Unless you live in Idaho.
Employees can still quit, they just can’t get another job in the same sector in the same area for the length of the non-compete. I’m not a big fan of non-compete’s myself, as I do think it gives the employer more leverage over their employee than seems fair, but in any case, I doubt that employees at a bar are going to be required to sign one.
I’m not making the equivalence, but if you want to go there, ok. Again, I am on the bottom of the power structure. It is therefore completely my choice, for whatever reason, to refuse to work for someone.
Now, if I refuse to work for a gay boss, I’d (the outside of the scenario me, not the me I just mentioned) probably think quite the less of me. But I wouldn’t say that the refusal to work was unethical or immoral. I might have grounds with “justified,” but that’s because we are different people, the two of me, and have different values of “just.”
His is wrong, BTW.
Read the article. Plenty of jobs you wouldn’t think would require one do in Idaho.
Or perhaps the act of not working for someone is ethical, but the reason for it is not.
You might consider if the opinions and actions of the employer are detrimental to the employee in some way. A person whose friends are hated by the white supremacist, perhaps. It would seem quite appropriate to not want to work for a mythical gay person loudly against heterosexual relationships.
Would you force an atheist to work for a religious fanatic (who is loud about it) or vice versa?
And if my firing and my competitors refusing to hire Joe Nazi causes him to default on his mortgage, so be it. He shouldn’t have been such an asshole. No sympathy and zero ethical violation.
Right?
Fair enough. I do agree that you have the right to quit for any reason. There just are reasons that I would consider to be unjustified, or even unethical if I heard them as the reason for quitting. For instance, if I heard from a job applicant that they quit their last job because they found their boss was gay, I would think poorly of them, and I would consider that an unethical decision. I would support their right to do so, but I wouldn’t hire them. If they quit because their boss was a white supremacist, I would have no problem hiring them, assuming they are otherwise qualified.
While I do see where you are coming from, honestly, in a small business with a handful of employees, the employees are not really all that much at the bottom of the power structure. Sure, I give them direction, and assign shifts and schedule and all, but without them, my business fails. They certainly have as much or more power over me as I them. All I can do is fire them, and they need to find another job, if they all quit on me, then I’m looking at some serious financial issues. Now, that’s my risk, and I am not complaining, and I suppose this is meant more as an encouragement to employees who feel like they are powerless, I’m just pointing out that employees do have power, especially if they wok together.
Look at this bar owner. He is screwed. Even if he isn’t losing customers, he is going to have a hard time replacing his staff. He is likely going to go out of business and go bankrupt. I shed no tears for him, just pointing out the power his employees had over him.
I did read the article, and it spoke mainly of high tech startups and stuff like that. In the extreme, where it says “They cover workers up and down the economic spectrum, from executives to hairdressers.” the low end of that is hairdressers, and I can understand why companies would want to have a non-compete on them, mostly to keep them from poaching clients, but also because there is often an investment in their training.
It is possible that if the bar paid for the bartender to go to school, that they may have a non-compete there, but for the majority of the employees, I don’t see it.
In any case, this story took place in minnesota, not idaho, so I doubt that they were under such a contract.
Not sure where you are going here. I would not force anyone to work for anyone at all.
For a Nazi? Entirely right.
I make no effort to try to make every decision unbiased and equivalent. I don’t care if the Nazi son-of-a-bitch dies in the street. Well, I would in that case, because it’s a health hazard and would probably disrupt traffic. I’m not even going to try to be fair and non-judgmental. Kant is an asshole and the Categorical Imperative is a joke.
I can’t really see many hairdressing establishments paying for education. I think they go to community college to get certified, and then move around, as necessary. Even in the unlikely event that a bar paid for training, it would be reasonable for them to have a contract requiring some repayment if the employee left before a reasonable period.
IIRC the article mentioned a pretty high percentage of workers covered by non-competes - certainly more than can be explained by tech workers.
Here in California, where these things are illegal, it all works out just fine.
We’re not talking forcing, we’re talking ethics. You seem to think that leaving a job might be unethical in certain circumstances. Leaving is neutral - the reason for leaving might or might not be ethical.
I have a few major problems with things like this:
(1) Nazis need to eat, live somewhere, get medical care, etc. I prefer an employed and productive Nazi over a burden of the state Nazi.
(2) These people live off being the victim. Losing their job/business feeds into that and is likely to make them more of a Nazi, not less. With less attachment to mainstream society they become more attached to the Nazi world. Plus, it makes them more likely to do something extreme because they have nothing to lose.
(3) I see a slippery slope from Nazi to more and more beliefs causing you to lose your job.
It’s a tragedy of the commons type situation. I don’t want to work for or with a Nazi, but I also don’t want to see a bunch of unemployed and marginally attached Nazis.
All this already happens to pedophiles (except they don’t “live off being the victim”, since pretty much no one gives them any sympathy). IMO, nazis and white supremacists should be just as marginalized as pedophiles, so I don’t have any problem with this.
-
No they don’t. Fuck 'em.
-
Shoot 'em.
-
Not that slippery.
Won’t anyone think if the Nazi’s children?
If we neuter them with a weed whacker, that ceases to be a problem.
That’s nuts!!
Is there anybody else we should marginalize or is this the comprehensive list? What is the end game? That is to say, once we make it so that nobody will hire them or work for them and so on, what desired result occurs?
People stop being Nazis. Was that supposed to be a trick question?
No, you’re just telling me about the Nazis we will supposedly prevent. I want to know what happens with all the ones who are already Nazis and who we marginalize. Also, how well is marginalizing pedophiles working out for making people stop being pedophiles?