Apple CEO Tim Cook Writes Op-Ed in Support of U.S. Employment Nondiscrimination Act

[quagmire]

Why are your rights more important than mine? I don't try to impose my Christian beliefs on anyone else. All I ask is that I be allowed to live MY life and run MY business to whatever standard I wish within the law. Government has no right to tell me how to live my life or how to run my business and that I should just accept something that I fundamentally disagree with.

You say you just want to run your business within the law,but the law could say you can't use sexual orientation as a reason not to hire someone and here you are screaming your rights are being trampled over.

Your rights are not being trampled over. Like all rights, yours has limitations. Your right to believe gay people are immoral doesn't mean you can deny them rights to equal opportunity for employment.

Guess you also hate the law saying you can't use race as a reason not to hire someone.

 

[Renzatic]

Government has no right to tell me how to live my life or how to run my business and that I should just accept something that I fundamentally disagree with.

For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

As an employer, the only concern you should have with your employees is that they're on time, make themselves presentable, and good at their job. Anything they do off the clock should be of no concern to you.

You don't have to like it, but you do have to tolerate it. Because everyone has a right to livelihood, regardless of who or what they are.

 

[Websnapx2]

Why are your rights more important than mine?

They aren't. One's shouldn't come at the cost of another. Think carefully about what that means. You do not have the right to have a non-gay workplace.

I don't try to impose my Christian beliefs on anyone else..

You are when you are telling everyone who works for you to be as you want them to be (these laws are to protect people who want to come out and not be fired as well as hired). You are also telling potential candidates that these are the non-work related aspects you require for your employment.

All I ask is that I be allowed to live MY life and run MY business to whatever standard I wish within the law. Government has no right to tell me how to live my life or how to run my business and...

Run your life however you wish. No one is trying to prevent that. At home, be as non-accepting as you wish to be.

The two bold parts contradict each other, though if this becomes law. So when this passes will you be ok with it? Is it better to be "lawful" than a good and fair human being?

...and that I should just accept something that I fundamentally disagree with.

We all, every day – just accept things we don't agree with. Like how I'm treated when I cross the border. Like how people treat me different on the street because of the colour of my skin (and I dress VERY clean). Like how my wife gets treated differently at work because she's the only woman on an all male board. So MANY people get to "just accept something" that they "fundamentally disagree with" every single day just to keep the day normal and the bills paid and you are concerned with being made more fortunate to have the pool of talented available and loyal candidates you hire from larger – THAT's your struggle? Please. Text book definition of entitlement. You have it so good you don't know what bad is. You're a boss, not a king. Leave your "baggage" at home, like you would want everyone else to do.

 

[OLDCODGER]

You misunderstand. I never said someone was entitled to a job, my comment was about entitled people not knowing/caring there is a real problem that doesn't effect them and since it doesn't effect them, it's not a problem they need to think about. I DO, however think that these rules are needed to protect people from losing their jobs for non work related reasons (who they go home to) as time and time again we see the private sector (as a whole) poorly regulate itself when it comes to their workers. If it makes the hiring process more fair to quality potential hires, everyone wins. Not all companies have open minded people overseeing hiring –*even if the owners/CEO's are. That's all I'm saying.

Obviously, feel free to ignore my Obama comment... I'm Canadian so a lot of the things going on the states (from a legal perspective) baffles me – but that is a conversation for another thread. Not meant to insult or insight, just that we would be at an impasse as to what our role in society is. Also it doesn't matter as we don't have the same government.

First, excuse my tone, in general, it's the very reason why I shouted and bolded my nick. (know thyself)

As for your "non-work related" point of view, it would be fine IF it stayed that way. However, people often blur the boundaries over time, which can bring in conflict that I would prefer to not enable in the first place. (Why take the risk).

Since 2009, my bile has been on overload, so I'm a tad tetchy on Obama.

 

[OLDCODGER]

I agree....mostly... kind of....

If a women has competed for and fairly won a job and then a few years later gets pregnant is she entitled to keep her job even though for a couple of months she may be partially less efficient than before? (I'm thinking of doctor's appointments during the week, more frequent bathroom breaks as the tyke plays soccer with the bladder, etc...)

How about after she has the child. Most child-raising duties fall to the mother in practice. Is she entitled to keep her job even though she will be pulled from work more often dealing with child-care issues. Perhaps she is applying for a new job... should she be un-entitled to the job because the business owner wants someone who can work unpaid overtime over the weekend?

Or... how about someone, anyone, who gets chronically sick. How healthy do they have remain to be entitled to keep their job?

It's all about how you define 'entitled'.... it can sound so negative when used in a particular context when in fact we are all 'entitled' to be treated fairly and equitably as human beings... imho, at least....

I'm old-fashioned. My view on work is - total commitment. For women, that would mean: work, then family, then work, if desired. It's not my job to make special allowance for women who want juggle life, nor is it fair on those women who wish to pursue a life-long career, rather than produce a family.

Sickness should be placed into two classes - short-term and long-term/permanent. The latter, in particular, does present a case for welfare - one of the few, IMO. As for the former, I think three months is long enough for an employer to hold a job open, before he has little choice but to move on.

 

[OLDCODGER]

First, no-one is entitled to a job - any job.

What social evil would occur if we collectively said that everyone who wanted one is entitled some kind of job? Digging ditches and building rock walls for the Works Progress Administration, for example? You show up, you move rocks for 8 hours, you get paid enough for food. Why would that be so bad?

More importantly, modern urban unemployment has an extra level of danger to society that rural unemployment didn't have back in the yeoman farmer era. We are all safer if most people are at work somehow, so, it is a legitimate thing for the government to care about.



You are absolutely wrong. Period. We live in a modern urban society with constant interactions with the marketplace. If you want to go live on a desert island all by yourself, fine. Then tell yourself how hard you want to work. If you want to live in a society with other people in a complex, market-oriented economy, you have to respect the commonly-established laws regarding employment. Your "private industry" is part of, and enabled by, the entire market economy. You don't have the right to set whatever terms and conditions you want.



You are entitled to your views, but, you are not, for example, entitled to pay people $2/hour to work 16 hour days.



Why don't you document the damage that Obama did? As compared to, for example, the damage that the banks, the housing bubble, mortgage fraud, etc. did?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_Recession

"Make work" is a cost/liability - not a profit.

Law enforcement is a legitimate govt purview - not social coddling.

Who imposed these employment laws? Not Commerce, but those on the outside, wishing to bend someone else's business to their own liking.

I should be able to set whatever wages I can get away with. Don't like the pay? Don't take the job.

As for Obama, I'll let future history answer that.

 

[Jeremy1026]

And yet under the Clinton administration the Justice Department did exactly that to then Chevy Chase (now CapitalOne) Bank.

The Justice Department, headed by Janet Reno, claimed that by choosing not to open branches in low income areas of Washington D.C., they were depriving people living in those areas from access to mortgages.

I guess Chevy Chase Bank didn't make enough campaign contributions to the right people like Tim Cook did. I don't recall the owner of Chevy Chase Bank ever getting invited to sit next to Hillary at a State of the Union Address.

You really are grasping at straws now aren't you?

 

[OLDCODGER]

As a woman who was fired from a bar because the manager used his homophobia in his professional capacity. I need this law to protect me.

And bugger his beliefs, right?

----------

You don't have to like it, but you do have to tolerate it. Because everyone has a right to livelihood, regardless of who or what they are.

Nope. Everyone has the natural right to try - nothing more.

----------

You say you just want to run your business within the law,but the law could say you can't use sexual orientation as a reason not to hire someone and here you are screaming your rights are being trampled over.

Your rights are not being trampled over. Like all rights, yours has limitations. Your right to believe gay people are immoral doesn't mean you can deny them rights to equal opportunity for employment.

Guess you also hate the law saying you can't use race as a reason not to hire someone.

A mob can band together and write any law they wish - that doesn't make it right and proper. The more such laws are imposed, the more likely they will be circumvented/ignored by those who are intent upon making a life for themselves.

 

[quagmire]

And bugger his beliefs, right?

Your right to believe that isn't being trampled on by this proposed law. But acting on those beliefs are trampling on another persons rights. Yours don't trump theirs.

 

[MyMac1976]

I'm old-fashioned. My view on work is - total commitment. For women, that would mean: work, then family, then work, if desired. It's not my job to make special allowance for women who want juggle life, nor is it fair on those women who wish to pursue a life-long career, rather than produce a family.

Sickness should be placed into two classes - short-term and long-term/permanent. The latter, in particular, does present a case for welfare - one of the few, IMO. As for the former, I think three months is long enough for an employer to hold a job open, before he has little choice but to move on.

I'll try to tame my response to you since I just got a little note..

Your opinion is one that is not relevant in the modern world, your irrelevance is based in your opinion. Welcome to the wasteland.

 

[Eraserhead]

And bugger his beliefs, right?

You are only entitled to freedom as long as it doesn't harm others.

I'm old-fashioned. My view on work is - total commitment.

Does that actually achieve results?

 

[OLDCODGER]

You're a boss, not a king. Leave your "baggage" at home, like you would want everyone else to do.

Being the boss/owner is being the king - and is a full-time commitment. The laxity of the masses doesn't (or shouldn't) control the efficiency of a business.

----------

Your right to believe that isn't being trampled on by this proposed law. But acting on those beliefs are trampling on another persons rights. Yours don't trump theirs.

Are you referring to job rights or personal rights? If the former, they don't have any such.

 

[Eraserhead]

Being the boss/owner is being the king - and is a full-time commitment.

Firstly, good bosses never lord over you like a king (and I have been fortunate there), they treat you with far more respect than that. Secondly, once you start putting in more hours than 9-5 (or maybe 8-6) the management quality rapidly drops.

----------

Are you referring to job rights or personal rights? If the former, they don't have any such.

I'm not sure that achieves anything beyond allowing bosses to hire their mates or overworking their staff.

 

[OLDCODGER]

You are only entitled to freedom as long as it doesn't harm others.



Does that actually achieve results?

Pro-active harm is the correct term - not reactive.

Results are for the individual to determine, and is often based upon the career pursued.

----------

I'm not sure that achieves anything beyond allowing bosses to hire their mates or overworking their staff.

Excuse me! What makes you think that you have the right to do that?

 

[Eraserhead]

Pro-active harm is the correct term - not reactive.

Results are for the individual to determine, and is often based upon the career pursued.

What is your point?

Excuse me! What makes you think that you have the right to do that?

Not having workers rights is just about keeping the "little people" down and keeping the aristocracy in charge.

If a boss can't make a decision about whether someone is worth keeping within a probation period then they aren't fit to run a business.

 

[OLDCODGER]

What is your point?



Not having workers rights is just about keeping the "little people" down and keeping the aristocracy in charge.

If a boss can't make a decision about whether someone is worth keeping within a probation period then they aren't fit to run a business.

Sorry, should not have been so obtuse. By proactive harm, I mean when one sets out to inflict harm on someone - without just cause.

Reactive harm is better defined as defense/reaction to perceived harm caused by someone. In this particular case, the bar owner felt slighted by the confrontation, and took reactive measures.

As for your point about the aristocracy being in charge - they always have been, and always will. Even the French and Russian revolutions merely changed one set for another.

 

[niuniu]

A mob can band together and write any law they wish - that doesn't make it right and proper. The more such laws are imposed, the more likely they will be circumvented/ignored by those who are intent upon making a life for themselves.

I hear ya.

That black mob started it, now the gay mob is at it. Where will it end, I say.

I don't know how people are expected to live with all this equal opportunity around. Makes me sick.

 

[OLDCODGER]

I hear ya.

That black mob started it, now the gay mob is at it. Where will it end, I say.

I don't know how people are expected to live with all this equal opportunity around. Makes me sick.

Opportunity being the operative word - not compulsion.

And, no, it started with Watt Tyler.

 

[snberk103]

For women, that would mean: work, then family, then work, if desired. It's not my job to make special allowance for women who want juggle life, nor is it fair on those women who wish to pursue a life-long career, rather than produce a family.

Which of course can only work when both genders can become pregnant and breast-feed. And when society encourages men to take as much career-harming time off as society expects of women.

Yes, there are always exceptions… but the general societal 'expectation' is that the moms get to take the time off. The time when networks and seniority are built, etc etc

….I think three months is long enough for an employer to hold a job open, before he has little choice but to move on.

I'm not talking about someone too sick to work… I'm talking about someone who is chronically sick and who is no longer working at 100%. Say someone who has undergone chemo for cancer and is suffering chemo-brain. They are there, at their desk… doing whatever it is they used to do. It just takes them longer to do their tasks. They have to think harder, their short-term memory is compromised. I'm not talking impaired enough to get a disability certificate… just a little disabled.

 

[OLDCODGER]

Which of course can only work when both genders can become pregnant and breast-feed. And when society encourages men to take as much career-harming time off as society expects of women.

Yes, there are always exceptions… but the general societal 'expectation' is that the moms get to take the time off. The time when networks and seniority are built, etc etc
I'm not talking about someone too sick to work… I'm talking about someone who is chronically sick and who is no longer working at 100%. Say someone who has undergone chemo for cancer and is suffering chemo-brain. They are there, at their desk… doing whatever it is they used to do. It just takes them longer to do their tasks. They have to think harder, their short-term memory is compromised. I'm not talking impaired enough to get a disability certificate… just a little disabled.

No, it works fine now - as it always has. Men hunt, women nurture.

Light duties, if available, would be the only fair solution. If none are available, tough. Life can be a female dog at times, but that shouldn't put the onus on the owner.

 

[quagmire]

No, it works fine now - as it always has. Men hunt, women nurture.

Light duties, if available, would be the only fair solution. If none are available, tough. Life can be a female dog at times, but that shouldn't put the onus on the owner.

You want the 1950's. Where women are in the kitchen and the men are the ones to have the career, control, etc.


Women can have careers and have every right to have one and able to have kids. And they should be able to take time off work in order to have the kid and take care of them initially.

Your work ethic, IMHO is unhealthy. No one should be a slave to their job. You work to live, but you don't live to work. Work is never #1. Family will be. You should live life to its fullest and have fun doing it. Saying you should be committed to your job over family is ridiculous. You're only working in order to provide for your family.

 

[citizenzen]

The point is, when we talk about affirmative action in this country, these are the types of things we are talking about. Affirmative action comes in many different flavors ...

I'm not going to disagree with much of what you wrote, though I might ask you define more precisely what you mean by "many different flavors". They seem pretty limited to employment and education admissions with perhaps some disability thrown in.

But the OP concerned hiring policies, so I focused on AA as it applies to hiring. I think it would be a great idea to have a thread that also looked at AA in education. I believe we could go a long way in dispelling misconceptions about those polices as well.

 

[OLDCODGER]

You want the 1950's. Where women are in the kitchen and the men are the ones to have the career, control, etc.


Women can have careers and have every right to have one and able to have kids. And they should be able to take time off work in order to have the kid and take care of them initially.

Your work ethic, IMHO is unhealthy. No one should be a slave to their job. You work to live, but you don't live to work. Work is never #1. Family will be. You should live life to its fullest and have fun doing it. Saying you should be committed to your job over family is ridiculous. You're only working in order to provide for your family.

Yes.

Not at my expense.

That's why, for example, Africa is still on subsistence farming.

 

[quagmire]

Yes.

Not at my expense.

That's why, for example, Africa is still on subsistence farming.

Something tells me you'll like Saudi Arabia..... Though the women there are starting to want to join the 21st century too.....

 

[OLDCODGER]

Something tells me you'll like Saudi Arabia..... Though the women there are starting to want to join the 21st century too.....

What goes around, comes around. We will return to a more stable era - after the bottom drops out of this one.