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?
The kind where I could be fired for any reason or no reason at all (aka not a unionized one).
Do you know anyone who was actually fired for “no reason”?
Do you know anyone who was actually fired for “no reason”?Nope.
Exactly. Even though, I’m sure you were working at McD’s since you’re still in hs, even though replacement costs are minimal considering how much turnover there is already, they don’t want to have to deal with the headache of wrongful termination lawsuits. Even if they win, it’s still expensive.
Do you know anyone who was actually fired for “no reason”?Nope.
Exactly. Even though, I’m sure you were working at McD’s since you’re still in hs, even though replacement costs are minimal considering how much turnover there is already, they don’t want to have to deal with the headache of wrongful termination lawsuits. Even if they win, it’s still expensive.
I see no reason to insult high schoolers who work at McD's. They contribute far more to society that basement dwelling NEETs who have a terribly confused misunderstanding of what free speech is and isn't and who think that political speech should be treated the same as race in employment protections.
Do you know anyone who was actually fired for “no reason”?
Nope.
Exactly. Even though, I’m sure you were working at McD’s since you’re still in hs, even though replacement costs are minimal considering how much turnover there is already, they don’t want to have to deal with the headache of wrongful termination lawsuits. Even if they win, it’s still expensive.
I see no reason to insult high schoolers who work at McD's. They contribute far more to society that basement dwelling NEETs who have a terribly confused misunderstanding of what free speech is and isn't and who think that political speech should be treated the same as race in employment protections.
If you read that as an insult to high schoolers working at McD’s that says a lot about your worldview. I’m quite proud to see a fast food restaurant full of teenagers learning important life skills.
I’m quite proud to see a fast food restaurant full of teenagers learning important life skills.
Me too. That's why I've never once said anything like "I’m sure you were working at McD’s since you’re still in hs" to any of the free speech bros in the thread.
Anyway, this discussion seems to have reached its natural conclusion. As always, basement bros need to learn that free speech isn't a shield against criticism or consequences. If you debate someone, make a fool of yourself, and lose opportunities as a result, those consequences didn't violate your "free speech."
I’m quite proud to see a fast food restaurant full of teenagers learning important life skills.Me too. That's why I've never once said anything like "I’m sure you were working at McD’s since you’re still in hs" to any of the free speech bros in the thread.
Anyway, this discussion seems to have reached its natural conclusion. As always, basement bros need to learn that free speech isn't a shield against criticism or consequences. If you debate someone, make a fool of yourself, and lose opportunities as a result, those consequences didn't violate your "free speech."
The implication being that you sound like you’re in high school and apparently also 10-ply.
Systematically attacking people who take moderate positions that counter the “critical” zeitgeist is nothing short of suppression. The fact that you believe it to be okay really demonstrates how complicit you would have been during any of the numerous examples of this phenomenon in history that we rightly consider atrocious today.
The fact that you believe it to be okay really demonstrates how complicit you would have been during any of the numerous examples of this phenomenon in history that we rightly consider atrocious today.
You know what I think really speaks volumes about your worldview? As I've repeatedly said, both Notsee propaganda and cancel culture are protected under legal free speech. I've repeatedly said that I am against both, but I must accept that they both fall under legal free speech.
Yet not one of you (except for a non-basement bro who made a nice paradox of tolerance reference that none of you picked up on) has ever accused me of being a Notsee. Instead, all of you accuse me of being pro-cancel culture.
Why is that? Is it because even though I'm against both Notsees and cancel mobs, you're only against cancel mobs?
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?
Functionally wrong.
If an employer is accused of firing an employee for an illegal reason, that employer will be expected to explain in court why the employee was fired. If the employer just says, "We don't need a reason, this is an at-will state," then a jury will almost certainly find in favor of the employee.
The employer will need to explain why the employee was fired to convince the jury that it was not the illegal reason.
086f, you have no idea how the world works. You have obviously never been involved in decisions about firing someone or received legal training about it. You are probably in high school.
You know nothing; stop spreading random BS.
The fact that you believe it to be okay really demonstrates how complicit you would have been during any of the numerous examples of this phenomenon in history that we rightly consider atrocious today.You know what I think really speaks volumes about your worldview? As I've repeatedly said, both Notsee propaganda and cancel culture are protected under legal free speech. I've repeatedly said that I am against both, but I must accept that they both fall under legal free speech.
Yet not one of you (except for a non-basement bro who made a nice paradox of tolerance reference that none of you picked up on) has ever accused me of being a Notsee. Instead, all of you accuse me of being pro-cancel culture.
Why is that? Is it because even though I'm against both Notsees and cancel mobs, you're only against cancel mobs?
You might not be a nat soc or a communist, but as long as they’re legally murdering people into the millions, you have no problem with it, right?
You might not be a nat soc or a communist, but as long as they’re legally murdering people into the millions, you have no problem with it, right?
Oh my mistake, the person who I thought was making the paradox of tolerance reference was you. I sincerely apologize for drastically overestimating your intelligence, as your current posts make it clear that you have no idea what the paradox of tolerance is or who Karl Popper was.
My only conclusion is that if I repeatedly say that I am against Notsees and cancel culture, but recognize that both of their views are protected under legal free speech, and I keep getting accused of being pro-cancel culture but have never been accused of being a Notsee is that
you basement bros are against cancel culture but not against Notsees. In which case, I hope none of you make the same mistake as Blake "CharlesXII" Neff!
"... who think that political speech should be treated the same as race in employment protections."
The argument is that it should be the same as religion, since both are belief systems.
Granted, there is a longer history of discrimination based on religion, but political orientation is catching up fast. I don't see daily news stories on people being fired for being Muslims.
Do you know anyone who was actually fired for “no reason”?Nope.
I might be missing some, details but first 3 that came up on a quick search:
https://nypost.com/2020/06/15/vermont-principal-placed-on-leave-over-facebook-post-on-blm/
I have a question for 086fm who, despite their taste for snark, does seem to have an uncommon amount of legal knowledge for someone on an econ forum.
The question is: If religious expression is protected (and I assume it is since prohibiting employment discrimination based on religion must presumably protect the right to proclaim one's beliefs), how would the law deal with terminations based on controversial tweets that are both religious and political?
Example: I don't support political group ABC because my reading of Bible passage XYZ prohibits it.
The question is: If religious expression is protected (and I assume it is since prohibiting employment discrimination based on religion must presumably protect the right to proclaim one's beliefs), how would the law deal with terminations based on controversial tweets that are both religious and political?
I'm not a lawyer. I wouldn't even say I have an uncommon amount of legal knowledge. I just have the minimum amount of brain cells necessary to answer why certain classes (like race, religion, and national origin) are protected and others (like being a Notsee) aren't.
Anyway, having said that disclaimer, my non-lawyer understanding is that you can't terminate someone for a religious reason, even if it's not the only reason.
That last part is key. My experience with Notsee basement bros on other forums is that they have a very warped conception of discrimination. To them, if you hate someone for 98 non-racial reasons and 1 racial reason, you're not a racist because of the 98 non-racial reasons. To them, you can only be a racist if you like everything about a person except for his/her race.
It's incredibly dumb, and I bet 1 BTC it would never fly in any court. If you fire someone for 98 good reasons and tack on race as the 99th reason, you're gonna get sued for a Title VII violation and you're gonna lose.
Replace race with religion and the answer stays the same.
I have a question for 086fm who, despite their taste for snark, does seem to have an uncommon amount of legal knowledge for someone on an econ forum.
086f has an all-too-common common willingness to claim knowledge that he/she really doesn't have.
Google the Dunning-Kruger effect.
"Anyway, having said that disclaimer, my non-lawyer understanding is that you can't terminate someone for a religious reason, even if it's not the only reason."
Then the solution to cancel culture is for those espousing disfavored views to couch them in religious terms, at least in part.