You didn't answer the question. What if a liberal boss fired someone for voting for George W. Bush a few years ago?
Doctor lays off Obama voter
Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by Cutter, Apr 10, 2010.
Page 2 of 3
-
-
-
-
-
Nope, I condend an employer should have the right to hire anyone he so desires for whatever reason he so desires. -
Now on the other hand if an employer did so, than I would have no problem with the fired employee picketing the business with signs explaning the reason for terminiation.
I will mention, I have been a boss- and for the most part, I would hire the individual who would do the best job for me. And yes, I have fired some employees.
Salty -
-
-
-
When you are fired for being whatever you are, come back and tell us how good it is. -
At least your consistent, consistently wrong, but consistent.
Thank God, the law doesn't agree with you. -
You two are as wrong as you can be on this issue. Workers, according to the government, have rights, thank God! -
dragonfly (works in machine shop. lives in houston)
Terry_Herrington (works in machine shop, has also been a teacher. lives in houston)
Robert Snow (works in machine shop, has also been a teacher. lives in houston)
Your comments will be disregarded until you fess up to having been banned from this site before. -
The 'worker' is free to put a price on his labor and to offer that labor for sell to whomever he wishes and where ever he wishes. The employer has the same rights to choose whom he will hire and fire and to determine what he is willing to pay and to determine the terms of what is expected. The worker has a right to expect just compensation for his labors in accordance to that agreed upon when hired by his employer: If a worker is unsatisfied to work under the employment of another...... he is free to go into business for himself.... and will or will not receive compensation from those who are his customers according to his skill and industry and reputation and by reasons of agreement made with each: Just like he has no right to insist that a potential employer MUST hire him....... neither does he have the right to insist that everyone who uses a product or skill that he peddles must be his customer.
Anything other than this is not a function of the federal government ..........or would not be if the states held onto their rights instead of abdicating them. If these rights to regulate were kept close at hand to the powers most affected by them...... that pertaining to the peace and prosperity of the community, then they would be more practical in establishing, enforcing, and amending, according to the changes within the community which reflect corrections and adjustments and balancing of conflicts.
If the states held onto their powers (instead of allowing their elected officials to create federal laws which may be disproportionately reflective of the varying needs of one state to another), the prosperity of some and the contentment of its citizenry compared to another might be sufficient to drive others (states) which were less considerate of certain issues to make similar adjustments in laws or regulations, to improve upon the conditions advantageous for its citizens.
The individual is then served in having the freedom to move and chose the society(state) and the economy which best serves his needs and offers him opportunity and recompense in accordance to his priorities and values. That which serves well the benefits of laws and regulation upon society is then 'hammered out' to a perfection within each state which will eventually move more states to adopt successful models when facing similar problems, leading towards some standardization,
Because the reasoning for regulations and laws is often reflective of an adjustment or correction for specific weaknesses or problems associated within a smaller group of people, these laws are easy to remove when that society reflects the behavioral adjustment and repairs, and 'the problem' is now restrained by the refusal of people to support its continuance if and when regulation is removed.
--------------------
There is no such thing as the right to work or be employed. There is, however, a right to be paid for ones labor...... And there is a right to choose not to work or be forced into labor. There is also the right to accept the consequences of ones choices.... whether one chooses to work or not. Both employee and employer reflect on each other: To the extent where they both agree..... harmony might be expected. Where one has differences with the other..... the employer has the power to chose who will work for him. The employee has the power to choose the tangible and intangible values of his labor and to look for work on his own terms.
Anyone can present themselves as anybody on an Internet message board.... and can be honest and candid in an anonymous boasting of good or bad: likewise, anyone can present themselves as anybody in the pretense of being someone in position worthy of note.... or assume a personality which is not their own... in an attempt to discredit someone existance and real.... with the purpose to deceive and inflame and create controversy. As this braggadocios comment on an Internet message board (not having privilege to review it myself or to review previous post by the 'alleged' poster), does not sound within the revelations expected or respected of a professional person .....even with political frustrations. I'm inclined to say it is more likely a deceptive posting purposely planted to inflame, incite controversy, and perhaps even to stir up legal challenges, whether true or false, and to build a rumor mill which suggests a false validity and establishes a prejudicial judgment. -
I agree the doctor should have the ability to fire employees for political reasons. However, I would never use this doctor. A doctor with an axe to grind is probably too stressed to be as effective or careful as he should be.
Politically, he's in the right. Ethically, he's not. -
Now I realize fhe Govt is NEVER wrong -
Mr. Snow:
Should the govt pass a law requiring employers to:
Give 1 full hour for lunch per day
provide parking
free coffee and soda for break time
have a nurse on duty for minor medical assistance
have a small retail store/bank on premise
babysitting service
automobile mechanic
not be able to fire you until you acquire 1,000 demerit points - of course the govt will decide what actions determine how many demerit points
allow you to wear anything to work, even if it is immodest
no penalty for being late the first 50 times/per year
missing work without cause the firs 25 times /year
and the list goes on and on
So who determines what rights are valid
Now if a company had the above policy, I am sure they would have no problem getting and keeping employees.
But it should be their policy - not the govt
may I assume you have never been an employer? -
-
-
Page 2 of 3