+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 29

Thread: Employees' Rights & its Effects on Business

  1. Default Employees' Rights & its Effects on Business

    There seems to always be a debate over employees’ rights, and how much is too much or little. I believe that the best way to delegate employees’ rights is to make sure employees can have as many rights as the Constitution provides without harming the financial condition of the company.

    With this topic comes the constant struggle of power between the employees and employers. Appeasing an employee’s right sometimes can be detrimental to the company’s financial well-being. On the other hand though, employees can take advantage of their employees and strip their rights or discriminate against them. Employers have the upper hand in this battle with the employment-at-will doctrine. This doctrine says that an employee is at the will of the employer and can be fired for any reason, and that the employer does not need to state his or her reasons for releasing someone. I do believe that this policy is very acceptable because the employer deserves this power. Employees are by nature subject to the employer and company and have been granted an opportunity to get paid. If they get out of line and begin to hurt the company financially because of their actions, then there is no reason why they should have the same job. There are of course exceptions to this rule for discrimination in terms of sex, race, and religion. These rules are enforced by a government agency, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). I agree that it is unethical and unfair for an employer to discriminate against for any of the reasons listed above because these factors are hard to control and/or should not be controlled because of their importance to the individual. However, if the employee misses a substantial amount of time and no longer contributes to the business than I think that he or she may be fired or relocated.

    Another claim I am making, is that employee’s should be granted the rights stated in the 1st Amendment and other basic human rights as long as it does not harm the company. An example of an employee’s first amendment rights getting in the way of a company is if an employee decides to rant about his company on Facebook or other social networking sites. This should not be allowed by the employer because it could cause considerable financial harm to the company. In 2008, thirteen employees were fired by the airline company, Virgin Atlantic, for calling their passengers” chavs” on Facebook. It was the right move on behalf of Virgin Atlantic to fire the employees. Those who argue that this is a violation of their freedom of speech have not properly considered the employer/employee relationship. The employees gave up various rights when they accepted the job in order for the company to function. In this situation the employees were not simply speaking as a citizen, but as an employee instead. Their actions may have caused considerable harm to the reputation of Virgin Atlantic, and since they are harming their company then there is no valid reason for why they should keep their jobs? By accepting employment to work for Virgin Atlantic there are implied duties to give up some rights and make sure they get the job done without causing harm to the company.

    Employees’ rights should be kept intact to protect the employees, but can be limited by the company if the employees' rights get in the way of the company’s financial success.

  2. Stand Taller and Look Better with the LUMOback Posture and Activity Coach. <LINK> Learn More Here! </LINK>

  3. #2

    Default

    A. It's the employee and the federal government versus business.
    B. What First Amendment right is involved in employment. Certainly not the part that says, "Congress shall make no laws abridging the freedom of speech."
    C. Should we hold unions accountable for assault, sabotage, vandalism, murder, intimidation, theft, and the myriad of other crimes they commit?

  4. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moncrirw View Post
    There seems to always be a debate over employees’ rights, and how much is too much or little. I believe that the best way to delegate employees’ rights is to make sure employees can have as many rights as the Constitution provides without harming the financial condition of the company.

    With this topic comes the constant struggle of power between the employees and employers. Appeasing an employee’s right sometimes can be detrimental to the company’s financial well-being. On the other hand though, employees can take advantage of their employees and strip their rights or discriminate against them. Employers have the upper hand in this battle with the employment-at-will doctrine. This doctrine says that an employee is at the will of the employer and can be fired for any reason, and that the employer does not need to state his or her reasons for releasing someone. I do believe that this policy is very acceptable because the employer deserves this power. Employees are by nature subject to the employer and company and have been granted an opportunity to get paid. If they get out of line and begin to hurt the company financially because of their actions, then there is no reason why they should have the same job. There are of course exceptions to this rule for discrimination in terms of sex, race, and religion. These rules are enforced by a government agency, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). I agree that it is unethical and unfair for an employer to discriminate against for any of the reasons listed above because these factors are hard to control and/or should not be controlled because of their importance to the individual. However, if the employee misses a substantial amount of time and no longer contributes to the business than I think that he or she may be fired or relocated.

    Another claim I am making, is that employee’s should be granted the rights stated in the 1st Amendment and other basic human rights as long as it does not harm the company. An example of an employee’s first amendment rights getting in the way of a company is if an employee decides to rant about his company on Facebook or other social networking sites. This should not be allowed by the employer because it could cause considerable financial harm to the company. In 2008, thirteen employees were fired by the airline company, Virgin Atlantic, for calling their passengers” chavs” on Facebook. It was the right move on behalf of Virgin Atlantic to fire the employees. Those who argue that this is a violation of their freedom of speech have not properly considered the employer/employee relationship. The employees gave up various rights when they accepted the job in order for the company to function. In this situation the employees were not simply speaking as a citizen, but as an employee instead. Their actions may have caused considerable harm to the reputation of Virgin Atlantic, and since they are harming their company then there is no valid reason for why they should keep their jobs? By accepting employment to work for Virgin Atlantic there are implied duties to give up some rights and make sure they get the job done without causing harm to the company.

    Employees’ rights should be kept intact to protect the employees, but can be limited by the company if the employees' rights get in the way of the company’s financial success.
    I think the rights culture gets in the way. Everyone is so concerned about their rights that they forget that in business, every "right" given to the worker is another link in the chain holding back the company if it needs to change quickly. Unions are killing a lot of businesses. I expect that grocery stores will be dead in 15 years -- because the unions locked in absurd "rights" when times are good and now that other more agile businesses are getting into food sales (ie walmart and target) the high wages and benefits are killing them. But because of union contracts those companies will be unable to make the changes necessary to compete. Rights culture. I feel the same way about employer health coverage -- sooner or later the businesses providing them will lose out to those who don't. Unfortunately, those companies are not american so we'll hear the usual (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) and moan that OUR JOBS IS GOING TO CHINA. But we're doing it.
    Our modern society is engaged in polishing and decorating the cage in which man is kept imprisoned. ~Swami Nirmalananda, Enlightened Anarchism

  5. Default

    Employees have all the rights they need, they can simply walk away from any jobs they feel is not treating them properly. Sooner or later after working for business after business, that employee will realize that the employer is NOT the problem, it is themselves that are the problem. You as the employee set your own worth by your experience, work ethic, and education level. If you are missing something, it is not the employer to give you what you are missing, it is up to you to achieve it.
    Liberalism; such great ideas, they need to force you to follow them.

    Socialism is for the people, not the socialist.

    2012 = Turd sandwich vs Giant D*&che

    Economic Left/Right: 7.38
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.08

  6. #5

    Default

    Originally Posted by moncrirw
    "Employees’ rights should be kept intact to protect the employees, but can be limited by the company if the employees' rights get in the way of the company’s financial success."

    What you are saying is that employees have no rights.

    So if making payroll gets in the way of a company's financial success the company can limit the employees' right to a paycheck?

    That kind of thinking could create an unlivable world.
    A Tea bag kind of world.

  7. Default

    I have always thought that putting the burden on employers is not the ideal solution. I believe all the people in society do have economic rights, especially to land and natural resources. But until the government starts taxing the owners to give to the people, the concept of workers rights is far better than nothing.

  8. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moncrirw View Post
    There seems to always be a debate over employees’ rights, and how much is too much or little. I believe that the best way to delegate employees’ rights is to make sure employees can have as many rights as the Constitution provides without harming the financial condition of the company.

    With this topic comes the constant struggle of power between the employees and employers. Appeasing an employee’s right sometimes can be detrimental to the company’s financial well-being. On the other hand though, employees can take advantage of their employees and strip their rights or discriminate against them. Employers have the upper hand in this battle with the employment-at-will doctrine.
    {cut do to a lot of content which can be continued}
    Let me play a sort of devils advocate here on the side of PRO BUSINESS.
    here is where a big problem has been attached to the back side of the business owners britches
    Employee's have been granted through legislation (in many places) freedoms which they should NOT have been given.

    An employer has to accept those who he may not associate with in his private life to be part of the business he has invested his life in.

    As an advocate of REAL freedom - I encourage people to consider for the rights and freedom of all verse the rights and freedom of some
    that you can not legislate the rights for some against the rights of others and call it FREEDOM.

    If a law is made to force you to accept another person - where is that going to leave your rights?

    The rights for them is JUST US ... and it removes the JUSTICE for all.
    BIGOT: One who has yet to find the effective chemotherapy drugs to rid society of moral cancer.

    "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not. "
    Vlad Lenin: "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."

  9. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBasicsAbout View Post

    An employer has to accept those who he may not associate with in his private life to be part of the business he has invested his life in.

    If a law is made to force you to accept another person - where is that going to leave your rights?
    Where is there such a law?
    In my state there is no law that makes an employer hire anyone.
    And an employer may fire an employee at any time without stating a reason.

  10. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stonehorse View Post
    Where is there such a law?
    In my state there is no law that makes an employer hire anyone.
    And an employer may fire an employee at any time without stating a reason.
    I knew a lady who had a drivers training school who got terrorized because she didn't hire blacks.

    it didn't stop the nonsense when she told them she was her only employee ...
    BIGOT: One who has yet to find the effective chemotherapy drugs to rid society of moral cancer.

    "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not. "
    Vlad Lenin: "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."

  11. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stonehorse View Post
    Where is there such a law?
    In my state there is no law that makes an employer hire anyone.
    And an employer may fire an employee at any time without stating a reason.
    It's a federal law protecting approved minorities. I was sued in federal court for not hiring a woman. I had a black man threaten to sue me if I didn't hire him. I don't know where you've been hiding. A friend of mine successfully sued a trucking firm for not giving her a job because she was too small. She got a cash settlement and a job. Six months later she was on permanent disability for injuries sustained from, ta-da, being too small.

    Pedophiles aren't a protected minority...yet. I suspect they will be if the liberals get their way.

+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 78
    Last Post: Apr 05 2014, 10:01 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks