Re: [BDSM-LegalIssues] Re: Arrested, ALL charges dismissed, career ruined WAS: You did, didn't you,
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]
>
>
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
2:22 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home