Sorry, @DragonIV, but that's not good enough. It's obvious that businesses aren't willing to train workers so that they *are* competent to do their assigned jobs. They'd rather hire to fit specific positions, and then complain about a "skills shortage" when nobody wants to work for them. Likewise, they hire for "culture fit" and then are shocked when people come down on them for only employing white and Asian dudes.

@starbreaker Culture fit is another name for discriminatory hiring. We agree on that point, methinks.

Training is a whole different kettle of fish. Whether you agree or not, from my experience some folks are not cut out for certain work no matter the training. Often, it takes getting fired for incompetence to get the message--if they get it at all.

In terms of rights...businesses should have rights--just not individual rights. With no rights, they cannot function as an entity.

@DragonIV Incidentally, my stance comes from the premise that businesses should not have rights. Only individuals should have rights.

@meredith_matthews And as usual, it's the poor who get the shaft.

I'd like to see rich pigs get the shaft more often. It's not like they can't afford lube.

@starbreaker indeed, sibling.

@DragonIV Businesses get to discriminate because the threat of poverty keeps the labor pool large enough to create a buyer's market for labor in most industries.

If we changed that by implementing a universal basic income that made full-time work optional, the labor market would become a seller's market.

@starbreaker Mostly, yes--a UBI would definitely be a change for the positive for workers. However, assuming that "working" pays more on top of UBI, or exceeds it enough to make it worthwhile, there is nothing to prevent companies from discriminatory hiring. The labor pool doesn't change much from their perspective.

Despite that, UBI has so many other benefits (including insurance against a downturn in labor needs) that it's a must have.