4 ms·

It's not a US law, it's a state law. And there are plenty of laws throughout the union that are "better" (more favorable to the employee) than in various places

It's not a US law, it's a state law. And there are plenty of laws throughout the union that are "better" (more favorable to the employee) than in various places in the EU. California, for instance, has pretty strict employee/tenant protections; along with Oregon, New York, etc. There are also others that are substantially worse (Mississippi, Alabama, etc). You can't compare US Federal law to German Federal law (in these cases), as the Federal government is significantly and substantively hands off to labor concerns (beyond the bare minimum). You would have to compare specific state statutes to Bundesrat+Bundesland statutes.

Semaphor 4y ago
I meant "the first time I hear" quite literally, I know there are state laws and those can be quite different, I just had never heard of a specific law regarding employee protection that actually was better for employees
- deaddodo 4y ago
  There was no doubt to the literality of your statement. I was simply highlighting your misplaced assumptions and how they can be addressed/corrected in the future.
  - Semaphor 4y ago
    There was no misplaced assumption.
    - hacym 4y ago
      Sounds like you assume Germany will be better for employee protections in all ways compared to America.
      - Semaphor 4y ago
        No, again, I simply hadn't heard of an example. I knew there was the chance, after all some states have legal abortion which Germany still does not (it's almost defacto legal, but only almost) to take another example.
        hacym 4y ago
        You’re literally describing an assumption. You didn’t know of an exact example, so you believed something that isn’t necessarily true.
        Semaphor 4y ago
        You keep trying to put words in my mouth. I never said I believed such a thing.
    - deaddodo 4y ago
      > I just had never heard of a specific law regarding employee protection that actually was better for employees; ergo I assumed there wasn't, leading to my surprise at hearing otherwise. Here is an expanded version of your quote that highlights the assumption.
      - Semaphor 4y ago
        That does highlight your assumption, not mine, considering I never said anything like that.
        deaddodo 4y ago
        If you say so.
elygre 4y ago
I read “us law” to mean “a law somewhere in the us”, not specifically a federal law. Kinda like I think of apple being a US company, even as it’s probably Californian, and even private.
hnarn 4y ago
> It's not a US law, it's a state law. In my opinion (I am not attempting to state facts), the semantics of what is a “US law” and what is an “EU law” differ, because the US is a nation and the EU is not. Therefore it’s my opinion that in order for something to be a “US law”, it’s enough that it’s a law anywhere in the US. I think laws differing across the US is already implied which is why care is taken to label something a “federal” law or crime when it does not. In the EU however, any law that semantically fits into what could be called an “EU law” is a top-down mandate due to the fact that the EU is not a nation but a group of nations, so calling for example a law that exclusively exists in Poland an “EU law” becomes nonsensical when it didn’t even originate from the EU organization. The US is (at least not primarily) just an “organization of states” regardless what one might want to believe from reading the constitution. It’s very much a monolithic nation state in a way that the EU is not and possibly never will be.
- polynox 4y ago
  I think what makes your definition confusing or misleading is the concept of dual sovereignty. Under the concept of dual sovereignty in a federal system (such as the United States, Russia, Canada, or India), conduct can be legal or illegal under each of the sovereigns independently. At least post-Lochner era there are many laws that are in this scope. An example that might test your definition would be recreational use of marijuana which is legal in some states but illegal federally. It would be at best misleading to say that "US law permits the recreational use of marijuana" even though it meets your definition.
- deaddodo 4y ago
  I wasn't comparing US law to EU law. I said take a random labor law and state. Given that law, there are various EU nations the the US' would "surpass" (have more citizen/personal protections) and there are some it would "lose" against (more protections for corporations/big brother). Take a liberal state like California or New York and the "surpass" count would be much higher (as in this case, this specific example "surpassing" Germany), especially in regards to labor and tenant protections. Take a state like Mississippi and there are very few EU nations it would "surpass". The counter being to the OP's assumption that the EU, in general, is "more liberal than the US"; ergo it's crazy that there's a state that's actually more protective. Labor laws in Texas have no effect on the 12% of the population that lives in California. So it's disingenuous to compare these laws, something the Federal government specifically doesn't have much say over (due to the enumerated powers clause of the US' limited Federation), to a random nation. The only proper methodology is to compare the scope of where those laws are set. In this specific example, those contexts are: the State level, in the US; a mixture of Bundesrat and Bundesland legislation in Germany. I never even mentioned the EU assembly or EU laws. It would seem you're creating a straw man to "win" an internet argument or reinforce your own worldview.

Semaphor 4y ago

I meant "the first time I hear" quite literally, I know there are state laws and those can be quite different, I just had never heard of a specific law regarding employee protection that actually was better for employees

deaddodo 4y ago
There was no doubt to the literality of your statement. I was simply highlighting your misplaced assumptions and how they can be addressed/corrected in the future.
- Semaphor 4y ago
  There was no misplaced assumption.
  - hacym 4y ago
    Sounds like you assume Germany will be better for employee protections in all ways compared to America.
    - Semaphor 4y ago
      No, again, I simply hadn't heard of an example. I knew there was the chance, after all some states have legal abortion which Germany still does not (it's almost defacto legal, but only almost) to take another example.
      - hacym 4y ago
        You’re literally describing an assumption. You didn’t know of an exact example, so you believed something that isn’t necessarily true.
        Semaphor 4y ago
        You keep trying to put words in my mouth. I never said I believed such a thing.
  - deaddodo 4y ago
    > I just had never heard of a specific law regarding employee protection that actually was better for employees; ergo I assumed there wasn't, leading to my surprise at hearing otherwise. Here is an expanded version of your quote that highlights the assumption.
    - Semaphor 4y ago
      That does highlight your assumption, not mine, considering I never said anything like that.
      - deaddodo 4y ago
        If you say so.

elygre 4y ago

I read “us law” to mean “a law somewhere in the us”, not specifically a federal law. Kinda like I think of apple being a US company, even as it’s probably Californian, and even private.

hnarn 4y ago

> It's not a US law, it's a state law. In my opinion (I am not attempting to state facts), the semantics of what is a “US law” and what is an “EU law” differ, because the US is a nation and the EU is not. Therefore it’s my opinion that in order for something to be a “US law”, it’s enough that it’s a law anywhere in the US. I think laws differing across the US is already implied which is why care is taken to label something a “federal” law or crime when it does not. In the EU however, any law that semantically fits into what could be called an “EU law” is a top-down mandate due to the fact that the EU is not a nation but a group of nations, so calling for example a law that exclusively exists in Poland an “EU law” becomes nonsensical when it didn’t even originate from the EU organization. The US is (at least not primarily) just an “organization of states” regardless what one might want to believe from reading the constitution. It’s very much a monolithic nation state in a way that the EU is not and possibly never will be.

polynox 4y ago
I think what makes your definition confusing or misleading is the concept of dual sovereignty. Under the concept of dual sovereignty in a federal system (such as the United States, Russia, Canada, or India), conduct can be legal or illegal under each of the sovereigns independently. At least post-Lochner era there are many laws that are in this scope. An example that might test your definition would be recreational use of marijuana which is legal in some states but illegal federally. It would be at best misleading to say that "US law permits the recreational use of marijuana" even though it meets your definition.
deaddodo 4y ago
I wasn't comparing US law to EU law. I said take a random labor law and state. Given that law, there are various EU nations the the US' would "surpass" (have more citizen/personal protections) and there are some it would "lose" against (more protections for corporations/big brother). Take a liberal state like California or New York and the "surpass" count would be much higher (as in this case, this specific example "surpassing" Germany), especially in regards to labor and tenant protections. Take a state like Mississippi and there are very few EU nations it would "surpass". The counter being to the OP's assumption that the EU, in general, is "more liberal than the US"; ergo it's crazy that there's a state that's actually more protective. Labor laws in Texas have no effect on the 12% of the population that lives in California. So it's disingenuous to compare these laws, something the Federal government specifically doesn't have much say over (due to the enumerated powers clause of the US' limited Federation), to a random nation. The only proper methodology is to compare the scope of where those laws are set. In this specific example, those contexts are: the State level, in the US; a mixture of Bundesrat and Bundesland legislation in Germany. I never even mentioned the EU assembly or EU laws. It would seem you're creating a straw man to "win" an internet argument or reinforce your own worldview.