5 ms·

>You should be able to fire someone for any reason. I disagree. You shouldn't be able to fire someone for being Jewish. You shouldn't be able to fire someone

by xiaoma 17y ago

>You should be able to fire someone for any reason. I disagree. You shouldn't be able to fire someone for being Jewish. You shouldn't be able to fire someone for not voting how you want them to. You shouldn't be able to fire someone for not having sex with you. There are a lot of things that you shouldn't be able to fire someone for.

tptacek 17y ago
You can't fire people based on race, creed, age, or gender, and you can't fire them for not having sex with you. There are laws against those things, those things specifically, and almost exclusively those things.
- rdtsc 17y ago
  Except that you will still be _laid off_ for any of those reasons but it would be masqueraded as some other convenient 'official' reason. "The cash is tight", "we are not growing", etc.
dantheman 17y ago
If you don't like Jewish people and it's your company you shouldn't have to work with them. It will only hurt you as you are limiting your labor pool to non-Jewish people, and this is the same for any other form of discrimination. The only place that should not be allowed to discriminate is the government since they represent all people. Freedom of association is the key hear, you should be able t o associate with anyone you'd like to and vice-versa. Now I'm of course not advocating any sort of discrimination, but I do think it should be allowed. Just as I don't advocate hate speech, but I think it should be allowed.
- xiaoma 17y ago
  Firing Jewish people doesn't just hurt the bigoted employer, it hurts the people wrongfully fired, too! There is something appealing to letting everyone keep to whatever groups they wish, but historically the idea has led to horrible things for the shunned groups.
  - dantheman 17y ago
    Agreed, it hurts everyone involved -- just as hate speech does. As for the history of discrimination, I believe that the majority of it was actually codified into law. So, I don't know if we can blame individuals acting on their own. Has there ever been a group that was shunned where it wasn't codified into law/sponsored by the government?
    - pyre 17y ago
      "Irish Need Not Apply" was a common sign to see in America when there were a lot of Irish immigrants (Irish Potato Famine era). > Has there ever been a group that was shunned where it wasn't codified into law/sponsored by the government? What comes first though? The government is made up of people. So people have to have these attitudes first and foremost before it becomes codified into law. If the public violently disagreed with said laws, then they would be repealed as wildly unpopular.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  Even inquiring about the religion of your workforce should be illegal, let alone taking punitive action because of that.
  - btilly 17y ago
    I think that you are talking past each other because you have different value systems. I've known plenty of people like dantheman before. They believe in and value the right to private property, which means believing that it is right to let other people do what you don't like with their private property. Add to that the belief that a personal business is private property, and you get the conclusion that no matter how much you personally dislike it, business owners "should" be allowed to discriminate. By contrast if your belief in private property is not so absolute, then you're more willing to tolerate society restricting the free use of private property in ways that society does not like. Different fundamental values leads to different conclusions. Even with agreement on the facts, the laws, and how bad discrimination is. And arguing "should not", "should too" back and forth will get you nowhere.
    - jacquesm 17y ago
      My house is my private property, I can invite whoever I want there, and can discriminate freely on sex, race and so on (not that I do, but I could) because the decision affects only me. A business is private property and I can hire whoever I want there, discriminating on factors such as suitability for the job, education and other associated factors. Religion, sex, skin colour and other personal attributes are not amongst those and for very good reason, discrimination on those grounds affects the other party economically, individually and as a group. In spite of all those rules there is enough workplace discrimination going on as it is, take those rules away and we're right back in the 1950's.
      - codexon 17y ago
        A business is private property and I can hire whoever I want there, discriminating on factors such as suitability for the job, education and other associated factors. A couple decades ago, businesses in the US would have argued the same thing, claiming that Black and Hispanics are naturally lazier. Think about a company like Walmart, Ikea (or any company you frequent that has a near monopoly). How would you like it if they suddenly don't like your race and decided to stop selling to you or allowing you into their "private" stores that everyone else can shop at? Seeing how you come from a predominately white country, I can understand how you cannot conceive this to be a problem.
- rlpb 17y ago
  The problem is that if you discriminate against a minority, then you don't suffer from the limitation of the labor pool very much (since it's a minority). However, that minority can suffer greatly. So market forces can't hold this sort of behaviour in check, and this can lead to the suppression of an entire culture, which is where the issue lies.
elpuri 17y ago
(Std disclaimer: I don't approve biggotry, but...) I might be repeating someone here, but the problem is that once you start enforcing laws against things like this you also give the other party the opportunity to slap employers with false claims of sexism/racism. Which in turn might actually lead to even rational non-biggoted employers favouring (other factors being equal) groups that are less likely to make such claims if the employee is fired. Biggots are not going to hire you in the first place, so who's winning here? Ok ok, in many cases the person who hires you is not the person who fires you, so (surprise surprise) it's not that black and white. Maybe being a heterosexual white male I'm not feeling the problem first hand and that affects my judgement, but usually when thinking these things I come to the conclusion that laws written with good intentions to abolish all sorts of nasty things end up doing more harm than good (and no I'm not a ultra-libertarian either).

by xiaoma 17y ago

tptacek 17y ago

You can't fire people based on race, creed, age, or gender, and you can't fire them for not having sex with you. There are laws against those things, those things specifically, and almost exclusively those things.

rdtsc 17y ago
Except that you will still be _laid off_ for any of those reasons but it would be masqueraded as some other convenient 'official' reason. "The cash is tight", "we are not growing", etc.

dantheman 17y ago

If you don't like Jewish people and it's your company you shouldn't have to work with them. It will only hurt you as you are limiting your labor pool to non-Jewish people, and this is the same for any other form of discrimination. The only place that should not be allowed to discriminate is the government since they represent all people. Freedom of association is the key hear, you should be able t o associate with anyone you'd like to and vice-versa. Now I'm of course not advocating any sort of discrimination, but I do think it should be allowed. Just as I don't advocate hate speech, but I think it should be allowed.

xiaoma 17y ago
Firing Jewish people doesn't just hurt the bigoted employer, it hurts the people wrongfully fired, too! There is something appealing to letting everyone keep to whatever groups they wish, but historically the idea has led to horrible things for the shunned groups.
- dantheman 17y ago
  Agreed, it hurts everyone involved -- just as hate speech does. As for the history of discrimination, I believe that the majority of it was actually codified into law. So, I don't know if we can blame individuals acting on their own. Has there ever been a group that was shunned where it wasn't codified into law/sponsored by the government?
  - pyre 17y ago
    "Irish Need Not Apply" was a common sign to see in America when there were a lot of Irish immigrants (Irish Potato Famine era). > Has there ever been a group that was shunned where it wasn't codified into law/sponsored by the government? What comes first though? The government is made up of people. So people have to have these attitudes first and foremost before it becomes codified into law. If the public violently disagreed with said laws, then they would be repealed as wildly unpopular.
jacquesm 17y ago
Even inquiring about the religion of your workforce should be illegal, let alone taking punitive action because of that.
- btilly 17y ago
  I think that you are talking past each other because you have different value systems. I've known plenty of people like dantheman before. They believe in and value the right to private property, which means believing that it is right to let other people do what you don't like with their private property. Add to that the belief that a personal business is private property, and you get the conclusion that no matter how much you personally dislike it, business owners "should" be allowed to discriminate. By contrast if your belief in private property is not so absolute, then you're more willing to tolerate society restricting the free use of private property in ways that society does not like. Different fundamental values leads to different conclusions. Even with agreement on the facts, the laws, and how bad discrimination is. And arguing "should not", "should too" back and forth will get you nowhere.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    My house is my private property, I can invite whoever I want there, and can discriminate freely on sex, race and so on (not that I do, but I could) because the decision affects only me. A business is private property and I can hire whoever I want there, discriminating on factors such as suitability for the job, education and other associated factors. Religion, sex, skin colour and other personal attributes are not amongst those and for very good reason, discrimination on those grounds affects the other party economically, individually and as a group. In spite of all those rules there is enough workplace discrimination going on as it is, take those rules away and we're right back in the 1950's.
    - codexon 17y ago
      A business is private property and I can hire whoever I want there, discriminating on factors such as suitability for the job, education and other associated factors. A couple decades ago, businesses in the US would have argued the same thing, claiming that Black and Hispanics are naturally lazier. Think about a company like Walmart, Ikea (or any company you frequent that has a near monopoly). How would you like it if they suddenly don't like your race and decided to stop selling to you or allowing you into their "private" stores that everyone else can shop at? Seeing how you come from a predominately white country, I can understand how you cannot conceive this to be a problem.
rlpb 17y ago
The problem is that if you discriminate against a minority, then you don't suffer from the limitation of the labor pool very much (since it's a minority). However, that minority can suffer greatly. So market forces can't hold this sort of behaviour in check, and this can lead to the suppression of an entire culture, which is where the issue lies.

elpuri 17y ago

(Std disclaimer: I don't approve biggotry, but...) I might be repeating someone here, but the problem is that once you start enforcing laws against things like this you also give the other party the opportunity to slap employers with false claims of sexism/racism. Which in turn might actually lead to even rational non-biggoted employers favouring (other factors being equal) groups that are less likely to make such claims if the employee is fired. Biggots are not going to hire you in the first place, so who's winning here? Ok ok, in many cases the person who hires you is not the person who fires you, so (surprise surprise) it's not that black and white. Maybe being a heterosexual white male I'm not feeling the problem first hand and that affects my judgement, but usually when thinking these things I come to the conclusion that laws written with good intentions to abolish all sorts of nasty things end up doing more harm than good (and no I'm not a ultra-libertarian either).