Thursday, April 3, 2014

Lying Lester Heartily Endorses So-Called "Wage Theft"

Being conservative in matters of business, I Lying Lester believe that in the employee-employer relationship, the contract is sacrosanct. In deference to the Job Creators, however, adherence to said employee-employer contract should, in my strong opinion, be primarily a one-way street.

Specifically I'm thinking of recent accusations of the "theft" of contractually agreed upon wages. I say employees should shut the hell up if they have a suspicion that their employer is doctoring the timesheets, or by some other method not paying the employee for all hours worked.

I mean, these workers should be grateful to have a job at all! A business needs to make a profit to stay in business, and what with the unconstitutional minimum wage being forced upon them by greedy and pandering Liberals, Makers have to do what's necessary to ensure their businesses don't go under.

That is not a worry of the greedy employee, of course, which is why they cry foul when they aren't paid what the employer "agreed" to pay them. How about a little flexibility in gratitude for your job? It's the employer's responsibility, after all, to make sure they make enough profit to stay in business so the responsibility-free employee can collect their paycheck.

Frankly I find the entire "wage theft" concept to be bogus. It's like the lIberals are saying "damn those corporations for creating jobs, the gall of them!" It only makes sense that, if an employer looks at the books and determines that an employee's labor brought in less profit for them (during the pay-period in question), then HELL YES the employer should be able to adjust down the employee's wages.

By the way, if the employer looks at the books and determines that the employee's labor generated MORE profit than normal, then the wage of the employee should NOT be adjusted up. Remember what I said about the one-way street? I am inclined to think, however, that this wage-adjusting-based-on-profit-generated scenario should apply to low-skilled workers only, and not high-skilled workers such as myself.

If you're low-skilled you should be grateful simply to have a job and accept whatever wage the employer decides you're worth, IMO. You're obviously an idiot, or you wouldn't have a low-skill job, right? So I say the low-skilled workers should leave the determination of how much their labor is worth up to their betters and stop whining about "wage theft".

Keep the government bureaucrats out of it as well. And by that I mean get rid of the minimum wage and all the regulations that depress the profits of our job creators. Truly it sickens me when I see the USSA (United SOCIALIST States of America), being pushed by pRogressive Takers everywhere.

Allow our job creators to create jobs and quite piling on the burdens, "pRogressives"! Trust me (as someone who is considerably more intelligent that you), I know it would work. We need to get government out of the way and we'll all be better off.

Byline: This 6th LLIN commentary was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of untruth. LLIN-006.

18 comments:

  1. Cut the minimum wage in half and all our unemployment problems will evaporate. The job creators will immediately run out and hire an additional person for each minimum wage worker they already have. Unemployment will drop like a rock.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sure, that would be a good start, Jerry. But why not eliminate the minimum wage all together? Are there people desperate enough to work for $2 an hour? I think there might be. And any job is better than no job, is it not? If you're smart and have skills that are in demand, then you can negotiate for a higher wage. If you are dumb and don't do anything to better yourself? Well, then you deserve to live in poverty, I say.

    Let the free market decide. If that leads to more working poor who are homeless... so be it. And, if this ended up helping us deal with our human garbage problem, all the better. It's what Ayn Rand would have wanted. I, like Rand, surely have no compassion for the parasites who want to live on the government teat.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Speaking of living off the government teat. Perhaps we should eliminate salaries for politicians. They get more money from the wealth anyway. Then we could cut taxes for the rich even more.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You guys are missing one thing....unemployment insurance.

    To make your suggestions work unemployment payments must be eliminated. To get these lazy bastards off their asses and back in the workforce stop paying them to watch soap opera's and play video games.

    Do that and we are on the same page.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dervie? Why the hell would we start calling Lester Nation that? That's what he calls me (or, it's a variation on what he calls me). Anyway, Lester sent me a private email in which he called me "pond scum". So... why is Ed Degorio using this exact term to describe "Dervie" now? I deduce it is because Ed Degorio is a sock puppet of Lester's... and since Lester is banned from "Sleeping with the Devil", his sock puppet "Ed Degorio" is now also banned. No further comments from "Ed" will be published on my blog. As for this blog... I have nothing to say about that, as this blog belongs to Lester Nation and he can comment using any ID he wishes.

    In regards to Rusty's suggestion - I must strongly disagree. Simply because no money paid out under unemployment insurance goes to compensate lazy bastards for watching soap operas and playing video games. The money paid out is so lives aren't destroyed while an unemployed person searches for another job. Not only does this sick bastard (Rusty) wish to destroy people's lives when they lose their jobs through no fault of their own, he insults them with perposterous lies. Disgusting. Not something I'd normally do... but I'd laugh loudly and for an extended period of time if Rusty was fired for cause, did not qualify for unemployment insurance, lost everything and ended up in the street a destroyed man. I would LOL about that for many months... at least. Not continuously, of course. But I'd think about it a few times a day and LOL, for sure.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Well....I guess Sander's does not agree with Lying Lester or Jerry......that's fine,eveyone should be allowed their own opinion.

    I wonder why Lester allows him to post here but not on RN?

    ReplyDelete
  8. No rusty. We need unemployment insurance for normal people. How about we pay politicians one cent per hour. Then they will me collecting a salary and be employed.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Now Jerry...you cant have it both ways.....if you cut the minimum wage in half as you want to, what incentive would there be for someone to get off unemployment? Does'nt make sense Jerry.

    You and Lying Lester are on to something good ideas for reducing unemployment....your idea of cutting the minimum wage in half is far thinking and Lester's idea to create $2 an hour jobs is spot on...if implemented your ideas would greatly reduce unemployment.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Oh what the hell. Let's just outlaw government and let everyone work or die. I'm retired and got mine anyway. I'm set, so fuck 'em.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. De Sophisticis Elenchis:

    It appears this blog is built upon an edifice of logical fallacies of the ad hominem type - defined as circumstantial, irrelevant or abusive attacks upon a person that undermines the soundness of the argument. Group affiliations or the abilities of a person do not necessarily account for the origin of a person’s viewpoint; yet such attributes may be erroneously applied and held against subject person in an effort to discredit his or her viewpoint.

    If a person self-identifies as Conservative or Liberal, Democrat or Republican, Black or White, Christian, Jew, or Muslim, do these affiliations mean a person is necessarily bad and therefore unworthy of civil and humane treatment? I should hope not!

    Tu Quoque. The associations, background, and aspirations of a person may give you sufficient reason to be suspicious of his or her argument, but it does not give you sufficient reason to discount it.

    Oh, but he started it first” (non sequitur)!

    Perhaps it can be argued that the purpose of this blog is one of satire. Sometimes, however, a misplaced satire crosses a boundary - when it turns petty and abusive and ugly - and begins to violate all standards of civility and decorum. I believe this blog and these posts have crossed this boundary.

    You’ve had your fun. Time to move on.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Octo: ...a misplaced satire crosses a boundary - when it turns petty and abusive and ugly...

    I thank you for your defense of me (as usual, Octo springs into action when his buddy Lester is wronged). So, thanks for that, but you've got it wrong. This is my blog and only I, Lying Lester, shall determine if it shall be closed or not. And, as I mentioned earlier, I have actually been considering closing RNUSA and making this my primary blog. Anyway, it's a ridiculous argument that I'm being petty, abusive and ugly... toward MYSELF!

    BTW, the defense is especially appreciated given our recent spat, during which I said to Octo, "you fooled me once. I WON'T be fooled again". After that I thought the Lester/Octo friendship was done for sure. Now I guess I have no choice but to forgive Octo?

    "Aww shucks, RN. Just a little satire to lighten the mood", is what Octo said on RNUSA, but that isn't exactly an apology, is it? I mean, (again) I appreciate him springing to my defense, but why is satire OK when it's HIS satire, but it isn't OK when it's mine? (*if* this blog is indeed intended to be satirical).

    BTW, no defense of Will Hart? I heard there are quite a few posts on Dervo's blog that focus on Will and also cross the boundary of civility and decorum... could it be that Will Hart insulted Octo? I don't know, but is it possible the boundaries of civility and decorum are pushed back a tad when it is Octo who is the target of the bad behavior?

    Also, in regards to Ed Degorio being a sock puppet of mine... I can disprove Dervo's email theory by pointing out that I emailed him on 4/3/2014 at 7:58am (message: "Hey pond scum"). Then I commented on Shaw's blog at 8:40am (calling Dervo "pond scum"), and then, LASTLY Ed Degorio repeated my "pond scum" comment that he read on PE on Dervo's blog at 8:30am. Er... no, wait. 8:30 is before 8:40. How could Ed Degorio repeat what I said on PE ten minutes BEFORE I said it? Huh. Maybe Ed Degorio really is my sock puppet? I do notice that there were no denials from Ed in his comment. Good catch, Dervo!

    Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4GLTE smartphone.

    ReplyDelete
  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  15. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Restoring Comments deleted by Ed Degorio #2-5

    Ed Degorio [April 3, 2014 at 10:30 AM]

    We must start calling you Devie the Lying Pond Scum!

    Ed Degorio [April 4, 2014 at 4:13 AM]

    Like I care about your banning me.
    Who give a crap?
    Your blog is a Shit Hole anyway . BOTH of them.
    You Pond Scum POS!

    Ed Degorio [April 4, 2014 at 10:10 AM]

    I guess you caught us. I didn't think that you had the brains, you fooled me!

    Ed Degorio [April 4, 2014 at 11:41 AM]

    Good catch Devious


    Note: The first one (#2) has not been deleted as of this comment. I included it in case it should be deleted in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I repeat, Screw what "Octo" thinks or says!

    ReplyDelete

Piss off.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.