Disgraces wrote:Why tf y'all voting against?
It's way too far-reaching for a General Assembly resolution. This should be a jurisdictional matter.
Advertisement
by Misthas » Wed Jun 03, 2020 1:36 pm
Disgraces wrote:Why tf y'all voting against?
COMF NEWS: The 5th Armored Division, 76th Paratrooper Regiment "Henrich Weibel" and 4th Airborne Division are being transported to the southern Magyarijan border to combat the imperialist aggressors.
by Kenmoria » Wed Jun 03, 2020 1:38 pm
by Ave Gloriana » Wed Jun 03, 2020 3:18 pm
by Heavens Reach » Wed Jun 03, 2020 4:20 pm
The New Nordic Union wrote:Heavens Reach wrote:
It would be inaccurate to refer to the realities of at will vs contractual employment as jurisdictional, but we assure you, ambassador, they are mutually exclusice.
OOC: https://www.hrdirectapps.com/blog/at-will-vs-contract-employees-discipline-termination-rights/#:~:text=Employers%20can%20terminate%20at%2Dwill,employees%20from%20wrongful%20termination%20situations.
And more broadly: https://www.google.com/search?q=contractual+employment+vs+at+will&rlz=1CAMWDF_enUS735US735&oq=contract&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j0l2j46j0l3.1735j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
'They are not. A contract is an agreement of two or more parties which governs their respective rights and duties in the relationship; in this case, the work one party is expected to perform and on the other hand, the compensation they will receive for this. Nothing more is needed for a contract, that this relationship can be termniated by any party at any given time does not change this fact.'
OOC:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment
https://www.legalnature.com/guides/empl ... employment ('Most employment contracts are at-will in nature...')
http://online.ceb.com/CalCases/C4/24C4t317.htm (see II. [3], 'fundamentally contractual', with further precedents)
by Ankuran » Wed Jun 03, 2020 4:37 pm
by McMasterdonia » Wed Jun 03, 2020 6:00 pm
by Picairn » Wed Jun 03, 2020 6:39 pm
by Heavens Reach » Wed Jun 03, 2020 6:46 pm
Picairn wrote:I can see that the resolution is very controversial, considering the razor-thin margin of its vote in the General Assembly.
by Bigoted Libertarians » Wed Jun 03, 2020 7:02 pm
by Astrobolt » Wed Jun 03, 2020 7:17 pm
Bigoted Libertarians wrote:Opposed.
Again, why should the employer be on the hook for someone’s baby leave? The Corporation already has maternity leave — if you’re feeling maternal, you should leave.
Now get off my damn lawn.
by Rolorkelm » Wed Jun 03, 2020 7:31 pm
by Tinhampton » Wed Jun 03, 2020 7:36 pm
Astrobolt wrote:"...there is an argument that small businesses might not have the means to pay maternity leave to their employees, and that the government should step in."
by Ethnic Nations » Wed Jun 03, 2020 10:35 pm
by Heavens Reach » Thu Jun 04, 2020 1:34 am
Ethnic Nations wrote:Terrible resolution. No employer should be forced to employ the mentally ill including those suffering from gender dysphoria.
by Ardiveds » Thu Jun 04, 2020 1:59 am
by The Palentine » Thu Jun 04, 2020 2:05 am
by Marxist Germany » Thu Jun 04, 2020 2:38 am
Heavens Reach wrote:Ethnic Nations wrote:Terrible resolution. No employer should be forced to employ the mentally ill including those suffering from gender dysphoria.
Being transgender is not the same as suffering from gender dysphoria, ambassador, and employers should absolutely be forced to employ the mentally ill. Though these ideas are unrelated.
by Laeden » Thu Jun 04, 2020 5:48 am
Heavens Reach wrote:Ethnic Nations wrote:Terrible resolution. No employer should be forced to employ the mentally ill including those suffering from gender dysphoria.
Being transgender is not the same as suffering from gender dysphoria, ambassador, and employers should absolutely be forced to employ the mentally ill. Though these ideas are unrelated.
by Ardiveds » Thu Jun 04, 2020 7:06 am
Laeden wrote:Heavens Reach wrote:
Being transgender is not the same as suffering from gender dysphoria, ambassador, and employers should absolutely be forced to employ the mentally ill. Though these ideas are unrelated.
(OOC) I wonder why the hell should an employer be forced to hire anyone, let alone a person who is mentally ill and may struggle to do what another person would accomplish effortlessly.
Perhaps we should let the enterpreneurs do whataver they want with their business instead of forcing them?
by Wallenburg » Thu Jun 04, 2020 10:05 am
Additionally, businesses should retain the right to hire and fire whomever they wish."
by Heavens Reach » Thu Jun 04, 2020 3:05 pm
Marxist Germany wrote:Heavens Reach wrote:
Being transgender is not the same as suffering from gender dysphoria, ambassador, and employers should absolutely be forced to employ the mentally ill. Though these ideas are unrelated.
"I implore you to open a psychology book before making such claims. Additionally, businesses should retain the right to hire and fire whomever they wish."
by Heavens Reach » Thu Jun 04, 2020 3:10 pm
Laeden wrote:Heavens Reach wrote:
Being transgender is not the same as suffering from gender dysphoria, ambassador, and employers should absolutely be forced to employ the mentally ill. Though these ideas are unrelated.
(OOC) I wonder why the hell should an employer be forced to hire anyone, let alone a person who is mentally ill and may struggle to do what another person would accomplish effortlessly.
Perhaps we should let the enterpreneurs do whataver they want with their business instead of forcing them?
by La Xinga » Thu Jun 04, 2020 3:36 pm
Heavens Reach wrote:Laeden wrote:
(OOC) I wonder why the hell should an employer be forced to hire anyone, let alone a person who is mentally ill and may struggle to do what another person would accomplish effortlessly.
Perhaps we should let the enterpreneurs do whataver they want with their business instead of forcing them?
No, ambassador, I don't think we should.
OOC: because mentally ill doesn't automatically mean low functioning, and because what you suggest would be barbaric anywhere that mental illness doesn't qualify as a disability, and disability status didn't come with some kind of automatic income. Barring that, it would still be both discriminatory and entirely unnecessary. Cynically allowing businesses to liquidate people for their labor, not on their merits, but merely in pursuit of some idealistic perfect bottom-line is exactly the kind of soulless corporate toxicity that we should be working to get away from.
by Wallenburg » Thu Jun 04, 2020 4:09 pm
La xinga wrote:Do any of you see how close the vote is?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement