employment law - it affects us all…
- 5
- Add a Comment
Two readers of this blog brought up this topic in reference to my post on job security for anti-abortion providers, so I figured I’d sound off (like I could suppress myself anyway). Before I go any further, let it be known that the original post, as well as this one, was not a referendum on abortion. We’re talking about employment law only.
I live in Pennsylvania, a Right to Work state. I’m told it’s also called At Will Employment.I found out the hard way that the definition of Right to Work is actually Right to Fire. In essence it means that you can be fired for almost anything, provided you’re not a protected minority (race, gender, age, etc).
This brings up a great source of ambiguity for me.
As an employee, I have no legal recourse against an employer who would fire me for no good reason (and through no fault of my own). This is a bit disconcerting. It’s also the norm these days. Just look at the job market and tell me how well it has worked.
If the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania wants to put in job protections for anti-abortion providers, I don’t have much to say, provided he allows the same protections for everyone. Under current law, either provider could be fired. Under Bush’s proposal, only the anti-abortion provider would be protected. Hmmm… does that seem right?
Now let’s get to the other piece: does the government belong in employment law? If I start a business, isn’t it my concern who I hire and fire and for what reason? I’d definitely resent the intrusion.
By the same token, if I decided the business would be closed to caucasians, I’d be closed down rather quickly.
If I run a restaurant and one of my waiters refuses to serve women because he believes they’re inferior, I reserve the right to request that he serve women or become under-employed with great speed. As it is, I would be within my rights to dismiss the waiter. Bush’s proposed action would protect the fellow, so long as he believed this. But only his particular set of beliefs. And I would be forced to employ someone who, by definition, cannot perform the job for which he was hired.
Let me wrap up the issues thusly:
* Should the government be allowed to tell an employer who he can hire and fire?
* Should employees have any legal remedy against `unfair’ termination?
* If `unfair’ termination isn’t actionable, why are certain classes protected?
It seems to me that we’re following many different sets of rules or values. I think we need to stick with just one set and go. And by one set, I mean the least invasive set for all. What is the libertarian solution?
[once again I request that we keep this a discussion of employment law; not a discussion of race, religion, gender, age, nostril size, social rigging, or whether you're left-handed or backwards]
5 Comments
Bruce
August 26th, 2008
at 6:50pm
I would just like to point out that if all I have to say is that I am against abortions and I get to keep my job…Hell, I would wear a shirt with the anti abortion emblem on it. You hit the nail right on the head when you stated there are too many different rules. Get used to it. We still live by the Golden Rule. He who has all the gold makes the rules therefore they can make exceptions and addendums…even if they make no sense….
E2001
August 27th, 2008
at 8:03am
Uh, one little thing…
If the government’s nose doesn’t belong in your business’ business, then who’s going to shut you down when you decide to only hire male Caucasians?
Kevin Bailey
August 27th, 2008
at 10:48am
Lets look at the details of the proposal that started this. It concerns businesses that freely choose to accept government funds. These funds will have particular restrictions on the actions they take in running their business in part when it comes specifically how they can handle employees that refuse to do certain tasks. It does not say that the person cannot be disciplined or fired for other causes just that they cannot be forced to perform the task nor suffer inappropriately for their choice. The business has the choice to accept the funds or refuse them.
Many hospitals do not want to turn away Government paid medical programs. They make big money on them. They very often have many other members on staff who find little issue with performing the procedure.
More directly to the open question of should government get all up in your business regarding employment relations? I think we can agree that less is certainly more. Less government involved in this the more we will all enjoy the pleasure of running our business.
I believe if you work to provide service or product to clients and put forth your own time, talent and treasure if you choose not to hire green asexual Martians because you don’t like the way they smell then you can do it. However you suffer at the whim of the market and if your clients believe that to be unfair and biased and choose to spend their money elsewhere then you either go broke or change your ways. You should not be forced to hire people you do not want whether they are qualified or not - your business, your choice, your consequences.
Jeff
August 27th, 2008
at 11:30am
The government shouldn’t be allowed to decide who can or cannot be hired/fired and why they were. That should be left up to the employer.
On that same note employers shouldn’t be allowed to hire/fire someone for just ANY reason. It should be a legitimate one. My beliefs shouldn’t dictate whether I’m let go or hired — it should be based upon performance if they decide to fire me or my resume if they decide to hire me.
Too bad we don’t live in an ideal world where this actually WOULD be the case.
leftystrat
August 28th, 2008
at 5:21pm
Bruce: The Golden Rule indeed! Are there any t-shirts you *won’t* wear?
E: under the proposed law, the gov’t.
Kevin: the market decides - exactly.
Jeff: if the gov’t shouldn’t be allowed to interfere, who’s going to tell employers they can’t hire/fire for any reason? It’s a really complex set of issues (not that I don’t agree).