What is Terrorism.

[MrWonka]

terrorism IS when an individual kills others in a political cause.

So as long as nobody technically dies it's not terrorism? If a Muslim threatened to blow up the Statue of Liberty unless U.S. Forces left Iraq what would that be classified as?

I initially wrote a post objecting strongly to use of "terrorist" in yours, but then I thought about the fundamental structure of what is going on. Does this threaten anyone's lives?

That is simply a matter of degree. How much harm is being caused by what they're doing is not what bridges the gap into terrorism? It's the general tactic itself. Threatening harm(regardless of what kind) unless someone submits to your demands.

I won't call them "terrorists",

If you'd like to add the qualifier of "financial" terrorist feels free, but ultimately it is terrorism.

 

[MrWonka]

You do not have the right to work wherever and whenever you want at the salary you want.

You can be fired from your job, that's true, but your boss can't up and decide not to pay you for your work while demanding you still show up or be fired. That's forced labor.

Do you seriously think we would just let the entire TSA quit their jobs? Do you seriously think we can just let every Soldier in the U.S. Military go home if we're not paying them? (yes, I realize they're not specifically affected by this particular shut down).

What Trump and Republicans are doing to government workers is immoral. No question about that.

 

[lwf]

You can be fired from your job, that's true, but your boss can't up and decide not to pay you for your work while demanding you still show up or be fired. That's forced labor.

Do you seriously think we would just let the entire TSA quit their jobs? Do you seriously think we can just let every Soldier in the U.S. Military go home if we're not paying them? (yes, I realize they're not specifically affected by this particular shut down).

What Trump and Republicans are doing to government workers is immoral. No question about that.

I do agree that it is immoral. I don't agree that it is tantamount to forced labor. I would argue that if your boss demanded that you show up to work without pay or be fired, then you have been fired. If you decide to continue doing work for someone who isn't paying you, that's volunteer work and its your choice. If my boss promised me I could keep my job in the future if I worked for free for a few weeks, I would consider myself laid off and either file for unemployment benefits or find another job.

If the entire TSA or US Military decided to stop working for free, there is nothing you or I or the government or anyone else could do about it. The only solution would be to find a way to pay them or go without. If we can't go without, I guess we'd better find some money to pay them.

 

[MrWonka]

I don't agree that it is tantamount to forced labor.

The question becomes how much leverage can you use over a person before it becomes forced? Not to go off on a tangent here, but in economics and in game theory there is a concept called a Nash Equilibrium. In a Nash Equilibrium, you technically have an alternate choice, but the only choice that is really viable to you is the one you're already making.

Equalibirums help economists and game theorist figure out how and why people make certain choices so that they can figure out how to give people better ones. They highlight the illusion of choice when in reality you don't truly have another one.

I would argue that if your boss demanded that you show up to work without pay or be fired, then you have been fired.

I don't see how you can make that argument. Has every TSA agent in the country been fired today?

If my boss promised me I could keep my job in the future if I worked for free for a few weeks, I would consider myself laid off and either file for unemployment benefits or find another job.

When you're laid off you don't work at all. You can go get another temp job if you like. You can't get another job if you're being expected to work at this one.

 

[lwf]

The question becomes how much leverage can you use over a person before it becomes forced? Not to go off on a tangent here, but in economics and in game theory there is a concept called a Nash Equilibrium. In a Nash Equilibrium, you technically have an alternate choice, but the only choice that is really viable to you is the one you're already making.

Equalibirums help economists and game theorist figure out how and why people make certain choices so that they can figure out how to give people better ones. They highlight the illusion of choice when in reality you don't truly have another one.

I don't feel that applies in this case. When the money stops coming in, you can choose to keep working for nothing and hope to get back pay later on, or you can work somewhere else. This choice is not illusory.

I don't see how you can make that argument. Has every TSA agent in the country been fired today?

More accurately, they have been laid-off and asked to volunteer with the promise of back pay down the road. If they do not volunteer, then they will not be recalled. I agree, it's a unique situation, and it's a terrible situation that is immoral and irresponsible, but I don't agree that there is actually any sort of force or threat that impairs each individuals' ability to choose. Threats of losing things like accumulated vacation time, sick time, a pension, and job security are not fun, but they do not rise to the level of coercion. These are benefits under the control of the company, not rights inherent to the employee.