• 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

Cephus said:
There's your problem, there's no such thing as an inalienable right.
Click to expand...
Way I look at it, there might be, but we have no way to prove it one way or another so it's kinda pointless.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

The Mark said:
Way I look at it, there might be, but we have no way to prove it one way or another so it's kinda pointless.
Click to expand...

If you cannot prove one way or the other, then you have no reasonable conclusion that there is. The libertarian-types keep asserting that there is something out there that they cannot demonstrate, yet their entire philosophy is based upon it's existence. It's little more than a religious belief. Therefore, it's not worthy of taking seriously.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Cephus said:
If you cannot prove one way or the other, then you have no reasonable conclusion that there is. The libertarian-types keep asserting that there is something out there that they cannot demonstrate, yet their entire philosophy is based upon it's existence. It's little more than a religious belief. Therefore, it's not worthy of taking seriously.
Click to expand...
The philosophy itself is not necessarily a bad thing.

It would be comforting if inalienable rights actually existed...but I'm not sure they do. However, the possibility that they do exist is there, nonetheless.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

AlbqOwl said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm glad for the laws that allow employees to sue when they have been discriminating against in their workplace for reasons that are protected by the various civil rights laws in this country. Freedom is a wonderful thing. Yet if I get MY freedom by walking on people who happen to be the wrong color, worship the wrong god, whatever? I'll gladly give up some.
 
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...

A gay person not doing the job should be fired the same as any straight person not doing the job. If the employer has a documented basis for the firing, then it shouldn't matter if the person tries to claim an improper basis for the firing. That being said, an employer should not be able to fire someone just because they find out that the person is gay. That would be just as wrong.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

The Mark said:
The philosophy itself is not necessarily a bad thing.

It would be comforting if inalienable rights actually existed...but I'm not sure they do. However, the possibility that they do exist is there, nonetheless.
Click to expand...

I don't care if it's a good thing or a bad thing, I care if it's a true thing. Because something is comforting doesn't make it true. I don't see where there is a single logical justification for thinking that natural rights or the like exist, it's just wishful thinking. The reality is, from every shred of evidence we have, humans invent rights.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Cephus said:
I don't care if it's a good thing or a bad thing, I care if it's a true thing. Because something is comforting doesn't make it true. I don't see where there is a single logical justification for thinking that natural rights or the like exist, it's just wishful thinking. The reality is, from every shred of evidence we have, humans invent rights.
Click to expand...
I don't think a philosophy can really be true or false - it just is. Whether you agree or not is immaterial to that.

Even if said philosophy is wrong about inalienable rights, the idea that they exist goes a long way towards protecting them from infringement, and thus the philosophy, however misguided, is a good thing - so long as the rights are not unreasonable.

Basically, it doesn't really matter whether a right is inalienable or not, since we cannot prove such a claim - only that enough people BELIEVE it is, and protect it.

Then, in effect, it becomes inalienable.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

The Mark said:
I don't think a philosophy can really be true or false - it just is. Whether you agree or not is immaterial to that.

Even if said philosophy is wrong about inalienable rights, the idea that they exist goes a long way towards protecting them from infringement, and thus the philosophy, however misguided, is a good thing - so long as the rights are not unreasonable.

Basically, it doesn't really matter whether a right is inalienable or not, since we cannot prove such a claim - only that enough people BELIEVE it is, and protect it.

Then, in effect, it becomes inalienable.
Click to expand...

It's only inalienable when and where it is protected though. However, lots of these crazy libertarians think that there are these magical rights that just float around in the ether and automatically apply to everyone, everywhere, just because they say so. That's demonstrably not so and a lot of people take modern philosophical thought far too seriously, the overwhelming majority of it is just mental masturbation, it doesn't actually mean anything because it has no basis in demonstrable reality at all. It's just assertions, blind, emotional and without the slightest rational support. They start with pie-in-the-sky assertions that don't really mean anything, then they lead straight into magical wishful thinking with no intellectual justification at all.

So no, I don't take these claims seriously, even though believers expect everyone to just roll over and take them at their word. No thanks.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Cephus said:
It's only inalienable when and where it is protected though. However, lots of these crazy libertarians think that there are these magical rights that just float around in the ether and automatically apply to everyone, everywhere, just because they say so. That's demonstrably not so and a lot of people take modern philosophical thought far too seriously, the overwhelming majority of it is just mental masturbation, it doesn't actually mean anything because it has no basis in demonstrable reality at all. It's just assertions, blind, emotional and without the slightest rational support. They start with pie-in-the-sky assertions that don't really mean anything, then they lead straight into magical wishful thinking with no intellectual justification at all.

So no, I don't take these claims seriously, even though believers expect everyone to just roll over and take them at their word. No thanks.
Click to expand...
I think that if something (such as a right) were truly inalienable, any attempt to violate/change it would fail.

The rights that are often called inalienable are actually more along the lines of "what a human usually fights to protect" (life, liberty, etc.).
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Would we need as much public sector intervention in private sector markets if labor had recourse to unemployment compensation on an at-will basis?
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

danielpalos said:
Would we need as much public sector intervention in private sector markets if labor had recourse to unemployment compensation on an at-will basis?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure we need public sector intervention as it currently exists at all. I always get this impression that we're fixing stuff that is not broken and ignoring the real problems.

But that's politics I suppose.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

The Mark said:
I'm not sure we need public sector intervention as it currently exists at all. I always get this impression that we're fixing stuff that is not broken and ignoring the real problems.

But that's politics I suppose.
Click to expand...

Like what? With recourse to unemployment compensation, simply for being unemployed, labor could pursue other opportunity costs than directly competing in the market for labor. Why not correct for laissez-faire Capitalism's laziness regarding achieving full employment of resources in the market for labor though existing infrastructure? In this manner, Socialism could bailout Capitalism (like usual) through central planning, income transfers, and an official Mint at our disposal under our form of Capitalism where it only takes money to make more money.

Would we need more regulation or less regulation if only the "efficient" labor market participants compete to command an efficiency and market based wage in the market for labor?
 
Last edited:
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

The Mark said:
I think that if something (such as a right) were truly inalienable, any attempt to violate/change it would fail.

The rights that are often called inalienable are actually more along the lines of "what a human usually fights to protect" (life, liberty, etc.).
Click to expand...

That's clearly not the case though since any supposed right that is proposed can be easily violated. If a right to life were inviolable, I couldn't put a gun to your head and pull the trigger. Clearly that's wrong.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Under our form of capitalism, the right prefers to deny and disparage the least wealthy in favor of the wealthiest.
 
danielpalos said:
Why shouldn't employees be able to quit and collect unemployment compensation in any at-will employment State?
Click to expand...

They can in many circumstances. There's no difference in collecting UI benefits between at will and not at will. At will has no impact on benefits, the same general rules apply.
 
pinqy said:
They can in many circumstances. There's no difference in collecting UI benefits between at will and not at will. At will has no impact on benefits, the same general rules apply.
Click to expand...

You actually can't collect benefits unless you were terminated through no fault of your own. You cannot violate company policy, be terminated for cause and still collect unemployment.
 
Cephus said:
You actually can't collect benefits unless you were terminated through no fault of your own. You cannot violate company policy, be terminated for cause and still collect unemployment.
Click to expand...
There are circumstances where you can quit and be eligible
Benefits Eligibility | Virginia Employment Commission
"You will be disqualified if the deputy determines that you quit your job without good cause, or you were fired from your job for misconduct in connection with your work."
This implies that you are not disqualified if you quit for good cause.
 
pinqy said:
There are circumstances where you can quit and be eligible
Benefits Eligibility | Virginia Employment Commission
"You will be disqualified if the deputy determines that you quit your job without good cause, or you were fired from your job for misconduct in connection with your work."
This implies that you are not disqualified if you quit for good cause.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what good cause might be in that case. If you quit because you were being harassed or discriminated against, I might be able to see that, but I would assume you'd be sitting on a sizable lawsuit that would eliminate your need for unemployment.
 
Cephus said:
I'm not sure what good cause might be in that case. If you quit because you were being harassed or discriminated against, I might be able to see that, but I would assume you'd be sitting on a sizable lawsuit that would eliminate your need for unemployment.
Click to expand...

Generally speaking, "good cause" would be discrimination or harassment or other circumstances where the employee believes s/he cannot adequately resolve a situation. You don't have to prove discrimination, but it does h a 've to be reasonable.
 
pinqy said:
They can in many circumstances. There's no difference in collecting UI benefits between at will and not at will. At will has no impact on benefits, the same general rules apply.
Click to expand...

Why don't we measure unemployment by the amount of people on unemployment compensation?
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Cephus said:
That's clearly not the case though since any supposed right that is proposed can be easily violated. If a right to life were inviolable, I couldn't put a gun to your head and pull the trigger. Clearly that's wrong.
Click to expand...
That's what I'm saying though - a truly inalienable right could not actually be violated whatever happened.

Perhaps the only one that comes close would be "freedom of thought" or something - until someone develops mind control or the like.
 
danielpalos said:
Why don't we measure unemployment by the amount of people on unemployment compensation?
Click to expand...

Because not everyone is eligible, especially new entrants and re-entrants. But also voluntary quits, and those fired for misconduct, or those who hand' t worked at a job long enough.
 
Isn't that the point? There shouldn't be any denial or disparagement of those civil rights in any at-will employment State since an employee is equally free to quit on an at-will basis without legal repercussion.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

The Mark said:
That's what I'm saying though - a truly inalienable right could not actually be violated whatever happened.

Perhaps the only one that comes close would be "freedom of thought" or something - until someone develops mind control or the like.
Click to expand...

Then there's no such thing as a truly inalienable right and people ought to stop pretending there are and get on with reality.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

I think humanity's history with discrimination of pretty much everyone makes it necessary for there to be laws which protect citizens of a state against it. While I have no problem with employees firing people who do not conform with malleable aesthetics. Those characteristics which can't be changed or would cause undue hardship on the individual if he/she was asked to change should be protected (this involves belief in X god, political affiliation etc).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom