Employers Should Not Be Able To Intimidate With Political Views

same here, I 100% support bars\airlines being allowed to allow smoking for instance, and I also support them being allowed to not allow smoking
I do not support the government choosing for them

if you want a non-smoking business, choose with your $$$

 

I call BS, just look at the RW pushing their religion on their employees

 

IF IT WAS NECESSARILY THE CASE THAT EMPLOYEES HAVE THE ABILITY TO FIND SIMILAR EMPLOYMENT SUITABLE TO THEIR SKILLS YOUR POINT WOULD BE PRACTICAL. However, that is not necessarily the case. It is not unusual for there to be a limited amount of employers for certain skills. Take aerospace engineering. Only a few large corporations engage in that type of industry. It was not uncommon after a decline in spending in this area to find quite qualified aerospace engineers who could not find suitable employment. The point is that it is not necessarily the case that a person can just quit a job and find employment that fits their skill set. Not only that, but if you just walk off a job, if a potential employer finds out about it, you make it more unlikely that they will hire you. Therefore your contention is not practical and the proper conclusion is that employers for the most part, weld a considerable amount of power with respect to employees in that they have substantial control over the employees means of sustenance.

 

I agree. That is a good point.

 

The employers should feel lucky the unions let them keep their own heads.

sure, lemme just become the ceo of my company by wishing really hard because that's how these things ****ing work

jesus christ, y'all baby boomer conservative types don't know jack **** about the world milennials are coming up in. you think because you did the same **** 40, 50 years ago you know how it works today, and you don't.

 

well if you have the kind of job that it's the only job for you don't run your mouth. They won't find out about this if you don't tell them.

then shut up or don't be picky.

for ****sake don't tell them Christ it's like you want no consequences for running your mouth constantly.

no it's practical even if that's the only job in town that suits your skills quit and get one that doesn't exactly suit your skills employers only wield the power you give them.

 

The point is that employers should not be able to force their views on any employee, and certainly not one in that position.

 

they aren't. Employment is voluntary they can't force anything on you.

 

I'm going to give you an example of the kind of thing that people have to put up with in real life that I find disturbing. A couple of years ago, one of my daughter's friends, who is a Muslim, was over for a holiday dinner. She had just gotten a job working for one of the largest companies in the oil industry. She talked about how one day, her co-workers started saying all sorts of bad things about Muslims. She said she was so afraid to say anything, or to reveal that she was a Muslim, that she just joined in and started berating Muslims herself. It is beyond ridiculous for someone to have to put up with that type of nonsense. That's the type of stuff that people frequently have to tolerate in the real world. Its totally disgusting and should not be allowed to happen.

 

to be rational.

then you don't believe in class Warfare you are all talk.

But you don't practice it because you pretend your bosses are gods.

 

she didn't. She could watch his complaint with the EEOC she can probably tell her employer and they would take care of it because they do not want to deal with the EEOC.

That's what HR is for.

it's tolerated strictly by choice

she allowed it to.

 

I'm sorry. What you have done is to fault her for the incident. It is like you have no empathy for a Muslim girl, just out of college, on a new job. She is afraid and does not want to ruin her career. Do you know how difficult it is to prove such a case? Do you really think that the people who did that would not stick together and deny it ever happened? I really don't get this position. Blame the victim. Its all her fault.

WOW!!!! Totally amazing!!!

 

Even if you were to write the law that you want making it illegal to discriminate against someone's political opinions it would still be on her to report it.

 

Yes you are right. However the point of the story was to show that things are not so simple as people just being able to quit and go to another job. Not only that, but employees who come forward and report abuse put themselves in a vulnerable position because these types of things are not easy to prove. When you come forward against your co-workers or your boss, these are the people you will have to work with if the issue is not resolved in a manner that is favorable to you. Like I said, employers have the preponderance of power in the employer-employee relationship. Therefore there should be strong protections in place for people who need to resort to the law to stop abusive behavior.

 

well unless she was a slave she could have but that's not the point.

There are already rules against what happened to her. It is an argument against writing more rules that have no effect.

that's why there is the EEOC and HR. These are steps she could have taken that would have eliminated the problem. Employers do not want to deal with the EEOC it is not the perpetrators that get hammered sure they get fired but the employer gets fined. As you can imagine fines are not the way people want to spend the money so they hire people called HR which stands for human resources and if you have a complaint you go to HR they will fire the type of employee that harasses you because of your religion oftentimes very few questions asked the problem would have been solved much better than law could have ever imagined.

She still didn't report it if she did it wouldn't have been anything she had to worry about. HR doesn't need proof to fire you so that takes care of that problem.

yes that's a risk you run. But no amount of laws will change that.

that isn't true you keep stating it and I keep pointing out that employment is voluntary. In this situation you have the ultimate power your employment does not the worst they can do to you is fire you.

there already is there is an entire Commission called the EEOC. They have hotlines they have agents you can report something completely anonymously.

For Christ's sake why don't you recognize that I've mentioned them over and over what do you think that is?

 

Can you provide links to show that HR doesn't need proof to fire you?

Actually the risk is lowered when laws are more precise and make such cases easier to prove.

Yes you keep repeating the simplistic notion that being fired is of no consequence because its as easy as getting another job. Your position completely ignores the reality that getting new employment is not necessarily simple.

 

it's a negative claim.

If you think they need proof that would be a positive claim you would have to prove that.

show me that there needs to be proof of something to fire someone.

that is a lie I have not stated that once.

I never once said to being fired is of no consequence. In fact I said that is a consequence so I've said the exact opposite stop making straw men and focus on the argument

getting new employment is absolutely simple. Getting the exact same employment is likely impossible.

 

This conversation is going no where and is becoming absurd. Thanks for your time.

 

Yes your argument is absurd.

The first point you made there should be a law against this there is there's a commission that exists to enforce this law and protect the people that report it called the EEOC you pretended that didn't exist.

The second Point people that are employed are not slaves they can leave at any time.

The third point HR does not have to have proof to fire you.

You were not able to counter a single one of these points.

Perhaps you think the conversation is absurd because you are wrong. It would be mature to admit it but if you want to take your ball and go home by all means do it.

 

Like I said, I am done. There is no point in my carrying on a discussion with you.

 

So stop responding to me.

I'm going to continue to drive my points you didn't argue against them.

 

I am not going to discuss with someone that says HR does not need proof to fire you and then provides no link to support the position.

 

It was your claim that proof was needed. You provide links that proof is needed.

You're continuing to argue so you're disingenuous

 

You can keep driving your points. Knock yourself out.

 

You can't argue against them.

So what can be extrapolated from that is that is it that we don't need the law you proposed you failed to express need.