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 28 of 63 FirstFirst ... 18262728293038 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 280 of 626

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

  1. #271
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,835

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TNAR View Post
    These stances are not mutually compatible. If a contract does not specify allowable reasons for termination, then any reason is acceptable. This includes religion, race, gender, odor, appearance, or any other complaint. Illegality is only an issue when the government intrudes as a third party; the argument is to remove government as a third party and make labor contracts a solely immediate agent issue.
    hence my question to him and hence me saying what i would support and wouldn't.

    also I still support termination clauses based on things but i dont support illegal discrimination on hiring purposes.
    WHat do i mean?

    I mean if a non-chrisitian wanted to get a job at a christian school, that should ALWAYS be allowed and no discrimination should take place.

    But im ok if the working contract says the employee must conduct themselves within chrsitians ways

    on a closing note I would NEVER completely remove government, its job is to protect rights and thats what it does

    not to mention with no government involved the contract becomes pretty meaningless and worthless how does one protect and enforce the contract without them. No thanks
    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

  2. #272
    Revolutionary
    TNAR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    02-05-17 @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,018
    Blog Entries
    17

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

    I am fairly certain that everyone knows your stance; you have made it very clear. I am not so certain that you have taken even a moment's pause to consider other people's positions.

  3. #273
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,835

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TNAR View Post
    I am fairly certain that everyone knows your stance; you have made it very clear. I am not so certain that you have taken even a moment's pause to consider other people's positions.
    of course i have considered them and nothing has changed for me
    i have stated what i dont support, i dont support illegal discrimination or bigotry

    I have stated what i do support, i support equal rights and government protecting equal rights

    I also asked you a question that you didnt answer, how does one protect and enforce the contract without government 3rd party.

    How else would you like me to address your ideas, seems youll only be satisfied if i agree with them, i do not, i like rights
    Last edited by AGENT J; 01-28-14 at 11:01 AM.
    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

  4. #274
    Revolutionary
    TNAR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    02-05-17 @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,018
    Blog Entries
    17

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J
    How else would you like me to address your ideas, seems youll only be satisfied if i agree with them, i do not, i like rights
    Your style of debate seems to be one where you ignore the opposition side and simply restate your own position. In this case, it is the position of the status quo. There is no inherent problem with holding your position, but this thread is centered around the pros and cons of being able to hire/fire for any reason whatsoever. By pushing the claim that it is currently illegal makes no meaningful addition to the debate because the illegality itself is central to this issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J
    I also asked you a question that you didnt answer, how does one protect and enforce the contract without government 3rd party.
    I did not see your question. Apologies.

    I mentioned previously in this thread that international trade is a multi-trillion dollar per day industry. There is more at stake in this industry on a daily basis than many industries see in an entire year. That said, the vast majority of conflicts arising within this industry are resolved in private arbitration settlements. Most companies avoid international and national court systems because they are slower, more biased, and more costly than the private alternative. There is absolutely no reason why this should not be the case for individual contract as well.

  5. #275
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,835

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TNAR View Post
    1.)Your style of debate seems to be one where you ignore the opposition side and simply restate your own position. In this case, it is the position of the status quo.
    2.) There is no inherent problem with holding your position, but this thread is centered around the pros and cons of being able to hire/fire for any reason whatsoever.
    3.)By pushing the claim that it is currently illegal makes no meaningful addition to the debate because the illegality itself is central to this issue.

    4.)I did not see your question. Apologies.

    5.)I mentioned previously in this thread that international trade is a multi-trillion dollar per day industry. There is more at stake in this industry on a daily basis than many industries see in an entire year. That said, the vast majority of conflicts arising within this industry are resolved in private arbitration settlements. Most companies avoid international and national court systems because they are slower, more biased, and more costly than the private alternative. There is absolutely no reason why this should not be the case for individual contract as well.
    1.) this is another deflection, NOTHING was ignored i simply dont agree and im going with facts and how the law is currently set up, I have no interest in not supporting equal rights. You want me to, i will not. Its REALLY simple actually

    2.) i see zero pros in illegal discrimination and violating rights

    3.) didnt push it, simply said i agree with it and i think its good as is since it protects rights, again the issues seems to be yours. It simply seems since i just dont agree with your position some how thats me not listening or ignoring you. its pretty funny actually, i dont get the logic behind it.

    WOuld you like me to say, "oh i see what you want, but i still dont agree" would that make it better? and NO i honestly am not being a smart ass i just dont see a solution to the issue you have

    4.) apology accepted and no bigger ive miss my share of questions im sure

    5.) again thats nice IF it resolves the issues and the people HAPPEN to agree but what happens when they dont and there is still lawyers there using law for arbitration

    anyway im just not sure what you want.

    I like the current system and see no benefit of infringing on rights or empowering bigotry and or discrimination. Dont know what you want me to say besides be honest.
    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

  6. #276
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Melbourne Florida
    Last Seen
    04-18-17 @ 03:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    16,763

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

    My business, my rules. Don't like them, go start your own.

  7. #277
    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[W:126]

    I believe employees should be able to quit on an at-will basis and still collect unemployment compensation in any at-will employment State.

  8. #278
    Revolutionary
    TNAR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    02-05-17 @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,018
    Blog Entries
    17

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    5.) again thats nice IF it resolves the issues and the people HAPPEN to agree but what happens when they dont and there is still lawyers there using law for arbitration
    The point is that arbitration is enormously successful and popular with international trade and increasingly with employment contracts. You asked specifically how contracts would be enforced without implicit government backing and I informed you how it does happen today; not some theoretical model or assumption. Furthermore, overlapping legal jurisdictions (or complete lack thereof) are among the primary reasons for pursuing arbitration. As such, legal precedent is non-binding in these matters.

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    anyway im just not sure what you want.
    Debate consists of making a claim and backing it up with supporting arguments. This claim is tempered with a counterclaim and challenging arguments. Your style is essentially a dismissal of the claim and a reiteration of the counterclaim. To be perfectly fair, a large number of people are guilty of this act on this forum. However, there seems to be a consensus that attempting to debate a topic with you is futile so I thought I would offer a bit of advice to make the process more enjoyable.

  9. #279
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,835

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TNAR View Post
    1.)The point is that arbitration is enormously successful and popular with international trade and increasingly with employment contracts. You asked specifically how contracts would be enforced without implicit government backing and I informed you how it does happen today; not some theoretical model or assumption. Furthermore, overlapping legal jurisdictions (or complete lack thereof) are among the primary reasons for pursuing arbitration. As such, legal precedent is non-binding in these matters.



    2.) Debate consists of making a claim and backing it up with supporting arguments. This claim is tempered with a counterclaim and challenging arguments. Your style is essentially a dismissal of the claim and a reiteration of the counterclaim.
    3.)To be perfectly fair, a large number of people are guilty of this act on this forum.
    4.) However, there seems to be a consensus that attempting to debate a topic with you is futile so I thought I would offer a bit of advice to make the process more enjoyable.
    1.) yes i did and my question as not be fully answered what happens when its not successful and people are not happy?
    2.) this is what is called a deflection, i didnt dismiss anything, you want me to agree or pat you on the back, thats not going to happen when i disagree and iv supported why. You THINK because i dont agree its a DISMISSAL, its not, i simply dont agree. HUGE difference. Also many times, not saying in this case, theres nothign to dabate. Sometimes facts just are what they are.
    3.) with your subjective presumption of this i believe you believe that
    4.) wrong again not by anybody that matters

    been here 4 years almost 24K posts and i have had threads that have been shut down do to number of replies (close to 2000) also had over 33,000 views. So my enjoyment and success here is fine, But thank you for your concern lol

    sorry that i like the way it is, i like equal rights and i like the government protecting my rights but unless i here something logical and compelling to go against that i doubt anything is going to change. I see no reason to go against equal rights.
    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

  10. #280
    Sage
    Slyfox696's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    7,986

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

    Quote Originally Posted by scatt View Post
    Does they owner seek profit or seek sex?
    Not all employers are owners. In many companies, there's not even one owner. Furthermore, just because a person seeks one, it doesn't mean they don't seek another. Ridiculous argument.
    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.
    A woman's employment should not depend on her using her body for sex. She's not owed a job, but she should not be prohibited a job because she's not a whore. For anyone to say otherwise is incredibly sexist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    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.
    Listen, Sport. I asked you a very simple question. You keep dodging around the question. I only extrapolated because you wouldn't answer. I'll ask again and if you truly desire an honest discussion, you'll answer.

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

    If the answer is "yes", then you agree there are some moral grounds for which an employee should not be fired. If you say "no", then...well, we both know what then. So what is your answer to my simple question? No more dancing, no more dodging, please just answer the question.

Page 28 of 63 FirstFirst ... 18262728293038 ... 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
  •