Is bossnapping OK?

[Giz]

Morality survey: Is bossnapping OK?

So this poll/thread is a result of my incredulity at the results of the Guardian's poll on whether bossnapping is a protest too far, where 48% think it is fine.

I mean really? Holding people against their will - kidnapping - because they don't want to employ you anymore? When the heck did half the population start thinking that being cheesed off with someone gives you the right to kidnap them? (Ok, ok, I know Guardian readers are thankfully not representative of the population as a whole but it does have pretensions towards being a serious, quality newspaper…)




The poll (you may have to vote to see the result):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/poll/2009/apr/08/job-losses-protest



Background story from the Guardian:
The first Britons to be caught up in the spate of "bossnappings" in France were today released by their staff after being held captive overnight.
Three British managers, including one woman, and a French male colleague were detained at the factory in Bellegarde in the foothills of the French Alps when negotiations over terms of the plant's closure broke down yesterday.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/apr/08/bossnapping-france-scapa



Interested as to how the split comes out here...

[theprestige]

Bossnapping: Yet more evidence that the French are, in fact, jerks.

[Vermonter]

I think it's a huge step too far. That step involves going over a cliff. Kidnapping is a federal felony in the US. :eek:

[Miss_Kitt]

The only hesitation I had in answering the poll question is that "a step too far" is a gross understatement. It's about 15 steps too far!! It's not okay to kidnap anyone! It's not okay to slash their car tires, either. It's not okay to punch them in the face, or even to threaten to do so, over a job.

Employment needs to be voluntary. You work for an employer because you want to; they hire you / keep you on because they want to. There are mechanisms in place to protect people against arbitrary firings over things that have nothing to do with job performance (eg, your new boss only wants Mormons to work for him).

The sheer idiocy of workers in today's economic meltdown astounds me. Boeing's workers at the Omaha facility authorized a strike because, as one rep said at an interview, "It's our turn to get a slice of the pie." This, in one of the largest economic downturns in our nation's history...when plane orders are being cancelled, flights are being reduced by airlines and--hope this doesn't surprise anyone--there will be a few bankruptcies in the airline industry as the over-stocked providers winnow themselves down to a sustainable number. Boeing is issuing layoffs--and these guys want to strike because the contract offer doesn't have enough additional money?! People are living in a world far removed from reality.

France is deeply limited economically by the social support for labor unions. They literally have strikes that incapacitate one industry or another on an annual basis. They have a 35-hour work week, mandatory 4-week vacation (might be 5), generous sick leave, many holidays, etc. They also have a horrendous unemployment rate, especially among the young; and the largest employer in France is the government.

But I have digressed from my main point, which is that it's not okay to kidnap your boss--or anyone else--to force them to hire you / keep you in a job. If there isn't enough business to afford the current size workforce, there isn't enough business! No amount of threatening the bearer of the bad tidings is going to change that fact.

Some folks think that "companies" have vaults of money somewhere that "they" could give more of if they wanted to. It's simply not true, most companies operate on a fairly small margin.

Furthermore, the end does not justify the means. Reformat the question a little: Is it "okay" to kidnap your boss's children to make him keep you on the job? How about your neighbor's children?? It's really the same question. Is it okay to use force to make your economic demands, or not?

These guys are playing the same game as the Somalis, really. And they should be given as little sympathy.

Just my thoughts, MK

[Harpyja]

Here are the current results as of posting:

Is bossnapping ever justifiable?
48.3% Yes. Desperate times, desperate measures
51.7% No. Taking someone hostage is a step too far

Really, now?

[I Ratant]

I worked for a small company where the boss was directly involved in the future of the company, but all the others I've worked for, any locally available boss was quite removed from the company's decision process so that interfering with him would accomplish nothing relative to the overall policies of the company other than create an opening for another boss to come in and replace him.
And "holding a hostage" is many steps a graver crime than just stupid!

[theprestige]

I'd like to see one of the "pro" voters justify their vote...

[plumjam]

Presumably the bosses will be getting paid double time for those periods during which their employees incarcerate them; so what are they complaining about?

[Beerina]

Morality survey: Is bossnapping OK?

So this poll/thread is a result of my incredulity at the results of the Guardian's poll on whether bossnapping is a protest too far, where 48% think it is fine.

I mean really? Holding people against their will - kidnapping - because they don't want to employ you anymore?


Well, you listen to power-hungry politicians who tell you that you're the center of reality, so all laws should bend to you, for several generations, this is the "ethics" that evolves.


See, what wins elections is "it's not your fault you're at the whims of the winds". What wins elections is "they're evil and out to get you and don't care...but fortunately I carevoteforme", with the attendent creation of an ethics in the mind that it's therefore Ok to force businessmen to hire you, or not fire you unless you repeatedly murder fellow employees, with a 6 months paid vacation while the investigation occurs, and only then if the business can ensure your family is taken care of and has some place to go and food to eat. Since it's all their fault, and you are just a helpless child in their vicious business world, anything goes.



Unless someone else has a better explanation. :)

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

Bossnapping: Yet more evidence that the French are, in fact, jerks.



Jeffrey Dahmer: Yet more evidence that Americans are cannibals.


As to the original post, they should be treated as any hostage taker and dealt with accordingly. If they do not peacefully surrender in a timely manner, send in a hostage rescue team and bring the kidnappers out in bodybags.

[cj.23]

I'd like to see one of the "pro" voters justify their vote...

I felt it was more humane than assassinating them. :)

cj x

[shadron]

I think it's a huge step too far. That step involves going over a cliff. Kidnapping is a federal felony in the US. :eek:

Indeed.


Following the highly publicized 1932 Lindbergh kidnapping (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindbergh_kidnapping), Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Congress) authorized the FBI to investigate kidnapping at a time when the Bureau was expanding in size and authority. The fact that a kidnapped victim may have been taken across state lines brings the crime within the ambit of federal criminal law. The Bureau made kidnap for ransom a special priority, and continues to do so today. It pursues kidnap cases ferociously; agents who have rescued kidnap victims have been known to describe these rescues as personal high points of their careers.
There are several deterrents to kidnapping in the United States of America. Among these are:


The extreme logistical challenges involved in successfully exchanging the money for the return of the victim without being apprehended or surveiled.
Harsh punishment. Convicted kidnappers can expect to face lengthy prison terms. If a victim is brought across state lines, federal charges can be brought as well.
Good cooperation and information sharing between law enforcement agencies, and tools for spreading information to the public (such as the AMBER Alert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMBER_Alert) system.)

The harsh sentences imposed and the poor risk-to-benefit ratio compared with other crimes have caused kidnap for ransom virtually to die out in the United States. One notorious failed example of kidnap for ransom was the Chowchilla bus kidnapping (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chowchilla,_California#1976_bus_kidnapping), in which 26 children were abducted with the intention of bringing in a $5 million ransom.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping#cite_note-1) Kidnappings for profit that do occur in or into the United States today are often connected to other ongoing criminal activity, such as human trafficking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking).

[cj.23]

France is deeply limited economically by the social support for labor unions. They literally have strikes that incapacitate one industry or another on an annual basis. They have a 35-hour work week, mandatory 4-week vacation (might be 5), generous sick leave, many holidays, etc.

France is actually doing extremely well economically though compared with Britain and the USA? And these are the normal working conditions in almost every civilized nation - "The average leave and public holiday entitlements across all EU states is 34 days. The UK and Netherlands provide just 28 days off while Ireland gives 29. At the other extreme, Greece, Austria, and Finland provide the most time off - 37, 38 and 39 days respectively." This is paid holiday - paid bereavement, sickness and maternity leave are in addition. source: http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=106596 Most of these countries are performing well enough economically, compared to the USA and Japan? Dunno.

Why how much paid holiday is the compulsory minimum in the states? Is it less than 28 days???

cj x

[tomwaits]

"compulsory minimum"? Well, I get 8 paid holidays that are not considered PTO's, so it must be equal or less than 8. However, the company I work for gives me 11 PTO's for this year.

[fuelair]

Presumably the bosses will be getting paid double time for those periods during which their employees incarcerate them; so what are they complaining about?
All I can say about that is that if I am a boss smart enough to stay armed(but never obvious about it) and am kidnapped the result for the kidnappers will not go well. Especially since kidnapping IS a federal offense here - and I can quite easily and successfully argue that if my employees were insane or desperate enough to kidnap me/hold me hostage then I can legally be in fear of my life and am free to defend myself.

[aerosolben]

Why how much paid holiday is the compulsory minimum in the states? Is it less than 28 days???
There is no compulsory minimum in the states. I'd guess the standard for PTO is 2 weeks.

[Furcifer]

All I can say about that is that if I am a boss smart enough to stay armed(but never obvious about it) and am kidnapped the result for the kidnappers will not go well. Especially since kidnapping IS a federal offense here - and I can quite easily and successfully argue that if my employees were insane or desperate enough to kidnap me/hold me hostage then I can legally be in fear of my life and am free to defend myself.

wow, you really value your free time :rolleyes:

I worry about statements like this. Kids, not having the same reasoning skills as an adult might see this as "If some teacher is going to try and keep me here in detention against my will I'm blasting my way out"

Being inconvienced by a distraught or mentally unstable person is no reason for advocating lethal force.

@fuelair- I didn't read the OP as the person was armed, if they were armed I would advocate lethal force as you did.

[fuelair]

wow, you really value your free time :rolleyes:

I worry about statements like this. Kids, not having the same reasoning skills as an adult might see this as "If some teacher is going to try and keep me here in detention against my will I'm blasting my way out"

Being inconvienced by a distraught or mentally unstable person is no reason for advocating lethal force.

@fuelair- I didn't read the OP as the person was armed, if they were armed I would advocate lethal force as you did. My impression is that it was a group, not one person. Groups have a way of becoming mobs. I do not plan to die or be injured because someone else is distraught - unless the nature of the distraught leads me to CHOOSE to put myself in danger.

[Fnord]

Kidnapping is a crime. Being "downsized" is not.

But that may not be the case in France.

:rolleyes:

[Giz]

Here are the current results as of posting:

Is bossnapping ever justifiable?
48.3% Yes. Desperate times, desperate measures
51.7% No. Taking someone hostage is a step too far

Really, now?

Thankfully the JREF forumites seem to be more reasonable!

Would still like to see a serious defence of it by one of the 4 'yes' voters...

[cwalner]

Why how much paid holiday is the compulsory minimum in the states? Is it less than 28 days???

cj x

My company gives new hires 17 days (7 holiday and 10 vacation). Having 10 years with the company I am at max time off of 27 (7 holiday and 20 vacation)

[TraneWreck]

Here's a "serious" defense: It's a mostly harmless publicity stunt. The boss isn't going to harmed, he isn't a hostage in any real sense, it's just a way to spice up the protest.

I was in Paris a few years ago when they were having one of their endless strikes. They had a protest march down the Champs Elysees. The protesters were smiling and playing music and giving food and drinks to the officers policing the activity. It wasn't like a protest in the US, with rubber bullets and tear gas, it was a national game, of sorts.

I think the poll is too vague. Actually holding the boss hostage under the threat of some harm is always unacceptible, but what's going on in most of these cases is just theatre.

[Puppycow]

How is this actually handled by the justice system in France? Do bossnappers face any serious legal consequences?

I assume it would not happen very often if it was treated as a serious felony that could land you in prison for many years. The identities of the culprits are known.

[fuelair]

Here's a "serious" defense: It's a mostly harmless publicity stunt. The boss isn't going to harmed, he isn't a hostage in any real sense, it's just a way to spice up the protest.

I was in Paris a few years ago when they were having one of their endless strikes. They had a protest march down the Champs Elysees. The protesters were smiling and playing music and giving food and drinks to the officers policing the activity. It wasn't like a protest in the US, with rubber bullets and tear gas, it was a national game, of sorts.

I think the poll is too vague. Actually holding the boss hostage under the threat of some harm is always unacceptible, but what's going on in most of these cases is just theatre.
Assuming the boss is one of the actors by choice, fine.

[theprestige]

Here's a "serious" defense: It's a mostly harmless publicity stunt. The boss isn't going to harmed, he isn't a hostage in any real sense, it's just a way to spice up the protest.
So the boss can leave any time he wants, then?

I was in Paris a few years ago when they were having one of their endless strikes. They had a protest march down the Champs Elysees. The protesters were smiling and playing music and giving food and drinks to the officers policing the activity. It wasn't like a protest in the US, with rubber bullets and tear gas, it was a national game, of sorts.
Peaceful protests happen all the time in the US. Conversely, France has had many protests in recent years that have turned disturbingly violent and destructive. You might want to reconsider your stereotypes.

[TraneWreck]

Assuming the boss is one of the actors by choice, fine.

Even if they aren't, it's not that big of a deal. They just sit in their office overnight and drink coffee with a few of their workers.

There has to be some perspective to these things. I'm sure the boss didn't give them the "ok" to hold them hostage, but it's a tradition with a set of rules and guidelines. If you can find me an example of someone being harmed any more seriously than losing some sleep, I might be more drawn to the horrified reactions in this thread.

[TraneWreck]

So the boss can leave any time he wants, then?


You're just being silly. Of course they're being "held," but it isn't that serious. No one gets hurt, and the boss goes back to work with the employees. If it such a horrific activity, one would imagine some sort of armed guard or national response, but the bosses just sit in a room and munch some croissant for the night.


Peaceful protests happen all the time in the US. Conversely, France has had many protests in recent years that have turned disturbingly violent and destructive. You might want to reconsider your stereotypes.

Sure, not all protests in America are violent, and not all protests in France are peaceful. That's why you have to judge the activities independently. "Kidnapping" in this sense is very different from what the Somali pirates are doing right now.

I was simply adding some context. There is a long tradition of strikes and protests in France that are handled quite calmly. This doesn't mean that everything is peaceful, but it might help temper some of the outrage over the word "kidnap."

[quixotecoyote]

kidnap isn't appropriate anyway, since it requires moving the victim to another location. This would be unlawful imprisonment or somesuch.

[Furcifer]

My impression is that it was a group, not one person. Groups have a way of becoming mobs. I do not plan to die or be injured because someone else is distraught - unless the nature of the distraught leads me to CHOOSE to put myself in danger.

A group? Oh man you'd be so screwed. All they would do is say they feared for their lives because their supervisor carried a concealed weapon to work all the time.

A supervisor carrying a concealed weapon to work is about the only way I can legitimize kidnapping them. If I had a group of people I would be even more justified.

[theprestige]

You're just being silly. Of course they're being "held," but it isn't that serious. No one gets hurt, and the boss goes back to work with the employees. If it such a horrific activity, one would imagine some sort of armed guard or national response, but the bosses just sit in a room and munch some croissant for the night.
Ah. I get it now. It's one of those compulsory midnight tea parties where you get beaten up if you try to leave early.

If these little soirees are so awsome, how come the manager and his employees don't hold them every night? How come the manager doesn't lock the front doors once a week or so, and insist that his staff spend the night in the office with him, sucking down workplace coffee, eating stale croissants, and wishing they were at home in their beds asleep with their loved ones?

Protip: Because it's actually not very awsome at all. Which is exactly why we're against it.

[ponderingturtle]

France is actually doing extremely well economically though compared with Britain and the USA? And these are the normal working conditions in almost every civilized nation - "The average leave and public holiday entitlements across all EU states is 34 days. The UK and Netherlands provide just 28 days off while Ireland gives 29. At the other extreme, Greece, Austria, and Finland provide the most time off - 37, 38 and 39 days respectively." This is paid holiday - paid bereavement, sickness and maternity leave are in addition. source: http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=106596 Most of these countries are performing well enough economically, compared to the USA and Japan? Dunno.

Why how much paid holiday is the compulsory minimum in the states? Is it less than 28 days???

cj x

At my old job I had a week off. Holidays were normal but you got paid more.

[dudalb]

I wonder if this was being done by someone on the right if Trainwreck would be just as understanding.
Then there is the factor that if people get away with one thing, the next time..or the time after that...they will try to get away with something more radical.

[ponderingturtle]

Here's a "serious" defense: It's a mostly harmless publicity stunt. The boss isn't going to harmed, he isn't a hostage in any real sense, it's just a way to spice up the protest.


He is a hostage in the real sense. Unless you have very specific legal status you any forceably holding someone against their will is kidnapping. It is entirely possible for EMT's to get into trouble for taking sick people to the hospital for kidnapping if they did not want to go.

[Fnord]

Why how much paid holiday is the compulsory minimum in the states? Is it less than 28 days???

Compulsory paid holidays? D'you mean as in, "Required by law"? I don't think there are any. All the holidays I've ever been awarded seem to have been at the discretion of my employers. Then again, I've worked so long for this employer that I accrue about 6 weeks of discretionary vacation time each year (a little over 240 hours per year).

[ponderingturtle]

Even if they aren't, it's not that big of a deal. They just sit in their office overnight and drink coffee with a few of their workers.


It is legally kidnapping though. When do you consider it forceably holding someone against their will kidnapping or not?

[quixotecoyote]

It is legally kidnapping though. When do you consider it forceably holding someone against their will kidnapping or not?

As I've said before, once in this thread and once in the other, no.

Under almost all definitions kidnapping requires the victim be transported from one location to another. Being held in the same building you already were in is not kidnapping.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Kidnapping

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

If they weren't armed why wouldn't you just say get the hell out of the way and walk out the door?

[brodski]

It is legally kidnapping though. When do you consider it forceably holding someone against their will kidnapping or not?

I suspect that it would not be "kidnapping" as that implies abduction, rather you're looking at a matter of "false imprisonment" (the French equivalent anyway), it's a bit like the difference between robbery and theft, it doesn't excuse it though.

[ponderingturtle]

As I've said before, once in this thread and once in the other, no.

Under almost all definitions kidnapping requires the victim be transported from one location to another. Being held in the same building you already were in is not kidnapping.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Kidnapping

See

(a) Whoever unlawfully seizes, confines, inveigles, decoys,
kidnaps, abducts, or carries away and holds for ransom or reward or
otherwise any person, except in the case of a minor by the parent
thereof, when -
(1) the person is willfully transported in interstate or
foreign commerce, regardless of whether the person was alive when
transported across a State boundary if the person was alive when
the transportation began;
(2) any such act against the person is done within the special
maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States;
(3) any such act against the person is done within the special
aircraft jurisdiction of the United States as defined in section
46501 of title 49;
(4) the person is a foreign official, an internationally
protected person, or an official guest as those terms are defined
in section 1116(b) of this title; or
(5) the person is among those officers and employees described
in section 1114 of this title and any such act against the person
is done while the person is engaged in, or on account of, the
performance of official duties,

shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of years or for life
and, if the death of any person results, shall be punished by death
or life imprisonment.


No specific provision in federal law to say that you have to transport someone instead of just holding them against their will.

link (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/55/sections/section_1201.html)

[theprestige]

If they weren't armed why wouldn't you just say get the hell out of the way and walk out the door?
According to Tranewreck, it's because it's fun to hang out at the office all night with your co-workers^H^H^Ha bunch of people you just laid off, drinking coffee and eating croissants!

[quixotecoyote]

See



No specific provision in federal law to say that you have to transport someone instead of just holding them against their will.

link (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/55/sections/section_1201.html)

That definition looks like it only applieswhen -
(1) the person is willfully transported in interstate or
foreign commerce, regardless of whether the person was alive when
transported across a State boundary if the person was alive when
the transportation began;

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

According to Tranewreck, it's because it's fun to hang out at the office all night with your co-workers^H^H^Ha bunch of people you just laid off, drinking coffee and eating croissants!



I think I'd start punching people if they told me I had to stay at work all night. No, I'd definitely start punching.

[theprestige]

I think I'd start punching people if they told me I had to stay at work all night. No, I'd definitely start punching.
This is because you're not happy fun times discotheque like the French.

[dudalb]

I would love to see somebody hold their boss against their will and when brought into court plead "IT was only a Publicity Stunt".

[plumjam]

I have a former boss of mine chained up in a kennel outside. He really doesn't mind; he says he prefers the Spanish climate to that of the UK.

[Rasmus]

I think I'd start punching people if they told me I had to stay at work all night. No, I'd definitely start punching.

I usually just end up saying things like "Yes, boss, it'll be done tomorrow morning."

[cj.23]

I have a former boss of mine chained up in a kennel outside. He really doesn't mind; he says he prefers the Spanish climate to that of the UK.


One of mine was kinky like that as well. Nice lass though. :)
cj x

[geni]

Morality? Bosses of a PLC? What does morality have to do with anything?

PLCs have a legal duty to act only in their self interest which effectivly requires you do the same when dealing with them.

So the question would boil down to some risk assements and a cost/benift analysis.

[WildCat]

That definition looks like it only applies
That only makes it a Federal offense as opposed to a state offense. It's still kidnapping according to state laws

[WildCat]

Man attacks couple in their home, rapes the woman. Never takes the victims out of their own apartment. Sentenced to 40 years for rape an 10 more years for second degree kidnapping: http://www.ktbs.com/news/Man-sentenced-to-50-years-in-prison-for-attack-on-newlywed-couple-29135/

You don't have to take them anywhere for it to be kidnapping, preventing them from leaving is enough.

[WildCat]

At any rate, the French totally copied Dolly Parton:

http://home.mindspring.com/~dylanaverysucksballs/9to5.jpg

[quixotecoyote]

That only makes it a Federal offense as opposed to a state offense. It's still kidnapping according to state laws

I'd like to see the state laws you're referring to before I comment one way or the other on that.

[WildCat]

I'd like to see the state laws you're referring to before I comment one way or the other on that.
I already linked to one such case.

[quixotecoyote]

I already linked to one such case.

You linked to a guy pleading down to kidnapping.

I'd much rather see the actual state law than an example of a plea bargain which may or may not reflect what he could have been convicted of had the case gone to trial.

[WildCat]

You linked to a guy pleading down to kidnapping.

I'd much rather see the actual state law than an example of a plea bargain which may or may not reflect what he could have been convicted of had the case gone to trial.
I chose Louisiana, since it is the closest in the US to French law.


Louisiana Aggravated Kidnapping Law
LA R.S. 14:44
Aggravated kidnapping is the doing of any of the following acts with the intent thereby to force the victim, or some other person, to give up anything of apparent present or prospective value, or to grant any advantage or immunity, in order to secure a release of the person under the offender's actual or apparent control:
(1) The forcible seizing and carrying of any person from one place to another; or
(2) The enticing or persuading of any person to go from one place to another; or
(3) The imprisoning or forcible secreting of any person.
Whoever commits the crime of aggravated kidnapping shall be punished by life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.
Note that holding the boss against his will qualifies under (3).

Source: http://www.babcockfirm.com/statutes/aggkidnapping.html

[quixotecoyote]

I chose Louisiana, since it is the closest in the US to French law.


Note that holding the boss against his will qualifies under (3).

Source: http://www.babcockfirm.com/statutes/aggkidnapping.html

Fair enough.

Incidently, number 2 is a bit odd, wouldn't you say.

[stilicho]

Compulsory paid holidays? D'you mean as in, "Required by law"? I don't think there are any.

Is that in the US? I didn't think there was a Western democracy left that didn't have mandatory vacation time. Looking at some of the information it appears you might be right though.

I have mandatory vacation time of 125 hours a year and many employers supply more through exchange of bonus for time off (and vice versa).

[WildCat]

Fair enough.

Incidently, number 2 is a bit odd, wouldn't you say.
Not when you account for the intent requirement: "with the intent thereby to force the victim, or some other person, to give up anything of apparent present or prospective value, or to grant any advantage or immunity, in order to secure a release of the person under the offender's actual or apparent control". So luring someone to your used car lot isn't kidnapping unless you force them to buy a car.

[WildCat]

Is that in the US? I didn't think there was a Western democracy left that didn't have mandatory vacation time. Looking at some of the information it appears you might be right though.

I have mandatory vacation time of 125 hours a year and many employers supply more through exchange of bonus for time off (and vice versa).
I never heard of mandatory vacation time in the US. I suppose there could be a state that requires it that I'm not aware of, but there's certainly no federal requirement.

[rwguinn]

Is that in the US? I didn't think there was a Western democracy left that didn't have mandatory vacation time. Looking at some of the information it appears you might be right though.

I have mandatory vacation time of 125 hours a year and many employers supply more through exchange of bonus for time off (and vice versa).
I get none. Unless I can afford to take the time off and don't mind not getting paid...
My choice, however

[ponderingturtle]

That definition looks like it only applies

That seems to be not an exemption for when people die, the criminals still committed a crime. If it was what you ment, then kidnapping would only be a federal crime if a boarder was crossed.

[ponderingturtle]

Is that in the US? I didn't think there was a Western democracy left that didn't have mandatory vacation time. Looking at some of the information it appears you might be right though.

I have mandatory vacation time of 125 hours a year and many employers supply more through exchange of bonus for time off (and vice versa).

There are federal holidays were you either get the day off, or paid extra for working.

Now many jobs give vacation time, I have federal holidays, 2 weeks vacation, and personal/sick days that together would add up to over 125 hours.

[pchams]

Presumably the bosses will be getting paid double time for those periods during which their employees incarcerate them; so what are they complaining about?
Here's wishing you the best on your incarceration, when you advance to that point ;)

[fuelair]

That seems to be not an exemption for when people die, the criminals still committed a crime. If it was what you ment, then kidnapping would only be a federal crime if a boarder was crossed.And a cross boarder is not to be laughed at. Might just hit you!!

[luchog]

So this poll/thread is a result of my incredulity at the results of the Guardian's poll on whether bossnapping is a protest too far, where 48% think it is fine.
I'm still incredulous that these rocket surgeons think that assaulting and imprisoning your boss is a good way to keep your job. France must truly be bizarro world.

[Miss_Kitt]

Tranewreck -- Would you be okay with someone not letting you leave your office--or even your room--when you wished to do so? You'd be okay with someone not letting you leave the elevator? Or even the Men's room??

I don't think, if you were suddenly not allowed your freedom, that you'd think it was just "good theater". Not if it was your family commitment, hot dinner, meeting with friends, or chance to sleep that was suddenly denied to you. Not if your kid was the one waiting, wondering why Daddy didn't come home tonight...

I'm amazed that anyone thinks this is okay. I'm amazed the French goverment is not considered to be in violation of EU law by not trying to prosecute under "unlawful imprisonment" or kidnapping or whatever the equivalent is.

Let's try it this way: Workers want to go on strike. Bosses take union leader and sit him down in their office to "drink coffee and eat croissants" all night; don't let him go home. Is THAT okay with you, Tranewreck??

Just wondering, MK

[luchog]

There is no compulsory minimum in the states. I'd guess the standard for PTO is 2 weeks.
Actually, there's no real way to compare. Most positions do not have a fixed PTO. For hourly and non-executive salaried employees, PTO is typically accumulated based on time worked. The accumulation rate varies; but typically ranges from 80 hours to 160 hours a year for a full-time position, cumulative YoY, often with a cap; based on a 40 hour work week. In addition, most companies also include a minimum of 4 paid holidays a year, typically more; and a certain amount of unearned, non-cumulative PTO, aka "sick leave", usually between 3 and 5 days.

[luchog]

Not when you account for the intent requirement: "with the intent thereby to force the victim, or some other person, to give up anything of apparent present or prospective value, or to grant any advantage or immunity, in order to secure a release of the person under the offender's actual or apparent control". So luring someone to your used car lot isn't kidnapping unless you force them to buy a car.

IIRC, the target of that provision is most likely the persuasian or coercion of underage individuals, who cannot legally give informed consent.

[TraneWreck]

Tranewreck -- Would you be okay with someone not letting you leave your office--or even your room--when you wished to do so? You'd be okay with someone not letting you leave the elevator? Or even the Men's room??

I don't think, if you were suddenly not allowed your freedom, that you'd think it was just "good theater". Not if it was your family commitment, hot dinner, meeting with friends, or chance to sleep that was suddenly denied to you. Not if your kid was the one waiting, wondering why Daddy didn't come home tonight...

I'm amazed that anyone thinks this is okay. I'm amazed the French goverment is not considered to be in violation of EU law by not trying to prosecute under "unlawful imprisonment" or kidnapping or whatever the equivalent is.

Let's try it this way: Workers want to go on strike. Bosses take union leader and sit him down in their office to "drink coffee and eat croissants" all night; don't let him go home. Is THAT okay with you, Tranewreck??

Just wondering, MK

If I owned a business, was in negotiations with my workers, and knew of the French tradition of "bossnapping," I would be mildly annoyed at losing a night's sleep. That's it.

It's amazing how overblown this criticism is. Yes, sometimes things happen in the world such that I cannot go exactly where I want, exactly when I want. These circumstances can range from tolerable to horrific. On a scale from "I can't get on the bus right away because there's someone with a wheelchair in front of me" to "I'm in a guy-pile in GITMO with electrodes strapped to my balls," bossnapping is about two notches above the bus.

It just isn't a big deal. If it were so horrific, don't you think the captains of industry in France would invest more time in keeping it from happening? Private guards, lobbying for legal changes, pressing charges against their "assailants?"

Edit: and as for your question, which has a whiff of trying to pin me down as some unquestioning commie union supporter, I would say it depends on how it's done. Confrontations over labor can be incredibly brutal (though history has shown us that 99% of the deaths in labor disputes are suffered by the workers), so one would have to examine the situation. If Denmark had a non-violent, almost cordial tradition like the French, save the bosses took the union boss hostage, I wouldn't really have a problem. If it was somehow used to intimidate and threaten, more than harmlessly and dramatically posture, then something would have to be done. It really isn't that complex.

[TraneWreck]

According to Tranewreck, it's because it's fun to hang out at the office all night with your co-workers^H^H^Ha bunch of people you just laid off, drinking coffee and eating croissants!

Hilarious! You can't read! Funny stuff.

Haha, how many people have been arrested for this? Must be hundreds because it's such a big deal.

[dann]

Then there is the factor that if people get away with one thing, the next time..or the time after that...they will try to get away with something more radical.

There's a first time for everything, and I never thought that I would agree with dudalb about anything, but it's true, you shouldn't let capitalism get away with this: "French workers threatened with redundancy have been taking their bosses hostage in an effort to save their jobs " (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/poll/2009/apr/08/job-losses-protest). Faced with threats like this, you have to try to teach the CEOs a lesson, or they won't consider it twice the next time they feel like lowering your wages or laying you off, i.e. taking away from you your income, your livelihood.

The problem, however, is that in this situation there is no real way of pressurizing the employers into anything so the protest of taking the boss 'hostage' will be in vain. It merely works as a publicity stunt. A strike is useful only because you know that the factory owner's interest in profit will make him want to keep the wheels turning. As long as they don't, he doesn't earn anything because he cannot supply the market with goods. However, as soon as the demand for his goods declines and he cannot sell as much as he used to, the workers no longer have any means of pressurizing him. Therefor this futile protest: The workers are impotent against the powers of capital - unless, of course, they decide to do away with capitalism, which is the only real solution to the predicament of all workers faced with a threat like this.
But what dudalb didn't mean to imply is still true: You should not let bosses get away with making threats like this!

Recommended reading:
The Strike at AEG (http://www.ruthlesscriticism.com/AEG.htm)
Resistance to Mass Layoffs (http://www.ruthlesscriticism.com/resistance.htm)
Why wage sacrifice leads to ever more wage loss (http://www.ruthlesscriticism.com/progress_today.htm)
Labor Unions (http://www.ruthlesscriticism.com/unions.htm)
Wage reduction made in the USA (http://www.ruthlesscriticism.com/UAW.htm)

[dann]

I'm still incredulous that these rocket surgeons think that assaulting and imprisoning your boss is a good way to keep your job. France must truly be bizarro world.

No, I guess that the kind of quiescent, well-behaved resignation of US employees is the way to keep your job in the real, proper world outside of 'bizarro' France, right?
Guess again (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?ID=12)! Guess again (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm)!

[DC]

I didnt vote.
I find it somehow wrong, somehow not.

I can understand it somehow.

The hard working people that have nothing to say about the companys strategy or developement. loose their jobs and get nothing.
The management, especially the CEO also looses his job, but after he earned millions, and he will still get a compensation of some millions......

aslong such theft is regarded legal and moraly ok i have no problem with people force the CEO to negotioation.

[dann]

I didnt vote.
I find it somehow wrong, somehow not.

I can understand it somehow.

Me too! The poll doesn't have the right options.

(I like your sig. Chomsky's quite good sometimes.)

[ponderingturtle]

Me too! The poll doesn't have the right options.

(I like your sig. Chomsky's quite good sometimes.)

What options should be there? What felonies are acceptable to commit if you are angry?

[dann]

Did you ever see the movie about this theme?
White Man's Burden (http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9C04E0DA1139F932A35751C1A963958260).
(The first link doesn't seem to work, so I'll try again: White Man's Burden (http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/134251/White-Man-s-Burden/overview). And here's Roger Ebert's version (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19951201/REVIEWS/512010302/1023).)

For some reason ruining people's lives by making them redundant isn't a felony. Locking a boss in his office is. Whether anybody is angry or not really doesn't affect anything, does it?
So at least to me the point isn't that locking the boss in his office is unacceptable. The point is that as a means of securing your livelihood it's inefficient.
I've been locked in (and out of) my high school a couple of times by students protesting against government cutbacks. It did not bother me much - mainly because I tended to agree with them. Didn't achieve much, though ...
And right-wing drama queens immediately start talking about kidnapping! Get real, won't you?!!! He wasn't held for ransom money, was he?

[lauwersw]

I didnt vote.
I find it somehow wrong, somehow not.

I can understand it somehow.

The hard working people that have nothing to say about the companys strategy or developement. loose their jobs and get nothing.
The management, especially the CEO also looses his job, but after he earned millions, and he will still get a compensation of some millions......

aslong such theft is regarded legal and moraly ok i have no problem with people force the CEO to negotioation.

I cannot agree more. If the CEO looses his job, he'll have a new one in no time plus all his compensation fees. That doesn't feel right. On the other hand it won't make any difference for your own job anyway, these people won't stop taking such actions.

I have the impression that here in Europe people value their job at a specific firm more than in the US. You don't change jobs every five years here, people easily stay with the same company for their whole life. I'm not sure about the reasons. You do get rewarded for staying, like extra days off after some years, which you loose if you switch jobs. Also you pay huge taxes when buying a new house (at least here in Belgium) so you won't do that often. All this might explain stronger reactions when something happens to "your" company.

Personally I do have some problems with the behavior of the Unions here who seem to go on strike for about any reason. As if the management cares about that. What if you go on strike for two weeks: all financial losses come back at the workers too in the end! That's bad for the survival of the company. If there is a real problem for the company I prefer the management to take though decisions and keep the company alive instead of going bankrupt.

As with many things it comes down to finding a good balance between safeguarding some privileges for workers and not impairing the economy too much. I feel hijacking the boss is tipping the balance too much to one side.

[Rasmus]

And right-wing drama queens immediately start talking about kidnapping! Get real, won't you?!!! He wasn't held for ransom money, was he?

He was, quite literally so, even.

And it has been pointed out that asking for ransom money is not a prerequisite for something to be called "kidnapping".

[ponderingturtle]

For some reason ruining people's lives by making them redundant isn't a felony. Locking a boss in his office is. Whether anybody is angry or not really doesn't affect anything, does it?

So if I build a machine to automate a simple mindless job, I am evil now?

And right-wing drama queens immediately start talking about kidnapping! Get real, won't you?!!! He wasn't held for ransom money, was he?

That is the legal term for what is being done.

It is rather like "Assault? I just slapped that bastard"

[ponderingturtle]

He was, quite literally so, even.

And it has been pointed out that asking for ransom money is not a prerequisite for something to be called "kidnapping".

It seems that he wants different terms for say non custodial parents who take their child away from the parent who has custody.

[dann]

So if I build a machine to automate a simple mindless job, I am evil now?

I don't know. Are you actually talking about a machine to lighten the burden of having to perform a simple mindless job day in and day out, or are you talking of a machine to lighten the expenses of factury owner for the wages of workers performing simple mindless jobs?
For some weird reason the act of depriving people of their livelihood (http://www.gegenstandpunkt.com/english/US-welfare-state.html) is usually referred to with very different words.

That is the legal term for what is being done.

Yes, maybe it is. Where did they take him?

It is rather like "Assault? I just slapped that bastard"

No, it isn't.

[Seren_]

Similar polls in France have given the same results. About 50% to 60% of people disapprove but understand, while the other half totally disapprove.

Being French, I'd like to point out something, which does not justify but might at least partly explains the authorities leniency regarding bossnapping.

Demonstrating, protesting, and the "common people against the elite" is an important foundation myth of the Nation and the Republic, coming from the French Revolution. There is a massive emphasis in education and more generally in public life on symbols from that era.

After all, Bastille day, the French national holiday, celebrates the storming of the Bastille prison by an angry mob, which spent the rest of the day parading in Paris with the severed head of the prison governor on a pike. Well in fact it celebrates a federation/union/reconciliation feast one year after the event at the Bastille but it is ignored by most people.

I have the impression that Americans gives much more importance to personnal freedom, which can be traced back to the foundation of the country, from the Frontier pioneer to the self made man.

I am not saying that personnal freedoms are bad, but that in the French collective unconscious "rising against the aristocrats" is more present that preserving the individual freedom of everyone.

(I have a lot more to say but it is harder to convey in English that it would be in French :))

[WildCat]

(I have a lot more to say but it is harder to convey in English that it would be in French :))
Yes, Rule 10 makes it hard for all of us.

[Fnord]

Is that in the US? I didn't think there was a Western democracy left that didn't have mandatory vacation time. Looking at some of the information it appears you might be right though.


Yes, I'm in the U.S., and my employer is an international corporation (I know of offices in 39 countries).

If the gummint has decreed by law that there shall be specific days for all employees to have off, then I'm not aware of them.

[Fnord]

... Are you actually talking about a machine to lighten the burden of having to perform a simple mindless job day in and day out, or are you talking of a machine to lighten the expenses of factury owner for the wages of workers performing simple mindless jobs?

What's the difference? None that I can see. Lowering production costs is more important to the profit margin than providing charity for drone-workers.

And that's what running a business is all about - maximizing profits.

[gumboot]

Morality survey: Is bossnapping OK?


No. Sleeping on the job is unacceptable, and the boss should lead by example. If you catch your Boss napping you should be fully entitled to wake him or her in whatever unpleasant way you wish.

[fuelair]

What's the difference? None that I can see. Lowering production costs is more important to the profit margin than providing charity for drone-workers.

And that's what running a business is all about - maximizing profits.Definitely what the stockholders legally expect.

[dudalb]

Some of the people trying to excuse this will try to justify the Somali Pirates for their next act.....

[quixotecoyote]

Yes, maybe it is. Where did they take him?


I think you need to re-read the thread. I had the same argument, that it wasn't technically kidnapping, but Wildcat posted a legal definition for kidnapping that covered what happened here.

Maybe you can find the actual French law in question, but until then, the evidence is on the side of calling it kidnapping.

[quixotecoyote]

Some of the people trying to excuse this will try to justify the Somali Pirates for their next act.....

I suppose it's a derail, but I'm definitely on the 'condemn but understand' side on that.

It's definitely something I want stopped, but it's not like the Somalis can go to the local temp agency and get a job to support them going to tech school and earn a living. Grinding poverty tends to increase my sympathies. Not to the point I think they shouldn't be shot the second they attack a vessel, but I get why they do it.

[TraneWreck]

http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/World/Story/STIStory_361079.html

'They are free to come and go within the site, but not to leave it,' a union official told AFP.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/apr/08/bossnapping-france-scapa

He described the hostage taking as a "non-aggressive action", adding that the unions had brought the four managers dinner.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jIIM90WyRdtmDowkRXClzkxsM7Xg

"It's true that this might seem surprising abroad, but it's less surprising in France, where we're more used to this kind of situation," said a Sony spokeswoman.

This article points out that the workers withheld food from the boss until he partially agreed to their demands. This seems to be bordering on going too far, but the article doesn't offer much detail. If he had been there a few hours before capitulating, or even for most of the night, that's more discomfort than serious.

After reading a bunch more of these articles, I will attempt to sum up position, lest people continue to somehow compare this to the Somali pirates:

1) It has to be understood in its cultural context. It has happened regularly in France since 1968, and is usually the final measure in a stalled negotiation.

2) I have found no evidence that anyone has ever been remotely harmed. In fact, if you read the articles, the spokespeople for management dismiss it as nothing to get worked up about.

3) It seems to be happening more frequently and President Sarkozy has denounced it. This at least leaves open the potential that it could become something more than harmless theatre. If and when it does, I'm sure there will be arrests and some sort of backlash.

If someone has any evidence at all that this tactic is anything more than drama, please share it. But all of this exaggerated outrage and wimpy hyperbole is getting a little tiresome.

[Giz]

1) It has to be understood in its cultural context. It has happened regularly in France since 1968, and is usually the final measure in a stalled negotiation.

I think we should still be able to criticise despite cultural context (for example, I reserve the right to criticise Iran for hanging homosexuals from cranes) (Or prior to 1918 in the "West" women did not have, and had never had, the vote... did that make it right to deny them the suffrage?).


2) I have found no evidence that anyone has ever been remotely harmed. In fact, if you read the articles, the spokespeople for management dismiss it as nothing to get worked up about.


Perhaps they are in negotiations and do not wish to get even more aggro from their negotiating partners? (Especially if the public/government/police is not behind them to the extent that they would be in America)


3) It seems to be happening more frequently and President Sarkozy has denounced it. This at least leaves open the potential that it could become something more than harmless theatre. If and when it does, I'm sure there will be arrests and some sort of backlash.


For all the "it's just harmless theatre", people have been held against their will by the threat of force... all that means is that they should be charged with kidnapping rather than kidnapping and bodily harm.

[Furcifer]

For all the "it's just harmless theatre", people have been held against their will by the threat of force... all that means is that they should be charged with kidnapping rather than kidnapping and bodily harm.

I'm still not seeing this as anything more than a protest. At worse, forced negotiations.

I'm curious how binding and negotiations made this way would be? Seems to me the boss could simply agree to everything and leave, then get the courts to nullify the contract. The fact that they don't suggests the bosses are willing participants or have something to hide.

[TraneWreck]

I think we should still be able to criticise despite cultural context (for example, I reserve the right to criticise Iran for hanging homosexuals from cranes) (Or prior to 1918 in the "West" women did not have, and had never had, the vote... did that make it right to deny them the suffrage?).


Really, is the poin that tough? It is ok because it's a cultural tradition, it's an ok cultural tradition because it isn't that big of a deal. People on the board were supplying their concept of "kidnapping" and reacting like scared toddlers. The point is that our understanding of what was going on was incorrect. You have to actually study the specifics of what is happening.

The activities in Iran are, themselves, violent and reprehensible. The comparisson is more hysteria from this side of the argument. For once I would enjoy a constuctive point instead of insane exaggeration: Pirates, hanging homosexuals, the right to vote...



Perhaps they are in negotiations and do not wish to get even more aggro from their negotiating partners? (Especially if the public/government/police is not behind them to the extent that they would be in America)


Please. They eat dinner with their "kidnappers." It's not like an anonymous group of assailants. If it were a big deal every single one of those workers would be arrested.

Once again, you guys need to actually supply facts. I know I'm asking a lot, but if you could show a single arrest or injury or even a boss complaining about the inconvenience, you might be able to build some semblance of an argument.


For all the "it's just harmless theatre", people have been held against their will by the threat of force... all that means is that they should be charged with kidnapping rather than kidnapping and bodily harm.

Once again, nonsensical fear-mongering. Read the damn articles. In most of them they park trucks in front of site's exit. There's no force, it's an understanding, hence, theater. If the bosses were desperate to leave they could, and if it is a worry, why has no one been arrested? Not a single one of you has tried to answer that question. Please, take a shot, a "crime" is being commited. The facts of the scenario aren't in question, the identity of the perpetrators isn't in question, why no arrests?

[Fnord]

If my employees kidnapped me, I'd gladly see them hauled off to jail for their criminal trials. Then I'd file civil suits against each one for "pain and duress" and settle for nothing less than everything they own.

But of course, this is in America, the country that has twice bailed France out after their leadership has surrendered to foreign powers. It's no surprise that the French teach their business leaders to capitulate to to workers' demands, just as it's no surprise that American business leaders rarely allow their businesses to be held hostage by workers - even unionism is losing it's hold here!

[TraneWreck]

If my employees kidnapped me, I'd gladly see them hauled off to jail for their criminal trials. Then I'd file civil suits against each one for "pain and duress" and settle for nothing less than everything they own.

But of course, this is in America, the country that has twice bailed France out after their leadership has surrendered to foreign powers. It's no surprise that the French teach their business leaders to capitulate to to workers' demands, just as it's no surprise that American business leaders rarely allow their businesses to be held hostage by workers - even unionism is losing it's hold here!

And the fact that they don't do that in France tells you they don't approach the issue with the same humorless self-righteousness.

[Miss_Kitt]

TraneWreck -- I just want to be clear, here: You're okay with people violating other people's freedoms, as long as there's a cultural tradition of it?

I'm not. I don't care how many "colored" schools, bus seats, bathrooms, or ballparks were in the American South--it was and is wrong to deny people the right to come and go where they please, as long as they're not committing a crime or violating someone's property rights. I don't care how long the Prophet's followers have decreed that women should not travel without their husband, father, or brother with them: It's wrong for those people to be denied the right to come and go as they see fit.

Whether you think the workers whose jobs have been threatened have a legitimate complaint or not, the method is invalid. Somehow, this point seems to be a big divider for some folks here.

If you think that imprisoning the worker's rep would be wrong, you should think that the imprisoning the management rep is equally wrong. Or, you think that the Ends Justifies the Means, in which case you have surrendered the entire issue of use of force to anyone who can "justify" their cause.

That the French government does not press charges is sad; that they demonstrably do not do so explains why there are no arrests. Your assertion that "the bosses could leave if they wanted to" and others assertions that "the bosses will easily get another job" and "made millions" are unsupported by evidence at this time.

The second, underlying issue here is a big difference between--broadly--North American and European worldviews. You don't have a right to any particular job. The grand tradition of Hiring For Life does not exist on this side of the Atlantic. Not that there aren't lifetime employees; but that is based upon the employee wanting to stay, and the employer wanting him/her to stay.

The European system (and some American union contracts) make firing an employee so punative that it's literally cheaper and easier to pay someone to be unproductive than to go through the exhausting, expensive, and difficult process of firing them. The tradeoff is that the "standing" unemployment rate in Europe for most of the last 30 years has been 10% or higher, and in some countries, twice that. The cost of living and taxation rates are also enormously higher than here, and on the whole Europeans are fine with that. They're happy to trade the opportunity to make free choices and take their own risks for the security blanket of the government and employer -provided benefits for those lucky enough to be inside the cocoon.

The citizens of Community Europe who didn't like that approach to life, who value freedom over security and realized that you cannot have freedom to succeed without also having the possibility and consequences of failure, left Europe--and came here.

It is a worldview difference. Fnord eloquently stated the core American view: that violating one's personal freedom is both a crime and a tort, and one of the gravest of crimes. Europeans prefer to excuse it as a "social tradition" or just "the way the game is played", and not deal with it on a principle level.

It has been an enlightening exercise in seeing why the Bill of Rights was written, and is the core of America's continuing existance. By protecting the freedom of individuals from the viewpoint of the majority, even as embodied in the elected representatives of that minority, the Constitution defends us against violations that were undreamt-of when the document was written.

[theprestige]

See, I'm perfectly happy with TraneWreck's "cultural tradition" excuse. It speaks directly to my first post in this thread: The French have a cultural tradition of being jerks.

[TraneWreck]

TraneWreck -- I just want to be clear, here: You're okay with people violating other people's freedoms, as long as there's a cultural tradition of it?


This is melodramatic and non-responsive. I've posted my view, supported it with articles that discuss what's going on, and explained that the French don't view it as a big deal. You've just reiterated your exaggerated misinterpretation of the tradition.

What world do you live where this is a violation of other people's freedoms? I can see the tears in your eyes and the handwringing as you write that, but again, find me an injury, arrest, or even voicing of mild complaint by the detained managers.

The French have a 40 year established practice of this activity, and no one has ever been hurt, as best as I can determine. You're going into histrionics because someone loses a night's sleep. Amazing.


I'm not. I don't care how many "colored" schools, bus seats, bathrooms, or ballparks were in the American South--it was and is wrong to deny people the right to come and go where they please, as long as they're not committing a crime or violating someone's property rights. I don't care how long the Prophet's followers have decreed that women should not travel without their husband, father, or brother with them: It's wrong for those people to be denied the right to come and go as they see fit.


Time and time again the folks posting on this thread have blown this practice so far out of proportion that it borders on insanity. So far it's been compared to piracy, Iran hanging homosexuals, women not being able to vote, and to add a cherry to this massive, steaming ******** sunday, it's compared to Jim Crow laws. Unless you guys are playing an elaborate joke on me, this is the lamest, most overblown nonsense I've seen on this board, including the 9-11 tards.

Lynchings, beatings, church burnings, dogs attacking children, segregation was not just an afront to the concept of equality, it was violent, brutal repression. Did you read the article where the workers brought their bosses dinner as they continued the negotiations?

At some point you're going to have to deal with the facts, and they're all against you.


Whether you think the workers whose jobs have been threatened have a legitimate complaint or not, the method is invalid. Somehow, this point seems to be a big divider for some folks here.

If you think that imprisoning the worker's rep would be wrong, you should think that the imprisoning the management rep is equally wrong. Or, you think that the Ends Justifies the Means, in which case you have surrendered the entire issue of use of force to anyone who can "justify" their cause.


Haha, who are you? As I said earlier, if a country had a tradition similar in every way except it was the union reps that were held, I wouldn't really care. This is harmless.

That being said, you're completely ignoring the massive disparity in bargaining power, and the historical coersion used by managers against workers.

http://libcom.org/news/report-workers-rights-120606

This is a modern assessment, so it can't deal with the legacy of violent labor suppression, like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre

But no, forcing an employer to lose a night's sleep is just as bad, sweet argument.



That the French government does not press charges is sad; that they demonstrably do not do so explains why there are no arrests. Your assertion that "the bosses could leave if they wanted to" and others assertions that "the bosses will easily get another job" and "made millions" are unsupported by evidence at this time.


Where exactly did I write that? You're using quotes around things I've never said. So in addition to overly dramatic, I will add confused or dishonest to your argumentative style.

What I will say is that these bosses could 1) hire private security 2) press charges 3) lobby the government for stricter penalties 4) try to leave, if violence was used to keep them to stay, the practice would end tomorrow 5) fire everyone involved in the activity, instead of hiring them back and continuing to work with them and 6) complain about somewhere instead of having their spokespeople describe it as nothing to worry about.

Given that they have done NONE of these things, it's safe to conclude that they aren't too upset about it. Don't you think there'd at least be an editorial or two?


The second, underlying issue here is a big difference between--broadly--North American and European worldviews. You don't have a right to any particular job. The grand tradition of Hiring For Life does not exist on this side of the Atlantic. Not that there aren't lifetime employees; but that is based upon the employee wanting to stay, and the employer wanting him/her to stay.

The European system (and some American union contracts) make firing an employee so punative that it's literally cheaper and easier to pay someone to be unproductive than to go through the exhausting, expensive, and difficult process of firing them. The tradeoff is that the "standing" unemployment rate in Europe for most of the last 30 years has been 10% or higher, and in some countries, twice that. The cost of living and taxation rates are also enormously higher than here, and on the whole Europeans are fine with that. They're happy to trade the opportunity to make free choices and take their own risks for the security blanket of the government and employer -provided benefits for those lucky enough to be inside the cocoon.


A poor summation of the issues, to say the least, but completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. If you want to discuss labor theory and the difference between Eurpoe and the US, start a new thread.


The citizens of Community Europe who didn't like that approach to life, who value freedom over security and realized that you cannot have freedom to succeed without also having the possibility and consequences of failure, left Europe--and came here.

It is a worldview difference. Fnord eloquently stated the core American view: that violating one's personal freedom is both a crime and a tort, and one of the gravest of crimes. Europeans prefer to excuse it as a "social tradition" or just "the way the game is played", and not deal with it on a principle level.

It has been an enlightening exercise in seeing why the Bill of Rights was written, and is the core of America's continuing existance. By protecting the freedom of individuals from the viewpoint of the majority, even as embodied in the elected representatives of that minority, the Constitution defends us against violations that were undreamt-of when the document was written.

Well, thank you for that rambling, stream of consciousness babble about the Bill of Rights and other assorted nonsense.

I might partially take you seriously if you bothered to insert A SINGLE FACT about the situation. Your just spinning in the wind and getting hysterical over a relatively harmless activity. Your words are so choked with a maudlin, misplaced incoherence that it's hard to imagine you're even talking about the same events as the ones published in all of those articles I linked.

[TraneWreck]

See, I'm perfectly happy with TraneWreck's "cultural tradition" excuse. It speaks directly to my first post in this thread: The French have a cultural tradition of being jerks.

Awesome reading comprehension.

Again, the fact that it is a tradition does not make it harmless, the fact that it's a harmless tradition makes it not worth worrying about.

But I guess you'd rather advance tired stereotypes from the post-war era in an attempt at humorous pith.

[theprestige]

Awesome reading comprehension.

Again, the fact that it is a tradition does not make it harmless, the fact that it's a harmless tradition makes it not worth worrying about.

But I guess you'd rather advance tired stereotypes from the post-war era in an attempt at humorous pith.
One, I'm not worried about it. Two, I agree that most French traditions, as jerky as they may be, are in fact harmless. Three, I never alleged harm, only that the French are jerks.

[TraneWreck]

One, I'm not worried about it. Two, I agree that most French traditions, as jerky as they may be, are in fact harmless. Three, I never alleged harm, only that the French are jerks.

Well, I lived in Paris for a while so...I have to admit you're right, my apologies.

[rwguinn]

Awesome reading comprehension.

Again, the fact that it is a tradition does not make it harmless, the fact that it's a harmless tradition makes it not worth worrying about.

But I guess you'd rather advance tired stereotypes from the post-war era in an attempt at humorous pith.
Speaking of circles...
BTW- Some countries have a cultural tradition of being mean (by US standards) to people who think and believe differently. But it's a harmless tradition, right?

[TraneWreck]

Speaking of circles...
BTW- Some countries have a cultural tradition of being mean (by US standards) to people who think and believe differently. But it's a harmless tradition, right?

It's pretty easy to figure out. Does it cause harm?

[FlamingMoe]

If you seriously think forcible detainment, regardless of whether or not the detainee ends up complaining about it afterward, or the police get off their crapfactories and do something about it, is "harmless" then your arguments are barely distinguishable from that of a lunatic, and barely worth wasting keystrokes on.

But hey, let's try.

It is an act of violence. There's no way around that. Declaring that someone is not free to leave implies something will happen to them if they attempt to do so. Your actions are not excused if you tell someone they're not free to leave, and then you don't harm them because they didn't try to leave.

They are all quite lucky they are not in the US and pulling this crap. I guarantee there would be a body count associated with this practice. And I'd have no problem with that if it happened here, or ends up happening in France.

[dann]

Lowering production costs is more important to the profit margin than providing charity for drone-workers.

And that's what running a business is all about - maximizing profits.

Couldn't agree more with this description of capitalism! :)

[dann]

Some of the people trying to excuse this will try to justify the Somali Pirates for their next act.....

To excuse what? Bereaving workers of their livelihood?
About the Somali pirates (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-you-are-being-lied-to-about-pirates-1225817.html) ...

[dann]

Maybe you can find the actual French law in question, but until then, the evidence is on the side of calling it kidnapping.

My French is a little rusty, but maybe I've been subjected to 'kidnapping' (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4604815#post4604815), too. It didn't feel nearly as bad as I imagine losing your livelihood does.

[dann]

If my employees kidnapped me, I'd gladly see them hauled off to jail for their criminal trials. Then I'd file civil suits against each one for "pain and duress" and settle for nothing less than everything they own.

Of course, you cannot file civil suits merely for losing your income. In this society the law allows you to harm people in ways that completely ruin their lives, which only goes to show that equality (http://www.ruthlesscriticism.com/equality.htm) before the law of very unequal citizens is a class law.
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets or steal bread.” Anatole France (!)
Labor Laws (http://www.ruthlesscriticism.com/laborlaw.htm)

But of course, this is in America, the country that has twice bailed France out after their leadership has surrendered to foreign powers. It's no surprise that the French teach their business leaders to capitulate to to workers' demands, just as it's no surprise that American business leaders rarely allow their businesses to be held hostage by workers - even unionism is losing it's hold here!

And a lot of good it does everybody! Oh, the blessings of what American business leaders (http://www.ruthlesscriticism.com/finance.htm) are doing to the rest of the population ...
Unions in the USA (http://www.ruthlesscriticism.com/USwelfarestate.htm)

[dann]

It is an act of violence.

And bereaving people of their livelihood isn't? It takes an awful lot of violence (http://www.ruthlesscriticism.com/force.htm) to make people accept that they are excluded from the wealth produced in our societies.

[FlamingMoe]

And bereaving people of their livelihood isn't? It takes an awful lot of violence (http://www.ruthlesscriticism.com/force.htm) to make people accept that they are excluded from the wealth produced in our societies.

Downsizing is not an act of violence. Forcibly detaining (kidnapping) someone is a violent act.

How do you not see the distinction between the two?

[Rasmus]

Downsizing is not an act of violence. Forcibly detaining (kidnapping) someone is a violent act.

How do you not see the distinction between the two?

I find it much more amazing that an employer should be obligated to keep an employee, well, employed.

Why?

My employer is under no obligation to make a job available for me. I am glad that I have a job there, but should our customers ever decide that they no longer need what I am responsible for chances are, my employer would stop providing it.

Why should he be obligated to provide an expensive service that nobody wants, and why should he be obligated to pay me to keep the service available?

Should we be allowed to force our customers to stay our customers and make use of the services we are currently providing, too?

It's an interesting subject, but I can't dwell on it much longer. I have an appointment with my hairdresser. Not that my hair needs cutting or anything, but I had a haircut there before and I'll bereave him of his likelyhood if I don't go there often enough ....

[dann]

Downsizing is not an act of violence. Forcibly detaining (kidnapping) someone is a violent act.

How do you not see the distinction between the two?

The distinction in this case is obvious: The workers lose their jobs and thus their livelihood.
The boss is locked up in his office.
Downsizing is an act of violence, but not according to jurisprudence:

Es gibt viele Arten zu töten. Man kann einem ein Messer in den Bauch stechen, einem das Brot entziehen, einen von einer Krankheit nicht heilen, einen in eine schlechte Wohnung stecken, einen durch Arbeit zu Tode schinden, einen zum Suizid treiben, einen in den Krieg führen usw. Nur weniges davon ist in unserem Staat verboten.
Bertolt Brechthttp://www.zitate-online.de/sprueche/allgemein/19498/es-gibt-viele-arten-zu-toeten-man-kann-einem.html

There are many ways to kill a man. You can stick a knife in his guts, deprive him of bread, refrain from curing him of a disease, place him in a bad apartment, make him work himself to death, drive him to commit suicide, send him to war etc. Few of these things are forbidden in our state. My translation

[dann]

I find it much more amazing that an employer should be obligated to keep an employee, well, employed.

He isn't, is he? Nor is anybody else. You are 'compelled' to eat, though, which is why unemployment is such a devastating judgment on a society (http://www.ruthlesscriticism.com/unemployment.htm).

And the hairdresser, of course, is compelled to eat, too, which does not make your strawman any better ...

[Rasmus]

He isn't, is he?

As soon as he is being kidnapped to keep people empolyoed that he would otherwise no longer employ: Yes, he is! Especially if the act of kidnapping him is no longer viewed as unethical.

Yes, I agree that it is bad for a society not to have unemployment but to allow unemployment to have such devastating consequences. But it is not the duty of the employers to change that.

[dann]

As soon as he is being kidnapped to keep people empolyoed that he would otherwise no longer employ: Yes, he is! Especially if the act of kidnapping him is no longer viewed as unethical.

That is the reason why he's detained, yes. I don't find the reaction of the workers in this case is "unethical" (http://www.ruthlesscriticism.com/morality.htm).

Yes, I agree that it is bad for a society not to have unemployment but to allow unemployment to have such devastating consequences. But it is not the duty of the employers to change that.

Well, it's bad for employers not to have unemployment, which is why they tend to moan when the rate of employment goes down. And as long as your livelihood depends on the opportunity to sell your working capacity to people with money, unemployment does indeed have devastating consequences.
It is neither the duty of the employers to change that, nor does anybody expect them to, I think. The change will obviously have to be contrary to the interests of employers as employers. The French workers, too, seem to understand this much. That the nature of the interests of workers and employers is: class struggle (http://www.ruthlesscriticism.com/resistance.htm) - whether in a boom (http://www.ruthlesscriticism.com/fairy_tale.htm) or in a crisis (http://www.ruthlesscriticism.com/UAW.htm).
Their attempt at solving the problem by locking up the boss, however, is a demonstration of impotence.

[Giz]

Should we be allowed to force our customers to stay our customers and make use of the services we are currently providing, too?
....

Good point! We should give employees the right to force employers to keep employing them as soon as we give employers the right to force customers to keep buying their goods.

[dann]

But 'we' should still be able to force unemployment = loss of livelihood on people, right? You cannot possibly want to take that most basic freedom away from 'us', can you?

[TraneWreck]

If you seriously think forcible detainment, regardless of whether or not the detainee ends up complaining about it afterward, or the police get off their crapfactories and do something about it, is "harmless" then your arguments are barely distinguishable from that of a lunatic, and barely worth wasting keystrokes on.

But hey, let's try.

It is an act of violence. There's no way around that. Declaring that someone is not free to leave implies something will happen to them if they attempt to do so. Your actions are not excused if you tell someone they're not free to leave, and then you don't harm them because they didn't try to leave.


More hysteria, more unhinged melodrama, and yet again, the weenies voicing this view DO NOT BRING A SINGLE FACT TO THE TABLE.

And this:


They are all quite lucky they are not in the US and pulling this crap. I guarantee there would be a body count associated with this practice. And I'd have no problem with that if it happened here, or ends up happening in France.

Means there's something deeply wrong with you.

[ponderingturtle]

I don't know. Are you actually talking about a machine to lighten the burden of having to perform a simple mindless job day in and day out, or are you talking of a machine to lighten the expenses of factury owner for the wages of workers performing simple mindless jobs?
For some weird reason the act of depriving people of their livelihood (http://www.gegenstandpunkt.com/english/US-welfare-state.html) is usually referred to with very different words.

The two are the same. A company might be able to do something with one worker instead of 10. This is very good for the company as it reduces the cost, it is also good for the economy because it increases productivity. If you want to get on the workers side, you need to take back a lot of modern technology that makes people more productive.

I want to eliminate jobs. By making it so that people can individually do much more work you need fewer people to do the same amount of work.

Yes, maybe it is. Where did they take him?

It has been pointed out that you do not need to take someone to be guilty of kidnapping them. Simply holding them in one place against their will does this.

No, it isn't.

Of course it is. Their actions fit the laws in many jurisdictions. Just because you do not like the term, does not mean it is not the correct legal term for their actions.

[ponderingturtle]

Some of the people trying to excuse this will try to justify the Somali Pirates for their next act.....

They are taking back the riches of the decadent west after all...

[ponderingturtle]

Perhaps they are in negotiations and do not wish to get even more aggro from their negotiating partners? (Especially if the public/government/police is not behind them to the extent that they would be in America)

Look at it this way, in america if people did this they wouldn't have to worry about a job for a long time. Their room and board would be provided for free by the state. Sounds like a winning situation. After all not being free to go is not much a a problem for them, so being in prison shouldn't bother them much.

[ponderingturtle]

I'm still not seeing this as anything more than a protest. At worse, forced negotiations.

All a riot is is a protest. So the riots after the rodney king verdict were no big deal, right?

Just because it is a protest does not mitigate their actions. This is getting very close to terrorism after all.

[dann]

I don't know. Are you actually talking about a machine to lighten the burden of having to perform a simple mindless job day in and day out, or are you talking of a machine to lighten the expenses of factury owner for the wages of workers performing simple mindless jobs?
For some weird reason the act of depriving people of their livelihood (http://www.gegenstandpunkt.com/english/US-welfare-state.html) is usually referred to with very different words.
The two are the same.

No, they definitely aren't! And when you describe it, it becomes obvious that the burden that is ligthened is the wages received by the workers who are now removed from the factory floor as well as from the payroll:
A company might be able to do something with one worker instead of 10. This is very good for the company as it reduces the cost, it is also good for the economy because it increases productivity. If you want to get on the workers side, you need to take back a lot of modern technology that makes people more productive.

I want to eliminate jobs.

Exactly!

By making it so that people can individually do much more work you need fewer people to do the same amount of work.

The work of the the few remaining workers is intensified - and the rest don't have an income.

[ponderingturtle]

What I will say is that these bosses could 1) hire private security 2) press charges 3) lobby the government for stricter penalties 4) try to leave, if violence was used to keep them to stay, the practice would end tomorrow 5) fire everyone involved in the activity, instead of hiring them back and continuing to work with them and 6) complain about somewhere instead of having their spokespeople describe it as nothing to worry about.


Why it is clear that society is not going to protect them, and does not want to protect them. They just have to take the infringements of their rights.

[ponderingturtle]

It's pretty easy to figure out. Does it cause harm?

Define harm. You are ok with depriving people of some of the liberties after all, so your definition of harm and mine are clearly different.

[TraneWreck]

Define harm. You are ok with depriving people of some of the liberties after all, so your definition of harm and mine are clearly different.

No, I'll agree that it's a harm, just not one serious enough to worry about. All harms are not created equally.

But who's going to compare keeping you boss in the building for a night and bringing dinner to Hilter. You know you want to, who's going to do it first?

[TraneWreck]

Why it is clear that society is not going to protect them, and does not want to protect them. They just have to take the infringements of their rights.

For once, just once, please, please find a goddamn fact to support what you say.

Society isn't "protecting" them because there's nothing to protect them from. It isn't even as bad as a mild frat hazing.

The fact that you guys view this as an unacceptible violation of basic rights means that you are wimps on a level that would embarass the French. Think about that for a second: the French are a hardier breed than you. Wow.

[ponderingturtle]

More hysteria, more unhinged melodrama, and yet again, the weenies voicing this view DO NOT BRING A SINGLE FACT TO THE TABLE.

Go Luddites GO!

[ponderingturtle]

No, they definitely aren't! And when you describe it, it becomes obvious that the burden that is ligthened is the wages received by the workers who are now removed from the factory floor as well as from the payroll:

Yes it also makes it possible to reduce the cost of the product.


Exactly!

Bring back the good old days, when it was common for middle class to think that they would never be too poor to afford servants but not ever be rich enough to afford a car.



The work of the the few remaining workers is intensified - and the rest don't have an income.

Not really. I am always amazed when people argue against technological innovation on the internet.

They are getting the production of 10, but they are not necessarily working any harder than any one of those 10.

[ponderingturtle]

For once, just once, please, please find a goddamn fact to support what you say.

Society isn't "protecting" them because there's nothing to protect them from. It isn't even as bad as a mild frat hazing.

A good reason to remove assault as a crime, just have battery or nothing.

What is wrong with hitting people as long as you don't hospitalize him, it is no worse than mild frat hazing.

Of course frat hazing tends to be something voluntarily entered into. This is kidnapping.

The fact that you guys view this as an unacceptible violation of basic rights means that you are wimps on a level that would embarass the French. Think about that for a second: the French are a hardier breed than you. Wow.
No it means that we care about individual rights more than the french do.

[TraneWreck]

A good reason to remove assault as a crime, just have battery or nothing.

What is wrong with hitting people as long as you don't hospitalize him, it is no worse than mild frat hazing.


Assault: A crime that occurs when one person tries to physically harm another in a way that makes the person under attack feel immediately threatened. Actual physical contact is not necessary; threatening gestures that would alarm any reasonable person can constitute an assault.

The definition is basically the same in France. So why do you think no one has been arrested? They know the perps, the crime isn't in question, and no one flees the crime scene. Thus, all one would need to do is press charges or file a lawsuit. Why hasn't this happened in the more than 40 years the French have been doing this?

This is what I mean by bringing a fact to the table. You're making stuff up based on your own assumed cowardly reaction to such an incident. Provide something of substance or stop whining.



Of course frat hazing tends to be something voluntarily entered into. This is kidnapping.

No it means that we care about individual rights more than the french do.

Notice that I didn't say it was a frat hazing, I said it wasn't even as bad. But thanks for distinguishing two things I never linked with analogy or metaphor.

And the French just have a different idea of what rights are guarded as individual, health care and child services, for example. You can disagree, fine, but I really don't see why you care what the French do in their negotiations.

Once again (to forestall your obvious, silly reaction), this is different from the tradition in some Muslim countries of tossing acid in their faces of their women because there is no real damage being done.

[ponderingturtle]

Assault: A crime that occurs when one person tries to physically harm another in a way that makes the person under attack feel immediately threatened. Actual physical contact is not necessary; threatening gestures that would alarm any reasonable person can constitute an assault.

The definition is basically the same in France. So why do you think no one has been arrested? They know the perps, the crime isn't in question, and no one flees the crime scene. Thus, all one would need to do is press charges or file a lawsuit. Why hasn't this happened in the more than 40 years the French have been doing this?

This is a felony, they victims shouldn't need to press charges that is what the police and prosecutors are for. But they clearly don't care. I wonder if they are afraid of more riots, the french do seem to riot at the drop of a hat(another of those cultural quirks I guess)

Notice that I didn't say it was a frat hazing, I said it wasn't even as bad. But thanks for distinguishing two things I never linked with analogy or metaphor.

And consent makes things so different, it changes assault into sexual fun.

[TraneWreck]

This is a felony, they victims shouldn't need to press charges that is what the police and prosecutors are for. But they clearly don't care. I wonder if they are afraid of more riots, the french do seem to riot at the drop of a hat(another of those cultural quirks I guess)


Yes, exactly, no one cares, it isn't a big deal. Not only do the cops not care, but if you had read the articles I linked, you would read quotes from the "victims" where they explain that it's not a big deal.

But I'm disapointed, I thought you would launch into a "leave brittney alone"-esque explanation of how it was worse than the gulags.

[dann]

Yes it also makes it possible to reduce the cost of the product. I.e. to make not only your own workers redundant but also those of the competition:I want to eliminate jobs. By making it so that people can individually do much more work you need fewer people to do the same amount of work. This is definitely truth in advertising.

I am always amazed when people argue against technological innovation on the internet. You are?! I'm not, since it's very easy to confuse technological innovation with its purpose in capitalism. With more rational conditions of production the introduction of more efficient would enable workers to produce more, consume more and have more spare time on their hands. Instead they lose their jobs altogether, and with their jobs they lose their income, and with the competition from the unemployed, the few remaining workers are easier to pressure into working more instead of lightening the burden of work.
All this does not result from technological innovation. It is a result of the capitalist purpose of technological innovation.
By the way, I am never amazed that whenever people argue against the purpose of capitalist production and innovation, they are met with the strawman: "Luddites!" Apparently Luddites are not the only ones who like to confuse things ...

They are getting the production of 10, but they are not necessarily working any harder than any one of those 10.

It is a necessity of capitalism, not of nature or technology:
It is a devastating judgment on this mode of production that the impoverishment of people is just as useful as the development and enlargement of the well-springs of wealth. Both perform the same service for this economic mode. The productive power of labor increases so that more use values result per unit of time; this is just as useful as simply paying less wages.

The increase of productive power has a strange benefit in capitalism. The entrepreneur increases the productive power of labor to save labor. He does this, however, not to save the worker work, but to save himself the costs of paid work. He saves on labor, but only for the purpose of saving on labor costs. To save on labor costs means to separate the workers yet another little bit farther from their product.

This division happens in two ways: one part of the staff produces with, say, doubled productivity, now the old staff performs a doubly good service for the enterprise for the same wage or the same service as previously but for half the wage. All "labor-saving" investments do not save on labor – on the contrary, as a rule it becomes more intense – but on paid labor, by making the applied work more productive; the quantity of commodities for sale per wage payment rises. The other half of the staff becomes unemployed because their work has become superfluous. The creation of disposable time, the creation of free time – which should actually be the positive side of an increase in productive power – actually happens in this society in the form of unemployment.
http://www.ruthlesscriticism.com/Marxwealth.htm

[bigred]

When the heck did half the population start thinking that being cheesed off with someone gives you the right to kidnap them?

When they remembered the old "ask a stupid question" adage. :rolleyes:

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, exactly, no one cares, it isn't a big deal. Not only do the cops not care, but if you had read the articles I linked, you would read quotes from the "victims" where they explain that it's not a big deal.

But I'm disapointed, I thought you would launch into a "leave brittney alone"-esque explanation of how it was worse than the gulags.

No, it is just that people know that the police will not protect them and that they do not care about the law. The suitable reference was when the KKK was harrassing and killing civil rights workers. The law didn't care about those violations of rights either.

[ponderingturtle]

I.e. to make not only your own workers redundant but also those of the competition:This is definitely truth in advertising.

You are?! I'm not, since it's very easy to confuse technological innovation with its purpose in capitalism.

Not at all. Look at steam trains vs diesel trains. The steam trains had much more highly skilled maintnence and operation requirements, so it was wrong to switch to diesel trains for ecconomic reasons, because it cost people jobs.

All technological shifts cause changes in jobs that results in the loss of specific jobs.


With more rational conditions of production the introduction of more efficient would enable workers to produce more, consume more and have more spare time on their hands. Instead they lose their jobs altogether, and with their jobs they lose their income, and with the competition from the unemployed, the few remaining workers are easier to pressure into working more instead of lightening the burden of work.

It lets them do the first too, as it makes more jobs skilled. And americans tend to favor more money and consuming more as opposed to more time off.

By the way, I am never amazed that whenever people argue against the purpose of capitalist production and innovation, they are met with the strawman: "Luddites!" Apparently Luddites are not the only ones who like to confuse things ...

You are against change that will cause people to loose their jobs, as this is all significant change it seems a position of a lack of change is exactly what you want.

Look at the old days when a computer was a woman, the introduction of electronic computers destroyed the jobs of people who did nothing but add numbers all day long. Spreadsheets used to employ many people, not they are a program on a computer and it employs no one.



It is a necessity of capitalism, not of nature or technology:

It is the nature of improvements in technology. With the loss of steam trains what do all the pipefitters, boiler makers and so on that were part of their building and maintnence do now?

[dann]

The law didn't care about those violations of rights either.

Nor does it care about people losing their income (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4610523#post4610523).

[dann]

Not at all. Look at steam trains vs diesel trains. The steam trains had much more highly skilled maintnence and operation requirements, so it was wrong to switch to diesel trains for ecconomic reasons, because it cost people jobs.

All technological shifts cause changes in jobs that results in the loss of specific jobs.

Yes, due to the purpose of the "technological shifts", not due to the technology. It is a necessity of capitalism.

It lets them do the first too, as it makes more jobs skilled. And americans tend to favor more money and consuming more as opposed to more time off.

Which is why so many of them have more than one job, I guess. This is a question of poverty, not choice.

You are against change that will cause people to lose their jobs, as this is all significant change it seems a position of a lack of change is exactly what you want.

Because you appear to be unable to understand any other change than the one an employer introduces in order to save expenses.

Look at the old days when a computer was a woman, the introduction of electronic computers destroyed the jobs of people who did nothing but add numbers all day long. Spreadsheets used to employ many people, no they are a program on a computer and it employs no one.

What is your point?

It is the nature of improvements in technology.

No, it isn't. It is the nature of improvements in technology in capitalism!
See earlier post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4612004#post4612004).


With the loss of steam trains what do all the pipefitters, boiler makers and so on that were part of their building and maintenance do now?

Decompose? :)

[ponderingturtle]

Nor does it care about people losing their income (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4610523#post4610523).

Change is inevitable, and that will result in some people losing the jobs.

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, due to the purpose of the "technological shifts", not due to the technology. It is a necessity of capitalism.

Do to technological advancement. It is a nessacary part of technological advancement.


Which is why so many of them have more than one job, I guess. This is a question of poverty, not choice.

And as such it should be addressed in a different fashion. What you want is that glorious russian comunist system, they had no poverty or unemployment.


Because you appear to be unable to understand any other change than the one an employer introduces in order to save expenses.

I can see many changes, but much of technological innovation is about labor saving devices. WHen you have labor you don't need as many laborers.

No, it isn't. It is the nature of improvements in technology in capitalism!
See earlier post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4612004#post4612004).

So you perfer the soviet method? They had no unemployment after all.

[dann]

Do to technological advancement. It is a nessacary part of technological advancement.

No, it isn't.

And as such it should be addressed in a different fashion. What you want is that glorious russian comunist system, they had no poverty or unemployment.

The strawman that defenders of the poverty produced by capitalism always seem to resort to.

I can see many changes, but much of technological innovation is about labor saving devices. WHen you have labor you don't need as many laborers.

Or the workers don't have to work as long or as hard as they used to. No, wait, we are not talking technological innovation, we're talking capitalist technological innovation.

So you perfer the soviet method? They had no unemployment after all.

Strawman repetition. It is true, though, that they had no unemployment, one of the reasons why they were so inefficient as exploiters. They were really no match for capitalism in that respect.

From 1917 to PerestroikaThe Victory of Morality over Socialism (http://www.gegenstandpunkt.com/english/USSR/USSR-contents.html)
The Soviet Union: Socialism as a World Power (http://www.ruthlesscriticism.com/Soviet_Union.htm)
A topical but false classic. Lenin: Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (http://www.ruthlesscriticism.com/lenin.htm)
The Most Stupid Laws of Marxism-Leninism (http://www.ruthlesscriticism.com/ML.htm)
More criticism of socialism and left-wing ideas here (http://www.ruthlesscriticism.com/classicsindex.htm) and here (http://www.ruthlesscriticism.com/leftindex.htm)

[ponderingturtle]

No, it isn't.

So what do you do with all the pipe fitters, boiler makers and so on that are needed to make steam engines run but not needed when you switch to diesel locomotives? What about saddle and harness makers when tractors and the automobile took over? What about a typewriter repairmen in the current world?



The strawman that defenders of the poverty produced by capitalism always seem to resort to.

They had the 100 percent employment that you want, and kept people doing jobs long after the jobs themselves became meaningless. This seems to be exactly what you want.

This is not a problem that is best resolved by private industry but by public policy.


Or the workers don't have to work as long or as hard as they used to. No, wait, we are not talking technological innovation, we're talking capitalist technological innovation.

Most people could work less hours than they do, they choose to work more for more money.

Strawman repetition. It is true, though, that they had no unemployment, one of the reasons why they were so inefficient as exploiters. They were really no match for capitalism in that respect.

You are defending inefficiency though. You what people to be employed or at least not to loose their jobs no matter if it is the more efficient solution.

[TraneWreck]

No, it is just that people know that the police will not protect them and that they do not care about the law. The suitable reference was when the KKK was harrassing and killing civil rights workers. The law didn't care about those violations of rights either.

This is silly. Once more, provide something resembling a fact to support this. I would be interested to see you try to establish that management and executive workers in France feel like the police won't respond to their needs. Go ahead, I'd even take a random blog post somewhere to begin.

I'll even give you a big hint about where to start: why don't you try to show that someone actually called the police before, during, or after the "kidnappings." Because I've already given you quotes by the so-called victims who say it wasn't that big of a deal.

As you said, "the KKK was harrassing and killing civil rights workers." Nothing like that is happening here, you're just engaging in unhinged melodrama.

Provide one single bit of evidence that shows worry on the behalf of people in France about this issue. Show me one single person who claims to have been injured, either physically or emotionally, by the ordeal, because your KKK example has actual victims.

But thank you, I didn't anticipate the KKK analogy, that gave me a good laugh to start my day. Unbelievable.

[rwguinn]

I guess that some people think that the "World owes them a living"...

[ZirconBlue]

No, wait, we are not talking technological innovation, we're talking capitalist technological innovation.

What other kind is there?

[ponderingturtle]

I'll even give you a big hint about where to start: why don't you try to show that someone actually called the police before, during, or after the "kidnappings." Because I've already given you quotes by the so-called victims who say it wasn't that big of a deal.

Why does someone need to call the police for it to be a crime?

As you said, "the KKK was harrassing and killing civil rights workers." Nothing like that is happening here, you're just engaging in unhinged melodrama.

So when the police ignored the harrassment that was fine, it was only when the police ignored the killings that it was a problem.

Provide one single bit of evidence that shows worry on the behalf of people in France about this issue. Show me one single person who claims to have been injured, either physically or emotionally, by the ordeal, because your KKK example has actual victims.

Show me one bit of evidence that people in the south broadly cared about a bit if roughing up civil rights demonstrators.

[ponderingturtle]

What other kind is there?

Well comunist and Dannist?

He talks down comunism and capitalism I have no idea what he actualy wants, other than keeping people in obsolete jobs for decades.

[Stacko]

I have no idea what he actualy wants (snip)

Luddism?

[Tailgater]

Well comunist and Dannist?

He talks down comunism and capitalism I have no idea what he actualy wants, other than keeping people in obsolete jobs for decades.

I just picture the Borg collective whenever I read his posts.

[theprestige]

dann, do you think the law should guarantee your income? If so, how much income should be guaranteed to you? Do you think there's anything you should guarantee in return? If not, why not? If so, what should you guarantee, and what should the law do if you do not honor your guarantee?

[Fnord]

He talks down comunism and capitalism I have no idea what he actualy wants, other than keeping people in obsolete jobs for decades.

Isn't that the common definition of Unionism?

[ponderingturtle]

Isn't that the common definition of Unionism?

Unions are complicated. I was talking to a teacher who was in an odd situation. NYC school districts were closing large schools in favor of small schools. She has 30 years experiance as a special eduction teacher and so earns a proportionatly high salary. The new smaller schools that are replacing the large school(4 of them in the same building as the school she currently works in) do not want to hire the older teachers because they earn too much and it comes from the schools budget. But the teachers are not fired because the school they were in was taken appart because in many cases they did nothing wrong. So the school disctrict still keeps them on the payroll and they hire new teachers who earn less because it saves money for the school but not the school disctrict.

I don't think that the union is bad in this situation, school teachers need protection because school disctricts have little motivation to care about experiance, just the bottom line.

I am not against unions or social support networks, they just are not the issue under discussion here.

[dann]

Isn't that the common definition of Unionism?

In this case the definition is strawman! Just like this one:He talks down comunism and capitalism I have no idea what he actualy wants, other than keeping people in obsolete jobs for decades.

[ponderingturtle]

In this case the definition is strawman!

Not really. You are not presenting a position, you are just saying that capitalism is bad. As you are not actualy making specific suggestions for what should happen, for example when diesel trains replaced steam, we have to guess at what your solution would be. It is clear that innovation is something you are against, as it destroys jobs and sectors of the ecconomy, or at least something that you are against in many instances.

You are only makeing negative comments and not saying one thing about how you want things to work.

[Fnord]

Progress without unemployment? Is it even possible? I mean in practice, not in theory.

To make Muscatel, one must crush a few grapes.

[dann]

So what do you do with all the pipe fitters, boiler makers and so on that are needed to make steam engines run but not needed when you switch to diesel locomotives? What about saddle and harness makers when tractors and the automobile took over? What about a typewriter repairmen in the current world?

What about them? Do you mean to say that you actually don't know what happens to them "in the current world"??!


They had the 100 percent employment that you want, and kept people doing jobs long after the jobs themselves became meaningless. This seems to be exactly what you want.

Interesting! They had what I want?! Now you suddenly seem to know very much about what I want, but then again: When you make up your strawmen as you go along, it's very easy to be in full control of any discussion.

This is not a problem that is best resolved by private industry but by public policy.

The problem of poverty is not only not "resolved by private industry", it is actually produced by private industry and its assistant, public policy.


Most people could work less hours than they do, they choose to work more for more money.

Because they need more money to make ends meet.

You are defending inefficiency though.

It's just raining strawmen today!

You what people to be employed or at least not to loose their jobs no matter if it is the more efficient solution.

No, I don't, and "the more efficient solution" for whom???!

[dann]

Progress without unemployment? Is it even possible? I mean in practice, not in theory.

To make Muscatel, one must crush a few grapes.

And to make the accumulation of capital work, one must crush a lot of workers ...

[dann]

You are only makeing negative comments and not saying one thing about how you want things to work.

And still you are able to invent soluttions that I allegedly propose, which is the same thing as admitting to your strawman argument.

[Fnord]

And to make the accumulation of capital work, one must crush a lot of workers ...
Your understanding of business dynamics would make you a very successful capitalist!

Now, go forth and apply that understanding...

[TraneWreck]

Why does someone need to call the police for it to be a crime?


You serious? You're claiming they can't rely on the police. How are you going to prove it? In the south during Jim Crow there were many examples of juries letting people off, police not investigating crimes, and general willful ignorance on the part of law enforcement. Thus, you would need to show something similar for your childish comparison to have any weight.

You, of course, won't bother to support it at all.


So when the police ignored the harrassment that was fine, it was only when the police ignored the killings that it was a problem.


But you still need to prove there was harassment in France. The spokespeople for management don't view it as harrassment. If you want to make that claim, you need to provide evidence. It isn't harrassment res ipsa loquitur.


Show me one bit of evidence that people in the south broadly cared about a bit if roughing up civil rights demonstrators.

Man, you are just a treat. The point here is that the people who you claim are victims in the "bossnappings" do not view the incident as especially annoying. Are you really asking me to produce evidence that the civil rights workers in the south viewed their harrassment with fear? Ok, I think I might be able to do that:

http://mshistory.k12.ms.us/articles/62/the-civil-rights-movement-in-mississippi-on-violence-and-nonviolence
According to Bob Moses and other civil rights activists, they hoped and often prayed that television and newspaper reporters would show the world that the primary reason blacks remained in such a subordinate position in the South was because of widespread violence directed against them.


In 1955, Reverend George Lee, vice president of the Regional Council of Negro Leadership and NAACP worker, was shot in the face and killed for urging blacks in the Mississippi Delta to vote. Although eyewitnesses saw a carload of whites drive by and shoot into Lee's automobile, the authorities failed to charge anyone. Governor Hugh White refused requests to send investigators to Belzoni, Mississippi, where the murder occurred.

Hmm, what's that? Evidence of people demanding investigations and the political/legal structure denying them due process. This is exactly what you need to show in France, which you cannot and will not.

Here's the wiki article about the Freedom Summer and the death of James Chaney.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Summer

Do you want more? Because I'm not talking out of my ass and basing my argument on pure ignorance, I can keep them coming, can you offer me a single fact on your side? So far, no.

[ZirconBlue]

You serious? You're claiming they can't rely on the police. How are you going to prove it? In the south during Jim Crow there were many examples of juries letting people off, police not investigating crimes, and general willful ignorance on the part of law enforcement. Thus, you would need to show something similar for your childish comparison to have any weight.


What about them? Do you mean to say that you actually don't know what happens to them "in the current world"??!


Looking at unemployment rates in the US (http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet) over the last 60 years, I see that generally our rate of unemployment is pretty low. There was a period of almost a year of over 10% unemployment, but most of the time it under 7.5% and often much lower.

What I take from this: Just because people lose their jobs due to technological advances, or other "capitalist" reasons, doesn't mean they're out of work forever. They find jobs with other employers, or in different industries. Loss of specific jobs is not the same as an overall loss in total jobs.

[TraneWreck]

Looking at unemployment rates in the US (http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet) over the last 60 years, I see that generally our rate of unemployment is pretty low. There was a period of almost a year of over 10% unemployment, but most of the time it under 7.5% and often much lower.

What I take from this: Just because people lose their jobs due to technological advances, or other "capitalist" reasons, doesn't mean they're out of work forever. They find jobs with other employers, or in different industries. Loss of specific jobs is not the same as an overall loss in total jobs.

Ok, I'm not sure how that's a response to the portion of my comment you quoted.

[ZirconBlue]

Ok, I'm not sure how that's a response to the portion of my comment you quoted.

Me neither! :confused: I don't know what happened there. I was trying to quote and respond to this post:



What about them? Do you mean to say that you actually don't know what happens to them "in the current world"??!


I'd like to say it was a forum glitch, but it was probably user error.


ETA: I edited the post, but I left the original quote in so that your reply wouldn't appear nonsensical.

[TraneWreck]

Me neither! :confused: I don't know what happened there. I was trying to quote and respond to this post:

I'd like to say it was a forum glitch, but it was probably user error.

We can write that off as some paranormal revenge by the forces at odds with James Randi.

[ZirconBlue]

We can write that off as some paranormal revenge by the forces at odds with James Randi.

Good plan.


Or we could blame Somali Pirates.

[Ocelot]

All I can say about that is that if I am a boss smart enough to stay armed(but never obvious about it) and am kidnapped the result for the kidnappers will not go well. Especially since kidnapping IS a federal offense here - and I can quite easily and successfully argue that if my employees were insane or desperate enough to kidnap me/hold me hostage then I can legally be in fear of my life and am free to defend myself.

Easy there cowboy. You might want to dial back the bloodlust just a notch. These are Frenchmen we're talking about: living breathing creatures with basic rights. In fact scientists studying the Frenchman in their native environment have observed sophisticated tool use and complex displays of emotion akin to human beings. Now if you were directly threatened by one of these… what’s the phrase?... “chesse eating surrender monkeys” then feel free to use whatever means you have at hand to defend yourself but if the only aggressive action they've taken is to lock a door and you kill one of them for it, then some namby pamby liberal pinko is bound to ask why you didn't aim for the lock instead.

[ponderingturtle]

You serious? You're claiming they can't rely on the police. How are you going to prove it? In the south during Jim Crow there were many examples of juries letting people off, police not investigating crimes, and general willful ignorance on the part of law enforcement. Thus, you would need to show something similar for your childish comparison to have any weight.

You, of course, won't bother to support it at all.

I have no idea why the french don't enforce their laws. I was wondering about parralells to other cases were breaches of ones rights were not prosecuted.

I just feel that laws should be enforced especialy when they are crimes that specificialy prevent people from useing their rights.

But you still need to prove there was harassment in France. The spokespeople for management don't view it as harrassment. If you want to make that claim, you need to provide evidence. It isn't harrassment res ipsa loquitur.

So the boss was free to go? Either that or there were threats made, but such threats are legal in france I guess. Just like there is no reason to differentiate muggers from beggers. They both want your money, one just uses threats to get it, but no big deal I guess.

Man, you are just a treat. The point here is that the people who you claim are victims in the "bossnappings" do not view the incident as especially annoying. Are you really asking me to produce evidence that the civil rights workers in the south viewed their harrassment with fear? Ok, I think I might be able to do that:

And the "victims" of statutory rape also do not veiw themselves as such so should we ignore those crimes too? We do when it is a hot older woman and a young boy, so why not be even and always disregard it?


Hmm, what's that? Evidence of people demanding investigations and the political/legal structure denying them due process. This is exactly what you need to show in France, which you cannot and will not.

Fine the french do not care about the rule of law, and only prosecute those who are unpopular. Best justice in the world that is.

[cwalner]

These are Frenchmen we're talking about: living breathing creatures with basic rights.

So the factory managers are not Frenchman (according to some who have posted here).

In US philosophy the three basic human rights that are listed in our founding documents are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. For the French, they are Liberty, Equality, and Fraternety.

Interesting that the one that we share, both the French workers and thier American supporters posting here seem to think don't apply to company managers.

Just an observation.

[TraneWreck]

I have no idea why the french don't enforce their laws. I was wondering about parralells to other cases were breaches of ones rights were not prosecuted.

I just feel that laws should be enforced especialy when they are crimes that specificialy prevent people from useing their rights.


If some labor group in the United States were to kidnap their boss tomorrow, I would be in full agreement with you so far as that act was concerned. It would be hostile and aggressive, even if no harm befell the boss.

That assessment is based on how we in America view labor negotiations. The French, however, are much more dramatic. None of the parties involved seem to have a problem with the bossnapping beyond minor annoyance. Thus, their culture, so far, doesn't consider that a crime. Who knows, it may become more violent and have to be repressed, but right now it isn't a big deal--to the French.


So the boss was free to go? Either that or there were threats made, but such threats are legal in france I guess. Just like there is no reason to differentiate muggers from beggers. They both want your money, one just uses threats to get it, but no big deal I guess.


That's why it's theater. The boss doesn't really try to leave, that's part of the game. If you could find an example of a boss sometime in the 40 year history of the custom attempting an escape, then you might have an argument. It's a mutually agreed upon tactic: the boss gets tagged "it" and stays at the base. Neither side has any interest in escalating anyting beyond a game.


And the "victims" of statutory rape also do not veiw themselves as such so should we ignore those crimes too? We do when it is a hot older woman and a young boy, so why not be even and always disregard it?


Once again, a melodramatic analogy. I think many instances of statutory rape probably are not crimes. As in, two 16 year olds have sex, the male is now a rapist and must register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.

But that's neither here nor there. We have made the judgment that age discrepancy will likely lead to coersion, therefore people under the age of majority cannot consent, they don't have the ability.

But again, statutory rape has obvious victims with obvious, discernable psychology. If you want to present an argument that management in France is similarly lacking in free will, such that their lack of interest in prosecuting the kidnappers amounts to a sort of battered wives' syndrome, go for it. You're still going to have to involve facts at some point.


Fine the french do not care about the rule of law, and only prosecute those who are unpopular. Best justice in the world that is.

This is just laughable. They absolutely care about the rule of law, they just don't view this particular custom as violating the law.

Once again you managed to provide a response completely devoid of anything resembling a fact.

[TraneWreck]

So the factory managers are not Frenchman (according to some who have posted here).

In US philosophy the three basic human rights that are listed in our founding documents are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. For the French, they are Liberty, Equality, and Fraternety.

Interesting that the one that we share, both the French workers and thier American supporters posting here seem to think don't apply to company managers.

Just an observation.

More hollow platitudes completely divorced from any factual undestanding of what's going on.

French management does not view this as a breach of their rights. It's a negotiating ploy with a 40 year history that is tolerated. If you want to make the case that rights are being violated, why don't you try finding something resembling evidence?

The spokespeople for French management in the articles I linked earlier unanimously say that it isn't a big deal.

[cwalner]

More hollow platitudes completely divorced from any factual undestanding of what's going on.

French management does not view this as a breach of their rights. It's a negotiating ploy with a 40 year history that is tolerated. If you want to make the case that rights are being violated, why don't you try finding something resembling evidence?

The spokespeople for French management in the articles I linked earlier unanimously say that it isn't a big deal.

Ad populum fallacy. Just because 'everybody' in france is ok with this does not mean that the manager is not being deprived of his liberty.

What you don't seem to get is that it is precisely because this action is tolerated by the society in which it happens that we find it so disturbing. The very fact that a society founded on the principles of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, thinks it is acceptable to abandon those principles in any cases should be disturbing.

[TraneWreck]

Ad populum fallacy. Just because 'everybody' in france is ok with this does not mean that the manager is not being deprived of his liberty.

What you don't seem to get is that it is precisely because this action is tolerated by the society in which it happens that we find it so disturbing. The very fact that a society founded on the principles of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, thinks it is acceptable to abandon those principles in any cases should be disturbing.

Look, you seem to have popped in here without reading what came before, I can't exactly blame you for that, but I would recommend reading the links I provided earlier.

It is not a violation of anyone's rights. It isn't that everyone in France is ok with it, it's that the people whom you claim are being abused don't view the activity as a problem. They have been doing this in France for 40 years now, no one has been hurt, no one has been arrested, and as near as I can tell, no one has really even complained about it.

The posts in this thread have been alternately hysterical and melodramic. Despite your full-throated outrage, I would consider yours one of the more tame reactions. Yet you still need to provide some factual evidence that this is a problem. In France, the spokespeople for management, the so-called victims, view this as nothing more than a negotiating ploy. They haven't called for an end to it.

If you want to prove that this is a violation of rights, you have all of your work in front of you. All that happens is that the bosses lose a night's sleep eating take-out with their employees. This is literally the case, which you would know if you read about the actual practice.

[Ocelot]

So the factory managers are not Frenchman (according to some who have posted here).



Don't you know? No! The factory managers were Englishmen: the finest accomplishment of mother nature to date. This wouldn't be in the news if it were just the french dicking with the french as they have been for decades.

[cwalner]

Look, you seem to have popped in here without reading what came before, I can't exactly blame you for that, but I would recommend reading the links I provided earlier.

It is not a violation of anyone's rights. It isn't that everyone in France is ok with it, it's that the people whom you claim are being abused don't view the activity as a problem. They have been doing this in France for 40 years now, no one has been hurt, no one has been arrested, and as near as I can tell, no one has really even complained about it.

The posts in this thread have been alternately hysterical and melodramic. Despite your full-throated outrage, I would consider yours one of the more tame reactions. Yet you still need to provide some factual evidence that this is a problem. In France, the spokespeople for management, the so-called victims, view this as nothing more than a negotiating ploy. They haven't called for an end to it.

If you want to prove that this is a violation of rights, you have all of your work in front of you. All that happens is that the bosses lose a night's sleep eating take-out with their employees. This is literally the case, which you would know if you read about the actual practice.

I have been reading and following this thread from the beginning. I posted some immature pith early on and have been following ever since.

There are some things that I am an absolutist about. One is that a society should be held accountable for living up to its own stated ideals. In the US these are summarized quite beautifully by Jefferson in the phrase Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Hapiness. The US has not always lived up to these ideals and in the last 8 years has been fairly poor about it. Many overseas, including the French, have quite rightly criticized us for this, especially because many Americans did not seem to have any problems with this.

Here is a case where the French are not living up to thier core principles of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. The fact that only a small fraction of people are losing thier liberty, the fact that the loss of liberty seems quite small, the fact that the majority of the people are OK with this are exactly the arguments the US used to quell French criticism of US policies over the last 8 years. In both cases those facts are equally irrelevent. Allowing a minority (wither it be Arabs or factory managers) to lose a piece of thier liberty because 'the majority' is OK with it is just plain wrong.

[TraneWreck]

I have been reading and following this thread from the beginning. I posted some immature pith early on and have been following ever since.

There are some things that I am an absolutist about. One is that a society should be held accountable for living up to its own stated ideals. In the US these are summarized quite beautifully by Jefferson in the phrase Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Hapiness. The US has not always lived up to these ideals and in the last 8 years has been fairly poor about it. Many overseas, including the French, have quite rightly criticized us for this, especially because many Americans did not seem to have any problems with this.

Here is a case where the French are not living up to thier core principles of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. The fact that only a small fraction of people are losing thier liberty, the fact that the loss of liberty seems quite small, the fact that the majority of the people are OK with this are exactly the arguments the US used to quell French criticism of US policies over the last 8 years. In both cases those facts are equally irrelevent. Allowing a minority (wither it be Arabs or factory managers) to lose a piece of thier liberty because 'the majority' is OK with it is just plain wrong.

Really? You're claiming that being forced to stay at your place of employment (which is a stretch anyway, it's an agreed upon custom, management doesn't really try to escape) for one night is an unacceptible loss of liberty?

Honestly, look at what's really going on here. The United States was hooking electrodes up to people's balls and detaining them for years in secret locations without telling them the charges. The bosses spend one night being fed takeout and continuing the negotiation. The "kidnapping" is only symbolic.

I'm mostly on board with your commitment to those core principles, but you have to be able to distinguish actual loss of rights from theater.

This is why I keep asking people to provide facts about the phenomenon. If you read about it, it's a joke. We get hysterical in the US because we're basically an anti-labor country and the idea of seizing a boss would undoubtedly lead to violence. That is not, however, what's going on in France.

You have to find me some actual harm here, or even actual mild discomfort voiced by management.

[theprestige]

Okay, look: It's a loss of liberty.

Obviously it's not "unacceptable", since people clearly can and do figure out ways to accept it, get through it, get over it, and move on with their lives.

But you're still putting a guy in a situation where he's forced to ask himself "is it worth getting punched in the nose to get out of this situation?" Just because he decides that no, it's not worth getting punched in the nose, that doesn't excuse you putting him in that situation to begin with.

You know what other piece of theater is generally annoying and unacceptable? Children who go to great lengths to push their parents as far as they can, without quite doing something that would merit serious consequences. Children who know better, and whose parents let them get away with it, end up being spoiled brats... kind of like the French.

[TraneWreck]

But you're still putting a guy in a situation where he's forced to ask himself "is it worth getting punched in the nose to get out of this situation?" Just because he decides that no, it's not worth getting punched in the nose, that doesn't excuse you putting him in that situation to begin with.


Is that the situation? Find me some evidence of that.

[ponderingturtle]

Is that the situation? Find me some evidence of that.

If there is not, then this is being sold the wrong way. Either this is something between the managers and the workers as a protest, in which case I don't have a problem. Or it is the workers holding the managers against their will, in which case the workers need to be prosecuted.

As it is being sold to the public as the managers being held by the workers, the workers should be tried, convicted and sentanced based on the crime the commit.

[TraneWreck]

If there is not, then this is being sold the wrong way. Either this is something between the managers and the workers as a protest, in which case I don't have a problem. Or it is the workers holding the managers against their will, in which case the workers need to be prosecuted.

As it is being sold to the public as the managers being held by the workers, the workers should be tried, convicted and sentanced based on the crime the commit.

Sold to the public, eh? Why don't you link some articles or quotes that support your position? Just one would be nice.

You guys are talking about this like it's the darkest corner of Attica, but you never bother to find a single line to support anything you say. So they're worried about being hit in the mouth? News to me, a citation might make sense.

But the general consensus seems to be in favor of continued hysteria.

[cwalner]

Really? You're claiming that being forced to stay at your place of employment (which is a stretch anyway, it's an agreed upon custom, management doesn't really try to escape) for one night is an unacceptible loss of liberty?

Honestly, look at what's really going on here. The United States was hooking electrodes up to people's balls and detaining them for years in secret locations without telling them the charges. The bosses spend one night being fed takeout and continuing the negotiation. The "kidnapping" is only symbolic.


Ok, lets narrow it down to just one part of the 'War on Terror' that is more analagous. Do you think it is right or wrong that people with Arabic names and of darker complexion, or generally appearing 'middle eastern' are detained for an additional 15-20 minutes and searched with more scrutiny than other passengers before boarding an airplane?

Again, this is general custom. The majority support it. They are only be detained for less than half an hour. All of this is irrelevant to deciding whether the detention is right or wrong. They are specifically being targeted because they are members of a minority, which the majority fears and distrusts (and yes that is just as accurate discription of management in a pro-labor society). This might make the practice acceptable within the society, but it does not make it right.

[TraneWreck]

Ok, lets narrow it down to just one part of the 'War on Terror' that is more analagous. Do you think it is right or wrong that people with Arabic names and of darker complexion, or generally appearing 'middle eastern' are detained for an additional 15-20 minutes and searched with more scrutiny than other passengers before boarding an airplane?

Again, this is general custom. The majority support it. They are only be detained for less than half an hour. All of this is irrelevant to deciding whether the detention is right or wrong. They are specifically being targeted because they are members of a minority, which the majority fears and distrusts (and yes that is just as accurate discription of management in a pro-labor society). This might make the practice acceptable within the society, but it does not make it right.

Sure, let's examine that analogy.

Is there outcry by people complaining about being unfairly singled out?

Well, here's a blogpost by the son of an Egyptian man complaining about the detention:

http://goatmilk.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/facing-race-muslims-and-islam-series-airport-celebrities-flying-while-brown-by-sherri-eldin/

You can find plenty more with simple google searches.

So the "victims" in this case are upset and calling for change. I might buy your analogy if you can show me something similar in France.

[cwalner]

Sure, let's examine that analogy.

Is there outcry by people complaining about being unfairly singled out?

Well, here's a blogpost by the son of an Egyptian man complaining about the detention:

http://goatmilk.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/facing-race-muslims-and-islam-series-airport-celebrities-flying-while-brown-by-sherri-eldin/

You can find plenty more with simple google searches.

So the "victims" in this case are upset and calling for change. I might buy your analogy if you can show me something similar in France.

Pithy response: Murder victims never complain about being victimized.

Actual response: As you have stated there is wide societal acceptance of this practice. That can provide a lot of motivation to the victims to keep thier mouths shut regardless of what they think about it. It is the very same phenomenon that has allowed spousal abuse to persist for so long. Too many victims are simply too afraid to speak out.

For the managers, I can see pressure coming from both ends. They could be very much afraid that if they speak out against it, the threats made during the abduction may become reality. On the other side, they may be afraid of losing thier job because they would be seen as disloyal by higher management. While you are correct I don't have evidence of either, both are very reasonable explanations why the actual victims (the ones kidnapped, not some mouthpiece hired by thier compnay) are not speaking out about this and are just as valid as the explanation that they accept it and are ok with it.

If you can provide evidence that even a single victim explicitly stated that he/she had no problem with the detention, then I will back off this point and give your explanation for the silence of the others more weight. Until then, I will not grant that silence = consent with such strong societal pressures in play.

[ponderingturtle]

Sold to the public, eh? Why don't you link some articles or quotes that support your position? Just one would be nice.

link (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ghmTpQTCm8TXjdJRSvDZbQ-Z5GRw)

It says that the bosses were held, not part of a protest. Held means that they did not choose it. This is just a form of kidnapping that the french will never prosecute.

[ponderingturtle]

Pithy response: Murder victims never complain about being victimized.

Actual response: As you have stated there is wide societal acceptance of this practice. That can provide a lot of motivation to the victims to keep thier mouths shut regardless of what they think about it. It is the very same phenomenon that has allowed spousal abuse to persist for so long. Too many victims are simply too afraid to speak out.

Loot at spoucal rape 50 years ago, nice and legal, and condoned by society. Therefor there was nothing wrong with raping your wife.

[theprestige]

Is that the situation? Find me some evidence of that.
We've been over this: Is the manager free to leave any time he wants? No? Then he's being held by force, or the threat of force. Feel free to take "punched in the nose" as a figure of speech; I have no evidence that this is the specific form the use of force would take. Maybe it would take the form of physical restraint by several burly men. Maybe it'd take the form of being tripped to the ground and kicked repeatedly. Maybe it'd take the form of being beaten with sticks or folding chairs.

Simple question: Can. The. Manager. Leave. Whenever. He. Wants. Well?

[TraneWreck]

link (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ghmTpQTCm8TXjdJRSvDZbQ-Z5GRw)

It says that the bosses were held, not part of a protest. Held means that they did not choose it. This is just a form of kidnapping that the french will never prosecute.

"We are aware that in France there was recently a number of circumstances in which unions have held hostages but it was not envisaged in our case, a number of meetings took place before."

So in this case normal protocal was violated. The article also points out that Sarkozy will start cracking down on the practice, which is something I pointed out quite a while ago.

Again, if it becomes violent or threatening, it will likely be stopped, but it hasn't so far. Given the increasingly desperate tone of protests, I'd imagine France will now crack down.

But that doesn't mean that what happened was a serious violation of personal liberties.

[Furcifer]

If there is not, then this is being sold the wrong way. Either this is something between the managers and the workers as a protest, in which case I don't have a problem. Or it is the workers holding the managers against their will, in which case the workers need to be prosecuted.

As it is being sold to the public as the managers being held by the workers, the workers should be tried, convicted and sentanced based on the crime the commit.

I'm not sure about this PT. I mentioned before detention. This is a common practice in the US. Even more egregious is the fact that they are usually children being held against their will! Should a school teacher be prosecuted for holding a strudent against their will?

I say it's a double standard here, if you believe holding a boss in detention during contract negotiations is criminal, then certainly holding a child against their will, without any due process is equally, if not more, egregious? (there's no real threat of force assumed here, although preventing someone from egress may be present in both. I don't think it's far fetched to say a teacher may obsruct a student from leaving dentention, in the same way a group of protesters may obstruct a boss from leaving)

[TraneWreck]

Pithy response: Murder victims never complain about being victimized.

Actual response: As you have stated there is wide societal acceptance of this practice. That can provide a lot of motivation to the victims to keep thier mouths shut regardless of what they think about it. It is the very same phenomenon that has allowed spousal abuse to persist for so long. Too many victims are simply too afraid to speak out.


For the 20 milionth time: Then find some goddamn evidence to support this. I was challenged and immediately found evidence that people in the south were complaining about the lack of enforcement. You have done nothing to establish that case with the French situation.

All of your arguments are jsut spurious navel-gazing until you can support them.

And pithy? Try insanely bizarre.


For the managers, I can see pressure coming from both ends. They could be very much afraid that if they speak out against it, the threats made during the abduction may become reality. On the other side, they may be afraid of losing thier job because they would be seen as disloyal by higher management. While you are correct I don't have evidence of either, both are very reasonable explanations why the actual victims (the ones kidnapped, not some mouthpiece hired by thier compnay) are not speaking out about this and are just as valid as the explanation that they accept it and are ok with it.


I can imagine a whole lot of things, too, but that doesn't make it so.

We're talking about management here, not a battered wife in Mississippi. If they have a problem they are more then able to go to the press. Oh wait, they did go to the press and said it wasn't a big deal.


If you can provide evidence that even a single victim explicitly stated that he/she had no problem with the detention, then I will back off this point and give your explanation for the silence of the others more weight. Until then, I will not grant that silence = consent with such strong societal pressures in play.


I already did. Here it is again:

"It's true that this might seem surprising abroad, but it's less surprising in France, where we're more used to this kind of situation," said a Sony spokeswoman.

Sony had an incident a few years back.

The opinion in France seems to be that the tactic is getting too confrontational, thus the president said he will crack down. That certainly changes matters, but doesn't alter the facts about the tactic in the past.

[TraneWreck]

We've been over this: Is the manager free to leave any time he wants? No? Then he's being held by force, or the threat of force. Feel free to take "punched in the nose" as a figure of speech; I have no evidence that this is the specific form the use of force would take. Maybe it would take the form of physical restraint by several burly men. Maybe it'd take the form of being tripped to the ground and kicked repeatedly. Maybe it'd take the form of being beaten with sticks or folding chairs.

Simple question: Can. The. Manager. Leave. Whenever. He. Wants. Well?

This is what stubborn, (insert personal insult) people do. You take a situation with sublety to it and try to distill it into a simple situation.

I've got another one: You either support the war on terror or you don't. Are you with us or against us? If you're against us you love terrorists and want to give them therapy.

That kind of nonsense just won't do here.

What's also funny is that I already answered this childish response. In life there are a variety of reasons I cannot do whatever I want whenever I want. I used a different scale earlier, but let's use from "the doctor is late for my appointment" to "you have been detained by the United States government as an enemy combatant," the "bossnapping" is mildly worse than an afternoon at the DMV.

You trying to pretend like it's all or nothing is just melodrama. I can't take you seriously if you're unable to differentiate between degrees.

And again, management is used to it. They don't really care.

[TraneWreck]

Loot at spoucal rape 50 years ago, nice and legal, and condoned by society. Therefor there was nothing wrong with raping your wife.

Sigh...it's like talking to a brick wall.

Once again, it isn't right because it's a tradition, it's a tradition that isn't harmful.

Honestly, how difficult is that?

Again, we understand the psychological condition that causes women in abusive relationships to defend their assailants. It has an unusually apt name: battered wives syndrome, which has now been expanded to include other victims of the same psychology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battered_person_syndrome

I'm happy to deal with an argument from the unhinged histrionics crowd where you show that management in France has similarly been affected. Go ahead, make your case, I'm sure it will be entertaining.

[dudalb]

Really? You're claiming that being forced to stay at your place of employment (which is a stretch anyway, it's an agreed upon custom, management doesn't really try to escape) for one night is an unacceptible loss of liberty?

Yes, it is unacceptable. Being detained by illegal use of force is illegal use of force, whether it be for Ten minutes or Ten Hours.

[TraneWreck]

Yes, it is unacceptable. Being detained by illegal use of force is illegal use of force, whether it be for Ten minutes or Ten Hours.

But the French haven't viewed as illegal use of force. According to Sarkozy it might be changing, and now we will see if the workers use the tactic if it carries actual consequence.

This is going around and around in circles.

"Hey, sorry, my daughter took a candy bar from your shelf."
"SHE IS A THIEF, WE MUST CUT OFF HER HANDS."
"Yeah, I know it's technically illegal, but you could probably let it slide."
"ILLEGAL TAKING OF ANOTHER'S PROPERTY IS ILLEGAL TAKING OF ANOTHER'S PROPERTY, WHETHER IT BE FOR TEN CENTS OR TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS!!!!"

[theprestige]

Waiting in line at the DMV: Not particularly OK.

Being detained by ex-employees against my will: Also not particularly OK.

Of course, if you want to get all nuanced about it, the line at the DMV is due to a basic limitation in available resources, and is a situation entered into consensually by all participants.

Meanwhile, being detained by ex-employees is due to... well, it's due to a basic limitation of human nature, I guess. And I still can't figure out if you think the manager is entering into the arrangement consensually or not. I'm pretty sure it's "not".

Note that I've never compared it to anything really horrible. I simply think that it's wrong, and that the people doing the detaining are wrong for doing it, and that French authorities are wrong for not doing something about it.

You're the one who keeps trying to downplay it as no big deal. And then whenever someone tries to press you on what, exactly, you think is going on, you accuse us of blowing it out of proportion.

The fact that the manager "goes along to get along" or whatever no more justifies or excuses the detention than does the rampant custom of bribery in certain societies justify bribery as a method of doing business.

[ponderingturtle]

"We are aware that in France there was recently a number of circumstances in which unions have held hostages but it was not envisaged in our case, a number of meetings took place before."

So either then french unions are terrorists, or the hostage takers in the 80's were not doing anything really wrong. You don't see any fundamental problem with taking people hostage it seems.

But that doesn't mean that what happened was a serious violation of personal liberties.

So as long as it is for a few hours kidnapping is OK?

[ponderingturtle]

I'm not sure about this PT. I mentioned before detention. This is a common practice in the US. Even more egregious is the fact that they are usually children being held against their will! Should a school teacher be prosecuted for holding a strudent against their will?

If the child is underage then their parents of their parents representatives can hold them against their will. Now if it was an emancipated minor it would be a different issue.

Want to know something? As an EMT I could not transport adults against their will, it would be kidnapping, but minors could not legally refuse medical care as they can not take responsibility for what happens to them.

[ponderingturtle]

What's also funny is that I already answered this childish response. In life there are a variety of reasons I cannot do whatever I want whenever I want. I used a different scale earlier, but let's use from "the doctor is late for my appointment" to "you have been detained by the United States government as an enemy combatant," the "bossnapping" is mildly worse than an afternoon at the DMV.

They threaten you with harm at the DMV now if you want to walk out of the Que and leave? They are hard core in Chicago.

[TraneWreck]

Waiting in line at the DMV: Not particularly OK.

Being detained by ex-employees against my will: Also not particularly OK.

Of course, if you want to get all nuanced about it, the line at the DMV is due to a basic limitation in available resources, and is a situation entered into consensually by all participants.

Meanwhile, being detained by ex-employees is due to... well, it's due to a basic limitation of human nature, I guess. And I still can't figure out if you think the manager is entering into the arrangement consensually or not. I'm pretty sure it's "not".

Note that I've never compared it to anything really horrible. I simply think that it's wrong, and that the people doing the detaining are wrong for doing it, and that French authorities are wrong for not doing something about it.

You're the one who keeps trying to downplay it as no big deal. And then whenever someone tries to press you on what, exactly, you think is going on, you accuse us of blowing it out of proportion.

The fact that the manager "goes along to get along" or whatever no more justifies or excuses the detention than does the rampant custom of bribery in certain societies justify bribery as a method of doing business.


Well, then I owe you a bit of an apology. At this point I got you confused with the people who compared this to abusing muslim women, the KKK, piracy, and an assortment of other overblown situations.

I will say this about the French custom, and it seems we will just not agree on this: because they have consistently used it as a negotiating ploy for 40 years and no one has been harmed or arrested during those 4 decades, I don't see any reason why we should call for them to stop.

Now, it appears that the tactic is becoming more radical and potentially more dangerous. Sarkozy wants to crack down on it, I'm perfectly supportive of that as well. I see no benefit to it, and if it really does become harmful, then I agree it should be stopped.

But as it stands now, it's kind of a game between the sides. Labor disputes can lead to negotiations that keep people bargaining for much longer than the single night of "bossnapping." It seems to me, from all of the stories I've read, is that the only difference between what our media views as kidnapping and normal negotiations is the theater of parking cars in front of the exit. It's a symolic captivity that no one has really tried to break in 40 years.

[ponderingturtle]

Sigh...it's like talking to a brick wall.

Once again, it isn't right because it's a tradition, it's a tradition that isn't harmful.

And the tradition of men taking their spoucal rights from their wife also had a long tradition.


Again, we understand the psychological condition that causes women in abusive relationships to defend their assailants. It has an unusually apt name: battered wives syndrome, which has now been expanded to include other victims of the same psychology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battered_person_syndrome

I thought we were looking for reasons that the taking of hostages in france was not ever harmful, not more reasons why it might be difficult to find evidence of people speaking against it. Thanks for adding more weight to my argument though.

[quixotecoyote]

And the tradition of men taking their spoucal rights from their wife also had a long tradition.



I thought we were looking for reasons that the taking of hostages in france was not ever harmful, not more reasons why it might be difficult to find evidence of people speaking against it. Thanks for adding more weight to my argument though.

While I voted no, are you seriously going to try to argue that management in France suffers from Battered person syndrome?:boggled:

[TraneWreck]

They threaten you with harm at the DMV now if you want to walk out of the Que and leave? They are hard core in Chicago.

Citation for the threats in France? Oh wait, you're once again assuming that it happens a certain way without bothering to substantiate the point.

[TraneWreck]

And the tradition of men taking their spoucal rights from their wife also had a long tradition.


I mean honestly, did you even read what I wrote? See that word "harmful?" The space between my one sentence explanation and your astonishing misread or willful manipulation is less than an inch on the screen. How can you do that with a straight face?


I thought we were looking for reasons that the taking of hostages in france was not ever harmful, not more reasons why it might be difficult to find evidence of people speaking against it. Thanks for adding more weight to my argument though.

Huh? You're serious? You think management is suffering from battered person's syndrome. Haha, awesome.

I put that link there so you could read about the characteristics of people suffering that condition. Now it's up to you to deal with your greatest fear: facts.

You need to show how the people in question satisfy that diagnosis.

[ponderingturtle]

Note that I've never compared it to anything really horrible. I simply think that it's wrong, and that the people doing the detaining are wrong for doing it, and that French authorities are wrong for not doing something about it.

Naming the crime they are comitting seems to be enough. Taking peopel hostage is no big deal in france, they just roll that way you know.

[TraneWreck]

So either then french unions are terrorists, or the hostage takers in the 80's were not doing anything really wrong. You don't see any fundamental problem with taking people hostage it seems.


So as long as it is for a few hours kidnapping is OK?

Alright, you're a joke. I've tried responding reasonably to your nonsense, but this is just getting sad. I've answered this about 20 times now, and you haven't modified your argument at all. It's just a tired reiteration of the same factless, garbled nonsense.

I find it surprising that so many people on a forum dedicated to skeptical thinking can reduce an issue to a binary, black and white choice. It's really startling.

[ponderingturtle]

Well, then I owe you a bit of an apology. At this point I got you confused with the people who compared this to abusing muslim women, the KKK, piracy, and an assortment of other overblown situations.

Remember that spousal rape was criminalized in the US in the 1980's. Up until 1975 being married as a defense against rape charges in south dakota. I have not seen any thing about muslim women.

And of course any analogy to other situations where crimes were clearly committed but not prosecuted is not relevant for some reason I can't quite see.

[ponderingturtle]

While I voted no, are you seriously going to try to argue that management in France suffers from Battered person syndrome?:boggled:

The reasons why they are not demanding these crimes be prosecuted are the same. Of course in civilized nations you do not need the victim to demand that the crime be prosecuted for the crime to be prosecuted, but I am aware that this is france and not a civilized nation.

[ponderingturtle]

Citation for the threats in France? Oh wait, you're once again assuming that it happens a certain way without bothering to substantiate the point.

Are these hostages free to go or not? If they are, then they are not hostages. Look at the very words that are used to describe the situation, it depends on there being force or threat of force.

[ponderingturtle]

Alright, you're a joke. I've tried responding reasonably to your nonsense, but this is just getting sad. I've answered this about 20 times now, and you haven't modified your argument at all. It's just a tired reiteration of the same factless, garbled nonsense.
.

Well it is good to know for any vacation planning that kidnapping is legal in frace. You can be held hostage for quite some time and the locals just don't care.

[TraneWreck]

Remember that spousal rape was criminalized in the US in the 1980's. Up until 1975 being married as a defense against rape charges in south dakota. I have not seen any thing about muslim women.

And of course any analogy to other situations where crimes were clearly committed but not prosecuted is not relevant for some reason I can't quite see.

Yes, you can't see it, it's surprising, but true.

Again, it's not just the non-prosecution, it's the complete lack of anyone demanding a prosecution. You challenged me to show that people in the south were upset about law enforcement's blind eye to their needs, I gave you plenty of quotes and resources. You have shown nothing similar in the case of France.

One more time, so you don't raise this again: it isn't just the lack of prosecution, it's the lack of anyone asking for prosecution.

That cannot be said of battered wives, and it cannot be said of the segregated south.

If you want to make that claim for "bossnapping," prove it.

[TraneWreck]

Well it is good to know for any vacation planning that kidnapping is legal in frace. You can be held hostage for quite some time and the locals just don't care.

More jokes, good stuff.

[TraneWreck]

The reasons why they are not demanding these crimes be prosecuted are the same. Of course in civilized nations you do not need the victim to demand that the crime be prosecuted for the crime to be prosecuted, but I am aware that this is france and not a civilized nation.

Where's your evidence that the management in France is suffering from a psychological condition that limits their ability to raise their own grievances?

Because that's what battered person's syndrome does.

Facts, facts, where are your facts? Your imagination isn't that entertaining, so maybe try a different approach.

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, you can't see it, it's surprising, but true.

Again, it's not just the non-prosecution, it's the complete lack of anyone demanding a prosecution. You challenged me to show that people in the south were upset about law enforcement's blind eye to their needs, I gave you plenty of quotes and resources. You have shown nothing similar in the case of France.

And in france hostage means you are free to go when ever you want, you are just hanging out drinking coffee.

link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7989683.stm)


I guess people like the president of france do not count. He is not french enough.

[ponderingturtle]

Where's your evidence that the management in France is suffering from a psychological condition that limits their ability to raise their own grievances?

Because that's what battered person's syndrome does.

Facts, facts, where are your facts? Your imagination isn't that entertaining, so maybe try a different approach.

And your position is that no one in france cares if you hold people hostage for periods of time. Or that hostages in france are free to go.

[Furcifer]

If the child is underage then their parents of their parents representatives can hold them against their will. Now if it was an emancipated minor it would be a different issue.

Want to know something? As an EMT I could not transport adults against their will, it would be kidnapping, but minors could not legally refuse medical care as they can not take responsibility for what happens to them.

I think we agree it "goes to motive". If it's in the best interest of everyone invloved it's OK, if not there are problems.

Whenever I think of this I consider hazing. When it is taken too far it's assault, but in the right context it's commonplace. lol, as the french say "C'est la vie" :D

[TraneWreck]

And in france hostage means you are free to go when ever you want, you are just hanging out drinking coffee.

link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7989683.stm)


I guess people like the president of france do not count. He is not french enough.

I mean this in all honesty: do you read anything I write?

I have dealt with this about 4 times. This situation appears to be slightly different than the typical action, therefore the French are cracking down. They are beginning to fear an escalation of the practice.

It's very simple: when it becomes harmful, or the French definitively describe it as illegal, the game stops being a game.

You're pointing out things that happened pages ago and acting like they're revelations.

[TraneWreck]

And your position is that no one in france cares if you hold people hostage for periods of time. Or that hostages in france are free to go.

Haha, are you Andy Kauffman? Is this some kind of performance comedy? Even so, I've seen better.

Again, this has already been discussed.

[cwalner]

I can imagine a whole lot of things, too, but that doesn't make it so.
which includes the idea that the detained managers thought this was OK. That was kind of my point.


I already did. Here it is again:
"It's true that this might seem surprising abroad, but it's less surprising in France, where we're more used to this kind of situation," said a Sony spokeswoman.
Sony had an incident a few years back.

Nice dodge by cutting up my post you were responding to by cutting this part as part of the previous response
While you are correct I don't have evidence of either, both are very reasonable explanations why the actual victims (the ones kidnapped, not some mouthpiece hired by thier compnay) are not speaking out about this and are just as valid as the explanation that they accept it and are ok with it.
You see, that parenthetical part, which I bolded this time so you don't ignore it completely this time, shows that I was aware of this argument already but that also could smell it for the horse**** that it is. I don't care what the company or its spokepeople think of thier lower management being detained, I care what the detainee thinks.

While we're at it, you're argument seems to claim that this 'theater' is acceptable because it is the only way to get the company to see how badly they are treating thier employees by laying them off. What makes you think that a compnay that cares so little for its employees, suddenly has this emotional epiphany when moving one rung up the ladder and gives a rat's ass about its lower management?

That's the part that you seem to completely fail to get. The person who is paying the price for the worker's being upset by losing his freedom (for however a brief of time) Had absolutely no say whatsoever in the decision to lay off the workers in the first place, and is barely above the workers within the corporate structure in the second place. Most low level managers are just as hard working employees as the people they manage. They have much more in common with thier employees than they do with thier company's upper management. The only major difference between them and thier detainers is the title of manager.

This is why I have such a problem with this. Not only is somebody being detained against his will and the society in which it happens doesn't seem to care. The person being detained is not even the person responsible for the decision that got the detainers upset in the first place.

Also what would you think if this were slightly reversed. What would be your opinion if the manager told all employees they had to work a single mandatory graveyard shift, or lose thier job? Would the fact that most, maybe all of the employees would grudgingly do this make this right? Would the fact that they probably would not complain out of fear of losing thier job make it right?

[Furcifer]

That's the part that you seem to completely fail to get. The person who is paying the price for the worker's being upset by losing his freedom (for however a brief of time) Had absolutely no say whatsoever in the decision to lay off the workers in the first place, and is barely above the workers within the corporate structure in the second place. Most low level managers are just as hard working employees as the people they manage. They have much more in common with thier employees than they do with thier company's upper management.

This is usually correct but I didn't get this from the articles I read. It would seem the kidnappings are at smaller businesses where the boss is more directly responsible. You're assuming that a number of people are kidnapping someone with little or no power. That would even more case for it being a symbolic act. In either case I'm not buying your argument.

[dann]

I mean this in all honesty: do you read anything I write?

I don't think that PTurtle reads any of the things he objects to. He prefers his strawmen. At least he's able to defeat those.

[ponderingturtle]

I think we agree it "goes to motive". If it's in the best interest of everyone invloved it's OK, if not there are problems.

Nope, it goes to who can make an informed choice. Children can not make an informed choice, and so they can be held agaisnt their will by their parents or their parents representatives.

Whenever I think of this I consider hazing. When it is taken too far it's assault, but in the right context it's commonplace. lol, as the french say "C'est la vie" :D

Again the issue is consent. Here it seems that the people do not consent or they would not be hostages.

[ponderingturtle]

It's very simple: when it becomes harmful, or the French definitively describe it as illegal, the game stops being a game.

And violating their rights is not considered harmful by the french.

[ponderingturtle]

Haha, are you Andy Kauffman? Is this some kind of performance comedy? Even so, I've seen better.

Again, this has already been discussed.

So you agree then that they do sell it as being forced violations of peoples rights. We are getting somewhere.

[ponderingturtle]

I don't think that PTurtle reads any of the things he objects to. He prefers his strawmen. At least he's able to defeat those.

You know you still haven't responded at all to how you think jobs made obsolete by technology should be handled. We have hostage taking being a technique but no mention of the goal.

[ponderingturtle]

Nice dodge by cutting up my post you were responding to by cutting this part as part of the previous response

They clearly don't care about people who might be afraid to report such things. Or have much consern for people having their rights violated as long as it is short term.

And I never new before this thread that the Chicago DMV was holding members of the public hostage for any length of time. You learn new things everyday.

[DC]

Amazing how some people can get totaly upset about a Manager been taken away his freedom for a few hours. While those same people seem not to be upset at all when 300 people loose their job and get nothing, and it was not their fault.

but the management that is actually responsible for the loss of jobs get neat compensations so much like those other workers will not earn in 10 years working.

I dont think it is OK to just lock up your boss, but in some cases i can totaly undestand it.

[ponderingturtle]

Amazing how some people can get totaly upset about a Manager been taken away his freedom for a few hours. While those same people seem not to be upset at all when 300 people loose their job and get nothing, and it was not their fault.

The difference is who was having their rights violated. It is sad that those people lost their job, but jobs come and go. Unless the french goverment now needs to suport any factory and keep them open no matter how inefficient the factory is, to keep the jobs.

but the management that is actually responsible for the loss of jobs get neat compensations so much like those other workers will not earn in 10 years working.


Possibly. But what if the management isn't responcible and it is just a shift in the ecconomy? Do we hold the world hostage for these jobs?

[Richard Masters]

The only hesitation I had in answering the poll question is that "a step too far" is a gross understatement. It's about 15 steps too far!! It's not okay to kidnap anyone! It's not okay to slash their car tires, either. It's not okay to punch them in the face, or even to threaten to do so, over a job.

Employment needs to be voluntary. You work for an employer because you want to; they hire you / keep you on because they want to. There are mechanisms in place to protect people against arbitrary firings over things that have nothing to do with job performance (eg, your new boss only wants Mormons to work for him).

The sheer idiocy of workers in today's economic meltdown astounds me. Boeing's workers at the Omaha facility authorized a strike because, as one rep said at an interview, "It's our turn to get a slice of the pie." This, in one of the largest economic downturns in our nation's history...when plane orders are being cancelled, flights are being reduced by airlines and--hope this doesn't surprise anyone--there will be a few bankruptcies in the airline industry as the over-stocked providers winnow themselves down to a sustainable number. Boeing is issuing layoffs--and these guys want to strike because the contract offer doesn't have enough additional money?! People are living in a world far removed from reality.

France is deeply limited economically by the social support for labor unions. They literally have strikes that incapacitate one industry or another on an annual basis. They have a 35-hour work week, mandatory 4-week vacation (might be 5), generous sick leave, many holidays, etc. They also have a horrendous unemployment rate, especially among the young; and the largest employer in France is the government.

But I have digressed from my main point, which is that it's not okay to kidnap your boss--or anyone else--to force them to hire you / keep you in a job. If there isn't enough business to afford the current size workforce, there isn't enough business! No amount of threatening the bearer of the bad tidings is going to change that fact.

Some folks think that "companies" have vaults of money somewhere that "they" could give more of if they wanted to. It's simply not true, most companies operate on a fairly small margin.

Furthermore, the end does not justify the means. Reformat the question a little: Is it "okay" to kidnap your boss's children to make him keep you on the job? How about your neighbor's children?? It's really the same question. Is it okay to use force to make your economic demands, or not?

These guys are playing the same game as the Somalis, really. And they should be given as little sympathy.

Just my thoughts, MK

Yes, it's OK because it's funny. However, you shouldn't expect a good outcome.

[DC]

The difference is who was having their rights violated. It is sad that those people lost their job, but jobs come and go. Unless the french goverment now needs to suport any factory and keep them open no matter how inefficient the factory is, to keep the jobs.


Possibly. But what if the management isn't responcible and it is just a shift in the ecconomy? Do we hold the world hostage for these jobs?

yeah you see no problem with a management that gives itself far to huge wages and boni. Because it is all legal.

But forcing the Manager to negotiations is a huge crime, because it takes away the freedom of a manager for some hours.

Would Manager still live in reality, maybe people would care more about their rights.

[cwalner]

yeah you see no problem with a management that gives itself far to huge wages and boni. Because it is all legal.

But forcing the Manager to negotiations is a huge crime, because it takes away the freedom of a manager for some hours.

Would Manager still live in reality, maybe people would care more about their rights.

No, we just object to using criminal methods to force management to negotiations. Especially when there is a legal method to more effectively accomplish the same thing. It's called a strike.

[ponderingturtle]

yeah you see no problem with a management that gives itself far to huge wages and boni. Because it is all legal.

No, it is just a different issue. Is that the level of management that is even being kidnapped?

But forcing the Manager to negotiations is a huge crime, because it takes away the freedom of a manager for some hours.

Kidnapping people is wrong. Maybe that is a difference in the US vs Europe, we care more about the rule of law.

[DC]

No, it is just a different issue. Is that the level of management that is even being kidnapped?


Kidnapping people is wrong. Maybe that is a difference in the US vs Europe, we care more about the rule of law.

Not really :)
you cannot generalize it to whole Europe not even the EU.

I agree it is wrong. And i even think they should face justice and pay a fine.
but still i can understand it very very well.

[DC]

No, we just object to using criminal methods to force management to negotiations. Especially when there is a legal method to more effectively accomplish the same thing. It's called a strike.

Most wages of Managers are criminal :)

[dann]

Maybe that is a difference in the US vs Europe, we care more about the rule of law.

Yes, we Europeans are all law-defyers, so very different from the civilized, law-abiding gun toters of the Wild West! :)

[dann]

You know you still haven't responded at all to how you think jobs made obsolete by technology should be handled. We have hostage taking being a technique but no mention of the goal.

You still haven't acknowledged that technology doesn't make jobs obsolete. Technology as such only serves to make the work needed to do the job easier. Capitalism makes jobs obsolete:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4604963#post4604963
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4610523#post4610523
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4610668#post4610668
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4610671#post4610671
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4611155#post4611155
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4611223#post4611223
This one in particular: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4612004#post4612004
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4613010#post4613010
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4613370#post4613370
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4613819#post4613819

Now you want me to do something very different from what I’ve been doing. You still deny the fact that captalism (http://www.ruthlesscriticism.com/technology.htm), not technology (http://www.ruthlesscriticism.com/technology.htm), makes people redundant, but nevertheless you want me to tell you how I ”think jobs made obsolete by technology should be handled”.

My answer is fairly easy to deduce from my writing so far: Since capitalism causes unemployment instead of alleviating the work load of workers, i.e. for the remaining few the work is intensified whereas the rest are ‘alleviated’ from not only the work load but also the income, the cause of unemployment should be made redundant!
In capitalism the machinery does not serve the worker, the worker serves the machinery (http://www.ruthlesscriticism.com/technology.htm)
And since the cause of unemployment is not technology, there is no need to accuse the opponents of this feature of capitalist ‘progress’ of being Luddites, but then again: You lot are fond of the strawman!

[dann]

No, we just object to using criminal methods to force management to negotiations. Especially when there is a legal method to more effectively accomplish the same thing. It's called a strike.

A strike may be used as a tool to put pressure on the factory owners as long as every day of the strike stops the production of goods that the owners are eager to get on the market and sell for a profit. In the present crisis, with management threatening to close down the factory, it is of no use whatsoever - unless it's only a bluff to pressure the workers into accepting lower wages and/or longer hours (http://www.ruthlesscriticism.com/progress_today.htm).
The workers will have to put a stop to this mode of production altogether - or accept redundancy.

[NewtonTrino]

You still deny the fact that captalism, not technology, makes people redundant

How does this follow? Can you explain your logic? Some technologies just make others redundant. Sometimes this can even effect people in unrelated industries. Even technology created by communists could still displace workers within the system. E.g. they may have to change jobs. This seems unavoidable if you are trying to create better or more efficient technology.

[Rasmus]

You still deny the fact that captalism, not technology, makes people redundant

Just saw this quoted by Newton...

Computers are very good at making jobs obsolete by advancing technology.

I am responsible for the production of thousands of digital images per day using digital cameras. I am sure that their advance has contributed to the making redundant of a few jobs in the photo-industry: Nobody needs to develop any film for me.

Speech recognition is another example - my dad dictates reports on tape and they are typed out later by somebody else. IF speech recognition software improves further, the job of his secretary will be partly redundant.

Yes, you could argue that it's all a problem of capitalism - without it, nobody would care much about efficiency or quality I suppose. Maybe nobody would bother to develop technices that made jobs quicker, safer and easier to do (but I doubt that.) But in a world with limited resources that's not going to stop any time soon, I think.

[ponderingturtle]

You still haven't acknowledged that technology doesn't make jobs obsolete. Technology as such only serves to make the work needed to do the job easier. Capitalism makes jobs obsolete:

So what do the boilermakers and pipe fitters do when the machines that they were trained and hired to service are no longer being used?

Or as I said computers used to be people adding up lines of numbers all day long, electronic computers put them out of work pretty efficiently.


My answer is fairly easy to deduce from my writing so far: Since capitalism causes unemployment instead of alleviating the work load of workers, i.e. for the remaining few the work is intensified whereas the rest are ‘alleviated’ from not only the work load but also the income, the cause of unemployment should be made redundant!
In capitalism the machinery does not serve the worker, the worker serves the machinery (http://www.ruthlesscriticism.com/technology.htm)
And since the cause of unemployment is not technology, there is no need to accuse the opponents of this feature of capitalist ‘progress’ of being Luddites, but then again: You lot are fond of the strawman!

So we must never let productivity improve.

[ponderingturtle]

Just saw this quoted by Newton...

Computers are very good at making jobs obsolete by advancing technology.

I am responsible for the production of thousands of digital images per day using digital cameras. I am sure that their advance has contributed to the making redundant of a few jobs in the photo-industry: Nobody needs to develop any film for me.

Speech recognition is another example - my dad dictates reports on tape and they are typed out later by somebody else. IF speech recognition software improves further, the job of his secretary will be partly redundant.

Yes, you could argue that it's all a problem of capitalism - without it, nobody would care much about efficiency or quality I suppose. Maybe nobody would bother to develop technices that made jobs quicker, safer and easier to do (but I doubt that.) But in a world with limited resources that's not going to stop any time soon, I think.

Ah don't you see, it was capitalism that got them to lose their jobs, they should have kept their job developing film even if there was never film to develop. Not sure how this would be done, probably by the goverment mandating it.

[dann]

How does this follow? Can you explain your logic?

Yes, and I already did so - several times:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...63#post4604963
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...23#post4610523
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...68#post4610668
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...71#post4610671
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...55#post4611155
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...23#post4611223
This one in particular: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...04#post4612004
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...10#post4613010
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...70#post4613370
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...19#post4613819
http://www.ruthlesscriticism.com/technology.htm

Some technologies just make others redundant.

No, they don't. But employers use "some technologies" to make their workers redundant.

Sometimes this can even effect people in unrelated industries.

Yes, it can.

Even technology created by communists could still displace workers within the system. E.g. they may have to change jobs. This seems unavoidable if you are trying to create better or more efficient technology.

No, it doesn't. If the job gets easier, people won't have to work as much. I think that the so-called communists actually feared this effect: They did not want their workers to have more time on their hands, so instead of dying of stress, workers in a 'communist' factory tended to die of boredom instead.

[WildCat]

Looks like not all the bosses are accepting this as a bit of harmless fun:

GRENOBLE, France (AP) -- Angry French workers have for years resorted to "boss-napping" as a negotiating tactic when times get tough, but rarely faced any punishment. Four Caterpillar executives recently held hostage hope to change that.

The four have sued in criminal court after being locked in the Caterpillar factory in Grenoble last month for more than 24 hours, a union official said Friday. The lawsuit did not name any specific suspects, leaving it up to investigators to determine who was responsible.
http://www.manufacturing.net/News-French-CAT-Bosses-File-Lawsuit-After-Kidnapping-042409.aspx

This lawsuit was filed in criminal court, I'm not familiar with French law but does this mean they want the kidnappers charged criminally?

[FlamingMoe]

This post of mine shall serve two purposes:

1: to bump the thread back to the top so dann can see it when he shows up again, and for Tranewreck because he must have missed it when he was last here.

2: to see if the French apologists will try to defend the actions of striking French utilities workers who have cut power (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6150447.ece) to many homes in order to (somehow) further their negotiations. I mean, if detaining (kidnapping) managers is okay, then I really can't see how depriving a few folks of their Survivor fix is any worse.