Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish
Forget it.
Deserve? Of course. Should companies be legally forced to comply? No.
If the employees don't like it...quit.
An employer should be able to fire ANY employee for ANY reason...anything.
The employee doesn't like the Dallas Cowboys, they won't have sex with them, their shoe size, they complained about health conditions, their height, their religious beliefs, their sex, the way they part their hair...ANYTHING.
If employees can quit for any reason, private employers should be able to fire for any reason...they don't owe anyone a job.
Everyone misses a point here or there. If you figure out what your question is, please ask again, I must have missed it.
So you do not believe business hiring/firing processes should be regulated. Good. Please tell me about the good results of that path. I will list the perceived cons.
If safety isn't legally required, you empower unions to completely shut down work because companies avoid safety as a non-required expense. The end result is where we are now. Unless you want to include anti-union law. In that case you are giving up people's lives because if nobody follows safety rules people take the jobs because safe jobs are unavailable and they want food.
You would promote the spread of STDs by making it so people have to sex on demand with their employer and various clients, you further exacerbate this by not requiring safety and allowing employees to be fired as a result of unsafe actions on the part of their employer. This results in unemployed/unemployable sick (and injured from previous paragraph).
What do poor sick people do? They seek medical help. These broke sick people would destroy the current medical system. I am going to go out on a limb, and assume you are against providing medical care to those who can't afford it.
What do poor, sick people, who can't get medical care do?
Three paths. The first is violence against their former employers, and individuals contributing to their current situation. This will be the least likely result.
Lawsuits are likely to occur. Employers would be liable for damages to their employees. Under the current system, employers would go bankrupt/be arrested for running prostitution rings and gross negligence until the remainder is effectively following the rules currently in place. However, this is more difficult, because there will be no catalog of what you have to do and what can get you in serious legal trouble.
If you undo those rules (basically dismiss every tort case until it is clear there is no legal recourse and legalize prostitution without regulation) as well, the vast majority of those damaged, unemployable people will suffer horribly and die. The humanitarian outcry will result in public outrage. Likely result is the government will pass safety laws and some level of regulation on what employers can and cannot do.
Second point- towards anti-discrimination. Get rid of those rules and minorities end up not earning what their work is worth on the basis that they don't fit into a niche group (mostly white males but now there are regions/professions that may have a different demo that is the majority who would force other demographics out). Often, they will just work the less educated job because the expense required to obtain required qualifications isn't worth it if you can't earn more than you would serving fries. The only reason to like this situation would be that you are on the privileged side of this equation, dislike the idea of competition with someone of equal abilities, and will use any sort of underhanded method achievable to prevent people who are different from you obtaining the same things you have. Too bad the constitution is in your way, right?