• 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!

Which of the following hypothetical public employees should be fired?

Select all that apply


  • Total voters
    54

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
32,333
Reaction score
22,551
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
OK, this is a multiple choice, so select all that you feel applies. Which of the hypothetical public employees should be fire or moved to a different position for not doing their job?
 
Yeh, this doesn't have any affect on religious freedom at all. :roll:

I see states stopping the marriage licence business all together over this.
 
They should all be fired... don't do a job you don't believe in...

I don't think a priest that is qualified to marry people should be forced to marry a gay couple though...
 
The clerk should not be factoring in religion. The clerk should not know the persons religion. If your religion prevents you from doing a job, why would you apply for that job?
 
They should all be fired... don't do a job you don't believe in...

I don't think a priest that is qualified to marry people should be forced to marry a gay couple though...

That would never happen in the United States. Marriage law only relates to the state's role in it. Churches have always had the right to marry who they chose to. For example, if you are Catholic and are divorced, the church will not recognize your second marriage even though the state does.
 
The clerk should not be factoring in religion. The clerk should not know the persons religion. If your religion prevents you from doing a job, why would you apply for that job?

I don't know, I suppose some fundamentalists have a very weak work ethic and thus are looking for any excuse not to do the job they are paid to do. ;)
 
None of the above if there is someone else who can cover for him/her. If he/she is the ultimate decision maker than I think he/she should be removed or transferred.

I have 10 people who work for me and there have been times and different reasons that they can't/won't work with a customer. I get someone else to cover. It isn't a big deal.
 
OK, this is a multiple choice, so select all that you feel applies. Which of the hypothetical public employees should be fire or moved to a different position for not doing their job?

I can't see the difference between any of those options. Clearly the employee in each of those scenarios entered into their position being unprepared to fulfill the duties of his job.
 
None of the above if there is someone else who can cover for him/her. If he/she is the ultimate decision maker than I think he/she should be removed or transferred.

I have 10 people who work for me and there have been times and different reasons that they can't/won't work with a customer. I get someone else to cover. It isn't a big deal.

That is a bit different though. Yes, sometimes a customer can be difficult and its best to get someone else to deal with them. However, in the cases specified in the poll you have people that are refusing to do their job. Its not a case of a difficult customer, but rather a difficult employee. Every job I ever had you did what you did whatever your position entailed and if you didn't, you found another job.
 
That is a bit different though. Yes, sometimes a customer can be difficult and its best to get someone else to deal with them. However, in the cases specified in the poll you have people that are refusing to do their job. Its not a case of a difficult customer, but rather a difficult employee. Every job I ever had you did what you did whatever your position entailed and if you didn't, you found another job.

How is it different? I'm the manager, the customer expects x service, and it's my right to decide which employee fulfills the customer needs. I didn't say anything about a difficult customer.

Unless "being the only person in the division to give out slaughterhouse licenses" is clearly stated in the job description, any smart and reasonable manager will get someone else to do it. Why would you force a good employee to do something that you know will upset him?
 
A poultry processing plant contracted with my last employer for a large consulting/Six Sigma project. It was my account in my territory. I refused to go anywhere near the place. My manager gave the account to another rep. The customer never knew. The other rep was perfectly capable of handling the work. Where is the problem?
 
How is it different? I'm the manager, the customer expects x service, and it's my right to decide which employee fulfills the customer needs. I didn't say anything about a difficult customer.

Unless "being the only person in the division to give out slaughterhouse licenses" is clearly stated in the job description, any smart and reasonable manager will get someone else to do it. Why would you force a good employee to do something that you know will upset him?

It is their job, that's why. If you are a Muslim and you believe any type of alcohol consumption is a sin, then don't get a job as a clerk working for the county department that issues liquor licenses. Similarly, if you are a fundamentalist Christian that believes same sex marriage is a sin, then don't work for the county clerk's office where you will be required to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. In both cases we are talking about a duty that is fundamental to their job.
 
A poultry processing plant contracted with my last employer for a large consulting/Six Sigma project. It was my account in my territory. I refused to go anywhere near the place. My manager gave the account to another rep. The customer never knew. The other rep was perfectly capable of handling the work. Where is the problem?

That is apples and oranges. You are comparing a non-compete issue with the refusal to do something that is fundamental to your job.
 
Every job I ever had you did what you did whatever your position entailed and if you didn't, you found another job.

I think that's a pretty good rule of thumb, and maybe if you're employed in a capacity where you're easily replaced you feel that it's a necessity you'd toe any line, but I wouldn't consider it to be universal.

I've refused to work with clients, and I've had clients refuse to work with me.

In both cases we're talking about rare instances but when they pop up it all comes down to pretty basic value judgements.

If I'm an above average contributor who has received glowing reviews from clients, in a job that requires specialized industry and corporate knowledge, and I tend to get along well within the corporate culture, is it REALLY worth it to go through the time, effort, and expense to fire and replace me?

Over something like this?

Maybe it is, and if you're looking for a reason to let someone go this could certainly present a manager with a lucky opportunity to do so.

But if you're talking about a strong member of a team with just this one "weakness" it seems to me that finding a work-around would be the best course of action.
 
It is their job, that's why. If you are a Muslim and you believe any type of alcohol consumption is a sin, then don't get a job as a clerk working for the county department that issues liquor licenses. Similarly, if you are a fundamentalist Christian that believes same sex marriage is a sin, then don't work for the county clerk's office where you will be required to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. In both cases we are talking about a duty that is fundamental to their job.

It's their job, says who? The department is set up to give out licenses. It isn't up to you to decide which employee provides you with your license. It's up to his/her manager.
 
That is apples and oranges. You are comparing a non-compete issue with the refusal to do something that is fundamental to your job.

It isn't apples to oranges. It's the same thing. 100%. You apparently can't see it.

It isn't your call who does what. Why would you want to force an employee to do something he/she doesn't want to do?
 
It's their job, says who? The department is set up to give out licenses. It isn't up to you to decide which employee provides you with your license. It's up to his/her manager.

Ok, what if its a small county then and there is one clerk?

Moreover, would you hold the same opinion if a clerk refused to issue drivers licenses to women or refused to issue marriage licenses to interracial couples? What would be the difference?
 
It's their job, says who? The department is set up to give out licenses. It isn't up to you to decide which employee provides you with your license. It's up to his/her manager.

To be fair, and you'll see above that I'm agreeing with you in principal, in most municipalities it's the town clerk's job to process the marriage license and in most municipalities I've lived in there is a (singular) town clerk.

If the only option for the town is to either replace the clerk or undertake the expense to hire an assistant with no religious objections to anything (assuming that doing so is even financially feasible) I think you have to fire and replace the clerk.

If there is a stable of assistant clerks and the head clerk can farm out the work based on each subordinate's personal preferences then, sure, as you say, it is his or her right as the manager to do so.

But if the manager is the manager is the assistant, is the admin, is the intern....

And you're the mayor...

You gotta ****can the clerk and find someone who will do the job you need done.
 
I think that's a pretty good rule of thumb, and maybe if you're employed in a capacity where you're easily replaced you feel that it's a necessity you'd toe any line, but I wouldn't consider it to be universal.

I've refused to work with clients, and I've had clients refuse to work with me.

In both cases we're talking about rare instances but when they pop up it all comes down to pretty basic value judgements.

If I'm an above average contributor who has received glowing reviews from clients, in a job that requires specialized industry and corporate knowledge, and I tend to get along well within the corporate culture, is it REALLY worth it to go through the time, effort, and expense to fire and replace me?

Over something like this?

Maybe it is, and if you're looking for a reason to let someone go this could certainly present a manager with a lucky opportunity to do so.

But if you're talking about a strong member of a team with just this one "weakness" it seems to me that finding a work-around would be the best course of action.

We are talking about a low level clerk you are standing in line at a county or city office to deal with.
 
We are talking about a low level clerk you are standing in line at a county or city office to deal with.

Even at that level you'd need to have institutional knowledge of how things are done, a reasonable degree of proficiency in office work, you'd need to be a team player with a personality that fits the workplace culture, maybe you've got some political connections and/or know where some bodies are buried.

We're not talking about a fry chef or the guy who puts "Peg A" in to "Slot B" on the assembly line.

I can see where both of you guys are coming from.

The bottom line has to be, "What's in the best interest of this office?"

I can see where there would be situations where you'd fire and replace the offender, and I can also see where there'd be situations where you'd just do some of that managing that you're getting paid to do.

I don't really think there's one, simple, clear cut answer to this question.

Unless you're approaching it from a strictly ideological perspective.
 
OK, this is a multiple choice, so select all that you feel applies. Which of the hypothetical public employees should be fire or moved to a different position for not doing their job?




Dammit, I hate it when you make too much sense.


Stop that.




:doh
 
Ok, what if its a small county then and there is one clerk?

Moreover, would you hold the same opinion if a clerk refused to issue drivers licenses to women or refused to issue marriage licenses to interracial couples? What would be the difference?

I already said if you're a one man show you need to do it or else be fired or reassigned.

My opinion is the same regardless of the situation. If someone else can do it, have the other person do it.
 
Even at that level you'd need to have institutional knowledge of how things are done, a reasonable degree of proficiency in office work, you'd need to be a team player with a personality that fits the workplace culture, maybe you've got some political connections and/or know where some bodies are buried.

We're not talking about a fry chef or the guy who puts "Peg A" in to "Slot B" on the assembly line.

I can see where both of you guys are coming from.

The bottom line has to be, "What's in the best interest of this office?"

I can see where there would be situations where you'd fire and replace the offender, and I can also see where there'd be situations where you'd just do some of that managing that you're getting paid to do.

I don't really think there's one, simple, clear cut answer to this question.

Unless you're approaching it from a strictly ideological perspective.

I agree with this, but there are two things at play here. 1. What is the best thing for the office. 2. No public employee can discriminate against citizens. If you refuse to serve someone due to animus, then by definition you are acting in a discriminatory manner and should be reprimanded or fired for doing so.

For example, we would never consider it acceptable of any county clerks office for a clerk to refuse to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple. This is no different. Even if the clerk believed that interracial marriage was against God's law, they can't discriminate in their jobs thus they either do their job or find another one. The same applies to same sex marriage.
 
Back
Top Bottom