You are citing the law and then stating factual assumptions that have nothing to do with those facts.
1)Fact: In practical terms, it means you can be fired for virtually any reason not specifically protected by law
Besides the fact that this is true in every state in the Union, do you not see that this is counter to every thing that you have just stated after this prior sentence?
Nonsense and stipulating facts and law not in evidence.
Or, to translate to you:
"Bait and switch.'
That line of reasoning would be speedily disposed of in summary judgment if that was the crux of your case.
Since you never went to law school, let me tell you one of the first things that I learned at Seton Hall:
"If you have the law, beat on the law.
"If you have the facts, beat on the facts.
"If you have nothing. beat on the table.
Guess what you are beating on.
There is nothing different in Florida vs. employees than in any other state as far as no union activities, other than details, and the case that you referred to is not a sex discrimination case, and was not protected by such Federal law.
It was simple misrepresentation.
You are right. I haven't been to law school. I apologize if I overstepped my bounds or misstated something. You, sir, haven't been to charm school. If you'd like to educate me, you can do so quite well without jumping down my throat.
You are the one who originally brought up Hooters. The case to which I was referring was the one reported about men wanting to be hired as Hooters girls. That wasn't argued under sex discrimination? I'll take your word for it.
Besides the fact that this is true in every state in the Union, do you not see that this is counter to every thing that you have just stated after this prior sentence?
Is it really true in every state in the Union? Why is there so much complaining here, then, about employers who fire at will? People seem surprised that an employer can fire them without "a good reason." Maybe the complainers were protected by a labor agreement in their former jobs in former states? I only have anecdotal evidence -- this is something I've heard all my life while living here.
My original point was this -- Vicomte13 believes that a huge part of the unemployment problem in France (affecting the disgruntled youths) is that employers have difficulty getting rid of an employee once hired. Because of this, he concludes, employers are very reluctant to hire. It isn't like that here, I think you would agree.
Please try to be a little more judicious in your comments. I'm always taking flack for defending lawyers on Free Republic, and you're making my efforts more difficult.