moll the retard said:
Oh please. Quit bitching about nothing. No-one's forcing you to work on the weekend. Any work you do then is taken voluntarily, and you will be reimbursed with perfectly decent wages.
You are worthless scum. A part of the problem: Capital and the collection of profit is more important than quality of life. Money IS quality of life.
The weekend is a core recreational
institution. We, the workers, deserve more money to work on the Sabbath day when we ought to be at home enjoying car racing on TV, going to the markets with our children and enjoying picnics in Centennial Park. Anyone who is in the position where work is required, or desired, on the weekends ought to be compensated for giving up their days of relaxation and recreation. This is your core fallacy. Without weekend penalty rates and so on, so forth, the wages paid are not "perfectly reasonable" but, rather, they are crude and disgraceful. You are treating all days as a tool of the bosses to rake in more profit, in the same way you treat the proletariat as a mere instrument to make more money. You do this because you are capitalist scum.
moll the capitalist scum said:
If you don't want to work for those wages get some more human capital and a better bargaining position or find a new job. If no-one is willing to work without weekend loading, then employers will be forced to bring it back anyway. And if they are willing, then obviously they want the job more than you and hence should get it.
Oh yes moll, because workchoices made it so
easy for the decent, kind working class to engage in bargaining with their bosses, to secure more money. I mean, the destruction of unfair dismissal laws and the stripping of power from unions was designed to
help the workers secure better conditions, wasn't it? You spout diarrhoea from your mouth like no other, sir! You are a disgraceful cancer not only upon NCAP, but you are a burden to a better society and you ought to be treated like the awful piece of tosh that you are. Under workchoices, it was impossible for workers to secure better conditions because the ruling class could simply dispose of their "human capital" and replace the honest worker with someone less headstrong who would be able to be bullied into accepting detestable working conditions that no worker ought to be in a position to accept. Herein lies the power of unions: Unions are designed to help the headstrong worker who, despite his personal ability, lacks the power to bargain for better conditions with his boss. But workchoices found the idea of a worker being able to bargain for fair working conditions to be offensive, and instead stripped unions of their power and denied workers any chance of securing a more comfortable, better reimbursed job.
moll said:
Furthermore, have you considered that, because they are not paying 50% extra for the two days of the weekend that they can now afford to give you about 15% extra on every single day of the week?
No I have not considered that moll because quite frankly, I know of no company who would be willing to do that. Instead of paying their profits to their employees, rewarding hard work and enabling workers to lead a comfortable, well earned lifestyle, companies would rather drive their profits into the ruling classes, further inflating an already porky bourgeoisie. Rewarding workers is not in the interests of unrestrained capitalism.
moll the uneducated said:
Well in that case it's also your democratic right to be unemployment.
It's your democratic right to go to school to improve those grammar skills, Mr. cancer.
moll the newfag said:
Also, If you think I'm a right-wing facist, you evidentally haven't listened to jennyfromdablock, Sylvester and Nolan talk about politics and economics. I'm a fucking socialist compared to them.
No I've been around for quite some time and have heard every vile capitalist argument that has spewed from the mouth of Messrs Zimmerman, Schroedinger, Simon, J. and the like.
