employers shouldnt have the right to decide what is morally correct
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-07-2015, 10:47 AM
RE: employers shouldnt have the right to decide what is morally correct
(20-07-2015 10:46 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  I just think of it as "a self cleaning oven"...

An employer who's a shithead will eventually go out of business - because he'll only be able to employ the worst employees.... All the good ones will go elsewhere.....

And when your workplace consists of a bunch of mental midgets and assorted losers -- your customer base tends to shop elsewhere as well.......

It's sort of unnecessary, and probably unworkable to pass laws concerning such things........

The marketplace will in time sort it out.

Unless you aren't talking about small businesses, like when I worked at AutoZone.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2015, 10:52 AM
RE: employers shouldnt have the right to decide what is morally correct
Even in corporate - it holds true.....

If you've got management in a retail chain store that is ineffective - and can't hold employees -- generally those managers don't last long.....

Effective employees are the ones with the highest level of training -- something you can't get with large employee turnover....

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2015, 10:53 AM
RE: employers shouldnt have the right to decide what is morally correct
(20-07-2015 10:52 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  Even in corporate - it holds true.....

If you've got management in a retail chain store that is ineffective - and can't hold employees -- generally those managers don't last long.....

Effective employees are the ones with the highest level of training -- something you can't get with large employee turnover....

Unless you are talking about low-level managers (like store managers) and in a field where turnover is already high (retail) and where training costs are minimal such that employees are considered easy to replace.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2015, 10:59 AM
RE: employers shouldnt have the right to decide what is morally correct
(20-07-2015 10:53 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 10:52 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  Even in corporate - it holds true.....

If you've got management in a retail chain store that is ineffective - and can't hold employees -- generally those managers don't last long.....

Effective employees are the ones with the highest level of training -- something you can't get with large employee turnover....

Unless you are talking about low-level managers (like store managers) and in a field where turnover is already high (retail) and where training costs are minimal such that employees are considered easy to replace.

I agree. Take McDonalds their turn over is very high and the training is a joke. And they shouldn't be allowed to blare religious preaching to their employees either. But that happens and will til we take a stand. Now I have no problem with people having their beliefs and religion its when those beliefs spill over to take rights from others.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes purpledaisies's post
22-07-2015, 06:43 AM (This post was last modified: 22-07-2015 06:57 AM by BnW.)
RE: employers shouldnt have the right to decide what is morally correct
Although Labor Law isn't my thing, I am a lawyer and here is my take.

As a general rule, in most states you are going to be an "at will" employee with very few rights (unionized employees differ and I'm excluding them from this entirely because they are employed under a contract). That means that your employer can fire you for pretty much any reason, with some very limited exceptions. The federal exceptions stem from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and prevents employment discrimination based on race, sex, religion, national origin, or color (I may be missing one in there). I don't think the Act covers sexuality. Then you have the Americans with Disabilities Act which not only prevents you firing people due to their disabilities but requires you make reasonable accommodations for them. Finally, you have the Age Discrimination in Employment Act which prevents you from discriminating against people over 40.

The individual states usually have their own acts as well and those can be more inclusive than what is in the federal laws. So, for example, many states have employment protections for homosexuals.

If you are fired for a reason that falls under one of those laws, you have a cause of action. If you are fired for some other reason, then you most likely don't. That includes morality. Being immoral (in the eyes of the beholder, obviously) is not a protected class under the law. You can be fired because your employer does not like your behavior outside of work, provided that behavior is not something covered by the aforementioned laws.

Changing the fact pattern a little, what if the employers' moral objection was the employee belonged to the KKK. Are you ok if someone gets fired for being a member of the Klan? What if he does nothing at work to tip you off that he's a hard core white supremacist? Are you going to object to the employers right to not have this person in their employ? I doubt it.

As for the idea that employees are replaceable, while that is true, turn over is expensive. Hiring and training has a cost. And, unplanned turn over is a big problem for employers. They like it when everyone stays until it is no longer cost effective or convenient for the employer. So, most large companies go out of their way not to overly fuck with people if they can avoid it. Or, at least not in ways that people will take too personally. I will say, though, that my observation is that employers seem to care less and less about turnover because I see employees getting fucked with more and more. But, that's a different issue.

Oh, almost forgot. Pregnancy is a legal disability and you can't be fired for being pregnant.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2015, 02:20 AM
RE: employers shouldnt have the right to decide what is morally correct
(22-07-2015 06:43 AM)BnW Wrote:  Although Labor Law isn't my thing, I am a lawyer and here is my take.

As a general rule, in most states you are going to be an "at will" employee with very few rights (unionized employees differ and I'm excluding them from this entirely because they are employed under a contract). That means that your employer can fire you for pretty much any reason, with some very limited exceptions. The federal exceptions stem from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and prevents employment discrimination based on race, sex, religion, national origin, or color (I may be missing one in there). I don't think the Act covers sexuality. Then you have the Americans with Disabilities Act which not only prevents you firing people due to their disabilities but requires you make reasonable accommodations for them. Finally, you have the Age Discrimination in Employment Act which prevents you from discriminating against people over 40.

The individual states usually have their own acts as well and those can be more inclusive than what is in the federal laws. So, for example, many states have employment protections for homosexuals.

If you are fired for a reason that falls under one of those laws, you have a cause of action. If you are fired for some other reason, then you most likely don't. That includes morality. Being immoral (in the eyes of the beholder, obviously) is not a protected class under the law. You can be fired because your employer does not like your behavior outside of work, provided that behavior is not something covered by the aforementioned laws.

Changing the fact pattern a little, what if the employers' moral objection was the employee belonged to the KKK. Are you ok if someone gets fired for being a member of the Klan? What if he does nothing at work to tip you off that he's a hard core white supremacist? Are you going to object to the employers right to not have this person in their employ? I doubt it.

As for the idea that employees are replaceable, while that is true, turn over is expensive. Hiring and training has a cost. And, unplanned turn over is a big problem for employers. They like it when everyone stays until it is no longer cost effective or convenient for the employer. So, most large companies go out of their way not to overly fuck with people if they can avoid it. Or, at least not in ways that people will take too personally. I will say, though, that my observation is that employers seem to care less and less about turnover because I see employees getting fucked with more and more. But, that's a different issue.

Oh, almost forgot. Pregnancy is a legal disability and you can't be fired for being pregnant.

I do understand this which is why I said we don't need extra laws to protect employers any more then they already are.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: