3 ms·
Just because you have the legal right to do something doesn't mean you should do it or that you should be immune to criticism for doing it. For example, in an
by jjk166 6y ago
Just because you have the legal right to do something doesn't mean you should do it or that you should be immune to criticism for doing it.
For example, in an at-will employment state, an employer can legally fire you for looking at them funny. No one would argue that an employer shouldn't have the right to terminate an employee if they were bad for the company, nor would anyone object to the employer being able to determine what is good or bad for the company. Nevertheless, such an act is a dick move and the employer should be heavily criticized for doing it.
- asddubs 6y agoSeems like a bad analogy. I would absolutely argue an employer shouldn't be allowed to fire you for any reason of their choosing
- jjk166 6y agoFor the purposes of this analogy, it doesn't matter what they should be allowed to do, what matters is what they are legally allowed to. Likewise there is a very legitimate argument that laws should be changed so that twitter would not have the legal authority to kick people off its platform arbitrarily, but the entire point of the analogy is that there is a difference between what is legally permissible and socially acceptable.
- colejohnson66 6y agoUnfortunately, the law in many (all?) states is that employment is “at will”. If your boss doesn’t like the color of your hair, they can fire you on the spot. Doesn’t mean they will, but they can as long as it’s not for a “protected class” reason (as in, they can’t fire you for your race). The justification for “at will” employment is that your duties to the company are also “at will.” If you want, you’re free to walk out the front door on your break and never come back.