Discussion about hot topics trending today

[aretood2]

No, they hire their employees, purchasing their services as needed, just as they purchase any other resource required. If the deal becomes unworkable from either side's perspective, either side can terminate the agreement of their own free will. That is the way the employment market works.

So what if your employer decides that he doesn't agree with your religious or political views and fires you?

[jelgate]

Isn't that technically illegal?

[Annoyed]

Yes, it is technically illegal. But they can still fire you for whatever reason you want. NY State is a "work at will" state. There are certain restrictions, sex, religion, etc., but since any other reason is fair game, all they gotta do is say it was anything else.

[aretood2]

Isn't that technically illegal?

Yes, it is technically illegal. But they can still fire you for whatever reason you want. NY State is a "work at will" state. There are certain restrictions, sex, religion, etc., but since any other reason is fair game, all they gotta do is say it was anything else.

Yes, it is technically illegal. But it also means that our government does interfere when it comes to a business' employment of individuals. It already is setting limits and regulations for when an employer can and cannot fire someone. So the question for Annoyed is...should the government have any say in the matter? If not, what about clear acts of discrimination? Or if so...to what end? What about safety concerns? What about hours, what if you're fired because you don't want to work 60 hour weeks?

[Annoyed]

Various "groups" have gotten special protection, so that government can prevent their firing, or penalize the company for doing so.
As far as things like mandatory overtime go, if you don't want to work it, there's the door. My employer routinely requires overtime. It's been as much as 10 hours/week at times, but I don't think they have to stop at that.

[Falcon Horus]

Various "groups" have gotten special protection, so that government can prevent their firing, or penalize the company for doing so.

There are his special groups again...

[Annoyed]

There are his special groups again...

What would you call them? You've got special protections on the basis of race, gender, various disabilities, and various other special exemptions for certain classes of people. You want to call them herds? Classes? Sheep?
They are groups of people who have banded together to obtain special protections for their particular type of person.

[thekillman]

How many types of socialism are there? Are there grades of socialism??

There's a sliding scale for pretty much anything.

Any nationalized stuff is pretty much communism, any form of equal opportunity is socialism, any form of free market is capitalism.

Ideally the government controls stuff that shouldn't be run by maximize-profit organizations, anything that doesn't need such control is free market while there's a safety net to ensure even people at the bottom have a chance to climb back up.

What the exact ratio here is, depends from place to place. But even stuff like minimum wage is essentially socialism.

[Falcon Horus]

What would you call them? You've got special protections on the basis of race, gender, various disabilities, and various other special exemptions for certain classes of people. You want to call them herds? Classes? Sheep?
They are groups of people who have banded together to obtain special protections for their particular type of person.

Here's a crazy thought, how about we call them people who have the same rights as you and I, and we have the same rights as them.

[Annoyed]

Here's a crazy thought, how about we call them people who have the same rights as you and I, and we have the same rights as them.

I would have no problem with that whatsoever. It's the ideal situation.

But the way it works, "groups" tend to get awarded special status, over and above what ordinary people have.

For example, in this discussion, suppose you have an employee who is a drunk or drug addict. Doesn't show up for work, shows up toasted, whatever.. If he gets himself diagnosed as his addiction being a medical issue, the company can't fire him hell or high water without getting itself in hot water. Whereas it can fire anyone else for whatever reason they want.

[SoulReaver]

If he gets himself diagnosed as his addiction being a medical issue, the company can't fire him hell or high water without getting itself in hot water

actually it can, easily: just fire him for another reason - or if they can't find one, for no reason whatsoever (which is legal remember?)

[Falcon Horus]

Good thing we have regulations which employees need to meet and if they don't they are grounds for dismissal. Being drunk on the job -- one of them. If it's a medical condition, the job will be an adjusted function to suit the needs of the employee. So, I don't see the problem.

If the employee is worth it, there's always a way to keep them around. However, if they do their work below expectation (sadly the result of my first annual review) -- that's when you're in trouble.

[Annoyed]

actually it can, easily: just fire him for another reason - or if they can't find one, for no reason whatsoever (which is legal remember?)

And the employee then whines to the labor board that it was for his behavior as a drunk, and the company gets into hot water.

[garhkal]

also force the aforementioned media to be "twice as vocal" about his innocence as they were about his presumed guilt, make them buy the necessary airtime/publish all the articles required for this no matter how much it costs them

I like tht part.. Often you Do see IRL where this or that media group makes a ruckus that 'dicks someone over' in big bold full page article.. BUT when they get dicked over BACK, and have to eat crow, what apology they DO offer (if at all), is very often just a small little snippet hidden in a corner somewhere...
Maybe if they were required to make the apology as large/public as their accusations of guilt, it MIGHT make them hesitant to jump on the bandwagon in future..

Yes, it is technically illegal. But it also means that our government does interfere when it comes to a business' employment of individuals. It already is setting limits and regulations for when an employer can and cannot fire someone. So the question for Annoyed is...should the government have any say in the matter? If not, what about clear acts of discrimination? Or if so...to what end? What about safety concerns? What about hours, what if you're fired because you don't want to work 60 hour weeks?

And that's if you have a standard work/job. What of those 'by contract' workers, such as i was with my security company...

[SoulReaver]

And the employee then whines to the labor board that it was for his behavior as a drunk, and the company gets into hot water.

why would the company give a damn? it's legal that's all that matters