Well...this is an interesting development here...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/iowa-court-oks-firing-female-worker-irresistibly-attractive-article-1.1226068?localLinksEnabled=false

Horndog bosses in Iowa have a new tool to save their marriages — they can fire employees who are too hot for the workplace.

The state’s all-male Supreme Court ruled 7-0 Friday that an Iowa City dentist legally canned his female assistant because she was “irresistibly attractive” and a threat to his marriage.

The bombshell ruling came after Melissa Nelson sued her boss of 10 years, Dr. James Knight, for discrimination.

The married mother claims she was fired in January 2010 after Knight's wife became jealous of the pair’s relationship, which included harmless text messages between them outside of work.

“I don’t think it’s fair. I don’t think it’s right,” Nelson said on CNN Saturday night. The 32-year-old also said she was stunned to be fired.

“I worked hard, enjoyed my job, and one day it just came to a screeching halt.”

Knight, 53, admitted Nelson was a great worker, but he complained her tight clothing was too much of a distraction.

He even once told Nelson that if his pants were bulging, she would know her outfits were too revealing, the lawsuit said. And he quipped about her irregular sex life, saying it was “like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it.”

The dentist consulted with a local pastor, terminated Nelson and gave her one month’s severance. Knight later admitted to Nelson’s husband that he feared he would eventually try to start an affair.

“These judges sent a message to Iowa women that they don’t think men can be held responsible for their sexual desires,” Nelson’s attorney, Paige Fiedler, told the Associated Press. “If (the bosses) get out of hand, then the women can be legally fired for it.”

Nelson said she wouldn’t have been fired if she were a man. In the Saturday interview, she said her work attire was hardly revealing.

“I wore a long-sleeve or short-sleeve T-shirt and I wore scrubs,” Nelson said, adding that she’s “happily married.”

After the ruling from one of but a few testosterone-only panels in the nation, Justice Edward Mansfield wrote that allowing the suit would have stretched the definition of gender discrimination.

Knight’s lawyer, Stuart Cochrane, said the ruling is a home-run for family values.

“While there was really no fault on the part of Mrs. Nelson, it was just as clear the decision to terminate her was not related to the fact that she was a woman,” he told the AP. “The motives behind Dr. Knight terminating Mrs. Nelson were quite clear: He did so to preserve his marriage.”

Better article.

The termination appears legal. The marriage however, seems on rocky ground.

Unbelievable. Dr. Knight is a pathetic coward.

Personally I think that the girl just dressed like a skank and the doctor liked it. However after hearing about it the doctors wife made some threats and got him to fire her.


I still think this is totally wrong. If a worker is dressing inappropriately then there needs to be a notice or warning, and continues infractions would lead to termination. However, how the guy defended himself stating that he was trying as hard as possible not to bang her is disgusting.

Doing it to preserve his marriage? Yeah right. This little event shows how much he values his marriage.

The article said she wore a tshirt and scrubs. Hardly skanky.

On the plus side, the attention this story is getting will probably mean Mrs. Nelson is not unemployed for long.

feeder wrote:
The article said she wore a tshirt and scrubs. Hardly skanky.

On the plus side, the attention this story is getting will probably mean Mrs. Nelson is not unemployed for long.

The article says SHE said that's what she was wearing.

“I wore a long-sleeve or short-sleeve T-shirt and I wore scrubs,” Nelson said, adding that she’s “happily married.”

Stating she's happily married but apparently sending text messages to the good doctor (which I'd very much want to see) makes me doubt what she's saying until it's proven that they were in fact totally harmless.

 Necroshea wrote:

The article says SHE said that's what she was wearing.

In what portion of the article cited by the OP did Nelson cite her attire as "skanky"?

 Necroshea wrote:

Stating she's happily married but apparently sending text messages to the good doctor (which I'd very much want to see) makes me doubt what she's saying until it's proven that they were in fact totally harmless.

I agree, but it is telling that you didn't mention the Good Doctor or his wife.

 dogma wrote:

 Necroshea wrote:

The article says SHE said that's what she was wearing.

In what portion of the article cited by the OP did Nelson cite her attire as "skanky"?

 Necroshea wrote:

Stating she's happily married but apparently sending text messages to the good doctor (which I'd very much want to see) makes me doubt what she's saying until it's proven that they were in fact totally harmless.

I agree, but it is telling that you didn't mention the Good Doctor or his wife.

Reread what I typed. I personally feel this to be the case. I've seen too many cases where it's always both parties lying about something instead of either being totally innocent. Is there proof she dressed like a skank in the article? Well, the doctor said she did (who's been rather forthcoming with all sort of other information) and she says she didn't. That's still not proof. However there's not proof that she hasn't been dressing like a skank.

I'm not going to argue this point because that's silly. I'm saying that until I see more information I think both parties are guilty of having a hand in how this situation played out.

How come we are becoming MORE misogynistic wwith time?
Also, Isnt on of the tenents of the Quran that men cant control their desires, so women have to cover up?

They are making it about the court, as if men are unable to make rational choices when a woman is involved. The problem seems to be the law that basicly lets people fire others for no other reason that the boss being a tosser.

 Necroshea wrote:

feeder wrote:
The article said she wore a tshirt and scrubs. Hardly skanky.

On the plus side, the attention this story is getting will probably mean Mrs. Nelson is not unemployed for long.

The article says SHE said that's what she was wearing.

That's a good point.

 Necroshea wrote:


Stating she's happily married but apparently sending text messages to the good doctor (which I'd very much want to see) makes me doubt what she's saying until it's proven that they were in fact totally harmless.

I suspect that's true, and that the blame lies somewhere in the middle for any behavior, flirting or otherwise. Doesn't make him any less of a weak-willed coward, though.

 Necroshea wrote:
Is there proof she dressed like a skank in the article? Well, the doctor said she did (who's been rather forthcoming with all sort of other information) and she says she didn't.

No, he didn't. You said that.

 Necroshea wrote:

Reread what I typed. I personally feel this to be the case.

Your first statement, on which I commented, was factual; not opinionated. Feeling doesn't enter the case in that sense.

Wow, I hope she appeals, because this precedent needs to get curb checked in a hurry.

 dogma wrote:

 Necroshea wrote:
Is there proof she dressed like a skank in the article? Well, the doctor said she did (who's been rather forthcoming with all sort of other information) and she says she didn't.

No, he didn't. You said that.

Ok

 Necroshea wrote:

Reread what I typed. I personally feel this to be the case.

Your first statement, on which I commented, was factual; not opinionated. Feeling doesn't enter the case in that sense.

Personally I think that the girl just dressed like a skank and the doctor liked it.

How is this not an opinion.

Why are we even making a discussion about this. Read my first post, ignore the rest if you must. I feel like I'm just repeating myself.

This was the right ruling to make despite it looking, on it's face, totally awful. The problem was that she chose to bring suit claiming gender discrimination; and not a more suitable grounds. It didn't help that not only did he provably not fire her due to her gender, he replaced her with a different woman.

She chose poorly and lost what I'd consider to be an eminently winnable case with a different strategy. I feel she could have made a compelling argument for quid pro quo sexual harassment instead.

Her boss is still an enormous jerk; please don't take anything I said as any sort of defense of that ass-clown. I only wish he could have also been ruled due for a genital punching of the hardest kind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Wow, I hope she appeals, because this precedent needs to get curb checked in a hurry.

What precedent? Iowa is a At-Will employment state. You have the right to fire any employee for any damn reason you want to short of specific discrimination types. He could have fired here for having feet that were too small, for fingernails painted the wrong color, for having a bumper sticker he didn't like, or any one of a million banal reasons. She claimed he fired her for being a woman; something that was clearly untrue as he has an all-female staff and her replacement was a woman.

Again, he's a huge jerk, but well within his rights under the law in the state in which his business operates.

Tight clothing? I work around dental assistants all day, all the time. Scrubs are very unflattering and typically not tight at all, unless she got them custom made. I work with some girls who have amazing asses, and when they wear scrubs, they're about as seductive as a mule. Fail statement.

I should go on about women's rights too. Those male jurors need to be smacked upside the face. With a rusty barbed wire whip.

edit-obviously my coworkers are more attractive than mules, even in scrubs. But you get the jist of it.

It's hard to tell with just a face but she looks kind of MILFy.

 Necroshea wrote:

How is this not an opinion.

You said that Nelson called herself a skank when she plainly did not. You can hold an opinion, but confusing it with fact is irresponsible.

The major concern here is the fact that there is now a potentially dangerous precedent because her legal representation blew it.

 dogma wrote:

 Necroshea wrote:

How is this not an opinion.

You said that Nelson called herself a skank when she plainly did not. You can hold an opinion, but confusing it with fact is irresponsible.

I don't think this is a case of me confusing anything. I made a post that clearly explained things. I repeated myself and perhaps stated it wrong. You keep trying make this out to be more than it is. You're not dumb. You know what I meant, and still you keep pushing this discussion.

I can edit my old messages if you'd like. If it really means that much to you.

 Ouze wrote:
This was the right ruling to make despite it looking, on it's face, totally awful. The problem was that she chose to bring suit claiming gender discrimination; and not a more suitable grounds. It didn't help that not only did he provably not fire her due to her gender, he replaced her with a different woman.

She chose poorly and lost what I'd consider to be an eminently winnable case with a different strategy. I feel she could have made a compelling argument for quid pro quo sexual harassment instead.

Her boss is still an enormous jerk; please don't take anything I said as any sort of defense of that ass-clown. I only wish he could have also been ruled due for a genital punching of the hardest kind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Wow, I hope she appeals, because this precedent needs to get curb checked in a hurry.

What precedent? Iowa is a At-Will employment state. You have the right to fire any employee for any damn reason you want to short of specific discrimination types. He could have fired here for having feet that were too small, for fingernails painted the wrong color, for having a bumper sticker he didn't like, or any one of a million banal reasons. She claimed he fired her for being a woman; something that was clearly untrue as he has an all-female staff and her replacement was a woman.

Again, he's a huge jerk, but well within his rights under the law in the state in which his business operates.

I can't express my thoughts any better than the above. Well written, sir.

A) She doesn't really strike me as hot at all.
B) I like how a pastor is viewed as a legitimate legal counsel in certain parts
C) Hopefully, from there on until the end of times, Mr Knight will be known as the most weak-willed little *@*#! in Iowa.

First of all all of you who didn't read Dogma's link you should, it explains things much more clearly than the article in the OP. Basically this was a case of a woman being fired at the behest of of Mr. Knight's wife. Which isn't that unreasonable at all. People being fired because a relative of their boss didn't like them isn't abnormal at all.

Secondly, Dogma's article states that the texts that were shared outside of work were of a personal nature, and once Knight's wife discovered them demanded her termination. That's a totally legit reason.

Thirdly, obviously she would not have been fired if she was a man, because I assume that Dr. Knight isn't a homosexual, and thus wouldn't have had the reaction that he did, nor would his wife.

 Ratbarf wrote:
Basically this was a case of a woman being fired at the behest of of Mr. Knight's wife. Which isn't that unreasonable at all. People being fired because a relative of their boss didn't like them isn't abnormal at all.

He still acted like a little

Secondly, Dogma's article states that the texts that were shared outside of work were of a personal nature, and once Knight's wife discovered them demanded her termination. That's a totally legit reason.

Still. A. Little.

Thirdly, obviously she would not have been fired if she was a man, because I assume that Dr. Knight isn't a homosexual, and thus wouldn't have had the reaction that he did, nor would his wife.

So now it's a case of discrimination against heterosexual women. Much better.

I see nothing wrong with this, there is no dangerous precedent being set here, as the same rights would apply in the reverse (female employer with male employee) and as her employer he has the right to terminate her employment as he sees fit just like she has the right to terminate her employment on her own terms. Also keep in mind that most employers have workplace fraternisation policies, dunno if he did but IF he did this would certainly be a breach (or very close to it) and as the boss he has to enforce the rules.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:
Basically this was a case of a woman being fired at the behest of of Mr. Knight's wife. Which isn't that unreasonable at all. People being fired because a relative of their boss didn't like them isn't abnormal at all.

He still acted like a little

Secondly, Dogma's article states that the texts that were shared outside of work were of a personal nature, and once Knight's wife discovered them demanded her termination. That's a totally legit reason.

Still. A. Little.

Thirdly, obviously she would not have been fired if she was a man, because I assume that Dr. Knight isn't a homosexual, and thus wouldn't have had the reaction that he did, nor would his wife.

So now it's a case of discrimination against heterosexual women. Much better.

Sigh, agree to disagree and all that, and it isn't discrimination at all.

I wasn't serious for the whole discrimination thing.

It's a clear cut case of ''little @#*! doing something crappy but entirely legal in his jurisdiction''.

What precedent? Iowa is a At-Will employment state. You have the right to fire any employee for any damn reason you want to short of specific discrimination types. He could have fired here for having feet that were too small, for fingernails painted the wrong color, for having a bumper sticker he didn't like, or any one of a million banal reasons. She claimed he fired her for being a woman; something that was clearly untrue as he has an all-female staff and her replacement was a woman.

That's why At-Will employment sucks. you can be the best employee on earth, but if your bosses' bitchy wife doesn't like you, and he lies about you to side with her, you are screwed.

I hear that he also made comments that were hugely abusive to her, like how she could "tell how good her clothes looked by the bulge in his pants", or asking her about her latest orgasms.

I think it's both parties fault, because they are probably doing some lying, the Doctor is just the much bigger A-hole that gets off on himself and is afraid of losing everything to his wife.

B) I like how a pastor is viewed as a legitimate legal counsel in certain parts

Ugh, don't even get me started on that one...

It's a clear cut case of ''little @#*! doing something crappy but entirely legal in his jurisdiction''.

Maybe it's a case of a difference of opinion on what makes someone a little bleep? Because that guy didn't really do anything wrong. His marriage should be more important than any of his employees, and the potential of financial loss to a divorce should also be placed above pretty much any employee.

B) I like how a pastor is viewed as a legitimate legal counsel in certain parts.

Ugh, don't even get me started on that one...

I highly doubt the pastor was consulted for his legal opinion, but more likely for his services on conflict resolution and what moral course of action should be taken.

In Washington State, employers don't need a reason to fire an employee. They usually retain employees because the cost of hiring a new employee and the time it takes for them to become proficient in their duties usually outweighs the cost of keeping the current employee. Unless there's some sort of disciplinary issue involved or the employee is contingent staffing, that is.

I highly doubt the pastor was consulted for his legal opinion, but more likely for his services on conflict resolution and what moral course of action should be taken.

Maybe he should have better informed the pastor that he was only doing this because his wife wanted the woman fired because she was just too desirable for her self important horndog husband to tolerate on a daily basis. It seems he was just fine with her being around!

I was watching Horrible Bosses before I came to work and ended up seeing this. I thought that was a bit funny.

 Ratbarf wrote:
First of all all of you who didn't read Dogma's link you should, it explains things much more clearly than the article in the OP. Basically this was a case of a woman being fired at the behest of of Mr. Knight's wife. Which isn't that unreasonable at all. People being fired because a relative of their boss didn't like them isn't abnormal at all.

Not abnormal, but stupid. If I tried to fire someone on the basis of "My girlfriend doesn't like her." my boss would almost certainly fire me. Granted this situation is more complicated because the boss's wife actually works with the boss and the former employee, and the boss is the boss. No manager in any company in the world would be able to justify to a higher-up firing someone because his wife, who also worked there, said so.

To reiterate Ouze's point: it is legally fine, but morally dicey.

 Ratbarf wrote:

Secondly, Dogma's article states that the texts that were shared outside of work were of a personal nature, and once Knight's wife discovered them demanded her termination. That's a totally legit reason.

This is the exact quote:

Knight and Nelson — both married with children — started exchanging text messages, mostly about personal matters, such as their families. Knight's wife, who also worked in the dental office, found out about the messages and demanded Nelson be fired. The Knights consulted with their pastor, who agreed that terminating Nelson was appropriate.

To me this story reads as a jealous wife lashing out regarding her husband's employ of many, most likely younger and more attractive, women. Fuse that with an at-will state, and a terrible legal argument, and what you get is a legally justifiable, but morally dodgy situation.

 Ratbarf wrote:

Thirdly, obviously she would not have been fired if she was a man, because I assume that Dr. Knight isn't a homosexual, and thus wouldn't have had the reaction that he did, nor would his wife.

That raises a whole ton of issues regarding gender identity that escape the purpose of this thread.

 AegisGrimm wrote:

Ouze wrote:What precedent? Iowa is a At-Will employment state. You have the right to fire any employee for any damn reason you want to short of specific discrimination types. He could have fired here for having feet that were too small, for fingernails painted the wrong color, for having a bumper sticker he didn't like, or any one of a million banal reasons. She claimed he fired her for being a woman; something that was clearly untrue as he has an all-female staff and her replacement was a woman.

That's why At-Will employment sucks. you can be the best employee on earth, but if your bosses' bitchy wife doesn't like you, and he lies about you to side with her, you are screwed.

I hear that he also made comments that were hugely abusive to her, like how she could "tell how good her clothes looked by the bulge in his pants", or asking her about her latest orgasms.

This is why I think she should have gone for quid pro quo harassment and alleged he fired her because she did not sleep with him. Depending on what was in the texts of course, I think this would have been a better shot. Maybe hostile work environment depending on how often he was saying stuff like the bulge in his pants.

Now that we're discussing At-will employment, I agree with you - At-will does suck. The "balance" is that an employee can walk away at any time for any reason but that does not a balance of power make; the relationship between an employer and an employee is never on equal footing especially considering the power they hold over unemployment. I don't know exactly how to improve the situation - I think I'd prefer a system more like the UK but I haven't studied this extensively and in the US we'd never go for it anyway because socialism.

This kind of thinking is the same as when people blame the woman almost entirely for an affair, had one happened. Because as we know, men are enslaved to the wiles of these attractive she-devils that render men incapable of making independent decisions. It's the man who is the victim here, if only the evil woman had kept to herself, etc etc.

Wow...Just wow. This is really pathetic.

The real story is how odious At-Will employment really can be. This time, she was fired because her boss (and his wife) couldn't handle the fact that she was attractive. Next, maybe she can get fired for being a Christian other than the bosses denomination of Christianity, not flossing, or for not laughing at the bosses jokes.

You can have special skills, and work hard; and still get fired for something that has very little to do with your work performance. At-Will employment is a bigger joke than Right-to-Work.

At least she got 1 month severance.

 Easy E wrote:
The real story is how odious At-Will employment really can be. This time, she was fired because her boss (and his wife) couldn't handle the fact that she was attractive. Next, maybe she can get fired for being a Christian other than the bosses denomination of Christianity, not flossing, or for not laughing at the bosses jokes.

You can have special skills, and work hard; and still get fired for something that has very little to do with your work performance. At-Will employment is a bigger joke than Right-to-Work.

At least she got 1 month severance.

Well of course, anything else would be pandering to Obama's hordes of muslim communists.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Tight clothing? I work around dental assistants all day, all the time. Scrubs are very unflattering and typically not tight at all, unless she got them custom made. I work with some girls who have amazing asses, and when they wear scrubs, they're about as seductive as a mule. Fail statement.

The women on Grey's Anatomy have a whole costume department to custom cut their scrubs to make them still have buts and boobs.

But look at any other show where people area actually wearing real scrubs (like the show Scrubs as an example) or "My Sister's Keeper". The only purpose of scrubs is to keep fecal matter, blood, and vomit off your body and not to make you look good.

 Easy E wrote:
The real story is how odious At-Will employment really can be. This time, she was fired because her boss (and his wife) couldn't handle the fact that she was attractive. Next, maybe she can get fired for being a Christian other than the bosses denomination of Christianity, not flossing, or for not laughing at the bosses jokes.

You can have special skills, and work hard; and still get fired for something that has very little to do with your work performance. At-Will employment is a bigger joke than Right-to-Work.

At least she got 1 month severance.

Absolutely. It's a God-given right in this country to get a job, and then be free to camp out in it for as long as you like no matter what.

 Seaward wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
The real story is how odious At-Will employment really can be. This time, she was fired because her boss (and his wife) couldn't handle the fact that she was attractive. Next, maybe she can get fired for being a Christian other than the bosses denomination of Christianity, not flossing, or for not laughing at the bosses jokes.

You can have special skills, and work hard; and still get fired for something that has very little to do with your work performance. At-Will employment is a bigger joke than Right-to-Work.

At least she got 1 month severance.

Absolutely. It's a God-given right in this country to get a job, and then be free to camp out in it for as long as you like no matter what.

The same way that it's a God-given right for employers to have complete control over their employees, right? If they don't like it, they can just leave and bootstrap themselves into a new job!

I don't understand, was she bad at her job?
There has to be a better reason for her discharge other than "cuz she's hawt."

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I don't understand, was she bad at her job?
There has to be a better reason for her discharge other than "cuz she's hawt."

Unfortunately not in many places in the USA.

 Seaward wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
The real story is how odious At-Will employment really can be. This time, she was fired because her boss (and his wife) couldn't handle the fact that she was attractive. Next, maybe she can get fired for being a Christian other than the bosses denomination of Christianity, not flossing, or for not laughing at the bosses jokes.

You can have special skills, and work hard; and still get fired for something that has very little to do with your work performance. At-Will employment is a bigger joke than Right-to-Work.

At least she got 1 month severance.

Absolutely. It's a God-given right in this country to get a job, and then be free to camp out in it for as long as you like no matter what.

As long as you do the job and don't have a performance issue.... why not?

 Seaward wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
The real story is how odious At-Will employment really can be. This time, she was fired because her boss (and his wife) couldn't handle the fact that she was attractive. Next, maybe she can get fired for being a Christian other than the bosses denomination of Christianity, not flossing, or for not laughing at the bosses jokes.

You can have special skills, and work hard; and still get fired for something that has very little to do with your work performance. At-Will employment is a bigger joke than Right-to-Work.

At least she got 1 month severance.

Absolutely. It's a God-given right in this country to get a job, and then be free to camp out in it for as long as you like no matter what.

How is criticising employer powers to sack people any time for pretty much no reason at all, equivalent to giving employees a 'god-given right to a job' which they can sit in forever regardless of their behaviour?

Oh wait, it isn't. You're just being intellectually dishonest and utterly misrepresenting what someone else said. Try again.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
How is criticising employer powers to sack people any time for pretty much no reason at all, equivalent to giving employees a 'god-given right to a job' which they can sit in forever regardless of their behaviour?

Oh wait, it isn't. You're just being intellectually dishonest and utterly misrepresenting what someone else said. Try again.

Not at all, comrade. I'm completely with you in siding with the downtrodden proletariat. If someone starts up a business that they solely own, I see no reason at all why they should be able to run it how they see fit within the letter of the law.

 Seaward wrote:
If someone starts up a business that they solely own, I see no reason at all why they should be able to run it how they see fit within the letter of the law.

Workhouses, child labour, slaves, beating workers, etc... they all used to be legal. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Workhouses, child labour, slaves, beating workers, etc... they all used to be legal. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.

That's very true.

Let me ask you this, though: if you start your own business, do you believe the government should be in charge of making decisions about your workforce?

 Seaward wrote:
Let me ask you this, though: if you start your own business, do you believe the government should be in charge of making decisions about your workforce?

If I had my own company, I would want the government to support fair treatment of workers with fair protection of employers. That is a far cry from the laws that made the situation in the OP possible, and a far cry from what you seem to think employment laws are like where there are at least some protections for workers.

The people who sit in a job doing sod all while everyone else carries them are there because of poor managers not adequately policing them rather than because of laws "forcing companies to keep them on".

 SilverMK2 wrote:
If I had my own company, I would want the government to support fair treatment of workers with fair protection of employers. That is a far cry from the laws that made the situation in the OP possible, and a far cry from what you seem to think employment laws are like where there are at least some protections for workers.

The people who sit in a job doing sod all while everyone else carries them are there because of poor managers not adequately policing them rather than because of laws "forcing companies to keep them on".

That wasn't my question.

So, as you run your hypothetical business, if you thought you could attract better employees, but were being forced to keep mediocre ones, you'd be fine with that?

 Seaward wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
If I had my own company, I would want the government to support fair treatment of workers with fair protection of employers. That is a far cry from the laws that made the situation in the OP possible, and a far cry from what you seem to think employment laws are like where there are at least some protections for workers.

The people who sit in a job doing sod all while everyone else carries them are there because of poor managers not adequately policing them rather than because of laws "forcing companies to keep them on".

That wasn't my question.

So, as you run your hypothetical business, if you thought you could attract better employees, but were being forced to keep mediocre ones, you'd be fine with that?

There's always a way for an employer to fire someone regardless of laws (Except in extreme cases)

 purplefood wrote:
There's always a way for an employer to fire someone regardless of laws (Except in extreme cases)

The prevailing opinion around here seems to be that there shouldn't be.

Feigned outrage and indignation!
Workers of the world unite!
#shellfindanewjob

 AustonT wrote:
Feigned outrage and indignation!
Workers of the world unite!
#shellfindanewjob

Little Red Oral Hygiene Book! Little Red Oral Hygiene Book!

 Seaward wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Workhouses, child labour, slaves, beating workers, etc... they all used to be legal. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.

That's very true.

Let me ask you this, though: if you start your own business, do you believe the government should be in charge of making decisions about your workforce?

Just because you start a business doesn't mean you can behave however you like towards people, customers or employees. If a worker is unsatisfactory in the UK you have to give them a verbal then written warning to improve conduct before sacking. You don't get to sack them on the spot for anything less than gross misconduct (like theft) and you don't get to sack them because your wife thinks they are too attractive.

When you start a business you often receive grants and tax breaks and other benefits to help you along. You are expected to comply with a set if laws for things like fair trading and discrimination. Just because you own a restaurant doesn't mean you can refuse custom to all black people for example. Just because something is 'yours' dies not mean you can use it however you like. You own things within wider society which has values and standards to uphold for the wider good. And that includes preventing people who own businesses sacking people on an unfair whim rather than due to demonstrated negligence. You also owe your employees things like a safe and healthy working environment.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Just because you start a business doesn't mean you can behave however you like towards people, customers or employees. If a worker is unsatisfactory in the UK you have to give them a verbal then written warning to improve conduct before sacking. You don't get to sack them on the spot for anything less than gross misconduct (like theft) and you don't get to sack them because your wife thinks they are too attractive.

When you start a business you often receive grants and tax breaks and other benefits to help you along. You are expected to comply with a set if laws for things like fair trading and discrimination. Just because you own a restaurant doesn't mean you can refuse custom to all black people for example. Just because something is 'yours' dies not mean you can use it however you like. You own things within wider society which has values and standards to uphold for the wider good. And that includes preventing people who own businesses sacking people on an unfair whim rather than due to demonstrated negligence. You also owe your employees things like a safe and healthy working environment.

Yeah...not how it works in the US, thankfully.

 Seaward wrote:
Let me ask you this, though: if you start your own business, do you believe the government should be in charge of making decisions about your workforce?

Your posts in this thread are, seriously, a monument to intentional obtusity and intellectual dishonesty. I wish you'd try and participate honestly in the discussion or not at all, instead of just essentially crapping nonsense in the thread.

If I started my own business, I'd accept that as a society I already accept a great deal of the government making decisions about how I run my business, such as the fact I can't hire 4 year olds to work in my salt mine, that I have to pay into workman's comp in case one of them gets injured, that I must pay them a minimum wage and overtime (where applicable); etc etc.

Seriously, pretending there is some libertarian fantasy where you built a business all on your own with no help from anyone and have the right to run it as your own private serfdom as sole king doesn't exist in any venue in the world other then the pretend one you make up in your head.

If you own your own business, is it ok to discriminate based on race, gender, religion or sexual orientation? These things almost never have any bearing upon your ability to work in job. Is it unacceptable for the government to 'interfere' in your business if you say, sacked someone not for anything related to your job but because they had an interracial marriage? Where do you draw the line? Or should employers be allowed to sack people at any time for anything at all and suffer no consequences for massive disruption it causes to that persons life? Employers have some duty of care to their employees. The worrying thing is that you're so proud of all this saying how thankful you are that it isn't like the UK. Maybe these attitudes and others are the reasons for some problems in the US including the way that a massive gulf is opening between the majority of people and a tiny percentage owning most of the wealth, and this being enthusiastically supported, because opposing this is the great evil that is socialism. Sad.

 Ouze wrote:
Your posts in this thread are, seriously, a monument to intentional obtusity and intellectual dishonesty.

This is going to become hilariously ironic in a second.

Seriously, pretending there is some libertarian fantasy where you built a business all on your own with no help from anyone and have the right to run it as your own private serfdom as sole king doesn't exist in any venue in the world other then the pretend one you make up in your head.

There it is!

You want a law against people being fired for being attractive, I'd start lobbying your congressman. Right now, "attractive individual" is not a protected class, so it's a perfectly legitimate reason to fire someone. You disagree with it on a moral level, I'd take your oral care dollar elsewhere, but the faux outrage and the sheer blind love of government that suggests you really want someone other than the guy at the top of a 27-person chain making the call on how he runs his business is...well, it's hilarious, but it's also almost certain to change once you start getting a little work/life experience under your belt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
If you own your own business, is it ok to discriminate based on race, gender, religion or sexual orientation?

Not in the US, no.

These things almost never have any bearing upon your ability to work in job. Is it unacceptable for the government to 'interfere' in your business if you say, sacked someone not for anything related to your job but because they had an interracial marriage? Where do you draw the line? Or should employers be allowed to sack people at any time for anything at all and suffer no consequences for massive disruption it causes to that persons life? Employers have some duty of care to their employees. The worrying thing is that you're so proud of all this saying how thankful you are that it isn't like the UK. Maybe these attitudes and others are the reasons for some problems in the US including the way that a massive gulf is opening between the majority of people and a tiny percentage owning most of the wealth, and this being enthusiastically supported, because opposing this is the great evil that is socialism. Sad.

In my opinion, an employer should be able to fire an employee for whatever he or she chooses to fire said employee for. Bleeding heart nonsense about the disruption of the terminated employee's life is covered by the fact that, if not fired for cause, they'll be getting unemployment benefits while out of work. Unless you're a non-profit, your job as a business is to make money, not run a shelter. Companies that want top talent go out of their way to make their employees' lives better. If you want to work in that sort of environment, best equip yourself with the skills to make you attractive to that kind of recruiter. Even then, sometimes things don't work out. We had to fire a guy essentially for political cover a couple months ago, and our BD staff's often a revolving door. Such is life.

 Seaward wrote:

...and the sheer blind love of government that suggests you really want someone other than the guy at the top of a 27-person chain making the call on how he runs his business is...well, it's hilarious, but it's also almost certain to change once you start getting a little work/life experience under your belt.

Ah, the "You only disagree with me because you're young and impressionable!" argument. Always the best way of supporting a contentious position.

 Seaward wrote:

In my opinion, an employer should be able to fire an employee for whatever he or she chooses to fire said employee for. Bleeding heart nonsense about the disruption of the terminated employee's life is covered by the fact that, if not fired for cause, they'll be getting unemployment benefits while out of work.

So you trust government to regulate who can receive severance, but allowing them to regulate who can be severed is over the line?

 dogma wrote:
Ah, the "You only disagree with me because you're young and impressionable!" argument. Always the best way of supporting a contentious position.

It's been my experience that only minimum wage workers believe minimum wage workers to be valuable.

So you trust government to regulate who can receive severance, but allowing them to regulate who can be severed is over the line?

No, I was talking about unemployment, not severance.

 Seaward wrote:

 dogma wrote:
Ah, the "You only disagree with me because you're young and impressionable!" argument. Always the best way of supporting a contentious position.

It's been my experience that only minimum wage workers believe minimum wage workers to be valuable.

And only non-arseholes recognize them as fellow human beings.

Merry Christmas!

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

And only non-arseholes recognize them as fellow human beings.

Merry Christmas!

They're certainly fellow human begins, but they're not exactly a top-flight workforce, hence not very valuable from a business perspective.

 Seaward wrote:

It's been my experience that only minimum wage workers believe minimum wage workers to be valuable.

And this marks the first time in this thread that "minimum wage workers" were mentioned directly. Not only that, but it is conveniently being used to dodge the actual criticism of the initial argument. Which, to refresh, was that hiding behind age and experience is poor form (appeal to authority), especially on the internet.

 Seaward wrote:

No, I was talking about unemployment, not severance.

What do you think unemployment insurance is? The employer pays into a fund and, according to government regulations, helps to determine how the contents of it are dispensed. It is, essentially, government mandated, communal severance.

I am always amazed when people basically argue that businesses are some sort of actual entity that should be protected by the government who shouldn't do anything do hurt them. While the actual citizens of the country are a commodity that should not be protected by said country and should be allowed to live at the whim of businesses everywhere.

Many businesses rely on minimum wage workers so they can make more money for themselves and deliver cheaper goods and services. You seem to relish the idea of making money off the backs of low paid workers and then looking down your nose at them as being worth very little. Says a lot IMO.

 dogma wrote:
And this marks the first time in this thread that "minimum wage workers" were mentioned directly. Not only that, but it is conveniently being used to dodge the actual criticism of the initial argument. Which, to refresh, was that hiding behind age and experience is poor form (appeal to authority), especially on the internet.

It's an irrelevant argument. Age and experience usually does suss out the, "My company should be forced to take care of me!" crowd, but even if it doesn't, it remains a ludicrous stance.

What do you think unemployment insurance is? The employer pays into a fund and, according to government regulations, helps to determine how the contents of it are dispensed. It is, essentially, government mandated, communal severance.

I think it's not severance, for one thing, largely because it's not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Many businesses rely on minimum wage workers so they can make more money for themselves and deliver cheaper goods and services. You seem to relish the idea of making money off the backs of low paid workers and then looking down your nose at them as being worth very little. Says a lot IMO.

Nah, most folks in my field are pretty highly paid. There is, as I mentioned, also a fair bit of voluntary and involuntary turnover, often for reasons that have nothing at all to do with an individual's job performance. If you wish to champion the cause of the unfairly-terminated defense contractor, be my guest.

 Seaward wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

And only non-arseholes recognize them as fellow human beings.

Merry Christmas!

They're certainly fellow human begins, but they're not exactly a top-flight workforce, hence not very valuable from a business perspective.

That's nonsense. They can entirely be a top flight workforce at what they do. Skillsets are relative to the tasks at hand and 'valuable' is a relative quantifier, an excellent team in a McDonalds makes that place more efficient and more profitable, investing in training, protected rights and improved conditions leads to a better workforce who are more capable and more likely to invest more loyalty and drive to the business, leading to improved profits. I know some of you right wing folks would like to see the reintroduction of serfdom, but pushing the majority of the nation further into poverty will only work for so long before the majority will start resisting, the further you push, the harder they will eventually resist. Then the nation as a whole goes down the plughole.

Really, the way you've posted in this thread reads like you're trying to type whilst balancing a large powdered wig and nibbling on cake. The bottom rungs of the payscale hold the entire economy together, fueling the buying and selling and provide the infrastructure necessary to allow a nation to function. Perhaps the rarefied air up there is clouding your reasoning?

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
That's nonsense. They can entirely be a top flight workforce at what they do. Skillsets are relative to the tasks at hand and 'valuable' is a relative quantifier, an excellent team in a McDonalds makes that place more efficient and more profitable, investing in training, protected rights and improved conditions leads to a better workforce who are more capable and more likely to invest more loyalty and drive to the business, leading to improved profits. I know some of you right wing folks would like to see the reintroduction of serfdom, but pushing the majority of the nation further into poverty will only work for so long before the majority will start resisting, the further you push, the harder they will eventually resist. Then the nation as a whole goes down the plughole.

Really, the way you've posted in this thread reads like you're trying to type whilst balancing a large powdered wig and nibbling on cake. The bottom rungs of the payscale hold the entire economy together, fueling the buying and selling and provide the infrastructure necessary to allow a nation to function. Perhaps the rarefied air up there is clouding your reasoning?

I'm gonna go chuckle over that while lighting cigars with hundred dollar bills or something.

This thread has generated several alerts and some of the replies are skirting the lines between assertive debate and insult.

In interest of a fairly interesting thread/court case--let's take a step back, a deep breath, wish each other a merry Christmas and stick to respective, objective argument. Thanks (and Merry Christmas!).

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

That's nonsense. The bottom rungs of the payscale hold the entire economy together, fueling the buying and selling and provide the infrastructure necessary to allow a nation to function.

Yeah you're right. That IS nonsense.

That's a lot of talking down about a group of people, especially from the side that always claims "blah blah blah class warfare blah blah blah"

 d-usa wrote:
That's a lot of talking down about a group of people, especially from the side that always claims "blah blah blah class warfare blah blah blah"

I really don't think I was putting down business owners. What's wrong with suggesting they went into business to make money rather than to hand out cash to people and look after them? Sure, it's not exactly charitable, but it's not insulting.

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
That's a lot of talking down about a group of people, especially from the side that always claims "blah blah blah class warfare blah blah blah"

I really don't think I was putting down business owners. What's wrong with suggesting they went into business to make money rather than to hand out cash to people and look after them? Sure, it's not exactly charitable, but it's not insulting.

TBH if you expect to make money off of people's work you better damn support them as well. There's nothing preventing companies from treating their employees good AND earning money (see most of Europe for example...).

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
TBH if you expect to make money off of people's work you better damn support them as well. There's nothing preventing companies from treating their employees good AND earning money (see most of Europe for example...).

Support them like with a paycheck? Done and done.

 Seaward wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
TBH if you expect to make money off of people's work you better damn support them as well. There's nothing preventing companies from treating their employees good AND earning money (see most of Europe for example...).

Support them like with a paycheck? Done and done.

Realistically, do you want the lower payscale of the US to reflect the lower payscale in, say, China or India?

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Realistically, do you want the lower payscale of the US to reflect the lower payscale in, say, China or India?

I don't recall voicing opposition to the minimum wage in this thread, so I'm not sure why that's relevant.

 Seaward wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
TBH if you expect to make money off of people's work you better damn support them as well. There's nothing preventing companies from treating their employees good AND earning money (see most of Europe for example...).

Support them like with a paycheck? Done and done.

In my, and many other people's, opinion, that is not enough.

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
That's a lot of talking down about a group of people, especially from the side that always claims "blah blah blah class warfare blah blah blah"

I really don't think I was putting down business owners. What's wrong with suggesting they went into business to make money rather than to hand out cash to people and look after them?

Again, how is saying that business people are to 'hand out cash' and 'look after' employees in any way equivalent to the subject of the criticism in this thread which is that employers have the popwer to sack people at any time for any reason?

Feel like I'm repeating myself.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
The real story is how odious At-Will employment really can be. This time, she was fired because her boss (and his wife) couldn't handle the fact that she was attractive. Next, maybe she can get fired for being a Christian other than the bosses denomination of Christianity, not flossing, or for not laughing at the bosses jokes.

You can have special skills, and work hard; and still get fired for something that has very little to do with your work performance. At-Will employment is a bigger joke than Right-to-Work.

At least she got 1 month severance.

Absolutely. It's a God-given right in this country to get a job, and then be free to camp out in it for as long as you like no matter what.

How is criticising employer powers to sack people any time for pretty much no reason at all, equivalent to giving employees a 'god-given right to a job' which they can sit in forever regardless of their behaviour?

Oh wait, it isn't. You're just being intellectually dishonest and utterly misrepresenting what someone else said. Try again.

You're just misrepresenting what other people say. Asking for some rights in a job isn't the same as expecting full social support for the rest of your life. Which seems to be how you insist on framing what other people say. It's just pathetic. Respond to what is actually being said or just don't fething bother with your 'I'm all right jack' bull gak. And you point the finger at others for not having any life/work experience. You don't know gak about other people on here, the fact that not everyone doesn't share your enthusiasm to tread on the low paid and treat them like dirt doesn't make them naive or inexperienced.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Again, how is saying that business people are to 'hand out cash' and 'look after' employees in any way equivalent to the subject of the criticism in this thread which is that employers have the popwer to sack people at any time for any reason?

Criticism of an employer's ability to terminate you for whatever reason they like isn't equivalent to saying that employers have a duty to look after their employees. This, however...

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Employers have some duty of care to their employees.

...is.

You're just misrepresenting what other people say. Asking for some rights in a job isn't the same as expecting full social support for the rest of your life. Which seems to be how you insist on framing what other people say. It's just pathetic. Respond to what is actually being said or just don't fething bother with your 'I'm all right jack' bull gak. And you point the finger at others for not having any life/work experience. You don't know gak about other people on here, the fact that not everyone doesn't share your enthusiasm to tread on the low paid and treat them like dirt doesn't make them naive or inexperienced.

I treat the low paid pretty well, actually. I make it a habit of treating most people pretty well. That doesn't mean I'm obliged to pretend that the low paid are possessed of a particularly valuable skillset to my business, or that I should be obliged to keep them working for me if I can do without them.

 Seaward wrote:
I don't recall voicing opposition to the minimum wage in this thread, so I'm not sure why that's relevant.

It's got to be at least as relevant as the idea that I only feel the way I do because I'm too young and naive to know better (I'm actually not that young, by why let facts ruin a good fallacy).

 Seaward wrote:

It's an irrelevant argument. Age and experience usually does suss out the, "My company should be forced to take care of me!" crowd, but even if it doesn't, it remains a ludicrous stance.

No it isn't. While greater age and experience may generally indicate greater knowledge, they do not do so necessarily. As such, claiming that advanced age and experience justify your argument is fallacious.

Also, who argued that a company should be forced to take care of its employees? I've seen numerous people claim that employers should not be permitted to fire someone without cause, but that's where it has stopped. At least until you introduced the concept of caring for employees.

 Seaward wrote:

I think it's not severance, for one thing, largely because it's not.

We can agree to disagree in that regard, and I will admit that equating unemployment insurance with severance was wrong. However, they do bear many similarities in concept and implementation.

But am I correct in believing that you think a company should not be forced to take care of its employees, and believe in the provision of unemployment insurance at the expense of employers?

 Seaward wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Again, how is saying that business people are to 'hand out cash' and 'look after' employees in any way equivalent to the subject of the criticism in this thread which is that employers have the popwer to sack people at any time for any reason?

Criticism of an employer's ability to terminate you for whatever reason they like isn't equivalent to saying that employers have a duty to look after their employees. This, however...

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Employers have some duty of care to their employees.

...is.

You do have a duty of care towards employees. You're not working a victorian coal mine however much you lust for those days when everything came second to making profit. You have to offer a safe working environment for one. You don't get to exploit them, discriminate against them or otherwise subject them to harm from your working conditions, other employees or members of the public without some kind of safeguarding in place.

 dogma wrote:
No it isn't. While greater age and experience may generally indicate greater knowledge, they do not do so necessarily. As such, claiming that advanced age and experience justify your argument is fallacious.

Also, who argued that a company should be forced to take care of its employees? I've seen numerous people claim that employers should not be permitted to fire someone without cause, but that's where it has stopped. At least until you introduced the concept of caring for employees.

I introduced the concept of termination without cause. Whoever it was that did a miniature version of Obama's "You didn't build that," speech introduced care for employees and society in general.

 Seaward wrote:
We can agree to disagree in that regard, and I will admit that equating unemployment insurance with severance was wrong. However, they do bear many similarities in concept and implementation.

But am I correct in believing that you think a company should not be forced to take care of its employees, and believe in the provision of unemployment insurance at the expense of employers?

I believe in providing the minimum baseline regulation necessary to keep a certain level tilt to the playing field, and nothing beyond that. Unemployment insurance is, in my estimation, a good enough check on the apparent termination without cause epidemic we're enduring to make "you can only fire with cause, after three verbal warnings, an essay, and written permission from the Labor Secretary," laws unnecessary.

 Seaward wrote:
"you can only fire with cause, after three verbal warnings, an essay, and written permission from the Labor Secretary,"

In the UK, unless it's forced redundancy, you need cause and it's a verbal and written warning before you're sacked, unless it's gross misconduct. And you don't even need that in the first two years of employment, when you can be let go at any time with a notice period. But no, please tell us more about how all this amounts to giving people the right to stay in a job forever 'no matter what'.

 Seaward wrote:

I introduced the concept of termination without cause. Whoever it was that did a miniature version of Obama's "You didn't build that," speech introduced care for employees and society in general.

No, you didn't. You made a snarky remark based on a hyperbolic premise:

 Seaward wrote:

Absolutely. It's a God-given right in this country to get a job, and then be free to camp out in it for as long as you like no matter what.

 Seaward wrote:

 dogma wrote:
Ah, the "You only disagree with me because you're young and impressionable!" argument. Always the best way of supporting a contentious position.

It's been my experience that only minimum wage workers believe minimum wage workers to be valuable.

Let's see the CEO operate his stores without them then.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AustonT wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

That's nonsense. The bottom rungs of the payscale hold the entire economy together, fueling the buying and selling and provide the infrastructure necessary to allow a nation to function.

Yeah you're right. That IS nonsense.

So, AustonT, you actually think 3.4 million people will buy five times more than the other 330 million people in America - or on a per capita basis, 5,000 times more? Because right now they control five times more wealth than the rest of the country, or 5,000 times more on a per capita basis.

That's a big part of the stagnation of the American economy. The people with the money are not spending it at anything close to the speed the rest of the population would IF they had it.

Let's make that into a concrete example for you. The average American goes out to eat twice a week, spending around $25 bucks per outing. For a 1%er to spend a proportional amountm they would need to go out to eat for every meal (10x as often) and drop $2500 per outing. Short of political fund-raisers, I don't think there's any restaurant that costs THAT much.

And if they do that, they aren't spending the weekly $500,000 that is 5000 times as much as the average American' $100 dollar weekly grocery bill.

SCALE is what gives the middle and lower classes economic power. There's a lot more of them buying than the 1%. That's why there's a lot more McDonalds restaurants than 4-star dining 'experiences'... none of which show up on the stock exchange.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And as to the OP:

It is a sad but true fact in America: You can be fired for any reason - or no reason at all - so long as the stated reason isn't your sex, race, sexual orientation, or... there's something eles I forget but there is something else. Being too sexy isn't it.

You can't be fired because you're a woman. You CAN be fired for being distracting on the job... even if it's not your fault.

Such is the freedom available here in America.

 dogma wrote:
No, you didn't. You made a snarky remark based on a hyperbolic premise:

I have too many friends working for alphabet agencies to believe it's a hyperbolic premise.

 Seaward wrote:

I have too many friends working for alphabet agencies to believe it's a hyperbolic premise.

So you honestly believe that anything other than at-will employment allows employees to "camp out" in a position for as long as they wish?

 dogma wrote:
So you honestly believe that anything other than at-will employment allows employees to "camp out" in a position for as long as they wish?

I honestly believe there are an awful lot of people who've obtained jobs with the government that would have been fired a long time ago had the person in the position to make that call not been subject to far more strict termination rules than are found in the private sector. I'd certainly hate to see that level of scrutiny become the commercial standard.

 Seaward wrote:

I honestly believe there are an awful lot of people who've obtained jobs with the government that would have been fired a long time ago had the person in the position to make that call not been subject to far more strict termination rules than are found in the private sector. I'd certainly hate to see that level of scrutiny become the commercial standard.

There are, but that doesn't make at-will employment good, or imply that there is a binary choice between the present government standard and at-will.

 Vulcan wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

That's nonsense. The bottom rungs of the payscale hold the entire economy together, fueling the buying and selling and provide the infrastructure necessary to allow a nation to function.

Yeah you're right. That IS nonsense.

So, AustonT, you actually think 3.4 million people will buy five times more than the other 330 million people in America - or on a per capita basis, 5,000 times more? Because right now they control five times more wealth than the rest of the country, or 5,000 times more on a per capita basis.

That's a big part of the stagnation of the American economy. The people with the money are not spending it at anything close to the speed the rest of the population would IF they had it.

Let's make that into a concrete example for you. The average American goes out to eat twice a week, spending around $25 bucks per outing. For a 1%er to spend a proportional amountm they would need to go out to eat for every meal (10x as often) and drop $2500 per outing. Short of political fund-raisers, I don't think there's any restaurant that costs THAT much.

I see you've mastered the art of abandoning reality in the search of the one true hyperbole. I suppose by discarding both common sense and context you can happily chatter away at your keyboard under the belief that 330M Americans represent the "bottom rungs" of the economy rather than the 12-oddM minimum wage workers we were actually discussing. But do go on, I would want to let the actual conversation get in the way of your pontificating.

 AustonT wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

That's nonsense. The bottom rungs of the payscale hold the entire economy together, fueling the buying and selling and provide the infrastructure necessary to allow a nation to function.

Yeah you're right. That IS nonsense.

So, AustonT, you actually think 3.4 million people will buy five times more than the other 330 million people in America - or on a per capita basis, 5,000 times more? Because right now they control five times more wealth than the rest of the country, or 5,000 times more on a per capita basis.

That's a big part of the stagnation of the American economy. The people with the money are not spending it at anything close to the speed the rest of the population would IF they had it.

Let's make that into a concrete example for you. The average American goes out to eat twice a week, spending around $25 bucks per outing. For a 1%er to spend a proportional amountm they would need to go out to eat for every meal (10x as often) and drop $2500 per outing. Short of political fund-raisers, I don't think there's any restaurant that costs THAT much.

I see you've mastered the art of abandoning reality in the search of the one true hyperbole. I suppose by discarding both common sense and context you can happily chatter away at your keyboard under the belief that 330M Americans represent the "bottom rungs" of the economy rather than the 12-oddM minimum wage workers we were actually discussing. But do go on, I would want to let the actual conversation get in the way of your pontificating.

I'm so very glad you established where the delineation occurs in the debate but felt somehow unable to let the rest of us know until you're confronted with some figures and then you simply inform us you've been having that 'other' discussion along different rules.

When the 6 immediate family members who own Walmart own more money than the entire lower 30% of your nation's population, you chose to place 'your qualifying line' lower than everyone else and lambaste them for their idiocy, after we'd not actually established a quantitative figure for the entire debate. I think I was certainly operating under the notion of 'low pay' rather than precisely the minimum or below, but I'm glad you have set the standard in the conversation. Where would we be without your flawless logic?

Some of us are so sharp we could just cut ourselves.

 AustonT wrote:

I see you've mastered the art of abandoning reality in the search of the one true hyperbole. I suppose by discarding both common sense and context you can happily chatter away at your keyboard under the belief that 330M Americans represent the "bottom rungs" of the economy rather than the 12-oddM minimum wage workers we were actually discussing. But do go on, I would want to let the actual conversation get in the way of your pontificating.

I suppose I could bring it down to that level. Given that six members of the Walton family have as much wealth as the poorest 70 million Americans, to get down to that bottom 12 million we would only need one Walton (who would probably control MORE wealth that that bottom 12 million, but we'll go ahead and call it equivalent).

Do you actually think that one Walton spends more than those twelve million in the bottom percentile? Really? He'll spend over $600,000,000 a week on groceries (or $50 per person out of that 12 million you specified)? You sure about that?

 Ratbarf wrote:

Maybe it's a case of a difference of opinion on what makes someone a little bleep? Because that guy didn't really do anything wrong. His marriage should be more important than any of his employees, and the potential of financial loss to a divorce should also be placed above pretty much any employee.

And here I thought everyone agreed that getting ridiculous looking tribals on your shoulder joint was akin to an avowal of ery...

(well everyone but those with ridiculous looking tribals)

And I usually try to avoid absolutes in moral relationships. Yes, a marriage is more important (to you) than a employer-employee relationship, which doesn't excuse you for being a douche to your employees in order to save your marriage.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:

Maybe it's a case of a difference of opinion on what makes someone a little bleep? Because that guy didn't really do anything wrong. His marriage should be more important than any of his employees, and the potential of financial loss to a divorce should also be placed above pretty much any employee.

And here I thought everyone agreed that getting ridiculous looking tribals on your shoulder joint was akin to an avowal of ery...

(well everyone but those with ridiculous looking tribals)

And I usually try to avoid absolutes in moral relationships. Yes, a marriage is more important (to you) than a employer-employee relationship, which doesn't excuse you for being a douche to your employees in order to save your marriage.

Especially considering you created the danger to the marriage in the first place.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:

Maybe it's a case of a difference of opinion on what makes someone a little bleep? Because that guy didn't really do anything wrong. His marriage should be more important than any of his employees, and the potential of financial loss to a divorce should also be placed above pretty much any employee.

And here I thought everyone agreed that getting ridiculous looking tribals on your shoulder joint was akin to an avowal of ery...

(well everyone but those with ridiculous looking tribals)

And I usually try to avoid absolutes in moral relationships. Yes, a marriage is more important (to you) than a employer-employee relationship, which doesn't excuse you for being a douche to your employees in order to save your marriage.

Especially considering you created the danger to the marriage in the first place.

Why would Kovnik create this setup to ruin another person's marriage?

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

That's nonsense. The bottom rungs of the payscale hold the entire economy together, fueling the buying and selling and provide the infrastructure necessary to allow a nation to function.

Yeah you're right. That IS nonsense.

So, AustonT, you actually think 3.4 million people will buy five times more than the other 330 million people in America - or on a per capita basis, 5,000 times more? Because right now they control five times more wealth than the rest of the country, or 5,000 times more on a per capita basis.

That's a big part of the stagnation of the American economy. The people with the money are not spending it at anything close to the speed the rest of the population would IF they had it.

Let's make that into a concrete example for you. The average American goes out to eat twice a week, spending around $25 bucks per outing. For a 1%er to spend a proportional amountm they would need to go out to eat for every meal (10x as often) and drop $2500 per outing. Short of political fund-raisers, I don't think there's any restaurant that costs THAT much.

I see you've mastered the art of abandoning reality in the search of the one true hyperbole. I suppose by discarding both common sense and context you can happily chatter away at your keyboard under the belief that 330M Americans represent the "bottom rungs" of the economy rather than the 12-oddM minimum wage workers we were actually discussing. But do go on, I would want to let the actual conversation get in the way of your pontificating.

I'm so very glad you established where the delineation occurs in the debate but felt somehow unable to let the rest of us know until you're confronted with some figures and then you simply inform us you've been having that 'other' discussion along different rules.

When the 6 immediate family members who own Walmart own more money than the entire lower 30% of your nation's population, you chose to place 'your qualifying line' lower than everyone else and lambaste them for their idiocy, after we'd not actually established a quantitative figure for the entire debate. I think I was certainly operating under the notion of 'low pay' rather than precisely the minimum or below, but I'm glad you have set the standard in the conversation. Where would we be without your flawless logic?

Some of us are so sharp we could just cut ourselves.

Vulcan wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

I see you've mastered the art of abandoning reality in the search of the one true hyperbole. I suppose by discarding both common sense and context you can happily chatter away at your keyboard under the belief that 330M Americans represent the "bottom rungs" of the economy rather than the 12-oddM minimum wage workers we were actually discussing. But do go on, I would want to let the actual conversation get in the way of your pontificating.

I suppose I could bring it down to that level. Given that six members of the Walton family have as much wealth as the poorest 70 million Americans, to get down to that bottom 12 million we would only need one Walton (who would probably control MORE wealth that that bottom 12 million, but we'll go ahead and call it equivalent).

Do you actually think that one Walton spends more than those twelve million in the bottom percentile? Really? He'll spend over $600,000,000 a week on groceries (or $50 per person out of that 12 million you specified)? You sure about that?

A twofer! What a Christmas delight!
/claims lower class is the life blood of the economy
/pulls Walton family out of ass
/blithy ignores the middle class
#slowedhivemind

I'm of the opinion that as the owner of a business, you should be able to terminate someone for whatever reason you see fit as long as it does not include harassment. Whether or not this specific case contained harassment I'm not sure.

And that is why we have some of the worst labor laws in the "developed" world...

I have no idea how any business anywhere in the world except the USA survives.

 Cheesecat wrote:


Why would Kovnik create this setup to ruin another person's marriage?

The evil that I do do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mattman154 wrote:
I'm of the opinion that as the owner of a business, you should be able to terminate someone for whatever reason you see fit as long as it does not include harassment. Whether or not this specific case contained harassment I'm not sure.

That leaves discrimination out. And Harassment is a crime up here, I don't know if it's one down the border, but I would hope...

 d-usa wrote:
And that is why we have some of the worst labor laws in the "developed" world...

I have no idea how any business anywhere in the world except the USA survives.

Surviving is a bit different than "driving the world's largest, most powerful economy," no?

The USA is not #1 in many different categories.

 d-usa wrote:
The USA is not #1 in many different categories.

So we're not the largest, most powerful economy in the world, eh? Who is?

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The USA is not #1 in many different categories.

So we're not the largest, most powerful economy in the world, eh? Who is?

So, answering to an unasked question with another question? Maybe a brain reboot could help.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
So, answering to an unasked question with another question? Maybe a brain reboot could help.

As you apparently neglected to actually read the sequence of posts, I'll repeat them for you.

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
And that is why we have some of the worst labor laws in the "developed" world...

I have no idea how any business anywhere in the world except the USA survives.

Surviving is a bit different than "driving the world's largest, most powerful economy," no?

 d-usa wrote:
The USA is not #1 in many different categories.

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The USA is not #1 in many different categories.

So we're not the largest, most powerful economy in the world, eh? Who is?

You are the one who claimed that we are the largest, most powerful economy in the world.

So instead of backing that up with a source it is my job to provide sources to show you are wrong?

Edit:

Fine. Once you ignore the fact that "we make more because we are the biggest country" and actually focus on individuals (which is the point when talking about business being able to make profit) and look at GDP per capita we get the US ranking at (ignoring ties):

World Bank Ranking: #10
IMF Ranking: #8
CIA Ranking: #12
UofP Ranking: #12

If we treat the European Union (and all its crazy laws that give workers rights and keep employers from being able to do whatever they want) as a federation of states like the USA then they also beat the US in all three lists.

I'd say USA and European Union are #1 and #2... just pick whichever order...

Worst "labor" laws... o.O

Really?

 whembly wrote:
Worst "labor" laws... o.O

Really?

Maybe better worded as "worst worker rights" laws, but yes.

The United States is a horrible country when it comes to how workers are treated with regards to their rights.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Worst "labor" laws... o.O

Really?

Maybe better worded as "worst worker rights" laws, but yes.

The United States is a horrible country when it comes to how workers are treated with regards to their rights.

er... not sure I'd agree with that.

But... ignorance is bliss eh?

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Worst "labor" laws... o.O

Really?

Maybe better worded as "worst worker rights" laws, but yes.

The United States is a horrible country when it comes to how workers are treated with regards to their rights.

er... not sure I'd agree with that.

But... ignorance is bliss eh?

We've had a thread about this in the past, not sure what the subject was, but the Europeans were actually pretty shocked when they found out what our employers are able to do and how little rights we actually have. We are one of the only countries that doesn't have paid parental leave as just one example.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Worst "labor" laws... o.O

Really?

Maybe better worded as "worst worker rights" laws, but yes.

The United States is a horrible country when it comes to how workers are treated with regards to their rights.

er... not sure I'd agree with that.

But... ignorance is bliss eh?

We've had a thread about this in the past, not sure what the subject was, but the Europeans were actually pretty shocked when they found out what our employers are able to do and how little rights we actually have. We are one of the only countries that doesn't have paid parental leave as just one example.

Huh?

I can see we have different rights... but that doesn't necessarily damn our "working conditions" here in the states.

Remember, being different isn't always bad:

And being ignorant of all the things we don't have that other developed countries do is good as well I guess.

 d-usa wrote:
And being ignorant of all the things we don't have that other developed countries do is good as well I guess.

Well... we can only play with the cards that we're dealt with. Most of us should know or want to acquire skills so that we're wanted on the job market. As long as we're providing these desirable skills, the employer should pay accordingly.

Okay... I.CAN'T.RESIST... but, I mean this as a jest since you did this to me...

So...

Quit yer whining and engage the political process to change this!

 whembly wrote:
Quit yer whining and engage the political process to change this!

Why do you think I voted Democrat

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Quit yer whining and engage the political process to change this!

Why do you think I voted Democrat

Because you are a godless socialist.

Hey, I believe in God...

 AustonT wrote:

A twofer! What a Christmas delight!
/claims lower class is the life blood of the economy
/pulls Walton family out of ass
/blithy ignores the middle class
#slowedhivemind

Thanks for the 'slowed' comment, it strengthened your position a great deal.

Now, since we're going forward in that fashion, nice and 'slow', what are the three input requirements for a capitalist society (which we do live in, despite you and yours all whining about your new black socialist muslim overlord)? That's right children, we require the following ingredients:

Land
Capital Goods
annnnnnnnnnnnnnndddddd?...
Labor! That's right, we require labour.

Now, for those of you at the back, desperately mining for your brain via your nose, yes you AustonT, you witty scamp or you Seaward, you cheeky imp. How do we get labor, is it via the 'middle class'? (also, do remember your fixation with figures Auston, I want a full report from you on 'definition of the middle class, just in case you decide to release your 'finite fixture' of what the middle class constitutes after someone makes some error in meeting 'your definition'.
No, for the middle class to exist, there must be a working class providing the basics. Because that's how pyramids work, you require a large number at the bottom, earning less, to facilitate people at the top earning a lot. Even if you try to broaden the definitions of the middle tier, you must lower the average earned by lowest level... the only other option would be to take from the upper tier, and that would be evil redistribution of wealth, such as the 'great satan' sat in your white house is trying to do, right? If you wanted to improve the wealth of the middle, given that you don't or won't take from the top, you have to take from the bottom, because we're dealing with a finite amount.

So, going back to Seaward's claim that the lowest earners are fairly dispensable, I again have to repeat my disagreement because without them holding up the pyramid, it won't function.

Also, 'pulling the Waltons from my ass' (Johnboy was especially difficult to free up) was entirely poignant as not only are they among the highest echelons of the wealthy, but they directly rely upon the very lowest portion of society to fuel that, both as employees and shoppers. The example was supposed to be obvious, but, then again, given your remarkably witty retort Auston, it's unsurprising you didn't 'get it'.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
So, going back to Seaward's claim that the lowest earners are fairly dispensable, I again have to repeat my disagreement because without them holding up the pyramid, it won't function.

Seaward's claim was that they're not valuable from a business perspective. If you're going to get worked up over people allegedly arguing against something you're not saying, it might be wise not to do the same to them.

Seaward posited the question about who had the best economy in the world?

Obviously it's the Lobstermen that immigrated from Crustaceia 7 fifty-six years ago in an attempt to escape their slowly boiling planet.


Also, I'm not quite sure where this stopped being about a guy with morally shady hiring/firing practices and about the common man being the back bone to our economy... Fiscal Cliff is that way ->

 Seaward wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
So, going back to Seaward's claim that the lowest earners are fairly dispensable, I again have to repeat my disagreement because without them holding up the pyramid, it won't function.

Seaward's claim was that they're not valuable from a business perspective. If you're going to get worked up over people allegedly arguing against something you're not saying, it might be wise not to do the same to them.

Please expound on this, because you seem to be saying 'not valuable' is not the same as 'dispensable' and I want you to be clear on what 'not valuable' means?

I believe he means that any individual worker is not by themselves valuable at all, as there are large numbers of minimum wage workers waiting in the wings to take that job should the current holder be terminated for whatever reason.

They're a dime a dozen, which means they can be treated like crap because more of them can always be found and cheaply at that. Obviously if all of the minimum wage workers dissapeared the company would fail, but since they aren't going anywhere it doesn't pay from a business point of view to treat them the same way you would a specialist.

This theory is just my imagination running amok, but what if the truth of the matter is that Mrs. Nelson losing her job was entirely on the wife of the doctor and had nothing to do with the doctor? Certainly if the case would be brought to court, you would take the blame for the action instead of blaming it on your wife? On the other hand, it sounds more probable that this dude is weak of character.

 Ratbarf wrote:
I believe he means that any individual worker is not by themselves valuable at all, as there are large numbers of minimum wage workers waiting in the wings to take that job should the current holder be terminated for whatever reason.

They're a dime a dozen, which means they can be treated like crap because more of them can always be found and cheaply at that.

I wouldn't say "treated like crap," but no, it certainly doesn't make much sense to invest much in recruitment and retention when it comes to minimum wage workers. As a class, they're certainly not dispensable, as many businesses make use of minimum wage labor. They should be protected under current labor law, but pretending as though companies should be giving them the same perks as you'd find used to recruit and retain high-end talent is a little absurd.

 Seaward wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:
I believe he means that any individual worker is not by themselves valuable at all, as there are large numbers of minimum wage workers waiting in the wings to take that job should the current holder be terminated for whatever reason.

They're a dime a dozen, which means they can be treated like crap because more of them can always be found and cheaply at that.

I wouldn't say "treated like crap," but no, it certainly doesn't make much sense to invest much in recruitment and retention when it comes to minimum wage workers. As a class, they're certainly not dispensable, as many businesses make use of minimum wage labor. They should be protected under current labor law, but pretending as though companies should be giving them the same perks as you'd find used to recruit and retain high-end talent is a little absurd.

When did anyone you were debating with mention 'perks'? Perks are extra holiday/vacation, company car, office with a nice view, living without constant fear of dismissal for things entirely beyond your control is not a 'perk', it should be an employment right.

We have been discussing the protection of the law from being fired for things like 'she looked too hot and I thought my winkie might get me divorced so I fired her hot hot ass' or 'it's raining and I stepped in a puddle so I am going to fire you on a whim'.

Whether or not you recognize that, actually, pay scale is not a direct indicator of skill sets or indeed that high paid individuals could well be put in low paid work and fail miserably at it, those employed at the lower end of the wage scale should be entitled to live without the fear that they might someday earn their idiot boss's lust or just be the first person seen by their boss on a bad day. It is especially prominent for people who have to live hand to mouth on low pay, who have no ability to save money against the possibility of being fired, that they have legal protection against being fired for anything less than a performance or misconduct issue.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

When did anyone you were debating with mention 'perks'? Perks are extra holiday/vacation, company car, office with a nice view, living without constant fear of dismissal for things entirely beyond your control is not a 'perk', it should be an employment right.

We have been discussing the protection of the law from being fired for things like 'she looked too hot and I thought my winkie might get me divorced so I fired her hot hot ass' or 'it's raining and I stepped in a puddle so I am going to fire you on a whim'.

Whether or not you recognize that, actually, pay scale is not a direct indicator of skill sets or indeed that high paid individuals could well be put in low paid work and fail miserably at it, those employed at the lower end of the wage scale should be entitled to live without the fear that they might someday earn their idiot boss's lust or just be the first person seen by their boss on a bad day. It is especially prominent for people who have to live hand to mouth on low pay, who have no ability to save money against the possibility of being fired, that they have legal protection against being fired for anything less than a performance or misconduct issue.

And my point has been that being fired for reasons unrelated to job performance happens at all strata of the work force, and there's nothing at all wrong with that. If you're fired without cause, you collect unemployment insurance to get you through until you find another job. If you genuinely believe that there's a tyrannical reign of Snidely Whiplash characters twirling mustaches and firing people based on the weather, then all I can say is that it just doesn't work that way. One isolated case does not a pandemic make.

 Seaward wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

When did anyone you were debating with mention 'perks'? Perks are extra holiday/vacation, company car, office with a nice view, living without constant fear of dismissal for things entirely beyond your control is not a 'perk', it should be an employment right.

We have been discussing the protection of the law from being fired for things like 'she looked too hot and I thought my winkie might get me divorced so I fired her hot hot ass' or 'it's raining and I stepped in a puddle so I am going to fire you on a whim'.

Whether or not you recognize that, actually, pay scale is not a direct indicator of skill sets or indeed that high paid individuals could well be put in low paid work and fail miserably at it, those employed at the lower end of the wage scale should be entitled to live without the fear that they might someday earn their idiot boss's lust or just be the first person seen by their boss on a bad day. It is especially prominent for people who have to live hand to mouth on low pay, who have no ability to save money against the possibility of being fired, that they have legal protection against being fired for anything less than a performance or misconduct issue.

And my point has been that being fired for reasons unrelated to job performance happens at all strata of the work force, and there's nothing at all wrong with that. If you're fired without cause, you collect unemployment insurance to get you through until you find another job. If you genuinely believe that there's a tyrannical reign of Snidely Whiplash characters twirling mustaches and firing people based on the weather, then all I can say is that it just doesn't work that way. One isolated case does not a pandemic make.

+1

 Seaward wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

When did anyone you were debating with mention 'perks'? Perks are extra holiday/vacation, company car, office with a nice view, living without constant fear of dismissal for things entirely beyond your control is not a 'perk', it should be an employment right.

We have been discussing the protection of the law from being fired for things like 'she looked too hot and I thought my winkie might get me divorced so I fired her hot hot ass' or 'it's raining and I stepped in a puddle so I am going to fire you on a whim'.

Whether or not you recognize that, actually, pay scale is not a direct indicator of skill sets or indeed that high paid individuals could well be put in low paid work and fail miserably at it, those employed at the lower end of the wage scale should be entitled to live without the fear that they might someday earn their idiot boss's lust or just be the first person seen by their boss on a bad day. It is especially prominent for people who have to live hand to mouth on low pay, who have no ability to save money against the possibility of being fired, that they have legal protection against being fired for anything less than a performance or misconduct issue.

And my point has been that being fired for reasons unrelated to job performance happens at all strata of the work force, and there's nothing at all wrong with that. If you're fired without cause, you collect unemployment insurance to get you through until you find another job. If you genuinely believe that there's a tyrannical reign of Snidely Whiplash characters twirling mustaches and firing people based on the weather, then all I can say is that it just doesn't work that way. One isolated case does not a pandemic make.

Is unemployment insurance paid at the same rate as your wage?

Also, despite the amusing picture you paint, that does not alter employees lacking legal protection. Just because a few fireworks factories burn down, we do put laws into place about safety.

And unemployment insurance, as I understand it, is not quite that easy to claim, especially if the employer doesn't cooperate.

Also if these cases where people are fired on a whim and without any cause related to their work, why the great fear in legislating against it to give employees greater protection from these 'isolated' cases?

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Is unemployment insurance paid at the same rate as your wage?

No, it's a certain percentage of it. I honestly don't know the exact number, because despite being an Adonis with the body of a Greek god and thus absolutely irresistible to all who look upon me, I've never been fired without cause. Or with cause, for that matter.

Also, despite the amusing picture you paint, that does not alter employees lacking legal protection. Just because a few fireworks factories burn down, we do put laws into place about safety.

And unemployment insurance, as I understand it, is not quite that easy to claim, especially if the employer doesn't cooperate.

Correct. Employees lack legal protection from being terminated at will by their employer. And I'm perfectly fine with that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Also if these cases where people are fired on a whim and without any cause related to their work, why the great fear in legislating against it to give employees greater protection from these 'isolated' cases?

Because there is a vast gulf between "fired on a whim" and "fired for work-related performance."

 Seaward wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Also if these cases where people are fired on a whim and without any cause related to their work, why the great fear in legislating against it to give employees greater protection from these 'isolated' cases?

Because there is a vast gulf between "fired on a whim" and "fired for work-related performance."

See, I don't mind people being sacked for not doing their job properly. You are constantly supporting people being terminated on the basis of things unrelated to work.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
See, I don't mind people being sacked for not doing their job properly. You are constantly supporting people being terminated on the basis of things unrelated to work.

Yep. If something not related to work is a big enough problem for an employer, I see no reason why that employer should be forced to continue employing said person.

 Seaward wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Is unemployment insurance paid at the same rate as your wage?

No, it's a certain percentage of it. I honestly don't know the exact number, because despite being an Adonis with the body of a Greek god and thus absolutely irresistible to all who look upon me, I've never been fired without cause. Or with cause, for that matter.

Also, despite the amusing picture you paint, that does not alter employees lacking legal protection. Just because a few fireworks factories burn down, we do put laws into place about safety.

And unemployment insurance, as I understand it, is not quite that easy to claim, especially if the employer doesn't cooperate.

Correct. Employees lack legal protection from being terminated at will by their employer. And I'm perfectly fine with that.

So, what this boils down to is you are unable to feel empathy for people who are fired for things beyond their ability to control, who may then find themselves unable to support their families, keep their homes, or indeed remain out of life breaking debt, because they have been fired on a whim by someone for something unrelated to their capability as an employee?

So the underlying issue here is not that these people may be subjected to great suffering because they had their ability to provide for their families and themselves taken away, the actual issue is your inability to empathize with people in these situations.

So I'm not actually debating an opposing viewpoint, just your inability to relate due to either some psychological condition or massive inexperience with life or living entirely within some bubble of privilege. Well, don't think I can do much about that, other than hope you have cause to reassess your priorities in the future and that you are not at the mercy of someone who shares your view when you do.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
So, what this boils down to is you are unable to feel empathy for people who are fired for things beyond their ability to control, who may then find themselves unable to support their families, keep their homes, or indeed remain out of life breaking debt, because they have been fired on a whim by someone for something unrelated to their capability as an employee?

No, that's not what it boils down to, because very few people are fired on a whim. The woman in this case was not fired on a whim.

So the underlying issue here is not that these people may be subjected to great suffering because they had their ability to provide for their families and themselves taken away, the actual issue is your inability to empathize with people in these situations.

I empathize with a lot of people in a lot of situations. Very rarely do I feel government regulations are the answer to their problems.

So I'm not actually debating an opposing viewpoint, just your inability to relate due to either some psychological condition or massive inexperience with life or living entirely within some bubble of privilege. Well, don't think I can do much about that, other than hope you have cause to reassess your priorities in the future and that you are not at the mercy of someone who shares your view when you do.

I'd say it's an opposing viewpoint. My view is that the government shouldn't be responsible for ensuring you have a job as long as you want one. Yours appears to be that they should. I suspect mutual abhorrence.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Is unemployment insurance paid at the same rate as your wage?

No, it's a certain percentage of it. I honestly don't know the exact number, because despite being an Adonis with the body of a Greek god and thus absolutely irresistible to all who look upon me, I've never been fired without cause. Or with cause, for that matter.

Also, despite the amusing picture you paint, that does not alter employees lacking legal protection. Just because a few fireworks factories burn down, we do put laws into place about safety.

And unemployment insurance, as I understand it, is not quite that easy to claim, especially if the employer doesn't cooperate.

Correct. Employees lack legal protection from being terminated at will by their employer. And I'm perfectly fine with that.

So, what this boils down to is you are unable to feel empathy for people who are fired for things beyond their ability to control, who may then find themselves unable to support their families, keep their homes, or indeed remain out of life breaking debt, because they have been fired on a whim by someone for something unrelated to their capability as an employee?

So the underlying issue here is not that these people may be subjected to great suffering because they had their ability to provide for their families and themselves taken away, the actual issue is your inability to empathize with people in these situations.

So I'm not actually debating an opposing viewpoint, just your inability to relate due to either some psychological condition or massive inexperience with life or living entirely within some bubble of privilege. Well, don't think I can do much about that, other than hope you have cause to reassess your priorities in the future and that you are not at the mercy of someone who shares your view when you do.

Just like how a company you work for can suddenly be out of business, or you could lose a limb and be unable to work. Nothing is guaranteed.

 Seaward wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
So, what this boils down to is you are unable to feel empathy for people who are fired for things beyond their ability to control, who may then find themselves unable to support their families, keep their homes, or indeed remain out of life breaking debt, because they have been fired on a whim by someone for something unrelated to their capability as an employee?

No, that's not what it boils down to, because very few people are fired on a whim. The woman in this case was not fired on a whim.

She was fired for something that in no way related to her ability to do her job or her employment history, she was fired because the employer found her sexually attractive.
That is wrong. It is as wrong as firing someone for being a different race or having blonde hair. It is a whim, a decision with nothing to do with the pertinent facts of her employment. It was unjust.

 Seaward wrote:

So the underlying issue here is not that these people may be subjected to great suffering because they had their ability to provide for their families and themselves taken away, the actual issue is your inability to empathize with people in these situations.

I empathize with a lot of people in a lot of situations. Very rarely do I feel government regulations are the answer to their problems.

Who else defends the employee from the employer, why is it you believe the employer exists in a void beyond the auspices of the society they actually exist in, who grants the employer the right to behave like some medieval lord amid serfs instead of entering into a mutually beneficial contract between the two parties? Of course the government can regulate the situation to ensure fair play. Libetarianism in this country seems very skewed to the rights of the rich and powerful and seems to have sweet feth all to do with the rights of the poor or employees to do what they want. Like some 'mirror darkly' Nietzscheism with some wild west hokum thrown in for flavoring.

 Seaward wrote:

So I'm not actually debating an opposing viewpoint, just your inability to relate due to either some psychological condition or massive inexperience with life or living entirely within some bubble of privilege. Well, don't think I can do much about that, other than hope you have cause to reassess your priorities in the future and that you are not at the mercy of someone who shares your view when you do.

I'd say it's an opposing viewpoint. My view is that the government shouldn't be responsible for ensuring you have a job as long as you want one. Yours appears to be that they should. I suspect mutual abhorrence.

NEVER have I said that, NEVER has anyone here with an opposing view to yours suggested that the employee can be untouchable. I can only assume you are posting this deliberately conjured absolute because you're exhausted your weak argument. I said, others said, that the employee should be protected from being fired by an employer for situations beyond their control. Being viewed as sexually attractive would be one of many cases where the employee should not be fired as it is expected within the wider society we live in that the man should be able to stop himself referencing that or raping her one day. If the employer is not capable of that, then the employer should be institutionalized/imprisoned, as it's considered wrong in our society to rape, not to be moderately attractive. In a world of bankruptcies and closures and recession, the last thing we need is yet another excuse for people to be thrown away. This Gordon Gekko horsegak died off in the rest of the world years ago, why some of America clings to it like it's their own Koran is just tragic and ignorant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mattman154 wrote:

Just like how a company you work for can suddenly be out of business, or you could lose a limb and be unable to work. Nothing is guaranteed.

Do you know what insurance is?

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
[She was fired for something that in no way related to her ability to do her job or her employment history, she was fired because the employer found her sexually attractive.

She was fired because the business owner's wife wanted her fired.

That is wrong. It is as wrong as firing someone for being a different race or having blonde hair. It is a whim, a decision with nothing to do with the pertinent facts of her employment. It was unjust.

Morally wrong, maybe - I don't know, and don't particularly care - but legally? No. As it should be.

 Seaward wrote:

Who else defends the employee from the employer, why is it you believe the employer exists in a void beyond the auspices of the society they actually exist in, who grants the employer the right to behave like some medieval lord amid serfs instead of entering into a mutually beneficial contract between the two parties?

And once again, we're back to Snidely Whiplash dross. The whole point you're missing is that when it stops being a mutually beneficial contract, and is only beneficial to the employee, the employer should - and thankfully does - have every right to terminate the relationship. The opposite is also true.

Of course the government can regulate the situation to ensure fair play.

And they have. You seem to construe "fair play" as "everyone wins," however, and that's constantly going to trip you up.

Libetarianism in this country seems very skewed to the rights of the rich and powerful and seems to have sweet feth all to do with the rights of the poor or employees to do what they want.

It's actually skewed towards rights for everybody. Your complaint is that it's not skewed towards rights in favor of the people you want it to favor.

NEVER have I said that, NEVER has anyone here with an opposing view to yours suggested that the employee can be untouchable.

Oh, you're right. You've only suggested that they should be untouchable as long as they're doing satisfactory work as defined by the government. Are there any other hairs you'd care to split?

I can only assume you are posting this deliberately conjured absolute because you're exhausted your weak argument.

Fortunately, the court seemed to find it a rather compelling argument. I doubt we'll see that change anytime soon.

I said, others said, that the employee should be protected from being fired by an employer for situations beyond their control.

And I say otherwise.

This Gordon Gekko horsegak died off in the rest of the world years ago, why some of America clings to it like it's their own Koran is just tragic and ignorant.

"The rest of the world says do it this way," has never been all that impressive an argument to me. I've lived and worked in a lot of places in the rest of the world, and I haven't found them to be particularly more appealing than the US. I do remain consistently amazed at the number of people who feel we do everything terribly that choose to settle here, though.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Mattman154 wrote:

Just like how a company you work for can suddenly be out of business, or you could lose a limb and be unable to work. Nothing is guaranteed.

Do you know what insurance is?

I know what unemployment is

Mattman154 wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Mattman154 wrote:

Just like how a company you work for can suddenly be out of business, or you could lose a limb and be unable to work. Nothing is guaranteed.

Do you know what insurance is?

I know what unemployment is

Riiight, let me break this down into a bitesized portion for you.

Given all those things you list, losing limbs, companies folding, restructuring etc, isn't that enough threat of unemployment to be faced with without your boss firing you because he can't control his sexual urges or she stepped in a puddle on the way to work?

Because if you actually do know what unemployment is, if you do understand trying to provide for yourself and others without a support mechanism, if you live with the threat of losing your home and family, then you'd support giving workers the right to protect themselves against unreasonable termination.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Mattman154 wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Mattman154 wrote:

Just like how a company you work for can suddenly be out of business, or you could lose a limb and be unable to work. Nothing is guaranteed.

Do you know what insurance is?

I know what unemployment is

Riiight, let me break this down into a bitesized portion for you.

Given all those things you list, losing limbs, companies folding, restructuring etc, isn't that enough threat of unemployment to be faced with without your boss firing you because he can't control his sexual urges or she stepped in a puddle on the way to work?

Because if you actually do know what unemployment is, if you do understand trying to provide for yourself and others without a support mechanism, if you live with the threat of losing your home and family, then you'd support giving workers the right to protect themselves against unreasonable termination.

If you can show me evidence of someone being fired JUST because the boss was having a bad day, I would love to see it.

I live in a fire-at-will state. If I were to lose my job, I would have no other income and would not be able to fulfill my lease and my car payment. At this time, I don't go to work every day with the jitters because my employer has the ability to fire me for whatever it wants. So please don't say that everyone with people to feed and rent to pay supports your opinion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also imagine this scenario. You own a retail store. You have one employee. This employee has a stench that you can't stand. The smell doesn't prevent you from doing your job, nor does it hinder sales.

You've repeatedly talked to this employee about his stench but he does not want to change or maybe is medically unable to change.

What can the employer do?

 Seaward wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
[She was fired for something that in no way related to her ability to do her job or her employment history, she was fired because the employer found her sexually attractive.

She was fired because the business owner's wife wanted her fired.

For a reason that had nothing to do with her performance as an employee, please see previous posts.

 Seaward wrote:

That is wrong. It is as wrong as firing someone for being a different race or having blonde hair. It is a whim, a decision with nothing to do with the pertinent facts of her employment. It was unjust.

Morally wrong, maybe - I don't know, and don't particularly care - but legally? No. As it should be.

Ah, been reading 'beyond good and evil' again? The letter of the law should never eclipse the spirit of the law. That allows for nonsense like this issue to crop up.

 Seaward wrote:

Who else defends the employee from the employer, why is it you believe the employer exists in a void beyond the auspices of the society they actually exist in, who grants the employer the right to behave like some medieval lord amid serfs instead of entering into a mutually beneficial contract between the two parties?

And once again, we're back to Snidely Whiplash dross. The whole point you're missing is that when it stops being a mutually beneficial contract, and is only beneficial to the employee, the employer should - and thankfully does - have every right to terminate the relationship. The opposite is also true.

I find it amusing you keep referencing the 'snidely whiplash dross' when we're discussing this in a thread about that very situation arising. A woman fired from her work for being 'too comely'.

 Seaward wrote:

Of course the government can regulate the situation to ensure fair play.

And they have. You seem to construe "fair play" as "everyone wins," however, and that's constantly going to trip you up.

Nope, I'm stating that fair play = a more level playing field.

 Seaward wrote:

Libetarianism in this country seems very skewed to the rights of the rich and powerful and seems to have sweet feth all to do with the rights of the poor or employees to do what they want.

It's actually skewed towards rights for everybody. Your complaint is that it's not skewed towards rights in favor of the people you want it to favor.

Untrue, it favors those who already possess or operate in a position of power. I suggested, again, a more level playing field.

 Seaward wrote:

NEVER have I said that, NEVER has anyone here with an opposing view to yours suggested that the employee can be untouchable.

Oh, you're right. You've only suggested that they should be untouchable as long as they're doing satisfactory work as defined by the government. Are there any other hairs you'd care to split?

Do you honestly think a well performing employee vs a poor performing employee is a 'split hair'? Employers are not kings, their business operates within the sociological framework of the society it exists in. You are answerable, no matter who you are, to the rest of your society.

 Seaward wrote:

I can only assume you are posting this deliberately conjured absolute because you're exhausted your weak argument.

Fortunately, the court seemed to find it a rather compelling argument. I doubt we'll see that change anytime soon.

Do courts find consistently in all cases? Or is this case getting media attention and focus due to it's bizarre outcome? Take some time over this by all means.

 Seaward wrote:

I said, others said, that the employee should be protected from being fired by an employer for situations beyond their control.

And I say otherwise.

I'm afraid the tide is still coming in, your majesty.

 Seaward wrote:

This Gordon Gekko horsegak died off in the rest of the world years ago, why some of America clings to it like it's their own Koran is just tragic and ignorant.

"The rest of the world says do it this way," has never been all that impressive an argument to me. I've lived and worked in a lot of places in the rest of the world, and I haven't found them to be particularly more appealing than the US. I do remain consistently amazed at the number of people who feel we do everything terribly that choose to settle here, though.

Got to love the Freedom of Speech! Also, you are in a minority, as the elections proved. Here's to four more years!

When you agree to work for an employer there's a two way contract to be maintained, it's not all in the favour of the employer, it's a reciprocal agreement. This thread stinks of the attitude that poor people should be glad they even have a job and whatever scraps get tossed to them from their more wealthy betters.

Employment is more than just doing a task and getting money, there's a reciprocal agreement involving a modicum of respect. You don't abuse your employer's assets, you don't take advantage of their facilities, you take care to represent them in a good light to customers and the like. Few people enjoy retail, but you dress smartly, put on a smile and you work hard. Generally, you don't take the piss even in cases that wouldn't specifically breach your employment contract.

In return the employer should offer the safest working environment they can reasonably offer, and treat their employees in an ethical manner and, generally, if you don't breach the terms of your employment contract then you should expect ongoing work. Mass redundancies aside, can't often be helped, but we're talking about sacking individuals here. Terminating people on the basis of things unrelated to the workplace or their quality of work, but due to some other prejudice, is unethical, and this idea that once sacked you can live happy on government handouts until another job just appears is a total load of gak. Seen the job situation at the moment? Now try getting one trying to explain why you were fired from your last job and your employer won't give you a reference (I mean if they sacked you because of some BS reasons they aren't very likely to give you a glowing reference, it's likely they personally didn't like something about your character or background). Low wage workers are not the playthings of richer employees to treat as they see fit because they are in a position of great power over them, as much as it suits some people.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
When you agree to work for an employer there's a two way contract to be maintained, it's not all in the favour of the employer, it's a reciprocal agreement. This thread stinks of the attitude that poor people should be glad they even have a job and whatever scraps get tossed to them from their more wealthy betters.

Employment is more than just doing a task and getting money, there's a reciprocal agreement involving a modicum of respect. You don't abuse your employer's assets, you don't take advantage of their facilities, you take care to represent them in a good light to customers and the like. Few people enjoy retail, but you dress smartly, put on a smile and you work hard. Generally, you don't take the piss even in cases that wouldn't specifically breach your employment contract.

In return the employer should offer the safest working environment they can reasonably offer, and treat their employees in an ethical manner and, generally, if you don't breach the terms of your employment contract then you should expect ongoing work. Mass redundancies aside, can't often be helped, but we're talking about sacking individuals here. Terminating people on the basis of things unrelated to the workplace or their quality of work, but due to some other prejudice, is unethical, and this idea that once sacked you can live happy on government handouts until another job just appears is a total load of gak. Seen the job situation at the moment? Now try getting one trying to explain why you were fired from your last job and your employer won't give you a reference (I mean if they sacked you because of some BS reasons they aren't very likely to give you a glowing reference, it's likely they personally didn't like something about your character or background). Low wage workers are not the playthings of richer employees to treat as they see fit because they are in a position of great power over them, as much as it suits some people.

Howard... have you worked in the US or at a "at will" state?

Oh... @Thread... there's a difference between being "fired" and "laid off".

The lady was laid off.

Mattman154 wrote:

Also imagine this scenario. You own a retail store. You have one employee. This employee has a stench that you can't stand. The smell doesn't prevent you from doing your job, nor does it hinder sales.

You've repeatedly talked to this employee about his stench but he does not want to change or maybe is medically unable to change.

What can the employer do?

What is the job?

Which is it, unwilling to change after repeated formal requests to conform to 'an acceptable standard of hygiene for the workplace' or 'is medically suffering from a complaint, has medical certification supporting that' and can be considered for something that isn't front of house?

The employer could, presumably, do what employers do in every European nation that has better employee protection than the fire on whim states of the US? Just a thought...

I currently work for an "At-will" company. I am in their employ as long as they wish me to be. They can terminate my employment without warning or reason.

 whembly wrote:

Oh... @Thread... there's a difference between being "fired" and "laid off".

The lady was laid off.

Why is that relevant?

She was parted from her job and the income from that job because she was 'too pretty'.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Mattman154 wrote:

Also imagine this scenario. You own a retail store. You have one employee. This employee has a stench that you can't stand. The smell doesn't prevent you from doing your job, nor does it hinder sales.

You've repeatedly talked to this employee about his stench but he does not want to change or maybe is medically unable to change.

What can the employer do?

What is the job?

Which is it, unwilling to change after repeated formal requests to conform to 'an acceptable standard of hygiene for the workplace' or 'is medically suffering from a complaint, has medical certification supporting that' and can be considered for something that isn't front of house?

The employer could, presumably, do what employers do in every European nation that has better employee protection than the fire on whim states of the US? Just a thought...

Lets get your answer for each scenario. Assuming the job is customer service, and there are no "Back house" positions available.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also:
http://unemploymenthandbook.com/unemployment-articles/all-about-unemployment/114-laid-off-fired-or-quit-do-you-qualify-to-file-for-unemployment

"Most people collecting unemployment have been laid off from their jobs either permanently or temporarily. Typically, to be qualified to apply for and receive state unemployment compensation you need to have lost your job “through no fault of your own.” Job lay-off is just that—you have been a good employee and had no intention to leave your job at this time, it was the decision of management and nothing personal."

This thread continues to be disgusting. Props to the people saying the guy was right to fire her over his wife's insecurities: you're helping humanity suck even harder.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
When you agree to work for an employer there's a two way contract to be maintained, it's not all in the favour of the employer, it's a reciprocal agreement. This thread stinks of the attitude that poor people should be glad they even have a job and whatever scraps get tossed to them from their more wealthy betters.

I'm of the opinion that everyone should be glad of a job, but unless you own your own business and are your own boss, you're always, to use MeanGreenStompa's turn of phrase, at someone else's mercy regarding your continued employment.

Employment is more than just doing a task and getting money, there's a reciprocal agreement involving a modicum of respect. You don't abuse your employer's assets, you don't take advantage of their facilities, you take care to represent them in a good light to customers and the like. Few people enjoy retail, but you dress smartly, put on a smile and you work hard. Generally, you don't take the piss even in cases that wouldn't specifically breach your employment contract.

In return the employer should offer the safest working environment they can reasonably offer, and treat their employees in an ethical manner and, generally, if you don't breach the terms of your employment contract then you should expect ongoing work.

Expect it all you like, but to demand it from the government is ludicrous.

Terminating people on the basis of things unrelated to the workplace or their quality of work, but due to some other prejudice, is unethical,

It depends on the circumstances. I wouldn't consider it unethical at all to terminate someone who made a habit of, for example, getting himself arrested for DUIs while outside of work. Has no bearing at all on his performance at work, has nothing to do with the workplace, but I wouldn't want that guy working for me. And if I run my own business, that's my right, to pick and choose who I want working for me within the letter of the law.

and this idea that once sacked you can live happy on government handouts until another job just appears is a total load of gak.

Where did I say anything at all about living happy? Unemployment insurance isn't designed to let you live happy, it's designed to let you survive.

Seen the job situation at the moment?

Yeah. Unemployment's at around 5.1% in Virginia. Pretty good.

Low wage workers are not the playthings of richer employees to treat as they see fit because they are in a position of great power over them, as much as it suits some people.

Nor are they entitled to any more or less job security than high wage workers.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
This thread continues to be disgusting. Props to the people saying the guy was right to fire her over his wife's insecurities: you're helping humanity suck even harder.

You're welcome

 whembly wrote:

Howard... have you worked in the US or at a "at will" state?

No I haven't, and I would avoid places where the law supports rich employers to treat their workers as pawns.

I've only worked in the socialist hell hole of the UK where apparently once you get a job you're in it for life no matter how incompetent. Well here's an example of our labour laws protecting people. Some years ago my wife got sacked from an office job. She only ever got good feedback from customers but the guy in the department that was made manager took a dislike to her. Maybe it was because some of his customers asked to be transferred to my wife after she managed them for a week when he was on holiday. Maybe it's because he and the managing directors all went to the same church together (promotions all seemed to go to people who shared this church) and my wife wasn't a christian, maybe she was ultimately removed because the girl that replaced her was the girlfriend of the director's son. We'll never know. Anyway he had a dislike to her for whatever reasons and picked on her a few times for spurious reasons before asking to see her at the end of one Monday and told her that she was sacked and to clear her desk because she 'wasn't fitting in'. Despite having been there a year and having a progress meeting the week beforehand in which they said they were entirely happy with her work. She got a months pay but it very nearly screwed up our wedding plans. Because she'd only been there a year she couldn't claim 'unfair dismissal' so that was an end to the matter. I don't talk about it often because my wife found the experience of being fired so shaming at the time.

I think that is nasty enough without giving employers even more powers to do as they like to people. I imagine thinks like this are rife in the US, but it doesn't matter because such people aren't valuable.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I think that is nasty enough without giving employers even more powers to do as they like to people. I imagine thinks like this are rife in the US, but it doesn't matter because such people aren't valuable.

Very rife. So rife that a woman being fired for spurious reasons makes national headlines in a country of 300 million plus. As I said, it's clearly an epidemic.

Majority of the US is "at-will employment" states, which doesn't fall under just the employer's side of things. Since my job is currently, "at-will" I could just not show up tomorrow and say, "I quit, :censored:!" and they couldn't do anything about it. Most states have exceptions to the "at-will" thing though. Like Ohio's are here:
Ohio has five basic exceptions to the employment-at-will doctrine.

1) The employment-at-will doctrine does not apply if an employment contract provides for a specific term of employment or job protection, such as allowing a termination only for just cause.

2) If an employer says or writes something that is not exactly a contract, but the court nonetheless treats it as though it were a contract, then the employment-at-will doctrine will not apply. For example, the court may determine that written assurances in an employee manual make it clear that an employee will not be terminated unless he or she fails to perform satisfactorily or gives some just cause.

3) Promissory estoppel is another exception to the at-will doctrine. In such a case, an employee reasonably relies (to her detriment) on something an employer says or writes, even though it is not a contract. Let’s say, for example, that an employee is accused of a crime. The employee may be suspended from his job until the trial is over, and has relied on his employer’s verbal promise that he will be reinstated if he is acquitted. If the court finds that the employer should have expected the employee to rely on the promise, then the court may use “promissory estoppel” to decide that the employee was terminated wrongfully.

4) A “public policy” exception would prohibit an employer from terminating an employee “at will” if such a termination would violate public policy. For example, if an employee can prove she was terminated only because she took time off to serve on a jury, a court may determine that she was wrongfully terminated because, according to public policy, an employee cannot be terminated for taking time off for jury service.

5) While at-will employment applies to most employment relationships in Ohio, there are some laws that prohibit terminations for unlawful reasons (such as the anti-discrimination and retaliation laws). For example, an employee may not terminate an at-will employee because that employee became disabled.

@Alf... that's pretty common even in the "at will" states as well... (with some variations).

And guys... working conditions isn't "bad" or "horrible".

Jeeze.

 whembly wrote:
@Alf... that's pretty common even in the "at will" states as well... (with some variations).

And guys... working conditions isn't "bad" or "horrible".

Jeeze.

I know it is, Ohio is an "At-will" state In fact every state in our union is an "At-will" employment state. There are 7 states that have no such exceptions that Ohio and the other 42 have.

Edit: my point was if you don't want to work in an "At-will" state, you basically don't want to work in America...

Mattman154 wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Mattman154 wrote:

Also imagine this scenario. You own a retail store. You have one employee. This employee has a stench that you can't stand. The smell doesn't prevent you from doing your job, nor does it hinder sales.

You've repeatedly talked to this employee about his stench but he does not want to change or maybe is medically unable to change.

What can the employer do?

What is the job?

Which is it, unwilling to change after repeated formal requests to conform to 'an acceptable standard of hygiene for the workplace' or 'is medically suffering from a complaint, has medical certification supporting that' and can be considered for something that isn't front of house?

The employer could, presumably, do what employers do in every European nation that has better employee protection than the fire on whim states of the US? Just a thought...

Lets get your answer for each scenario. Assuming the job is customer service, and there are no "Back house" positions available.

I'm not going to write a fething essay for you on these hypothetical situations, because I'll be reading your 'ah but then this happened' bs a reply later. So don't be coming back with no 'oh but then he says this and then this fething unicorn shows up and then he's actually an alien who's come to earth to learn about the free market'...

If the employee is being negligent of personal hygiene, then, after 3 warnings, I'll fire his ass, as when I employed him, I stated clearly 'clean and presentable state, fit for working with the public' in the job description and I'll have the complaints about him smelling on record along with the requests for him to change it up. That is a performance issue and nothing to do with what we've been discussing.

If the employee has suffered a medical complaint during the course of their employment and now smells for some interesting medical reason, I will ensure fans and airfresheners are present in the area he works, remind him to help me to his utmost with his own hygiene regimen and enjoy his continued hard work. I will also feel really sorry for him and how he has to suffer the barriers he will now encounter and do my best to support him as a hard working part of my team.

Mattman154 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also:
http://unemploymenthandbook.com/unemployment-articles/all-about-unemployment/114-laid-off-fired-or-quit-do-you-qualify-to-file-for-unemployment

"Most people collecting unemployment have been laid off from their jobs either permanently or temporarily. Typically, to be qualified to apply for and receive state unemployment compensation you need to have lost your job “through no fault of your own.” Job lay-off is just that—you have been a good employee and had no intention to leave your job at this time, it was the decision of management and nothing personal."

Yes buddy, we're already established it pays less than the wage you were receiving and therefore still leads to financial hardship... try to keep up!

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Yes buddy, we're already established it pays less than the wage you were receiving and therefore still leads to financial hardship... try to keep up!

I suspect if being out of a job did not incur financial hardship, there would be very little incentive to get a job. I may go to Europe and test this theory sometime.

 Seaward wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Yes buddy, we're already established it pays less than the wage you were receiving and therefore still leads to financial hardship... try to keep up!

I suspect if being out of a job did not incur financial hardship, there would be very little incentive to get a job. I may go to Europe and test this theory sometime.

Didn't you know? Unemployment here bears no financial hardship at all, in fact you're better off unemployed. We only go to work to avoid getting bored at home because we don't have guns to shoot stuff.

If the employee is being negligent of personal hygiene, then, after 3 warnings, I'll fire his ass, as when I employed him, I stated clearly 'clean and presentable state, fit for working with the public' in the job description and I'll have the complaints about him smelling on record along with the requests for him to change it up. That is a performance issue and nothing to do with what we've been discussing.

But like I said in the example, his smell does not negatively impact customers.

If the employee has suffered a medical complaint during the course of their employment and now smells for some interesting medical reason, I will ensure fans and airfresheners are present in the area he works, remind him to help me to his utmost with his own hygiene regimen and enjoy his continued hard work. I will also feel really sorry for him and how he has to suffer the barriers he will now encounter and do my best to support him as a hard working part of my team.

That's a good, noble way to do things. Now tell me why an employer should not have the right to just fire the person?

Yes buddy, we're already established it pays less than the wage you were receiving and therefore still leads to financial hardship... try to keep up!

So it comes down to a matter of you wanting to live in a world of guarantees and myself living in the real world. Gotchya!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Yes buddy, we're already established it pays less than the wage you were receiving and therefore still leads to financial hardship... try to keep up!

I suspect if being out of a job did not incur financial hardship, there would be very little incentive to get a job. I may go to Europe and test this theory sometime.

Didn't you know? Unemployment here bears no financial hardship at all, in fact you're better off unemployed. We only go to work to avoid getting bored at home because we don't have guns to shoot stuff.

Even shooting can get boring some time! However as long as I can sit in my living room filled with guns and clean them while watching FOX, I shall never be bored!

Seaward wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Yes buddy, we're already established it pays less than the wage you were receiving and therefore still leads to financial hardship... try to keep up!

I suspect if being out of a job did not incur financial hardship, there would be very little incentive to get a job. I may go to Europe and test this theory sometime.

That's a skew of what was being written, I'm glad you're reduced to smug soundbites though, I'll take that victory thanks.

Mattman154 wrote:

If the employee is being negligent of personal hygiene, then, after 3 warnings, I'll fire his ass, as when I employed him, I stated clearly 'clean and presentable state, fit for working with the public' in the job description and I'll have the complaints about him smelling on record along with the requests for him to change it up. That is a performance issue and nothing to do with what we've been discussing.

But like I said in the example, his smell does not negatively impact customers.

You stated customer service. That can and more often that not does involve dealing with customers. You did not specify 'call center'. See, remember when I said you'd start adding clauses and moving your goalposts? Yep, difficult to debate this with you as it's all 'in your head' and you've limited skills at explaining.

Mattman154 wrote:

If the employee has suffered a medical complaint during the course of their employment and now smells for some interesting medical reason, I will ensure fans and airfresheners are present in the area he works, remind him to help me to his utmost with his own hygiene regimen and enjoy his continued hard work. I will also feel really sorry for him and how he has to suffer the barriers he will now encounter and do my best to support him as a hard working part of my team.

That's a good, noble way to do things. Now tell me why an employer should not have the right to just fire the person?

Thanks, I think we should try to be noble and I think some legislation supporting that isn't a bad thing, also please reread my posts over the last few pages for that explanation in full.

Mattman154 wrote:

Yes buddy, we're already established it pays less than the wage you were receiving and therefore still leads to financial hardship... try to keep up!

So it comes down to a matter of you wanting to live in a world of guarantees and myself living in the real world. Gotchya!

No, as I've just explained carefully to Seaward, nothing I've said or anyone else in support of employee protection has mentioned references absolutes, just more support for 'the little guy'.

As to the real world, I'm fairly sure Germany, Great Britain, France, Japan, Sweden... hmmm, lots more doubtless, are all living in The Real World (tm), but please do tell me about my 15 years in management in two first world nations and how it pertains to my (and presumably most of the rest of the first world's) magical realm of treating employees with fairness.

The government's job is not to support the little guy. The government's job is to ensure the rules are the same for everybody regardless of size, and that there are as few of them as possible.

Yep, difficult to debate this with you as it's all 'in your head' and you've limited skills at explaining.

It is true that I am not very good at articulating my thoughts in to text, I apologize for that!

Thanks, I think we should try to be noble and I think some legislation supporting that isn't a bad thing, also please reread my posts over the last few pages for that explanation in full.

This is where we differ in opinion. It seems like you want to legislate morality. While I completely agree that it can be immoral to fire someone for something even though they're meeting their performance goals, I just don't think that an employer should have that ability taken away from them.

As to the real world, I'm fairly sure Germany, Great Britain, France, Japan, Sweden... hmmm, lots more doubtless, are all living in The Real World (tm), but please do tell me about my 15 years in management in two first world nations and how it pertains to my (and presumably most of the rest of the first world's) magical realm of treating employees with fairness.

It just appears to me that you seem we can regulate all the bad out of existence.

Seaward wrote:The government's job is not to support the little guy. The government's job is to ensure the rules are the same for everybody regardless of size, and that there are as few of them as possible.

According to...?

We can certainly set laws around the rights of an employee to avoid them being fired for nonsense like the lady in this thread's OP and that can benefit employees from cart pushers in Walmart to senior executives.

Mattman154 wrote:

Yep, difficult to debate this with you as it's all 'in your head' and you've limited skills at explaining.

It is true that I am not very good at articulating my thoughts in to text, I apologize for that!

Apology accepted but I knew we'd get into you moving goalposts around in such an open 'scenario'. You know that people with bad smells and other issues are or are not employed all over Europe and other parts of the world, they are either fired if they're being douches or given medical certification and legal protection if they are ill.

Mattman154 wrote:

Thanks, I think we should try to be noble and I think some legislation supporting that isn't a bad thing, also please reread my posts over the last few pages for that explanation in full.

This is where we differ in opinion. It seems like you want to legislate morality. While I completely agree that it can be immoral to fire someone for something even though they're meeting their performance goals, I just don't think that an employer should have that ability taken away from them.

We could rely on all employers not to be massive douches, unfortunately as this thread's original story highlights, sometimes massive douches do employ people, treat them very badly and then get rid of them, the victims of this treatment should have protection and appropriate recourse against these massive douche bosses, or even against the ones with no moral compass, such as Seaward demonstrated earlier.

Mattman154 wrote:

As to the real world, I'm fairly sure Germany, Great Britain, France, Japan, Sweden... hmmm, lots more doubtless, are all living in The Real World (tm), but please do tell me about my 15 years in management in two first world nations and how it pertains to my (and presumably most of the rest of the first world's) magical realm of treating employees with fairness.

It just appears to me that you seem we can regulate all the bad out of existence.

No we most certainly can't, but we can take steps to limit it's impact onto the most vulnerable members of our society, protect them from injustices and from falling prey to the unscrupulous/morally void. There's no getting rid of 'bad', I saw some very bad practices during my employment in the UK regarding 'constructive dismissal' but better legislation can lead to a more secure position for people than currently exists in the instant dismissal situation many US states currently have.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
According to...?

Me, I suppose. American legislators of a non-socialist bent. Whoever you prefer.

We can certainly set laws around the rights of an employee to avoid them being fired for nonsense like the lady in this thread's OP and that can benefit employees from cart pushers in Walmart to senior executives.

We can do that, yes. Just as we can write laws mandating the wearing of striped pants on Sunday if we choose. In both cases, we should not.

Just wait till the GW fanboi political party reaches powah.

Morally, we should write off the expenses towards our hobby (all of it, not just a percentage), official holidays for tournaments and stipends (food stamps) for Mountain Dew and cheetos.

 Seaward wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
According to...?

Me, I suppose. American legislators of a non-socialist bent. Whoever you prefer.

It's difficult, I know, as lots of other people are doing it here in the US, but that word, I don't think it means what you think it means...

 Seaward wrote:

We can certainly set laws around the rights of an employee to avoid them being fired for nonsense like the lady in this thread's OP and that can benefit employees from cart pushers in Walmart to senior executives.

We can do that, yes. Just as we can write laws mandating the wearing of striped pants on Sunday if we choose. In both cases, we should not.

...and this is also 'according to you' yes? Other than your further asinine rhetoric, could you actually expound on why not? As it currently reads, given your 'hilarious' striped pants nonsensical response, it reads like you've just given up and are sticking your fingers in your ears and singing loudly.

Both your answers here read like you've just stamped your foot and shouted 'BECAUSE!' can you provide something more substantive than that?

MGS...

I think we all agree that morally, it wasn't right.

I'd rather that the public reprimand businesses that do this, than government curb stomp the business.

And in what way is a law prohibiting this sort of affair a curbstomp move on the businesses?

 whembly wrote:
MGS...

I think we all agree that morally, it wasn't right.

I'd rather that the public reprimand businesses that do this, than government curb stomp the business.

Protecting employees from bullying and unfair dismissal isn't curbstomping.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
And in what way is a law prohibiting this sort of affair a curbstomp move on the businesses?

Nothing right now...

But, an equally appropriate response would be to communicate to the public about how this business is unfair (right or not) to their employees. Then, let the buyers "vote" with their pocketbooks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 whembly wrote:
MGS...

I think we all agree that morally, it wasn't right.

I'd rather that the public reprimand businesses that do this, than government curb stomp the business.

Protecting employees from bullying and unfair dismissal isn't curbstomping.

??
Protecting "how"? But saying, "no you can't"?

Have you ever worked for someone who doesn't like you or the situation just "doesn't work"? It's hard to show up for work in that case.

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to use the word socialism as though it were a dirty thing. Though the level of protection being suggested here to prevent people like this woman being sacked on the flimsiest of reasons barely counts as socialism. The people who want to keep workers having rights are probably the same as those hating on unions, anything to stop workers having some recourse to employers gaking all over them must be borderline communism after all.

 whembly wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
And in what way is a law prohibiting this sort of affair a curbstomp move on the businesses?

Nothing right now...

But, an equally appropriate response would be to communicate to the public about how this business is unfair (right or not) to their employees. Then, let the buyers "vote" with their pocketbooks.

Ok, so the guy's business is going to go slow for 3-6 months, while the story's still fresh in everyone's memory. He might have to fire a few other employees to solve his short months. Then, everything will be back to normal.

Or he might simply move somewhere else and remain the little he is.

Or you could legislate against this behaviour and have it solved from the start. People lile Seaward keep phrasing things like 'it's not the government's job to do this, or this, bla bla bla'' and miss completely the point. It's the job of whoever's best suited to resolve the issue to the best of everyone's interest. Which, sometimes, means legislating on businesses.

You know... I keep reading this story and there's gotta be more to this situation that we don't know.

I think the disconnect we're having here about the employment here in the states vs. in Europe is that there's this belief that big business trample all over us.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
And in what way is a law prohibiting this sort of affair a curbstomp move on the businesses?

Nothing right now...

But, an equally appropriate response would be to communicate to the public about how this business is unfair (right or not) to their employees. Then, let the buyers "vote" with their pocketbooks.

Ok, so the guy's business is going to go slow for 3-6 months, while the story's still fresh in everyone's memory. He might have to fire a few other employees to solve his short months. Then, everything will be back to normal.

True, hopefully he'll learn...

Or he might simply move somewhere else and remain the little he is.

Equally likely...

Or you could legislate against this behaviour and have it solved from the start.

If it's not that, then employers would find a way to lay off the employee.

People lile Seaward keep phrasing things like 'it's not the government's job to do this, or this, bla bla bla'' and miss completely the point. It's the job of whoever's best suited to resolve the issue to the best of everyone's interest. Which, sometimes, means legislating on businesses.

Sure... the employment laws ARE fairly robust.

Ask any employers... they'll put up with a lot with their current employee than to re-hire (re-train) new workers. In this case, if true, while morally wrong (in my opinion) he was within his rights (and the frigging state SC upheld it).

 whembly wrote:

Ask any employers... they'll put up with a lot with their current employee than to re-hire (re-train) new workers. In this case, if true, while morally wrong (in my opinion) he was within his rights (and the frigging state SC upheld it).

A legal right is usually based of a moral one. If you feel that something is morally wrong, normally you are in favour of laws that prohibit that something. Unless you can point at consequence created by those laws which are worst that the issue that created them. Which is what I asked about and you weren't able to point out.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
It's difficult, I know, as lots of other people are doing it here in the US, but that word, I don't think it means what you think it means...

It means what I think it means.

...and this is also 'according to you' yes? Other than your further asinine rhetoric, could you actually expound on why not? As it currently reads, given your 'hilarious' striped pants nonsensical response, it reads like you've just given up and are sticking your fingers in your ears and singing loudly.

Both your answers here read like you've just stamped your foot and shouted 'BECAUSE!' can you provide something more substantive than that?

I'm not going to bother providing anything more substantive than that until you actually agree to start reading the responses. This is ground we've covered; that you need me to go over it again suggests either you're that guy from Memento, or you haven't actually been paying attention.

It's unnecessary legislation. Legislation for legislation's sake, or to make people feel better, is pointless. At least some of us over here try to avoid it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
A legal right is usually based of a moral one. If you feel that something is morally wrong, normally you are in favour of laws that prohibit that something. Unless you can point at consequence created by those laws which are worst that the issue that created them. Which is what I asked about and you weren't able to point out.

Well, that's absurd. I feel adultery is morally wrong, but I'm not in favor of laws against it. I'll come up with a hundred more of those, if you like.

Dude seems like a tool. But the real lesson here is that you should never be involved in a personal relationship with your boss. Be polite at work, maybe go to the christmas party or whatever, but leave it at that.

I mean she's not even that 'hot'. Not sayin' I wouldn't give it to her, but I'd hardly hold her hand in the mall.

 Seaward wrote:

Well, that's absurd. I feel adultery is morally wrong, but I'm not in favor of laws against it. I'll come up with a hundred more of those, if you like.

Which was illegal for the most part of history, and still is in lot's of parts of the world. There's also legal repercussion against it. Anyhow, if this is your proposition, you need to found it on something along the line of 'because making adultery illegal will negatively impact society in x, y, z way'.

Not all reprehensible behaviour needs to be made illegal, of course, but it's the basis of legality. Open a book on law's history and you'll understand what I'm talking about. Usually, you'll note that the justification of a law includes a reason why the act is reprehensible.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bromsy wrote:
I mean she's not even that 'hot'. Not sayin' I wouldn't give it to her, but I'd hardly hold her hand in the mall.

Only if she has a smoking hot body, her face really doesn't do it for me.

whembly wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 whembly wrote:
MGS...

I think we all agree that morally, it wasn't right.

I'd rather that the public reprimand businesses that do this, than government curb stomp the business.

Protecting employees from bullying and unfair dismissal isn't curbstomping.

??
Protecting "how"? But saying, "no you can't"?
Have you ever worked for someone who doesn't like you or the situation just "doesn't work"? It's hard to show up for work in that case.

I've worked for some real gaks, one coke addled lunatic, one chip on shoulder imbecile, one power and ego tripping basketcase. In all occasions I was thankful for the protections afforded to me by the law, because without them I suspect I'd have been out of a job. I've been subjected to a concerted effort to unseat me from my job back in the UK, due in no part to my own performance and every part to the decision of the company to shed it's specialists, the employer in question and I went down a very long and difficult road of performance improvement plans that were so ludicrous that if I'd been staying in the UK, on consultation with ACAS, I'd have won a bullying case and been entitled to some formidable amount of cash. I came to work every day and gave them absolutely nothing at all to censure me on. In the end, after about 3 months intensive meetings and mental chess, sleepless nights and near cracking up as I waited for my visa to clear and allow me to leave for the US, they gave up, paid me several months severance and I 'resigned'. I won because I had rights and because I played the long game with them, if that had been an American company I would have just been fired, because the company director had said 'no redundancies on my watch' in the financial fallout of 08 and by the time we hit 2010, we'd shed about 50% of our workforce, through initially targeting the weakest links, then early retirement packages and eventually through the bullying and intimidation of the specialist roles via 'performance improvement plans'. I understood what this meant when my time came, I was friends with the HR officer, she talked to me when they forced her out after 11 years with the firm and replaced her with a temporary HR, who they promised full employment to, if she played ball with them. Even this new mercenary told them they had slipped up with me when they started listing things like 'wearing trainers in the office' as 'serious professional misconduct that must be improved'. If I had slipped, even once, I would have ended up on unemployment benefits and unable to leave the UK and be with my wife. I nearly suffered a breakdown trying to hold it together in 'settlement meetings' where the managers would sit either side of me on the boardroom table so that I couldn't look at one without taking the other out of my field of vision.

If you think that providing some level of employee support is 'curbstomping' poor defenceless corporations, then I'm sorry to say my experience is very different. Companies and employers start off with a massive advantage, it's called being companies and employers, and it can be abused very readily.

Seaward wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
It's difficult, I know, as lots of other people are doing it here in the US, but that word, I don't think it means what you think it means...

It means what I think it means.

Well, I think socialism is the people's government owning the means of production, that doesn't have much to do with stronger rights for an employee, as demonstrated by other capitalist countries like Germany and the UK having better workers rights but not being 'socialist'. The communist block is long gone, pointing at it's vague neighbors and shifting the rage doesn't change the fact they are still capitalist economies. Ask the Brits who among them thinks they're living in a soviet styled nation? I'm fairly sure the Conservative party Prime Minister isn't a cover for the rise of the communists.

Seaward wrote:

...and this is also 'according to you' yes? Other than your further asinine rhetoric, could you actually expound on why not? As it currently reads, given your 'hilarious' striped pants nonsensical response, it reads like you've just given up and are sticking your fingers in your ears and singing loudly.

Both your answers here read like you've just stamped your foot and shouted 'BECAUSE!' can you provide something more substantive than that?

I'm not going to bother providing anything more substantive than that until you actually agree to start reading the responses. This is ground we've covered; that you need me to go over it again suggests either you're that guy from Memento, or you haven't actually been paying attention.

It's unnecessary legislation. Legislation for legislation's sake, or to make people feel better, is pointless. At least some of us over here try to avoid it.

I've been reading your responses, they don't contain anything other than 'big government bad' and 'Business owners can do whatever they want'. You've argued that circularly for several pages, not giving an inch of ground or recognizing the other side. You absolutely do not see any problem whatsoever with the current situation and believe that anyone who does it 'wrong so there'.
It's unnecessary legislation for you, because apparently you don't need it. I think it would be found very necessary for the next woman fired for having 'out of this world hooters', when she's more concerned with paying the bloody electricity bill. As a worker in the country, I'm of the opinion that it is necessary for the long term well being of the working class and thereby the nation. Security will afford peace of mind and increased spending.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

whembly wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 whembly wrote:
MGS...

I think we all agree that morally, it wasn't right.

I'd rather that the public reprimand businesses that do this, than government curb stomp the business.

Protecting employees from bullying and unfair dismissal isn't curbstomping.

??
Protecting "how"? But saying, "no you can't"?
Have you ever worked for someone who doesn't like you or the situation just "doesn't work"? It's hard to show up for work in that case.

I've worked for some real gaks, one coke addled lunatic, one chip on shoulder imbecile, one power and ego tripping basketcase. In all occasions I was thankful for the protections afforded to me by the law, because without them I suspect I'd have been out of a job. I've been subjected to a concerted effort to unseat me from my job back in the UK, due in no part to my own performance and every part to the decision of the company to shed it's specialists, the employer in question and I went down a very long and difficult road of performance improvement plans that were so ludicrous that if I'd been staying in the UK, on consultation with ACAS, I'd have won a bullying case and been entitled to some formidable amount of cash. I came to work every day and gave them absolutely nothing at all to censure me on. In the end, after about 3 months intensive meetings and mental chess, sleepless nights and near cracking up as I waited for my visa to clear and allow me to leave for the US, they gave up, paid me several months severance and I 'resigned'. I won because I had rights and because I played the long game with them, if that had been an American company I would have just been fired, because the company director had said 'no redundancies on my watch' in the financial fallout of 08 and by the time we hit 2010, we'd shed about 50% of our workforce, through initially targeting the weakest links, then early retirement packages and eventually through the bullying and intimidation of the specialist roles via 'performance improvement plans'. I understood what this meant when my time came, I was friends with the HR officer, she talked to me when they forced her out after 11 years with the firm and replaced her with a temporary HR, who they promised full employment to, if she played ball with them. Even this new mercenary told them they had slipped up with me when they started listing things like 'wearing trainers in the office' as 'serious professional misconduct that must be improved'. If I had slipped, even once, I would have ended up on unemployment benefits and unable to leave the UK and be with my wife. I nearly suffered a breakdown trying to hold it together in 'settlement meetings' where the managers would sit either side of me on the boardroom table so that I couldn't look at one without taking the other out of my field of vision.

If you think that providing some level of employee support is 'curbstomping' poor defenceless corporations, then I'm sorry to say my experience is very different. Companies and employers start off with a massive advantage, it's called being companies and employers, and it can be abused very readily.

Woah dude...

Let me first say this... "good for you".

Now, answer me this, are you experiencing anything like this here in the states?

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I've been reading your responses, they don't contain anything other than 'big government bad'

Because big government is bad.

and 'Business owners can do whatever they want'.

Within the law as it currently stands, yes.

You've argued that circularly for several pages, not giving an inch of ground or recognizing the other side. You absolutely do not see any problem whatsoever with the current situation and believe that anyone who does it 'wrong so there'.

Stating the same thing over and over until you get it is not a circular argument, no matter how much you wish it to be so. But you're right, I do not see a problem with the current situation, and you have yet to demonstrate one.

It's unnecessary legislation for you, because apparently you don't need it.

On the contrary. It's unnecessary legislation for everyone, unless you can demonstrate a massive epidemic of people being fired without cause.

I think it would be found very necessary for the next woman fired for having 'out of this world hooters', when she's more concerned with paying the bloody electricity bill.

You assume that will be the case. That you are treating this as a common occurrence is something I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry about. It made national headlines precisely because it is so freakishly rare.

I'm fairly sure the Canadian Civil Code is bigger than the Code of Hammurabi, and yet much, much better.

I'm also pretty sure your government is bigger than his was, and yet that yours is much better than his was.

I'm going nitty-gritty into this case and, really, this isn't about "at will" employments.

After refreshing on current sexual harassment laws and federal statutes... I think the Iowa SC is wrong and had she sued under federal law, she'd likely win some damages. Lemme elaborate...

It seems strange to me at least that all of this is all okay because she faced the more severe employment consequences, which is being potentially subjected to sexual advances from Dr. Knight... the basis of her termination.

If anything, the Iowa SC should've stated: if the husband (Dr. Knight) decides he has to fire this woman to mitigate his wife’s jealousy. It shouldn't be her fault to pay the price for Dr. Knight's problems.

From a legal employment standpoint, Dr. Knight was within his rights as he could terminate anyone under the state's "at will" doctrine. However, she may had Federal (or even Civil) recourse to sue Dr. Knight and according to the legal community, they were sort of baffled that her attorney sued under state law.

whembly wrote:
Woah dude...

Let me first say this... "good for you".

Now, answer me this, are you experiencing anything like this here in the states?

No, but I don't doubt it exists here, only as I suggested, far more basic and less Machiavellian, they just fire your ass or, to reduce their problems like paying your insurance, they just pressure your workload and working life until you resign. Far easier to get away with it here than in the UK.

Seaward wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I've been reading your responses, they don't contain anything other than 'big government bad'

Because big government is bad.

No it isn't.

Seaward wrote:

and 'Business owners can do whatever they want'.

Within the law as it currently stands, yes.

And that's not good news if the business owner is a prick and someone who relies on that wage to live is being bullied by them.

Seaward wrote:

You've argued that circularly for several pages, not giving an inch of ground or recognizing the other side. You absolutely do not see any problem whatsoever with the current situation and believe that anyone who does it 'wrong so there'.

Stating the same thing over and over until you get it is not a circular argument, no matter how much you wish it to be so. But you're right, I do not see a problem with the current situation, and you have yet to demonstrate one.

Please see the original post and the contents for a simple example of how an employer can abuse an employee and leave them in financial difficulties.

Seaward wrote:

It's unnecessary legislation for you, because apparently you don't need it.

On the contrary. It's unnecessary legislation for everyone, unless you can demonstrate a massive epidemic of people being fired without cause.

Should we only legislate against other personal injustices if there are 'epidemics'? Or should we ensure legislation is there to protect people from the extreme cases?

Seaward wrote:

I think it would be found very necessary for the next woman fired for having 'out of this world hooters', when she's more concerned with paying the bloody electricity bill.

You assume that will be the case. That you are treating this as a common occurrence is something I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry about. It made national headlines precisely because it is so freakishly rare.

How rare is it? If a crime is a rare occurrence, should we rule out bothering to legislate against it? Prevention is usually better than cure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
nite all.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
No it isn't.

Yes, it is.

And that's not good news if the business owner is a prick and someone who relies on that wage to live is being bullied by them.

It's not government's job to fix that.

Please see the original post and the contents for a simple example of how an employer can abuse an employee and leave them in financial difficulties.

An extremely rare and localized example.

Should we only legislate against other personal injustices if there are 'epidemics'? Or should we ensure legislation is there to protect people from the extreme cases?

You'd have a point if vanquishing an employer's ability to fire employees - or an employee's ability to leave without notice - at will were government's job. It's not. As this is one isolated incident, it's not a compelling reason to suddenly overthrow the US system in favor of British labor laws.

How rare is it? If a crime is a rare occurrence, should we rule out bothering to legislate against it? Prevention is usually better than cure.

Rare enough that it, once again, made national news.

The idea that corporations and business are somehow people with rights that shouldn't be oppressed by the evil government might be the single dumbest motion that has ever come from conservatives. They are more concerned about protecting artificial legal entities than actual people.

But whatever, USA USA USA!

 d-usa wrote:
The idea that corporations and business are somehow people with rights that shouldn't be oppressed by the evil government might be the single dumbest motion that has ever come from conservatives. They are more concerned about protecting artificial legal entities than actual people.

But whatever, USA USA USA!

Thanks for your input on the matter. I'll give it the same consideration I usually do.

Are you going to back up your statement from page 4 about he US being the worlds strongest economy? Or are you going to ignore all the evidence and facts that were posted showing that statement to be wrong.

You know, like you usually do.

 d-usa wrote:
Are you going to back up your statement from page 4 about he US being the worlds strongest economy? Or are you going to ignore all the evidence and facts that were posted showing that statement to be wrong.

You know, like you usually do.

What, you actually doubt that we're the world's strongest economy? Our GDP is nearly double that of the next closest competitor.

 d-usa wrote:
The idea that corporations and business are somehow people with rights that shouldn't be oppressed by the evil government might be the single dumbest motion that has ever come from conservatives. They are more concerned about protecting artificial legal entities than actual people.

But whatever, USA USA USA!

It's not so much that corporations are people with rights, but that they are, legally, persons. The word 'person' and 'personnality' has a different meaning in legalese, it's root basically translate to 'mask' or 'costume', and refers to the ability to obtain representation and demand rights.

It's a legal fiction, and it's perfectly appropriate to say that a corporation is a legal person. Of course, the nature of the person changes the rights, just like being a criminal restrict them, etc... It's also why 'fetus aren't persons so they can't have rights' is the dumbest pro-choice argument possible (not because it's factually wrong, but simply because we decide what has legal personnality. If tomorrow we decide to allow dog owners to sue as representative of the dogs, then dogs just became persons).

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Are you going to back up your statement from page 4 about he US being the worlds strongest economy? Or are you going to ignore all the evidence and facts that were posted showing that statement to be wrong.

You know, like you usually do.

What, you actually doubt that we're the world's strongest economy? Our GDP is nearly double that of the next closest competitor.

I provided sources showing that statement to be false. As a whole we are behind the European Union. And we are not nearly double that of 3rd place. Per capita we are anywhere between 8th or 14th based on who is doing the ranking.

So for the third time: are you going to provide some sources or are going to keep on rejecting reality and substituting your own?

2012 GDP for the US is estimated at 15.7 trillion. China, the next-closest, is 8.3 trillion. Per capita GDP is irrelevant to the claim at hand, which involves the strongest economy, not the strongest adjusted economy.

 Seaward wrote:
Yes, it is.

Great story. Compelling and rich.

It's not government's job to fix that.

And your position is that it's no one's job to fix that. Again, it's whoever's most able to fix it that hold the responsability.

An extremely rare and localized example.

And...? Crimes and infractions do not need to be frequent to be codified. There hasn't been many cases of parent's whoring off their children up here in the last century, while there's still a specific article for it in the Criminal Code.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
And...? Crimes and infractions do not need to be frequent to be codified. There hasn't been many cases of parent's whoring off their children up here in the last century, while there's still a specific article for it in the Criminal Code.

Presumably because that was, at one time, something of an issue, and an issue that people actually wanted to stop. I still have not granted the premise that we should be preventing employers for firing employees for anything but reasons that you happen to approve of. Largely because I find it absurd.

 Seaward wrote:
2012 GDP for the US is estimated at 15.7 trillion. China, the next-closest, is 8.3 trillion. Per capita GDP is irrelevant to the claim at hand, which involves the strongest economy, not the strongest adjusted economy.

4th time: got any sources for that?

The European Union is at 18.1 trillion, so that makes the US #2. By the time you a adjust that for actual purchasing power (what economists use) China is a lot closer to us as well.

 Seaward wrote:
Presumably because that was, at one time, something of an issue, and an issue that people actually wanted to stop. I still have not granted the premise that we should be preventing employers for firing employees for anything but reasons that you happen to approve of. Largely because I find it absurd.

Yeah, God knows there was an epidemic of children being whored off in Canada in the 1830s.

By the definition you've given, no reason should be valid at all to prevent an employer from firing an employee, because it's always for anything but reasons that someone will happen to not approve of. You don't even leave place for anti discrimination or anti harassment laws... Which honestly is pretty neanderthal of you.

 d-usa wrote:
4th time: got any sources for that?

The European Union is at 18.1 trillion, so that makes the US #2. By the time you a adjust that for actual purchasing power (what economists use) China is a lot closer to us as well.

World Bank count? They've got us at 15.09 trillion. The more recent number's from CNN.

And I wasn't aware you were seriously putting 27 separate nations up against one by means of trying to win an argument over which country had the strongest economy. By that logic, we could also combine Asia and Africa and we'd drop down to third!

 Seaward wrote:
And I wasn't aware you were seriously putting 27 separate nations up against one by means of trying to win an argument over which country had the strongest economy. By that logic, we could also combine Asia and Africa and we'd drop down to third!

''United States'' kinda semantically refers to a Union of States...

How dare we compare a federation of states to a federation of states. Sad that 27 states are beating 50?

And per capita economic strength is important, unless you want to argue that it is okay to have a weaker average as long as you have the population numbers to make up for it.

 d-usa wrote:
How dare we compare a federation of states to a federation of states...

The United States is a nation state. Are you contending the same about the EU?

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
How dare we compare a federation of states to a federation of states...

The United States is a nation state. Are you contending the same about the EU?

I'm ready to contend that the US are about as culturally and ethnically homogeneous as the EU.

I'm also ready to contend that you are using the terms States and Nation-States, knowing that they are inherently vague, exchangeable and/or overlapping, but will refuse to admit it because it would undermine your point.

A good amount of this is off topic and one of the central disagreements on this page boils down to people comparing different things using different definitions and calling each other out for it.

The parts of an on-topic discussion I'm seeing here are also getting hostile. So folks either need to move on to another discussion or refocus and try to be friendly.

Thanks.

I shall accept that cue and take my leave...

It all comes down to ones opinion on big government in this thread. And I doubt anybody will be swayed by arguing.

 AustonT wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

That's nonsense. The bottom rungs of the payscale hold the entire economy together, fueling the buying and selling and provide the infrastructure necessary to allow a nation to function.

Yeah you're right. That IS nonsense.

So, AustonT, you actually think 3.4 million people will buy five times more than the other 330 million people in America - or on a per capita basis, 5,000 times more? Because right now they control five times more wealth than the rest of the country, or 5,000 times more on a per capita basis.

That's a big part of the stagnation of the American economy. The people with the money are not spending it at anything close to the speed the rest of the population would IF they had it.

Let's make that into a concrete example for you. The average American goes out to eat twice a week, spending around $25 bucks per outing. For a 1%er to spend a proportional amountm they would need to go out to eat for every meal (10x as often) and drop $2500 per outing. Short of political fund-raisers, I don't think there's any restaurant that costs THAT much.

I see you've mastered the art of abandoning reality in the search of the one true hyperbole. I suppose by discarding both common sense and context you can happily chatter away at your keyboard under the belief that 330M Americans represent the "bottom rungs" of the economy rather than the 12-oddM minimum wage workers we were actually discussing. But do go on, I would want to let the actual conversation get in the way of your pontificating.

I'm so very glad you established where the delineation occurs in the debate but felt somehow unable to let the rest of us know until you're confronted with some figures and then you simply inform us you've been having that 'other' discussion along different rules.

When the 6 immediate family members who own Walmart own more money than the entire lower 30% of your nation's population, you chose to place 'your qualifying line' lower than everyone else and lambaste them for their idiocy, after we'd not actually established a quantitative figure for the entire debate. I think I was certainly operating under the notion of 'low pay' rather than precisely the minimum or below, but I'm glad you have set the standard in the conversation. Where would we be without your flawless logic?

Some of us are so sharp we could just cut ourselves.

Vulcan wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

I see you've mastered the art of abandoning reality in the search of the one true hyperbole. I suppose by discarding both common sense and context you can happily chatter away at your keyboard under the belief that 330M Americans represent the "bottom rungs" of the economy rather than the 12-oddM minimum wage workers we were actually discussing. But do go on, I would want to let the actual conversation get in the way of your pontificating.

I suppose I could bring it down to that level. Given that six members of the Walton family have as much wealth as the poorest 70 million Americans, to get down to that bottom 12 million we would only need one Walton (who would probably control MORE wealth that that bottom 12 million, but we'll go ahead and call it equivalent).

Do you actually think that one Walton spends more than those twelve million in the bottom percentile? Really? He'll spend over $600,000,000 a week on groceries (or $50 per person out of that 12 million you specified)? You sure about that?

A twofer! What a Christmas delight!
/claims lower class is the life blood of the economy
/pulls Walton family out of ass

Well, since someone pulled this gem out just before my reply:

"When the 6 immediate family members who own Walmart own more money than the entire lower 30% of your nation's population..."

How could I NOT pick on the Waltons?

/blithy ignores the middle class

Hunh.

Well, in my first contibution to this post pyramind I said:

"So, AustonT, you actually think 3.4 million people will buy five times more than the other 330 million people in America..."

That 330 million covering everyone NOT in the upper class... including the Middle Class.

Your response?

"I see you've mastered the art of abandoning reality in the search of the one true hyperbole. I suppose by discarding both common sense and context you can happily chatter away at your keyboard under the belief that 330M Americans represent the "bottom rungs" of the economy rather than the 12-oddM minimum wage workers we were actually discussing. But do go on, I would want to let the actual conversation get in the way of your pontificating."

So I replied referring specificaly to "the 12-oddM minimum wage workers we were actually discussing"

And instead of coming back with facts, or even rhetoric, you choose insults.

I can only assume you have NO facts to back up your position and are forced to admit I am right in the most insulting way possible.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ratbarf wrote:
They should be protected under current labor law, but pretending as though companies should be giving them the same perks as you'd find used to recruit and retain high-end talent is a little absurd.

Kinda curious to see where anyone made the claim they should.

All we've said is that the lower class should have the right to earn a living wage - that is, $22,000, or the poverty level, which translates as $11/hour full time - without fear of being fired for no good reason at all. It's hardly 'the same perks used to recruit and retain high-end talent'.

 Seaward wrote:

And that's not good news if the business owner is a prick and someone who relies on that wage to live is being bullied by them.

It's not government's job to fix that.

Why not? What good are they for if they don't support justice or fairness? The government should protect the people from exploitation and harassment. They do not exist solely to help individuals exploit others to their advantage. There's a balance between having a strong economy and maintaining a healthy society, the two support each other. No wonder a handful of super rich own most of the wealth in the US while a large number can't even afford basic healthcare. It's a capitalist utopia.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

And that's not good news if the business owner is a prick and someone who relies on that wage to live is being bullied by them.

It's not government's job to fix that.

Why not? What good are they for if they don't support justice or fairness? The government should protect the people from exploitation and harassment. They do not exist solely to help individuals exploit others to their advantage. There's a balance between having a strong economy and maintaining a healthy society, the two support each other. No wonder a handful of super rich own most of the wealth in the US while a large number can't even afford basic healthcare. It's a capitalist utopia.

There is a cultural divide going on here between us Brits and the certain Americans we are having this conversation with. The form of conservative libertarianism you and I are, I think, arguing against doesn't exist in any significant number in the UK but living here and especially in central Pennsylvania where this mindset is fairly prominent, let me act as an interpreter for a moment.

I suspect seaward is of the peculiar and endemic American group that wants a Government so minimized that is effectively just a military protecting against overseas threats. This group, that I've encountered a few times has dreamy ideals about the Old West and law being maintained by angry groups of farmers with guns. They tend to have lofty and, to my mind, nonsensical ideas about personal freedom. A bit like 'that old guy' in Britain who talks about the good old days when people had respect and didn't swear and knew their place etc, but lived in abject poverty, died in workhouses, lost 10 out of their 14 kids before 12 years of age, that sort of thing.

The extreme conservative/libertarians over here cling to this ideal with religious fervor about absolute 'freedom' with total conviction and will not be swayed that the government can do good in the nation. They rant and rave about the evils of government and paying taxes, until a natural disaster flattens their home at which time they all start screaming about FEMA response times and demanding help because 'they pay their taxes' but of course they have demanded lower and lower taxes and bigger and bigger military, so other organizations here are dramatically underfunded and unable to help them. I saw all this last year during the flooding in central PA Then they complain that the private insurance they hold so dear over government aid has discovered a loophole or utilized it's small print and not paid them, quelle surprise...

Basically, every man is an island for this political/cultural viewpoint. To be fair it's easy to see how this specific view could have come around in a country the size of a continent which has only recently come out of a couple of hundred years of near lawlessness in many of it's vast regions. I personally understand the near nietzschean philosophy this represents but find it entirely contradictory to the Judeo-Christian morality many of the same proponent claim as their own.

Having gone a few pages with Seaward, I realize it's absolutely pointless to continue. His mind is utterly set that this was a rightful decision and that this was no crime and you or I typing to him will not make a jot of difference. I'd like to thank whembly for conceding that it was a 'bad thing' that happened.

Take this solace Howard, the right wing is dying in the US in its current incarnation. The middle aged WASP male is a dwindling breed. This mindset will continue to die out and become more and more fringe. We're seeing it become more hardline and ridiculous because of the underswell of panic as it's being moved away from mainstream thinking and that is just music to my ears. The Republicans, including sensible economic conservatives who I have considerable time for, have handed the reins of their power over to the fringe teapartiers who want to scream a lot about personal freedom whilst seeking to take away a woman's right to chose or peoples very rights in what to believe religiously or who to love. We will rebuild out of the financial and military disasters they've subjected this country to without them as they stand in the corner with their arms folded muttering, getting quieter and quieter with the passing of time. Soon enough all that will remain is a dusty tricorn hat and a faded badly spelled angry sign.

MGS, you keep using the phrase libertarian, I don't think it means quite what you think it means At least in America, a country you now call home, libertarian has (at least in recent years) come to mean those of us that don't want to see lots of government spending (this means military spending too), but are more liberal than just 'pure' conservatives. Boils down to fiscally conservative, but socially liberal.

But other than that, I do understand the gist of your post (thankfully you used conservative as well).

 Alfndrate wrote:
MGS, you keep using the phrase libertarian, I don't think it means quite what you think it means At least in America, a country you now call home, libertarian has (at least in recent years) come to mean those of us that don't want to see lots of government spending (this means military spending too), but are more liberal than just 'pure' conservatives. Boils down to fiscally conservative, but socially liberal.

But other than that, I do understand the gist of your post (thankfully you used conservative as well).

We also have a lot of guys who say they are libertarian, but what they really mean is "I want less government messing with what I like and more government stopping what I don't like"

 d-usa wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
MGS, you keep using the phrase libertarian, I don't think it means quite what you think it means At least in America, a country you now call home, libertarian has (at least in recent years) come to mean those of us that don't want to see lots of government spending (this means military spending too), but are more liberal than just 'pure' conservatives. Boils down to fiscally conservative, but socially liberal.

But other than that, I do understand the gist of your post (thankfully you used conservative as well).

We also have a lot of guys who say they are libertarian, but what they really mean is "I want less government messing with what I like and more government stopping what I don't like"

This is also true lol.

 Alfndrate wrote:
MGS, you keep using the phrase libertarian, I don't think it means quite what you think it means At least in America, a country you now call home, libertarian has (at least in recent years) come to mean those of us that don't want to see lots of government spending (this means military spending too), but are more liberal than just 'pure' conservatives. Boils down to fiscally conservative, but socially liberal.

But other than that, I do understand the gist of your post (thankfully you used conservative as well).

I was referencing my experiences with individuals who call themselves libertarian. Whilst decrying all government spending on the poor or social programs or overseas aid, they were all very keen on a strong military.

There was also a very strong hypocrisy about their notion of social libertarianism (they would never describe themselves as liberal as it was a 'dirty word' that represented weakness, like 'progressive' or 'socialist') so for example they absolutely believed you should be free to do what the hell you want in terms of arming yourself to the teeth, dodging taxes and doing someone else over to get ahead but against the freedom to marry who you wanted, the freedom of a woman to decide on whether she gives birth, the freedom to smoke weed or the freedom to practice a faith that was not Christianity, if you actually asked them directly. Basically it was all about freedom to be just like us or else...

I'm sure there are smart libertarians out there, but in terms of who I've met face to face... erm... there was a massive contradiction in their ethos. Lots of scrawny little weasel-men with scraggly beards, baseball caps drawn too far down over their eyes, very large dead eyed wives and shack-bunker-houses in the PA mountains. Lots of talk about freedom from Gu'munt, talk about how Obama is the risen Satan and desire to own more and more lethal weaponry for 'the day we rise up'...
I remember one bright spark who was sat at the far end of the staff room table who suddenly piped up with 'All o you English are pussies! Cos you gave up yer guns to yur gu'munt!'
And he only shushed when I pointed out that he wasn't allowed to bring his precious gun into work and so it was in his truck and that I 'could close the distance between him and me in about 5 seconds and break him into very small bits and his gun would still be in his truck, did that make me a pussy?' at which point he laughed his idiot laugh and said 'You're alright man, you're alright' which made me feel really special...

The conservatives from the same area seemed better dressed, felt they were closer to God than anyone else and more snobbish. They were the ones who ranted about 'killing unborn babies' and 'the sanctity of marriage' and the dangers of 'drugs'.

I don't mind sensible fiscal conservatives, never have. Wanting to be careful about how we spend the money we spend is fairly logical to me. I personally tend to disagree with some of them when it comes to my taxes funding 20 something aircraft carriers when the rest of the world combined has about 12 at the rate of 1 or 2 per nation, when we could drop half, remain utterly dominant and fund hospitals and enable our workforce with the money that would save us.

 Seaward wrote:

What, you actually doubt that we're the world's strongest economy? Our GDP is nearly double that of the next closest competitor.

The US is the world's largest economy, no doubt. Whether or not it is the world's strongest economy is an entirely separate issue.

Strength and size are not the same thing, as any of the many economist predicting future recessions will tell you.

In any case, the biggest issue with at-will employment is that enables any given employer to significantly hinder the ability of any given employee to find alternative employment. Thanks primarily to stigma associated with referring to past employers in a negative light, which the any extended variant of the phrase "He terminated me without cause." most assuredly does.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
There is a cultural divide going on here between us Brits and the certain Americans we are having this conversation with. The form of conservative libertarianism you and I are, I think, arguing against doesn't exist in any significant number in the UK but living here and especially in central Pennsylvania where this mindset is fairly prominent, let me act as an interpreter for a moment.

I suspect seaward is of the peculiar and endemic American group that wants a Government so minimized that is effectively just a military protecting against overseas threats. This group, that I've encountered a few times has dreamy ideals about the Old West and law being maintained by angry groups of farmers with guns. They tend to have lofty and, to my mind, nonsensical ideas about personal freedom. A bit like 'that old guy' in Britain who talks about the good old days when people had respect and didn't swear and knew their place etc, but lived in abject poverty, died in workhouses, lost 10 out of their 14 kids before 12 years of age, that sort of thing.

The extreme conservative/libertarians over here cling to this ideal with religious fervor about absolute 'freedom' with total conviction and will not be swayed that the government can do good in the nation. They rant and rave about the evils of government and paying taxes, until a natural disaster flattens their home at which time they all start screaming about FEMA response times and demanding help because 'they pay their taxes' but of course they have demanded lower and lower taxes and bigger and bigger military, so other organizations here are dramatically underfunded and unable to help them. I saw all this last year during the flooding in central PA Then they complain that the private insurance they hold so dear over government aid has discovered a loophole or utilized it's small print and not paid them, quelle surprise...

Basically, every man is an island for this political/cultural viewpoint. To be fair it's easy to see how this specific view could have come around in a country the size of a continent which has only recently come out of a couple of hundred years of near lawlessness in many of it's vast regions. I personally understand the near nietzschean philosophy this represents but find it entirely contradictory to the Judeo-Christian morality many of the same proponent claim as their own.

Having gone a few pages with Seaward, I realize it's absolutely pointless to continue. His mind is utterly set that this was a rightful decision and that this was no crime and you or I typing to him will not make a jot of difference. I'd like to thank whembly for conceding that it was a 'bad thing' that happened.

Take this solace Howard, the right wing is dying in the US in its current incarnation. The middle aged WASP male is a dwindling breed. This mindset will continue to die out and become more and more fringe. We're seeing it become more hardline and ridiculous because of the underswell of panic as it's being moved away from mainstream thinking and that is just music to my ears. The Republicans, including sensible economic conservatives who I have considerable time for, have handed the reins of their power over to the fringe teapartiers who want to scream a lot about personal freedom whilst seeking to take away a woman's right to chose or peoples very rights in what to believe religiously or who to love. We will rebuild out of the financial and military disasters they've subjected this country to without them as they stand in the corner with their arms folded muttering, getting quieter and quieter with the passing of time. Soon enough all that will remain is a dusty tricorn hat and a faded badly spelled angry sign.

Bravo. Utterly hilarious.

 Seaward wrote:

Bravo. Utterly hilarious.

Welcome to ignore.

 dogma wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

What, you actually doubt that we're the world's strongest economy? Our GDP is nearly double that of the next closest competitor.

The US is the world's largest economy, no doubt. Whether or not it is the world's strongest economy is an entirely separate issue.

Strength and size are not the same thing, as any of the many economist predicting future recessions will tell you.

Size doesn't matter? I jest...

In any case, the biggest issue with at-will employment is that enables any given employer to significantly hinder the ability of any given employee to find alternative employment. Thanks primarily to stigma associated with referring to past employers in a negative light, which the any extended variant of the phrase "He terminated me without cause." most assuredly does.

There's a difference between "being fired" and "being laid off".

Now, the lady in the OP was "laid off" as she didn't do anything wrong and I'd suspect that if her potential employer followup on her previous employment, I'm sure Dr. Knight wouldn't say she as "too hot to work for him".

I do think that had her attorney taken this case to federal court, they'd have an easier time with a sexual harasment case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ MGS: I find this statement telling:

Basically, every man is an island for this political/cultural viewpoint. To be fair it's easy to see how this specific view could have come around in a country the size of a continent which has only recently come out of a couple of hundred years of near lawlessness in many of it's vast regions. I personally understand the near nietzschean philosophy this represents but find it entirely contradictory to the Judeo-Christian morality many of the same proponent claim as their own.

Now I'm getting closer to understanding ya'lls viewpoint on this.