Verizon wireless - Re: Nayas Admits Errors, Promises to Be Honest Going Forward, Switches to Verizon

Author

Re: Nayas Admits Errors, Promises to Be Honest Going Forward, Switches to Verizon

John Navas

2006-04-26, 11:48 pm

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <MPG. 1eb441eab390c869897b
0@News.Individual.Net> on Sat, 22 Apr 2006
14:37:16 -0700, Philip J. Koenig < See_email_@ddress_be
low.This_one_is.invalid>
wrote:

>On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 16:04:08 GMT, in article <Yts2g.491$ZQ3.149
>@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, Lee Florack writes...

>
>Once again, this is only true in theory.

It's also true in practice.

>In practice, an employee
>often finds themselves accepting positions they really don't want
>(ie because they just need a job of some kind), ...

Because they aren't qualified for something better. It's nonetheless mutual
agreement.

>and employers
>sometimes employ people that they don't really prefer because they
>just need some work done and can't find someone more to their liking.
>(or at a pay scale they would prefer)

Because they can't get what they want at the price they're willing to pay.
It's nonetheless mutual agreement.

>
>Some aspects need to be monitored and/or regulated to ensure
>that the basic civil rights of citizens are not trampled, yes.

High pay isn't a civil right.

>The "free market" gave us such lovely things as child factory
>labor and highly dangerous working conditions for everyone
>during the Industrial Revolution, for example.

Those are the choices of individual businesses, not a consequence of a free
market.

>Issues which
>ultimately had to be addressed by governmental regulation since,
>left to their own devices, employers in the "free market"
>tend to seek out the highest profits, regardless the effects
>on the citizenry and/or the overall benefit to society.

Nonsense. Most businesses act responsibly.

>Corporations are not "social beings" that seek to enhance their
>social environment beyond their own profit aims, yet recent
>trends often see their supporters bizarrely trying to characterize
>them as such, as if they have a "right to free speech", or
>some other rights normally accorded to human beings.

Most businesses see direct and indirect benefits from being social entities.

>What we have been discussing here is essentially how Walmart's
>financial and market position tends to put them much more in
>the position of "entity B" than might be good for the community
>overall.

A contention that simply isn't true.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

LinkBot