• 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
pinqy said:
Three. There are only three where employees give a minimal contribution.
Click to expand...

Well there I learned something. So if that is the case, then yes, those employees should be able to collect whatever they paid in. I doubt that would be enough to help them out much though.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Really? Could you name one of them?

There are a very few limited instances in which some states do require an out-of-state employee who is eligible for unemployment insurance in a state, but whose employer is not contributing to that state's unemployment fund, will be required to kick in his/her portion of that. But that is a really rare anomaly and is mostly in effect as a safeguard against people unethically accessing a state unemployment fund.
Click to expand...
From Comparison of State Unemployment Laws Chapter 2, Financing
EMPLOYEE TAXES—Only Alaska, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania levy UI taxes on workers. The tax base is that applicable to employers except in Pennsylvania, where employee contributions are calculated on total gross covered wages paid for employment. Worker taxes are deducted by the employer from the worker’s pay and forwarded with the employer’s taxes to the state agency. In Alaska, the tax rate is equal to 27 percent of the average benefit cost rate, but not less than 0.5% or more than 1.0%. In New Jersey, the tax rate is 0.3825 percent effective July 1, 2004 and thereafter. Depending on the adequacy of the fund balance in a given year, Pennsylvania employees pay contributions ranging from 0.0 percent to 0.08 percent of total gross covered wages earned in employment.
Click to expand...
 
AlbqOwl said:
Really? We have returned to a slave state in which people are forced into servitude against their will? Certainly if a person has agreed to certain terms of employment and expectations, he/she can forfeit bonuses, sick pay, and other benefits if he/she quits without fulfilling those terms; i.e. give proper notice etc. But I am unaware of any business that can force a person to stay on the job if that person chooses not to be there. So educate me on that please.
Click to expand...

Employment Jurisprudence has 2 doctrines; Employer's DUTY to employee's and Employee's DUTY to employer's.

One is an employee can NOT quit when a common law DUTY is breached and subjects the employer to injury/harm.

Question; would you sue your employer for any action in the workplace if the law permitted it?
 
lawboy said:
Employment Jurisprudence has 2 doctrines; Employer's DUTY to employee's and Employee's DUTY to employer's.

One is an employee can NOT quit when a common law DUTY is breached and subjects the employer to injury/harm.

Question; would you sue your employer for any action in the workplace if the law permitted it?
Click to expand...

Other than exercising reasonable concern for the health and safety of the employees, the employer's duty to employees should be what is agreed between the employer and employee. Nothing more. Nothing less. Other than exercising reasonable respect for the property and well being of the employer and coworkers, the employee's duty to the employer should be what is agreed between the employer and employee. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Whether I would choose to sue an employer would be based on what breach there was in the agreement between me and that employer and what damages I sustained.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Other than exercising reasonable concern for the health and safety of the employees, the employer's duty to employees should be what is agreed between the employer and employee. Nothing more. Nothing less. Other than exercising reasonable respect for the property and well being of the employer and coworkers, the employee's duty to the employer should be what is agreed between the employer and employee. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Click to expand...

Thankfully, that is not how the system works, so it would be fruitless for me to give examples, as you would disagree with them.

Whether I would choose to sue an employer would be based on what breach there was in the agreement between me and that employer and what damages I sustained.
Click to expand...

Personal agreements or what the codified/common LAW allows?
 
lawboy said:
Employment Jurisprudence has 2 doctrines; Employer's DUTY to employee's and Employee's DUTY to employer's.

One is an employee can NOT quit when a common law DUTY is breached and subjects the employer to injury/harm.
Click to expand...
Could you give an example of this? The only things I could think of would be if an employee abandoned a duty that would affect safety or health at the time of quitting (during a work shift). Including such extreme and rare instances as applying to a general statement about being able to quit at any time for any reason and claiming that invalidates the whole concept is nit-picking.
 
pinqy said:
Could you give an example of this? The only things I could think of would be if an employee abandoned a duty that would affect safety or health at the time of quitting (during a work shift). Including such extreme and rare instances as applying to a general statement about being able to quit at any time for any reason and claiming that invalidates the whole concept is nit-picking.
Click to expand...

You just gave one and another is, say a person is working in a store alone, and decides to quit, he just walks out and leaves the building unsecure and open to pilferage, there are other prime examples, and none of these have to do with a personal agreement as Owl suggests.
 
lawboy said:
You just gave one and another is, say a person is working in a store alone, and decides to quit, he just walks out and leaves the building unsecure and open to pilferage, there are other prime examples, and none of these have to do with a personal agreement as Owl suggests.
Click to expand...

Going back, you said "An employee can not quit for ANY reason" And yet my example and yours weren't about reason, but about timing. Certainly AlbqOwl would agree that under some circumstances an employee cannot quit at that particular time (at least not without being liable for damages), but you didn't support your calim that an employee couldn't quit for any reason.
 
pinqy said:
Going back, you said "An employee can not quit for ANY reason" And yet my example and yours weren't about reason, but about timing. Certainly AlbqOwl would agree that under some circumstances an employee cannot quit at that particular time (at least not without being liable for damages), but you didn't support your calim that an employee couldn't quit for any reason.
Click to expand...

That does not make sense ANY reason includes TIMING.
 
lawboy said:
That does not make sense ANY reason includes TIMING.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. A reason is the WHY someone quites. Timing is WHEN.

I don't think that anyone would argue that quitting due to being asked to do something illegal is unjustified. It's a perfectly justifiable reason for quitting. However, that doesn't mean one is justified in leaving the store abandoned and open to theft at that time is justified.
 
lawboy said:
Thankfully, that is not how the system works, so it would be fruitless for me to give examples, as you would disagree with them.

I don't disagree with bonafide examples because they are what they are. I will reject non sequitur examples that do not relate to the principle being discussed. And if the system does not work in a way that recognizes the unalienable right of a person to use his/her legally and ethically acquired property and resources in his/her own interests, then none of us can say we own anything and there are no unalienable rights for anybody. None of us would have any rights other than what the government decided we would have on any given day.

Personal agreements or what the codified/common LAW allows?
Click to expand...

What the law allows is immaterial to the principle I am citing. Obviously, if I have no legal standing, then I will not be successful in a lawsuit. But the law should not allow me to demand from an employer any more than what the employer and I agreed; nor should the employer be able to deny me what was agreed so long as I hold up my end of whatever bargain we make. But no employer with any sense is going to guarantee the new hire a lifetime job or income. Not unless he is a philanthropist who has decided to make somebody his heir.
 
lawboy said:
That is contradictory, period.
Click to expand...

How on earth is that contradictory? I quit my job last year to take a better position with higher salary. I think we can agree that that is not an objectionable reason. Now, let's say that there were two basic times I could have quit: Without warning during a work shift, causing harm to others, or giving advance notice so that my employer could make arrangements to cover my work.

The reason for quitting would be the same, but the timing would be different. I'm at a loss how you could say it would be two different reasons depending on timing.
 
AlbqOwl said:
What the law allows is immaterial to the principle I am citing.
Click to expand...

What about employment references? Should you as an employee be subjected to blackballing? I am your former employer, every potential employer that calls me for a reference I say you stole 1,000.00 from me, when it is a lie! Is that okay? This has to do with law, not any agreement.
 
Last edited:
pinqy said:
How on earth is that contradictory? I quit my job last year to take a better position with higher salary. I think we can agree that that is not an objectionable reason. Now, let's say that there were two basic times I could have quit: Without warning during a work shift, causing harm to others, or giving advance notice so that my employer could make arrangements to cover my work.

The reason for quitting would be the same, but the timing would be different. I'm at a loss how you could say it would be two different reasons depending on timing.
Click to expand...

Do you not understand what the word ANY means in legal terms?
 
lawboy said:
Do you not understand what the word ANY means in legal terms?
Click to expand...
Since it doesn't appear as a seperate entry in any legal dictionary, I would assume it means the same in ordinary language.

Do you understand what the words "why" and "when" mean? they're not the synonyms you're claiming. The reason someone quits is why they quit..the thing that causes them to quit. When thy choose to actually quit is an entirely seperate matter.

I note you dodged my question about different times making different reasons.
 
pinqy said:
I note you dodged my question about different times making different reasons.
Click to expand...

I did not dodge any such thing, again, you do NOT understand the legal points here, how a layman interprets a Clause/word may be, and is different here, to your understanding.

edit; Pay a visit to a law library where they have your state jurisprudence volumes, find the EMPLOYMENT volumes, read and learn.
 
lawboy said:
What about employment references? Should you as an employee be subjected to blackballing? I am your former employer, every potential employer that calls me for a reference I say you stole 1,000.00 from me, when it is a lie! Is that okay? This has to do with law, not any agreement.
Click to expand...

There are reasonable laws against libel and slander. If your employer accuses you of stealing in a way that damages you in any material way, and you didn't steal, you do have legal recourse against that employer. If you did steal, certainly the law should allow references to include information to the new employer that you are a thief.

But this anecdotal side issue still has nothing whatsoever to do with what should be an employee's right to quit a job he does not want to do any more, or what should be the employer's right to fire an employee he does not want or need anymore.
 
AlbqOwl said:
There are reasonable laws against libel and slander. If your employer accuses you of stealing in a way that damages you in any material way, and you didn't steal, you do have legal recourse against that employer. If you did steal, certainly the law should allow references to include information to the new employer that you are a thief.
Click to expand...

Just seeing where you stand, so you agree with that law, but not other employment laws!

You said you were fired before, for what?
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Lutherf said:
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.
Click to expand...
I've worked for companies who make you agree to a charge on your last check if you quite without giving 2-weeks notice (exceptions exist). The charge is justified as 'the cost of over time other employees put in to cover your sudden absence.

So, yes, there is something you can do about, just for some reason you choose not to do it. That's your choice.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

MichaelJR said:
Private business. Private. Key work here. It's private, IE: owner has the right to do what he/she wants with the place. When the employee becomes the owner, he/she can make the calls.
Click to expand...
If you fire an employee just because they have brown eyes, is a woman, or is a Muslim, they are going to win a wrongful-termination claim against you and draw unemployment off of you:
Wrongful Termination of At Will Employment

The Civil Rights Act in 1964 extended anti-discrimination protections to employees, whose employment could no longer be terminated for reasons such as their race, gender, skin color, religion, or national origin. Additional legal protections now exist to deter certain forms of age discrimination. Following the creation of these anti-discrimination laws, it became possible for employees to argue that their terminations were "pretextual" - that is, although their employers were citing lawful reasons to terminate their employment, their employers were actually motivated by unlawful discriminatory motives.

~snip~

Some states will permit an "at will" employee to bring a lawsuit on the basis that the employer violated an implied covenant of "good faith and fair dealing" in association with the termination decision. In such states, even with an at-will employee, the employer must extend some degree of fairness in the decision to terminate employment.
Click to expand...

******
If you remove a customer just because they have brown eyes, is a woman, or is a Muslim, you will be cited by the State for braking Public Accommodation codes.

For example:
South Dakota Code 20-13-23

20-13-23. Public accommodations--Unfair or discriminatory practices. It shall be an unfair or discriminatory practice for any person engaged in the provision of public accommodations because of race, color, creed, religion, sex, ancestry, disability, or national origin, to fail or refuse to provide to any person access to the use of and benefit from the services and facilities of such public accommodations; or to accord adverse, unlawful, or unequal treatment to any person with respect to the availability of such services and facilities, the price or other consideration therefor, the scope and equality thereof, or the terms and conditions under which the same are made available, including terms and conditions relating to credit, payment, warranties, delivery, installation, and repair.
Click to expand...
When you open your business to the public, you have to conduct 'fair and equal treatment' to each person who voluntarily walks through your door. You cannot deny access to your business just because a customer is one of these protected classes. You cannot refuse to sell to a customer just because the customer belongs to one of these classes.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Absolutely not.

Firing a person because of race, religion, color, gender (for example) should not only NOT be allowed but it should be against the law.
 
lawboy said:
Just seeing where you stand, so you agree with that law, but not other employment laws!

You said you were fired before, for what?
Click to expand...

Once for incompetence. I simply did not have sufficient skills for the job I was hired to do. Once because somebody else higher up wanted my job. I'll have to admit I took some personal satisfaction in that they wound up firing her because she couldn't do it, and replaced me with two people. :)
 
AlbqOwl said:
Once for incompetence. I simply did not have sufficient skills for the job I was hired to do. Once because somebody else higher up wanted my job. I'll have to admit I took some personal satisfaction in that they wound up firing her because she couldn't do it, and replaced me with two people. :)
Click to expand...

Hey, I was fired once, about 25 years ago, because the company was desperately trying to downsize so they trumped up charges against all of their most expensive employees and terminated them en masse so they wouldn't have to pay unemployment. Then they doubled up on all of the jobs. I fought it through the EEOC and won, they ended up paying me unemployment because they had no valid case against me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom