RE: Hiring employees: personal freedom vs discrimination

RE: Hiring employees: personal freedom vs discrimination (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Alumbrado -> RE: Hiring employees: personal freedom vs discrimination (7/4/2007 8:39:17 AM)
quote: Damn You Ralph Nader!!! Nader... isn't he that disgruntled former employee at GM, who wrote some sort of tell all book as revenge for being denied a promotion? Isn't he some sort of charity case now, always running around looking for a handout, or a government job or something?[8D] And you have once again passed up the chance to discuss the OP topic, and my comments on personal freedom to choose whom we can associate with on our own private property. No one is disputing that there are restrictions in place when doing business, (for the 3rd time, BFOQs anyone?) but you are conflating any restrictions with absolute restriction, a blatant logical fallacy.

farglebargle -> RE: Hiring employees: personal freedom vs discrimination (7/4/2007 10:40:08 AM)
Without Mandatory Seatbelts, there would be no Mandatory Seatbelt Laws

Alumbrado -> RE: Hiring employees: personal freedom vs discrimination (7/4/2007 10:54:15 AM)
Ahh, the slippery slope to musicians beng allowed to discriminate against the tone deaf when hiring band members....[8\|]

luckydog1 -> RE: Hiring employees: personal freedom vs discrimination (7/4/2007 10:55:18 AM)
Farg you have told 2 absolute falsehoods in this post. I can go to the store and buy a locally made product and pay no salestax. We have no sales tax in my city nor in my state. There is no national sales tax. Your pretending that there is and that that gives the feds the right to do any damn thing they want is nonsense based on a lie. You do seem to love to mix the feds and locals in your arguments. You also do not give up any rights at all when you get a drivers liscence. You gain the right to operate your Car on Public Roads. If you own a field you can drive around in it with no liscence or registration. This is a vexing issue. I see the legitimacy of the Feds preventing rank racial discrimination and the subsequent abuse of citizens, but it is a very difficult line to draw, as people should have the right to hire whomever they think will do the best job for them.

farglebargle -> RE: Hiring employees: personal freedom vs discrimination (7/4/2007 11:00:31 AM)
I'm in New York. I guess other states don't have a sales-tax, so you have a point. I'm sure there is another compulsory nexus somewhere.. Business License? Sign Permit? Health Department Certificate? At SOME POINT they sucker you into signing away your rights. At that point, your agreement compels your obedience. Now, btw, I'm not saying it's morally, or ethically right. But there it is.

FrenchConnection -> RE: Hiring employees: personal freedom vs discrimination (7/4/2007 11:09:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle I'm in New York. I guess other states don't have a sales-tax, so you have a point. I'm sure there is another compulsory nexus somewhere.. Business License? Sign Permit? Health Department Certificate? At SOME POINT they sucker you into signing away your rights. At that point, your agreement compels your obedience. Now, btw, I'm not saying it's morally, or ethically right. But there it is. Agreement does not equate to obedience. When I signed my Driver's License, I agreed that if I was pulled over for DUI, that I would submit to a Breath-a-lyzer test or a blood test. If I refuse, my license will be suspended for a term no longer than 6 months. Hmmm, if I have a choice to be disobedient, then it's not really obedience, is it?

farglebargle -> RE: Hiring employees: personal freedom vs discrimination (7/4/2007 11:32:32 AM)
You're going to obey the DMV in either case, whether you take the test ( following their orders ) or accepting the suspension ( again, following their orders... ) You could drive on the suspended license... If you're willing to suffer the criminal penalties.

SeeksOnlyOne -> RE: Hiring employees: personal freedom vs discrimination (7/4/2007 1:14:51 PM)
ok i got an interview at hooters.....if they dont hire me to prance around and serve wings, ima suing them.......[;)]

instynctive -> RE: Hiring employees: personal freedom vs discrimination (7/4/2007 1:26:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SeeksOnlyOne ok i got an interview at hooters.....if they dont hire me to prance around and serve wings, ima suing them.......[;)] That would be a job you are certainly overqualified for.. lol I think the max they allow (before stuffing) are C-cups... ;-)

SeeksOnlyOne -> RE: Hiring employees: personal freedom vs discrimination (7/4/2007 1:36:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: instynctive quote: ORIGINAL: SeeksOnlyOne ok i got an interview at hooters.....if they dont hire me to prance around and serve wings, ima suing them.......[;)] That would be a job you are certainly overqualified for.. lol I think the max they allow (before stuffing) are C-cups... ;-) i swear i remember reading, years ago, that all prospective waitress employees had to sit on a tractor seat in the office....if any ass hung over the side, they werent hired..... i do threaten to send my tech dude a bikini pic of me if he doesnt fix my puter quickly......i dunno why im always moved to the front of the line........

HaveRopeWillBind -> RE: Hiring employees: personal freedom vs discrimination (7/4/2007 2:00:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado Why should any citizen have to give up their inalienable rights, just because they choose to make their living in an area which requires them to employ other people? Alumbrado, You are confusing apples and oranges here. Citizens DO have inalienable rights, but businesses do not. They only have the rights given to them under current law. Businesses must meet the requirements of Federal, State, and local law. Sometimes this works against the applicant and sometimes it is to the benefit of the applicant. For example Equal Opportunity laws made it illegal to hire based on race. Depending on your situation that may help you find a job, could hinder you, and may have no effect at all in a given situation. It does take some of the hiring choice out of the hands of someone who might be racially predjudiced. That person may feel their rights have been violated but in fact it is the rights of the applicant that have been protected.

AquaticSub -> RE: Hiring employees: personal freedom vs discrimination (7/4/2007 2:02:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level How much freedom should an employer have in choosing their employees? You should be able to hire whoever applies that is best for the job, including both techinical skills, personality, and people skills.

AquaticSub -> RE: Hiring employees: personal freedom vs discrimination (7/4/2007 2:09:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle I'm in New York. I guess other states don't have a sales-tax, so you have a point. I'm sure there is another compulsory nexus somewhere.. Business License? Sign Permit? Health Department Certificate? At SOME POINT they sucker you into signing away your rights. At that point, your agreement compels your obedience. Now, btw, I'm not saying it's morally, or ethically right. But there it is. You still have the right to use horse and buggy if you don't feel like getting a driver's license. You still have the ride to ride a bike. You still have the right to walk, skateboard, use a unicycle or waltz to where you want to go. They didn't sucker you into anything. You don't need a driver's license to drive on your own land. You need a driver's license to drive on state roads. You can use your car on your roads on your land as much as you want. You just can't drive your car on roads that aren't yours without one.

instynctive -> RE: Hiring employees: personal freedom vs discrimination (7/4/2007 2:19:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SeeksOnlyOne i swear i remember reading, years ago, that all prospective waitress employees had to sit on a tractor seat in the office....if any ass hung over the side, they werent hired..... i do threaten to send my tech dude a bikini pic of me if he doesnt fix my puter quickly......i dunno why im always moved to the front of the line........ That's fine.. that's not a place you'd want to work at anyway.. being used as a non-sex prostitute more than anything.. although tractor seats are pretty wide.. And that just goes to show you IT guys aren't always smart.. ;-) I'd call your bluff.. :-P

SeeksOnlyOne -> RE: Hiring employees: personal freedom vs discrimination (7/4/2007 2:20:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: instynctive And that just goes to show you IT guys aren't always smart.. ;-) I'd call your bluff.. :-P hahaha-you havent pissed me off yet....so youre safe....suffice it to say-it does exist......dont make me stop this car!!!

HaveRopeWillBind -> RE: Hiring employees: personal freedom vs discrimination (7/4/2007 2:27:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SeeksOnlyOne i swear i remember reading, years ago, that all prospective waitress employees had to sit on a tractor seat in the office....if any ass hung over the side, they werent hired..... Seeks, This might have been an entirely non-sexist issue. Maybe the work space behind the counter was only one tractor seat wide and bigger girls would have a way of breaking glasses or dishes trying to maneuver there. Sometimes things that seem ridiculous are just a matter of practicality. Many years ago I worked as a waiter in a NYC nightclub that only hired slim waiters because the work area was quite narrow and wider waiters had a collision problem back there. A real factor for a business owner when it meant spilled dinners or drinks and breakage loss.

SeeksOnlyOne -> RE: Hiring employees: personal freedom vs discrimination (7/4/2007 2:29:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HaveRopeWillBind Seeks, This might have been an entirely non-sexist issue. Maybe the work space behind the counter was only one tractor seat wide and bigger girls would have a way of breaking glasses or dishes trying to maneuver there. Sometimes things that seem ridiculous are just a matter of practicality. Many years ago I worked as a waiter in a NYC nightclub that only hired slim waiters because the work area was quite narrow and wider waiters had a collision problem back there. A real factor for a business owner when it meant spilled dinners or drinks and breakage loss. youve never been to hooters huh? although your point is well taken......kind of the same as for stewardesses or whatever were calling them this week.

DomKen -> RE: Hiring employees: personal freedom vs discrimination (7/4/2007 2:31:06 PM)
Companies should have more and less rights to hire who they want. A few years ago I was the team leader of one of three software development teams working for a small company. Business was very good and we were hiring people with intention of forming a fourth development team from a mix of old and new employees. Unfortunately we hired 'Sam.' Sam was a very well qualified employee, or so his resume implied, whose only downside was he changed jobs every 6 months to a year which was no big deal in software development lots of guys were doing that in the late 90's. Sam was moderately productive on the easy stuff we gave him to get him up to speed. Seeing that he didn't seem right for the production coder positions we tried him in customer and sales support. About a week later complaints started to pour in from salesmen and from customers. Turns out this guy was some sort of christian ultra fundamentalist. He was taking every opportunity to proselytize or customers and potential customers. Including signing up everyone who sent him an email requesting support to one of those daily devotional email lists. So we move him off support to software maintenance, finding bugs in released software. He is unhappy and complains and someone explained to him what was going on. We're served a couple of days later and he stops coming to work because of, he claimed, the hostile workplace. The owner eventually wins the lawsuit but the expenses and the delay caused by all the legal crap meant the company didn't add the new team and we lost several potential clients and acouple of existing ones. GWB's election and the ensuing recession finished the job of doing the company in. Now I won't pretend to know how to have rules that protect minority groups rights to employment without opening those same rules up to abuse but something does need to change.

HaveRopeWillBind -> RE: Hiring employees: personal freedom vs discrimination (7/4/2007 2:37:17 PM)
Seeks, To be honest no, I have never been to Hooters. But then again if it was just a Hooters issue, in general bigger girls have bigger... I think this week if they don't work on the flight deck they are called Cabin Attendants.

Alumbrado -> RE: Hiring employees: personal freedom vs discrimination (7/4/2007 3:10:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HaveRopeWillBind Alumbrado, You are confusing apples and oranges here. Citizens DO have inalienable rights, but businesses do not. They only have the rights given to them under current law. Businesses must meet the requirements of Federal, State, and local law. Sometimes this works against the applicant and sometimes it is to the benefit of the applicant. For example Equal Opportunity laws made it illegal to hire based on race. Depending on your situation that may help you find a job, could hinder you, and may have no effect at all in a given situation. It does take some of the hiring choice out of the hands of someone who might be racially predjudiced. That person may feel their rights have been violated but in fact it is the rights of the applicant that have been protected. Thanks for putting words in my mouth that I never said, while also stealing what I had already said and presuming to lecture me with it.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.076172E-02