ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 23rd December 2012, 10:09 PM   #161
sgtbaker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,144
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
What you've described does sound like a loss of "love" to me. This looks like a miscommunication in which you both thought the same thing was happening but didn't have the same definition in mind for "love". (Another example of why that's just a useless word.)
Call it what you want, lot's of couples go through that, despite the fact that they consider their ultimate happy ending is with their spouse.


Quote:
I don't see the part where she did anything boundary-crossing. The "personal" stuff they're said to have texted about was their children, it would be pretty weird for 10-year co-workers not to occasionally text each other, or not know who had a "significant other" and who didn't. She'd need to be practically antisocial to have avoided that kind of routine workplace socialization. And as for "flirtacious" behavior on her part, not only do we not have any specific alleged examples of it to try to judge, but that word is nearly as useless as "love", with different people often declaring with absolute certainty contradictory impressions of exactly the same behavior.
Something upped the anti in the last six months of the relationship. That's when, according to the court documents, the Dr and his wife started noticing the the tight clothing, the wife complains that she was flirty with the doctor and cold to her, and that she used to stay in the office, after hours, when it was just her and the doctor.
sgtbaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2012, 10:15 PM   #162
Prometheus
Acolyte of Víðarr
 
Prometheus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 44,674
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
In the case where "avoiding the situation" means abruptly putting someone on the street who hasn't done anything to deserve such mistreatment, it's not unreasonable to suggest that other options should've been explored. Several obvious and common-sense possibilities have been mentioned in this thread already.
A month's severance pay for an at-will employee who doesn't have a legal right to any severance hardly constitutes "abruptly putting someone on the street". The guy discussed his options with at least two other people. Do you have any evidence that he did not explore his other options before arriving at this decision? Also, by characterizing the employee's plight as "mistreatment" you are begging the question. She got more than she had any legal claim to. There is no discernible mistreatment here.
__________________
As Einstein once said, "If you can't think of something relevant to say, just make something up and attribute it to some really smart dead guy."
"I find your lack of pith disturbing," - Darth Rotor
..........
Don't be offended. I'm not calling you a serial killer. -- Ron Tomkins.
Prometheus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2012, 10:19 PM   #163
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 18,912
As an aside, Prometheus, why do you make your font so small? It's harder to read than the default.
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2012, 10:20 PM   #164
Delvo
Philosopher
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 5,070
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
She got more than she had any legal claim to. There is no discernible mistreatment here.
"What is legal" and "what is right/fair" are two different questions.
Delvo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2012, 10:26 PM   #165
Kaosium
Philosopher
 
Kaosium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,088
Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe View Post
Rights-based moral discourse is usually rather pointless. Someone asserts "I have a right to X" and the other person says "No you don't" and nothing of any value is accomplished.

From a more socially advanced perspective (I think it's fair to call the more liberal and progressive societies more socially advanced) it's rather obvious that what USians euphemistically call "at will" employment is a social system which gives enormous financial power to the wealthy elite over their subordinates, which is frequently abused. This case is an excellent example of such abuse.

Since the reality is that most people depend on their employment to pay the bills, stringent social controls on employers' ability to fire employees for any reason other than genuine business necessity, proven unethical conduct or provable incompetence are a very good idea for preventing bad outcomes, where "bad" can been suboptimal at the society-wide level and also unjust.

The firing was probably legal in the USA, but lots of things are legal in the USA that aren't in more advanced cultures. Hopefully the USians will get their act together and fix this one.
I wonder if these more 'socially advanced' societies are truly filled with a more socially advanced wealthy elite? After all, in this case she could just be let go with the praise for her work efforts and thus no real impediment from that quarter in getting a new job. The wealthy elite that presumably would frequently abuse the downtrodden in a socially-advanced society would have to document unethical conduct or incompetence to rid themselves of lasciviously clad strumpets temptations for lecherous wealthy elitists with wandering eyes and jealous rational wives.

Do you suppose if you imposed those stringent social controls that wealthy elitists could compile 'documentation' of just about anything that would 'justify' their firing that employee for cause, and perhaps even imperil their further employment elsewhere? If they're so rotten and nasty to the 'little people' that they're going to be abusing their power, is it really in the best interest of the morally and intellectually superior to encourage them to abuse them even more and perhaps harm their reputations as well?
__________________
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."

Last edited by Kaosium; 23rd December 2012 at 10:41 PM.
Kaosium is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2012, 10:44 PM   #166
Damien Evans
Up The Irons
Tagger
 
Damien Evans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 28,954
Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
As an aside, Prometheus, why do you make your font so small? It's harder to read than the default.
I can barely read it.
__________________
WHAT CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR, IF NOT THE CARE OF THE REAPER MAN? - Death
http://australasianskeptics.info/
"The dogs bark, but the caravan goes on." - icerat
Damien Evans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2012, 10:45 PM   #167
Kaosium
Philosopher
 
Kaosium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,088
Note I'm just having fun with some words above, nothing untoward is intended regarding the people in this unfortunate happening. I'm just wondering if there's really anything so clever about assuming that bossman is so rotten he'll abuse his power that he must be 'restrained' by requiring evidence that could easily be conjured were bossman so rotten and prone to abusing his power...
__________________
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
Kaosium is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2012, 10:54 PM   #168
Morrigan
Crone of War
 
Morrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 8,262
...What in the hell are you on about?
__________________
curi0us Many kids grow up in environments where if the worse thing they had to deal with was a pervy gym teacher wanting to **** them they would considere themselves to be privileged and living the good life.
bigred homophobes are not nearly as widespread or common as the oh-woe-are-the-poor-oppressed-gays whiners would have you believe.
Morrigan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2012, 10:57 PM   #169
Prometheus
Acolyte of Víðarr
 
Prometheus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 44,674
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
you go too far. He has a right to fire her for almost any reason he chooses, and the court has reaffirmed that right, so it's not "completely bogus". We don't have enough information about the bacground to determine whether he's being irresponsible and immature or not. He could be. He could also be doing what's necessary to save his wife's life, or the truth could be somewhere in between.
Are you speaking seriously? Really? So you're justifying this on the basis that he has a legal right to fire her? Would you also justify someone firing a person because of their ethnicity if they had a legal right to do so? Sorry, Prom, but just because the law approves of this, doesn't mean it's right. There's lots of things that you can legally do, but just because of that, doesn't make it right.

Yes, I am being serious. This thread is about a court decision regarding the legality of the dentist's action. I'm not justifying the dentist at all. I think he's a dick. But he had a legal right to do what he did, and we don'thave enough information to determine that it was even the wrong decision, so I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. Firing someone for their ethnicity is not legal in the U.S., so that question is a bit of a red herring. You still have not provided any reason whatsoever why the employee should have a higher claim than the wife's. Sorry, Ron, but just because you don't approve of this, doesn't mean it's wrong. If you think the law is wrong I'd be happy to explore that possibility. How would you like to see the current law altered?





Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
I think he does know what he wants to do with his life. He wants to appease his wife, and run his business without this particular distraction, as he is legally entitled to do. Who said he's uncertain? Perhaps he knows that he would cheat on his wife. Does recognition that one has a particular weakness morally require one to face up to it rather than avoid situations where it might rear its head?
Prom, we're not talking about a weakness. We're talking about a simple contract: When you marry someone, and you both decide that you're going to be in a monogamous relationship, that's a contract you make with each other and each one of you has a responsibility to keep your vow. That means that you can both trust each other that whenever you're not in the same place, wherever your wife is, and whoever she's with, no matter how hot they are, your wife is not going to break the vow and viceversa. If, at some point, you change your mind, because you no longer feel that attracted to the person, or any other reason (which can and does happen because we're human and our needs change) then you have a responsibility to tell the other person that. If the guy feels he's no longer able to keep his vow, then he has to take action with his marriage, not with the other people. It's inconceivable that you cant have enough trust in a marriage to be able to have attractive people in your workplace. That's like something taken out of The Office (the show).
You've never been married, have you? All kidding aside, I've already told you I agree with you as far as how marriage ought to work. But this is a value judgement that is simply not relevant. You've also got a false dichotomy fallacy in there. In fact, we are talking about both a weakness and a simple contract (and several other confounding ethical concerns).




Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
I think you'd have a rather difficult time making the case that that is a universal rule. But if you think it is, then let's have a go at it. Facing one's fears/weaknesses is often the morally laudable thing to do, but I don't see how it can be made an absoulute requirement. So we're right back at square one. What circumstances, if any, would cause his obligation to the employee to outweigh his obligation to his wife?
I already told you. If the man is feeling insecure about himself, about what he's capable of doing, if he feels like he would cheat on his wife with this girl, then he needs to do some personal soul searching and find out what he wants to do with his relationship. He only has to answer himself one question, sincerely: does he still really want to stay in a monogamous relationship with his wife or not? That's the decision he has to make.
You're really oversimplifying here. WE don't know how many decisions or related concerns he had to deal with in arriving at this decision. Perhaps a divorce would render him financially unable to maintain his business and continue to pay his other employees. Perhaps his wife is dying and he just wants to give her everything she wants before she goes. Perhaps he doesn't really care about his wife at all but he just finds the employee so distracting that it's become difficult for him to focus on doing his own job competently; keeping her on might even endanger his patients. OTOH maybe the marriage has never been monogamous in the first place and he really did fire the girl for some illegal reason while using his libido as a convenient legal cover. Really, we can go on and on with speculation about all the different possible mitigating or exacerbating circumstance that might alter the moral assessment of his decision. Give me some more background information about what's really going on in this case, and I might well change my mind. But the default position is still correct given the info we now have on the table.




Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
That may be true. It also doesn't matter. Of course it's entirely possible (I'd even go so far as to say it's quite likely) that their marriage is rather shaky and they've both got personal failings that need to be worked on. If all they do is get rid of the girl, assume she's the only problem they have, and go on as before without attempting to make any other effort at saving their marriage, then I'd say they're doomed. Just because they're mistaken about the depth of their problems doesn't mean they don't have a right to work on them.
You really think that firing the girl solves the problem, Prom? Then you're being incredibly naive. Doing this will only temporarily "solve the problem" until another hot girl shows up. Maybe not at work. Maybe the guy finds a really hot girl who works at the store where he shops everyday. And now once again, he can't resist. So he has to shop somewhere else. Maybe then, he and his wife have a baby and they get a nanny to take care of the baby and the nanny is really hot, and once again, he can't resist.... the bottom line is, that the problem is not the other people. The problem is this man who doesn't know if he really wants to be in a monogamous relationship with his wife.
Of course I don't think firing the girl solves the problem. That's why I said as much in the part I've hilighted for you. You're grasping at Straw, Ron.
__________________
As Einstein once said, "If you can't think of something relevant to say, just make something up and attribute it to some really smart dead guy."
"I find your lack of pith disturbing," - Darth Rotor
..........
Don't be offended. I'm not calling you a serial killer. -- Ron Tomkins.

Last edited by Prometheus; 23rd December 2012 at 10:59 PM.
Prometheus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2012, 11:07 PM   #170
Prometheus
Acolyte of Víðarr
 
Prometheus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 44,674
Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
As an aside, Prometheus, why do you make your font so small? It's harder to read than the default.
Originally Posted by Damien Evans View Post
I can barely read it.
Is it better now? That actually was the default size (I don't think there's a way to choose a different size as the default, is there?) But it was Times New Roman which is narrower than many other fonts of the same size.
__________________
As Einstein once said, "If you can't think of something relevant to say, just make something up and attribute it to some really smart dead guy."
"I find your lack of pith disturbing," - Darth Rotor
..........
Don't be offended. I'm not calling you a serial killer. -- Ron Tomkins.
Prometheus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2012, 11:24 PM   #171
Damien Evans
Up The Irons
Tagger
 
Damien Evans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 28,954
Much Better.
__________________
WHAT CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR, IF NOT THE CARE OF THE REAPER MAN? - Death
http://australasianskeptics.info/
"The dogs bark, but the caravan goes on." - icerat
Damien Evans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2012, 11:26 PM   #172
Kaosium
Philosopher
 
Kaosium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,088
Originally Posted by Morrigan View Post
...What in the hell are you on about?
The Law of Unintended Consequences.
__________________
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
Kaosium is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2012, 11:32 PM   #173
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 44,969
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
It doesn't matter if she didn't feel offended. Have you never taken a sexual harassment workshop? It is inappropriate and unprofessional.

You're not seriously going to argue otherwise are you?

OMG
The lawyer did not advise the worker to file harassment, she didn't file a harassment case, the court did not find harassment occurred. So what are you basing your personal opinion on? The world as you'd like it to be?
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2012, 11:34 PM   #174
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 44,969
Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey View Post
I'm still wondering what the employee did that was so wrong she deserved to be fired.
Sometimes losing one's job is not based on doing something wrong.
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2012, 01:29 AM   #175
Kahalachan
Illuminator
 
Kahalachan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,209
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Such firings may be unfair, but they are not unlawful discrimination under the Iowa Civil Rights Act because they are motivated by feelings and emotions, not gender, Justice Edward Mansfield wrote.
It is based on gender. Could a guy have fired a guy for being too attractive?

Nope. If the boss is a straight male, this would only apply to women. Hence, it's discrimination based on gender.

I have 3 hotties I work with on a daily basis. 2 MILFs and one hot young girl. There is nothing in me that prevents me from maintaining professionalism. If I lose control and do a married MILF, that's entirely my fault. I let my lust get ahead of me. And as hot as that scenario may be, I just wouldn't do any of my co-workers.
Kahalachan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2012, 04:36 AM   #176
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 36,076
Originally Posted by Dessi View Post
I was under the impression that sex discriminated was more broad than discrimination against against gender, gender norms, but sexual harassment as well? Is that assumption wrong?
It can be, but the bar for meeting the standard is set very high. In terms of discrimination, if your state does not have a clause in its constitution setting gender equality, then it is not going to be discrimination because there is not a 'suspect class'.

The bar for sexual harassment is also set very high.

So in both cases the evidence required is very high, then if you are in a state that has 'at will; laws that favor the employer then you have no recourse.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2012, 04:38 AM   #177
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 36,076
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
I once got a security escort to the door.
I got a card board box.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2012, 07:13 AM   #178
Delvo
Philosopher
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 5,070
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
It doesn't matter if she didn't feel offended. Have you never taken a sexual harassment workshop? It is inappropriate and unprofessional.

You're not seriously going to argue otherwise are you?

OMG
I'm not sure about the word "workshop", but yes, there is sexual harassment stuff included in the training for new employees at every employer I've ever worked at or heard of. And the first thing they do in every single case is define what is harassment, and it always begins with a word like "unwelcome" or "unwanted". Then a bit is always included explicitly pointing out that anything both parties are fine with can not be harassment.

Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
I am male and needed to get scrubs for myself a few months ago, and found that scrubs that are explicitly designed to show off femininty have taken over so much of the market that "unisex" (relatively straight cut & monochrome) ones are actually hard to get. (There is, of course, no such thing as just "men's" scrubs.) I was restricted to one corner of the store where there wasn't even enough space to include each combination of color & size, and even those have what I've been calling a "prom-dress" neckline which forces me to either wear a T-shirt or appear to be trying to show off my chest. The rest of the selection was dominated by swervy lines from ribcage area to waist to hip, prints & color combos and ruffled edges and overall cut shapes that would only appear in women's fashion, and cinched-in elastic strips around the waist. It actually takes effort to avoid scrubs that are the kind of thing women wear in order to be "sexy" or "cute" or such. And having worked in hospitals and clinics, I can easily see why (as well as hear it in some of the conversations there): because most of the staff in places like that are female, and this is what they want to buy.
Originally Posted by Stout View Post
thanks for the scrubs info, I actually hadn't noticed but I'll keep an eye out.
It's occurred to me since then that this, instead of his relationship with his wife going cold, actually could be what changed to cause his reaction. I think the shift in scrub fashion has been fairly recent (I thought of it as something new I hadn't seen before a couple of years ago). Perhaps the woman who got fired had recently switched from something like this cylinder of fabric to things more like these, or even just this (a more subtle change from the "cloth can" because it is still relatively plain, but it's cut more to show the hourglass shape, not just by coming in above the hips but also with the shorter sleeves and outward-slanted shoulder seams, and even the pocket(s) moved from the waist to the chest).

Originally Posted by Kahalachan View Post
It is based on gender. Could a guy have fired a guy for being too attractive?

Nope. If the boss is a straight male, this would only apply to women. Hence, it's discrimination based on gender.
Even by the particular reasoning this guy claimed, it could only happen to some women, not all women, so no, it's not based on gender. And second, of course a (straight) man could fire another man for looking too good. It just wouldn't necessarily be for the same reason but some other one, such as that he just dislikes good-looking men or believes he's causing reactions that are bad for business among his other employees or customers.

Firing people for reasons like these might not be good, but an employer who wants to fire someone could claim it was for some other reason instead. In fact, even the dentist in our original post here might just be using this as a cover story for an even worse actual reason why he did it.
Delvo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2012, 08:12 AM   #179
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
 
Beerina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 24,530
Woke up at 4:30 this morning. ABC's redeye news show was interviewing some panicked woman who was all upset that, since it was a (state) supreme court decision, and, oh no! That that was that! There is no more recourse oh the humanity!

Yes, there is recourse. Talk to your elected officials, you know, the ones you hire to pass laws people must live by?

It won't help this case, but if you feel it's a major freaking problem that needs addressing so your heart rate can be slowed and your sense of propriety will be satiated and you can feel we are a little bit closer to the more advanced societies of Europe, half of which were murdering people within living memory, who we saved from that eternal fate, go for it.
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson

The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

Last edited by Beerina; 24th December 2012 at 08:25 AM.
Beerina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2012, 08:19 AM   #180
cwalner
Philosopher
 
cwalner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,104
Originally Posted by Beerina View Post
It won't help this case, but if you feel it's a major freaking problem that needs addressing so your heart rate can be slowed and your sense of propriety will be satiated and you can feel we are a little bit closet to the more advanced societies of Europe, half of which were murdering people within living memory, who we saved from that eternal fate, go for it.
Yeah, because WWII was all about worker's rights.

I have seem some outrageous Godwins in my time, but this one actually took me aback a bit.
__________________
Vecini - Inconceivable!
Inigo - You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
cwalner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2012, 09:09 AM   #181
truethat
Penultimate Amazing
 
truethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,840
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
The lawyer did not advise the worker to file harassment, she didn't file a harassment case, the court did not find harassment occurred. So what are you basing your personal opinion on? The world as you'd like it to be?
Common sense. Dearie. You know like the common sense that shows that talking to your employer about the bulge in his pants and your sex life is inappropriate.

What are you basing your logic on? You seriously wrote that it didn't bother her so it was OK?
__________________
“People who say they don't have time to read simply don't want to.”

― Julie Rugg, A Book Addict's Treasury
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2012, 09:14 AM   #182
truethat
Penultimate Amazing
 
truethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,840
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
I'm not sure about the word "workshop", but yes, there is sexual harassment stuff included in the training for new employees at every employer I've ever worked at or heard of. And the first thing they do in every single case is define what is harassment, and it always begins with a word like "unwelcome" or "unwanted". Then a bit is always included explicitly pointing out that anything both parties are fine with can not be harassment.

That's not true. Quid pro quo is another form of sexual harassment. And that can be welcomed and wanted.

There's also another level of sexual harassment where a boss shows favoritism towards the one employee who welcomes and flirts (not saying the woman flirted) to the unfairness of the other employees in the office.

IOW the sexy secretary who gets promoted or allowed days off because the boss favors her. In this case the other employees in the office would have a case of sexual harassment or a "hostile work environment."



Quote:
If an individual is promoted after having an affair (consenting or non-consenting) with a superior, he or she may be a victim of sexual harassment. However, the qualified person(s) overlooked for the promotion may also be victims, in that the affair denied them the opportunity to be considered for the position.
http://edc.appstate.edu/harassment-d...t/quid-pro-quo



Quote:
It's occurred to me since then that this, instead of his relationship with his wife going cold, actually could be what changed to cause his reaction. I think the shift in scrub fashion has been fairly recent (I thought of it as something new I hadn't seen before a couple of years ago). Perhaps the woman who got fired had recently switched from something like this cylinder of fabric to things more like these, or even just this (a more subtle change from the "cloth can" because it is still relatively plain, but it's cut more to show the hourglass shape, not just by coming in above the hips but also with the shorter sleeves and outward-slanted shoulder seams, and even the pocket(s) moved from the waist to the chest).
If he asked her to change her uniform she should have done it.

Quote:
Even by the particular reasoning this guy claimed, it could only happen to some women, not all women, so no, it's not based on gender. And second, of course a (straight) man could fire another man for looking too good. It just wouldn't necessarily be for the same reason but some other one, such as that he just dislikes good-looking men or believes he's causing reactions that are bad for business among his other employees or customers.

Firing people for reasons like these might not be good, but an employer who wants to fire someone could claim it was for some other reason instead. In fact, even the dentist in our original post here might just be using this as a cover story for an even worse actual reason why he did it.

The minute the woman welcomed the unprofessional conversation she put herself in an unprofessional position with the boss. Therefor her firing is just, based on her unprofessional behavior.
__________________
“People who say they don't have time to read simply don't want to.”

― Julie Rugg, A Book Addict's Treasury

Last edited by truethat; 24th December 2012 at 09:23 AM.
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2012, 01:04 PM   #183
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 44,969
Originally Posted by Kahalachan View Post
It is based on gender. Could a guy have fired a guy for being too attractive?

Nope. If the boss is a straight male, this would only apply to women. Hence, it's discrimination based on gender.

I have 3 hotties I work with on a daily basis. 2 MILFs and one hot young girl. There is nothing in me that prevents me from maintaining professionalism. If I lose control and do a married MILF, that's entirely my fault. I let my lust get ahead of me. And as hot as that scenario may be, I just wouldn't do any of my co-workers.
The argument failed in the court because you could take any number of reasons and say those reasons had a gender component. The court did not believe that is what the legislators intended. The actual reason for the firing in this case was the personal relationships, not the worker's gender.
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2012, 01:08 PM   #184
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 44,969
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
I'm not sure about the word "workshop", but yes, there is sexual harassment stuff included in the training for new employees at every employer I've ever worked at or heard of. And the first thing they do in every single case is define what is harassment, and it always begins with a word like "unwelcome" or "unwanted". Then a bit is always included explicitly pointing out that anything both parties are fine with can not be harassment.

...
An awful lot of workplace romances would be an issue if 'wanted' attention was deemed harassment.


Also, small businesses are quite different from larger companies. They still need to stay within the law re harassment, but there is a lot more leeway in the rule setting for on the job conduct.
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2012, 01:12 PM   #185
jhunter1163
Beer-swilling semiliterate
Moderator
 
jhunter1163's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Room 118, Bohemian Grove Marriott
Posts: 21,474
I'm guessing that there was sufficient documentation of encouragement (or at least of non-discouragement) that a sexual harassment suit wouldn't fly. That being the case, her options were very limited. If she'd discouraged him, even a little bit somewhere along the way, his comment about the bulge in his pants would have been flagrant harassment and he'd have likely been working to pay the judgment for the rest of his career.
jhunter1163 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2012, 01:12 PM   #186
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 44,969
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
Common sense. Dearie. You know like the common sense that shows that talking to your employer about the bulge in his pants and your sex life is inappropriate.

What are you basing your logic on? You seriously wrote that it didn't bother her so it was OK?
Have you never worked anywhere where the employees had 'inappropriate' discussions all the time? Welcome to the real world, dearie and check your prude coat at the door.

It was a dental office, the employee knew the dentist for 10 years. It's possible that kind of conversation was not an issue between the two until the wife decided it was.
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2012, 01:45 PM   #187
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 54,416
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
"What is legal" and "what is right/fair" are two different questions.
And yet we have people criticizing the court's opinion.

Odd, isn't it?
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2012, 01:58 PM   #188
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 34,110
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
And yet we have people criticizing the court's opinion.

Odd, isn't it?
Courts are always right, are they?
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2012, 02:24 PM   #189
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
 
Travis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 20,466
My question to people in this thread is this: how would you feel if your spouse/significant other was a boss and came home to tell you that they had fired an attractive employee in order to save your relationship?

Personally I'd find it a huge indictment of the long term viability of the relationship.


And if I was the employee that was fired because my boss thought I was too hot I'd be hugely pissed. If I get fired I expect it to be because my work is not up to par.
__________________
"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com
Travis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2012, 02:56 PM   #190
Delvo
Philosopher
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 5,070
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
talking to your employer about the bulge in his pants...
Why are people here pretending she did this? The information we have is quite clear about the fact that the bulging-pants thing came from him.

This instant that kind of dishonesty has been tried, the people trying it forfeit the whole issue, AFAIAC. If you have a valid point to make, you can do it without making stuff up like that.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
An awful lot of workplace romances would be an issue if 'wanted' attention was deemed harassment.
So would normal platonic friendships which happen to include sexual humor.
Delvo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2012, 03:38 PM   #191
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 36,076
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Yeah, that's the "how to fire an employee" propaganda they teach in HR classes. And I imagine very rarely it may happen. But honestly, I've seen employers do it to people they've worked with and known personally for years. It's a bit paranoid IMO.
It is not paranoid in the least for an IT person, they can do damage and very easily (just reformat a drive on a server host would be enough, about ten seconds to initiate). Much less the whole 'going postal' thing.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2012, 05:08 PM   #192
cwalner
Philosopher
 
cwalner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,104
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
An awful lot of workplace romances would be an issue if 'wanted' attention was deemed harassment.
And many companies treat them as such in their HR policies

Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
So would normal platonic friendships which happen to include sexual humor.
Already many companies do treat them as such.
__________________
Vecini - Inconceivable!
Inigo - You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
cwalner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2012, 05:45 PM   #193
Silly Green Monkey
Cowardly Lurking in the Shadows of Greatness
 
Silly Green Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,829
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I don't know who this is directed at but don't confuse my comments with sympathy for him. I'm just saying I don't have that much sympathy for the fired employee either.

I think they all handled it poorly.
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Sometimes losing one's job is not based on doing something wrong.
But in this case, you said it was. What did she do wrong?
__________________
Normal is just a stereotype.
Silly Green Monkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2012, 08:17 PM   #194
Profanz
Muse
 
Profanz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 932
This whole story is hokey. She already worked there for ten years. The guys wife got jealous. That's it. He's a horn dog. He is to blame and she should have got some compensation for his sexual harassment if anything.
Profanz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2012, 09:43 PM   #195
balrog666
Eigenmode: Cynic
 
balrog666's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,974
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
"What is legal" and "what is right/fair" are two different questions.

No, they aren't.

Originally Posted by Profanz View Post
This whole story is hokey. She already worked there for ten years. The guys wife got jealous. That's it. He's a horn dog. He is to blame and she should have got some compensation for his sexual harassment if anything.

Oh, yeah, she did - she can collect Unemployment Insurance for the next 99 weeks laying back on her heels thanks to the Ohole Administration ...
__________________
A person who won't think has no advantage over one who can't think. - (paraphrased) Mark Twain

Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. – George Orwell
balrog666 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2012, 10:13 PM   #196
Profanz
Muse
 
Profanz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 932
Originally Posted by balrog666 View Post
No, they aren't.




Oh, yeah, she did - she can collect Unemployment Insurance for the next 99 weeks laying back on her heels thanks to the Ohole Administration ...
Thanks to the what?

Does she not want to work? And what the hell do you do? I'm curious Jethro.
Profanz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2012, 10:37 PM   #197
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 18,912
That's his oh-so-clever name for the Obama Administration. Give him some slack, he's in the 5th grade.
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th December 2012, 02:20 AM   #198
Morrigan
Crone of War
 
Morrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 8,262
Originally Posted by balrog666 View Post
No, they aren't.
Waat the..?

Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
Give him some slack, he's in the 5th grade.
Ohhh.
__________________
curi0us Many kids grow up in environments where if the worse thing they had to deal with was a pervy gym teacher wanting to **** them they would considere themselves to be privileged and living the good life.
bigred homophobes are not nearly as widespread or common as the oh-woe-are-the-poor-oppressed-gays whiners would have you believe.
Morrigan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th December 2012, 04:11 AM   #199
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details...
Posts: 39,228
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Agreed. And yet sometimes life doesn't work out that way.

Sometimes the best solution to a bad relationship is to break up.
Or, in this case, get fired. No hard feelings, right ?
__________________
"'Ought' statements are merely 'is' statements that beg the question." - PixyMisa

"When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived." - Starship Troopers
Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th December 2012, 05:12 AM   #200
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 36,076
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
Is it better now? That actually was the default size (I don't think there's a way to choose a different size as the default, is there?) But it was Times New Roman which is narrower than many other fonts of the same size.
There is a default font setting in the User CP
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:06 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.