you have to admire the filthy tube scum/drivers

Cleaver

ILW wrote: »

Why should an employer not be able to let a woman go for getting pregnant? She will be of little use to them for quite a long period.

The MSE Debate House Prices & the Economy Board: staying classy and pushing forward women's rights since 2007.

What an idiot.

zagfles

Cleaver wrote: »

Just to clarify, you'd have no problem with having a law that states that employers can just sack anyone at will?

So, for example, a new manager comes in who is racist and sacks all black people. That would be okay?

Or, an employee reveals the support Liverpool and their Manchester United supporting boss sacks them.

Or a woman becomes pregnant, so the company sack them.

You'd be okay with all that?

Not that I disagree - but where the boot is on the other foot the above is perfectly OK.

If an employee was racist and didn't like having a new black manager, he could leave because of it. Same if he didn't like the football team his boss supported. The employee doesn't have to give a valid reason.

It's a bit of an anomily in employment and in certain other areas like providing a service to the public, where people don't have total freedom to choose who to deal with. If someone doesn't want to be mates with you, or live with you, or dine in your restaurant etc, they can reject you for whatever reason they want. Even racist/sexist reasons.

sheffield_lad

Cleaver wrote: »

The MSE Debate House Prices & the Economy Board: staying classy and pushing forward women's rights since 2007.

What an idiot.

Nope he is quite right, this left wing fixation with women having to be in all job rolls and the interviewer not even being able now to ask if she intends to start a family. Its fine for a large firm, my last boss called it just an extra tax for a 2yr period, but when you have two or three employees its a nightmare.

The interviewer may not be able to ask but I recon it puts many bosses off employing women under 35. Rightly or wrongly.

sheffield_lad

torontoboy45 wrote: »

nail. head.on.

but it's no good trying to explain to the rabid, mouth-foaming express/mail believing myopics on here that the issues aren't that 'black and white'. these people don't see shades of grey because -by and large - they can't.

TU's are a bad thing led by bad people, right? they must be, because rupert murdoch, richard desmond and paul dacre say so. they've being telling us for yrs.

but the big lie, told often enough...

Yes its because I read the mail almost forgot how silly.

I will ensure my news fix is the BBC from now on and I may have the guardian for a week or so as well as moving to Liverpool after all the left have no agenda either do they lol

ILW

Cleaver wrote: »

The MSE Debate House Prices & the Economy Board: staying classy and pushing forward women's rights since 2007.

What an idiot.

You will not agree, but I see labour as a commodity which an employer buys from the worker, just like any other service.
Would you think that if a customer currently buys his spuds from Tescos, he should legally be forced to justify his actions if he chooses to buy from Sainsburys?
What is the difference?

Cleaver

zagfles wrote: »

Not that I disagree - but where the boot is on the other foot the above is perfectly OK.

If an employee was racist and didn't like having a new black manager, he could leave because of it. Same if he didn't like the football team his boss supported. The employee doesn't have to give a valid reason.

It's a bit of an anomily in employment and in certain other areas like providing a service to the public, where people don't have total freedom to choose who to deal with. If someone doesn't want to be mates with you, or live with you, or dine in your restaurant etc, they can reject you for whatever reason they want. Even racist/sexist reasons.

howee wrote: »

Nope he is quite right, this left wing fixation with women having to be in all job rolls and the interviewer not even being able now to ask if she intends to start a family.

ILW wrote: »

You will not agree, but I see labour as a commodity which an employer buys from the worker, just like any other service.
Would you think that if a customer currently buys his spuds from Tescos, he should legally be forced to justify his actions if he chooses to buy from Sainsburys?
What is the difference?

Every now and again this board leaves me amazed, and this is one of those times. I guess it's part of the fun of posting on here.

The first point is just plain dumb. An employee can leave if he doesn't like his boss being black therefore it's perfectly fine for a white person to sack a black person based on the colour of his skin? Really? You honestly think that?

Second point. It's really okay for women to be sacked because they want to start a family. Really? You honestly think it's okay for an interviewer to ask whether you're planning to have kids and hire based on the answer, ignoring the skills and experience? Obviously the man you hire instead will be 100% reliable and not go off with, for example, cancer. But they might do. So should we ask people whether they think they might get cancer on the basis that employing someone with cancer might be an issue? Or how about sports? If someone plays rugby should we not employ them incase they have six months off with a broken back? And how about depression? Should we not employ people who look a bit down incase they have mental health issues and need six months off? And how about someone who's partner dies? Should we sack them when they are overcome with grief and can't work for a few months? Presumably yes for all these.

Third point. Have you really asked whether chosing between hiring a woman and a man is the same as chosing where to buy potatoes from? Really? Choosing whether to hire a pregnant woman is similar to the right to choose where to buy your spuds from?

Anyone else want to pick up on these points, or am I p*ssing alone in the wind here?

ILW

Cleaver wrote: »

Third point. Have you really asked whether chosing between hiring a woman and a man is the same as chosing where to buy potatoes from? Really? Choosing whether to hire a pregnant woman is similar to the right to choose where to buy your spuds from?

/QUOTE]

From the point of view of the person that is paying, why should it be so different?
Does not everybody have a right to try to get what in their opinion is the best value when spending their own money?

ILW

Sorry, mis posted

Oldernotwiser

Cleaver wrote: »

Anyone else want to pick up on these points, or am I p*ssing alone in the wind here?

Some of us are just sitting here gobsmacked at how others are happy to throw away rights and freedom that have been fought for over generations.

The_White_Horse

i think employers need more rights. why should an employer not be able to say "i don't want to employ you anymore" and that is that. the employer takes the risks and is then bogged down in lefty nonsense. if you do your job well, your employer will not want to get rid of you. if you annoy the employer for whatever reason (unless that reason is legislated for such as race) then the employer should be able to get rid.

anyway, joining a union should be a sackable offence or at least employers should be given the choice not to hire members in the first place.