Posted on 06/27/2012 9:25:47 AM PDT by CHRISTIAN DIARIST
Yes and no. Just as a customer cannot without penalty cancel my contract after I have scheduled the polling calls (I write the penalty into the contract), I cannot without penalty cancel a contractor's services at my home after the contractor has purchased the materials (contractors write that penalty into the contract). However, my regular customers this election cycle can (and often do) unilaterally cancel for the next polling cycle, with no obligation to negotiate in good faith. If my first cycle shows an insurmountable lead for either side, why should a candidate be compelled to pay me to confirm that result a week later?
Or "employment at will" either.
Pure nonsense.
THE EMPLOYER sets the rules on his private property, when HE feels like it, the way HE feels like it.
Similarly, the employee is ABSOLUTELY FREE to leave the very second he or she feels like it.
IF there is a contract, then that might change a bit. IF!
Yet, when an employer changes the terms of an employee's contract their only option is to quit?
Different types of contracts. An “at will” employment contract allows the employer to change working conditions (to the point of simply letting you go) but also allows the employee to walk at any time.
If both sides agree to some form of penalty for changing/breaking the contract, then it’s no longer truly “at will” and both sides are bound to contract or face the prescribed penalty.
I understand, if this was an at will agreement this girl doesn’t have much of a case.
Plus she was not hired to serve as a slut at Hooters. The employer wants to change the game midway so he should pay her off while she seeks non-slut employment.
That is only significant if the "retaliation" is in response to a legally protected activity - say, union organizing or filing a harassment or discrimination complaint. There is nothing illegal about "retaliating" against an employee that complains about a change in the dress code, unless that change violates a contract or unless the change violates another protected right. I would not have a right so sue my employer if they suddenly decided that I must wear a suit and tie every day.
Incorrect. Absent a union contract, a written contract between employer and employee, in an at-will state, employers are free to fire employees for any reason. California Labor Code section 2922 states: "An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month."
Sorry, but in a case of "at-will" employment (which this job most certainly was), the employer is free to change the condition of employment, and is under no obligation to negotiate such changes with the employees. Of course, that changes in a union shop, or in the case of an explicit employment contract.
Bet they get bigger tips. God Bless America!
IF she has a contract - if she is in a union, for example - then the answer is no. However, most employment is "at will". There is no employment contract to speak of.
I’ve been taking a break from pinging, may resume in a bit...
This is a tough call.
Employers certainly have rights to determine uniform; otoh when she was hired the uniform was a normal uniform. An example of how our “culture” is going to slime and filth. I don’t know the answer other than total collapse and start over, wish I did.
Its too bad this becomes the option of choice for the employee, on the other hand, its too bad the employer couldn't manage to voluntarily treat its employee with some measure of respect and consideration.
I know they aren't legally bound to, but IMO its always a better policy.
I wonder how some would feel if their sons worked for this establishment and it decided to cater to homosexual clientele, requiring male servers to expose their "attributes" in order to attract more business.
As we continue down the path of public acceptance of partial nudity and public sexual displays... the slope is slipping quickly as to what is now mainstream and you better get with the program or you are a prude.
The family went to see the Disney Pixar Brave movie last weekend and the previews for future offerings included a 3-D look at the upcoming Katy Perry biopic about her concert experience and her life in general. Obvious pandering to young girls 6 to 10 year olds by a woman wearing cupcake bras with cherry nipples and pinwheel spinning tittie bras. Prancing around on stage like a deranged female version of PeeWee Herman. Amazing how many parents find no problem with allowing their young girls to look up to this crap. I guess they are just breeding future servers for the likes of this business model.
NOT GUILTY, GUILTY,GUILTY,NOT GUILTY,NOT GUILTY,GUILTY,NOT GUILTY
I get the "at will" argument, but that's not really what happened here, is it? In fact it would have been better if it had, and they'd simply terminated her, but they didn't. They appeared to try to make some sort of accommodation, which was wishy-washy of them.
I also get what's really happening here: The owners have a flaccid business in a depressed economy, and so in an effort to prop it up, they hit on the brilliant idea of having their waitresses dress up like sluts. Beautiful. Maybe they should try offering, oh I don't know, good food and good service and stop resorting to gimmicks?
Missy should get out while she can and thank the owners for the lesson they've inadvertently given her.
BTW not that anybody cares, but I despise unions and the whole notion of collective bargaining. I prefer to negotiate on my own behalf and would much rather work as a contractor than an employee. It's a lot less messy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.