SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

[Handyman]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

Let's set aside issues relating to whether there should be protected classes of people (there should) based upon race, sex, national origin, gender identity, etc.., and let me ask you this about the first part of your statement.

I assume you believe employees should have unfettered right to simply quit their job and go elsewhere if they choose? But employers should not have that same right? They should not have the right to decide they can do better in terms of who they have working for them?

If employers apply the rules fairly then yes. Problem is we all know that isnt going to happen. Even at our best jobs the rules are almost never applied right and people get punished or fired for doing the same (or less) than those that keep their jobs or move ahead for various reasons. And there is no real way to prevent that...

And you cant really compare quitting and firing because there is a negative connotation to being fired.

 

[Kepler]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

Didn’t you say anyone who uses the term “virtue signaling” shouldn’t be taken seriously?

Shh. I'm trying to reclaim the term.

 

[burd]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

Let's set aside issues relating to whether there should be protected classes of people (there should) based upon race, sex, national origin, gender identity, etc.., and let me ask you this about the first part of your statement.

I assume you believe employees should have unfettered right to simply quit their job and go elsewhere if they choose? But employers should not have that same right? They should not have the right to decide they can do better in terms of who they have working for them?

I've seen people get fired at my job for the following

Excessive absence
Doing something stupid like violate Lock Out Tag Out
Or for gross incompetence, like it's clear they can't handle the job.

What Kepler and I are saying is fire me for those reasons, not because I'm trans.

From what I've read of the previous posts it sounds as if the two you may not be in disagreement. If Hovey is saying what I think he is saying--that in an at-will employment (and not controlled by statute or contract) an employer may terminate an employee for any reason not related to recognized forms of discrimination, among which it appears he would include gender identity. In other words, an employer can't terminate (or refuse to hire) based on gender identity. The rub, of course, is dealing with pretext terminations. But in theory, at least, I'm not sure you two disagree.

 

[Kepler]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

I assume you believe employees should have unfettered right to simply quit their job and go elsewhere if they choose? But employers should not have that same right? They should not have the right to decide they can do better in terms of who they have working for them?

Employer loses an employee he loses a fungible, easily replaced asset.

Employee loses a job he loses livelihood and security.

The employer-employee "contract" is highly asymmetric. My preference is for the ownership of places of work to be split evenly among the workers themselves. That's a long was off, so in the interim I'm bringing the full force of regulation and law on the side of the weaker party.

Exploiters have their wealth to manage cash flow crises, they don't need the law to magnify their advantages over their serfs, er, sorry, employees. The exploited have only their numbers -- that was the whole point of democracy in the first place.

If employers think this is unfair they always have the choice to switch places with one of their employees and see what life's like on the knife edge of capitalism.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

If employers apply the rules fairly then yes. Problem is we all know that isnt going to happen. Even at our best jobs the rules are almost never applied right and people get punished or fired for doing the same (or less) than those that keep their jobs or move ahead for various reasons. And there is no real way to prevent that...

And you cant really compare quitting and firing because there is a negative connotation to being fired.

I think there would be a negative connotation to an employer who just randomly fires people as well. Plus personally I've refused to hire people who had what seemed to me to be a history of quitting after a short period of time and jumping from job to job.

I just have a lot of trouble with the argument that I, as an employer, need to come up with some sort of "cause" to justify your termination. Some people simply don't fit in a job. Personalities don't mesh. The employee doesn't see the job or how it's to be performed in the same way as the employer. Employee "X" is every bit as mediocre as me is an argument that doesn't carry a lot of weight with me.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

If employers think this is unfair they always have the choice to switch places with one of their employees and see what life's like on the knife edge of capitalism.

Anyone who thinks employers don't know what it's like on the knife edge of capitalism has only collected paychecks, never signed them.

 

[Kepler]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

I think there would be a negative connotation to an employer who just randomly fires people as well. Plus personally I've refused to hire people who had what seemed to me to be a history of quitting after a short period of time and jumping from job to job.

I just have a lot of trouble with the argument that I, as an employer, need to come up with some sort of "cause" to justify your termination. Some people simply don't fit in a job. Personalities don't mesh. The employee doesn't see the job or how it's to be performed in the same way as the employer. Employee "X" is every bit as mediocre as me is an argument that doesn't carry a lot of weight with me.

If somebody is a "bad fit" it shows in their performance and that's a valid reason for a warning and eventually termination.

If they're a "bad fit" but they're doing a good job then sorry, baby, you hired them and they are performing to task.

 

[Kepler]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

Anyone who thinks employers don't know what it's like on the knife edge of capitalism has only collected paychecks, never signed them.

You have the right to switch places with your workers any time.

Do you want a waiver for workplaces of under say 5 employees? I can see that, maybe. In those circumstances losing an employee might actually be fairly onerous to the employer.

But spare me the job creator nonsense. Your money creates jobs, not you. Employers are fungibles, too. Somebody else could and will wield that money just as well.

Think of it in this fine Adam Smith way: if your good employees keep leaving but your bad employees don't, that's the market telling you you're a crappy manager and you should fail. If you only ever hire bad employees, that's the market telling you you have crappy judgment and you should fail.

My sympathy for employers with respect to employees, to scale:

<img src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/Sun_red_giant.svg/220px-Sun_red_giant.svg.png" height="300">

 

[MissThundercat]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

From what I've read of the previous posts it sounds as if the two you may not be in disagreement. If Hovey is saying what I think he is saying--that in an at-will employment (and not controlled by statute or contract) an employer may terminate an employee for any reason not related to recognized forms of discrimination, among which it appears he would include gender identity. In other words, an employer can't terminate (or refuse to hire) based on gender identity. The rub, of course, is dealing with pretext terminations. But in theory, at least, I'm not sure you two disagree.

In May of last year, I was especially stupid and wasn't wearing my face shield properly while handling caustic chemicals. As I was pouring this chemical into a container for spraying, it splashed on my face, giving me a burn and sending me to the nurse. I was given a Level 1, basically a warning and stayed on my record for 3 months. A couple more instances of that, I'd have been fired. What Kep and I want is for employer to fire for work incompetence (such as stupidity with caustic chemicals). Not because one gave their boss side eye.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

You have the right to switch places with your workers any time.

Do you want a waiver for workplaces of under say 5 employees? I can see that, maybe. In those circumstances losing an employee might actually be fairly onerous to the employer.

But spare me the job creator nonsense. Your money creates jobs, not you. Employers are fungibles, too. Somebody else could and will wield that money just as well.

Think of it in this fine Adam Smith way: if your good employees keep leaving but your bad employees don't, that's the market telling you you're a crappy manager and you should fail. If you only ever hire bad employees, that's the market telling you you have crappy judgment and you should fail.

My sympathy for employers with respect to employees, to scale:

<img src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/Sun_red_giant.svg/220px-Sun_red_giant.svg.png" height="300">

What makes you think I was never an employee. Been there, done that.

You're absolutely right that if good employees are quitting, or are not accepting my offers, that's a sign I need to heed. I'm just talking about a situation where if I've got someone performing the job in what could best be described as average way, I not ought to have to show cause as to why I replaced them when an excellent candidate presented himself or herself.

All that said, it certainly has become clearer as to why you're a Mets fan.

 

[burd]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

In May of last year, I was especially stupid and wasn't wearing my face shield properly while handling caustic chemicals. As I was pouring this chemical into a container for spraying, it splashed on my face, giving me a burn and sending me to the nurse. I was given a Level 1, basically a warning and stayed on my record for 3 months. A couple more instances of that, I'd have been fired. What Kep and I want is for employer to fire for work incompetence (such as stupidity with caustic chemicals). Not because one gave their boss side eye.

How does your experience with the face shield fit in? Was there a "side eye" element at play? Would it have been unjust for your employer to let you go after three instances of you being "especially stupid" with a safety rule?

That's assuming no pretext, which is a huge problem with imbalanced power situations such as employment and law enforcement.

 

[alfablue]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

But spare me the job creator nonsense. Consumer demand for a product makes jobs, not you. Employers are fungibles, too. Somebody else could and will wield that money just as well.

FYP. The only reason people get hired is that more stuff needs to be made to sell to other people. That's it. Tax cuts do not create jobs, plain old nice people do not create jobs- demand for a product creates jobs- always has, always will.

And our current state of capitalism has tilted SO FAR toward the corporations, it's not even funny. Just look at the wage gap, and then ask yourself who is actually doing the hard, physical work. Heck, in most companies, who is doing the hard mental work. In both cases, it's not the upper management or BOD that actually works hard.

So it should be hard to fire someone. It's interesting that we've gotten to a point where hairstyle needs protected. But I'm sure people will always find a way to keep people they just don't like out.

 

[Kepler]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

All that said, it certainly has become clearer as to why you're a Mets fan.

Tough but fair.

I insist on exceptionalism in things that matter: art, science, philosophy, letters. Business? Meh, it's necessary and I'm sure quite diverting for the riff raff, but there's no point in pressing it too hard.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

If employers apply the rules fairly then yes. Problem is we all know that isnt going to happen. Even at our best jobs the rules are almost never applied right and people get punished or fired for doing the same (or less) than those that keep their jobs or move ahead for various reasons. And there is no real way to prevent that...

And you cant really compare quitting and firing because there is a negative connotation to being fired.

Not only that, but it assumes they are both on equal grounds. The employer can afford to lose individuals, the employee cannot afford it. It effectively promotes recyclying of disposable humans. The employer can keep chugging along but the employee is probably losing everything.

Edit: Said better:

Employer loses an employee he loses a fungible, easily replaced asset.

Employee loses a job he loses livelihood and security.

The employer-employee "contract" is highly asymmetric. My preference is for the ownership of places of work to be split evenly among the workers themselves. That's a long was off, so in the interim I'm bringing the full force of regulation and law on the side of the weaker party.

Exploiters have their wealth to manage cash flow crises, they don't need the law to magnify their advantages over their serfs, er, sorry, employees. The exploited have only their numbers -- that was the whole point of democracy in the first place.

If employers think this is unfair they always have the choice to switch places with one of their employees and see what life's like on the knife edge of capitalism.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

I think there would be a negative connotation to an employer who just randomly fires people as well. Plus personally I've refused to hire people who had what seemed to me to be a history of quitting after a short period of time and jumping from job to job.

I just have a lot of trouble with the argument that I, as an employer, need to come up with some sort of "cause" to justify your termination. Some people simply don't fit in a job. Personalities don't mesh. The employee doesn't see the job or how it's to be performed in the same way as the employer. Employee "X" is every bit as mediocre as me is an argument that doesn't carry a lot of weight with me.

Temp-to-Hire. My company does it all the time. After three or four months, if you've proved your worth, you're hired on as an FTE. If you've failed to do the job, your temp contract is terminated. Thus far, the temp contract termination happens (I'd guess) around 15% of the time. Often times, the failing temp employee will leave before s/he has the chance to be fired. Rarely do they leave without having other employment lined up first.

 

[joecct]

In May of last year, I was especially stupid and wasn't wearing my face shield properly while handling caustic chemicals. As I was pouring this chemical into a container for spraying, it splashed on my face, giving me a burn and sending me to the nurse. I was given a Level 1, basically a warning and stayed on my record for 3 months. A couple more instances of that, I'd have been fired. What Kep and I want is for employer to fire for work incompetence (such as stupidity with caustic chemicals). Not because one gave their boss side eye.

I associate myself with these remarks.

 

[MissThundercat]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

How does your experience with the face shield fit in? Was there a "side eye" element at play? Would it have been unjust for your employer to let you go after three instances of you being "especially stupid" with a safety rule?

That's assuming no pretext, which is a huge problem with imbalanced power situations such as employment and law enforcement.

What I'm suggesting is that if I kept being stupid with a face shield, my boss would have every right to fire me. There was no "side eye." In an "at-will" state, I don't want to look at my boss funny and lose my job.

And at my job, there are some instances where there's a 2 strike policy. In the case of violating lock out tag out, confined space entry, and fall protection procedures, you automatically get a 3 day suspension, and on the second time, you're gone. Not to mention karma can punish you by losing a finger, etc.

 

[Handyman]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

I think there would be a negative connotation to an employer who just randomly fires people as well. Plus personally I've refused to hire people who had what seemed to me to be a history of quitting after a short period of time and jumping from job to job.

I just have a lot of trouble with the argument that I, as an employer, need to come up with some sort of "cause" to justify your termination. Some people simply don't fit in a job. Personalities don't mesh. The employee doesn't see the job or how it's to be performed in the same way as the employer. Employee "X" is every bit as mediocre as me is an argument that doesn't carry a lot of weight with me.

And you would have a point in a perfect world. But the truth is we cant just assume everyone is acting on the up and up just because you happen too. If we apply your standard it is 100% that people will abuse it. Until that isnt the case, sorry, but too bad.

Where do you draw the line on this? I get you aare in favor of protected classes but then is everyone else screwed? Lets say I run a business and we have Progressive beliefs and give money to Left causes. Lets say an employee is found out to be a Republican that supports Trump. You are cool with me firing him because I dont think he is a good fit for the company? I think that is wrong personally...

If the person isnt doing a good enough job that is a reason to fire them. Beyond that...no. I have seen the "at will" employment deal abused and if it was like that across the board it would be a detriment to the workers and the employers long term.

 

[Handyman]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

Temp-to-Hire. My company does it all the time. After three or four months, if you've proved your worth, you're hired on as an FTE. If you've failed to do the job, your temp contract is terminated. Thus far, the temp contract termination happens (I'd guess) around 15% of the time. Often times, the failing temp employee will leave before s/he has the chance to be fired. Rarely do they leave without having other employment lined up first.

Bingo.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

And you would have a point in a perfect world. But the truth is we cant just assume everyone is acting on the up and up just because you happen too. If we apply your standard it is 100% that people will abuse it. Until that isnt the case, sorry, but too bad.

Where do you draw the line on this? I get you aare in favor of protected classes but then is everyone else screwed? Lets say I run a business and we have Progressive beliefs and give money to Left causes. Lets say an employee is found out to be a Republican that supports Trump. You are cool with me firing him because I dont think he is a good fit for the company? I think that is wrong personally...

If the person isnt doing a good enough job that is a reason to fire them. Beyond that...no. I have seen the "at will" employment deal abused and if it was like that across the board it would be a detriment to the workers and the employers long term.

I'm only arguing for what you should be legally able to do. That doesn't mean it's a good practice, necessarily.

I think if you want to fire someone because they are wearing red tennis shoes, as an employer you should have that right. Would I suggest the employer do that? No. First, there is too big of a cost to an employer in finding, hiring and training employees to just arbitrarily discard them like that. Second, who will want to work for a company that acts like that.

But, if you want to do that as an employer, you should have the right.