Talk:Employment/Archives/2011

Original conversation
Where would be a good place to talk about different theories relating to work, such as Calvinist theology, Marxism, and surrealist (and otherjyspposition to work? --Daniel C. Boyer 21:18, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I just deleted a huge page of "Incredible Offers 4 U". I ran across it on a google of the country of En for "lol". I'm saddened it took over a month for this to be found. --207.181.42.20 14:21, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This article as written is very biased to a US viewpoint. What about a section on international employment highlighting the differences in employment contracts/ideas around the world.

Would it be appropriate to include external link to jobforum.ca, which is a free employment forum? --Smartweb 01:58, October 21 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. See Wikipedia's External links policy; adding forums and blogs is discouraged. -- Mwanner | Talk 12:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Bread and butter redirects here?
Okay. Bread and butter redirects here. The phrase Bread and butter is used to refer to more than just this. The word bread nor butter are even mentioned! We need a disambig... or something.

Films?
This is a general article and these two links for movies don't quite fit. Yes office space is about unhappy employees but do we need this kind of popular culture in this article? I suggest they are removed.24.218.19.211 22:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)1/15/07

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible Employment project/subproject
There is now a proposed WikiProject or subproject to deal with wikipedia's content relating to employment, including the articles on the various professions and jobs, at WikiProject Council/Proposals. Any interested parties should indicate as much there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Work is sacred
Thats why I dont like to touch it..seriously, it used to be anyone could do anything,now they give you so many hoops to jump through just to get the simplest lowest paid jobs. Its bordering on the ridiculous and gone to far. Its now just a way of keeping wages at a level, cause most people can do most jobs whatever jobsworth at the interview says. And working for 5.75 per hour is exploitation. I know an escort who earns that in 3 mins. She said she would feel exploited working as a waitress on min wage. This way the client is. Ha. Shes right. P.S if your nervous at an interview just imagine the interviewer having sex :) or better still start your own business —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.29.45 (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted reference to Bob Black
The work of the author Bob Black is an important reference within the perpective that is being explored in this section of the article. I don't believe that this reference represents merely form of "listing" associated works. Maziotis (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism?
The part about Sweden has been replaced with "zx". I cannot figure out when this happened, however. Could someone who is better at this wiki stuff please revert it? 79.136.63.98 (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

2010-04 Counterfactual tagging
See "contracts" thread above. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Employee and Employer
they really need to be moved out as separate articles --Penbat (talk) 21:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Tax protester rhetoric removed
The following material was removed as frivolous tax protester rhetoric:
 * For the purposes of taxation 26 USC § 3401 (c) defines it this way: (c) Employee For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation.
 * Note that it is very specific as to exactely who is an employee and does not include many of the persons that we normally think of when we think of the word employee. And this is the very reason that the government had to define it as such because the income tax is voluntary for unincorporated individuals in the United States.

The above material appears to be calculated to give the false impression that "employee" for tax purposes means only the persons listed in section 3401(c). The statement that section 3401(c) "is very specific as to exactely [sic; should read "exactly"] who is an employee and does not include many of the persons that we normally think of when we think of the word employee" (emphasis added) is incorrect as a matter of law. Nothing in section 3401 limits the definition of "employee" to just those persons specifically listed in section 3401(c). The key is the word "includes." See. Sorry, tax protesters. Famspear 16:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

PS, in case you missed it, section 7701(c) states:
 * The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.

26 U.S.C. section 7701(c). Yours, Famspear 16:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)