[QUOTE=yawmwen;22094838]uh ya it is[/QUOTE]
it doesn't say in the law "give this person a job or you're fucked"
what the fuck is wrong with you people?
[editline]03:34AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Reaver1991;22094852]businesses will always act in self-interest, and we have to use that and give them an incentive to do things in the public interest
if this law is failing to do what it is intended to do then it's a shitty law
you can't blame the employers
[editline]03:32AM[/editline]
way to break automerge :argh:[/QUOTE]
it was THEIR fucking decision
the government isn't holding a fucking gun to your head.
try and make sense pls
[QUOTE=Ho Chi Minh;22094878]it doesn't say in the law "give this person a job or you're fucked"
what the fuck is wrong with you people?
[editline]03:34AM[/editline]
it was THEIR fucking decision
the government isn't holding a fucking gun to your head.[/QUOTE]
This isn't Point A to Point B shit, bud.
That's not how things work
And the government didn't intend for it to happen. so no gun-to-head scenario.
The law made the hiring of disabled persons disadvantageous to businesses, so they chose not to hire them. simple as.
I don't know what you're even arguing about
rand
[QUOTE=Ho Chi Minh;22094878]it doesn't say in the law "give this person a job or you're fucked"
what the fuck is wrong with you people?
[/QUOTE]
The law said something, and it had a certain effect. I don't see how you cannot understand that. Are you really [i]that[/i] dense?
