So the traditional answer for these two groups (at least the ones in America) has always been "businesses have the right to fore any employee for any reason".
Now I get the sense that with the massive corporate abuse of power on free speech as well as this subject, opinions may be shifting.
But I am very interested in knowing what people think about this and why.
Should business owners have the right to allow smoking on the premises? Should business owners have the right to have only stairs leading up the entrance? Should business owners have the right to pay employees $1 an hour? Should business owners have the right to fire homosexuals and other degenerates? Should business owners have the right to refuse to hire women or to fire them if they get pregnant? Should business owners have the right to refuse to hire or serve blacks?
In an ideal world the answer would be yes to your question and to my questions. In our current world the answer is no to my questions so it is also no to your question.
Until government power is nerfed under all circumstances then not using it when it benefits us is just retarded.
There is no bonus for being the most principled corpse in the mass grave.
Companies below a certain size.
The likes of Amazon shouldn't be able to, but some 90 year old man's tiny family business probably should.
That’s an interesting idea. Idk where the line would be but I do think a business owner has the right to hire and fire for literally whatever reason. That being said, a lot of the megacorps are quasi-governmental (or even supranational). Treating them the same as a mom and pop bookstore is dangerous and gives them free reign to corral people based on ideology AND affect the policies of whatever target country to fly cover for their social experimentation.
Publicly traded.
It's a well established line that if you're a private company you can basically do whatever the fuck you want as long as you're not brazenly violating the CRA.
Not substantially more than there already is.
The reasons companies go publicly traded is very simple: selling shares "costs" nothing compared to borrowing. That will never change.
Nor should it change. You only need to look at Japan's lost decades to see what happens when companies decide to lean on debt. In the US once a company resorts to debt it's usually a sign for the vultures to circle.
That’s a decent starting point. I can’t immediately find something wrong with the idea.
The megacorps themselves are effectively socialized and are run the same as any socialized state would be.
Who owns (eg.) Boeing? The people who run it? No, the shareholders. Who are the shareholders? Mostly Vanguard, Blackrock, JP Morgan, Chase, Morgan Stanley, Schwab, Citi, B of A, etc...
Who owns all those firms? The shareholders. Who are the shareholders? Mostly Vanguard, Blackrock, JP Morgan, Chase, Morgan Stanley, Schwab, Citi, B of A, etc... And a bunch of people through retirement funds and the like. And then of course rich people.
Can they attend or vote in a Boeing shareholders' meeting? No, because they only indirectly own shares of Boeing. At best they can vote for how Vanguard, Blackrock, et. al do things, but of course they're small potatoes.
So who does vote in a Boeing shareholders meeting. Fund managers of Vanguard, Blackrock, et. al. How do they vote? According to some "Proxy Voting Procedures and Guidelines" document that no one reads. Who wrote that document? Who knows; probably some committee.
How is this any different than a socialist state run centrally run by various State Committees?
These are the same company. Don't know why I feel compelled to point this out, but now you know™
I know they once were, but for some reason I thought they had split up. Guess not.
Chase is the brand for consumer banking, and JPMorgan is the brand for investment/big business banking, basically. They merged in the early '00s, if I recall correctly. I don't know why they'd ever split unless forced to under an antitrust ruling or something.
I’m not going to argue against anything you said
That's a really great answer. You don't want to burden small businesses with all the lawsuit risk.
The difficulty is defining what a small business is and keeping large companies from gaming the system.
The latter part is easy enough. Even if you say < 1000 employees, which is very generous, that excludes larger companies.
We aren't a libertarian state, and freedom of association hasn't existed for US businesses for 60 years; so asking whether or not the government grants freedom of association to businesses in this particular instance isn't very interesting to me.
A far more interesting question would be whether or not businesses have the right to fire employees who are vaccinated. I suspect the courts would look at that question very differently than they would firing an employee who wasn't. Assuming that is the case the government is picking a side, and to the extent that the government picks a side I want it to be mine. So in the present where businesses do not have freedom of association I do not support it.
I would support the government allowing businesses to fire employees who are not vaccinated if I can fire those who are. Or those who are black, or gay, or trans, or communists (a protected class in some states). Once that was all out in the open I could survey the field, pack up my things, and live out the rest of my days in a community more aligned with my values.
But this whole "free association for thee but not for me" bullshit isn't going to fly.
Since I am neither a conservative, libertarian or American, I don't think businesses even have a right to know whether or not an employee is vaccinated. To me, it is common sense that this is private medical information, as it is considered to be here in Europe (they created a crappy app that does not reveal if you get a green pass because you're recovered, vaccinated or tested).
I think this attitude is a major source of pathology. Cancel culture, in essence, exists because companies can fire employees for very bad reasons. If people knew that it is legally impossible for a company to fire someone for bad (actually good) opinions, they would not even try to get that person fired, since they would not want to give that person a $100 million payout.
And I know that this also has downsides: bureaucratic red tape and businesses being more hesitant to hire when these rules get outrageous (as in countries like France), but for the more moderate countries in Northern Europe, in my view the benefits vastly outweigh the costs.
I actually agree with you pretty much completely, here, which is saying something…
Coming from an Australian perspective, what you have in Europe seems utterly admirable. We don’t have those protections here, though we are also not as, umm, extreme, as America (or indeed NZ)…
And I’ve been fired for a “no fault” situation (without going into detail - calling a supervisor out for bullying, who then proceeded to attempt to assault me, amusingly), so… To say I would’ve fucking loved those sorts of protections… Is putting it mildly.
Seeing some of the comments here (from Americans, presumably) genuinely alarms me, though I guess I shouldn’t be surprised…
I literally do not see the world in the same way as many people here do, which is… Let’s go with “interesting”.
Consevatives tend to forget that while people don't owe them anything on a personal level, the business is not their person.
Yup, I agree. The responses to this post, from some of our... "Regulars", are, uhh, enlightening, to say the least...
"Cultural differences" be damned, some of the responses here, specifically seemingly mostly from "Americans" are... Absolutely whack.
Does anyone really believe that some of this shit would ever fly? That a business which pays its workers $1 an hour would actually attract a LOCAL workforce, vis a vis cheap immigrant labour, which some people here also complain about, in the next paragraph..?
Come on, guys, that is not how economics works... facepalm
But yeah, anyway, you're right. It's just that some people here post the most bizarre, pseudo-intellectual shit, sometimes, as we can see from the post replies here...
Despite what people say, Mitt Romney, (former republican candidate for president and current senator aka, upper house of congress) said while campaigning. "Corporations are people."
Someone in the crowd told him "No, they're not."
Romney: "Yes they are, my friend, yes they are."
These kind of assholes honestly believe that their businesses are part of who they are on some metaphysical level instead of a just another part of the social contract.
You got it. Businesses should not be allowed to discriminate, period.
While I'm not sure I'd call myself either of those, I'm definitely not a leftist either.
Generally, I'm on board with the whole "businesses have the right to fire any employee for any reason" line. I'm also with you in that I don't think they have a right to know, and one regulation I would give to businesses is to limit their ability to pry into personal information of employees. I suppose these conflict with each other in that a business should be able to fire anyone and yet I'm limiting it. That's one of those things I just don't have an answer for. Perhaps some sort of financial penalty based on revenues? Wildly throwing things around here...
Where it gets worse, is holding the "most-free" views on employer rights opens the door for this exact corporatism infested country the US has become. How do I draw the line between free capitalism and letting megacorps choke out competition and then use that same free capitalism to remove freedom? Another thing I don't have an answer for. I know it's not Communism whether "real" or not and it's not letting the current government take over everything. I guess we need a benevolent dictator really.
There's a significant difference between wearing something like a mask, and having something injected into your body. I don't believe the vast majority of businesses should have the right to force injections.
In the cases where an injection has a proven track record of safety, effectiveness, and actual necessity in limited situations, I could see a requirement. If you're working with rabid animals, or may be cut by rust, the risk of severe harm is high enough relative to any known danger of the relevant injection, and the profession is rare enough not to be something most people have to worry about.
Someone working minimum wage shouldn't be required to get the shot. If someone does take the shot because of a company, that company should have to report injuries (which isn't being done now), and should be liable.
For contracts, unless there is a requirement to take any future injection the employer requires, an employer would be violating the terms by changing them.
Diptherier? I hardly know her!
As a "conservative", the answer is no; full-stop. Government should enforce objective morality. That is to say, government should only allow businesses to do the right thing and not the wrong thing. Liberty to be evil is no liberty at all since evil always uses liberty to oppress good people.
The argument of "well what is right and what is wrong?" is a trojan horse for evil to seemingly have a good argument for why liberty to commit evil should exist within a society. Good men know what is right and what is wrong.
Businesses should not have the right to fire employees who are not vaccinated, period.
I think libertarians are fools and only help leftists assume control. Once evil utilizes the freedom given to them by libertarians, evil turns around and strips those freedoms from good people. In the end libertarians accomplish nothing except secure their own doom in the name of liberty.
We're all born with inalienable rights. I'd like to think body autonomy is one of those rights.
The conservative case for why we shouldn't have slavery is "because they're humans." So it would follow that the conservative case for why employers shouldn't force employees to undergo permanent medical procedures is "because they're humans."
Businesses should either have the right to do that and to discriminate against fags, women and anyone else, or be able to discriminate against no one.
Assuming the shots were actually vaccines, and they were actually effective at stopping transmission, then yes. This would also assume any condition that prevents someone frome safely receiving the vaccine would be covered under ADA, and would be accommodated accordingly. Finally, any business mandating medical procedures for their employees would be liable for any injuries resulting from said medical proceedures.
All that said, the shots are not vaccines according to the 2019- definition, and the CDC says they are not effective at preventing transmission. Therefore, no company should be mandating the shots currently available.
Yeah, as other people have been saying, this one falls into the territory of that Frank Herbert quote
Let businesses hire and fire for any reason or no reason, including members of left-favored demographics, and I might agree. Make a special provision for firing people the left doesn't like and call that "freedom" or "libertarianism", and I'm not fooled. Furthermore, the businesses aren't just going to "have the right" to do it; if they can do it, they'll be pressured to do it by the Federal Government (unlawfully, but they'll do it anyway) and the other various tentacles of Left, Inc.
I'm a libertarian (or voluntarist really) and agree with TheImp, I believe in free association for individuals (and small companies they start) but at some point a business stops being an extension of the owner(s) desires and becomes its own beast, a service to the public and potentially an arm of the state. At that point it shouldn't get any "rights" whatsoever.
I'm not sure becoming a publicly traded corporation is the line either.
I'm more on the liberterian then conservative however on employee rights I'm somewhat on the fence. I do not think employers should fire people easily. I like to think that I would be able to fight in court if my employer decides that me being on the right is enough to fire me. Honestly in IT I'm kind of screwed, I sometimes feel I am on borrowed time.
That being said, in a perfect world I would say they should be able to fire them. In a perfect world another company would pick up the workers instantly for less then the previous employer and make a lot of money. It would also help the economy.
However we do not live in a perfect world, anyone who would dare go against the vaccine would be faced with strong resistance from media and such.
It also brings other questions, should employers discriminate against women? There is a decent chance a woman will get pregnant, she will also suffers from PMS once a month. So there is a strong reason to discriminate against them.
What a half-way solution I agree with is that if your contract does not explicitly allow the employer to force you then you should not be forced to take the vaccine. A good contract can protect you.
I'm a libertarian in principle but I oppose companies doing what ever they want. I support the little guys not the large corporations.
Immediatey what I think is at the beheadst of whom? I'm pretty sure if there were no looming mandate that even liberal businesses probably wouldn't fire anyone.
Fuck off, jannie.
He is, thankfully, not a mod here. Dom is sometimes retarded, but unlike Antonio I can trust Dom is acting in good faith even when I disagree with certain decisions.