Posted on 02/14/2015 4:03:10 PM PST by rickmichaels
yeah, tell your congressman to vote for’impeachment, and your senators for removal.
not all mistakes are equal. you may have been taken in by a good con guy/gal.
wth? everyone is protected except heterosexual white men. everyone else is protected.
what kind of positions do you have? :-)
If I lived in a normal State/District, I would.
A job is not an entitlement, it’s a privilege which is enjoyed at the whim of the employer.
...
It’s neither an entitlement or a privilege. If there is no contract, the agreement is mutual and either party can terminate it at any time.
Sorry. But you raised a great point, humorously.
Generosity to the wrong person results in dependence and eventual resentment and at the end of the road contempt
I say this daily on this forum
Freepers love blanket issuances
But in employment as a boss there is no one size fits all to dealing with subordinates beyond the obvious
Some folks are gold and some aren’t
Kings were loved for generosity and fairness but respected for how they dealt with enemies and ingrates
#3 I think Jack just like the idea of firing people.
Applies to Presidents too.
Those of us who live in Southern and Midwestern states find these odd concepts of a "guaranteed job" to be rather alien, and in direct conflict with true Freedom of choice and association.
That's due to the attention to morale and general treatment of the workforce where it has prevailed. You did your part, they would do theirs, and it discouraged either party from harming the other. Freedom to choose was always there, since either party could go, but chose to stay out of the competitive advantage of relatively secure employment.
The goal wasn't to consider each other as reluctant adversaries, but as two individuals with the same goal - and that the security kept each party happy, productive and profitable.
On the other hand, models that reject it or view either party as the problem (stack ranking, permatemping, unions) divert resources from productive action to handling inevitable problems.
No employer owes me a job, even if the job I'm doing is exemplary.
It's not an explicit obligation, but can be an implicit one. A good employer knows that they don't owe someone a job, but that they know full well who will jump ship if they mistreat their talent. An employer that doesn't understand it will (at best) be viewed unfavorably in the job market - no matter how bad.
If one desires job security, then a contract should be signed.
When the job market has more or less gone to "crazy land", like today, that doesn't help as many as it *should*. Contract-based employment is seen as a way to manage the low end and as an attraction for the "rock stars" to visit.
Interesting Thread.
What are these things called “Jobs” that everyone is mentioning?
I don’t like firing either. Paying someone who isn’t earning it is even worse.
If you couldn't learn from lessons provided to you why do you think others will learn from lessons provided from you?
At my company, you have to jump through numerous hoops to fire anyone.
I once worked for a tyrant who, among many other things, summarily fired a good employee for not attending the staff Christmas party, and cut the annual sick leave allowance in half for all the employees because one worker abused it.
I think it is better not to give them a reason for the firing.
Sounds like something a leftist would do, punish everyone for a bad apple
What about the fact that said protected class “person” could turn around and claim (and sue for) discrimination?
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.