So if a private business owner says one has to be vaxxed to work there

[WEATHER53]

Sorry but I just posted your quote. You can stop lying any second now you retard. View attachment 522359

You have to state the persons work performance was unsatisfactory but you cannot fire them for any reason you want to which has been your contention
Your effort to run in circles I will not continue to rebut.

 

[meaner gene]

They cannot say that for an illegal reason which is exactly what I have stated.

That's the catch-22. If they don't give a reason. You have no basis for claiming discrimination.

The burden of proof then falls on the employee to show that their dismissal was because of an illegal reason.

 

[Asclepias]

You have to state the persons work performance was unsatisfactory but you cannot fire them for any reason you want to which has been your contention
Your effort to run in circles I will not continue to rebut.

No you dont. Let me give you some advice. Stick to stuff you know about. So far thats not much.

I like when you lie and try to move the goalposts though. It lets me know you have suffered emotional trauma when I catch you saying stupid shit.

 

[blackhawk]

Already did, many times.

Good for you the ones I posted are in my opinion the most realistic ones if people find themselves in this position and feel they have a better option go for it.

 

[WEATHER53]

That's the catch-22. If they don't give a reason. You have no basis for claiming discrimination.

The burden of proof then falls on the employee to show that their dismissal was because of an illegal reason.

The employee will gain instant standing by stating they were fired with no cause given. Employers know this so they don’t engage in the willy nilly dismissals like you are suggesting

 

[Asclepias]

The employee will gain instant standing by stating they were fired with no cause given.

It wont mean anything because the employer doesn't have to give a reason.

 

[dblack]

No I never said that.

Right. That's what I've been saying. An employer shouldn't have to have an "approved" excuse to fire someone. Just as an employee shouldn't have to offer a legal reason for leaving. The reasons are completely irrelevant. Unless there's a contract involved, either party should be free to end the relationship at any time for any reason.

 

[meaner gene]

You have to state the persons work performance was unsatisfactory but you cannot fire them for any reason you want to which has been your contention
Your effort to run in circles I will not continue to rebut.

A right-to-work state is a state that does not require union membership as a condition of employment. ... The employment relationship can be terminated for any reason or no reason at all.

California is an at-will employment state. At-will employment means that an employer can fire an employee for any reason or at any time. They do not need to have a reason or justification for terminating an at-will employee.

 

[Asclepias]

That's what I've been saying. An employer shouldn't have to have an "approved" excuse to fire someone.

Well they don't. Weatherboy simply has no idea what he is talking about.

 

[Asclepias]

Just as an employee shouldn't have to offer a legal reason for leaving.

Bingo. You dont have to give a 2 weeks notice and the employer needs to have your final check to you in I believe 24-48 hours.

 

[meaner gene]

Bingo. You dont have to give a 2 weeks notice and the employer needs to have your final check to you in I believe 24-48 hours.

California's Final Paycheck Law

An employee who is fired (or laid off) is entitled to a final paycheck immediately, meaning at the time of termination or layoff.

 

[bendog]

You have to state the persons work performance was unsatisfactory but you cannot fire them for any reason you want to which has been your contention
Your effort to run in circles I will not continue to rebut.

I don't think you're rebutting them BUT it may be you hail from one of the states that implied covenant of good faith and dealing. In those states - which are still in the minority - an employer has to have a just cause to fire. It can't be to just avoid retirement benefits or something, and it has to be based on job performance. It can't be malicious.

But even then, your employer can say "no long long hair, and wear a collar and tie or a dress skirt with hose" because he/she may want to present an image to customers.

At-will employment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/01/art1full.pdf

 

[WEATHER53]

Right. That's what I've been saying. An employer shouldn't have to have an "approved" excuse to fire someone. Just as an employee shouldn't have to offer a legal reason for leaving. The reasons are completely irrelevant. Unless there's a contract involved, either party should be free to end the relationship at any time for any reason.

But anti discrimination laws prevent that carte blanch from happening.

 

[WEATHER53]

A right-to-work state is a state that does not require union membership as a condition of employment. ... The employment relationship can be terminated for any reason or no reason at all.

California is an at-will employment state. At-will employment means that an employer can fire an employee for any reason or at any time. They do not need to have a reason or justification for terminating an at-will employee.

Unions are not the governing body that enacts the dismissal laws nor enforces them

 

[WEATHER53]

Bingo. You dont have to give a 2 weeks notice and the employer needs to have your final check to you in I believe 24-48 hours.

Depending upon conditions of employment. If you don’t give 2 weeks notice you may not get the money you would have if you did.

 

[meaner gene]

Unions are not the governing body that enacts the dismissal laws nor enforces them

The employment relationship can be terminated for any reason or no reason at all.

They do not need to have a reason or justification for terminating an at-will employee.

 

[meaner gene]

Depending upon conditions of employment. If you don’t give 2 weeks notice you may not get the money you would have if you did.

Right to work works both ways. As employers don't need a reason for firing. Employees don't need a reason (or give notification) to quit.

They are entitled to their last paycheck either within 72 hours, or by the next payday.

 

[Asclepias]

Depending upon conditions of employment. If you don’t give 2 weeks notice you may not get the money you would have if you did.

No duh? Yeah if you dont work the 40 hours you were going to work if you hadn't quit then you wont get paid those 40 hours you didnt work. What kind of retarded comment are you making?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You need to turn around and look back up the mountain, what would it take to convince you that there's nothing paranoid about it. As a matter of fact, I'd bet my entire life savings that if Trump were still in the Whitehouse and these same activities were going on, every leftist on this board would have the exact opposite reaction and be blaming Trump, saying he's fascist, going after those big, mean, bloated corps for forcing people to put something in their body, my body, my choice, blah, blah, blah... and ultimately refusing the vaccine, at least publicly.

Well, i would love to create that alternate reality for 5 minutes to take all of your money, as those are silly fantasies. I think you don't even believe them and are just wagging your chin to amuse yourself. That's how dumb all of that is.

 

[Dragonlady]

Yeah, and now the left is all in on defending the rights of business to discriminate. Flaming hypocrites all around, near as I can tell.

We're not defending employers' rights. We're explaining employment law, why it exists, and what the real world consequences are. And why, under current employment law, the employer can require you to be vaxxed, just like they can require you to pee in a cup and be drug tested, whether or not your being on drugs has any implications to your job whatsoever, and you have no right to decline such invasion of your privacy.

You have to state the persons work performance was unsatisfactory but you cannot fire them for any reason you want to which has been your contention
Your effort to run in circles I will not continue to rebut.

Yes you can. I knew a guy who worked for the same company for 9 years. The owner's son finished high school and needed a job, so they fired this long-time employee and gave his job to the owner's son. There was nothing wrong with his job performance. You have to pay them out for the proper notice period, but you have no right to your job if your boss wants to hire someone else, else you can prove you were fired because of race, religion or ethnic background.

I have a friend right now who has worked for the same company for at least 8 years - and he was recently put on notice because of his "bad attitude". He's had the same "bad attitude" the whole time he's worked there. The times he's been "spoken to" about this were completely fabricated, and the whole exercise is to make a basis to get rid of the "old guy" (63) who makes more than anyone else, and has 5 weeks paid vacation, and who is starting to have health problems, and replace him with someone younger, cheaper, and healthier.