Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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