Page 42 of 51 FirstFirst ... 3233343536373839404142434445464748495051 LastLast
Results 821 to 840 of 1001

Thread: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

  1. #821
    Apartheid Loving Conservadem!
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Crystal, MN
    Posts
    44,040

    Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

    Quote Originally Posted by SJHovey View Post
    Let's set aside issues relating to whether there should be protected classes of people (there should) based upon race, sex, national origin, gender identity, etc.., and let me ask you this about the first part of your statement.

    I assume you believe employees should have unfettered right to simply quit their job and go elsewhere if they choose? But employers should not have that same right? They should not have the right to decide they can do better in terms of who they have working for them?
    If employers apply the rules fairly then yes. Problem is we all know that isnt going to happen. Even at our best jobs the rules are almost never applied right and people get punished or fired for doing the same (or less) than those that keep their jobs or move ahead for various reasons. And there is no real way to prevent that...

    And you cant really compare quitting and firing because there is a negative connotation to being fired.
    "It's as if the Drumpf Administration is made up of the worst and unfunny parts of the Cleveland Browns, Washington Generals, and the alien Mon-Stars from Space Jam."
    -aparch

    "Scenes in "Empire Strikes Back" that take place on the tundra planet Hoth were shot on the present-day site of Ralph Engelstad Arena."
    -INCH

    Of course I'm a fan of the Vikings. A sick and demented Masochist of a fan, but a fan none the less.
    -ScoobyDoo 12/17/2007

  2. #822
    ὃ οὐ κινούμενον κινεῖ
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    The Workers' Paradise
    Posts
    73,215

    Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

    Quote Originally Posted by dxmnkd316 View Post
    Didn’t you say anyone who uses the term “virtue signaling” shouldn’t be taken seriously?
    Shh. I'm trying to reclaim the term.
    Cornell University
    National Champion 1967, 1970
    ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
    Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

  3. #823
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    9,440

    Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

    Quote Originally Posted by SJHovey View Post
    Let's set aside issues relating to whether there should be protected classes of people (there should) based upon race, sex, national origin, gender identity, etc.., and let me ask you this about the first part of your statement.

    I assume you believe employees should have unfettered right to simply quit their job and go elsewhere if they choose? But employers should not have that same right? They should not have the right to decide they can do better in terms of who they have working for them?
    Quote Originally Posted by MissThundercat View Post
    I've seen people get fired at my job for the following

    Excessive absence
    Doing something stupid like violate Lock Out Tag Out
    Or for gross incompetence, like it's clear they can't handle the job.

    What Kepler and I are saying is fire me for those reasons, not because I'm trans.
    From what I've read of the previous posts it sounds as if the two you may not be in disagreement. If Hovey is saying what I think he is saying--that in an at-will employment (and not controlled by statute or contract) an employer may terminate an employee for any reason not related to recognized forms of discrimination, among which it appears he would include gender identity. In other words, an employer can't terminate (or refuse to hire) based on gender identity. The rub, of course, is dealing with pretext terminations. But in theory, at least, I'm not sure you two disagree.

  4. #824
    ὃ οὐ κινούμενον κινεῖ
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    The Workers' Paradise
    Posts
    73,215

    Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

    Quote Originally Posted by SJHovey View Post
    I assume you believe employees should have unfettered right to simply quit their job and go elsewhere if they choose? But employers should not have that same right? They should not have the right to decide they can do better in terms of who they have working for them?
    Employer loses an employee he loses a fungible, easily replaced asset.

    Employee loses a job he loses livelihood and security.

    The employer-employee "contract" is highly asymmetric. My preference is for the ownership of places of work to be split evenly among the workers themselves. That's a long was off, so in the interim I'm bringing the full force of regulation and law on the side of the weaker party.

    Exploiters have their wealth to manage cash flow crises, they don't need the law to magnify their advantages over their serfs, er, sorry, employees. The exploited have only their numbers -- that was the whole point of democracy in the first place.

    If employers think this is unfair they always have the choice to switch places with one of their employees and see what life's like on the knife edge of capitalism.
    Last edited by Kepler; 07-23-2019 at 10:37 AM.
    Cornell University
    National Champion 1967, 1970
    ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
    Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

  5. #825
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Posts
    8,025

    Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

    Quote Originally Posted by Handyman View Post
    If employers apply the rules fairly then yes. Problem is we all know that isnt going to happen. Even at our best jobs the rules are almost never applied right and people get punished or fired for doing the same (or less) than those that keep their jobs or move ahead for various reasons. And there is no real way to prevent that...

    And you cant really compare quitting and firing because there is a negative connotation to being fired.
    I think there would be a negative connotation to an employer who just randomly fires people as well. Plus personally I've refused to hire people who had what seemed to me to be a history of quitting after a short period of time and jumping from job to job.

    I just have a lot of trouble with the argument that I, as an employer, need to come up with some sort of "cause" to justify your termination. Some people simply don't fit in a job. Personalities don't mesh. The employee doesn't see the job or how it's to be performed in the same way as the employer. Employee "X" is every bit as mediocre as me is an argument that doesn't carry a lot of weight with me.
    That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

  6. #826
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Posts
    8,025

    Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

    Quote Originally Posted by Kepler View Post
    If employers think this is unfair they always have the choice to switch places with one of their employees and see what life's like on the knife edge of capitalism.
    Anyone who thinks employers don't know what it's like on the knife edge of capitalism has only collected paychecks, never signed them.
    That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

  7. #827
    ὃ οὐ κινούμενον κινεῖ
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    The Workers' Paradise
    Posts
    73,215

    Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

    Quote Originally Posted by SJHovey View Post
    I think there would be a negative connotation to an employer who just randomly fires people as well. Plus personally I've refused to hire people who had what seemed to me to be a history of quitting after a short period of time and jumping from job to job.

    I just have a lot of trouble with the argument that I, as an employer, need to come up with some sort of "cause" to justify your termination. Some people simply don't fit in a job. Personalities don't mesh. The employee doesn't see the job or how it's to be performed in the same way as the employer. Employee "X" is every bit as mediocre as me is an argument that doesn't carry a lot of weight with me.
    If somebody is a "bad fit" it shows in their performance and that's a valid reason for a warning and eventually termination.

    If they're a "bad fit" but they're doing a good job then sorry, baby, you hired them and they are performing to task.
    Cornell University
    National Champion 1967, 1970
    ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
    Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

  8. #828
    ὃ οὐ κινούμενον κινεῖ
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    The Workers' Paradise
    Posts
    73,215

    Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

    Quote Originally Posted by SJHovey View Post
    Anyone who thinks employers don't know what it's like on the knife edge of capitalism has only collected paychecks, never signed them.
    You have the right to switch places with your workers any time.

    Do you want a waiver for workplaces of under say 5 employees? I can see that, maybe. In those circumstances losing an employee might actually be fairly onerous to the employer.

    But spare me the job creator nonsense. Your money creates jobs, not you. Employers are fungibles, too. Somebody else could and will wield that money just as well.

    Think of it in this fine Adam Smith way: if your good employees keep leaving but your bad employees don't, that's the market telling you you're a crappy manager and you should fail. If you only ever hire bad employees, that's the market telling you you have crappy judgment and you should fail.

    My sympathy for employers with respect to employees, to scale:

    Last edited by Kepler; 07-23-2019 at 10:51 AM.
    Cornell University
    National Champion 1967, 1970
    ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
    Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

  9. #829
    If Only You Knew MissThundercat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    At a Coffee Shop or out running
    Posts
    44,016

    Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

    Quote Originally Posted by burd View Post
    From what I've read of the previous posts it sounds as if the two you may not be in disagreement. If Hovey is saying what I think he is saying--that in an at-will employment (and not controlled by statute or contract) an employer may terminate an employee for any reason not related to recognized forms of discrimination, among which it appears he would include gender identity. In other words, an employer can't terminate (or refuse to hire) based on gender identity. The rub, of course, is dealing with pretext terminations. But in theory, at least, I'm not sure you two disagree.
    In May of last year, I was especially stupid and wasn't wearing my face shield properly while handling caustic chemicals. As I was pouring this chemical into a container for spraying, it splashed on my face, giving me a burn and sending me to the nurse. I was given a Level 1, basically a warning and stayed on my record for 3 months. A couple more instances of that, I'd have been fired. What Kep and I want is for employer to fire for work incompetence (such as stupidity with caustic chemicals). Not because one gave their boss side eye.
    Facebook: bcowles920 Instagram: missthundercat01
    "One word frees us from the weight and pain of this life. That word is love."- Socrates
    Patreon for exclusive writing content
    Adventures With Amber Marie

  10. #830
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Posts
    8,025

    Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

    Quote Originally Posted by Kepler View Post
    You have the right to switch places with your workers any time.

    Do you want a waiver for workplaces of under say 5 employees? I can see that, maybe. In those circumstances losing an employee might actually be fairly onerous to the employer.

    But spare me the job creator nonsense. Your money creates jobs, not you. Employers are fungibles, too. Somebody else could and will wield that money just as well.

    Think of it in this fine Adam Smith way: if your good employees keep leaving but your bad employees don't, that's the market telling you you're a crappy manager and you should fail. If you only ever hire bad employees, that's the market telling you you have crappy judgment and you should fail.

    My sympathy for employers with respect to employees, to scale:

    What makes you think I was never an employee. Been there, done that.

    You're absolutely right that if good employees are quitting, or are not accepting my offers, that's a sign I need to heed. I'm just talking about a situation where if I've got someone performing the job in what could best be described as average way, I not ought to have to show cause as to why I replaced them when an excellent candidate presented himself or herself.

    All that said, it certainly has become clearer as to why you're a Mets fan.
    That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

  11. #831
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    9,440

    Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

    Quote Originally Posted by MissThundercat View Post
    In May of last year, I was especially stupid and wasn't wearing my face shield properly while handling caustic chemicals. As I was pouring this chemical into a container for spraying, it splashed on my face, giving me a burn and sending me to the nurse. I was given a Level 1, basically a warning and stayed on my record for 3 months. A couple more instances of that, I'd have been fired. What Kep and I want is for employer to fire for work incompetence (such as stupidity with caustic chemicals). Not because one gave their boss side eye.
    How does your experience with the face shield fit in? Was there a "side eye" element at play? Would it have been unjust for your employer to let you go after three instances of you being "especially stupid" with a safety rule?

    That's assuming no pretext, which is a huge problem with imbalanced power situations such as employment and law enforcement.

  12. #832
    Just a boring user.
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Walking to Yost
    Posts
    11,086

    Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

    Quote Originally Posted by Kepler View Post
    But spare me the job creator nonsense. Consumer demand for a product makes jobs, not you. Employers are fungibles, too. Somebody else could and will wield that money just as well.
    FYP. The only reason people get hired is that more stuff needs to be made to sell to other people. That's it. Tax cuts do not create jobs, plain old nice people do not create jobs- demand for a product creates jobs- always has, always will.

    And our current state of capitalism has tilted SO FAR toward the corporations, it's not even funny. Just look at the wage gap, and then ask yourself who is actually doing the hard, physical work. Heck, in most companies, who is doing the hard mental work. In both cases, it's not the upper management or BOD that actually works hard.

    So it should be hard to fire someone. It's interesting that we've gotten to a point where hairstyle needs protected. But I'm sure people will always find a way to keep people they just don't like out.

  13. #833
    ὃ οὐ κινούμενον κινεῖ
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    The Workers' Paradise
    Posts
    73,215

    Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

    Quote Originally Posted by SJHovey View Post
    All that said, it certainly has become clearer as to why you're a Mets fan.
    Tough but fair.

    I insist on exceptionalism in things that matter: art, science, philosophy, letters. Business? Meh, it's necessary and I'm sure quite diverting for the riff raff, but there's no point in pressing it too hard.
    Last edited by Kepler; 07-23-2019 at 11:30 AM.
    Cornell University
    National Champion 1967, 1970
    ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
    Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

  14. #834
    Lucia Apologist
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    32,055

    Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

    Quote Originally Posted by Handyman View Post
    If employers apply the rules fairly then yes. Problem is we all know that isnt going to happen. Even at our best jobs the rules are almost never applied right and people get punished or fired for doing the same (or less) than those that keep their jobs or move ahead for various reasons. And there is no real way to prevent that...

    And you cant really compare quitting and firing because there is a negative connotation to being fired.
    Not only that, but it assumes they are both on equal grounds. The employer can afford to lose individuals, the employee cannot afford it. It effectively promotes recyclying of disposable humans. The employer can keep chugging along but the employee is probably losing everything.

    Edit: Said better:

    Quote Originally Posted by Kepler View Post
    Employer loses an employee he loses a fungible, easily replaced asset.

    Employee loses a job he loses livelihood and security.

    The employer-employee "contract" is highly asymmetric. My preference is for the ownership of places of work to be split evenly among the workers themselves. That's a long was off, so in the interim I'm bringing the full force of regulation and law on the side of the weaker party.

    Exploiters have their wealth to manage cash flow crises, they don't need the law to magnify their advantages over their serfs, er, sorry, employees. The exploited have only their numbers -- that was the whole point of democracy in the first place.

    If employers think this is unfair they always have the choice to switch places with one of their employees and see what life's like on the knife edge of capitalism.
    Code:
    As of 9/21/10:         As of 9/13/10:
    College Hockey 6       College Football 0
    BTHC 4                 WCHA FC:  1
    Quote Originally Posted by SanTropez View Post
    May your paint thinner run dry and the fleas of a thousand camels infest your dead deer.
    Quote Originally Posted by bigblue_dl View Post
    I don't even know how to classify magic vagina smoke babies..
    Quote Originally Posted by Kepler View Post
    When the giraffes start building radio telescopes they can join too.
    He's probably going to be a superstar but that man has more baggage than North West

  15. #835
    wubba lubba dub dub
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    North Haverbrook
    Posts
    32,502

    Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

    Quote Originally Posted by SJHovey View Post
    I think there would be a negative connotation to an employer who just randomly fires people as well. Plus personally I've refused to hire people who had what seemed to me to be a history of quitting after a short period of time and jumping from job to job.

    I just have a lot of trouble with the argument that I, as an employer, need to come up with some sort of "cause" to justify your termination. Some people simply don't fit in a job. Personalities don't mesh. The employee doesn't see the job or how it's to be performed in the same way as the employer. Employee "X" is every bit as mediocre as me is an argument that doesn't carry a lot of weight with me.
    Temp-to-Hire. My company does it all the time. After three or four months, if you've proved your worth, you're hired on as an FTE. If you've failed to do the job, your temp contract is terminated. Thus far, the temp contract termination happens (I'd guess) around 15% of the time. Often times, the failing temp employee will leave before s/he has the chance to be fired. Rarely do they leave without having other employment lined up first.
    "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." George Orwell, 1984

    "One does not simply walk into Mordor. Its Black Gates are guarded by more than just Orcs. There is evil there that does not sleep, and the Great Eye is ever watchful. It is a barren wasteland, riddled with fire and ash and dust, the very air you breathe is a poisonous fume." Boromir

    "Good news! We have a delivery." Professor Farnsworth

  16. #836

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    20832/20904/13677/07677/07621
    Posts
    39,271
    Quote Originally Posted by MissThundercat View Post
    In May of last year, I was especially stupid and wasn't wearing my face shield properly while handling caustic chemicals. As I was pouring this chemical into a container for spraying, it splashed on my face, giving me a burn and sending me to the nurse. I was given a Level 1, basically a warning and stayed on my record for 3 months. A couple more instances of that, I'd have been fired. What Kep and I want is for employer to fire for work incompetence (such as stupidity with caustic chemicals). Not because one gave their boss side eye.
    I associate myself with these remarks.

  17. #837
    If Only You Knew MissThundercat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    At a Coffee Shop or out running
    Posts
    44,016

    Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

    Quote Originally Posted by burd View Post
    How does your experience with the face shield fit in? Was there a "side eye" element at play? Would it have been unjust for your employer to let you go after three instances of you being "especially stupid" with a safety rule?

    That's assuming no pretext, which is a huge problem with imbalanced power situations such as employment and law enforcement.
    What I'm suggesting is that if I kept being stupid with a face shield, my boss would have every right to fire me. There was no "side eye." In an "at-will" state, I don't want to look at my boss funny and lose my job.

    And at my job, there are some instances where there's a 2 strike policy. In the case of violating lock out tag out, confined space entry, and fall protection procedures, you automatically get a 3 day suspension, and on the second time, you're gone. Not to mention karma can punish you by losing a finger, etc.
    Facebook: bcowles920 Instagram: missthundercat01
    "One word frees us from the weight and pain of this life. That word is love."- Socrates
    Patreon for exclusive writing content
    Adventures With Amber Marie

  18. #838
    Apartheid Loving Conservadem!
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Crystal, MN
    Posts
    44,040

    Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

    Quote Originally Posted by SJHovey View Post
    I think there would be a negative connotation to an employer who just randomly fires people as well. Plus personally I've refused to hire people who had what seemed to me to be a history of quitting after a short period of time and jumping from job to job.

    I just have a lot of trouble with the argument that I, as an employer, need to come up with some sort of "cause" to justify your termination. Some people simply don't fit in a job. Personalities don't mesh. The employee doesn't see the job or how it's to be performed in the same way as the employer. Employee "X" is every bit as mediocre as me is an argument that doesn't carry a lot of weight with me.
    And you would have a point in a perfect world. But the truth is we cant just assume everyone is acting on the up and up just because you happen too. If we apply your standard it is 100% that people will abuse it. Until that isnt the case, sorry, but too bad.

    Where do you draw the line on this? I get you aare in favor of protected classes but then is everyone else screwed? Lets say I run a business and we have Progressive beliefs and give money to Left causes. Lets say an employee is found out to be a Republican that supports Trump. You are cool with me firing him because I dont think he is a good fit for the company? I think that is wrong personally...

    If the person isnt doing a good enough job that is a reason to fire them. Beyond that...no. I have seen the "at will" employment deal abused and if it was like that across the board it would be a detriment to the workers and the employers long term.
    "It's as if the Drumpf Administration is made up of the worst and unfunny parts of the Cleveland Browns, Washington Generals, and the alien Mon-Stars from Space Jam."
    -aparch

    "Scenes in "Empire Strikes Back" that take place on the tundra planet Hoth were shot on the present-day site of Ralph Engelstad Arena."
    -INCH

    Of course I'm a fan of the Vikings. A sick and demented Masochist of a fan, but a fan none the less.
    -ScoobyDoo 12/17/2007

  19. #839
    Apartheid Loving Conservadem!
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Crystal, MN
    Posts
    44,040

    Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

    Quote Originally Posted by St. Clown View Post
    Temp-to-Hire. My company does it all the time. After three or four months, if you've proved your worth, you're hired on as an FTE. If you've failed to do the job, your temp contract is terminated. Thus far, the temp contract termination happens (I'd guess) around 15% of the time. Often times, the failing temp employee will leave before s/he has the chance to be fired. Rarely do they leave without having other employment lined up first.
    Bingo.
    "It's as if the Drumpf Administration is made up of the worst and unfunny parts of the Cleveland Browns, Washington Generals, and the alien Mon-Stars from Space Jam."
    -aparch

    "Scenes in "Empire Strikes Back" that take place on the tundra planet Hoth were shot on the present-day site of Ralph Engelstad Arena."
    -INCH

    Of course I'm a fan of the Vikings. A sick and demented Masochist of a fan, but a fan none the less.
    -ScoobyDoo 12/17/2007

  20. #840
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Posts
    8,025

    Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

    Quote Originally Posted by Handyman View Post
    And you would have a point in a perfect world. But the truth is we cant just assume everyone is acting on the up and up just because you happen too. If we apply your standard it is 100% that people will abuse it. Until that isnt the case, sorry, but too bad.

    Where do you draw the line on this? I get you aare in favor of protected classes but then is everyone else screwed? Lets say I run a business and we have Progressive beliefs and give money to Left causes. Lets say an employee is found out to be a Republican that supports Trump. You are cool with me firing him because I dont think he is a good fit for the company? I think that is wrong personally...

    If the person isnt doing a good enough job that is a reason to fire them. Beyond that...no. I have seen the "at will" employment deal abused and if it was like that across the board it would be a detriment to the workers and the employers long term.
    I'm only arguing for what you should be legally able to do. That doesn't mean it's a good practice, necessarily.

    I think if you want to fire someone because they are wearing red tennis shoes, as an employer you should have that right. Would I suggest the employer do that? No. First, there is too big of a cost to an employer in finding, hiring and training employees to just arbitrarily discard them like that. Second, who will want to work for a company that acts like that.

    But, if you want to do that as an employer, you should have the right.
    That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •