• 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
lawboy said:
I did not dodge any such thing,
Click to expand...
You didn't answer my question or respond to my scenario or in anyway try to give me knowledge. Instead you asked another question. that is textbook dodging.

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.
Click to expand...
Yes, I am aware of that, as I've worked in technical fields with technical definitions...including having to be familiar with many legal terms and concepts.

But you're wrong in this case. "Any reason," while it could include a specific reason at a specific time such as "He hit me so I quit right then," , the base reason in that would be quitting due to assault and that reason would be acceptable if seperated from the timing. The timing is seperate from the reason. Yes, there may be some cases where the reason would be so inextricable from the timing they're the same, but that would be very unusual and not the general rule as you are claiming.

But you do raise an interesting point...Are you claiming that AlbqOwl was using the word "any" in whatever legal sense you claim it has? If not, then it's inappropriate to insist on that use.
 
Cephus said:
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.
Click to expand...

My argument has not been for or against unemployment insurance as I do not see that as the topic of this thread.

My argument has not been for or against HOW somebody fires somebody or who is scum or noble in those circumstances.

My argument is the principle that if we are a nation based on a principle of liberty and unalienable rights, so long as he does not violate the rights of others, the employer must be able to use his legally and ethically acquired property and resources in his own interests as he sees fit. And if he sees fit to serve his own interests by firing the employee, so be it. The employee has no right to anything the employer has that the employer and employee did not agree to.

What society does about the employee who has been fired is a totally different subject.
 
pinqy said:
But you're wrong in this case. "Any reason," while it could include a specific reason at a specific time such as "He hit me so I quit right then," , the base reason in that would be quitting due to assault and that reason would be acceptable if seperated from the timing. The timing is seperate from the reason. Yes, there may be some cases where the reason would be so inextricable from the timing they're the same, but that would be very unusual and not the general rule as you are claiming.

But you do raise an interesting point...Are you claiming that AlbqOwl was using the word "any" in whatever legal sense you claim it has? If not, then it's inappropriate to insist on that use.
Click to expand...

I'm entirely fine with employers terminating employees for any reason that is not restricted by law. You cannot fire an employee for refusing to have sex with you. You cannot fire an employee because they are black, because they are female, because they follow a different religion, etc. Any other reason though, including "I don't like you, get out of my business" is fine. However, there are people who assert that employees somehow "deserve" the job, that they're "entitled" to work there and I think that's utterly ridiculous. Nobody deserves a damn thing.
 
AlbqOwl said:
My argument has not been for or against unemployment insurance as I do not see that as the topic of this thread.

My argument has not been for or against HOW somebody fires somebody or who is scum or noble in those circumstances.

My argument is the principle that if we are a nation based on a principle of liberty and unalienable rights, so long as he does not violate the rights of others, the employer must be able to use his legally and ethically acquired property and resources in his own interests as he sees fit. And if he sees fit to serve his own interests by firing the employee, so be it. The employee has no right to anything the employer has that the employer and employee did not agree to.

What society does about the employee who has been fired is a totally different subject.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly what I've been saying. The employee can quit for any reason they want. The employer can fire the employee for any reason they want, excepting for things established as illegal. No harm, no foul.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Jerry said:
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:


******
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:

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.
Click to expand...

Why though? I mean, if you do that stuff, yeah you're conducting terrible business. However, who's business is it in how you conduct business? Doesn't this fall under the same scenario of what you do behind closed doors? Who's business is it? Why is it their business?

I say, if it's your place, you sink or swim, dress accordingly. In this instance, if you're stupid enough to conduct foolish business practices, in 2014, you won't last long.
Catholic church won't marry gay people. Unitarian will. So...tell me who's numbers are growing....it isn't the Catholics. Same goes for business.
If it's yours, you make the calls. Gov has no place in this.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

MichaelJR said:
However, who's business is it in how you conduct business?
Click to expand...
The customer, the investor, the tax-payer who also has a say in the zoning laws your business is located in....how you do business with the community is the community's business.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Jerry said:
...how you do business with the community is the community's business.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't the community respond though? Not the fed?

I figure nothing sorts things out faster than a boycott of business.
 
Cephus said:
Which is exactly what I've been saying. The employee can quit for any reason they want. The employer can fire the employee for any reason they want, excepting for things established as illegal. No harm, no foul.
Click to expand...

I think though that you are still missing my point. Other than honoring what the employer and employee have agreed between them, it should not be illegal to fire somebody for any reason whatsoever.

I am setting aside all concepts of morality, good heartedness, and motive that concern people of character and of course will be a factor in how employers treat their employees. I am focused on one single principle. The employer has the right to use his legally and ethically acquired property as he sees fit, and, other than what is agreed between the employer and employee, the employee should have no right to demand any part of that for any reason. If the law sees it in any other way, the law is wrong.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

MichaelJR said:
Shouldn't the community respond though? Not the fed?

I figure nothing sorts things out faster than a boycott of business.
Click to expand...
The community did respond. The community sued. The Fed didn't act on it's own. This was dropped in the Fed's lap because our constitution places matters which cross state lines there. That was the community response. A boycott is another kind of community response, and may businesses were boycotted, but this issue got so inflamed that it went to Capitol Hill.

If you don't want the community of the US as your customer, you are free to refuse service and take your business to a more agreeable community. Just like no one forces a customer or employee through your door, no one forces you to operate a business. It's all based on mutual consent, and that consent has conditions for both sides. That's what a contract is, including an employment contract.
 
Last edited:
AlbqOwl said:
I think though that you are still missing my point. Other than honoring what the employer and employee have agreed between them, it should not be illegal to fire somebody for any reason whatsoever.

I am setting aside all concepts of morality, good heartedness, and motive that concern people of character and of course will be a factor in how employers treat their employees. I am focused on one single principle. The employer has the right to use his legally and ethically acquired property as he sees fit, and, other than what is agreed between the employer and employee, the employee should have no right to demand any part of that for any reason. If the law sees it in any other way, the law is wrong.
Click to expand...

So your employer ought to be able to arbitrarily terminate you because of your religious beliefs, skin color or gender? I don't buy that at all, sorry. It's one thing if your work performance is poor, it's one thing if they no longer need your services, it's quite another to arbitrarily terminate people because they possess some innate physical characteristic or religious belief.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I think though that you are still missing my point. Other than honoring what the employer and employee have agreed between them, it should not be illegal to fire somebody for any reason whatsoever.

I am setting aside all concepts of morality, good heartedness, and motive that concern people of character and of course will be a factor in how employers treat their employees. I am focused on one single principle. The employer has the right to use his legally and ethically acquired property as he sees fit, and, other than what is agreed between the employer and employee, the employee should have no right to demand any part of that for any reason. If the law sees it in any other way, the law is wrong.
Click to expand...
You also have to be setting aside the principle of fundamental equal treatment before the law. In the US, people have the right to protection against discrimination. This includes almost all aspects of civil society, which includes employment.
 
Cephus said:
So your employer ought to be able to arbitrarily terminate you because of your religious beliefs, skin color or gender? I don't buy that at all, sorry. It's one thing if your work performance is poor, it's one thing if they no longer need your services, it's quite another to arbitrarily terminate people because they possess some innate physical characteristic or religious belief.
Click to expand...

Yes. Your employer should be able to terminate an employee for ANY reason because it is the employer's business, the employer's money, the employer's property, the employer's resources, the employer's risk to be in business at all. It should not be determined by class, race, religion, culture, or whatever that determines which people are given the right to that employer's property and which are not. No employer with any brains is going to admit he fired somebody because that somebody was religious or whatever. And of course a decent person would not fire somebody for no other reason than that. But realistically, if the employer is not allowed to fire somebody he wants to fire, he is going to make that employee's work life pretty miserable.

Far better to set aside the social engineering and just accept that liberty requires the employer to control his own legally and ethically acquired property and do with it whatever he wishes so long as he does not violate anybody else's rights. And nobody should have the right to that property without his consent.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

pinqy said:
My word knowledge and comprehension are quite good, and my degree in Economics is from a decent school. So what's more likely is that you are using overly-broad terms in a non-standard manner applied to situations where they are not normally applied and refuse to explain your reasoning.


But why only in at-will employment states? Why not all states? Why do you think recourse to unemployment compensation is inadequate in at-will states?

In other words you would give unemployment compensation for being fired for misconduct or for simple quitting in at will states but not others. Why???
Click to expand...

Because, at-will employment is codified as law in at-will employment States; any questions?
 
lawboy said:
An employee can not quit for ANY reason, despite the wording, there are limitations, therefore the employer should not be able to fire for ANY reason.
Click to expand...

Why shouldn't employees be able to quit and collect unemployment compensation in any at-will employment State?
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

MaggieD said:
Sans contract, that's the way it is. Works for me.

Edit: The German has reminded me that various state and federal civil rights laws prohibit discrimination. I should say that I agree with these laws. Hard to enforce, but no one should be fired for being gay, pregnant, black, Muslim, etc.
Click to expand...

Maggie, what about a gay person who is not doing the job....... Should and employer be allowed to fire .? Then what if the gay person cries discrimination and the employer did not even know the man was gay?
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

I believe that most of the people who voted no are not employers.....They might vote different if they were.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Navy Pride said:
Maggie, what about a gay person who is not doing the job....... Should and employer be allowed to fire .? Then what if the gay person cries discrimination and the employer did not even know the man was gay?
Click to expand...

I'd guess anyone with over 50 employees knows they simply must document (or be able to do so in hindsight) poor performance. Those who don't have those policies in place are, in my opinion, playing with fire...even if they only have three employees.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

danielpalos said:
Because, at-will employment is codified as law in at-will employment States; any questions?
Click to expand...

Yes. How does that make a difference for someone who quits or is fired for misconduct? For those cases unemployment benefits are denied in all states and at-will or not is irrelevant.

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

MaggieD said:
I'd guess anyone with over 50 employees knows they simply must document (or be able to do so in hindsight) poor performance. Those who don't have those policies in place are, in my opinion, playing with fire...even if they only have three employees.
Click to expand...

Of course but you do know that if a slacker gay employee is fired the first thing they are going to cry is they were fired because they were gay.

I worked for the Gov. for 20 years and we had a situation where a black employee when on travel was using the Gov. credit card for personal purchases and that is fraud a felony. When management found they were so scared to fire him that they sent him to a weeks school on how to manage your credit card.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

MaggieD said:
I'd guess anyone with over 50 employees knows they simply must document (or be able to do so in hindsight) poor performance. Those who don't have those policies in place are, in my opinion, playing with fire...even if they only have three employees.
Click to expand...

The reality of what the law requires simply sidesteps the principle of unalienable rights however. The Founders never intended that the federal government have any say in what any person did with his/her own property so long as the unalienable rights of somebody else were not violated. And they, to a man, supported the principle of property, legally and ethically acquired, as being an unalienable right to hold and use in one's own interest.

How the various states and counties and local communities organize their policies for their jurisdictions is an entirely different matter. But any employer should have the right to fire an employee at will for any reason. I would have no problem with laws that prevented that employer from sabotaging the efforts of the employee to be hired by somebody else though unless the employee had performed substandard work or committed some serious job related offense that the new boss should know about.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

AlbqOwl said:
The reality of what the law requires simply sidesteps the principle of unalienable rights however.
Click to expand...

There's your problem, there's no such thing as an inalienable right.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Navy Pride said:
Of course but you do know that if a slacker gay employee is fired the first thing they are going to cry is they were fired because they were gay.

I worked for the Gov. for 20 years and we had a situation where a black employee when on travel was using the Gov. credit card for personal purchases and that is fraud a felony. When management found they were so scared to fire him that they sent him to a weeks school on how to manage your credit card.
Click to expand...

Hopefully, we aren't operating from that position of weakness any longer. That situation may have been caused more by perceived political correctness of government than the private sector.

AlbqOwl said:
The reality of what the law requires simply sidesteps the principle of unalienable rights however. The Founders never intended that the federal government have any say in what any person did with his/her own property so long as the unalienable rights of somebody else were not violated. And they, to a man, supported the principle of property, legally and ethically acquired, as being an unalienable right to hold and use in one's own interest.

How the various states and counties and local communities organize their policies for their jurisdictions is an entirely different matter. But any employer should have the right to fire an employee at will for any reason. I would have no problem with laws that prevented that employer from sabotaging the efforts of the employee to be hired by somebody else though unless the employee had performed substandard work or committed some serious job related offense that the new boss should know about.
Click to expand...

I do not think that someone should be able to be fired simply because his employer found out he was gay. Or because he celebrates Kwanza. Personally, I think that would be a step backwards in our morality.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Cephus said:
There's your problem, there's no such thing as an inalienable right.
Click to expand...

Well, that's certainly what the socialists, Marxists, fascists, and dictators believe--they all support the concept of a monarch or despot or other totalitarian authority assigning the rights the people will have. And sadly, those of us who believe that unalienable rights precede government seem to be helpless to stop them lately.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

AlbqOwl said:
Well, that's certainly what the socialists, Marxists, fascists, and dictators believe--they all support the concept of a monarch or despot or other totalitarian authority assigning the rights the people will have. And sadly, those of us who believe that unalienable rights precede government seem to be helpless to stop them lately.
Click to expand...

I don't care what you believe, I care what you can prove. Too bad you can't actually demonstrate that your beliefs are factually true. You can just make excuses.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

MaggieD said:
Hopefully, we aren't operating from that position of weakness any longer. That situation may have been caused more by perceived political correctness of government than the private sector.

I do not think that someone should be able to be fired simply because his employer found out he was gay. Or because he celebrates Kwanza. Personally, I think that would be a step backwards in our morality.
Click to expand...

So you believe that the government owns all property and rights and it is right that government can assign us the rights we will have and dictate to us how we must use the property that we legally and lawfully acquired, meaning that we do not actually own it at all?

You see, to exercise the kind of morality you are promoting here, you must strip away the rights from all people in order to distribute the benevolence that you believe is the moral way.

What is lawful to do is not always right to do. And in order to have liberty, we have to allow people to be wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom