Given that unpleasant fact of American life, how are people--poor or otherwise

[888888]

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has caused a stir by saying that Barack Obama is a "food stamp president" and that poor people should want paychecks, not handouts. Gingrich went on to say that he wants to help poor people "learn how to get a job, learn how to get a better job, and learn someday to own the job."

The Gingrich statement presents all sorts of problems, including its ugly, not-so-subtle racial undertones. But perhaps the biggest problem is this: Almost no one in the United States "owns" his job. In fact, most of us essentially work on a day-to-day basis. Given that unpleasant fact of American life, how are people--poor or otherwise--supposed to accomplish something that, by law, cannot be done in this country?
Here is the reality that Newt Gingrich is ignoring: The overwhelming majority of Americans work under an "at will" arrangement. At-will employment is a legal doctrine that means either party in an employment environment can break the relationship without liability, unless a contract expressly states otherwise.

OH NEWT IF YOU WERE ONLY RIGHT, I would vote for you.

 

[Conservatarian]

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has caused a stir by saying that Barack Obama is a "food stamp president" and that poor people should want paychecks, not handouts. Gingrich went on to say that he wants to help poor people "learn how to get a job, learn how to get a better job, and learn someday to own the job."

The Gingrich statement presents all sorts of problems, including its ugly, not-so-subtle racial undertones. But perhaps the biggest problem is this: Almost no one in the United States "owns" his job. In fact, most of us essentially work on a day-to-day basis. Given that unpleasant fact of American life, how are people--poor or otherwise--supposed to accomplish something that, by law, cannot be done in this country?
Here is the reality that Newt Gingrich is ignoring: The overwhelming majority of Americans work under an "at will" arrangement. At-will employment is a legal doctrine that means either party in an employment environment can break the relationship without liability, unless a contract expressly states otherwise.

OH NEWT IF YOU WERE ONLY RIGHT, I would vote for you.

Why didn't you post a link to the salon article? Trying to pass this off as your own thoughts?

 

[888888]

Maybe the Montana Law is something states should go too.
IV. Montana’s Good Cause Rule

The Montana Wrongful Discharge From Employment Act of 1987 (WDEA) created a cause of action for employees who believe that they were terminated without good cause. Although similar legislation has been introduced elsewhere, Montana is so far the only state to have passed a law with such far-reaching effects.


A. Statutory Provisions

The statute prohibits discharge for other than good cause after a designated probationary period and gives the employee the right to challenge a termination in court or before an arbitrator. The statute also limits damages to up to four years of lost wages, including the value of fringe benefits, with interest. See Mont. Code Ann. §§ 39-2-901 through 39-2-915.


B. Legislative History

Beginning in 1982, the Montana Supreme Court made a series of pro-plaintiff decisions that expanded the good faith and fair dealing exception to the at-will employment rule. These decision created uncertainty for employers, and led them to advocate for a more consistent regime. In essence, Montana employers were willing to trade certainty and limitations on damages for constraints on their ability to fire employees at-will.

 

[888888]

Why didn't you post a link to the salon article? Trying to pass this off as your own thoughts?

I'm getting to it, but it's hard to do it with posting all of it which would keep guys like you from reading it anyway.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/News-Flash-for-Newt-Gingri-by-Roger-Shuler-120120-136.html

Never would do that, as I don't care to be important, just a matter of going back and forth and what order you do it in.
Besides I would think you would know right away it isn't my style of writing, but professionally written.

 

[ya-ta-hey]

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has caused a stir by saying that Barack Obama is a "food stamp president" and that poor people should want paychecks, not handouts. Gingrich went on to say that he wants to help poor people "learn how to get a job, learn how to get a better job, and learn someday to own the job."

The Gingrich statement presents all sorts of problems, including its ugly, not-so-subtle racial undertones. But perhaps the biggest problem is this: Almost no one in the United States "owns" his job. In fact, most of us essentially work on a day-to-day basis. Given that unpleasant fact of American life, how are people--poor or otherwise--supposed to accomplish something that, by law, cannot be done in this country?
Here is the reality that Newt Gingrich is ignoring: The overwhelming majority of Americans work under an "at will" arrangement. At-will employment is a legal doctrine that means either party in an employment environment can break the relationship without liability, unless a contract expressly states otherwise.

OH NEWT IF YOU WERE ONLY RIGHT, I would vote for you.

Mr. 8s,

when you put it that way, you really do show your delusion when somehow you consider someone suggesting that people should strive to get jobs rather than handouts as being racist.

 

[Barbella]

That was my first thought, as well, Mr. ya-ta-hey......

The mind-set is mind-boggling.

 

[Conservatarian]

Mr. 8s,

when you put it that way, you really do show your delusion when somehow you consider someone suggesting that people should strive to get jobs rather than handouts as being racist.

Amen. Say I noticed your sig, you're Navajo?

 

[888888]

Mr. 8s,

when you put it that way, you really do show your delusion when somehow you consider someone suggesting that people should strive to get jobs rather than handouts as being racist.

Do you have a clue about what you are trying to say, because I sure the hell don't.

Did you see anywhere where I called him a racist, I did highlight the parts of the article I was referring too.

 

[888888]

Amen. Say I noticed your sig, you're Navajo?

AMEN, another bulb that needs to be changed

 

[connieb]

Great.... tie the hands of regular employers like union employers and big corporations and government employers already are.

There is no greater way to keep ineffective, lazy employees around then tell a business owner they will potentially have to spend years in court with them to justify why they should have been able to fire their lazy behinds, potentially infront of a jury full of equally lazy and entitled employees.

It is incumbent upon the employee to make sure they are meeting the requirements of their job and keeping their employer happy with their performance. An employee should not have to endure a hostile work environment and should not be asked to do things which are illegal in order to keep their jobs. HOWEVER if your boss decides he doesn't like you - he should absolutely be within his rights to fire you just because. Why should he be forced every day to deal with someone he doesn't like working with JUST because there is no really good reason to fire them?

 

[Barbella]

Absolutely, connie...well said! It USED to be that you could be fired from your job for your lousy performance and/or attitude. Now these people are protected by law? WTH? What's the incentive, then? There IS none.

 

[888888]

Anyone can be fired for cause Connie, if you read. And having a set of rules that employers have to follow just like the employees is a bad thing?

Wow I wonder who thinks like that. I mean why should an employee have any rights, man that is really stupid isn't it, righty's

 

[OldGaffer]

Anyone can be fired for cause Connie, if you read. And having a set of rules that employers have to follow just like the employees is a bad thing?

Wow I wonder who thinks like that. I mean why should an employee have any rights, man that is really stupid isn't it, righty's

If you feel that workers should have no rights, then fire at will is what you espouse. It is all part of their social darwinism philosophy.

 

[connieb]

Right, for cause.

And, I think an employer has a right to fire you even without cause. Not to mention the time and money it often takes to document the "cause" and put it up for debate if it was enough of a cause.

Employees should have rights. They should not be able to be forced to do anything illegal. They have the right not to be sexually harrassed or assaulted in anyway. They have the right to not be discriminated against and to be subject to disciminatory treatment or language.

Beyond that why else do they need a right? Why should your boss have to continue to employee you if, although your performance is acceptable, he just doesn't like working with you?

connie

 

[Alinvegas]

So. I didn't just CP this directly from your post?

The Gingrich statement presents all sorts of problems, including its ugly, not-so-subtle racial undertones

 

[888888]

HOWEVER if your boss decides he doesn't like you - he should absolutely be within his rights to fire you just because.

Well if you believe that then there isn't much to talk about because you are part of the problem in America. It's people like you that would see nothing wrong with a firm firing a person who has and is doing their jobs, because a friend of their kid needs a job. Or they don't like the way you wear your hair, or which side you buckle your belt on, or maybe the way you walk makes him think your gay. Yeah thats why we need people who think like you guys, running the country.

 

[Barbella]

Question for you: What's "for cause"? If you don't do your job, have a bad attitude, cause problems in the workplace....should the employer have the right to fire your ass? IMO...ABSOLUTELY.

 

[connieb]

I can't believe that a company would fire a highly productive employee who is an asset to their company just because they don't like they way you wear your hair.

But, I can believe that they would fire a marginally productive employee who is not a particular asset to the business for that reason.

 

[888888]

So. I didn't just CP this directly from your post?

NO you didn't since I didn't Highlight racial undertones like you did. But nice try.
If you read the who thing you would have seen it was written because the writer said that Newt was wrong in his belief that People own jobs.
But when you can't read and understand you can get just about anything you want so you can think the way you want too.

 

[connieb]

Right, and those are the "causes" which are hard to identify.

I have a co-worker who just has a bad attitude. She never does anything really bad.... but it is seriously annoying to just have to deal with her on a daily basis. She isn't necessarily mean - but she just isn't a good employee. She does cause problems in the rest of the office with her attitude and difficulty getting along with people. But, my boss is a nice guy and won't fire her. But, he certainly has every right to, and we would not be able to point to a single real identifable problem with her performance. She is here when she is supposed to be, dilligent about her duties, and gets her limited assigned work done. But, she is just unpleasant to work with. How do you document things like that? But, why should everyone have to put up with that just because she does do her job?