View Poll Results: should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason

Voters
143. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    75 52.45%
  • no

    68 47.55%
Page 23 of 63 FirstFirst ... 13212223242533 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 626

Thread: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish[W:126]

  1. #221
    Sage
    Slyfox696's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    7,971

    Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    No. Not in the context of this discussion it's not.
    Uh, yeah, it kind of is.

    And I've been very clear.
    No, you have not. You'll be clear when you answer the question. But we both know why you won't answer the question. To say it's okay for a woman to be fired for refusing sex makes you look bad, but saying it's not okay opens the door to other moral problems and ruins your "total freedom to hire/fire" position.

    It's not a difficult question. It's a very simple question. The difficult part is how your answer affects you.

    The OP used the term "freedom." Freedom to hire and fire at will. I think you just like to see yourself typing or something.
    And I've already said granting all hiring/firing power to employer is not freedom (as you tried to define it) but rather a simple transfer of power.

    No, I'm not "okay" with it. Just like I"m not "okay" with people dropping the "N" word. But I am okay with Freedom of Speech.


    Playing semantics and you accuse me of posting because I like to see myself type? Fine, I'll rephrase it.

    Do you think an employer should be allowed to fire an employee for refusing sex?

    Why is the concept so hard for you to grasp?
    Because I thought we were having a good and honest discussion, and you apparently prefer word games.

    The straw man you are fighting with doesn't even resemble me.
    I don't think you understand what a straw man is. One thing which bothers me is people accusing others of fallacies incorrectly.

    Oh so now you are arguing morals.
    Uh no, I've been arguing that with you from the very beginning. I wish you'd keep up.

    Who's morals? Yours?
    How about the employee's morals which align with common societal morals? Like sex, for example.

    And if you think I feel differently you have serious reading comprehension issues.
    Uh, no I do not. I asked you time and time again if you were okay with it and you NEVER said you weren't. How is your lack of communication now my reading comprehension issue? That doesn't make sense. It wasn't until this post you said you weren't okay with it personally, but then suggested you are okay with it being legal. I then asked you to clarify, so I'll be interested to see if you believe it's okay to fire someone for not having sex with you.

    It went right over your head didn't it?
    No. The only person whose head flew under the point was yours, apparently. You're asking me why I'm focused on sex and not other things which could be considered offensive. I told you why, which is that I'm not the only pushing the idea it should be legally okay to fire someone for not being a whore.

    The point -----> You

    Hopefully the above happens.

    I forgot how fun people like you can be.
    Thanks. I always enjoy posting with people who cannot remember a thread of debate, use fallacies incorrectly and accuse me of a reading comprehension problem because I cannot read their mind fun also.

    Now you're talking about something completely different. What you are describing is stealing. What we were discussing was an employer deciding as to whether or not to employ someone.
    I see. So when power rests in the hands of the employer, almost anything goes. When the power rests in the hand of the consumer, then suddenly we have a big problem.

    If you work and I don't pay you I'm stealing money you have earned. If I fire you I don't have to pay you because you no longer work for me. I don't know if you're reframing for the sake of argument or just being obtuse.
    I was reframing to show you the absurdity of claiming freedom, as you did.

    I'm gonna start calling you Norma Rae Quixote.
    I'll call you "Sport". Now we both have nicknames, Sport.
    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    Ummmm...she can say 'no'.
    And then she'll lose her ability to feed her children. And then when she goes on welfare, half the country can call her a moocher and a taker and lazy.

    That sounds fun.

    (and btw - women bosses sometimes exploit their underling's for sex/companionship)
    They sure do, but you and I both know males hold the large majority of positions of power.

    If she did not have sex with him, then she was not sexually exploited - he 'only' attempted to sexually exploit her.
    If there is even a moment's hesitation as the woman tries to balance her job and family vs. her dignity, she's being exploited.

    Just sayin'.

    2) Which internationally respected, human rights organization (like the U.N.) states that a private employer owes ANYONE a job? Or is responsible for another's dignity through employment?

    The answer - to my knowledge - is none do.
    I agree. No one has said someone is owed a job. I'm simply pointing out people should be owed protection while working for that job. So I'm not really sure why you brought this up.

  2. #222
    Guru
    scatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    02-09-17 @ 10:57 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,721

    Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    As I said to you before:
    Which leads to:

    You are aware of the motivations, yet you cannot point them out in this thread? Do they seek profit or seek sex?

  3. #223
    Sage
    Slyfox696's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    7,971

    Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

    Quote Originally Posted by scatt View Post
    Which leads to:

    You are aware of the motivations, yet you cannot point them out in this thread? Do they seek profit or seek sex?
    I'll tell you what. When you understand the difference between a company and a person, I'll speak with you again. When you can demonstrate that knowledge, let me know and we can discuss this further.

  4. #224
    Guru
    scatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    02-09-17 @ 10:57 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,721

    Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    I'll tell you what.
    Does they owner seek profit or seek sex?

  5. #225
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    Uh, yeah, it kind of is.

    No, you have not. You'll be clear when you answer the question. But we both know why you won't answer the question. To say it's okay for a woman to be fired for refusing sex makes you look bad, but saying it's not okay opens the door to other moral problems and ruins your "total freedom to hire/fire" position.

    It's not a difficult question. It's a very simple question. The difficult part is how your answer affects you.

    And I've already said granting all hiring/firing power to employer is not freedom (as you tried to define it) but rather a simple transfer of power.



    Playing semantics and you accuse me of posting because I like to see myself type? Fine, I'll rephrase it.

    Do you think an employer should be allowed to fire an employee for refusing sex?

    Because I thought we were having a good and honest discussion, and you apparently prefer word games.

    I don't think you understand what a straw man is. One thing which bothers me is people accusing others of fallacies incorrectly.

    Uh no, I've been arguing that with you from the very beginning. I wish you'd keep up.

    How about the employee's morals which align with common societal morals? Like sex, for example.

    Uh, no I do not. I asked you time and time again if you were okay with it and you NEVER said you weren't. How is your lack of communication now my reading comprehension issue? That doesn't make sense. It wasn't until this post you said you weren't okay with it personally, but then suggested you are okay with it being legal. I then asked you to clarify, so I'll be interested to see if you believe it's okay to fire someone for not having sex with you.

    No. The only person whose head flew under the point was yours, apparently. You're asking me why I'm focused on sex and not other things which could be considered offensive. I told you why, which is that I'm not the only pushing the idea it should be legally okay to fire someone for not being a whore.

    The point -----> You

    Hopefully the above happens.

    Thanks. I always enjoy posting with people who cannot remember a thread of debate, use fallacies incorrectly and accuse me of a reading comprehension problem because I cannot read their mind fun also.

    I see. So when power rests in the hands of the employer, almost anything goes. When the power rests in the hand of the consumer, then suddenly we have a big problem.

    I was reframing to show you the absurdity of claiming freedom, as you did.

    I'll call you "Sport". Now we both have nicknames, Sport.
    And then she'll lose her ability to feed her children. And then when she goes on welfare, half the country can call her a moocher and a taker and lazy.

    That sounds fun.

    They sure do, but you and I both know males hold the large majority of positions of power.

    If there is even a moment's hesitation as the woman tries to balance her job and family vs. her dignity, she's being exploited.

    Just sayin'.

    I agree. No one has said someone is owed a job. I'm simply pointing out people should be owed protection while working for that job. So I'm not really sure why you brought this up.
    Because you keep talking about her dignity.

    That is absolutely nothing to do with the terms of her employment.

    Now, if he raped/attempted to rape her...very different story.

    But if he simply said to her: 'btw, among your duties will be to have intercourse with me'....where is the loss of dignity? He is the one that looks pathetic...not her.

    She just quits and goes and looks for another job...the only dignity on the line is if she actually has sex with the loser. And that is her decision.


    And, btw, she is not been exploited. Look at the definition, the boss had to have gotten some sexual use out of her to have sexually exploited her...and she (I assume) turned him down. No sexual exploitation...by definition.


    And finally, what good does the law do here?

    Would you want to work for a guy that wants you to sleep with him and expects you to do so for the pay you are receiving...even though you don't want to?

    I certainly wouldn't.

    But you want a law that allows her to stay in that ridiculous job? What for? How will that give her dignity?

    Besides, if he wants her gone, he will just makeup an excuse to fire her so he can get an employee that WILL sleep with him. And this lie will go on her permanent record.

    It would be far better for her just to be fired because she would not sleep with him and use that as the official reason.

    It will tell other potential bosses 'hands off' and it will warn other candidates what the guy really wants.

  6. #226
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Last Seen
    02-10-17 @ 07:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    343

    Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) thats easy its not because AA/EO is against quotas and quotas are ILLEGAL, people found having quotas are prosecuted by law.



    there you go that was easy, fact win again

    2.) didnt do that so please stop with the strawmen
    I only said some of the things you posted are factually wrong and that is true
    3.) good thing it factually never happened so im good
    4.) already did FACTS prove your posts wrong and the definition of what AA/EE is proves your posts wrong.
    ALL THE COURT CASES prove your posts wrong
    5.) never did only presented the fact that prove your post wrong
    6.) another failed strawman and HUGELY hypocritical. You just posted lies and made up a story saying that i did something that i didnt then you turned around and did the same thing you accuse me of with your last line and grouping all liberal s together which im not one lol

    wow, facts prove you wrong, your posts prove my point and facts also show your posts are dishonest and hypocritical.

    also, i wasting giving you my opinion this is where you biggest mistake is, what we were discussion involves FACTS, rights and laws and thats not opinion and they all prove parts your posts factually wrong. Deflecting wont change this neither will running away, facts will be the same tomorrow as they are today and i accept your concession.
    What you seem to keep ignoring is EXPERIENCE, what the language of the law says, what your interpretation of it is and what the law was intended to do, are all irrelevant to my experience. I've been around for a long time and I've been a hiring manager for almost the entire time I've been in the adult work force. I KNOW beyond the shadow of a doubt what goes on behind the scenes of a fortune 50 company. I KNOW what they have to do to prevent problems with the federal government. Your idea of sticking to the letter of the law is fine, but that's NOT how the law is practiced in the real world. Otherwise there wouldn't be a push to repeal the law. Don't be intellectually dishonest here. Even the least educated can tell you that the AA causes problems.

  7. #227
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    US, California - federalist
    Last Seen
    11-12-16 @ 10:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,485

    Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

    Quote Originally Posted by scatt View Post
    Which leads to:

    You are aware of the motivations, yet you cannot point them out in this thread? Do they seek profit or seek sex?
    Is this where I sign up for Business Management 101?

  8. #228
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,425

    Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    Uh, yeah, it kind of is.

    No, you have not. You'll be clear when you answer the question. But we both know why you won't answer the question. To say it's okay for a woman to be fired for refusing sex makes you look bad, but saying it's not okay opens the door to other moral problems and ruins your "total freedom to hire/fire" position.

    It's not a difficult question. It's a very simple question. The difficult part is how your answer affects you.

    And I've already said granting all hiring/firing power to employer is not freedom (as you tried to define it) but rather a simple transfer of power.



    Playing semantics and you accuse me of posting because I like to see myself type? Fine, I'll rephrase it.

    Do you think an employer should be allowed to fire an employee for refusing sex?

    Because I thought we were having a good and honest discussion, and you apparently prefer word games.

    I don't think you understand what a straw man is. One thing which bothers me is people accusing others of fallacies incorrectly.

    Uh no, I've been arguing that with you from the very beginning. I wish you'd keep up.

    How about the employee's morals which align with common societal morals? Like sex, for example.

    Uh, no I do not. I asked you time and time again if you were okay with it and you NEVER said you weren't. How is your lack of communication now my reading comprehension issue? That doesn't make sense. It wasn't until this post you said you weren't okay with it personally, but then suggested you are okay with it being legal. I then asked you to clarify, so I'll be interested to see if you believe it's okay to fire someone for not having sex with you.

    No. The only person whose head flew under the point was yours, apparently. You're asking me why I'm focused on sex and not other things which could be considered offensive. I told you why, which is that I'm not the only pushing the idea it should be legally okay to fire someone for not being a whore.

    The point -----> You

    Hopefully the above happens.

    Thanks. I always enjoy posting with people who cannot remember a thread of debate, use fallacies incorrectly and accuse me of a reading comprehension problem because I cannot read their mind fun also.

    I see. So when power rests in the hands of the employer, almost anything goes. When the power rests in the hand of the consumer, then suddenly we have a big problem.

    I was reframing to show you the absurdity of claiming freedom, as you did.

    I'll call you "Sport". Now we both have nicknames, Sport.
    And then she'll lose her ability to feed her children. And then when she goes on welfare, half the country can call her a moocher and a taker and lazy.

    That sounds fun.

    They sure do, but you and I both know males hold the large majority of positions of power.

    If there is even a moment's hesitation as the woman tries to balance her job and family vs. her dignity, she's being exploited.

    Just sayin'.

    I agree. No one has said someone is owed a job. I'm simply pointing out people should be owed protection while working for that job. So I'm not really sure why you brought this up.
    Blah blah blah blah blah. What I have found is that you enjoy the whole exercise of being condescending and then patting yourself on the back as if you've accomplished something. "Oh it's clear you don't understand, let me try this again to see if this can be made any clearer, obviously I'm confusing you, mmmyeah mmmyeah mmmyeah..." And so and so forth. You extrapolated from my position and made it into something it is not. You then attacked the position you created in your mind and attributed to me. Finally you proceeded to preen and bask in your imagined victory. Straw man. Smart guy. Have fun with your forum wanking, it's seems to be an addiction of sorts for you lol.
    *insert profound statement here*

  9. #229
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,425

    Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    Because you keep talking about her dignity.

    That is absolutely nothing to do with the terms of her employment.

    Now, if he raped/attempted to rape her...very different story.

    But if he simply said to her: 'btw, among your duties will be to have intercourse with me'....where is the loss of dignity? He is the one that looks pathetic...not her.

    She just quits and goes and looks for another job...the only dignity on the line is if she actually has sex with the loser. And that is her decision.


    And, btw, she is not been exploited. Look at the definition, the boss had to have gotten some sexual use out of her to have sexually exploited her...and she (I assume) turned him down. No sexual exploitation...by definition.


    And finally, what good does the law do here?

    Would you want to work for a guy that wants you to sleep with him and expects you to do so for the pay you are receiving...even though you don't want to?

    I certainly wouldn't.

    But you want a law that allows her to stay in that ridiculous job? What for? How will that give her dignity?

    Besides, if he wants her gone, he will just makeup an excuse to fire her so he can get an employee that WILL sleep with him. And this lie will go on her permanent record.

    It would be far better for her just to be fired because she would not sleep with him and use that as the official reason.

    It will tell other potential bosses 'hands off' and it will warn other candidates what the guy really wants.
    He doesn't understand the words you are typing. That or he's ignoring them because he's bored and just feels like getting keyboard exercise.
    *insert profound statement here*

  10. #230
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,789

    Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

    Quote Originally Posted by Tetelestai View Post
    1.)What you seem to keep ignoring is EXPERIENCE,
    2.)what the language of the law says,
    3.)what your interpretation of it is and what the law was intended to do
    4.) are all irrelevant to my experience.
    5.) I've been around for a long time and I've been a hiring manager for almost the entire time I've been in the adult work force.
    6.) I KNOW beyond the shadow of a doubt what goes on behind the scenes of a fortune 50 company.
    7.)I KNOW what they have to do to prevent problems with the federal government.
    8.) Your idea of sticking to the letter of the law is fine, but that's NOT how the law is practiced in the real world.
    9.)Otherwise there wouldn't be a push to repeal the law.
    10.)Don't be intellectually dishonest here.
    11.)Even the least educated can tell you that the AA causes problems.
    1.) not ignoring it at all, infact your stories are what are helping my point and not changing facts
    2.) is fact
    3.) havent given my interpretation only facts so i agree its irrelevant
    4.) what you THINK your experience is, is whats irrelevant lol
    5.) REALLY!, you too? lol
    6.) obviously you dont, you have proved this fact over and over again
    7.) great story, weird two of my jobs have been DIRECT government contractors and not ONCE has this ever come up, not once, the only think that has ever come up is making sure we follow the law. Whats even more funny is the most recent people we let go was a military person, a black gay and a woman, all because they werent good at thier jobs.
    8.) its EXACTLY how the "LAW" is practiced. ALl you did is give me examples (with no proof at all) of people you say/think broke the law. WHich AGAIN proves my point
    9.) really? thats what you think? the push comes from people who are bigoted or want to inpower discrimination. AA/EO isnt going anywhere, in fact many states, big cities etc are ADDING to it, in been being expanded and joined with all anti-discrimination laws since its creation
    10.) im not im dealing with reality, facts, and things that can actually be proves
    11.) thank you again for proving my point, police cause problems too, that doesn't mean police are bad lol

    your deflections and perceptions are never going to impact facts, reality and court cases so i can do this all day because they all prove your wrong and your stories make my point.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

Page 23 of 63 FirstFirst ... 13212223242533 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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