3 ms·

>due to the nature of my employment I am no longer employed This is an overlooked problem. Lack of employment protection. Nobody should be able to be fired for

>due to the nature of my employment I am no longer employed This is an overlooked problem. Lack of employment protection. Nobody should be able to be fired for being arrested. That doesn't mean they committed a crime. It's not their fault they can't show up to work. There should be employment protection for that. In my country, even schoolteachers being investigated for sexual abuse aren't fired. They aren't allowed to go to work but they still get paid while the justice is being worked out, because they might turn out to be innocent!

smt88 5y ago
If they're paid while the justice is being worked out and their trial takes years, that is potentially a burden that the employer can't bear. Also, you're describing a situation where bad behavior becomes a protected class as soon as you get arrested for it. In my high school, a teacher was caught raping one of his teenage students. He was fired for it. In your opinion, if he had been arrested, he should have had his paycheck legally protected until his trial ended. That's absolutely, totally insane. I don't know what country you live in, but I'm glad to live in the US where I can fire someone I know has committed a crime. It is possible to know things before the criminal justice system decides they are true.
- jonp888 5y ago
  Hooray for people having their entire lives destroyed because someone decided they 'know' something which might not even be true. There are plenty of cases of trials over rape or assault allegations which were entirely fictitious. This isn't even really the point being discussed. It's more that someone could be fired for an arrest over a an offence which has absolutely nothing to do with their job.
  - smt88 5y ago
    > Hooray for people having their entire lives destroyed because someone decided they 'know' something which might not even be true. People are not entitled to due process to keep their jobs. Where do you draw the line? Should it be illegal to fire someone for failing a drug test (which are not 100% reliable) until a jury finds them guilty? > There are plenty of cases of trials over rape or assault allegations which were entirely fictitious. There are very, very few[1]. You're just more likely to hear about the false ones. This makes logical sense. It is personally costly to the accuser to accuse someone of rape, even when the accusation is completely true. The accuser is subject to people calling them a slut, liar, etc. > In my country, even schoolteachers being investigated for sexual abuse aren't fired. > It's more that someone could be fired for an arrest over a an offence which has absolutely nothing to do with their job. So you're moving the goalposts. First, you said that even a teacher accused of sexual abuse (which is very much related to their job) shouldn't be fired. Now you're saying that should only be true if the crime is related to the job. Does that mean I shouldn't be allowed to fire someone for being filmed murdering someone on camera? That person hasn't been convicted yet. The legal system considers them innocent. You say you want a blanket ban on firing people for accusations of crimes, but then you don't address what we should do for the edge cases. Nothing you're asking for makes any legal sense. I should be able to fire someone for any reason that isn't my own prejudice. Freedom of association is important. 1. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45565684 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45565684
    - sacrosancty 4y ago
      "only 2-10% of rape accusations (Prof Ford's lawyer says she believes this was attempted rape) are proven to be fake" Not "very very few" in this context at all. It's extremely high! Due process doesn't have to be 100% infallible but it should certainly be resistant to hostile corruption like those 2-10% of rape accusations.
- brigandish 5y ago
  That's an argument for a speedier judicial process, not allowing a lack of employment protection to act like a non-judicial punitive action (that then also likely hinders the actual defence within the justice system). > I'm glad to live in the US where I can fire someone I know has committed a crime. It is possible to know things before the criminal justice system decides they are true. That's the opposite of what the constitution sets out to provide.
  - smt88 5y ago
    > That's the opposite of what the constitution sets out to provide. The Constitution does not include "accused criminals" as a protected class. Please point to the exact section of the Constitution that includes them. I'm going to be charitable and assume you meant that presumption of innocence is in the Constitution, which it actually isn't[1]. As set forth elsewhere and respected in the US, presumption of innocence applies only to the legal system. You do not have a right to the presumption of innocence by your fellow citizens. And as I asked in another comment: if I witness someone committing a crime and decide to fire them, should the government force me to wait until they are convicted of the crime? What if the victim doesn't want to press charges? What if the criminal abuses to legal system or repeatedly appeals, resulting in a delay of multiple years before they are convicted? This is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard. No one should be forced to keep someone on payroll that they have good reason to suspect is dangerous or dishonest. 1. https://www.lawinfo.com/resources/criminal-defense/is-the-presumption-of-innocence-in-the-consti.html https://www.lawinfo.com/resources/criminal-defense/is-the-pr...
    - brigandish 5y ago
      > I'm going to be charitable Should've started and ended with that and I might've believed you, but > This is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard. It seems fitting to place those quotes next to each other. To your charitable assumptions and questions: > The Constitution does not include "accused criminals" as a protected class. Please point to the exact section of the Constitution that includes them. As you wish. The 5th and 14th amendments[1] provide a right to due process. The "protected class" you're looking for is “All persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to its protection, including corporations, aliens, and presumptively citizens seeking readmission to the United States”. > if I witness someone committing a crime and decide to fire them, should the government force me to wait until they are convicted of the crime? No, and I certainly wasn't suggesting that. Was anyone? I made sure to put the most important objection in the very first line of my response: > That's an argument for a speedier judicial process and I continued with its de facto opposite, the one that you appeared and appear eager to support: > allowing a lack of employment protection to act like a non-judicial punitive action because you were arguing this: > If they're paid while the justice is being worked out and their trial takes years, that is potentially a burden that the employer can't bear. They're turning up to work, right? The employer could bear it the day before their arrest so they can the day after. > Also, you're describing a situation where bad behavior becomes a protected class as soon as you get arrested for it. Your strange fantasy about being able to fire a rapist that you know did it when you were surely also the one that hired this reprobate is at once amusingly ironic and the setup for one of the worst straw man arguments I think I'll have the misfortune to witness for a good long while. [1] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt5_4_1/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt5_4_1/
- sacrosancty 4y ago
  Paid by the government, so the burden isn't directly on the employer. Yes, a rapist should be protected before his trial is over. If you're so sure he's guilty, why even have a trial? Just do summary justice. There's a reason we have due process and countries like Russia and China that don't are seen as human rights violators.
klyrs 5y ago
Irony: when cops get in trouble, they're usually suspended with pay. Due process for me, not for thee...

smt88 5y ago

If they're paid while the justice is being worked out and their trial takes years, that is potentially a burden that the employer can't bear. Also, you're describing a situation where bad behavior becomes a protected class as soon as you get arrested for it. In my high school, a teacher was caught raping one of his teenage students. He was fired for it. In your opinion, if he had been arrested, he should have had his paycheck legally protected until his trial ended. That's absolutely, totally insane. I don't know what country you live in, but I'm glad to live in the US where I can fire someone I know has committed a crime. It is possible to know things before the criminal justice system decides they are true.

jonp888 5y ago
Hooray for people having their entire lives destroyed because someone decided they 'know' something which might not even be true. There are plenty of cases of trials over rape or assault allegations which were entirely fictitious. This isn't even really the point being discussed. It's more that someone could be fired for an arrest over a an offence which has absolutely nothing to do with their job.
- smt88 5y ago
  > Hooray for people having their entire lives destroyed because someone decided they 'know' something which might not even be true. People are not entitled to due process to keep their jobs. Where do you draw the line? Should it be illegal to fire someone for failing a drug test (which are not 100% reliable) until a jury finds them guilty? > There are plenty of cases of trials over rape or assault allegations which were entirely fictitious. There are very, very few[1]. You're just more likely to hear about the false ones. This makes logical sense. It is personally costly to the accuser to accuse someone of rape, even when the accusation is completely true. The accuser is subject to people calling them a slut, liar, etc. > In my country, even schoolteachers being investigated for sexual abuse aren't fired. > It's more that someone could be fired for an arrest over a an offence which has absolutely nothing to do with their job. So you're moving the goalposts. First, you said that even a teacher accused of sexual abuse (which is very much related to their job) shouldn't be fired. Now you're saying that should only be true if the crime is related to the job. Does that mean I shouldn't be allowed to fire someone for being filmed murdering someone on camera? That person hasn't been convicted yet. The legal system considers them innocent. You say you want a blanket ban on firing people for accusations of crimes, but then you don't address what we should do for the edge cases. Nothing you're asking for makes any legal sense. I should be able to fire someone for any reason that isn't my own prejudice. Freedom of association is important. 1. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45565684 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45565684
  - sacrosancty 4y ago
    "only 2-10% of rape accusations (Prof Ford's lawyer says she believes this was attempted rape) are proven to be fake" Not "very very few" in this context at all. It's extremely high! Due process doesn't have to be 100% infallible but it should certainly be resistant to hostile corruption like those 2-10% of rape accusations.
brigandish 5y ago
That's an argument for a speedier judicial process, not allowing a lack of employment protection to act like a non-judicial punitive action (that then also likely hinders the actual defence within the justice system). > I'm glad to live in the US where I can fire someone I know has committed a crime. It is possible to know things before the criminal justice system decides they are true. That's the opposite of what the constitution sets out to provide.
- smt88 5y ago
  > That's the opposite of what the constitution sets out to provide. The Constitution does not include "accused criminals" as a protected class. Please point to the exact section of the Constitution that includes them. I'm going to be charitable and assume you meant that presumption of innocence is in the Constitution, which it actually isn't[1]. As set forth elsewhere and respected in the US, presumption of innocence applies only to the legal system. You do not have a right to the presumption of innocence by your fellow citizens. And as I asked in another comment: if I witness someone committing a crime and decide to fire them, should the government force me to wait until they are convicted of the crime? What if the victim doesn't want to press charges? What if the criminal abuses to legal system or repeatedly appeals, resulting in a delay of multiple years before they are convicted? This is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard. No one should be forced to keep someone on payroll that they have good reason to suspect is dangerous or dishonest. 1. https://www.lawinfo.com/resources/criminal-defense/is-the-presumption-of-innocence-in-the-consti.html https://www.lawinfo.com/resources/criminal-defense/is-the-pr...
  - brigandish 5y ago
    > I'm going to be charitable Should've started and ended with that and I might've believed you, but > This is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard. It seems fitting to place those quotes next to each other. To your charitable assumptions and questions: > The Constitution does not include "accused criminals" as a protected class. Please point to the exact section of the Constitution that includes them. As you wish. The 5th and 14th amendments[1] provide a right to due process. The "protected class" you're looking for is “All persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to its protection, including corporations, aliens, and presumptively citizens seeking readmission to the United States”. > if I witness someone committing a crime and decide to fire them, should the government force me to wait until they are convicted of the crime? No, and I certainly wasn't suggesting that. Was anyone? I made sure to put the most important objection in the very first line of my response: > That's an argument for a speedier judicial process and I continued with its de facto opposite, the one that you appeared and appear eager to support: > allowing a lack of employment protection to act like a non-judicial punitive action because you were arguing this: > If they're paid while the justice is being worked out and their trial takes years, that is potentially a burden that the employer can't bear. They're turning up to work, right? The employer could bear it the day before their arrest so they can the day after. > Also, you're describing a situation where bad behavior becomes a protected class as soon as you get arrested for it. Your strange fantasy about being able to fire a rapist that you know did it when you were surely also the one that hired this reprobate is at once amusingly ironic and the setup for one of the worst straw man arguments I think I'll have the misfortune to witness for a good long while. [1] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt5_4_1/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt5_4_1/
sacrosancty 4y ago
Paid by the government, so the burden isn't directly on the employer. Yes, a rapist should be protected before his trial is over. If you're so sure he's guilty, why even have a trial? Just do summary justice. There's a reason we have due process and countries like Russia and China that don't are seen as human rights violators.

klyrs 5y ago

Irony: when cops get in trouble, they're usually suspended with pay. Due process for me, not for thee...