heckthepolice2 wrote (edited )
Reply to comment by Silver_ in Toys R Us' bankruptcy lawyers get $56 million while laid-off workers get $2 million by ziq
Why this obsession with written contracts all of a sudden? Why is that so different than a verbal contract?
In fact, the only thing I can think of that distinguishes written contracts from other forms of agreement is that they're more likely to be recognized legally. You know, like, by the state
But, no, that couldn't be it...
No difference, between written and verbal contract, yeah It was just an example
So you admit then that the company broke their agreement, and thus deserves to be ostracized, to lose their honor, and unfortunately maybe to be killed by vigilantes?
Silver_ wrote (edited )
Not necessarily, I don't know If It was mentioned in the original agreement.
Promising something is not a contract (It's not a two way trade).
Whether I think that they deserve to be ostracized or not, doesn't change anything.
People are free to ostracize (or not) people.
You can be ostracized, even If you haven't done any crimes.
Why does the original agreement matter so much? They made a new agreement. Most of the workers probably would have left had they known they wouldn't get severance. The company got them to stay under false pretenses. That in and of itself is an agreement. "I will continue working for you if you give me severance when the company goes bankrupt"
Promising something is not a contract !
Most of the workers probably would have left had they known they wouldn't get severance.
Yup, It's like cancelling a meetup or a soccer match, people wouldn't have bought their plane/train tickets. From a moral perspective, It's better to compensate, even though It's not mandatory.
That in and of itself is an agreement. "I will continue working for you if you give me severance when the company goes bankrupt"
I agree, but have they agreed to this ?
Why are you so into this soccer match metaphor? Are you salty cause your ex-wife got mad at you for not coming to your kid's games?
Anyway, to make that actually comparable to the situation at hand would require a few changes
The person flaking owns the train company and thus directly profits from the sale of the tickets
The person flaking fully intends to flake and is deliberately decieving the other person for their own profit
The cost of the train ticket is several months of labor
Where exactly do you draw the line between a "promise" and a "contract"?
If I say "no transgender people in my shop", will you attempt to murder me, then ?
[deleted] 0 wrote
Silver_ wrote (edited )
In other words "anarchists" want war with voluntaryists, meanwhile voluntaryists don't want to attack anyone. You are the "good guy" "non-violent/peaceful" . Nice.
But If everyone followed your logic then most "anarchists" would be dead, because you have unpopular opinions.
Killing people over ideas (even If no violence was done)...
It's MY shop, therefore I get to decide who enter in it or not...
The security guards will ask the person to leave.
The guards will first try to de-escalate, but If the person doesn't want to leave MY property, It will end up badly for him.
Aka, the guards will use force.
I own my shop.
"Violence" is acceptable to defend your body/property.
I am simply defending my property. If I don't want you to enter, you don't enter : I own my shop.
Why is he dead, lol ?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments