Are you putting forward a hypothetical that… The employer does something to the employee that the employee thinks is fair?
Have I got that right?
Sure.
As long as the contract between them is honored and is in accordance with the relevant employment regulations then we don’t have a problem.
But I’m talking about equipping the employee with the legal means, and the employer the legal expectations, to cover when unfairness is alleged.
An employee could be coerced or cajolled into signing pretty much any contract but laws already exist in many places to ensure that certain statutory employment rights cannot be waived. A contract would not be valid if that were the case and the employer could be in deep shit regardless of what the employee agrees to.
So, if the mob irrationally goes after someone for something trivial, their employer must eat all damages incurred as a result of the mob’s irrationality, no matter how severe?
Yes, it is. You said it wasn’t a fair description. In what specific way was it unfair?
As I’ve said several times now, The employer would always be free to fire the employee and cut their losses but what they would be obliged to do is to show they have treated them fairly (severance agreements etc)…or…if they do not, they would be open to getting hammered by a tribunal if the employee took them to court.
I specifically said it was not a fair representation of what she went through.
Let’s consider the employment status of World Trade Center workers on 9/11/01
“they started the day fully employed and by the end of the morning they were forced into a position where they were no longer working for their respective companies”
Is that a fair representation?
What would be a more fair representation?
BTW, when I look at what ended taking place with Justine Sacco, I would think that that ordeal is similar to a “first world problem” troublesome, but not a gulag.
Again, it has to be pointed out that most media that the right wing identifies in the US as “lefty” were critical about her firing or published articles understanding what took place, not so the tweeters. I will have to say that using tweeter as a representative of what “the loony left” is doing, is more of an example of “nutpicking”. It does not represent the left in general.
I’ve already stated that in previous posts.
I’m going to drop this diversion now. I’m not going to constantly repeat myself. I’ve made my points (repeatedly in some cases) and given my reasoning and we are going in circles.
Thing is, I don’t really know where else things could go, given our starting points.
You’re against at-will employment, and you say an “employee could be coerced or cajolled into signing pretty much any contract but laws already exist in many places to ensure that certain statutory employment rights cannot be waived. A contract would not be valid if that were the case and the employer could be in deep shit regardless of what the employee agrees to.”
So: what happens if I tell you I’m an at-will employee who (a) wasn’t coerced or cajoled, but who just agreed to do some work in exchange for the money they agree to pay me, and who (b) thinks it’s fair that they could tell me not to bother coming in to work tomorrow, much like how I could quit working there tomorrow?
Will you say “nuh-uh, maybe you were coerced or cajoled, and anyway they shouldn’t have had the right to offer you employment on those terms, and you shouldn’t have had the right to say yes,” and will I say “no, you’re wrong, and your preferences aren’t as important as my rights in this matter,” and will you say, “no, you’re wrong; my preferences are more important than your rights in this matter,” and will I say “uh, no, you’re wrong,” and will you say “uh, no, you’re wrong,” and will I say “uh, no, you’re — hang on; we’re going in circles, here, aren’t we?”
honestly, it doesn’t have to go anywhere.
I have my opinion, you have yours. We differ on what obligations to place on an employer. That is really it. As I said. I think we can drop this now.
A company is not just made up of the corporation. There are the other employees as well. As I said in my earlier post, what if the company starts losing business as a result of the tweet? What if their reviews on Yelp and Facebook start talking about how racist the company is, because of that tweet, and their income is dropping steadily? How fair is it to the other employees to ignore the risks to their livelihoods because of the tweet?
As well, corporations owe a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to manage the company wisely, and not to allow conduct that harms the company. Ultimately, that is in the goal of making money for the shareholders, and insuring they don’t lose their investment. Maybe you don’t like that, but that’s the legal framework a company operates in. If the conduct of one employee starts to jeopardise the company, they may have a duty to their shareholders to get rid of that employee as part of their damage control.
Yes, that’s my position. Pretty much every society prior to the 18th century was based on a foundation of peasants, serfs, and slaves - and therefore was not a good society by our standards. Capitalism was one of the big steps forward to ordinary people having some basic rights.
In that case, the events of 1776 aren’t any kind of watershed, are they? American society was still “based on a foundation” of slaveholding for nearly another century.
(Not to mention the subsequent continuance for a further half-century of denial of fundamental rights to women, which apparently doesn’t count for disqualification from “good society by our standards” status?)
…capitalism in America today is built on the equivalent foundation of peasants, serfs and slaves. It is not a good society based on international standards.
The folks that ruled over peasants and serfs had a vested interest in keeping ‘their’ peasants and serfs at least fed enough to work. Capitalists, not so much.
I mean, those folks made abusing ‘their’ workers a feature and not a bug.
You load 16 tons, what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt.
St. Peter, don’t you call me 'cause I can’t go,
I owe my soul to the company store.
It’s not a light switch. I said capitalism started the process in 1776.
Are you claiming that modern day workers in America exist in conditions that are remotely equivalent to being a peasant, serf, or slave?
Do you guys realize slave owners used this same argument to defend slavery?
I don’t think it’s even possible to get that out of what I wrote.
Has anyone written a sf/fantasy story in which a modern women is stranded in a medievalesque setting, and finds herself in a place where no one thinks women have equal rights or even any rights and absolutely no one is going to defend her? And she has to figure out how, in a society ruled by strong violent men with fists, clubs and swords, she can ever be anything more than basically a rape slave? IOW, given the realities of a feudalistic setting, how could upholding women’s rights even be possible, short of postulating an entire society of altruistic saints?