Re: [BDSM-LegalIssues] You did, didn't you, say the following, 'tongue in cheek', RIGHT? WAS: Re: New b
yup, exactly. Not the problem of the employers or the employees. If
there is a problem, it is at the political level. If it is a "fire at
will state", like my state of Texas, then all this thread is just pretty
useless. If one does not like it, go to the state legislature. Don't
bitch at the employees that carry out policy or the employers that make
it. Bitch at the legislature.
I seldom have my mind changed by internet debate, but I certainly have
in this situation. And my opinion went from kind of on the fence to
being much more in support of the right of the employer to fire under
the circumstances discussed here.
if folks want to provide a safety net in these circumstances, that
should fall to the "nanny state" and not the employer. (I don't say
"nanny state" with a negative connotation. Just expressing the idea that
if we want, as a people, to guarantee that safety net, we should do it
as a people and as a state, and not put that burden on small employers.
And i would be perfectly ok with that rule if it became law of the land.
I will gladly pay taxes to support it.)
what i might be in favor of is a situation where folks that have a
certain number of employees, say over 100 might be subject to specific
rules. But for me, this discussion has put me in the corner of small
employers rights to "fire at will".
and yes, that includes their right to fire folks not just for arrests,
but also simply because the employees make them or other employees
uncomfortable, so long as they are not part of a privileged class.
(race, religion, etc). If we want to make those arrested and not
convicted part of a privileged class, lets vote on it and make it a
state policy. If we want to make sexual preference a protected class,
lets make that a policy of the state, and not just a demand some want to
put on employers.
that "state policy" might have a nice impact in that, if the state had
to guarantee the income of the wrongly arrested individual, there might
be a lot fewer wrongful arrests. I am not naive enough to believe that
states would be willing to assume that position, so I don't agree with
putting small employers in a position in which the state as a whole is
not willing be placed.
Travis
. guilty^ wrote:
>
>
> That doesn't change, of course, any of the juridical facts that you have
> to deal with in the US. If it's "fire at will", it's fire at will, and
> whether on likes that or not seems to me more a political question than
> a legal one.
>
> Roel
>
--
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
Hunter Thompson
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
12:03 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home