Right to work disempowers shitty unions. It is the union’s job to convince people (your employer) that mistreating you means the union will have your back. If the union is incapable of convincing people (the employees) that mistreating you means the union will have your back, it incompetent and should not be preserved at the expense of the employees by making membership compulsory.
No, it’s not. It was overruled (implicitly, but Valenzuela, 739 F.2d 434 (9th Cir. 1984), was called out in FN2) by Yellow Freight Syst. v. Donnelly, 494 U.S. 820 (1990). Cert granted because of circuit split on the issue of exclusive federal jurisdiction over Title VII; U.S. Supreme Court held jurisdiction is concurrent, not exclusive.
Well, looks like that answers the question pretty definitively, and shows why criminal lawyers should venture opinions on civil law with appropriate cautionary caveats. In shorter words: looks like I didn’t know squat.
No idea why I said “right to work” instead of “at will” in the OP.
Outside the exisiting law, there is the question of “Is it fair?” “Is it just?” It is manifestly unjust, in this instance, whatever the law might say, and calls for redress of some kind, legal or otherwise.
So the court recognized a threat to this dentist’s marriage and acted against it. Neat. Does that mean they’re now going to follow him around and keep him in line? Obviously, if he can’t resist a coworker in a professional environment he can’t be trusted anywhere else. So are these judges going to follow him around, tossing law books at all the jezebels and harlots who keep throwing themselves at him? When he does eventually cheat on his wife will the court rule that since they’ve already intervened to preserve his marriage his wife loses the right to divorce? Is the court going to make sure he actually loves his wife and will do what he said in his wedding vows? If they’re going to intervene, I’d like them to follow through.
I suspect he’ll lose at least a few of his female patients, and maybe some men.
No. They recognized the right of the doctor to fire someone without cause. That’s a consequence of living in an “employment at will” state.
A conclusion drawn from a false premise can be rejected. Which explains why that silly scenario won’t come to pass.
It doesn’t seem you understand what I was saying. I said right to work laws prohibit the union shop you misunderstood that as “prohibit unions.” You should perhaps read into Taft-Hartley to acquire an understanding of what a union shop is.
Closed Shop - Union has negotiated an agreement in which the employer cannot hire anyone who isn’t a member of the union. This is outright prohibited under Taft-Hartley.
Union Shop - Unions can negotiate an agreement in which employees may be required to join the union after a certain amount of time, and/or employees can be required to pay union dues even if they are not members of the union. Union shop refers to both situations, one in which non-members can be required to pay dues, or one in which all employees must join the union after a certain period of time.
Taft-Hartley allows individual States to pass “right-to-work” laws which can prohibit the union shop. Prohibiting the union shop simply means it disallows collective bargaining agreements in which a union shop or union security agreement etc is in force. It does not prohibit unions, and thus when I said right-to-work laws prohibit union shops that was to what I was referring, and that terminology is a key part of Taft-Hartley.
I am not aware of right-to-work laws making it so that unions cannot negotiate employment protection, and I suspect you are simply incorrect about that belief.
Of course, this isn’t at all what the court did. Rather, it investigated whether attractive people are a discrete and insular minority who are likely to be subjected to invidious discrimination such that the default rule, that private citizens may use their private resources in any lawful manner they choose (and in the employment context, to retain or terminate employees at will and without needing to secure government approval), should be altered.
The court found that attractive people are not such an oppressed number and, accordingly, the default rule applies.
Now Doper “liberals” (Marley has forbidden me from using the word “libtard”), what with their “Property is Theft!” philosophy, don’t believe in the default rule in any instance. Why, the very idea! A private citizen disposing of his personal property without even seeking my consultation! Injustice! Oppression!
I’ve been moderating terms like this whenever anyone has used them. If you take issue with that, you can start a thread in ATMB. Otherwise, don’t make comments like this. They look like attempts to get around the rules.
My $0.02 is this is ridiculous. The court has basically put the onus on people for something they cannot change (e.g. how they look) instead of telling people they need to grow the fuck up and act like an adult.
Because that is the role of Iowa Legislature and Iowa Supreme Court? To ensure that people behave maturely at all times? That they refrain from doing otherwise lawful things with their own personal property if they feel that the reasons the free adult aren’t good enough?
What if the dentist decided to close his practice because he wanted to dedicate his time to practicing to become the World Champion of Air Guitar? Kind of sucks for his employees, who are now out of a job, no? (Why, isn’t their employer’s air guitar avocation just the kind of thing that those employees “cannot change,” and isn’t it your belief that one of the state’s roles is to ensure that no misfortunes are ever visited on people due to things “they cannot change”?)
So, you would agree that the employee must be forbidden by the state from closing his practice, and putting his employees out of work, for such silly whimsy?
It seems to me that “she was fired for being too hot,” is the wrong way to frame this. “She was fired because her boss is married to a crazy person,” seems more accurate, and I’m not sure there’s a remedy for that in the law.
I mean, let’s say that I’m the owner of a small business with one employee. That employee is very attractive, by conventional standards, but I have no sexual interest in him, and have never behaved inappropriately with him. However, I’m also married, and while I love my husband very much, he has a wide streak of irrational jealousy, and he’s convinced that if I’m not already screwing my employee, it’s only a matter of time until I start. Eventually, he gives me an ultimatum: “Either you fire that hussy, or I’m leaving you.” In that circumstance, should the law force me to dissolve my marriage to protect my employee’s job?
Oooh, scary, scary! He MIGHT lose a FEW patients! I’m sure that has him quivering with fear! I’m thinking of something a little more germane. Like, picketing his home and place of business, public shaming, ostracism. I doubt members of his community have that kind of courage or interest, however. But those would be appropriate remedies.
Weird. I didn’t even remember starting this thread, and when the IASC granted rehearing I bumped somebody else’s thread on the same topic with the update.
Employers and rich people generally are never required to behave responsibly towards people lower in the social scale than they are, by our modern "justice’ system.
[QUOTE=Evil Captor]
Oooh, scary, scary! He MIGHT lose a FEW patients! I’m sure that has him quivering with fear! I’m thinking of something a little more germane. Like, picketing his home and place of business, public shaming, ostracism. I doubt members of his community have that kind of courage or interest, however. But those would be appropriate remedies.
[/QUOTE]
Simmer down, Robespierre.
I have been the soul of reasonableness and gentility in my responses, I assure you. For example, I have proposed that it would be all right if the dentist in question were beaten senseless by a mob weilding baseball bats and tire irons, much less proposed beheadings.
Is he supposed to be quivering with fear?
I support unions and all that social stuff, but I don’t see why someone with two employees can’t pick the employees they want. I certainly don’t see any good reason why they should be picketed, publicly shamed, or ostracized. I suspect, if you have the compulsion, there are much more deserving targets.
Yeah, it’s a little unfair for her. But so is most employment. We all make unfair judgements on people, and employers are no different.
To frame it another way, if you employed a maid you didn’t like, do you think you should be compelled to keep employing them? If you employed a maid of the opposite sex and your spouse were jealous, would you put your foot down and inform your other half that you will not stand for this sort of unfairness?
What if it’s a woman who doesn’t wish to employ a man because she finds him physically intimidating, even if it’s her own issue and his behaviour were perfectly reasonable?
You could make all of those points for any form of discrimination.
Are you ok with discrimination of any sort? Buy a business and fire all the black people because they are black? That is ok with you since you could close the business and fire everyone?
There are anti discrimination laws on the books. If you want to argue they are wrongheaded then feel free to do so.
Gender discrimination is against the law. The Iowa Supreme Court basically said gender discrimination is fine if you claim you are sexually attracted to the person. You do not really have to be. Just claim you are (who could gainsay you?).
It makes a mockery of anti discrimination law.
EDIT: Also, FWIW, it seems she worked there for ten years and was considered an exemplary employee. So it seems she was not fired because she was bad at her job.