Nine French police injured as student protests intensify (AFP)

[Flerbizky]

Yes.

Agreed !... 👍

 

[Duke]

Yes.

How on earth do you justify that?!

 

[Danoff]

The government is the only institution that can't discriminate (because everyone owns it). Any private company should be allowed to discriminate as much as they want.

Let's say joe blow decides to open a store. It's his store. He owns it, he bought it, it's his money on the line if it doesn't turn a profit. Society doesn't own the store, you don't own his store, he does.

So when joe blow decides to hire an employee, he gets to do so by whatever reasons he wants. He's offering to fork over his hard earned dollars to someone in exchange for work - and he gets to pick that person by whatever means he chooses (just like you get to pick a plumber or dentist or gardener by whatever means you choose). Unless a contract is signed, Joe can then end the agreement any time he wants for whatever reason he wants (just like you can stop going to your dentist or stop visiting the person that cuts your hair).

Think of Joe as a customer, shopping around for services in exchange for his money, just like you shop around for services in exchange for your money. Nobody should force you to give your money to someone just because they don't think you were being fair - if they can do that, it isn't your money.

Now think of the employee as a company, trying to attract a customer in exchange for his services. Just as a plumber or denstist tries to attract business.

 

[livemusic]

How on earth do you justify that?!

It's considered racism and a crime firing or not hiring a person because of his colour (at least here it is). But if an employee doesn't feel confortable working for a black person or a woman he can quit his job, it's his choice and he's not commiting any crime.

 

[Danoff]

It's considered racism and a crime firing or not hiring a person because of his colour (at least here it is). But if an employee doesn't feel confortable working for a black person or a woman he can quit his job, it's his choice and he's not commiting any crime.

We're talking about whether or not it SHOULD be a crime. France is proposing not making it a crime. So whether or not it's a crime doesn't really matter does it?

You can't claim that it should be a crime because it is a crime.

 

[livemusic]

Okay, I think it should be a crime.

 

[Danoff]

Okay, I think it should be a crime.

I suppose you even have reasons....

How on earth do you justify that?!

 

[Famine]

It's considered racism and a crime firing or not hiring a person because of his colour (at least here it is). But if an employee doesn't feel confortable working for a black person or a woman he can quit his job, it's his choice and he's not commiting any crime.

So an employee can be racist, but an employer can't?

Nice distinction.

 

[Flerbizky]

How on earth do you justify that?!

You - are you.. You are responsible for YOU - and YOU only, if you so choose.. Whereas - Once YOU start hiring people, you're also responsible for them and not just you anymore. Hence You can quit, because it's your choice and it has no impact on others whereas the other you who has employees HAS a responsibility for other people..

But I think you're doing this for the sake of the argument Duke, so I'm not saying anymore - just watching...

Btw.. I still think you're a bot...

 

[///M-Spec]

In all reality an employer can claim a million reasons to hide his true feelings.

Bingo.

And in some places, it is within a company's best interests to disclose no reasons at all in states which allow this (the previously mentioned Florida, is one example). Giving a reason can sometimes give a disgruntled ex-employee ammunition in a subsequent civil suit.

We let a guy go where I worked once. We had a file on him at least an inch high --ironclad documentation. His guy was quite a piece of work. Leaking confidential info to the client... poor performance... breaking into other people's emails... divisive and disruptive behavior.. even sneaking into the HR dept's files. But when he was shown the door, no reason at all was given. I kinda liked that, actually.

Back on topic...

.. I just love it when people fight injustice by breaking the law themselves. Especially when they target their rage in a random fashion. It's just so efficient.


M

 

[Carl.]

The government is the only institution that can't discriminate (because everyone owns it). Any private company should be allowed to discriminate as much as they want.

So it's fine if the main bus company that provides transport for a city decide to force black people to seat in the back, or refuses access to Asians? That would also be fine for an electricity company, a grocery store? I'm guessing the people being discriminated against for their race should either suck it or move elsewhere?

 

[Flerbizky]

So an employee can be racist, but an employer can't?

Nice distinction.

Not really.. If you choose unemployment and the gutter - it's your choice.. if you as an employee decides to differentiate people, it's a completely different ballpark...

 

[ExigeEvan]

How on earth do you justify that?!

Because the person leaving willingly, and putting themselves into hard time, is doing so under their own power. They have made a choice for themselves.

On the other hand, if an employer fires someone because they are White/Black/Christian/Sikh/Muslim then they are making a decision for someone else, and putting someone into hardship for little reason.

[EDIT]

So an employee can be racist, but an employer can't?

Nice distinction.

Well, yes, but not quite.

The employer will affect people by buy being racist, an employee less so.

 

[Flerbizky]

Because the person leaving willingly, and putting themselves into hard time, is doing so under their own power. They have made a choice for themselves.

On the other hand, if an employer fires someone because they are White/Black/Christian/Sikh/Muslim then they are making a decision for someone else, and putting someone into hardship for little reason.

That's exactly what I said..

Nobody listens to little old me.... :sob:

 

[Danoff]

So it's fine if the main bus company that provides transport for a city decide to force black people to seat in the back, or refuses access to Asians? That would also be fine for an electricity company, a grocery store? I'm guessing the people being discriminated against for their race should either suck it or move elsewhere?

If they get government money they can't discriminate, otherwise yes... and they'll go out of business quickly.

Let me put it to you this way. If someone starts a bus company, you don't get to tell them who they have to provide services to because

YOU DON'T OWN IT!!!!

On the other hand, if an employer fires someone because they are White/Black/Christian/Sikh/Muslim then they are making a decision for someone else, and putting someone into hardship for little reason.

You're not putting them into hardship. You're deciding whether to give them your money. (Or your boss's money, or your boss's boss's money) If you don't want to give them your money in exchange for their work, you don't have to.... because it's yours .

 

[Duke]

Say I'm a black employer. I hire you for a job and you are good at it. I come to depend on you to keep my business running and making money.

After a while, you decide that you just can't stand working for a black man. You quit, with no reason given.

I'm now totally stuck, because the employee upon whom I depended for the efficiency and profitability of my business has discriminated against me racially. I have to scramble and find another employee, quickly, and hope it doesn't impact my business too much.

But this is perfectly fine, since I'm the employer and not the employee?!

That makes NO SENSE whatsoever. None.

 

[ExigeEvan]

That's exactly what I said..

Nobody listens to little old me.... :sob:

Perhaps because we made the original posts at exactly the same time

My bad 👎

 

[livemusic]

I suppose you even have reasons....

You already quoted my reasons, I agree with the law on this case.

So an employee can be racist, but an employer can't?

Nice distinction.

They can both be racists.

 

[Famine]

Not really.. If you choose unemployment and the gutter - it's your choice.. if you as an employee decides to differentiate people, it's a completely different ballpark...

But in both cases it's a single person being discriminatory.

The employer will affect people by buy being racist, an employee less so.

What about loss of productivity, drop in quality of service and loss of customers caused by an employee walking out? An employee leaving without warning causes great harm to any given company.

Edit: Treed by the Dukester.

 

[Duke]

They can both be racists.

No, they can't, under your law. The employee can be a racist and get away with no penalty or problem. The employer gets sued or fined, or both, if he is a racist.

 

[///M-Spec]

The employer will affect people by buy being racist, an employee less so.

I disagree.

A employee can harm a company (and indirectly harm his coworkers and even his community) in many ways.

Here's another way to look at the issue.

An employee who is disgrunted quits. Before he does, deletes computer files which are critical to a company's day to day operations. He is disgruntled because he dislikes the company CEO, who is a black woman. The direct result is the company loses $10,000 in operating revenue.

A company terminates a contract worker who is Pakistani. The company does this because they feel he may be a security risk because of his country of origin. The man is out of a job for several months and needs to relocate in order to find employment. Between moving and lost wages, he is out $10,000.

So looking at both situations where racism or sexism played a part, which is worse? Or are they the same? Why?


M

 

[ExigeEvan]

I'll answer Duke and Famine at the same time as they mentioned very similair points.

If you are in an environment that you don't like, do you work at full productivity? You may work well enough to keep your job, but would you really put that extra work in to make a difference?

Now, people do change religion I admit, but people don't suddenly turn Black White or Asian. You don't suddenly go from being a completely content, high depended on worker, to a walking out the door in a tantrum because someone has changed.

Now if you are such a dependable worker to the point that you keep the business running, then surely you should have some say as to who is employed to work with you.

You're not putting them into hardship. You're deciding whether to give them your money. (Or your boss's money, or your boss's boss's money) If you don't want to give them your money in exchange for their work, you don't have to.... because it's yours .

Yes that is true, but then you have to bring in the whole argument of ethics.

You could pay an immigrant worker £3 an hour and they will gladly take it, but the law says you have to pay them £4 an hour, just because it will give them a greater quality of life.

[EDIT]

An employee who is disgrunted quits. Before he does, deletes computer files which are critical to a company's day to day operations. He is disgruntled because he dislikes the company CEO, who is a black woman. The direct result is the company loses $10,000 in operating revenue.

A company terminates a contract worker who is Pakistani. The company does this because they feel he may be a security risk because of his country of origin. The man is out of a job for several months and needs to relocate in order to find employment. Between moving and lost wages, he is out $10,000.

Though that is true, it is different to a work just walking out like we are disussing. That worker is being actively or maliciousley racist. They are commiting criminal damage on racist grounds.

 

[livemusic]

No, they can't, under your law. The employee can be a racist and get away with no penalty or problem. The employer gets sued or fined, or both, if he is a racist.

They employer can be racist, he just can't use that to fire the employee. He can quit his job though. The same goes for the employee, if he doesn't want to work to someone for whatever reasons his choice is to quit the job.

 

[Duke]

I'll answer Duke and Famine at the same time as they mentioned very similair points.

If you are in an environment that you don't like, do you work at full productivity? You may work well enough to keep your job, but would you really put that extra work in to make a difference?

Now, people do change religion I admit, but people don't suddenly turn Black White or Asian. You don't suddenly go from being a completely content, high depended on worker, to a walking out the door in a tantrum because someone has changed.

Now if you are such a dependable worker to the point that you keep the business running, then surely you should have some say as to who is employed to work with you.

This doesn't answer my question in the slightest.

 

[ExigeEvan]

This doesn't answer my question in the slightest.

I'll be more specific then.

Say I'm a black employer. I hire you for a job and you are good at it. I come to depend on you to keep my business running and making money.

After a while, you decide that you just can't stand working for a black man. You quit, with no reason given.

What you implying seems highly impractical. In order to get into the position of the supposed employee's position they would have to work hard. To work hard you would have to have some sort of liking for you work.

Now what your suggesting is that this person suddenly woke up one morning went, "Good god, I just realised I'm working for a Black man, I hate this job now, I'm quiting". I don't see how you can expect someome to do an about turn like that.

Now if it was related to a senior member of staff joining then being such a crucial employee surely you should be able to voice your opinion, even if it is some BS to cover your real reasoning.

If it is a junior employee then again you should be able to voice an opinion, and again, you could just use some BS to screen your real reasons, but atleast you have given your employer notice.

 

[Danoff]

You already quoted my reasons, I agree with the law on this case.

Where? I remember you saying that you agreed with the law because it was the law. That's it. What other reasons do you have?

Edit: I've been back through this thread and I don't see any supporting reasons. Perhaps you can quote them for me....

Yes that is true, but then you have to bring in the whole argument of ethics.

You could pay an immigrant worker £3 an hour and they will gladly take it, but the law says you have to pay them £4 an hour, just because it will give them a greater quality of life.

You should legally be allowed to pay someone as much or as little as you want. If they agree to the amount - no rights have been violated and no law should have been broken. Keep in mind that the vast majority of employers find it beneficial to pay much much higher than they're legally required.

 

[ExigeEvan]

You should legally be allowed to pay someone as much or as little as you want. If they agree to the amount - no rights have been violated and no law should have been broken.

I disagree, some people need protecting for their own, and people dependant on them, good.

But that's a different matter.

[EDIT]
And keep in mind that many complain when the limit is raised meaning they'd rather pay less.

 

[Flerbizky]

Say I'm a black employer. I hire you for a job and you are good at it. I come to depend on you to keep my business running and making money.

After a while, you decide that you just can't stand working for a black man. You quit, with no reason given.

Duke.. I knew you entered this argument for the sake of argument, but don't be so friggin' obvious...

Why would the white racist start working for the black guy in the first place. Let alone REALLY put in the 80 hours a week and really make the black guy depend on him to make the business run... Then quit and go (in the voice of Muntz) Haha...

Get real....

 

[Famine]

I disagree, some people need protecting for their own, and people dependant on them, good.

But that's a different matter.

[EDIT]
And keep in mind that many complain when the limit is raised meaning they'd rather pay less.

When you have a job done around the house - double-glazing, boiler installation, you know the score - you get several quotes. Now... which quote do you go with? How about car insurance, since that may be more applicable?

If someone will do for you the same quality work for less money, you're going to pick them, aren't you?

Now, how would you feel if the government came in and said "Ah, no... You must pay "x" as a minimum for this job/service."? Not best pleased?


Let us move into the arena of employment. You have three candidates, all of whom are equally qualified for the post, but each of which expects a different salary for it. Since you can assume they'll all do the same quality of work, as they are equally qualified, you're going to go for the one who expects the least salary, in order that you get better value for money. But no! The government says you must pay a minimum of "x" for that job.


If you provide poorer quality work for the same price, or equal quality work for a higher price, you price yourself out of the market - and remember that this is just what employment is... You selling yourself and your services to your employer for what you and they deem suitable remuneration. Except that there is now a set minimum below which people cannot "tender quotes" (be paid).

The question is, if they are willing to do the job for less, why must an employer pay them more, by law, than they are willing to accept if you have no similar obligation to pay more, by law, than an insurance company/gasfitter is willing to accept?

Why would the white racist start working for the black guy in the first place. Let alone REALLY put in the 80 hours a week and really make the black guy depend on him to make the business run... Then quit and go (in the voice of Muntz) Haha...

Get real....

Perhaps one night his daughter is raped by a gang of black youths and the latent, suppressed dislike for black people he had been harbouring turns from tolerance of his boss to outright hate. Who knows? Might happen.

 

[Dave A]

At the end of the day, the way I see it is if I started hiring people to work for me, I shouldn't have to give any reason beyond I don't want them to work for me anymore to fire them. Be it that I'm a racist and don't like their nationailty or skin colour, be it that I don't like their personality, be it I just think they're too damn ugly. It's my money they're getting and it's my property they're walking onto every working day, it damn well should be my choice who I fire. I do think their should be a notice period given provided theres no gross missconduct because on the flip side, if a good employee wanted to leave, I'd want notice from them too so I could fill the position and if I was fired I'd want to be able to find a new job with no or as little loss of income as possible. But my opinion is still that I should be able to hire or fire anyone I want to and for whatever reasons, I interview two girls for a secretary position, so what if I hire the better looking one because she's better looking. It's my money and if that has a negative impact on my business it's my fault, but it's my choice to make. The same should be said about firing people.

as for the racist employer/employee example, you may see that as extreme but it's just an example and regardless of how likely it is to happen, the answer is applicable to many situations. What that example does if you answer it properly, is draw out the reasoning behind what you think. I've seen many very hard working people come and go in different job's, people who've been very valuable to the company, and they've just gone. It causes companies problems, expecially smaller companies when this happens.