Iowa declares affirmative action for ugly people

[MrFun]

It's not your right to be employed.

Which may be part of the reason that so many people have to resort to welfare.

[MichaeltheGreat]

This is what happens in right to work states. If you don't need a reason for firing someone, you can terminate them for any ridiculous reason.

You should know better, Imran. RTW is only related to at will employment to the extent they are both constructs of labor law. Most, if not all, non RTW states are at will states, and at will is only modified by federal or state discrimination laws, some limited specific protections (whistle blower, etc.) or CBAs.

The Iowa state supreme court got this one right - there was no claim of sexual harassment, only aq claim of gender discrimination. Since he had an all female office, and replaced her with a female employee, there was no way to sustain a finding that she was discriminated against on the basis of her gender. She should have made an issue of sexual harassment earlier when he made remarks to the effect that "if my pants are bulging, you know you're wearing something too tight" etc. She did not object to the comments, and did not do anything that would allow her to proceed on a sexual harassment theory, so she or her lawyers screwed the pooch there.

The Iowa supreme court's opinion wasn't particularly sympathetic to the jackass, but they made the correct ruling. And realistically, why would she want to work in his dental practice under those circumstances? Good hygienists are in demand, she'd have no trouble getting other work.

[MichaeltheGreat]

In a place where you can't fire someone for any reason, no even reasonable cause is sufficient because you'll be sued to the end of the earth over whether it was discriminatory. People should have the right to hire and fire for any reason they like. If you get fired then find a new job. It's not your right to be employed.

Yes, funny how those black jelly beans always settle at the bottom of the bag.

It also not your right to go into business (i.e. engage in commerce) and be immune from the law. Your way was tried for centuries - modern labor law evolved from the common law relationship of master and servant. It didn't work.

[MrFun]

Your way was tried for centuries - modern labor law evolved from the common law relationship of master and servant. It didn't work.

The root of our problems.

[MichaeltheGreat]

There's nothing wrong with at-will employment - it's symmetric (since the employee has the right to leave without notice). For labor law to be effective it needs to balance interests of employers and employees and be flexible. We can't (well, we could, but it wouldn't be very effective) go back to some Randian paradise of expendible serfs and wealthy elites.

[MrFun]

I think at-will employment, while maybe meant to be symmetrical, is actually asymmetrical in favor of employers, who have more power than their employees.

Allow employees to leave/quit a job at will, but I don't see why we have to have fire-at-will along with it. If an employee is bad worker, you shouldn't have any problem firing that worker without allowing for fire-at-will.

[SlowwHand]

Bear in mind that one of the higher costs to a company is employee training and retention. If firing on a whim was the norm, this wouldn't be news.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sorry, my bad. I meant to say "at will" but couldn't think of the proper words back in post #12

[MrFun]

Bear in mind that one of the higher costs to a company is employee training and retention. If firing on a whim was the norm, this wouldn't be news.

well, okay

[Hauldren Collider]

This is what happens in right to work states. If you don't need a reason for firing someone, you can terminate them for any ridiculous reason.

As it should be

[MrFun]

It baffles me how conservatives complain about high unemployment rate, about unemployed people being on welfare, but they advocate laws that encourage those same things.

[Hauldren Collider]

There's nothing wrong with at-will employment - it's symmetric (since the employee has the right to leave without notice). For labor law to be effective it needs to balance interests of employers and employees and be flexible. We can't (well, we could, but it wouldn't be very effective) go back to some Randian paradise of expendible serfs and wealthy elites.

That is not anything remotely like the system Regexcellent supports.

[notyoueither]

Anyone paying attention to her trading personal texts with the boss while sharing the work-space with the Mrs?

[Dauphin]

Bear in mind that one of the higher costs to a company is employee training and retention. If firing on a whim was the norm, this wouldn't be news.

It would also likely lead to less qualified staff if you put up arbitrary barriers to employment at your firm or company.

[Dauphin]

It baffles me how conservatives complain about high unemployment rate, about unemployed people being on welfare, but they advocate laws that encourage those same things.

How does high throughput employment equate to high unemployment. If you sack someone for non commercial reasons, you'd likely replace them very quickly.