So did I. I was thinking "No shit Sherlock" until I went back and re-read the title.

LK

That's your presumption.

I'm only suggesting that going with a particular mode of work (temporary, contract, or full-time direct) is to be chosen separate from the job itself - and in a manner where the employer must compete.

Again, you underestimate them - they can make it very painful not to set up shop in the US. It can do whatever it wants, courtesy of its ascent to being a hyperpower. On the other hand, there are people(like yourself) that would rather see the US submit to the world - especially if it means that you shackle the government and its citizens.

That, and you think that a business should be elevated over all other parties.

Then a competitor would start one. You seem to act like you're entitled to perfect conditions at the expense of others.

Only if it isn't a condition of accepting the job or continuing work. While it may take out leverage that you might *want*, it adds freedom in the same way Right to Work adds freedom.

You underestimate the US Government.

You are absolutely correct. This is about two other things.

1. Forced endorsement of their relationships. They want to legally require that everyone pretend that their domestic partner is their spouse. There is no such thing as same sex marriage. It's like legally mandating Santa Clause.

2. Crush dissent. We're starting to see this already. Bakers who have religious objections to baking cakes with two grooms are being sued for discrimination in public accommodations. That's why they want to co-opt marriage. Disagree with redefined marriage? Tough shit, if you do or say anything against it, they'll sue you into oblivion.

LK

Distribution of information is also conduct. Conduct isn't protected by the first amendment.

The reason those newspapers weren't prosecuted is because they have the ability to return favors to the politicians who didn't prosecute them. Don't think for one minute that if they couldn't be pressured for some quid pro quo, they would have been treated the same way.

LK

Given that disclosure is also at the terms of the payer, you also get less transparency versus independent disclosure.

Not the fact that he belonged to a church that taught that people of African descent were cursed by God?

Hypocrite much, liberal crusaders?

LK

As I stated earlier, I'd produce a link.

It is here.

• 115.00 Criminal facilitation in the fourth degree.
          A person is guilty of criminal facilitation in the fourth degree when, believing it probable that he is rendering aid:
          1. to a person who intends to commit a crime, he engages in conduct which provides such person with means or opportunity for the commission thereof and which in fact aids such person to commit a felony; or
          2. to a person under sixteen years of age who intends to engage in conduct which would constitute a crime, he, being over eighteen years of age, engages in conduct which provides such person with means or opportunity for the commission thereof and which in fact aids such person to commit a crime.

This is New York law. So this would apply to someone using this app to commit a crime in New York but other states have similar requirements, I'm just not going to give links to the criminal codes of the other 49 states to prove my point.

LK

Except that they're often shortchanged and with none of the benefits of being a conventional employee (unless you're working for a defense contractor like Lockheed-Martin or a "your company car is a 737" defense nonprofit like MITRE). That, and they work for the primary benefit of the employer, which makes them less incentivized to work for the favor of the talent.

However, the employee is under a less-than-fully-willing situation with higher risk and lower reward. Add bad economic conditions, and informed choice goes out the window, replaced with desperate "any port in a storm" choice.

I'd mind it less if employers didnt use temporary labor as a regulatory/benefits dodge and used it more honestly without the need to depend on desperate people.

It restores parity between employer-organized labor and employee-organized labor in that one is not obligated to go with a particular form of employment.

Want legions of temps? Attract the willing with a competitive offer, not the desperate with monopsony-like economic forces.

Then you'll just have make a competitive offer for your desired type of employment, much like what RTW requires of labor unions. If it cuts down on the amount of duressed/desperate people, much like what RTW did(and does) in the South. But it will result in people doing the job on fully willing terms.

While there is plenty of sympathy to be had for small business, it stops at the border.

I have more sympathy for the use of automation than offshoring, since no particular jurisdiction is played against another.

Which is why I'd like to see it applied to employer-side unions like Kelly Staffing, Manpower, and the like. That, and it removes one huge anti-union chess piece from the board - temporary labor.

My point is that you treat temporary agencies (and any form of less-than-full time labor) as a labor union and then apply RTW to it. If you want to have less secure forms of labor, you'll have to make the less secure option competitive - even if it means making it more expensive than FT employment.

Congress passed the protection of lawful commerce in arms act specifically to protect gun companies from this kind of charge.

I'm not going to do the searching on my phone, this evening I'll produce a link to either the statute or case law.

LK

Criminal facilitation only requires that you know(or should know) that the assistance you render is being used to commit a felony.

Even if a burglar uses this app to only target gunless homes, that's still criminal facilitation.

LK

What would you charge him with?

How about facilitation or criminal solicitation?

LK

There are shooting incidents at inner city schools but not mass shootings.

A gang has a problem with a member of a rival gang or two drug dealers have a problem and someone gets shot. There aren't mass shootings because inner city schools are built with security in mind and often have an armed police presence.

LK