Washington state bill would ban employers from forcibly microchipping workers

[Plutoisaplanet]

No one's been stripped of any rights. And President Obama still holds the record for most unconstitutional acts as judged by the US Supreme Court: 110+ actions struck down, including 44 by unanimous 9-0 decisions, with even the justices he appointed himself ruling against him ... a figure larger than Reagan, both Bushes, Clinton, and Trump all combined together.

I looked this up and to be fair they were not unconstitutional acts by the president that were struck down, but by the entire Federal government (I'm sure some times directed by the president). But I would be interested in seeing updated information (I only found articles from 2016) and the number of acts where the president was directly involved.

These counts signal government overreach and Obama definitely started the trend of more divisive presidents to cause these kinds of overreach caused by swings in national policy with each president. If anyone thinks it was Trump that started this, you'd have to explain why a divisive Trump was able to be elected in the first place if not for a pre-existing divisive environment.

 

[bclaymiles]

Great. Prophylactic legislation. Fantastic use of our tax dollars.

 

[bclaymiles]

None of that is really true.
No corporation can dictate you to buy products you can't use as you like. Simply don't buy such products, instead of buying them and then whining. If you think people don't like some product but there's no better alternative, that's a marketing opportunity - create and sell a better alternative.

May I introduce you to the John Deere company? That recommendation fails at scale.

 

[bclaymiles]

The man who pretends he knows about everything continues to argue with everybody else on the internet. Must be exhausting waking up every morning to a new day of pointlessly disagreeing with everything and doing endless searches so you can pretend you know about everything.

Ultimate recursion boss has entered the chat.

 

[pnntmp]

May I introduce you to the John Deere company? That recommendation fails at scale.

What do you mean? Are you saying nobody else offers similar products?

 

[bclaymiles]

What do you mean? Are you saying nobody else offers similar products?

John Deere has almost fifty percent market share of commercial farming equipment, three times that of their nearest competitor, and they've had a 'head-start' of almost 200 years over their competitors (exaggeration, but not by much). As well, when you're a farmer and have a multi-decade 'mortgage' of a million dollars on a single large-scale harvester, 'switching to the competitor' is not exactly an afternoon swap-meet affair.

No, at the barest level as an armchair argument, owners are not "locked in" to John Deere's product. In practical terms, they are.

 

[Endymio]

John Deere has almost fifty percent market share of commercial farming equipment...

Which means that 50% of US farmers (and 75%+ of world farmers) are using equipment that isn't John Deere, so clearly it's very possible to farm without John Deere.

Your argument fails doubly when you realize that the company doesn't restrict you from doing whatever you want with equipment you purchase -- it simply refuses to make available their own diagnostic and test equipment to others. Legally, you can repair the equipment yourself ... practically, you must use their authorized dealers. 50% of US farmers continue to buy Deere not because they're "locked in", but because they believe the higher repair costs are more than offset by the other advantages their equipment brings.

 

[Madethedevilcry]

I wonder what current government malfeasance this is supposed to distract people from?

mid-term vote soliciting/enticing?

 

[mbk34]

What UK company does this? I find it very hard to believe this would ever happen in the UK. Employee rights are far better in the UK (and in Europe) than in the US. If something like this ever happened then it would be on the front page of every newspaper.

Again, what actual companies in the UK do this or is this just a case of bad reporting or is it a simple continuation of the current US efforts to paint other countries in a bad light and so (presumably) make themselves somehow appear a better place to live?

 

[wiyosaya]

What an idiocy ... that's like banning employers from forcibly castrating workers, or from locking them in company prisons .. who in their right mind would even think of that?

Your argument is a false equivalence.

 

[wiyosaya]

What UK company does this? I find it very hard to believe this would ever happen in the UK. Employee rights are far better in the UK (and in Europe) than in the US. If something like this ever happened then it would be on the front page of every newspaper.

Again, what actual companies in the UK do this or is this just a case of bad reporting or is it a simple continuation of the current US efforts to paint other countries in a bad light and so (presumably) make themselves somehow appear a better place to live?

The article is about a state in the US doing this, not the UK.

 

[wiyosaya]

I'm glad you asked! Because the law doesn't simply prohibit firms from forcibly chipping people (that's already illegal) -- it prevents them and you from freely agreeing to this. Even, for instance, if the company manufactured these chips and wished to hire employees to test them ... that's illegal under this proposed law.

So? What's the drawback? Less profits for something that is already illegal, and thus, can generate no profit? An employer and employee agreeing to something like this, even without this law, would not make it legal.

Since the constitution is currently being used as toilet paper by the current administration, perhaps there is a need for a law like this. It seems your argument is that this is unnecessary based on the 13th amendment.

Without this law, however, a company could argue that they are not treating the chipped employee as chattle, rather that they are using it to simplify payroll tracking, couldn't they? And if they were successful, that could open up chipping employees to all kinds of abuse.

After all, the 13th amendment has, apparently, rarely been cited in case law, and who knows what SCOTUS might decide if it were to ever hear such a case.

Personally, I don't have a problem with this law even if it were to eventually be found unnecessary.

 

[wiyosaya]

mid-term vote soliciting/enticing?

No one needs to solicit/entice mid-term votes. Political forces are already quite successful at doing that even if by happenstance, IMO.

 

[mbk34]

The article is about a state in the US doing this, not the UK.

The article is about a state in the US stopping this from happening and that it's already happening in the UK. The article states "Back in 2018, UK-based company BioTeq said it had already inserted 150 implants into people within the country". That certainly sounds like it's already done this in the UK. Maybe people wanted to have an RFID implant and volunteered to have one (people volunteer for tattoo's and piercings) but UK law could never force an employee to have one.

 

[bclaymiles]

Which means that 50% of US farmers (and 75%+ of world farmers) are using equipment that isn't John Deere, so clearly it's very possible to farm without John Deere.

Did I say otherwise?

Your argument fails doubly when you realize that the company doesn't restrict you from doing whatever you want with equipment you purchase -- it simply refuses to make available their own diagnostic and test equipment to others. Legally, you can repair the equipment yourself ... practically, you must use their authorized dealers. 50% of US farmers continue to buy Deere not because they're "locked in", but because

As I said: "At the barest level as an armchair argument, owners are not "locked in" to John Deere's product. In practical terms, they are."

they believe the higher repair costs are more than offset by the other advantages their equipment brings.

It's not merely having to pay more, it's the ability to even have the repairs done at all in many cases, because the problem cannot be diagnosed at all without their proprietary diagnostic equipment.

You also ignored the purely practical aspect of already being locked into effectively a multidecade mortgage on a million dollar device. Which is only one of many types of farming equipment necessary to plant, maintain, harvest, and process crops.

Again, "locked in" vs "not locked in" isn't exactly a binary in the real world. There are a multitude of factors that influence decisions when it comes to enormously expensive 'products', and the ability of others to challenge the largest provider of the devices.

It's not quite the same as getting a loan from uncle bob to build a startup making a better muffin pan.

All that said - we're a long way from the subject of the article.

 

[Endymio]

Did I say otherwise?

It was certainly implied: why else mention their market share, if not to support the claim that Deere was so gargantuanly monopolistic that no other options existed.

It's not merely having to pay more, it's the ability to even have the repairs done at all in many cases, because the problem cannot be diagnosed at all without their proprietary diagnostic equipment.

Deere makes it clear up front they're selling you just the tractors and combines, NOT the far larger amount of equipment required to diagnose, service, and repair them. They're no different than many other firms, selling everything from shaving razors to computer printers -- they lower the upfront cost, in exchange for anticipated revenues from maintenance and service. Even automakers do this to a lesser degree: if I purchased from Ford or Toyota all the parts required for a $50K vehicle, I'd spend more than a quarter million dollars ... and that doesn't even count the labor required to assemble it all.

I'll also note that Deere's profit margins are not astronomical. Last quarter they had 0% net profit, and their net margins since 2018 have ran from 4% to a high of 16%.

You also ignored the purely practical aspect of already being locked into effectively a multidecade mortgage on a million dollar device.

The mortgage exists only because you chose them over their competitors. Why buy that device in the first place, if you didn't like the terms under which it was sold?

 

[Endymio]

So? What's the drawback? Less profits for something that is already illegal, and thus, can generate no profit? An employer and employee agreeing to something like this, even without this law, would not make it legal.

Without this law, an employer and employee agreeing to such a contract is certainly legal. And if both of THEM agree, what business is it of yours?

Since the constitution is currently being used as toilet paper by the current administration

You're confused. It was the last administration that attempted to break Obama's record for most unconstitutional acts. I particularly like the "Ministry of Information" the Biden Administration attempted to found, straight out of 1984.

 

[Madethedevilcry]

No one needs to solicit/entice mid-term votes. Political forces are already quite successful at doing that even if by happenstance, IMO.

obviously voting is purely a past time nostalgic obsolete activity. But, millions of self-loathing voters spend their lives awaiting for their guy to get into office.
one distraction which offers all of the drama and distractions of all your favorite daytime soap operas.