What about a 16 year old who lives with his/her parents, in a situation where the parents pay all of the bills? That person can still get a job. DISPROOF
No, that just gives one (rare) example where my statement is not the case.
It's like showing a bodybuilding woman is physically stronger than Bill Gates, and saying that that disproves the statement that men are physically stronger than women.
You said "Managers..." which would give the reader/viewer the impression it is true of all managers.
No, you got that impression because you're a fucking idiot.
You should have stated it was not all managers.
You should have known that I meant it.
If I were to say "British people have bad teeth." the implication is that it applies to all British people because I did not use a qualifier.
No, it means that, on a general level, the average quality of British teeth is lower than the average quality of American teeth.
Fucking moron.
You provide evidence if the number of claims. Super. You claimed that MOST people who get fired file a claim. Show me the data on the number of people who get fired then so we can see if the majority would be near 90,000.
Do you want the number of yearly workers who get fired for a reason they believe is unfair? Can I exclude the workers who are dismissed on good terms, such as a common layoff due to downsizing due to the state of the economy? Also, can I exclude workers who were forced to quit due to injury?
That job performance while on the clock is not the only way an employee can affect the company that employee works for.
But, it's the only part of the employment that is actually within the course and scope of employment.
If the employer cannot be held liable for the acts of the employee via the doctrine of
respondiat superior, they have no business regulating it amongst their allumni.
Because you fire somebody, that job does not cease to exist. It creates an opening that somebody else can fill, thus not affecting the overall unemployment rate.
Fair enough.
However, while that might be a
common denominator, we still must look at the grand scheme of things. If the employment rate stays the same, then we should look to improve another portion of the employment relationship. Job security for existing jobs is the next best target.
The only way unemployment can be decreased is for unemployed people to get jobs. The maintaining of current jobs does not accomplish that.
Actually, it does by keeping the unemployment rate from increasing at a faster rate.
I was pointing out the poor logic of comparing place A and place B - yet your rebuttal is about time A and time B. Not a good rebuttal at all.
Ok, let me use places instead of times.
If something works in San Fransisco, does that mean that it doesn't stand a good chance of working in Las Angelas?
If something works in Texas, does that mean that it doesn't stand a good chance of working in Louisiana?
Gay marriage has worked in Canada for several years. Does that mean it doesn't stand a good chance of working in the United States?
The fact that something works elsewhere increases the likelihood that it would work here!
Why don't you prove your allegation about my allegation then? /snicker You haven't proved anything because your point can be argued against intelligently. Contrary to what you believe, just because you state something doesn't make it so.
You're right. Just because I say something, doesn't make it true. If I said that Z was the first letter of the English alphabet, that wouldn't make it true.
However, what DOES make it true is when I can provide citations for the things I say.
"Unfairly" is a subjective term.
For such subjective concepts, common law has developed the "Reasonable Person" doctrine.
Would the Reasonable Person think that your rights have been unfairly violated?
That right isn't being taken away.
So, getting fired is taking not taking away your right to make a living?
The employee has a right to march his ass down the street and work somewhere else.
What if it's hard as hell to get another job?
If that were the case, labor unions would not be so concerned with job
security. If it were as easy you imply to just "get another job," there would be no need for collective bargaining and anti-discrimination laws because employees would already have sufficient bargaining power to get jobs on their own.
Also, I don't remember seeing the right to make an honest living in the Constitution. Maybe I missed it - I did sleep through government class occasionally. Can you point it out for me?
Does the Constitution protect the right to privacy?
Does the Constitution protect the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property?
These rights come from the 9th Amendment.
