D&D and the rising pandemic

[Ryujin]

In America isn't it easier to fire people eg if your boss doesn't like the colour of your shoelaces?

It varies, State to State. In "Right to Work" States you can fire people for nothing at all. In other words you can pretty much fire someone for anything, as long as you aren't obvious about it being an explicitly disallowed reason. At least that's how I view it from the outside, looking in.

 

[Umbran]

In America isn't it easier to fire people eg if your boss doesn't like the colour of your shoelaces?

That depends on where you are, and what your contractual relationship with the employer is like.

Here they can ask to see your ACC history which documents your injuries basically since your were born. I applied for a job and it had a fractured finger from 1992 high school on it.

You don't have to provide it but they don't have to hire you either.

In the US, the Americans with Disabilities Act (a.k.a. the ADA) places strict limitations on what an employer can ask. In general, they can ask if you are able to complete job-relevant tasks, like, "Can you regularly lift loads of 50 pounds?" if they expect you to be working in a warehouse. But they do not get to see general lists of medical records.

Note that in the US, there is no such thing as centralized medical data, no one master list of your medical history that anyone can refer to. Your information is scattered among the various medical facilities you may have visited in your life, and the various insurance companies you have used.

 

[Umbran]

It varies, State to State. In "Right to Work" States ...

I think you mean "Employment at will". We should note that "Employment at will" is a sort of default state - in any such state, you may still have a contract (especially in a union shop) that requires giving cause for dismissal.

"Right to work," in the US is a doctrine that a worker's union cannot place employment restrictions on non-union employees - most commonly, they cannot require non-union employees pay fees to the union, even if the non-union employee benefits from the collective bargaining of the union.

 

[Ryujin]

I think you mean "Employment at will". We should note that "Employment at will" is a sort of default state - in any such state, you may still have a contract (especially in a union shop) that requires giving cause for dismissal.

"Right to work," in the US is a doctrine that a worker's union cannot place employment restrictions on non-union employees - most commonly, they cannot require non-union employees pay fees to the union, even if the non-union employee benefits from the collective bargaining of the union.

I keep hearing the terms "At Will Employment" and "Right to Work" used essentially interchangeably. I don't know if that's legally or doctrinally correct. I do know that it should more appropriately be called something like "Right to Fire", because that's essentially what it is. It's not like a worker has ever been required to give a legal reason to quit their job.

 

[Umbran]

I keep hearing the terms "At Will Employment" and "Right to Work" used essentially interchangeably.

Yeah, well, people get sloppy. In the broader world, "Right to work" is a more positive thing about human rights. Folks have a right to make a living, basically. Unfortunately in the US, the term got co-opted in the power struggles between employers and unions. Further than that, and the discussion probably gets political, and union history isn't what the thread's about.

I don't know if that's legally or doctrinally correct. I do know that it should more appropriately be called something like "Right to Fire", because that's essentially what it is. It's not like a worker has ever been required to give a legal reason to quit their job.

While in current practice, it comes out a lot like "right to fire", in historical context we should not underestimate the ability of a wealthy employer to find a way to bludgeon employees if allowed to do so. If you do not establish that a worker does actually have a right to leave a job, then employees who try to go to, say, a competitor, could be legally harassed.

 

[Garthanos]

In America isn't it easier to fire people eg if your boss doesn't like the colour of your shoelaces?

Or they think your toes are too long.... by and large in most states the idea of workers being protected seems mostly myth.

 

[Zardnaar]

Or they think your toes are too long.... by and large in most states the idea of workers being protected seems mostly myth.

Ah a lot harder to fire someone here. There's a disputes tribunal that sides with the employee around 70% of the time.

You can't get fired on the spot at least without the risk of having to pay out.

If a boss cares about mandatory vaccinations they can add it to the health and safety guidelines or the government can mandate it for certain professions or public sector type jobs.

US presidents more powerful internationally at least from government pov not military, Primeministers seem to have more power internally if they can convince their party to go along with it.

 

[Hussar]

Well that’s part and parcel of the parliamentary system and how strong party whips are. In Canada we basically elect four year dictatorships.

 

[Zardnaar]

Well that’s part and parcel of the parliamentary system and how strong party whips are. In Canada we basically elect four year dictatorships.

They used emergency laws here from the 1950's and rushed some laws through.

PMs also done some thing that haven't been done since 1938.

People kinda forget that when push comes to shove.....

 

[Hussar]

Emergency powers acts can’t permanently alter constitutions.