How legal Is This

[SlowwHand]

No, thats different.

[DanS]

Or firing a woman when she goes on maternity leave, etc.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DanS
A business can't fire a woman for not smiling when the boss puts his hand on her ass, for instance.

Please explain. I thought that in work-at-will states, there was no need for any justification for firing someone. How can pregnancy, or not-smiling-when-harassed be not valid reasons to fire someone, considering that an employer has no accountability whatsoever about the reasons why people are fired?

[DanS]

The law disallowing firing a woman on maternity leave is not contingent on any justification given. In the hand-on-ass scenario, the fired employee would sue the employer successfully, no matter the lack of justification given for the firing.

There are several other provisions, such as not being able to fire a disabled person without trying to provide reasonable accomodation to do his work. The courts would determine what was the reason for the firing.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Please explain. I thought that in work-at-will states, there was no need for any justification for firing someone. How can pregnancy, or not-smiling-when-harassed be not valid reasons to fire someone, considering that an employer has no accountability whatsoever about the reasons why people are fired?

Federal law trumps state law. Sexual harrassment, discrimination based on race, gender, ethnicity, etc., are all federal law. Of course what employers do is deny they are firing people for X discrimination (they'll say they fired the person for anything else).

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Ming


Typical strawman crap... bring up the right wing hate BS.

Why is it the companies responsibility to protect the lifestyle of an indvidual? They gave them that lifestyle in the first place. If I were using your posting style, I would say something like why do left wing socialist loonies always think that people shouldn't take responsibilities for their own lives... but neither your silly hate comments or blamining it on lefties is the real issue.

If you want somebody to protect somebodies lifestyle, let it be the government... The US is a capitist country... it's not up to companies to protect lifestyles of their employees. They can hire and fire as they see fit. Owners have that right and it's good that they do, because its their businesses. Again, start your own company if you can't trust working for a company. Or get a contract job where it's all spelled out. Companies don't owe you a job for life, or have to protect your lifestyle. That's your job.

If someone is performing their job effectively and they have become settled in that area then why shouldn't he have some level of security? A company is not a person...

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
I am just trying to figure this out, if they dont pay you 24 seven how can they dictate what you can and cant do when ur not being paid.

Sadly the concept of private life is really breaking down all over the world. We have codes of conduct now which apply even when you are not at work.

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by Ming
I never said employees don't have a right to an opinion... But some people here think only they should have rights, not others

But,.. but,..

bUSIneSs iS tEH eEEvIl!!!

Corporations ate teh baby Jebus!!

[-Jrabbit]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
I think you ought to welcome yourself to the real world too...there are two parties involved in this argument, and all I am saying that unless there is good reason for dismissal, eg, incompetence, redundancy, it shouldn't be that simple to lay off an employee...I don't see why you right-wingers have some foaming hate about protecting the lifestyle of the individual when they are upholding their end of the bargain...you know, the loss of a job can destroy someone's life, especially if they have dependents, mortgage, etc...it is extraordinarily naive to put things in such a black and white context of 'companies have the right to do as they please'. As I said, companies have social responsibilities to their staff, society and the environment...

PH, you're suggesting there is a social contract involved here. There's not. It's a simple exchange of desired services for compensation.

You're also calling me a right-winger, which must have Ming ROTFLHAO.

The possession of a gig does not transfer responsibility from the individual to the company he works for. We don't have a "right" to the lifestyle we become accustomed to. Positive results on an annual evaluation do NOT create corporate responsibility to maintain the value (nor, indeed, the existence) of any given job function. The fact that this situation can be manipulated to eliminate people under the guise of eliminating ("reorganizing") a position just shows where the power lies. It only feels unfair because those who lose under this system feel they have done nothing wrong.

I have 20 years of "exceptional" performance evaluations in my record. I got paid for my time and effort. My future? Well, I like to think there should have been a place for me in the "new" organization. Especially with my daughter starting college this fall. But I don't get to make that decision.

Should I have fought this as age discrimination? I could have, but what would I get if I won? Unknown. What would I get if I don't contest the separation? Totally known. All spelled out in a contract.

And you know, Provost, if you don't have a written contract, you have nothing.

In my case, I decided to choose another path. I now work for myself, no longer beholden to the tyranny you so despise.

It's a simple case of the Golden Rule -- The one who has the gold, makes the rules.

[-Jrabbit]

I was just thinking about all the years my Dad spent in the RR union, forcing the railroads to keep firemen employed on every moving train, despite the fact that there had been no need to shovel coal to stoke steam engines for several decades. But the union said they had a "right" to those jobs.

Let's see... the railroads went broke, the government federalized the entire industry via Amtrack. ...and all those firemen still lost their jobs. The only difference is that their "right" to continued employment brought down an entire industry, eliminating competition and reducing services to the public.

Yeah, that's the way to go!

[Dr Strangelove]

Rail freight is still very much alive and kicking, it's passenger rail that died. It died because most Americans would rather travel by airplane or car, and have the financial means to do so. That left only poor people to travel on trains, and most of them pefer buses. For that matter even some of the long distance bus lines have gone out of business because there just isn't enough business left to go around.

Employees who smoke drive insurance rates up and also are sick more, leaving an unfair burden on the rest of the employees. Trust me, I know this for a fact. When you work in a clinic that is so small that it can afford only two nurses, but have to see 40 patients/day to stay solvent, having a nurse who is frequently sick puts an enormous strain on the rest of the staff.

[Terra Nullius]

The fact that this situation can be manipulated to eliminate people under the guise of eliminating ("reorganizing") a position just shows where the power lies.

So we should fight teh power!! No?

It only feels unfair because those who lose under this system feel they have done nothing wrong.

No. It clearly can be unfair.

Among the few facts so far in this thread are:
1. Mrs T's employer wants a smoke-free workplace - fair enough
2. Some people there are being harassed about 'smelling of smoke.'
3. The employer provides clothing which, in 100% of tested cases alerady smells before being used.

If anything, she ought to be complaining about being asked to wear clothing that stinks. Instead, she is having to defend herself when the employer is more at fault than she is.

This Sh1t happens all the time. Sure businesses need to be competitive, but it is also seems anecdotally at least to be the case that, without proper regulation, the employees are overwhelmingly the ones who get screwed.

This debate is a pain because it's such a bunch of opinionated rhetoric. There are remarkably few facts. Sure, businesses need to be competitive. Yes, employees need some level of protection. It's really just a case of how far the pendulum swings. I'm very much inclined to the view that it has swung quite far enough to the right already.

Certainly in Oz at the moment, we have a nasty little zit of a PM who is still living in the '70s. He seems to want to remove all IR protection as a mere act of vengeance against the unions. It's not about competition. It's just small-minded getting-even.

And in the abscence of facts, I really don't credit this "competition" stuff as anything more than fear-mongering BS.

Notwithstanding, as the good Dr demonstrates, small business in particular is a bloody hard place to be. I'm not sure employers should have the right to sack someone just because they don't get along. But I agree that having an overly restictive regime is not really fair to small business either.

[Terra Nullius]

Oh, and Ming

Just to be clear, I'm not attacking you for having an opinion. I am attacking you for seemingly presenting your opinions as fact, or as the only reasonable opinion to have.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting your statements, but that's what it looks like to me.

I'd be happy to admit I was wrong, but so far, my perception is that you are presenting intolerant, one-eyed rhetoric and I don't see how that serves any useful purpose (we already have Sloww around for that).

[Zkribbler]

It's important to focus on what we're talking about. No one here is advocating not being able to fire someone for good cause. The dispute is whether a boss and fire someone for no legitimate reason.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Why? If a boss can't stand an individual personally for his beliefs on certain issues, why should he be forced to keep him on, until he can find something to fire him 'for cause'? If he can't stand the guy, then he should be able to get rid of him for it.

As PH points out, this is what the probabationary period is for.

The problem usually arises out of who the boss is. With regards to a small owner-operated company, you have a much better argument.

The problem most of are talking about arises in corporations, where a new manager comes in an starts firing experienced hard-working valuable employees in order to get his "loyalists" in there. How does this help the employer??

If managers are going to be concentrating on building up their feifdoms rather than focusing on what best for the company, the least they could do is to transfer the people they don't like into other departments rather than destroying their livelyhoods.

I know for-cause employmenht is not the law in the U.S. but it should be.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

DanS said a few things that can happen and have happened in the state of texas. The woman can be fired for maternity leave or even sexual harassament. If proven the co. fired her for those reasons she will get reimbursment, 9 times out of ten the co. will come up with other reasons for her firing. It happens all the time.
Dr strangelove I disagree with ur polls on smokers call in sick more. I have been on this contract for 6 months now i have 2 call ins one cause of a 5 alarm fire at midnight across from us and removed us from our homes and the other cause i had the flu. None are related to smoking. Tuber also a smoker has an average of 3 sick days a year and not cause he s sick, reasons of kids dr appointments and or his business apts.
While I agree smoking is a nasty habit both for others and the smoker i dont think they should be punished.
Terra Nullus has hit the nail onthe head. We are being singled out cause we smoke. I have already proven the scrubs we are forced to wear smell, and i thought about this after, for gods sake if i can still smell the other person whats to say the said person that wore them before me didnt have nasty case of jock itch? This whole case of being sniffed for smoke has brought more ideas of what and who has actually wore the clothes the day before me and i find its disgusting now.
I realize the business doesnt owe you a job for life, but it expects you to go in bust your ass all day for what?, so they can be fired cause the owner was in a bad mood?? He didnt like ur hair style that day. Where do you draw the line at what is right and what is cleary unfair to the folks out their busting their asses?
As far as the smoke sniffers at my work, answer me this Does it not, Having them going around sniffing on the known smokers disrupt them from doing thier own job? Which in case they spend more time wondering what i smell like then doing their own freaking job which means thier share of the work load is not being done?