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

My business, my rules. Don't like them, go start your own.

I believe employees should be able to quit on an at-will basis and still collect unemployment compensation in any at-will employment State.

AGENT J said:

5.) again thats nice IF it resolves the issues and the people HAPPEN to agree but what happens when they dont and there is still lawyers there using law for arbitration

Click to expand...

The point is that arbitration is enormously successful and popular with international trade and increasingly with employment contracts. You asked specifically how contracts would be enforced without implicit government backing and I informed you how it does happen today; not some theoretical model or assumption. Furthermore, overlapping legal jurisdictions (or complete lack thereof) are among the primary reasons for pursuing arbitration. As such, legal precedent is non-binding in these matters.

AGENT J said:

anyway im just not sure what you want.

Click to expand...

Debate consists of making a claim and backing it up with supporting arguments. This claim is tempered with a counterclaim and challenging arguments. Your style is essentially a dismissal of the claim and a reiteration of the counterclaim. To be perfectly fair, a large number of people are guilty of this act on this forum. However, there seems to be a consensus that attempting to debate a topic with you is futile so I thought I would offer a bit of advice to make the process more enjoyable.

TNAR said:

1.)The point is that arbitration is enormously successful and popular with international trade and increasingly with employment contracts. You asked specifically how contracts would be enforced without implicit government backing and I informed you how it does happen today; not some theoretical model or assumption. Furthermore, overlapping legal jurisdictions (or complete lack thereof) are among the primary reasons for pursuing arbitration. As such, legal precedent is non-binding in these matters.



2.) Debate consists of making a claim and backing it up with supporting arguments. This claim is tempered with a counterclaim and challenging arguments. Your style is essentially a dismissal of the claim and a reiteration of the counterclaim.
3.)To be perfectly fair, a large number of people are guilty of this act on this forum.
4.) However, there seems to be a consensus that attempting to debate a topic with you is futile so I thought I would offer a bit of advice to make the process more enjoyable.

Click to expand...

1.) yes i did and my question as not be fully answered what happens when its not successful and people are not happy?
2.) this is what is called a deflection, i didnt dismiss anything, you want me to agree or pat you on the back, thats not going to happen when i disagree and iv supported why. You THINK because i dont agree its a DISMISSAL, its not, i simply dont agree. HUGE difference. Also many times, not saying in this case, theres nothign to dabate. Sometimes facts just are what they are.
3.) with your subjective presumption of this i believe you believe that
4.) wrong again :shrug: not by anybody that matters

been here 4 years almost 24K posts and i have had threads that have been shut down do to number of replies (close to 2000) also had over 33,000 views. So my enjoyment and success here is fine, But thank you for your concern lol

sorry that i like the way it is, i like equal rights and i like the government protecting my rights but unless i here something logical and compelling to go against that i doubt anything is going to change. I see no reason to go against equal rights.

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

scatt said:

Does they owner seek profit or seek sex?

Click to expand...

Not all employers are owners. In many companies, there's not even one owner. Furthermore, just because a person seeks one, it doesn't mean they don't seek another. Ridiculous argument.

DA60 said:

Because you keep talking about her dignity.

That is absolutely nothing to do with the terms of her employment.

Click to expand...

A woman's employment should not depend on her using her body for sex. She's not owed a job, but she should not be prohibited a job because she's not a whore. For anyone to say otherwise is incredibly sexist.

Lerxst said:

Blah blah blah blah blah. What I have found is that you enjoy the whole exercise of being condescending and then patting yourself on the back as if you've accomplished something. "Oh it's clear you don't understand, let me try this again to see if this can be made any clearer, obviously I'm confusing you, mmmyeah mmmyeah mmmyeah..." And so and so forth. You extrapolated from my position and made it into something it is not. You then attacked the position you created in your mind and attributed to me. Finally you proceeded to preen and bask in your imagined victory. Straw man. Smart guy. Have fun with your forum wanking, it's seems to be an addiction of sorts for you lol.

Click to expand...

Listen, Sport. I asked you a very simple question. You keep dodging around the question. I only extrapolated because you wouldn't answer. I'll ask again and if you truly desire an honest discussion, you'll answer.

Do you think an employer should be allowed to fire an employee for refusing sex?

If the answer is "yes", then you agree there are some moral grounds for which an employee should not be fired. If you say "no", then...well, we both know what then. So what is your answer to my simple question? No more dancing, no more dodging, please just answer the question.

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

Slyfox696 said:

Not all employers are owners.

Click to expand...

So your question is about some manager not doing their job?

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

scatt said:

So your question is about some manager not doing their job?

Click to expand...

My question is about an employee not getting fired for refusing sex. Pay attention.

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

Slyfox696 said:

My question is about an employee not getting fired for refusing sex. .

Click to expand...

That is what the owner wants the manager to do?

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

scatt said:

That is what the owner wants the manager to do?

Click to expand...

I didn't say that.

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

Slyfox696 said:

I didn't say that.

Click to expand...

Then the manager is not doing their job?

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

Slyfox696 said:

My question is about an employee not getting fired for refusing sex. Pay attention.

Click to expand...

It should depend on the company "morals" handbook. In my opinion, there is no reason why an employer couldn't state, in such a manual, that competition is King, and that applies to everyone except truer socialists who don't have to care about any profit motive.

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

scatt said:

Then the manager is not doing their job?

Click to expand...

Why do you support owners firing employees for refusing sex?

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

Slyfox696 said:

Why do you support owners firing employees for refusing sex?

Click to expand...

Because it is the owner's business? Because there are women perfectly willing to exchange sex for perks on the job? Because there is no way to know why the employer fired the employee? Take your pick.

Any employer who would hire somebody purely because that employee looks like somebody who could be exploited for sex is scum. And if that employee doesn't work out in that way, well, it's a free country. Or something to that effect.

No respectable woman will work for such a person for that matter. Should she be able to quit when she figures out that is why the employer hired her? I see that as her full right to do also. And I believe it would probably violate the prostitution laws in most states to write having sex with the boss as a term of employment.

But we can split hairs all you want here. Yes, the nice guy keeps on the pregnant employee as long as possible. Yes, the virtuous do not discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc. But yes, there are creeps, vultures, bigots, and scumbags in the world and in our culture they too have rights to be who they are just like all the rest of us. However much the rest of us can hold them in contempt and feel no need to respect them.

But regardless of whether he or she is a nice guy/gal, if the boss needs to fire somebody for ANY reason, it is his/her money, his/her place of business, and should be his;her right to do. Likewise he/she should be able to hire somebody who is the best fit for the position/organization regardless of whether such person fits some politically correct criteria.

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

Slyfox696 said:

A woman's employment should not depend on her using her body for sex. She's not owed a job, but she should not be prohibited a job because she's not a whore. For anyone to say otherwise is incredibly sexist.

Click to expand...

Lol...whatever pal.

I am saying that an employer should be able to fire an employee for ANY reason - looks, race, height, sex, eye color, penis size, favorite sorts team, favorite color...ANYTHING...no matter how pathetic the reason.

I have already explained why.

You don't agree...I don't much care.


Good day.

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

AlbqOwl said:

Because it is the owner's business? Because there are women perfectly willing to exchange sex for perks on the job? Because there is no way to know why the employer fired the employee? Take your pick.

Any employer who would hire somebody purely because that employee looks like somebody who could be exploited for sex is scum. And if that employee doesn't work out in that way, well, it's a free country. Or something to that effect.

Click to expand...

But it's not a "free" country. It's a country which was run and exploited by white males for centuries. The playing field is not level and has never been level. And without protection of the employee, it can never become level.

No respectable woman will work for such a person for that matter.

Click to expand...

No respectable woman should have to decide between providing for her family and her integrity.

DA60 said:

Lol...whatever pal.

I am saying that an employer should be able to fire an employee for ANY reason - looks, race, height, sex, eye color, penis size, favorite sorts team, favorite color...ANYTHING...no matter how pathetic the reason.

I have already explained why.

You don't agree...I don't much care.


Good day.

Click to expand...

As long as you're willing to admit you support the idea it's okay for an employer to hold another's personal morality ransom for sex, then I think we both can agree we're not going to care for the other's opinion.

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

Slyfox696 said:

But it's not a "free" country. It's a country which was run and exploited by white males for centuries. The playing field is not level and has never been level. And without protection of the employee, it can never become level.

No respectable woman should have to decide between providing for her family and her integrity.
As long as you're willing to admit you support the idea it's okay for an employer to hold another's personal morality ransom for sex, then I think we both can agree we're not going to care for the other's opinion.

Click to expand...

I never said such a thing.

And for the last time - their is no loss of morality (other then the loser trying to sleep with his employee).

The guy hires the gal. He then tells her she must sleep with him to keep her job. She tells him to stuff it - and quits.

Where is the damage to her personal morality? She didn't do anything immoral.

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

Slyfox696 said:

Why do you support owners firing employees for refusing sex?

Click to expand...

So your question is about the owners, good. Why is the owner doing this and not trying to maximize profits?

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

Slyfox696 said:

But it's not a "free" country. It's a country which was run and exploited by white males for centuries. The playing field is not level and has never been level. And without protection of the employee, it can never become level.

No respectable woman should have to decide between providing for her family and her integrity.
As long as you're willing to admit you support the idea it's okay for an employer to hold another's personal morality ransom for sex, then I think we both can agree we're not going to care for the other's opinion.

Click to expand...

Who ran and exploited the country whenever is irrelevant to the concept of whether a person should or should not have the choice of how to use his/her own property and resources so long as he does not violate the rights of others.

So if you believe that any person has a RIGHT to work for me.
So if you believe that any person who works for me has a RIGHT to keep his/her job under certain circumstances.
So if you believe that the law should be able to forbid me from firing somebody or require me to hire somebody. . . .

Then you do not believe in the unalienable right to our property and possessions that were acquired legally and ethically. Why don't we just throw all the concepts of unalienable rights out the window and admit that we are under totalitarian rule with no rights at all other than what the government decides we might have today and maybe tomorrow too?

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

DA60 said:

I never said such a thing.

Click to expand...

Yes, you did. You think it's okay to be put into a situation where she has to decide between compromising her moral integrity or being unable to provide for her family based upon the outcome of her decision on whether or not she should have sex with her boss.

scatt said:

So your question is about the owners, good. Why is the owner doing this and not trying to maximize profits?

Click to expand...

So you admit you're okay with bosses firing employees for refusing sex?

AlbqOwl said:

Who ran and exploited the country whenever is irrelevant to the concept of whether a person should or should not have the choice of how to use his/her own property and resources so long as he does not violate the rights of others.

Click to expand...

It's not irrelevant, it's incredibly relevant. I've already told you why.

So if you believe that any person has a RIGHT to work for me.

Click to expand...

I believe no one should be denied the opportunity for a living based upon gender or race.

So if you believe that any person who works for me has a RIGHT to keep his/her job under certain circumstances.
So if you believe that the law should be able to forbid me from firing somebody or require me to hire somebody. . . .

Click to expand...

I believe the law should prohibit your from ruining people's lives because they refuse to do something illegal or immoral. As for what's considered immoral, that would require legislation to determine.

Then you do not believe in the unalienable right to our property and possessions that were acquired legally and ethically. Why don't we just throw all the concepts of unalienable rights out the window and admit that we are under totalitarian rule with no rights at all other than what the government decides we might have today and maybe tomorrow too?

Click to expand...

Since when did you have the inalienable right to control another person's life by using money produced by the government and benefiting from taxpayer dollars? People are neither your property or your possessions. If you want total control of your business, don't look to hire anyone. But the moment you agree to accept benefits provided by the US government (currency, taxpayer built roads, etc.), your concept of "unalienable" rights loses value.

It's incredibly convenient for you to take the benefits granted to you by the people of this country and then turn around and demand you have the "unalienable" right to do what you want with the lives of those who helped make your business possible.

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

Slyfox696 said:

So you admit you're okay with bosses firing employees for refusing sex?

Click to expand...

Why is the owner doing this and not trying to maximize profits?

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

Slyfox696 said:

Yes, you did. You think it's okay to be put into a situation where she has to decide between compromising her moral integrity or being unable to provide for her family based upon the outcome of her decision on whether or not she should have sex with her boss.
So you admit you're okay with bosses firing employees for refusing sex?
It's not irrelevant, it's incredibly relevant. I've already told you why.

I believe no one should be denied the opportunity for a living based upon gender or race.
I believe the law should prohibit your from ruining people's lives because they refuse to do something illegal or immoral. As for what's considered immoral, that would require legislation to determine.


Since when did you have the inalienable right to control another person's life by using money produced by the government and benefiting from taxpayer dollars? People are neither your property or your possessions. If you want total control of your business, don't look to hire anyone. But the moment you agree to accept benefits provided by the US government (currency, taxpayer built roads, etc.), your concept of "unalienable" rights loses value.

It's incredibly convenient for you to take the benefits granted to you by the people of this country and then turn around and demand you have the "unalienable" right to do what you want with the lives of those who helped make your business possible.

Click to expand...

I thought about identifying all the straw men and non sequitur comments built into your response. And then I thought, naw. Why bother? You obviously totally missed the point I was making, and I doubt any argument would be able to clarify that for you. But do have a wonderful day.

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

Slyfox696 said:

Yes, you did. You think it's okay to be put into a situation where she has to decide between compromising her moral integrity or being unable to provide for her family based upon the outcome of her decision on whether or not she should have sex with her boss.
So you admit you're okay with bosses firing employees for refusing sex?
It's not irrelevant, it's incredibly relevant. I've already told you why.

I believe no one should be denied the opportunity for a living based upon gender or race.
I believe the law should prohibit your from ruining people's lives because they refuse to do something illegal or immoral. As for what's considered immoral, that would require legislation to determine.


Since when did you have the inalienable right to control another person's life by using money produced by the government and benefiting from taxpayer dollars? People are neither your property or your possessions. If you want total control of your business, don't look to hire anyone. But the moment you agree to accept benefits provided by the US government (currency, taxpayer built roads, etc.), your concept of "unalienable" rights loses value.

It's incredibly convenient for you to take the benefits granted to you by the people of this country and then turn around and demand you have the "unalienable" right to do what you want with the lives of those who helped make your business possible.

Click to expand...

I will ask you again:

The guy hires the gal. He then tells her she must sleep with him to keep her job. She tells him to stuff it - and quits.

Where is the damage to her personal morality?

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

DA60 said:

I will ask you again:

The guy hires the gal. He then tells her she must sleep with him to keep her job. She tells him to stuff it - and quits.

Where is the damage to her personal morality?

Click to expand...

Exactly. Many of us who were in the workforce before sexual harassment became a political football did experience that from time to time. Usually the boss or supervisor or coworkers accepted 'no' as 'no' and life went on as usual. If they didn't, we quit. It was as simple as that. Never occurred to us that we were helpless in the situation or that anybody needed to deal with it other than us. And if somebody got fired because she wouldn't sleep with the boss, well she was well out of that situation wasn't she?

Sometimes we make things so much harder than they have to be.

I love reading the supporters of bigotry and discrimination dance and dance dance hoping the spaghetti they throw at the wall stick, but it never does.

Firing somebody or not hiring somebody simply because of race, gender, religion etc is illegal and it should remain that way, theres no logic to support allowing it.

These are rules/laws we ALL must play by in the public realm area and with public access business.
If people dont like these laws and rules the solution is VERY simple. . . . . .. Dont open a business, nobody is forcing you too lol

or you can also work privately like out of your home and have other options


if you do open a business and then you CHOOSE to break the law, sorry about your luck idiot, breaking the law as consequences.

AGENT J said:

Firing somebody or not hiring somebody simply because of race, gender, religion etc is illegal and it should remain that way, theres no logic to support allowing it.

Click to expand...

It is not illegal always.

Facts and logic prove you wrong.