Discussion » Statements » Rosie's Corner » Do YOU approve of support and agree with this scenario?
RosieG

Do YOU approve of support and agree with this scenario?

Employee cannot collect unemployment if job is open
If employee goes back to work and gets the virus the employer is PROTECTED from any lawsuits.


What brilliant mind supports that abomination?  The majority senator in the usa. AT all costs he wants employers protected from the negative results of their demands. Held harmless in all cases.

The employee is choiceless. It is hopeless. You refuse to go back to a he**hole environment because you don't want to get ill, spread the diseases and maybe die. Geez why?

You get no unemployment money for that since a job was available and you did not go back to it.

Good job protecting the culprits the perps the evildoers. They protect each other and one another 24/7. It is a given.

That's the way it is in the amurrica of today.

Is it that way in your country too or are there actually politicians who care about the people and act on their behalf and don't always roll over for the rich and powerful? Anyone? Anywhere?

Posted - November 17, 2020
Tags : None

Responses


  • 34593
    Given that unemployment is paid by employers and the rate paid is based on the about of people drawing unemployment off the businesses account.  To tell the business it must continue to pay unemployment for an employee who refuses to work is not a proper idea.  

    IF the GOVERNMENT wants to pay that employee to stay home without charging the employers account then fine do what they want to.  But  otherwise as long as the employer is taking precautions to prevent infection the business should not be liable. 
      November 17, 2020 11:49 AM MST
    1

  • 7280
    Ok, so you are in favor of socialism if a particular program benefits you...
      November 17, 2020 2:38 PM MST
    1

  • 34593
    Again. Socialism is about WHO OWNS the means of production.  The government or private business/people. 

    Unemployment is not socialism.   Having social contract between government and the people is not socialism. It is the purpose in having a government.  
      November 17, 2020 2:44 PM MST
    0

  • 7280
    I thought the people fund the government---either by bonds or taxes.***And that is a far too simple a definition of socialism to hold a serious discussion. This post was edited by tom jackson at November 18, 2020 10:33 AM MST
      November 18, 2020 10:30 AM MST
    0

  • 34593
    It is the one basic element required to be considered a socialist government.   

      November 18, 2020 2:09 PM MST
    0

  • 7280
    For discussion purposes, that statement is misleading.
      November 18, 2020 3:13 PM MST
    0

  • 34593
    Key Takeaways: Socialism vs. Capitalism Socialism is an economic and political system under which the means of production are publicly owned. Production and consumer prices are controlled by the government to best meet the needs of the people.
    -------------
    • In a socialist economic model, the production of goods and services is either partially or fully regulated by the government; this is referred to as central planning, and the economic structure that is created is known as a planned economy or a command economy.
    • In a capitalist economy, property and businesses are owned and controlled by individuals.
    ----------------

    https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/glossary/capitalism-v-socialism/ 
    Ownership

    • Capitalism – Private businesses will be owned by private individuals/companies
    • Socialism – The state will own and control the main means of production. In some models of socialism, ownership would not be by the government but worker co-operatives.

    As I said state/collective control/ownership of the means of production is the basic tannate of socialism. 

      November 18, 2020 3:26 PM MST
    0

  • 7280
    Never heard of democratic socialism, huh?---like I said, far too simple a definition for a serious discussion.
      November 18, 2020 3:39 PM MST
    0

  • 34593
    Now why would you assume that? 
    https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/democratic-socialist-countries


    ..

    As I said state/collective control/ownership of the means of production is the basic tannate of socialism.





     This post was edited by my2cents at November 18, 2020 5:49 PM MST
      November 18, 2020 5:43 PM MST
    0

  • 7280
    Because if you had looked it up before I mentioned it, I would have expected your responses to me on this thread would have displayed at least some knowledge of the subject.
      November 19, 2020 5:44 PM MST
    0

  • 34593
    There is no change. No need to single it out as if it is different. 

    It is about elimination of the private owned businesses. That is the basic tenet of ALL versions of socialism. 

      November 19, 2020 6:35 PM MST
    0

  • 7280
    There are courses in college which cannot be taken without the professor's permission---that is to assure that everyone who wishes to participate in that class has the requisite basic knowledge (and displays it) so that the professor's and other students' time is not wasted by someone wanting to review what should be common knowledge and that a more meaningful and useful discussion of the subject can take place.

    For example, did you notice this sentence in the visual aid you posted?: The goal of democratic Socialism is to achieve socialist goals of equality while opposing socialist ideologies.

    If one thinks about that, one might better understand the situation that I am alluding to
     This post was edited by tom jackson at November 19, 2020 11:52 PM MST
      November 19, 2020 11:46 PM MST
    0

  • 113301
    :):):)
      November 18, 2020 2:31 AM MST
    0

  • 6023
    I agree with my2cents.

    As an example, my employer was forced to shut down various clinics and lay off over 100 people (out of slightly over 700).
    That was not our choice.  That was a state mandate.

    We had to pay over $200,000/month in unemployment for those layoffs.

    Now, of course if it was our choice - we should pay for it.
    But since it's the government's mandate - they should.
    There are actually court cases, where this is established between levels of government. 
    The federal government MUST fund any mandate that affects a state, or the state doesn't have to follow the mandate.
      November 17, 2020 1:08 PM MST
    2

  • 113301
    Thank for your reply Walt.
      November 18, 2020 2:32 AM MST
    0

  • 10683
    I doubt they had an pandemic in mind when they made those rules.  However, given the current situation, they need to be amended.

    You're right in saying that  the rich and powerful only care about money.
      November 17, 2020 2:54 PM MST
    1

  • 113301
    It is happening NOW due to the son of an itch moscow mitch. He INSISTS on it. For whatever stimulus package may be forthcoming He INSISTS that employers will be held harmless if the employees get the virus. It isn't a "they" of long ago. It is the son of an itch RIGHT NOW. Thank you for your reply  Shuhak. This post was edited by RosieG at November 18, 2020 9:52 AM MST
      November 18, 2020 2:33 AM MST
    1