That does not surprise me!
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.
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.
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.
No I didn't. Please direct me to the post in this thread where I said that.You said you are unaware of the motivation for a business.
I can't help but notice you quoted an older post of mine, one you had already responded to. Maybe you missed my last one. Here it is again. I'm very interested to hear exactly how you feel about this.Well if it's not against any law, as I stated earlier, I stand by original comment. I support the employers right to hire and fire as they see fit. In the end if they abuse their employees it was cost them much more than a solid plan for retention.
So you are okay with this?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.
No I didn't.
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.
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.
Now that I agree with! Affirmative Action only causes racism, it doesn't prevent it. I am not talking about that at all. What I was saying is it has to be against the law to use race, gender, etc... to make the hiring decision. It should be SOLELY on their character, talent, education, experience, professional appearance and personality. When I hire somebody, I don't consider anything else. I want the best person for the job, no matter what.
I can't help but notice you quoted an older post of mine, one you had already responded to. Maybe you missed my last one. Here it is again. I'm very interested to hear exactly how you feel about this.
So you are okay with 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.
I'm not saying it's right or a good decision. But I don't think we should be regulating bad business decisions, and firing an employee for those things are bad business decisions. You won't last long as you won't be able to hire decent employees after a while. Plus other employees will be bailing to find other, more hospitable places to work.
The argument really is getting taken to extremes. Just because you can doesn't mean you will. I can buy five gallons of vodka, but I wouldn't try to drink it all in one night because that would be bad for me. Just because I had the absolute authority to hire and fire without restriction doesn't mean I would abuse it. Your employees are your number one asset in most cases. At least in the business circles I operate in. Treating them terribly is a sure fire way to watch your business stagnate and eventually die.
AA is a policy to not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin
AA/EO factually doesnt change this at all
the issue and its one i have pointed out and one many other have pointed out on tv etc is AA has been thrown around so much that people dont know what it REALLY is.
REALL AA/EO by law is equal OPPURTUNITY nothing else
AA is a policy to not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin
there is NOTHING in AA that forces anybody to hire based on race, by definition that if factually not AA
now with that said, have companies, schools etc had policies that THEY named AA and had quotas etc? yes absolutely and when caught and proved to be doing so they faced penalty of the law, as quotas are illegal.
Thats where the problem is. AA/EO is just fine
people practicing things NOT AA/EO and falsely calling it that is a problem
theres women beaters out there that say they beat thier women because they love them, they say its done for love, that doesnt make it true.
oh this is going to be GREAT! lmaoAA, in state school acceptance policies, is racial based discrimination. I will not respond unless you have facts or logic to prove this wrong.
I agree to a point, but even the government misuses the law as you say was intended. Thus it has gotten to the point that it represents (even if unintended) racism.
Sure.Title kind of sums it up.
not government, PEOPLE
just like in every facet of life
there are crooked cops and judges too, we dont get rid of those breaking the law, not throw out the law
bad teachers, preacher, coaches etc they abuse children do we ban all teachers, preachers and coaches? no we punish those who break the law
theres no racism represented by AA/EO especially now because at this point it ties in with civil rights which benefits us all.
only people that break the law and or people who dont understand the law and assume things based on bigotry represent racism.
Well, I know this. My Dad was an experience marine fire fighting chief for a shipping company in Philadelphia. When that business was sold, he applied to the port authority in Washington DC for the same position. The person he was up against was straight out of college and had no real life experience,,, but he was African American. My Dad was told he was "over qualified" for the position. Now that, considering it was a public safety position, is just stupid. The kid was given the job because he was black... period. that IS discrimination, aided and abetted by AA.
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.
Well, I know this. My Dad was an experience marine fire fighting chief for a shipping company in Philadelphia. When that business was sold, he applied to the port authority in Washington DC for the same position. The person he was up against was straight out of college and had no real life experience,,, but he was African American. My Dad was told he was "over qualified" for the position. Now that, considering it was a public safety position, is just stupid. The kid was given the job because he was black... period. that IS discrimination, aided and abetted by AA.
Morally...no.
Legally...fine.
He is the boss of a private company. As I said, he should be able to fire any employee for ANY reason.
And what if she is fired? She gets another job.
She can't find one - the government welfare system keeps her alive and housed and healthy until she does...it's not like she will drop dead if she gets fired.
Besides, why would she want to work for a guy who she does not sexually desire that keeps coming on to her? Me - I'd quit...it's called 'pride'.
I have to say this is not uncommon, there were firefighter that had more experience that were not promoted in favor of diversity, this was challenged and the white firefighters won the case. It's called reverse discrimination.
1.) Sadly discrimination remains in our society by all ethic groups.
2.)And worse yet, there are some that want to perpetuate racism to keep it alive that continuously claim racism the cause when it is not.
why is it legally fine?
why dont you want her rights protected?
Because a job is not a "right". Only a two bit socialist moron would think so. Oh, wait, nm, forgot whom I was talking to.