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.

 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.