Close

Complete Captcha

• 2 years - 328 posts - Latest - RSS
• Thread: 640 Goods vs 426 No Goods

1. Economist
   156e
   

   At-will employment doesn't mean employers can fire employees for any reason, as some posters mentioned earlier.

   For the most part, it actually does. The only exception is that you can't fire employees for a "bad" reason (race, religion, etc.) That aside, you can fire them for any other reason, including no reason at all.
   I'm all in favor of changing this so that employees can only be fired for "good" reasons (bad performance, theft, etc.) This would address the concern of the free speech bros without getting into snovvflake territory.

   We’ve seen how much that has benefited the youth in France. You run into the problem of it being so hard to prove that it’s a good reason, like poor performance, that it becomes impossible to fire unproductive employees, making employers less likely to take a chance on someone with little work history.

   2 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

2. Economist
   fa0a
   

   At-will employment doesn't mean employers can fire employees for any reason, as some posters mentioned earlier.

   For the most part, it actually does. The only exception is that you can't fire employees for a "bad" reason (race, religion, etc.) That aside, you can fire them for any other reason, including no reason at all.
   I'm all in favor of changing this so that employees can only be fired for "good" reasons (bad performance, theft, etc.) This would address the concern of the free speech bros without getting into snovvflake territory.

   Why is it snowflakism to say political ideology should be a protected class? I'm not making any exceptions here. It would also protect BLM supporters.

   2 years ago # QUOTE 3 Volod 0 Vlad !

3. Economist
   6a7d
   

   You really think that in a time when "the r!ght" controls the White House, the Senate, and the Supreme Court, that you are victimized and in need of protections. That's just snovvflaking at its worst.

   I would give up control over the White House, the Senate and the Supreme Court to control the media, the entertainment industry, the academia and all the NGOs. We all know who wins in the long-run. And by control I mean flip the relative proportion of liberals to conservatives in these institutions - do not gaslight.

   2 years ago # QUOTE 3 Volod 0 Vlad !

4. Economist
   086f
   

   I'm all in favor of changing this so that employees can only be fired for "good" reasons (bad performance, theft, etc.) This would address the concern of the free speech bros without getting into snovvflake territory.

   This would lead to huge problems in the job market.
   It would be necessary to have courts specialized in labour relations. And in the end, they would make it nearly impossible to fire someone, since the standard of evidence necessary for that would be very high.

   Labour? LJL, you're whining about culture wars in America when you're not even American.

   Anyway, if you want this "huge problems" card, tell me, how does making political speech a protected class, while preserving at-will employment, solve your problem? The employer just has to say that the #canceled employee was fired for no reason.

   What are you going to say? The firing took place after the mob called for it? Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

   2 years ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 1 Vlad !

5. Karl
   Rep: -77

   reading this thread gave me ccancer

   2 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

6. Economist
   a659
   

   Labour? LJL, you're whining about culture wars in America when you're not even American.

   The entire world is America, right now. When America went crazy with wokeness, the rest of the world copied it.

   Anyway, if you want this "huge problems" card, tell me, how does making political speech a protected class, while preserving at-will employment, solve your problem? The employer just has to say that the #canceled employee was fired for no reason.
   What are you going to say? The firing took place after the mob called for it? Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

   I think the best way to fight this is to educate people on the importance of debate. And the 2nd best way is to fight fire with fire and destroying the careers of people who participate in cancellation mobs.

   Regardless of this, your proposal has negative side effects that are pretty bad.

   2 years ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 0 Vlad !

7. Economist
   086f
   

   Labour? LJL, you're whining about culture wars in America when you're not even American.

   The entire world is America, right now. When America went crazy with wokeness, the rest of the world copied it.

   Don't you have more important issues in your own country than worrying about our culture wars? Like, I dunno, Brexit and/or the fate of Northern Ireland?

   Anyway, if you want this "huge problems" card, tell me, how does making political speech a protected class, while preserving at-will employment, solve your problem? The employer just has to say that the #canceled employee was fired for no reason.
   What are you going to say? The firing took place after the mob called for it? Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

   I think the best way to fight this is to educate people on the importance of debate. And the 2nd best way is to fight fire with fire and destroying the careers of people who participate in cancellation mobs.
   Regardless of this, your proposal has negative side effects that are pretty bad.

   Holy moly. You have no rebuttal whatsoever to my pointing out that if you retain at-will employment, employers can still fire #canceled employees for no reason, and you can't "prove" that it was because of their political speech without invoking the post hoc fallacy.

   Have any of you free speech bros actually spent one second thinking about the implication of any of your half-baked ideas?

   2 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 3 Vlad !

8. Economist
   a659
   

   Don't you have more important issues in your own country than worrying about our culture wars? Like, I dunno, Brexit and/or the fate of Northern Ireland?

   The destruction of Western culture is more important than Brexit.

   Holy moly. You have no rebuttal whatsoever to my pointing out that if you retain at-will employment, employers can still fire #canceled employees for no reason, and you can't "prove" that it was because of their political speech without invoking the post hoc fallacy.
   Have any of you free speech bros actually spent one second thinking about the implication of any of your half-baked ideas?

   Did you even read my post? Or are you some kind of bot? I was not even defending "make political ideology a protected class". I'm saying your proposal have negative effects.
   And also, wouldn't your argument go against making anything a protected class?

   2 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

9. Economist
   086f
   

   Of course I read your post. That's how I spotted the u in labour and concluded that you're whinging about culture wars in America despite not even being American. Britannia has fallen on very hard times if you're more concerned about what happens in a former colony than in your own country.

   Anyway, we seem to have several proposals on the table to address the problems of #cancelculture.

   Me: Get rid of at-will employment.

   Free speech bros other than you: Make political speech a protected class.

   You: Create a world where we can sit down together over a cup of Darjeeling tea and chicken tikka masala and discuss politics in a free marketplace of ideas.

   Your world ain't ever happening, so I suggest we discuss other solutions that can actually be implemented and that would actually solve this "problem."

   2 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 2 Vlad !

10. Economist
    a659
    

    ^ You didn't answer even one of my points...

    2 years ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 0 Vlad !

11. Economist
    308d
    

    I'm all in favor of changing this so that employees can only be fired for "good" reasons (bad performance, theft, etc.) This would address the concern of the free speech bros without getting into snovvflake territory.

    This would lead to huge problems in the job market.
    It would be necessary to have courts specialized in labour relations. And in the end, they would make it nearly impossible to fire someone, since the standard of evidence necessary for that would be very high.

    Labour? LJL, you're whining about culture wars in America when you're not even American.
    Anyway, if you want this "huge problems" card, tell me, how does making political speech a protected class, while preserving at-will employment, solve your problem? The employer just has to say that the #canceled employee was fired for no reason.
    What are you going to say? The firing took place after the mob called for it? Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

    Wrongful termination lawsuits aren't that simple even if it's an at-will state.

    2 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

12. Economist
    086f
    

    Wrongful termination lawsuits aren't that simple even if it's an at-will state.

    As I said, at-will doesn't allow employers to fire employees for "bad" reasons like race etc. Outside of that, good luck arguing for "wrongful termination" because you were fired after a cancel mob called for your firing.

    2 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 2 Vlad !

13. Economist
    232a
    

    Wrongful termination lawsuits aren't that simple even if it's an at-will state.

    As I said, at-will doesn't allow employers to fire employees for "bad" reasons like race etc. Outside of that, good luck arguing for "wrongful termination" because you were fired after a cancel mob called for your firing.

    ^Stonehead.

    Employee X says something on Twitter that arouses the mob on July 1. By July 2, there is a petition to fire boycott X's employer unless that employer fires employee X. By July 5, the employer fires X, noting that X's performance turned unsatisfactory in the last 3 days.

    Employee X sues for wrongful termination.

    Employer insists that the firing had nothing to do with the Twitter mob. Discovery reveals emails between the employer's execs and X's immediate supervisor on the subject of the Twitter mob's complaint as well as attempts to falsify past employee evaluations.

    Jury awards employee X 100 bazillion dollars for wrongful termination.

    086f--now graduating from high school--is mystified at how they could have come to this conclusion.

    2 years ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 0 Vlad !

14. Economist
    be7a
    

    I'm more optimistic about making political orientation a protected class. Someone with a history of solid performance reviews who is terminated in the immediate aftermath of a social media cancel campaign would have a strong case.

    There will always be situations where it's less obvious; e.g., if the employee's performance was worsening over time to begin with. But that will be an issue with any protected class and no one argues that it's a good reason for getting rid of the others.

    Most employers are quite risk averse when it comes to lawsuits, so my guess is that they would stay away from cancelling people if it was likely to prompt a lawsuit.

    To me, this is a minimal intrusion on freedom of association that formalizes a social norm that served us well for 200 years.

    2 years ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !

15. Economist
    55ad
    

    I don't agree that boycotts are bad for society. I think that the morality of a boycott depends on the how and why. I know, to reasonable to feel outrage about...

    Threatening a company with boycotts to fire someone because that person has a different opinion than yours is immoral and is bad for society.
    Let's say that two groups have different opinions. Using threats is not how we will find which opinion is closer to the truth (after all, we can never say we have reached the truth). It will only make it so that the opinion of the strongest is the one that will be accepted. If the strongest side happens to be farther from the truth, what will be the result? Error will persist and society will worsen.
    If you can't allow a different opinion to be heard, how will you ever know when you are wrong?
    But this is the strongest case. Let's suppose someone is in error. Should we destroy the life of the one who is in error or should we help that person get closer to the truth with stronger arguments?

    You don't need to explain the benefits of free speech to me. You need to understand that free speech is not about employee rights. Free speech merely denies governments the right to suppress self-expression.

    You want to protect people from being fired, great, but that is not related to free speech. If China enacted a law to the effect that employees could not be fired over expressing a racist opinion, that country would still not have free speech.

    2 years ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !

16. Economist
    086f
    

    By July 5, the employer fires X, noting that X's performance turned unsatisfactory in the last 3 days.

    Hi 232a, the 2020 high school F student. Under at-will employment, the employer can fire an employee for no reason at all.

    At-will employment sounds great when your reference point is France, but it doesn't sound so great when your reference point is conservatives, now does it?

    2 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 2 Vlad !

17. Economist
    55ad
    

    To Mr “political affiliation”...this concept is so incoherent that it’s not even worth considering. But, here you go. You can be a member of the same political affiliation as someone else and say very different things. That why speech matters. People can say (or do) different things in response. Affiliation and speech are not inextricably linked as you seem to think. Your linkage is so silly that the protection would be worthless. Please find someone worth arguing about.

    It's not silly, political firings have been an issue in countries that have lived in military dictatorships. I am from one, and nowadays firings based on ideology (not just party affiliation, but ideology) are generally regarded as discrimination under my country's law (the land of the Chicago Boys).
    People can indeed say things in response, it's part of free speech. They can also call for boycotts even. But if companies will face no costs for complying with the boycotters'demands, then this will have a chilling effect on speech. That's the truth. It did when blacklists of communists in Hollywood were a thing in the '50s, and it does when cancellers start making their own blacklists as well.

    I keep suggesting that the proper way to handle that concern is not to add "political speech" as a protected class, but to enhance employment protections more broadly such that employees can only be fired for just cause.
    But because "enhanced employment protections" has socialist connotations, the free speech bros don't like it.

    At-will employment doesn't mean employers can fire employees for any reason, as some posters mentioned earlier.

    So you want the government to step in and determine which opinions are protected and which are not?

    2 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

18. Economist
    156e
    

    By July 5, the employer fires X, noting that X's performance turned unsatisfactory in the last 3 days.

    Hi 232a, the 2020 high school F student. Under at-will employment, the employer can fire an employee for no reason at all.
    At-will employment sounds great when your reference point is France, but it doesn't sound so great when your reference point is conservatives, now does it?

    I’m certain that you’ve never been an employer, but have you even had a job?

    2 years ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !

19. Economist
    086f
    

    I’m certain that you’ve never been an employer, but have you even had a job?

    Yes. Unlike the free speech bros in the thread, I am not a NEET.

    2 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 3 Vlad !

20. Economist
    156e
    

    I’m certain that you’ve never been an employer, but have you even had a job?

    Yes. Unlike the free speech bros in the thread, I am not a NEET.

    What kind of job?

    2 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

Reply »