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 62 of 63 FirstFirst ... 125260616263 LastLast
Results 611 to 620 of 626

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

  1. #611
    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 trollarc View Post
    Which question?
    Forget it.

    Do minorities and women deserve the same pay for the same work?
    Deserve? Of course. Should companies be legally forced to comply? No.
    If the employees don't like it...quit.

    Do you believe that employers should not be allowed to fire people for reporting unsafe work conditions?
    An employer should be able to fire ANY employee for ANY reason...anything.

    The employee doesn't like the Dallas Cowboys, they won't have sex with them, their shoe size, they complained about health conditions, their height, their religious beliefs, their sex, the way they part their hair...ANYTHING.

    If employees can quit for any reason, private employers should be able to fire for any reason...they don't owe anyone a job.

  2. #612
    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 trollarc
    Black panther's delivery service, kkk grocery store, etc.
    Requesting the government force other people to refrain from acting in certain ways because they make you uncomfortable is a dangerous road to travel (as should be apparent throughout human history). People have a tendency to ignore the fact that a lot of people avoid businesses with which they have personal biases against. Would you shop at the Black Panther's Delivery Service or the KKK Grocery Store? I'm guessing not. So is it unreasonable to assume that a very large portion of the population would also avoid these types of businesses? And if a business has a large portion of the population avoiding it, how can they be even remotely successful? Their prices would not be competitive, their costs would be high, and would likely go out of business very quickly.

  3. #613

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    Forget it.

    Deserve? Of course. Should companies be legally forced to comply? No.
    If the employees don't like it...quit.

    An employer should be able to fire ANY employee for ANY reason...anything.

    The employee doesn't like the Dallas Cowboys, they won't have sex with them, their shoe size, they complained about health conditions, their height, their religious beliefs, their sex, the way they part their hair...ANYTHING.

    If employees can quit for any reason, private employers should be able to fire for any reason...they don't owe anyone a job.
    Everyone misses a point here or there. If you figure out what your question is, please ask again, I must have missed it.

    So you do not believe business hiring/firing processes should be regulated. Good. Please tell me about the good results of that path. I will list the perceived cons.

    If safety isn't legally required, you empower unions to completely shut down work because companies avoid safety as a non-required expense. The end result is where we are now. Unless you want to include anti-union law. In that case you are giving up people's lives because if nobody follows safety rules people take the jobs because safe jobs are unavailable and they want food.

    You would promote the spread of STDs by making it so people have to sex on demand with their employer and various clients, you further exacerbate this by not requiring safety and allowing employees to be fired as a result of unsafe actions on the part of their employer. This results in unemployed/unemployable sick (and injured from previous paragraph).

    What do poor sick people do? They seek medical help. These broke sick people would destroy the current medical system. I am going to go out on a limb, and assume you are against providing medical care to those who can't afford it.

    What do poor, sick people, who can't get medical care do?

    Three paths. The first is violence against their former employers, and individuals contributing to their current situation. This will be the least likely result.

    Lawsuits are likely to occur. Employers would be liable for damages to their employees. Under the current system, employers would go bankrupt/be arrested for running prostitution rings and gross negligence until the remainder is effectively following the rules currently in place. However, this is more difficult, because there will be no catalog of what you have to do and what can get you in serious legal trouble.

    If you undo those rules (basically dismiss every tort case until it is clear there is no legal recourse and legalize prostitution without regulation) as well, the vast majority of those damaged, unemployable people will suffer horribly and die. The humanitarian outcry will result in public outrage. Likely result is the government will pass safety laws and some level of regulation on what employers can and cannot do.

    Second point- towards anti-discrimination. Get rid of those rules and minorities end up not earning what their work is worth on the basis that they don't fit into a niche group (mostly white males but now there are regions/professions that may have a different demo that is the majority who would force other demographics out). Often, they will just work the less educated job because the expense required to obtain required qualifications isn't worth it if you can't earn more than you would serving fries. The only reason to like this situation would be that you are on the privileged side of this equation, dislike the idea of competition with someone of equal abilities, and will use any sort of underhanded method achievable to prevent people who are different from you obtaining the same things you have. Too bad the constitution is in your way, right?
    Using Tapatalk

  4. #614

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TNAR View Post
    Requesting the government force other people to refrain from acting in certain ways because they make you uncomfortable is a dangerous road to travel (as should be apparent throughout human history). People have a tendency to ignore the fact that a lot of people avoid businesses with which they have personal biases against. Would you shop at the Black Panther's Delivery Service or the KKK Grocery Store? I'm guessing not. So is it unreasonable to assume that a very large portion of the population would also avoid these types of businesses? And if a business has a large portion of the population avoiding it, how can they be even remotely successful? Their prices would not be competitive, their costs would be high, and would likely go out of business very quickly.
    Current law prevents those businesses from existing. In a world where those businesses exist and use fewer safety precautions/not paying for damages they cause to reduce costs, they take over. (Talking about unsafe businesses here).

    There are regions where race-based business would be successful, and the elimination of laws precluding discrimination would greatly increase racial-motivated oppression.

    Each region of this country has a predominant group in each region, if you aren't a part of that group, you would not be able to work. Since you can't work, you don't have resources to move unless you are incredibly lucky and resourceful. Additionally, you damage religious institutions by requiring people who don't necessarily believe to attempt to join for the ability to get a job. These places become the club for success. Having religion as a requisite to get any work (meaning you can't get work unless you are a Morman in Utah or a Baptist in the south) isn't religious freedom.
    Last edited by trollarc; 02-10-14 at 01:41 PM.
    Using Tapatalk

  5. #615
    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 trollarc
    In a world where those businesses exist and use fewer safety precautions/not paying for damages they cause to reduce costs, they take over. (Talking about unsafe businesses here).
    History disagrees with your assessment. Furthermore, you assume way too much power in the hands of employers. You forget that employers must compete for labor just as labor must compete for jobs. In order to attract anything more efficient than a zombie, employers must outbid their competition. This may take the form of monetary or non-monetary (e.g. good working environment) benefits.

  6. #616
    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 trollarc View Post
    Everyone misses a point here or there. If you figure out what your question is, please ask again, I must have missed it.

    So you do not believe business hiring/firing processes should be regulated. Good. Please tell me about the good results of that path. I will list the perceived cons.

    If safety isn't legally required, you empower unions to completely shut down work because companies avoid safety as a non-required expense. The end result is where we are now. Unless you want to include anti-union law. In that case you are giving up people's lives because if nobody follows safety rules people take the jobs because safe jobs are unavailable and they want food.

    You would promote the spread of STDs by making it so people have to sex on demand with their employer and various clients, you further exacerbate this by not requiring safety and allowing employees to be fired as a result of unsafe actions on the part of their employer. This results in unemployed/unemployable sick (and injured from previous paragraph).

    What do poor sick people do? They seek medical help. These broke sick people would destroy the current medical system. I am going to go out on a limb, and assume you are against providing medical care to those who can't afford it.

    What do poor, sick people, who can't get medical care do?

    Three paths. The first is violence against their former employers, and individuals contributing to their current situation. This will be the least likely result.

    Lawsuits are likely to occur. Employers would be liable for damages to their employees. Under the current system, employers would go bankrupt/be arrested for running prostitution rings and gross negligence until the remainder is effectively following the rules currently in place. However, this is more difficult, because there will be no catalog of what you have to do and what can get you in serious legal trouble.

    If you undo those rules (basically dismiss every tort case until it is clear there is no legal recourse and legalize prostitution without regulation) as well, the vast majority of those damaged, unemployable people will suffer horribly and die. The humanitarian outcry will result in public outrage. Likely result is the government will pass safety laws and some level of regulation on what employers can and cannot do.

    Second point- towards anti-discrimination. Get rid of those rules and minorities end up not earning what their work is worth on the basis that they don't fit into a niche group (mostly white males but now there are regions/professions that may have a different demo that is the majority who would force other demographics out). Often, they will just work the less educated job because the expense required to obtain required qualifications isn't worth it if you can't earn more than you would serving fries. The only reason to like this situation would be that you are on the privileged side of this equation, dislike the idea of competition with someone of equal abilities, and will use any sort of underhanded method achievable to prevent people who are different from you obtaining the same things you have. Too bad the constitution is in your way, right?
    My question was not important.


    As for your cons? I think you are taking things way too far.

    One - safety laws. If the employees think it's unsafe - tell the employer to fix them. If the employer won't... JUST QUIT. End of problem.

    Two - forced to have sex? Why must an employee have sex with a co-worker? JUST QUIT. End of problem.

    If the union workers decide en masse that the employer sucks...they can strike or quit.

    Simple.


    You keep talking like the employee must work for some pig under horrible conditions...they don't...JUST QUIT.


    As for poor people? There is no reason to believe that allowing people to be fired for any reason would mean high unemployment.

    These crappy companies need employees. If no one will put up with their demands, then they will have to soften them or go out of business.

    The free market/greed/supply-and-demand will force the employer to be reasonable.

  7. #617

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    My question was not important.

    As for your cons? I think you are taking things way too far.

    One - safety laws. If the employees think it's unsafe - tell the employer to fix them. If the employer won't... JUST QUIT. End of problem.

    Two - forced to have sex? Why must an employee have sex with a co-worker? JUST QUIT. End of problem.

    If the union workers decide en masse that the employer sucks...they can strike or quit.

    Simple.


    You keep talking like the employee must work for some pig under horrible conditions...they don't...JUST QUIT.


    As for poor people? There is no reason to believe that allowing people to be fired for any reason would mean high unemployment.

    These crappy companies need employees. If no one will put up with their demands, then they will have to soften them or go out of business.

    The free market/greed/supply-and-demand will force the employer to be reasonable.
    Who said it was okay for a boss to fire an employee for not having sex with them? Post 195 was a response to the question of it being okay or not:

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    Morally...no.

    Legally...fine.

    He is the boss of a private company. As I said, he should be able to fire any employee for ANY reason.
    By the way, you are wrong. Such conduct at this time is illegal.

    So, absent law, pimps and thugs don't exist? They exist with law, and making what they do legal with no limits promotes it over being honest.
    A few companies will be more successful by ignoring their employees, thus making them the cutting edge of running a company. Other places will follow suit. Money will destroy the practices that aren't what you call crappy. Eventually, safety will not be important as it costs money. When you can't find a safe employer, you work for an unsafe employer.

    I would agree that at first good employers would continue to exist. Eventually they will see that their profit is being eaten by things they don't need (if we eliminate liability in addition to law) and will get rid of it over money.

    As is, you have changed positions twice. First was get rid of the law. Then you said leave safety law in place, then you said get rid of all the law (protection for safety-related whistleblowers is law).

    Please tell me the actual positives of getting rid of anti-discrimination and workplace safety law? There was an earlier discussion of at will employment, and many employers have two way at will employment (meaning it is at the will of the employer, too).
    Using Tapatalk

  8. #618
    Sage
    AlbqOwl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,532
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by trollarc View Post
    That is right, and lets fire people for utilizing safe work practices because they cost money- also anybody hurt on the job is fired.
    Also, repeal the fourteenth amendment on the basis it hurts employer's rights not to hire people of a different ethnicity. Black panther's delivery service, kkk grocery store, etc.
    Wow. Some of us really have problems focusing on a principle or concept don't we. I won't take time to point out all the ad hominem inference, straw men, red herrings, and non sequitur built into one short post, but wow. I'm impressed.

    But let's save all that other stuff for the appropriate threads for them okay? I am focused on the unalienable right for the person who legally and ethically acquired his property to be able to use that property in his own interest. The employee should be entitled to no part of it other than what was agreed between the employee and employer. If the employer guaranteed the employee a lifetime job, well okay. Then he can't fire the employee. I don't know any employer who has ever done that however.
    "I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776

  9. #619
    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 trollarc View Post
    Who said it was okay for a boss to fire an employee for not having sex with them? Post 195 was a response to the question of it being okay or not:



    By the way, you are wrong. Such conduct at this time is illegal.

    So, absent law, pimps and thugs don't exist? They exist with law, and making what they do legal with no limits promotes it over being honest.
    A few companies will be more successful by ignoring their employees, thus making them the cutting edge of running a company. Other places will follow suit. Money will destroy the practices that aren't what you call crappy. Eventually, safety will not be important as it costs money. When you can't find a safe employer, you work for an unsafe employer.

    I would agree that at first good employers would continue to exist. Eventually they will see that their profit is being eaten by things they don't need (if we eliminate liability in addition to law) and will get rid of it over money.

    As is, you have changed positions twice. First was get rid of the law. Then you said leave safety law in place, then you said get rid of all the law (protection for safety-related whistleblowers is law).

    Please tell me the actual positives of getting rid of anti-discrimination and workplace safety law? There was an earlier discussion of at will employment, and many employers have two way at will employment (meaning it is at the will of the employer, too).
    Where exactly did I type that I wanted to get rid of safety place laws?

    Not your interpretation of what I said....where I actually typed that I wanted to get rid of work place safety laws.

  10. #620
    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

    I have no problem whatsoever with being moral enough to bear True witness to our own laws regarding the concept of employment at will.

Page 62 of 63 FirstFirst ... 125260616263 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
  •