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.
If I worked as a painter for a Muslim I would not be expected to read the Koran or attend a Mosque.
I also wouldn't expect to be discrimnated against or judged on anything but my actual job as a painter, nor would I expect to have to study the bible.
If only that were true.
Suppose a co-worker is arrested and charged for child abuse, he's the most productive employee in that position. Should he be fired?
Contractually you'll find that many contain clauses that permit firing on grounds of bringing the company into disrepute. Similarly there are also clauses that expect certain behaviors (or lack thereof), say an office clerk being drug tested by their employer, if their job requirements are fulfilled, why does their blood chemistry have any interest?
If this guy was hired, and he signed the contract, to take during work hours 1hr/week of bible study, then he knew before he was hired (by signing the contract). It doesn't matter that it's not job related, you can get fired for metric s**t tons of things that are not job related or related to job functions.
Now specifically, if I needed a job and was required to take one with some religious compulsion. I'd probably still take it, and it's not going to affect my religious or spiritual beliefs one iota, it's just going to be one pretty boring hour, hopefully I could eat lunch during it.
One point on discrimination. It's not discrimination if you expect all employees to do the same. It's only discriminatory if you specifically target employees based on certain classifications.
Those “laws” of which you speak are tantamount to slavery. Who owns the business; the individual or the State?
Ok, I am sure you have heard this argument before, and you have your ready made arguments against it. Here is the general premise, as an business, creator, whatever you want to call it, you produce something so you need raw materials, whether thats actual materials or human capital, the state sets up a frame work however imperfect, that allows you to have said materials, they set up public schools, roads, and a customer base, a set of rules that allows you and your customer to exchange services with recourse/meditations that allow you to take risks. In return for this the state expects you to comply with certain rules which are meant to (often not very efficiently) protect the state's resources.
I understand that you didnt ask for this, you might feel that you dont need any of it (you would be most likely wrong), the majority of people are happy in this system there really isnt a way for you to opt out of the benefits therefore it stands to reason you should also bear part of the cost.
I'm not saying it isn't since I am one myself. However pretending everyone can do it or pretending everyone can simply get a loan to start a business is crazy. You can not give absolute power to the owner class and expect to have a free society. You will have a society sure but it won't be pleasant if you aren't wealthy.
How does one reconcile simultaneously being a capitalist entrepreneur and a Marxist?
The crony corporatist society we have now sure isn't benefitting those who aren't wealthy. Socialism ensures that no one's wealthy, but it sure makes people starve.
Ok, I am sure you have heard this argument before, and you have your ready made arguments against it. Here is the general premise, as an business, creator, whatever you want to call it, you produce something so you need raw materials, whether thats actual materials or human capital, the state sets up a frame work however imperfect, that allows you to have said materials, they set up public schools, roads, and a customer base, a set of rules that allows you and your customer to exchange services with recourse/meditations that allow you to take risks. In return for this the state expects you to comply with certain rules which are meant to (often not very efficiently) protect the state's resources.
I understand that you didnt ask for this, you might feel that you dont need any of it (you would be most likely wrong), the majority of people are happy in this system there really isnt a way for you to opt out of the benefits therefore it stands to reason you should also bear part of the cost.
Everything you listed can, and would, exist without the State.
Forcing people to pay for things they don't want is theft and slavery.
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,563 posts, read 12,535,636 times
Reputation: 10475
If the construction owner was building homes and required prospective homeowners to attend church/bible study then I say go for it, the only one that would truly be harmed, because of loss of a sale, would be the construction owner. I feel differently when a persons source of income is being threatened because of personal beliefs by the business owner. But, in this case it appears that the employee knew beforehand what was required and had accepted the terms when he had accepted the job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dothetwist
Hardly. There are many laws that owners must abide by. Minimum wage, working conditions, discrimination and that's just the tip of the iceberg.
I hope this owner gets sued and loses his business.
What happened to "his business, his rules"? Oh I see, it works fine when it's a baker or social media platforms, right? Hypocrite.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,175 posts, read 13,455,286 times
Reputation: 19472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
If only that were true.
Suppose a co-worker is arrested and charged for child abuse, he's the most productive employee in that position. Should he be fired?
A worker may be suspended if he is arrested or charged however if a court were to find him not guilty he may tale legal action for compensation. It should be noted that you remain innocent until proven guilty by your peers in a Court of Law. The ACAS Code states that “if an employee is charged with, or convicted of a criminal offence this is not normally in itself reason for disciplinary action. Consideration needs to be given to what effect the charge or conviction has on the employee’s suitability to do the job and their relationship with their employer, work colleagues and customers”.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungir
Contractually you'll find that many contain clauses that permit firing on grounds of bringing the company into disrepute. Similarly there are also clauses that expect certain behaviors (or lack thereof), say an office clerk being drug tested by their employer, if their job requirements are fulfilled, why does their blood chemistry have any interest?
A drug test must be proportionate and in Europe must balace the Right to Privacy and Family Life (Article 8) with that of safety. Therefore drug tests are usually restricted to occupations where there is specific legislation such as the Transport and Works Act 1992, The Railway and Transport Safety Act 2003, Armed Forces Acts etc and other occupations where alcohol and drug use may put public or work collegues safety at risk.
There is also no legal stipulation to actually give a drug sample and you can refuse to do so, however in relation to work which may put others at risk, this is likely to lead to termination of your employment. However where an employee is sacked as a result of a positive drugs test, the employer would still have to show that drugs had a detrimental effect on the employees ability to do the job. So if there is no evidence that there has been any drug use at work, or that performance was influenced by illegal drugs then tribunals may consider the dismissal unfair, however it will also depend on the kind of job the person does.
If a person were taking a prescribed medicine, including an opiate, which they required for a condition that meant they were disabled under the Disability Discrimination Act and an employer did not employ them, or dismissed them, as a result of a drug test, they may well have a strong case for action against the employer under the disablity act.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungir
If this guy was hired, and he signed the contract, to take during work hours 1hr/week of bible study, then he knew before he was hired (by signing the contract). It doesn't matter that it's not job related, you can get fired for metric s**t tons of things that are not job related or related to job functions.
Now specifically, if I needed a job and was required to take one with some religious compulsion. I'd probably still take it, and it's not going to affect my religious or spiritual beliefs one iota, it's just going to be one pretty boring hour, hopefully I could eat lunch during it.
One point on discrimination. It's not discrimination if you expect all employees to do the same. It's only discriminatory if you specifically target employees based on certain classifications.
The contract is only valid in so much as it meets the law, and just because someone has put someting in a contract does not automatically make it lawful. It must for instance meet current employment laws, safety laws and even human rights laws.
In terms of UK and European Law forcing a construction worker to take bible lessons or be fired would not adhere to Article 9 of the Human Rights Act 1998 in relation to conscience and religion, which provides a right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. People have a right to freedom of religion and a freedom of thought and even a right not to believe in religion and others can not impose on these freedoms.
Last edited by Brave New World; 08-31-2018 at 09:05 AM..
[the "native American"] said that he’s served time for delivery of methamphetamines and briefly lost custody of his children. He has been clean and sober for four years and just got his two children back.[snip]…[he] is fearful his past will prevent him from being able to find work, so he stuck with the Bible study until he finally decided to take a stand.
The title of this thread should read "ex-convict is hired by Christian employer and repays the employer by suing him". this man is about as ungrateful as they come, in my opinion.
From another article on this story:
[the employer] told The Oregonian/OregonLive that he’d struggled with drugs and alcohol and served time in prison for attempted second-degree assault. He said he’s been clean and sober for seven years. He started his company in 2016, with the idea of helping other convicted felons or people who’ve battled addictions rebuild their lives. “I’m a second-chance employer,” ...
A worker may be suspended if he is arrested or charged however if a court were to find him not guilty he may tale legal action for compensation.
I didn't ask what might happen I asked you should they be fired? Simple question, only needs a simple determination by you. They should be fired or should not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World
A drug test must be proportionate and in Europe must balace the Right to Privacy and Family Life (Article 8) with that of safety. Therefore drug tests are usually restricted to occupations where there is specific legislation such as the Transport and Works Act 1992, The Railway and Transport Safety Act 2003, Armed Forces Acts etc and other occupations where alcohol and drug use may put public safety at risk.
Under current law, businesses must have the consent of employees whom they wish to screen for drugs, and usually this will be in the contract or staff handbook.
Which would mean that an employee is contractually bound to a condition of employment unrelated to their actual job functions, they agreed to the testing by contract. Which in essence is similar to the situation the thread is discussing. The employee was fired for violating a contractual obligation even though the obligation was unrelated to his job functions.
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.
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.
