• 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

Moderator's Warning:
The personal comments and baiting are much too abundant. Please redirect yourselves to addressing the topic and only the topic. Discussing each other and lacing posts with bait or no content at all will lead to getting the boot and/or points.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

AGENT J said:
1.) no the law would be doing exactly what it is supposed to, you cant fire her for ONLY being pregnant
2.) no, then she could sue and he would have to prove it etc pay court costs
3.) it already exists
4.) this i agree, all the stores in PA are breaking the law that dont have places to tie up my horse but im fine with discrimination laws
5.) this could happen now without the law. and it should be a "heck of a good reason" to fire someone :shurg:
Poor excuses dont make a law unworthy, discrimination laws are good ones they protect rights.
6.) in general its not and the government doesnt get involved they only get involved when they are protecting rights which is their job
7.) this is true but i side with rights
Click to expand...

You mentioned rights. Where in the Constitution does it say a pregnant woman has more right to a job then a non-pregnant woman or any man?
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

DA60 said:
You mentioned rights. Where in the Constitution does it say a pregnant woman has more right to a job then a non-pregnant woman or any man?
Click to expand...

where in the constitution does it say a woman has the right not to be raped? guess we can start raping women right?
when people ask those types of questions its alway dishonest

not to mention the other glaring fact that you are missing, discrimination laws dont give her MORE rights than any other woman that is simply a lie

NOBODY can be fired for soley being pregnant this applies to everybody, ALL WOMEN
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

AGENT J said:
where in the constitution does it say a woman has the right not to be raped? guess we can start raping women right?
when people ask those types of questions its alway dishonest

not to mention the other glaring fact that you are missing, discrimination laws dont give her MORE rights than any other woman that is simply a lie

NOBODY can be fired for soley being pregnant this applies to everybody, ALL WOMEN
Click to expand...

So, I assume, your answer is: it is not written in the Constitution that a pregnant woman has a greater right to a job then a non-pregnant woman/man.

So, a pregnant woman does not have more of a right - under the Constitution - to her job then any other woman/man.

And since it is not a right under the Constitution, then it is, IMO, none of the government's business whether a woman is fired because she is pregnant or not.

You don't agree...fine.

But you are not changing my mind and I am obviously not changing yours...so further discussion is pointless.

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

DA60 said:
1.)So, I assume, your answer is: it is not written in the Constitution that a pregnant woman has a greater right to a job then a non-pregnant woman/man.
2.)So, a pregnant woman does not have more of a right - under the Constitution - to her job then any other woman/man.
3.)And since it is not a right under the Constitution, then it is, IMO, none of the government's business whether a woman is fired because she is pregnant or not.
4.)You don't agree...fine.
5.)
But you are not changing my mind and I am obviously not changing yours...so further discussion is pointless.
6.)So, good day.
Click to expand...

1.) correct just like rape it not and its also not what is going on, this is why your strawman question COMPLETELY failed and lost to facts
2.) no she doesnt like us all she cant be illegal discriminated against, see now you are learning the FACTS
3.) nope see above your strawman fails again
4.) has nothing to do with agreeing or disagree, your opinion nor mine matters to facts and facts prove you wrong.
5.) our minds dont matter see #4 facts prove you wrong but you are free to believe what ever wrong thing you like
6.) i accept your concession to facts and you have a good day too.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

AGENT J said:
1.) correct just like rape it not and its also not what is going on, this is why your strawman question COMPLETELY failed and lost to facts
2.) no she doesnt like us all she cant be illegal discriminated against, see now you are learning the FACTS
3.) nope see above your strawman fails again
4.) has nothing to do with agreeing or disagree, your opinion nor mine matters to facts and facts prove you wrong.
5.) our minds dont matter see #4 facts prove you wrong but you are free to believe what ever wrong thing you like
6.) i accept your concession to facts and you have a good day too.
Click to expand...

Okay, fair enough. Rape is not in the Constitution, neither is job discrimination. My point does not hold up on that part.

It changes nothing for me.

I do not believe the state has any business telling a private employer who they can fire or hire...and I don't even begin to care what the law says...there are TONS of bad laws...and this is one if them.

You don't agree...so be it.

Btw - I do not think it is a decent thing to do to fire a pregnant woman...but I still think it is none of the state's business...at all.

Since our minds are clearly closed on the matter we are done here for now as further discussion would be useless.

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

DA60 said:
1.)Okay, fair enough. Rape is not in the Constitution, neither is job discrimination. My point does not hold up on that part.
2.)It changes nothing for me.
3.)I do not believe the state has any business telling a private employer who they can fire or hire...and I don't even begin to care what the law says...there are TONS of bad laws...and this is one if them.
4.)You don't agree...so be it.
5.)Btw - I do not think it is a decent thing to do to fire a pregnant woman...
6.) but I still think it is none of the state's business...at all.
7.)Since our minds are clearly closed on the matter we are done here for now as further discussion would be useless.

Good day.
Click to expand...

1.) correct facts defeated it
2.) im not trying to change you, you are free to believe what ever fallacy you want, ill stick with facts
3.) you are free to have that OPINION and i AGREE that there are tons of bad laws
I dont agree anti-discrimination laws are among them since they factually protect ALL of out rights, this is what government is supposed to do. You havent even provided any justification why protecting our rights is bad.
4.) not true, its not that cut and dry
i agree with you opinion there are lots of bad laws, facts make this about protecting rights and i disagree that you think the government shouldnt protect our rights
5.) i didnt think you did and i apologize if you thought that or anything i said came off that way has that was no my intent
6.) why dont you like the government protecting our rights, if they dont do it who will/should?
7.) my mind is always open where there are OPINIONS to be discussed in some places you are simply denying facts and thats not my issues but yours to figure out. You need to explain why its bad for government to protect our rights
8.) i again accept
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

AGENT J said:
1.) correct facts defeated it
2.) im not trying to change you, you are free to believe what ever fallacy you want, ill stick with facts
3.) you are free to have that OPINION and i AGREE that there are tons of bad laws
I dont agree anti-discrimination laws are among them since they factually protect ALL of out rights, this is what government is supposed to do. You havent even provided any justification why protecting our rights is bad.
4.) not true, its not that cut and dry
i agree with you opinion there are lots of bad laws, facts make this about protecting rights and i disagree that you think the government shouldnt protect our rights
5.) i didnt think you did and i apologize if you thought that or anything i said came off that way has that was no my intent
6.) why dont you like the government protecting our rights, if they dont do it who will/should?
7.) my mind is always open where there are OPINIONS to be discussed in some places you are simply denying facts and thats not my issues but yours to figure out. You need to explain why its bad for government to protect our rights
8.) i again accept
Click to expand...

Where exactly did I say the highlighted part?
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

DA60 said:
Where exactly did I say the highlighted part?
Click to expand...
well thats easy

you said discrimination laws are bad, but the fact is discrimination laws protect our rights

you said you dont support firing a lady just because she is pregnant but if a company does, you still think it is none of the state's business...at all.
But the fact is its only the states business because they are protecting rights.

so what else could your statements mean?so did i miss something?

did you not mean what you said and need to add to it?
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

I voted yes on the principle that if an person is not allowed the liberty to use his/her resources to his own advantage, as long as that does not infringe on anybody else's rights, then there is no liberty at all. There is no way to write an equitable or practical law that says yes UNLESS...yadda yadda. And there is no way to write a law that would protect both the employer and employee if the employer's changed situation made it difficult, impractical, or impossible to keep an employee on the payroll.

That does not include the ethics or morality of an issue. If an employee wants a job from which he/she cannot be fired without specific cause, he/she should sign a contract with the employer that states that. Otherwise it is the employer's money, resources, risk and he should be in control of who works for him/her.

And from a practical standpoint, all other things being equal, when the choice to fire somebody is between the pregnant woman and the equally qualified employee who won't need 12 weeks leave of absence, it really does make sense to let the pregnant woman go.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

AGENT J said:
well thats easy

you said discrimination laws are bad, but the fact is discrimination laws protect our rights

you said you dont support firing a lady just because she is pregnant but if a company does, you still think it is none of the state's business...at all.
But the fact is its only the states business because they are protecting rights.

so what else could your statements mean?so did i miss something?

did you not mean what you said and need to add to it?
Click to expand...

Where did I say the highlighted part?

Answer - I did not.

Saying one discrimination law is bad is NOT saying 'discrimination laws are bad'. I imagine some are good.

And I did not say - or even think - that the government should never protect our rights - which your statement suggested.

I have a pet peeve...and that is misrepresenting what I say/putting words in my mouth.

That is two ideas you stated - in a matter-of-fact manner - that I said that I have never even thought.

I realize that you believe you are just looking out for these women.

But misrepresenting others words/thoughts does not further your cause.


Look, I do not believe the government has any business telling private companies who they can and cannot fire. I believe to do so sends things down a slippery slope. It is NOTHING to do with facts...it is an opinion. A belief I have.
You do not share that opinion/belief.

And I do not personally believe either you or I can be convinced otherwise anytime soon.

And I am not going to debate with you when you continue to put words in my mouth that I never said.

We are done here and I will not respond to anymore of your posts directed towards me on this subject...at least for the time being.


Good day.


Btw - I do have respect for you otherwise...just please in the future do not put words in my mouth or misrepresent my words.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

DA60 said:
1.)Where did I say the highlighted part?
2.)Answer - I did not.
3.)Saying one discrimination law is bad is NOT saying 'discrimination laws are bad'. I imagine some are good.
4.)And I did not say - or even think - that the government should never protect our rights - which your statement suggested.
5.)I have a pet peeve...and that is misrepresenting what I say/putting words in my mouth.
6.)That is two ideas you stated - in a matter-of-fact manner - that I said that I have never even thought.
7.)I realize that you believe you are just looking out for these women.
8.)But misrepresenting others words/thoughts does not further your cause.
9.)Look, I do not believe the government has any business telling private companies who they can and cannot fire.
10. I believe to do so sends things down a slippery slope.
11.) It is NOTHING to do with facts...it is an opinion. A belief I have.
12.)You do not share that opinion/belief.
13.)And I do not personally believe either you or I can be convinced otherwise anytime soon.
14.)And I am not going to debate with you when you continue to put words in my mouth that I never said.
15.)We are done here and I will not respond to anymore of your posts directed towards me on this subject...at least for the time being.
16.)
Good day.


Btw - I do have respect for you otherwise...just please in the future do not put words in my mouth or misrepresent my words.
Click to expand...

1.) thats easy, ill qoute you

you said it right here:
DA60 said:
I do not believe the state has any business telling a private employer who they can fire or hire...and I don't even begin to care what the law says...there are TONS of bad laws...and this is one if them.
Click to expand...

since we are talking about anti-discrimination laws this is you saying they are bad

2.) false i just factually proved you did in number #2
3.) oh so NOW you are trying to back pedal and say you only meant the anti-discrimination laws referring to pregnant women but the other "might" be good even thought they work the EXACT same way. Interesting you are going to have to explain this since that is NOT what you said and doesnt seem to make any sense
4.) again so then you just think THIS right doesnt need protected but the others should? again you are going to have to explain because thats not what you said nor does it make sense, why does THIS right not need protected?
5.) good thing i didnt do that and i just wnet by what you said, seems youll have to say what you actually mean next time instead od what you posted.
6.) it good that you are now adding to what you said but that doesnt change what you already said, like 3 and 4 say, if you would like to clarify what you already said and add to it, please do this would help, i cant read your mind i can only go by what you write.
7.) then you would be wrong again, it has nothing to do with my beliefs, the government is protecting their rights just like they protect mine and i agree with the government do that. THey dont need me to do anythign lol
8.) again good thing i didnt do this i only wen by what YOU said, you are free to add and explain your words but nothing was misrepresented.9.) 9.) correct i get that
which means you dont not believe the government should protect workers rights or have anti-discrimination laws like i already said and which you are doubling down on. You can SEPARATE them its what they are doing.
10.) how often do slipper slope arguments ever work
11.) yes i agree its just your OPINION but facts say otherwise
12.) no i stick with facts
13.) no i will not ignore facts but you are free to do so all you want
14.) well its a good thing that never happened as was factually proved above
15.) wont change the fact as proven above that you dont like government protecting rights and anti-discrimination laws and you think its bad in this case
16.) good day
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

DA60 said:
Btw - I do have respect for you otherwise...just please in the future do not put words in my mouth or misrepresent my words.
Click to expand...

hmm dont know if you added this late but i missed it and i didnt want it to go unacknowledged.
NOTHING on my end is meant as any disrespect either and i only went by what you said
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

DA60 said:
Btw - I do have respect for you otherwise...just please in the future do not put words in my mouth or misrepresent my words.
Click to expand...

Good luck with that as that is his debate style, instead of reading what was posted he will inject his on thoughts which have nothing to do with the actual post.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Slyfox696 said:
I like the way you've amended your position, but asking an employee for sex is not against the law. If your daughter's boss asks her to have sex and she turns him down because he's a creepy old man, you're okay with your daughter losing her job and no longer being able to provide for her family?

I understand the desire to remove problems for an employer, but the problem is how power is so often used inappropriately. Those who complain about government interference don't seem to understand government interference usually occurs because someone abused the lack of regulation.
Click to expand...

Firing and employee for not having sex with you is in fact against the law.

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

DA60 said:
Why?


Let's say a woman planned to quit her job after she gives birth?

Under your law, she can now slack of at work, sit on her ass, show up late, take really long lunches, tell her lousy boss to 'f' off and only work when she feels like it.

Why not? She can't be fired because she is pregnant.

And she can do this for about 9 months or so.
Click to expand...

You are being childish.

That would be a womans own choice.

Do you understand the concept of choice?
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Mach said:
Oh I don't think you can claim nothing illegal happened, that would be up to the jury and the evidence presented. More likely you'd take a plea deal, because going to court is very expensive, and it would undoubtedly be very embarrassing. Who has more to lose, the employee or the business owner? If you have deep pockets, you're quite the juicy target too.

You make sexual advances on a direct report at work, and then you do it in the office? You better have a good legal team if she (or he) decides it was harassment. Your interpretation of the events are just one side....

And if you FIRE the person when they reject your sexual advances, I would bet on the prosecution.
Click to expand...

Cephus said:
Considering your absurd ignorance on the subject matter, I find that laughable.

Sexual Harassment
Click to expand...

Lerxst said:
Firing and employee for not having sex with you is in fact against the law.

Sexual Harassment
Click to expand...
I really don't know how to say this without seeming like a jerk, but are any of you three aware of what this thread is about? The entire thread is about removing the laws which govern hiring and firing, which would include what all three of you are trying to claim. You cannot say you support employers being able to fire anyone for any reason and then claim "except for in cases where the law already prohibits them from doing so". It is kind of contradictory.

I can only then assume none of you truly support an employer being able to hire and fire for any reason they wish.


EDIT: I would explain what I meant about illegal actions, but I'm afraid it would confuse things at this point, as it seems to have confused things already. Let's clear this up and I can explain what I mean, if it's desired, later.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

No. If you want to profit from this great Country...then you have to abide by the rules. Freedom isn't free.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

The German said:
You are being childish.

That would be a womans own choice.

Do you understand the concept of choice?
Click to expand...

Yes, I do...which is why I am against the government taking away a private businesses right to choose who it wants to hire and fire.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Rocketman said:
Good luck with that as that is his debate style, instead of reading what was posted he will inject his on thoughts which have nothing to do with the actual post.
Click to expand...

I am beginning to see your point.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

As a hiring manager for a fortune 50 company, I voted no. I know way too many people with prejudices that need to be kept in check. I do believe though, that we should be able to hire and fire based on qualifications and performance only. Although, we should be able to use personality as a contributing factor, as this can affect overall moral and performance of the team.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Tetelestai said:
As a hiring manager for a fortune 50 company, I voted no. I know way too many people with prejudices that need to be kept in check. I do believe though, that we should be able to hire and fire based on qualifications and performance only. Although, we should be able to use personality as a contributing factor, as this can affect overall moral and performance of the team.
Click to expand...

Your heart is in the right place, but nevertheless, taking away an employer's right to hire and fire whoever he/she wants to hire and fire is a direct assault on his unalienable right to his/her own property. I don't see any way to get around that.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

I guess if it were a very small to medium sized employer, that could stand. But when you are talking large employers, that is irrelevant since the "owner" isn't the one hiring. If there were no laws whatsoever, I think there would be at least one segment of the population that would not be afforded the "opportunity" to succeed, which is a very valuable American principal.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Slyfox696 said:
I really don't know how to say this without seeming like a jerk, but are any of you three aware of what this thread is about? The entire thread is about removing the laws which govern hiring and firing, which would include what all three of you are trying to claim. You cannot say you support employers being able to fire anyone for any reason and then claim "except for in cases where the law already prohibits them from doing so". It is kind of contradictory.

I can only then assume none of you truly support an employer being able to hire and fire for any reason they wish.


EDIT: I would explain what I meant about illegal actions, but I'm afraid it would confuse things at this point, as it seems to have confused things already. Let's clear this up and I can explain what I mean, if it's desired, later.
Click to expand...

I was responding to the comment you made about it not being illegal. I was just pointing out that it was illegal at this time. I didn't realize you were referring in the context of the hypothetical law less world apparently inferred by the OP. I didn't take it that all laws were going to be suspended by the OP (as in "it is okay to fire an employee for not killing their children" kind of thing). I was pretty clear about my position when I said this...
You make a good point. I'll amend my position. So long as it is not in violation of the law. However, if it were not against the law and that were the reason then I'd be okay with it. Why? Because it's my company. I'm not saying this would make me a good employer, I'd be a complete asshole for firing someone for that. But still, my company means my risk. There would certainly be consequences. A smart business owner wouldn't get in that position to begin with.
Click to expand...

I had assumed the OP was more in the vein of removing union protection, total at will employment, and the like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom