The sin of taking away someones livelyhood

[pnewton]

I notice no scripture passage has yet been quoted, so we have no context, except the historical one. Statements like the original post are exatly why we need and authoritive institution as opposed to everyone interpreting for themselves what every word and phrase in the Bible means, especially when isolated or paraphrased.

The principle embodied in the admonition against oppression of the poor must vary from culture to culture and from generation to generation. It is ridiculous to think, for example, that any employer who cans an employee should be excommunicated. It is, however, reasonable that Catholics pay what they believe to be fair wages and support legislation enforcing fair labor practices.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Let me say that the best unions are in right-to-work states.

Why? Because if workers don’t have to join the union as a condition of employment, then the union has to prove and keep proving that its services are worth the dues.

Where workers are forced to join, the union has no incentive to serve the membership.

 

[Orogeny]

I can think of a couple examples

• cutting jobs to save money when the company is not in bad financial shape

That is not taking away someone’s livelyhood. Nothing in that situation prevents the worker from finding another job. It may cause inconvenience, but finding another job takes care of the situation.

*taking something that someone needs in order to do their job.

As above, another job can be found or the needs replenished.

*being careless in construction and city planning, and affecting the landscape- this could take away a farmer’s livelihood.

That could happen even if city planning and construction are careful. After all, most land occupied by towns/cities was once farmland.

Bottom line is that I don’t see where anyone is guaranteed a specific job. In this day and age, moving from one area to another to find work, while possibly difficult, isn’t impossible. Work can be found.

Peace

Tim

 

[vern_humphrey]

I note that threads like this have a unique signature – “Is **somebody else **committing a sin,” not “am I committing a sin?”

And in ecomonic matters, that is heightened by the unspoken assumption that businessmen are a different species – they were somehow created to make jobs for the rest of us. They have to provide jobs, but we, who are just as smart and healthy, have no such obligation.

 

[didymus]

Okay, here’s a situation:

The last independent video store is going out of business.
This guy has been open since movies first came out on tape. He has survived all the changes in technology, managed to compete with Blockbusters and Netflix but now he can’t compete anymore because of bootleg DVDs and downloading.

So are those who buy bootleg DVDs and download guilty of depriving this man of his livelihood? I know the Bible says “deprive a worker of his wages” but that seems a bit unfair to the entrepreneur, especially since he has workers who will lose their wages when he loses his store.

Do customers have any obligations to businesses? If you’ve been going to Henry’s Hardware for years and a Home Depot opens up, is it right for you to “outsource” your business (i.e. Henry’s job) just to save a few buck?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Okay, here’s a situation:

The last independent video store is going out of business.
This guy has been open since movies first came out on tape. He has survived all the changes in technology, managed to compete with Blockbusters and Netflix but now he can’t compete anymore because of bootleg DVDs and downloading.

So are those who buy bootleg DVDs and download guilty of depriving this man of his livelihood? I know the Bible says “deprive a worker of his wages” but that seems a bit unfair to the entrepreneur, especially since he has workers who will lose their wages when he loses his store.

That’s called “stealing.” It would be no different if they burgled his store.

[Do customers have any obligations to businesses?

No. Why should I have an obligation to someone who is rich and who makes money off me and others like me?

If you’ve been going to Henry’s Hardware for years and a Home Depot opens up, is it right for you to “outsource” your business (i.e. Henry’s job) just to save a few buck?

What moral right does Henry have to charge me more than Home Depot? How am I obligated to deprive my children of warm winter coats just so Henry can overcharge me?
[/quote]

 

[boppaid]

Where in the Catechism am I obliged to “show solidarity with the workers?”

Where in the Catechism am I obliged to let my own children go hungry so someone else can get even more of my money when I buy the necessities of life?

Where in the Catechism am I obliged to pay money to crooked union bosses so I can keep my job?

No where. I don’t think that poster was saying it was a religious sin.

I was in Detroit during the Detroit Newspaper Strike. Where in the Catechism are I obliged to strew star-nails in parking lots, put bombs in newspaper vending machines, and hijack newspaper trucks (thereby stealing thousands of dollars from the independent contractors who buy and re-sell the newspapers)?

These actions were never supported by the union. Solidarity among workers is a good thing to make ure the workers aren’t taken advantage of. At least in my opinion. I personally believe they are useful in ensuring a decent quality of life for their workers who help make them successful. Of course, just my opinion.

 

[boppaid]

Let me say that the best unions are in right-to-work states.

Why? Because if workers don’t have to join the union as a condition of employment, then the union has to prove and keep proving that its services are worth the dues.

Where workers are forced to join, the union has no incentive to serve the membership.

This is good in theory. The only problem, though, is that in these states, the unions are very weak and do not have much power to be successful, thus the people in these states are paid MUCH lower than people doing the same work in union states. For example, in my husband’s field, his pay is $29/hour + health insurance. In a right-to-work state his wage is $16/hour + paying a portion of insurance.

I also wanted to add that this isn’t fair, as both workers do the same amount of hard work. The person in the right-to-work state is shorted quite a bit of money.

 

[vern_humphrey]

This is good in theory. The only problem, though, is that in these states, the unions are very weak and do not have much power to be successful,

That’s because the potential union members see the unions not as aids to improving their jobs, but as blood-suckers, taking their money and giving nothing in return.

thus the people in these states are paid MUCH lower than people doing the same work in union states. For example, in my husband’s field, his pay is $29/hour + health insurance. In a right-to-work state his wage is $16/hour + paying a portion of insurance.

And all that extra cost is passed on to the consumer, who pays a higher price for goods and services.

I also wanted to add that this isn’t fair, as both workers do the same amount of hard work. The person in the right-to-work state is shorted quite a bit of money.

Or rather the person in the union state is overpaid, and the rest of us, who buy the products his company produces at inflated prices are behing overcharged.

 

[pnewton]

I also wanted to add that this isn’t fair, as both workers do the same amount of hard work. The person in the right-to-work state is shorted quite a bit of money.

Or the other person is over-paid, depending on one’s point of view. I would always prefer the market to determine the value of wages. If wages are in artificially in excess of market value, unemployment and layoffs can result in a wage of $ 0.00/ an hour.

 

[vern_humphrey]

No where. I don’t think that poster was saying it was a religious sin.

What other kind of sin is there? Have the unions become God, and published their own Ten Commandments? Does Jackie Presser now sit at the right hand of God and judge the living and the dead?

These actions were never supported by the union.

Pull the other one – it’s got bells on it!

The hijackings were timed to match the start of the strike – and the people arrested were union members. The union members went into stores and threatened them, demanding they pull their ads from the papers – and the star nails were scattered in the parking lots of those who refused.

Solidarity among workers is a good thing to make ure the workers aren’t taken advantage of.

Taken advantage of by whom? The corrupt union bosses live high on the hog on worker’s dues.

At least in my opinion. I personally believe they are useful in ensuring a decent quality of life for their workers who help make them successful. Of course, just my opinion.

And even more useful in ensuring non-union members pay higher prices.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Or the other person is over-paid, depending on one’s point of view.

And as a result, the price of goods and services are higher. The general public pays for the union workers’ artificially-inflated wages.

I would always prefer the market to determine the value of wages. If wages are in artificially in excess of market value, unemployment and layoffs can result in a wage of $ 0.00/ an hour.

As people in the highly-unionized automobile industry are finding out. They cheated the rest of us and in the process killed the goose that laid the golden egg.

 

[DL82]

Hmm…it depends what you mean.

I know of no particular excommunication. There isn’t one for murder in general either, however. Only abortion and harming a cleric.

But the four sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance are:

1. Murder
2. Sodomy
3. Opression of the poor, the widow, the orphan, or the alien
   4. Defrauding the worker of his wages

The four sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance? What does this mean? Does this mean that nobody can be forgiven them, even by sacrament of reconciliation? Does it mean you can never do enough penance for them? I’m scared.

Particularly around [3], which I think just about everybody in the comfortable middle classes is in some way responsible for, at least by sin of omission, if not commission.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The four sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance? What does this mean? Does this mean that nobody can be forgiven them, even by sacrament of reconciliation? Does it mean you can never do enough penance for them? I’m scared.

Number 4 would apply to the Union when they hijacked the delivery trucks.

Particularly around [3], which I think just about everybody in the comfortable middle classes is in some way responsible for, at least by sin of omission, if not commission.

How are we guilty?

Let me suggest that by supporting things like the Great Society, which put the brakes on the rising prosperity of the lower socio-economic groups with the terrible addiction of welfare, we are indeed responsible for poverty. By tolerating bad schools – which are overwhelmingly in poor districts, we perpetuate their poverty. By clamoring for higher minimum wage, and pricing the lowest-skilled workers out of the job market, we drive the nail in their coffin.

 

[BobP123]

What would Jesus say? We all know the parable.

It’s found in Mat 20:1-16

“The kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard…‘Friend, I do you no wrong; did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage?’…So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”

 

[didymus]

That’s called “stealing.” It would be no different if they burgled his store.

I agree. Bootleggers usually like to think they’re just ripping off mega-corporations (if anyone).

No. Why should I have an obligation to someone who is rich and who makes money off me and others like me?

Just having a little fun there. Usually one hears about employers cruelly casting aside workers who have been with them for years and outsourcing their jobs.

Btw, as someone who made a marginal living running a used bookstore for five years before finally going glub-glub-glub I would take issue with the idea that all entrepreneurs are rich.

What moral right does Henry have to charge me more than Home Depot? How am I obligated to deprive my children of warm winter coats just so Henry can overcharge me?

What if you custom could make the difference for warm winter coats for Henry’s kids?

I wouldn’t say you have any moral obligation to Henry. But I still mourn the passing of the Henrys of the world.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Just having a little fun there. Usually one hears about employers cruelly casting aside workers who have been with them for years and outsourcing their jobs.

Often enough, employers fail to lay off soon enough – and as a result, more jobs are lost when the business goes bankrupt.

Btw, as someone who made a marginal living running a used bookstore for five years before finally going glub-glub-glub I would take issue with the idea that all entrepreneurs are rich.

But you agree if we had a Millionaires Club meeting, most of the members would be small entrepreneurs?

What if you custom could make the difference for warm winter coats for Henry’s kids?

Am I obligated to sacrifice my kids for his kids?

I wouldn’t say you have any moral obligation to Henry. But I still mourn the passing of the Henrys of the world.

There are lots of small business owners who do very well.

In fact, there’s a quasi-famous attack on Wal-Mart called “The High Cost of Low Prices.” It opens with a “Henry,” a small hardware store owner, selling out – can’t compete with Wal-mart. <sob, sob>

What they don’t tell you in the film is:

1. This particular Henry is the son of the original Henry, and isn’t nearly the hard-working businessman his father was.
2. He went broke before Wal-Mart opened.
3. The person who bought the business re-opened it as a hardware store and is making money on it.

 

[boppaid]

That’s because the potential union members see the unions not as aids to improving their jobs, but as blood-suckers, taking their money and giving nothing in return.

I get what you’re saying, but it’s simply not accurate. They are giving people in my husbands trade $10.00 more per hour in return plus better benefits and retirement (something else not offered to anyone in my husband’s trade in non-union states…believe me…we tried to find something as we wanted to move to a non-union state. We couldn’t afford to.)

And all that extra cost is passed on to the consumer, who pays a higher price for goods and services.

That may be true, but without the union my family cannot afford to pay even the lower price for goods and services.

Or rather the person in the union state is overpaid, and the rest of us, who buy the products his company produces at inflated prices are behing overcharged.

Whether it’s an overcharge or not is a matter of opinion. And the opinion rests on whether or not you think the workers deserve their pay scale. I see how hard my husband works, and I believe with all my heart that he, and others like him, deserve the higher wage, good benefits, and retirement fund.

 

[boppaid]

Or the other person is over-paid, depending on one’s point of view. I would always prefer the market to determine the value of wages. If wages are in artificially in excess of market value, unemployment and layoffs can result in a wage of $ 0.00/ an hour.

That is a good point. However, I don’t think $30/hour for skilled manual labor is overcharge. If the employers paid that willingly there would be no need for the union. However, as shown by the wages in right-to-work states, they do not pay that willingly. I guess it’s a matter on how much that labor is worth.

 

[boppaid]

What other kind of sin is there? Have the unions become God, and published their own Ten Commandments? Does Jackie Presser now sit at the right hand of God and judge the living and the dead?

That’s a little dramatic, I’d say. Whether or not something is a “sin” doesn’t mean it is right to do.

The hijackings were timed to match the start of the strike – and the people arrested were union members. The union members went into stores and threatened them, demanding they pull their ads from the papers – and the star nails were scattered in the parking lots of those who refused.

Yes, union members. But this was not endorsed by the union. Some priests do bad things…the Church doesn’t endorse it. Same thing here. Individual members do not always represent the intentions of the entire organization.

Taken advantage of by whom? The corrupt union bosses live high on the hog on worker’s dues.

I think you watch too many movies. Not to say it doesn’t happen, but my husband’s uncle was a union officer (I don’t think they’re referred to as boss irl) and I’d hardly call their lifestyle “high on the hog”. Upper middle class, but that’s from years of hard work with two incomes.