tude dog;1477569 wrote: Well, I would like you to point out the "Right Wing" spin on this story.
Left wing is to see the balanced side of innocent until proven guilty & to give the accused rights by due process. The right wing view is that employees should have no rights & should be sacked at the slightest question, without even bothering to check to find out if it's justified. Plenty more fish in the sea, sort of thing. The report is clearly prejudging his guilt on the basis of an uncorroberated allegation.
That is all fine and dandy, but all my life I worked in "Right to Work" states. It gives the employee the right to quit at a moments notice, and the employer to fire an employee and no reason need be given.
Not in the UK. We have Employment Laws to protect the Workers, where the employer can be sued for Unfair Dismissal. Furthermore, all dismissals must inlude a statutory minimum notice period (1 week minimum, I believe), or payment in lieu of notice.
Funny thing I leaned a long time ago, you still work only as long as they like you.
Mmm - subjective. They don't need to like you in order to benefit from your working for them.
It was a news report. Take it for what it is worth. It is not uncommon that first reports fall short of the complete story. It is not news to start spinning the story.
My point exactly. News items are, at best, highly biased, one way or the other. Fox is notorious for being Right Wing Biased. If the report were to be in the Daily Star, or the Socialist Worker I would expect an entirely different viewpoint on it.
This guy will never get his reputation back.
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
This guy will never get his reputation back.
FourPart;1477376 wrote: I mean that most reputable companies have an official disciplinary policy that doesn't prejudge anyone without looking into the facts first.
tude dog;1477569 wrote: That is all fine and dandy, but all my life I worked in "Right to Work" states. It gives the employee the right to quit at a moments notice, and the employer to fire an employee and no reason need be given.
I'm sure that Four Part was speaking about civilized environments. He certainly didn't mean to include Zimbabwe, Burma, Mauritania, or your otherwise fine nation.
tude dog;1477569 wrote: That is all fine and dandy, but all my life I worked in "Right to Work" states. It gives the employee the right to quit at a moments notice, and the employer to fire an employee and no reason need be given.
I'm sure that Four Part was speaking about civilized environments. He certainly didn't mean to include Zimbabwe, Burma, Mauritania, or your otherwise fine nation.
-
AnneBoleyn
- Posts: 6631
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm
This guy will never get his reputation back.
tude dog;1477569 wrote: Well, I would like you to point out the "Right Wing" spin on this story.
That is all fine and dandy, but all my life I worked in "Right to Work" states. It gives the employee the right to quit at a moments notice, and the employer to fire an employee and no reason need be given.
Wrong Again, my Right-Wing Fox News compatriot. "Right to Work" is all about Union Busting:
"A "right-to-work" law is a statute in the United States that prohibits union security agreements, or agreements between labor unions and employers, that govern the extent to which an established union can require employees' membership, payment of union dues, or fees as a condition of employment..................."
Right-to-work law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Geesh, amazes me how you think a synonym for screwing people is freedom.
That is all fine and dandy, but all my life I worked in "Right to Work" states. It gives the employee the right to quit at a moments notice, and the employer to fire an employee and no reason need be given.
Wrong Again, my Right-Wing Fox News compatriot. "Right to Work" is all about Union Busting:
"A "right-to-work" law is a statute in the United States that prohibits union security agreements, or agreements between labor unions and employers, that govern the extent to which an established union can require employees' membership, payment of union dues, or fees as a condition of employment..................."
Right-to-work law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Geesh, amazes me how you think a synonym for screwing people is freedom.
This guy will never get his reputation back.
FourPart;1477584 wrote: Left wing is to see the balanced side of innocent until proven guilty & to give the accused rights by due process.
The concept of "until proven guity is a is a legal concept" only applies to the government.
FourPart;1477584 wrote: The right wing view is that employees should have no rights & should be sacked at the slightest question, without even bothering to check to find out if it's justified.
Who is to do the checking?
FourPart;1477584 wrote: Plenty more fish in the sea, sort of thing. The report is clearly prejudging his guilt on the basis of an uncorroberated allegation.
Not in the UK. We have Employment Laws to protect the Workers, where the employer can be sued for Unfair Dismissal. Furthermore, all dismissals must inlude a statutory minimum notice period (1 week minimum, I believe), or payment in lieu of notice.
What is the employee required to give notice?
FourPart;1477584 wrote: Mmm - subjective. They don't need to like you in order to benefit from your working for them.
The concept of "until proven guity is a is a legal concept" only applies to the government.
FourPart;1477584 wrote: The right wing view is that employees should have no rights & should be sacked at the slightest question, without even bothering to check to find out if it's justified.
Who is to do the checking?
FourPart;1477584 wrote: Plenty more fish in the sea, sort of thing. The report is clearly prejudging his guilt on the basis of an uncorroberated allegation.
Not in the UK. We have Employment Laws to protect the Workers, where the employer can be sued for Unfair Dismissal. Furthermore, all dismissals must inlude a statutory minimum notice period (1 week minimum, I believe), or payment in lieu of notice.
What is the employee required to give notice?
FourPart;1477584 wrote: Mmm - subjective. They don't need to like you in order to benefit from your working for them.
What happened to Kamala Harris' campaign?
She had the black vote all locked up.
She had the black vote all locked up.
This guy will never get his reputation back.
AnneBoleyn;1477689 wrote: Wrong Again, my Right-Wing Fox News compatriot. "Right to Work" is all about Union Busting:
"A "right-to-work" law is a statute in the United States that prohibits union security agreements, or agreements between labor unions and employers, that govern the extent to which an established union can require employees' membership, payment of union dues, or fees as a condition of employment..................."
Right-to-work law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Geesh, amazes me how you think a synonym for screwing people is freedom.
I worked for the union twice in my life.
First time labor incisive. It was a summer job. I was going back to school and I must admit that it paid well, really well to someone with no sills and no future.
Fast forward eighteen teen years.
I decided to leave a company and go elsewhere, which was required to hire union.
Money was not the issue.
Working under under rules are very retristive to not only the company, but the laborer trying to do the job.
That job only lasted six months. Long enough to collect the initiation fee.
"A "right-to-work" law is a statute in the United States that prohibits union security agreements, or agreements between labor unions and employers, that govern the extent to which an established union can require employees' membership, payment of union dues, or fees as a condition of employment..................."
Right-to-work law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Geesh, amazes me how you think a synonym for screwing people is freedom.
I worked for the union twice in my life.
First time labor incisive. It was a summer job. I was going back to school and I must admit that it paid well, really well to someone with no sills and no future.
Fast forward eighteen teen years.
I decided to leave a company and go elsewhere, which was required to hire union.
Money was not the issue.
Working under under rules are very retristive to not only the company, but the laborer trying to do the job.
That job only lasted six months. Long enough to collect the initiation fee.
What happened to Kamala Harris' campaign?
She had the black vote all locked up.
She had the black vote all locked up.
This guy will never get his reputation back.
tude dog;1477794 wrote: I worked for the union twice in my life.
The Union works for you......................normally.
The Union works for you......................normally.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
This guy will never get his reputation back.
tude dog;1477794 wrote: Working under rules are very restrictive to not only the company, but the laborer trying to do the job.
That job only lasted six months. Long enough to collect the initiation fee.
Bad job..................bad union ?
That job only lasted six months. Long enough to collect the initiation fee.
Bad job..................bad union ?
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
This guy will never get his reputation back.
Bruv;1477803 wrote: Bad job..................bad union ?
More a case of Bad Employment Rights - Bad Union. There are bad jobs that still need doing. Jobs like unblocking drains, etc. The union ensures that the employees are treated fairly for doing those jobs & that they are not victimised if they are made to do something outside of their job description.
As for employees giving notice - Yes, they are required to do so, otherwise they can forfeit any pay owing to them for that period. When an employer dismisses someone, it may be a case of removing that person from the premises immediately, but they still have to pay them in lieu of notice.
More a case of Bad Employment Rights - Bad Union. There are bad jobs that still need doing. Jobs like unblocking drains, etc. The union ensures that the employees are treated fairly for doing those jobs & that they are not victimised if they are made to do something outside of their job description.
As for employees giving notice - Yes, they are required to do so, otherwise they can forfeit any pay owing to them for that period. When an employer dismisses someone, it may be a case of removing that person from the premises immediately, but they still have to pay them in lieu of notice.