Nine French police injured as student protests intensify (AFP)

[Flerbizky]

You're right.. Except you're not even remotely touching the subject that is the reason the french students are making an ass of themselves....

👍

IMHBU

 

[Danoff]

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.

No no no! Clearly you have to interview and consider male candidates as well, and if one of them can prove that you hired a female candidate due to sexual discrimination, you could be subject to a lawsuit. Sure it's your money, but that doesn't mean you can go around giving it to whoever you want for whatever reason you want.

That is, of course, unless you hired too many male employees already - in which case you should definitely sexually discriminate in favor of female applicants because you don't want to look like you're sexually discriminating.

 

[Famine]

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.

Q: Three women interview for a secretarial job - one blonde, one brunette and one redhead. They each have the same qualifications, they each have the same amount of experience, they each have the same interests, they each have the same personality and they each interview as well as the others. Which gets the job?
















A: The one with the biggest breasts.

 

[Danoff]

A: The one with the biggest breasts.

We discussed this earlier... more than a handfull...

 

[Flerbizky]

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.

In that case, may I suggest you invest in shelters and canned food...

 

[Carl.]

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!!!!

It's quite ironic to see how you're quick to point out that a democratic process may still lead to wrong and immoral outcomes, yet as long as it's the free market, anything goes.

 

[Danoff]

It's quite ironic to see how you're quick to point out that a democratic process may still lead to wrong and immoral outcomes, yet as long as it's the free market, anything goes.

Individuals can't use force on each other, the government can. So democracy can result in immoral action - because police are there to enforce the results. If people, on the otherhand, decide to use force (even in the free market), the police will be there to prevent it.

See the difference? Governemnt = Force

 

[Duke]

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....

You think I'm talking out my ass? Consider this scenario:

I'm a white, racist chauvinist worker who's working for a white male boss, and I play a vital role in my company, but I'm not management.

My boss gets promoted, and in his place, there is now a black woman, because management feels she's the best candidate for the job.

This is intolerable to me, so I quit, leaving the company in the lurch and my orders unfilled or clients unserved.

Now, I quit without having any "socially acceptable" reason at all. And everybody thinks this is OK, apparently; it's my right.

SO EXPLAIN WHY MY BOSS DOESN'T HAVE THE SAME RIGHT TO FIRE ME, for any reason at all.[/i] No one in this thread has done that.

It's quite ironic to see how you're quick to point out that a democratic process may still lead to wrong and immoral outcomes, yet as long as it's the free market, anything goes.

That's because in the democratic process, the majority can vote away the rights of the minority, or at least potentially.

But nobody can make it a legal requirement that you do business, or don't do business, with any free-market entity that you don't choose to.

That's a pretty easy difference to understand.

 

[Carl.]

Individuals can't use force on each other, the government can. So democracy can result in immoral action - because police are there to enforce the results. If people, on the otherhand, decide to use force (even in the free market), the police will be there to prevent it.

See the difference? Governemnt = Force

No, I don't. The market, or businesses are also able to use force.

Let's take the case of Mr. Zeku, a black American who lives with his family in Belleville, a small town, where only 20 black people live. To keep things familiar with this thread, let's say that suddenly a girl is raped and murdered by 4 black people, which Zaku doesn't even know. That girl happens to be the daughter of the CEO of ACME Electrics, an utility company providing electicity for all areas of Belleville. Needless to say, relations with the other 16 black people and the rest of the population are now much less friendly.

Our enraged CEO then decides his company will no longer offer service to any black people in that area, and he also convince his good friend who owns the two local groceries to deny black customers accesss to his stores. Now Zeku has to drive over 30 miles to do his grocery, which is still doable, but if he wants electricity, he'd have to shell out $100K for the closest competitor to reach his house, since they don't currently cover the area.

Since Zeku had a job working with the public, his boss, fearing for his sales, fire him. Now the only option left for Zeku is to sell his house, most likely (for a really low price, taking a loss since people are well aware of his situation), and move with his family to another place.

This may sound far-fetched today, but it was only a few decades ago that black people were forced to take the back seats in buses, or were forbidden to take buses reserved for whites.

Now I'm guessing you don't see anything wrong in what happened there?
Racial segregation and/or discrimination is deeply evil only when done by a government?

 

[Carl.]

SO EXPLAIN WHY MY BOSS DOESN'T HAVE THE SAME RIGHT TO FIRE ME, for any reason at all. No one in this thread has done that.

Well I've said both should have equal rights, and for me that's leaving after giving an appropriate notice.

That's because in the democratic process, the majority can vote away the rights of the minority, or at least potentially.

But nobody can make it a legal requirement that you do business, or don't do business, with any free-market entity that you don't choose to.

That's a pretty easy difference to understand.

Notwithstanding the negative effects caused to society by blatant racism, segregation and discrimination, there are cases where local or global or local monopolies or oligarchies leaves little or no options for the client / consumer.

To illustrate the point, let's go to extremes again: what if my company holds a patent on a medecine that cures a form cancer, but since I hate *insert race here*, I do everything possible to make sure no one from that race gets access to it. Is that fine?

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Q: Three women interview for a secretarial job - one blonde, one brunette and one redhead. They each have the same qualifications, they each have the same amount of experience, they each have the same interests, they each have the same personality and they each interview as well as the others. Which gets the job?

A: The one with the biggest breasts.

Hey, you said same qualifications


I think the law should be fine as long as employers don't abuse it.

 

[Sphinx]

I think the law should be fine as long as employers don't abuse it.

That's where this law falls apart because it will be abused.

We just need to look back in history to see that, and the reason why we have employment rights is to prevent this sort of thing.

 

[livemusic]

SO EXPLAIN WHY MY BOSS DOESN'T HAVE THE SAME RIGHT TO FIRE ME, for any reason at all. No one in this thread has done that.

I talked about this already. Your boss has the same right to QUIT the job, just as you do.

 

[DQuaN]

Hey, you said same qualifications

He did. I don't understand what you are getting at.

 

[Duke]

I talked about this already. Your boss has the same right to QUIT the job, just as you do.

...which doesn't equate at all to his right to fire me. Are you deliberately missing the point?

 

[livemusic]

...which doesn't equate at all to his right to fire me. Are you deliberately missing the point?

He doesn't have the right to fire you. You can't prejudice (sp?) someone because of his race, that's a crime.

 

[Sphinx]

Now, I quit without having any "socially acceptable" reason at all. And everybody thinks this is OK, apparently; it's my right.

SO EXPLAIN WHY MY BOSS DOESN'T HAVE THE SAME RIGHT TO FIRE ME, for any reason at all.[/i] No one in this thread has done that.

Here in the UK an employee can not simply quit without giving the required notice, well they can and many do but they run the risk of being sued for damages by the employer. Upon entering into a contract of employment the employee is bound by a statutory notice period (if required) and is therefore obligated to give notice. The same is true for the employer, they are also obligated to give the required notice.

 

[Flerbizky]

Here in the UK an employee can not simply quit without giving the required notice, well they can and many do but they run the risk of being sued for damages by the employer. Upon entering into a contract of employment the employee is bound by a statutory notice period (if required) and is therefore obligated to give notice. The same is true for the employer, they are also obligated to give the required notice.

Same here in DK... The Employee has to give at least a one month warning and the Employer 3 months.. The Emplyoers warning period grows with the number of years the Emplyoee has been there. I had 5 months after 7 years of emplyoment.. I believe the EO is reaching the max which is 9 months - She's been at the same place for 15 years IIRC...

In the first 3 months of emplyoment no notice is necessary from either part though..

 

[Dave A]

Thats the case here, 3 months probationary period, no notice required by either party, then you get a legal minimum of 2 weeks and that extends as your employment with the company does. But the difference is still that the employee can quit for no reason, he doesn't need a reason to quit. The employer can't give an employee his notice for no reason, I couldn't hire somone and then for no reason say you've got two weeks, your fired, I could be taken to court. That's wrong, it's my money paying that guy, it's my business, I should have the right to fire people I don't want working for me for the simple reason I don't want him working for me, a why I don't shouldn't come into it, the guy smells or something, it doesn't matter, that should be my right. I agree with the notice period being given, that should be given imo, but the fact that once I've hired somone I can't fire them unless they do certain things, and even then it can be complicated with laws on written warning and verbal warnings ect, is not fair on the employer.

 

[Famine]

He doesn't have the right to fire you. You can't prejudice (sp?) someone because of his race, that's a crime.

Yes, we get that it IS a crime. The point is that it shouldn't be, at least as far as private citizens are concerned.

I should be able to decide to whom I wish to give my money. If I suddenly decide not to give my money to an employee any more I should not be required to give a reason even if that reason is racist - I am entitled to that view and I am entitled to withhold my money, so long as it does not constitute a breach of contract.

As Sphinx mentions, in the UK it's pretty standard to have, where rolling contracts are concerned a 1 month or 6 week notice period from either party. This gives an employer time to find a replacement, and an employee time to find a new job.

 

[livemusic]

Yes, we get that it IS a crime. The point is that it shouldn't be, at least as far as private citizens are concerned.

You think racism shouldn't be a crime?

 

[Duke]

He doesn't have the right to fire you. You can't prejudice (sp?) someone because of his race, that's a crime.

Then why is it NOT a crime to QUIT your job because you're prejudiced against your boss?

Don't you get it yet?

And for the record, I'm not talking about having to give 2 weeks' notice or not. I couldn't care less about that as long as it's the same on both sides. What I'm talking about is this:

Why is it perfectly acceptable to quit your job for any reason at all, but most people here don't think it's acceptable for your job to quit you for any reason at all?!

 

[livemusic]

You can fire your employee for any reason within the law. Racism is against the law. If I'm a racist person and I can't stand working with a person from a race I dislike my choice is to quit the job, it doesn't matter if I'm the employer or the employee. That is not against the law, and it's the right decision in my opinion.

 

[Famine]

You think racism shouldn't be a crime?

It depends on the context, really.

It is stupid to be biased against someone because of their skin colour alone. But you have a right to hold those views. You (ought to) have a right not to serve anyone who comes into your shop for any reason you want, even if that reason is because you don't trust darkies - you aren't beholden to give your possessions (in this case stock) to anyone who comes up with the right price. You will rapidly lose business if you don't serve people of a race you dislike, because you will be labelled racist, and word will get round your customer base, but it shouldn't be illegal.

However, in a governmental context it should be illegal. Government services (schools, police, fire brigade, army) are paid for by everyone and so belong to everyone, no matter how black, short or gay they are.

 

[livemusic]

I don't think you would lose business by not serving black people actually, because there are racist customers out there and they would love to walk in a store free of people they dislike.

Racism should be a crime.

 

[Sphinx]

The idea of an employer doing as he/she wants because they own the business reminds me how it used to be before the Tolpuddle Martyrs.

Obviously you guys have never owned your own business and therefore have never felt the social responsibility that goes along with it. Also, it's obvious that you have never been exploited within the work place and endured the pain and anguish from an omniscient employer.

 

[Famine]

I don't think you would lose business by not serving black people actually, because there are racist customers out there and they would love to walk in a store free of people they dislike.

Racism should be a crime.

So you're after punishing - or rather criminalising - people for the private content of their heads now?


You would lose more customers than you would gain. You'd lose the entire custom of the ethnic group you dislike, their friends and family and anyone who didn't want to be seen shopping in a racist's shop. The small increase in people who don't want to shop where (ethnic group) shop would not offset this. I wouldn't shop in a shop which refuses custom to anybody on grounds of race/religion/physical characteristics/sexual preferences, but I'd respect their right, however dumb, to do this.


Sphinx - Social responsibility is fine - I'd sell to anyone giving me the money. Making that a law is very dodgy ground.

 

[livemusic]

There are still a lot of racists out there, the internet shows us that. Giving a store's owner the right to refuse serving people of other races would bring segregation back. The law rightfully condemns racism, if he doesn't agree with it he shouldn't open a business.

 

[Dave A]

I already own my own business, and you know one of the big turn offs to the idea of me hiring people, the fact that I can hire some retard who comes across well in the interview that does bugger all good for the company, and it can take upto and over 3 months for me to get rid of him. I used to work for a small telecoms company, quite tightly knit, but somoene in the company was stealing mobile phones, anyway it turned out it was a small group of people and it came as a bit of shock, some builder on a site next door saw them smuggling phones out of the building and told the manager, and you know what, they couldn't be fired. It was 100% obvious it was them, they even admitted it, albeit to a lesser etent than they'd actually done, and the company couldn't fire them until after the police investigation. 5 months later and 5 months of the bosses wages to each of the 5 people involved when the whole thing was over and hey presto, he could now fire them. Tell me, how the hell is that fair.

I've worked for amny different companies, I've worked for cowboy companies, small companioes, big corporations, the works. I've worked for the scum of the world and I've workd damn fine people who try to make the work place a nice place. I've been fired on the spot for no reason before working as a self employed agent, the getting fired was fine, getting fired on the spot wasn't, job one day, none the next, which is why I think mandatory notice periods should remain, I just think the employer should have more rights over who he chooses to fire, hell you can hire anyone for any reason, why not the other way.

 

[livemusic]

You can fire anyone for any reason (not racism though), but you can't fire anyone for no reason.