Submitted by stuartroelke t3_y1h1rw in massachusetts
RevengencerAlf t1_irxs2hl wrote
Reply to comment by stuartroelke in Getting Paid Lunches in MA by stuartroelke
It literally is "Free time" You can go where you want. You just have to be back. Which is no different than the time in the morning between when you wake up and when you arrive at work. My work doesn't pay me for my mornings because I have to make sure I'm home and out the door by 7:30 to make an 8am meeting. I can choose to spend that time at home, at a diner getting breakfast, or rubbing one out in a motel room, nobody cares as long as I show up on time. Same for lunch.
paganlobster t1_irzezie wrote
You can’t teleport anywhere to do whatever the fuck you want. 30 minutes is no time at all especially if you need to pick up food before eating it. That’s not free time.
RevengencerAlf t1_irzo59y wrote
You don't need to pick up food elsewhere. You can bring a meal with you if your work is too far from restaurant (it's cheaper and healthier to do anyway). It's a meal break not a fucking siesta.
I know this is trouble for the night school sociogy crowd to understand but time where you are permitted to do what you want is but definition free time and that doesn't magically go away because there are practical limitations that prevent you from exercising whatever scenarios it can concoct.
Under you hilariously bad logic my time tonight isn't "free time" because I can't travel anywhere that would prevent me from getting back to work on time in the morning.
stuartroelke OP t1_irxy5is wrote
That is logically incorrect. You cannot do the same things you would before or after work. If you want to go home, you’d still have to drive (that is, if you can even get home and back within thirty minutes). You are essentially bound to the location you work at. And, just because you’re not being paid for a commute doesn’t make unpaid lunches okay. Everything you said is not sensical, and also not very helpful.
RevengencerAlf t1_irxyd89 wrote
You seem to have a vocabulary problem where you insert terms you don't understand the meaning of like "incorrect" when you mean to say "I don't agree with this."
Your first reply to me, while I don't agree with it, was much less unhinged and Ben Shapiro-esque.
Calling something nonsensical just because you disagree with it or don't understand it just paints you as a child throwing a pissy fit because someone has a different viewpoint from yours.
stuartroelke OP t1_iry1yyk wrote
No, you don’t understand that freedom bound to your work location IS NOT the same as freedom outside of work hours. That is simply a fact, and it is not debatable. Any argument against that is illogical. It is literally a different location, and you are bound to how far you can travel—using your own gas or physical energy—within the amount of break time allotted. It’s not a “pissy fit” (fun typo), but actually a difference very much rooted in reality.
RevengencerAlf t1_iry2895 wrote
Ah so I see we've just reached the point of the pissed of kid who just took a sociology class declaring everything he believes to be objective fact to win internet points.
stuartroelke OP t1_iry433a wrote
I just don’t get how you don’t understand that two physical locations are not the same. By being in one location because you have to be is not the same as being somewhere else because you want to be.
RevengencerAlf t1_iry4s2e wrote
Nobody is saying the locations are physically the same. This isn't some metaphysical shit, chief. The argument is that the situations are comparable, and for some reason while you could easily disagree with that you've decided to just start unilaterally declaring things fact because you think it helps you (it doesn't).
I have to be on the road at 7:45 AM not because I want to be, but because I have to be to get to the office by 8am, get paid, and not get fired. I can't take a Trip up to Maine after work today because I wouldn't get back in time to get my ass to work tomorrow.
stuartroelke OP t1_irz2w04 wrote
You are still bringing up commuting. Commuting is NOT comparable to unpaid lunches. Why? Commuting is NOT regulated the same (or at all for that matter). Why? I don’t know, but that’s a completely different discussion!
“This isn’t some metaphysical shit, chief”? No, it’s not. As I stated time and time again, It’s a belief that I’m trying to logically explain and advocate for. I need to organize my thoughts better—that’s all part of evolution and change—but I’m NOT trying to get paid for commuting, or not working, or “taking a trip to Maine” (and whatever mudslide arguments you are making). I’m only trying to explain my viewpoint, and then I’d like to turn those ideas into law if possible. You seem deeply invested in dismantling my logic, so do it. That’s all part of the process, no?
RevengencerAlf t1_irza21c wrote
"This thing that is clearly comprable isn't comparable because I don't like what it does to my argument."
Lol, k.
[deleted] t1_irzf3y2 wrote
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments