• 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

Slyfox696 said:
Why do you support owners firing employees for refusing sex?
Click to expand...

Yes; especially if the company employee relations manual expresses that client relations skills are essential to the Firm and that every effort to work on mutually beneficial and friendly social intercourse is considered a virtue if it helps achieve the Firm's goals. It is not always only teamwork that counts, but team effort as well.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

AlbqOwl said:
.
- The employee should expect policies for the benefit of the employee to be enforced as they existed when the employee accepted the job.
Click to expand...

Most current employees accepted jobs when anti-discrimination and safety laws were in place.
 
Last edited:
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

trollarc said:
Most current employees accepted jobs when anti-discrimination and safety laws were in place.
Click to expand...

That does not have any bearing on whether an employer SHOULD have the right to fire whomever he or she wishes.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

AlbqOwl said:
That does not have any bearing on whether an employer SHOULD have the right to fire whomever he or she wishes.
Click to expand...
AlbqOwl said:
You want to know what employee rights should be?
- The employee should expect policies for the benefit of the employee to be enforced as they existed when the employee accepted the job.
Click to expand...
That is right, and lets fire people for utilizing safe work practices because they cost money- also anybody hurt on the job is fired.
Also, repeal the fourteenth amendment on the basis it hurts employer's rights not to hire people of a different ethnicity. Black panther's delivery service, kkk grocery store, etc.
 
Last edited:
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

trollarc said:
That is right, and lets fire people for utilizing safe work practices because they cost money- also anybody hurt on the job is fired.
Also, repeal the fourteenth amendment on the basis it hurts employer's rights not to hire people of a different ethnicity. Black panther's delivery service, kkk grocery store, etc.
Click to expand...

Why do you keep going on about safe work practices?

Under the 'fire for any reason' rules...the employer does not have to think up a reason, or even use the real reason. They can just fire them, no questions asked.

Which is as it should be...the employee does not have to say why they are quitting, same should go for the employer.


Besides, there are health and safety laws which apply and are in the employers best interest to follow.
Less people will want to buy your product/service if you employ unsafe work practices.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

DA60 said:
Why do you keep going on about safe work practices?

Under the 'fire for any reason' rules...the employer does not have to think up a reason, or even use the real reason. They can just fire them, no questions asked.

Which is as it should be...the employee does not have to say why they are quitting, same should go for the employer.


Besides, there are health and safety laws which apply and are in the employers best interest to follow.
Less people will want to buy your product/service if you employ unsafe work practices.
Click to expand...

And there are anti discrimination laws which still apply.

So I agree, employers should legally be allowed to fire employees, except where it is illegal.

We both believe that there should be regulations on employers ability to fire people, therefore we answer no to the OP.
 
Last edited:
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

trollarc said:
And there are anti discrimination laws which still apply.

So I agree, employers should legally be allowed to fire employees, except where it is illegal.
Click to expand...

And as I said before, you change the anti-discrimination laws to allow 'firing for any reason'.

But you don't change health and safety laws.

The former is about a job. The latter is about basic safety...life and death stuff.

And 'no', having a job or not in a country with massive welfare programs like America is not life-or-death.


And I will ask you again, why do you keep going on about health and safety practices? This is at least the second thread you have brought it up in.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

DA60 said:
And as I said before, you change the anti-discrimination laws to allow 'firing for any reason'.

But you don't change health and safety laws.

The former is about a job. The latter is about basic safety...life and death stuff.

And 'no', having a job or not in a country with massive welfare programs like America is not life-or-death.


And I will ask you again, why do you keep going on about health and safety practices? This is at least the second thread you have brought it up in.
Click to expand...

So you believe that employer's ability to fire people should be regulated?
then you answer no to the OP.

I am pretty sure this is the only thread I have been in about labor relations.

Your name for the law you propose is a misnomer. Here is the correct name, "fire people for reasons I consider ok while maintaining a majority of the expense and regulation of current law because I feel my step towards excessive risk isn't an easy debate to knock out of the park".
 
Last edited:
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

trollarc said:
So you believe that employer's ability to fire people should be regulated?
then you answer no to the OP.

I am pretty sure this is the only thread I have been in about labor relations.

Your name for the law you propose is a misnomer. Here is the correct name, "fire people for reasons I consider ok while maintaining a majority of the expense and regulation of current law because I feel my step towards excessive risk isn't an easy debate to knock out of the park".
Click to expand...

Why are you not getting this...it's simple.

No, I believe an employer should be able to fire any employee for ANY reason...or NO reason.

Health and safety laws have NOTHING to do with this...it is a separate matter. They are about workplace safety for employees...they are NOTHING to do with firing people.


If a workplace is unsafe, the employee complains to the authorities, they look into it and make a decision.
If the employee thinks he got fired for complaining, he reports it to the local news service who then reports it to the public and they might boycott the employer for such a practice.
If he does not want to risk losing his job and decides to work in what he believes is an unsafe workplace...that is his decision (and a dumb one, IMO).

It's not rocket science. Workplace unsafe? Complain to employer. If they won't fix it...quit and complain to health/safety officials to help future workers there.


And yes, I guess this was the only thread you mentioned it...you just keep bringing the same thing up over and over.
 
Last edited:
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

DA60 said:
I have NO IDEA what you are talking about.

It is simple...leave health and safety laws as they are AND change other laws so that an employer can fire any employee for any reason...or even no reason (just as the reverse is presently true for employees).

And yes, I guess this was the only thread you mentioned it...you just keep bringing the same thing up over and over.

And you STILL have not answered my question.

Are you ever going to?
Click to expand...
Which question?

Do minorities and women deserve the same pay for the same work?

Do you believe that employers should not be allowed to fire people for reporting unsafe work conditions?
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

trollarc said:
Which question?
Click to expand...
Forget it.

Do minorities and women deserve the same pay for the same work?
Click to expand...
Deserve? Of course. Should companies be legally forced to comply? No.
If the employees don't like it...quit.

Do you believe that employers should not be allowed to fire people for reporting unsafe work conditions?
Click to expand...

An employer should be able to fire ANY employee for ANY reason...anything.

The employee doesn't like the Dallas Cowboys, they won't have sex with them, their shoe size, they complained about health conditions, their height, their religious beliefs, their sex, the way they part their hair...ANYTHING.

If employees can quit for any reason, private employers should be able to fire for any reason...they don't owe anyone a job.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

trollarc said:
Black panther's delivery service, kkk grocery store, etc.
Click to expand...

Requesting the government force other people to refrain from acting in certain ways because they make you uncomfortable is a dangerous road to travel (as should be apparent throughout human history). People have a tendency to ignore the fact that a lot of people avoid businesses with which they have personal biases against. Would you shop at the Black Panther's Delivery Service or the KKK Grocery Store? I'm guessing not. So is it unreasonable to assume that a very large portion of the population would also avoid these types of businesses? And if a business has a large portion of the population avoiding it, how can they be even remotely successful? Their prices would not be competitive, their costs would be high, and would likely go out of business very quickly.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

DA60 said:
Forget it.

Deserve? Of course. Should companies be legally forced to comply? No.
If the employees don't like it...quit.

An employer should be able to fire ANY employee for ANY reason...anything.

The employee doesn't like the Dallas Cowboys, they won't have sex with them, their shoe size, they complained about health conditions, their height, their religious beliefs, their sex, the way they part their hair...ANYTHING.

If employees can quit for any reason, private employers should be able to fire for any reason...they don't owe anyone a job.
Click to expand...
Everyone misses a point here or there. If you figure out what your question is, please ask again, I must have missed it.

So you do not believe business hiring/firing processes should be regulated. Good. Please tell me about the good results of that path. I will list the perceived cons.

If safety isn't legally required, you empower unions to completely shut down work because companies avoid safety as a non-required expense. The end result is where we are now. Unless you want to include anti-union law. In that case you are giving up people's lives because if nobody follows safety rules people take the jobs because safe jobs are unavailable and they want food.

You would promote the spread of STDs by making it so people have to sex on demand with their employer and various clients, you further exacerbate this by not requiring safety and allowing employees to be fired as a result of unsafe actions on the part of their employer. This results in unemployed/unemployable sick (and injured from previous paragraph).

What do poor sick people do? They seek medical help. These broke sick people would destroy the current medical system. I am going to go out on a limb, and assume you are against providing medical care to those who can't afford it.

What do poor, sick people, who can't get medical care do?

Three paths. The first is violence against their former employers, and individuals contributing to their current situation. This will be the least likely result.

Lawsuits are likely to occur. Employers would be liable for damages to their employees. Under the current system, employers would go bankrupt/be arrested for running prostitution rings and gross negligence until the remainder is effectively following the rules currently in place. However, this is more difficult, because there will be no catalog of what you have to do and what can get you in serious legal trouble.

If you undo those rules (basically dismiss every tort case until it is clear there is no legal recourse and legalize prostitution without regulation) as well, the vast majority of those damaged, unemployable people will suffer horribly and die. The humanitarian outcry will result in public outrage. Likely result is the government will pass safety laws and some level of regulation on what employers can and cannot do.

Second point- towards anti-discrimination. Get rid of those rules and minorities end up not earning what their work is worth on the basis that they don't fit into a niche group (mostly white males but now there are regions/professions that may have a different demo that is the majority who would force other demographics out). Often, they will just work the less educated job because the expense required to obtain required qualifications isn't worth it if you can't earn more than you would serving fries. The only reason to like this situation would be that you are on the privileged side of this equation, dislike the idea of competition with someone of equal abilities, and will use any sort of underhanded method achievable to prevent people who are different from you obtaining the same things you have. Too bad the constitution is in your way, right?
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

TNAR said:
Requesting the government force other people to refrain from acting in certain ways because they make you uncomfortable is a dangerous road to travel (as should be apparent throughout human history). People have a tendency to ignore the fact that a lot of people avoid businesses with which they have personal biases against. Would you shop at the Black Panther's Delivery Service or the KKK Grocery Store? I'm guessing not. So is it unreasonable to assume that a very large portion of the population would also avoid these types of businesses? And if a business has a large portion of the population avoiding it, how can they be even remotely successful? Their prices would not be competitive, their costs would be high, and would likely go out of business very quickly.
Click to expand...
Current law prevents those businesses from existing. In a world where those businesses exist and use fewer safety precautions/not paying for damages they cause to reduce costs, they take over. (Talking about unsafe businesses here).

There are regions where race-based business would be successful, and the elimination of laws precluding discrimination would greatly increase racial-motivated oppression.

Each region of this country has a predominant group in each region, if you aren't a part of that group, you would not be able to work. Since you can't work, you don't have resources to move unless you are incredibly lucky and resourceful. Additionally, you damage religious institutions by requiring people who don't necessarily believe to attempt to join for the ability to get a job. These places become the club for success. Having religion as a requisite to get any work (meaning you can't get work unless you are a Morman in Utah or a Baptist in the south) isn't religious freedom.
 
Last edited:
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

trollarc said:
In a world where those businesses exist and use fewer safety precautions/not paying for damages they cause to reduce costs, they take over. (Talking about unsafe businesses here).
Click to expand...

History disagrees with your assessment. Furthermore, you assume way too much power in the hands of employers. You forget that employers must compete for labor just as labor must compete for jobs. In order to attract anything more efficient than a zombie, employers must outbid their competition. This may take the form of monetary or non-monetary (e.g. good working environment) benefits.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

trollarc said:
Everyone misses a point here or there. If you figure out what your question is, please ask again, I must have missed it.

So you do not believe business hiring/firing processes should be regulated. Good. Please tell me about the good results of that path. I will list the perceived cons.

If safety isn't legally required, you empower unions to completely shut down work because companies avoid safety as a non-required expense. The end result is where we are now. Unless you want to include anti-union law. In that case you are giving up people's lives because if nobody follows safety rules people take the jobs because safe jobs are unavailable and they want food.

You would promote the spread of STDs by making it so people have to sex on demand with their employer and various clients, you further exacerbate this by not requiring safety and allowing employees to be fired as a result of unsafe actions on the part of their employer. This results in unemployed/unemployable sick (and injured from previous paragraph).

What do poor sick people do? They seek medical help. These broke sick people would destroy the current medical system. I am going to go out on a limb, and assume you are against providing medical care to those who can't afford it.

What do poor, sick people, who can't get medical care do?

Three paths. The first is violence against their former employers, and individuals contributing to their current situation. This will be the least likely result.

Lawsuits are likely to occur. Employers would be liable for damages to their employees. Under the current system, employers would go bankrupt/be arrested for running prostitution rings and gross negligence until the remainder is effectively following the rules currently in place. However, this is more difficult, because there will be no catalog of what you have to do and what can get you in serious legal trouble.

If you undo those rules (basically dismiss every tort case until it is clear there is no legal recourse and legalize prostitution without regulation) as well, the vast majority of those damaged, unemployable people will suffer horribly and die. The humanitarian outcry will result in public outrage. Likely result is the government will pass safety laws and some level of regulation on what employers can and cannot do.

Second point- towards anti-discrimination. Get rid of those rules and minorities end up not earning what their work is worth on the basis that they don't fit into a niche group (mostly white males but now there are regions/professions that may have a different demo that is the majority who would force other demographics out). Often, they will just work the less educated job because the expense required to obtain required qualifications isn't worth it if you can't earn more than you would serving fries. The only reason to like this situation would be that you are on the privileged side of this equation, dislike the idea of competition with someone of equal abilities, and will use any sort of underhanded method achievable to prevent people who are different from you obtaining the same things you have. Too bad the constitution is in your way, right?
Click to expand...

My question was not important.


As for your cons? I think you are taking things way too far.

One - safety laws. If the employees think it's unsafe - tell the employer to fix them. If the employer won't... JUST QUIT. End of problem.

Two - forced to have sex? Why must an employee have sex with a co-worker? JUST QUIT. End of problem.

If the union workers decide en masse that the employer sucks...they can strike or quit.

Simple.


You keep talking like the employee must work for some pig under horrible conditions...they don't...JUST QUIT.


As for poor people? There is no reason to believe that allowing people to be fired for any reason would mean high unemployment.

These crappy companies need employees. If no one will put up with their demands, then they will have to soften them or go out of business.

The free market/greed/supply-and-demand will force the employer to be reasonable.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

DA60 said:
My question was not important.

As for your cons? I think you are taking things way too far.

One - safety laws. If the employees think it's unsafe - tell the employer to fix them. If the employer won't... JUST QUIT. End of problem.

Two - forced to have sex? Why must an employee have sex with a co-worker? JUST QUIT. End of problem.

If the union workers decide en masse that the employer sucks...they can strike or quit.

Simple.


You keep talking like the employee must work for some pig under horrible conditions...they don't...JUST QUIT.


As for poor people? There is no reason to believe that allowing people to be fired for any reason would mean high unemployment.

These crappy companies need employees. If no one will put up with their demands, then they will have to soften them or go out of business.

The free market/greed/supply-and-demand will force the employer to be reasonable.
Click to expand...
Who said it was okay for a boss to fire an employee for not having sex with them? Post 195 was a response to the question of it being okay or not:

DA60 said:
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.
Click to expand...

By the way, you are wrong. Such conduct at this time is illegal.

So, absent law, pimps and thugs don't exist? They exist with law, and making what they do legal with no limits promotes it over being honest.
A few companies will be more successful by ignoring their employees, thus making them the cutting edge of running a company. Other places will follow suit. Money will destroy the practices that aren't what you call crappy. Eventually, safety will not be important as it costs money. When you can't find a safe employer, you work for an unsafe employer.

I would agree that at first good employers would continue to exist. Eventually they will see that their profit is being eaten by things they don't need (if we eliminate liability in addition to law) and will get rid of it over money.

As is, you have changed positions twice. First was get rid of the law. Then you said leave safety law in place, then you said get rid of all the law (protection for safety-related whistleblowers is law).

Please tell me the actual positives of getting rid of anti-discrimination and workplace safety law? There was an earlier discussion of at will employment, and many employers have two way at will employment (meaning it is at the will of the employer, too).
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

trollarc said:
That is right, and lets fire people for utilizing safe work practices because they cost money- also anybody hurt on the job is fired.
Also, repeal the fourteenth amendment on the basis it hurts employer's rights not to hire people of a different ethnicity. Black panther's delivery service, kkk grocery store, etc.
Click to expand...

Wow. Some of us really have problems focusing on a principle or concept don't we. I won't take time to point out all the ad hominem inference, straw men, red herrings, and non sequitur built into one short post, but wow. I'm impressed.

But let's save all that other stuff for the appropriate threads for them okay? I am focused on the unalienable right for the person who legally and ethically acquired his property to be able to use that property in his own interest. The employee should be entitled to no part of it other than what was agreed between the employee and employer. If the employer guaranteed the employee a lifetime job, well okay. Then he can't fire the employee. I don't know any employer who has ever done that however.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

trollarc said:
Who said it was okay for a boss to fire an employee for not having sex with them? Post 195 was a response to the question of it being okay or not:



By the way, you are wrong. Such conduct at this time is illegal.

So, absent law, pimps and thugs don't exist? They exist with law, and making what they do legal with no limits promotes it over being honest.
A few companies will be more successful by ignoring their employees, thus making them the cutting edge of running a company. Other places will follow suit. Money will destroy the practices that aren't what you call crappy. Eventually, safety will not be important as it costs money. When you can't find a safe employer, you work for an unsafe employer.

I would agree that at first good employers would continue to exist. Eventually they will see that their profit is being eaten by things they don't need (if we eliminate liability in addition to law) and will get rid of it over money.

As is, you have changed positions twice. First was get rid of the law. Then you said leave safety law in place, then you said get rid of all the law (protection for safety-related whistleblowers is law).

Please tell me the actual positives of getting rid of anti-discrimination and workplace safety law? There was an earlier discussion of at will employment, and many employers have two way at will employment (meaning it is at the will of the employer, too).
Click to expand...

Where exactly did I type that I wanted to get rid of safety place laws?

Not your interpretation of what I said....where I actually typed that I wanted to get rid of work place safety laws.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

I have no problem whatsoever with being moral enough to bear True witness to our own laws regarding the concept of employment at will.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

DA60 said:
Where exactly did I type that I wanted to get rid of safety place laws?

Not your interpretation of what I said....where I actually typed that I wanted to get rid of work place safety laws.
Click to expand...
DA60 said:
Why are you not getting this...it's simple.

No, I believe an employer should be able to fire any employee for ANY reason...or NO reason.
Click to expand...
DA60 said:
Lol...whatever pal.

I am saying that an employer should be able to fire an employee for ANY reason - looks, race, height, sex, eye color, penis size, favorite sorts team, favorite color...ANYTHING...no matter how pathetic the reason.

I have already explained why.

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


Good day.
Click to expand...

DA60 said:
An employer should be able to fire ANY employee for ANY reason...anything.

The employee doesn't like the Dallas Cowboys, they won't have sex with them, their shoe size, they complained about health conditions, their height, their religious beliefs, their sex, the way they part their hair...ANYTHING..
Click to expand...

Whistleblower retaliation is prohibited under the OSH act (authority under twenty-one federal laws).

Additionally, arguing that an employer should be able to fire an employee for ANY REASON and then saying you don't have problems with laws that specifically restrict that is hypocritical.

Employers can fire employees for any reason. If it is a part of illegal conduct, they will suffer consequences.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

DA60 said:
Forget it.

Deserve? Of course. Should companies be legally forced to comply? No.
If the employees don't like it...quit.



An employer should be able to fire ANY employee for ANY reason...anything.

The employee doesn't like the Dallas Cowboys, they won't have sex with them, their shoe size, they complained about health conditions, their height, their religious beliefs, their sex, the way they part their hair...ANYTHING.

If employees can quit for any reason, private employers should be able to fire for any reason...they don't owe anyone a job.
Click to expand...

Nor does the employee owe his labor to the employer. As you say, the employee should be able to quit for any reason and the employer should be able to fire any employee for any reason. All either is obligated to the other is to provide labor and compensation for that labor as they agree between each other.

I have let an employee go who was the most qualified and most productive on my staff and had committed no work related mistakes or infractions. Why? Because that employee created such a toxic environment in the workplace that the rest of the staff could not be as productive. And the job was a whole lot more fun without that person. And yes, I did replace that person.

And two people doing the same job do not necessarily merit the same pay. The one with the more tenure/experience and/or the most productive, the one who shows more initiative or steps in to take responsibility or be helpful when that is useful, might indeed be worth more money to the employer than another employee doing the same work. As is the employee that is least likely to want to take long periods off or leave because he/she got married or got pregnant or had ambitions for bigger and better things. All this factors in too in who the employer may choose to lay off when he needs to downsize the staff.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

The question isn't "Should employers have the freedom to hire and fire at will" it is "Do you have the right to spend your money the way you want to?" I believe the answer to that is yes.
 
trollarc said:
Employers already can fire employees for any reason.
Click to expand...

If labor could quit on an at-will basis in any at-will employment State, we would not need AA or laws regarding minimum wages, since they could potentially have recourse to unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines, merely so Socialism can bailout Capitalism, like usual.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom