|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,371
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,371 |
Quote:
Well I just talked to MR Powell and we both came to the same conclusion.
We love all of you and wish you a Merry Christmas. 
Who's Mr. Powell?
Oh, and Merry Christmas to you too GM 
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
Quote:
Who's Mr. Powell?
Goober's cousin.
oorah!
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
You raise an interesting point. But it begs the question what can an employer fire you for? I've seen many people on this site saying, "If I was a boss, I'd lay off people based on if they voted for Obama." So do you believe that just religious freedom of speech should be held or all other beliefs? This also infringes on the right of the employer to fire whoever they want to.
I'm not a big fan of your thought, but I do get the appeal of it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,371
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,371 |
Quote:
You raise an interesting point. But it begs the question what can an employer fire you for? I've seen many people on this site saying, "If I was a boss, I'd lay off people based on if they voted for Obama." So do you believe that just religious freedom of speech should be held or all other beliefs? This also infringes on the right of the employer to fire whoever they want to.
I'm not a big fan of your thought, but I do get the appeal of it.
I can't speak for every state in the union, but Ohio is a "Right to work" state. That means that they don't need a reason to fire you.
Any employer that says, "I'm firing people because of who they voted for" is foolish. I'm not a lawyer, but any lawyer worth a cent will tell you that you don't open yourself up and your company up to that type of litigation.
Besides, all they really need to do is say, "we have to let you go" in most cases, they don't have to even give a reason.
But if you are thinking of firing people because of who they vote for, then you should know that doing so without saying so has no impact. Let's face it, they say it to try and impact the election.
As for Phil Robertson, I don't know all the details of course (none of us do) But if he were my employee and said something that I felt would reflect badly on my business, I'd take whatever steps I deemed necessary to protect my business.
I haven't read where anyone complained about the person that was traveling to S. Africa and sent out a tweet that she hopes she doesn't get aids. She was fired as soon as her plane landed. Nobody said a word. (Oh, she worked for a PR Firm). Her name was Justine Sacco.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
Quote:
I've seen many people on this site saying, "If I was a boss, I'd lay off people based on if they voted for Obama."
Bullcrap. Don't lie to make a point, it's silly. Many? I'll bet it was 1 or 2 people at the most, and they were probably kidding.
Things are not black and white. If someone's religion causes them to do or say things disruptive to the workplace, I want every right to fire them. People can't be protected solely based on their religious beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,371
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,371 |
Quote:
Quote:
I've seen many people on this site saying, "If I was a boss, I'd lay off people based on if they voted for Obama."
Bullcrap. Don't lie to make a point, it's silly. Many? I'll bet it was 1 or 2 people at the most, and they were probably kidding.
Things are not black and white. If someone's religion causes them to do or say things disruptive to the workplace, I want every right to fire them. People can't be protected solely based on their religious beliefs.
it clearly wasn't many Jules, but there was ONE that reportedly said that. I don't remember any more than that one employer.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Interesting. I had never heard this story. In looking it up, I found this article in Forbes which I thought was very interesting and gives a very articulate response to my fear in all of this... Justine Sacco, Internet Justice, And The Dangers Of A Righteous Mob Tarun Wadhwa, Contributor At no point in history has it been this easy to destroy your entire life so quickly in such few words. As the saga of InterActiveCorp PR Executive Justine Sacco on Friday showed, if you end up on the wrong side of public opinion on the internet, your reputation will be thoroughly destroyed… and you may not even have a chance to respond until its already over. A type of justice has been served, yet we should not rejoice in what has happened here – we’ve set a dangerous precedent for how people can be treated when we find their predicament to be amusing. For the rest of the world that wasn’t paying attention, what happened is quite simple: a PR executive at a powerful technology company tweeted something incredibly racist and awful before boarding a long flight. Her comment went ignored until it was posted on Valleywag. From there, it was picked up by all the major tech blogs, and within a few hours, there were detailed pieces on The New York Times and CNN websites explaining her behavior and her employer’s shocked response. However, it didn’t end there — because she was mid-air and unable to respond the entire time, the story drew hordes of people who marveled at the circumstances, stupidity, and irony of her situation. When she finally did land and turn on her phone, she was informed of her new reality: she was a trending target. She received tens of thousands of angry tweets while being condemned by major media outlets, and there was even a brand that tried to cash in on her downfall. And of course, she was fired from her job. It’s easy not to feel sorry for her, she went out of her way to create this scandal. She’s apologized now, but nobody seems to care much. We were outraged, then we laughed; everyone watched joyfully as her life fall apart in a few hours. But in reality, she was just a passing thought to us. We won’t remember her name in a few weeks even though her undoing will be cataloged on Google forever. So what exactly was the injustice that everyone was fighting against here? There were no pro-Sacco factions, nobody thought her comment was funny, and it became clear early on that her employers were not going to put up with this. It was quite easy for groups to unite against her precisely because it was such an obviously idiotic comment to make. By the time Valleywag had posted her tweet, the damage to her career was already done; there wasn’t any “need” for further action by anyone. The answer is a bit darker — this wasn’t really about fairness, it was about entertainment. It was unsettling for me to watch my Twitter feed full of professionals I admire and respect join in on the fun. Their actions were largely harmless, but we are all setting the standard for how people will be treated when we don’t like something they’ve said online. In this case, it doesn’t appear that Sacco was hacked, but if she had been, the reputational damage from viral outrage could have been too much to overcome. Shaming and criticism on the internet is nothing new; but the intensity of internet “mobs” and the severity of collective punishment is taking a disturbing direction. We can look at the examples of “human-flesh search engines” in China to see what can go wrong when masses on the internet decide to administer justice based on their moral beliefs. In a way, is this not just a lighter, more controlled, safer version of the ugliness that led tocrowdsourced investigations following the Boston bombing? Is the fact that other Twitter users made threats to harm and kill her now just an expected part of “internet justice” that we should ignore? And are we not just legitimizing types of behavior that in other contexts we would consider to be “trolling”? Sacco’s comment was terrible and indefensible, but there is no shortage of offensive things said frequently in public across the internet. Just as we’ve enjoyed watching the lives of celebrities and politicians rise and fall, we now extend the same courtesy to internet micro-celebrities, whether they want the attention or not. We’ve “democratized” witch-hunts; a paparazzi is nothing compared to the digitally-empowered righteous mob. The next Sacco might not be such a clear case and instead of pointing and laughing now, we’d be better served by analyzing how best to react to similar cases in the future. Forbes
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
1 or 2 people in a ten person discussion constitutes as a lot imo. But the specific number of people who said it doesn't matter, as I'm just throwing out an example.
Also, no one is telling these companies to fire or suspend their employees. The employers are doing it themselves. People will continue to make racist jokes and get called on it, nothing new there. Darnell Dockett just tweeted a racist Chinese joke and I don't believe he's suffered any punishment and people on twitter are not calling for anyone's head. A writer from SNL tweeted a joke about her needing to lose weight because a few black men hit on her and I don't believe she got canned despite the Twitter mob calling her out. I think we're looking to make victims out of people who are not.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
Ah, one means many, thanks for clarifying.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Quote:
Ah, one means many, thanks for clarifying.
Yes. 10% to 20% means many. I'm glad I could clarify that for you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 77,578
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 77,578 |
Quote:
So do you believe that just religious freedom of speech should be held or all other beliefs?
I'm not a big fan of your thought, but I do get the appeal of it.
I believe that when it comes to race, religion and sexual preference, everyone should be protected. It's a rather cut and dry issue for me.
Freedom of speech is a protected as well. However, to some extent, you can not let someone say anything they want shining a bad light on your business.
However, there are laws in place to protect you on the three things I mentioned. I uphold all three, not two out of three.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,371
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,371 |
Quote:
1 or 2 people in a ten person discussion constitutes as a lot imo. But the specific number of people who said it doesn't matter, as I'm just throwing out an example.
Also, no one is telling these companies to fire or suspend their employees. The employers are doing it themselves. People will continue to make racist jokes and get called on it, nothing new there. Darnell Dockett just tweeted a racist Chinese joke and I don't believe he's suffered any punishment and people on twitter are not calling for anyone's head. A writer from SNL tweeted a joke about her needing to lose weight because a few black men hit on her and I don't believe she got canned despite the Twitter mob calling her out. I think we're looking to make victims out of people who are not.
Ok,, overboard here.. There was only 1 company our of hundreds of thousands where the owner said he would fire employees for voting for Obama.. I only remember ONE company,,
So, it's really 1 out of maybe 20 million companies out there.
that would make it something like .00000005
That isn't a whole lot.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
But what extent should they be protected? This is what I'm trying to have a conversation with you about. Specifically about the religion aspect as it's the only that can really be changed. I'm aware that you believe all three of those things should be protected and I agree with you and appreciate it. But all I'm saying is what extent should religion be protected in this? Should employers not be able to fire people if they disagree with them for political reasons/religious beliefs?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Please read what I said in the first post about the topic. Please read what you just posted. We're not talking about the same things here. But I'm dropping talking about the numbers after this post. If you want to get to the point of what rights can/should be protected by the Government then I'd love to continue.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,371
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,371 |
Quote:
Please read what I said in the first post about the topic. Please read what you just posted. We're not talking about the same things here. But I'm dropping talking about the numbers after this post. If you want to get to the point of what rights can/should be protected by the Government then I'd love to continue.
I know what your trying to say, but you can't just go around making stuff up to prove a point. You said many companies said they'd fire employees if they vote for Obama. But my recollection was, only one was dumb enough to actually say that.
that doesn't sound like many to me.
Oh,, Merry Christmas to you
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
I lied. I will bite.
I didn't say "many companies" I said "Many people in a discussion" big difference (Because I don't think companies are that dumb.)
I hope you have/had a merry Christmas as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
So, you are going to stick with "many" instead of ONE, or at most, Two??
You were right the first time, you shouldn't use numbers. Did you know that the most primitive numbering cultures known to man get to at least three before they just call everything "many"?
If you want to have your posts considered as anything other than complete crap, you really need to define "many" as something very different than one or two.
That'll do for a start, then we can work on the rest of your conceptual problems. Counting to three may take some time.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Quote:
So, you are going to stick with "many" instead of ONE, or at most, Two??
You were right the first time, you shouldn't use numbers. Did you know that the most primitive numbering cultures known to man get to at least three before they just call everything "many"?
If you want to have your posts considered as anything other than complete crap, you really need to define "many" as something very different than one or two.
That'll do for a start, then we can work on the rest of your conceptual problems. Counting to three may take some time.
Would you call %20 many? I don't know if you're naturally bad at math or if you missed a few classes back in the day, but 20 > 3. For someone who wants to talk concepts you may want to review yours, but that could take awhile depending if you're wearing shoes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
Dude, stop digging a deeper hole. You said MANY people on this board. It doesn't matter what the fricking percentage is, ONE person is not MANY. I don't care if that one person equates to 100%. You exaggerated to make a point and got called on it, your rationalizing of it is making you look foolish.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
You are probably the most clueless, individual I have ever encountered on this board.
You represent a scathing indictment of the education system in this country. You also provide a clear explanation of why democracy often doesn't work very well, when you have people who can't count to three, and don't understand the difference between a percentage and a real number.
20 > 3, that was worth a good laugh. Man, it's one thing to be stupid, but to trumpet it from the hilltops for all to see, wow. Just WOW!
Last edited by Referee2; 12/27/13 05:48 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,371
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,371 |
Quote:
You are probably the most clueless, ignorant individual I have ever encountered on this board.
You represent a scathing indictment of the education system in this country. You also provide a clear explanation of why democracy often doesn't work very well, when you have people who can't count to three, and don't understand the difference between a percentage and a real number.
20 > 3, that was worth a good laugh. Man, it's one thing to be stupid, but to trumpet it from the hilltops for all to see, wow. Just WOW!
I really hate it when you don't tell us how you really feel.. Man, you gotta quit holding back. it's not good for you 
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
Honestly, I WAS holding back.
I'm actually glad you responded, as I have a question about your earlier post.
You gave a long description of acceptance and tolerance for other lifestyles, mentioned that the Catholic church did not agree with them, and then said you disagreed with what Mr. Robertson said.
My question is that I do not see any real difference between what you said, and what he said.
He expressed love for all fellow men as his bible teaches, which sounds a lot like your statements of acceptance. He said his bible states Homosexuality is a sin, which sfaik is exactly the same stance the Catholic church takes.
Was his statement "hurtful" because he used the word "sin", a concept you referenced by mentioning the church but did not specifically identify? Is it because he strongly indicated he believes in his bible, while you said you agree with the church on some issues but not on others? I also note you did not state your opinion of the church's stance on this particular issue.
I just don't see a difference here.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,199
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,199 |
Quote:
Dude, stop digging a deeper hole. You said MANY people on this board. It doesn't matter what the fricking percentage is, ONE person is not MANY. I don't care if that one person equates to 100%. You exaggerated to make a point and got called on it, your rationalizing of it is making you look foolish.
It's Obama logic. We are going to have one government run healthcare system....and by using this logic, he can say we have our choice of many plans.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,371
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,371 |
Quote:
Honestly, I WAS holding back.
I'm actually glad you responded, as I have a question about your earlier post.
You gave a long description of acceptance and tolerance for other lifestyles, mentioned that the Catholic church did not agree with them, and then said you disagreed with what Mr. Robertson said.
My question is that I do not see any real difference between what you said, and what he said.
He expressed love for all fellow men as his bible teaches, which sounds a lot like your statements of acceptance. He said his bible states Homosexuality is a sin, which sfaik is exactly the same stance the Catholic church takes.
Was his statement "hurtful" because he used the word "sin", a concept you referenced by mentioning the church but did not specifically identify? Is it because he strongly indicated he believes in his bible, while you said you agree with the church on some issues but not on others? I also note you did not state your opinion of the church's stance on this particular issue.
I just don't see a difference here.
First thing you gotta do is not sugar coat it and make his statements appear less hurtful then they actualy were.
He called homosexuality sinful — like, in his words, drunkenness, bestiality, promiscuity, and terrorism — and in specifically anatomical terms saying why he thought being gay was “illogical
Read more: Why Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson Got Suspended | TIME.com http://entertainment.time.com/2013/12/18/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson-suspended/#ixzz2obMDp5av
It's not as simple as him saying, I think Homosexuality is wrong. he went much further than that.
his comments on blacks were just as flammable,
While I could care less about what he has to say, I can see where those he was speaking of were offended. Probably not as much as they are saying they were but in order to blow it up, they really have to talk about offended they are.
SO I don't agree with him.
I don't have a problem with gay/lesbian folks. I don't have a problem with Blacks, I don't have a problem with Jews. I don't have a problem with Muslims. don't have a problem with Democrats or Republicans either.
Except with Extremists of all of those mentioned above. I have a problem with all extremes I guess.
Phil Robertson is pretty much a successful business man. Good for him. Nice American Dream type story.
Beyond that, his other claim to fame is being the Starting QB for Louisanna Tech right before Terry Bradshaw.
That's it. so why should anyone care what he thinks? I have a thought on that. Publicity.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
Quote:
I don't have a problem with gay/lesbian folks. I don't have a problem with Blacks, I don't have a problem with Jews. I don't have a problem with Muslims. don't have a problem with Democrats or Republicans either.
I was with you until you said democrats - ooh, shudder at the thought.
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,371
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,371 |
Quote:
Quote:
I don't have a problem with gay/lesbian folks. I don't have a problem with Blacks, I don't have a problem with Jews. I don't have a problem with Muslims. don't have a problem with Democrats or Republicans either.
I was with you until you said democrats - ooh, shudder at the thought.
LOL Look, an extreme democrat is just as bad as an extreme republican. I think we've see a little of that during the shutdown. stalemate.
The one with the biggest stick today wins, until they no longer have the biggest stick. Then things revert.
Doesn't make any sense.
2 steps forward, 3 steps back. That kind thing is never going to fix this country.. never.
So, that's why I dislike extremes of most things
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Quote:
Honestly, I WAS holding back.
I'm actually glad you responded, as I have a question about your earlier post.
You gave a long description of acceptance and tolerance for other lifestyles, mentioned that the Catholic church did not agree with them, and then said you disagreed with what Mr. Robertson said.
My question is that I do not see any real difference between what you said, and what he said.
He expressed love for all fellow men as his bible teaches, which sounds a lot like your statements of acceptance. He said his bible states Homosexuality is a sin, which sfaik is exactly the same stance the Catholic church takes.
Was his statement "hurtful" because he used the word "sin", a concept you referenced by mentioning the church but did not specifically identify? Is it because he strongly indicated he believes in his bible, while you said you agree with the church on some issues but not on others? I also note you did not state your opinion of the church's stance on this particular issue.
I just don't see a difference here.
Can you link me to what I said about the Catholic Church? I'm not Catholic, so I really know very little about their stances and I don't think I could speak solidly about their stances on anything.
I actually don't believe his answer was hurtful on any level. He truly believes that the bible says that. I also believe that he was trying to be extremely PC, which shows respect to the people he isn't trying to argue with. However, I think at this point, the anti-anti-gay crowd, wants to scream and shout at everyone who doesn't believe in gay rights because they feel that's the only way they'll get rights (And I tend to agree with them).
Again, I don't know many churches or their stances on them, so I don't feel like I have any information to give.
Last edited by Referee2; 12/27/13 05:50 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
Did you notice who I was responding to? It's right there in the title.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Woops. Thought that post was in addition to our banter. My mistake.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,648
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,648 |
Quote:
The one with the biggest stick today wins, until they no longer have the biggest stick
In that case Jose is the winner.
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,371
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,371 |
Quote:
Quote:
The one with the biggest stick today wins, until they no longer have the biggest stick
In that case Jose is the winner.
Ouch,, that's gotta hurt LOL
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 23,847
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 23,847 |
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday. -John Wayne
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,371
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,371 |
Quote:
Quote:
Well this ended up like i figured.
http://tv.yahoo.com/news/e-welcomes-phil-robertson-back-duck-dynasty-050000948.html
I think it ended up like all of us thought it would.......just a lot sooner than I imagined.
Now I don't think there is any doubt, it was indeed a publicity stunt...
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,428
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,428 |
Quote:
I can't speak for every state in the union, but Ohio is a "Right to work" state. That means that they don't need a reason to fire you.
I wasn't going to comment on this but where do you get your information. Ohio is not a right to work state. I am in a union and even the part timers are in the union from day 1
The Views Expressed By Me Are Not Necessarily The Views That You Will Agree With, I'm In My Own Little World But They Know Me Here.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,259
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,259 |
http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htmright to work is about unions, not `at will` employment
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,371
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,371 |
Quote:
Quote:
I can't speak for every state in the union, but Ohio is a "Right to work" state. That means that they don't need a reason to fire you.
I wasn't going to comment on this but where do you get your information. Ohio is not a right to work state. I am in a union and even the part timers are in the union from day 1
My bad,, it's not a right to work state. it's an "employment at will" state.. Which basically means that they can fire you for no reason.
thanks for correcting me.. I seem to always get those confused.. Thanks again
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,909
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,909 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I can't speak for every state in the union, but Ohio is a "Right to work" state. That means that they don't need a reason to fire you.
I wasn't going to comment on this but where do you get your information. Ohio is not a right to work state. I am in a union and even the part timers are in the union from day 1
My bad,, it's not a right to work state. it's an "employment at will" state.. Which basically means that they can fire you for no reason.
thanks for correcting me.. I seem to always get those confused.. Thanks again
Aren't you in the employment business? How do you get them wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,371
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,371 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I can't speak for every state in the union, but Ohio is a "Right to work" state. That means that they don't need a reason to fire you.
I wasn't going to comment on this but where do you get your information. Ohio is not a right to work state. I am in a union and even the part timers are in the union from day 1
My bad,, it's not a right to work state. it's an "employment at will" state.. Which basically means that they can fire you for no reason.
thanks for correcting me.. I seem to always get those confused.. Thanks again
Aren't you in the employment business? How do you get them wrong?
I don't know, but I always do.. go figure.. I guess I'm human
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,749
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,749 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I can't speak for every state in the union, but Ohio is a "Right to work" state. That means that they don't need a reason to fire you.
I wasn't going to comment on this but where do you get your information. Ohio is not a right to work state. I am in a union and even the part timers are in the union from day 1
My bad,, it's not a right to work state. it's an "employment at will" state.. Which basically means that they can fire you for no reason.
thanks for correcting me.. I seem to always get those confused.. Thanks again
Aren't you in the employment business? How do you get them wrong?
Shoot, I get all kinds of things wrong all the time.  lol
Just in case anyone is reading this and is confused, "at will" means that employment is not guaranteed by either side, for any specific period of time, unless by written contract.A person may be dismissed from their job for any reason, and may walk away from their job for any reason, and without any prior notice.
However, if an employer fires an employee for an unjust cause, the employer can still be liable for unemployment claims and such. That said, though, unless there is a protection class violation, such as firing a person specifically because they are Hispanic or a woman, then there is no legal recourse for damages beyond unemployment copensation.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Phil Robertson and Duck Dynasty
|
|
