pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
Corbett supports non discrimination bill.
#41
goofin;128942 Wrote:unions protect worthless workers

Corporations protect worthless workers.

Fixed it for you.

I've worked just over 20 years in 2 different unions, and spent 20 in private business, as a worker and 15 of those 20 in management. There were people I begged HR to fire, with documentation to fill a wheelbarrow, no go, they were terrified of a lawsuit. They had already lost 2 of them. Courts tend to favor the little guy in these things.

A guy named Harvey MacKay wrote a book 25 years ago called "Swim With the Sharks Without Being Eaten Alive". In it he devoted an entire chapter to the idea of firing people who needed firing. His wind-up was, "It isn't the people you fire who keep you awake at night, it's the people you don't."
That advice of his was not directed at union environments, but non-union environments.

No doubt there are some unions where that is true, but there are 100 times the number of non-union environments where it is just as true.
“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”

William Pitt
Reply
#42
Oh Daryl Metcalfe's reaction finally gets out where I can see it, and it's as awesome and cray-cray as I hoped. From the Allentown Morning Call:

http://www.mcall.com/news/breaking/mc-pa...3232.story

Quote:The bills are anti-Christian, Metcalfe said. The bills would allow men to use women's restrooms and locker rooms if they decide on any given day that they feel like a woman, Metcalfe said.


That's funny, perhaps the Gentleman from Butler County could propose a PA Constitutional change to mandate the Unitarian church (his denomination) be the state religion of Pennsylvanians. I think Jews and especially Mennonites in Lancaster and Lebanon counties will be proud. Not to mention Quakers, which still exist (and make nice bank off their super expensive private schools).

Separation of church and state? Metcalfe's never heard of it.


Then the locker-room logic. This is a rework of the "but they will fuck goats!" defense. If we're talking gay men, and that's all that Metcalfe seems to be concerned with [probably he enjoys lesbian porn], they do tend to go to gyms far more often than straight men do. And since they're sexually attracted to males... wouldn't they prefer to be in the locker rooms they've always had access to?

If you "feel like a woman", that's transsexuals. Not the same thing as being gay. At all. I doubt Metcalfe can even process what trans people are or any of that business. Gay men is what his blabbermouthing is mostly centered around.

I just contacted the seniority at the Republican City Committee, asking my state rep (a Republican) to get this past Daryl's committee. There's bound to be some irresistible teaser someone can squeak in, like repealing the Transportation budget that was recently passed, to get Daryl to vote the bill out to the floor so he has something to type up in his "Metcalfe Minute" e-mails he sends to his voters every Friday; so the PASen can go back and strike out the teaser when it goes to conference.

That way, Daryl is left to just bitch about it on the House floor with no power to stop it further.
Reply
#43
ExcelToExcel;128947 Wrote:LOL.. Try saying you were fired because you are white. Go ahead. LOL

WHITE Philadelphia firefighters have done just that and have also sued the City of Philadelphia over it; and caught the city in a Catch-22 because of the scoring exams. It forced the City to settle the discrimination suit:
http://www.law360.com/articles/109355/ph...-bias-suit


You cannot discriminate on the basis of race or gender. That means being white and being male is a race and is a gender. So yes, you can totally bring the same kinds of court cases to be heard before a judge if you have a claim and are seeking relief from an injury.

A plaintiff whining because they happen to be a royal bullshit-artist does not make a valid legal claim.

Read the IAFF22 firefighter complaint about the entrance and scoring examination tests and what evidence they presented in their original complaint in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for an idea on how to win a similar suit if you're white and male.

[Image: TheMoreYouKnow.gif]




I ain't buying any "real world" huffing and puffing until someone can get a Ph.D. economist in here with some linear algebra and business statistics experience that can threat model how adding sexual orientation to the list of banned discrimination traits will singlehandedly undermine Pennsylvania's entire economy and bring it to its knees, leaving all of us paupers.

Til then, y'alls be bullshittin'.
Reply
#44
RugerGirl;128898 Wrote:
JustinHEMI;128896 Wrote:I do understand your point, I simply no longer agree that employers should be able to fire people simply for reasons that have nothing to do with their performance or other condition of employment.

Justin

I didn't even think this happened anymore, much less need more laws about it. Everyone knows you can't fire someone on a whim, or you will be sure to face a lawsuit.

The few times someone has been fired for a bad reason, it has made huge headlines, such as the woman in Iowa who got fired from the dentist's office.

So I'm saying (even though I'm pretty sure you don't read my posts, Justin, but if you do, then cool) that I don't see a need for this type of law. I feel it is redundant and is simply a political move.

I'm pretty sure everyone's heard of the Holy Ghost school incident up in Bucks County:
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/201312...in___.html

[Image: 20131218_dn_0mxid03l.jpg]


Worked for employer 12 years. Employer (and staff, and students) knew he was gay the entire time. The second he emails he's coming in late because he's headed to a city clerk in Jersey, where he lives, that he's applying for a civil union/gay marriage/whatever. Terminated. And was told specifically this was the reason by the employer, to the employee who is in a non-ecclesiastical position with no duty in the ministry.*

This termination is totally fine in PA because you can totally fire a gay employee solely for the reason they are gay. You can state it openly, without shame--at least to the PA Department of Welfare if the employee raises a complaint. And they're forced to accept that as valid. Plus that extends to our state courts--which you can file a lawsuit anyway and use tactics to drain the company of cash in legal fees with procedural motions... there's no such thing as a "lawsuit blocker". It just means the plaintiff has no chance of prevailing no matter how good the merits are.


* A non-ecclesiastical job is someone who is being paid a wage or a salary by a faith-based IRS Form 990-filing non-profit organization, like a church, or in this case, a school wholly-owned by a church existing as a separate legal entity; where the job does not include functions central to ministry. Bookkeepers, janitors, facilities management, security, physicians and most medical staff (for church-owned hospitals and clinics); while their work certainly aids the church's mission, it is not central to proselytizing.

Existing EEO rules apply to churches, which is why Catholic hospitals cannot ban non-Catholics from taking most of the jobs put on offer. When I had my appendix ripped out at Nazareth (it's a Catholic hospital I prefer to go to), the orderly cleaning my room was a Nation of Islam dude, with the lace bib hat and dashiki-jacket over his scrubs.
Reply
#45
Let's be serious, if a company wants to fire someone because they are gay (or ugly or short or whatever), they are going to find a way to do it. If there are no discrimination laws in the books, the company will just flat out state their discrimination. If there are discrimination laws on the books, they will find some other BS reason. All this law will do is make it harder to fire people for cause.

Add this law to the tens of thousands of other laws out there that we don't need.
Lkttomasz, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Apr 2013.
Reply
#46
So, when are white, male Christians going to be under equal protection under the law?
"As I lay rubber down the street I pray for traction I can keep, but if I spin and begin to slide, please dear God, protect my sweet ride."
Reply
#47
(12-19-2013, 01:39 PM)Lkttomasz Wrote: Let's be serious, if a company wants to fire someone because they are gay (or ugly or short or whatever), they are going to find a way to do it. If there are no discrimination laws in the books, the company will just flat out state their discrimination. If there are discrimination laws on the books, they will find some other BS reason. All this law will do is make it harder to fire people for cause.

Add this law to the tens of thousands of other laws out there that we don't need.

Yes they fire people, and loads of companies play CYA yet still don't get away with it.

And people then launch litigation in civil court. And look for patterns of discriminatory behavior, like sending in probes at hiring interviews and apartment showings to prove the discriminatory practice exists to justify an injury for damages.

(12-19-2013, 02:25 PM)ArcticSplash Wrote:
(12-19-2013, 01:39 PM)Lkttomasz Wrote: Let's be serious, if a company wants to fire someone because they are gay (or ugly or short or whatever), they are going to find a way to do it. If there are no discrimination laws in the books, the company will just flat out state their discrimination. If there are discrimination laws on the books, they will find some other BS reason. All this law will do is make it harder to fire people for cause.

Add this law to the tens of thousands of other laws out there that we don't need.

Yes they fire people, and loads of companies play CYA yet still don't get away with it.

And people then launch litigation in civil court. And look for patterns of discriminatory behavior, like sending in probes at hiring interviews and apartment showings to prove the discriminatory practice exists to justify an injury for damages.

What kills me is I'm the only person on this board who is in a Federal discrimination lawsuit right now.

And I am the one being sued. Because plaintiff claims I am a racist.

And the plaintiff suing me is a white male.
Reply
#48
(12-19-2013, 02:25 PM)ArcticSplash Wrote:
(12-19-2013, 01:39 PM)Lkttomasz Wrote: Let's be serious, if a company wants to fire someone because they are gay (or ugly or short or whatever), they are going to find a way to do it. If there are no discrimination laws in the books, the company will just flat out state their discrimination. If there are discrimination laws on the books, they will find some other BS reason. All this law will do is make it harder to fire people for cause.

Add this law to the tens of thousands of other laws out there that we don't need.

Yes they fire people, and loads of companies play CYA yet still don't get away with it.

And people then launch litigation in civil court. And look for patterns of discriminatory behavior, like sending in probes at hiring interviews and apartment showings to prove the discriminatory practice exists to justify an injury for damages.

So the solution is costly litigation? If 3 black people and one Asian are applying for a job and the Asian gets the job, is that discriminatory? What you're suggesting is that more govt regulation and oversight is what we need....how about just letting the market handle it?
Lkttomasz, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Apr 2013.
Reply
#49
(12-19-2013, 02:39 PM)Lkttomasz Wrote:
(12-19-2013, 02:25 PM)ArcticSplash Wrote: Yes they fire people, and loads of companies play CYA yet still don't get away with it.

And people then launch litigation in civil court. And look for patterns of discriminatory behavior, like sending in probes at hiring interviews and apartment showings to prove the discriminatory practice exists to justify an injury for damages.

So the solution is costly litigation? If 3 black people and one Asian are applying for a job and the Asian gets the job, is that discriminatory? What you're suggesting is that more govt regulation and oversight is what we need....how about just letting the market handle it?

Straw man argument. You haven't supplied any data about any of your theoretical job candidate's abilities.

Shitty lawsuits are filed constantly because the procedure of the courts first require you state a complaint and a claim and a memorandum of law (which can have ANYTHING in it).


People who dont understand civics can't seem to grasp that tens of thousands of parties bring litigation to the courts they know they may not win or have no chance in winning.


Why are you trying so hard to dance around why you think it's ok for "gay" to be a justifiable cause to deny employment, housing and commerce? I'm willing to have that discussion. This same argument was used to try to kill the Civil Rights Act. It did not work. What makes you think it's going to work now?
Reply
#50
(12-19-2013, 02:45 PM)ArcticSplash Wrote:
(12-19-2013, 02:39 PM)Lkttomasz Wrote: So the solution is costly litigation? If 3 black people and one Asian are applying for a job and the Asian gets the job, is that discriminatory? What you're suggesting is that more govt regulation and oversight is what we need....how about just letting the market handle it?

Straw man argument. You haven't supplied any data about any of your theoretical job candidate's abilities.

Shitty lawsuits are filed constantly because the procedure of the courts first require you state a complaint and a claim and a memorandum of law (which can have ANYTHING in it).


People who dont understand civics can't seem to grasp that tens of thousands of parties bring litigation to the courts they know they may not win or have no chance in winning.


Why are you trying so hard to dance around why you think it's ok for "gay" to be a justifiable cause to deny employment, housing and commerce? I'm willing to have that discussion. This same argument was used to try to kill the Civil Rights Act. It did not work. What makes you think it's going to work now?

I think you are misinterpreting my posts for being anti-gay rather than what they really are...anti-statism. To answer your question, I think it's completely stupid and a poor business decision for an employer to deny employment to someone because they are gay. I wouldn't do business with any of those companies. However I am against the govt coming in and using force. Period. This law will not crash the economy or cause unemployment etc etc but it is just another regulation/law employers will now have to worry about, in addition to all the others. You are either a statist or a free market person, can't have it both ways. I am for keeping the govt out of almost everything.

Your "shitty lawsuit" argument seems to support what I say, so I leave it at that.

And as for "what makes you think it will work", believe me I am under no impression that these type of laws will not be passed. I believe govt will become bigger and bigger. I believe we will dig ourselves deeper and deeper in the name of "rights", "freedom" and "democracy" even though we are doing exactly the opposite. Just because I know it's going to happen doesn't mean I have to agree with it.
Lkttomasz, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Apr 2013.
Reply






Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  I'm voting for Tom Corbett Tootie 11 2,495 09-15-2014, 10:46 PM
Last Post: DeadEye
  Corbett and Christie spblademaker 2 1,118 06-10-2014, 05:35 AM
Last Post: DeadEye
  Forks Township man pays $7,143 school tax bill in $1 bills Jon Doe 72 9,011 09-14-2013, 10:53 AM
Last Post: Mr_Gixxer
  Gov. Tom Corbett to propose shutting down state liquor stores Jon Doe 72 9,613 05-28-2013, 02:08 PM
Last Post: andrewjs18
  PA’s Pension Crisis Requires Corbett to Take the Reins bucksco 3 2,673 09-19-2012, 06:17 PM
Last Post: bucksco



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.