K
katherine2
Guest
Francesco, my friend,
You need to review some of the post right here on this thread.
I’m glad you travel in circles of liberal, tolerant people. But as Brad found out, such people do exist. They even post on CA!
- Status
You need to review some of the post right here on this thread.
I’m glad you travel in circles of liberal, tolerant people. But as Brad found out, such people do exist. They even post on CA!
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
You need to get a grip, Katherine.
First of all, to prove there should be “gay rights,” you’re assuming “gay rights” is a proven issue. That’s called "begging the question.
Secondly, anyone can sue for wrongful termination – it’s the circumstances of the particular case – not a blanket special right for gays, people with tatoos, or purple hair that decides the issue.
T
Trelow
Guest
Are you libs really so nuts that you can’t distinguish between feelings and actions?
Just because you love the murderer doesn’t mean you shouldn’t jail him. And homosexual ACTS are akin to spiritual murder.
K
katherine2
Guest
vern humphrey:
What we as considerate human beings think is unfair or unethical treatment in the workplace is not necessarily illegal for U.S. employers. Employment laws give them much more leeway than you might imagine.
But perhaps it’s more accurate to say that the absence of laws is what really grants employers their leeway. In turn, just because an employer unfairly fired or forced an employee to quit, doesn’t necessarily mean that the employee suffered wrongful termination, at least not according to law.
However unfair, for it to be the illegal act of wrongful termination, an employer must violate a specific state or Federal law, regulation or constitutional provision. Unfortunately, there’s no such thing that generally protects employees from “crummy deals” per se.
To further understand what legally constitutes wrongful termination, it’s important to also note that most states consider employment to be “at will” in legal jargon. In plain English, the Employment at Will Doctrine means that, in the absence of contracts stating otherwise, employment is presumed to be voluntary and indefinite for both employees and employers. As an at-will employee, you may quit your job whenever you want, usually without consequence. On the flip side, at-will employers may terminate you whenever they want, usually without consequence.
You need to know the law, Vern.
Wrongful termination needs a basis in law. The following might help you:
What we as considerate human beings think is unfair or unethical treatment in the workplace is not necessarily illegal for U.S. employers. Employment laws give them much more leeway than you might imagine.
But perhaps it’s more accurate to say that the absence of laws is what really grants employers their leeway. In turn, just because an employer unfairly fired or forced an employee to quit, doesn’t necessarily mean that the employee suffered wrongful termination, at least not according to law.
However unfair, for it to be the illegal act of wrongful termination, an employer must violate a specific state or Federal law, regulation or constitutional provision. Unfortunately, there’s no such thing that generally protects employees from “crummy deals” per se.
To further understand what legally constitutes wrongful termination, it’s important to also note that most states consider employment to be “at will” in legal jargon. In plain English, the Employment at Will Doctrine means that, in the absence of contracts stating otherwise, employment is presumed to be voluntary and indefinite for both employees and employers. As an at-will employee, you may quit your job whenever you want, usually without consequence. On the flip side, at-will employers may terminate you whenever they want, usually without consequence.
K
katherine2
Guest
vern humphrey:
What we as considerate human beings think is unfair or unethical treatment in the workplace is not necessarily illegal for U.S. employers. Employment laws give them much more leeway than you might imagine.
But perhaps it’s more accurate to say that the absence of laws is what really grants employers their leeway. In turn, just because an employer unfairly fired or forced an employee to quit, doesn’t necessarily mean that the employee suffered wrongful termination, at least not according to law.
However unfair, for it to be the illegal act of wrongful termination, an employer must violate a specific state or Federal law, regulation or constitutional provision. Unfortunately, there’s no such thing that generally protects employees from “crummy deals” per se.
To further understand what legally constitutes wrongful termination, it’s important to also note that most states consider employment to be “at will” in legal jargon. In plain English, the Employment at Will Doctrine means that, in the absence of contracts stating otherwise, employment is presumed to be voluntary and indefinite for both employees and employers. As an at-will employee, you may quit your job whenever you want, usually without consequence. On the flip side, at-will employers may terminate you whenever they want, usually without consequence.
You need to know the law, Vern.
Wrongful termination needs a basis in law. The following might help you:
What we as considerate human beings think is unfair or unethical treatment in the workplace is not necessarily illegal for U.S. employers. Employment laws give them much more leeway than you might imagine.
But perhaps it’s more accurate to say that the absence of laws is what really grants employers their leeway. In turn, just because an employer unfairly fired or forced an employee to quit, doesn’t necessarily mean that the employee suffered wrongful termination, at least not according to law.
However unfair, for it to be the illegal act of wrongful termination, an employer must violate a specific state or Federal law, regulation or constitutional provision. Unfortunately, there’s no such thing that generally protects employees from “crummy deals” per se.
To further understand what legally constitutes wrongful termination, it’s important to also note that most states consider employment to be “at will” in legal jargon. In plain English, the Employment at Will Doctrine means that, in the absence of contracts stating otherwise, employment is presumed to be voluntary and indefinite for both employees and employers. As an at-will employee, you may quit your job whenever you want, usually without consequence. On the flip side, at-will employers may terminate you whenever they want, usually without consequence.
T
Trelow
Guest
Employment at Will Doctrine* means that, in the absence of contracts stating otherwise, employment is presumed to be voluntary and indefinite for both employees and employers. As an at-will employee, you may quit your job whenever you want, usually without consequence. On the flip side, at-will employers may terminate you whenever they want, usually without consequence.*
Duh, What’s you point? Would you rather a law be but in place requiring contracts of specifics be spelled out for each employee / employer relationship?
Employment at will is most fair for both parties involved.
J
JamesD
Guest
This is something that I have struggled with for some time. My gut tells me that in a “free” society such as ours it is wrong for us to punish consenting adults for something they do in private that has no proven temporal world harm. I think most people woul agree and that this is the state of our society in the US.
However, my reason tells me something different.
- This is our country, of the people & by the people. We can make our government whatever we want.
- This is still a Judeo Christian rooted culture.
- Homosexual acts are destructive to those who participate. (A mater of Judeo Christian doctrine)
- The role of government can be to protect the individual and society from destructive actions. To accomplish this determinations have to be made as to what is harmful enough to require protection from the state.
If as a society we can determine that abortion is harmful to babies and mothers, or prostitution is harmful, or that “homosexual acts are akin to spiritual murder”, then we can prohibit these things under penalty of law.
OTOH, does the logical extension of this lead to theocracy? What about freedom on religious practice? What about free will?
As I said I am strugling with this. Any comments, suggested reading is appreciated.
Thanks,
Jim
B
buffalo
Guest
L
Lisa_N
Guest
Katherine, I believe in HUMAN rights, not “gay” rights. IOW I think that homosexuals are human beings and should have the same basic rights as everyone else. That means someone who can do their job shouldn’t be terminated because of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, age, or sexlife (assuming of course none of these spill over into their public life).
I do think homosexuals were denied basic human rights because of fear, prejudice or ignorance in the past. Recent past, I agree but it’s in the past for the most part. I believe a lot of this fear was due to AIDS and our relative ignorance at that time. We now not only know more about the disease, we also know more about how it’s transmitted. So while in the past someone might have been denied housing, employment, education opportunities because of this fear, I frankly believe this is like racial discrimination, something in the past.
It’s hard to claim that homosexuals are routinely discriminated against in the US today. We have prime time shows about homosexuals. Look into ANY decorating or “home” magazine and you’ll see gay as well as straight couples’ homes featured. There are schools for homosexuals, clubs for homosexual youth within schools. There are all kinds of GLTB organizations. IOW homosexuality is somewhat mainstream these days.
Now my acceptance of homosexuals as human beings does not mean I think we have to share or approve of this lifestyle, particularly the more deviant elements. I truly believe the saying love the sinner, hate the sin. I feel the same way about other people who engage in what I consider devient behavior. I am not ready to relegate them to the Lake of Fire, but I am not going to give nodding acceptance either.
Lisa N
L
Lisa_N
Guest
Katherine one thing you need to apply to this philosophy is reality. Whatever laws may be on the books, I assure you as someone who has been involved in hiring and firing people for almost two decades, when it comes right down to it, EMPLOYEES are the favored class. Harassment laws are interpreted VERY broadly and generally on the side of the employee.
The reality is that it is EXTREMELY difficult to terminate someone, even for what might seem particularly egregious behavior.
Further no one owes me, you or the man in the moon a job. A job is not a right in this country.
Lisa N
K
katherine2
Guest
Lisa N:
I’ll take your two “almost” two decades and beat you with SIX full decades, every since I first went to work in the plant during the war (and I’m not talking about Kuwait, buttercup, I mean the BIG one).
I fought the boss, I fought the Commies who tried to take over the local, I fought the foreman who tried to rape me, I fought them all and I am still standing. But not once was the deck ever stacked in my favor.
And the truth is the workers still get shafted every day of the week. The big bossess are not poor little vicitms that get picked on by some working stiff working on the line.
You got to be a heartless fool to think that the average working guy is overempowered and needs to be cut down to size so that the corporate big boys can do what they want to who they want.
Workers a favored class! My foot.
Lisa,
I’ll take your two “almost” two decades and beat you with SIX full decades, every since I first went to work in the plant during the war (and I’m not talking about Kuwait, buttercup, I mean the BIG one).
I fought the boss, I fought the Commies who tried to take over the local, I fought the foreman who tried to rape me, I fought them all and I am still standing. But not once was the deck ever stacked in my favor.
And the truth is the workers still get shafted every day of the week. The big bossess are not poor little vicitms that get picked on by some working stiff working on the line.
You got to be a heartless fool to think that the average working guy is overempowered and needs to be cut down to size so that the corporate big boys can do what they want to who they want.
Workers a favored class! My foot.
B
Brad
Guest
It’s “homosexual”, not “gay”.
B
Brad
Guest
Obfuscation of the topic however.
B
Brad
Guest
Lisa N:
Yes - and it’s more than mainstream - it’s glamorized. I can’t turn on the TV or open my work email without some dumb homosexual promotion, often at the expense of or mocking of Christianity.
B
Brad
Guest
So the formean that tried to rape you - he was a perfect and model worker habitually a victim of his bosses prior to him becoming foreman?
All bosses are bad and all workers are good? Is there some kind of good-to-bad switch that happens at promotion time?
Also, if you fought communism, you should know better than promote some of its main tenants.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
And you need to get a grip, Kathleen.
If we need a law specifically to protect gays from being fired, then we need on for people with tatoos, purple hair, body piercings.
Any person can sue in this country – the merits of the suit are a matter for the court to decide.
B
buffalo
Guest
vern humphrey:
I agree with Vern. No need to create special classes of people.
S
StJeanneDArc
Guest
The experience I’m talking about is that there was an alcoholic woman in a public health program affiliated with a major university. Now she happened to be a flaming, in-your-face lesbian. Because she drank on the job she was a poor performer and some times a danger to those she worked with. Because she was a lesbian her supervisor had to jump through all sorts of hoops and get permission from the CEO of the hospital to fire this woman. Had this woman not been a member of a protected class it wouldn’t have taken 6 months to fire her. We even joked that she may find a way to make the ADA apply to her because of her alcoholism.
And no, she didn’t sue. But her supervisor’s tires were slashed in the hospital garage shortly afterwards, and we suspect that she was the culprit.
L
Lisa_N
Guest
Katherine, I hoped you’d quit with the patronizing. I’m not sweetie, dearie OR buttercup. You appear to want some respect but you need to also demonstrate respect for the other people in the discussion.
First you have to understand that I am speaking from the perspective of working in a white collar world. I am sure things are/were different at “the plant” but if look around at the US economy, the jobs have swung more to the service sector. As I said, you need to get in touch with TODAY’S realities. You are fighting the old fight that doesn’t necessarily apply anymore.
The law perceives employees to be the weaker party against the employer and thus the law works to give them some benefit of the doubt and a number of protections. Also even though the aggrieved employee might think he/she is unable to bring legal action there are state boards and other government agencies that also help protect employees’ rights.
Further since slavery has been outlawed for over a century, any employee is free to leave a situation that has become untenable and if you have been at all observant, a number of these groups have gotten together to sue their employers for such things as unpaid OT, racism, etc. I know in our business, terminating an employee, even one that is incompetent or even destructive is like defusing a bomb. We NEVER terminate anyone without a consultation with our attorney and her advice as to how to document and proceed with the employee’s departure.
You know Katherine, now that I understand your age group, you don’t sound so out of touch. You are very much typical of the mentality of the people who lived through WWII, and the subsequent events and changes in society. Frankly you sound a lot like my mother. She cannot imagine how she spawned a conservative Republican child. We have a completely different life experience and our worldview reflects that.
Lisa N
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
This is exactly what happens when we create “Super Citizens” with rights the rest of us don’t have. We fail to do simple things, like remove the incomptent, or promote the competent on merit. We distort the system so badly we often create health and safety risks, as well as trampling on other peoples’ rights.
- Status