Why is Social Justice Less Important Than...

[katherine2]

Brad:

So the formean that tried to rape you - he was a perfect and model worker habitually a victim of his bosses prior to him becoming foreman?

He never worked a day on the line. He was related to one of the big boys and hired as the foreman after he was kicked out of college. He’s dead now. (nothing I had anything to do with, Vern, in case you are wondering).

All bosses are bad and all workers are good? Is there some kind of good-to-bad switch that happens at promotion time?

No. Each should have their human dignity protected and repsected. Merit, not sexual orientation or desire to associate should be the basis on which workers are treated.

Also, if you fought communism, you should know better than promote some of its main tenants.

You’ve red-baited the wrong cookie. My little finger has done more to fight Communism that your whole body. Do you know who Msgr. Charles Owen Rice is? Do you know what ACTU is? Did you know Phil Murray and Walter Reuther? Been there with all of them.

You don’t know a thing about the Commies and I suspect very little about Catholic Social Teaching.

 

[katherine2]

vern humphrey:

Any person can sue in this country – the merits of the suit are a matter for the court to decide.

People have sued over a lot of crazy things, but you at least have to state what law is being violated. And by your silence its clear you can’t cite the law. Vern, quit while you are behind.

 

[katherine2]

StJeanneDArc:

We even joked that she may find a way to make the ADA apply to her because of her alcoholism.

.

ha, ha, ha. that very funny. you are a beautiful example of the catholic faith.

 

[StJeanneDArc]

katherine2:

ha, ha, ha. that very funny. you are a beautiful example of the catholic faith.

Did it occur to you that we were ridiculing the ADA, not this woman?

 

[vern_humphrey]

katherine2:

People have sued over a lot of crazy things, but you at least have to state what law is being violated. And by your silence its clear you can’t cite the law. Vern, quit while you are behind.

Dear Katherine,

You’re obviously thinking this is some other country. You can cite many reasons to sue – as long as you have a peg to hang your hat on, you can sue. It is the facts of the case that determine the outcome.

And you still beg the question – you expect us to accept that there SHOULD be a law specifically for gays. And you don’t explain why there shouldn’t be a law specifically for people with tatoos, purple hair, or people who are short, fat, ugly or bald.

 

[vern_humphrey]

StJeanneDArc:

Did it occur to you that we were ridiculing the ADA, not this woman?

This thread is not really about “Social Justice” or gay rights. It’s about creating a smoke screen to cover support for a pro-abortion agenda.

Therefore no matter what YOU say, it MUST be outrageous or wrong or politically-incorrect. Because if YOU win the debate, Katherine might have to face up to the reality of what she’s supporting.

 

[katherine2]

Lisa N:

First you have to understand that I am speaking from the perspective of working in a white collar world.

I’m sorry to hear that we blue collar folks don’t count.

The law perceives employees to be the weaker party against the employer and thus the law works to give them some benefit of the doubt and a number of protections. Also even though the aggrieved employee might think he/she is unable to bring legal action there are state boards and other government agencies that also help protect employees’ rights.

The law percevies employees to be the weaker party because WE are the weaker party. And no law gives the presumption of guilt to an accused employer. The burden of proof remains on the worker. And let me say that most of these laws, from the NLRA to the ADA which someone here mocked, were supported by the Catholic church.

Further since slavery has been outlawed for over a century, any employee is free to leave a situation that has become untenable and if you have been at all observant, a number of these groups have gotten together to sue their employers for such things as unpaid OT, racism, etc

And I can cite you the laws which prohibit an employer from discriminating on the basis of race or not paying overtime. yet another poster here says people just sue willy nilly and don’t even need a law prohibiting a practice.

I know in our business, terminating an employee, even one that is incompetent or even destructive is like defusing a bomb. We NEVER terminate anyone without a consultation with our attorney and her advice as to how to document and proceed with the employee’s departure.

Losing a job is not a nice thing.

i’ve know lost of the types of businessmen who thing “I’m the big ole boss. I run this company based on my gut. If I think a guy’s slacking, I fire him.”

You darn well should document the employee’s behavior.

I don’t believe in your world full of slacker employees but with no bosses that ever discriminate on non-merit factors. I think both exist. And given that both exist, if you are going to fire a accused slacker, you better document the reason why.

Trust me, I know the situation. Glowing performance reviews and then all of a sudden – termination. And not always because the employee was all that perfect, but because the bossman was too lazy to write a proper performance evaluation.

I don’t buy your trust the boss theory. Both sides have their rights and their obligations.

You know Katherine, now that I understand your age group, you don’t sound so out of touch. You are very much typical of the mentality of the people who lived through WWII,

Lisa N
And if it wasn’t for us you would eating saurkraut and putting your hand in the air right now.

 

[StJeanneDArc]

Katherine said:
*The law percevies employees to be the weaker party because WE are the weaker party. And no law gives the presumption of guilt to an accused employer. The burden of proof remains on the worker. And let me say that most of these laws, from the NLRA to the ADA which someone here mocked, were supported by the Catholic church. *

Katherine, I mocked the ADA, because it deserves mocking. The USCCB supported the ADA, not the Catholic Church. We are not bound by the political pronouncements of the USCCB, as much as you seem to wish otherwise. The USCCB is very fallible in it’s prudential support of various legislation. The most immediate example of its fallibility is welfare reform. The USCCB vigorously denounced that legislation, predicting a dramatic increase in child poverty. Well it turns out that the exact opposite happened–child poverty has been declining steadily since the reforms were enacted.

 

[vern_humphrey]

katherine2:

I’m sorry to hear that we blue collar folks don’t count. .

What a nasty, unchristian thing to say.

Do you feel she is somehow less human, or less caring because she worked a white collar job?

katherine2:

And if it wasn’t for us you would eating saurkraut and putting your hand in the air right now.

Katerine, I don’t think you personally landed on Omaha Beach.

 

[katherine2]

vern humphrey:

Katerine, I don’t think you personally landed on Omaha Beach.

If I had, it would have shortened the war.

But for your information, those tanks and ships didn’t grow on trees.

 

[Lisa_N]

katherine2:

I’m sorry to hear that we blue collar folks don’t count.

I don’t buy your trust the boss theory. Both sides have their rights and their obligations.
.

Katherine, there is absolutely no point in discussing anything with you. You morph statements out of breaded air. The above clip represent two statements that had absolutely nothing to do with my post nor were my words or even my intent. I said before you must be an incredible jumper because you can leap further to an erroneous conclusion than anyone I’ve ever met.

I said that I was speaking from MY experience in the WHITE COLLAR world. Unlike you, I do not pretend to be an expert in areas where I’ve never worked. I absolutely agreed that things may have been/are different at “the plant” than in an office building. But the reality is that more and more Americans work in service sector jobs and the issues are much different.

I think that indeed unions are good protection for employees who are working on an assembly line or doing some kind of work that may require stamina but not fine motor skills or high tech ability. In such cases given the economy, they probably couldn’t find other work for the same wages. But in today’s higher tech world, people are paid for skills and knowledge. Capable employees are competed for, prized and well treated because we know they could find another job tomorrow. OTOH some top of scale union man may not have that kind of freedom of movement. So again, I am speaking from an area where I know, not simply presuming that at every workplace the boss is trying to rape the women and people are chained to their station from dawn to dusk.

Frankly a skilled, smart, capable person doesn’t NEED to trust a boss. She can leave. It’s only the kind of jobs you are discussing where employer and employee seem so adversarial. I am sorry you had to experience that kind of environment. Perhaps you should write a book about your experiences.

Lisa N

 

[vern_humphrey]

katherine2:

If I had, it would have shortened the war…

No doubt – the Nazis would have won in a week.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

katherine2:

But for your information, those tanks and ships didn’t grow on trees.

I’ve carried, ridden in, and fought with such things. And believe me, it ain’t the same as holding a stateside job.

 

[katherine2]

vern humphrey:

No doubt – the Nazis would have won in a week.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif
.

you’re pushing it Vern. I could have had Goering for breakfast. Don’t think I havn’t been in a few alley fights and come out the winner.

 

[katherine2]

Lisa –

I don’t accept the theory that when a worker is faced with injustice, the Catholic response is to walk away from the job. Here is what Pope JohnPaul 2 says"

experience of history teaches that unions are an indispensable *element of social life, *especially in modern industrialized societies. Obviously, this does not mean that only industrial workers can set up associations of this type. Representatives of every profession can use them to ensure their own rights. Thus there are unions of agricultural workers and of white-collar workers.

 

[vern_humphrey]

katherine2:

you’re pushing it Vern. I could have had Goering for breakfast. Don’t think I havn’t been in a few alley fights and come out the winner.

So how come you failed to close the Falaise Pocket?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

I’ve been in combat, and I’ve worked an ordinary job – there’s no comparison.

 

[Brad]

katherine2:

You’ve red-baited the wrong cookie. My little finger has done more to fight Communism that your whole body. Do you know who Msgr. Charles Owen Rice is? Do you know what ACTU is? Did you know Phil Murray and Walter Reuther? Been there with all of them.

You don’t know a thing about the Commies and I suspect very little about Catholic Social Teaching.

Let’s see. You gave me one of the prized social encyclicals of the Church and I read and analyzed it. I hear Catholic Social Teaching from my newspaper, the USCCB, and daily and weekly homilies over and over and over again. I took it to heart. I work with a whole bunch of social workers on a volunteer basis to help the poor and needy. With a young family, I voulenteer my time and a portion of my income to many social causes. I don’t know much? That seems to be your tactic to silence, much like other liberals that I know - if it get’s too hot, let’s try to shut them up.

Why do you presume that every time someone disagrees with your opinion, you take it as an attack on your life experience? I’m not saying that you didn’t “fight” communism. I’m saying that many of your core beliefs are the underpinnings of Marxism. Why did you fight it so much if you like it?

 

[Brad]

In addition, I’ll say again - the Church has repeatedly condemned Socialism in it’s “social encyclicals”. Over and over again this ideology has been condemned.

 

[Lisa_N]

katherine2:

Lisa –

I don’t accept the theory that when a worker is faced with injustice, the Catholic response is to walk away from the job. Here is what Pope JohnPaul 2 says"

That’s all very nice Katherine but until Pope John Paul II becomes Labor Secretary, I doubt if his advice will be taken by the majority of today’s employers. I am talking about today’s reality where the majority of people are neither Catholic nor in unions. As I said, slavery is against the law and while I do understand that some people have few alternatives, many are able to simply move on.

Employees are “capital” in the service sector. A smart employer who wants to make money (and I assure you they do) will treat his employees decently because good people are hard to find. Companies that have a higher retention of their employees are more profitable than those with a revolving door where they are constantly retraining and using time of experienced employees to bring the newbies along.

Again will you please quit bringing “the shop” into the high rise office? It’s a DIFFERENT WORLD and there is a completely different dynamic. I will take your word for it that in “the shop” it’s the law of the jungle, so will you please give me some credit for understanding the environment in which I and the majority of Americans work now?

Lisa N

 

[Brad]

StJeanneDArc:

Katherine said:
*The law percevies employees to be the weaker party because WE are the weaker party. And no law gives the presumption of guilt to an accused employer. The burden of proof remains on the worker. And let me say that most of these laws, from the NLRA to the ADA which someone here mocked, were supported by the Catholic church. *

Katherine, I mocked the ADA, because it deserves mocking. The USCCB supported the ADA, not the Catholic Church. We are not bound by the political pronouncements of the USCCB, as much as you seem to wish otherwise. The USCCB is very fallible in it’s prudential support of various legislation. The most immediate example of its fallibility is welfare reform. The USCCB vigorously denounced that legislation, predicting a dramatic increase in child poverty. Well it turns out that the exact opposite happened–child poverty has been declining steadily since the reforms were enacted.

Yes - the USCCB has it’s politcal nose in far too much - it needs to drop it all and get focused on Jesus Christ.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Brad:

Yes - the USCCB has it’s politcal nose in far too much - it needs to drop it all and get focused on Jesus Christ.

From the USCCB voter’s guide:

“3. How will we address the tragic fact that more than 30,000 children die every day as a result of hunger, international debt and lack of development around the world?”

Hmmmm – how does “international debt” CAUSE children to die?