• 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

danielpalos said:
I guess I shouldn't assume people know the concepts they debate.
Click to expand...
But you don't seem to be using the same concepts. And debate is when you make arguments, explaining what you mean, giving examples, etc. You're just making assertions without any attempt to explain as in or prove true.

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.
Click to expand...
How?

It can be considered a non race specific form of "Jim Crow" that only applies to the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism.
Click to expand...
What is "it?" And you still need to explain as in what exactly you're talking about.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

danielpalos said:
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.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with somebody having the right to hire or fire whomever he/she wishes?
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

danielpalos said:
1.)I guess I shouldn't assume people know the concepts they debate.

2.)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.

3.)It can be considered a non race specific form of "Jim Crow" that only applies to the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism.
Click to expand...

1.) no what you shouldn't assume is that a sound bite means somethings, there hasnt been any debate because you havent explained one time what actually bothers you and why lol THIS THREAD isnt even about unemployment lol

2.) you keep repeating this, its meaningless until you answer this question. Ready?

Can a person not get unemployment in an work at will state?

3.) answer two and this might have meaning
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Fletch said:
Care to explain that further?
Click to expand...

I would; but, it may just be wasted if you don't understand the concept from what I posted. Have you read a federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will?
 
Last edited:
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

AlbqOwl said:
What does that have to do with somebody having the right to hire or fire whomever he/she wishes?
Click to expand...

It has to do with an employer not having to fire as much if labor can simply quit and collect unemployment compensation on an at-will basis.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

danielpalos said:
I would; but, it may just be wasted if you don't understand the concept from I posted. Have you read a federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will?
Click to expand...
Look, if you want to make a statement then refuse to explain it that's your business. But Im not sure why you hang around a discussion board if that's your attitude.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

AGENT J said:
1.) no what you shouldn't assume is that a sound bite means somethings, there hasnt been any debate because you havent explained one time what actually bothers you and why lol THIS THREAD isnt even about unemployment lol

2.) you keep repeating this, its meaningless until you answer this question. Ready?

Can a person not get unemployment in an work at will state?

3.) answer two and this might have meaning
Click to expand...

dude, i know what i am talking about when discussing this concept. why don't you.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

danielpalos said:
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.
Click to expand...

What the ****? What right to unemployment? How in the hell is any of this comparable to Jim Crow laws?
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

danielpalos said:
It has to do with an employer not having to fire as much if labor can simply quit and collect unemployment compensation on an at-will basis.
Click to expand...

Unemployment is a separate topic here though so far as I am concerned.

For me the issue boils down to one single principle. We each have the right to use our legally and ethically acquired money, physical property, and resources as we see fit so long as we do not violate anybody else's rights or we don't. If we do, the employee has no right to any part of that other than what the employer agrees to with the employee.

If we do, the employer can hire and fire whomever he needs to in order to serve the employer's interests. The employee likewise can negotiate whatever terms he/she can get with the employer. The employer has no right to the employee's labor other than what the employee agrees to. The employee has no right to any compensation or benefit provided by the employer other than what the employer agrees to. And each will be looking to his/her own interests in the negotiations.

If we don't, then there is no such thing as unalienable rights or individual liberties. We are all puppets of the government that will assign us the rights it wants us to have at any given time, and we are subject to the government's whims, whatever those might be. And nobody owns anything.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

danielpalos said:
I would; but, it may just be wasted if you don't understand the concept from what I posted. Have you read a federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will?
Click to expand...

Yes, it means that an employer may terminate its employees at will, for any or no reason. This relates back to the original topic since these are what is considered exceptions to at will employment.

In any event, why don't you explain to everyone why you have a right to unemployment compensation and exactly what right of yours is violated by being fired.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

danielpalos said:
dude, i know what i am talking about when discussing this concept. why don't you.
Click to expand...

im sure YOU know what YOU are trying to talk about, nobody else does though lol

how many people have asked you to explain what you are posting about? 5?
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

AGENT J said:
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
Click to expand...
I forget what that was about.
Indeed.
Yet relevant to this thread, nonetheless. Perhaps even the main point of this thread.
Heh.
Whatever.
Yep.
You said that answers to your question would answer mine. I disagreed. Now you're agreeing with my disagreement. Excellent.
I forget what this was about. Whatever.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

The Mark said:
I
1.)Yet relevant to this thread, nonetheless. Perhaps even the main point of this thread.
2.)You said that answers to your question would answer mine. I disagreed. Now you're agreeing with my disagreement. Excellent.
Click to expand...

1.) you are free to think so i dont have any interest in fantasy and philosophy on this topic.
2.) false i told you i would LOVE to hear how you come to the faulty conclusion that the scope of my question ends where you think it does and where the scope of the conversation factually ends too
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

AGENT J said:
1.) you are free to think so i dont have any interest in fantasy and philosophy on this topic.
2.) false i told you i would LOVE to hear how you come to the faulty conclusion that the scope of my question ends where you think it does and where the scope of the conversation factually ends too
Click to expand...
How is philosophy not relevant to this topic? It seems at least partially so. Why do you not wish to enter that area of discussion?

I don't know where the scope of your question ends, apart from for myself. However, as I said, it seems to limit discussion slightly, and appears to avoid some topics that I thought relevant.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

The Mark said:
1.)How is philosophy not relevant to this topic? It seems at least partially so. Why do you not wish to enter that area of discussion?
2.)I don't know where the scope of your question ends, apart from for myself. However, as I said, it seems to limit discussion slightly, and appears to avoid some topics that I thought relevant.
Click to expand...

1.) for this topic i think its meaningless :shrug:
2.) exactly so you are guessing based on nothing.

Theres nothing about it that is limiting nor avoiding
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

AGENT J said:
1.) for this topic i think its meaningless :shrug:
2.) exactly so you are guessing based on nothing.

Theres nothing about it that is limiting nor avoiding
Click to expand...
But it is leading.

"what reason can you give to violate these rights" presumes that the rights exist and that violating them is bad.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

The Mark said:
But it is leading.

"what reason can you give to violate these rights" presumes that the rights exist and that violating them is bad.
Click to expand...
as already proven 100% false

that is YOUR presumption in YOUR head not mine, you made it up, YOU are assuming that

1.) they factually do exist
2.) never even hinted that violating them is bad in fact if you had a good reason violating them would be good :shrug:

thank you for proving my point
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

danielpalos said:
dude, i know what i am talking about when discussing this concept. why don't you.
Click to expand...

Because you refuse to explain your concept.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

AGENT J said:
as already proven 100% false

that is YOUR presumption in YOUR head not mine, you made it up, YOU are assuming that

1.) they factually do exist
2.) never even hinted that violating them is bad in fact if you had a good reason violating them would be good :shrug:

thank you for proving my point
Click to expand...
It appears to me that our only real disagreement then, is the statement "they factually do exist" (regarding the rights which protect employees from discriminatory hiring/firing practices).

As I see it, they LEGALLY exist, but whether they actually exist is a philosophical question. Possibly an unimportant one, however, since effectively anything can be made a law, whether it exists outside the law or not.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

The Mark said:
1.)It appears to me that our only real disagreement then, is the statement "they factually do exist" (regarding the rights which protect employees from discriminatory hiring/firing practices).

2.)As I see it, they LEGALLY exist
3.)but whether they actually exist is a philosophical question. Possibly an unimportant one, however, since effectively anything can be made a law, whether it exists outside the law or not.
Click to expand...

1.) uhm thats not a "disagreement" currently they factually do exist :shrug:
2.) which currently makes them factual
3.) no they factually do already, whether they should or if any rights should is what is philosophical and meaningless to this topic at hand
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

AGENT J said:
1.) uhm thats not a "disagreement" currently they factually do exist :shrug:
2.) which currently makes them factual
3.) no they factually do already, whether they should or if any rights should is what is philosophical and meaningless to this topic at hand
Click to expand...
You're not getting my point.

The rights in question do in fact legally exist - in other words, they were codified into law and have since had various court rulings on them which changed their interpretation slightly.

What I'm saying is that this does not necessarily mean that said rights would exist WITHOUT being codified - that they are social constructs, IOW.

In effect, they are both fact and fiction.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

The Mark said:
You're not getting my point.

The rights in question do in fact legally exist - in other words, they were codified into law and have since had various court rulings on them which changed their interpretation slightly.

What I'm saying is that this does not necessarily mean that said rights would exist WITHOUT being codified - that they are social constructs, IOW.

In effect, they are both fact and fiction.
Click to expand...

No actually i get what you are saying 100% got it from the very first time you said it

all rights are social constructs :shrug:
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

AGENT J said:
No actually i get what you are saying 100% got it from the very first time you said it

all rights are social constructs :shrug:
Click to expand...
I think there is actually debate over whether some rights are inherent, but at the least recognition of said inherent rights would be a social construct.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

The Mark said:
I think there is actually debate over whether some rights are inherent, but at the least recognition of said inherent rights would be a social construct.
Click to expand...

inherent rights would also be a social construct :shrug:

hence all rights are social constructs
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom