Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-11-2016, 07:39 PM
 
Location: Tucson for awhile longer
8,869 posts, read 16,249,970 times
Reputation: 29224

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Siegel View Post
Our hardships are a little gentler than those faced by Kunta Kinte and the Jews in Hitler's Germany. First world problems.
I was with you until you had to go and use the "first world problems" expression. Nations that benefitted from the slave trade — from the Romans to the British Empire — were the "first worlds" of their day. As was the Germany of Adolph Hitler. Yes, that country was in economic turmoil at the time of the rise of Hitler, but only because they had been one of the major participants of WWI, something they wouldn't have been able to do had they not been the equivalent of today's "first world" nations.

 
Old 01-11-2016, 07:48 PM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
38,936 posts, read 23,747,628 times
Reputation: 14125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boris347 View Post
Doesn't matter who does it how. What do you need? Pictures? I am telling you from 35 years of experience. How you choose to understand it is entirely up to you. If your the one doing the hiring and the firing, what "You Think" is the ONLY thing that matters, isn't it. Maybe your confused by living in a Democracy, that a "Business" is a Democracy too. Its not. Remember, No one has to explain anything to you, if they don't want to hire you, your Personal Life can be under a Microscope, and what your potential Boss thinks, is the only thing that matters in your being hired. No studies, no proof, none of that. Its all the opinion of who counts. What you think doesn't matter if your looking for the job.
No I am not, what I am though is convinced that it don't have an actual effect on performance but you just like using it as easy way to weed out people. The fact is it has no effect.
 
Old 01-11-2016, 09:08 PM
 
2,924 posts, read 1,576,779 times
Reputation: 2498
Maybe about the company, maybe, unless it was like in a private chat. If you go the company FB page and trash them, I can see it. If they snoop into your own FB page and fire you, HELL NO! As for anything like political views or religious views, even if they are NOT PC, I say NO NO HELL NO!

I tend to boycott companies that fire for the reasons of the second one.

I actually have been outspoken against same-sex marriage, abortion, "global warming", Obama, Amnesty supporters, a good deal of the Republicans, and many other things. On my FB page usually.

Of course, I don't use my real name.

Last edited by MongooseHugger; 01-11-2016 at 09:17 PM..
 
Old 01-11-2016, 09:16 PM
 
Location: Eastern Shore of Maryland
5,940 posts, read 3,544,848 times
Reputation: 5650
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentraiser View Post


But who gets to make the decision about what are lousy choices? If a couple is married and the woman announces she's going to try to get pregnant, should her boss be able to fire her for what he thinks is a lousy choice to have children?

Put it into perspective. There are a lot of hiring managers that would not hire a woman who has kids because they think she won't be as devoted to the job as a man without kids. So there is a law stating that when you are on an interview, the hiring manager or the boss is not allowed to ask anyone if they are married, have children, expecting a baby, or pregnant.

If a pregnant woman believed she didn't get hired or got fired because she thought her hiring manager didn't want to hire anyone or keep anyone going on maternity leave in the next 8 months, she'd have a case for discrimination. What is the difference between that and the same woman not getting hired or being fired because she posted on social media that she was pregnant and her hiring manager looked that up? She was still pregnant and she was still not hired or she was fired in the first case because of something the boss heard or was told, and in the second case, by something he might have read on social media. It's the same thing and the first situation is protected by law, and the second seems to show why we need yet another law to protect employees off the clock.

As to the image of the company, if you as a boss pay me peanuts so that I have go on welfare or food stamps, if you require me to come in to work at any hour of any day for any shift at a moment's notice and refuse to work around my schedule, if you deliberately schedule me short of enough hours to get benefits, if you expect me to come in early and leave late without pay for that extra time, if you expect me to give 2 weeks notice when you can fire me at the drop of a hat, why, in the name of all that's holy, would you expect me to be concerned with the company image on my off time?

Just asking.

Then let me answer you. Like it or not, the Employer gets to make that decision. There is no "Vote" or Democracy at play here. Its a Business. Right, wrong, or indifferent. Its a fact of reality.


There have always been Laws that Government comes up with to limit what one can use in hiring or firing. There are a lot more ways to get around these Laws than there are Laws. As I said previously, all the Employer has to do is fail her at the Interview because he thinks her personality would not fit into the Company. That's not contestable, since there is no discrimination, and specific reasons are not required. If the woman wants to say its because of her Pregnancy, she can pay an Attorney and try to take the employer to Court, with no proof to back her up. That's why a Company also has Lawyers. Again, its reality.


If you didn't want to hire back some one, or you want to eliminate some one, you eliminate the Position. Delegate the work among others, and later add a new position under a different heading. Simple. Reality.


If you think your being mistreated by the Company, or being exploited, you are free to exercise your rights and quit, if your dissatisfied. After all, you live in a Democracy.


As far as Company Image goes, you don't have to think about it, and are free to present yourself as you want. By the same Token, the Employer is also free to separate you from the Company. There are many ways to do that, and the Employer holds all the Aces in this game.


I am not saying that everything is Fair in employment practices, but people need to understand that they don't get to set their own conditions or make their own rules for employment. The choice you have is to not accept the conditions before you.
 
Old 01-11-2016, 09:24 PM
 
3,279 posts, read 5,290,433 times
Reputation: 6149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boris347 View Post
Then let me answer you. Like it or not, the Employer gets to make that decision. There is no "Vote" or Democracy at play here. Its a Business. Right, wrong, or indifferent. Its a fact of reality.
If that is the case, that is the very reason laws need to be drafted, and I think they can be enforced. Companies may find loopholes, but they also can find themselves the subject of a PR nightmare of a lawsuit if the accusation is "out there" that they're a bunch of bigots who flunk a candidate for prejudicial reasons. If this sort of thing catches on as a four alarm "prejudicial reason," they're in for a nightmare, and I say GOOD for them, because it is absolutely WRONG for a candidate to not get a job because they either love or dislike Obama or whoever and, egads, have the audacity to express their opinion.
 
Old 01-11-2016, 09:25 PM
 
Location: Eastern Shore of Maryland
5,940 posts, read 3,544,848 times
Reputation: 5650
Quote:
Originally Posted by MongooseHugger View Post

I tend to boycott companies that fire for the reasons of the second one.

I actually have been outspoken against same-sex marriage, abortion, "global warming", Obama, Amnesty supporters, a good deal of the Republicans, and many other things. On my FB page usually.

Of course, I don't use my real name.

Bet you don't have much on your Boycott list, do you. No one I know would announce that one got fired for what's on their Facebook Page, so it would be hard to find some one to Boycott.


No one would care about certain subjects, since everyone has different opinions. Those are not undesirable traits that may migrate to the workplace, or reflect on your Employer.
 
Old 01-11-2016, 09:27 PM
 
5,891 posts, read 3,198,491 times
Reputation: 5548
People who argue that employers should be allowed to fire employees for the statements they make in their private and personal realm - which do not involve the employer - might just be the next class of people shunned by an employer. Consider that sometime.

What if a company is ran by a free-thinker? That kind of a leader probably isn't going to tolerate any milquetoasts or special snowflakes.
 
Old 01-11-2016, 09:34 PM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
50,235 posts, read 23,861,466 times
Reputation: 32603
Quote:
Originally Posted by phantompilot View Post
People who argue that employers should be allowed to fire employees for the statements they make in their private and personal realm - which do not involve the employer - might just be the next class of people shunned by an employer. Consider that sometime.

...
Good point. I just keep in mind that the people who argue that employers should have this kind of control are hiding behind their own anonymity. Brave, aren't they?
 
Old 01-11-2016, 09:38 PM
 
Location: Eastern Shore of Maryland
5,940 posts, read 3,544,848 times
Reputation: 5650
Quote:
Originally Posted by shyguylh View Post
If that is the case, that is the very reason laws need to be drafted, and I think they can be enforced. Companies may find loopholes, but they also can find themselves the subject of a PR nightmare of a lawsuit if the accusation is "out there" that they're a bunch of bigots who flunk a candidate for prejudicial reasons. If this sort of thing catches on as a four alarm "prejudicial reason," they're in for a nightmare, and I say GOOD for them, because it is absolutely WRONG for a candidate to not get a job because they either love or dislike Obama or whoever and, egads, have the audacity to express their opinion.

Please, save the Theatrics. No one mentioned Political Preferences as a reason for anything. Who cares who you voted for as President. Be it Obama or Mitt.




They can't be enforced, unless you have a stupid low level Manager or Foreman, in some small Business or Retail Store. Also, the average John Doe, is not going to go out and hire an Attorney to fight a Corporate Lawyer in an employment case that has no "smoking gun." As far as a Bad PR event, no one really cares today. People are too involved in their own lives to worry about some one who did not get hired or got fired. Today people accept others being "Homeless" and care little. Why would you expect them to care about an employment incident? How many folks decided to not buy any products made in China, because they violate Human Rights, and Jail or Kill Political Dissenters?
 
Old 01-11-2016, 09:50 PM
 
Location: Eastern Shore of Maryland
5,940 posts, read 3,544,848 times
Reputation: 5650
Quote:
Originally Posted by phantompilot View Post
People who argue that employers should be allowed to fire employees for the statements they make in their private and personal realm - which do not involve the employer - might just be the next class of people shunned by an employer. Consider that sometime.

What if a company is ran by a free-thinker? That kind of a leader probably isn't going to tolerate any milquetoasts or special snowflakes.

Your missing the point. No one is arguing that it "Should" be. The Discussion is on "What is."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top