Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish[W:126]

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

scatt said:

So maximizing profit is not the only concern?

Click to expand...

Are you unable to answer my question?

AlbqOwl said:

Sorry but I said absolutely nothing about people in the discussion of property. That YOU interpreted property as being people says a lot, however. Again you totally missed the point. But oh well. I am beginning to see that as your stock in trade here and rather suspect you do it deliberately. I won't respond further if you insist on continuing to twist what I post to serve your own agenda. Again I wish you a good day.

Click to expand...

But you did. You said employers should be able to do whatever they wish with their "property and possessions". That's exactly what you said. I really don't see why you are acting indignant because of your own words.

You want employers to control their employees like they are their possessions, free to hire and fire absent any regulation by the government. That's exactly what you said and it's exactly what you've been arguing.

DA60 said:

And finally, what good does the law do here?

Click to expand...

Protects employees and their families.

Would you want to work for a guy that wants you to sleep with him and expects you to do so for the pay you are receiving...even though you don't want to?

I certainly wouldn't.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter, you should never have to choose between your sexual dignity and providing for your family.

If it sounds like I've said this before, it's because I have...multiple times.

But you want a law that allows her to stay in that ridiculous job?

Click to expand...

I want a law which prevents the employee from ever being put in a situation where she has to choose.

Besides, if he wants her gone, he will just makeup an excuse to fire her

Click to expand...

Circular argument. Remember the point of this thread and the position I'm arguing.

It would be far better for her just to be fired because she would not sleep with him and use that as the official reason.

Click to expand...

Or she could not be fired at all and/or be able to sue her employer for being fired for refusing sex and get paid far more than she would have working there.

It will tell other potential bosses 'hands off' and it will warn other candidates what the guy really wants.

Click to expand...

No it won't. Very few people know when they apply for a job why the job is available.

Your entire logic is unrealistic.

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

Slyfox696 said:

Are you unable to answer my question?

But you did. You said employers should be able to do whatever they wish with their "property and possessions". That's exactly what you said. I really don't see why you are acting indignant because of your own words.

You want employers to control their employees like they are their possessions, free to hire and fire absent any regulation by the government. That's exactly what you said and it's exactly what you've been arguing.
Protects employees and their families.

It doesn't matter, you should never have to choose between your sexual dignity and providing for your family.

If it sounds like I've said this before, it's because I have...multiple times.

I want a law which prevents the employee from ever being put in a situation where she has to choose.

Circular argument. Remember the point of this thread and the position I'm arguing.

Or she could not be fired at all and/or be able to sue her employer for being fired for refusing sex and get paid far more than she would have working there.

No it won't. Very few people know when they apply for a job why the job is available.

Your entire logic is unrealistic.

Click to expand...

Whatever pal, I didn't even bother to read your reply...I am tired of wasting time on you. You don't honestly debate, you just virtually ignore what people type if you don't like it and say the same thing over and over.

People like you want a law that forces people to employ people they don't want, so that these employee's can do jobs they don't like...it's moronic....and it's wrong.

Private companies are PRIVATE. The government has no business telling them who they can employ.

You don't agree...guess how much I care?

And yes, the question is rhetorical...because I don't even care much what your guess is.

We are done on this.

Good day.

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

I believe labor should be able to apply for unemployment compensation just because they don't like a job and don't want to have to lie to an employer about it nor waste that employer's time and money just because labor may need money in our Institution of money based markets and form of Capitalism.

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

Slyfox696 said:

Are you unable to answer my question?

But you did. You said employers should be able to do whatever they wish with their "property and possessions". That's exactly what you said. I really don't see why you are acting indignant because of your own words.

You want employers to control their employees like they are their possessions, free to hire and fire absent any regulation by the government. That's exactly what you said and it's exactly what you've been arguing.
Protects employees and their families.

Click to expand...

Sorry but that is not what I have said nor what I have been arguing and it is entirely disingenuous to accuse me of that. I have been very clear that the employer has absolutely no right to anything the employee has, including his/her labor, other than what is agreed between the employer and employee. What part of 'agreed' do you not understand? How can I put the term 'agreement' into words small enough to understand that it implies voluntary consent?

Nor does the employee have any right of any kind to what the employer has lawfully and ethically acquired other than what is agreed between the employer and employee.

My argument is that both have unalienable rights that neither should be able to infringe. If there is liberty, then the employee can quit his/her job at any time that he/she wants. And the employer can fire an employee any time that he/she wants. Any other policy is involuntary servitude.

danielpalos said:

Why shouldn't employees be able to quit and collect unemployment compensation in any at-will employment State?

Click to expand...

An employee can quit and still be eligible for unemployment, but only in certain fact specific cases.

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

DA60 said:

Private companies are PRIVATE. The government has no business telling them who they can employ.

Click to expand...

With that philosophy we go back to the deep dark South where they had "Colored drinking fountain", and "White drinking fountain". There is no place in a civilized society for bigotry and hatred that like, period.

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...

Do you understand the burden of proof is on the Plaintiff?

lawboy said:

An employee can quit and still be eligible for unemployment, but only in certain fact specific cases.

Click to expand...

Why should only labor suffer any legal repercussions by quiting and applying for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in any at-will employment State?

danielpalos said:

Why should only labor suffer any legal repercussions by quiting and applying for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in any at-will employment State?

Click to expand...

Ever hear of a "Constructive discharge"?

The employment relationship is at-will. No for-cause criteria should be admissible as evidence in an at-will employment relationship.

danielpalos said:

The employment relationship is at-will. No for-cause criteria should be admissible as evidence in an at-will employment relationship.

Click to expand...

Does not matter.

IF an employer transfers you to a facility 100 miles away, you do not have to accept that position, and if you get fired, you are eligible for unemployment, that is not what I mean by CD though, but another example.

lawboy said:

Does not matter.

IF an employer transfers you to a facility 100 miles away, you do not have to accept that position, and if you get fired, you are eligible for unemployment, that is not what I mean by CD though, but another example.

Click to expand...

Why do you believe adherence to the Rule of enumerated law should not matter? Is it due to income under our form of Capitalism?

danielpalos said:

Why do you believe adherence to the Rule of enumerated law should not matter? Is it due to income under our form of Capitalism?

Click to expand...

I don't understand this?

We have laws and a republican form of Government with an emphasis on equality before the law. Why are only the least wealthy being denied and disparaged in their enumerated civil rights on an Institutional basis in our republic?

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

lawboy said:

With that philosophy we go back to the deep dark South where they had "Colored drinking fountain", and "White drinking fountain". There is no place in a civilized society for bigotry and hatred that like, period.

Click to expand...

What do separate drinking fountains have to do with a person's right to control his own lawfully and ethically acquired money, property, and/or other resources? What gives an employee any right to any part of what his employer owns other than what is agreed between the employer and employee?

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

AlbqOwl said:

What do separate drinking fountains have to do with a person's right to control his own lawfully and ethically acquired money, property, and/or other resources? What gives an employee any right to any part of what his employer owns other than what is agreed between the employer and employee?

Click to expand...

The law.

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

AlbqOwl said:

What do separate drinking fountains have to do with a person's right to control his own lawfully and ethically acquired money, property, and/or other resources? What gives an employee any right to any part of what his employer owns other than what is agreed between the employer and employee?

Click to expand...

Nothing; I subscribe to a federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will.

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

lawboy said:

With that philosophy we go back to the deep dark South where they had "Colored drinking fountain", and "White drinking fountain". There is no place in a civilized society for bigotry and hatred that like, period.

Click to expand...

It exists - trying to force it under the rug is childish.

I want bigots out in the open...for all to see.

I want the local community knowing that a racist club owner fired a guy because he was 'black'...so that community can economically boycott that club.

If you force him to keep 'blacks' (when he secretly hates them) all you do is force that racism underground...where it often times festers and grows.


But all that is secondary.

These businesses are private. If a pathetic racist pig wants to only hire one 'race' - that should be completely up to him.

And NO WHERE (to my knowledge) in the Constitution does it say otherwise.

Freedom of choice. Freedom of expression.

You clearly only like freedom of expression when it pleases you.

If it doesn't - you are fine with tossing those rights out the window.

I am not.

Freedom is an absolute...and I am not prepared to sacrifice it just because I find many of these expressions disgusting (like only hiring based on race or sex).


Show me exactly where it says in the Constitution that the state has the right to tell private business owners who they can and cannot employ (outside of criminals)?

If you cannot - then your argument means NOTHING to me.

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...

Yes but what if the incompetent employee is gay and claims that is why he was fired?

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

Navy Pride said:

Yes but what if the incompetent employee is gay and claims that is why he was fired?

Click to expand...

And what if the employee is black and claims racism when he is fired?

Dude these things happen less frequently than your right wing nightmares tell you they do.

If poor performance is documented well by the employer there's no way an allegation like that sticks.

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

Any form of Jim Crow is merely Socialism bailing out alleged Capitalists.

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

Navy Pride said:

Yes but what if the incompetent employee is gay and claims that is why he was fired?

Click to expand...

Navy, are you not aware that it is the plaintiff's responsibility to prove it?

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...

Watch "Philadelphia" staring Hanks and Washington...

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

DA60 said:

you just virtually ignore what people type if you don't like it and say the same thing over and over.

Click to expand...

This is incredibly rich, considering I've had to repeat myself only because you don't bother to actually understand what I say.

People like you want a law that forces people to employ people they don't want

Click to expand...

Never did I say such a thing. Great strawman.

so that these employee's can do jobs they don't like

Click to expand...

Who said the employee doesn't like the job? I just said they shouldn't have to be put into a situation where they have to choose between dignity and their family.

Once more, it appears as if you don't take the time to actually read what is said.

Private companies are PRIVATE.

Click to expand...

Benefiting from PUBLIC taxes, as I've already noted.

The government has no business telling them who they can employ.

Click to expand...

The government isn't telling them they HAVE to employ people...only that you treat them fairly if you do.

You don't agree...guess how much I care?

Click to expand...

Enough to deliberately misinterpret what I've said multiples times and post in response to the blatant misinterpretation you conceived?

We are done on this.

Good day.

Click to expand...

We can be done the moment you quit replying. It won't change the fact you've been wrong multiples times about my position, nor does it change the fact you seem to think it should be legally okay to treat women as sexual objects.

AlbqOwl said:

Sorry but that is not what I have said nor what I have been arguing and it is entirely disingenuous to accuse me of that.

Click to expand...

It's exactly what you said and what's telling is you have not even attempted to clarify what you said.

I have been very clear that the employer has absolutely no right to anything the employee has, including his/her labor, other than what is agreed between the employer and employee. What part of 'agreed' do you not understand? How can I put the term 'agreement' into words small enough to understand that it implies voluntary consent?

Click to expand...

So...if the employee doesn't agree to be terminated....

I'm sorry, you gave yourself away.

Nor does the employee have any right of any kind to what the employer has lawfully

Click to expand...

No one is forcing the employer to pay an employee anything. All I'm saying is the employer shouldn't have the right to treat employees unfairly. That doesn't mean the employee should be able to never come to work, be a terrible employee and still get paid. It just means the employer shouldn't be able to fire someone because the employee refuses to do something illegal or reprehensible.

And the employer can fire an employee any time that he/she wants. Any other policy is involuntary servitude.

Click to expand...

Nonsense, because laws protecting the employee do not constitute involuntary servitude. No one is forcing the employer to hire an employee. An employer hires someone with the understanding certain laws protects the rights of the employee.

You are wrong in just about every way, even within the context of your own arguments.

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

Slyfox696 said:

This is incredibly rich, considering I've had to repeat myself only because you don't bother to actually understand what I say.

Never did I say such a thing. Great strawman.

Who said the employee doesn't like the job? I just said they shouldn't have to be put into a situation where they have to choose between dignity and their family.

Once more, it appears as if you don't take the time to actually read what is said.

Benefiting from PUBLIC taxes, as I've already noted.

The government isn't telling them they HAVE to employ people...only that you treat them fairly if you do.

Enough to deliberately misinterpret what I've said multiples times and post in response to the blatant misinterpretation you conceived?


We can be done the moment you quit replying. It won't change the fact you've been wrong multiples times about my position, nor does it change the fact you seem to think it should be legally okay to treat women as sexual objects.
It's exactly what you said and what's telling is you have not even attempted to clarify what you said.

So...if the employee doesn't agree to be terminated....

I'm sorry, you gave yourself away.

No one is forcing the employer to pay an employee anything. All I'm saying is the employer shouldn't have the right to treat employees unfairly. That doesn't mean the employee should be able to never come to work, be a terrible employee and still get paid. It just means the employer shouldn't be able to fire someone because the employee refuses to do something illegal or reprehensible.

Nonsense, because laws protecting the employee do not constitute involuntary servitude. No one is forcing the employer to hire an employee. An employer hires someone with the understanding certain laws protects the rights of the employee.

You are wrong in just about every way, even within the context of your own arguments.

Click to expand...

Your opinion is noted. It's really wierd, but it is noted.