Re: [BDSM-LegalIssues] Re: Arrested, ALL charges dismissed, career ruined WAS: You did, didn't you,
And maybe thats the problem right there.
Dov
dov@neonleatherjesu
On Jan 10, 2008, at 12:52 AM, Domina Lilith Corwyn wrote:
> Actually, since I'm an adult, while I wouldn't like being fired for
> such
> an arrest, I would completely understand exactly why it was happening.
> I might find a close friend risking everything he had for me, but
> who in
> reality would expect their employer to risk their own and their
> family's
> well being for an employee.
>
> Honestly. How silly can you get?
>
> Domina
>
> Dov wrote:
> >
> >
> > 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
> > <mailto:dov%
> > > >
> > > > 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]
> >
> >
>
>
[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
10:36 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home