• 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

1.) thats easy its not because AA/EO is against quotas and quotas are ILLEGAL, people found having quotas are prosecuted by law.



there you go that was easy, fact win again

2.) didnt do that so please stop with the strawmen
I only said some of the things you posted are factually wrong and that is true
3.) good thing it factually never happened so im good
4.) already did FACTS prove your posts wrong and the definition of what AA/EE is proves your posts wrong.
ALL THE COURT CASES prove your posts wrong
5.) never did only presented the fact that prove your post wrong
6.) another failed strawman and HUGELY hypocritical. You just posted lies and made up a story saying that i did something that i didnt then you turned around and did the same thing you accuse me of with your last line and grouping all liberal s together which im not one lol

wow, facts prove you wrong, your posts prove my point and facts also show your posts are dishonest and hypocritical.

also, i wasting giving you my opinion this is where you biggest mistake is, what we were discussion involves FACTS, rights and laws and thats not opinion and they all prove parts your posts factually wrong. Deflecting wont change this neither will running away, facts will be the same tomorrow as they are today and i accept your concession.

What you seem to keep ignoring is EXPERIENCE, what the language of the law says, what your interpretation of it is and what the law was intended to do, are all irrelevant to my experience. I've been around for a long time and I've been a hiring manager for almost the entire time I've been in the adult work force. I KNOW beyond the shadow of a doubt what goes on behind the scenes of a fortune 50 company. I KNOW what they have to do to prevent problems with the federal government. Your idea of sticking to the letter of the law is fine, but that's NOT how the law is practiced in the real world. Otherwise there wouldn't be a push to repeal the law. Don't be intellectually dishonest here. Even the least educated can tell you that the AA causes problems.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Which leads to:

You are aware of the motivations, yet you cannot point them out in this thread? Do they seek profit or seek sex?

Is this where I sign up for Business Management 101?
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Uh, yeah, it kind of is.

No, you have not. You'll be clear when you answer the question. But we both know why you won't answer the question. To say it's okay for a woman to be fired for refusing sex makes you look bad, but saying it's not okay opens the door to other moral problems and ruins your "total freedom to hire/fire" position.

It's not a difficult question. It's a very simple question. The difficult part is how your answer affects you.

And I've already said granting all hiring/firing power to employer is not freedom (as you tried to define it) but rather a simple transfer of power.

:roll:

Playing semantics and you accuse me of posting because I like to see myself type? Fine, I'll rephrase it.

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

Because I thought we were having a good and honest discussion, and you apparently prefer word games.

I don't think you understand what a straw man is. One thing which bothers me is people accusing others of fallacies incorrectly.

Uh no, I've been arguing that with you from the very beginning. I wish you'd keep up.

How about the employee's morals which align with common societal morals? Like sex, for example.

Uh, no I do not. I asked you time and time again if you were okay with it and you NEVER said you weren't. How is your lack of communication now my reading comprehension issue? That doesn't make sense. It wasn't until this post you said you weren't okay with it personally, but then suggested you are okay with it being legal. I then asked you to clarify, so I'll be interested to see if you believe it's okay to fire someone for not having sex with you.

No. The only person whose head flew under the point was yours, apparently. You're asking me why I'm focused on sex and not other things which could be considered offensive. I told you why, which is that I'm not the only pushing the idea it should be legally okay to fire someone for not being a whore.

The point -----> You

Hopefully the above happens.

Thanks. I always enjoy posting with people who cannot remember a thread of debate, use fallacies incorrectly and accuse me of a reading comprehension problem because I cannot read their mind fun also.

I see. So when power rests in the hands of the employer, almost anything goes. When the power rests in the hand of the consumer, then suddenly we have a big problem.

I was reframing to show you the absurdity of claiming freedom, as you did.

I'll call you "Sport". Now we both have nicknames, Sport.
And then she'll lose her ability to feed her children. And then when she goes on welfare, half the country can call her a moocher and a taker and lazy.

That sounds fun.

They sure do, but you and I both know males hold the large majority of positions of power.

If there is even a moment's hesitation as the woman tries to balance her job and family vs. her dignity, she's being exploited.

Just sayin'.

I agree. No one has said someone is owed a job. I'm simply pointing out people should be owed protection while working for that job. So I'm not really sure why you brought this up.

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

Because you keep talking about her dignity.

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

Now, if he raped/attempted to rape her...very different story.

But if he simply said to her: 'btw, among your duties will be to have intercourse with me'....where is the loss of dignity? He is the one that looks pathetic...not her.

She just quits and goes and looks for another job...the only dignity on the line is if she actually has sex with the loser. And that is her decision.


And, btw, she is not been exploited. Look at the definition, the boss had to have gotten some sexual use out of her to have sexually exploited her...and she (I assume) turned him down. No sexual exploitation...by definition.


And finally, what good does the law do here?

Would you want to work for a guy that wants you to sleep with him and expects you to do so for the pay you are receiving...even though you don't want to?

I certainly wouldn't.

But you want a law that allows her to stay in that ridiculous job? What for? How will that give her dignity?

Besides, if he wants her gone, he will just makeup an excuse to fire her so he can get an employee that WILL sleep with him. And this lie will go on her permanent record.

It would be far better for her just to be fired because she would not sleep with him and use that as the official reason.

It will tell other potential bosses 'hands off' and it will warn other candidates what the guy really wants.

He doesn't understand the words you are typing. That or he's ignoring them because he's bored and just feels like getting keyboard exercise.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

1.)What you seem to keep ignoring is EXPERIENCE,
2.)what the language of the law says,
3.)what your interpretation of it is and what the law was intended to do
4.) are all irrelevant to my experience.
5.) I've been around for a long time and I've been a hiring manager for almost the entire time I've been in the adult work force.
6.) I KNOW beyond the shadow of a doubt what goes on behind the scenes of a fortune 50 company.
7.)I KNOW what they have to do to prevent problems with the federal government.
8.) Your idea of sticking to the letter of the law is fine, but that's NOT how the law is practiced in the real world.
9.)Otherwise there wouldn't be a push to repeal the law.
10.)Don't be intellectually dishonest here.
11.)Even the least educated can tell you that the AA causes problems.

1.) not ignoring it at all, infact your stories are what are helping my point and not changing facts
2.) is fact
3.) havent given my interpretation only facts so i agree its irrelevant
4.) what you THINK your experience is, is whats irrelevant lol
5.) REALLY!, you too? lol
6.) obviously you dont, you have proved this fact over and over again
7.) great story, weird two of my jobs have been DIRECT government contractors and not ONCE has this ever come up, not once, the only think that has ever come up is making sure we follow the law. Whats even more funny is the most recent people we let go was a military person, a black gay and a woman, all because they werent good at thier jobs.
8.) its EXACTLY how the "LAW" is practiced. ALl you did is give me examples (with no proof at all) of people you say/think broke the law. WHich AGAIN proves my point
9.) really? thats what you think? the push comes from people who are bigoted or want to inpower discrimination. AA/EO isnt going anywhere, in fact many states, big cities etc are ADDING to it, in been being expanded and joined with all anti-discrimination laws since its creation
10.) im not im dealing with reality, facts, and things that can actually be proves
11.) thank you again for proving my point, police cause problems too, that doesn't mean police are bad lol

your deflections and perceptions are never going to impact facts, reality and court cases so i can do this all day because they all prove your wrong and your stories make my point.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

For the record, if I could make money having sex I'd do that in a heartbeat. That being said I'd have a sign on me that says "I reserve the right to refuse service." That way, you know, it stay in a Lerxst friendly zone.

This discussion is really spinning off into the "but why" zone.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

For the record, if I could make money having sex I'd do that in a heartbeat. That being said I'd have a sign on me that says "I reserve the right to refuse service." That way, you know, it stay in a Lerxst friendly zone.

This discussion is really spinning off into the "but why" zone.

Would be funny to see the turnaround that would happen in this thread, if a prostitute, in a legal brothel in Nevada, refused service based upon the person being in a protected class.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

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.

Depends on the type of work being done, how big the company is, what the job market is like, and many other factors. Many will allow themselves to keep crappy hires just to avoid firing someone, when their better choice would be to spend that extra money firing that person then hiring someone else, especially early on. Yet others will allow their personal feelings to decide their hiring/firing decisions, including bias, no matter the cost.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

As long as employees can fire their bosses, i'm ok with this.

You mean like privates should be able to order generals?

What property rights do employees have to a business they do not own nor have any liabilities for?

Should employees be legally liable for actions of a company?
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

You mean like privates should be able to order generals?

What property rights do employees have to a business they do not own nor have any liabilities for?

Should employees be legally liable for actions of a company?

The more traditional route would be mutiny

Nowadays the boss cowardly hides in board rooms
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

I'm sure it doesn't. But neither have you addressed my point that no matter how altruistic or well intentioned it might be, if the government has the ability to force an employer to use the employer's assets and resources as the government sees fit, then the government can force the employer to do anything and the employer has no rights at all other than what the government allows him/her to have at the moment.

One more question, that's all.


If you are a reservists and are called off to war, when your duty is over the employer must hire you back. Right or wrong. If not it seems like a slap in the face of our service men and women? Should the govt. be able to tell that company to hire them back?
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

If you are a reservists and are called off to war, when your duty is over the employer must hire you back. Right or wrong. If not it seems like a slap in the face of our service men and women? Should the govt. be able to tell that company to hire them back?

No.

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



So "tens of thousands" are out of work, nice for the economy?
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

So "tens of thousands" are out of work, nice for the economy?

Actually, outside of the morals of it...it would not effect the economy because if those 'tens of thousands' come back and start their old jobs, the 'tens of thousands' they put out of work would then be unemployed.

So, the unemployment rate would probably be the same either way.


Personally, though I don't think the government should force employers to take back the returning troops if they don't want them back (or have no room for them).

But - as much as I hate make work projects - I do think the government should offer these veterans some sort of nearby employment or a make-work project at a similar wage to what they had for a certain period of time...say 1 year.

I just don't believe you can call up reservists for long periods of time and then expect them to completely fend for themselves once their active duty is over - even if they are mentally/physically fine. They are making such a huge potential sacrifice - the nation owes them a chance to get back on their feet if their previous job is unavailable.
 
Last edited:
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Actually, outside of the morals of it...it would not effect the economy because if those 'tens of thousands' come back and start their old jobs, the 'tens of thousands' they put out of work would then be unemployed.

So, the unemployment rate would probably be the same either way.

What if they "downsized" as an excuse to fire them to make more profit, then simply did not rehire most of the positions back?

This is not the same as the rosie the riveter days?
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

What if they "downsized" as an excuse to fire them to make more profit, then simply did not rehire most of the positions back?

This is not the same as the rosie the riveter days?

I added the following to my above post:

Personally, though I don't think the government should force employers to take back the returning troops if they don't want them back (or have no room for them).

But - as much as I hate make work projects - I do think the government should offer these veterans some sort of nearby employment or a make-work project at a similar wage to what they had for a certain period of time...say 1 year.

I just don't believe you can call up reservists for long periods of time and then expect them to completely fend for themselves once their active duty is over - even if they are mentally/physically fine. They are making such a huge potential sacrifice - the nation owes them a chance to get back on their feet if their previous job is unavailable.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

So "tens of thousands" are out of work, nice for the economy?

Taking emotion out of the problem we find that this is not the case. In fact, the forcible removal of tens of thousands of workers from the economy is quite adverse to the economy.

To begin with, a person who contracts with the government to come at its beck and call does so on a voluntary basis. If the protection of jobs was not included in this contract, it would greatly affect the number of individuals who volunteer for this duty. By imposing this protectionist policy on the market, the government increases the costs associated with hiring a reservist.

Assuming that this policy was stricken, reservists would know that they take their fate into their own hands when they sign on the dotted line. As they should. They also know that future employers may or may not offer their old job back after the cessation of their government duties. This would be a potential marketing aspect for employers looking for certain types of talent.

But as DA60 pointed out, the tens of thousands of reservists leaving for duty must be replaced by tens of thousands of new workers. It would be folly to assume that the positions would simply remain empty. With new workers comes new training costs (not to mention the costs involved in simply finding adequate talent). With the reintroduction of the reservists, the replacement workers would suddenly find themselves back on the street - though potentially with new talents and experience. The employer, however, would be saddled with high expenses of replacement and shocks to production.

From an economic standpoint, this is lunacy. From a moral standpoint, you take the side of the reservist and completely ignore the position of the employer and the replacement worker; a highly subjective and hypocritical position.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

I guess no further debate is needed for me here, I said my peace.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Dear All,

The majority of people working want job security. Since employees outnumber employers this will never change. If you want examples of why we need this, go google the industrial revolution. Employers will never again have the ability to freely fire employees for whatever they feel like - nor should they. There is no such thing as a perfect employer. Everyone is prone to bias and will likely act on that bias unless there is social consequences for doing so. Think of it as a trade off - in exchange for making all the big money, employees cannot be fired for frivolous or absurd reasons. Employers don't get to act like God - dictatorship is limited to avoid abuse of power.

Love,

Lord

Ps - There is no reason you should have to keep an unqualified worker. If you can't think of a solution to an unruly or helpless employee, than perhaps you should rethink your competence. There is always a legal solution.
 
Last edited:
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

1.) not ignoring it at all, infact your stories are what are helping my point and not changing facts
2.) is fact
3.) havent given my interpretation only facts so i agree its irrelevant
4.) what you THINK your experience is, is whats irrelevant lol
5.) REALLY!, you too? lol
6.) obviously you dont, you have proved this fact over and over again
7.) great story, weird two of my jobs have been DIRECT government contractors and not ONCE has this ever come up, not once, the only think that has ever come up is making sure we follow the law. Whats even more funny is the most recent people we let go was a military person, a black gay and a woman, all because they werent good at thier jobs.
8.) its EXACTLY how the "LAW" is practiced. ALl you did is give me examples (with no proof at all) of people you say/think broke the law. WHich AGAIN proves my point
9.) really? thats what you think? the push comes from people who are bigoted or want to inpower discrimination. AA/EO isnt going anywhere, in fact many states, big cities etc are ADDING to it, in been being expanded and joined with all anti-discrimination laws since its creation
10.) im not im dealing with reality, facts, and things that can actually be proves
11.) thank you again for proving my point, police cause problems too, that doesn't mean police are bad lol

your deflections and perceptions are never going to impact facts, reality and court cases so i can do this all day because they all prove your wrong and your stories make my point.

Your ignorance of the way business works is absolutely stunning. You can dispute, demean and try to bully me about what I've said, but you can never say I don't know what I'm talking about. You have not seen what I have seen or experienced what I have. You sit there thinking you have the authority and insight to say what is true and not true in someone else's life. WOW, I wish I had the gift from God that allows you to know everything about the life and experience of others! Illegal or not, the law is used to form quota's. And when you hear of lawsuits because an entity hasn't hired a sufficient number of a particular minority, the AA is used as the base law for that law suit. That's why business form quota's, whether you want to admit it or not.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Dear All,

The majority of people working want job security. Since employees outnumber employers this will never change. If you want examples of why we need this, go google the industrial revolution. Employers will never again have the ability to freely fire employees for whatever they feel like - nor should they. There is no such thing as a perfect employer. Everyone is prone to bias and will likely act on that bias unless there is social consequences for doing so. Think of it as a trade off - in exchange for making all the big money, employees cannot be fired for frivolous or absurd reasons. Employers don't get to act like God - dictatorship is limited to avoid abuse of power.

Love,

Lord

Ps - There is no reason you should have to keep an unqualified worker. If you can't think of a solution to an unruly or helpless employee, than perhaps you should rethink your competence. There is always a legal solution.

Nobody should have to hire an unqualified worker in the first place.

And the issue is not whether the unruly or under performing employee can be fired. They can IF their actions or performance is carefully documented and they are given opportunity to do better. And even then, the employer can face a civil rights lawsuit filed by an employee who was just itching for an excuse to file it. Then follows either a quick out-of-court settlement that almost always goes against the employer's interests - or - an expensive process that could cost the employer more to defend himself than the out-of-court settlement would cost.

It should not be that way. The employer should be able to fire whomever he needs to in order to be profitable in his business. And the fact that a person is of color or a particular ethnic group or gay or female or any other criteria that might apply should not factor into that.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

I added the following to my above post:

Personally, though I don't think the government should force employers to take back the returning troops if they don't want them back (or have no room for them).

But - as much as I hate make work projects - I do think the government should offer these veterans some sort of nearby employment or a make-work project at a similar wage to what they had for a certain period of time...say 1 year.

I just don't believe you can call up reservists for long periods of time and then expect them to completely fend for themselves once their active duty is over - even if they are mentally/physically fine. They are making such a huge potential sacrifice - the nation owes them a chance to get back on their feet if their previous job is unavailable.

Two schools of thought here.

Philosophically, I would like more effort to help our warriors re-enter the civilian world, but not as a direct payment benefit. Tax incentives or other forms of promotion, probably okay. We owe that much to those who put their lives on the line on behalf of their country.

But with our all volunteer military, people choose to enter and choose to leave the military. They could elect to stay in for 30 years or whatever and retire with a fairly comfortable pension. The fact that they choose to leave earlier should not entitle them to special privileges. The choices are always theirs. That includes those in the Reserves, National Guard or whatever. That also is purely voluntary. While I salute those who do it--I'm one of those folks who greets the returning troops at the airport--and have the utmost reverence and respect for those who serve their country in that way. But it should never be reduced to just another entitlement in a way that encourages people to sign up just long enough to get on the gravy train.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

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.

Sexual Harrassment, Pregnancy etc. Not such a good idea. If you break company policy then yes.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Sexual Harrassment, Pregnancy etc. Not such a good idea. If you break company policy then yes.

Sexual harassment should be illegal anywhere under any circumstances as much as any other harassment is illegal. But the issue is not WHY an employer fires somebody.

The issue is whether the employer, so long as he does not interfere with the rights of others, is allowed an unalienable right to use his lawfully gained resources and property as he/she sees fit for his/her own benefit. I, as an employer, may need to fire somebody just because I lost a contract or otherwise cannot keep everybody on the payroll or just because the extra person did not increase productivity as anticipated. Wouldn't it make sense to fire the pregnant gal who will be leaving in a few weeks or months anyway and keep the people who I can count on to be there? Wouldn't it make sense to fire the person who does his/her job competently but is the least efficient team player and who is the least valued among his/her coworkers?

I am not asking what makes me more noble or fair minded or praiseworthy or whatever. If I'm the biggest jerk and most selfish SOB on the planet, the principle remains the same. So long as I am not violating anybody else's rights, should I be able to use my resources and property for my benefit? Or should the government be able to require me to use my resources and property as it wants me to use them? Does anybody have an unalienable right to be my employee?
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

1.)Your ignorance of the way business works is absolutely stunning.
2.)You can dispute, demean and try to bully me about what I've said, but you can never say I don't know what I'm talking about. You have not seen what I have seen or experienced what I have.
3.) You sit there thinking you have the authority and insight to say what is true and not true in someone else's life.
4.) WOW, I wish I had the gift from God that allows you to know everything about the life and experience of others!
5.) Illegal or not, the law is used to form quota's. And when you hear of lawsuits because an entity hasn't hired a sufficient number of a particular minority, the AA is used as the base law for that law suit. That's why business form quota's, whether you want to admit it or not.

1.) failed deflection 1
2.) failed deflection 2
3.) failed deflection 3
4.) failed deflection 4
5.) 100% false as already proven

let me know when you have any facts to support your failed position that facts, laws and court cases already prove wrong thanks!
 
Back
Top Bottom