16 Dec 08
Originally posted by FMFDiscomfort?
A little novelty post to try to cover up your discomfort?
Problem is, you can't stop people from reading my last post. And you can't stop them checking what it is you say ad nauseam about who calls the shots when it comes to terms and conditions of employment. This is not one you can spin, I'm afraid.
Yep?
Nup?
Cute.
"Surely your "Healthcare workers facing abominations" should just walk away and go in search of an employer that will accept their pick & mix terms?"
Yes.
"Or does your smug little maxim on this matter only apply to the kinds of powerless yellow and brown folk who stitch your trainers in sweatshops?"
No
16 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaSquirm away.
Discomfort?
"Surely your "Healthcare workers facing abominations" should just walk away and go in search of an employer that will accept their pick & mix terms?"
Yes.
"Or does your smug little maxim on this matter only apply to the kinds of powerless yellow and brown folk who stitch your trainers in sweatshops?"
No
Originally posted by Wajoma
Healthcare workers should be able to refuse to treat a person on any grounds they wish whether it's hair too frizzy, the patient stinks or they're too drunk. [...] Big thumbs up here for the new relaxation of regulation [which stipulated that they must do what they were contracted to do].
It's called trying to have it both ways.
16 Dec 08
Originally posted by FMFI don't see why, perhaps you could explain, there appears to be mis-communication.
Squirm away.
Originally posted by Wajoma
[b]Healthcare workers should be able to refuse to treat a person on any grounds they wish whether it's hair too frizzy, the patient stinks or they're too drunk. [...] Big thumbs up here for the new relaxation of regulation [which stipulated that they must do what they were contracted to do].
It's called trying to have it both ways.[/b]
16 Dec 08
Originally posted by WajomaBut I am not the one who is trying to have it both ways. And I have explained it, in crystal clear posts on the previous page of this thread. Your retort was the novelty: "Yep. Nup." and a selective edit of what it was I had confronted you with. You explain. Heaven only knows, it's your smug dictums that turn out to be inconsistent. You explain yourself.
I really don't see any problem, so unless you can explain it, you'd be the squirmer.
17 Dec 08
Originally posted by FMFThis is getting ridiculous, I've been back over the thread but can't see any inconsistency on my part, so...
But I am not the one who is trying to have it both ways. And I have explained it, in crystal clear posts on the previous page of this thread. Your retort was the novelty: "Yep. Nup." and a selective edit of what it was I had confronted you with. You explain. Heaven only knows, it's [b]your smug dictums that turn out to be inconsistent. You explain yourself.[/b]
...put up, or shut up.
17 Dec 08
Originally posted by FMFWhat a hypocrite Wajoma is.
So, it seems you whimp out of your own tedious dictums when it suits you? Can't say I am surprised. For all the sanguine air and graces you emit, all you ever do really is try to intellectualize your profoundly anti-social instincts. Can't expect any consistency from self-righteous bludgers-in-denial, can we?
In your own words...
[i]Originally posted by Wa ...[text shortened]... y to the kinds of powerless yellow and brown folk who stitch your trainers in sweatshops?
If he had half a brain, he would be dangerous.
17 Dec 08
Originally posted by WajomaOK, Here goes:
Guess I'll have to appeal to one of your disciples,
Howie can you point out my inconsistency?
On the one hand you say:
"An employer says "Here is the work, here are the conditions,""
but here you are claiming that:
"Healthcare workers should be able to refuse to treat a person on any grounds they wish whether it's hair too frizzy, the patient stinks"
The contradiction is clear.
It is imperative that in healthcare, rules must be laid down for staff to follow. A Jewish doctor cannot refuse to operate on a Muslim, a feminist cannot refuse to bathe a man, etc, etc.
In hospitals there are standards which must be met by staff, regardless of anything else!
17 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by howardgeeOne situation is a matter of contract between employer and employee. It is a voluntary transaction.
OK, Here goes:
On the one hand you say:
"An employer says "Here is the work, here are the conditions,""
but here you are claiming that:
"Healthcare workers should be able to refuse to treat a person on any grounds they wish whether it's hair too frizzy, the patient stinks"
The contradiction is clear.
It is imperative that in healthcare, rules ...[text shortened]... In hospitals there are standards which must be met by staff, regardless of anything else!
What has been posted is a relaxing of guvamint regulation, guvamint regulation is not voluntary.
"Allow healthcare workers to opt out of giving treatment for religious or moral reasons, thus weakening abortion rights."
Do you see the difference, that's so blindingly obvious, no inconsistency here. The hospital sets the terms and conditions as an employer, the employee either accepts or finds employment that does suit them. They may well find an institution that (as an example) does not perform abortions. No need for guvamint interference, saying who, when and where.
The employee may prefer not to treat drunks, again this is no business of the guvamints, it is a matter between the healthcare worker and their employer.
17 Dec 08
Originally posted by WajomaBut the hospital can chose to close down if it doesn't like the "guvamint" regulations.
One situation is a matter of contract between employer and employee. It is a voluntary transaction.
What has been posted is a relaxing of guvamint regulation, guvamint regulation is not voluntary.
"Allow healthcare workers to opt out of giving treatment for religious or moral reasons, thus weakening abortion rights."
Do you see the differe ...[text shortened]... o business of the guvamints, it is a matter between the healthcare worker and their employer.
Hence it is no more binding and agreement than between the employer and employee.
17 Dec 08
2 edits
Originally posted by howardgeeThe hospital should be free to go about it's business.
But the hospital can chose to close down if it doesn't like the "guvamint" regulations.
Hence it is no more binding and agreement than between the employer and employee.
The agreement between employer and employee can be as binding or flexible as they like to make it, none of your business Howie.
Anyway there has been a relaxing of regulation, and that is a good thing, that is what I was commenting on, my position remains intact, rock solid and principled, free from contradiction.