It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Stealing From Work and Corporations...Good or Bad?

page: 17
46
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Well technically, when I worked at wendy's I did steal a little. You know, pop a chicken nugget in my mouth time and again. Technically wrong, but not exactly breaking their bank.

Now, no I don't steal at all at work, I work at people's houses in construction. I have taken thing that were going to be thrown away a lot though. I got my whole kitchen cabinet set like that. A little sanding, some stain and varnish, good as new.

One job, the lady ordered 5 times the cut stone tiles that was needed to do a floor, picked out the ones she liked, and was going to throw the rest in the dumpster. I took that and did my bathroom floor with it. You would be amazed at the ammount of great stuff rich people will just toss away, I have gotten a lot of great stuff working for these rich idiots.




posted on May, 11 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by rubbertramp

Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms

Originally posted by rubbertramp
reply to post by Chewingonmushrooms
 





Originally posted by rubbertramp i think the word 'corporation' should just be removed from this argument. this is really about stealing from those who did better than others concerning income. in other words, if a person is struggling and poorer than the o.p., then they have a right to steal from the author of the o.p. And do tell how do they "do better"? You want to remove corporation from the argument, but corporation IS the argument. A person that "does better" within the system reinforces the system and by extension becomes part of the problem. It becomes a question of ideology based on different sets of morals. On one hand the corporation is lauded for being (or becoming) successful regardless of the means it took to get there. On the other hand corporations are demonized exactly because of the means use to become successful. In the situation of stealing, both parties would be guilty, except one is coming from an individual and the other is coming from a group of individuals. Corporations by nature must sustain continuous growth in order to meet their quarterly profits, so by extension must find ways to cut corners. If that means outsourcing so be it. If that means destroying the land to acquire materials so be it. If that means interfering with the public's ability to shape their furture to interference with elections and legislation so be it. If that means laying off workers so be it.


the difference i see between us is that i don't consider corps evil because of their nature.
i am against corp. wellfare and bailouts and think it should be a matter of 'the strong will survive'.
i can't just lump all corps into one catagory.
some are much better than others. it would be different to only discuss those on the dow, s&p and nas.
there are good and there are bad, i refuse to clump them all into one.
not all corps are outsourcing and not all are sending their profits offshore.


Fair enough. I can see what you are saying the problems lies with the idea that strong will survive. I'm all for healthy competition, but we would be lying to ourselves if we believe that. It's about squashing competition which leads to monopolies that I have problems with. Regardless if the guy leading the company has a heart or not, once that company goes public the shareholders hold power and nothing else. Shareholders are part time investors that care only about increasing their share and profit at the exculsion of everything else. Combine that with the pressure to have gains in every quarter (definition of growth) and it becomes messy. I equate corporations with out of control fires that need more oxygen and fuel to sustain it's continual growth until it implodes. As long as there is fuel (cheaper and cheaper labor, resources to produce goods, loop holes for lax environmental policy etc..) it will continue consuming.


yes, but you forgot the most important part.
the citizens keep these corps. alive by investing in them and purchasing their goods.
along with voting for politicians who accept lobbying money and support that which we disagree with.
i'm just about accepting responsibility.
it's like walmart, i do not shop there.
people want to bitch about outsourcing and all these products from china, and then say they need to shop at walmart because they can not afford to do otherwise.
me, i happily pay more for an american made product at a ma and pop store.
i have no problem with it.

don't take this line personal, i think we agree on many things, but
i'm tired of people blaming their possitions on others.
i'm self employed, at 47 i have been for over 25 years.
i refuse to get a job working for corps, or another human in general.
my true wish is that more would step up to the plate, small biz. is the life blood of america.


I totally see where you are coming from, and people do have choices left (still lol). I understand the concept of applying what you believe in, instead of simply having something to complain about. I try my best not to rely on the system, though it does become hard sometimes. Don't get me wrong, we have seen some of the greatest innovations due to corporations and investment, my issues are more towards people that look the other way at their more negative measures. There needs to be some sort of balance.
edit on 11-5-2011 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by MegaMind
reply to post by ViperChili
 


You have a poor business model if it cannot pay a "livable wage" to someone working full time. If a business cannot survive paying a "livable wage" to its full time employees because that would eat into profits too much then it probably doesn't deserve to be in business to begin with.


Iwas going to stay out of this after saying all I had to say earlier. However: The "living wage" I keep hearing about set me to pounding the keyboard again.:

You agree to sweep the factory floor of the ACME brush factoryfor $6.00/hour.You are a model employee:show up on time give a good effort for 40hours; get paid. The company also pays your govt Social security and state unemployment insurance taxes.Things work as advertised. Win-win.
.

Originally posted by MegaMind
Robbing someone of their full time labor with phrases like "lack of marketable skills" and "your fault I'm not going to pay you more" is a poor excuse. If it weren't for minimum wage laws people like you would try paying 11 cents an hour and all the while blaming your employees for the conditions of a job you created.


inregard to your "living wage":
How does the company have any responsibility for or control over the cost of your rent/food and fuel? or the Education of your children.???

Where...... does.... the companies' "responsibility"......... END?

In china they "take care of" their employees by cramming them in dormitories near the factory. No thanks.I'll take the freedom of that $6.00 job and work out my own accommodations. If minimum wage paid for upper east side studio apartments Why would anybody lift a finger to go anywhere from floor sweeping?

I Also recognize some of the dangerously defective thinking posted throughout the thread in myself;i.e.the :

" I'm pretty smart; they are getting a deal; I should be getting more appreciation for my efforts".

Please take my hard won advice:
"IT'S A CURSE. THIS very ATTITUDE WILL MAKE EVERY JOB (NO Matter what it pays) a miserable experience". I have to set out on my own. I am never really happy subject to others direct criticism and measurement ( i.e. "subdication").In that respect I guess that thinking motivates me to find and fulfill my potential.

Most folks started some time in their lives at that "unliveable" minimum wage station in life. As you learn and increase your worth you move up the food chain. Minimum wage was never set to provide a lifelong income level.And has little relationship to the current local economy in your given location.One has absolutely no bearing on the other as you claim.

edit on 11-5-2011 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-5-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by rubbertramp
the definition of corporation.




cor·po·ra·tion noun /ˌkôrpəˈrāSHən/  corporations, plural A company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law A group of people elected to govern a city, town, or borough A paunch


in other words, classifying my business under this definition means it is ok to steal from me?



No. Your company may be a partnership, llc, ltd, llp, etc. In order to be a corporation you must file your articles of incorporation with the state. One thing required to file is the number of SHARES your company is going to have. One person argued that just by having shares they can steal from you. It's only okay to steal if you are legally incorporated with the state. Ignore the fact that the corporation may be 2 people deep. It's just a way of limiting your liability and shielding someone for the faults of someone else in the company.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ViperChili
 


you've got yours so F every body else?


noted.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by MegaMind
 


what you are practicing is called rational self-interest

if you cheat your customers you will lose them

don't waste anymore time on viperchill

who claims morality is subjective to justify himself.

but morality is absolute when it applies to others.

the philosophy of the proto-nazi Louis Veuillot :

“When I am the weaker, I ask you for my freedom, because that is your principle; but when I am the stronger, I take away your freedom, because that is my principle”

according to legend
Veuillot went out into the world to put his philosophy into practice

and became a highwayman.

one version says he was caught and hung
another says he retired to a life of opulence.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Chewingonmushrooms
 





my issues are more towards people that look the other way at their more negative measures. There needs to be some sort of balance.


bingo, and here is where america gives these corps permission to buy politicians through lobbying influence and money.
this is actually my major problem with the whole issue.
remove the lobbyist power and business would be fair and the honestly strong would overpower the influential.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ViperChili

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
reply to post by ViperChili
 


I sound like a loser? You sound like you have no life experience.

"You accept that wage so its your fault"
Why dont you pull your head out of your arse eh? Minimum wage cannot be negociated with - You dont accept it, they'll find someone else who will, simple as that.
As for having more marketable skills? Seriously, get off your high horse. I come from a poor area, i went to a poor school had a poor education, no help from my family.
Everyone deserves a livable wage, you might be suprised just how hard and stressful unskilled work can be.



Yes, you do in fact sound like a loser.

"Whaaaa, I grew up poor, WHaaa I went to a poor school,". Quit making excuses.

Everyone does not deserve a "livable wage".

Humor me, how much should a burger flipper make? $15/hour? $20/hour?



A burger flipper should make A LIVABLE WAGE. Whatever that wage has to be per hour, a burger flipper should make it.

Explain to me why people shouldnt be entitled to a livable wage because i'd love to hear your idiotic thinking on that. Go on, HUMOR ME!



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Ryanp5555
 


thanx, but i do understand your point.
i was being a bit sarcastic, trying to get someone to admit they would be willing to steal from me.
this whole argument about who it's ok to steal from bothers my soul.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Realms
 


being a newbie [i'm one myself btw] i'll cut you some slack.

public education is a product of the industrial age,
and it's purpose is to mass produce obedient worker's.

so who's fault is it then, that there is a surplus of "burger flippers" and other "under qualified" folks who are forced to take whatever crap job is available?

go and study, neophyte.

there are a lot of threads about the dumbing down of the people here

the search function is your friend



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Not read the whole thread but stealing is stealing regardless if you are stealing from your neighbour or a faceless corporation, in the latter it can have dire consequences to you and your workmates.

The excuse people use about it hurting no-one to try and justify what they have done is nothing short of pathetic, If profit margins and or targets are not met people will lose their jobs.

A store I used to work at downsized because of targets not being met and the first out the door was a 58 year old trading manager who had little to no chance of seeking further employment, was the targets not being met due to stealing? maybe or maybe not but at the end of the day stealing will have the same effect in the long run.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
another thing i would like to briefly like to point out is the fact that theft actually raises the prices we pay.
lets take walmart as an example.
corps. like them do what is called an inventory, everything in the store is counted. as it is sold, the item is basically marked off a list.
for instance, if they begin the month with 100 pairs of a certain type of sunglass, and during inventory find out they sold 80 pairs and 20 are missing, stolen, who do you think they make up the loss?
i'll tell you, they raise the price on the next order put out on display to compensate for the losss.
so, in the long run, theft like this only hurts yourself and others.
unless of course you're willing to steal your next pair also.
same goes with any type of corp. office set up.
it may seem miniscule to steal pens, papers and notebooks, but since it is very unlikely that you are the only one, the cost adds up, and it may even be taken out on you in the lack of a raise, or other benefits.
in the long run, we pay for theft, not the corps.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   
As the OP I just want everyone whos posted or viewed this thread that they are amazing.

Regardless if we disagree, we all think critically and thats what most needed in our society today.

So just keep up the good work and dont be shy about starting your own thread if you feel strong about an issue.

Star and Flag for ATS in general



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc

A burger flipper should make A LIVABLE WAGE. Whatever that wage has to be per hour, a burger flipper should make it.

Explain to me why people shouldnt be entitled to a livable wage because i'd love to hear your idiotic thinking on that. Go on, HUMOR ME!


A burger flipper is an entry level job. ENTRY LEVEL as in not meant to be a career. You start there, learn some basic employment skills, and then you move on.

I can just picture you on here whining that a burger costs $5 because idiots who think like you are paying their burger flippers $15 an hour.

I'm guessing you are either very young with little employment experience, or you are just destined to be a low wage slave for the rest of your life since you are incapable of understanding this very basic economic principle.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   
well now!!!

viperchill is now starting to make more sense now

i guess it's all about distinctions then.

might i suggest that THE SYSTEM is ultimately to blame.

after all, with a few exceptions, everybody's empathic circuits seem to be burned out nowadays,[in fairness we'd go crazy from all the pain around us, but then again why tolerate such a system in the 1st place?]

this is how we can ignore the homeless and the starving, this is how we can claim that all those starving millions should just drop dead or "get a job",

how all that food gets tossed in a dumpster after having a whole bottle of lestoil poured over it so it can't be used.

as for changing the system by working within, that is the ultimate sanction of it, and the ultimate form of stupidity.

as for those who argue that "everything we have is due to the corporations and the west"

you have all failed at history I'm afraid, as no progress or invention was created collectively but by individuals.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soldier81
Not read the whole thread but stealing is stealing regardless if you are stealing from your neighbour or a faceless corporation, in the latter it can have dire consequences to you and your workmates.

The excuse people use about it hurting no-one to try and justify what they have done is nothing short of pathetic, If profit margins and or targets are not met people will lose their jobs.

A store I used to work at downsized because of targets not being met and the first out the door was a 58 year old trading manager who had little to no chance of seeking further employment, was the targets not being met due to stealing? maybe or maybe not but at the end of the day stealing will have the same effect in the long run.


Let me get this straight, are you implying that shrinkage caused (or might have cost) a major retailer such as target to dowsize a low to mid manager? BTW I agree that stealing is stealing regardless.
edit on 11-5-2011 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by 46ACE
 


Most of us started at minimum or under that is true. Most of us also started at that lowball price, when we were still in school, living at home. No real bills to pay, just a bit of freedom money. Also, minimum wage has not kept up with inflation...

When a person has to work more than 40 hours a week, just to pay rent and eat, there is something not right... It's like slavery, with invisible chains.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ViperChili

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc

A burger flipper should make A LIVABLE WAGE. Whatever that wage has to be per hour, a burger flipper should make it.

Explain to me why people shouldnt be entitled to a livable wage because i'd love to hear your idiotic thinking on that. Go on, HUMOR ME!


A burger flipper is an entry level job. ENTRY LEVEL as in not meant to be a career. You start there, learn some basic employment skills, and then you move on.

I can just picture you on here whining that a burger costs $5 because idiots who think like you are paying their burger flippers $15 an hour.

I'm guessing you are either very young with little employment experience, or you are just destined to be a low wage slave for the rest of your life since you are incapable of understanding this very basic economic principle.



That certainly is true, it is an entry level job and people that work there shouldn't expect differently. My thing is what happens when Mcd's comes into a neighborhood, competes with the Diners there that do pay cooks a decent wage and blows them out of business? I know that's how the game works in this business but realistically do you believe it's best for a company which profits in the millions to take over a sector from a small business owner that works to make a living and gives his employees a non entry level job? Sure there might be only one line cook when compared to 3-4 burger flippers, but at least the person can have a chance, even with low education, to make a livable wage. What will happen to the burger flippers? That's right they go on welfare because they can't support themselves. What happens when Home Depot, Target, Walmart, CVS/Rite aid and other large chains get their share of the market in that given neighborhood? The same process happens until you are left with no true small businesses and nothing but giant chains to offer "entry level" positions.

Where does the wealth go after that? It goes to investors, and the upper management surely a small % of the direct population. What happens to the people with minimal education that rely on those jobs? Less money which leads to entitlements. The process they use is Cost Externalization.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ViperChili

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc

A burger flipper should make A LIVABLE WAGE. Whatever that wage has to be per hour, a burger flipper should make it.

Explain to me why people shouldnt be entitled to a livable wage because i'd love to hear your idiotic thinking on that. Go on, HUMOR ME!


A burger flipper is an entry level job. ENTRY LEVEL as in not meant to be a career. You start there, learn some basic employment skills, and then you move on.

I can just picture you on here whining that a burger costs $5 because idiots who think like you are paying their burger flippers $15 an hour.

I'm guessing you are either very young with little employment experience, or you are just destined to be a low wage slave for the rest of your life since you are incapable of understanding this very basic economic principle.




I personally dont eat burgers, try to avoid fast food like its the plague.
Honestly, people like you who classed yourself as educated can take your bussiness jargon and shove it where the sun clearly doesnt shine. "Its an entry level job" Shut the hell up, we are talking about LIFE. Your not quoting a text book now. If your company cant pay a livable wage then you should shut down and cease to be, that to me is better then having people waste their lives working for NOTHING.
I am humored. thanks.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by SearchLightsInc
 


Hope you enjoy poverty.




new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join