Consequence Culture - Gina Carano, Colin Kaepernick, The Dixie Chicks and Jane Fonda

[JoeB131]

Well, what you wrote above seems a reasonable 'regulation' to me. There are few doubts that employers should be able to carry out their own staff policy. And employees should be able to protect their rights if they were treated unfair.

But, frankly, I dont completely get what ' for no reason without incurring legal liability' means on practice. Yes, if an employee repeatedly breaks the rules they should be fired. But you mentioned the guys which got to a fight over some political issue. And you fired them both. I think it is unfair. The fired should be the one who started the fight. The other one who fought back should have had the right to legally protect his case.

The problem with that is that the burden in an at-will employment situation is on the employee.

For instance, I have said the thing that turned me from being a pretty conservative guy to someone who is about one step from voting for Bernie is that when I busted up my knee in 2007 and required a lot of expensive surgery and rehabilitation, my boss's go to was to try to encourage me to quit, and then downsizing me in a reorganization even though I had seniority over everyone in the office.

Now, my lawyer said, I had a pretty darned good case for medical and age discrimination. It helps when a boss is such a moron he blurts out, "you're too old to retrain" (I was 46 at the time) in front of many witnesses. Of course, that would have required me to spend hundreds of hours in court fighting the case. Not to mention my name coming up in court records whenever future employers did a background check.

A system that puts workers' rights above employers rights would be the opposite of that. the burden should be on them on why they are downsizing their long-term employees beyond "I think I can get someone cheaper now."

I would favor a system of, yeah, you can lay people off, but they have to be the first one you offer jobs back to if you are hiring again.

 

[ESay]

Well, what you wrote above seems a reasonable 'regulation' to me. There are few doubts that employers should be able to carry out their own staff policy. And employees should be able to protect their rights if they were treated unfair.

But, frankly, I dont completely get what ' for no reason without incurring legal liability' means on practice. Yes, if an employee repeatedly breaks the rules they should be fired. But you mentioned the guys which got to a fight over some political issue. And you fired them both. I think it is unfair. The fired should be the one who started the fight. The other one who fought back should have had the right to legally protect his case.

The problem with that is that the burden in an at-will employment situation is on the employee.

For instance, I have said the thing that turned me from being a pretty conservative guy to someone who is about one step from voting for Bernie is that when I busted up my knee in 2007 and required a lot of expensive surgery and rehabilitation, my boss's go to was to try to encourage me to quit, and then downsizing me in a reorganization even though I had seniority over everyone in the office.

Now, my lawyer said, I had a pretty darned good case for medical and age discrimination. It helps when a boss is such a moron he blurts out, "you're too old to retrain" (I was 46 at the time) in front of many witnesses. Of course, that would have required me to spend hundreds of hours in court fighting the case. Not to mention my name coming up in court records whenever future employers did a background check.

A system that puts workers' rights above employers rights would be the opposite of that. the burden should be on them on why they are downsizing their long-term employees beyond "I think I can get someone cheaper now."

I would favor a system of, yeah, you can lay people off, but they have to be the first one you offer jobs back to if you are hiring again.

Well, as always there are two sides of a coin. If someone gets some injury (not related to the work process) and needs some relatively long term of rehabilitation, what should the employer do? Keep the worker's place until they get to the job again, hire a temporary worker who will be fired when the old one gets to the job, keep paying them a part of the salary for a period of rehabilitation?

Basically, you should agree the relations between an employer and employee is like buying some product. As long as you fail to offer it, you dont get paid.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Wow, you're babbling...

And you failed to make a compelling argument.

Your position is that I should want to allow someone else to step in and do something that's "just as good" as what I do.

That's ******* stupid...

Hey, here's the thing. Do you ever wonder why so many people voted for Bernie Sanders last time?

Many people are stupid.

Why didn't he win?

If people are having fistfights in your workplace, it must be a pretty toxic workplace.

Again, dumbfuck, it's happened once, some years back. People aren't "having fist fights". There was one, and it was the result of two people ignoring a very simple workplace rule...

Are you a ******* retard, that you don't understand context. Nope, I didn't go to Nose Candy's office in Milwaukee and get into a fist fight with him until he gave us proper equipment.

But you said you had to fight with him...

Um, no, the point of At Will employment is you don't have to give a reason.

You're ******* stupid.

If I want to fire someone, I need to be able to justify it. Like, for instance, if you worked for me I wouldn't be able to fire you because you're gay. I also can't fire someone for being black or for being a Muslim. Those firings would be illegal. Please stop pretending that you're smart enough to converse about this. You're way out of your depth...

Besides, you earlier said that you could fire someone for wearing red shoes.

Sad you didn't catch the sarcasm. Pity, I thought you were sharper than that...

Oh, a union rep, absolutely... or a board of arbitration... that works, too.

And who would be on this board of arbitration?

 

[Canon Shooter]

But, frankly, I dont completely get what ' for no reason without incurring legal liability' means on practice. Yes, if an employee repeatedly breaks the rules they should be fired. But you mentioned the guys which got to a fight over some political issue. And you fired them both. I think it is unfair. The fired should be the one who started the fight. The other one who fought back should have had the right to legally protect his case.

I have a very simple policy in my business: No political or religious discussions in the work place, period. That rule is absolutely inflexible.

They both engaged in it nonetheless, so they were both shown the door...

 

[ESay]

But, frankly, I dont completely get what ' for no reason without incurring legal liability' means on practice. Yes, if an employee repeatedly breaks the rules they should be fired. But you mentioned the guys which got to a fight over some political issue. And you fired them both. I think it is unfair. The fired should be the one who started the fight. The other one who fought back should have had the right to legally protect his case.

I have a very simple policy in my business: No political or religious discussions in the work place, period. That rule is absolutely inflexible.

They both engaged in it nonetheless, so they were both shown the door...

That was harsh, really. I dont think that a worker should be fired for single breaching of the rules. They should have been punished of course (get fined, get worse shifts etc.) But not fired, especially if they had worked properly before.

 

[Canon Shooter]

But, frankly, I dont completely get what ' for no reason without incurring legal liability' means on practice. Yes, if an employee repeatedly breaks the rules they should be fired. But you mentioned the guys which got to a fight over some political issue. And you fired them both. I think it is unfair. The fired should be the one who started the fight. The other one who fought back should have had the right to legally protect his case.

I have a very simple policy in my business: No political or religious discussions in the work place, period. That rule is absolutely inflexible.

They both engaged in it nonetheless, so they were both shown the door...

That was harsh, really. I dont think that a worker should be fired for single breaching of the rules. They should have been punished of course (get fined, get worse shifts etc.) But not fired, especially if they had worked properly before.

Tell ya' what: when you start signing the checks at my company, you can decide what happens when the rules get broken.

The fact of the matter is that I have very few rules in place. Every single person who gets hired here understands this, and they understand that there's a zero tolerance policy on religious and political discussions. That's not something that's sprung on them during orientation. They know that by the end of their first interview...

 

[miketx]

Irrational fear of transsexual Americans.

Nothing irrational about being concerned about mentally ill freaks.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Why would any of that go away? Frankly, My dad was unionized, and his companies did family things all the time.

As far as a 401K, I'd take a union pension over a 401K any day of the week.

But you're not too bright.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Nothing's bulletproof, including pensions. Ask those city employees in San Diego how they fared when thousands of them lost their pensions.

Personally, my 401K is doing pretty ******* good at the moment. Sure, the market goes up and down, but that's understood going in. I have a good deal of gold, as well.

Why do you continue to ignore the list of things that I do for my employees? It's rather apparent that, as a proponent of unions, you're quite certain that those things could never be negotiated with an employer. You're just afraid to admit that I treat my employers far better than any union ever would. My people want for nothing. A union would be detrimental to them and they know it.

See, not only would I not want them to unionize, they don't want to unionize. Despite whatever intellectual pablum you belch up, that's what tells me I'm doing right by my people/...

Central States Pension Fund will be the next to implode. Yes, it's a union pension. (Though sometimes called the "UPS pension fund", it's not-I recall than nickname came from most people in it being UPS drivers.)

 

[Jarlaxle]

Sad you didn't catch the sarcasm. Pity, I thought you were sharper than that...

Joey was never the sharpest spoon in the drawer.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Those are all good points but I do wonder what did Gina Carano say that you label as racist, conspiratorial and transphobic? What even is transphobic?

Irrational fear of transsexual Americans.

The transphobic, anti-mask, and Holocaust tweets that led to Gina Carano getting fired from Disney's The Mandalorian

Former MMA star and actress Gina Carano continues to trend worldwide after being fired unceremoniously from Disney's The Mandalorian.

www.sportskeeda.com

You know she said nothing about transsexuals. She didn't say anything racist. What she said was that democrats treat republicans the same way Hitler treated the Jews.

Where was the transphobic remark?

Disney has gone full baizuo.

 

[Thoth001]

Those are all good points but I do wonder what did Gina Carano say that you label as racist, conspiratorial and transphobic? What even is transphobic?

Irrational fear of transsexual Americans.

The transphobic, anti-mask, and Holocaust tweets that led to Gina Carano getting fired from Disney's The Mandalorian

Former MMA star and actress Gina Carano continues to trend worldwide after being fired unceremoniously from Disney's The Mandalorian.

www.sportskeeda.com

You know she said nothing about transsexuals. She didn't say anything racist. What she said was that democrats treat republicans the same way Hitler treated the Jews.

Where was the transphobic remark?

Disney has gone full baizuo.

I have thought about this and we should realize that most of Disney's products are made in China. I am pretty sure that is how China is now controlling Disney. According to this link their are over 30,000 Disney facilities in China. This was a very very bad idea for Disney and many other companies to put their facilities in China to make more money. Now we are all suffering because China has many of these companies by the balls. Thanks Henry Kissenger, scum of the Earth.

Reports on labor conditions in Chinese factories: China Labor Watch

Read the latest reports. China Labor Watch has conducted hundreds of in-depth assessments of labor conditions in Chinese factories.

www.chinalaborwatch.org

Henry Kissinger: traitor to America

www.tldm.org

 

[JoeB131]

Well, as always there are two sides of a coin. If someone gets some injury (not related to the work process) and needs some relatively long term of rehabilitation, what should the employer do? Keep the worker's place until they get to the job again, hire a temporary worker who will be fired when the old one gets to the job, keep paying them a part of the salary for a period of rehabilitation?

Uh, yeah, that works for me. Some people prefer temporary work.

Basically, you should agree the relations between an employer and employee is like buying some product. As long as you fail to offer it, you dont get paid.

You see, that's what I don't buy... labor as a commodity. I think that's what has gotten us to where we are at today.

Used to be, you joined the union, you got a life time job and retired to get a pension.

Now, we get a situation where most people change jobs every five years... Companies intentionally reorganize to shed workers and bring on new ones they can pay less. The concept of the "McJob" is too common in our economy today.

 

[JoeB131]

Many people are stupid.

Why didn't he win?

Corporate America threw everything they had at him... propped up Biden, who had to promise his followers he'd do some of what he promised.

here's the reason why someone like Bernie is probably inevitable.

40% of the population controls less than 1% of the wealth.
The "Middle" 20% of the population controls less than 5% of the wealth.
The next bunch up controls 7% of the wealth. Incidentally, this is probably where I fell in terms of property and income in 2019...
The top 20% controls 87% of the wealth. Of that, 43% of the wealth is controlled by the top 1%. This is simply an unworkable situation.

Eventually, you are going to get the people in the bottom 60% are going to figure out this system doesn't work for them.

If I want to fire someone, I need to be able to justify it. Like, for instance, if you worked for me I wouldn't be able to fire you because you're gay. also can't fire someone for being black or for being a Muslim. Those firings would be illegal. Please stop pretending that you're smart enough to converse about this. You're way out of your depth...

Let's talk about that. In 2000, I worked with a woman who was gay. But she was mostly in the closet. You could describe her as a "Lipstick Lesbian". Well, she brought her partner to our Holiday Party (they were Jews, so they didn't call it a Christmas Party) and her partner was dressed in a dude's suit, just so no one missed the point.

Six weeks later, she was "downsized". Every last one of us knew they let her go because they found out she was gay. - which by the way, in Illinois at that time, there were no legal protections against. Further showing the bullshit, a couple months later, they filled that position again with someone else.

Now, in a unionized environment with worker's protections, that shit never would have went down.

(Incidently, happy ending, I wrote her a resume, and she was able to land a job with the company's competitor within a week. She went on to have a solid career in quality management.)

And who would be on this board of arbitration?

A committee dedicated the the power of the people's Soviet....

 

[JoeB131]

Tell ya' what: when you start signing the checks at my company, you can decide what happens when the rules get broken.

The fact of the matter is that I have very few rules in place. Every single person who gets hired here understands this, and they understand that there's a zero tolerance policy on religious and political discussions. That's not something that's sprung on them during orientation. They know that by the end of their first interview...

Wow, of all the things I could think of to discuss during an interview, the last thing any sensible person would say, "Don't you dare talk about politics or religion!!!"

 

[Canon Shooter]

Many people are stupid.

Why didn't he win?

Corporate America threw everything they had at him... propped up Biden, who had to promise his followers he'd do some of what he promised.

here's the reason why someone like Bernie is probably inevitable.

40% of the population controls less than 1% of the wealth.
The "Middle" 20% of the population controls less than 5% of the wealth.
The next bunch up controls 7% of the wealth. Incidentally, this is probably where I fell in terms of property and income in 2019...
The top 20% controls 87% of the wealth. Of that, 43% of the wealth is controlled by the top 1%. This is simply an unworkable situation.

Eventually, you are going to get the people in the bottom 60% are going to figure out this system doesn't work for them.

If I want to fire someone, I need to be able to justify it. Like, for instance, if you worked for me I wouldn't be able to fire you because you're gay. also can't fire someone for being black or for being a Muslim. Those firings would be illegal. Please stop pretending that you're smart enough to converse about this. You're way out of your depth...

Let's talk about that. In 2000, I worked with a woman who was gay. But she was mostly in the closet. You could describe her as a "Lipstick Lesbian". Well, she brought her partner to our Holiday Party (they were Jews, so they didn't call it a Christmas Party) and her partner was dressed in a dude's suit, just so no one missed the point.

Six weeks later, she was "downsized". Every last one of us knew they let her go because they found out she was gay. - which by the way, in Illinois at that time, there were no legal protections against. Further showing the bullshit, a couple months later, they filled that position again with someone else.

Now, in a unionized environment with worker's protections, that shit never would have went down.

(Incidently, happy ending, I wrote her a resume, and she was able to land a job with the company's competitor within a week. She went on to have a solid career in quality management.)

And who would be on this board of arbitration?

A committee dedicated the the power of the people's Soviet....

Well, then no. If you're not interested in providing an actual answer to a reasonable question, then there's no reason to believe you're nearly intelligent enough to continue this conversation...

 

[JoeB131]

Well, then no. If you're not interested in providing an actual answer to a reasonable question, then there's no reason to believe you're nearly intelligent enough to continue this conversation...

I gave you an answer, just not one you would like. I'm kind of not treating you seriously anymore because it's pretty clear that you live in mortal terror that someone might tell you what constitutes fair play.

 

[ESay]

Uh, yeah, that works for me. Some people prefer temporary work

How about the payment? Should the employer provide some payments during the rehabilitation?

Used to be, you joined the union, you got a life time job and retired to get a pension

Again, the two sides of a coin. If an employee is sure the union will protect their 'rights' against the employer, they may become not too eager to do their job properly.

 

[ESay]

% of the population controls less than 1% of the wealth.
The "Middle" 20% of the population controls less than 5% of the wealth.
The next bunch up controls 7% of the wealth. Incidentally, this is probably where I fell in terms of property and income in 2019...
The top 20% controls 87% of the wealth. Of that, 43% of the wealth is controlled by the top 1%. This is simply an unworkable situation.

Eventually, you are going to get the people in the bottom 60% are going to figure out this system doesn't work for them

So, what is the solution? Take everything away and share it all?

committee dedicated the the power of the people's Soviet

Yeah, it has been done already. Didn't work out well, though.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Tell ya' what: when you start signing the checks at my company, you can decide what happens when the rules get broken.

The fact of the matter is that I have very few rules in place. Every single person who gets hired here understands this, and they understand that there's a zero tolerance policy on religious and political discussions. That's not something that's sprung on them during orientation. They know that by the end of their first interview...

Wow, of all the things I could think of to discuss during an interview, the last thing any sensible person would say, "Don't you dare talk about politics or religion!!!"

And there you go making assumptions about things you're completely ignorant of. No one says "Don't you dare!" do anything.

We know before the end of the first interview whether or not a person will be asked back for a second interview. If a person is asked back for a second interview, that means the decision was made during the first interview to offer the person the job. A candidate would have to do something catastrophic to torpedo the job offer which, practically speaking, is all the second interview really is. So, towards the end of the first interview the candidate is given an employee "handbook". There's not a lot to it; a few pages, all of which are gone over with the new hire at the interview. Within those pages is a sort of "do's and don'ts" section and, in that section, it lists things which are prohibited, one of which is discussions regarding politics and/or religion. I think it comes right after the whole "drug free workplace" blurb.

When the candidate comes back for the second interview he signs a form saying that he fully understands the contents of the employee handbook, and that he will abide by the contents. He signs a statement with which he (or she) acknowledges they understand that failure to abide by the rules laid out in the employee handbook is sufficient cause for immediate termination.

Trust me, no one ever puts a gun to someone's head to force them to sign. They do it of their own volition, and they know, when they sign, that they will be held accountable for their actions.

Perhaps you see something wrong with treating employees like adults and holding them accountable for what they do, but I certainly don't...