You're too hot - I might do ya. You're FIRED

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Instead of protecting classes that only include some people, why not simply have laws saying you need valid reasons for terminating employees ?

I'm ambivalent about this question. On its face it seems like quite a reasonable suggestion from my perspective--but I'm not an business owner. I suspect that if I were I'd be a lot less willing to take chances hiring people without extensive background checks and professional references under such a system. I work daily with both legal and illegal immigrants. Mostly the undocumented ones are caught working for low wages in substandard conditions for less than honest employers who know that these workers cannot report their abuses to the authorities. I'd imagine that, without better immigration policy/enforcement, your suggestion would push a lot more employers down this road as well.

OTOH, I gather that something similar to this is actually the case in some other countries. I don't think it's likely to gather enough political will to make such a change in the U.S. any time soon, though.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

Yeah, this will solve all of our problems. What a joke.

Nope, never did I say it would solve all problems.

Just this one.

It is not hard to find cause to fire somebody who needs firing, and having to do so protects people from capricious actions like this one.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Nope, never did I say it would solve all problems.

Just this one.

It is not hard to find cause to fire somebody who needs firing, and having to do so protects people from capricious actions like this one.

Unfortunately some people will not be happy until the re-introduction of serfdom.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

I'm ambivalent about this question. On its face it seems like quite a reasonable suggestion from my perspective--but I'm not an business owner. I suspect that if I were I'd be a lot less willing to take chances hiring people without extensive background checks and professional references under such a system. I work daily with both legal and illegal immigrants. Mostly the undocumented ones are caught working for low wages in substandard conditions for less than honest employers who know that these workers cannot report their abuses to the authorities. I'd imagine that, without better immigration policy/enforcement, your suggestion would push a lot more employers down this road as well.

I don't see your reasoning on that. Would you mind clarifying the connection ? Those same illegal immigrants have that problem now anyway, right ?

[truethat]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

I'm ambivalent about this question. On its face it seems like quite a reasonable suggestion from my perspective--but I'm not an business owner. I suspect that if I were I'd be a lot less willing to take chances hiring people without extensive background checks and professional references under such a system. I work daily with both legal and illegal immigrants. Mostly the undocumented ones are caught working for low wages in substandard conditions for less than honest employers who know that these workers cannot report their abuses to the authorities. I'd imagine that, without better immigration policy/enforcement, your suggestion would push a lot more employers down this road as well.

OTOH, I gather that something similar to this is actually the case in some other countries. I don't think it's likely to gather enough political will to make such a change in the U.S. any time soon, though.

A good way to consider it is to consider the rental law in NYC for rent stabilized buildings. It is next to impossible to evict a tenant who is not willing to go and because of this landlords are super picky about who they rent to. This ultimately winds up marginalizing minorities and the poor and anyone who struggled with any sort of financial situation.


No matter how nice the tenant is, the landlord isn't willing to risk it. It's an observable situation that is happening now that reflects what would happen if employers couldn't fire at will.

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Nope, never did I say it would solve all problems.

Just this one.

It is not hard to find cause to fire somebody who needs firing, and having to do so protects people from capricious actions like this one.

Which problem is that exactly?

See this is the part where I just completely disagree. There is no logic here. Losing a job simply isn't a big deal. The fact that people have made it out to be a big deal is complete bs. There is no right to work for someone else. You don't earn extra "bonus points" for being employed longer. If you don't like it feel free to start your own business where you can employ yourself for as long as you want.

I seriously don't get this entitlement mentality when it comes to jobs. Let me repeat, you have no right to a job. A job is an economic transaction that needs to benefit both sides. Either side is free to leave if the transaction isn't working out for whatever reason.

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by lionking

Unfortunately some people will not be happy until the re-introduction of serfdom.

So just to be clear to you at-will employment is the same thing as serfdom?

I hope you realize how insulting that is to the many people in the world living in places that actually are oppressed. I wonder how many of them would prefer to live in the USA. It does seem like quite a few people want to immigrate...

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

Losing a job simply isn't a big deal.

Nah, losing your income and ability to put food on the table, even temporarily, is absolutely nothing to be worried about, right ? Assuming you can readily find a new job or have some savings, at least.

Reminds me of my previous employer, who said that he was doing me a favour by 'giving' me a job, apparently not understanding how business works.

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Nah, losing your income and ability to put food on the table, even temporarily, is absolutely nothing to be worried about, right ? Assuming you can readily find a new job or have some savings, at least.

It's called planning and responsibility. It's something that should be planned for. First order of business for people should be staying out of debt and having an emergency fund. People are expected to change jobs several times during a career and in fact should be planning for this. The days of a lifetime job with a pension are long gone.

There is literally no such thing as job security. The only security you have is your skillset and your network of contacts.

Quote:

Reminds me of my previous employer, who said that he was doing me a favour by 'giving' me a job, apparently not understanding how business works.

It depends. In some cases you can do people a favor by giving them a job because as an employer you take risk of various kinds. There are real costs associated with hiring people and if they generate less value than those costs you have lost money. Everyone seems to think that employment law that makes it harder to fire people protects those people. It doesn't, it just makes it harder for them to get a job in the first place.

[truethat]

Exactly. Here's what's funny, just because you are poor doesn't mean you are a victim, especially not in the US. I have been fired many times because I didn't like the way the company ran, I've quit many times as well. Then I finally opened my own company because I wasn't willing to work for someone else. I've had a successful business and I opened it with $300 and networked and used strategy to put it all together. This required me to be responsible and reliable. When I was it worked.

Seems to me people want to be able to be unprofessional and irresponsible and unreliable and still promised a job because life is hard and they might have kids.

Ridiculous.

I once worked for a vicious woman who was hated by everyone. She was a District Manager of a Community Board here in NYC. I worked there and tolerated her nasty ways because I needed the job and I needed the health coverage for my kids, plus I was having a baby.

I was mindful of the way she flew off the handle and put up with it for three years. Another woman who worked there put up with it for 16 years because she was working on her retirement.

She worked for the city of NY and so there were protections in place because it was a job with a city government, so she had to show cause to fire people. With a private business there is no such guarantee. The only reason people show cause for firing people is so they don't have to pay unemployment.

There are plenty of protections in place at jobs. If that kind of security is important to you then go get a city job. When you work outside that arrangement you are at will.

[Professor Yaffle]

Surely areas with low job security will cause people to save more money in order to be prapared for any eventuality. This lowered spending should in turn depress the economy, having a knock on impact on jobs.... I wouldn't be surprised that any benefit that is accrued from employers having more flexibility to sack is entirely negated by the lack of security for the employee. Hence the OECD finding that:

Quote:

There appears to be little or no association between employment protection legislation strictness and overall unemployment

http://www.oecd.org/employment/emplo...ta/2079974.pdf

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

It's called planning and responsibility.

Of course. But some people just can't plan ahead that much because their income isn't sufficiently above their costs. In any case, most people couldn't live for long without income or, barring that, government help. A few months, at most, but that some people can is, to me, not a very good reason to terminate an employee for spurious reasons. "Meh, they can live off their savings anyway." It's the same reason why people can't, at least in Canada, evict you from your home on a whim. It doesn't matter if you 'should' have friends or family able to shelter you.

Quote:

It's something that should be planned for. First order of business for people should be staying out of debt and having an emergency fund.

Is that car in your avatar yours ? Most people can't afford it.

Quote:

There is literally no such thing as job security. The only security you have is your skillset and your network of contacts.

Only if the laws of your country make it so.

Quote:

It depends. In some cases you can do people a favor by giving them a job because as an employer you take risk of various kinds.

But it's not the rule. As a rule, I give you _my_ services in exchange for money. The employer is not the one doing the favour.

[truethat]

What does "most people can't afford it" have to do with anything. Reality is what reality is, in my example with the nasty boss, I kept my mouth shut and head down and remained professional because I needed the job and I needed the insurance.

Seems like people want to act like teenagers that can do whatever they want with no fear of consequences.

The fact is, the woman engaged in sexual conversations with her boss and upset her coworker who was his wife.

I call that stupid. Did she honestly think it would be no big deal if the wife found out? He was wrong in his behavior but she participated in it and let it slide. I do suspect that the reason she was so mad about getting fired was because she probably made more money there than she could elsewhere and resented the step down in economic status.

So she used the situation to her advantage and it ran out. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Originally Posted by Belz...

But it's not the rule. As a rule, I give you _my_ services in exchange for money. The employer is not the one doing the favour.

It is the rule when you are doing work that is easy to find others to replace. You can really only have that attitude if your skill set is so special that the employer really needs you. Medical assistants are a dime a dozen.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by truethat

What does "most people can't afford it" have to do with anything. Reality is what reality is, in my example with the nasty boss, I kept my mouth shut and head down and remained professional because I needed the job and I needed the insurance.

Which serves to show that losing one's job is something you don't want to see happen.

Quote:

Seems like people want to act like teenagers that can do whatever they want with no fear of consequences.

People want to act like people. Why is that surprising ?

Quote:

It is the rule when you are doing work that is easy to find others to replace.

No, it isn't. Even in those cases, you are offering your services in exchange for money. Unless the boss is giving you work specifically as a favour, the service is given by the employee, not the employer.

[Delvo]

Originally Posted by truethat

A good way to consider it is to consider the rental law in NYC for rent stabilized buildings. It is next to impossible to evict a tenant who is not willing to go and because of this landlords are super picky about who they rent to. This ultimately winds up marginalizing minorities and the poor and anyone who struggled with any sort of financial situation.


No matter how nice the tenant is, the landlord isn't willing to risk it. It's an observable situation that is happening now that reflects what would happen if employers couldn't fire at will.

Then it should be easy to show the data which reveal how much more dire things are in those awful other states.

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Which serves to show that losing one's job is something you don't want to see happen.

There are a lot of things that aren't preferable but they are part of reality. It's unbelievably incredibly rare to work one job for an entire lifetime. I don't buy the excuse that people can't build an emergency fund for those transitions. It's just that people are mostly irresponsible. Well I'm sorry but I'm not your mommy people.

Quote:

People want to act like people. Why is that surprising ?

Exactly. So do you tell your bratty teenager they can do whatever they want? Or do you prepare them for the reality of the real world and show them how to plan and take responsibility for themselves? Incentives matter.

Quote:

No, it isn't. Even in those cases, you are offering your services in exchange for money. Unless the boss is giving you work specifically as a favour, the service is given by the employee, not the employer.

It's a transaction with the idea that both sides benefit. If either side isn't benefiting they should renegotiate or sever the relationship. It's not that hard of a concept.

Being an employee is often times an incredible deal. There is the potential to learn a lot and get paid at the same time. You get to learn on someone else's dime without taking direct financial risk yourself. The stress level of being an employee from my direct experience is massively lower than running even the simplest business, especially if you have employees.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

There are a lot of things that aren't preferable but they are part of reality.

Yeah, like arson. What's your point ? **** happens ?

Quote:

It's unbelievably incredibly rare to work one job for an entire lifetime.

Nobody here is arguing otherwise or that job security should cover everything. I am simply saying that terminating someone's income, just like evicting someone from their home and shelter, should require a bit more reason than other acts because it can seriously affect someone's situation.

Quote:

Exactly. So do you tell your bratty teenager they can do whatever they want? Or do you prepare them for the reality of the real world and show them how to plan and take responsibility for themselves?

I tell them they can do whatever they want unless there is harm done to others. Don't you ?

Quote:

It's a transaction with the idea that both sides benefit. If either side isn't benefiting they should renegotiate or sever the relationship. It's not that hard of a concept.

How does that contradict what I said ?

Quote:

Being an employee is often times an incredible deal.

Again irrelevant to what I said.

[truethat]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Which serves to show that losing one's job is something you don't want to see happen.



People want to act like people. Why is that surprising ?



No, it isn't. Even in those cases, you are offering your services in exchange for money. Unless the boss is giving you work specifically as a favour, the service is given by the employee, not the employer.

You keep flip flopping all over the place. Basically your argument is that "income" is important and owed to people because they can't survive without it. But if the employee wants to act unprofessional we shouldn't be surprised and oh well, let it go.

So for example if you work in a restaurant and spit in someone's food, you shouldn't get fired because you need the income and besides you are giving a service for the money.

Even prostitutes don't have such a crap version of a work ethic and professional standards. LOL

You make no sense at all so I can only surmise that you are arguing out of boredom or something.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by truethat

You keep flip flopping all over the place. Basically your argument is that "income" is important and owed to people because they can't survive without it.

If you can't get the basics right, it's no wonder you don't understand my points.

Quote:

But if the employee wants to act unprofessional we shouldn't be surprised and oh well, let it go.

I don't think you can expect people to follow YOUR definition of unprofessional. That you continue to say that after you've been corrected many times is getting tiresome.

Quote:

So for example if you work in a restaurant and spit in someone's food, you shouldn't get fired because you need the income and besides you are giving a service for the money.

Yes, I've apparently been saying that people should be impossible to fire. Only, no, since I've explained very clearly what I mean: you should have VALID reasons to terminate someone's income. Spitting in clients' food is a very valid reason.

Quote:

You make no sense at all so I can only surmise that you are arguing out of boredom or something.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by arromdee

At no point in this lawsuit does anyone claim she engaged in unprofessional conduct.

It's her lawsuit, why would she mention her unprofessional conduct?

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by WildCat

It's her lawsuit, why would she mention her unprofessional consuct?

Uh-oh! That's just what the dentist said he wanted to avoid!

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by lionking

Perhaps you should. From the article in the OP:




http://www.patriotledger.com/news/x4...rt-says?zc_p=0

There is absolutely no evidence that Nelson did anything unprofessional at all, as much as people might want to imagine she did to excuse the disgraceful behaviour of the dentist.

The court made no findings whatsoever as to whether or not the employee did anything wrong, because it doesn't matter. It's irrelevant, moot. The only question for the court to decide was wwhether or ot she was fired for unlawful reasons, which they found she wasn't.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Darat

We have a very similar system in the UK, and approximate population of 63 million, I but I fail to understand why absolute figures matter?

Far more relevant is your "loser pays" system of civil torts. In the US you just need a case that won't get laughed out of court on the first hearing (and that bar is very very high) and you will find a lawyer (and we have far morte lawyers per capita than any other country) who will represent you in return for 30% of the settlement. So no risk to sue. And there will be a settlement in most all cases, because it's cheaper than years of litigation.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Uh-oh! That's just what the dentist said he wanted to avoid!

Fixed, stupid Microsoft put the "s" too close to the "d" on my keyboard.

[truethat]

She did mention her unprofessional conduct though. People keep saying it is irrelevant but her conduct did contribute to her termination. If the wife found the text messages between the two of them about things not related to work and asked for him to fire her then both his and HER behavior contributed to that decision.

The woman also discussed her sex life with her boss which basically conveyed the idea that his comments were not unwelcomed or unwanted.

She crossed the line. If he had harassed her sexually and made his comments and she had not participated in it and told him that it was unwelcomed and he fired her, then she could sue him for sexual harassment. She couldn't because she participated in the behavior.

This is very simple to understand. The lawsuit was basically her effort to sue for damages because she was upset at being fired. I doubt very much that she went to the lawyer stating she wanted to sue for gender discrimination. I think she tried at first to sue for sexual harassment and the lawyer then stated that she couldn't because of her own conduct and tried a different angle.

I'm also sure the ruling had more to do with seeing a frivolous vindictive law suit for what it was.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by truethat

She did mention her unprofessional conduct though. People keep saying it is irrelevant but her conduct did contribute to her termination.

To be clear: I don't think it's irrelevant; just not unprofessional.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Yes, you've repeated all that several times. And I've repeated several times why it's wrong. We're just going in circles. It doesn't matter whether the girl was an actual threat to his marriage or not. It only matters that the wife believes/claims she was, and asked her husband to terminate her. It wouldn't matter if her claimed reason for the request was that she thought the girl was possessed by Satan. The wife has a claim on her husband's loyalty/obedience as well as a likely financial claim that directly affects his entire business if she chooses to persue a divorce. He has to take that into account in deciding whether to honor her request or not. The employee has a very limited claim as well, which he attempted to dispose of by giving her a month's severance pay, which--comparisons to other countries aside--is much more than he was required to offer her.

All the stuff about his supposed indecision/inability to control himself, etc. is nothing but Red Herring. I think the most likely actuality is that wife is delusional and the guy doesn't care a bit about her and couldn't care less about building a healthy marriage; hell, he's probably had actual affairs with other women in the past, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if the wife knows about them and has evidence sufficient to cream him in a divorce. He fired the girl as a temporary easy out to avoid a divorce battle and potential financial ruin. That she was hot may be the initial trigger for the wife's delusion, but it's merely coincidental to her actual firing.

Suppose for a moment that we knew that to be the case. Given a choice between letting go one employee with an arguably generous severance package, or being forced to liquidate his practice, fire all his employees, lose his home and at least half his savings, and possibly have even worse dirty laundry aired in public are you really going to claim he was completely unjustified in his decision? Granted this is just speculation, but it honestly seems a lot more likely to me than the notion that this guy was some kind of indecisive schoolboy who doesn't know whether or not he's in love with his wife.

You know, I was thinking about that today and I'm amazed no one mentioned this (or if they did, I missed it): There should just be a law for cases like this where, if the boss needs to fire the girl on the basis that he can't work with her without wanting to hump her on the desk, then he should transfer her to another clinic. Since he's the one who can't control his sexual urges, the burden is on him to find the girl a transfer to another hospital/office so she can keep her job, as opposed to just dumping her on the street. He would contact other hospitals, file letters of recommendation and find her a spot in another place. That way he can keep working without the threat of the hot girl that constantly awakens his Repitlian-Complex brain zone, and she doesn't get fired for an unjustified reason.

Originally Posted by Prometheus

No, I do not need to be spoonfed anything; I was responding to what I consider to be an extraordinary claim, and I'm requesting evidence to back it up. You are conflating specific and general uses of the term "discrimination". In the general sense, people discriminate all the time, for all sorts of reasons. It's hardwired into our brains to do so. The specific sense, which is the only one relevant here, is the one that is addressed legally by the creation of protected classes. Gender is a protected class because there is a historically pervasive bias against women--not just because some women sometimes are discriminated against. The same with other protected classes. Hotness will not become a legally protected class because no such pervasive bias against hot people exists. Sure, some of them have had the bad luck to land in a situation where their attractiveness was a curse, but on balance, in the vast majority of situations, being attractive is an advantage.

Yes, Prom. But regardless they are both equal forms of discrimination based on a person's physical appearance. That's why they are both equally unjustified and thus, wrong.
And I don't care if in the vast majority of situations being attractive is an advantage (By the way, do you have the data to support your claim? It's only fair, you know). It shouldn't be neither an advantage nor a disadvantage, because it has no bearing on a person's ability to do the job (Except of course, in obvious cases where being hot is part of the job, such as an actor, model, etc)

Originally Posted by Prometheus

And I've already responded to that as well. 'Wrong' does not equal 'unjustified'. The dentist's choice was not between right and wrong. It was a choice between wrong but relatively safe (firing the girl) and more wrong and possibly quite dangerous (risking a ruinous divorce battle).

Interesting. You find the second one to be wronger than the first one. Could you explain why?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Far more relevant is your "loser pays" system of civil torts. In the US you just need a case that won't get laughed out of court on the first hearing (and that bar is very very high) and you will find a lawyer (and we have far morte lawyers per capita than any other country) who will represent you in return for 30% of the settlement. So no risk to sue. And there will be a settlement in most all cases, because it's cheaper than years of litigation.

We have a "no win no fee" system over here as well.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Belz...

To be clear: I don't think it's irrelevant; just not unprofessional.

Agreed. I'd even go a little bit further and just say the evidence so far does not allow us to make a call on whether her behaviour was unprofessional or not.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by Belz...

I don't see your reasoning on that. Would you mind clarifying the connection ? Those same illegal immigrants have that problem now anyway, right ?

If it is made illegal to fire employees without cause, illegal immigrants could still be fired for any reason with impunity, because they will not report their employers to the authorities for fear of getting themselves deported. Just like they cannot now report the various abuses they suffer. Dishonest employers may well take further advantage of this fact by hiring fewer legal workers and replacing them with illegals in order to retain the freedom to fire workers without cause.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

You know, I was thinking about that today and I'm amazed no one mentioned this (or if they did, I missed it): There should just be a law for cases like this where, if the boss needs to fire the girl on the basis that he can't work with her without wanting to hump her on the desk, then he should transfer her to another clinic. Since he's the one who can't control his sexual urges, the burden is on him to find the girl a transfer to another hospital/office so she can keep her job, as opposed to just dumping her on the street. He would contact other hospitals, file letters of recommendation and find her a spot in another place. That way he can keep working without the threat of the hot girl that constantly awakens his Repitlian-Complex brain zone, and she doesn't get fired for an unjustified reason.

I've worked with employers that felt it was their responsibility to attempt to place workers fired without cause in other jobs, but codifying this in law would be quite problematic, I think. How much of an employer's time/resources should be spent on such an endeavor, what if s/he can't find a reasonable placement? What if the employee doesn't think the new job found for him/her is truly equivalent? How liable would the employer be should the attempt fail? Would such a rule give employers with better/more extensive business contacts an unfair advantage over less well-connected employers?

I think this would be better handled via government through the same sort of publicly funded re-training program I suggested above.

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

Yes, Prom. But regardless they are both equal forms of discrimination based on a person's physical appearance. That's why they are both equally unjustified and thus, wrong.
And I don't care if in the vast majority of situations being attractive is an advantage (By the way, do you have the data to support your claim? It's only fair, you know). It shouldn't be neither an advantage nor a disadvantage, because it has no bearing on a person's ability to do the job (Except of course, in obvious cases where being hot is part of the job, such as an actor, model, etc)

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I don't see them as equivalent at all. Pervasive descrimination is worse than occasional discrimination. And people who find themselves victims of the latter are better able to overcome the ill effects of that discrimination. I'd also point out that "ability to do the job" can include quite a bit of gray area that may wll be pertinent. For instance, personal charisma/attractiveness may well yield better results in dealing with customers or business partners than an equally skilled but uglier worker would be able to attain.

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

Interesting. You find the second one to be wronger than the first one. Could you explain why?

Because it effects more people, and a larger amount of money, in addition to the fact that a marriage contract comes with its own special baggage. I don't think I'm offbase in my belief that most married people feel a stronger duty to their spouses than to their coworkers.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

If it is made illegal to fire employees without cause, illegal immigrants could still be fired for any reason with impunity, because they will not report their employers to the authorities for fear of getting themselves deported.

That's an entirely different problem, though, right ? It's not the one I'm trying to address, here.

Besides, shouldn't illegal immigrants be deported ?

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Darat

Agreed. I'd even go a little bit further and just say the evidence so far does not allow us to make a call on whether her behaviour was unprofessional or not.

Correct. Nelson and Knight exchanged text messages, but there's no evidence tat the texts were in any way improper.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

I've worked with employers that felt it was their responsibility to attempt to place workers fired without cause in other jobs, but codifying this in law would be quite problematic, I think. How much of an employer's time/resources should be spent on such an endeavor, what if s/he can't find a reasonable placement? What if the employee doesn't think the new job found for him/her is truly equivalent? How liable would the employer be should the attempt fail? Would such a rule give employers with better/more extensive business contacts an unfair advantage over less well-connected employers?

I think this would be better handled via government through the same sort of publicly funded re-training program I suggested above.

Sure. Neither you nor I are lawyers nor handle all the technicalities. I believe there are even more complexities far beyond what you listed. Still, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be studied as a viable option. That's the history of laws: Moral situations are studied and then laws are changed or added. Nobody said it was easy and codifying these things can be incredibly challenging... but it doesn't mean it isn't worth trying or at least considering.

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I don't see them as equivalent at all. Pervasive descrimination is worse than occasional discrimination.

Why? It is still discrimination after all. Care to elaborate?

Originally Posted by Prometheus

And people who find themselves victims of the latter are better able to overcome the ill effects of that discrimination.

That sounds to me like armchair speculation. Care to provide some data to support that claim?
For instance, it seems to me that a hot woman who is fired for being hot and who happens to be dealing with extreme bankruptcy and not being able to pay for her breast cancer screenings is not "better able to overcome the ill effects of that discrimination" just because she's hot.

Originally Posted by Prometheus

I'd also point out that "ability to do the job" can include quite a bit of gray area that may wll be pertinent. For instance, personal charisma/attractiveness may well yield better results in dealing with customers or business partners than an equally skilled but uglier worker would be able to attain.

You're mistaking discrimination criteria for hiring new employers with firing employers who are already working for your company because of their physical appearance. I already said that there are jobs, such as acting, modeling and attending customers, in which being attractive is a criteria for being hired. For instance, they only hire hawt chicks in Hooters, because that's what it's about. Hot chicks with big tits. But that's not the same as hiring a hot person for a job where being hot never had anything to do with the job qualification and then firing them for being hot.

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Because it effects more people, and a larger amount of money, in addition to the fact that a marriage contract comes with its own special baggage. I don't think I'm offbase in my belief that most married people feel a stronger duty to their spouses than to their coworkers.

Well, Prom.... man, I don't know. I really don't know if we can claim that just because more people are affected, it makes it wronger. This is where it starts getting dense and philosophical. For instance, what's wronger? A guy torturing one person with a knife, or a guy heckling seven comedians?

Lets just say in the end that this case is indeed a tough situation where the ideal thing is that both parties can find a solution that is fair to both. I have already expressed my potential solution for that and like I said, I understand the innumerable complexities in codifying such law... but that was never an excuse not to try. Again, I'm no lawyer. Maybe if I had full awareness of how the laws works, I would have the criteria to say "Yeah, it's actually impossible to codify as a law".... maybe not. This is where I cannot go beyond my speculation, beyond my belief that if we don't know, it wouldn't hurt trying. Because these situations should not keep repeating. People shouldn't be fired for reasons like that.

[truethat]

Originally Posted by lionking

Correct. Nelson and Knight exchanged text messages, but there's no evidence tat the texts were in any way improper.

She discussed her sex life with her husband with her boss. She admitted to it. You all are hung up on her behavior as good or bad, you all also seem to ignore the fact that the man's wife was also a coworker of Ms Nelson.

The case would be entirely different if she was just his wife.

Anyway, people pretending that talking about your sex life with your boss is not unprofessional and can't contribute to problems at work with your coworkers are just flat out denying reality.

Not only is it unprofessional between the boss and employee it can also create a hostile work environment for the coworkers.

The boss had a valid reason for firing her. So this entire debate is nonsense.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

Sure. Neither you nor I are lawyers nor handle all the technicalities. I believe there are even more complexities far beyond what you listed. Still, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be studied as a viable option. That's the history of laws: Moral situations are studied and then laws are changed or added. Nobody said it was easy and codifying these things can be incredibly challenging... but it doesn't mean it isn't worth trying or at least considering.

It is worth considering. That's why I considered it.

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

Why? It is still discrimination after all. Care to elaborate?

I did elaborate, in the next sentence sentence--because it's more difficult to overcome pervasive discrimination (that's sort of what "pervasive" means in this context--it's all over the place so it's harder to avoid)

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

That sounds to me like armchair speculation. Care to provide some data to support that claim?
For instance, it seems to me that a hot woman who is fired for being hot and who happens to be dealing with extreme bankruptcy and not being able to pay for her breast cancer screenings is not "better able to overcome the ill effects of that discrimination" just because she's hot.

That's moving goalposts, though. I am assuming an "all other things being equal" stance.

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

You're mistaking discrimination criteria for hiring new employers with firing employers who are already working for your company because of their physical appearance. I already said that there are jobs, such as acting, modeling and attending customers, in which being attractive is a criteria for being hired. For instance, they only hire hawt chicks in Hooters, because that's what it's about. Hot chicks with big tits. But that's not the same as hiring a hot person for a job where being hot never had anything to do with the job qualification and then firing them for being hot.

I'm not mistaking anything. I'm responding directly to your statement that hotness "it has no bearing on a person's ability to do the job (Except of course, in obvious cases where being hot is part of the job, such as an actor, model, etc) " I think there are any number of plausible albeit non-obvious ways in which attractiveness can indirectly yield better results for a worker.

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

Well, Prom.... man, I don't know. I really don't know if we can claim that just because more people are affected, it makes it wronger. This is where it starts getting dense and philosophical. For instance, what's wronger? A guy torturing one person with a knife, or a guy heckling seven comedians?

Yeah, well that's the age-old debate between proponents of Mills or Kant. I've never heard a convincing argument that there's an objective way to settle the debate--it's just personal value judgement. Though if you formulate it as a question of whether it's worse to heckle one person or torture seven comedians with a knife, then it's fairly obvious that the latter is less wrong.

However, it is important to note that the two options in play here involve the same sort of hardship for different numbers of people (He can fire one employee or risk being forced to fire them all) as opposed to two very different types of hardship (heckling vs. knife torture). Plus there's the other considerations I mentioned--his own financial well-being, and his marriage vows/contract.

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

Lets just say in the end that this case is indeed a tough situation where the ideal thing is that both parties can find a solution that is fair to both. I have already expressed my potential solution for that and like I said, I understand the innumerable complexities in codifying such law... but that was never an excuse not to try. Again, I'm no lawyer. Maybe if I had full awareness of how the laws works, I would have the criteria to say "Yeah, it's actually impossible to codify as a law".... maybe not. This is where I cannot go beyond my speculation, beyond my belief that if we don't know, it wouldn't hurt trying. Because these situations should not keep repeating. People shouldn't be fired for reasons like that.

What are you, some kind of Commie?

FWIW I agree, but this one is just not very high up on my list of priorities. There are ways to avoid becoming a victim of this sort of thing if one is truly worried about it. Those who chose not to take such steps are taking a risk. Why not let people take their own risks and suffer the consequences of their own decisions?

[lionking]

Originally Posted by truethat

She discussed her sex life with her husband with her boss. She admitted to it.

Where did she admit to it? It's certainly not covered in the article in the OP. Knight spoke to Nelson about her sex life, but there's no evidence that she volunteered information to him. Perhaps he found out from a third party.

From the article:

Quote:

"He also once allegedly remarked about her infrequent sex life by saying, “that’s like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it"

You can imagine as much as you want about Nelson discussing her sex life with him. There's no evidence I've seen.

Knight's own lawyer said that Nelson did no wrong. Why do you insist she did without any evidence?

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by Belz...

That's an entirely different problem, though, right ? It's not the one I'm trying to address, here.

Besides, shouldn't illegal immigrants be deported ?

It's a different problem that could plausibly be made worse by your suggested solution to the first problem.

I still think the initial problem is better solved via some sort of public safety net rather than by regulating employers.

[truethat]

Because I can read and because I have common sense. How did he know she had an "infrequent sex life" if she didn't discuss it with him? He also sent her a message about her having an orgasm and she skipped over it and talked about her kids.

I am married, if a man sent me a text message asking me about my orgasms, I would not continue discussing my personal life with him. I would tell him it is completely inappropriate and ask that the relationship remain professional.

Saying she didn't do anything wrong meant that she didn't do anything wrong at her job with regards to her job. But the lawyer is not the final authority on her conduct.

It is wrong and it is unprofessional, anyway, but extremely so if you are married or the other person is married.

It says a whole heck of a lot that so many people don't think there is anything wrong with her conduct.

Seriously SMH

[lionking]

"Common sense" is not and has never been evidence.

How does the allegation that Knight sent Nelson a message about an orgasm prove that she acted unprofessionally? It's simply blaming the victim.

Nope, no evidence whatsoever.