Be careful what you post here.

[OokiiNeko]

UNREAL.

I used to laugh at some of the crap coming out of England the past year or so. Always thought, "No way will it get that bad here." That this article is even published is an indicator to me that we are in serious trouble (Yes, even more than before).

Looks like Righthought is now coming online. So long America, we hardly knew ya.



P.S. Don`t forget about denial of benefits for un-employee like activity such as "getting injured" or "becoming sick".

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

None of this is new. It's just that the existence of the Internet provides employers a new source of information about their employees. If you're at-will, as most of us are, you can be fired for wearing a shirt your boss doesn't like. Them's the breaks.

 

[bamacre]

It is rather nice to be the boss.

 

[ericlp]

Yes true this has been going on for years... Welcome to the party. I wonder what else you don't know about?

To the OP, wait till they figure out way to get a gene sample and tell you can't have this job or fire you over a gene defect. Also, your lucky to get health insurance or life insurance if you don't let them take a sample of your gene make up.


This is nothing new but it's only going to get worse before it gets any better.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: OokiiNeko
UNREAL.

I used to laugh at some of the crap coming out of England the past year or so. Always thought, "No way will it get that bad here." That this article is even published is an indicator to me that we are in serious trouble (Yes, even more than before).

Looks like Righthought is now coming online. So long America, we hardly knew ya.



P.S. Don`t forget about denial of benefits for un-employee like activity such as "getting injured" or "becoming sick".

Could you elaborate more on your apparent complaint?

Is it your position that employers cannot let employees go unless it be for some *government approved* reason? If so, that sounds more like something coming out of the UK today than the other way around.

If employers cannot let employees go without government approved cause, should employees be bound by the same rules? I.e., they can't quit unless for a government approved reason? Don't discount the adverse affect to a business that can occur upon an employee's decision to quit. I think we're all already aware of the turmoil likely to occur to a person when they are dismissed.

Try not to think of employers as monolithic Fortune 500 companies. Most are small businesses. I'm a small business owner, I consider it my private property. As it's my private property, shouldn't I be able to do with it pretty much as I please?

Or is your complaint rooted in the fact that you have less control over the company than the owner/boss? If why shouldn't (s)he have far more control? Their personal assests are on the line. Business gets into trouble, employees go home; the owner goes to bankruptcy court etc.

Fern

 

[StageLeft]

I just do not see this as a big deal yet. Why should an employer have to tolerate anything if they don't want to? They are private. If I don't like my employer's damned company logo I can quit, so if they think my pyrotechnics hobby is too dangerous given that I'm, say, the only guy who has an intimate knowledge of a particular crucial system, sure i can appreciate their concern.

In PRACTICE, very few companies are doing much about this kind of thing. Mine gives a small discount each month to non-smokers, but they are not overbearing. If I saw them treat somebody else poorly, I personally would look for a new job. They know this. That's why in practice, in relaity, this isn't a concern.

Now, in the case of a government employer--and I believe some are doing silly things like this--I definitely have a bigger problem with it.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I just do not see this as a big deal yet. Why should an employer have to tolerate anything if they don't want to? They are private. If I don't like my employer's damned company logo I can quit, so if they think my pyrotechnics hobby is too dangerous given that I'm, say, the only guy who has an intimate knowledge of a particular crucial system, sure i can appreciate their concern.

In PRACTICE, very few companies are doing much about this kind of thing. Mine gives a small discount each month to non-smokers, but they are not overbearing. If I saw them treat somebody else poorly, I personally would look for a new job. They know this. That's why in practice, in relaity, this isn't a concern.

Now, in the case of a government employer--and I believe some are doing silly things like this--I definitely have a bigger problem with it.

Because employees and employers are in an inherently unbalanced relationship. The impact on you if you get fired is much greater than the impact on your company if you quit. In the big picture it balances out, since there are more employees than employers, but on an individual basis, it doesn't quite work that way.

 

[Vic]

I can't figure out the OP's complaint here. Civil rights protect you from the government, not you from your fellow citizen.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Fern
Try not to think of employers as monolithic Fortune 500 companies. Most are small businesses. I'm a small business owner, I consider it my private property. As it's my private property, shouldn't I be able to do with it pretty much as I please?

Are you including employees under the "private property" umbrella?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Fern
Try not to think of employers as monolithic Fortune 500 companies. Most are small businesses. I'm a small business owner, I consider it my private property. As it's my private property, shouldn't I be able to do with it pretty much as I please?

Are you including employees under the "private property" umbrella?

If you own the car, do you own the people who are passengers?

Of course not. I don't own the employees, just the business.

Fern

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Fern
...
Try not to think of employers as monolithic Fortune 500 companies. Most are small businesses. I'm a small business owner, I consider it my private property. As it's my private property, shouldn't I be able to do with it pretty much as I please?

...

Fern

I see two things wrong with that idea. First of all, even though there are a lot of small businesses out there, the relatively small number of people a small business employs compared to a Fortune 500 company means that huge corporations employ a significant number of people...enough so that how they treat employees can't be so quickly brushed under the table. "Small business" seems to be treated like a magic phrase that excuses anything, but the reality is that the Fortune 500 companies of the world have to part of any debate, no?

But secondly, you can't have it both ways. As a small business owner, you get a LOT of special treatment from the government that doesn't apply to non-business owners. If you get special treatment from the government, I don't think it's reasonable to then turn around and say that the government should butt out and you should be able to do with your business what you please. Don't get me wrong, I think pro-business laws help grow business...but that should come with a responsibility.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Fern
...
Try not to think of employers as monolithic Fortune 500 companies. Most are small businesses. I'm a small business owner, I consider it my private property. As it's my private property, shouldn't I be able to do with it pretty much as I please?

...

Fern

I see two things wrong with that idea. First of all, even though there are a lot of small businesses out there, the relatively small number of people a small business employs compared to a Fortune 500 company means that huge corporations employ a significant number of people...enough so that how they treat employees can't be so quickly brushed under the table. "Small business" seems to be treated like a magic phrase that excuses anything, but the reality is that the Fortune 500 companies of the world have to part of any debate, no?

Non-Fortune 500 businesses employ far more people than. But Yes, F-500's employ a fair amount of people.

But any business that size has a well developed HR guide etc. So these concerns about getting fired just for your political views etc seems mostly BS in that atmosphere. If you do fired and it's not for a purpose in their policy you can easily sue. Anyway, big companies employ so many that all political veiwpoint sare well represented.

When we're talking about firing for such menial reasons, it seems to always be in the context of a small business.

But secondly, you can't have it both ways. As a small business owner, you get a LOT of special treatment from the government that doesn't apply to non-business owners. If you get special treatment from the government, I don't think it's reasonable to then turn around and say that the government should butt out and you should be able to do with your business what you please. Don't get me wrong, I think pro-business laws help grow business...but that should come with a responsibility.

What's "both ways"?

Hahaha, what "LOTS of special treatment from the government" are you talking about?

I can assure you, I get no benefits from them. Any I do get I pay dearly for.

And yes, responsibility is the key word here. I'm the one who is responsible. So yeah, they can butt out.

See bolded.

Fern

 

[Xavier434]

As others have already mentioned, this is not new at all. It really sucks and I will never be rid of my desire to punch the people who make this sort of thing a reality in the balls but that's just the way it is.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Vic
I can't figure out the OP's complaint here. Civil rights protect you from the government, not you from your fellow citizen.

Well, fellow citizens can deprive you of your civil rights too, i.e. employment and housing discrimination against protected groups is illegal even for private employers/land owners.

But the OP seems to be complaining about private employment having any discretion at all over hiring/firing.

 

[AAjax]

If it needs to be said, say it. Fear is their greatest tool.

 

[herm0016]

Originally posted by: Fern

What's "both ways"?

Hahaha, what "LOTS of special treatment from the government" are you talking about?

I can assure you, I get no benefits from them. Any I do get I pay dearly for.

And yes, responsibility is the key word here. I'm the one who is responsible. So yeah, they can butt out.

they get special treatment , like having to pay extra taxes just because they are a small business, getting heckled by agencies like OSHA and ADA, I'm sure I'm not the only one with stories about these agencies, having their personal belongings and life on the line if the business fails. Not having a government bail them out of hard times and competing with the big companies that don't have to deal with all these things.

its "special" all right.

 

[OokiiNeko]

Straight from the article:

It may sound surprising, but many off-the-job actions and lifestyles could put your job in jeopardy.

Quite a few things tie together on this, but the biggest item was that the article is specific that it is activities OFF THE JOB that can affect employment. And yes, I am thinking more along corporate lines, though some good points were raised in that respect.

So my first question goes to Fern, what off the job activities (other than criminal) do you consider grounds for terminating employment?