• 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

Title kind of sums it up.

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

Someone who fires a pregnant woman because she is pregnant should be prevented from doing so by the law.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

NO.

That's an incredibly bad idea.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

As an employer,I say no.

I consider employment to involve a certain social contract that works in both directions rather than just one.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

As an employer,I say no.

I consider employment to involve a certain social contract that works in both directions rather than just one.

As an employer, I have one problem with that. The employee can quit at any time for any reason and there isn't a damned thing you can do about it so it doesn't really work out as equitably as you suggest.

As far as hiring I figure than an employer should be able to hire whoever they want to. I'm less inclined to make firing as simple because a simple clash of personalities can be used to really screw an employee.

Someone mentioned pregnancy and while I couldn't condone the firing of an employee just because they were pregnant there is still a job that needs to get done and if that employee can't do the job due to her condition then there needs to be a little leeway. If she needs a couple of weeks off to have the baby and get her feet back under her that's one thing but if I start getting a call 3 times a week that she can't make it in because of this, that or the other it screws things up.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Outside of instances where it can be clearly demonstrated that it's discrimination based on a protecetd class, no.

HOWEVER, like I said, it needs to be clear.

You can't fire someone for being christian. You should be able to fire them however if they say something religious that offends a customer and can potentially cause your business damage. Why? Because you're not firing them for being christian, you're firing them due to the potential damage they're doing to your business.

You can't fire someone for being Gay. You should be able to fire them however if they came to work in completley socially inappropriate clothing that causes a customer to complain and potentially doing your business harm. Why? Same as the above, yo'ure firing them not becuase they're gay but because of their ACTIONS.

Basically, look at the reason for firing and ask yourself "if the same thing happened, but they weren't [protected group] would it still be reasonable to fire someone".

This is why I didn't have an issue legally with A&E suspending the Duck Dynasty guy. It's why I don't have an issue with the guy dressing up as the straight jacketed Obama being fired. Or the editor for writing an anti-obama headline. Or the Applebees lady who posted a receipt online from a pastor who left a complaint. Or the woman fired from a catholic school for getting invitro fertilization. Or conversely, why I had no problem with Wegman's setting up a sign to ask people not to bring pork or alcohol down an aisle with a muslim teen cashier.

Now, granted...I think you need some solid and legitimate documentation if you're firing someone of those particularly protected groups to demonstrate that the firing is not BECAUSE they're gay, or black, or pregnant, etc. But as long as there is a solid and legitimate reasoning that would be sound if the person wasn't that protected group, then to me that shows the firing is NOT because of their protected status but rather becuase of their chosen ACTIONS that directly relate to business and/or their contract in some fashion.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Someone who fires a pregnant woman because she is pregnant should be prevented from doing so by the law.

I understand why many people think so, but I am not sure that is a rationally solid idea. Effectively it makes a young woman more expensive i.e. risky to employ. If society wants to protect pregnant women the tax payer should underwrite the cost. That would help the glass ceiling.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Title kind of sums it up.

Why should an employer be forced to work with someone she feels uneasy with?
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

As an employer, I have one problem with that. The employee can quit at any time for any reason and there isn't a damned thing you can do about it so it doesn't really work out as equitably as you suggest.
As far as hiring I figure than an employer should be able to hire whoever they want to. I'm less inclined to make firing as simple because a simple clash of personalities can be used to really screw an employee.

Someone mentioned pregnancy and while I couldn't condone the firing of an employee just because they were pregnant there is still a job that needs to get done and if that employee can't do the job due to her condition then there needs to be a little leeway. If she needs a couple of weeks off to have the baby and get her feet back under her that's one thing but if I start getting a call 3 times a week that she can't make it in because of this, that or the other it screws things up.

The bolded part. :thumbs:

Employees aren't held to the same standard. Here in Tennessee, if you let an employee go without a documentable justified cause, they can file for unemployment. I've yet to hear of an employer being able to do the same. ;)
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Outside of instances where it can be clearly demonstrated that it's discrimination based on a protecetd class, no.

HOWEVER, like I said, it needs to be clear.

You can't fire someone for being christian. You should be able to fire them however if they say something religious that offends a customer and can potentially cause your business damage. Why? Because you're not firing them for being christian, you're firing them due to the potential damage they're doing to your business.

You can't fire someone for being Gay. You should be able to fire them however if they came to work in completley socially inappropriate clothing that causes a customer to complain and potentially doing your business harm. Why? Same as the above, yo'ure firing them not becuase they're gay but because of their ACTIONS.

Basically, look at the reason for firing and ask yourself "if the same thing happened, but they weren't [protected group] would it still be reasonable to fire someone".

This is why I didn't have an issue legally with A&E suspending the Duck Dynasty guy. It's why I don't have an issue with the guy dressing up as the straight jacketed Obama being fired. Or the editor for writing an anti-obama headline. Or the Applebees lady who posted a receipt online from a pastor who left a complaint. Or the woman fired from a catholic school for getting invitro fertilization. Or conversely, why I had no problem with Wegman's setting up a sign to ask people not to bring pork or alcohol down an aisle with a muslim teen cashier.

Now, granted...I think you need some solid and legitimate documentation if you're firing someone of those particularly protected groups to demonstrate that the firing is not BECAUSE they're gay, or black, or pregnant, etc. But as long as there is a solid and legitimate reasoning that would be sound if the person wasn't that protected group, then to me that shows the firing is NOT because of their protected status but rather becuase of their chosen ACTIONS that directly relate to business and/or their contract in some fashion.

But if you're firing them for cause then why have protected classes at all? That's what I hate about the EEOC rules. It gives someone fired for cause a reason to come back after the employer and that costs money whether it's a legitimate claim or not.

For example, several years ago I had a client who is a real estate appraiser fire an employee because she was disruptive and abusive. The NLRB ended up getting involved and he had to pay her something like 3 months pay and post some bull**** apology in the office.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

As a member of a protected class, I say no thank you.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

They cannot fire for illegal reasons. Otherwise, it's their business.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Private business. Private. Key work here. It's private, IE: owner has the right to do what he/she wants with the place. When the employee becomes the owner, he/she can make the calls.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

anonymous polls suck

I say a private employer has the absolute right to do so. I don't believe that the federal government was PROPERLY delegated the power to impose Title VII. its a law I would remove
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

As an employer,I say no.

I consider employment to involve a certain social contract that works in both directions rather than just one.

As an HR Executive, I say HELL NO
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Outside of instances where it can be clearly demonstrated that it's discrimination based on a protecetd class, no.

HOWEVER, like I said, it needs to be clear.

You can't fire someone for being christian. You should be able to fire them however if they say something religious that offends a customer and can potentially cause your business damage. Why? Because you're not firing them for being christian, you're firing them due to the potential damage they're doing to your business.

You can't fire someone for being Gay. You should be able to fire them however if they came to work in completley socially inappropriate clothing that causes a customer to complain and potentially doing your business harm. Why? Same as the above, yo'ure firing them not becuase they're gay but because of their ACTIONS.

Basically, look at the reason for firing and ask yourself "if the same thing happened, but they weren't [protected group] would it still be reasonable to fire someone".

This is why I didn't have an issue legally with A&E suspending the Duck Dynasty guy. It's why I don't have an issue with the guy dressing up as the straight jacketed Obama being fired. Or the editor for writing an anti-obama headline. Or the Applebees lady who posted a receipt online from a pastor who left a complaint. Or the woman fired from a catholic school for getting invitro fertilization. Or conversely, why I had no problem with Wegman's setting up a sign to ask people not to bring pork or alcohol down an aisle with a muslim teen cashier.

Now, granted...I think you need some solid and legitimate documentation if you're firing someone of those particularly protected groups to demonstrate that the firing is not BECAUSE they're gay, or black, or pregnant, etc. But as long as there is a solid and legitimate reasoning that would be sound if the person wasn't that protected group, then to me that shows the firing is NOT because of their protected status but rather becuase of their chosen ACTIONS that directly relate to business and/or their contract in some fashion.

I agree with this pretty much to the tee.
I just cant say the same about your examples only because im not familiar with all of them though.

anyway on a general note yes in a civilized society where people have individual rights and then theres laws and rules and societal rights . . . . .

Of course not, NO a business should not be able to fire or not hire people for any reason what so ever.

These laws protect us all unless of course you dont have a gender, a race, a religion, a sexual orientation etc etc

are there abuses of these protections laws? of course but the problem is with the abuse NOT the law.

there are bad judges and cops too? is the solution just git rid of them all? of course not, you address the actually issue.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Title kind of sums it up.



Certainly not.

Although "butt ugly" should be a valid criteria. Disrupts continuity of the workforce. Distracting....
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Title kind of sums it up.

Sure, sounds good.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Title kind of sums it up.

An employer shouldn't be allowed to fire people for any reason.Because an employer can fire a person because he or she is different race,different political leaning, about to retire,wants to replace with a newer cheaper worker or some other ****ty reason under the guise they just felt like firing that person.The only reasons a company should be allowed to fire an employee is if that employee is not doing their job right, the company is going under or if that employee's job is going to be done by a machine.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Isn't that what these "Right to Work" states are all about...that they can fire for any or no reason whatsoever?
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

For all that said no, what if you put yourself in the capitalist's shoes. Wouldn't you want the freedom to invest your capital as you see fit? Would you like to continue to have to pay dead weight to be unproductive, even counterproductive? Why do you think it is the capitalist's duty to provide well being for everybody? Isn't that the responsibility of the individual?

Let's get this straight once and for all: capitalism is not a social program, It's only function is to create as much return on capital as possible in the most efficient way possible, nothing more nothing less.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Isn't that what these "Right to Work" states are all about...that they can fire for any or no reason whatsoever?

You seem to be very confused...
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

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

But if you're firing them for cause then why have protected classes at all? That's what I hate about the EEOC rules. It gives someone fired for cause a reason to come back after the employer and that costs money whether it's a legitimate claim or not.

For example, several years ago I had a client who is a real estate appraiser fire an employee because she was disruptive and abusive. The NLRB ended up getting involved and he had to pay her something like 3 months pay and post some bull**** apology in the office.

Wasn't there something in the news related to Obama and the NRLB? Hmmm...
 
Back
Top Bottom