Opinion (poll) What Federal laws would you like to see reinstated? Or instated?

[mmafan2000]

Are there any particular laws you'd like to see instated or re-instated in America today? Perhaps to balance out radical leftist social policy becoming mainstream? Or something you think is bad for democracy? For family values? What about at the state level?

I'm thinking ban political funding to candidates and gerrymandering. Also abortion. Other ideas are in the poll.

 

[tenniswhiz]

Immunity from termination of employment due to any statement made on the internet, including but not limited to statements made on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, Sherdog, and Incels.com.

 

[mmafan2000]

Immunity from termination of employment due to any statement made on the internet, including but not limited to statements made on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, Sherdog, and Incels.com.

I hear ya. But the problem is these are private companies and they do what they want. Maybe the federal government shouldn't be able to terminate people based on that. But they are the worst.

 

[tenniswhiz]

I hear ya. But the problem is these are private companies and they do what they want. Maybe the federal government shouldn't be able to terminate people based on that. But they are the worst.

Constitutional amendment stating that nobody shall have their employment terminated over such things as…

 

[mmafan2000]

Constitutional amendment stating that nobody shall have their employment terminated over such things as…

That's a good point. I don't know what the constitution says about that.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Immunity from termination of employment due to any statement made on the internet, including but not limited to statements made on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, Sherdog, and Incels.com.

Why not end at-will employment and require just-cause instead?

 

[Rob Battisti]

Women’s Suffrage for sure

 

[Rob Battisti]

Why not end at-will employment and require just-cause instead?

how would you define just cause?

 

[mmafan2000]

Why not end at-will employment and require just-cause instead?

Employers see termination in two ways: just and unjust cause. Just cause is like getting laid off because of budget issues, or if the job was not a right fit. Unjust cause is you grab a tit or punch your boss in the face. I think what @tenniswhiz was saying is that what you put in the internet shouldn't be under the unjust cause category. That limits free speech. For example, I should be able to say 100 gender is bullshit (which is is) and not lose my job over that statement. Not only is it backed by science, but it's a fact. So...it's not right that employers push SJW nonsense on employees during working hours what has nothing to do with their actual job (forced diversity, 100 gender brainwashing, whites are racist crap) then fire someone for formulating an opinion OUTSIDE work.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Employers see termination in two ways: just and unjust cause. Just cause is like getting laid off because of budget issues, or if the job was not a right fit. Unjust cause is you grab a tit or punch your boss in the face. I think what @tenniswhiz was saying is that what you put in the internet shouldn't be under the unjust cause category. That limits free speech. For example, I should be able to say 100 gender is bullshit (which is is) and not lose my job over that statement. Not only is it backed by science, but it's a fact. So...it's not right that employers push SJW nonsense on employees during working hours what has nothing to do with their actual job (forced diversity, 100 gender brainwashing, whites are racist crap) then fire someone for formulating an opinion OUTSIDE work.

Uh, I think that's wrong as far as I know. Just-cause means the employer has to justify their firing of you while at-will employment means the employer can fire you for any reason so long as its not illegal(i.e. discriminatory based on sex, religion, race, nationality, age, disabled status etc).

What annoys me is that the right has generally supported at-will employment and now when it bites them in the ass they don't rethink at-will in general, they just want to carve out a very narrow exception that protects their perceived interest(being able to express politically incorrect speech) while maintaining the imbalance of power between employer and employee. In other words, they don't want want to be held to left leaning standards of political correctness but they also don't want to protect workers from being at the mercy of their bosses generally.

 

[Islam Imamate]

how would you define just cause?

Here's a good starting point

• Was the employee forewarned of the consequences of his or her actions?
• Are the employer's rules reasonably related to business efficiency and performance the employer might reasonably expect from the employee?
• Was an effort made before discipline or discharge to determine whether the employee was guilty as charged?
• Was the investigation conducted fairly and objectively?
• Did the employer obtain substantial evidence of the employee's guilt?
• Were the rules applied fairly and without discrimination?
• Was the degree of discipline reasonably related to the seriousness of the employee's offense and the employee's past record?

That standard would protect a lot o people from being canceled on a whim but again, the right generally doesn't want to protect workers and prefers them being at the mercy of their bosses so they won't call for just-cause employment as the standard.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Here's a good starting point

That standard would protect a lot o people from being canceled on a whim but again, the right generally doesn't want to protect workers and prefers them being at the mercy of their bosses so they won't call for just-cause employment as the standard.

As an HR professional at a top tech company, I can say that I personally agree with this. It is potentially more difficult in practice in certain cases, but I think we adhere more to everything you posted vs. not.

That’s not to say that all companies do this, but I would venture to say it happens more times than not that most of the steps you listed are followed.

 

[Islam Imamate]

As an HR professional at a top tech company, I can say that I personally agree with this. It is potentially more difficult in practice in certain cases, but I think we adhere more to everything you posted vs. not.

That’s not to say that all companies do this, but I would venture to say it happens more times than not that most of the steps you listed are followed.

I'm sure the standards vary wildly between industries but the only contexts in the US, as far as I know, where its a legal requirement is when unions negotiate that standard for their workers. Otherwise employers can fire you for whatever reason if they want to.

 

[Rob Battisti]

I'm sure the standards vary wildly between industries but the only contexts in the US, as far as I know, where its a legal requirement is when unions negotiate that standard for their workers. Otherwise employers can fire you for whatever reason if they want to.

We can, but that doesn’t mean we do. There are still legal protections in place for adverse terminations.

 

[Islam Imamate]

We can, but that doesn’t mean we do. There are still legal protections in place for adverse terminations.

As far as I know the only baseline legal protection is that afforded to protected classes. Hence why people can be canceled on a whim if their employer doesn't like the bad PR they bring.

 

[CantCucktheTuck]

only land owners can vote.

 

[Titan1980]

Reinstate trial by combat with edged weapons. No champions.

 

[andnowweknow]

Reinstate trial by combat with edged weapons. No champions.

Why no Champs?

 

[Titan1980]

Why no Champs?

Because if it's someone else's life on the line there is no reason to stop what ever it is they're doing that would cause someone to be mad enough to fight them. It would force them to think about their actions and how it affects others and themselves.

 

[andnowweknow]

Because if it's someone else's life on the line there is no reason to stop what ever it is they're doing that would cause someone to be mad enough to fight them. It would force them to think about their actions and how it affects others and themselves.

I only want edged weapons if I can be champion. I don't know if I'll become champion, but I want a shot at it. Please compromise with me so we can come to some sort of agreement to make this happen.