Shops could face legal action over 'lads' mags'

[Trinity]

My children went to a school once where it turned out that one of the mothers (who also worked as a classroom assistant there) was having an affair with the husband of one of the teachers. When it all came to be known, everyone (other parents included) put pressure on the assistant teacher to resign, to ease the feeling of tension in the school but the school couldn't have sacked her. She did leave voluntarily but that's because she knew if she stayed she would get daggers every day from parents and co-workers.

P.S. how did this get from there to here?????

[klr]

My children went to a school once where it turned out that one of the mothers (who also worked as a classroom assistant there) was having an affair with the husband of one of the teachers. When it all came to be known, everyone (other parents included) put pressure on the assistant teacher to resign, to ease the feeling of tension in the school but the school couldn't have sacked her. She did leave voluntarily but that's because she knew if she stayed she would get daggers every day from parents and co-workers.

P.S. how did this get from there to here?????

Who knows? This is Ratz ...

[Trinity]

say no more

nudge


wink

[Sean Hayden]

I don't know, I just thought it was an absurd example case.

It is interesting to note how its defenders can be taken to think losing a job is horrible versus losing a spouse. You think you can just play with peoples lives is the language used in the first case, and tough shit for the other.

That is not to say that I disagree with them. But the position is probably not that easy to justify, and I'd want to watch out for placing "the employee" on a pedestal.

[MrJonno]

My children went to a school once where it turned out that one of the mothers (who also worked as a classroom assistant there) was having an affair with the husband of one of the teachers. When it all came to be known, everyone (other parents included) put pressure on the assistant teacher to resign, to ease the feeling of tension in the school but the school couldn't have sacked her. She did leave voluntarily but that's because she knew if she stayed she would get daggers every day from parents and co-workers.

P.S. how did this get from there to here?????

It's about employee /employer rights, an employee has a right to have a reasonably constructive environment and an employer has duty to ensure it happens. But the important bit is reasonable expecting someone to sell legal magazines in a magazine shop is reasonable. I personally find the Daily Mail to be an evil abomination, it encourages violence and hatred and I would like to see it banned but until then a shop has a right to sell it and an employee a duty to do so

[Seth]

That's what you get when you give wankers the right to stay in a job. Around here I can fire you for any reason or no reason at all. Wankers generally don't last very long.

And if they don't leave straight away you shoot them for trespass glad i don't live near you

Glad to say you can't sack anyone for anything other than gross misconduct or multiple cases of lesser crimes. You can never get rid of someone because you feel like.

That's why socialist fuckwit societies are going down the tube.

Some other European countries are even more liberal on this, you can't make a redundancy unless you can show the courts your company will go under if you don't

Which is even more stupid. And that's why there are so many unemployed French young adults at the moment. Because once you have a job, it's essentially yours for life, and who wants to hire unskilled workers with no work history for life.

I have a female friend who left France 15 years ago on maternity leave and has been getting paid, and had her job held for her for FIFTEEN FUCKING YEARS by the bank she worked for because she managed to get pregnant every three years...and live comfortably in the United States...until a year ago...when she missed the deadline on conceiving her last child and had to return to France and go back to work because she didn't get pregnant again.

Talk about stupidity. What sort of jackass idiots guarantee a mother a paycheck and a position to return to after fifteen years? It's idiocy of the highest magnitude and it's no wonder that the European economy is in the toilet.

[Seth]

That too sounds like an idiotic law. Employees fucking their bosses' wives and that's not a terminable offense? It would be in a civilized country.

Redundancy is not the only reason to let an employee go. Lack of demand for product, reduced business, other economic realities, etc., all make perfect sense to let someone go. As does the fact that they just aren't performing well in their job. The whole idea that you can't sack someone unless they are committing some "gross misconduct" is ludicrous, and is probably a big reason why it may be so difficult in many jurisdictions to find employment. I mean, if I hire someone, I ought to be able to assess their performance and determine that they aren't needed. If, for example, I needed a person to perform a specific function and it turns out that they suck at it, they work too slow, or they just make too many mistakes, I ought to be able to get rid of them and replace them with another person who can actually do the job.

The sort of thing you describe sounds like a really big step backward. And, as a matter of public policy it would seem to me that it would seriously restrict new hiring of employees, because employers would have to keep a tight reign on new hiring in order to avoid locking themselves in to employees who don't cut it.

It is also perfectly reasonable for an employer to let someone go simply because they don't like the person. As a small business operator myself, I don't like the idea of having to spend my days with someone I don't like. If I hire someone to be my assistant, for example, and they rub me the wrong way, or if they just are unpleasant, I ought to be able to let them go.

Right so as a business operator you ought to be able to play with the lives of your underlings at a whim because it suits you.

Damned right I should. It's MY BUSINESS. I built it, I took all the financial and emotional risks of building it, so I have the absolute right to decide who work for me so that I can present the business image that I want, and if you don't fit that image, I'll fire your ass in a heartbeat because it's NOT YOUR COMPANY and therefore you have NO rights to tell me who I have to work with or not work with.

Letting someone go because of reduced business etc is redundancy. And you can still fire someone for under-performing or whatever, but if you don't want to lose out to them for unfair dismissal, you're going to have be able to provide evidence, performance reviews etc, that their poor quality of work was significantly below that of someone else in the same position, significant in that it's harming the business, consistent over a period of time, and that you offered the necessary training to attempt to remedy the situation. If they really are under-performing that shouldn't be a problem.

Why? If I don't like the fact that the cute girl I hired to be the front-desk receptionist gained a hundred pounds and now looks like a sallow overfed sow I should be able to fire her even if she's the best receptionist on earth, because it's MY FUCKING BUSINESS and NOBODY has a claim on any job, ever, for any reason. You want to work for me, you do what I say, when I say it, in the manner I require and you do it with a smile and a "Yes Sir!" or you take a fucking hike to the unemployment line. I didn't risk my money and waste my time creating a sinecure for anybody. i owe my employees NOTHING more than the agreed-upon wage for the agreed-upon hours of work. No more, no less.

And the suggestion that workers rights reduces the hiring of employees is nonsense. You may be right that employers have to take a more considered approach, rather than hiring and firing left, right and centre, but that just makes for more stable employment. The overall level of employment is still going to be determined by the demand for the business.

Why should I give a fuck about some flunky's "stability?" It's my company's stability and success that matters, and thats ALL that matters. If you're not consistently, every single day, bringing enough value to the company that you're an asset and you become a liability...one dime's worth, I have every right to fire you on the spot.

And if the bosses wife decides to sleep with someone else who happens to be one of his employees, the boss can devoice his wife, but why should he be able to fire the employee? It has nothing to do with the employees work life, and the employee might not have even know she was married.[/quote]

Tough shit. Morality in an employee's behavior is absolutely subject to the employer's scrutiny. If that employee is the top salesman who is responsible for closing million-dollar deals with clients who demand moral behavior and ethics, then that employee is a liability to the owner and can be fired. If he's the mail-room clerk his dalliance with my wife causes me economic and financial harm and I'm going to fire his ass in a heartbeat...and then divorce my wife.

You seem to think that I opened my business as a social support system for indolence and inefficiency and that I somehow owe someone who received a paycheck for the pay period more than that paycheck. I don't. No business owner does. You want vested rights in my company, then you can buy stock in my company. Put your money where your mouth is and risk it all and THEN perhaps you can maintain the position that you have some control over me and my company.

[Seth]

My children went to a school once where it turned out that one of the mothers (who also worked as a classroom assistant there) was having an affair with the husband of one of the teachers. When it all came to be known, everyone (other parents included) put pressure on the assistant teacher to resign, to ease the feeling of tension in the school but the school couldn't have sacked her. She did leave voluntarily but that's because she knew if she stayed she would get daggers every day from parents and co-workers.

P.S. how did this get from there to here?????

It's about employee /employer rights, an employee has a right to have a reasonably constructive environment and an employer has duty to ensure it happens.

And employee has a right to a reasonably SAFE workplace, and that's it. If I want to tell an employee to sit at a desk and not move or speak during his/her shift, I have every right to make that demand and fire them if they refuse to comply. It's MY business, not theirs.

[MrJonno]

Damned right I should. It's MY BUSINESS

And I bet you think you have an inalienable right to have one,? good job its privilege not a right in any sane place

[Seth]

Damned right I should. It's MY BUSINESS

And I bet you think you have an inalienable right to have one,? good job its privilege not a right in any sane place

So, let's see, a "good job" is a "privilege" not a "right" in any "sane place" but you appear to be arguing exactly the opposite, that a good job IS a "right."

I have a right to engage in commerce with others. If I do it well, and satisfy people, more people will do business with me and I will prosper. If, on the other hand, I do it poorly, and I raise the ire of customers, they will abandon me for my competitor, and I will not prosper.

That's how the free market works. If I have an employee who is a net negative to my business...in other words he's not producing enough value above the costs of employing him to help me prosper, why should I be required to retain him in a position? Because he WANTS me to keep him employed? You just said that his job is a "privilege" not a right, right?

So how does your logic attempt to work in this case, because it's opaque to me...and anybody else with a shred of intelligence.

[MrJonno]

I have a female friend who left France 15 years ago on maternity leave and has been getting paid, and had her job held for her for FIFTEEN FUCKING YEARS by the bank she worked for because she managed to get pregnant every three years...and live comfortably in the United States...until a year ago...when she missed the deadline on conceiving her last child and had to return to France and go back to work because she didn't get pregnant again.

I think that says more about American immigration laws that it does about maternity ones which are a basic in every 1st world and even much of the 3rd world.
Mr Poor employer I not going to employ a woman because I might make less profits, well you won't make any if you are in prison

[Seth]

I have a female friend who left France 15 years ago on maternity leave and has been getting paid, and had her job held for her for FIFTEEN FUCKING YEARS by the bank she worked for because she managed to get pregnant every three years...and live comfortably in the United States...until a year ago...when she missed the deadline on conceiving her last child and had to return to France and go back to work because she didn't get pregnant again.

I think that says more about American immigration laws that it does about maternity ones which are a basic in every 1st world and even much of the 3rd world.
Mr Poor employer I not going to employ a woman because I might make less profits, well you won't make any if you are in prison

And nobody who used to work for me will have a job either, dunce.

Kill the kine that tread the grain and see how much bread gets made whydoncha?

[MrJonno]

So, let's see, a "good job" is a "privilege" not a "right" in any "sane place" but you appear to be arguing exactly the opposite, that a good job IS a "right."

A job is a privilege as much as running a company is generally with less restrictions but also less rewards

As for a free market luckily no one lives in an unrestricted one, there would only be one result of this is we did communist revolution which is generally a bit shit as it tends to reduce tax revenues to pay for what is important in life like libraries, hospitals etc

[MrJonno]

And nobody who used to work for me will have a job either, dunce.

Kill the kine that tread the grain and see how much bread gets made whydoncha?

Unstable employment is also certainly worst for society than no employment at all, at least you can make an attempt to budget on welfare and no one will give you a mortgage

Farming is basically a state run enterprise anyway either with direct state employment or just paying farmers to grow out of taxes

[Seth]

So, let's see, a "good job" is a "privilege" not a "right" in any "sane place" but you appear to be arguing exactly the opposite, that a good job IS a "right."

A job is a privilege as much as running a company is generally with less restrictions but also less rewards

So, if a job is a privilege, then I should be allowed to revoke that privilege at will, right? That's' the meaning of "privilege."

As for a free market luckily no one lives in an unrestricted one, there would only be one result of this is we did communist revolution which is generally a bit shit as it tends to reduce tax revenues to pay for what is important in life like libraries, hospitals etc

So does burdening companies with sinecured employees who are not producing adequately under the instant market conditions, or can't you figure that one out either?