Spool I'm certain that you are the only person in chat who doesn't know that "right to work state" is a political sleaze euphemism for "no employee rights, you can be fired at will."
Funny how all the southern states are fire at will.
You still get unemployment benefits if you're fired without cause.
I don't have a lot of problem with the idea that an employer can tell people he doesn't want them working in his business anymore. It's his business!
Moreover, I don't have a problem with laws that prevent a union from locking out workers who don't pay dues.
While an employer should certainly have the right to end a term of employment, it shouldn't be over ANYTHING.
Right to work is bullshit and helps workers not at all.
But why not? I don't understand the logic here. It's my business. I don't like you anymore. So I don't want to pay you. Get out of my store!
Why should the government be able to stop me from doing that?
Because that's a retarded way to run an economy.
Employers aren't kings.
They aren't government entities either.
That business is mine. I built it!
If I found out you were fucking my wife, I shouldn't have to keep paying you to work at my store.
"You built it" in the same way I built my public school education.
"You built it" in the sense that he bears all the risk
I seriously cannot believe that an honest-to-god banker just fucking said that.
a small business owner bears the risk of his initial capital investment, any retained earnings, and, depending on how his business is legally set-up, any other outside sources of financing
A small business owner also benefits from a metric fuckton of government programs designed specifically for them, and generally repays this by treating their employees like shit and violating every law they can get away with.
you are making a huge generalization
i thought we didn't like this sort of thing around here
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
I feel two ways about unions, and I'm not sure I'll ever be able to reconcile them.
On the one hand, I'm really glad I work for a company that is union-only, because it means I can't be fired for bullshit reasons, there is a contract in place, I get really good benefits, etc.
On the other hand, I'm also really glad I work in a union shop that happens to exist in a right-to-work state, because there's no chance for the union to bully me, to get grievances filed against me for doing things above and beyond my job description, to have to deal too much with high-senority employees always trying to make sure I "know my place" as a low-senority employee, etc.
There are some very good things that come from my union, but there are also some very bad things, and I'm glad the bad things have been minimized (though not completely eradicated) by the fact that I live in a right-to-work state.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
Some people (Republicans) want all the benefits of running a business, all of the benefits of being a private individual, none of the downsides, and when shit really hits the fan they just want the public to flat out assume the risk.
That's the Republican way, and arguing with Republicans is the most futile, aggravating, pointless exercise in masochism that exists on the internet.
I would say "exists anywhere" but you can still pound nails into your penis at home and there is not yet a way to do this online.
Basically Spool, this is another case of you being terrified of the Fox News Liberal Strawman your party has been pimping out.
No one is saying employers shouldn't be able to fire shitty employees.
But maybe you shouldn't take that King of the Hill episode about the ADA at face value.
This is a thing that you do
Where, after a couple of posts where you don't discuss the point very much, you label me personally crazy and suggest I'm the Stupid variety of Republican. Then you include a snappy singer on the end.
Why do you do this thing.
What are you talking about? I have discussed my point a couple times, other people have in fact posted other things I was going to say and instead of repeating them I "agreed".
I have not said you're stupid or crazy, I've said you're arguing against something that doesn't exist.
The idea that you shouldn't be able to fire an employee who is bad at their job is not an idea you are actually arguing about.
You have even ignored a couple of my posts to say this thing because it is easier to complain about how I post than it is to keep discussing.
thatassemblyguyJanitor of Technical Debt.Registered Userregular
I'm sorry @simonwolf I have to reassert that Brisbane is superior to Melbourne. I'm basing this on the completely unscientific, and shallow observation of passenger attractiveness boarding my plane to Brisbane and the opposite line of passengers boarding the Melbourne plane.
I'm just saying my plane is rocking with hotties: male and female. The other plane has old wrinkly people.
Spool I'm certain that you are the only person in chat who doesn't know that "right to work state" is a political sleaze euphemism for "no employee rights, you can be fired at will."
Funny how all the southern states are fire at will.
You still get unemployment benefits if you're fired without cause.
I don't have a lot of problem with the idea that an employer can tell people he doesn't want them working in his business anymore. It's his business!
Moreover, I don't have a problem with laws that prevent a union from locking out workers who don't pay dues.
While an employer should certainly have the right to end a term of employment, it shouldn't be over ANYTHING.
Right to work is bullshit and helps workers not at all.
But why not? I don't understand the logic here. It's my business. I don't like you anymore. So I don't want to pay you. Get out of my store!
Why should the government be able to stop me from doing that?
Because that's a retarded way to run an economy.
Employers aren't kings.
They aren't government entities either.
That business is mine. I built it!
If I found out you were fucking my wife, I shouldn't have to keep paying you to work at my store.
"You built it" in the same way I built my public school education.
"You built it" in the sense that he bears all the risk
I seriously cannot believe that an honest-to-god banker just fucking said that.
a small business owner bears the risk of his initial capital investment, any retained earnings, and, depending on how his business is legally set-up, any other outside sources of financing
A small business owner also benefits from a metric fuckton of government programs designed specifically for them, and generally repays this by treating their employees like shit and violating every law they can get away with.
i am so glad i got you banned
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I find most times you think I'm calling you stupid you're wrong, Spool. I am not calling you stupid, I'm saying your arguing against points not made.
There is a difference there.
BUT I GUESS YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE STUPID TO NOT SEE THAT
Spool I'm certain that you are the only person in chat who doesn't know that "right to work state" is a political sleaze euphemism for "no employee rights, you can be fired at will."
Funny how all the southern states are fire at will.
You still get unemployment benefits if you're fired without cause.
I don't have a lot of problem with the idea that an employer can tell people he doesn't want them working in his business anymore. It's his business!
Moreover, I don't have a problem with laws that prevent a union from locking out workers who don't pay dues.
While an employer should certainly have the right to end a term of employment, it shouldn't be over ANYTHING.
Right to work is bullshit and helps workers not at all.
But why not? I don't understand the logic here. It's my business. I don't like you anymore. So I don't want to pay you. Get out of my store!
Why should the government be able to stop me from doing that?
Because that's a retarded way to run an economy.
Employers aren't kings.
They aren't government entities either.
That business is mine. I built it!
If I found out you were fucking my wife, I shouldn't have to keep paying you to work at my store.
"You built it" in the same way I built my public school education.
"You built it" in the sense that he bears all the risk
I seriously cannot believe that an honest-to-god banker just fucking said that.
a small business owner bears the risk of his initial capital investment, any retained earnings, and, depending on how his business is legally set-up, any other outside sources of financing
A small business owner also benefits from a metric fuckton of government programs designed specifically for them, and generally repays this by treating their employees like shit and violating every law they can get away with.
you are making a huge generalization
i thought we didn't like this sort of thing around here
So spool, you'd be okay with someone firing your wife because they found out she has fibromyalgia and don't think it's real, or firing your son because they found out that you (not him, but you) are a Christian?
There are two faces of unionism (namedroppin' up in this bitch); in my opinion the positive institutional effects of unionism have far outweighed the charges of corruption and complacency plus the 19th century argument of unions-as-monopoly. This is not saying that unions should now have unchecked power (nor is that possible, with the incredible and almost total power management finds themselves having in a 21st century economy). But they are an incredibly important barrier against the negative effects of late capitalism
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
Spool I'm certain that you are the only person in chat who doesn't know that "right to work state" is a political sleaze euphemism for "no employee rights, you can be fired at will."
Funny how all the southern states are fire at will.
You still get unemployment benefits if you're fired without cause.
I don't have a lot of problem with the idea that an employer can tell people he doesn't want them working in his business anymore. It's his business!
Moreover, I don't have a problem with laws that prevent a union from locking out workers who don't pay dues.
While an employer should certainly have the right to end a term of employment, it shouldn't be over ANYTHING.
Right to work is bullshit and helps workers not at all.
But why not? I don't understand the logic here. It's my business. I don't like you anymore. So I don't want to pay you. Get out of my store!
Why should the government be able to stop me from doing that?
Because that's a retarded way to run an economy.
Employers aren't kings.
They aren't government entities either.
That business is mine. I built it!
If I found out you were fucking my wife, I shouldn't have to keep paying you to work at my store.
"You built it" in the same way I built my public school education.
"You built it" in the sense that he bears all the risk
I seriously cannot believe that an honest-to-god banker just fucking said that.
a small business owner bears the risk of his initial capital investment, any retained earnings, and, depending on how his business is legally set-up, any other outside sources of financing
A small business owner also benefits from a metric fuckton of government programs designed specifically for them, and generally repays this by treating their employees like shit and violating every law they can get away with.
I could honestly go on and on here about theoretical motivations for restricting discretionary employment
(and there are some good ones, principally focusing on how controlling high the 'hostaged' promised-but-not-contracted compensation can go - notice that this extends nicely onto the usual fears on abusive internships and abusive seniority and such)
but I reiterate that it seems obvious, at least to me, that the real driver behind the resentment of at-will employment is not any of these motivations, but rather a straightforward dislike of said discretion. A lot of people don't actually think that freedom of association should be that expansive.
I could honestly go on and on here about theoretical motivations for restricting discretionary employment
(and there are some good ones, principally focusing on how controlling high the 'hostaged' promised-but-not-contracted compensation can go - notice that this extends nicely onto the usual fears on abusive internships and abusive seniority and such)
but I reiterate that it seems obvious, at least to me, that the real driver behind the resentment of at-will employment is not any of these motivations, but rather a straightforward dislike of said discretion. A lot of people don't actually think that freedom of association should be that expansive.
I think I agree with you, but I am unfamiliar with some of the concepts you are describing
Spool I'm certain that you are the only person in chat who doesn't know that "right to work state" is a political sleaze euphemism for "no employee rights, you can be fired at will."
Funny how all the southern states are fire at will.
You still get unemployment benefits if you're fired without cause.
I don't have a lot of problem with the idea that an employer can tell people he doesn't want them working in his business anymore. It's his business!
Moreover, I don't have a problem with laws that prevent a union from locking out workers who don't pay dues.
While an employer should certainly have the right to end a term of employment, it shouldn't be over ANYTHING.
Right to work is bullshit and helps workers not at all.
But why not? I don't understand the logic here. It's my business. I don't like you anymore. So I don't want to pay you. Get out of my store!
Why should the government be able to stop me from doing that?
Because that's a retarded way to run an economy.
Employers aren't kings.
They aren't government entities either.
That business is mine. I built it!
If I found out you were fucking my wife, I shouldn't have to keep paying you to work at my store.
"You built it" in the same way I built my public school education.
"You built it" in the sense that he bears all the risk
I seriously cannot believe that an honest-to-god banker just fucking said that.
a small business owner bears the risk of his initial capital investment, any retained earnings, and, depending on how his business is legally set-up, any other outside sources of financing
A small business owner also benefits from a metric fuckton of government programs designed specifically for them, and generally repays this by treating their employees like shit and violating every law they can get away with.
you are making a huge generalization
i thought we didn't like this sort of thing around here
This "we" thing must be a generalization, too, because I have always maintained a love of generalizations.
Spool I'm certain that you are the only person in chat who doesn't know that "right to work state" is a political sleaze euphemism for "no employee rights, you can be fired at will."
Funny how all the southern states are fire at will.
You still get unemployment benefits if you're fired without cause.
I don't have a lot of problem with the idea that an employer can tell people he doesn't want them working in his business anymore. It's his business!
Moreover, I don't have a problem with laws that prevent a union from locking out workers who don't pay dues.
While an employer should certainly have the right to end a term of employment, it shouldn't be over ANYTHING.
Right to work is bullshit and helps workers not at all.
But why not? I don't understand the logic here. It's my business. I don't like you anymore. So I don't want to pay you. Get out of my store!
Why should the government be able to stop me from doing that?
That isn't the problem
The problem is that it's a huge giant gaping loophole for firing minorities, pregnant women and people of a religion you don't like.
OK this is true. But the solution is not to make it expensive and difficult to fire people who don't fit for your business.
What is an example of a "person who doesn't fit a business"
Like, not specifics. But, in your mind, what is an example of this
Somebody who is sour and has a poor disposition with customers, in a customer facing job.
I could think of lots and lots and lots of examples.
Then we are arguing a fundamentally different thing then you
Not to be crude, but I don't think you understand what we mean when we say "at will"
Your example is actually a legitimate reason to fire someone, and actually doesn't fall under "at will" termination, from what I understand
"at will" is literally like, "I don't have to give a reason as to why I am firing you, thus you are now gone"
It is basically the ability to fire irrespective of job performance
Yes.
Because "you are bad at your job" is impossible to prove without metrics, and how do you quantify "you don't smile at the customers"?
Concocting a 'cause' is what you do in at-will states when you don't want to pay unemployment.
If you just don't like the person's attitude, you can ditch them and pay the penalty.
I don't see the issue.
But I am going to go eat food! If we haven't moved on, I'll be back later to continue.
0
Options
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
So spool, you'd be okay with someone firing your wife because they found out she has fibromyalgia and don't think it's real, or firing your son because they found out that you (not him, but you) are a Christian?
Unless we are talking total idiots they will be fired for "poor job performance"
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
0
Options
CorehealerThe ApothecaryThe softer edge of the universe.Registered Userregular
There are two faces of unionism (namedroppin' up in this bitch); in my opinion the positive institutional effects of unionism have far outweighed the charges of corruption and complacency plus the 19th century argument of unions-as-monopoly. This is not saying that unions should now have unchecked power (nor is that possible, with the incredible and almost total power management finds themselves having in a 21st century economy). But they are an incredibly important barrier against the negative effects of late capitalism
to dispute: I think anglospheric-style unionism, in its staged walkout/lockout variety, stopped being a meaningful barrier at all with the advent of managerial capitalism, and became utterly irrelevant in terms of labour bargaining with financial capitalism
Spool I'm certain that you are the only person in chat who doesn't know that "right to work state" is a political sleaze euphemism for "no employee rights, you can be fired at will."
Funny how all the southern states are fire at will.
You still get unemployment benefits if you're fired without cause.
I don't have a lot of problem with the idea that an employer can tell people he doesn't want them working in his business anymore. It's his business!
Moreover, I don't have a problem with laws that prevent a union from locking out workers who don't pay dues.
While an employer should certainly have the right to end a term of employment, it shouldn't be over ANYTHING.
Right to work is bullshit and helps workers not at all.
But why not? I don't understand the logic here. It's my business. I don't like you anymore. So I don't want to pay you. Get out of my store!
Why should the government be able to stop me from doing that?
Because that's a retarded way to run an economy.
Employers aren't kings.
They aren't government entities either.
That business is mine. I built it!
If I found out you were fucking my wife, I shouldn't have to keep paying you to work at my store.
"You built it" in the same way I built my public school education.
"You built it" in the sense that he bears all the risk
I seriously cannot believe that an honest-to-god banker just fucking said that.
a small business owner bears the risk of his initial capital investment, any retained earnings, and, depending on how his business is legally set-up, any other outside sources of financing
A small business owner also benefits from a metric fuckton of government programs designed specifically for them, and generally repays this by treating their employees like shit and violating every law they can get away with.
you are making a huge generalization
i thought we didn't like this sort of thing around here
This "we" thing must be a generalization, too, because I have always maintained a love of generalizations.
this is one thing we can agree on, in general!
0
Options
CorehealerThe ApothecaryThe softer edge of the universe.Registered Userregular
So spool, you'd be okay with someone firing your wife because they found out she has fibromyalgia and don't think it's real, or firing your son because they found out that you (not him, but you) are a Christian?
if you don't think a business owner bears the risk of his own business then you are fucking stupid
especially if it's a sole-proprietor
They bear risk.
But it is limited.
Even someone with a tiny tiny business can, as long as they are in fact running a real life business, file for real bankrupty, for example.
As opposed to the "lolbankruptcy" which people* have been restricted to.
In no case would I play that up as ALL OF THE RISKS! because that's a conservative fallacy.
Thank you very fucking much.
*By people I mean actual people and not corporations
You are wrong. Private corporations are not afforded the sort of strong protections that public ones are, and lenders require personal guarantees anyway. If you run your LLC into the ground you don't get to simply walk away.
So spool, you'd be okay with someone firing your wife because they found out she has fibromyalgia and don't think it's real, or firing your son because they found out that you (not him, but you) are a Christian?
I would be angry, but yes.
God. You'd be wrong.
You'd have liberals supporting you if this happened.
I could honestly go on and on here about theoretical motivations for restricting discretionary employment
(and there are some good ones, principally focusing on how controlling high the 'hostaged' promised-but-not-contracted compensation can go - notice that this extends nicely onto the usual fears on abusive internships and abusive seniority and such)
but I reiterate that it seems obvious, at least to me, that the real driver behind the resentment of at-will employment is not any of these motivations, but rather a straightforward dislike of said discretion. A lot of people don't actually think that freedom of association should be that expansive.
Freedom of association in an economic context will always carry a lot of politically and culturally charged baggage that certain people (unalloyed progressives) will shake their sticks about, while others will choose not to carry that baggage
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
So spool, you'd be okay with someone firing your wife because they found out she has fibromyalgia and don't think it's real, or firing your son because they found out that you (not him, but you) are a Christian?
I would be angry, but yes.
Again, these are case studies in Why Employment Law Matters.
If men were angels we wouldn't need government and other platitudes are available in my new ebook: How to Survive and Thrive in the Obamanation, coming soon to a lending library near you.
I could honestly go on and on here about theoretical motivations for restricting discretionary employment
(and there are some good ones, principally focusing on how controlling high the 'hostaged' promised-but-not-contracted compensation can go - notice that this extends nicely onto the usual fears on abusive internships and abusive seniority and such)
but I reiterate that it seems obvious, at least to me, that the real driver behind the resentment of at-will employment is not any of these motivations, but rather a straightforward dislike of said discretion. A lot of people don't actually think that freedom of association should be that expansive.
This gets into positive and negative freedoms and other societal values.
If we value the ability to say "You shouldn't have the freedom to shitcan an employee when you discover he is gay" then At Will laws, by doing away with any need to document any kind of cause when firing someone, implicitly give Employers the ability to do so with impunity, act counter to that value. Therefore, yes, that is a way of saying Freedom shouldn't be absolute if it leads to situation that implicitly destroys other values that we hold.
But I think it's something of a stretch to characterize that as a skepticism of Freedom of Association as a broad right.
So spool, you'd be okay with someone firing your wife because they found out she has fibromyalgia and don't think it's real, or firing your son because they found out that you (not him, but you) are a Christian?
I would be angry, but yes.
God. You'd be wrong.
You'd have liberals supporting you if this happened.
well he'd be stupid to because current employment laws protect people in both of those cases
even if you're in Texas or New York
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Also the idea that all business owners are hiding behind liability shields is as silly as thinking that all pro-union people want Spool to have to keep paying his poor performing, wife fucking worker.
Though if fucking your wife doesn't hurt your business I'm not sure you have grounds to fire this person...
I could honestly go on and on here about theoretical motivations for restricting discretionary employment
(and there are some good ones, principally focusing on how controlling high the 'hostaged' promised-but-not-contracted compensation can go - notice that this extends nicely onto the usual fears on abusive internships and abusive seniority and such)
but I reiterate that it seems obvious, at least to me, that the real driver behind the resentment of at-will employment is not any of these motivations, but rather a straightforward dislike of said discretion. A lot of people don't actually think that freedom of association should be that expansive.
I think I agree with you, but I am unfamiliar with some of the concepts you are describing
people don't like other aspects of their lifestyle being held as discretionary conditions for employment. people actually like and expect highly commoditized workplaces, where you have such and such stably prescribed expectations of behaviour and performance
the freedom of someone else to arbitrarily alter their conditions for associating with you, in a relationship that is materially important, is just not a freedom that is widely supported - any more than the freedom to discretionarily skimp on removing bonus beetles from the cabbage is appreciated
seriously why are we pretending that at-will employment means that protections aren't offered against people who are discriminated against based on sex, color, religion, disability now
So spool, you'd be okay with someone firing your wife because they found out she has fibromyalgia and don't think it's real, or firing your son because they found out that you (not him, but you) are a Christian?
I would be angry, but yes.
God. You'd be wrong.
You'd have liberals supporting you if this happened.
well he'd be stupid to because current employment laws protect people in both of those cases
even if you're in Texas or New York
So you don't fire them for being Christian, you fire them for No Cause
this isn't exactly a secret stratagem in At Will states
So spool, you'd be okay with someone firing your wife because they found out she has fibromyalgia and don't think it's real, or firing your son because they found out that you (not him, but you) are a Christian?
I would be angry, but yes.
God. You'd be wrong.
You'd have liberals supporting you if this happened.
well he'd be stupid to because current employment laws protect people in both of those cases
even if you're in Texas or New York
As always though, good luck proving that's the reason you were fired.
seriously why are we pretending that at-will employment means that protections aren't offered against people who are discriminated against based on sex, color, religion, disability now
Because the net effect of At Will laws in practice is that people aren't protected against discrimination based on sex, color, religion, disability...
Posts
no
i dont think you understand how bankruptcies work (bankruptcies are not LOL FUCK YOU OBLIGATIONS! I KEEP DRIVING A FERRARI!)
or how ownership works at the corporate level (capital structures have a long line of people at the watering hole!)
you are making a huge generalization
i thought we didn't like this sort of thing around here
On the one hand, I'm really glad I work for a company that is union-only, because it means I can't be fired for bullshit reasons, there is a contract in place, I get really good benefits, etc.
On the other hand, I'm also really glad I work in a union shop that happens to exist in a right-to-work state, because there's no chance for the union to bully me, to get grievances filed against me for doing things above and beyond my job description, to have to deal too much with high-senority employees always trying to make sure I "know my place" as a low-senority employee, etc.
There are some very good things that come from my union, but there are also some very bad things, and I'm glad the bad things have been minimized (though not completely eradicated) by the fact that I live in a right-to-work state.
Some people (Republicans) want all the benefits of running a business, all of the benefits of being a private individual, none of the downsides, and when shit really hits the fan they just want the public to flat out assume the risk.
That's the Republican way, and arguing with Republicans is the most futile, aggravating, pointless exercise in masochism that exists on the internet.
I would say "exists anywhere" but you can still pound nails into your penis at home and there is not yet a way to do this online.
yyy
What are you talking about? I have discussed my point a couple times, other people have in fact posted other things I was going to say and instead of repeating them I "agreed".
I have not said you're stupid or crazy, I've said you're arguing against something that doesn't exist.
The idea that you shouldn't be able to fire an employee who is bad at their job is not an idea you are actually arguing about.
You have even ignored a couple of my posts to say this thing because it is easier to complain about how I post than it is to keep discussing.
Why do you do this thing?
I'm just saying my plane is rocking with hotties: male and female. The other plane has old wrinkly people.
/ageist
There is a difference there.
BUT I GUESS YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE STUPID TO NOT SEE THAT
HA HA HA
Checkmate.
The thing about accurate generalizations is.
Well, accuracy.
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
This is an At Will shanking forum
(and there are some good ones, principally focusing on how controlling high the 'hostaged' promised-but-not-contracted compensation can go - notice that this extends nicely onto the usual fears on abusive internships and abusive seniority and such)
but I reiterate that it seems obvious, at least to me, that the real driver behind the resentment of at-will employment is not any of these motivations, but rather a straightforward dislike of said discretion. A lot of people don't actually think that freedom of association should be that expansive.
CHECKMATE DEMOCRATS
its so bad I cant spell correctlysa f
I think I agree with you, but I am unfamiliar with some of the concepts you are describing
Yes.
Because "you are bad at your job" is impossible to prove without metrics, and how do you quantify "you don't smile at the customers"?
Concocting a 'cause' is what you do in at-will states when you don't want to pay unemployment.
If you just don't like the person's attitude, you can ditch them and pay the penalty.
I don't see the issue.
But I am going to go eat food! If we haven't moved on, I'll be back later to continue.
Unless we are talking total idiots they will be fired for "poor job performance"
Checkmate, Obama.
to dispute: I think anglospheric-style unionism, in its staged walkout/lockout variety, stopped being a meaningful barrier at all with the advent of managerial capitalism, and became utterly irrelevant in terms of labour bargaining with financial capitalism
this is one thing we can agree on, in general!
I would be angry, but yes.
You are wrong. Private corporations are not afforded the sort of strong protections that public ones are, and lenders require personal guarantees anyway. If you run your LLC into the ground you don't get to simply walk away.
--LeVar Burton
God. You'd be wrong.
You'd have liberals supporting you if this happened.
Freedom of association in an economic context will always carry a lot of politically and culturally charged baggage that certain people (unalloyed progressives) will shake their sticks about, while others will choose not to carry that baggage
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
Again, these are case studies in Why Employment Law Matters.
If men were angels we wouldn't need government and other platitudes are available in my new ebook: How to Survive and Thrive in the Obamanation, coming soon to a lending library near you.
This gets into positive and negative freedoms and other societal values.
If we value the ability to say "You shouldn't have the freedom to shitcan an employee when you discover he is gay" then At Will laws, by doing away with any need to document any kind of cause when firing someone, implicitly give Employers the ability to do so with impunity, act counter to that value. Therefore, yes, that is a way of saying Freedom shouldn't be absolute if it leads to situation that implicitly destroys other values that we hold.
But I think it's something of a stretch to characterize that as a skepticism of Freedom of Association as a broad right.
even if you're in Texas or New York
Though if fucking your wife doesn't hurt your business I'm not sure you have grounds to fire this person...
people don't like other aspects of their lifestyle being held as discretionary conditions for employment. people actually like and expect highly commoditized workplaces, where you have such and such stably prescribed expectations of behaviour and performance
the freedom of someone else to arbitrarily alter their conditions for associating with you, in a relationship that is materially important, is just not a freedom that is widely supported - any more than the freedom to discretionarily skimp on removing bonus beetles from the cabbage is appreciated
this isn't exactly a secret stratagem in At Will states
As always though, good luck proving that's the reason you were fired.
In any state.
Because the net effect of At Will laws in practice is that people aren't protected against discrimination based on sex, color, religion, disability...