If you were an employer

[Dave Bussard]

I don't know who Rolf is, or what the situation at Kodak is, but--

I also think an employer should be able to fire whoever he/she wants to fire, for whatever reason, without the possibility of unemployment having to be paid. The government's hands are in too many places. I know, I'm a slave runner.

 

[Bible Believing Bill]

I voted no. And here is why.

First of all in a chruch setting: A church should not have to hire anyone who does not believe what they believe.

In a business setting I believe you have look at small vs. large businesses. In a small business I would want people working for me who believe the same things I do. If my business is going to succeed then everyone must be working toward a common goal, and everyone must be comfortable working with everyone else. If there is friction then the business will not succeed.

Most large businesses have a generice anti-discrmination / harrassment policy. Why is it necessary to list every group that might possibly be discrimnated against. Taken to the extreem there could be a policy that says "you can not discriminate against 32 year old males, who are married, have not children, drive a car older than 1990 model, and post on the baptist board." At some point it just gets plain silly.

I do not believe we should discriminate against anyone. In that large business as long as each person does their job, and does not create a hostle work enviroment then they should not be fired. If a homosexual or a hetrosexual is talking about their sex life then it can and shold become a case of sexual harrassment. That is something they should be fired for.

Bill

 

[Gina B]

Dave, go up to the news section right above the general discussions and look up the thread on Kodak. I'd link it but I'm really bad at adding links!

Gina

 

[Dave Bussard]

Thanks Gina, but it is almost 2003, it's time to learn how to cut and past from your brower!

Anyway, I could not find the Kodak topic, but would like to read it if you or anyone else can give me the link.

Thanks,
Dave

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Pastor Bob 63:
If I am hiring teachers for the Christian School or janitors to clean the building, I want the option to choose people who are not living in sin. I wouldn't hire a pedophile. I wouldn't hire a rapist. I wouldn't hire a man or woman "shacking up" together. I most certainly would not hire a homosexual.

I do not want that option taken away from churches.

Churches are generally exempt from the clauses in states that have such. There's no question about that. In fact, you can choose to hire only women, or only one race, or only church members if you choose. But secular business is different.

BTW - as far as pedophiles and rapists, those are matters of law, and any company can choose to discriminate based on one's criminal records if they feel it's necessary. You can even do so based on one's credit score.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Originally posted by Dave Bussard:
I could not find the Kodak topic, but would like to read it if you or anyone else can give me the link.

Thanks,
Dave

Kodak Thread

 

[Gina B]

Thank you Pastor.

And I can cut and paste! The links just don't work anymore after I do.

Gina

 

[stubbornkelly]

Ah, but in many states, how one has sex is also a matter of law.

However, one's liking men or women is not. There is no law that says you can't be attracted to a member of your own sex. Just that you can't have sex with them (again, in some states). I've heard the line used that "we don't hire felons," in explaining why they won't hire gay people. I certainly think that's stretching it )particularly if the person hasn't been run through the courts), but I've heard it used.

Just some thoughts.

Personally, I'd include it. Although, it could be well argued that if a company doesn't discriminate on matter of sex or gender, a man's having a boyfriend could be included in that.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Kodak should never have put the policy in their policy handbook. They made a bad decision. That is their problem. And no, I am not inclined to help the guy out.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Dave Bussard]

Gina, I'm very relieved to find out you know how to cut and paste!

But after reading the article I don't change my mind. I feel bad for good ol' Rolf because he should not have lost his job, BUT I still feel that an employer should be able to fire anyone they want for any reason.

If it's my company I feel I should have the right to fire somebody if I find out they like Prince's music, drive a Yugo, or collect Beenie Babies. I wouldn't, of course, but I feel that it should be my right to do so without having to pay unemployment.

Back when I used to work for others I always did seasonal jobs (construction, tree removal, etc) and I could have taken unemployment in the winter but I felt it was my duty to find other work and I always did.

Dave B

 

[Squire Robertsson]

If I were an employer who formally represented no one but himself, I would have a clear and concise non-discrimination policy in this day and age. It would state something to the effect:

Employment decisions will be made based solely on qualifications for a postion and performance in that position. Discrimination in employment decisions based on race, color, creed, gender, and national origin will not be tolerated and will result in disciplinary action (up to and including termination) as outlined in the Employee Handbook.

Mind you I wrote formally representing no one but myself above. If I were to be pastoring a church or heading a para-church organization, I would be formally representing God. Hence, His rules would take precedence.

 

[Jim1999]

Dave,

Where were you when the trade unions stepped up to usurp the authority of the owners of companies? The USA has the largest trade union membership in the world, and they get to write certain rules. They don't have a penny invested and if the company goes broke, they may lose a job, but the owner loses everything.

Maybe you are right. Sack the trade unions and give the ownership back to the owners.

Cheers,

Jim

PS, Before the trade unionists get up in arms, I am a socialist and support unions. I am a member of the BPU-CLA (Baptist Pastors United-Christian Leadership Union) ((Does this really exist?))

[ December 09, 2002, 07:18 PM: Message edited by: Jim1999 ]

 

[Johnv]

I still feel that an employer should be able to fire anyone they want for any reason.

So you should be able to fire someone because he's black?

 

[Dave Bussard]

Why would I fire someone if they were black? If I were prejudice I would not have hired them in the first place.

But seriously, it certainly is not right to not hire/fire someone because they are black, white, spanish, etc, but I feel that I should have the right to not hire a black person if I don't want to. And to make it clear-I have no problem hiring those of an enthnic group other than my own.

[ December 09, 2002, 10:13 PM: Message edited by: Dave Bussard ]

 

[Gina B]

I'm interested in hearing Webmaster's opinion on that last one.

Gina

 

[Dave Bussard]

What do you mean Gina. It bothers you that I don't feel that one should have to hire a black, yellow, white, red, or blue person if they don't want to?

 

[Gina B]

Dave, I'd prefer if you only hired polka dot people, but I wasn't talking about your post. I was referring to MY last post, wanting thoughts on how employers shouldn't be expected to use the clause but how we'll say it was wrong for that guy to be fired from Kodak.

Webmaster agreed with Joseph's post if I remember right, but both appear to have differing views on Kodak dude. Sorry for the misunderstanding!
Gina

 

[Gina B]

PS: Blue people? That would exclude most country singers. What do you have against country?
Gina

 

[Dave Bussard]

Being fired is too good for country fans!

 

[Wisdom Seeker]

Interesting... We own our own business...but we don't have any employees outside of family yet.

Naaa, I don't think I would enclude it... I'm for a simplistic approach on things...I would add what ever was necessary...when it became necessary. I actually don't like discrimination. I think if a person can do a job, and be conscientious about showing up on time etc...that's all that should matter.