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

Came across this Danish website: Flexicurity -The official website of Denmark

Surprised that one of those glorious progressive countries lists as one of the secrets to success their policy of Flexicurity which includes:

"One side of the triangle is flexible rules for hiring and firing, which make it easy for the employers to dismiss employees during downturns and hire new staff when things improve. About 25% of Danish private sector workers change jobs each year."

Why should an employee waste money keeping staff they don't need. The more profitable the company is, the more they can hire at good times.

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

Slyfox696 said:

This is incredibly rich, considering I've had to repeat myself only because you don't bother to actually understand what I say.

Never did I say such a thing. Great strawman.

Who said the employee doesn't like the job? I just said they shouldn't have to be put into a situation where they have to choose between dignity and their family.

Once more, it appears as if you don't take the time to actually read what is said.

Benefiting from PUBLIC taxes, as I've already noted.

The government isn't telling them they HAVE to employ people...only that you treat them fairly if you do.

Enough to deliberately misinterpret what I've said multiples times and post in response to the blatant misinterpretation you conceived?


We can be done the moment you quit replying. It won't change the fact you've been wrong multiples times about my position, nor does it change the fact you seem to think it should be legally okay to treat women as sexual objects.
It's exactly what you said and what's telling is you have not even attempted to clarify what you said.

So...if the employee doesn't agree to be terminated....

I'm sorry, you gave yourself away.

No one is forcing the employer to pay an employee anything. All I'm saying is the employer shouldn't have the right to treat employees unfairly. That doesn't mean the employee should be able to never come to work, be a terrible employee and still get paid. It just means the employer shouldn't be able to fire someone because the employee refuses to do something illegal or reprehensible.

Nonsense, because laws protecting the employee do not constitute involuntary servitude. No one is forcing the employer to hire an employee. An employer hires someone with the understanding certain laws protects the rights of the employee.

You are wrong in just about every way, even within the context of your own arguments.

Click to expand...

good post some people prefer fantasy, strawman, making things up that werent said and opinions to reality and facts.

Like you Im glad the government protects our rights and i want the same for my fellow Americans, i dont support or want to empower bigotry and or discrimination.

Eric7216 said:

Came across this Danish website: Flexicurity -The official website of Denmark

Surprised that one of those glorious progressive countries lists as one of the secrets to success their policy of Flexicurity which includes:

"One side of the triangle is flexible rules for hiring and firing, which make it easy for the employers to dismiss employees during downturns and hire new staff when things improve. About 25% of Danish private sector workers change jobs each year."

Why should an employee waste money keeping staff they don't need. The more profitable the company is, the more they can hire at good times.

Click to expand...

is there anybody that wants that? I know i certainly dont and havent read anybody here that does unless i missed it.

Eric7216 said:

Came across this Danish website: Flexicurity -The official website of Denmark

Surprised that one of those glorious progressive countries lists as one of the secrets to success their policy of Flexicurity which includes:

"One side of the triangle is flexible rules for hiring and firing, which make it easy for the employers to dismiss employees during downturns and hire new staff when things improve. About 25% of Danish private sector workers change jobs each year."

Why should an employee waste money keeping staff they don't need. The more profitable the company is, the more they can hire at good times.

Click to expand...

There is that. And as hard hearted as it sounds--and anybody who knows me, knows I am not hard hearted--it is also pertinent to ask the question why an employer should keep staff that he doesn't want?

If you've ever been in a work force in which everybody got along, cared about each other, supported each other--became a family of sorts--you know what a blessing that is. Employers fortunate enough to have such a work force are equally blessed as that is the kind of place that the employees stay for years, even decades. But one person can pretty well screw that up by introducing such a toxic element into the work place that it becomes tense and uncomfortable and miserable for everybody. There is no way to really document that kind of situation because the toxic employee doesn't ever really do anything against the rules. But I'm guessing a lot of us have experienced that kind of thing at some time or other. And if there is liberty, the employer should be able to fire that person whether or not he or she is a person of color, pregnant, gay, handicapped or whatever.

It is the employer's money. It is the employer's physical property. It is the employer's other resources that go into the operation. It is the employer who is taking all the risk involved in operating a business. The employer should be able to use all that in his own interest, and the employee should have no right to anything the employer has other than what the employer and employee agreed. I certainly have never promised an employee a lifetime job, nor have I ever been offered one. And I have never had an employee who agreed to stay with me forever nor have I ever promised an employer that I would never leave.

If we believe in liberty instead of government social engineering, the employer should be able to hire and fire whomever he wants at will. The government can certainly establish expectations for those it contracts with. But it should not otherwise have the power to dictate to the private employer how he/she must run his/her business.

AlbqOwl said:

If we believe in liberty instead of government social engineering, the employer should be able to hire and fire whomever he wants at will. The government can certainly establish expectations for those it contracts with. But it should not otherwise have the power to dictate to the private employer how he/she must run his/her business.

Click to expand...

good thing that how it is now then :shrug:
employers can already do all that as long as they dont break laws and infringe on rights

AGENT J said:

is there anybody that wants that? I know i certainly dont and havent read anybody here that does unless i missed it.

Click to expand...

Not sure if you are referring to my comment about not wasting money keeping staff they don't need or the Danish system. But if it was my comment then, yes, I worded it badly. I was thinking about seasonal fluctuations and economic downturns, not bad staff. And I meant employer, not employee.

Eric7216 said:

Not sure if you are referring to my comment about not wasting money keeping staff they don't need or the Danish system. But if it was my comment then, yes, I worded it badly. I was thinking about seasonal fluctuations and economic downturns, not bad staff. And I meant employer, not employee.

Click to expand...

i was referring to your statement i just dont understand its impact and yea i already knew you meant employer

is there anybody in this thread that want employers to waste money keeping staff they don't need?

AGENT J said:

i was referring to your statement i just dont understand its impact and yea i already knew you meant employer

is there anybody in this thread that want employers to waste money keeping staff they don't need?

Click to expand...

I don't know about in this thread but there are numerous unions that make it very hard to terminate bad employees. Bad teachers get sent away but with pay, bad cops get put on probation with pay. Administrators seem to give up terminating some people and simply try to push them aside so they will do the least harm. One of my sons had such a teacher, twice. Nothing the Principal could do.

Eric7216 said:

1.)I don't know about in this thread but there are numerous unions that make it very hard to terminate bad employees.

2.)Bad teachers get sent away but with pay, bad cops get put on probation with pay.

3.) Administrators seem to give up terminating some people and simply try to push them aside so they will do the least harm.

4.) One of my sons had such a teacher, twice. Nothing the Principal could do.

Click to expand...

1.) this maybe very true, i have worked in unions and was a supervisor in one and it wasnt hard at all BUT i admit that was just my experience.

We had muiltiple layoffs because of slow work etc and did muiltiple firings BUT we did have to have our ducks in a row to fire people. It was easy though when an employ did something wrong you filed it and made sure it was discussed at review times.

if a union makes it hard to terminate employees when they are no longer needed i dont support them

2.) i have no problem with this if its justified and in the policy procedure. Ive worked for many companies that had no unions that classified offenses and many had official stages of punishment suspensions, demotion, termination etc

3.) again if this is true im not for that and neither is anybody i know

4.) again see 3 but curious, why did this teacher deserved to be fired?

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

DA60 said:

Show me exactly where it says in the Constitution that the state has the right to tell private business owners who they can and cannot employ (outside of criminals)?

If you cannot - then your argument means NOTHING to me.

Click to expand...

Constitution? How about Constitutional LAW!

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

AlbqOwl said:

What do separate drinking fountains have to do with a person's right to control his own lawfully and ethically acquired money, property, and/or other resources? What gives an employee any right to any part of what his employer owns other than what is agreed between the employer and employee?

Click to expand...

We have been over that and it did no good. I would think as a TAXPAYER you would want employment protection if you blew the whistle on your defense contractor employer who charged the government 10 thousand for a hammer! I guess not!

I guess you like like paying that out of your tax money, I do not, and I want employment protection if I blow the whistle.


IF you did not blow the whistle then I am paying MORE taxes, thank you!!

If YOU as an individual do NOT wish to assert your RIGHTS, that is your business, very FEW agree with your stance.

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

danielpalos said:

Nothing; I subscribe to a federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will.

Click to expand...

Are government employees entitled to more protection in the workplace? I already know the answer, but is this okay?

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

lawboy said:

Constitution? How about Constitutional LAW!

Click to expand...

I don't care how judges interpret the Constitution in this case...I am talking STRICTLY about the Constitution.

I don't much care if you feel otherwise.

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

lawboy said:

Are government employees entitled to more protection in the workplace? I already know the answer, but is this okay?

Click to expand...

It may depend on the employment. Some are considered more critical than others.

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

I just looked at the poll and almost 47% said 'yes'.

I find that surprising and encouraging.

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

I believe labor should be able to quit on the same basis and still receive unemployment compensation on an at-will basis.

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

DA60 said:

I just looked at the poll and almost 47% said 'yes'.

I find that surprising and encouraging.

Click to expand...

I doubt that, the poll is non public and it was probably spammed, non-public polls are a waste.

but i could be wrong, ask a mod they will tell you the real count.

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

danielpalos said:

It may depend on the employment. Some are considered more critical than others.

Click to expand...

Wrong.

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

DA60 said:

I don't care how judges interpret the Constitution in this case...I am talking STRICTLY about the Constitution.

I don't much care if you feel otherwise.

Click to expand...

Then the BoR should not apply to the states, right or wrong?

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

lawboy said:

Then the BoR should not apply to the states, right or wrong?

Click to expand...

When you answer my first question, I will consider answering yours.

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

DA60 said:

When you answer my first question, I will consider answering yours.

Click to expand...

Are you talking about the Original 7 Articles or the AM's?

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

lawboy said:

Are you talking about the Original 7 Articles or the AM's?

Click to expand...

Both.

I am assuming you are going to say 'no' to the former and 'yes' to the latter (assuming 'AM' means 'amendments).

Okay, please show me the 'yes' part.

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

DA60 said:

Both.

I am assuming you are going to say 'no' to the former and 'yes' to the latter (assuming 'AM' means 'amendments).

Okay, please show me the 'yes' part.

Click to expand...

Your post at 543:

Show me exactly where it says in the Constitution that the state has the right to tell private business owners who they can and cannot employ (outside of criminals)?

Click to expand...

The answer, placing EMPHASIS, on your word EXACT, there is nothing. Why do you include criminals, that is also not in the Constitution?

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

lawboy said:

Your post at 543:



The answer, placing EMPHASIS, on your word EXACT, there is nothing. Why do you include criminals, that is also not in the Constitution?

Click to expand...

A) Thank you.

B) No idea what you are talking about (criminals?).

Btw, if you are looking for a legalese urinating contest, look elsewhere...I cannot be bothered (and am ill-equipped to boot).


The bottom line is a) it is not (apparently) in the Constitution that employers cannot fire employees for any reason.

And even if it was, b) I do not believe that the state should ever be able to tell private companies who they can hire/fire.


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

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

DA60 said:

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

Click to expand...

Ditto!