Amen, Cerek.

It would have been just as wrong Cerek. So I would have been on the same side of the fence as I am now.

It would have been just as wrong Cerek. So I would have been on the same side of the fence as I am now.[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]<font color="plum">I can respect that, <font color=red>Rokenn</font>. Part of my frustration is that I'm having this same debate among my own circle of friends..so I'm repeating myself a lot. My staunchest opponent in THAT group tried this same tactic on me by asking if I would still feel the same if the Stephen Downs was wearing a shirt that said "God Bless America" {since I'm a Christian}. I responded that I would STILL feel exactly the same. I don't have a problem with Stephen Downs shirt at all....I just think HE was the one that deliberately created a confrontation - NOT the security guard. I also happen to think he was WRONG to do that. I actually DO NOT agree with the mall's policy...but that's not the point. The point is that the mall does have a right to institute whatever policies they feel are necessary to ensure thier businesses run smoothly and the patrons have an obligation to observe those policies while they are on that mall's property. If they find one or more of those policies to be offensive...then GO SOMEWHERE ELSE!!! They don't HAVE to shop at Crossgates.

{sigh}Sorry....I simply can't seem to maintain my composure over this incident (maybe I should list it in the "Pet Hates" thread :D ). It angers me on a level far deeper than I originally realized. Still, I do respect the fact that you would hold true to your position also, no matter WHAT message was on the shirt. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] </font>

So, let me see if I understand this.

Most of y'all think that an employer should be required to continue employment of an employee unless he can give a valid reason why the employee should be terminated? That the employee in essence has a right to force the employer to give him money?

Does it work the other way? Can an employer come to your door, drag you down to the factory, and force you to work for him? No? Then we are not talking a right, since by definition, all people, whether employer or employee would have the same right. You are merely giving the employee privileges, the privilege of deciding how any given employer must spend his money.

The reason employers can lay people off for any reason or no reason at all is because no one else has any right to tell him what to do with his private property.

[ 03-26-2003, 05:28 PM: Message edited by: Thorfinn ]

Yes.

Is the reverse also true? When you turn in your two week's notice, can the employer force you to stay on? Do you have to document something the employer did wrong in order to leave? Or does wrongful termination only work one way?

[ 03-26-2003, 05:45 PM: Message edited by: Thorfinn ]

The law protects employees from wrongful termination due the to power imbalance between the worker and the company. Giving notice for an impending job change is generally considered a good courtesy, but is not required under law in the US.

Just a side note on some of the personal issues brought up in the thread (Cerek's wife's situation in particular). A good union stops companies from pulling stunts like firing someone when they give notice to avoid paying accumalted vacation time. It also would have help the security guard in this case, as he would have a way to apeal the unjust firing without going to court. I know many on this forum hate unions, but they do still help balance the workers rights vs the company's power.

So you believe the answer is yes, there should be a class of people with the privilege of telling others how to use their own private property? But I thought that the whole idea of America was to prevent the emergence of a privileged class, a nobility, an aristocracy, save aristocracy of merit. And yet your idea of fair is that certain classes of people can indeed order others about, forcing them to do something against their will?

[ 03-26-2003, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: Thorfinn ]

lol, have you ever worked for a living? Even in a union shop the workers are far from a privileged class.

Yes, I have. My first job out of HS was in a union shop, and when layoffs came 6 months later, the union was happy to give me the boot, despite (or possibly because of) my highest in the plant productivity scores, because I was low man on the totem pole. I took a job in a non-union shop, starting as grunt, working my way up through mid-level supervisor. I then went to college, then back into a factory as an engineer, and eventually plant manager. I currently own my own small company, and there are 4 people working for me. I'm assuming there was a point to your question?

And, no, if someone can force another either into a relationship, or to continue an existing relationship against his will, that is by definition a privilege. If a whole class of people has that privilege, it is a privileged class.

If the employer had the privilege of forcing you to work for him, or continue to work for him despite your having received a better offer elsewhere, you would see the oppression there. Why is it so hard to see if you reverse roles?

[ 03-27-2003, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: Thorfinn ]