Mass eyes defiance of "Blue Laws"

[Charlie Brown]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/G/GROCERY_BLUE_LAWS?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US

BOSTON (AP) -- Massachusetts' attorney general is launching an investigation into several supermarkets that opened on Thanksgiving in defiance of the state's Puritan-era Blue Laws.

The laws were passed in the 1600s to keep colonists at home or in church on Sundays. Parts of the laws, such as the ban on Sunday liquor sales, have been repealed, but a prohibition on most stores doing business on Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year's Day, has not.

"If these stores want to open, there's a way to do it: Change the law," David Guarino, a spokesman for Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly, told The Boston Globe. The office didn't say what sort of penalty the stores could face.

The Globe reported that at least six stores, all Super 88 Markets, were open on Thanksgiving. One Super 88, in Quincy, shut down after a visit from police that day.

"We don't celebrate" Thanksgiving, said Rudy Chen, a former manager of a Super 88 in Chinatown who now works at the chain's headquarters. He said the store he managed was always open on Thanksgiving and no one complained.

[whatever4]

1. OH, yeah, and THAT investigation isn't a waste of time and money

and the American psyche. What a travesty of justice, just the very idea.

[Ian David]

2. I have to make a phonecall. I reported a store that wasn't an 88 Market

They were a Republican donor, otherwise I wouldn't have called.

[Todd B]

3. Why stop there?

I hear someone was shaving their horse on the lawn of the Boston Common on Sunday.. shouldn't we punish them too?

Seriously, wouldn't forcing a business to close on Thanksgiving so the owner can be at home or church be crossing the line between the Seperation clause just a bit?

Why not let us decide whether to close or remain open and stay the hell out of our business.

Talk about a waste of money.

[stepnw1f]

7. That's a Very Bad Analogy

A law is a law. I feel worse for the folks that had to work on that day.

[smb]

32. Law != Justice

A law is a law.

"What is your definition of justice?"

"Justice, Elijah, is that which exists when all the laws are enforced."

Fastolfe nodded. "A good definition, Mr Baley, for a robot. The desire to see all laws enforced has been built into R. Daneel, now. Justice is a very concrete term to him since it is based on law enforcement. A human can recognise that,on the basis of an abstract moral code, some laws may be bad ones, and their enforcement unjust. What do you say, R. Daneel?"

"An unjust law," said R. Dabeel evenly, "is a contradiction in terms."

[kestrel91316]

70. In Utah in the early 1970s the state legislature passed a law

called the "Sunday Closing Law" that required all businesses (except hospitals, gas stations, that sort of thing) to close all day Sunday. It got overturned faster than anyone could imagine, was COMPLETELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL. That pesky establishment clause, you know.

[bluestateguy]

4. I want these laws to be upheld

First, because it's the only way some working people will ever get a holiday without being forced to work.

Second, because if these laws are upheld as constitutional, that makes it legally possible to have election day as a national holiday with mandatory closing laws for stores and businesses.

[stepnw1f]

9. BINGO!!!

It's bad enough workers have less and less amenities.

[chelsea0011]

10. I agree. I'm all for freedom from stupid state government laws, but

we are talking about workers having the ability to not be forced to work for the WalMarts and large super market chains. It's not like they are getting $60 hr. to work. I'm sure they will go after the part time people first to avoid any overtime pay.

[sui generis]

18. well, any job can make you work on any holiday

just because they're not "selling" to consumers doesn't mean they can't be open for back-office business or can't require you to be at work.

If it was truly an enforceable law then you couldn't very well hire a security guard to "work" at the establishment on that day either.

[happyslug]

31. But in this case it is easy.

Is the Store open to the public? Than it is in violation. Simple, no need for Search Warrants of Grand Jury investigations.

In the case you give of a Security Guard, those are harder to show, i.e. the person forced to work must report it or you have no first hand information (Unlike Retail where all the Police have to do is walk into the Store).

Even under the Blue laws, things like Security Guard was legal. Even the Puritans in the 1600s knew you could NOT forbid every type of work. on the other hand the Puritans saw the problem with retail early. Retail is competitive, if store down the street is open, you have to be. The Puritan saw this and knew that only the State could force ALL stores to be closed. Thus the Blue Laws became the law.

Now the Puritans wanted people to go to Church, but also knew people in their community would not. The Puritans in England were actually more Tolerate of other religions than had the Protestants their replaced had been (For Example Under Cromwell, the Jews were permitted back into London and to open a Synagogue). Now during the time of the Commonwealth (1640-1660) this tolerance was active in England and Rhode Island (Through NOT the rest of New England) but after 1700 a reversal occurred. Starting with the Restoration of 1660 (When Charles II became King of England) England became more and more intolerant of non-Church of England worshipers, while New England became more Tolerate (Basically New England turned to Unitarianism after 1700). It is only in the 1800s that England finally removed the last restrictions on Religious life (and England still has a State Church to this day).

The Blue laws of the US came out of the above. One of the side affects of the Blue laws was the protections of Workers. The BLue Laws basically said you could NOT work your workers 7 days a week. When the Blue Laws were ignored or repealed, workers did work seven days a week. An Example is such sunday working was one of the Causes of the 1919 Steel Strike. During WWI the Steel Companies demanded their workers work a mandatory 7 days a week work period including at least one 24 hours work day (in effect working 8 days out of 7). Laws to prevent such abuse were ineffective unless it can be shown it was not "Voluntary". Since Economic necessity is NOT Duress under American Law, the above 8 days out of 7 was "Voluntary". This is typical of the abuse where their is no Government Control.

Mandatory Sunday Closings gave workers at least one day away from work )One day with their families). Given that, except for the 1950s Women worked in the workforce as much as men, often the only time spouses saw each other other than in passing was on Sunday. Thus Sunday closings gave some stability to families (You need to interact, you can not interact if all you say is "Hi, Honey, Bye, Honey").

Women, more than men, end up working retail, and this working on Sundays. Teens work retail more than older workers, thus work on Sundays. While white males tend to have Sunday off more than Teens and Women, such White Males are often NOT interacting with their Children Spouse, for the spouse and child (if a teen) are simply not at home. People need to interact, and to interact you need to spend time together (Even if it looks like nothing is happening). With Teens and women working Sundays, and their Fathers working the weekdays what are the days all three interact together? The Answer is Rarely and only when it is arranged (i.e. Scheduled weeks or months ahead of time).

Once you accept that people need to interact, how do arrange societies time to permit such interaction? The Blue laws was one way to do so. In fact the Puritans thought it worked well, so well that the Puritans extended it to Saturday to cover the Jewish Sabbath (Thus inventing what we now call the weekend). Now the Puritans did this more through social pressure than actual law (unlike Sunday Closings). This was found to be a Social Good that it expanded throughout Europe during the Reformation. Thus you see Government Buildings, Professionals etc closed on the Weekends FOR SUCH HIGHLY PAID PROFESSIONALS KNOW THE ADVANTAGE OF INTERACTING WITH ONE'S PEERS AND FAMILY. In fact until the 1980s it was still possible to find a Professional open Saturday Mornings (Through such Saturday Hours for Professionals were dieing out starting in the 1930s).

On the other hand, the lonely Retailer was told he could be open on Saturday, and treated Saturday like the other 5 days of the work-week. Given the Competitive nature of Retail, only positive law could keep such stores closed. With the increase in retailers in the 1960s (do to the raise in Suburbia) stores started to open on on Sunday. Once one store opened up, its competitors also had to be open or lose market share (Notice I say lose Market Share, Sunday openings did NOT increase overall sales, the goods sold on Sunday would have been purchased on one of the other six days of the week, but if you are closed on Sunday and your competitors are open, they may be able to get some of the sales you would have had had all the stores be closed). Thus increase sales do to being open on Sunday is an illusion, one may have increase market share but only if some other store was closed, but overall sales were the same whether you were open on Sunday or not.

Now on the face of it it looks like the only real costs of opening Sunday would be increase man-hours for being open one more day, but like the illusion of increased sales do to being open on Sunday, this is also an illusion. Basically, what Retailers did was rearrange their worker's schedule so that the total number of workers (and worker's hours) stayed about the same. Thus even worker's wages stayed stagnant under Sunday opening (Now retail increased over all, thus masking the above, i.e. Sunday Sales Increase but most of these sales would have occurred had the stores stayed closed on Sunday).

In my opinion, Sunday openings is one of the worse problems facing America today that can be easily solved (AIDS, the War in Iraq, Peak oil are worse problems but none of them are subject to any easy solution). The problem is NOT Sunday opening per se, but the effect on families and their ability to interact. Sunday Openings interferes with the later and we as a society needs to encourage the later. The best way is to pick one day a week when most people can be off work (and I include Fast-Food in places that need to be closed down, one way people learn to interact is when their cook their meals together). That day traditionally has been Sunday.

Now while I support the day be Sunday I must point out their is NO religious reason for Sunday being the day of rest (The Bible only says keep one day out of Seven for the day of rest NOT that it be Sunday or Saturday). Sundays were made the Christian Holy Day at the Council of Nicea at the request of Emperor Constantine I. Sunday was selected so that the Christian Sabbath would fall on the same day as the Roman Sun-Worshippers had their holy day (Which was once every 14 days). The early Christian noted that the Bible just says one day out of Seven, NOT Saturday and made the switch to keep the Roman Emperor Happy. Just like the early Christian I can support ANY DAY OF THE WEEK, but given the tradition of Sunday closing I believe Sunday would be the best day of the week to adopt. Such closing will force people to do things as a family unit and to interact with people in their community much more than what is happening now, in both that some family member have to work on Sunday, while others instead of working with their family members just go to the mall, or play golf etc.

[sui generis]

34. I believe in Darwin

either you join unions, or don't patronize those businesses, but keep the government out of those decisions. The government has NO PLACE telling someone when they can and can't be open - or maybe, doctors offices should only be open after hours since most people work?

Maybe restaurant owners shouldn't "be allowed" to stay open past a certain hour or open before a certain hour so that wait staff can be at home with their families?

I am totally against the government establishing working hours - it's too much government, too much "socialism", and administering it would be horrific.

People have to stand up for themselves. Join a union, form a union, boycott a business, get a different job with a more enlightened employer, but keep the government out of jobs apart from minimum wage, employment discrimination and worker safety standards.

I could care less about historical precedence, especially biblical. A good employer in most business will treat their employees fairly or risk losing them and the investment in their training. Sometimes people have to work on holidays. A good employer would take care that it is done fairly and that nobody is kept away from their families. There are bad employers, and they don't remain in business for long because of simple market forces, but to make it legally impossible to BE a bad employer is just unrealistic.

[happyslug]

38. We do belong to a union, it is known as GOVERNMENT

Why do you think Governments were formed? It is to protect ALL members of a Society. Thus Government is a UNION. As a union, the Government not only has to defend against outside forces but also maintain internal cohesion (Which is what any union does, a Union must not only defend its members, it must also make sure the members stay loyal to the Union). Unlike lesser unions, the Government has the ability to use force against its enemies and members, which gives Government more power than any other Union we may belong to. Thus while Unions brought us THe EPA, OSHA, the 40 hour work weak, anti-child labor laws, such laws were made by the Government NOT the unions.

Regular unions compared to the Government are very week and have almost no power INDEPENDENT OF THE GOVERNMENT. This can be seen by the attempt by the Unions (Independent of Government) to get the 40 hours work-week adopted in the 1880s, THE MOVEMENT FAILED. On the other hand when the Government BACKED the 40 hours work in the 1930s, the 40 hours work week became the law.

In your example of Restaurant hours you actually show the POWER of the Government and the WEAKNESS of the Unions. Restaurants almost always have a liquor license, thus their hours are covered by that Liquor license which is how every state CONTROLS THE HOURS OR BARS AND RESTAURANTS THAT SERVE DRINKS. Since this tends to be the better restaurants the State sets their hours. Some State Liquor Control Boards encourage Unionization, other do not. In those states where the Liquor Control Board encourages Unions, you see Unionized Restaurant Workers, but only in places subject to the Liquor Control Board.

Fast-Food on the other hand rarely are closed on Sunday and can be open till Dawn (But shut off when Business is slow). Fast-Food is a grind, a grind permitted by the Government do to the lack of Government controls. Fast-Food is rarely unionized do to the lack of Government Oversight of the Business (OTher than by the Health Boards).

As to Unions themselves, any economics will tell you that union have NOT been successful against employers when it comes to hours work or wages UNLESS THE MARKET WOULD FORCE THE EMPLOYER TO PAY THOSE WAGES IN THE FIRST PLACE OR THE GOVERNMENT FORCED THE EMPLOYER TO ADOPT THE WAGES OR HOURS WORKED. When Henry Ford increased his employee his wages in 1919 to $5 a hour, it was NOT because he was being generous, it was the only way he could keep employees. Thus like the Steel Industry, to keep the better workers you had to pay better wages but only if there was no surplus of "better" workers. When you had a surplus wages dropped, even in Unionized industries.

The Chief advantage of the unionization of the late 1930s was to give the Workers a greater say in how they did their jobs (and wages) but rarely did such wages increase more than the wages would have been WITHOUT THE UNION. The union's chief benefit to a worker is to lobby the GOvernment for Controls that help the Union workers (For example fight for the 40 hours work-week, and 1 1/2 for overtime AND forcing employers to talk to unions representing their employees).

Why were Unions so ineffective (While appearing effective)? Unions ineffectiveness is based on basic economics, the Union could NOT raise wages more than any potential competitor (Thus Government Controls through the National Labor Relations Board permitted industry wide negotiations for decades, thus minimizing the ability of new competitors coming into the Market). As long as the Government was able to keep out foreign competitors from the Steel and Auto Industries, those industry's Unions could maintain high wages, but once foreign competitors were permitted in, those high wage employees wages were doomed. It is call competition. Only Government can protect industries from Foreign Competition THE UNIONS CAN NOT.

Unions appeared effective in the 1940s do to the US Government protectionism (and fear of Communism which was tied in with the Government support for the non-communist unions in the US). Once that Government Control was abolished, the weakness of the Unions was apparent to all. Basically, Unions can NOT protect workers, except to lobby the Government for protection. Unions an represent individual employees against their Employer (Which is itself enough to keep a union), but beside that Union can NOT fight the forces of Competition WITHOUT THE ASSISTANCE OF GOVERNMENT.

Now I agree with you that people have to stand up for themselves, but we do that as a member of Society through our ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES. Thus we use the Government to protect us from ourselves and others. Unions can NOT do that without Government Support. Thus it is GOVERNMENT (The people ruling as a whole) that sets the rules of Society, those rules are based not only on what i going on today, but what happen historically. It is said the best guide for the Future is past, thus we study the past to be able to see what will happen in the future. I believe it would be better for family members all to have the same day off as much as possible so to interact and the best way to do that is by mandating Sunday Closings of most businesses.

[sui generis]

44. Well I still disagree for every reason I stated

First of all, GOVERNMENT has said that my family with same-sex parents is not a family so I could give a crap about government at the moment setting the standard for what society "should be" in normative terms. I mean, really, and am restraining myself from saying what I really think in the most colorful terms possible about our government.

Representative government these days appears to be made up of louts who can't stir themselves to vote on any issue unless it involves taking away someone else's rights, or banning gay married terrorists as the end of western civilization. Clearly, anytime somebody wants to make sure to get the rabid right to vote, they'll drag out one of us fags and figure out a way to use us to scare the poor little unwashed masses who don't think we should exist or have lives.

The government doesn't protect me from anything. I have a business with 70 skilled laborers. I set a fair schedule so that those who have access to public transportation can avail themselves of PT during the hours that it is available. I don't wait for anyone to tell me they're having a meltdown from working too hard, and I build teamwork all the time.

I know that slack time is a natural and necessary part of the business world, and that anyone who is spending two thirds of their lives working for me deserves to be able to use the telephone, set their own breaks and work schedule within reason, and have unmonitored access to the internet, and all in all as long as they meet reasonable productivity goals and fit in well with little drama

I genuinely don't care about anything else. I don't want lawsuits or the guilt of having harmed someone through negligence, greed or brute stupidity, so I enforce safety standards and practices and I constantly try to work out what is "fair" for everyone, not just on holidays and weekends! A happy motivated crew is a productive crew.

So if the government comes along and tells me what and when and how high to jump on the way up on any but the most rudimentary of safety, compensation and tax issues, I'll personally invite them to step out or I'll move my business somewhere a lot less like communist Russia and there will be 70 regretfully unemployed people here able to spend time with their government-approved families seven days a week.

If America was as you envisioned it, I wouldn't choose to live here, or to continue to be American.

[happyslug]

50. You may object to How our Society is formed, and even hate it.

But the mechanism for change is Congress and the State Legislature. You may dislike how their are deciding issues, but that is HOW any society decides how it is to be formed.

The regulations of business is necessary evil and every business men or women I have meet constantly complain of those regulations but then follows them. Regulations and laws if enforced equally against all people subject to those laws maintain the even playing field needed for competition to work. Without those rules, you have the rule of the Jungle, each person doing what he wants when he wants and with whatever he manage to get his hands on. No Society has ever permitted such chaos for it costs to much.

As to Sunday closing, I just believe it will make society a little bit better given the increase opportunity for people to interact with their family members. We can disagree with that, but it is the Role of Government to resolve such disputes.

[sui generis]

55. no dispute with your first two paragraphs at all

I just think the government is overstepping its mandate.

The government is not social director on this cruise. Using terms like "make it better" are relative, like "good" is relative to whether you are the eater of steak or the cow.

Commerce just IS. Ultimately, it's up to YOU to actively spend time with your family, not the government to induce you to do so. If you aren't inclined towards family activity to begin with, you certainly won't be able to make amends by going through the motions on a holiday, and the government setting up house in your house isn't going to magically make things "better for society" either.

I question everything. I'm not an anarchist, as you may have been implying. I'm not "the extreme opposite" of whatever you support, whatever that is in either case. I don't have a benevolent view of the government, and I don't think that my rights as an individual should be intercepted on behalf of a misguided social engineering project like enforced holiday closures. I AM the government as you seem to be getting at. If I don't like this government because enough people have made it too intrusive and too restrictive, then I will leave. My ancestors left oppressive tyrannical countries to come here. If this turns into one then there's nothing keeping me here.

But that doesn't mean that I won't fight tooth and nail first until it's all but inevitable. One thing you can be sure of, if the government makes a silly law that requires me to paint my ass blue and stand on my head for an hour each Sunday, I will most certainly not comply. I will openly break the law and encourage others to do so as well because what color I choose to paint my ass and on what day, is MY choice, not the governments.

[onenote]

36. sunday openings/closings -- the world you imagine doesn't exist

You state a detailed argument for Sunday closing laws and how they are needed "to force peole to do things as a family unit and to interact with people in their community much more than is happening now." But your dreaming if you think that would be the result.

If you are talking about mandatory closing laws applicable only to retail (which is the traditional scope of such laws), keep in mind that the percentage of the workforce that works in the retail trades is probably less than 10 percent. In the aggregate, far more people work for government, service industries, manufacturing, agriculture, etc. Sure, forcing retail establishments to close would prevent all these other people from shopping on Sunday, but it wouldn't mean that they'd do things as a family unit. The manufacturing crews that work on Sundays would still work on Sundays. The farmers would still work on Sundays if that's what they've done in the past. Service industries would still employ repair technicians and customer service representatives on Sunday. Movie theaters, golf courses, swimming pools, and other forms of weekend entertainment would still employ people. Hospitals and gas stations and fire stations would all still be open and keeping people away from their families. And on and on.

Moreover, its not as if closing the Wal-Mart or your local grocery store will make people interact with their families. Husbands will still go off to play golf with their buddies. Teens will go to the movies. Kids will still get together to go bike riding with their friends. Guys will gather at bars to watch football. Etc etc.

Now, I suppose you could argue that all these other places of employment (except those relatd to public health and safety) should be forced to close. No golf courses, no movie theatres, no bars. Well, that should help those businesses and their employees a bunch, since you've just knocked out a significant amount of the business --and its not as if it can all just migrate to another day of the week.

Most businesses are free to decide whether it makes sense as a business proposition to be open on a particular day. "Forcing" people to spend time with their families assumes a picture of America that simply doesn't exist anymore (if it ever really did).

onenote

[happyslug]

39. We can NOT force people to do things, but we can give them an opportunity.

It is the Opportunity that is important NOT that it is taken. Yes, some people will NOT take up the opportunity, but others will take up the opportunity. Sometime the mere fact you are all under the same roof may be enough to start the interaction.

As to Government Services, Professionals and manufacturing, most do NOT work the weekends (Knowing the advantages it gives their employees to interact with their family members). Those industries that MUST work week ends (Hospitals, Fire Departments, Emergency Crews, Police Etc) ) often alternate weekends by Staff (i.e. you work one Sunday every two weeks for Example). Some manufacturing that has to work weekends (Steel Production for Example) have similar policies. These have minimal effect on people as long as these are exceptions to the General rule. The problem is regarding Retail, Sunday opening is the norm not the Exceptions and when else can these people interact with their other family members given that most other members are in School or Working?

Furthermore Retail do NOT want to pay extra for workers on Sunday. I would have less of a problem if Government would declare Sunday work Overtime. This will have almost no effect on most industry working in Sunday (they are generally paying overtime anyway) but will give Nurses and other emergency workers more money (and discourage Sunday Openings and if you "Have" to be open, pay the overtime). The problem with most Retail, they want to be open Sunday BUT AT THE SAME COSTS AS ANY OTHER DAY OF THE WEEK. If you want to be open, pay.

Remember most retail are NOT Mom and Pa stores (Most such Stores I know of are closed Sundays) but giant retailers or fast food vendors. Often their employees do NOT have a choice as to working Sunday. My plan is to give them a CHANCE to be with their families one day a week. It may not be much, but it is better then passing in the night (and a lot of low income families do, with each parent working two retail jobs to make ends meet).

[onenote]

41. so why does it have to be a particular day

I have no problem with laws that specify a maximum work week. But why should the law specify a particular day? You could just as easily specify that overtime has to be paid for every seventh consecutive day that an employee works.

As you acknowledge, many businesses, including many retail businesses, voluntarily close on Sunday or some other day of the week (some restaurants, for example, close on Mondays). So why does the government need to get involved? And I'm still not certain whether you are endorsing a specified day (Sunday) closing requirement just for retail or for all non essential (health and safety) businesses. While most people have Sunday off, the number of people that work on Sunday in manufacturing, agriculture, and service businesses (inlcuding bars, restaurants, theaters,etc) is not insignficant. A mandatory Sunday closing wouldn't free these people up to spend with their families, while a one day a week off (or overtime) provision that didn't specify a particular date could be applied to all professions.

onenote

[happyslug]

49. An old Accounting Rule answers your question.

If you give responsibility to two people it is the same as giving it to no one. People without power often have no real choice. You either quit your job or work Sundays. Unless one day a week is picked by the STATE, employers will pick what is in their best interests, not the interest of their employees or their employee's families. Given today's two income family you are giving TWO employers that power, which is the same a giving it to no one.

In Retail Competition is severe and without Government Regulations employers will force their employees to work even on days the employees do not WANT to work (and even on days when the Employer does not want to work his or her employees). If you and your spouse both work retail how do YOUR employers arrange for you two to get together with your children? The answer is your employer DOES NOT. With mandatory Sunday Closings both spouses KNOW that they will be off EVERY SUNDAY. Now you can pick another day of the week, Sunday holds nothing sacred to me, but it has to be ONE day not "You can arranged with your boss".

I have worked weekends, and its gets to be a drag and you just do NOT get to see your relatives or your friends. You pass in the night. Maximum hours do NOT address that issue. I give you an example. When my Father worked for the Post Office, his work week was Saturday to Saturday. The reason for this is he had a moving day off, one week it would be Monday, the next Tuesday, the third Wednesday etc. Now since his week was Saturday to Saturday every fifth week he would have Friday off the next day (Saturday) off. Since technically they were in two separate week week he would get a three day work week. The following work week he had to work Monday through SATURDAY. Yes, Six days straight. No over time for he technically worked only five days and then the first day of the following week.

Now he worked for the Government and had a fairly strong union (that Lobbied Congress extensively). The only day I could COUNT on seeing him was Sunday. His Monday - Friday off work interfered with my schooling, while his Saturday was so rare that it was look upon as a mini-vacation by his kids. On the other hand if he wanted to do anything with me, or I with him it had to be on sunday FOR THAT WAS THE ONLY DAY OF THE WEEK WHERE BOTH OF US WERE OFF WORK (He also started work early and my school started late so minimal interaction during the School week, like ships in the dark passing each other).

That was NOT a healthy situation, we made do but it was NOT healthy. When I started to work on Sundays, that meant I had NO interaction with him.

Today's low income families are in an even worse situation. These are the people doing retail, passing their children and/or parents in the night. Everyone is working 40 hours per week, but different 40 hour periods. The little bit of overlap is time to get some sleep to get to work the next day.

Maybe its my job (I am a Custody and Visitation Lawyer) but I have seen to often parents who just grew apart because they NEVER had time for each other (Children are a huge time consumer, but parents still need to have time to be with each other). These same people do NOT have the power to set their own work times so they often work Sundays and weekends (and when one is off the other is working).

Your plan on maximum times is to easy for employers to work around to the detriment of their Employees. Such laws help, but do NOT address the problem of how Society should provide time for people to be together.

Retail is in many ways today's Incentive Trap. An Incentive Trap is when what is good for Society is NOT what is good for each member of that Society. The classic incentive Trap is the old English Common Areas. Every peasant in the area had the right to run horses in the Commons. As long as the horses do not exceed the carrying capability of the Commons that is not a problem. The problem is when the number of horses exceed that carrying capacity. In such a situation you see a huge loss in grass produced in the Commons. What could have feed 50 horses can only feed 20 do to over-grazing. On the other hand each peasant ho put his horse in the Commons feed some part of that horse and thus lessen his losses even at grass for 20 horses. What of a peasant who does NOT use the commons? While the Commons is still over grazed, but the peasants who did NOT withdraw their horses, horses get to eat the grass NOT eaten by the peasant who did withdraw his horses. The peasant who withdrew his horses LOSS, while the peasants who did NOT withdrew their horses won. The fact that if all of the peasants would withdraw their horses the Common area would recover AND FEED ALL OF THE HORSES, is unimportant for the benefit will go to the peasant who DID NOT WITHDRAW his horses.

Incentive Traps occur quite often. Retail is very susceptible to incentive Traps. "I have to compete, or I will lose customers, even if it means all of us retailers go bankrupt". They are two ways to resolve incentive traps, first is Government Regulation, the Second is religious (and the later only works if everyone is a member of that Religion, thus when Religion is used to resolve incentive Traps they can be no dissent). Religion is rarely used today for only the Government has the power to force people to obeys its rules.

Thus only the Government in our Society can resolve issues of Incentive Traps. One way is to sell the commons to an individual (This is how England ended "Tragedy of the COmmons") who then use it for his use only. Another is Government Regulations restricting how many people can use the Common area (The are has a capacity of 50 horses, they are 50 peasants, each peasant gets to put in one and only one horses, no matter how many he has). Another way is to restrict WHEN someone an use he Common ARea (For example restricted to when you use it to get to town, like today's parking lots).

Transfer this concept to Retail, and you can see the incentive Traps. People only have so much money and time. Retailers must match Competitors times and hours. Thus without Government Regulations Sunday is a day retailers would love, a lot of people off work (time) and tend to be middle class (i.e have money). As long as the Government enforced Sunday closings, every Retailer was on the same level playing field. Once Government STOP enforcing the Blue Laws, competition forced retailers into opening Sunday AND FORCING THEIR EMPLOYEES TO WORK SUNDAY. Thus Once Sunday was open to one, all had to be open. It is beyond any one retailer's control to be open Sunday or not. You have to meet your Competition.

On the other hand being open Sunday causes conflicts and problems within the families. Some families are doomed to failure anyway, but why would Society prefer Profit to maintaining families? This is my concern with Sunday openings, it prevents a sizable part of our population to interact as families, something we should be encouraging.

[onenote]

53. it still seems a bit odd to be so much more protective of retail workers

But not so many other categories of workers. Why should only retail workers get to be with their families on a guaranteed basis? And not even all retail workers...just those whose spouse/children don't work on Sunday at a non-retail establishment, like a restaurant or a movie theater or a lifeguard or hospital or gas station or for the police or fire department or on and on and on...

These kinds of laws inevitably end up riddled with irrational exceptions. Where everyone in a family doesn't work on Sunday today, its not as if they all sit around doing "family stuff." Dad plays golf or watches football. Mom bakes or, in the summer, goes to the pool with the kids (where she spends her time talking to the other moms, not hanging out with her kids who don't want to be seen within ten feet of mom). Or the kids play in the basement or watch videos. And you end up not being able to buy a six pack of soda at the store, but you can buy an overpriced, underchilled watered down cup of soda at the concession stand at the game/movie/whatever.

I know...its about giving those families an opportunity to do "family stuff" even if they don't take it. But why should those without families, or those who need the money, be denied the opportunity to work an extra day if that's what they want?

onenote

[happyslug]

62. Most Blue laws have exceptions and covered more than retail

I remember watching an old movie from the late 1930s on a Laser disc, included at the end of the Movie was the star asking patrons of Theaters in Pennsylvania to ask their legislature to permit Sunday movies given that Baseball and Football games had been permitted on Sunday since the fall of 1933.

http://www.aafla.org/SportsLibrary/NASSH_Proceedings/NP1975/NP1975zh.pdf#search='Professional%20Football%20Blue%20Laws'

This is part of the Urban-Rural divide. Rural Areas liked Sunday closings, it forced employers to give them a day off work. It was interwoven into their lifestyle so that any changed indicated the possibility of one more day of work. By making sure everything was closed, everyone was guarantee a day off (and this was true of rural non-religious people as while as religious rural people). Also remember in Rural areas recreation could still be done around one's home and was done given the restrictions on transportation in the 1920s.

On the other hand in Urban Areas transportation was NOT a problem (most people were within walking distance, we are taking the 1920s here NOT today). While rural people had their entertainment, most were NOT variable in Urban areas (For example most cities outlawed shotting rifles). On the other hand a lot of "Middle Class" people wanted to be entertained. Thus the push for more and more places being opened on Sunday. It started with Professional Sports, than spread to movies than small retailers, than in the 1970s these were used by larger retailers to stay open (Today in Pennsylvania, the push is to permit Hunting on Sundays, the Ban on Sunday hunting is one of last remains of the Blue laws in Pennsylvania). Like the earlier "need" to permit Football, Baseball and Movies on Sunday. hunting is being pushed as the only day many workers have time off work to hunt.

Today, Sunday in Pennsylvania is NOT like the other six days of the week, but it is close. The worse part is most of the exceptions are no longer needed. For example Gasoline stations, why do their have to be manned? My local Gasoline Dealer even has pumps that permit people to pay CASH directly at the pump. One local gasoline station actually is unmanned (It had to be for Under Pa law you can not sell Gasoline and Alcohol in the same place, so the dealer set up his unmanned gasoline station next to his convenience store when he decided to set it up as a restaurant, you can NOT pay for the gasoline at the store, only at the pump).

My point is no one need today to have someone man the pumps every day (permitting people to get their gasoline AND leaving people off work). The same can be said of many convenience stores, Vending machines can operate on Sunday to give people one day off a week (and if you need more than what is available through Vending Machines, how about a little pre-planning).

My point here is the exceptions were passed one at a time without any thought of the overall situation. Some of those exceptions are no longer needed (and why can't Professional Football be played on Saturday or even Monday?). On the other hand some exceptions will have to stay, thus we need exceptions, but such exceptions should be rare and clear. Thus I do would NOT only ban Retail sales, I would look into banning as many activities as possible to give the maximum number of people the day off work.

[onenote]

71. So the idea isn't merely to give people a day off, its to dictate how they

spend that day?

Want to take your kid to a baseball game? Do it on Saturday. Oops. You don't have Saturday off. Do it on Sunday? Oops. Not allowed any more. Want to play golf with your wife? Play during the week. Oops. You both work during the week. Oh well, I'm sure they can fit everybody in on Saturday. Want to go to an amusement park or the swimming pool with your entire family? Sorry, very very crowded on Saturday, assuming you have that day off. Should libaries be open or closed? Video stores -- close them, but allow folks with cable to order movies pay per view?

These things just don't make sense to me. Basically, it seems that you are arguing that one day should be set aside where people don't have to work, and should be limited in the activities that they can enjoy that day...an approach that both limits freedom and is harmful to a sector of the economy and its employees.

Or you can create lots of exceptions so that a privileged class of workers gets not merely a guaranteed day off, but a particular day, even though many of their family members won't get that day off.

onenote

[happyslug]

73. Puritans solution to that dilemma was to close everything down

One big even playing field. Like them I would close down everything, the only exceptions would have to be emergency care related (Fire, Nursing etc).

As to "harmful", those were the rules for Centuries, up until the 1920s (and in most places into the 1970s and some places to this day). The "Harm" most people are claiming can be avoided by some pre-planning AND technology (and was avoided in the past through pre-planning).

As to "restricting" Freedom. You will still have the Freedom to do as you want, just you will NOT be able to buy things. If your definition of "Freedom" is the "Freedom" to purchase, than Sunday closing is a restrictions on "Freedom". On the other hand if your Definition of "Freedom" is to be FREE TO DO AS YOU WANT. THAT ALSO MEANS LEAVING OTHER PEOPLE BE FREE TO DO AS THEIR WANT. Employees by their very position do NOT have that freedom, and can't have that freedom.

Even if you legislates that an employee has the right to refuse to work Sundays, how do you enforce such a law? For example if the law say you can not be fired for refusing to work Sundays, how do you prove you were fired for THAT alone? Another way to look at it how do you show you were NOT hired do to a refusal to work Sundays? (The ADA act worked around this problem by saying you do you have to reveal any Disabilities until you are offered a position, thus the employer is on notice he has to keep you on unless he can show he had good reason NOT to retain you).

Thus the problem is Total Freedom, as that is often spoken of, is just NOT possible. Sooner or later some sort of FORCE will be applied. In the case of Sunday openings, Employers will put pressure on Employees to work Sunday EVEN IF THE EMPLOYEE DOES NOT WANT TO. How is that "Freedom"? You can say the employee can quit, but how does he or she than feeds her family?

Thus given the choice between FORCING PEOPLE TO WORK and FORBIDDING THEM FROM WORKING, which produces the greater Freedom? To prohibit something means you can do other things, to force someone to do something by its nature prohibits everything BUT THAT ACTIVITY.

Remember we are talking about the Greatest amount of Freedom for the Greatest number of People. Forcing some people to work (other than emergency workers) denies more freedom than prohibiting an activity. If we permit employers to open Sunday, the employers will be open Sunday AND FORCE THEIR EMPLOYEES TO WORK. On the other hand by Forbidding work, you free almost everyone to do things they want to do (we must make exceptions for emergency personnel). Thus which system produces the greatest Freedom? In my opinion, banning Sunday Openings, but on this people can disagree and why it should be debated.

[onenote]

75. I'm not sure I agree with your "freedom" analysis

For the person who doesn't want to be forced to work on Sunday, sure, a mandatory closing law gives them "freedom". But for the person who wants to work on Sunday and have Saturday off? No freedom. And what about the freedom of someone who works Monday to Saturday, and who loves to play golf. No freedom. Why? Because the only day they can play golf, they're forbidden from doing so because the golf course is forbidden from being open.

IMHO, the greatest freedom comes from letting people make their own choices. If not working on Sunday is critically important to you, find a job where you don't have to work Sundays. Just as if its important to have your days free, pick a job where you work nights. Or if only working 20 hours a week is important, than find a employer that will hire you on a part time basis. There are plenty of places of business, including both retail and non-retail, that aren't open on Sundays. Let folks decide what's important. The very fact that most people have Sundays off and most people choose to use that time off not in solitary pursuits, but in shopping and entertaining and spending...well, that suggests to me that the greatest number of people enjoy the freedom to do what they want to do if the government gets out of the way.

onenote

[happyslug]

77. You are NOT accepting what I view as a given

That is PEOPLE OFTEN HAVE NO CHOICE AS TO THEIR WHERE AND FOR WHOM THEIR WORK. I have been in that situation, it is HARD to find another job and keep your old one (So you can pay the bills). Thus a lot of people (Especially in Retail, which is viewed as a high stress job) have no choice as to their employer or employment. To say they have the Freedom to pick another job is to follow the Supreme Court Locher Decision of 1905 (Reversed in 1938) that said it was unconstitutional to restrict a baker's times and hours work for it violated that Baker's Freedom to Contract. In that case New York State forbidden Bakers to work more than 12 hours a day on the grounds it caused unsafe working condition (i.e. you tend to fall asleep). This was called "The Freedom to Starve" decision, for it raised to Constitutional level the "Freedom" to enter into any employment Contract NO MATTER HOW UNFAVORABLE THE TERMS WERE AND HOW UNSAFE IT MADE THE WORK ENVIRONMENT.

This decision prohibited wage and hour laws for Decades (Until it was overtured in 1938). The Court In Locher basically ruled that Freedom included the Freedom to make decisions forced on you by economic necessity, I disagree with that. Freedom is the right to say NO. Employees do NOT have that right, thus you have to determine a way for them to have that right as much as possible and my position is the best way is to PROHIBIT an activity. In this case Sunday opening.

Now I admit you can NOT provide compete Freedom to Employees, Employers need the right to direct employees. The problem is when what is good for Society is NOT what is good for employers. When it comes to getting family members together, the best way is to have one day off work for as many people as possible. Sunday closing does that better than any other system. Sunday Closing maximize Freedom to the most people, even as it restricts Freedom to some. The same can be aid of abolishing the law, some people will lose the freedom to be with their families on a weekly basis while other will gain the Freedom to go to "Buy". I prefer people having the Freedom to be with their families, other may disagreed with that but it is a preference to the concept that the best freedom is the Freedom to Buy, Buy, Buy.

[NashVegas]

42. Wonderful Post!

When I moved to Nashville and saw that over 1/2 of the local businesses were closed on Sundays (bible belt), my indignation lasted about a month. You learn to adapt fairly quickly; 9 times out of 10, your need for a bag of Cheetos wasn't all that important if you couldn't take the time to get it on Saturday, and it sure as hell was no more important than the clerk at Store X getting some time off.

[sui generis]

45. what next, you're required to prove you've spent time with your family?

too much government.

or only hire people who have families?

Way too much government.

What if I need to work a second part time job and I WANT to work on Sunday? Where are those jobs for me?

The government should have absolutely no say in determining the opening hours of a business so long as the employees you hire are properly compensated.

[NashVegas]

47. What If What If What If

No one has said anything about any law requiring anyone to spend time with family on a state-sponsored holiday. I do not believe I have heard of such cases reported and in the Mass. case, the law has stood over a century.

or only hire people who have families?

While I'm sure there are employers who do and/or have discriminated against those without families, I'm unaware of that ever having happened because the employer wanted to insure said employee would take a day off.

What if I need to work a second part time job and I WANT to work on Sunday? Where are those jobs for me?

Security guard, nurse, radio broadcaster, hotel desk clerk - they're out there.

The government should have absolutely no say in determining the opening hours of a business so long as the employees you hire are properly compensated.

What compensation is there for being forced to refrain from participating in those holidays that are bred into our national psyche, so much that they are officially recognized by our government?

I believe your arguments would be more suited for Libertarian Underground, if there is such a thing.

[sui generis]

48. oh no you dint

three
two
one

The U.S. government doesn't get to limit the list of part time Sunday jobs for me and still call itself America. I'm not a libertarian, but nice of you to attempt a subtle jab indicating a possible affiliation with the extreme nutcase anarchical right.

However I can wholeheartedly say this:

If the authoritarian left wing gestapo that the non-libertarian underground despises were to take over and start telling us what days we are allowed to run our businesses, then I'll be helping ya'll get visas to some country more in line with that philosophy, oh wait, I can't think of any developed nations with a decent economy (or any at all) where we could send you and the rest really do require visas. And burkas.

Post on libertarian underground. Snort. That's precious, I'll keep that one.

Crisco, friendly jabbing aside, I don't agree at all. It's odd that some people think that they have to set blanket rules for EVERYBODY to cover their particular fragmentary issue. That's authoritarian and most certainly not progressive in any positive sense. There are better solutions, like, if you've worked 40 hours on hourly OR salary, in any seven day period you cannot be forced to work additional time without EQUAL or greater compensation, and you should have the option not to work at all.

That would force employers to "right size" their workforce and to set reasonable work-week goals rather than having two employees work 60 hours a week instead of hiring three to work forty each.

Bans and authoritarian work-day proclamations are counterproductive and don't address the real issues in a meaningful way.

[NashVegas]

57. Oh Yeah I Di

:)

The arguments you're making are almost straight out of Rand. Quack, quack.

The government can and does regulate business and always has since coming into being. Federally, most recently the Family Leave Act.

In the case at hand, there's a state with a history of government regulation in this particular area.

I thought your post about not being able to buy a hammer in Texas on Sundays was pretty interesting, it shows that you've lived under the regulation (whether government dictated or other societal) being discussed. Did the world stop turning because you couldn't get a hammer?

[sui generis]

63. I resented the reason for the law

I am a born again atheist so it was equivalent to not lighting a flame on the sabbath, and having our so called secular government enforce it.

No the world did not end. However I was inconvenienced at the time in the only time I had to work on a project to not be able to purchase the tools required for the project. It struck me as profoundly absurd in a "free" society.

The government had determined that I could not choose to do what I wanted to do for religious reasons on a particular day of the week, and Randian or not that's just plain wrong. If the business had determined on its own that it wouldn't be open it's one thing, but for the government to make it illegal to sell is quite another.

I would campaign against EVER returning to or upholding blue laws in any form, and I don't care if someone accuses me of being the spawn of Ayn Rand. I actually agree with some of the intent of some of her philosophy anyway, if not the particulars.

The Family Leave act is one sided too. As an individual whose long term marriage is not legally recognized, if something were to happen to my partner I could not take care of him as next of kin under provisions of the act. My "family" is not recognized. If I adopt another newborn, I can't avail myself of the act for exactly the same reasons.

[NashVegas]

64. I Understand Where You're Coming From

Really, I do.

I just can't find it in myself (anymore) to hold a grudge against religious people for benefitting from, or maybe even driving, a law that I also get to, in my hedonistic way, benefit from. Social health is every bit as important as mental & physical and when you strip religion out of it, we still benefit.

It's not right that the FL & MA doesn't cover your circumstances. Hopefully enough of us will stand up and see that it does.

[onenote]

69. "Did the world stop turning because you couldn't get a hammer?"

Interesting argument. Has the world stopped turning in any of the many states and localities that don't have blue laws? Don't think so. Is there evidence that there is a causal relationship between family "health" and these laws? Haven't seen it.

My problem with these laws is that they simply end up being irrational because they carve out so many exceptions. Why are retail workers and their families in such greater need of protection than, say, busboys, waiters, custodial workers, nurses, orderlies, paralegals, secretaries, receptionists, plumbers, theater ushers, arena ticket takers, lifeguards, golf course maintenance employees (and a list that could go on and on and on).

onenote

[sui generis]

5. I remember when you couldn't buy any kind of hammer or tool

in Texas on a Sunday. They would stretch netting across the tool section at the supermarket, and tool stores were closed.

Yes, they should most certainly defy the state.

There should be absolutely nothing in the law that tells a business when it can and can't be open, including liquor stores.

[Bridget Burke]

11. After Texas has fixed our liquor laws...

We can straighten out the other states.

Right now, Texas has dry counties, wet counties, dry cities, wet cities. Ever tried to buy a 6-pack in the Metroplex? The Heights became part of Houston many years ago, but is still (mostly) dry.

Netx, let's discuss the hours one may obtain beer/wine or liquor--in bars, restaurants & retail emporia.

[Submariner]

13. Coming from Boston

I was amazed as a neighbor of Texas living in Baton Rouge (early '80s). It was LEGAL to DRINK and DRIVE! We would leave the nuke plant construction site at 4 pm and stop at the Quik mart for a 16 oz cold beer for the drive home. It was weird to drive through a radar trap with a beer can to my lips (doing the speed limit) and the cops never flinched at a driving drinker.

[Bridget Burke]

20. Yup, nothing like that big can of cold beer for the commute home!

I realize it was a good idea to ban drinking while driving. But--just one beer per commute didn't seem that bad.

[Renew Deal]

59. Actually drinking a beer while driving should earn the driver

24 hours in the county jail. That's just stupid. The sentence should multiply by 2 for each open container.

[rainbow4321]

65. TX 's open container law is only 4 years old

and one of the reasons it was passed was b/c they were non-compliant with the federal open container law...feds threatened to pull the TX's federal highway funding.

http://www.texassafetynetwork.org/news/networknews/archive/2003/050103.php

The law changed the rules regarding open alcoholic beverage containers in vehicles in several important ways. According to House Bill 5, both the driver and additional passengers traveling in a vehicle with an open container face a Class C misdemeanor punishable with a fine of up to $500.

http://www.texasbar.com/Template.cfm?Section=Pamphlets&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=4902
Why were the open container and DWI laws changed?
Before the 77th Legislature, the State of Texas was not in compliance with federal open container and DWI repeat offender laws. As a result, it risked losing federal highway construction funds apportioned to the state. The changes in the law bring Texas into compliance with federal open container laws and federal laws for repeat DWI offenders.

Also, the Department of Public Safety has observed that in the majority of alcohol-related crashes, an open container is present. The law is intended to help curb the problem of driving while intoxicated.

[yellowcanine]

16. Sorry - 21st Amendment which repealed Prohibition says states can regulate

booze - and many states in turn let the individual counties decide.

[Bridget Burke]

21. Yes. And Massachusetts has the right to keep their Blue Laws.

Or change them if they wish.

[yellowcanine]

26. for booze only - it is specifically written into the Constitution - for

the rest it is at least debatable and it is doubtful that it is Constitutional to regulate commerce on any holiday, let alone Thanksgiving. Now they can pass labor laws requiring that employees have the choice of whether to work or not but do you really think the state should have the right to say "You can't open for business even if you pay willing workers double time?"

[Bridget Burke]

30. Yes, I do think the State should have that right.

The People of Massachusetts have the right to change the law.

[rainbow4321]

67. Could be worse...Oklahoma laws

prevent liquor from being sold in grocery stores. Last time I went up there on a major holiday (Tgiving or Xmas, can't remember) I wanted to bring a bottle of champaigne to the family dinner. Couldn't find an open liquor store at all and the grocery stores aren't allowed to sell it. When my relatives came down here, they were shocked to see entire liquor sections in our local (TX) Wal Mart!
You also can't bring a minor into an OK liquor store, I believe..no matter how old/young they may be. I've stayed with my sister's toddlers in the car while she ran into get alcohol cuz of that law.
They also shut down the liquor stores on on all election days <local, national).

[yellowcanine]

15. Forbidding the sale of liquor is Constitutional - part of the 21st

amendment which repealed the 18th Amendment (Prohibition).

[sui generis]

17. just because it's the law don't make it right.

we all know that, and constitution be damned. The only thing it's done for me is remove my rights.

[Renew Deal]

61. "constitution be damned"

Wow. You need a refresher.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

[sui generis]

66. you have irritated me

may your balls fall off ;)

Bleachers, I was referring to a very specific amendment in the Texas constitution and to what will likely be the anti-gay amendment in the U.S. constitution.

I do not need a refresher - but thanks for the hard work. Just kidding about your balls.

[Renew Deal]

68. OK

Sorry about that. :rofl:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

24. Tools? Why tools? (nt)

[dogfacedboy]

27. In the neighborhood of my youth,

many of the Jewish people had a holiday tree. They called it a "Hanukkah Bush".

[sui generis]

51. Well I usually get more sex around holidays too

I call it the Christmas Sausage

:evilgrin:


but I'm willing to call it the Holiday Sausage if anyone's offended. Snort.

[Mass]

6. I guess Reilly has nothing better to do than to enforce a law that

forces non Christians to celebrate Christmas in Massachusetts.

[greiner3]

8. I wonder...

If Mass. would allow gay weddings on Sunday. Just a thought.

[underpants]

12. Va. accidently reinstated theirs last year......too funny

I am rattling my brain thinking how it happened but last year the Va. General Assembly forgot to correct some language in a bill and they accidently reinstated the blue laws that went away in the early 80's. They were falling all over themselves to reverse themselves or else all that tax money would be lost and all those profits would not be realized and everyone would have had a day off. Can't have that now can we?

ON EDIT_ the GA actually came in on a weekend to make sure they got everything cleared up.

[VTMechEngr]

58. The law required a business to allow a worker the sabbath off.

If they did not, they had to pay him 2.5 times normal pay. The worker had to specifically ask for the sabbath day off though. I wished it had stayed. Before I got into professional engineering, I worked in retail and actually had to fight to have Easter Sunday off. Its only the holiest day of my religion. Frankly, I agree with a law to allow a worker to have the sabbath and National Holidays off or be well compensated in return.

Retail businesses need to think of People as People and not just labor.

[4_TN_TITANS]

14. Mixed feelings...

I can remember a time when NOTHING was open on holidays here in TN. Although it's nice to be able to get anything you need, whenever you want it nowadays, I think it would be nice for everybody to have the same holidays off on occassion. Nothing sucks like having to work while everyone else is enjoying time off.

[Toots]

19. What if you are a small business owner and are the employee?

Why should you be forced by law to close down your livelihood to celebrate a religious holiday that may go against your own religion?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

25. Maybe an exemption for businesses with less than N employees would be fair

Where N = 10 or perhaps 15.

[Bridget Burke]

33. There's an exception for businesses with 3 or fewer employees.

I pulled up the cites from Massachusetts law in an earlier thread on the subject.

[onenote]

37. which means it doesn't help some of the lowest paid workers

such as convenience store employees.

onenote

[NashVegas]

43. An Enforced Holiday Is Pretty Subversive, When You Think About It

It's telling everyone: there are some things more important than your desire to make a dollar today. And the consumer: there are some things more important than your desire to run out and make a purchase today.

It goes against everything about our consumerist culture. No wonder I like the idea - regardless that it came to us through religion.

[onenote]

54. actually its only telling that to a very few people

Since these laws typically only apply to retail, which probably represents around 10 percent of the workforce. So if you work in a bar or restaurant or a theater or in agriculture or manufacturing or for a law firm or a hospital or a gas station, if they want you to come into work, nothing in the law says that they can't demand that of you. Yet, it would never work if the law said nobody can do any work on Sunday (or whatever specific day you want to pick).

[mmonk]

22. I didn't know Thanksgiving was a religious holiday.

Did I miss something?

[VTMechEngr]

60. Its a national holiday.

And anyone who wants it off should be allowed to have it off or be compensated well in return for working it.

[plasticsundance]

23. I don't like the idea of workers having to work on holidays ...

However, it should not come at the expense of following a bullshit blue law. Rather, it should come out of respect for the holidays and the workers.

In Georgia they have the same bullshit blue laws, and it works out perfect for the state. You see, in some cities of Georgia, even though you can't buy alcohol in a supermarket or gas station on Sunday, you can still sit in a bar and drink all you want.

It works out perfect, because the bars have to buy a liquor license that is like 5,000 dollars a month, and the bars bring in the business.

God, the teachings of Jaysus are useful when it comes to making money.

[mmonk]

28. Thanksgiving is an American holiday

[plasticsundance]

29. True ... but ...

It is celebrating a religious group, namely the Pilgrims. The Pilgrims left England and emigrated to Amsterdam to escape harassment due to their religious beliefs. They then lived in Leiden for 12 years enjoying religious freedom, but then the Pilgrims did not appreciate the Dutch influence upon their children. The Pilgrims voted to emigrate to the New World.

Isn't it ironic that a celebration of a group seeking to escape those imposing their beliefs upon them, would be the topic of a law imposing the celebration of that very same group.

[happyslug]

46. Thanksgiving was giving Thanks for the Victories of 1863

Thanksgiving was only retrofitted to the Pilgrims starting in the 1880s as the Country moved away from Reconstruction (i.e. as the North gave up on providing equal Rights to Blacks AND wanted to fully integrate the White South back into the union, Thanksgiving started to be associated with the Pilgrims NOT the Civil War). This continued as the Civil War Veterans died out after 1900.

Now, George Washington had proclaimed the First Thanksgiving in 1789 for the Adoption of the US Constitution. This was by Presidential Proclamation NOT statute. Abe Lincoln issued another proclamation in 1863 and 1864 (and his successors continued the Tradition till 1939). Now the States had the right to adopt whatever Thanksgiving day they wanted, but most followed the Presidential Proclamation (Until 1939 when FDR tried to extend the Christmas Shopping Season by moving Thanksgiving up one week, then you had the "Thanksgiving Days War" GOP controlled States adopting the "Old" Date, while Democratic Controlled States Adopting FDR's Date. This ended in 1939 when Congress declared Thanksgiving a National Holiday and set it on the date set by Washington and Lincoln.

Thus Thanksgiving, while it can be traced back to the Adoption of the US Constitution, is really the First Holiday related to the Civil War (Memorial day is the other).

On FDR and Thanksgiving:
http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/thanksg.html


On Thanksgiving:
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/firsts/thanksgiving/
http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/story1a1117.html

[plasticsundance]

52. Thanks happyslug!!!

I was not aware of this. Very interesting. I stand corrected, and thank you for teaching me something new from our history.

[plasticsundance]

35. Ooops!

I meant celebrating a national holiday, not law. My bad.

[Renew Deal]

40. Boil their tongues in oil!

:shrug:

[lynne]

56. Do the employees get paid for their day off?

Does the law state that it is a PAID holiday? Wonder how many people that needed the $$$ got docked for the day?

Seems to be a rather archaic practice for what appears to be a progressive state.

[The Animator]

72. I think if business are forced to close on Sunday, then Churches should

be forced to close on Sunday too. Seriously, why force a pastor to work on the Sabath? That's the Lord's Day of rest!!! Surely the nuns, and the choir, and the guys who run around with the baskets of money are at risk of violating God's law, by working on God's day off. They should be resting, or spending time with their families!

I don't think any business should be forced to close on Sunday or Holidays, it makes a rather a dubious assumption that everybody wants Sunday or those Holidays off. I'm an Atheist, so I don't give a rats ass about Easter, or Christmas, so I don't mind working those days, I don't mind working on Sunday either. However certain protections should be in place for workers, on an individual level, need certain days off.

Jews and Muslims have different holidays than Christians, Budhists, Taoists, Hindus and Rastafarians all have different Holy Days too, Pagans have a lot of Holy Days in common with Christians, but that's not really their fault.

Any buisness that chooses to be open for a holiday, should accomidate it's workers who feel it is necessary to take that day off. Special consideration should be given to those requested days off if they are for religious reasons, in order to protect the 1st Amendment rights of those employees. Those employees who either cannot be given those days off, or who choose to work those days should be compinsated with Holiday pay.

This should apply to all employees of the company reguardless of their full time or part time status.

I work at a theme park. It never, ever closes. We are open on all the holidays. Full time employees get first pick of days off, so they usually get the holidays off, but if they do work a holiday, they get holiday pay. Part time Employees get second pick of days off, so they occasionally get holidays off, but they don't get Holiday pay if they work a holiday. Seasonal Employees are hired specifically to work peak seasons, ie Holiday seasons, so their working on Holidays is kind of a given, no holiday pay for them either. Holiday pay is reserved only for the people least likely to work on a holiday. It's seen as part of the "benefits package" of working full time.

Of course that would be all well and good if the company I worked for actually gave it's part time and seasonal employees part time hours instead of full time hours. We can put in 40 hours plus per week and still be called part time, and seasonal, neither category recieving benefits. Grrr argh...

[Bridget Burke]

76. The laws of Massachusetts can be changed.

If the people of Massachusetts want them to change.

Many companies have holiday policies such as you outline. Today's job market is rough. But do consider these matters when looking for a job.

[Blue_Roses]

74. these laws still exist?

these laws existed in Louisiana in the 70's where I grew up :wtf:

[benEzra]

78. What about people who celebrate shabat on SATURDAY?

can't work Saturday because of their religion, not allowed to work Sunday because the state of Massachusetts wants them to abide by other people's religious preferences regarding which day to have off.

Or do the Massachusetts blue laws allow Jewish-owned grocery stores to close Saturday and open on Sunday? Do they exempt Pagan-own businesses from observance of Christian religious holidays, or allow them to celebrate different holidays? How would supporters of the blue laws feel if the law required them to work on Christian holidays and close their stores on Islamic holidays instead??

Just seems to be like the state government is meddling in things that aren't any of their business. Limits on hours worked or days worked is one thing, but saying that everyone regardless of their religion has to have their day of rest on the same day is just wrong, IMHO.

[The Animator]

79. This kind of reminds of the Florida law that stipulates...

... that Missionary position is the only legal sexual technique. That kind of sums up my feeling on this one too. There are all kinds of stupid laws that are still on the books in every state. Sometimes laws made centuries ago are still applicable. Don't kill people. Okay that ones kind of a no brainer, but it's as relevant today as when Hamarabi first wrote it down. But some laws, that have either been forgotten or lawmakers are too lazy to remove, are simply no longer applicable in modern society. While many of these kooky laws are still considered "active" most law enforcement representatives have the common sense not to enforce something so trivial, stupid, and unconstitutional.

If Chick-Filet's theocratic owners never want to make any money on Sunday, that's there buisness, literally. But if somebody who has no religious beliefs, or who has them and chooses to ignore them by keeping their buisness open so that other like-minded individuals can give them money, the government has no right to stop them.