Subj : Re: Most memorable modern
To : Boraxman
From : Arelor
Date : Wed May 28 2025 05:47 am
Re: Re: Most memorable modern
By: Boraxman to Arelor on Wed May 28 2025 09:19 am
> And this is why the left wing extremists win.
>
> Because the other sides solution is to "avoid" and "move on". Eventually
> you
> run out of places to run to. You may as well just hand them Western
>
> civilisation to tear apart...
>
> When you constantly retreat, you LOSE. You are
> advocating for our own emisseration.
>
The fun part is I am an advocate of the stand-and-fight stance. Refusing to work for open virtual signalers is a stand-and-fight strategy. Trying to force your way into a company where nobody wants you is just silly. I much prefer to find a non-nonsense workplace I like to work in and make that company successful - which is actually working well for me - while woke companies deprive themselves of good employees.
Meanwhile woke companies might seem strong but they are running out of steam faster than you'd expect. This is very patent in the videogame industry because new generations of gamers are rejecting active indoctrination whereas politized companies won't change gears. This is leading to big budget projects worth hundreds of millions being declared flopped less than a month after release. The end result is that woke companies such as Ubisoft are getting quietly split into packages and sold quietly so nobody notices because then everybody would know they are official failures.
The only thing keeping half woke enterprises alive at this point is funding from the administration. If that were cut the whole sillyness would be over. Hell, one of the effects of the famous DODGE cuts was the termination of some South American woke journalism "agencies" because they could not pay employees without administrative funding. We are talking about agencies getting bankrupt in 48h.
> I think you have it backwards. It is the employer in the wrong. They are
> suddenly terminating a contract for reasons that have *nothing* to do with
> the contractual requirements. The employee certaintly has grounds to
> argue that the termination was unjust! All the state is doing, is
> ensuring that the termination of the contract is just, as would be the
> case in any other contractual dispute. To argue that the state
> shouldn'be be involved is absurd, as all contracts are valid because the
> state considers them valid. Thats why you can't be my slave, because such
> a contract is not valid.
>
Well, on principle, if one part of the contract has the right to terminate it unilaterally then it makes sense the other part also can. If I can quit the company with no need to justify myself then it makes sense the company needs no t justify itself for contract termination. The exception would be when - as happens with big business to business contracts - one of the parts takes a big upfront expense in order to initiate the contract, in which case the other part of the deal is required to cover the loses of the first contractor if they decide to back off.
And yeah there are lots of labor law but when I see the end results I am not thrilled by it. For starters, when firing people is hard then you don't hire people, specially if most candidates for job positions are likely to flop on you. Again, welcome to Spain. No wonder half the economy in Spain is estimated to be underground.
--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken
---
� Synchronet � Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
