Should you be able to fire someone for any reason you want?

[Everett]

No - I believe employees should have some rights.

They're rights should be equal to those of the employer: they may quit whenever they please, and the employers may fire them whenever they please.

It is absurd to claim that a poor is 'equal before the law' to a rich.  The State's primary purpose and function, upon  which it expends nearly all its resources, is the defense and preservation of the property of the rich.  The poor by comparison is really hardly even a citizen, and gets nearly nothing from the State.  No, in our heirarchical society, the owner has all the rights and certainly all the power, so it is ridiculous to pretend that an encounter between this aristocracy and a powerless poor could be 'equal'.

Thus our encounters cannot be considered equal. Now give me all of your money and your house, opebo.

[Emsworth]

It is absurd to claim that a poor is 'equal before the law' to a rich.  The State's primary purpose and function, upon  which it expends nearly all its resources, is the defense and preservation of the property of the rich.  The poor by comparison is really hardly even a citizen, and gets nearly nothing from the State.  No, in our heirarchical society, the owner has all the rights and certainly all the power, so it is ridiculous to pretend that an encounter between this aristocracy and a powerless poor could be 'equal'.

On the contrary, the life, liberty, and property of the poor are protected just as much as the life, liberty, and property of the rich by the law. There is no justification for robbing from the rich and giving to the poor. The poor have a right to compete in the free market, not to get free money from the rich.

[opebo]

No - I believe employees should have some rights.

They're rights should be equal to those of the employer: they may quit whenever they please, and the employers may fire them whenever they please.

It is absurd to claim that a poor is 'equal before the law' to a rich.  The State's primary purpose and function, upon  which it expends nearly all its resources, is the defense and preservation of the property of the rich.  The poor by comparison is really hardly even a citizen, and gets nearly nothing from the State.  No, in our heirarchical society, the owner has all the rights and certainly all the power, so it is ridiculous to pretend that an encounter between this aristocracy and a powerless poor could be 'equal'.

Thus our encounters cannot be considered equal. Now give me all of your money and your house, opebo.

Well, I suggest you vote that way, if you want it.

The poor have a right to compete in the free market, not to get free money from the rich.

It isn't a free market, Emsworth, it is a ridgid social heirarchy in which each class is ensconsed or trapped in its condition.  Certainly the poor must compete with each other for their meager jobs - hence the low wages which prevail.   But they are condemned to a hopeless treadmill, and cannot 'win' by competing well.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Please stop wasting your time argueing with Opebo. He's only making you all pissed off, which is what he wants.

[Emsworth]

Please stop wasting your time argueing with Opebo. He's only making you all pissed off, which is what he wants.

I'm not particularly annoyed -- I'm more amused -- but I would agree that argument is futile.

[A18]

Yes. If your reason for firing a perfectly competent, hard-working employee is extremely shoddy (what logical reason have you to fire someone who's doing his/her job well?), the person can always sue you.

That's like saying you should be able to murder someone, except it should be prosecuted.

[Everett]

Please stop wasting your time argueing with Opebo. He's only making you all pissed off, which is what he wants.

I'm not particularly annoyed -- I'm more amused -- but I would agree that argument is futile.

I second that.

Yes. If your reason for firing a perfectly competent, hard-working employee is extremely shoddy (what logical reason have you to fire someone who's doing his/her job well?), the person can always sue you.

That's like saying you should be able to murder someone, except it should be prosecuted.

I would like to assume that murdering someone is different from firing the person...

[A18]

Please stop wasting your time argueing with Opebo. He's only making you all pissed off, which is what he wants.

I'm not particularly annoyed -- I'm more amused -- but I would agree that argument is futile.

I second that.

Yes. If your reason for firing a perfectly competent, hard-working employee is extremely shoddy (what logical reason have you to fire someone who's doing his/her job well?), the person can always sue you.

That's like saying you should be able to murder someone, except it should be prosecuted.

I would like to assume that murdering someone is different from firing the person...

Irrelevant to my comparison. You have essentially just said that it should be illegal to fire someone for reasons you consider 'unjustified.' Otherwise, there's nothing to sue over.

[Everett]

Please stop wasting your time argueing with Opebo. He's only making you all pissed off, which is what he wants.

I'm not particularly annoyed -- I'm more amused -- but I would agree that argument is futile.

I second that.

Yes. If your reason for firing a perfectly competent, hard-working employee is extremely shoddy (what logical reason have you to fire someone who's doing his/her job well?), the person can always sue you.

That's like saying you should be able to murder someone, except it should be prosecuted.

I would like to assume that murdering someone is different from firing the person...

Irrelevant to my comparison. You have essentially just said that it should be illegal to fire someone for reasons you consider 'unjustified.' Otherwise, there's nothing to sue over.

What do you mean? Maybe I phrased it poorly.

If you fire an employee, and that employee thinks that s/he was fired unfairly, you might get sued. That's all I meant.

[Bono]

Yes. If your reason for firing a perfectly competent, hard-working employee is extremely shoddy (what logical reason have you to fire someone who's doing his/her job well?), the person can always sue you.

That's like saying you should be able to murder someone, except it should be prosecuted.

The difference is that murder is a common law offense, and firing someone is a made up law offense.

[A18]

You can't sue someone for something that isn't illegal.

[MODU]

You can't sue someone for something that isn't illegal.

You can always sue.  You might not win, but if there is grounds for discrimination or unjust termination, your case will be heard.  One of the Atlantic City casino's was sued since they fired one of their female floor hosts for gaining 5 pounds.  That's like firing me because I'm bald. 

[A18]

You can't sue someone for something that isn't illegal.

You can always sue.  You might not win, but if there is grounds for discrimination or unjust termination, your case will be heard.  One of the Atlantic City casino's was sued since they fired one of their female floor hosts for gaining 5 pounds.  That's like firing me because I'm bald. 

Why do you people have such difficulty comprehending simple concepts? You can't sue someone for doing something legal. Period. You have to sue them for breaking a law.

Currently, there are laws prohibiting people from firing employees at will. Thus, you can sue. If you were allowed to fire someone for any reason you wanted, there would be no grounds to sue.

[MissCatholic]

No - if you did that then you should be taken to court.

[Emsworth]

You can't sue someone for doing something legal. Period. You have to sue them for breaking a law.

Absolutely correct. Something need not be a criminal offense in order to be against the law.

[MODU]

Currently, there are laws prohibiting people from firing employees at will. Thus, you can sue. If you were allowed to fire someone for any reason you wanted, there would be no grounds to sue.

When you finally start working, and you end up having 3 jobs in one week because your boss fired you since you parted your hair on the left rather than the right, and your family goes without food since you need to pay for the rent first, then come back and tell me that it is ok for an employer to fire at will with no justification at all.  Unfortunately in this case, it's not us that have a problem comprehending "simple concepts," but rather you defending a simplist notion without seeing the full effects of what that notion can lead to.  Just as companies have the right to exist and compete, their employees have the right to work without fear of being fired since their boss is having a bad day.

[Emsworth]

When you finally start working, and you end up having 3 jobs in one week because your boss fired you since you parted your hair on the left rather than the right, and your family goes without food since you need to pay for the rent first, then come back and tell me that it is ok for an employer to fire at will with no justification at all.

It may not be okay, it may not be moral, it may not be ethical, but it should still be legal. Heartless as it may seem, the employer is not obliged to care about your rent or your family. Just as a very good employee, incidentally, is not obliged to care about the employer if he decides to quit.

[MODU]

When you finally start working, and you end up having 3 jobs in one week because your boss fired you since you parted your hair on the left rather than the right, and your family goes without food since you need to pay for the rent first, then come back and tell me that it is ok for an employer to fire at will with no justification at all.

It may not be okay, it may not be moral, it may not be ethical, but it should still be legal. Heartless as it may seem, the employer is not obliged to care about your rent or your family. Just as a very good employee, incidentally, is not obliged to care about the employer if he decides to quit.

I'm sorry, but the concept of firing at will for no reason is flawed on so many levels, which is why we have a federal law prohibiting it.  That's why it has to be based off of work performance and/or adherence to the company policies.  If you want to get rid of an employee so badly, there are plenty of ways to within those guidelines to achieve that end.

[John Dibble]

When you finally start working, and you end up having 3 jobs in one week because your boss fired you since you parted your hair on the left rather than the right, and your family goes without food since you need to pay for the rent first, then come back and tell me that it is ok for an employer to fire at will with no justification at all.

It may not be okay, it may not be moral, it may not be ethical, but it should still be legal. Heartless as it may seem, the employer is not obliged to care about your rent or your family. Just as a very good employee, incidentally, is not obliged to care about the employer if he decides to quit.

Yeah. Say my best and most important employee quits, and I can't find a replacement, and I go out of business because of I can't get this much needed position filled - I become homeless and all my other employees are out of a job. Please tell me why it's ok for my employee to quit for whatever reason he wants.

[A18]

Currently, there are laws prohibiting people from firing employees at will. Thus, you can sue. If you were allowed to fire someone for any reason you wanted, there would be no grounds to sue.

When you finally start working, and you end up having 3 jobs in one week because your boss fired you since you parted your hair on the left rather than the right, and your family goes without food since you need to pay for the rent first, then come back and tell me that it is ok for an employer to fire at will with no justification at all.  Unfortunately in this case, it's not us that have a problem comprehending "simple concepts," but rather you defending a simplist notion without seeing the full effects of what that notion can lead to.  Just as companies have the right to exist and compete, their employees have the right to work without fear of being fired since their boss is having a bad day.

No fraud, the topic at hand was whether you could sue someone for doing something that isn't against the law. I'm sorry your reading skills are so poor.

No employee is owed an employer. No employer is owed an employee.

[MODU]

No fraud, the topic at hand was whether you could sue someone for doing something that isn't against the law. I'm sorry your reading skills are so poor.

Actually, the topic is if the company can fire someone without just cause.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You are trying to make an argument for an unrealistic world.  No one says either party owns each other, however, both parties have responsibilities towards each other.  The employer is to offer a fair and safe work environment while the employee offers responsibility and performance.  When either are missing, then the party which is being short changed has the right to take action.  If the employee is not performing, they can be fired.  When the employer is not providing, the employee can leave.

[Emsworth]

No one says either party owns each other, however, both parties have responsibilities towards each other.

I absolutely agree. I would, with all due respect, argue that there is no responsibility to continue the employment. If the parties wish to decide that either may terminate the employment at will, that's their business; the government has no legitimate power to intervene.

[A18]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. I can't stand it when people can't follow arguments. You responded to my post: "You can't sue someone for something that isn't illegal."

That was a response to Everett's logic that it should be legal to fire someone, but that that person would still be able to sue. That is ridiculous.

Then you responded that you can always sue someone. You can, but you have to sue based on violation of a law. Which means, if there were no laws on this subject, you couldn't sue over it.

That's the very simple concept you're missing. I was not insulting you for your simply disagreeing with me on the poll question.

[MODU]

Then you responded that you can always sue someone. You can, but you have to sue based on violation of a law. Which means, if there were no laws on this subject, you couldn't sue over it.

That's the very simple concept you're missing. I was not insulting you for your simply disagreeing with me on the poll question.

I was actually making an example of how one can sue for something that wasn't illegal, since it is possible.  Not likely to win, but it is possible.    (And don't worry, I'm good at disagreeing with folks.  Just as JFern.  hahaha)