• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason

  • yes

    Votes: 59 48.0%

  • no

    Votes: 64 52.0%
  • Total voters
    123
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Kreton said:
Title kind of sums it up.
Click to expand...

Not without consequences.

1. You're black. You're fired.
2. You won't sleep with me? Two week notice. What a bi#$h!
3. I thought I told you to falsify that report and sign it. You're fired.
4. Oh, you're a Christian, and you really believe that stuff? I think you're not who we're looking for.
5. We don't hire registered republicans here. Thanks for inquiring.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

TurtleDude said:
anonymous polls suck...
Click to expand...

Why? I personally prefer responses and honest answers over image protection and politically correct responses.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Paschendale said:
Employment is two way contract. A contract ought to treat the two parties as equals. An employer already has substantial power by owning the business and controlling it. The employee needs the force of law to equalize the negotiation.
Click to expand...

That's a generalization that doesn't always hold. Certainly in cases of unskilled labor or widely available skill sets. But people with hard of find talents can often call the shots.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

No.

I would further limit the ability to fire employees for non-work related reasons with this proposed law:

Rough Draft Proposal
A. It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer or educational institution
(1)to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment of the individual, because of such individual’s actual or perceived activities while off duty and not representing the employer.
(2)to limit, segregate, or classify the employees or applicants for employment of the employer in any way that would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment or otherwise adversely affect the status of the individual as an employee, because of such individual’s actual or perceived activities while off duty and not representing the employer.

B. No person in the United States shall be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance due to because of such individual’s actual or perceived activities during their personal time away from the program or activity.

Exemptions shall be allowed only for employees of religious organizations whose duty it is to represent the beliefs of the organization.


For the same reasons it is unethical and illegal to discriminate against people for their marital status, religion or sexual orientation I believe we need protection from employer and institutional discrimination based on other aspects of our personal lives away from work. My belief is that employers should only be concerned with their employees work performance, not their off-duty activities, whether public or private. This is more important than ever because the internet often makes evidence of our activities available to potential employers and college admissions officials. People are being fired for expressing their political beliefs, for engaging in normal and legal activities such as drinking alcohol or wearing sexy clothing when evidence has been found on the internet. People are also being fired for their past activities, even if they no longer engage in such activities.

This protection will benefit employers also. For example, if an employer gets a complaint from a customer that an employee posed for sexy photos, the employer can reply that it is illegal to discriminate against an employee for their off-duty behavior.

This is especially important with the trend of corporate consolidation reducing the quantity of potential employers. Without this protection, a small number of corporations could make it virtually impossible for a person with political views that are different from the corporation's political agenda from obtaining a job.

It is especially important to prevent discrimination against people for activities they engaged in while still in their youth and before their brain is fully developed.

People should have the opportunity to change their lifestyle without having to be concerned that evidence of their past will cause them to lose their job.

This type of discrimination can effect people regardless of lifestyle or political viewpoint. Without a person could be fired or refused employment or an educational opportunity because they posed with a gun, a hand rolled cigarette, a confederate flag, a peace flag, attended an unpopular church, jokingly made gang signs with their hands, attended a protest march or because they got drunk at party.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Sounds like employment at will to me. In my opinion, a drug test as a Condition of hiring is For-Cause (just Cause) employment, not employment at will.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Gaius46 said:
That's a generalization that doesn't always hold. Certainly in cases of unskilled labor or widely available skill sets. But people with hard of find talents can often call the shots.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to always be true. It just usually is. Most people, including and especially these owners and employers, fall into the former category. Making rules based on the few exceptional people is not a very good idea.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Zyphlin said:
And all of those things can largely be attributed to some fashion to decisions and choices that individual has made throughout the life.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. Not everyone grows up in a wealthy family. Not everyone grows up in a healthy family. We don't get to pick and choose our family or our family's finances, we're born into them.

I don't think he misunderstands the word "freedom", even if I disagree with some of his points, but rather I think YOU misunderstand what he means by it.
You seem to be in the group that thinks "Freedom" is a notion of everyone has an equal ability to do what they want at any given tiem. He seems to be talking about freedom of oppertunity in a generalized sense. Having freedom doesn't guarantee you that you have a good family life, or that you've taken action to keep your credit well enough to get a loan, or anything else. It simply guarantees that you can try and do everything that's within your own power.
Click to expand...
I disagree with you. I believe he's talking about freedom in the sense of employers being free to determine who they employ without government regulation. In this way, he is not talking about freedom, he is talking about resting all power in the job market to the employer. That's not freedom.

Freedom doesn't guarantee you someone else giving you money. Freedom doesn't guarantee you no kids you have to feed or family members you have to care for. Freedom doesn't give you a job or save you money.
Click to expand...
Let's take that a step further then. Freedom doesn't guarantee you receiving money for what you produce or service you provide. Freedom doesn't guarantee you security for your business and it doesn't guarantee you protection from those who would steal your ideas and pass them off as your own.

Tell me, reading his post again, do you really think he's advocating a system where I can just walk into his store, take what I want and leave without worrying about repercussions? I doubt it. The way you're talking, you want freedom for employers, but not for those who would consume the product. No, for that I suspect you would advocate for restriction of "freedom" to protect the hard work and investment of the employer (as would I).

You're notion of "freedom" seems to be forcing others to do something for people.
Click to expand...
No, my stance is that transferring power from employee to employer is not guaranteeing anyone freedom, so much as it is simply shifting power. Unless either of you surprise me by advocating freedom for the consumer to take without repercussion, you're not really talking about advocating freedom. Because freedom is not freedom if it benefits one while negatively affecting another.
TNAR said:
They make eye drops for that.
Click to expand...
I'd prefer not to need them, but we'll see.

Every person on the face of the planet must choose to provide for themselves and their family or to allow them to die.
Click to expand...
Exactly, so you saying one doesn't have to work in a particular industry while advocating all employers be allowed to hire and fire at will is simply a distraction.

You would prefer that Chinese workers toil in the fields for $.05 an hour? Sweatshop Blues
Click to expand...
I'm not sure why you think that reply helped you. My point is there is little incentive to hire workers at competitive wages when they can simply outsource for a mere fraction of the cost.

Many people boycott Walmart because of perceived injustices it commits against its workers and suppliers. Many more do not hold this belief.
Click to expand...
Which directly refutes your claim that employers with poor employment policies will be negatively affected.

The opposite is true as well.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but not always. Your point, however, was that poor employment policies will cost money, thereby strongly suggesting fair employment will still be had. My point is that is simply not the case.

If you owned a business you would quickly realize that employers by no means have all the power.
Click to expand...
But you're pushing a system which greatly increases the power of the employer. That's my point.

Yet the employer has all of the power? Incredible!
Click to expand...
I'm not saying they have all the power NOW, I'm saying you're advocating a system which grants them all the power.

People are not equal!
Click to expand...
Attempting to make them so is tyrannical because you have to forcefully pull some down to push others up.
Click to expand...
I agree individuals are not equal, but, inherently, demographics mostly are.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Except for federally recognized anti-discrimination reasons, sure. Am employee can quit for any reason they want, why should the employer not be able to fire them?
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Yes. The employer should retain the right to hire and fire at will, with or without disclosing a reason. If I own a company I own the risk. If I feel like I no longer need a particular person in my employ for whatever reason I should be able to let them go. I should also be able to hire whomever I choose for whatever reason I choose. My company, my risk.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Yes and no.

Yes they should be able to fire for any reason, but at the same time, there should be consequences for firing someone under certain circumstances - those consequences should not, however, EVER include forcing the company to give the fired person their former job back. No idea why someone would want such a job back anyway...but I digress.

That way, if someone is disruptive enough yet doesn't break any rules, they can be fired without cause and the company can eat the costs (unemployment, court costs, whatever).

If they are fired for a reason such as race, sex, or other discriminatory reason, there should be additional penalties against the company.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Of course they should.

It is a private company, why the owner/boss fires someone is none of the government's business.

An employee can quit for any reason, they should be able to be fired for any reason.

ANY reason...pregnancy, too tall, too fat, too short, race, sex, show size...ANY reason.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

The German said:
Someone who fires a pregnant woman because she is pregnant should be prevented from doing so by the law.
Click to expand...

Why?


Let's say a woman planned to quit her job after she gives birth?

Under your law, she can now slack of at work, sit on her ass, show up late, take really long lunches, tell her lousy boss to 'f' off and only work when she feels like it.

Why not? She can't be fired because she is pregnant.

And she can do this for about 9 months or so.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

jimbo said:
No. Right to work states are about not having to join a club to get hired in the first place.
Click to expand...



True, but then there is no one to help protect your job, so same result..
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

DA60 said:
Why?


Let's say a woman planned to quit her job after she gives birth?

Under your law, she can now slack of at work, sit on her ass, show up late, take really long lunches, tell her lousy boss to 'f' off and only work when she feels like it.

Why not? She can't be fired because she is pregnant.

And she can do this for about 9 months or so.
Click to expand...

well you just listed a bunch of reason to fire her that have nothing to do with her being pregnant so problem solved :shrug:
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

AGENT J said:
well you just listed a bunch of reason to fire her that have nothing to do with her being pregnant so problem solved :shrug:
Click to expand...

Yes, but then the law would not mean anything.

All the boss has to say is 'she told me to 'f' off, so I fired her' (whether it was true or not) and he gets around the law.

IMO, making a law that makes it illegal to fire someone strictly because they are pregnant would open up a whole can of worms.

And as far as I am concerned, there are too many laws as is.


Besides, all the woman has to do is tell the press that she was fired and that she is a pregnant woman who desperately needs her job. No boss that does not want terrible publicity is going to fire a pregnant woman unless he/she has one heck of a good reason. Just let market forces give this woman job security...not yet another law.


And finally, I think the government is involved in our lives FAR too much as it is - telling private businesses who they can and cannot fire is, IMO, none of the government's business.


But, each to their own.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Cephus said:
Except for federally recognized anti-discrimination reasons, sure. Am employee can quit for any reason they want, why should the employer not be able to fire them?
Click to expand...
How about firing because the employee refused to do something which violates the law? Or violates moral or religious principles?

Lerxst said:
Yes. The employer should retain the right to hire and fire at will, with or without disclosing a reason. If I own a company I own the risk. If I feel like I no longer need a particular person in my employ for whatever reason I should be able to let them go. I should also be able to hire whomever I choose for whatever reason I choose. My company, my risk.
Click to expand...
So if you proposition sex to one of your female employees and she turns you down, you should have the right to fire her?
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Lutherf said:
But if you're firing them for cause then why have protected classes at all? That's what I hate about the EEOC rules. It gives someone fired for cause a reason to come back after the employer and that costs money whether it's a legitimate claim or not.

For example, several years ago I had a client who is a real estate appraiser fire an employee because she was disruptive and abusive. The NLRB ended up getting involved and he had to pay her something like 3 months pay and post some bull**** apology in the office.
Click to expand...

The alternative -- that an employer could fire someone for being gay, black, Muslim, pregnant, etc. -- is much worse. We have to bear this cost.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Ad_Captandum said:
The alternative -- that an employer could fire someone for being gay, black, Muslim, pregnant, etc. -- is much worse.
Click to expand...

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

ANY reason? No.


Being fired does the employee a lot of harm, especially if it is sudden, unexpected, and unjustified. Why are we supposed to give the employer two weeks notice, and he has no obligation to do the same? The employee suffers more from sudden termination than the employer suffers from a sudden I-quit.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

scatt said:
Why is that?
Click to expand...

A society in which you're free to hire or fire people based on bigotry and bias is no society at all.

How is that even a question? You want to allow employers to fire someone for being gay? Or being straight? Or white, or black, or Muslim, or Christian, or anything else?
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Goshin said:
ANY reason? No.


Being fired does the employee a lot of harm, especially if it is sudden, unexpected, and unjustified. Why are we supposed to give the employer two weeks notice, and he has no obligation to do the same? The employee suffers more from sudden termination than the employer suffers from a sudden I-quit.
Click to expand...

You do not have to give two weeks, it is not a law.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Ad_Captandum said:
A society in which you're free to hire or fire people based on bigotry and bias is no society at all.
Click to expand...

Oh, you want to ban certain thought?
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

scatt said:
You do not have to give two weeks, it is not a law.
Click to expand...


It is not a law, but it may affect getting another job when the prospective new employer asks the previous employer if you gave notice.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Goshin said:
It is not a law, but it may affect getting another job when the prospective new employer asks the previous employer if you gave notice.
Click to expand...

Yep, the same with an employer that fires for silly reasons such as race or sex.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom