economic freedom or capitalism, but for which you would be living in desparate poverty in a one room hovel as our ancestors did.
But even communism/ socialism is a trickle down system. You have to build the factory to creat the jobs in it.

Funny how the left attempts to redefine a system with an epithet, then blame others for that epithet. Then again, it's not funny, it's just standard operating procedure for liberal fools.

 

[HenryReardon]

The way to avoid liability for violations of employment law is to establish and adhere to policies that prohibit such violations. An employee cannot sue the employer for discrimination without obtaining a right to sue letter from the EEOC. That helps to prevent superfluous lawsuits,
.

I'll wager that you really believe that last bit of idiocy. The only way to really prevent frivolous lawsuits would be to reform the tort system and adopt a 'loser pays' system where, if you file a frivolous suit and lose, you pay all the costs for both sides.

The airwaves are inundated with ads from ambulance chasers who realize full well that rather than fight a claim, insurance companies will throw money at them to make them go away.

 

[opinterph]

The way to avoid liability for violations of employment law is to establish and adhere to policies that prohibit such violations. An employee cannot sue the employer for discrimination without obtaining a right to sue letter from the EEOC. That helps to prevent superfluous lawsuits,
.

ambulance chasers

Reread the post. The EEOC is involved with employment law – not civil torts or medical malpractice.

 

[Benvolio]

Your statements suggest that you don’t understand the principles of employment law.

The way to avoid liability for violations of employment law is to establish and adhere to policies that prohibit such violations. An employee cannot sue the employer for discrimination without obtaining a right to sue letter from the EEOC. That helps to prevent superfluous lawsuits, but the prevailing party in a judgment may also seek damages to cover attorney fees involved in bringing or defending the case. Thus, an employee who advances a case without merit can be compelled to cover the employer’s attorney fees.

With regard to sexual harassment, employers must take proactive steps to inform employees that such behavior is not allowed in the workplace and follow up to investigate and respond appropriately to any allegations. Employers must also exercise due diligence in the hiring process to determine if the employee-recruit’s history includes elements that may reasonably be held to represent a threat to the safety of others in the workplace. If an employer follows the law, it is the employee who will be liable for acts of sexual harassment; however, the employer can be held responsible if he/she fails to respond to reports of such activity in the workplace.

Persons who are unable or unwilling to follow simple rules of fair treatment should probably avoid operating a business.

The EEOC is strongly biased against employers, so a large portion of such suits are unsuccessful but expensive.The net result of the laws is to pressure businesses to hire, not by ability but by race, sex, ethnicity and national origin. Hiring lesser qualified people and others to do the job is part of the expense that goes into the cost of labor Worse, they end up hurting the blacks whom they were designed to pro tect, by pressuring employers to hire a cross section.

 

[HenryReardon]

Reread the post. The EEOC is involved with employment law – not civil torts or medical malpractice.

Reread what you wrote: That helps to prevent superfluous lawsuits

Superfluous lawsuits come in all shapes and sizes, and tort reform would put a damper on it.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Funny how the left attempts to redefine a system with an epithet, then blame others for that epithet. Then again, it's not funny, it's just standard operating procedure for liberal fools.

I direct you to post #173. Yes, you both very much are proponents of trickle down, whether or not you wish to claim that mantle.

 

[opinterph]

Reread what you wrote: That helps to prevent superfluous lawsuits

What I wrote:

That helps to prevent superfluous lawsuits, but the prevailing party in a judgment may also seek damages to cover attorney fees involved in bringing or defending the case. Thus, an employee who advances a case without merit can be compelled to cover the employer’s attorney fees.

What changes would you like to see in the way of “tort reform?”

 

[xbuzzerx]

The EEOC is strongly biased against employers, so a large portion of such suits are unsuccessful but expensive.The net result of the laws is to pressure businesses to hire, not by ability but by race, sex, ethnicity and national origin. Hiring lesser qualified people and others to do the job is part of the expense that goes into the cost of labor Worse, they end up hurting the blacks whom they were designed to pro tect, by pressuring employers to hire a cross section.

To be honest this sounds like the bigoted conservative's interpretation of any laws or measures that allow redress for discriminatory practices, regardless of their efficacy or actual practice. And also, again, we find that your concern for racial groups in lower socioeconomic status is applied oh-so-selectively and surgically only in cases where you are opposing programs that are actually aimed at helping people at the very bottom-- whether we're talking about discriminatory workplace practices or a more livable minimum wage.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced that it received 99,412 private sector workplace discrimination charges during fiscal year 2012, down slightly from the previous year. The year-end data also show that retaliation (37,836), race (33,512), and sex discrimination (30,356), which includes allegations of sexual harassment and pregnancy were the most frequently filed charges.

The most common type of complaint filed is for workplace retaliation, not for "failing to get a promotion due to being a minority" or similarly made-up examples.

 

[Benvolio]

What I wrote:

​

What changes would you like to see in the way of “tort reform?”

Most people who become plaintiffs in employment or tort cases have little money. You can't squeeze blood out of a turnip. So making the reviling party pay the other's legal expenses is a one way street. If the business loses it pays. If the plaintiff loses, tough luck trying to collect. The plaintiffs lawyer should have to pay the others expense. THAT would end frivolous suits.
The business creates the job, pays salaries, benefits, all expenses and bears the risk of failure. It should be allowed to hire the person it considers best suited without regard to race etc. We should end the right to discrimination suits, as well as the "harassment suits". End immigration to make jobs available without the coercion of the discrimination laws. Part of the saving would inurr to the employees. It would reduce the pressure to send jobs overseas.
The laws encouraging minorities to sue, objectively make them less desirable as employees. No one wants to hire someone likely to sue. Employees are better if they do not think they they can sue if something does not go their way.

 

[opinterph]

The EEOC is strongly biased against employers, …

And the police are strongly biased against criminals.

The purpose of the EEOC is to enforce federal laws relating to employment discrimination. If an employer adheres to those laws, the EEOC is biased against the employee who makes a false charge.

The most frequent complaint brought forward by employees during 2013 involved acts of retaliation by the employer.

The majority of EEOC lawsuits filed in 2013 involved discrimination against persons with physical disabilities and gender/pregnant women.

the laws … end up hurting the blacks whom they were designed to pro tect, by pressuring employers to hire a cross section.

Federal employment non-discrimination laws were designed to protect people of all races. Subject to applicant qualification (per job specification), an employer’s complement of workers should reasonably reflect the racial characteristics of the recruitment pool from which those workers are selected.

 

[xbuzzerx]

We should end the right to discrimination suits, as well as the "harassment suits". End immigration to make jobs available without the coercion of the discrimination laws. Part of the saving would inurr to the employees. It would reduce the pressure to send jobs overseas.

Wow--- you really don't believe individuals should have any rights at all, do you? At least not if they ever conflict with the prerogatives of corporatists.

 

[Benvolio]

Wow--- you really don't believe individuals should have any rights at all, do you? At least not if they ever conflict with the prerogatives of corporatists.

You believe the rights of the employee should be greater the employer, right? The employee can take a job, refuse a job, refuse a promotion or quit a job for a good reason, a bad reason or no reason at all. Why should the one who creates the job, pays the salary, and gets sued if the employee hurts someone, not have as many rights as the employee?

 

[xbuzzerx]

You believe the rights of the employee should be greater the employer, right? The employee can take a job, refuse a job, refuse a promotion or quit a job for a good reason, a bad reason or no reason at all. Why should the one who creates the job, pays the salary, and gets sued if the employee hurts someone, not have as many rights as the employee?

You value a dollar bill as inherently more important than the value of a human being. You don't even think workers should get to bargain as to the value of their own labor-- their time, effort and sweat. You also speak about jobs as though they're optional cosmetic surgeries and not something the overwhelming majority of people need to have in order to survive. You are the only one drawing this false choice between either the employee should have dominant power or the employer should. The employer has more power by default in any situation where his employee is living check to check or month to month-- which the huge majority of Americans do, because any action the employee might take which would jeopardize his job-- even if that action is within his rights or the law-- sets him on a much steeper uphill battle than the employer when it comes to dealing with the consequences of the termination.

 

[Benvolio]

You value a dollar bill as inherently more important than the value of a human being. You don't even think workers should get to bargain as to the value of their own labor-- their time, effort and sweat. You also speak about jobs as though they're optional cosmetic surgeries and not something the overwhelming majority of people need to have in order to survive. You are the only one drawing this false choice between either the employee should have dominant power or the employer should. The employer has more power by default in any situation where his employee is living check to check or month to month-- which the huge majority of Americans do, because any action the employee might take which would jeopardize his job-- even if that action is within his rights or the law-- sets him on a much steeper uphill battle than the employer when it comes to dealing with the consequences of the termination.

If jobs are important then why do democrats regard employers as the enemy? Why do they persist in imposing more and more burdens upon job creators. You want employers to create jobs, pay salaries and benefits, take the risks BUT at the same time you want them to be subservient to the emoployees and labor bosses. As I have said, the problem with union is that always go oo far. They cannot stop squeezing.
Review the recent threads on this forum about employee-employer relations. The liberals invariably express hostility to the job creators, and a total failure to see anything from the point of the job creator. No liberal ever has a good thing to say about corporations. Alas, that sme degree of hatred permeates the Cpngress and poisons most legislation. Remember it the next time you read of jobs or work being sent out of the country.

 

[xbuzzerx]

If jobs are important then why do democrats regard employers as the enemy?

We treat employers who feel that there is no social contract and that their ability to maintain fixed price points or profit margins supercedes their obligation to employ people in conditions that are reasonably safe and fairly compensated as "the enemy." And if you were at all sincere in your wish to see social services go the way of the dinosaur, you would as well, because it's an obtuse waste of everyone's time for you to say no one should depend on any tax-funded services and at the same time employers should get to pay utterly whatever they feel like paying, regardless of it being too low for people to live on.

 

[Benvolio]

We treat employers who feel that there is no social contract and that their ability to maintain fixed price points or profit margins supercedes their obligation to employ people in conditions that are reasonably safe and fairly compensated as "the enemy." And if you were at all sincere in your wish to see social services go the way of the dinosaur, you would as well, because it's an obtuse waste of everyone's time for you to say no one should depend on any tax-funded services and at the same time employers should get to pay utterly whatever they feel like paying, regardless of it being too low for people to live on.

Your system of squeezing the employer by the labor bosses and government until the employer is bankrupt is the worst system of all. You can never be satisfied, and no matter how well employees are paid it will never be enough. As it is, the US has the highest median household income, $51,171 in the world with three small exceptions. But your thinking is controlled by wrong stereotypes in which the country consists of 1% Simon Lagrees and 99% desperately poor people without enough to eat, but miraculously getting obese even as they starve. Stop the immigration and let wages rise.

 

[Kulindahr]

When unions posit the threat of a strike, all semblance of bargaining goes out the window. It is coercion, plain and simple.

If only one side is allowed coercion, there is no bargaining. That unions have the threat of a strike is what balances the equation.

 

[opinterph]

As it is, the US has the highest median household income, $51,171 in the world

US household median income in January 2000 was $56,101 and remained essentially stagnant from that point in time until the Great Recession, when it slid to its current level.


Chart: Median household incomes have collapsed since the recession (Washington Post Wonkblog; March 29, 2013)