This question is for someone other then Agent J (no offense to him intended).
What if you ran a large daycare with more then 15 employees and you hired a daycare worker who would spend time with your clients children? And let's say you found out after you hired her from a source that you could never use in any way that she had molested another child...but you had absolutely no way to prove it. So, you fire her. But she takes you to court for wrongful dismissal because the only reason you dismissed her is because of a rumour that you cannot prove.
Do you pay the penalty - assuming you lose the case?
Could you also be sued by this person for libel/slander...even though it is true?
So, because you are not allowed to fire someone for whatever reason you wish, you are forced to endure economic hardship because you do not have proof that this person is a child molester.
But, if you were allowed to just fire her, you would simply be rid of her with no economic hardship.
Please tell me how the system works well in this case?
(Btw - this could also apply to any situation where an employer felt compelled to fire someone on the basis of something they could not prove in court)
Last edited by DA60; 01-25-14 at 03:12 AM.
'What kind of sick and twisted toy factory is this?'
'We are all the sum of our tears. Too little and the ground is not fertile, and nothing can grow there. Too much, the best of us is washed away.'
"Better to be dead and cool, than alive and uncool."
Take the workplace out of it for a second. If I go to a bar and ask a woman to go to bed with me, it's not against the law, correct? Thus, the idea of one person asking another for sex is not illegal. Now, keeping in mind the concept of this thread, if a male boss suggests to his female employee a sexual encounter, and she turns him down, the female has done nothing illegal, but HAS made a moral choice to refuse sex. Is it okay for her to make such a moral choice and be fired for it because the boss is mad, embarrassed, controlling, etc.?
I think we both agree if an employer told an employee to rob a bank or lose their job, this should not be allowed. In that case, the employee is being asked to do something illegal, and you amended your position to say employees should not be able to be fired for refusing to break the law. But refusing sex (or asking for it) is not against the law, but it IS a moral (and sometimes religious decision). Are you okay with the idea of an employee being terminated for making a moral decision to not engage in sexual activity with their boss?
The threadstarter said "any reason they wish"...I would assume it isn't limited to union protection, discrimination and the like. Any reason they wish would mean unadulterated power over hiring and firing.I had assumed the OP was more in the vein of removing union protection, total at will employment, and the like.