The problem with the Quaran burning situation is that we don't have all the information. We're just assuming he was fired because he burned the Quaran. He might have called in sick that day to go to the protest and ended up on National Television like a dumb ass.
All that is known is that he violated the Ethic code, not what he did to violate the code.
Well, it's still legal to use a personal day when not sick.
Depends on the company. At my job we have vacation days and sick days. Lots of shit are headed your way if you use sick days for personal stuff. As a trade off we accrue sick leave very quickly.
EDIT: Not illegal, but still grounds for dismissal.
I'm pretty sure when you sign on for a government job you have to sign a contract saying you will not do anything that will make you an embaressment or liability. So for example, this guy could be canned because his continued presence will make Muslims unlike to ride if they recognize him.
I'm pretty sure when you sign on for a government job you have to sign a contract saying you will not do anything that will make you an embaressment or liability. So for example, this guy could be canned because his continued presence will make Muslims unlike to ride if they recognize him.
Maybe that's just NYC though.
And that has legitimate purposes if in your action you can be tied back to the company that hired you in some way because they could claim that your actions had a financial impact on them. I'm not sure anyone was going to avoid buses or trains because of this guy prior to his firing.
This makes me wonder why the worker protection laws don't have something about civil liberties protection in it.
State by state thing. Laws protecting workers are really lacking in this country.
IMO, this needs to be fixed, no more "at will" and garbage like this will go a long way. Might even have the side effect to equality in the work place between sexes and races.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
This makes me wonder why the worker protection laws don't have something about civil liberties protection in it.
State by state thing. Laws protecting workers are really lacking in this country.
IMO, this needs to be fixed, no more "at will" and garbage like this will go a long way. Might even have the side effect to equality in the work place between sexes and races.
This makes me wonder why the worker protection laws don't have something about civil liberties protection in it.
State by state thing. Laws protecting workers are really lacking in this country.
IMO, this needs to be fixed, no more "at will" and garbage like this will go a long way. Might even have the side effect to equality in the work place between sexes and races.
I don't mind private companies having at will stuff, but I see a lot of problems with the government forcing intellectual and political conformity.
This makes me wonder why the worker protection laws don't have something about civil liberties protection in it.
State by state thing. Laws protecting workers are really lacking in this country.
IMO, this needs to be fixed, no more "at will" and garbage like this will go a long way. Might even have the side effect to equality in the work place between sexes and races.
I don't mind private companies having at will stuff, but I see a lot of problems with the government forcing intellectual and political conformity.
This makes me wonder why the worker protection laws don't have something about civil liberties protection in it.
State by state thing. Laws protecting workers are really lacking in this country.
IMO, this needs to be fixed, no more "at will" and garbage like this will go a long way. Might even have the side effect to equality in the work place between sexes and races.
I don't mind private companies having at will stuff, but I see a lot of problems with the government forcing intellectual and political conformity.
At will is garbage, absolute garbage.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
This makes me wonder why the worker protection laws don't have something about civil liberties protection in it.
State by state thing. Laws protecting workers are really lacking in this country.
IMO, this needs to be fixed, no more "at will" and garbage like this will go a long way. Might even have the side effect to equality in the work place between sexes and races.
I don't mind private companies having at will stuff, but I see a lot of problems with the government forcing intellectual and political conformity.
At will is garbage, absolute garbage.
At-will employment wouldn't be so bad if we had a decent safety net in this country.
At will would work if we could guarantee that employers were all nice people with legitimate reasons every time they fire someone.
So never in the real world.
Denmark isn't real?
SOCIALISM.
Once you have a set of laws that define when an employer can fire someone with as many rules as most of us would like its really not At-Will anymore is it? The whole notion implies they can do it whenever for whatever. Its inherently wrong.
At will would work if we could guarantee that employers were all nice people with legitimate reasons every time they fire someone.
So never in the real world.
Denmark isn't real?
SOCIALISM.
Once you have a set of laws that define when an employer can fire someone with as many rules as most of us would like its really not At-Will anymore is it? The whole notion implies they can do it whenever for whatever. Its inherently wrong.
At will would work if we could guarantee that employers were all nice people with legitimate reasons every time they fire someone.
So never in the real world.
Denmark isn't real?
SOCIALISM.
Once you have a set of laws that define when an employer can fire someone with as many rules as most of us would like its really not At-Will anymore is it? The whole notion implies they can do it whenever for whatever. Its inherently wrong.
I can't parse this post at all.
Perhaps if you elaborate on the issue I can do something about it.
Its amusing that absolutism with regards to terror and torture seems to go away once America's dirty laundry comes out.
I'm not American so that hardly makes sense, and it's the absolutism I have a problem with, not the fact that it's America. Killing people in terrible, drawn out ways is not ethically analagous to taking photos of them with a hood on their head. Anyone who calls them the same thing and ignores the former in [Iran; Iraq; etc] while shouting about the latter in [US; UK; etc] is a massive hypocrite and seriously in need of some perspective.
What about when you directly finance, ally yourself with, and militarily support the regimes that perform sort of worse torture you are describing? What if you perform assassinations, military actions and coups to purposefully create the sort of conditions where such regimes thrive?
Go on then, quote whatever highly reliable website backs up those claims....but can I request you do it in another thread where people can ignore you in peace? And if you predictably cite some crap about what the CIA did in the 60's, I will be disappointed, if unsurprised. I want something original, and preferably that has happened in the past 20 years to demonstrate that this is an issue.
At-will employment wouldn't be so bad if we had a decent safety net in this country.
Those are my thoughts as well.
Ding ding. Simply making firing harder is terrible because employers just respond by hiring fewer people in the long run. The solution to making at-will retrenchment not suck is stronger safety nets and vigorous use of monetary or broad fiscal tools to generate very low unemployment (at least sub-5%): i.e., policy should ensure that there is almost always another job, and that you can get help to tide you over until you find it.
At-will employment wouldn't be so bad if we had a decent safety net in this country.
Those are my thoughts as well.
Ding ding. Simply making firing harder is terrible because employers just respond by hiring fewer people in the long run. The solution to making at-will retrenchment not suck is stronger safety nets and vigorous use of monetary or broad fiscal tools to generate very low unemployment (at least sub-5%): i.e., policy should ensure that there is almost always another job, and that you can get help to tide you over until you find it.
Some basic protections like "You can't be fired for having a bumper sticker for a politician your boss doesn't like on your car" won't kill hiring.
At-will employment wouldn't be so bad if we had a decent safety net in this country.
Those are my thoughts as well.
Ding ding. Simply making firing harder is terrible because employers just respond by hiring fewer people in the long run. The solution to making at-will retrenchment not suck is stronger safety nets and vigorous use of monetary or broad fiscal tools to generate very low unemployment (at least sub-5%): i.e., policy should ensure that there is almost always another job, and that you can get help to tide you over until you find it.
Some basic protections like "You can't be fired for having a bumper sticker for a politician your boss doesn't like on your car" won't kill hiring.
"Failing to lick my asshole, while I bang your soul and your wife at the same time" shouldn't be a grounds for termination either. That's a pretty common one.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
At-will employment wouldn't be so bad if we had a decent safety net in this country.
Those are my thoughts as well.
Ding ding. Simply making firing harder is terrible because employers just respond by hiring fewer people in the long run. The solution to making at-will retrenchment not suck is stronger safety nets and vigorous use of monetary or broad fiscal tools to generate very low unemployment (at least sub-5%): i.e., policy should ensure that there is almost always another job, and that you can get help to tide you over until you find it.
Some basic protections like "You can't be fired for having a bumper sticker for a politician your boss doesn't like on your car" won't kill hiring.
"Failing to lick my asshole, while I bang your soul and your wife at the same time" shouldn't be a grounds for termination either. That's a pretty common one.
Failing to accept sexual advances actually can't get you fired in most states, as sexual harassment is illegal.
At-will employment wouldn't be so bad if we had a decent safety net in this country.
Those are my thoughts as well.
Ding ding. Simply making firing harder is terrible because employers just respond by hiring fewer people in the long run. The solution to making at-will retrenchment not suck is stronger safety nets and vigorous use of monetary or broad fiscal tools to generate very low unemployment (at least sub-5%): i.e., policy should ensure that there is almost always another job, and that you can get help to tide you over until you find it.
Some basic protections like "You can't be fired for having a bumper sticker for a politician your boss doesn't like on your car" won't kill hiring.
"Failing to lick my asshole, while I bang your soul and your wife at the same time" shouldn't be a grounds for termination either. That's a pretty common one.
Failing to accept sexual advances actually can't get you fired in most states, as sexual harassment is illegal.
I meant that in the most metaphorical sense as I could. :P
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
I'm pretty sure when you sign on for a government job you have to sign a contract saying you will not do anything that will make you an embaressment or liability. So for example, this guy could be canned because his continued presence will make Muslims unlike to ride if they recognize him.
Maybe that's just NYC though.
I'm pretty sure there's no contract the government can make you sign which would allow them to fire you in retaliation for unpopular political speech. That's kind of the point of the bill of rights.
I'm pretty sure when you sign on for a government job you have to sign a contract saying you will not do anything that will make you an embaressment or liability. So for example, this guy could be canned because his continued presence will make Muslims unlike to ride if they recognize him.
Maybe that's just NYC though.
I'm pretty sure there's no contract the government can make you sign which would allow them to fire you in retaliation for unpopular political speech. That's kind of the point of the bill of rights.
I'm pretty sure when you sign on for a government job you have to sign a contract saying you will not do anything that will make you an embaressment or liability. So for example, this guy could be canned because his continued presence will make Muslims unlike to ride if they recognize him.
Maybe that's just NYC though.
I'm pretty sure there's no contract the government can make you sign which would allow them to fire you in retaliation for unpopular political speech. That's kind of the point of the bill of rights.
Most places have in your contract that you can't make them look bad. There are limits but don't expect to work at a steak house if you distribute PETA propaganda.
nstf on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
I'm pretty sure when you sign on for a government job you have to sign a contract saying you will not do anything that will make you an embaressment or liability. So for example, this guy could be canned because his continued presence will make Muslims unlike to ride if they recognize him.
Maybe that's just NYC though.
I'm pretty sure there's no contract the government can make you sign which would allow them to fire you in retaliation for unpopular political speech. That's kind of the point of the bill of rights.
Ask anyone in the military that.
The military is notable for being the special case, not the general one.
Most places have in your contract that you can't make them look bad. There are limits but don't expect to work at a steak house if you distribute PETA propaganda
The government has special restrictions on its ability to discriminate based on political viewpoint. Namely, it's not allowed to.
I'm pretty sure when you sign on for a government job you have to sign a contract saying you will not do anything that will make you an embaressment or liability. So for example, this guy could be canned because his continued presence will make Muslims unlike to ride if they recognize him.
Maybe that's just NYC though.
I'm pretty sure there's no contract the government can make you sign which would allow them to fire you in retaliation for unpopular political speech. That's kind of the point of the bill of rights.
Ask anyone in the military that.
Members of the military still can, but not in uniform and certain organizations/hate groups are understandably off limits.
The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him[/B]. Only the Gharkad tree, would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."
Am I a bad person for finding this passage funny?
No, this is amazing
autono-wally, erotibot300 on
0
Options
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
This makes me wonder why the worker protection laws don't have something about civil liberties protection in it.
State by state thing. Laws protecting workers are really lacking in this country.
IMO, this needs to be fixed, no more "at will" and garbage like this will go a long way. Might even have the side effect to equality in the work place between sexes and races.
I don't mind private companies having at will stuff, but I see a lot of problems with the government forcing intellectual and political conformity.
At will is garbage, absolute garbage.
Once you are given an employee handbook, you are effectively no longer at-will.
At will isn't completely horrible. Its also what allows you to quit a job for any reason. It just needs to be a lot more regulated then it currently is.
DeShadowC on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
At will isn't completely horrible. Its also what allows you to quit a job for any reason. It just needs to be a lot more regulated then it currently is.
Basically this.
At-will isn't really an issue until it becomes personal or motivated by non-employment factors.
"At will" should be parsed to mean, "An employee can be let go at any time for any reason, as long as there's a clear business motivation behind it."
Companies should be allowed to quickly and easily ditch employees that are troublesome, as employment shouldn't be a hardship, but it shouldn't be a legal obligation, either.
If a company has an employee that is causing problems at work, it shouldn't have to be an act of congress to let them go. I've unfortunately been in a couple of situations (as have some of you, I'm sure) where coworkers started to show dangerous and possibly psychotic behavior. Not only is that a threat to a business, but it's also a threat to the other employees and they shouldn't be forced to tolerate such conditions.
Basically, a company shouldn't have too many restrictions on letting someone go, but an explicit reason should be stated which would allow, if desired, for the fired employee to file a wrongful termination lawsuit. I would like to think that things like 1st Amendment protections on activities performed on personal time is something that wrongful termination could protect.
I have to say though, at-will cuts down a helluva lot on litigation, frivolous and otherwise.
the reality of course is that those not employed at-will can still be fired for cause or removed from the workplace if they're doing something dangerous
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him[/B]. Only the Gharkad tree, would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."
I'm pretty sure when you sign on for a government job you have to sign a contract saying you will not do anything that will make you an embaressment or liability. So for example, this guy could be canned because his continued presence will make Muslims unlike to ride if they recognize him.
Maybe that's just NYC though.
I'm pretty sure there's no contract the government can make you sign which would allow them to fire you in retaliation for unpopular political speech. That's kind of the point of the bill of rights.
I'd imagine that they'd say something along the lines of 'We didn't fire him because of what he did, but because of the possible results of those actions'.
I mean, people have died because someone said they were going to burn the Koran. This guy actually did. I agree he was well within his rights, but all the same, I wouldn't want to sit next to his cubicle.
At-will employment wouldn't be so bad if we had a decent safety net in this country.
Those are my thoughts as well.
Ding ding. Simply making firing harder is terrible because employers just respond by hiring fewer people in the long run. The solution to making at-will retrenchment not suck is stronger safety nets and vigorous use of monetary or broad fiscal tools to generate very low unemployment (at least sub-5%): i.e., policy should ensure that there is almost always another job, and that you can get help to tide you over until you find it.
Some basic protections like "You can't be fired for having a bumper sticker for a politician your boss doesn't like on your car" won't kill hiring.
Chilling effects, though. If enforcement were perfect and costless to all involved, such rules would be pretty awesome. But in practice such rules are costly to enforce; we shield taxpayers from bearing those costs by offloading them onto the parties involved (i.e., as legal fees), which then distorts the hiring process. Defensive hiring and such.
It's still better than having neither hiring protections nor high-employment policy, but engineering high employment achieves the benefits without the costs.
Sooo... we've got some elections coming up in a month. And what's a cheap way to get exposure in the media? By making it seem you're the only thing holding back a tidal wave of ISLAM from crashing down on the wee CHILDREN.
You can read the actual resolution (linked within the MSNBC article) and it's not unreasonable if their stats are true, but the timing is too suspicious to ignore. Strong feelings of Islamophobia are floating around the country right now and it's sad to see elected officials use that to their advantage.
Posts
All that is known is that he violated the Ethic code, not what he did to violate the code.
EDIT: Not illegal, but still grounds for dismissal.
Maybe that's just NYC though.
And that has legitimate purposes if in your action you can be tied back to the company that hired you in some way because they could claim that your actions had a financial impact on them. I'm not sure anyone was going to avoid buses or trains because of this guy prior to his firing.
State by state thing. Laws protecting workers are really lacking in this country.
IMO, this needs to be fixed, no more "at will" and garbage like this will go a long way. Might even have the side effect to equality in the work place between sexes and races.
Read this.
I don't mind private companies having at will stuff, but I see a lot of problems with the government forcing intellectual and political conformity.
At will is garbage, absolute garbage.
At-will employment wouldn't be so bad if we had a decent safety net in this country.
Those are my thoughts as well.
Protecting worker's rights is SOCIALISM.
So never in the real world.
Denmark isn't real?
SOCIALISM.
Once you have a set of laws that define when an employer can fire someone with as many rules as most of us would like its really not At-Will anymore is it? The whole notion implies they can do it whenever for whatever. Its inherently wrong.
I can't parse this post at all.
Perhaps if you elaborate on the issue I can do something about it.
I'm not American so that hardly makes sense, and it's the absolutism I have a problem with, not the fact that it's America. Killing people in terrible, drawn out ways is not ethically analagous to taking photos of them with a hood on their head. Anyone who calls them the same thing and ignores the former in [Iran; Iraq; etc] while shouting about the latter in [US; UK; etc] is a massive hypocrite and seriously in need of some perspective.
Go on then, quote whatever highly reliable website backs up those claims....but can I request you do it in another thread where people can ignore you in peace? And if you predictably cite some crap about what the CIA did in the 60's, I will be disappointed, if unsurprised. I want something original, and preferably that has happened in the past 20 years to demonstrate that this is an issue.
Ding ding. Simply making firing harder is terrible because employers just respond by hiring fewer people in the long run. The solution to making at-will retrenchment not suck is stronger safety nets and vigorous use of monetary or broad fiscal tools to generate very low unemployment (at least sub-5%): i.e., policy should ensure that there is almost always another job, and that you can get help to tide you over until you find it.
Some basic protections like "You can't be fired for having a bumper sticker for a politician your boss doesn't like on your car" won't kill hiring.
"Failing to lick my asshole, while I bang your soul and your wife at the same time" shouldn't be a grounds for termination either. That's a pretty common one.
Failing to accept sexual advances actually can't get you fired in most states, as sexual harassment is illegal.
I meant that in the most metaphorical sense as I could. :P
I'm pretty sure there's no contract the government can make you sign which would allow them to fire you in retaliation for unpopular political speech. That's kind of the point of the bill of rights.
Ask anyone in the military that.
Most places have in your contract that you can't make them look bad. There are limits but don't expect to work at a steak house if you distribute PETA propaganda.
The military is notable for being the special case, not the general one.
The government has special restrictions on its ability to discriminate based on political viewpoint. Namely, it's not allowed to.
Members of the military still can, but not in uniform and certain organizations/hate groups are understandably off limits.
No, this is amazing
Once you are given an employee handbook, you are effectively no longer at-will.
Just saying...
Basically this.
At-will isn't really an issue until it becomes personal or motivated by non-employment factors.
"At will" should be parsed to mean, "An employee can be let go at any time for any reason, as long as there's a clear business motivation behind it."
Companies should be allowed to quickly and easily ditch employees that are troublesome, as employment shouldn't be a hardship, but it shouldn't be a legal obligation, either.
If a company has an employee that is causing problems at work, it shouldn't have to be an act of congress to let them go. I've unfortunately been in a couple of situations (as have some of you, I'm sure) where coworkers started to show dangerous and possibly psychotic behavior. Not only is that a threat to a business, but it's also a threat to the other employees and they shouldn't be forced to tolerate such conditions.
Basically, a company shouldn't have too many restrictions on letting someone go, but an explicit reason should be stated which would allow, if desired, for the fired employee to file a wrongful termination lawsuit. I would like to think that things like 1st Amendment protections on activities performed on personal time is something that wrongful termination could protect.
I have to say though, at-will cuts down a helluva lot on litigation, frivolous and otherwise.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Fucking Jew trees.
How do they work.
I'd imagine that they'd say something along the lines of 'We didn't fire him because of what he did, but because of the possible results of those actions'.
I mean, people have died because someone said they were going to burn the Koran. This guy actually did. I agree he was well within his rights, but all the same, I wouldn't want to sit next to his cubicle.
Chilling effects, though. If enforcement were perfect and costless to all involved, such rules would be pretty awesome. But in practice such rules are costly to enforce; we shield taxpayers from bearing those costs by offloading them onto the parties involved (i.e., as legal fees), which then distorts the hiring process. Defensive hiring and such.
It's still better than having neither hiring protections nor high-employment policy, but engineering high employment achieves the benefits without the costs.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39311882/ns/us_news-education/
You can read the actual resolution (linked within the MSNBC article) and it's not unreasonable if their stats are true, but the timing is too suspicious to ignore. Strong feelings of Islamophobia are floating around the country right now and it's sad to see elected officials use that to their advantage.