Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Dec 25, 2012, 09:05 PM   #26
classicaliberal
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
And the fact the seven Supreme Court Justices couldn't understand this is ... mind boggling.
You don't really 'get' what the job of a Judge is, do you?

---

Anyway, a clearly constitutional ruling (all that matters), but I'd say also an eminently logical ruling.

Employment is a contract between two consenting parties.

If any party determines they no longer wish to engage in said contract, they are free to nullify the contract under the terms originally agreed to.

Any employee should be able to quit for any reason, any employer should be able to fire for any reason.

Government shouldn't be involved AT ALL, other than to ensure contracts are upheld through a court of law.

Last edited by classicaliberal; Dec 25, 2012 at 09:13 PM.
classicaliberal is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 25, 2012, 09:14 PM   #27
APlotdevice
macrumors 68020
 
APlotdevice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicaliberal View Post
An eminently logical ruling.

Employment is a contract between two consenting parties.

If any party determines they no longer wish to engage in said contract, they are free to nullify the contract under the terms originally agreed to.

Any employee should be able to quit for any reason, any employer should be able to fire for any reason.

Government shouldn't be involved AT ALL, other than to ensure contracts are upheld through a court of law.
So what you're saying is that if a racist white guy takes over a business, he should have every right to fire all non-white employees?
__________________
Pebble SmartWatch - iPhone 5c - 11" Macbook Air '13 - TV - HTPC - Numerous Consoles
There is something deeply wrong with a society more offended by breasts than by entrails.
APlotdevice is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 25, 2012, 09:18 PM   #28
classicaliberal
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by APlotdevice View Post
So what you're saying is tht if a racist person takes over a business, this person should have every right to fire all non-white employees?
Yes. The dirty rotten scum bag should have every right to make every stupid ill-informed disgusting backwards employment mistakes he wants to. I hope he would pay the political and economic of such a stupendously stupid and sickening decision... but I believe it's his decision to make. What kind of job is it, if the only reason you're not being fired, is because it's against the law to do so?

I believe more freedom, not less, will make us all safer, happier, and more prosperous as a people. Bad things will happen, much as they do now, but the net gain both in principle and in society will make it all worth while.
classicaliberal is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 25, 2012, 09:22 PM   #29
NT1440
macrumors G3
 
NT1440's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Hartford, CT
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicaliberal View Post
Yes. The dirty rotten scum bag should have every right to make every stupid ill-informed disgusting backwards employment mistakes he wants to. I hope he would pay the political and economic of such a stupendously stupid and sickening decision... but I believe it's his decision to make. What kind of job is it, if the only reason you're not being fired, is because it's against the law to do so?

I believe more freedom, not less, will make us all safer, happier, and more prosperous as a people. Bad things will happen, much as they do now, but the net gain both in principle and in society will make it all worth while.
How would that jive with the equal protection laws?
NT1440 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 25, 2012, 09:28 PM   #30
classicaliberal
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by NT1440 View Post
How would that jive with the equal protection laws?
It wouldn't.
classicaliberal is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 25, 2012, 10:02 PM   #31
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicaliberal View Post
If any party determines they no longer wish to engage in said contract, they are free to nullify the contract under the terms originally agreed to.

Any employee should be able to quit for any reason, any employer should be able to fire for any reason.
Your post spurred me to look into the matter and you are correct.

Excerpts from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics [bolding mine] ...

Quote:
The employment-at-will doctrine: three major exceptions

In legal terms, though, since the last half of the 19th century, employment in each of the United States has been “at will,” or terminable by either the employer or employee for any reason whatsoever. The employment-at-will doctrine avows that, when an employee does not have a written employment contract and the term of employment is of indefinite duration, the employer can terminate the employee for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all.

Public-policy exception

Under the public-policy exception to employment at will, an employee is wrongfully discharged when the termination is against an explicit, well-established public policy of the State. For example, in most States, an employer cannot terminate an employee for filing a workers’ compensation claim after being injured on the job, or for refusing to break the law at the re- quest of the employer. The majority view among States is that public policy may be found in either a State constitution, statute, or administrative rule, but some States have either restricted or expanded the doctrine beyond this bound. The public-policy exception is the most widely accepted exception, recognized in 43 of the 50 States.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/01/art1full.pdf
Apparently the following did not apply in this case ...

Quote:
Implied-contract exception

The second major exception to the employment-at-will doctrine is applied when an implied contract is formed between an employer and employee, even though no express, written in- strument regarding the employment relationship exists. Al- though employment is typically not governed by a contract, an employer may make oral or written representations to em- ployees regarding job security or procedures that will be fol- lowed when adverse employment actions are taken. If so, these representations may create a contract for employment. This exception is recognized in 38 of the 50 States.

A common occurrence in the recent past was courts finding that the contents and representations made in employee handbooks could create an implied contract, absent a clear and express waiver that the guidelines and policies in such handbooks did not create contract rights. The typical situation involves handbook provisions which state that employ- ees will be disciplined or terminated only for “just cause” or under other specified circumstances, or provisions which indicate that an employer will follow specific procedures before disciplining or terminating an employee. A hiring official’s oral representations to employees, such as saying that employment will continue as long as the employee’s performance is adequate, also may create an implied contract that would prevent termination except for cause.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/01/art1full.pdf
And unfortunately for the woman, the following exception is not legal in Iowa ...

Quote:
Covenant-of-good-faith exception

Recognized by only 11 States, the exception for a covenant of good faith and fair dealing represents the most significant departure from the traditional employment-at-will doctrine. Rather than narrowly prohibiting terminations based on public policy or an implied contract, this exception — at its broadest — reads a covenant of good faith and fair dealing into every employment relationship. It has been interpreted to mean either that employer personnel decisions are subject to a “just cause” standard or that terminations made in bad faith or motivated by malice are prohibited.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/01/art1full.pdf
Thank you classicaliberal for compelling me to look more deeply into the issue. No matter how much I disagree with the employers decision, it appears he is well within his right to make it, and the judges followed the law by ruling in his favor.
citizenzen is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 25, 2012, 10:13 PM   #32
NT1440
macrumors G3
 
NT1440's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Hartford, CT
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicaliberal View Post
It wouldn't.
Then the point is moot. Business don't have the right to simply exist and do what they want, they have to be chartered and approved by the government. If they can't follow the law, they have no right to do whatever they want.
NT1440 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 25, 2012, 10:31 PM   #33
leekohler
Banned
 
leekohler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicaliberal View Post
Yes. The dirty rotten scum bag should have every right to make every stupid ill-informed disgusting backwards employment mistakes he wants to. I hope he would pay the political and economic of such a stupendously stupid and sickening decision... but I believe it's his decision to make. What kind of job is it, if the only reason you're not being fired, is because it's against the law to do so?

I believe more freedom, not less, will make us all safer, happier, and more prosperous as a people. Bad things will happen, much as they do now, but the net gain both in principle and in society will make it all worth while.
What about the ability to be free from discrimination in employment and public accommodations (which is inflicted harm) on the basis of innate qualities?

Apparently, that is a freedom you do not value.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NT1440 View Post
Then the point is moot. Business don't have the right to simply exist and do what they want, they have to be chartered and approved by the government. If they can't follow the law, they have no right to do whatever they want.
And there are clear reasons for this.
leekohler is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 26, 2012, 04:20 AM   #34
iStudentUK
macrumors 65816
 
iStudentUK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: London
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicaliberal View Post
Employment is a contract between two consenting parties.

If any party determines they no longer wish to engage in said contract, they are free to nullify the contract under the terms originally agreed to.
I often hear arguments like this, and I'm afraid it shows very few people really understand even the basica of contract law. A contract is between two (or more) consenting parties but the contract must conform to the law of the land. I'm afraid it has never been the case that parties can agree to whatever they want, literally since time immemorial (1189 CE).

Some contracts that do not conform to the law are invalid - eg in English law a contract to sell an organ is invalid as contrary to public policy. Other contracts are "fixed" with implied terms - eg if you give me 100 for my car but are too busy to take delivery now and we never agree an actual date for delivery there is an implied term that I'll deliver it within a "reasonable" time.

These concepts are nothing new, implying a term that an employee cannot be fired for reasons such as race is not a new phenomenon. It's simply carrying on literally centuries of existing practice - implying terms (either by statute or at common law) or invalidating contracts. Contracts are, and always have been, regulated by the government and/or the courts.
__________________
UK students may want to read about Apple education discounts and free student warranties here
iStudentUK is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 26, 2012, 09:05 AM   #35
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by iStudentUK View Post
I often hear arguments like this, and I'm afraid it shows very few people really understand even the basica of contract law. A contract is between two (or more) consenting parties but the contract must conform to the law of the land.
Yes. And if you look at the laws that I cited from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, you'll see he did "conform to the law of the land".

These laws do vary by state. And California—where I've lived most of my life—provides more protections than Iowa. In Iowa, and many other "at will" states, the employer does not need a reason to fire an employee. They may even fire an employee for very stupid reasons, as in this instance. It is their legal right.

I hope there might be a national law that could overturn the Iowa Supreme Court's ruling. IMO, this could fall under sex-based discrimination—please note the las paragraph in the quoted text below ...

Quote:
Sex-Based Discrimination
Sex discrimination involves treating someone (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of that person’s sex.

Sex Discrimination & Work Situations
The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.

Sex Discrimination & Employment Policies/Practices
An employment policy or practice that applies to everyone, regardless of sex, can be illegal if it has a negative impact on the employment of people of a certain sex and is not job-related or necessary to the operation of the business.

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sex.cfm
IMO, that would appear to apply in this case.

Last edited by citizenzen; Dec 26, 2012 at 09:49 AM. Reason: Changed "them" to "the"; deleted "even"
citizenzen is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 26, 2012, 09:39 AM   #36
Mac'nCheese
macrumors 68020
 
Mac'nCheese's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicaliberal View Post
You don't really 'get' what the job of a Judge is, do you?

---

Anyway, a clearly constitutional ruling (all that matters), but I'd say also an eminently logical ruling.

Employment is a contract between two consenting parties.

If any party determines they no longer wish to engage in said contract, they are free to nullify the contract under the terms originally agreed to.

Any employee should be able to quit for any reason, any employer should be able to fire for any reason.

Government shouldn't be involved AT ALL, other than to ensure contracts are upheld through a court of law.
Don't really understand the point of a "contract" if either party can break it on a whim.
Mac'nCheese is online now   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 26, 2012, 09:51 AM   #37
samiwas
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicaliberal View Post
What kind of job is it, if the only reason you're not being fired, is because it's against the law to do so?
What kind of job is it, if the reason you are being fired, is because you are black, gay, female, ugly, fat, or blonde?

I think the free world you envision is not how the actual free world would operate.
__________________
A lack of planning on your part should not constitute an emergency on mine.
samiwas is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 26, 2012, 10:14 AM   #38
Huntn
macrumors 604
 
Huntn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: The Misty Mountains
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicaliberal View Post
You don't really 'get' what the job of a Judge is, do you?

---

Anyway, a clearly constitutional ruling (all that matters), but I'd say also an eminently logical ruling.

Employment is a contract between two consenting parties.

If any party determines they no longer wish to engage in said contract, they are free to nullify the contract under the terms originally agreed to.

Any employee should be able to quit for any reason, any employer should be able to fire for any reason.

Government shouldn't be involved AT ALL, other than to ensure contracts are upheld through a court of law.
Maybe in your "ideal" world. In contrast, I support anti-discrimination laws.
__________________
The modern business ethos: "I'm worth it, you're not, and I'm a glutton!"
MBP, 2.2 GHz intel i7, Radeon HD 6750M, Bootcamp: W7.
PC: i5 4670k, 8GB RAM, Asus GTX670 (2GB VRAM), W7.
Huntn is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 26, 2012, 10:45 AM   #39
miloblithe
macrumors 68020
 
miloblithe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Washington, DC
The organizing principle of our society shouldn't be that men cannot resist temptation so we should lock up all the women. Hopefully this case will be well publicized and the dentist will go out of business.

Reminds me of Swaziland banning miniskirts:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-20836429
miloblithe is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 26, 2012, 11:41 AM   #40
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicaliberal View Post
Any employee should be able to quit for any reason,
So that means the employees can just walk out at any time? Isn't that like an illegal strike?
__________________
If they have to tell you every day they are fair you can bet they arent, if they tell you they are balanced then you should know they are not - Don't Hurt me
Eraserhead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 26, 2012, 11:50 AM   #41
SilentPanda
Thread Starter
Moderator emeritus
 
SilentPanda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Bamboo Forest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
So that means the employees can just walk out at any time? Isn't that like an illegal strike?
It's not really a strike if you're quitting. A strike usually means you intend to come back doesn't it?

You can quit any time you want. It's customary to give 2 weeks notice but not required.
__________________
My 24 hour web cam! ʕノᴥʔノ ︵ ┻━┻
And remember.
SilentPanda is online now   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 26, 2012, 04:40 PM   #42
CorvusCamenarum
macrumors 65816
 
CorvusCamenarum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Birmingham, AL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
So that means the employees can just walk out at any time? Isn't that like an illegal strike?
Generally speaking, if you don't show up for work without calling in, you'll be summarily fired. Had that happen quite a few times when I was in the retail business. I'd try to give them a day or so first, though, to explain themselves; if you're having an legitimate emergency of some sort, calling your boss isn't high up on the list of priorities.
__________________
Much of modern liberalism consists of people trying to get revenge on the football players to whom they felt inferior in school.
CorvusCamenarum is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 26, 2012, 05:53 PM   #43
NickZac
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
So that means the employees can just walk out at any time? Isn't that like an illegal strike?
Well, the degree of illegal arguably varies partially by the impact of an employee saying 'screw it' and calling it a day. If you flip your boss off and walk out of a cash register job, you will probably just be fired. If you flip your boss off and walk out of manning a nuclear silo with an ICBM chillin' inside of it that you have happened to perform about 1/3 of the maintenance procedure on and parts to the mother****** are scattered everywhere, you may go to jail (upon being fired).

edit: been trying to see how that would actually work but there isn't a lot of information on such a specific scenario I presented and I'm not sure who to call to ask about it...
NickZac is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 26, 2012, 05:57 PM   #44
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Good points guys!
__________________
If they have to tell you every day they are fair you can bet they arent, if they tell you they are balanced then you should know they are not - Don't Hurt me
Eraserhead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 26, 2012, 08:30 PM   #45
skunk
macrumors Demi-God
 
skunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Republic of Ukistan
Quote:
Originally Posted by miloblithe View Post
The organizing principle of our society shouldn't be that men cannot resist temptation so we should lock up all the women. Hopefully this case will be well publicized and the dentist will go out of business.

Reminds me of Swaziland banning miniskirts:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-20836429
Bring back the burka!
__________________
"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted the spoons." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
skunk is offline   0 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Supreme Court gets one right mcrain Politics, Religion, Social Issues 14 Nov 29, 2012 10:03 AM
Supreme Court Copyright Case eric/ Politics, Religion, Social Issues 24 Nov 1, 2012 10:13 PM
Republicans Appeal DOMA Case to Supreme Court leekohler Politics, Religion, Social Issues 119 Oct 28, 2012 09:35 PM
The Supreme Court rules on the Affordable Care Act Blue Velvet Politics, Religion, Social Issues 397 Jul 2, 2012 08:20 PM
What's Wrong with the U.S. Supreme Court? Huntn Politics, Religion, Social Issues 65 Jun 28, 2012 07:37 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:09 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps