babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
I suppose just about anything other than driving a car (preferably GM). That's their culture.
Surely we wouldn't deny them the same right to force their corporate culture on worker just because we don't share their values?
A closer example would be the Suzuki foundation not allowing hummers in the employee parking lot. Employees would be free to commute to work however they wanted, including the use of hummers, but for those employees that did choose to drive hummers, they'd have to find a place offsite to park it.
I notice that, like me, many babblers are dismissive of claims that meat eating employees are having their rights violated. Perhaps this is because many of us are aware of impending economic and environmental catastrophes, and that awareness brings with it a sense of perspective.
Get a clue.
Your dismissive but empty response suggests to me that I must have nailed it. In fact, I think you pretty much made my point for me with this:
"because many of us are aware of impending economic and environmental catastrophes, and that awareness brings with it a sense of perspective."
... so thanks. It's always humbling to be in the presense of a visionary.
Your absurd (don't get me wrong, I dig absurdity) example doesn't match up with the thread topic, as workers are not prohibited from eating meat off the company premises. Your hypothetical GM workers would not, therefore be prohibited from arriving to work by any means which they see appropriate.
Your logic would be rock-solid, though, if in your scenario you had GM forcing everyone to drive a Buick around their plants and corporate offices.
You can take my dismissive and empty response to mean that I'm confident that nobody's taking your ridiculous analogies seriously.
Hey what if employers waterboarded their employees, since that's the exact same thing as banning meat from the lunch room? Would we all be ok with that? What hypocrites we are!
It's not like you care about the issue, and we all know it. Written any letters to your MPs urging them to push for legislation to protect meat eating in the workplace?
Or are you just looking to waste people's time talking about a non issue?
There is a rule at my work place, employees are being asked not to leave spoiled food in the staff fridge. Perhaps you'd be interested in making a stink about that one too since I know you're so concerned about infringements on workers rights.
No, and I hope that's not a precondition of believing that employees should be free to bring whatever they wish to for lunch. I'm not joking when I say that I'm a bit surprised at the support for management on this one, particularly in this forum.
The guy that owns the main ski/bike shop in Sept-Iles drives a big Hummer H2 - in yellow!
Snert you're trolling. Either stick to the thread topic or stay out.
Maybe we have a different definition of trolling, but as I see it, trolling involves making statements or claims that you don't actually endorse, solely to get a rise out of someone or to disrupt a discussion. A classic troll would visit a cat thread to say "dogs are better" and then visit the dog thread to say "cats are better". Trolling is dishonest, and I'm not being dishonest.
I've self-identified as having civil libertarian tendencies enough that I would hope it's plausible to say that I believe that an employee should be free to eat whatever food they want to, without management's permission.
And if that's plausible, then I'd further hope it's permissible to explore that, along with the other ideas in this thread, by way of a conjectural example (specifically: would those who support management in this context continue to support management in a different context?) I really don't see that I'm off-topic at all.
edited to add: also, if you kick Snert out of a thread in Labour and Consumption for endorsing the rights of the worker over management, the world will be plunged into End Times. :)
Snert.
You are no defender of workers or workers' rights. You forget I have a long memory. Nice try though.
And you've been allowed to stay on babble for a number of reasons, most of which I don't support and have let go as the path of least resistance. You don't make it easy, and in fact I've learned that you enjoy pushing boundaries, time and time again. Your politics in general are not, in fact, compatible with babble's policy, but you're careful to skim just under the line, most of the time.
Stay out of this thread.
For example:
ETA: Maysie, we cross posted.
I don't know if snert is trolling; he's presenting (not well thought-out) contrary opinions, and, as he says, appears to be siding with labour over management here, which he likely finds amusing.
Maybe he thinks he's found a chink in the leftist armour and is trying to exploit it.
My union always attempted to cater to the few vegetarians we had, (myself included), when we had a catered event at the hall.(our retirees group did the cooking). I just could never figure out why the carnivores fell on the vegan dishes, and wiped them out ahead of the vegetarians, and left us looking at trays of meat? Usually there was an attempt at labelling the contents but it never seemed to matter. After everyone had what they were going to have I would go up to my office, and have the sandwich I stashed there, in a drawer.