• 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

jimbo said:
There is someone to protect my job. That would be me. Don't need a club for that either.
Click to expand...



That's fine. I hope that you are never unfairly terminated from a position.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

This question is for someone other then Agent J (no offense to him intended).

What if you ran a large daycare with more then 15 employees and you hired a daycare worker who would spend time with your clients children? And let's say you found out after you hired her from a source that you could never use in any way that she had molested another child...but you had absolutely no way to prove it. So, you fire her. But she takes you to court for wrongful dismissal because the only reason you dismissed her is because of a rumour that you cannot prove.

What then?

Do you pay the penalty - assuming you lose the case?

Could you also be sued by this person for libel/slander...even though it is true?

So, because you are not allowed to fire someone for whatever reason you wish, you are forced to endure economic hardship because you do not have proof that this person is a child molester.

But, if you were allowed to just fire her, you would simply be rid of her with no economic hardship.


Please tell me how the system works well in this case?

(Btw - this could also apply to any situation where an employer felt compelled to fire someone on the basis of something they could not prove in court)
 
Last edited:
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

disneydude said:
Freedom isn't free.
Click to expand...

Doublethink. I love it.

War is peace. Slavery is freedom. Ignorance is strength.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Lerxst said:
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...
Click to expand...

Let me see if I can explain what I was talking about.

Take the workplace out of it for a second. If I go to a bar and ask a woman to go to bed with me, it's not against the law, correct? Thus, the idea of one person asking another for sex is not illegal. Now, keeping in mind the concept of this thread, if a male boss suggests to his female employee a sexual encounter, and she turns him down, the female has done nothing illegal, but HAS made a moral choice to refuse sex. Is it okay for her to make such a moral choice and be fired for it because the boss is mad, embarrassed, controlling, etc.?

I think we both agree if an employer told an employee to rob a bank or lose their job, this should not be allowed. In that case, the employee is being asked to do something illegal, and you amended your position to say employees should not be able to be fired for refusing to break the law. But refusing sex (or asking for it) is not against the law, but it IS a moral (and sometimes religious decision). Are you okay with the idea of an employee being terminated for making a moral decision to not engage in sexual activity with their boss?

I had assumed the OP was more in the vein of removing union protection, total at will employment, and the like.
Click to expand...
The threadstarter said "any reason they wish"...I would assume it isn't limited to union protection, discrimination and the like. Any reason they wish would mean unadulterated power over hiring and firing.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Slyfox696 said:
Let me see if I can explain what I was talking about.

Take the workplace out of it for a second. If I go to a bar and ask a woman to go to bed with me, it's not against the law, correct? Thus, the idea of one person asking another for sex is not illegal. Now, keeping in mind the concept of this thread, if a male boss suggests to his female employee a sexual encounter, and she turns him down, the female has done nothing illegal, but HAS made a moral choice to refuse sex. Is it okay for her to make such a moral choice and be fired for it because the boss is mad, embarrassed, controlling, etc.?

I think we both agree if an employer told an employee to rob a bank or lose their job, this should not be allowed. In that case, the employee is being asked to do something illegal, and you amended your position to say employees should not be able to be fired for refusing to break the law. But refusing sex (or asking for it) is not against the law, but it IS a moral (and sometimes religious decision). Are you okay with the idea of an employee being terminated for making a moral decision to not engage in sexual activity with their boss?

The threadstarter said "any reason they wish"...I would assume it isn't limited to union protection, discrimination and the like. Any reason they wish would mean unadulterated power over hiring and firing.
Click to expand...

EEOC is a law. Regardless, I yield to the power being in the hands of the employer. Over regulation is just as bad as no regulation at all. And since this hypothetical scenario is black and white I'll go with the employer every time.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Lerxst said:
EEOC is a law. Regardless, I yield to the power being in the hands of the employer. Over regulation is just as bad as no regulation at all. And since this hypothetical scenario is black and white I'll go with the employer every time.
Click to expand...

I see...so you're okay with a woman being fired for refusing sex with her boss? I just want to know if this is really what you mean.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Slyfox696 said:
I see...so you're okay with a woman being fired for refusing sex with her boss?
Click to expand...

I thought companies cared about profit?
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

scatt said:
I thought companies cared about profit?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure where you are going with this, but companies are run by people and people care about themselves. They care about their wants and their desires before anything else.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Slyfox696 said:
I'm not sure where you are going with this, but companies are run by people and people care about themselves. They care about their wants and their desires before anything else.
Click to expand...

Hmm, but I keep being told companies are there just for the most profit only.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

scatt said:
Hmm, but I keep being told companies are there just for the most profit only.
Click to expand...
I feel like you feel you are making a point, but I have absolutely no idea what point you're trying to make.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

You do not understand?
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

scatt said:
You do not understand?
Click to expand...
Did I not just say I have no idea what point you feel you are making?
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Ad_Captandum said:
Sure. Why not? I'd love to be able to ban people from thinking of paedophilia, torture, abuse. Wouldn't you?

Or does your absurd political slant mean you'd rather the world suffer so you can be 'free'?
Click to expand...

I hate to invoke Godwins law but we've already been through examples where a madman tried to create a master race. Where would you like to stop? Would you ban everyone who disagrees with you on the environment, Walmart, books, food choices, religion? We have real world examples of people trying to eliminate others based on differences of opinion and lifestyle. It's never worked well.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Slyfox696 said:
Did I not just say I have no idea what point you feel you are making?
Click to expand...

You said you are unaware of the motivation for a business.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Tetelestai said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is already a segment of the population that is not afforded the 'opportunity' to succeed purely because the employer can't risk the chance that the person won't succeed but the employer will have a difficult time firing him/her. That is the dark side of affirmative action and it largely overwhelms the positive side.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Lerxst said:
Yes. The employer should retain the right to hire and fire at will, with or without disclosing a reason. If I own a company I own the risk. If I feel like I no longer need a particular person in my employ for whatever reason I should be able to let them go. I should also be able to hire whomever I choose for whatever reason I choose. My company, my risk.
Click to expand...

1. It is a sad state of national affairs if en employer can fire an employee for taking off for a funeral of his/her child!

2. If you get a subpeona to appear in court, you must go by law, then is it okay if you get fired for it?

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

lawboy said:
1. It is a sad state of national affairs if en employer can fire an employee for taking off for a funeral of his/her child!

2. If you get a subpeona to appear in court, you must go by law, then is it okay if you get fired for it?

Other notable examples exist.
Click to expand...

We are not arguing the ethics here. Of course a caring employer will accommodate the needs of his/her employees as much as is reasonable to do so. But unless the employer is able to serve his own interests, he has no liberty at all. The government who requires him to be 'compassionate' or 'understanding' of the personal needs of his employees is taking over control of that business and thereby is taking away the employer's control of his own assets and property and is treading on his unalienable right to look to his own interests. Such government initiative can be altruistic and can also be quite sinister and self serving to those in government, and that is why an employer should be able to hire and fire whomever he wishes.

There is nothing that requires us to do business with the uncaring SOB. But liberty requires him to have the ability to be an SOB if that is the way he is.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

What about # 2 then?
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

roguenuke said:
Personal opinion. Some have no issue firing employees. Some employers in fact like to do it.

No one has said to protect "the deadbeats". If you can show how anyone is not pulling their weight/doing their job, that is absolute justification for firing them. The problem is firing them because of your (as in employers') personal bias against a characteristic of that person or a stereotype the employer has about certain "types" of people, not their job performance.
Click to expand...

Firing employees, or more specifically, rehiring and retraining new employees is very expensive. I dont think very many employers do it casually, no matter how legal.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

AlbqOwl said:
There is nothing that requires us to do business with the uncaring SOB. But liberty requires him to have the ability to be an SOB if that is the way he is.
Click to expand...



What about this I already posted at # 48;

In Ohio our Public Policy exception evolved from a man getting fired because the employer had to take child support out of his check and whined about it, so they fired him. How is a man supposed to support his kids when he gets fired for it? The LAW mandated it be done.

How can a man pay child support if he can get fired for it? You are for a man living up to his responsibilty to pay for his kids, right?
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

lawboy said:
What about # 2 then?
Click to expand...

It is the same principle. Yes an honorable employer would bend over backwards to not fire an employee who received a summons to appear in court, especially through no fault of his/her own. But then good employers bend over backwards to keep good employees. In this increasingly 'the world owes me a living' world, it is often more difficult to find and hire good people in the first place. But again the employer hires people he needs to fill specific positions, and liberty requires him to be able to fill those positions as he sees fit and that best serve his interests. When the government presumes to dictate who and how he must do that, the government has appropriated control of the employer's assets. And that should not be the preprogative of the government to do.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Answer my post 170, and additionally, have you ever been fired before?
 
Last edited:
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

lawboy said:
Answer my post 70, and additionally, have you ever been fired before?
Click to expand...

Provide a link to your Post 70 and I will accommodate you if I can And yes I have been fired before. I also have been in the position to hire and fire both in my own business and in agencies or for employers I served.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

AlbqOwl said:
Provide a link to your Post 70 and I will accommodate you if I can And yes I have been fired before. I also have been in the position to hire and fire both in my own business and in agencies or for employers I served.
Click to expand...

I meant post 170;

In Ohio our Public Policy exception evolved from a man getting fired because the employer had to take child support out of his check and whined about it, so they fired him. How is a man supposed to support his kids when he gets fired for it? The LAW mandated it be done.

How can a man pay child support if he can get fired for it? You are for a man living up to his responsibilty to pay for his kids, right?
Click to expand...

Also, when you were fired, did you sign up for unemployment?
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

lawboy said:
I meant post 170;

Also, when you were fired, did you sign up for unemployment?
Click to expand...

I don't see how your Post #170 is relevant. It is not the employer's responsibility how somebody supports their kids or what the government requires of the employee. It is the employer's responsibility to keep the deal that he/she negotiated with the employee. I don't know what the circumstances might have been in that case or whether the employee was being disruptive or what, but it doesn't really affect the principle of an employer using his/her resources and assets in his/her interests and the government not having the ability to dictate to anybody how somebody must use his/her lawfully acquired resources.

And no, when I was fired I didn't file for unemployment. I went and got another job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom