Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!
Description
No description provided.
Subjects of Equestria! We are pleased to kick off the Nightmare Night Festivities and the 14th anniversary of the return of our beloved Princess Luna! Join us in celebration!
Dunno.
But it certainly doesn’t help that there ARE creeps in the fandom.
I wonder how many times it’s happened since then.
Hope this guy has plan for another job.
One could feasibly argue that the employer’s right to determine what wages & benefits will be awarded for the job is the trade-off they get for the employee’s (temporary) job security.
No offense meant, but it kinda sounds like you’re arguing from a perspective that employers magically “create” jobs out of thin air, and generously grant them to employees. They are hiring people to provide them a service, not too differently from when you contract a mechanic to have a look at your broken down air conditioner, for instance.
Considering the fact that you aren’t allowed to decide how much money changes hands (company management decides that in dealings with both employees and clients), it shouldn’t really be so surprising that so many clamor for regulations on corporate conduct in other regards.
If one person quits your company, chances are you’ll still have other employees working. Your business probably doesn’t depend on that one person. But, if you’re laid off from your only 9 to 5 job, you lose the guarantee that you’ll still have enough to eat in three months, a way to pay for your house, electric, and water bills, and if you have any dependents living with you, then good luck caring for them, too.
Of course, there are single people upon which some companies rely heavily on, and if enough people go on strike or quit at once, it can put some businesses out of business. But the chances of that happening are pretty low due to the fact that it would involve multiple people putting their livelihoods at risk, and I just explained above why that’s a bad thing.
You’re right, there definitely is a leaning towards protecting employees rather than employers, but the individual faces more risk. And think of it this way, if an employer does lose his business, then what does he become? Either employed or homeless, hopefully the former. Sorry if I’ve only restated things already said, I haven’t read the full of the debate.
Nor should I be dependent upon yours, but beyond that, that’s not my responsibility. And further more, it is all a matter of fairness. If I needed you for my company to function, would you be happy if there were some limitation upon you leaving where you could only do so for a justifiable reason?
Your job security (and mine, for I am no business owner) shouldn’t be the employers ultimate concern because the relationship doesn’t work in the other way in this situation. Should it work both ways, have as many regulations as you want, but you can’t demand one side have something inherent as a right and the others get squat.
Because people need some measure of security in order for society to function well. Sure, life will go on, but it’d be easier knowing your job security didn’t depend on your boss’ crappy mood.
Because I don’t believe I’m entitled to random things without justification?
And people like you, sir or madam, are precisely why there are problems in the world.
I don’t think you understand: I don’t believe you need a reason to fire anyone. Anything not in your contract is a valid reason because there is no justifiable way you can claim that you, Amber, deserves to have that job any longer than I, the employer, decide you do.
Now, note I’m not saying you can just get fired the same day without justification, for mere common decency, but if I want to fire you, I let you know, you have fifteen days to start planning, and then you are out. It could be because you are negatively affecting my chi, I don’t care, you don’t have a right to the job and I, as the person paying you, should have the right to stop paying you for whatever reason I might have (as long as I don’t keep you working for free, because that’s stealing your labour).
>Now, if specific clauses of our contract are broken, sue my ass off, because I pre-agreed to do so, but requiring a reason to fire someone seems a good way to keep the wrong people around for a very long time (sort of what happens in government where I live).
Looking at it that way,it makes sense (and I especially understand you when you mentioned problems in your government).
But only if said reasons are good and valid reasons.If the person has a good background and his/her and is a very efficient employee,but he/she happens to indulge in cartoons and you find that annoying,would it really be fair to fire them just for something insignificant like that?
Now if we are talking about things that compromise the company and/or the integrity/safety of their employees,one has all the rights,to fire said person.
I agree with you in OP’s case,though.He had no reason to keep working there if it was a shitty work and he had better options available.
Perfectly fine. It’s their job the decisions, and if they wish to lose my skills because of it that’s their choice. It could just be because I looked at his dog funny and nothing else. Nothing is worse than keeping bad company, and if you are in a company where you actively hate your employees (or vice-versa) the company isn’t going to work effectively, making this notion that you are somehow tied to a place because of whatever reason be bad for all parties involved (I really doubt this fellow above was producing as well as the others, which benefits no one). And, odd you mention it, but I was fired because of a scar I have running across my face once. Why? Because it scared the children of the ice cream shop. And you know what? She was right.
You are, however, still not justifying why you have some sort of right to the job.
How about if they fired you for your hair colour? or your eye colour? or a scar on your right hand you got because of an accident with a can opener from when you were twelve?
Entirely. I have no right to the job at any stage and any reason they believe (my smoking affects the corporate image, they personally dislike smoking and I didn’t mention I did it, etc.) to fire me is justifiable as long as my contract doesn’t say otherwise.
You still haven’t answered the question, mind you.
So, by your logic, if you had someone who you answer directly to, and their entire justification was that you smoked, even though it impacts no one, you would be okay with that?
Why? Does an employer have any right to prevent you from leaving at any moment? No? Then what justification do you have for the inverse?
I don’t get to use that accent much, so I figured, why not?
That’s just a right bit of shonky dealin’s there, mate. I’d even go as far to call you an absolute tosser.
I never understood why, if I’m paying you, should I not be able to fire you for whatever reason I desire. It’s not like you are doing things for free, investing their time or money into the bussiness, so if I wake up one morning and decide to fire you I should have the right to do it.
Now, if specific clauses of our contract are broken, sue my ass off, because I pre-agreed to do so, but requiring a reason to fire someone seems a good way to keep the wrong people around for a very long time (sort of what happens in government where I live).
So yeah, gringos be actually having the right idea.
That said, if you are in such a shitty work environment and you have better work prospects, what the hell are you doing there?