Re: [BDSM-LegalIssues] Re: Arrested, ALL charges dismissed, career ruined WAS: You did, didn't you,
Nice of you to say that i am sure you would be saying something very
different if you were the one arrested ;-)
Dov
dov@neonleatherjesu
On Jan 9, 2008, at 5:22 PM, Domina Lilith Corwyn wrote:
> Yanno,
>
> I am a (very) small business owner. And while I'd love to go "rah,
> rah"
> for the rights of the innocently arrested, I can't do it. I've worked
> in industries where I had employees and had to consider the effects of
> someone who has various problems.
>
> College students with limited opportunities for hours are easy. When
> you can't work around their schedule and sports, then you cut their
> hours and hire another one to take up the slack. I used to run a
> hotel,
> and had a lot of college students work for me with that sort of
> agreement. And because we all tried to make it work, they usually
> stayed with me, some from high school all the way through college.
>
> Other problems aren't as easily handled. One of the dumbest things I
> ever did was let a guy talk me into hiring him when he had held a job
> that paid significantly more than the one I had open. I got sucked
> into
> the "My unemployment has run out and I have a wife and child. I won't
> be too proud to work." All I can say is bullshit. After three months,
> he was continually whining because I was paying 1/3 what he had made
> in
> his previous job. And while he was whining, he wasn't working. That
> made him a burden on me and my staff.
>
> Legal problems can do the same thing.
>
> Most businesses have a budget for labor. Anything affecting that,
> affects the bottom line. Now I know you all think that business owners
> are all greedy pigs, but when it gets to the point where you can make
> better money with less effort working for someone else, the rewards of
> running a business become nonexistent. Try doing a labor budget for a
> restaurant or a hotel, which are labor intensive industries. It
> doesn't
> take all that much to suddenly go into the red.
>
> So, say a bellman who works for you, is arrested for rape. Now, if you
> keep him in his position, YOU are liable if he happens to attack a
> guest
> or one of his co-workers. You can give him unpaid leave (which is what
> I would do, taking him back conditional on the verdict at trial
> being in
> his favor, or the police exonerating him) but in the US, trials can
> take
> months. Meanwhile, he's out of a job. Leave at full pay is just out of
> the question. The budget doesn't allow for it. We have to have someone
> taking his place while he's dealing with this problem.
>
> Keeping him on until his trial is out of the question. The liability
> issues that would cause make the risk too high.
>
> Yes, I know he's "innocent until proven guilty." But my insurance
> company won't see it that way if I keep him on and something happens.
>
> Why should the business owner be the one who has to accept this
> burden?
> The business owner did nothing but try to provide this person
> with a living. However, if this causes the business owner to lose his
> business, other people who did nothing are going to be losing their
> jobs, too. And the business owner is losing his investment.
>
> Sounds pretty unfair to me.
>
> Domina
>
> Dov wrote:
> >
> >
> > Actually why not simply focus on people rights period.
> >
> > If we treat rights based on financial need Ie. the cost to the
> > employer / cooperation is more important than the rights of the
> > individual then we have no rights at all and why are we even
> bothering
> > having this discussion or this list.
> > All I have heard in this discussion is not on my shoulders! not my
> > burden! not my pocket!.
> > Well instead of decrying how much a burden having rights are propose
> > solutions because quite frankly youve all failed at civil rights 101
> >
> > The entire point of rights is that they are burdensome they have
> to be
> > borne by everyone across the board and NOT! nitpicked away due to
> > convenience and personal greed.
> > Speaking as an American constitution starts with "We the people" not
> > "we the people and small business owners and corporations" and
> details
> > our civil liberties and protections not corporate rights.
> >
> > If people on this list cant get there heads around that concept then
> > there is absolutely no reason for this list or any type of activism
> > for anyone gay straight SM or otherwise.
> > People take a look at why your even bothering to be involved in
> > activism of this or any type.
> >
> > Neoconservative, Reagan republicans, libertarians and morons need
> not
> > apply
> >
> > Dov
> > dov@neonleatherjesu
> >
> > On Jan 9, 2008, at 1:52 PM, Malcolm Weir wrote:
> >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: cadenas_sd
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 10:59 PM
> > >
> > > > > Your problem is that you don't understand the difference
> > > > >between the
> > > > > Canadian (and Australian and UK and most other places)
> litigation
> > > > > system and the US one.
> > > >
> > > > a) This has nothing to do with the topic AT ALL.
> > >
> > > Don't be silly. It's (part of) the root of the problem. If you
> could
> > > be
> > > bothered to try suggest a solution that protects BOTH the employer
> > > and the
> > > employee, in particular from things like hostile workplace
> lawsuits,
> > > your
> > > position might gain some traction -- although you'd still be stuck
> > > with
> > > trying to justify any adverse publicity and loss of business from
> > > retaining
> > > the employee...
> > >
> > > > b) This is a canard that corporatist ideologues keep
> > > > spreading. The reality is that such awards are exceedingly
> > > > rare, even in cases that involve extreme wrongdoing and
> > > > physical injuries. The first, and still one of the main,
> > > > cases in this area was the Ford Pinto, where people actually
> > > > died because the car's design was dangerous, AND Ford knew
> about it.
> > >
> > > Sorry, dude. The fact that the Canadian litigation landscape is
> > > radically
> > > different from ours is no "canard", it's the essence of the reason
> > > why you
> > > can't IN ALL FAIRNESS TO EVERYONE simply adopt the BC statute. Of
> > > course,
> > > you've demonstrated that you don't really care about _fairness_
> to the
> > > employer, only the employee...
> > >
> > > [ Snip ]
> > >
> > > > Simple: most other countries (I don't know about Canada)
> > > > impose multimillion dollar fines for comparable wrongdoing.
> > > > The US simply chose to allow the injured individual to assess
> > > > this fine. Financially for the company, there is not much
> > > difference.
> > >
> > > LOL! If you think there's "not much difference" between fines
> > > assessed by a
> > > judge and jury awards, you need to get out more.
> > >
> > > > The claim that such lawsuits are a major issue is just a
> > > > canard by corporatists who want to escape any accountability
> > > > for their actions.
> > >
> > > To paraphrase, it's an issue you can't or won't address, so you'll
> > > pretend
> > > that it doesn't exist!
> > >
> > > For the fourth (I think) time, suggest a solution that would
> protect
> > > the
> > > interests of the employee and the employer!
> > >
> > > Malc.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Post message: BDSM-LegalIssues@onelist.com
Subscribe: BDSM-LegalIssues-subscribe@onelist.com
Unsubscribe: BDSM-LegalIssues-unsubscribe@onelist.com
List owner: BDSM-LegalIssues-owner@onelist.com
Shortcut URL to this page:
http://www.onelist.com/community/BDSM-LegalIssues
Earn your degree in as few as 2 years - Advance your career with an AS, BS, MS degree - College-Finder.net.
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
posted by Annja Sue at
9:32 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home