Pali Posted January 8, 2013 Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 Well, we can add another tally mark to the list of things we disagree on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L-A Posted January 8, 2013 Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 Pali I completely disagree that there should be legal protection against being fired. She was paid to do a job, and both sides honored their end of the contract. The dentist decided he no longer wanted to pay her for her services (no pun intended). That is his right. No one can be forced into a contract in a free society. She sued him, but was unable to show any discrimination, blackmail, or other illegal activity in his act. Sure, the guy is a jackass, but that in and of itself does not entitle her to employment or money from him. She should of taken action the first moment he began unwanted advance, either through confronting him in a civilized manner and making her opinions clear, recording retaliatory behavior, or finding other work from the beginning. However, since we will likely never know the full story, I am wary to lend her any sympathy for her situation, and I seriously doubt she had no role in encouraging his behavior. That's a matter of speculation though. Let's get this discussion started shall we: Assuming that you're not delinquent in your duties as an employee, why should an employer be able to terminate you on a whim? Their business, their rules? A bit draconian wouldn't you say - why are employee's not entitled to fair treatment and other basic rights? L-A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enethier Posted January 8, 2013 Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 Actually, yeah. Their business, their rules. If it's not unlawful, they can do as they please. The idea that we can dictate what others can and can't do, within reason of law, is silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted January 8, 2013 Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 It's the lord's land, he can kick the serfs off if he pleases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imoutgoodbye Posted January 8, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 More accurate to this case (since the ruling class has already fallen to the industrial/capitalist ways of the bourgeoisie) is that the proletariat have no rights. However, being the Reverend, I foresee the use of education as a means of destroying the wicked capitalistic ways of this faulty western society. It's going to happen because the white man is leaving as the majority and a couple of minorities are rising in population. Guess they should've kept a closer eye on that religion thing, the one about "no birth control"? The Proletariat are coming my friends, we are coming. WASP no more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inscribed Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 It's the lord's land' date=' he can kick the serfs off if he pleases.[/quote'] So, in your opinion, people who work hard, go to medical school, get their license, and build their own business shouldn't have any rights to what they've built? Success isn't a bad word, Pali. Sure, the guy is probably an *******, or maybe the press is just eating up an exaggerated story from a woman playing victim, but either way, there's no legal reason to take away his property or wealth. Maybe he really was guilty, but that fact was unable to be shown in court, which means he stays innocent. I'd still rather have a few guilty claimed innocent than innocent people claimed guilty. It doesn't point towards a feudal system. More accurate to this case (since the ruling class has already fallen to the industrial/capitalist ways of the bourgeoisie) is that the proletariat have no rights. However, being the Reverend, I foresee the use of education as a means of destroying the wicked capitalistic ways of this faulty western society. It's going to happen because the white man is leaving as the majority and a couple of minorities are rising in population. Guess they should've kept a closer eye on that religion thing, the one about "no birth control"? The Proletariat are coming my friends, we are coming. WASP no more. Valek, it's quite a stretch to turn this into a racial or class warfare issue. I know you feel that if one person isn't successful, then no one should be successful, but let's keep things in perspective. This is just a case of an employer and an employee no longer able to work together. Without knowing the whole story, it's safe to say that each played a part in the outcome. The employer is now hunting for a new worker, and the employee is hunting for a new job. She had her chance to prove illegal activity, and was unable to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inscribed Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 Let's get this discussion started shall we: Assuming that you're not delinquent in your duties as an employee, why should an employer be able to terminate you on a whim? Their business, their rules? A bit draconian wouldn't you say - why are employee's not entitled to fair treatment and other basic rights? L-A That's like saying that just because I buy a gallon of milk from the store one week, that I must continue to do so the following weeks, otherwise I'm not being fair to the store owner who hasn't done anything wrong. Sometimes I want to buy milk from a different store, or sometimes I just don't want milk that week. It's my money, and I'll spend it how I see fit. There's nothing draconian about that. Current employment does not entitle you to future employment. A person employed for even a single day before being let go is still better off than the person having never been employed at all. What would be draconian is letting one person decide how another person has to spend their wealth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L-A Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 So, in your opinion, people who work hard, go to medical school, get their license, and build their own business shouldn't have any rights to what they've built? Success isn't a bad word, Pali. I think Pali was agreeing with you? Inscribed - its not as easy as you say. Bills don't stop because your employer decided to just sh!t can you one day. Jobs take time to find, interview for and start. I know I probably sound like a card carrying member of some Union somewhere - however, I've experienced in my working life both employers and employees (via Unionization) wielding and abusing power. Employers who engaged in nepotism giving jobs to family members who wouldn't work in an iron lung - seen in half the places I've worked in. It really sucks when you see incompetence not punished for one out of twenty people. On the other side of the coin, I've seen employees collecting six figure salaries in office jobs, working 38 hour weeks (watching the clock to the f*cking second), not updating skills and generally bludging (smoke breaks every hour). I've seen these types of employees successfully threaten management with high levels of Union action (one was a union rep) so they were left alone for a number of years. Eventually management did pick up their balls and go through the nine month process of making said employees redundant. Eventually. After everyone else had to suffer or cover their incompetence. Everyone has horror stories - I just don't think employers should have ultimate power like that. Mostly because I don't trust the human race (in general) to actually act in anything other than their own best interest. There should be some sort of check and balance - which you could claim is the courts (or whichever tribunal takes care of it where you live). I'm not an employee that is adversely affected by this - I was exposed very early on so developed my professional skill set into something that I can always put to use in almost any place in the world. I don't work for 'bad' employers - I simply move jobs or leave. I'm fortunate in that way. I'd imagine its a different game in retail, hospitality or non-trade roles in the construction industry. Specifically with the case cited - IMHO to take someone's livelihood because your jealous wife doesn't have the stones to kick you to the curb for your bad behaviour. You know the saying, right - 'The law is an @$$ sometimes.' L-A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L-A Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 That's like saying that just because I buy a gallon of milk from the store one week, that I must continue to do so the following weeks, otherwise I'm not being fair to the store owner who hasn't done anything wrong. Sometimes I want to buy milk from a different store, or sometimes I just don't want milk that week. It's my money, and I'll spend it how I see fit. There's nothing draconian about that. Current employment does not entitle you to future employment. A person employed for even a single day before being let go is still better off than the person having never been employed at all. What would be draconian is letting one person decide how another person has to spend their wealth. That's a trite and over simplified example isn't it? IMHO - what you are describing is a casual employee. Like many MacDonald's staff - you get your hours each week. They may vary. As a casual employee there is no sick leave, holiday leave etc. You work, you get paid. For this, you get a higher rate than a salaried person. Contractors are similar though a contract is often for a set period. No security. Higher rates are charged - for example in my country/industry its pretty standard to up your rate by 33% to cover the sick leave, holiday leave and other benefits that you aren't getting. Great money in the short term - but you take on the risk of no work later on. Permanent position ie salary - are not like this. You have lower rates, get leave and have entitlements. This is what I'm talking about when I talk about when I mean employers shouldn't be allowed to fire at a whim. If employers want to put their hand in their pocket and pay casual or contract rates and maintain their workforce liquidity then more power to them. However, they shouldn't get it both ways. L-A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mali Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 L-A, just to be clear there are no "casual" rates in the U.S. There is a minimum wage. Salaried positions are usually higher pay than non-salaried positions at least in my field. Employment is at-will unless protected by a contract. Whereas I think the woman in this case would have been better off filing a sexual harassment claim rather than an unjust termination claim, it is basically as simple as Inscribed has posted. Here is my advice for all of you: there is no such thing as company loyalty. She put ten years away thinking it was a permanent job. It wasn't, and she is out of luck. Life is not fair. Moving on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inscribed Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 Everyone acting in their own best interest is exactly why a free market, free society operates so efficiently. If she was truly such a valuable employee, he would not have fired her over something so mundane. The employer wants to continue making money, and if investing in her as an employee helps him do that, then he would be hesitant to remove that investment. Hell, if he knew half of the bad press he would get from firing her, he probably would not have fired her so easily. Either way, employment should be viewed as a mutually beneficial contract, not charity. If one side is no longer benefiting from that contract, then it's time to reevaluate the contract. Sure, it sucks to be fired, but her ability to find new work is on her shoulders. The best employees never stay unemployed for long. The economy is in the drain right now, but all that means is that she has to rise above even more people in pursuing job openings. Besides, she probably voted for Obama anyways... if she has trouble finding work due to a crappy economy, then she's just reaping what she sowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inscribed Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 I think Pali was agreeing with you? I'm pretty sure he was mocking my argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L-A Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 L-A, just to be clear there are no "casual" rates in the U.S. There is a minimum wage. Salaried positions are usually higher pay than non-salaried positions at least in my field. Employment is at-will unless protected by a contract. Whereas I think the woman in this case would have been better off filing a sexual harassment claim rather than an unjust termination claim, it is basically as simple as Inscribed has posted. Here is my advice for all of you: there is no such thing as company loyalty. She put ten years away thinking it was a permanent job. It wasn't, and she is out of luck. Life is not fair. Moving on... @Mali: I've heard as much - very interesting. Do you still have Union's in the US, or are they gone? Why would anyone work minimum wage with zero security when there is more security for higher pay? WTF?? You're right about employer loyalty - even with some for of protection is doesn't stop employers getting rid of you if they want to. In my short working life I've seen it a number of times. Even the State Government where I am (Gov jobs were always seen as very safe) has gone on a recent blood letting over the last year. @inscribed: I guess I'll take support where I can get it then re Pali's post L-A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 I'm pretty sure he was mocking my argument. Enethier's, actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egreir Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 @Mali: I've heard as much - very interesting. Do you still have Union's in the US, or are they gone? Why would anyone work minimum wage with zero security when there is more security for higher pay? WTF?? You're right about employer loyalty - even with some for of protection is doesn't stop employers getting rid of you if they want to. In my short working life I've seen it a number of times. Even the State Government where I am (Gov jobs were always seen as very safe) has gone on a recent blood letting over the last year. @inscribed: I guess I'll take support where I can get it then re Pali's post L-A Unions exist still in the US, but not everywhere. There's many reason why people don't take union jobs (it's a political thing in many cases). In some states you just can't get union jobs so you are forced, in many peoples' case, to take minimum wage jobs. Take me for example, I've been applying to any and every job for the past 2 months and I am still unemployed. Union job or not, I'm forced to take the first thing that comes up. If I get hired by companyA and fired one week later because they don't like my haircut...there's nothing I can do and I'm back on the street again, figuratively speaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mali Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 In the U.S. unions are industry specific. For example, there may be a teachers union, a graduate assistants union, a smelting union, etc. Getting into a union is involuntary and part of the process of obtaining a job from an employer whose contracts are moderated by that union. There are no general workers unions that I am aware of. Either your industry and employer participates, in which case you will participate by virtue of your employment, or they do not and you will not. Even those with unions may hire you as a non-union employee at times and deny you a union based contract. In many cases, unions do more harm than good. As egreir outlined, you have to jump at any opportunity you can these days. Minimum wage and no security is still preferable to homelessness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imoutgoodbye Posted January 9, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 The art of politics is not to keep things in perspective, but to demure the cold with the veil of the sublime too long denied too many in this country. If you would be the great bald symbol of the country, I would beckon to the skylark and ask it to teach, for its cry is not shrill, but rather wondrously steeped in bardic ballad. Free as ambiguous and denounced social constructing, numbers in a bank account, turning on the pin head as a woman dances. Fists pound against the irrevocable constitution of this country, demanding change, and one day, with enough grey sound, more cracks will appear in Berlin. Deny me not. A wish upheld in the quaking shadow tears of the land of the free and the home of the platonian cave, reborn, of course. Dance with me in the pale moonlight and swashbuckle that smile. A light shines next to the silver face in the sky and fear is taken from its bed by force. Not that any heard, for none could listen, drowned in the machine's cries for more numbers, ever more numbers, lest the greatest pyramid fall. Not two dimensional, but three, with four numbers. The first is the green man on worthless paper given value. The second is the paper with the names that uphold parties that are nowhere near the rave. The third is supposed to be blind, but peeks beneath the fold and hides one hand down her robe. But where is the fourth? Ah, it is underneath, hidden, a myth. Told that it smiles, told it's happy, hidden by the grandiose of the tip. The bottom that holds the top. Us. Choice or place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.