If you were an employer

I don't know who Rolf is, or what the situation at Kodak is, but--

I also think an employer should be able to fire whoever he/she wants to fire, for whatever reason, without the possibility of unemployment having to be paid. The government's hands are in too many places. I know, I'm a slave runner.

 

I voted no. And here is why.

First of all in a chruch setting: A church should not have to hire anyone who does not believe what they believe.

In a business setting I believe you have look at small vs. large businesses. In a small business I would want people working for me who believe the same things I do. If my business is going to succeed then everyone must be working toward a common goal, and everyone must be comfortable working with everyone else. If there is friction then the business will not succeed.

Most large businesses have a generice anti-discrmination / harrassment policy. Why is it necessary to list every group that might possibly be discrimnated against. Taken to the extreem there could be a policy that says "you can not discriminate against 32 year old males, who are married, have not children, drive a car older than 1990 model, and post on the baptist board." At some point it just gets plain silly.

I do not believe we should discriminate against anyone. In that large business as long as each person does their job, and does not create a hostle work enviroment then they should not be fired. If a homosexual or a hetrosexual is talking about their sex life then it can and shold become a case of sexual harrassment. That is something they should be fired for.

Bill

 

Thanks Gina, but it is almost 2003, it's time to learn how to cut and past from your brower!
Anyway, I could not find the Kodak topic, but would like to read it if you or anyone else can give me the link.

Thanks,
Dave

 

Churches are generally exempt from the clauses in states that have such. There's no question about that. In fact, you can choose to hire only women, or only one race, or only church members if you choose. But secular business is different.

BTW - as far as pedophiles and rapists, those are matters of law, and any company can choose to discriminate based on one's criminal records if they feel it's necessary. You can even do so based on one's credit score.

 

Kodak Thread

 

Ah, but in many states, how one has sex is also a matter of law.

However, one's liking men or women is not. There is no law that says you can't be attracted to a member of your own sex. Just that you can't have sex with them (again, in some states). I've heard the line used that "we don't hire felons," in explaining why they won't hire gay people. I certainly think that's stretching it )particularly if the person hasn't been run through the courts), but I've heard it used.

Just some thoughts.

Personally, I'd include it. Although, it could be well argued that if a company doesn't discriminate on matter of sex or gender, a man's having a boyfriend could be included in that.

 

Kodak should never have put the policy in their policy handbook. They made a bad decision. That is their problem. And no, I am not inclined to help the guy out.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Gina, I'm very relieved to find out you know how to cut and paste! But after reading the article I don't change my mind. I feel bad for good ol' Rolf because he should not have lost his job, BUT I still feel that an employer should be able to fire anyone they want for any reason.

If it's my company I feel I should have the right to fire somebody if I find out they like Prince's music, drive a Yugo, or collect Beenie Babies. I wouldn't, of course, but I feel that it should be my right to do so without having to pay unemployment.

Back when I used to work for others I always did seasonal jobs (construction, tree removal, etc) and I could have taken unemployment in the winter but I felt it was my duty to find other work and I always did.

Dave B

 

Dave,

Where were you when the trade unions stepped up to usurp the authority of the owners of companies? The USA has the largest trade union membership in the world, and they get to write certain rules. They don't have a penny invested and if the company goes broke, they may lose a job, but the owner loses everything.

Maybe you are right. Sack the trade unions and give the ownership back to the owners.

Cheers,

Jim

PS, Before the trade unionists get up in arms, I am a socialist and support unions. I am a member of the BPU-CLA (Baptist Pastors United-Christian Leadership Union) ((Does this really exist?))

[ December 09, 2002, 07:18 PM: Message edited by: Jim1999 ]

 

I still feel that an employer should be able to fire anyone they want for any reason.

So you should be able to fire someone because he's black?

 

Why would I fire someone if they were black? If I were prejudice I would not have hired them in the first place.

But seriously, it certainly is not right to not hire/fire someone because they are black, white, spanish, etc, but I feel that I should have the right to not hire a black person if I don't want to. And to make it clear-I have no problem hiring those of an enthnic group other than my own.

[ December 09, 2002, 10:13 PM: Message edited by: Dave Bussard ]

 

What do you mean Gina. It bothers you that I don't feel that one should have to hire a black, yellow, white, red, or blue person if they don't want to?

 

Being fired is too good for country fans!

 

Interesting... We own our own business...but we don't have any employees outside of family yet.

Naaa, I don't think I would enclude it... I'm for a simplistic approach on things...I would add what ever was necessary...when it became necessary. I actually don't like discrimination. I think if a person can do a job, and be conscientious about showing up on time etc...that's all that should matter.