| Author |
Message |
    
Metalrabbit
| | Posted on Sunday, October 24, 2010 - 09:09 am: | 
|
I watch the unions destroy the lumber mill industry in my state years ago. They always leave a wake of destruction where ever they go. Now our government sanctioned unions will leave another wake of destruction, us. The destruction of small business is now in they're sights. This lot can't stand free thinking, self governing independent business owners or workers. Of which is what really built this country and saved it from doom many times. What, were going to push towards union worker nations like France, Greece, Italy and so on right now? You have to be outa your freaking mind. |
Larryjohn
| | Posted on Sunday, October 24, 2010 - 09:38 am: |
|
So am I the only one who sees the humor in this?
Are we now arguing that businesses need to show cause for firing someone and justify it. Why argue for interference (government or otherwise) into hiring/firing decisions? I would also think that most folks know they need to check their fist amendment rights at the door when going to work. If someone where I work offended a client, that client could then terminate all contracts with us without cause - or at least refuse to do business with us in the future. If we don't have the freedom to run our operation however we see fit then one dumb@ss - either trying to make a statement or not having the situational awareness to realize where they are - can do some serious damage. |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Sunday, October 24, 2010 - 09:49 am: |
|
I don't think the issue is whether or not he had the 1st Amendment right to wear the T-Shirt.
The issue is that individuals are so politically minded that the took offense at a shirt for being political that wasn't.
It would be like them taking offense at a sweatshirt that promoted the guy's favorite food:
The issue also is that his union (who actually did the firing) is so in the pocket of the progressive party that they pulled this stunt. Per the guy involved, it wasn't even anyone from the Obama camp that complained. The union rep took unilateral action here.
That's the story here. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Sunday, October 24, 2010 - 10:48 am: |
|
So am I the only one who sees the humor in this?
Are we now arguing that businesses need to show cause for firing someone and justify it. Why argue for interference (government or otherwise) into hiring/firing decisions? I would also think that most folks know they need to check their fist amendment rights at the door when going to work. If someone where I work offended a client, that client could then terminate all contracts with us without cause - or at least refuse to do business with us in the future. If we don't have the freedom to run our operation however we see fit then one dumb@ss - either trying to make a statement or not having the situational awareness to realize where they are - can do some serious damage.
FB is correct that this is tangential to this specific case, but in many states an employer does have to show cause for terminating an employee.
A private company certainly can have a policy that prohibits certain types of dress, including dress that would be considered political messages. If they have no such policy, firing someone for that is an open door to being sued however. This is exactly why so many employee handbooks are literally BOOKS.
I worked at a place that had to fire a receptionist three times before documenting everything adequately. That meant two written warnings about specific behavior with a third documented offense for termination. This was to fire someone who was just incompetent in their job duties, but she kept filing discrimination suites. They had to pay her back pay and put her back at the front desk each time. Not doubt laws will vary state by state, but a union employee will enjoy further protection than our receptionist did. Welcome to the reality of the employer. |
Court
| | Posted on Sunday, October 24, 2010 - 11:02 am: |
|
>>>Even the guys with sunglasses and headsets don't have the right to send him home
That's true. I was one of them for 2 years. They DO have the ability and right to remove someone from the site for ANY reason.
I went through something similar with a group of protesters carrying MX missile protest signs.
The humor here is that it was George Bush I was with that day. |
Iamarchangel
| | Posted on Sunday, October 24, 2010 - 01:55 pm: |
|
Sifo: it's your constitution, understand it better.
Example 1. The armed services surrender their constitutional rights, go outside the constitution, to defend those within it.
Example 2. You agree to a bunch of rules to be a member here. ALL challenge your perception of your right to free speech. We have seen mods censor people, move threads, remove links and remove pics. Do you have a constitutional challenge here? No, get over it.
Example 3. Suppose somebody gets upset with the homophobic/sexist/racist material that gets posted here. They bring a complaint against the owner of this forum. The state challenges. Does the owner have a constitutional challenge here? Yes, the state is infringing.
The reason so many "PC" arguments are won is because people like you, Sifo, take for granted rights they don't have. They don't prepare any defence because they think the constitution will protect them. It doesn't. Do your homework.
Do your homework because people are getting killed to protect something you know very little about. |
Iamarchangel
| | Posted on Sunday, October 24, 2010 - 02:00 pm: |
|
And before Court showed up back then, somebody from his group came and had some advice/instructions for the union.
At least that's the way I've seen it played out.
We had a very big happy smiley guy with sunglasses and ear-set keep us company.
And many more during the visit. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Sunday, October 24, 2010 - 02:45 pm: |
|
Sifo: it's your constitution, understand it better.
Example 1. The armed services surrender their constitutional rights, go outside the constitution, to defend those within it.
Example 2. You agree to a bunch of rules to be a member here. ALL challenge your perception of your right to free speech. We have seen mods censor people, move threads, remove links and remove pics. Do you have a constitutional challenge here? No, get over it.
Example 3. Suppose somebody gets upset with the homophobic/sexist/racist material that gets posted here. They bring a complaint against the owner of this forum. The state challenges. Does the owner have a constitutional challenge here? Yes, the state is infringing.
The reason so many "PC" arguments are won is because people like you, Sifo, take for granted rights they don't have. They don't prepare any defence because they think the constitution will protect them. It doesn't. Do your homework.
Do your homework because people are getting killed to protect something you know very little about.
Example 1) No doubt that service members voluntarily give up some rights when the sign up to serve. They operate under the constitution however, not outside of it as you assert. None of this as anything to do with the construction worker.
Example 2) BadWeb has the right to set whatever policies they see fit. It's a private forum. None of this as anything to do with the construction worker.
Example 3) Except for certain limitations such as child pornography, you can post anything you want on the web. Who is challenging your right to do this in your example? Some offended person or the state? It really doesn't matter. None of this as anything to do with the construction worker.
Are you seriously arguing against the right of this construction worker to wear a shirt and hat that commemorates the ship that his son works on? On what grounds? Clearly the union overstepped it's bounds and they say they are going to try to correct that. Did you even read the article? |
Iamarchangel
| | Posted on Sunday, October 24, 2010 - 03:19 pm: |
|
Sifo: bottom line: yes, I'm arguing against that man wearing that shirt. Grounds: the customer does not want it visible. Was it political? Probably, but the union/management can fix it after.
The union did not overstep its bounds. They protected the memberships' job first, and the individual worker after. That's their role.
Did YOU not read the article or the previous posts that pointed out the inconsistencies of the story?
Do not let your biases blind your argument. You brought up the constitution. You said it was without limitation. You are now saying there are limitations (military, private sector).
Read the examples again. You said the rights prevail in all circumstances. The examples point out the difference between private sector and public sector. Now you agree with private sector limitation. Now you're also saying there are limitations on public sector but you're still confused. Let me explain again: the freedom you refer to is freedom from the state's arbitrary intervention. Once the state challenges BWB, BWB can launch a constitutional defence.
Take some time and think this all through. You're really all over the place on it. |
Roadcouch98
| | Posted on Sunday, October 24, 2010 - 03:49 pm: |
|
If the 'Customer' were a University, would that NOT be the perfect example of being able to apply Free Speech, especially if the head of OUR "Land of the Free" were to visit?
Why should it not be celebrated by everyone, that in America, we do have the right to our own opinions, and this man was merely proud that his son was serving under Our current President, in the highest form possible?
Why should/would it be offensive? |
Sifo
| | Posted on Sunday, October 24, 2010 - 03:51 pm: |
|
Sifo: bottom line: yes, I'm arguing against that man wearing that shirt. Grounds: the customer does not want it visible.
You are reading something into it that isn't there. Nothing has been reported that shows the "customer" didn't want to see it.
Do not let your biases blind your argument. You brought up the constitution. You said it was without limitation.
You will find yourself hard pressed to show where I said that. In fact I pointed out situations where a company can have dress code that would prohibit wearing of politically based clothing. Even so, the clothing in question doesn't fall into that category.
Read the examples again. You said the rights prevail in all circumstances. The examples point out the difference between private sector and public sector. Now you agree with private sector limitation. Now you're also saying there are limitations on public sector but you're still confused. Let me explain again: the freedom you refer to is freedom from the state's arbitrary intervention. Once the state challenges BWB, BWB can launch a constitutional defence.
I have to disagree with your premise. I never said rights prevail in all circumstances, not even employment. If an employer wants to enforce rules such as curtailment of political speech, they had darn well make it a written rule that is enforced equally. Anything less is likely to find themselves defending their actions in court. As I pointed out, this is exactly why employee handbooks have become so large.
BTW, I think you may have public and private mixed up. Military would be public sector, BWB would be private. But, again, none of this as anything to do with the construction worker.
Take some time and think this all through. You're really all over the place on it.
It seems to me that you are all over the place. You are reading what's not there, providing irrelevant examples, and confusing terms. |
Whisperstealth
| | Posted on Monday, October 25, 2010 - 03:25 am: |
|
Iamarch,
While I am not saying you don't have the right, as a member of this forum. - Why do you engage in so many political arguments about things that happen in a Country you don't live in? Why are you so interested, and feel the need to press home your opinions, other than being a "citizen of the world"? Do you come to the US and do a lot of business/work? Do you have dual citizenship, and place yourself under US law as well?
What is your motivation? What are you getting out of it, other than arguing. If you think your going to show/tell/teach those you argue with anything, it is highly doubtful. If it is because you truly love debating, aren't there issues in Canada you could spend your time debating, with other Canadians?
This site is open to the world, and people from all over the world are part of it. However, most here on BWB are Americans. And, while it may happen, I don't see many Americans on this site, so active in matters that concern Canada. And although I have seen some in the past, right now there are no political discussions on topics outside the US that involve current issues.
You make a lot of noise about US topics, laws, and government. Topics that don't seem to affect the way you live, laws which you don't appear to be under, and a government you have no vote in, and may/may not pay taxes to. Until these things are true, your credibility is little.
I think you get off on it. Like many things, I could be wrong, but don't think I am. I really think you are a leftist from another country, that gets off on tweeking the beak of right leaning Americans. I also think your screen name is another arrogant spit in the face to the right leaning Christian crowd, but again I may be totally off base on that as well. It just fits. I didn't pre-judge you. Now, having read a fare amount of what you have written, I have made a judgment. Giving in to the "Typical name calling, white male racist American I must be." Your a foreign ass#^)! that just needs to S-T-F-U!
And why yes, I like dragging things down to that level sometimes! It helps me to feel better about myself  FO |
Littlebuggles
| | Posted on Monday, October 25, 2010 - 07:47 am: |
|
When I worked for the stage worker's union here we were required to wear an "IATSE" t-shirt to work as a basic uniform. Regardless of what was on our outerwear, the t-shirt was supposed to be seen. Outerwear with marijuana leaves probably would get one sent home too.
I think Iamarchangel initially joined the discussion to provide some personal insight into the way a (good) union rep sees things. I generally avoid political discussions so only can speak from what I've read from him in threads relating to workers rights, there do seem to be a few discussions lately that pit Constitutional rights against employees rights as guaranteed by the union. It seems to me from my perspective he's generally just trying to provide the union's angle on things.
Constitutional rights protect the People from infringement by the Government. Workers rights vary from state to state and can be different for those working a union gig as opposed to non-union work. School in the criminal justice program, current government employment and previous union work as well as some management experience in the private sector have taught me there are any number of variations to the rights enjoyed under different types of employments.
From the article currently posted there is a lot of info missing... was it the Secret Service telling him to loose the sweatshirt? You'd think they could recognize the name of a current Navy ship. If however he was not dressed properly as specified by his union contract, bummer, but he choose not to work in my opinion. That's cool that he's proud of his son, maybe he thought he was showing some patriotism as well as a father's pride in wearing the shirt... there's a lot of maybe's there as the article offers very little in the way of real information.
Seems to be just an anti Obama political message. There's many reasons to dislike Obama, real data would be nice to read in this article. |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Monday, October 25, 2010 - 09:03 am: |
|
There have been subsequent interviews since this article.
It was NOT anyone from Obama's camp that complained. I don't agree with much if anything that this administration is doing, but in this matter, per the guy involved, Obama's hands are clean.
The issue is that his union, who is supposed to be looking out for him in fairness in the work place, sacked him (he was fired per his own statements) because the union didn't like his shirt. They didn't bother to use common sense or check any further into the shirt. They just pulled the plug after he refused to take it off (an action he felt was akin to forcing someone to stop displaying the American flag).
The issue here is that his union, like many others, is no longer about working for the sake of it's members. It has become mostly a political mechanism who's allegiances are very clear.
See complete knee jerk over reaction. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Monday, October 25, 2010 - 12:37 pm: |
|
When I worked for the stage worker's union here we were required to wear an "IATSE" t-shirt to work as a basic uniform.
There's no problem with a dress code at all, as long as it's applied evenly. There was nothing in the article pointing to any dress code violation however.
Constitutional rights protect the People from infringement by the Government.
I fixed that one for ya.
From the article currently posted there is a lot of info missing... was it the Secret Service telling him to loose the sweatshirt?
Any mention of secret service involvement was probably omitted because they did state it was the union supervisor that fired him. The also omitted the possibility that the Navy wanted him to not wear the shirt, but I also doubt the Navy had anything to do with it.
If however he was not dressed properly as specified by his union contract, bummer, but he choose not to work in my opinion.
And if he didn't violate dress code, and there's absolutely no indication that he did, then he was wrongfully singled out.
Seems to be just an anti Obama political message.
It's very possible that was the intent. It really doesn't matter though. Should a pro-Obama message be treated differently than an anti-Obama message on a work site? Political messages are either allowed or not. |
Iamarchangel
| | Posted on Monday, October 25, 2010 - 04:34 pm: |
|
whisperstealth: pfft
As a Canadian, a lot of what happens stateside affects me, us, positive and negative.
As a leftist, whatever, constitutions are important. I do my best to double check the differences. In this case, there's very little difference at the initial stage: recognition. The difference is at the next stage: response. Only anarchists don't care about constitutions.
As a BWB member, I've paid my dues, I can enter threads.
As a Buell rider, yeah, I'll do things different. And have an opinion.
And, oh yes, I do enjoy intelligent debates with intelligent people, or not, here as well as in real life. And, in retrospect, I was probably too harsh on Sifo. However, his correction is still wrong. I'm wondering if we haven't hit the correct wording yet.
Screen name: what? That's reaching pretty low. Should I ask if your screen name is for a smell that suddenly appears in a room that nobody will admit to? No, that would be rude. |
Whisperstealth
| | Posted on Monday, October 25, 2010 - 07:30 pm: |
|
My first sentence agreed with your right to enter threads. I didn't say you didn't.
Sure, feel free to ask. No that's not what it is for, But I think your theory is funny. Made me laugh anyway. Not only could be applied that way, but just might the next time I'm eating a bunch of chili around a bunch of people. 
I see a lot of these political instances happening. I would like to know what the ratio is between dems/repubs. Those that scream for tolerance, seem to have the most knee jerk reactions.
If this was a political rally at a school campus, what customers are there to piss off if someone wears one shirt or another? And if the school, pac, whatever, would no longer hire the stage company because a worker showed up in a shirt they didn't like the message of, they are missing the entire point of the democratic process. Where is the tolerance? Is that not discrimination?
Sifo is 100% correct in the dress code policy. There is no problem, as long as it is applied evenly! It falls under the: what goes around, comes around category. That would mean no messages of any kind at all, other than company and/or union name on clothing worn on the job site. Don't wear that Dodgers jacket, I'm a Giants fan and find it offensive. |
Iamarchangel
| | Posted on Monday, October 25, 2010 - 07:30 pm: |
|
I also think your screen name is another arrogant spit in the face to the right leaning Christian crowd, but again I may be totally off base on that as well. It just fits. I didn't pre-judge you. Now, having read a fare amount of what you have written, I have made a judgment. Giving in to the "Typical name calling, white male racist American I must be." Your a foreign ass#^)! that just needs to S-T-F-U!
As a former President of the local ICBA Chapter, all I can say is that there are so many things wrong with this statement, that I don't know where to begin.
James is usually a good book at a time like this. |
Whisperstealth
| | Posted on Monday, October 25, 2010 - 08:29 pm: |
|
Maybe, maybe not. And as I said, I may be totally of base.
Not knowing your ICBA affiliation, and based on many left leaning people being anti-god, it could fit. The last sentence is the most "wrong", and it did feel good to vent. Wrong or not. And having read a lot of what you have written, it would be nice to see you absent from American political debate. Because you are not a US citizen and don't live here, not because I disagree with you.
I am glad to hear you are a Christian, that and Buells gives us two things in common.
But you had already responded to what I wrote. Why bring it up again? Whats the point? You pfft'd me, which is cool. Then continued to respond. And again a second time, when my response to yours did not debate anything you had said to me. I don't get it. 
I think you get off on it. Like many things, I could be wrong, but don't think I am. I really think you are a leftist from another country, that gets off on tweeking the beak of right leaning Americans
Looking pretty spot on. |
Iamarchangel
| | Posted on Monday, October 25, 2010 - 10:24 pm: |
|
If you look at the time mark, you'll see we posted at the same time.
My comment had nothing to do with your response.
I have no response to your comments. |
Littlebuggles
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - 12:37 pm: |
|
Sifo,
"There was nothing in the article pointing to any dress code violation however."
As I said before, the article itself was purposefully vague, with the video clip being quite poignant. I find it fairly offensive for the media to try and steer my thinking through their direction. It's those in the media trying to direct our simple minds, whether they are right, left or middle I want the facts as they apply to the situation. Not just half of them delivered in a way that persuades the audience by the simple lie of omission.
"There's no problem with a dress code at all, as long as it's applied evenly. There was nothing in the article pointing to any dress code violation however."
To that I say, EXACTLY (refer to my last statement above).
My point is the entire article appears to me to be written with the intent to inflame to patriotic public against the current establishment. I'm one of them, the patriotic public that is; but I can see this article is written to bait me, and I refuse to bite.
Mr. Obama has done plenty to hang himself out there for public derision and discontent, just as GWB stuck his foot in his mouth often enough to have it made a common joke.
Dude is proud of his son and the ship he's serving on. Good. So am I, I don't have the hat and shirt to prove it, but I've got something similar of my own. I can't fault him for wanting to wear it everywhere he goes, the love and pride of a father are a powerful thing, and from his clip he's plainly frustrated at being told to take his flag down so to speak.
Still I press my point and that is to re-read the article if you don't follow me yet, it's not written to say the guy was sent home from work, or fired for wearing his shirt. Jeez, just read the headline then boil it down. It's saying it's Obama's fault this patriotic father lost his union job. If you read the article and look for the facts you'll see that many of them are plainly missing.
Again refer to my first statement. That's my point. Don't let the media rile you up, just because they want to, and perhaps you are or want to be angry with the current admin. There's plenty of mistakes being made by them that are real. This article is mostly hype, but I'm glad Mr. Hammond is getting his pay and perhaps his job back, and without the article maybe that wouldn't have happened, who can say?
I got my voting packet in the mail and will be filling it out shortly.
...and...
...Constitutional rights protect the People from infringement by the Government. It was written for the People, by the People. This is obviously a point of argument between us, however, it is my understanding that the Constitution of the United States was written to limit the power of those that govern. (You may attempt to infringe on my right to free speech, or I may attempt to infringe on yours, generally one of us will, in theory, get sick of it and the other get punched in the mouth. It's a lot harder to do that with the government, hence the Constitution and the courts). Many people voluntarily give up certain rights, or certain parts of them, everyday when they punch in at the time clock. |
Littlebuggles
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - 12:51 pm: |
|
Whisperstealth,
If the unions policies do not provide justification then the situation appears to be both intolerant and discriminatory. That's not really what our great country is supposed to be about.
While I was a member of IATSE for a while, it was nearly ten years ago and I never became more familiar than absolutely necessary with policy and procedure. They don't give us much info on that in the article. It's even possible that it was covered under their P&P and they were simply embarrassed by the situation and decided to make it up to the man. I'm okay with that if that's the case, I suppose, but then would that be bullying by the media? Or was the union the bully and needed to be pushed back in line? |
Sifo
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - 01:07 pm: |
|
Littlebuggle,
I never made any claim that this story wasn't written with a bias to stir "patriots", or whom ever you may see fitting. The question is if they omitted pertinent information. It's not a problem to omit mentioning dress code if it isn't a factor in what happened. That's not being vague, that's being concise.
Now if it were to come out that there was a dress code violation, I would be the first to admit that the worker was in the wrong and the report was unfairly biased in ignoring relevant facts.
So is this kind of reporting a bad thing? It kind of gets into the whole NPR thing that's going on right now. When a pattern develops of only doing this kind of story when it only stirs one side, there's a problem. If applied evenly, just like the dress code, then it's just reporting. No doubt this is "lite" news, but if that's a niche you work, so be it. I really have no way do judge any bias that KTLA may have in their reporting though, so taken by itself, with no other information, should we assume facts are being withheld? |
Dynasport
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - 01:48 pm: |
|
I am sure state laws may differ, but in Florida a private employer may fire anyone they want for no reason at all with a few exceptions. I believe federal law prohibits firing someone based on race, sex, and age discrimination. There are probably some other protected groups as well, but outside of that you don't have any legal protections.
A union contract may provide some additional protections that would vary by union and contract.
Claiming that a shirt worn to work is constitutionally protected protected speech is inaccurate. If I own a business and don't like a shirt one of my employees wears and want him to take it off, you better believe I can fire him if I want. I don't need a dress code in place or even be fair about it. It is my business and I can run it as I see fit, within the limitations mentioned, for example he could claim it was not the shirt but his age that motivated me to fire him.
Of course, I am not an attorney, so take my understanding of the law for what I am charging for it. |
Whisperstealth
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - 01:48 pm: |
|
If the unions policies do not provide justification then the situation appears to be both intolerant and discriminatory. That's not really what our great country is supposed to be about
Agreed! I also agree info is missing / could have been added. But, if the story is slanted, its a drop in the bucket compared to stories being slanted the other way.
As a UFCW worker for six years, I was disgusted with my union.
I spent a lot of time studying the CBA, knowing what was in it, and what it meant. I was a strong, and proud union supporter. However, even after showing the "union" proof on paper of CBA violations, they did nothing but render lip service. Even after filing written grievances, little to nothing was done. My "rep" was gone, unavailable, or on vacation far, far too much. Same for the rep. that was covering for him.
For years they told me how to vote, and how to be a good union member. Then, when being a good union member, was ignored. In the end it was all propaganda to me. It took a class action law suit - outside of the union - for hundreds to get properly paid. I have proof via time cards / pay stubs of payroll mistakes 35% of the time over a two year period. Albertsons sucks, and so does UFCW #588
I understand the necessity of unions as a back stop against excessive greed. I'm grateful for some of the benefits the union helped provide. At the same time, my experience and the experiences of others in different unions suggest too many unions are not doing what is best for the members, but what is best for union officials and staff. The excessive greed by some corporations, are out done by the greed of those who are supposed to watch out for us. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - 06:10 pm: |
|
I am sure state laws may differ, but in Florida a private employer may fire anyone they want for no reason at all with a few exceptions. I believe federal law prohibits firing someone based on race, sex, and age discrimination. There are probably some other protected groups as well, but outside of that you don't have any legal protections.
A union contract may provide some additional protections that would vary by union and contract.
Claiming that a shirt worn to work is constitutionally protected protected speech is inaccurate. If I own a business and don't like a shirt one of my employees wears and want him to take it off, you better believe I can fire him if I want. I don't need a dress code in place or even be fair about it. It is my business and I can run it as I see fit, within the limitations mentioned, for example he could claim it was not the shirt but his age that motivated me to fire him.
Of course, I am not an attorney, so take my understanding of the law for what I am charging for it.
Not sure about FL, but here in IL I've seen the employer loose in court over improperly documented termination. No doubt you will get away with it many times, but the one who wants to make life miserable for you will have your nuts in a vice legally. |
Iamarchangel
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - 07:58 pm: |
|
Not sure about FL, but here in IL I've seen the employer loose in court over improperly documented termination. No doubt you will get away with it many times, but the one who wants to make life miserable for you will have your nuts in a vice legally.
Was saying to my mother just last week, if a company follows the process, the best worker can be fired in days. If they don't, the worst worker can never be got rid off. |
Dynasport
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - 12:08 am: |
|
Sifo, I don't doubt what you are saying, but I don't really understand it. I give you a job, I am not promising you a job for life. I decide I don't like you, I don't want you representing my company, you smell funny, your teeth are crooked, whatever, what kind of documentation does that take? I never said you could work for me forever. I said I would pay you as long as you worked for me. I don't want you anymore. You're fired. IL has a law that says once I give you a job, I have to keep you the rest of your life unless I can document some reason that the court says is reasonable to fire you? Interesting. I know people here in Florida that were let go and not given any reason whatsoever other than we don't want you anymore and we don't have to tell you anything else. Now please leave the property. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - 07:04 am: |
|
There's a 90 day probationary period where you can be let go for any of the reasons you mention, without having to give a reason. After that the firing becomes more difficult. A reduction in force (layoffs) are an exception, but you can't go out and hire a replacement for that position right away. Canning someone just because you don't like them gets into discriminatory areas. It's even worse with union protections as is the case being discussed here. Are small employers going to get away with violations of this? You bet. Most folks will likely just move on to another crappy job (sorry, but an employer who hires and fires like that probably provides crappy jobs). There's also creative ways around it by changing job requirements, but that would apply to all employees that hold that position. Bottom line is you can do anything you want, but when you get sued, you will be held accountable. |
Dynasport
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - 08:36 am: |
|
From the FindLaw website which I believe supports what I have stated, at least in Florida.
Wrongful Termination Claims
If you have been laid off or fired recently, and believe that you may have lost your job for an unlawful reason, you may have a right to bring a claim for wrongful termination against your former employer. Legal remedies that may be available to you include money damages and, if you haven't been officially released yet, negotiation for an appropriate severance package that includes adequate compensation.
What Makes a Termination "Wrongful"?
The term "wrongful termination" means that an employer has fired or laid off an employee for illegal reasons in the eyes of the law. Illegal reasons for termination include:
Firing in violation of federal and state anti-discrimination laws;
Firing as a form of sexual harassment;
Firing in violation of oral and written employment agreements;
Firing in violation of labor laws, including collective bargaining laws; and
Firing in retaliation for the employee's having filed a complaint or claim against the employer.
Some of these violations carry statutory penalties, while others will result in the employer's payment of damages based on the terminated employee's lost wages and other expenses. Certain wrongful termination cases may raise the possibility that the employer pay punitive damages to the terminated employee, while other cases may carry the prospect of holding more than one wrongdoer responsible for damages.
You will see there is no mention of properly documenting a fair reason for firing someone or there being a probationary period. I fired you because I wanted to, as long as it is not deemed that I wanted to because you are a certain race or won't have sex with me or because you reported me to OSHA is fine. Of course, CBAs and written or verbal contracts can give you additional protection.
Now understand, I am not saying that working for someone who would treat their employees like this would be a good place to work. My wife left an employer that treated their employees like that this past year and she now works in a MUCH better workplace.
I am simply saying that in some places employers have the right to fire people with very few restrictions. And even though my family has been negatively impacted by those rights, I still support them in principle. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - 11:25 am: |
|
Firing in violation of labor laws
That one is a huge can of worms that varies state by state. I've been through management training that covers some of this stuff, though that was a few decades ago, and in IL. This was training where we had professionals in the field with a set curriculum, etc., not just and in-house mentoring program. It even gets to the point where you have to be careful that you don't refuse to hire someone for the wrong reasons. I know it sounds ridiculous, but when a "wronged" employee walks into court, all too often they will be looking for a reason to stick it to the "big greedy corporation". Just look at what is said about corporate greed on this board. Imagine some of these folks sitting on a jury where you have to convince them that you didn't fire someone because you don't like short people.
Look at some of the lawsuit that Hooters has had to defend themselves in. Like I said previously, a place I worked had a receptionist that was fired for just being incompetent. She sued based on racial discrimination and won... TWICE! This was in the '80s when you could get tax breaks for hiring minorities too, and it was our policy to try to get the tax breaks.
Unfortunately most employers will never really know all employment laws, unless you happen to be a law firm that specializes in these cases, and the most education you are likely to get on this subject is when someone you have fired seeks a lawyer instead of seeking employment.
Having said all of that, I've spent my entire working life in the state of IL, and other states will vary. Most folks that get fired will understand that fighting to work where they aren't wanted will not lead to a good work environment. There's that rare breed that just don't get it though. I wish you the best in not running across that rare breed. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - 11:41 am: |
|
BTW, it's exactly these sort of laws that make it difficult to adjust a workforce to changing needs. That is why the computer consulting field became such a big thing. It's far easier to bring in consultants, even though you will pay them far more than you pay your own employees, when you know that they are only going to be around for a year or so. I eventually wised up and joined the ranks of the consultants and started making some very good money. Good enough that at one point a client wanted me and asked what would it take. I said $100 per hour. They countered with $97. I declined just because I didn't really like the project, even though it was scheduled to take about 18 months. That was the hardest job to not take I've ever had. |
Iamarchangel
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - 06:08 pm: |
|
Dynasport:
Post 1: that attitude represents why unions are important. If it's a contract type job, limited time project, say so. Most companies don't, they offer all sorts of "loyalty" fluff and don't come through on their end. If an employer suffers a personality twist, why should a worker suffer?
Post 2: that would be wishful thinking. Sifo is right, wrongful dismissal varies from place to place. However, look at what you wrote: obviously there is a legal standard in your state defining wrongful dismissal. The arguments are decided by documentation. No documentation usually means you lose. The employer's required documentation would be under the labor laws of your state. The employer you're describing would make some lawyers very rich before the lesson is learned. |
|
