Register to Comment
Page 50 of 51 FirstFirst ... 4048495051 LastLast
Results 491 to 500 of 503
Like Tree386Likes
  1. #491
    Alan Alda Alan Alda is offline
    Alan Alda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5,672

    When you look at the specifics of the Danish experience and indeed the history of integration,as experienced by our neighbours across the Irish sea, one is forced to ask some important questions such as ..
    What colour are the Prime ministers socks ?
    Only in Ireland

    What are we like ? Havin the Craic,not thinking stuff through.
    Tis gas, sure.
    We've some great scenery lads dont we though?
    Last edited by Alan Alda; 11th July 2018 at 03:46 AM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #492
    recedite recedite is online now

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    563

    Quote Originally Posted by Mercurial View Post
    It's a pity that I should have to point out something that ought to be common knowledge. In the United States, employees are (with some exceptions depending on the jurisdiction) generally assumed to be employed "at will", which means that their employer is entitled to fire them without cause:

    http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-a...-overview.aspx



    As you will see above, the law does not permit a person to fire an employee for certain reasons, even when employed at will. However, in practice, it is entirely possible to fire someone because of their race without incurring legal liability provided that you simply refuse to admit that that is the motivating reason.
    Did you read your own link?
    II. Statutory Exceptions to the At-Will Presumption
    In addition to the common-law exceptions outlined above, there are also several statutory exception to the at-will employment doctrine.
    A. Illegal Discrimination
    Federal and state discrimination statutes prohibit employers from basing employment decisions on an employee’s race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, or veteran status. Specific state statutes may also protect employees from discrimination based on other factors, such as sexual orientation.
    It is important to recognize that discrimination statutes shield members of protected classes only from adverse employment actions made because of their membership in a protected class. In other words, an employer may fire Jane because she failed to perform the required functions of her job, but not because she is in a wheelchair.
    Your status as Grand Purveyor of Bull$hit is confirmed.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #493
    Mercurial Mercurial is offline
    Mercurial's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    93,345

    Quote Originally Posted by recedite View Post
    Did you read your own link?
    Your status as Grand Purveyor of Bull$hit is confirmed.
    Did you read my comment?

    As you will see above, the law does not permit a person to fire an employee for certain reasons, even when employed at will. However, in practice, it is entirely possible to fire someone because of their race without incurring legal liability provided that you simply refuse to admit that that is the motivating reason.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #494
    A Voice A Voice is offline
    A Voice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    6,533

    Quote Originally Posted by Hitchcock View Post
    Official and legal? C'mon you can do better than this Avoice.
    If they have no influence why do Muslim campaigners want them?

    And why will they not just accept the law of the land in the first place?

    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-a8064796.html
    in sharia courts, British Muslim women have fewer rights than women in Islamic countries
    I'd say "C'mon Hitchcock, you can do better than this" except I know you can't.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #495
    recedite recedite is online now

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    563

    Quote Originally Posted by Mercurial View Post
    Did you read my comment?
    What is that meant to be, some kind of disclaimer?
    It is nonsense. First you said a black person could legally be fired in the US, and that claim has been shown to be BS.

    Your disclaimer is like saying "it is entirely possible to rob a bank in the USA without incurring legal liability provided that you don't get caught". It is just nonsensical bull$hitting sophistry.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #496
    Mercurial Mercurial is offline
    Mercurial's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    93,345

    Quote Originally Posted by recedite View Post
    What is that meant to be, some kind of disclaimer?
    It's asking you whether you read my comment - because your reply suggests that you didn't.

    It is nonsense. First you said a black person could legally be fired in the US, and that claim has been shown to be BS.
    Except that isn't what I said. What I said was:
    Quote Originally Posted by Mercurial View Post
    ...if you are an employer who wants to fire your employee because they are black and you're a racist, for example, you can fire them so long as you don't admit the reason [emphasis added] (in some parts of the US).
    Your disclaimer is like saying "it is entirely possible to rob a bank in the USA without incurring legal liability provided that you don't get caught". It is just nonsensical bull$hitting sophistry.
    It's not like saying that, because in other jurisdictions, an employee cannot normally be fired without cause. The fact that an employer is required to justify their reasons for firing an employee provides protection to employees that is lacking in jurisdictions with at-will employment provisions.

    If you want to fire an employee because you don't like the colour of their skin, it is far easier to do so in (parts of) the US than it would be in countries like this one, for example. To correct your analogy, it would be like making bank robbery illegal but removing the security guards and cameras from all of your banks and leaving the vault door unlocked: it's still illegal to rob the bank, but it's going to be pretty easy to do so without getting caught.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #497
    recedite recedite is online now

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    563

    Quote Originally Posted by Mercurial View Post
    To correct your analogy, it would be like making bank robbery illegal but removing the security guards and cameras from all of your banks and leaving the vault door unlocked: it's still illegal to rob the bank, but it's going to be pretty easy to do so without getting caught.
    Its not quite that easy, because the aggrieved employee could make a complaint, which would have to be looked into, just like it would in this country. In this country a false reason (eg "random" staff cutbacks) could be given.
    So while hiring and firing workers may be easier and quicker in the US, that is just the American way.
    On the other hand, race discrimination in employment is just as illegal in the US as it is here.

    When you say US employers can fire black people "without incurring legal liability" that implies it is legal, which it is not. Hence you have used disingenuous sophistry (also known as a steaming pile of BS).
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #498
    Mercurial Mercurial is offline
    Mercurial's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    93,345

    Quote Originally Posted by recedite View Post
    Its not quite that easy, because the aggrieved employee could make a complaint, which would have to be looked into, just like it would in this country.
    A complaint on what basis? The employer is not required to give any reason for firing someone under such circumstances.

    In this country a false reason (eg "random" staff cutbacks) could be given. So while hiring and firing workers may be easier and quicker in the US, that is just the American way. On the other hand, race discrimination in employment is just as illegal in the US as it is here.
    Except that in your hypothetical Irish case, there is a reason which must be given (the plausibility of which can then be disputed by the employee in question). In contrast, no such reason is required in at-will jurisdictions.

    When you say US employers can fire black people "without incurring legal liability" that implies it is legal, which it is not.
    Except that, again, I never said that. I quoted you what I actually said above. Here it is again:

    if you are an employer who wants to fire your employee because they are black and you're a racist, for example, you can fire them so long as you don't admit the reason
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #499
    recedite recedite is online now

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    563

    Quote Originally Posted by Mercurial View Post
    A complaint on what basis? The employer is not required to give any reason for firing someone under such circumstances.
    The employer would have to defend against a claim of racial discrimination, if one were made.
    Which is an easy enough complaint to make, if there is a genuine grievance.
    Get Professional Legal Help with Your Discrimination Claim
    Have you been treated unfairly based on your race? Did the mistreatment greatly impact your life? Whether it is discrimination in education, on the job, housing, public accommodations, or another area, anti-discrimination laws are here to protect you. However, the laws are complex. An experienced attorney can help you determine if you have a valid claim.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #500
    razorblade razorblade is offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    7,744

    When in Rome do what the Romans do or head somewhere else that's more to your liking that should be clear enough no more pussy footing around this issue you cant just walk into someone else's gaff and demand they change how they do things under their own roof.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Page 50 of 51 FirstFirst ... 4048495051 LastLast
Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment