I’ve never fired an employee who then collected UC. (Firing without cause)
It’s not that I’m a perfect boss, just cheap.
It’s part of a country that permits its states to do this, which is fucked up.
Vinyl, if it makes you feel any better, I’d pressure you into sex with me if I were your boss (but really only because I know you’d come up with some hilarious reply).
According to this news report (swiped from another thread):
http://www.news4jax.com/news/-Irresistible-Iowa-worker-decries-ruling/-/475880/17879022/-/jf7ka7/-/index.html
Imagine being that female replacement. It must suck to know that you are legally classified as ugly.
Leaving aside the possibility of gender discrimination (which is illegal in the US), what’s fucked up about a guy who starts a business and decides he needs to fire someone? Do you propose that no one be allowed to fire someone unless the government approves of the reason? Because that would actually be fucked up!
Let us try to get a few things straight here. Nelson v. Knight DDS PC (Iowa Sup Ct 11-1857, Dec 21, 2012) has nothing to do with the state’s long standing right-to-work statute.
Right-to-work is fundamentally a union busting tool, it says that an employer can’t make joining a labor or trade union a condition of employment. It also prohibits the application of collectively bargained employment agreements to members of the union that negotiated the agreement to the exclusion of employees who are not members of the union. I allows (encourages?) an employee to not join the union while giving the employee all the commercial benefits of union membership without contribution to the expense of the negotiation.
Nelson v. Knight is a straight up sexual discrimination case under the Iowa Civil Rights Act which declares it to be unlawful to fire an employee because of (among other things) the employee’s gender. Ms Nelson sued her former employer, Dr Knight, in the theory that he had fired her because of her gender. Dr K’s response was that he had fired Ms N, not because she was a woman but because Dr K’s wife resented the possibility of an other than professional relationship between the dental surgeon and the dental hygienist. The case was thrown out by the trial court on summery judgement (no legitimate dispute over any material fact or point of law and the dentist entitled to judgment as a matter of law). On appeal the Iowa Sup Ct agreed.
This is not a case about whether the dentist is a jerk or his wife a suspicious bitch. Both probably are. The question is whether the Iowa statute extends its protections to people the employer’s spouse conceives to be a rival for the employers affections, rightly or wrongly. The Iowa court says it does not, and because the Sup Ct is right because it is final, not necessarily final because it is right, so stand the law of this fair state. If you don’t like it go talk to the collection of village idiots that make up our state legislature.
Reading between the lines, this man just wanted to fuck his employee and when she was having none of it, she got the sack.
Suppose it means you know what to expect when you go to work for this man.
Reading the actual lines, no. The facts of this case tell us otherwise.
And if that were the case, then the woman is more of an idiot than the man. And her lawyer should be disbarred for incompetence.
Word. I think in many large businesses, they could have transferred the dental assistent to work with someone else and told Dr. Bulging Pants to keep it zipped or be terminated himself.
If he can fire her for how she made him feel, can I sue him for giving me funny feelings inside when I get my teeth filled?
Anti-dentite!
It would probably depend on what type of “funny feelings” he gave you.
Will hold judgement till I see her in a tight dental assistant outfit.
She had a child and was happily married, but dude couldn’t handle the inevitable and NOT cheat on his wife so chick had to go.
She looks a lot better in the first two pics than in the last, family one.
Dentist looks creepy with that tat.
The pastor’s involvement is what floors me. Counsel the wife to trust her husband? Counsel the dentist to look past his dick and appreciate people on a human and professional basis? Nah…fire the working mother. God will forgive her if she truly repents of her wantoness.
Too bad it wasn’t all a set up like that classic Jewish joke whose punch line goes “no, you don’t have to pay me for being my houseguest. I just wanted you to see what an idiot our rabbi is.”
[Joke about filling her cavities redacted.]
I don’t see the question. Hormones are real. You can’t pretend them away.
This woman’s presence had the potential to mess up her employer’s life. I don’t see why a private citizen needs to keep on employing someone who might ruin his life.
It’s unfortunate for this woman. There are a lot of unfortunate situations in the world.
Because women aren’t to blame for men being attracted to them; using the excuse of not being able to control themselves is bullshit (see my first post in this thread re. burkas and how Muslim men put all the blame on women for being attractive to them and punish them accordingly).
So if he just can’t help himself and decides to rape this hottie, that’s ok too? Cause he isn’t to blame, it’s his hormones.
Why are his employees responsible for his hormones, though?
Yes, we’ve all got them and yes, we all fancy people. Doesn’t mean we simply MUST go and have an affair with them, nor does it mean that they will want to have an affair with us, either.
And besides, if Dr Iowa really was all that concerned about his complete and utter lack of regard for his own marriage vows and absence of self restraint around women why does he only employ women?