Go Back   UG Community @ Ultimate-Guitar.Com > UG Community > The Pit
User Name  
Password
Search:

Reply
Old 10-03-2012, 05:07 PM   #141
WCPhils
^^vv<><>BAStart
 
WCPhils's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Pennsylvania
I meant personally, and yea, he cray
WCPhils is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2012, 05:25 PM   #142
CodeMonk
UG's Old Fart
 
CodeMonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Masturbating in your armpit
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveHouse
lmao the last couple of pages


some of you handled it well, but others... good lord the rage

meanwhile someone said the headline contradicts the meat of the actual article, and we lost that in the trollfle shuffle. Care to re-post that, whoever you were?
Yeah, guilty as charged.
I'm moving this week so I'm a bit on edge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by technicolour
Well shit, I'm not going to pay for employees eye care coverage either. I'll just higher people with 20/20 vision instead.

I know you are joking but...
Several years ago, I was working at a company that while they had healthcare coverage, we didn't have a vision plan.
As someone who wears glasses, this was an issue for me.
So I polled everyone in the company and asked them about vision issues.
75% of them wore glasses at some point during the course of the day if not always.
Then I dug up research about eye strain and other issues (like eye strain related headaches) affecting people with less than perfect vision.
Within a month, we had a vision plan.
__________________
Programming is an art form that fights back.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dementiacaptain
I'm sorry that we won't validate your decision, we give advice here, not good feelings

Last edited by CodeMonk : 10-03-2012 at 05:26 PM.
CodeMonk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2012, 06:32 PM   #143
BDR_23
Banned
 
BDR_23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota
What a bunch of tossers!
BDR_23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2012, 07:03 PM   #144
due 07
haaan
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElisabithaOak
A few of workers rights are the right to quit, the right to start their own business... and tons more.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
due 07 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 04:04 AM   #145
SlackerBabbath
Est. 1966.
 
SlackerBabbath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Burnley, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElisabithaOak
Because this is silly and stupid.

I'm into rights. I really am.

I feel it is the owner of a private company's right to hire and fire who they like. I don't know how else to put it.

Don't you think this is the waste of courts time?

Is the next step with this sort of 'non-discrimination at all costs, even at the cost of the right to have beliefs because that would be implying someone else is wrong' movement thinking that a company looking to hire workers has to hire anyone and everyone the government deems qualified?

This is nothing to do with who an employer has to hire, nobody can force an employer to hire anyone, it's just a case of protecting an employees rights once they've been hired. Don't forget, when someone starts working for someone else, they enter into an agreement known as a 'working contract' that states and protects both of their rights. The employer is guaranteed a fair amount of work from the employee who in turn is guaranteed a position of employment.... unless of course it becomes impossible for the employer to employ the employee, for such reasons as the business failing, in which case the employer has the right to make the employee redundant, which is a much different thing to firing them for no good reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElisabithaOak
The government, or I guess more accurately the courts, shouldn't be able to decide whether a firing is just. It is up to the owner's discretion- it is the owners right to decide.

But not everyone treats people in a fair way, and people with jobs often have dependants such as children who rely on their parents to feed, cloth and keep a roof over their heads. When an employer has the right to just fire someone for no good reason, then that's also giving them the right to take the food out of a childs mouth or cause the child's family (and therefore the child itself) to become homeless. Then there's the problem of employers who would take advantage of having the right to fire someone indiscriminately, for example, an employer could blackmail someone into giving them sexual favors, working an unrealistic amount of hours or carrying out unreasonably dangerous work without the required protective clothing or equipment in return for keeping their job, which, in a recession when jobs are hard to come by, is easier for an employer to do to someone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElisabithaOak
In Canada we have people being taken to court wasting huge amounts of time and money over someone being called a 'fag' in a silly argument outside of a bar. Don't you think that's ridiculous? People have been arguing and name calling for thousands of years. I think a person has the right to call someone a fag... similar to the way you guys call people idiots when they state something you believe to be incorrect.

I kind of agree with you on this, (I'd disagree if for example the person being called a 'fag' is then falsly regarded as a homosexual by others and discriminated against because of it, in which case they'd have a perfect right to sue the person who started all of this by calling them a 'fag' in public for defamation) however, this has nothing whatsoever to do with an employee's rights to continued employment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElisabithaOak
What someone doesn't have the right to do is harras another person. Which could be defined as pursuing someone in an attempt to bully them after the person has told you to leave them alone.

This is true. But if an employer has the right to indiscriminately fire an employee, then that can effectively remove a person's right to not be harassed, for example, if an emplyer has the right to indiscriminately fire someone, then an employer could be sexualy harassing an employee and getting away with it because the employee needs the job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElisabithaOak
An employer should have the right to fire a homosexual because they are homosexual.

Why on earth would anyone wish to give bigotry more power?
Look, the laws of any country are designed to try and make make their society work in the best and most efficient way possible. If bigotry is allowed it just causes all sorts of problems further down the line, so it makes more sense to nip bigotry in the bud where it begins rather than having to deal with the effects of where it leads to later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElisabithaOak
A person should not be legally free (don't have the right) to spray paint a persons house, continuously bother the person after they have been told to leave them alone, physically assault them etc, etc.

Agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElisabithaOak
People have the right to think other people are behaving wrongly or immorally and they have the right to declare those beliefs publicly and privately.

Now you're contradicting yourself, you said earlier that harassing people is wrong and should not be allowed, but here you are effectively defending someone's right to publicly and privately harass someone else. Remember, harassment can be verbal as well as physical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElisabithaOak
for example I believe homosexual unions are immoral. ( let's go guys... or not it probably wont yield any positive results but arguing is sometimes fun so.... actually lets not go about this. If you call me homophobe or whatever in this thread I probably wont respond)

OK, so why do you believe that homosexual unions are immoral? Most truly immoral acts are deemed to be immoral because they create a victim, so where's the victim in a homosexual union between consenting adults?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElisabithaOak
The point is that I believe I have the right to think homosexual unions are morally wrong- not that homosexuals are fundamentally flawed or inherently damned; I believe that homosexuals, like everyone else, are fundamentally good. I have the right to believe that and whatever else I want and make all and any of my decisions according to any and all of my beliefs- be that in parenting my children or running my business.

I'd agree that you have the right to believe what you wish to believe, but as you said earlier, harassment of someone else is wrong. If you act upon your belief in a way that discriminates against someone else, whether you are denying them their rights to equality or making unreasonable demands of them as their employer, you are effectively harassing them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElisabithaOak
I think employers should have the right o discriminate.

I've stated this several times.


But discrimination is a form of harassment, and you've already stated that nobody should have the right to harass others. You can't have it both ways, it'd be like having the right to shoot someone but not the right to hurt them in the process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElisabithaOak
What good is the right to have beliefs but not act on beliefs within the law?

Maybe it's the illusion of a right?


Well, let's for example consider that a person here, after reading some of your opinions in this thread, 'believes' that you are truly evil and that you should be killed to protect humanity. Now, let's consider that after thinking about it they decide against actualy killing you because it's against the law.

Aren't you glad that that person cannot act on their beliefs within the law?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElisabithaOak
Even you might feel a little bit guilty for banning me because you lost an arguement or failed to bully me into silence Goliath?

Oops, you just effectively got 'fired' from the forum, and not indiscriminately either but apparently for legitimate reasons, so if you believe that firing people indiscriminately should be allowed, why are you complaining?

On a personal note, I'm disappointed that you got banned because I was looking forward to making you realise why your views on this matter are wrong via sensible debate.
__________________
“Our life is what our thoughts make it.”
― Marcus Aurelius

Slacker's Art Website.

Last edited by SlackerBabbath : 10-05-2012 at 05:35 AM.
SlackerBabbath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 04:23 AM   #146
Kid_Thorazine
Registered Sadist
 
Kid_Thorazine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: KY
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerBabbath


But discrimination is a form of harassment, and you've already stated that nobody should have the right to harass others. You can't have it both ways, it'd be like having the right to shoot someone but not the right to hurt them in the process.


umm not really, it can be, but discrimination is way too broad to equate the two like that. For example, say someone really doesn't like Canadians for whatever reason and so makes a point to have as little contact with them as possible (when they do come in contact, the person is polite and whatnot but tries to end the conversation as soon as possible without looking like an asshole) that's discrimination, but nobody is being harassed, and more directly if you fire someone because you find out they are on birth control, that can be done without any behavior that would be construed as harassment.
__________________
make Industrial and/or experimental electronic music? Join my group!

Last.fm
Kid_Thorazine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 04:50 AM   #147
SlackerBabbath
Est. 1966.
 
SlackerBabbath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Burnley, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kid_Thorazine
umm not really, it can be, but discrimination is way too broad to equate the two like that. For example, say someone really doesn't like Canadians for whatever reason and so makes a point to have as little contact with them as possible (when they do come in contact, the person is polite and whatnot but tries to end the conversation as soon as possible without looking like an asshole) that's discrimination, but nobody is being harassed,

My mistake, I should have said 'active discrimination is a form of harassment', and firing someone because of your discrimination is 'active' harsssment because your discrimination is having an effect on that person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kid_Thorazine
and more directly if you fire someone because you find out they are on birth control, that can be done without any behavior that would be construed as harassment.

I disagree.
Just the act of firing someone for something that has nothing whatsoever to do with you and doesn't effect the way an employee works for you is a form of harassment. Let's not forget, 'harassment' is commonly defined as 'behaviour intended to disturb or upset', surely an employer understands beforehand that firing someone without a legitimate reason is bound to disturb or upset them?
__________________
“Our life is what our thoughts make it.”
― Marcus Aurelius

Slacker's Art Website.
SlackerBabbath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 04:51 AM   #148
CodeMonk
UG's Old Fart
 
CodeMonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Masturbating in your armpit
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerBabbath
...

On a personal note, I'm disappointed that you got banned because I was looking forward to making you realise why your views on this matter are wrong via sensible debate.

Slacker, as much as I respect you and your powers of persuasion, you would have failed.
__________________
Programming is an art form that fights back.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dementiacaptain
I'm sorry that we won't validate your decision, we give advice here, not good feelings
CodeMonk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 04:53 AM   #149
SlackerBabbath
Est. 1966.
 
SlackerBabbath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Burnley, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by CodeMonk
Slacker, as much as I respect you and your powers of persuasion, you would have failed.


Would you be willing to bet money on that?
__________________
“Our life is what our thoughts make it.”
― Marcus Aurelius

Slacker's Art Website.
SlackerBabbath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 04:56 AM   #150
Kid_Thorazine
Registered Sadist
 
Kid_Thorazine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: KY
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerBabbath
My mistake, I should have said 'active discrimination is a form of harassment', and firing someone because of your discrimination is 'active' harsssment because your discrimination is having an effect on that person.

I disagree.
Just the act of firing someone for something that has nothing whatsoever to do with you and doesn't effect the way an employee works for you is a form of harassment. Let's not forget, 'harassment' is commonly defined as 'behaviour intended to disturb or upset', surely an employer understands beforehand that firing someone without a legitimate reason is bound to disturb or upset them?


It might upset them, but that's not why they where fired, the intent is to have them not work for you anymore because you don't like something about them, them getting upset is incidental.
__________________
make Industrial and/or experimental electronic music? Join my group!

Last.fm
Kid_Thorazine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 05:02 AM   #151
CodeMonk
UG's Old Fart
 
CodeMonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Masturbating in your armpit
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerBabbath
Would you be willing to bet money on that?

Yup.
At least 1 e-cookie, with boobies.
__________________
Programming is an art form that fights back.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dementiacaptain
I'm sorry that we won't validate your decision, we give advice here, not good feelings
CodeMonk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 05:13 AM   #152
SlackerBabbath
Est. 1966.
 
SlackerBabbath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Burnley, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kid_Thorazine
It might upset them, but that's not why they where fired, the intent is to have them not work for you anymore because you don't like something about them, them getting upset is incidental.

It is in a case of a legitimate firing, but not if you fire someone for no legitimate reason.

Legaly, if you win a tribunal against a former employer for unfair dismissal, the psychological affects of that unfair dismissal can be taken into account when calculating the compensation, so an employee getting upset about being unfairly dismissed is legaly not incidental.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CodeMonk
Yup.
At least 1 e-cookie, with boobies.

Ahh, not real money then? Not fully confident in your doubts?
__________________
“Our life is what our thoughts make it.”
― Marcus Aurelius

Slacker's Art Website.

Last edited by SlackerBabbath : 10-04-2012 at 05:15 AM.
SlackerBabbath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 05:23 AM   #153
CoreysMonster
Banned
 
CoreysMonster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Germany
"no state shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." - 14th ammendment.

That means no different laws for men and women. I don't know how that could be any clearer.
CoreysMonster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 05:28 AM   #154
SlackerBabbath
Est. 1966.
 
SlackerBabbath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Burnley, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreysMonster
"no state shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." - 14th ammendment.

That means no different laws for men and women. I don't know how that could be any clearer.


__________________
“Our life is what our thoughts make it.”
― Marcus Aurelius

Slacker's Art Website.
SlackerBabbath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 06:11 AM   #155
Kid_Thorazine
Registered Sadist
 
Kid_Thorazine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: KY
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerBabbath
It is in a case of a legitimate firing, but not if you fire someone for no legitimate reason.

Legaly, if you win a tribunal against a former employer for unfair dismissal, the psychological affects of that unfair dismissal can be taken into account when calculating the compensation, so an employee getting upset about being unfairly dismissed is legaly not incidental.




It is incidental here, we also have at will employment in most states, which means your employers don't need to give a reason to fire you, unless you are under a contract stating they do, you can sue them if you think they fired you for illegal reasons, but you have to prove that was the case.
__________________
make Industrial and/or experimental electronic music? Join my group!

Last.fm
Kid_Thorazine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 06:45 AM   #156
SlackerBabbath
Est. 1966.
 
SlackerBabbath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Burnley, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kid_Thorazine
It is incidental here, we also have at will employment in most states, which means your employers don't need to give a reason to fire you, unless you are under a contract stating they do, you can sue them if you think they fired you for illegal reasons, but you have to prove that was the case.


If you are employed in an 'at will' place of employment, then you can hardly claim 'unfair dismissal' because by accepting a job at such a place you pretty much automaticaly waive your rights to not be fired 'unfairly'.

My point though was that if you are in a position to claim unfair dismissal, such as in the example of working under a contract stating that they need to give a reason to fire you that you've just provided, then the psychological affects of that unfair dismissal can be taken into account when calculating the compensation. If that form of contracted employment exists where you live, then you can hardly describe the whole situation there as 'incedental'. It may be incendental in some places of employment there but it's obviously not in others.
__________________
“Our life is what our thoughts make it.”
― Marcus Aurelius

Slacker's Art Website.
SlackerBabbath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 06:58 AM   #157
Kid_Thorazine
Registered Sadist
 
Kid_Thorazine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: KY
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerBabbath
If you are employed in an 'at will' place of employment, then you can hardly claim 'unfair dismissal' because by accepting a job at such a place you pretty much automaticaly waive your rights to not be fired 'unfairly'.

My point though was that if you are in a position to claim unfair dismissal, such as in the example of working under a contract stating that they need to give a reason to fire you that you've just provided, then the psychological affects of that unfair dismissal can be taken into account when calculating the compensation. If that form of contracted employment exists where you live, then you can hardly describe the whole situation there as 'incedental'. It may be incendental in some places of employment there but it's obviously not in others.


It's not places of employment that have that rule, it's STATES, and you can still take them to court for wrongful termination if you can prove that you where fired due to racial/sexual/religious/whatever discrimination, or for being a whistleblower, or numerous other protected things. And trying to win an emotional damage claim is pretty hard unless you can get a shrink to say you where seriously traumatized.

Also with the contract thing, in that case you would sue for breach of contract and not wrongful termination, and there's no way a jury would award emotional damages for that.
__________________
make Industrial and/or experimental electronic music? Join my group!

Last.fm

Last edited by Kid_Thorazine : 10-04-2012 at 07:01 AM.
Kid_Thorazine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 07:15 AM   #158
SlackerBabbath
Est. 1966.
 
SlackerBabbath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Burnley, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kid_Thorazine
It's not places of employment that have that rule, it's STATES, and you can still take them to court for wrongful termination if you can prove that you where fired due to racial/sexual/religious/whatever discrimination, or for being a whistleblower, or numerous other protected things. And trying to win an emotional damage claim is pretty hard unless you can get a shrink to say you where seriously traumatized.

Agreed, but it's still possible, yes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kid_Thorazine
Also with the contract thing, in that case you would sue for breach of contract and not wrongful termination, and there's no way a jury would award emotional damages for that.

Unless, as you've just stated, you can "get a shrink to say you were seriously traumatized".

That makes an employee's feelings at the point of being unfairly dismissed a genuinely plausable issue.
__________________
“Our life is what our thoughts make it.”
― Marcus Aurelius

Slacker's Art Website.
SlackerBabbath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 07:29 AM   #159
Kid_Thorazine
Registered Sadist
 
Kid_Thorazine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: KY
It's plausable, but unless you end up with PTSD from the experience it's not terribly likely (this can and does vary among different states, and different judges/juries, but unless you have a sexual harrassment claim or something it's probably not happening)
__________________
make Industrial and/or experimental electronic music? Join my group!

Last.fm
Kid_Thorazine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 07:39 AM   #160
pugachev
Registered User
 
pugachev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
sry guiz, one day'merika will get out of the 19th century

jus be patient plz
pugachev is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:41 AM.

Forum Archives / About / Terms of Use / Advertise / Contact / Ultimate-Guitar.Com © 2014
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.