Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 183
  1. #51
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Does it make you feel good to offer information overload?

    I had already visited that same site, and only found what I pointed out.

    How about the paragraph that applies, or are you talking out your ass again?

  2. #52
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607

  3. #53
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,421
    Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
    information overload

  4. #54
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    presumptuous and lazy, bad combo

  5. #55
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    information overload
    No, but have you seen how they define these terms? Legally, how do agreements of recruitment of people apply?

    Are people to be traded like slaves?

    Are people to be part of commerce like selling of slaves?

    Post #46:

    It doesn't address individuals. It addresses trade and commerce, or are you saying people are property...

  6. #56
    Veteran scott's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Post Count
    11,902
    No, but have you seen how they define these terms? Legally, how do agreements of recruitment of people apply?

    Are people to be traded like slaves?

    Are people to be part of commerce like selling of slaves?

    Post #46:

    It doesn't address individuals. It addresses trade and commerce, or are you saying people are property...
    No longer sure if serious

  7. #57
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    No longer sure if serious
    Maybe you can tell be what legal paragraph covers agreements concerning recruitment.

    Do you think people are a commodity or goods to be traded?

  8. #58
    my unders, my frgn whites pgardn's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    38,146
    Maybe you can tell be what legal paragraph covers agreements concerning recruitment.

    Do you think people are a commodity or goods to be traded?
    Uhhh... I think the people do the work that is sought, the work.
    In other words they do the labor, compe ion for the labor.
    How in Gods name are they considered property, goods, or a commodity?

  9. #59
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Uhhh... I think the people do the work that is sought, the work.
    In other words they do the labor, compe ion for the labor.
    How in Gods name are they considered property?
    That's my point.

    People are not property or goods to be traded, and that's why that paragraph of the law does not apply.

    Why is that so hard to comprehend?

    I ask for what law makes it illegal, and that's the paragraph I get.

  10. #60
    my unders, my frgn whites pgardn's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    38,146
    That's my point.

    People are not property or goods to be traded, and that's what that paragraph of the law does not apply.

    Why is that so hard to comprehend?

    I ask for what law makes it illegal, and that's the paragraph I get.
    So you are asking why it is considered illegal for executives to collude to pay the SAME wage to their workers?

  11. #61
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    So you are asking why it is considered illegal for executives to collude to pay the SAME wage to their workers?
    Effectively yes, I'm asking what law covers it.

  12. #62
    my unders, my frgn whites pgardn's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    38,146
    Effectively yes, I'm asking what law covers it.
    I am not a lawyer. But the fact that these cases have happened before and have been settled tells me something is wrong with employers colluding to lower wages. I guess I will find out after this thing is over with.

  13. #63
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    I am not a lawyer. But the fact that these cases have happened before and have been settled tells me something is wrong with employers colluding to lower wages. I guess I will find out after this thing is over with.
    The settled cases may have been a lower cost than taking it to court, or maybe those specific cases had something else going on. I read the October 24, 2013 Class Cert Order. The defendants do not deny the "collusion." They claim it was legal. I believe it is too. maybe unethical, but that was the environment when I was in the semiconductor industry. The Cert Order says it's been going on since the 80's, and I assume since the Class Action suit is only asking for compensation since... I think 2004... this is likely all the rather back they have emails that are sill available.

    The industry wasn't trying to suppress wages as much as trying to maintain a stable workforce. All sides in agreement didn't want personnel constantly moving around. This is why I was paid so well, so I wouldn't try to leave to another company.

    Can you show me the law that makes their agreement not to cold call recruit illegal?

  14. #64
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    Effectively yes, I'm asking what law covers it.
    Sherman An rust Act and it is a per se violation because it is an agreement between two independent firms to limit trade from a third party.

    Do you understand to agree to not to elicit trade is limiting trade? It's right at the core of what the law is about. I am not surprised you cannot see it though. Several tenants of indentured servitude seem okay with you.

  15. #65
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Sherman An rust Act and it is a per se violation because it is an agreement between two independent firms to limit trade from a third party.

    Do you understand to agree to not to elicit trade is limiting trade? It's right at the core of what the law is about. I am not surprised you cannot see it though. Several tenants of indentured servitude seem okay with you.
    So you do see people as slaves then. As a commodity to be traded.

    OK.

    I understand.

  16. #66
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    So you do see people as slaves then. As a commodity to be traded.

    OK.

    I understand.
    Well they pay them and they are allowed to go home. They do so willingly.

    Do you really not get that by agreeing to not try and solicit them they are keeping them indentured to one man? The obvious extension of this would be to agree to not hire any of their workers at all. When you are stuck in your job because all the other firms agree to not hire you then that is slavery.

    But please get mad because I understand that there is a labor market where people willingly participate. By all means continue trying to delude yourself.

  17. #67
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    And your viewpoint has no self benefit to you whatsoever.

    Let's say the Boeing plant down the road agrees with your boss to what these two guys did. That guy thinks that it doesn't matter that you don't have a degree, and is willing to hire you into an engineering position overseeing the maintenance of all their sheet metal lines. It pays twice as much as your current job. You are okay with your bosses agreeing to not make you the offer?

    If you are okay with that then you are a fool.

  18. #68
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    "The industry wasn't trying to suppress wages as much as trying to maintain a stable workforce"



    Tech companies' multi-year, ongoing campaign to increase greatly the H1b visa quota for cheaper foreign engineers destroys your silly statement.

    People get poached when the "free market" offers them higher wages elsewhere.

    Tech mgmt's and their investors' overwhelming objective is money, not tech, so they deny that overwhelming objective to their employees.

    Less money for employees, more money for mgmt, investors, aka, War On Employees.




    Last edited by boutons_deux; 04-02-2014 at 09:11 AM.

  19. #69
    my unders, my frgn whites pgardn's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    38,146

    The industry wasn't trying to suppress wages as much as trying to maintain a stable workforce. All sides in agreement didn't want personnel constantly moving around. This is why I was paid so well, so I wouldn't try to leave to another company.
    i have no idea what your situation was. But as fuzzy stated, if you could have been paid better because your labor was worth so much, then you screwed yourself. You were more important than you thought you were and your company was making a huge profit off of your labor. The guy standing next to you might not see it your way as he has debt and paid heavily for his degree. He put money into his skill and intellect so he could get the highest paying job. You don't care, he does.

  20. #70
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    i have no idea what your situation was. But as fuzzy stated, if you could have been paid better because your labor was worth so much, then you screwed yourself. You were more important than you thought you were and your company was making a huge profit off of your labor. The guy standing next to you might not see it your way as he has debt and paid heavily for his degree. He put money into his skill and intellect so he could get the highest paying job. You don't care, he does.
    Mobility wasn't a problem. I could apply to other places and be hired. They just agreed they wouldn't try to poach each others workers. My base pay in 2000 was $72k, and my benefits were great. I usually racked up six figures each year. Always maxed out my 401k and SS before Xmas, which was then like a great Xmas bonus.

    Again, my point is not if it is wright or wrong, but that nobody has been able to show me the law that makes the practice illegal. The statue/paragraph cited is about trade an commerce. It covers good. Not people. Now if their is something that covers people, nobody has come up with it yet.

    You guys can argue that the practice is wrong all you want, and I will agree with it. Many legal practices are wrong.

    Again, what paragraph of law makes it illegal to agree not to cold call recruit? They still use headhunter! I was approached several times in may career by headhunters, especially when I was an exhibitor at Semicon '97 in SF.

  21. #71
    Veteran scott's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Post Count
    11,902
    Again, my point is not if it is wright or wrong, but that nobody has been able to show me the law that makes the practice illegal. The statue/paragraph cited is about trade an commerce. It covers good. Not people. Now if their is something that covers people, nobody has come up with it yet.
    Put as simply as possible:

    You are a supplier of labor. When you enter into an employment agreement with another en y, you are supplying your good (labor) in exchange for another good (money, hopefully). When one en y exchanges a good or service for another good, service or thing of monetary value, we call that trade. The labor market is where suppliers of labor (people) trade with those who demand labor (employers). "People" aren't the good, their labor is their good, "people" are the supplier of said good.

  22. #72
    Veteran Th'Pusher's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    6,097
    Put as simply as possible:

    You are a supplier of labor. When you enter into an employment agreement with another en y, you are supplying your good (labor) in exchange for another good (money, hopefully). When one en y exchanges a good or service for another good, service or thing of monetary value, we call that trade. The labor market is where suppliers of labor (people) trade with those who demand labor (employers). "People" aren't the good, their labor is their good, "people" are the supplier of said good.
    I'll bet that after this very basic and clear explanation the er still won't be able to wrap his mind around the concept.

  23. #73
    my unders, my frgn whites pgardn's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    38,146
    Mobility wasn't a problem. I could apply to other places and be hired. .
    That was not my point.

    I understand you are looking for the exact section of an rust law this violates. I don't know. The point has been stated over and over and now you understand that your initial stance that it was good for you does not mean it is fair or good for others. When the case is over maybe you too can benefit from a class action suit. But you would turn the money down if you decided to participate to prove your point that it created a stable communist workplace.

    I salute you comrade for your adherence to the creed that compe ion is bad for the State... errr.. Company.

  24. #74
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Put as simply as possible:

    You are a supplier of labor. When you enter into an employment agreement with another en y, you are supplying your good (labor) in exchange for another good (money, hopefully). When one en y exchanges a good or service for another good, service or thing of monetary value, we call that trade. The labor market is where suppliers of labor (people) trade with those who demand labor (employers). "People" aren't the good, their labor is their good, "people" are the supplier of said good.
    Have to change the legal definition for that to fly.

    link: http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-105

    § 2-105. Definitions: Transferability; "Goods"; "Future" Goods; "Lot"; "Commercial Unit".

    (1) "Goods" means all things (including specially manufactured goods) which are movable at the time of identification to the contract for sale other than the money in which the price is to be paid, investment securities (Article 8) and things in action. "Goods" also includes the unborn young of animals and growing crops and other identified things attached to realty as described in the section on goods to be severed from realty (Section 2-107).

    (2) Goods must be both existing and identified before any interest in them can pass. Goods which are not both existing and identified are "future" goods. A purported present sale of future goods or of any interest therein operates as a contract to sell.

    (3) There may be a sale of a part interest in existing identified goods.

    (4) An undivided share in an identified bulk of fungible goods is sufficiently identified to be sold although the quan y of the bulk is not determined. Any agreed proportion of such a bulk or any quan y thereof agreed upon by number, weight or other measure may to the extent of the seller's interest in the bulk be sold to the buyer who then becomes an owner in common.

    (5) "Lot" means a parcel or a single article which is the subject matter of a separate sale or delivery, whether or not it is sufficient to perform the contract.

    (6) "Commercial unit" means such a unit of goods as by commercial usage is a single whole for purposes of sale and division of which materially impairs its character or value on the market or in use. A commercial unit may be a single article (as a machine) or a set of articles (as a suite of furniture or an assortment of sizes) or a quan y (as a bale, gross, or carload) or any other unit treated in use or in the relevant market as a single whole.

    Here is another:

    link: http://thelawdictionary.org/goods/

    In contracts. The term “goods” is not so wide as “chattels,” for it applies to inanimate objects, and does not Include animals or chattels real, as a lease for years of house or land, which “chattels” does include. Co. Litt. 118; St. Joseph Hydraulic Co. v.Wilson, 133 Ind. 405, 33 N. E. 113;Van Patten v. Leonard, 55 Iowa, 520, S N. W. 334; Putnam v. Westcott, 19 Johns. (N.Y.) 7G.In wills. In wills “goods” is nomen generalissimo, and, if there is nothing to limit it, will comprehend all the personal estate of the testator, as stocks, bonds, notes,money, plate, furniture, etc. Kendall v. Kendall, 4 Russ. 370; Chamberlain v. Western Transp. Co., 44 N. Y. 310, 4 Am. Rep. 081 ; Foxall v. McKenney, 9 Fed. Cas. 045; Raileyv. Duncan, 2 T. I!. Mon. (Ky.) 22; Keyser v. School Dist., 35 N. II. 483.

    Law Dictionary: What is GOODS? definition of GOODS (Black's Law Dictionary)

  25. #75
    Veteran scott's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Post Count
    11,902
    Have to change the legal definition for that to fly.

    link: http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-105

    § 2-105. Definitions: Transferability; "Goods"; "Future" Goods; "Lot"; "Commercial Unit".

    (1) "Goods" means all things (including specially manufactured goods) which are movable at the time of identification to the contract for sale other than the money in which the price is to be paid, investment securities (Article 8) and things in action. "Goods" also includes the unborn young of animals and growing crops and other identified things attached to realty as described in the section on goods to be severed from realty (Section 2-107).

    (2) Goods must be both existing and identified before any interest in them can pass. Goods which are not both existing and identified are "future" goods. A purported present sale of future goods or of any interest therein operates as a contract to sell.

    (3) There may be a sale of a part interest in existing identified goods.

    (4) An undivided share in an identified bulk of fungible goods is sufficiently identified to be sold although the quan y of the bulk is not determined. Any agreed proportion of such a bulk or any quan y thereof agreed upon by number, weight or other measure may to the extent of the seller's interest in the bulk be sold to the buyer who then becomes an owner in common.

    (5) "Lot" means a parcel or a single article which is the subject matter of a separate sale or delivery, whether or not it is sufficient to perform the contract.

    (6) "Commercial unit" means such a unit of goods as by commercial usage is a single whole for purposes of sale and division of which materially impairs its character or value on the market or in use. A commercial unit may be a single article (as a machine) or a set of articles (as a suite of furniture or an assortment of sizes) or a quan y (as a bale, gross, or carload) or any other unit treated in use or in the relevant market as a single whole.

    Here is another:

    link: http://thelawdictionary.org/goods/

    In contracts. The term “goods” is not so wide as “chattels,” for it applies to inanimate objects, and does not Include animals or chattels real, as a lease for years of house or land, which “chattels” does include. Co. Litt. 118; St. Joseph Hydraulic Co. v.Wilson, 133 Ind. 405, 33 N. E. 113;Van Patten v. Leonard, 55 Iowa, 520, S N. W. 334; Putnam v. Westcott, 19 Johns. (N.Y.) 7G.In wills. In wills “goods” is nomen generalissimo, and, if there is nothing to limit it, will comprehend all the personal estate of the testator, as stocks, bonds, notes,money, plate, furniture, etc. Kendall v. Kendall, 4 Russ. 370; Chamberlain v. Western Transp. Co., 44 N. Y. 310, 4 Am. Rep. 081 ; Foxall v. McKenney, 9 Fed. Cas. 045; Raileyv. Duncan, 2 T. I!. Mon. (Ky.) 22; Keyser v. School Dist., 35 N. II. 483.

    Law Dictionary: What is GOODS? definition of GOODS (Black's Law Dictionary)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goods_and_services

    You. Are really dumb.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •