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

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by gumboot

The employment contract is between the dentist and his employee. It has nothing to do with his wife. The dentist allowed his personal life to interfere with the operation of his business. That is by definition unprofessional.

A lot of small businesses employ family members. It's necessary economically for some dentists when they can do it.

Originally Posted by gumboot

One of the advantages of a country that doesn't permit at-will employment is that business owners are forced to be responsible and professional in their conduct.

Having been a landlord in a country where tenants have rights to the landlord's property, I can see both sides.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by Kaosium

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?

I can't speak for other countries, but that isn't the case in New Zealand, where we have pretty robust employment law. The procedures for getting rid of an unwanted staff member are clearly laid out in law, and it's exceptionally difficult, if not impossible, to artificially invent reasons for firing someone.

[lobosrul]

Originally Posted by gumboot

I can't speak for other countries, but that isn't the case in New Zealand, where we have pretty robust employment law. The procedures for getting rid of an unwanted staff member are clearly laid out in law, and it's exceptionally difficult, if not impossible, to artificially invent reasons for firing someone.

What if a small business consisted of an owner and a single employee? It could very easily come down to the owners word versus the employee during a wrongful termination hearing, couldn't it. What if a small business decides to shut down? Do they have to pay their employees many months of severance? I could see that as being a huge disincentive to start a small business. I'd be much less inclined to start my own business if I thought I'd have to fight a court battle for letting go an employee and potentially paying tens of thousands in severance.

On the other hand, I agree that a publicly held corporation (or even a large private business) should be required to give out some sort of severance based on length of service, to any employee laid off (not fired with cause). They can afford an HR department and a legal team. The problem then becomes businesses will be sneaky, and find some reason to fire employees they don't want to keep around.

I'm posting this as more of a reply to everyone arguing for more employee protections, or saying "well in my country this wouldn't happen", than to a specific post.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by lobosrul

What if a small business consisted of an owner and a single employee? It could very easily come down to the owners word versus the employee during a wrongful termination hearing, couldn't it.

The employer has to document the employee's wrongdoing with evidence. The law requires a specific procedure that is designed to ensure malicious and unfounded dismissal can't happen. One of the crucial elements is that an employer is required to issue warnings to the employee, determine a measure for correction of unacceptable behaviour, and allow the employee the opportunity to make the correction. These make it rather hard to invent a reason, as the employee will know from the outset that you're fabricating a case against them, and can take measures to keep their own documentation.

Originally Posted by lobosrul

What if a small business decides to shut down? Do they have to pay their employees many months of severance? I could see that as being a huge disincentive to start a small business.

No they don't, unless it's proscribed in their contract. One of the legitimate reasons for dismissing an employee is if the circumstances of the business changes in a way that makes the employee no longer necessary.

Originally Posted by lobosrul

I'd be much less inclined to start my own business if I thought I'd have to fight a court battle for letting go an employee and potentially paying tens of thousands in severance.

This is only an issue if you intend to get rid of staff for unreasonable grounds. Business owners in New Zealand generally grasp that they have to be professional in their conduct and put aside personal matters.

Originally Posted by lobosrul

On the other hand, I agree that a publicly held corporation (or even a large private business) should be required to give out some sort of severance based on length of service, to any employee laid off (not fired with cause). They can afford an HR department and a legal team.

As far as I am aware there's no requirement for redundancy, although larger companies tend to include it in contracts for valuable workers they want to attract, and unionised labour also tends to include it in their contracts.

Originally Posted by lobosrul

The problem then becomes businesses will be sneaky, and find some reason to fire employees they don't want to keep around.

They can't. Firing someone without legitimate cause is virtually impossible, and fabricating legitimate cause is even harder. About the best thing you can do is make the work environment so unpleasant for the employee that they voluntarily quit.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by truethat

No common sense doesn't mean my opinion. But what is fun about deductions is that every time you or lionking post in a thread it generally will be a personal attack towards me and nothing at all to do at the conversation. I predict it before I even open the thread.

Making personal attacks against you violates the MA. If a post attacks you, report it.

[SezMe]

double post

[Delvo]

Originally Posted by cwalner

A more equitable solution would have been... a severance of maybe 1 to 2 years.

Or... paid leave for up to a year

Originally Posted by lionking

That sounds fair to me.

Where is the money for this supposed to come from?

Originally Posted by truethat

They are both scum in this position.

Overblown hate-speech like this, along with the list of ways in which you've claimed facts of the case that actually aren't facts at all, are the products of someone who's not thinking on this issue. You're just lashing out in some kind of rage... which clearly is based on something other than this particular situation, which also is connected, in your mind, to a rather narrow, rigid, and denialistic/unreal depiction of human socialization.

Originally Posted by 3point14

I believe that when a man gives his word (like a vow of marriage) he should stick to it.

Does he have no responsibility to his employees, with whom he's also made another agreement?

Originally Posted by 3point14

there is no such thing as an irresistible woman (or man).

That's one of the signs that this was his wife's idea, not his own. He knew perfectly well that he could choose to do nothing, and that even if he tried it might be futile anyway because the other women might shoot him down. His wife is the only person who might not have accepted either of those two possibilities. He's just playing along with her depiction of the situation.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by WildCat

You think he should fire himself instead?

Then everyone loses their jobs. I don't think you've thought through how this works in a sole proprietership business.

Ha ha ha! Nice strawman, Wildcat. I have quite a collection.

No, I don't think he should fire himself. I never said that either.

I think he shouldn't get to fire someone for behaviour that he is equally engaged in.

Or do you think it would be acceptable for him to drink whisky, offer it around and then fire everyone who accepts?

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by truethat

Also what is this 'following his lead" crap? Why do people always paint women as simpering victims and men as perpetrators.

I am not sure if we know who initiated the sexual conversation. I used the word "if" to suggest a hypothetical situation.

You know what that means?

By the way, where did I "paint women as simpering victims and men as perpetrators"?

I think you are reading too much into what I said, which suggests you may be projecting.

[truethat]

Originally Posted by SezMe

Making personal attacks against you violates the MA. If a post attacks you, report it.

I almost never report it and you know. Certainly wouldn't waste it on you. Enjoy.

Quote:

Overblown hate-speech like this, along with the list of ways in which you've claimed facts of the case that actually aren't facts at all, are the products of someone who's not thinking on this issue. You're just lashing out in some kind of rage... which clearly is based on something other than this particular situation, which also is connected, in your mind, to a rather narrow, rigid, and denialistic/unreal depiction of human socialization.

Since when is calling someone scum "rage filled?" GMAB.

[Kahalachan]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Specifically, what legal issues did the 2 courts and 8 justices error on?

It is not conductive to a better economy. We have people getting fired over personal reasons.

It is not conductive to a better business. Someone who can't separate their personal issues from their professional work shouldn't receive catering.

Obeying the law, improving society, having a functioning economy, is when people learn to control their animalistic needs and finding appropriate outlets. A lack of self control is not something to reward.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

I have answered that several times, Prom. I've told you already, that it's not a matter of the employee's claim outweighing his wife's. If you want further detail on that, go back to my previous posts and actually read. But stop treating me as if I had "nothing substantial against you" because I've already addressed that. Besides, who said this is "against you"? It's funny how when I try to have a serious argument with you, you get arrogant and pedantic. I think I like you better back there at the humor section.

No need to get so personal. If I'm coming off as arrogant and pedantic I apologize. I still consider myself a novice skeptic-in-training (of course, this is not to say I'm not also an arrogant pedant! ). I will now go back and reread your posts to look for whatever you think I missed. For the time being, though, I'm sticking to the argument that this a proper assessment of this case is exactly as I have characterized it.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by Kahalachan

It is not conductive to a better economy. We have people getting fired over personal reasons.

It is not conductive to a better business. Someone who can't separate their personal issues from their professional work shouldn't receive catering.

I'm going with WildCat on this one. Those reasons have absolutely nothing to do with employment law. If the judge had considered either of those factors then he most certainly would have made an error.

Now you may argue those ought to be considerations. If so, the only way they can enter into the judicial decision is if they are (somehow) written into the law itself.

[bpesta22]

Pictures of the lady, if anyone's interested...

http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2012/1...racted-to.html

https://www.google.com/search?q=Meli...w=1120&bih=592

And, the dentist:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/...44_634x846.jpg

[Morrigan]

Originally Posted by truethat

I almost never report it and you know.

If you don't report them, you don't get to bitch at these so-called "personal attacks".

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

I have answered that several times, Prom. <snip>

(I'm putting my response inside spoiler tags because it's quite long and I don't want to inconvenience anyone who doesn't care to read it)

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

So what other scenarios are also valid? A guy in a crowded theater sitting next to a hot girl and telling her "Sorry maam, you're too hot for me to resist. You're gonna have to find another seat"..... A guy and a woman on a boat, and the guy going like "Sorry maam, you're too hawt and I just wanna have you and I can't contain myself, you're gonna have to jump off this boat".... The only available doctor and his female patient, him going like "Sorry miss, I cannot be your surgeon. You're too hot. You're gonna have to find someone else to do your breast cancer removal cause all I wanna do is eat those tits"?

Hmmm?

[quote=Ron_Tomkins;8864667]The proof that this is a completely absurd thing is that it was featured in a Seinfeld episode, where George finds his secretary too hot, so he fires her.[/QUOTre before I'd posted here. I've included them for the sake of completeness.E]
These posts we



Here is your first post in response to me:

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

With all due respect, Prom, that's silly. If I have a wife and she puts me between the sword and the wall with an ultimatum of "Either fire that hot woman in your work or we're getting a divorce", then I'd really have to wonder if this wife of mine is the woman for me.

Now, I know the wife didn't technically did that. But still, the premise is absurd. On one hand, the whole "This woman is too hot so I'm firing her because I don't know if I can control my urges" is idiotic, unfair to the woman and irresponsible on behalf of the guy. On the other hand, if the wife thinks this hot girl is a threat, and we give her the right to make this ultimatum then where do we draw the line? Can she then dictate when any woman surrounding her husband in any context (work, social gatherings, etc) is a threat and then make that ultimatum "it's either her or me"?

I think jealousy, to some degree is healthy... maybe not "healthy" but it's at least an indicator that there's a serious interest, as opposed to indifference. But to take that to the other extreme, it's just a sign of insecurity. If two people know they love each other and promise to not betray their love, then that should be it. That doesn't mean that they're not going to find other people attractive. It just means they made a vow not to betray that trust. But certainly they should be allowed to hang out with and work with people they find attractive. As long as they're not doing anything, there's no crime.

...to which I responded as follows:

Originally Posted by Prometheus

With all due respect, Ron, calling my argument silly and justifying that characterization with nothing but straw is itself somewhat silly. If the wife were doing that then I would agree that he ought to seriously reconsider whether she were the right woman for him. And if, upon careful reconsideration he were then to decide that, in fact, his wife is the right woman for him (maybe they're both into S&M/mind games, or something), we'd be right back at assessing where to draw the line between his conflicting obligations to his wife and to his employee.

You've still given no reason to assume that his obligation to the employee must outweigh his obligation to his wife. Well, why should it? Under what circumstances?

There's also no reason to assume that his wife did issue such an ultimatum. Suppose in a moment of guilt he confessed his attraction for the employee to his wife--who, for all we know, may be suffering from depression or some personality disorder--becomes disconsolate or even suicidal? Can you rule out some such possibility? Does one's employee have some sort of universal right to her job that trumps the health or even the life of one's spouse?




I would completely agree with you on every point. But neither your nor my personal value judgements are the least bit relevant. None of this alters the basic ethical question here. He has conflicting obligations to two different people. He cannot, in his own assessment, fulfil both sets of obligations. It doesn't even matter if we stipulate that he must be a giant dickhead for putting himself in such a position in the first place. He still has to decide which obligation to honor and which one to renege on.

I'm merely suggesting that the default position is to say his obligation to his wife outweighs his obligation to his employee. Perhaps there might be possible sets of circumstances under which it would be appropriate not to go with the default. Regardless, we don't have enough information to decide whether that might be the case here.

Aside from the admitted snarkiness of my reply, I don't see anything wrong. I certainly don't see anything here that I would characterize as either "arrogant" or "pedantic". On the contrary, I believe my post to be both well-reasoned and polite. If you think not, I'd appreciate a detailed explanation.

You then addressed my assessment of Knights' comparative obligations as follows:

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

I'm not saying that his obligation to his employees outweighs his obligation to his wife. But that doesn't mean that this is the case. You can't just use the "You have an obligation to your wife" as an excuse for every possible scenario. What if my wife said "I don't want you to look at any other woman other than me?". Do you think I still have an obligation to my wife there?

But it's silly that you and I continue arguing over this when neither you nor I know exactly what's going on with them.

Lets take a look at what the article says:



Honestly, I find it really hard to buy the argument that two people, assuming they truly love each other, find a third person "a threat to their marriage" unless such person is trying to kill them, or such person has a magic potion that can make them stop loving each other. But if both the husband and the wife know they love each other and that their love is sincere, not even the hottest human being on earth posing naked in front of them is any kind of threat to their marriage. The only realistic threat to their marriage is themselves, what they feel for each other. What doubts they may become harvesting about each other So the fact that they consider the girl a threat to their marriage most likely is because they know or suspect that the guy seriously doesn't know what he wants. He's begun to become really attracted to this girl and now his mind is filled with doubts. And if that is the case, firing the girl is a completely bogus, irresponsible, immature thing to do. Just because he doesn't know what he wants to do with his life, doesn't mean the girl is to be fired. If he's uncertain about whether or not he would cheat on his wife, then he needs to start reconsidering getting a divorce.

My main point here: This couple is diverging the real issue. They're trying to make the issue about the girl, when the real problem is themselves. What they feel for each other. Throwing the responsibility on another person is stupid and immature.

Although you begin by addressing my comment about his obligations, you then immediately veer off course as I point out subsequently. The real issue here has nothing to do with the state of their marriage or how good their relationship is or whether or not they belong together. The lines I've hilighted are similar to statements you've made in several places, and which I have pointed out repeatedly constitue a red herring. The whole issue of whether or not the guy can keep it in his pants, whether he wants to be with his wife, whether he's mature, whether he knows what he wants, etc. is comletely and utterly irrelevent.

The real issue is exactly what I keep saying: The wife made a demand that the employee be fired. The husband has a choice to either honor that demand or not. Now, I don't know specifically what this couple's marriage vows state, but I know mine are pretty mainstream, and they include an oath to obey my wife. If I find myself in a position where she demands I take some action, then obedience to her is my default position. If I'm going to choose not to obey my wife, then I need to have a strong argument that another course of action in some way supersedes her claim to my obedience. Now, I'll allow that perhaps I'm overstretching in my assumption that Knight's marriage vows are similar to my own, but I just don't see any way to assess what we know about this case that does not boil down to the same simple dichotomy.

You next follow up with a complete mischaracterization of my argument

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

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.



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).

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 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.

This is the same red herring yet again. Regardless of whether you are right about how a successful marriage ought to work (I've already told you that I believe you are correct on this point) Knight is not obligated to follow along. He is obligated to honor his wife's demands


The next four posts were in response to others, but you mention me in one, and include very similar comments as you've made in response to me, so I've included them:

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

You don't have to go by my "beautiful theory" if you think it's too idealistic. You can just go by a rule of this thing we call honesty. Like I told Prom, if you decide at some point within the relationship, that you no longer feel that attracted to the person to be able to not **** anyone else, then you have a responsibility to be sincere with her and tell her that your feelings have changed. As opposed to cheating on her, or firing your employee because you don't know if you'll be able to resist *********** her in the elevator.

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

Looks like you're the one who didn't read what I wrote. I never denied that just because you're in a relationship, you stop feeling sexually attracted to other people. But that doesn't mean you actually have to go ahead and have sex with them.

So let me start again, and see if I can make myself clear: When you really really like someone, and you feel like you wanna have something serious, and the other person feels the same way, you make a deal (Or if you get married, it's more of a legal contract) that the two of you like each other enough that you are willing to commit to each other in a monogamous relationship. Are we good so far?

But then, people change. Over time, either one might start losing interest or not be that much into the relationship (This happens and in fact, happens too much) At that point, whoever feels like they're not sure if they care enough about the relationship to remain monogamous, that person has a moral obligation with their mate to tell them the truth.

So the guy clearly reached that point where he's not sure what he wants. He not only find the girl attractive, he's not sure he can hold his sexual urges for too long. You don't need to be neither a mind reader nor a psychologist to know that the guy isn't 100% sure he wants to remain in a monogamous relationship with his wife. So the course of action is speak with his wife about this and then the two of them have to settle it. Most likely, get a divorce.

Of course, this is not what's going to happen. I'm not amazed at all that he just fired the girl. Why? Because that's the easy way. That's the one thing we humans are best at: Lets just throw the blame and responsibility on someone else and wipe our hands of the matter. But like I said, since the girl is not the problem, this "solution" is only temporary. It'll be a matter of time until another girl shows up and he's attracted to her. And maybe not at work. And when/if that happens, the excuse of "Just fire her and we've saved our marriage" won't do. He just happened to be lucky enough this time that he was in a position of power, with the law on his side, where he was able to just fire the girl and hand-wave the real problem away, like someone sweeping the dust under the carpet.



And if I were the wife, I would simply tell him something in the lines of "Looks like you're not sure what you really want. So why don't you look at me in the eyes and tell me what you want?" instead of this whole "This woman is threatening our marriage!! You better do something about her!" ********.

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

I said it before and I'll say it again: his options is only one: Check himself. Do some soul searching. Ask himself who he wants to be with. Does he want to be with both women? Does he want to leave his wife? But I bet he didn't even bother to ask himself these questions. Because both the husband and the wife are looking at it from the perspective of the girl being the problem. So the only "solutions" they have thought of are "solutions" that have to do with how to get rid of the girl. When in reality, the problem is the uncertainty that the husband is going through.

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

^ This. Pretty much this.

I don't argue against the fact that he acted within the law when firing the girl. But that was far from solving the problem with his marriage.

I wondered if I might have missed something meant for me in any of those posts, but I don't see anything noteworthy.


Next up is yet another mischaracterization of my argument:

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

The thing I wonder about is, if you're so keen to continue stressing the fact that "we don't know what really happened", how come you only contemplate all the options that justify the guy firing the girl. And you seem a bit too comfortable just stating the fact that he had a legal right to fire the girl.

...which I point out quite reasonably here.

That's every post you've made in this thread, up to this last post:

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

I have answered that several times, Prom.

I'm sorry, but I have to interject here. This is simply not true. My argument is really very simple it consists of 3 premises: 1) The husband has moral obligations to both the employee and the wife, and the two cannot be reconciled; 2) There is a default position, which is that he should obey his wife, unless there's something else going on which gives the employee a stronger claim. This is true regardless of the state of his marriage or whether or not he wants it to continiue; 3) No such extenuating circumstance is in evidence here; Conclusion: He should obey his wife's demands. You have not touched points 2 or 3 at all, and you merely dismiss point 1 without anything but a bald claim that it doesn't matter.

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

...I've told you already, that it's not a matter of the employee's claim outweighing his wife's. If you want further detail on that, go back to my previous posts and actually read. But stop treating me as if I had "nothing substantial against you" because I've already addressed that. Besides, who said this is "against you"? It's funny how when I try to have a serious argument with you, you get arrogant and pedantic. I think I like you better back there at the humor section.

The phrase "against me" was just shorthand for "that demonstrates my argument to be unsound". Which of my premises do you believe are untrue? Why are they untrue. Does my conclusion not follow logically from the premises as I've stated them? Why not?


Lastly:

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

See, the whole "you don't know that" argument only works in certain situations. Not in situations where it's obvious that the person is not solving the problem. A marriage issue in which a guy isn't sure if he's capable of cheating on his wife, is not solved by getting rid of the "temptation", because the problem is not the girl. The problem is the guy who doesn't know if he really wants to be in a serious relationship with his wife.

I just want to try this one more time. The "you don't know that argument is perfectly appropriate if there is a default position. If there is such, then the burden of proof lies with whoever wants to claim that the default should be contravened. Are you saying that my second premise is incorrect? How so? A husband should not honor his wedding vows barring reasonable extenuating circumstances? Really? Are you quite sure that's what you want to say?

I agree that the problem with their marriage is not the girl. I also agree that firing her is highly unlikely to solve their problem, though there is a chance that it might lead to a sollution if it allows the wife to overcome her mistrust long enough for the two of them to work out their real difficulties. I disagree that the problem is that they guy doesn't know what he wants. It's probably true that he doesn't know but regardless he still has to honor his wife's demands. This is important: He did NOT fire the girl because HE felt unable to control himself. He did NOT fire her because she represented any real threat to his marriage. He fired the girl because his wife demanded that he do so.

Why should he disobey her? Granted obeying her will not solve their marriage problems. Do you believe that disobeying her would have solved them?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by truethat

I do understand that people talk in a low class sexual way at work. However it's illegal to do this and unfair to the other employees in the office.

Could you rephrase that ? It sounds like you're saying that talking about sex at work is illegal.

Quote:

Most people don't try to sue someone over it. Now in her case she's suing and this is what is bogus in my opinion. Basically she acted like a trashy ho at work and then tried to turn around and play victim.

Oh, that's entirely possible, yes. We surely don't have the full story.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by WildCat

You just said that... in this very post!

What ? I have no idea what you're saying. I'm clarifying something for you. I am not saying the courts were wrong.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Titanic Explorer

Does this mean people can also be fired for being too ugly?

Or too short. I mean, size isn't gender, age or race, right ?

I think you shouldn't fire an employee for frivolous reasons at all. Now, whether it should be illegal, is another question.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by truethat

I almost never report it and you know.

I am tempted to speculate that this allows you to continue to complain about being attacked, but instead I'm going to agree with SezMe and suggest that you report posts that attack you.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by WildCat

The efficiency of the marketplace does not in any way, shape, or form imply that management will always make the right decisions.

What it does guarantee is that prices, supply, and demand will be in balance.

Yes, but is an argument you here presented that somehow the marketplace is the reason for high salaries and the like.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Titanic Explorer

Does this mean people can also be fired for being too ugly?

I suggest you go to an Abercrombie and Fitch, American Eagle, Banana Republic, Aeropostale or Victoria's Secret and ask them!

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by WildCat

It would be wrong for the court to rule in anything but a legal sense.

That is your opinion. Not everyone in the world shares your opinion. Hence carrying on as if everyone shares your opinion is a bit pointless, don't you think? All it conveys is that you have an opinion, and are unaware of the fact that others do not share it.

Quote:

Would you want courts to rule according to the emotions of the judges as opposed to the law?

Rhetorical questions, especially loaded ones, are just a way of trying to avoid stating a proper argument. If you have some thesis to present, try a declarative sentence.

Quote:

I'm sorry, but when you claim the court was wrong you must show legal errors, not make some appeal to emotion.

That is your opinion. Not everyone in the world shares your opinion. Hence carrying on as if everyone shares your opinion is a bit pointless, don't you think? All it conveys is that you have an opinion, and are unaware of the fact that others do not share it.

Quote:

The anti-court people on this thread are behaving exactly like the fundy Christians against gay marriage did with this very court when they campaigned to vote out judges because they ruled according to the law instead of some arbitrary moral judgement.

Now you'e conflating secular moral ideas with religious ideas, which strikes me as very simplistic and not a little silly. Unless my memory deceives me, the USA has a specific constitutional passage intended to prevent the establishment of religious opinions as the law of the land. It has no such passage about secular moral ideas.

If anything, the pro-court people on this thread are behaving like fundies, in that they are adhering to a fundamentalist, literalist view of how legal decisions should be made.

I don't want to put words in Kahalachan's mouth - there's enough of that going around - but I suspect they might be of the view that legal decisions should be the best moral decisions possible consistent with the letter of the law, not the decisions most consistent with the letter of the law.

[cwalner]

Originally Posted by Delvo

Where is the money for this supposed to come from?

From the business of course. She wasn't let go do to downsizing, so the dentist can still afford her salary. If this means that it can't afford to replace her, then maybe he will learn how to control his sexual urges if removing temptation carries a cost to him, not just to others.

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by cwalner

From the business of course. She wasn't let go do to downsizing, so the dentist can still afford her salary. If this means that it can't afford to replace her, then maybe he will learn how to control his sexual urges if removing temptation carries a cost to him, not just to others.

LOL. Please tell us about your deep business experience running a dentist office.

[NewtonTrino]

This is a simple case. It's his office and he controls who works there. The reason simply doesn't matter.

I would fire all of you for posting such nonsense in this thread if you worked for me

[truethat]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

This is a simple case. It's his office and he controls who works there. The reason simply doesn't matter.

I would fire all of you for posting such nonsense in this thread if you worked for me

Finally some common sense shows up. At will means at will.

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by truethat

Finally some common sense shows up. At will means at will.

For some reason a lot of people think that a job is similar to a social service agency. It's not. You don't have a right to work at someone else's business.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by 3point14

As far as I'm aware, she didn't fire the lady, he did.

How does that refute my point?

Did you expect him to choose his employee over his wife?

[truethat]

Responding to Newtontrino


Exactly, and when you work somewhere and behave unprofessionally you can't then try to turn around and hold the company to some professional standard that you yourself didn't care about the whole time you worked there. I agree that people have such a sense of entitlement and demanding a sense of being owed something if they get fired. If you are at will, then don't do anything that gives them a reason to fire you. Even though I think the guy is as much as a jerk as the woman is, I'm stunned to hear so many people going on and on about how acting like immature teenagers at work is "reality" and something that they shouldn't be held accountable for. Welcome to real reality. If you act like that and get fired, oh well. Tough tamales.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by gumboot

The employment contract is between the dentist and his employee. It has nothing to do with his wife. The dentist allowed his personal life to interfere with the operation of his business. That is by definition unprofessional.

So? It's not illegal to be unprofessional.

Originally Posted by gumboot

One of the advantages of a country that doesn't permit at-will employment is that business owners are forced to be responsible and professional in their conduct.

Sure it does.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by gumboot

I can't speak for other countries, but that isn't the case in New Zealand, where we have pretty robust employment law. The procedures for getting rid of an unwanted staff member are clearly laid out in law, and it's exceptionally difficult, if not impossible, to artificially invent reasons for firing someone.

So you're contending that the fired woman didn't have an inappropriate relationship with her boss?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Ha ha ha! Nice strawman, Wildcat. I have quite a collection.

No, I don't think he should fire himself. I never said that either.

I think he shouldn't get to fire someone for behaviour that he is equally engaged in.

It's really irrelevant, there was a clash between employees and one of them had to go, and it sure as hell wasn't going to be the boss or his wife. It really doesn't matter who is at fault.

[Stout]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

For some reason a lot of people think that a job is similar to a social service agency. It's not. You don't have a right to work at someone else's business.

I used to think like that back in the day when I used to have jobs. Things got even worse when i got a unionized government job. The thought of another 35 years ( 16800 coffee breaks ) trapped in that environment was too much to bear.

I've changed my outlook since becoming self employed 17 years ago.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Kahalachan

It is not conductive to a better economy. We have people getting fired over personal reasons.

Please cite the relevant statutes or case law regarding this.

Originally Posted by Kahalachan

It is not conductive to a better business. Someone who can't separate their personal issues from their professional work shouldn't receive catering.

Again, please cite the relevant statutes and case law regarding this.

Originally Posted by Kahalachan

Obeying the law, improving society, having a functioning economy, is when people learn to control their animalistic needs and finding appropriate outlets. A lack of self control is not something to reward.

Again, on what statute or case law are these based upon?

Courts are supposed to rule on the legal issues, not according to personal morals or what that judge decides is a higher social purpose. Would you really prefer the courts rule on something other than the law?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by WildCat

How does that refute my point?

Did you expect him to choose his employee over his wife?

He indicated he was ready to do just that.

[WildCat]

deleted

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by tsig

He indicated he was ready to do just that.

No, he didn't. That's why he fired her.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Yes, but is an argument you here presented that somehow the marketplace is the reason for high salaries and the like.

A salary is a price, so yes the marketplace determines salaries.

What does that have to do with the claim that a free market means management will always make the correct decision? Who has made such a claim?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

That is your opinion. Not everyone in the world shares your opinion. Hence carrying on as if everyone shares your opinion is a bit pointless, don't you think? All it conveys is that you have an opinion, and are unaware of the fact that others do not share it.

So you're perfectly happy with a homophobic judge ruling against a gay person purely because he's gay? No need to consider the actual law, correct?