Labor Relations

Tue, Jun 18, 1:27 AM (1 day ago)

I’ve been reading books on labor law the last couple of weeks(upcoming election, I threw my hat in the ring), and something jumped out at me.

There is a widely accepted labor relations canon that allows employers to discipline workers who fail to act respectfully towards management. It is a legal treatises known as the “MASTER-SERVANT RULE”.

This is not some arcane Virginia law from 300 years ago that got wiped off the books, but rather, a guiding principle of the courts to this day. It’s why they can fire you for insubordination. It’s the reason why you don’t call your boss a punk ass bitch. It’s the reason guys have pent up rage and heart attacks. Slavery was never really abolished, it was just expanded to include 90% of us.

Tony

As we use the term employer note that it means tool user and that the term employee means one who is to be used as a tool of the master's will.

What is MASTER SERVANT RULE? definition of MASTER SERVANT ...

"Definition of MASTER SERVANT RULE: Vicarious liability rule in agency law. A principal or employer is responsible and accountable for any negligent acts of the agent or employee. Even when..."

.

Master-Servant Rule - Investopedia

"The master-servant rule is a legal guideline stating that employers are responsible for the actions of their employees. The rule applies to any actions an employee undertakes while in the service of an employer that are within the scope of their duties for that employer."

Master-Servant Rule Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

"Master-Servant Rule Law and Legal Definition According to the master servant rule, the master is vicariously liable for the torts of his servants. An employer or master is liable for any wrongful acts committed within the scope of the employment or agency. This is also known as the principle of respondeat superior."

The origin of most aspects of Plantation America governance was the desire of the ruling elite to enjoy the same latitude over the laboring classes as the ancient Romans had over their laboring class, all of whom were slaves. Though actual slavery, the manorial system of Christendom did provide that the Lord had a Christian duty to see to the protection and welfare of his folk and that these folk were technically owned by the land, which was the manifestation of God's will for their people, keeping them in the place of their ancestors at the service of a man bond himself by God's will.

Master-Servant Rule - Investopedia

"The master-servant rule can trace its origins back to ancient Rome, where it was applied initially to the actions of slaves, and later, servants, animals, family members of the head of a family. It is not related to the United Kingdom laws of the 18th and 19th centuries known as the Master and Servant Acts or Masters and Servants Acts."

This reader disputes the last line above and makes the case that though one law may not have flowed from the other, that the inspiration of Roman law and the elite aspiration to govern as did the paternal lords of Rome, was shared by British and American elites, both being English and protestant as well as grotesquely materialistic in the most degenerate pagan tradition.

The lines of compassion that separated the Christian serf from the bad intentions and misuse of an "Egyptian bondage" were three:

-1. The church, as agents of God's compassionate will on earth, was to advocate for humane treatment of human property according to the notion that Christians were not able to actually own one anther, as they were all owned by God [see Leviticus] and that a lord ruled in God's name and must be advised by the church. These protections were abdicated in England with the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215 by church representatives, which placed the debts owed to non-Christians even by lords above questions of Family, God, King and Country.

-2. The king was in place primarily as a moral breakwater on local tyranny as the enforcer of God's laws and upholder of the Church's rule—the very real enemy of the barons and lords. The king was the teeth of the ecclesiastical conscience that Christians were more than beasts of burden in human form. These powers of divine right and divine rule, in England, were shattered by the Magna Carta.

-3. Finally, the idea that all Christian men—regardless of ethnicity—deserved to be treated humanly, even in war and bondage, was undermined by the Reformation, which coincided almost to the year with harshly worded poor laws in England and Russia, and was further undermined by the idea of "white identity" superseding "Christian identity" as a managing mechanism of the extra-national slave trade, which necessitated the close cooperation of the Christian European slave masters and the Non-Christian European slave traders who were vastly outnumbered by their European, African and Amerindian chattel. Shared Christian identity suffered as a universal notion, with the division of Christian factions into churches which denied the Christianity of their rivals and also by the New Israel movement which linked prosperity explicitly to the Gospels and embraced the defecto doctrine that poor folk, orphans and debtors had been cast down with God's consent and deserved slavery as a penance for their unchristian failure to prosper.

According to the sources, the U.S. Master-Servant Rule is not related directly to the United Kingdom Master Servants Acts, such as the one in 1823. However, both nation's ruling classes were Anglican English in origin, with the home nation's elite fighting to roll back Christian-imposed brakes on the exploitation of human beings from 1066 onward and the colonial elites of Plantation America scrambling to create a Roman style chattel system from 1617, with the Founding Fathers consciously and admittedly patterning the U.S. government after Republican Rome—the Rome that Spartacus rose up against in the 70s B.C.

The most honest definition of the elite English sentients behind British and Americn labor law is linked below:

Law of master and servant | law | Britannica.com

"…expansion of the doctrine of master and servant. Anglo-Norman law created the figures of ballivus and attornatus. His position in the household of his master empowered the ballivus to transact commercial business for his master, reminiscent of the power of the slave to bind his master under Roman law."

Note that the ability for a slave to bind his master called for the master to have power of life and death over said slave if he were to have some assurances that his servant would not ruin him. Now, the implementation of these principles to industrial and agricultural servants were conducted with brutal indifference in the ancient, medieval and modern world. For the typical chattel man digging for his master or the chattel woman on her knees possessed none of the social or economic leverage that the personal estate managers and household slaves enjoyed in all of these different historical epochs. In medieval and early modern terms the master might often by a craftsman and his servant being the apprentice to the trade, who was rented property whom it was regarded as proper to beat on the job.

My, when I was a grocery store manager, how I would have liked to have had the right to wield my cane upon the slow-bending backs of my surly clerks!

To support this project and view some graphics go to: