What I said is that I get the feeling you feel you are making a point, but I have no idea what it is. So what is your point?
It seems to me that the "problem" the government seems to think exists is a self-correcting one that they needn't concern themselves with. If an employer is an SOB, he is going to lose his most valued employees who will not tolerate such treatment. Those who remain will doubtless be moved up the ladder; however if they were all that good, they should already have been there, with some exceptions. Then the employer has the expense of training and replacing those who moved up. If this scenario continues for any length of time, the employer will soon be out of business, because no one will want to work there, except people who wouldn't be hired anywhere else!
the issue and its one i have pointed out and one many other have pointed out on tv etc is AA has been thrown around so much that people dont know what it REALLY is.
REALL AA/EO by law is equal OPPURTUNITY nothing else
AA is a policy to not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin
there is NOTHING in AA that forces anybody to hire based on race, by definition that if factually not AA
now with that said, have companies, schools etc had policies that THEY named AA and had quotas etc? yes absolutely and when caught and proved to be doing so they faced penalty of the law, as quotas are illegal.
Thats where the problem is. AA/EO is just fine
people practicing things NOT AA/EO and falsely calling it that is a problem
theres women beaters out there that say they beat thier women because they love them, they say its done for love, that doesnt make it true.
You make a good point. I'll amend my position. So long as it is not in violation of the law. However, if it were not against the law and that were the reason then I'd be okay with it. Why? Because it's my company. I'm not saying this would make me a good employer, I'd be a complete asshole for firing someone for that. But still, my company means my risk. There would certainly be consequences. A smart business owner wouldn't get in that position to begin with.Let me put this yet one more way. I would support the freedom of employers to hire and fire as they see fit. Unregulated. It's up to them to make good business decisions or they reap the just rewards of their ill fated decisions. Just like I support Freedom of Speech. Unregulated. It's up to me to be wise about how I exercise that freedom as it will have consequences if I do not.I'm not saying it's right or a good decision. But I don't think we should be regulating bad business decisions, and firing an employee for those things are bad business decisions. You won't last long as you won't be able to hire decent employees after a while. Plus other employees will be bailing to find other, more hospitable places to work.
The argument really is getting taken to extremes. Just because you can doesn't mean you will. I can buy five gallons of vodka, but I wouldn't try to drink it all in one night because that would be bad for me. Just because I had the absolute authority to hire and fire without restriction doesn't mean I would abuse it. Your employees are your number one asset in most cases. At least in the business circles I operate in. Treating them terribly is a sure fire way to watch your business stagnate and eventually die.
We cannot anticipate the potential ugly side of "freedom." But that doesn't make hold back support of a "freedom" because I think somebody may act like an idiot and do something as abhorrent as fire an employee because they won't have sex with them. But why do you keep harping on sex? I'm curious as to your fixation there. Why does it matter? What if the employer didn't think that your lack of religion was morally sound and fired you because he disagreed with your lack of faith? Or what if your appearance was not to his liking, maybe you had too big of a butt for his personal liking so he fires you? A bad reason is a bad reason. However, if it's his money he should invest it as he sees fit. If he makes stupid investments and has a weak business acumen then he will fail. As he should. But NOBODY has a RIGHT to my money as an employer unless they earn it. And I should be able to decide who I want to employ and retain.