- Joined
- Sep 9, 2005
- Messages
- 34,962
- Reaction score
- 12,358
- Location
- Pennsylvania
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
I don't at the moment, and so far as I recall and never claimed to have such.this isnt difficult
if you feel you have a good reason to violate peoples rights or for taking them away feel free to state it :shrug:
1.)I don't at the moment, and so far as I recall and never claimed to have such.
Why is that relevant to my question?
Your question is counter to the premise of this thread though.1.) i didnt say you had one i was simply pointing out unless you do theres nothing im interested in discussing.
2.) which question, youll have to be more specific
1.)Your question is counter to the premise of this thread though.
2.)As I understand it, we're attempting to discuss whether limitations on an employers hiring/firing ability are valid.
3.) This would of course require examining whether anti-discrimination laws are valid.
4.) Your response is to demand that people provide a reason for violating those laws.
5.) Damnit, the entire point of this thread is to discuss whether anti-discrimination laws regarding hiring/firing should even exist.
6.) Whether they exist in some form currently, or not, is beside the point.
7.)And thus demanding a reason to violate them is beside the point.
As for my question: I'm not claiming we do or do not have these rights, I'm asking you to show why you believe we should/do.
When a person is hired as an employee at a particular company, they know what their salary will be, as well as what their duties will be. If they hadn't agreed, they wouldn't be working there. Maybe I have missed the point of this thread, but even if the employee later finds out that his employer makes 10 times what he does, what difference does that make? That still doesn't entitle them to anything the employer has! I realize that lately the mantra has been that, for some reason, people are being told that they do, but in the real world, that's :bs:! Most of us would not be unhappy to suddenly find our paychecks have been increased 1,000-fold, but the chances of that happening are slim to none! This isn't the lottery...it's business. :shock: Everyone who likes the idea of "robbing Peter to give to Paul" always imagine themselves as being Paul...never Peter! Sheesh!
Greetings, AlbuOwl. :2wave:
im not familiar with how employment at will affects unemployment, youll have to explain or ill look it up when im i can
Response does not indicate validity of argument.1.) says you, i discussed it quite fine earlier :shrug:
2.) so am i, present a sound scenario to violate rights and we can discuss it validity
3.) and what im asking will in fact do the same thing
4.) no not a demand, you are free not to, its just all im interested in as this is my method that will achieve exactly what you are asking.
5.) which my question will in fact do
6.) you are free to have this opinion
7.) 100% false discussion on it can in fact answer the question you seek
1.) This one is whether you should have to hire somebody in your business
2.) but more importantly, once you hire them, are you obligated to keep them on the payroll forever if he/she is pregnant or black or gay or handicapped or name your protected class of the week?
3.) Or when you no longer need or can afford the employee, can you fire him/her?
1.)Response does not indicate validity of argument.
2.) Until we determine whether the rights exist or not, we can't discuss violating them.
3.)Or we can, but it'd be kinda pointless.
4.) Only if we limit ourselves to anti-discrimination laws as currently constituted.
5.) It will not, and if it is not a demand, it is an ultimatum.
6.) No, your question focuses on whether anti-discrimination laws as they currently exist should be followed or changed.
7.)Better to ask "should anti-discrimination laws exist, and if so, what form should they take?" IMO.
8.) Yes, I am.
9.)Discussion on that question can only answer that question in part. It's limiting, as I see it.
Civil Persons in our republic should be able to apply for unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed in any at-will employment State.
Civil Persons in our republic should be able to apply for unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed in any at-will employment State.
I actually think the pay inequity is probably best suited for the income inequality thread. This one is whether you should have to hire somebody in your business, but more importantly, once you hire them, are you obligated to keep them on the payroll forever if he/she is pregnant or black or gay or handicapped or name your protected class of the week? Or when you no longer need or can afford the employee, can you fire him/her?
I'm gonna guess you vote for an employer to have the right to use his/her money, property, and resources in his/her own interest, and the employee is entitled to no part of that other than what was agreed between the employer and employee.
im not familiar with how employment at will affects unemployment, youll have to explain or ill look it up when im i can
The simple answer is that civil Persons in our republic should be able to apply for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis simply for being unemployed. Why is labor being denied and disparaged in that civil right?
define "civil person" and i might agree with you
but again im not familiar with the relationship you are talking about
is there not unemployment in a at-will employment state?
From Article 4, Section 2: The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
Even "juridical persons" should not be exempted, such as any incorporated Firm.
My specialty. However, I don't think it meaningless, but rather directly in response to your point one in the post I responded to.1.) thanks for that random and meaningless point
2.) that already is determined, they factually exist right now
3.) you are free to have this opinion
4.) nope it can branch out in many things but since thats the topic it will do just fine
5.) it factually can, deny thing wont change this fact. Its not a demand or an ultimatime only i get to decide that. Its simply the foundation im interested in starting the discussion on :shrug: you can simply choose not to
6.) wrong my question can infact answer yours, again this fact will not change
7.) yes this is only you opinion
8) glad you agree with facts
9.) well you vision would be wrong
ok let me know when you plan on answering anything
1.)My specialty. However, I don't think it meaningless, but rather directly in response to your point one in the post I responded to.
2.)They legally exist right now. That is fact.
3.) Whether the rights existed before their codification is another question entirely, and mostly philosophical in nature, I suspect.
4.)And do so gleefully. Well not really.
5.) I don't like your question because it presumes too many things.
6.) It may. You saying "I'll only discuss responses to this statement" is at least something like an ultimatum, as I understand the term.
7.) Responses to your question can in part answer mine. but not in full, unless they go beyond the scope of your question.
Indeed so.
8.)I disagree.
The simple answer is that civil Persons in our republic should be able to apply for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis simply for being unemployed. Why is labor being denied and disparaged in that civil right?
A civil Person can be considered a person who may have to present themselves to a judge in any civil case; for the purposes of this concept.
As an employer, I have one problem with that. The employee can quit at any time for any reason and there isn't a damned thing you can do about it so it doesn't really work out as equitably as you suggest.
As far as hiring I figure than an employer should be able to hire whoever they want to. I'm less inclined to make firing as simple because a simple clash of personalities can be used to really screw an employee.
Someone mentioned pregnancy and while I couldn't condone the firing of an employee just because they were pregnant there is still a job that needs to get done and if that employee can't do the job due to her condition then there needs to be a little leeway. If she needs a couple of weeks off to have the baby and get her feet back under her that's one thing but if I start getting a call 3 times a week that she can't make it in because of this, that or the other it screws things up.
If I owned a business I should be able to hire and fire as I see fit as long as it breaks no law.
ok lets try again
can a person not get unemployment in a work at will state?
an arson can do that, should a person get unemployment if the burn down my business?
before you get any discussion out of somebody youll simply have to expalin exactly what you are talkign about instead of making empty statments
Care to explain that further?I guess I shouldn't assume people know the concepts they debate.
Under our current regime, labor, as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism, is being denied and disparaged in their expressly enumerated rights regarding unemployment compensation in any at-will employment State.
It can be considered a non race specific form of "Jim Crow" that only applies to the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?