• 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

this isnt difficult
if you feel you have a good reason to violate peoples rights or for taking them away feel free to state it :shrug:
I don't at the moment, and so far as I recall and never claimed to have such.

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

1.)I don't at the moment, and so far as I recall and never claimed to have such.

Why is that relevant to my question?

1.) i didnt say you had one i was simply pointing out unless you do theres nothing im interested in discussing.

2.) which question, youll have to be more specific
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

1.) i didnt say you had one i was simply pointing out unless you do theres nothing im interested in discussing.

2.) which question, youll have to be more specific
Your question is counter to the premise of this thread though.

As I understand it, we're attempting to discuss whether limitations on an employers hiring/firing ability are valid. This would of course require examining whether anti-discrimination laws are valid.
Your response is to demand that people provide a reason for violating those laws. Damnit, the entire point of this thread is to discuss whether anti-discrimination laws regarding hiring/firing should even exist. Whether they exist in some form currently, or not, is beside the point. And thus demanding a reason to violate them is beside the point.

As for my question: I'm not claiming we do or do not have these rights, I'm asking you to show why you believe we should/do.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

1.)Your question is counter to the premise of this thread though.
2.)As I understand it, we're attempting to discuss whether limitations on an employers hiring/firing ability are valid.
3.) This would of course require examining whether anti-discrimination laws are valid.
4.) Your response is to demand that people provide a reason for violating those laws.
5.) Damnit, the entire point of this thread is to discuss whether anti-discrimination laws regarding hiring/firing should even exist.
6.) Whether they exist in some form currently, or not, is beside the point.
7.)And thus demanding a reason to violate them is beside the point.

As for my question: I'm not claiming we do or do not have these rights, I'm asking you to show why you believe we should/do.

1.) says you, i discussed it quite fine earlier :shrug:
2.) so am i, present a sound scenario to violate rights and we can discuss it validity
3.) and what im asking will in fact do the same thing
4.) no not a demand, you are free not to, its just all im interested in as this is my method that will achieve exactly what you are asking.
5.) which my question will in fact do
6.) you are free to have this opinion
7.) 100% false discussion on it can in fact answer the question you seek
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

When a person is hired as an employee at a particular company, they know what their salary will be, as well as what their duties will be. If they hadn't agreed, they wouldn't be working there. Maybe I have missed the point of this thread, but even if the employee later finds out that his employer makes 10 times what he does, what difference does that make? That still doesn't entitle them to anything the employer has! I realize that lately the mantra has been that, for some reason, people are being told that they do, but in the real world, that's :bs:! Most of us would not be unhappy to suddenly find our paychecks have been increased 1,000-fold, but the chances of that happening are slim to none! This isn't the lottery...it's business. :shock: Everyone who likes the idea of "robbing Peter to give to Paul" always imagine themselves as being Paul...never Peter! Sheesh!

Greetings, AlbuOwl. :2wave:

I actually think the pay inequity is probably best suited for the income inequality thread. This one is whether you should have to hire somebody in your business, but more importantly, once you hire them, are you obligated to keep them on the payroll forever if he/she is pregnant or black or gay or handicapped or name your protected class of the week? Or when you no longer need or can afford the employee, can you fire him/her?

I'm gonna guess you vote for an employer to have the right to use his/her money, property, and resources in his/her own interest, and the employee is entitled to no part of that other than what was agreed between the employer and employee.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

im not familiar with how employment at will affects unemployment, youll have to explain or ill look it up when im i can

Civil Persons in our republic should be able to apply for unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed in any at-will employment State.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

1.) says you, i discussed it quite fine earlier :shrug:
2.) so am i, present a sound scenario to violate rights and we can discuss it validity
3.) and what im asking will in fact do the same thing
4.) no not a demand, you are free not to, its just all im interested in as this is my method that will achieve exactly what you are asking.
5.) which my question will in fact do
6.) you are free to have this opinion
7.) 100% false discussion on it can in fact answer the question you seek
Response does not indicate validity of argument.
Until we determine whether the rights exist or not, we can't discuss violating them. Or we can, but it'd be kinda pointless.
Only if we limit ourselves to anti-discrimination laws as currently constituted.
It will not, and if it is not a demand, it is an ultimatum.
No, your question focuses on whether anti-discrimination laws as they currently exist should be followed or changed. Better to ask "should anti-discrimination laws exist, and if so, what form should they take?" IMO.
Yes, I am.
Discussion on that question can only answer that question in part. It's limiting, as I see it.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

1.) This one is whether you should have to hire somebody in your business
2.) but more importantly, once you hire them, are you obligated to keep them on the payroll forever if he/she is pregnant or black or gay or handicapped or name your protected class of the week?
3.) Or when you no longer need or can afford the employee, can you fire him/her?

1.) who ever said you HAVE to hire someone? this is not the current law at all
2.) wow who ever said you have to keep them for ever, this also is not the current law at all, you like to really make things up dont you?

also not saying you said otherwise but usually people talk about the laws as they are written medical conditions, race, sexuality (which isnt protected everywhere yet) or physical ablities.
but your statment is very telling when you say "or name your protected class of the week?" it reeks of bias lol

3.) yes this can be done as long as its not illegal
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

1.)Response does not indicate validity of argument.
2.) Until we determine whether the rights exist or not, we can't discuss violating them.
3.)Or we can, but it'd be kinda pointless.
4.) Only if we limit ourselves to anti-discrimination laws as currently constituted.
5.) It will not, and if it is not a demand, it is an ultimatum.
6.) No, your question focuses on whether anti-discrimination laws as they currently exist should be followed or changed.
7.)Better to ask "should anti-discrimination laws exist, and if so, what form should they take?" IMO.
8.) Yes, I am.
9.)Discussion on that question can only answer that question in part. It's limiting, as I see it.

1.) thanks for that random and meaningless point
2.) that already is determined, they factually exist right now
3.) you are free to have this opinion
4.) nope it can branch out in many things but since thats the topic it will do just fine
5.) it factually can, deny thing wont change this fact. Its not a demand or an ultimatime only i get to decide that. Its simply the foundation im interested in starting the discussion on :shrug: you can simply choose not to
6.) wrong my question can infact answer yours, again this fact will not change
7.) yes this is only you opinion
8) glad you agree with facts
9.) well you vision would be wrong
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Civil Persons in our republic should be able to apply for unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed in any at-will employment State.

define "civil person" and i might agree with you

but again im not familiar with the relationship you are talking about

is there not unemployment in a at-will employment state?
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Civil Persons in our republic should be able to apply for unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed in any at-will employment State.

Why? Someone fired at will, and not for cause would be eligible for UI benefits.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

I actually think the pay inequity is probably best suited for the income inequality thread. This one is whether you should have to hire somebody in your business, but more importantly, once you hire them, are you obligated to keep them on the payroll forever if he/she is pregnant or black or gay or handicapped or name your protected class of the week? Or when you no longer need or can afford the employee, can you fire him/her?

I'm gonna guess you vote for an employer to have the right to use his/her money, property, and resources in his/her own interest, and the employee is entitled to no part of that other than what was agreed between the employer and employee.

I worked in business for years, but it was a Fortune 500 company, and they were very careful to abide by the rules and laws on the books. I don't know what small companies are like, but I'll wager that none of them want lawsuits for alleged discrimination of any kind, which sounds like the examples you cited. I apparently misunderstood the intent of the thread, .but I think the "redistribution of income" theme fits in here, too, else why the example of employer money, property and resources discussion versus what the employee is entitled to? Obama specifically cited raising the minimum wage in his SOTU, which does involve both sides.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

im not familiar with how employment at will affects unemployment, youll have to explain or ill look it up when im i can

The simple answer is that civil Persons in our republic should be able to apply for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis simply for being unemployed. Why is labor being denied and disparaged in that civil right?
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

The simple answer is that civil Persons in our republic should be able to apply for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis simply for being unemployed. Why is labor being denied and disparaged in that civil right?

again define civil person
one cant apply for unemployment in am at will work state?
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

define "civil person" and i might agree with you

but again im not familiar with the relationship you are talking about

is there not unemployment in a at-will employment state?

From Article 4, Section 2: The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Even "juridical persons" should not be exempted, such as any incorporated Firm.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

From Article 4, Section 2: The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Even "juridical persons" should not be exempted, such as any incorporated Firm.

ok let me know when you plan on answering anything
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

1.) thanks for that random and meaningless point
2.) that already is determined, they factually exist right now
3.) you are free to have this opinion
4.) nope it can branch out in many things but since thats the topic it will do just fine
5.) it factually can, deny thing wont change this fact. Its not a demand or an ultimatime only i get to decide that. Its simply the foundation im interested in starting the discussion on :shrug: you can simply choose not to
6.) wrong my question can infact answer yours, again this fact will not change
7.) yes this is only you opinion
8) glad you agree with facts
9.) well you vision would be wrong
My specialty. However, I don't think it meaningless, but rather directly in response to your point one in the post I responded to.
They legally exist right now. That is fact. Whether the rights existed before their codification is another question entirely, and mostly philosophical in nature, I suspect.
And do so gleefully. Well not really.
I don't like your question because it presumes too many things.
It may. You saying "I'll only discuss responses to this statement" is at least something like an ultimatum, as I understand the term.
Responses to your question can in part answer mine. but not in full, unless they go beyond the scope of your question.
Indeed so.
I disagree.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

ok let me know when you plan on answering anything

The simple answer is that civil Persons in our republic should be able to apply for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis simply for being unemployed. Why is labor being denied and disparaged in that civil right?

A civil Person can be considered a person who may have to present themselves to a judge in any civil case; for the purposes of this concept.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

1.)My specialty. However, I don't think it meaningless, but rather directly in response to your point one in the post I responded to.
2.)They legally exist right now. That is fact.
3.) Whether the rights existed before their codification is another question entirely, and mostly philosophical in nature, I suspect.
4.)And do so gleefully. Well not really.
5.) I don't like your question because it presumes too many things.
6.) It may. You saying "I'll only discuss responses to this statement" is at least something like an ultimatum, as I understand the term.
7.) Responses to your question can in part answer mine. but not in full, unless they go beyond the scope of your question.
Indeed so.
8.)I disagree.

1.) im sure you do think that but that fact remains it was being discussed
2.) correct just like i said
3.) again subjective philosophy im simply not interested in
4.) same
5.) it actually doesnt presume anything, you presume it does not the question itself
6.) it can, and its not an ultimatum, if you think thats how easy an ultimative is formed then by that logic you are giving me one too :shrug: :)
7.) theres a factual scope of my question which would then lead to discussion and that discussion would also have a factual limited scope? really? i had not idea, please tell me what the factual scope of my question and the discussions that may come of it. also remind me about the "presuming line again" ;)
8.) you can disagree but its true there are not real limits only the one you made up in your head
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

The simple answer is that civil Persons in our republic should be able to apply for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis simply for being unemployed. Why is labor being denied and disparaged in that civil right?

A civil Person can be considered a person who may have to present themselves to a judge in any civil case; for the purposes of this concept.

ok lets try again

can a person not get unemployment in a work at will state?

an arson can do that, should a person get unemployment if the burn down my business?


before you get any discussion out of somebody youll simply have to expalin exactly what you are talkign about instead of making empty statments
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

If I owned a business I should be able to hire and fire as I see fit as long as it breaks no law.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

As an employer, I have one problem with that. The employee can quit at any time for any reason and there isn't a damned thing you can do about it so it doesn't really work out as equitably as you suggest.

As far as hiring I figure than an employer should be able to hire whoever they want to. I'm less inclined to make firing as simple because a simple clash of personalities can be used to really screw an employee.

Someone mentioned pregnancy and while I couldn't condone the firing of an employee just because they were pregnant there is still a job that needs to get done and if that employee can't do the job due to her condition then there needs to be a little leeway. If she needs a couple of weeks off to have the baby and get her feet back under her that's one thing but if I start getting a call 3 times a week that she can't make it in because of this, that or the other it screws things up.

If you hire good people and run a professional shop I see far more folks giving two weeks notice than just not showing up one day. There can be sudden changes in a person's life- however that would seem to be a very few and far between event. I suppose the smaller the shop the more potential for disruption if there is a sudden and unexpected departure. However I don't that as a good reason to be arbitrary in hiring and firing.

Employee morale can be affected by bad bosses and that maybe the biggest cause for sudden departures. The job market is slow so people may hang on to a bad job as it is better than no job at all...

When it comes to pregnancy I'd like to see a comp plan where employees can have time off and still be able to return to work once the routine settles down. Again small shops may have a problem with this but if the employee is valued.... There is a huge temp industry out there that can support businesses during the timeout for pregnancy.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

If I owned a business I should be able to hire and fire as I see fit as long as it breaks no law.

If you are in a country that values unalienable rights and liberty, if you own a business, there should be no law dictating who you must hire or who you can fire.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

ok lets try again

can a person not get unemployment in a work at will state?

an arson can do that, should a person get unemployment if the burn down my business?


before you get any discussion out of somebody youll simply have to expalin exactly what you are talkign about instead of making empty statments

I guess I shouldn't assume people know the concepts they debate.

Under our current regime, labor, as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism, is being denied and disparaged in their expressly enumerated rights regarding unemployment compensation in any at-will employment State.

It can be considered a non race specific form of "Jim Crow" that only applies to the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

I guess I shouldn't assume people know the concepts they debate.

Under our current regime, labor, as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism, is being denied and disparaged in their expressly enumerated rights regarding unemployment compensation in any at-will employment State.

It can be considered a non race specific form of "Jim Crow" that only applies to the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism.
Care to explain that further?
 
Back
Top Bottom