Re: [BDSM-LegalIssues] You did, didn't you, say the following, 'tongue in cheek', RIGHT? WAS: Re: New b
Duncan O'Neil wrote:
> "Slight" protection!?
> like trying to fire a civil servant here. You definately live in a
> "right to work state!
Country, actually. Civil servants here are even better protected. I call
it a slight protection, as in practice there's many ways to work around it.
But the fact is that we don't see much problems like described here. I
never hear of employers going out of business because they couldn't fire
an employer that had gotten arrested for anything kink related.
So, unless we'e extremely more tolerant of deviance, I'd say that small
business owners and protection don't need to bite. Lilith Corwyn's post
put in on the track of why this might be so: My first guess is that not
only do we have different labour laws, liabillity is also a way
different issue here. Much less easy to sue, and the amounts awarded are
much, much lower. So, extreme situations excluded, an employer has to
fear less from this angle.
Roel
--
http://www.touwtjes
http://www.touwtjes
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
11:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home