|
Oldstench posted:Why are you so invested in furry drama? He is a furry.
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 17:50
|
|
Tater Love 
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 00:37 |
|
|
Aerdan posted:Employers can't compel employees to produce political speech they disagree with, nor can they prohibit nonprofessional speech that isn't contrary to the employee's job.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
Oldstench posted:Why are you so invested in furry drama? because it personally affects him
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:because it personally affects him
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
Alereon posted:In most states you can be fired for your political views, even if they aren't expressed at work. God loving drat it America 
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
^^^^^^^ How is that even bad? Companies can support political platforms. News at 11. Employees can be fired for emailing everyone that Trump is hitler or Hillary is a lizard person. Or openly apposing the companies favored lizard/hitler political face. Don't like it, don't spend money there. Most rational people don't give a poo poo. Most rational companies don't want to be associated with people who openly say they hope 'global leader of the opposition party' is murdered. Alereon posted:In most states you can be fired for your political views, even if they aren't expressed at work. I just assumed he wasn't from the US. Political leanings and openions aren't protected here nor is saying stupid poo poo outside the work space. Dispite what crazy people believe, they can and are legally fired, not hired, passed up for promotions for their political beliefs or the poo poo they post on Facebook. I mean, at least 2 major companies literally said they were going to fire everyone who voted (R)/Trump in the last election. EDIT: Said they would fire or told them to all quit or something to that effect. Don't give a poo poo enough to look it up. Two Feet From Bread has a new favorite as of 18:33 on Mar 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
One of my favorite things to do is shock foreigners with how employer friendly our laws are. Most of the time if they're not dumb enough to say "I'm firing you for being a woman" that's all it takes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
You have to have a blanket rule one way or the other though, you can't just go case by case on stuff like political speech, that's what leads to unfair double standards. So either employers are never allowed to fire anyone for public speech no matter how offensive it may be(think of some of the heinous poo poo that gets said on social media), or they are given broad rights to fire someone for any speech they deem to be offensive or potentially problematic for the public perception of the company. I don't see what the middle ground would be there exactly. Its easy to go down the rabbit hole of what exactly constitutes "political" speech. Like, if I post on social media about how we should bring back slavery, is that political? Where exactly is the line between social issues and political issues?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:God loving drat it America Hey your boss is doing you a favor giving you a job, the least you can do is agree with him and vote for who he tells you to. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
I've got to wonder, though: does firing you for your political views get a lot murkier if you do work in a governmental position?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
Regalingualius posted:I've got to wonder, though: does firing you for your political views get a lot murkier if you do work in a governmental position? Military people can be disciplined/jailed/fired for political activities in uniform.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
zakharov posted:One of my favorite things to do is shock foreigners with how employer friendly our laws are. Meh, the way I see it, if a company can't force you to work you shouldn't be able to force them to employ you. I have no issues with protected classes but employment is a two way thing that both parties should respect and understand. My employer takes arround 6months or more to fire someone after the employer decides they don't want them there any more. On the flip side, we can't quit at the drop of a hat. It takes about 9-12 months. And if we just walk out we can go to jail and do receive a literal criminal conviction. Guaranteed employment for both halves of the relationship.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
Two Feet From Bread posted:Meh, the way I see it, if a company can't force you to work you shouldn't be able to force them to employ you. Yes because both sides are exactly equal 
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:Yes because both sides are exactly equal I agree with you but i am not gonna sit here and let you insult the ol red, white and blue! *pulls gun and shoots self in the face on accident*
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:Yes because both sides are exactly equal If you have a real value in the economy, then yes those two sides do start to become remarkably equal. That's a big part of the philosophy that the country is based on, you determine your own worth to the economy by working hard and becoming indispensable to it. In practice, these things often become very complex, which is why there really isn't a perfect solution that results in a just outcome in EVERY situation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:If you have a real value in the economy, then yes those two sides do start to become remarkably equal. That's a big part of the philosophy that the country is based on, you determine your own worth to the economy by working hard and becoming indispensable to it. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
Its certainly not perfect, not many people(at least in SA) would argue that it is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
I am pretty sure America is based around gently caress the poor and the minorities. Especially the minorities.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
Oh yea definitely. We have a long history of loving over minorities as well. We're based on lots of things!
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
Regalingualius posted:I've got to wonder, though: does firing you for your political views get a lot murkier if you do work in a governmental position? Yes. Look, the general rule is that employment is at will. If you want to quit for whatever reason, you quit. You don't owe your employer two weeks notice. You don't owe him "I'll stick around until you find a replacement." You can just walk. He can't sue you for damages or anything like that. On the other hand, if he decides he doesn't want to employ you anymore, he can just fire you for whatever reason he feels like. There are a bunch of exceptions to that general rule. If there's a contract between you and your employer stating otherwise is a big one. If the firing is based upon your membership in a protected class under the law, that's another one (Can he fire you if you're black or Jewish? Yes. Can he fire you *because* you're black or Jewish? No. Can he fire you because you're gay? Sometimes). There are anti-retaliation laws that bar firing you in retaliation for bringing certain kinds of complaints, like sexual harassment or discriminatory hiring. There are whistleblower protection laws that kick in for certain things or another. And of course different states have their own different rules. The National Labor Relations Act guarantees some kinds of speech. Some states forbid firing people for engaging in off-duty lawful activities, others forbid firing people for activity that doesn't create reasonable job-related grounds for dismissal. But the general rule is that employment is a voluntary association between employee and employer and if either of them isn't happy with the arrangement they are free to walk away. Yes, it gets murkier if you do work for the government. Popehat has a primer: https://www.popehat.com/2017/01/25/quick-cheat-sheet-on-first-amendment-rights-of-public-employees/ General guidelines: 1. Speech that's part of your official duties isn't protected. If you run your agency's Twitter account and start posting about how the President is a Reptilian, you can be fired. 2. Speech that's about matters of public interest is generally protected. If your agency's doing illegal things and you speak up about it, that's protected. If you're complaining about the office clique freezing you out of the coffee club, that's probably not protected. 3. There's a weighing of the employee's interest in free speech against the employer's interest in maintaining discipline. "gently caress you, Senator Franken!" probably is fireworthy if he's your boss. 4. There are various civil service regulations as well. 5. Even if the First Amendment doesn't protect you from employment-related consequences, it still protects you from *legal* consequences. "gently caress you, Senator Franken!" might get you fired but a law sending you to jail for it would still be unconstitutional. Phanatic has a new favorite as of 19:14 on Mar 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:I am pretty sure America is based around gently caress the poor and the minorities. The American Dream pretty much boils down to "gently caress you, got mine." I mean, our whole loving society behaves that way. Go look at Black Friday shopping mall sales and see how petty and lovely Americans can be. Or...just look at our President... Personal Lucubrant has a new favorite as of 19:15 on Mar 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
Two Feet From Bread posted:Meh, the way I see it, if a company can't force you to work you shouldn't be able to force them to employ you. I have no issues with protected classes but employment is a two way thing that both parties should respect and understand. didn't you have a meltdown here after the election because people weren't happy enough that trump won
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
Oldstench posted:Why are you so invested in furry drama? I said it last time, I have an interest in it. I'm on the con staff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
If only workers in America had some kind of group, or association, of other similar workers that could band together and help put the workers on a more level footing with employers and industries. That way, the workers couldn't easily be fired for frivolous poo poo like a banal political bumper sticker or a FB cover photo. This community of workers could all pay small percentage of their wages into a pot and use that to hire people to fight for their rights and negotiate collectively on their behalf and even organise training to help promote workplace safety! It would really be a great way to unite the individual workers and allow them to demand fair treatment. Cocaine Bear has a new favorite as of 19:27 on Mar 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
JoelJoel posted:If only workers in America had some kind of group, or association, of other similar workers that could band together and help put the workers on a more level footing with employers and industries. That way, the workers couldn't easily be fired for frivolous poo poo like a banal political bumper sticker or a FB cover photo. This community of workers could all pay small percentage of their wages into a pot and use that to hire people to fight for their rights and negotiate collectively on their behalf and even organise training to help promote workplace safety! It would really be a great way to unite the individual workers and allow them to demand fair treatment. why are you trying to encourage Phanatic and Krispy Kareem to post here about how "actually unions are bad".
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
Alaois posted:why are you trying to encourage Phanatic and Krispy Kareem to post here about how "actually unions are bad". Because without my union I'd probably be doing my difficult and dangerous job for a quarter my current wage with none the benefits and a big gently caress-off if I ever messed up or upset the wrong person. Let them come, I'll fight those sacks of puss.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
Alaois posted:why are you trying to encourage Phanatic and Krispy Kareem to post here about how "actually unions are bad". Do Nazi pædophiles have a union?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Do Nazi pædophiles have a union? The rich don't need unions. There's few enough of them to quietly collaborate amongst themselves to gently caress over everyone else but especially the small children.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
Seems like not speaking out against your teacher/boss/whatever's political opinion should be common sense tbh, but there's always someone who has to push boundaries. Some kid nearly failed one class I was in for writing a pro-right wing essay like an idiot when the prof had been telling us how big of a democrat she was since day 1.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
JoelJoel posted:Because without my union I'd probably be doing my difficult and dangerous job for a quarter my current wage with none the benefits and a big gently caress-off if I ever messed up or upset the wrong person. Don't worry about me, I'm actually pro-union in general(*). People should be free to enter into agreements with each other, not just with their bosses. (*) - Police unions, etc, are exceptions. Platystemon posted:Do Nazi pædophiles have a union? No, just a really good lobby. Phanatic has a new favorite as of 20:01 on Mar 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
Every stupid employment take stems from pretending bosses and employees have an equal relationship. "Your job doesn't pay enough? Get a new one!" OK but I need to pay the rent in the meantime
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
zakharov posted:Every stupid employment take stems from pretending bosses and employees have an equal relationship. We have a program set up for people who are currently unemployed that helps them temporarily pay their rent. Again, if you add real value to the economy, you will(generally speaking) be rewarded for it. There will always be unethical or immoral people who will take advantage of the law to treat their employees unfairly, it would be almost impossible to legislate that out of existence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:We have a program set up for people who are currently unemployed that helps them temporarily pay their rent. Real value to the economy is a nebulous and useless term. Everything adds some value. Edit: Well the ultra wealthy hording doesn't add anything but I doubt that is what you mean.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:You have to have a blanket rule one way or the other though, you can't just go case by case on stuff like political speech, that's what leads to unfair double standards. So either employers are never allowed to fire anyone for public speech no matter how offensive it may be(think of some of the heinous poo poo that gets said on social media), or they are given broad rights to fire someone for any speech they deem to be offensive or potentially problematic for the public perception of the company. I don't see what the middle ground would be there exactly. So do we throw out anti-discrimination laws? If you can't restrict employers from firing employees over personal beliefs, are you also unable to restrict employers from firing employees for certain races or religions that don't sit well with them?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:No, just a really good lobby. I thought they called it the “narthex”.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:So do we throw out anti-discrimination laws? If you can't restrict employers from firing employees over personal beliefs, are you also unable to restrict employers from firing employees for certain races or religions that don't sit well with them? On the other hand, if you prohibit employers from firing employees over personal beliefs, then is someone free to put KKK propaganda up on the office bulletin board? What if you work at the ADL? Personally, I *want* this guy's employer to be able to fire him for his personal beliefs: http://www.phillyvoice.com/photos-surface-philly-police-officer-nazi-tattoo/ Platystemon posted:I thought they called it the “narthex”. Holy poo poo. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:So do we throw out anti-discrimination laws? If you can't restrict employers from firing employees over personal beliefs, are you also unable to restrict employers from firing employees for certain races or religions that don't sit well with them? Race and religion, among other things, are protected classes for very good reason. I don't personally feel that political belief is comparable to those things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:We have a program set up for people who are currently unemployed that helps them temporarily pay their rent. Please quantify "real value," because most jobs in North America are service-based, not production-based, so no physical goods are being created, so that method of quantification is out. Does a salesman selling Ferraris on commission add more value to the economy than someone working in a hospital cafeteria? If so, why? The cafeteria person allows more people to enjoy a better quality of life and production value by keeping them fed while sick/working with the sick, so I'd value that over a Ferrari being sold every few days/weeks. And now the really big question: what about people who are incapable of adding value to the economy? Lose your arms in an accident, get your spine crushed, crippling mental disorders, things like that? Do they not deserve to be taken care of and live comfortably? According to how you're coming across, a person's only value is what they can do for the "economy", rather than being a person of value by existing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
Avenging_Mikon posted:Please quantify "real value," because most jobs in North America are service-based, not production-based, so no physical goods are being created, so that method of quantification is out. I'm talking specifically here about a persons value to an employer. Please don't conflate that with a belief that the entirety of a person's worth is their economic value. The definition of "real value" changes depending on what's going on in the economy, so its tough quantify in general terms. The basic idea is that if your competencies and skills reach a certain level as compared to your peers, you become indispensable to your industry and no longer have to swallow unfair treatment by an employer. You can walk away and find other employment fairly easily. If you have a job(as I do) that anyone can pick up and learn in a few days, well, you are still vulnerable to lovely bosses who may gently caress you over. None of this is utopian, it has its drawbacks for sure. I don't see any way around that, every system has its drawbacks. And yes, people who are disabled should be taken care of, and we do have a (inefficient)system that does just that. That's a totally different issue than the laws that are being discussed here though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 00:37 |
|
|
lol basebf555 just throwing out "we have a system to help unemployed people pay rent" "we have a system to help disabled people live" as though those systems are comprehensive in any way -- the unemployment thing is not even MEANT to be comprehensive and is only there to help people who managed to get unemployed in very specific ways, for a very specific and very brief timeframe
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 20:36
|
|
