Total Posts:47|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

You Are So Hot...That You're Fired

wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 6:32:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
http://www.cnn.com...

Ok, so for today's news of absurdity, a coworker in a dentist's office got fired because her boss thought she was a threat to his marriage. The woman never made any advances, and never flirted. She worked at the office for 10 years, and her boss, upon firing her, said that "she was the best dental assistant he ever had."

One hint he gave her several months beforehand was that "if she saw his pants bulging, she would know her clothing was too revealing."

The Iowa Supreme Court (all 7 justices are men) upheld the ruling.

Your thoughts?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 9:24:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Apparently she was a distraction to him, and the guy's wife worked there and saw it too. What's a dentist to do, fire his own wife or leave his own practice?? I'm perfectly ok with this decision by the court. An employer should be allowed to hire and fire employees without the court's interference.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 1:03:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Ugh. Tiresome, irrational, and unprofessional.

Woman: Hey, I just got fired from my job I've had for years! WTF.
Government: Boys will be boys. Herp derp.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 1:13:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The employer should be able to hire and fire at will.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 1:46:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 1:13:57 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
The employer should be able to hire and fire at will.

This doesn't seem like something you'd say.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 2:20:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 1:46:38 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 12/23/2012 1:13:57 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
The employer should be able to hire and fire at will.

This doesn't seem like something you'd say.

I have a side of me that knows that Free Trade and NAP and Anarchism and stuff is good and there's the other side that's basically state socialist or anarcho-communist.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 2:21:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Hence how my Big Issues conflict most of the time.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 2:23:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think its a stupid reason, unless it REALLY was affecting him during the job, which I doubt.

However, he is the boss. He can fire whoever he wants, for whatever reason.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 4:58:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 2:23:05 AM, OberHerr wrote:
I think its a stupid reason, unless it REALLY was affecting him during the job, which I doubt.

However, he is the boss. He can fire whoever he wants, for whatever reason.

That sounds good until you realise that there is systematic discrimination against sections of society that result in sexist, racist and other ingrained inequalities of opportunity because of the aggregate of retarded individual decisions like this.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 8:27:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 4:58:58 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 12/23/2012 2:23:05 AM, OberHerr wrote:
I think its a stupid reason, unless it REALLY was affecting him during the job, which I doubt.

However, he is the boss. He can fire whoever he wants, for whatever reason.

That sounds good until you realise that there is systematic discrimination against sections of society that result in sexist, racist and other ingrained inequalities of opportunity because of the aggregate of retarded individual decisions like this.

So what? If employers do this and people work for them and consumers buy their products, there is no reason to forcefully control the employer.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 11:53:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 1:03:48 AM, Oryus wrote:
Ugh. Tiresome, irrational, and unprofessional.

Woman: Hey, I just got fired from my job I've had for years! WTF.
Government: Boys will be boys. Herp derp.

The action was taken because the man's wife insisted on it, not the man. The husband thought that the "victim's" work performance was exemplary.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 11:54:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 4:58:58 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 12/23/2012 2:23:05 AM, OberHerr wrote:
I think its a stupid reason, unless it REALLY was affecting him during the job, which I doubt.

However, he is the boss. He can fire whoever he wants, for whatever reason.

That sounds good until you realise that there is systematic discrimination against sections of society that result in sexist, racist and other ingrained inequalities of opportunity because of the aggregate of retarded individual decisions like this.

The man hired another woman to replace her.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 11:13:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 4:58:58 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 12/23/2012 2:23:05 AM, OberHerr wrote:
I think its a stupid reason, unless it REALLY was affecting him during the job, which I doubt.

However, he is the boss. He can fire whoever he wants, for whatever reason.

That sounds good until you realise that there is systematic discrimination against sections of society that result in sexist, racist and other ingrained inequalities of opportunity because of the aggregate of retarded individual decisions like this.

I fail to see the reason its bad still.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 11:20:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 4:58:58 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 12/23/2012 2:23:05 AM, OberHerr wrote:
I think its a stupid reason, unless it REALLY was affecting him during the job, which I doubt.

However, he is the boss. He can fire whoever he wants, for whatever reason.

That sounds good until you realise that there is systematic discrimination against sections of society that result in sexist, racist and other ingrained inequalities of opportunity because of the aggregate of retarded individual decisions like this.

Oh come on... Beautiful people already make more than average looking person. Why not knock them down a tad so that everybody is on an equal playing ground. That's what you people are all about, right?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2012 5:28:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 11:20:16 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Oh come on... Beautiful people already make more than average looking person. Why not knock them down a tad so that everybody is on an equal playing ground. That's what you people are all about, right?

I'm aware of this - I've actually talked about it extensively in other threads. The halo effect and all that. I think it's detrimental that less qualified but more physically attractive people are consistently picked for jobs over their more qualified rivals. It's not an easy situation to combat because it largely operates at an unconscious level. Racism and sexism, on the other hand, often manifest as a much more noticeable phenomena so it's easier to make laws that prevent discrimination.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2012 5:34:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 11:13:53 PM, OberHerr wrote:
I fail to see the reason its bad still.

You fail to see how ingrained sexual discrimination is bad? Really?
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2012 5:41:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/24/2012 5:28:06 AM, Kinesis wrote:
so it's easier to make laws that prevent discrimination.
But we shouldn't! Thank you have a nice day.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2012 5:54:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/24/2012 5:28:06 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 12/23/2012 11:20:16 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Oh come on... Beautiful people already make more than average looking person. Why not knock them down a tad so that everybody is on an equal playing ground. That's what you people are all about, right?

I'm aware of this - I've actually talked about it extensively in other threads. The halo effect and all that. I think it's detrimental that less qualified but more physically attractive people are consistently picked for jobs over their more qualified rivals. It's not an easy situation to combat because it largely operates at an unconscious level. Racism and sexism, on the other hand, often manifest as a much more noticeable phenomena so it's easier to make laws that prevent discrimination.

I think you guys are no longer talking about the incident in question.

According to the article, it was the WIFE's insistence that got the woman fired, not the husband's. Had the boss been single, I'm almost certain the "victim" would still be gainfully employed in that office.

Also, there is absolutely no evidence that suggests that she was "less qualified" than others. If anything, her 10 year track record flies in the face of such a bald and unsubstantiated assertion.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2012 6:03:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/24/2012 5:54:22 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
I think you guys are no longer talking about the incident in question.

According to the article, it was the WIFE's insistence that got the woman fired, not the husband's. Had the boss been single, I'm almost certain the "victim" would still be gainfully employed in that office.

Also, there is absolutely no evidence that suggests that she was "less qualified" than others. If anything, her 10 year track record flies in the face of such a bald and unsubstantiated assertion.

No no, we veered off into another subject.

As for the article, the fact that a woman was fired for 'tempting' a man (regardless of whether it was his wife that insisted he do it) reminds me of the way the taliban keep women out of work and force them to wear burkas for the same reason. It's not as bad, obviously, but it's the same sexist mentality.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2012 6:13:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/24/2012 6:03:32 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 12/24/2012 5:54:22 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
I think you guys are no longer talking about the incident in question.

According to the article, it was the WIFE's insistence that got the woman fired, not the husband's. Had the boss been single, I'm almost certain the "victim" would still be gainfully employed in that office.

Also, there is absolutely no evidence that suggests that she was "less qualified" than others. If anything, her 10 year track record flies in the face of such a bald and unsubstantiated assertion.

No no, we veered off into another subject.

As for the article, the fact that a woman was fired for 'tempting' a man (regardless of whether it was his wife that insisted he do it) reminds me of the way the taliban keep women out of work and force them to wear burkas for the same reason. It's not as bad, obviously, but it's the same sexist mentality.

Well, what is your solution? The woman was allowed to work, I'm almost certain the boss will be writing up a fabulous recommendation letter for her and probably wishes her the best. He's been public on CNN that her skills were commendable.

You can't call differences in gender "sexist". There is undeniable attraction between the sexes regardless of attire, and at times such attraction is inappropriate on the job. The woman didn't do anything wrong. The wife saw texting between the two after work, the nature of which does not seem to have anything to do with inappropriate behavior. The wife suspected this may turn into something inappropriate and insisted her husband let her go. It is difficult to say that the wife did anything wrong. The husband acquiesced to his wife's wishes. The husband has been candid that her work performance was exemplary. The courts have ruled that nothing was out of order.

Comments like yours tempt me to lean in the court's direction, even though the court was all male.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2012 6:35:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 2:23:05 AM, OberHerr wrote:
I think its a stupid reason, unless it REALLY was affecting him during the job, which I doubt.

However, he is the boss. He can fire whoever he wants, for whatever reason.

I think the idea behind the action was preventative in nature. Why wait until his job performance truly suffers? That's like waiting to treat a cancer patient only after the cancer has become terminal.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2012 6:50:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/24/2012 6:13:14 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
You can't call differences in gender "sexist". There is undeniable attraction between the sexes regardless of attire, and at times such attraction is inappropriate on the job. The woman didn't do anything wrong. The wife saw texting between the two after work, the nature of which does not seem to have anything to do with inappropriate behavior. The wife suspected this may turn into something inappropriate and insisted her husband let her go. It is difficult to say that the wife did anything wrong. The husband acquiesced to his wife's wishes. The husband has been candid that her work performance was exemplary. The courts have ruled that nothing was out of order.

Comments like yours tempt me to lean in the court's direction, even though the court was all male.

You make a number of good points, but I still think there's an underlying sexist problem with the case.

The wife 'suspected' that the relationship would develop into something 'inappropriate'. I doubt that meant she was worried that the efficiency of the dentist office would be harmed by an office romance. Rather, the husband fired a woman because his wife was jealous because she saw the woman as a threat to her relationship.

From what I can tell from the article, the husband pursued her with comments like "if she saw his pants bulging, she would know her clothing was too revealing" and "in response to an alleged comment Nelson made about the infrequency of her sex life, Knight responded: [T]hat's like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it.". So, he came onto her, and they started texting but in a platonic way. And then his wife insisted she be fired. She was fired because of the mere fact that she was an attractive woman - she did nothing wrong. If anyone did anything wrong the husband did, yet she was the one who was punished. That seems really sexist to me.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2012 7:02:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/24/2012 6:35:18 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
I think the idea behind the action was preventative in nature. Why wait until his job performance truly suffers? That's like waiting to treat a cancer patient only after the cancer has become terminal.

lol his job performance. It had nothing to do with that. As one of the comments points out: "The text messeges she sent were platonic, and nothing inappropriate. His wife flipped out when she found the messages and their pastor agreed he should fire the girl that had done nothing wrong. Welcome to "right to work" states. You can be fired for any reason, or no reason, at any time."
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2012 7:51:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/24/2012 6:50:28 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 12/24/2012 6:13:14 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

You make a number of good points, but I still think there's an underlying sexist problem with the case.

The wife 'suspected' that the relationship would develop into something 'inappropriate'. I doubt that meant she was worried that the efficiency of the dentist office would be harmed by an office romance. Rather, the husband fired a woman because his wife was jealous because she saw the woman as a threat to her relationship.

I agree with most of this statement, but given that his wife worked in the same office, I simply disagree with the assertion that "the efficiency of the dentist office would [not] be harmed by an office romance."


From what I can tell from the article, the husband pursued her with comments like "if she saw his pants bulging, she would know her clothing was too revealing" and "in response to an alleged comment Nelson made about the infrequency of her sex life, Knight responded: [T]hat's like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it.".

I'm not certain I agree with the word "pursued". All we see are the husband's quotes, but especially in the latter comment, Nelson had already breached the topic of sexual relations. That such talk would happen between coworkers damages any assertion that their relationship was purely platonic, even if it was still wholly appropriate (although even this becomes subject to question).

So, he came onto her, and they started texting but in a platonic way. And then his wife insisted she be fired. She was fired because of the mere fact that she was an attractive woman - she did nothing wrong. If anyone did anything wrong the husband did, yet she was the one who was punished. That seems really sexist to me.

I think there was some mutual attraction. She wasn't getting any, and she was attractive. He was also attracted, the wife saw this, and insisted that he put an end to it. I think as long as her career was not harmed in any way by the action, then all parties acted appropriately. Nelson needs to make amends with her husband, if anything.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2012 7:52:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/24/2012 7:02:55 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 12/24/2012 6:35:18 AM, wrichcirw wrote:


lol his job performance. It had nothing to do with that. As one of the comments points out: "The text messeges she sent were platonic, and nothing inappropriate. His wife flipped out when she found the messages and their pastor agreed he should fire the girl that had done nothing wrong. Welcome to "right to work" states. You can be fired for any reason, or no reason, at any time."

Again, I disagree, see above comment.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2012 8:21:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
From a professional stand point, this is ridiculous. Girl can't help it if she fine. But from a husbands stand point....idk man. I mean he should definitely be able to control himself. But if he finds her that atttractive her simply being there may have an affect on how he sees his wife. So I can kinda understand. Lucky my wife is hotter than all of everybody everwhere. So I dont have to worry about that.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2012 8:45:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/24/2012 8:21:51 AM, Df0512 wrote:
From a professional stand point, this is ridiculous. Girl can't help it if she fine. But from a husbands stand point....idk man. I mean he should definitely be able to control himself. But if he finds her that atttractive her simply being there may have an affect on how he sees his wife. So I can kinda understand. Lucky my wife is hotter than all of everybody everwhere. So I dont have to worry about that.

lol, best answer yet :D
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
RationalMadman
Posts: 354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2012 8:58:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 6:32:35 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

Ok, so for today's news of absurdity, a coworker in a dentist's office got fired because her boss thought she was a threat to his marriage. The woman never made any advances, and never flirted. She worked at the office for 10 years, and her boss, upon firing her, said that "she was the best dental assistant he ever had."

One hint he gave her several months beforehand was that "if she saw his pants bulging, she would know her clothing was too revealing."

The Iowa Supreme Court (all 7 justices are men) upheld the ruling.

Your thoughts?

Threesome... solves everything.
The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

We didn't fight our way to the top of the food chain to be f***ng vegetarians.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2012 11:11:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 4:58:58 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 12/23/2012 2:23:05 AM, OberHerr wrote:
I think its a stupid reason, unless it REALLY was affecting him during the job, which I doubt.

However, he is the boss. He can fire whoever he wants, for whatever reason.

That sounds good until you realise that there is systematic discrimination against sections of society that result in sexist, racist and other ingrained inequalities of opportunity because of the aggregate of retarded individual decisions like this.

So we can regulate discrimination out of existence?? I doubt it. Bottom line is that an employer, especially a privately owned business, should be able to do what he/she wants with his/her investment. If someone wants to hire all white hetero males, and risk losing the business of people in other demographic groups then that should be his right. Telling him who he has to employ should be considered an encroachment on his property rights, and I see no difference between that, and morals legislation.