Employers can fire workers they find too sexy, Iowa court rules

[MMC]

What about businesses with Uniforms? Where both male and female wear the same type of Uniform. Would it then matter so much over the appearance? What if the person was attractive but always wore the uniform in a shabby way. Yet when the owner sees this individual and it is like they never have themselves together.

Also like with the Food service Industry.....Mom and Pop restaurants. One can't have people with physical deformities serving food to the public. Meaning a deformity that affects ones physical appearance.

So again there would be some form of discrimination even with hiring such individuals in this type of Industry. Which would not be based on Equality nor the quality of any work.

 

[Gaius46]

First off youre wrong, if slave owners didnt have slaves they would have employees, they were Employers that used slaves for free labor instead of hiring.
You need to get your history straight, I never said the beatings were legal but they occurred all the time moreso in some industries than others to keep the employees in line and not allow them to organize, that is how unions were created. Employers use the same tactics today without the beatings..they use intimidation and threats and lies to keep employees from unionizing...Oh we'll have to close if the union gets voted in...were going to lay off half our employee that includes you...The casino industry did that for 20 yrs in atlantic city...the unions got voted in and voila none of the strongarm tactics were anywhere true...tis all about greed...and wanting employees to not work and be paid what they are worth...its now about paying them the least you can out of greed to keep as much of it as you can for them...screw them thank you very much

A slaveowner is a slaveowner and an employer is an employer. The slaveowner-slave and employer-employee relationship are radically different. Slaveowner s were not employers plain and simple.

My history is straight. I'm well aware of the history you quote. And as I said employers don't have those rights and beatings are illegal.

I have no problem with collective bargaining. If employees want to organize and get a better deal from management they have every right. My personal, albeit limited, with unions - I was in a shop that organized while I was in college - however, is that the union is just another large organization who's main concern is perpetuating the organization. In that way union leadership is no different from corporate management.

 

[lpast]

Exactly. They are illegal now. Unions have served thier purpose and are no longer needed.

Tell me, considering that we have these laws and OSHA now...what is the purpose of a Union? You can't say safety because of those laws. Whats left?

Nope wrong, unions are needed today more than they were 20 yrs ago...the new attitude is lets get everyone to work for peanuts and lets make them all perform two and three jobs and lets send everything we can everywhere else. Unions will always be around.
I often wonder what all the corporate supporters do for a living..

 

[lpast]

A slaveowner is a slaveowner and an employer is an employer. The slaveowner-slave and employer-employee relationship are radically different. Slaveowner s were not employers plain and simple.

My history is straight. I'm well aware of the history you quote. And as I said employers don't have those rights and beatings are illegal.

I have no problem with collective bargaining. If employees want to organize and get a better deal from management they have every right. My personal, albeit limited, with unions - I was in a shop that organized while I was in college - however, is that the union is just another large organization who's main concern is perpetuating the organization. In that way union leadership is no different from corporate management.

Slave owners that needed dozens or hundreds of slaves to work their farms...without slavery they would be employers...same mentality and slaves were not just forced to do farm work, they did all types of labor. Same mentality.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

It is.



Once again, starting a business is a large financial commitment - class disparity and income variability bars Ms. Hygienist from doing so.



You appear to be. My mistake, I suppose.



A few things:
1. How is collectivism against freedom of association? That one could use some explaining.
2. Collectivism is the key libertarian principal that's guided folks like Kropotkin, Cafieri, Chomsky and Orwell, for centuries. I don't know where you get this stuff. :lamo

I don't see GDP as a moral issue, it is a number and likely a not very precise number either.

You have your preconceived notions about what starting a business is. It really isn't that much. There are even forms online you can fill out and file with the state for a modest fee (imposed by the government). She's not forming GM, she's a hygenist. Have labor will travel. Maybe she is just a fill-in hygenist to all the area dentists and perhaps even organizes all the hygenists in the area as a pool.

I view collectivism as being against freedom of association when it gets imposed on me. If it is voluntary, then I really don't care one way or the other. Perhaps if you had a bit more experience in the real world and not worried about the academics(?) you espouse, you would spend less time seeing oppression, real or otherwise, and start to see opportunities.

One of my favorite anecdotes: "Years ago, a large shoe manufacturer sent two sales reps into the Australian outback. The company’s crazy sales manager thought he could drum up shoe business among the tribes living off the land.

Sometime later, telegrams arrived from both shoe reps. The sales manager tore them open. The first one said, “No business possible. Natives don’t wear shoes.” The second rep said, “Great business opportunity! Natives don’t wear shoes!”

Stop being the first sales rep and become the second.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Nope wrong, unions are needed today more than they were 20 yrs ago...the new attitude is lets get everyone to work for peanuts and lets make them all perform two and three jobs and lets send everything we can everywhere else. Unions will always be around.
I often wonder what all the corporate supporters do for a living..

20 years ago people were making far less than they are today. So there goes your "work for peanuts" theory.

Now I don't support corporate unless there is a reason to such as this discussion but I will tell you what I do. I answer phones for $9.25/hr. I pay my bills and I am saving money. I know its hard to concieve of people actually doing that at such a wage but guess what....it is quite possible. Its called living with in ones means. We have medicaid for the kids which we are going to be paying for next year due to Obamacare changes and our changes in family income. We also do not get food stamps.

 

[lpast]

20 years ago people were making far less than they are today. So there goes your "work for peanuts" theory.

Now I don't support corporate unless there is a reason to such as this discussion but I will tell you what I do. I answer phones for $9.25/hr. I pay my bills and I am saving money. I know its hard to concieve of people actually doing that at such a wage but guess what....it is quite possible. Its called living with in ones means. We have medicaid for the kids which we are going to be paying for next year due to Obamacare changes and our changes in family income. We also do not get food stamps.

Kalstang lol 20 yrs ago a loaf of bread was under a buck..cmon man your smarter than that. Look im not going to beat this horse forever...im just going to say...the middle class has shrunk, pays have stagnated, less benefits and far less pensions and the rich has gotten richer and fabulously richer and the number of poor has grown dramatically in your 20 yr period and that my friend says it ALL

 

[Kal'Stang]

Kalstang lol 20 yrs ago a loaf of bread was under a buck..cmon man your smarter than that. Look im not going to beat this horse forever...im just going to say...the middle class has shrunk, pays have stagnated, less benefits and far less pensions and the rich has gotten richer and fabulously richer and the number of poor has grown dramatically in your 20 yr period and that my friend says it ALL

You're the one that brought the 20 year period into this discussion. Not me. But since you want to talk about cost of living changing how about we talk about the cost of living today? Why is it that in union controlled states the cost of living is higher than RTW states?

 

[Gaius46]

Slave owners that needed dozens or hundreds of slaves to work their farms...without slavery they would be employers...same mentality and slaves were not just forced to do farm work, they did all types of labor. Same mentality.

And? The point, that for some reason you refuse to acknowledge is that slaves can't do anything about their situation. Employees can.

Employers who treat employees like slaves won't be in business for long. Certainly in bad economic times employees may be forced to to deal with idiot employers for some time but bad economic times don't last forever. Employees have choices. Employers, unlike slave owners, do not hold all the cards.

 

[Dittohead not!]

You're the one that brought the 20 year period into this discussion. Not me. But since you want to talk about cost of living changing how about we talk about the cost of living today? Why is it that in union controlled states the cost of living is higher than RTW states?

Why don't you name a "union controlled state", and we can discuss whether and why the cost of living is higher there than elsewhere.

As a general rule the cost of living is greater in urban areas and in places where there are good jobs to be had.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Why don't you name a "union controlled state", and we can discuss whether and why the cost of living is higher there than elsewhere.

As a general rule the cost of living is greater in urban areas and in places where there are good jobs to be had.

I'll give you the advantage. You choose a state.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I'll give you the advantage. You choose a state.

It was your phrase. Right off hand, I can't think of a union controlled state.

 

[Kal'Stang]

It was your phrase. Right off hand, I can't think of a union controlled state.

Not my phrase. Its common vernacular. Union controlled states are states where unions can force participation of a person in the union if that person attempts to get a job. Some states are Washington, Oregon, California, Montana, Colorado, New Mexico, Kentucky, Most of the north eastern states. There are more but that should give ya a start.

 

[joko104]

Yes, I agree with that.



I'm sure workers could fulfill the role of the management - most I know could. It worked like a charm in Argentina and it will soon enough in Venezuela.

Yes, we know how much you despise Americans and want all Americans to be impoverished.

The average income in Argentina is approximately $550 per month. Put another way, the average Argentinian's income is 400% BELOW the American poverty line.

Is there any reason why ANYONE should respect your openly declared goal of wanting to put every American worker into abject poverty? Why do you hate working people so much?

Do you carry protest signs in front of Wal-Mart demanding all employees pay be cut by at least 300%? That is what you urge on this forum.

 

[wellwisher]

The work place hiring and firing laws are currently slanted in the favor of certain demographics. This case appears to be the pendulum looking for the middle.

If you did a survey of who gets terminated for various subjective reasons, those fired and the reasons are tipped to one side. This cases sort pushes the other way.

 

[Cameron]

*sniffles* everyone hates me because I'm beautiful!

 

[KevinKohler]

Why don't you name a "union controlled state", and we can discuss whether and why the cost of living is higher there than elsewhere.

As a general rule the cost of living is greater in urban areas and in places where there are good jobs to be had.

CT. Not very urban, though the state is small. Unions have a strangle hold on our politics, and if you want to do anything other than customer service here, ya gotta join a union. The cost of living here is one of the highest in the nation, as is income disparity. In short, unless you have a union job in this state, you're poor.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Not my phrase. Its common vernacular. Union controlled states are states where unions can force participation of a person in the union if that person attempts to get a job. Some states are Washington, Oregon, California, Montana, Colorado, New Mexico, Kentucky, Most of the north eastern states. There are more but that should give ya a start.

OK. California is near the top, no surprise there. Kentucky, on the other hand, is near the bottom. There doesn't seem to be a correlation, much less a cause and effect relationship.

link to data