Does an employer have the right to fire an employee who lied on their application?

[cherokeeprogressive]

Plain and simple. If you lie on an employment application, and get the job, does your employer have the right to fire you when they find out you told a lie in order to get the job?

[William Z. Foster]

1. no

The employer has far more control over the employee than the other way around, and the employee is far more vulnerable and at risk. Employees bare expected to give their entire lives to the employer, while the less the employer gives back to the employee the more successful they are and the more clever they are seen to be.

Our lives are worth more than the boss's profits - to ourselves, to each other, to society. The boss needs us far more than we need the boss.

The employer should have to qualify themselves to the potential employee, should be the one filling out the application, submitting to the interview, and passing the piss test.

Here is a poll question for you - if an employer lies to the employee about the job, should the employee get the business? Should the boss be fired, and the workers take over? I would vote "yes."

[cherokeeprogressive]

4. If that were the case, I would own the US Navy. n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

30. LOL! They told me I'd be driving a Corvette in 3 years.

Turned out all I could afford on my enlisted salary was a broken down Chrysler LeBaron.

[cherokeeprogressive]

34. Ha. I cut a 92 on the ASVAB. My recruiter told me the Navy was my oyster...

I wanted to go to ATC school, and he promised me I could. But... I had a ticket for MJ possession and a couple of Failures to Appear... so, he said... go to bootcamp, keep your nose clean, and tell the detailer at the other end that you want to go to Air Traffic Control school. Done Deal!

After bootcamp, I sat in front of the detailer, who laughed, and sent me to the fleet as a non-rate. By hook, and by crook, I wound up getting out 8 1/2 years later as an AMS1. I would have stayed, but ACL reconstructive surgery rendered me "not fit for duty".

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

184. Does the navy still have Corvettes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corvette

However, the thrill of driving one probably fades quickly in cold rainy windy weather.

[XemaSab]

129. .

:rofl:

[ArcticFox]

15. I wish it were fair, but it's not

An employer has the right to fire an employee for pretty much anything. It sucks to work for somebody. We're all screwed by the system. They get rich, we slave our lives away and die with nothing.

[William Z. Foster]

31. different question

Does an employer have the power to fire people as they so choose? Yes.

The question was whether they had the right to. No.

[kestrel91316]

32. I'm an employer and I'M not getting rich, lol. My employees take home about

as much as I do (which isn't much).

[ProudDad]

112. ...

:nopity:

[liberalhistorian]

36. That has nothing to do with the question. Regardless of

how "evil" many employers may be, you do not have the right to lie on or fudge an application and they are well within their rights to can you for it. Honesty is a two-way street in employment.

[MattBaggins]

53. Honesty is in no way shape or form a two way street

The employer can lie cheat and steal til the cows come home.

[liberalhistorian]

77. True enough. But what I'm saying is that employees

and prospective/potential employees have as much of an obligation to be honest as do employers. Two wrongs do not make a right.

[William Z. Foster]

134. obviously not true

The burden on employees is vastly greater than that on employers, and they are at vastly greater risk.

If it is all equal, then when an employer lies the employee should be able to terminate the boss's livelihood, then - take away the boss's business.

[LooseWilly]

153. I subscribe to the inverse of your point- an employer is likely to lie, so why not lie back.

Do unto them as they would do unto you... which I see as a logical outgrowth of your phrase "employees have as much of an obligation to be honest as do employers," the difference being that I don't know if I can recall a single employer who hasn't lied to me... and as a result I see no sign of the mythical "obligation" that you mention.

There are no obligations of honesty in the relationship, and anyone who thinks that there are is a fool.

Two wrongs do actually make a right... just as two negatives make a positive (-1 * -6 = 6).

[Pisces]

196. There is also no obligation to keep that employee if they are found out to be liars.

[William Z. Foster]

207. well, then...

There is no social obligation to allow a corporation to continue to do business once the executives have lied. Would you then support closing virtually all corporations down? As it is we reward them with massive bail outs.

[Pisces]

249. You are at liberty to not shop or use these corporations. Your argument is a loop and

a ridiculous one at that. Anarchy is your weapon of choice obviously.

[William Z. Foster]

252. you ignore the power imbalance, and so are promoting injustice and inequality

You see the worker's freedom to quit as equal to the boss's freedom to fire them; the consumer's freedom to reject substandard or misrepresented products as equal to the boss's freedom to flood the market with those substandard or misrepresented products.

There could be no more powerful argument made against equality and justice and workers rights. By pretending the inequality is not there, the injustice is perpetuated. That is the main way it is perpetuated, the most effective way to promote injustice.

[defendandprotect]

256. This isn't "two wrongs" . . . company is much more powerful than individual emplyee . . .

They set the rules -- medical benefits -- and every other benefit --

holding the employee accountable doesn't mean that the employer can be held

accountable -- and right there you have an actual "two wrongs."

[William Z. Foster]

135. correct

Only those deeply antagonistic to the working class could dispute or fail to account for that obvious fact.

[Abq_Sarah]

149. Rich?

I wish. I earned less than my lowest paid full time employee last year. And, I assumed all the risk, all the liability and worked more than twice the hours.

I invite all of you to try it yourselves.

[LooseWilly]

154. JCrew- is that you?

I just love your flip-flops... just out of curiosity, have you heard of this new trick that GM is perfecting- cutting wages to employees and making them work longer hours in order to increase profits... it's pretty nifty.

[Abq_Sarah]

155. Would you be willing

To work over 80 hours per week and be held financially liable for the actions of your employees for 24K a year?

Would you?

[William Z. Foster]

157. most of my life

That is what I have done most of my life.

Next question.

[Abq_Sarah]

171. Oh really?

You said: Employees bare expected to give their entire lives to the employer, while the less the employer gives back to the employee the more successful they are and the more clever they are seen to be.

Our lives are worth more than the boss's profits - to ourselves, to each other, to society. The boss needs us far more than we need the boss.

It doesn't sound as if you've spent most of your life running a small business.

[William Z. Foster]

195. why?

Wrong attitude?

I would guess that you are conflicted about all of this yourself. I originally wrote "their lives are worth more than the boss's profits" and the thought about that and changed "their" to "our." Know why? Because "boss" is all a con game. You are only "boss" when compared to someone else, and the basis for that is not socially justifiable. None of us are, or ever will be the real bosses.

Yes, I have spent most of my life as a boss or as an agent of the boss, and was "successful" by the usual agreed upon standards. I refuse to do it any more.

I think "boss" is mostly an attitude, and that is what you are actually paid for. There are all sorts of illusions about this involving notions of competence, talent, dedication, achievement, etc. It is all a big lie. Sooner or later there will be a terrible conflict between maximizing profits and human needs. It is inevitable. Then we make up excuses and justifications, and seek out people who will reinforce those for us. "That asshole deserved to be fired! You have to make hard choices! This is reality." blah blah blah Aren't we all a bunch of winners, realists, tough and hard nosed.

[LooseWilly]

167. Why would I do that when I can file for an LLC?

Then I'm not liable for shit. The company is liable. It's called a Limited Liability Corporation for a reason... Maybe you should check into those legal services that charge $30 a month and will then draw up routine contracts for you... or maybe pull a couple of all nighters to pore over the paperwork yourself.

Just because you aren't taking advantage of the latest in legal chicanery that Congress has provided- just for the likes of you, doesn't make your assertion of your "right" to punish workers for lies on an application any more valid. As I said downthread... if the employee can do the job, who cares about the application. If the employee can't do the job... again, who cares about the application? And frankly, if you can't even be bothered to figure out the LLC paperwork when you're so worried about your liabilities... then I'm not sure that you are qualified to judge whether or not a lie an employee makes on an application is relevant or not.

Not to say you don't have the power to make the decision... but having the power to do something doesn't necessarily make one qualified to do it- witness GWB.

Would you want someone unqualified for the task making decisions about potentialities regarding your work performance based upon extrapolations that they have shown no qualification to make accurately?

Would you?

[Abq_Sarah]

169. Uh...

You didn't answer my question. :)

[LooseWilly]

175. Actually, I did.

"Why would I do that when I can..." is generally interpreted as a "no."

The answer is no... I will not work 80 hour weeks for $24k, whether I have employees or not. In fact, I think I could make $24k working 40 hour weeks at Borders with a side job delivering newspapers for an hour in the morning.

The gist of my answer was that you should fire yourself, and get a job greeting customers at Wal Mart. I suggest adopting the greeting from "Idiocracy": "Hello, welcome to Wal Mart, I love you." It would brighten your day and, hopefully, scare the Wal Mart customers into going somewhere else... maybe creating a greater customer base for a "small business owner" making $27k working only 72 hours a week... a worthwhile contribution to society.

I have worked as a manager, and I have worried about the idiots that I was managing... and it turned out that the company I worked for really didn't give a shit about me or my managees... there were other arms of the business that were more lucrative. Guess what, your 80 hour, $24k job/business/whatever it is exactly... really isn't all that important in the grand scheme of things. Your clinging to the "right" to fire people over something on their application... is really just petty. If you don't trust them, then be honest and fire them for that... but some hard and rigid rule about application-honesty is just anal retentive bullshit... I mean, are you going to fire them for misspelling the name of their high school? Why do you even give a shit what high school they went to? Can you not tell a high school drop-out at an interview? Is it even relevant to your relatively unprofitable business?...

[William Z. Foster]

197. how foolish

Anyone working 80 hours a week must love it - otherwise why complain, which you are doing here - or is a fool. No one should be willing to do that. Why are you? Crazy.

One would think that you are the aggrieved party and powerless person and that the employees had all of the power. You know that is a lie. Not that your life is a bed of roses. But that is because you too are caught up in and victimized by this hideous set of social conventions and arrangements.

[Abq_Sarah]

220. yeah, I'm a fool

I work my ass off to keep the business going during a shitty economy so my employees have a job while being excoriated for being an evil business owner who lives to exploit her employees.

How many jobs have you created in the last year?

[William Z. Foster]

228. ah, Reaganomics

You just promoted a key component of the Reaganomics doctrine.

[Abq_Sarah]

258. Do you have any idea how many democrats

Are business owners?

And for the record, you are delusional if you believe a small business owner trying to stay afloat in a shitty economy is a key component of "reagonomics".

[William Z. Foster]

262. yes

Yes. I am aware of that.

"A small business owner trying to stay afloat in a shitty economy" is not Reaganomics, and I didn't say that it was. Seeing bosses as the source of jobs, rather than workers as the source of bosses is Reaganomics. The idea there is that without bosses few would be engaged in productive work, and that if we help the bosses it will trickle down to the workers.

You might be on a treadmill to nowhere. I well know that your life may be more miserable than that of any employees. You may want to ask yourself if it is worth it, and reflect on what it is doing to you. You have all of the disadvantages of a corporate CEO, more probably, and none of the perks. That illusion of the big success, of triumph and vindication, that seems to be right over the horizon can be seductive.

[seabeyond]

29. a truly ridiculous post. i have as much of an issue as anyone with the lack of

living wage and corps sending jobs over seas and not paying taxes. but your post ludicrous.

[William Z. Foster]

33. yes

I am now "post-ludicrous" and moving into very serious territory.

Read the question again.

Do people not understand the word "right?" When it comes to working class people they use it as though it meant "permission." When it comes to the wealthy and powerful they use it as though it meant "power."

When we have "rights" it means we have permission. When the wealthy have "rights" it means they have the power to enforce their will.

Strange concept of "rights" and an obvious double standard.

[seabeyond]

49. only if that is how you want to create it for yourself. nt

[William Z. Foster]

108. sure

Just as you are creating for yourself to suit your needs.

[KittyWampus]

50. actually, in a political context "rights" means guaranteed by Constitutional Law.

but you keep on jabbering.

[William Z. Foster]

107. that doesn't tell us much

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

[slackmaster]

57. True rights require no granting of permission, because rights are inherent to the human condition

Something that you need permission for is a privilege.

[William Z. Foster]

106. yep

That is my understanding.

[Abq_Sarah]

147. Crap

I have never expected an employee to "give" any more than a fair days work for a fair days pay.

[LooseWilly]

176. A general statement about employers isn't necessarily a personal accusation.

Likewise, just because you don't mistreat your employees (or perhaps just don't mistreat them anymore, as is the case with my father-in-law)... is not evidence to show that all employers are upfront and forthright with their employees.

This thread, and the statements in it, by and large, are not a personal accusation directed at you.

Many employers, unlike yourself, regularly expect employees to "give" more than a fair days work, and often for considerably less than a fair day's pay. To deny that would be absurd, don't you think?

[Freddie Stubbs]

212. No, but the employee should be allowed to quit

[Hempathy]

318. wow. Are you ever in for a surprise, should you ever actually join the real world work force.

Good luck with that. :hi:

[Hempathy]

326. WHAT an ignorant "poll question".

"if an employer lies to the employee about the job, should the employee get the business?"

ummm...NO.

DUH.

BUT- the employee SHOULD have the right to QUIT their job if their employer lies to them about the job.

[dionysus]

337. you really have a habit of taking absurd stances...

:rofl:

[valerief]

2. It's my understanding that an employer can fire you for any reason or no reason. nt

[NNN0LHI]

5. Without union representation that is a fact

[valerief]

8. Oh, yes, unions can protect your employment. I remember when the US had unions. nt

[NNN0LHI]

17. I can remember when Americans would go out of their way to purchase union made products

Now they go out of their way to purchase scab built products.

And then when all the union jobs are moved overseas they are like, "Where did all the good jobs go?"

I watched it happen.

Don

[demosincebirth]

39. So true. check the car next to you on the freeway. But...but...they're made

better. False! Toyota, anyone?

[awoke_in_2003]

226. I am an equal opportunity buyer...

I drive a Ford, wife drives GM :)

[lonestarnot]

281. Not the entire set of facts. Can do the above, but not for an unlawful reason.

:P And I'm no lawyer. ;)

[Junkie Brewster]

28. Actually, it depends on the reason and the state

Most states are considered "right to work" states, and you can be fired for little or no reason. But there are some things you just can't fire someone for. Generally speaking you can't fire someone due to their religion, gender, race, national origin, veteran status, or disability (assuming you can provide a reasonable accommodation). Some states offer protection for "sexual preference" as well.

[William Z. Foster]

35. that is power, not a right

Do employers have the power to fire people? Yes.

That does not make it a right.

[Art_from_Ark]

142. "Right to work" sounds more like

"Right to fire"

[blindpig]

186. In this 'right to work' state...

a worker can be fired for even the loosest talk of union organization.

Some right.

[Art_from_Ark]

192. Tell me about it

I worked at an establishment in Arkansas where they did fire some guy for mentioning unions. Of course, they made up some bullshit excuse, but it was pretty obvious why the guy got canned.

[bobbolink]

202. In "BRIGHT-SIDED", by Barbara Ehrenreich, she talks about employees being fired

for being "too negative", or "not positive enough".

:crazy:

[npk]

248. A "right to work state" means you have a right to employment

It means that a Union can't stop you from working in a particular industry.. it has nothing to do with "rights" as in protection from being fired or anything like that. Right to Work just means that if I want to go an work as line man for a power utility the union can't stop me from being hired or prevent me from working or force me to pay union dues. Unlike in California, for example, if I wanted to join a film company as a director, the union would stop me from being hired, because the film industry unions have complete control over who gets jobs on a production and who doesn't. That is what right to work means.

[blindpig]

260. So, you don't think much of union solidarity, huh?

That's quite the company man line, scab.

[William Z. Foster]

279. yes

There it is. What was once seen by all as an extreme right wing position is now promoted by people calling themselves Democrats.

Amazing.

[Touchdown]

286. It's what it means on paper.

It's real reason for being is to break unions, take away the counter force of employer power, and depress wages as well as worker protections/benefits. It does all of those very nicely, as you see how much closer to wage slavery the southern states are to the northern ones.

[demosincebirth]

37. except for racial or religious reasons, etc, etc

[Wizard777]

70. How will you know that when the employer doesn't have to give a reason?

[demosincebirth]

84. Its just a matter of proving it. Sometimes its pretty obvious...other times its not.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. I'd say yes.

Because if you can't trust that person when they're trying to get the job, then how can you trust them once they're on the job?

They must be trustworthy from the word go.


Did this happen to someone you know?

:shrug:

[cherokeeprogressive]

7. No Peg it didn't happen to anyone I know but I very much appreciate your input.

And may I say before I go on that although I didn't have the time to post on your thread about being OK, that I'm happy to the bottom of my heart that you are? I am.

The question refers to a woman employed at a Catholic school who was fired after being found to be an atheist.

I purposefully left religion out of the poll because it's merely a question of honesty on an employment application when religion is not considered, which is as it should be. I'm SURE that somewhere on the application, a question of faith or belief in God was asked. I'm also sure that if she had answered truthfully, she would never have been employed as a teacher of Catholic students.

I LOVE that you're OK!!!

[Donnachaidh]

12. in that situation -- hell no.

Isn't it against the law to ask what an employee's religion is?

[cherokeeprogressive]

20. I don't think so, although now I can't say that with any conviction. There's a Christian camp in my

town who was seeking a receptionist, and their employment application included a two page questionaire about faith and belief in God. They might be in violation of the law for all I know after reading some of the responses to other threads.

[ms liberty]

54. It is illegal to ask about a person's religious beliefs on an employment application...

or in an interview. If it is a company that is open 7 days a week, a common question on the application or in an interview would be "are you available to work nights and/or weekends"; if the person was not available on a weekend for any reason, even due to their religious practices, the company can choose to not hire that person. If the person lied and was hired, and then was unable to work every Saturday or Sunday because of church, the person could probably be fired and they might well be denied unemployment compensation.
In your example of a Christian camp, I think that a religious organization can require the person they hire to be a member of their religion or church, and they may be able to include a questionnaire about faith and belief; it used to be that if it was a position in a part of the organization that received public funding they could not follow that requirement IIRC, but I'm thinking there was a case in the last few years about that very question. I cannot remember what the outcome was on the case but I remember that this subject was much discussed at the time.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

13. Thank you for your good thoughts about my health!

I appreciate it a lot...

And I heard about that woman. There's no way her religion should be part of the questions asked, by anyone. Church or otherwise.

I LOVE that I'm OK too, sweetie!

[cherokeeprogressive]

25. Oh Peg, you're a wonderful person, so much as I can tell by what I know about you from your posts...

Would that the world were filled with people like you, Muffin... it would be a much nicer place.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

45. Thanks, sweetie...

You ever get out this way, you let me know, OK?

And someone's been reading my profile...

:hug:

[KamaAina]

89. Oh! That changes everything!

Religion, like race, gender, disability, etc. is a protected category because people of faith wanted it that way. That is, the school had no right to ask that in the first place. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, they're crying foul. Too bad, so sad.

[alphafemale]

116. It's a religion thing and a private school so...a reluctant yes. They have that right.

Just as a Pagan/Wiccan school (If such a thing exists) would have a right to not have a Fundie be the educator of their children.

[William Z. Foster]

10. is that a one way street?

I would say that far more damage is done by untrustworthy employers.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

14. I really don't know the answer to that.

I didn't have very many jobs, and my knowledge of these matters is minimal, at best.

[Touchdown]

48. I'm not arguing that with you! I know he can get the job. Can he do the job?

[Gormy Cuss]

193. There are lies and there are lies.

Making up a professional degree or accreditation -- that would be a serious issue if the job skills required either.

Fudging the tenure at a previous job to hide a spell of unemployment? Not so much, because every single job hunting guide will tell you that gaps in employment inhibit your chances at getting a job. It'd be better to be honest about it but if you've been rejected repeatedly it's tempting to smooth out that little bump and you're causing no harm to the employer, yet it is a lie.

[AngryOldDem]

328. I have to agree with you...

...and let me add that I, too, am glad you're okay.

[depakid]

6. Circumstances can change

I might hold a belief one day and then down the track find some information or have some "epiphany" that makes me change my mind.

[Shadow Creature]

19. just not too often

If that happens everyday you'd just be a leaf floating in the wind

[depakid]

26. Actually I've known quite a few Catholics who've abandoned church beliefs

and some do spend a lot of time "floating in the wind like a leaf."

[Shadow Creature]

27. lol

That could sound fun but I get the sound of the tornado from Wizard of Oz in my head and the image of someone running in circles desperately trying to find something to believe in.

[Donnachaidh]

9. unless it's for a shitload of money, why would you want a job you had to lie to get?

Maybe I'm paranoid, but if the lie was about your experience (which you lacked, for instance) I think eventually you'd get tripped up. Now a job as a CEO where you can direct everyone else to do your job for you, with tons of salary -- I might think about it.

[gmoney]

115. Well, if it's the difference between a job and having no job

I'm sure plenty of people will bend the truth... "French? Sure, i speak French. Had two semesters of it 15 years ago..."

Or if you're running for office "When I served in Vietnam..."

[Recovered Repug]

240. Maybe you're running for congress? nt.

[undeterred]

11. They can fire you if they don't like your blue shoes

or the way you combed your hair last wednesday.

[Digit]

40. And THAT is what is so horribly unfair about the current system

Because employers then ask if you have ever been terminated from a job and can't believe it is for some bullshit reason.
On applications, I answer NO to the termination questions because it was not for being late, missing work, stealing or any other normally justifiable reason.
If my boss wants to hire his niece for my position and I get terminated, why in the hell should I be blacklisted?
Then there are the bosses who manufacture excuses in the attempt to get out of paying unemployment.
I went through THAT, challenged it, and won.

[Arkansas Granny]

16. Yes, the employer has the right to fire an employee who lied on their application.

Most application forms that I am familiar with include some sort of statement that shows that by signing the form, you attest to the information given as being truthful. Lying on an job application is never a good idea.

[Bluebear]

18. Is this about the atheist teacher that was fired by chance?

[cherokeeprogressive]

23. Yes, but now the point is completely moot. It seems as though the application she filled out

never mentioned religion at all.

Do you like eggs? Seems as though I've got some all over my face and I don't know what to do with them...

[Bluebear]

24. I can whip up a little souffle

:hi:

[hyphenate]

44. I worked for a company

that was owned by a major corporation, which had holdings almost everywhere in the world. It had started out as a small, garage-workshop type of company, but when it produced a product that was quite lucrative, the corp. gobbled it up. I went in from a temp agency, so other than my skills, they had no other knowledge of my background, etc. I am mostly atheist.

The company, as it turned out, was like a major walk through the Crystal Cathedral. The HR employee liaison, the entire group that I worked for, and almost all the major bosses knelt before the shrine of Xtianity. There were charities to donate to, Christmas programs, collections, etc. I kept my beliefs to myself for the year and a half I was there.

The reason I was let go? I asked for a 50 cent raise. Yep. The week after I asked, I was told my services would no longer be necessary. Call me an idiot, but I think something is rotting in New Brunswick, New Jersey.

[yodoobo]

109. perhaps, but there is FAR more to the employment process

than the application.

I don't think I've ever been hired on the basis on an application alone.

Virtually every job has followup pre-employment interviews and the ubiquitous "employee handbook" that you have to sign receipt of.

[jp11]

21. Yes, I think every application I've ever filled out had something to the effect of 'I hereby state

that the information on the above/form is correct etc" and you have to sign and date it. Lying on that application and signing it isn't a mistake, it is a decision you make, even if you didn't sign that you still put false information on it and therefore cannot be trusted which for an employer is a good enough reason to fire you.

Are all lies you might put on an employment application equal, not at all but a lie is still a lie, if you don't want to get called on it don't lie.

[blindpig]

190. Why not put the shoe on the other foot?

Why shouldn't the employer have to specifically state his/her record of employee relations, firings, denial of worker's comp, work place harassment? Why not?

It comes down to the superiority of labor over capital. Labor doesn't need capital but capital needs labor. Therefore a bunch of laws are created by the capitalist dominated government to create an artificial power relationship, in order that labor be shorn of it's power while capital has god-like power over the masses.

Why, anything else would be anarchy.........

[William Z. Foster]

276. let's apply that to Whole Foods

The average worker is at far greater risk from the boss than the boss is from the worker. If anyone should be given tests and fill out applications and be held on a short leash, it is the boss not the worker. Would we muzzle house cats and allow packs of rabid wild dogs to roam at will in a town?

Let's have the boss fill out an application about their track record and see if they tell the truth. In the case of Whole Foods - but pone typical example of thousands of bosses - they would have to lie their asses off or else they would have a very difficult time getting any workers or customers. In their advertising, their employee orientation, their press releases and everywhere else they have chosen to lie, lie, lie to mislead and exploit both workers and consumers.

Why do not we have the "right" to deprive them of their livelihood?

[onehandle]

22. What about on their resume? I've received a Lot of resumes that were 75% total bullshit.

Makes me wonder about my 100% true resume.

Am I being a sucker?

[Cleita]

38. Probably, however, a better question would be what questions employers

have no right to ask on an application. I have lied to questions that I felt were intrusive and none of their business to protect my privacy and I believe I was morally right to do so.

[hyphenate]

41. Happens all the time

All those would be college kids who say they completed their degree, or got a 3.75 grade average when they really were in the dungeon when it came to grades, or even to those who got into higher echelon colleges on legacies, but claim they got in for merit.

[JVS]

42. Omission or commission?

[southerncrone]

43. Called misrepresentation, a form of fraud.

[Touchdown]

46. What kind of lie are you talking about? That they are HIV+?

... or that they have a family history in the mob? Or that their mother is a lesbian? That they have credit card debt? That they like to be spanked in a dungeon? That they read The Nation?

Or... That they have experience inn the job you offered them, but they didn't do it exactly the way you do, or use the exact same software, so you are seeing a learning curve in your new employee, causing your typical royalist paranoia to take over?

[William Z. Foster]

159. excellent points

People are not thinking this through, and are very quick to assume noble motives on the part of the boss, and ignoble ones on the part of the worker.

[me b zola]

47. Is this thread related to the teacher who was fired for her facebook posts?

[SoCalDem]

51. in a word... yes.. n/t

[DailyGrind51]

52. If you submitted forged credentials, diplomas, transcripts, etc.

[LeftyMom]

55. Legally it depends on whether they were allowed to ask the question in the first place.

[slackmaster]

56. Yes, and if I was an employer I'd be strongly inclined to do so

If the person lied on his or her application, what else is he or she going to lie about?

[Touchdown]

59. Yes. Human behavior must not be tolerated in the peasantry!

If you read The Nation, what other subversive, anti-American, communist, homosexual groups do you belong to?

How easy some people buy into their own submissiveness. Sad.

[slackmaster]

60. Every place I have worked for ~25 years involves handling confidential personal financial data

Things like peoples' bank accounts, credit card payment information, etc.

Would you want business to put a dishonest person in a position of responsibility for handling information about you and your family?

[Touchdown]

62. We're not talking about that, are we?

We are talking about a person who doesn't believe in God being called a liar, and automatically assumed by those in power over her livelihood that she is a habitual liar. You are siding with the powerful.

EDIT: and to answer your question, yes, they better hire her, because if she hasn't broken trust with sensitive data, then she is not guilty of doing it. In this country, that this employer chooses to do business in, she is innocent until proven guilty. "Propensity" is a convenient Capitalist excuse to oppress the peasantry.

[slackmaster]

64. I don't care what you believe inspired cherokeeprogressive to post the OP

Because he didn't explicitly put the question into the context of a specific situation, I answered the question as presented.

[Touchdown]

66. OK.

It's not about my belief. He admitted it was further down the thread.

I do not agree with you. Authority figures (employers) have too much power over people. If they lie on an application, then it was probably an answer to a question the employer should not be asking in the first place... which IMO includes "Have you ever been arrested for a crime?" That is a matter for State criminal justice, and capitalism has no business sticking it's nose into matters of the state.

[johnaries]

58. If you lied on your app, what else are you lying about?

Now, there are some grey areas. For instance, I worked with a friend whose department was sold to another company. The new company ran a security check and although she had checked "no" to the "crimainal charges" on her original app with our company, her ex-husband had performed some check fraud using her name. Charges against her were dropped, so she checked "no". However, apparently her record was not purged as she believed it to be and the new company used it as an excuse to fire her. In that case, although she "technically lied" she answered the question truthfully in spirit. That was an example of unfair firing.

[Touchdown]

188. That argument doesn't work with Christianity, it shouldn't work here.

Selling daughters into slavery? Nah, forget that one! Stoning to death gay people. That one stays!
If a guy who sets up his house in the belly of a whale is bullshit, how much else in the Bible is bullshit?

Corporations have too much power over people, and the Stockholm syndrome takes over.

[DailyGrind51]

217. That was the Republican meme with the Clinton impeachment.

It remained until Gingrich, Giulliani, McCain, et. al., admitted to infidelity.

[dems_rightnow]

61. Of course they can

Shouldn't even be subject to a poll. It's well-established that they can.

Perhaps a better poll would be "Should an employer be able"... though I expect you'd get pretty much the same results.

[PassingFair]

63. Poll question: Do people change their minds?

Do peoples' perspectives have a chance of changing over time?

Or this:

Should employers even be ABLE to ask personal questions
ie:

*What is your religion?

*What is your sexual orientation?

*Are you a racist?

[Canuckistanian]

65. That depends. There's no definite Yes or NO for every situation

Yes, the employer is allowed to fire you if you lied about experience or job skills, something that is directly relaled to your job performance.

However, if, in the case of the math teacher at the Catholic school she lied about her OPINION of something, like her faith, then no. In that case, the school had no business firing her because she did NOT lie about her ability to do the job.

But if you work for a religious institution, expect to judged DAILY on your "morals", not just your skills and aptitude.

[old mark]

67. If you don't have a contract employers have the right to do nearly anything they want. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

68. If they did, congress and the rest of the governement would be unemployed..

Speaking of fluffing of resumes.


“Now, the man on the stand he wants my vote,
He's a-runnin' for office on the ballot note.
He's out there preachin' in front of the steeple,
Tellin' me he loves all kinds-a people.
(He's eatin' bagels
He's eatin' pizza
He's eatin' chitlins
He's eatin' bullshit!)”

Bob Dylan

[CTyankee]

69. It depends. If you say you have a degree and don't or if you say you have had

experience in the job's requirements and hadn't, that would be grounds to fire you, IMHO.

Kinda stupid to lie about something that can be easily checked out...but I guess there are some people who think they can get away with it...

[William Z. Foster]

284. but....

The employer saying that a degree is necessary to do the job is more often than not a lie. Kinda stupid of them to lie about something that is so easily checked out....oh, wait, the boss can lie with impunity.

[SidDithers]

71. Absolutely...nt

Sid

[Blue-Jay]

72. Of course they do.

[Fast Dude]

73. Lie to me on your application, not only will I fire you...

I will fire you with a smile. I have no use nor respect for liars and thieves.

No wonder I hate 99.99% of politicians.

[Enrique]

74. if it's the real reason

if they're trying to get rid of you for some illegal reason, and they go looking for some lie on the application as an excuse, then no they can't.

[WillowTree]

75. Does an employee have the right to quit an employer who lied to him/her?

I'm just sayin'.

[William Z. Foster]

289. not equal

Clearly the two are not equal, as you imply.

So the boss has the right to terminate the workers' employment, and the worker has the right to terminate their own employment, so all is fair and equal?

[WillowTree]

76. Does an employee have the right to quit an employer who lied to him/her?

[William Z. Foster]

78. interesting

Interesting how so many here immediately and automatically take the boss's side, rather than the employee's.

[taterguy]

79. People don't like liars

:shrug:

[William Z. Foster]

80. right

Some people do not like working class people who lie. Maybe we should just say "some people here do not like working class people."

You just proved my point.

[taterguy]

82. The poll doesn't say anything about working class

Honestly, the type of job is irrelevant to me.

I don't know how you could possibly interpret that as hostility towards the working class.

[William Z. Foster]

85. yep

The working class may as well be invisible and not exist.

Do you think working class is a matter of the type of job you have?

[taterguy]

86. It's like porn. I know it when I see it

We all "work" for somebody.

But some are more working class than others.

Honestly, I don't know where to draw the line.

[William Z. Foster]

257. yes it does

Employee = working class, by definition.

Ignorance of the working class, and not knowing what it means is maybe the ultimate form of hostility.

It has nothing to do with the "type of job" nor with what is or is not relevant to you.

White collar people have been led to believe that their perks and status, granted them by the ruling class, elevate them, remove them from the working class. This part of a process to make them into shills for the ruling class and to get them to turn their backs on their fellow working class people.

What is it that elevates educated people to this position? Verbal skills. Were those verbal skills being used on behalf of their own class, the working class, the political situation would be transformed and the rulers would be in trouble. But we are punished if we speak for the working class, and are rewarded to the degree and so long as we shill for the ruling class. That explains most of the "opinions" we see expressed right here. Are we to believe that it is a coincidence that so many of those opinions just happen to be such effective at promoting the ruling class agenda? Is it a coincidence that so many of those opinions just happen to blame the common people for ye political and social problems?

[dems_rightnow]

88. The question, as asked....

.... didn't ask for opinions. It asked whether employers "have the right". It's not even a debatable point whether they have the right.

[William Z. Foster]

92. correct

And the answer is clearly "no." No one has the right to deprive another person of their livelihood.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

178. !?! So your argument is that an employer *never* has the right to fire someone?

Wow.

[William Z. Foster]

223. yes, never

A right to put someone out of a livelihood? I can't believe that anyone would support that idea. But I shouldn't be surprised, I guess, that people do. That explains a lot about what is going on in the country, about what people are willing to accept and will support.

Now, had the question been "should the boss have the power to fire someone" I would answer "no - not without safeguards to protect the worker."

The position I am taking is not very radical at all - it is a pretty standard pro-Labor and traditional Democratic party position. And we wonder why the Democratic party keeps moving to the right. Now we know. There is more distance between the two positions being expressed here on this thread then there is between the two political parties.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

246. LOL no...Roosevelt fired people. I guess he wasn't a Democrat, huh?

The Democratic Party had never endorsed the idea that people who owned their own business were obligated to keep bad employees. Never.

[William Z. Foster]

253. such nonsense

Let's try again.

The position of organized Labor and the traditional position of the party has been to acknowledge the inequality between workers and bosses, and to level the playing field wherever possible.

If FDR endorsed the idea that bosses had rights that workers did not, then to the degree he did he would not have been much of a Democrat. But he did not endorse any such idea.

You sure you want to use FDR a an example on this? He was probably the strongest national Democrat on this issue.

Letting people go from high level government positions is hardly analogous to bosses arbitrarily firing employees.

[proteus_lives]

91. I hate liars.

That's the long and short of it.

[William Z. Foster]

130. what about bosses?

What is the penalty for bosses who lie to employees? Should they lose their livelihood, their business? If not, why not?

I have a lot more sympathy for a working person fudging their application in order to survive than I do with a boss who bamboozles employees to increase profits. How about you? I am certain that the latter is vastly more common, and has far worse consequences than the former.

[Starry Messenger]

140. Why can't we fire corporations?

They are responsible for far greater losses than the occasional working person.

[William Z. Foster]

158. fire?

People are arguing to put them in charge of just about everything.

[AnArmyVeteran]

81. You should be fired, ONLY if you lied more than they did...

And the possibilities of that happening are extremely slim...

[William Z. Foster]

143. well said

I randomly grabbed a company, one that many here admire, Googled them and lo and behold the bosses are just lying their asses off to deceive both workers and consumers on a massive scale - all for the sake of profiteering on an enormous scale.

I am quite certain that for every one of the 200 plus pro-management votes cast in this poll, I could find 100 examples as bad or worse.

I have the sense that people are quite motivated to vote and angry when they cast these votes, as well. And we mock the Fox news watchers for their misdirected anger?

[tammywammy]

83. Yes, on their application or on their resume

I've read multiple stories over the years of people getting fired for making up degrees they never received on their resume.

[frustrated_lefty]

87. One of the stupidest questions I have ever seen here.

Of course the employer has that right.

That's like asking if your employer promises comprehensive health benefits and then denies them when you sign on, do you have the right to quit?

[proteus_lives]

90. Yes.

I have no sympathy for liars.

If you lie and take the chance, you should face the consequences.

[William Z. Foster]

93. the more I think about this...

I oppose the entire concept of firing anyone, let alone the idea that one person has a right to fire another.

It is amazing the things we have been indoctrinated into thinking of as normal and acceptable.

[tammywammy]

94. So in your mind, no one should ever be allowed to get fired? n/t

[William Z. Foster]

95. correct

That is my position.

[tammywammy]

96. I think that's nuts

I've fired people before, they deserved it. They were either stealing or pissing off my customers where I worked (and didn't knock it off after I told them too). There's a lot of reasons someone can and should be fired, including stealing, harassment, lying, etc.

[William Z. Foster]

98. you made my case for me

In those instances where there is stealing, harassment, lying going on, can you not imagine any other approach?

Why do you get to decide who does and who does not "deserve" this, and then get to do it?

[tammywammy]

99. No, I cannot imagine another approach

When an employee is stealing they deserve to get fired. If someone is actively harassing other employees they deserve to get fired. Stealing and harassment are non-negotiable types of behavior. The reason I was the one to decide is because I was the manager running the store, and when people were hired on they accepted the types of behavior that the store deemed appropriate, and their nifty employee handbook stated they would get fired for stealing and harassment.

edited to add: If I harass people where I work now, I would deserve to get fired. I knew that when I took the job and signed paperwork to that effect.

[William Z. Foster]

100. fair enough

None of us apply much creativity to these issues. You are describing the situation as it exists accurately, I think. But what a horrible situation.

People do not get fired for stealing and harassment. They get fired because their boss accuses them of those.

"Deserve." Ugh. How awful.

[tammywammy]

101. Yes, deserves

When a salesman at my last job grabbed a woman's butt multiple times in front of other coworkers, he deserved to get fired. And it wasn't because his boss accused him, she told the boss and there was an investigation where other employees spoke up about seeing such behavior. He deserved to be fired. He should have thought about the consequences of his actions before harassing another coworker.

[William Z. Foster]

103. understood

I expected that you might come up with a particularly obvious example of particularly bad behavior. We have a person there who was depriving others of their right to a livelihood. So we are all justifiably angry about the behavior of this one person - we are all angry all of the time, it seems - and will use that to justify social arrangements and conventions that may well be part of the problem rather than the solution. For example, if women had more power and solidarity in the workplace, they would be less vulnerable to abuse. But as employees, they have no power, and you would argue that they, as employees, should not.

So let the employees discuss and vote on how to handle that. There is one example of a creative alternative.

I am not talking about who does or does not deserve this or that. I am talking about who has power, and how and why.

[Scout]

203. and when the employees decide to fire him, is it ok then?

"So let the employees discuss and vote on how to handle that. There is one example of a creative alternative."

[William Z. Foster]

206. we can't know

There may well be many alternatives to firing.

I would say that banishment from the group is perhaps the worst punishment any human being can experience.Why are we bring so quick and impatient to find ways to justify and support that, and why do we jump immediately to the most extreme response as the only option other than doing nothing? That tells us a lot about what we have become, and it is pretty ugly.

[Scout]

214. you ASSUME that we immediately jump to the extreme

firing isn't the first and only action taken.

[William Z. Foster]

216. oh

Well, tell us more then.

[Scout]

224. i guess you've never heard of progressive discipline?

you know, an informal talk, then a warning, then a written warning, then suspensions, that kind of thing.

[William Z. Foster]

229. sure

And your point? Yeah you get to see the priest, smoke a cigarette, request a blindfold.

So if you as a boss discovered a lie on an employment application you would have an informal talk, then give a warning, then give a written warning, then hand out suspensions, and that kind of thing?

[Scout]

230. the discussion was not about only the poll question ... it was about general discipline

and measures other than firing. and you know that, and are just being a jerk.


as to the poll question, depending on the nature of the lie and when it was discovered, i might or might not do some of those things listed.

you act like being fired from a job is the equivalent of being sent to prison or being executed. it's not, really.

[William Z. Foster]

231. ah, "general discipline," I see

Well, that is right. That is how people are seeing this. I object to people seeing this as a matter of "discipline." I am disturbed that so many people here automatically and unequivocally take the boss's side against the worker - and seeing this as a matter of "general discipline" - of the worker, not the boss - is taking the boss's side against the worker.

I don't care whether or not you agree with me, but I think people need to understand what it is that is being promoted - what is being said.

[DatManFromNawlins]

237. No, you're arguing to hear yourself argue

You declared that you are against the very concept of an employee being "fired," regardless of the reason for their dismissal. Then you try to play dumb little semantic games, claiming that someone is taking sides.

Here's a question for you: you are the owner of a business with 10 employees, which hires an 11th employee. This employee lies about having a skill which takes an extraordinary amount of time and dedication to master, and the business absolutely must have an employee with this skillset in order to survive. When the employee begins work, it is discovered that although the new employee in question interviewed well, this employee does not have the skill he/she claimed to have. You checked former co-worker references which gave glowing recommendations, although the company the employee claimed to have worked for would not give any information other than the period of time in which he/she worked.

There is no budget nor time to train this person to do the job they claimed they could do. Your business will die if you do not have an employee capable of doing this job within the next few months. Do you fire this employee?

Yes or no?

And please, no equivocating BS. Take everything in the question as fact. Because that sort of thing happens quite often, especially in the IT fields. And those people are always fired, and deservedly so.

[William Z. Foster]

242. you worked hard on that one

My position does not change.

"No" is my "no equivocating BS" answer.

[William Z. Foster]

247. in the IT field

I bet "that sort of thing happens quite often" there. That has me laughing my ass off.

"The skill they claimed to have." This is a joke, right?

The more absurd and unproductive and idiotic and parasitical a business is - and God if that does not cover about 90% of IT businesses I don't know what does - the more their is this search for the illusive "skills" - whatever in the Hell those are. Electron conjuring maybe.

Hey, if you ever find ONE PERSON in the IT field who has these skills - values human beings and actually can communicate with them; understands what it means to actually produce something; can see the forest for the trees; is not a pompous self-important ass - PLEASE let me know, because we could use them.

Virtually the entire IT field is a lie, in my experience. The only good ones I have worked with have, it so happens, agreed with me in that assessment. Talk about a snake oil hustling industry if ever there was one.

Pretty stupid boss that puts a new hire into a position where they could sink the business. Pretty stupid boss that thinks he can just go out and buy talent, and then blames the world when that doesn't work out, as though the world owes him a living. Pretty stupid boss that doesn't use some sort of intern program, and give people responsibilities based on what they can do and instead relies on some resume or application - and then again gets angry at the world and feels deprived when that doesn't work out so well.

Why should any of us care whether or not this boss stays in business, let alone becomes a rich person lording it over the rest of us? Why should we coddle and baby this person along, and give them all of the advantages and breaks and benefit of the doubt?

[dionysus]

338. you've been reading too much trotsky son

:eyes:

[William Z. Foster]

102. let's look at this more closely

Why does one person get to decide the fate of another?

Because they are the boss, or an agent of the boss.

How does a person become an agent of the boss?

By being willing to place the boss's desires above the needs, let alone desires, of others, including themselves,

Why is a person the boss?

Because they can control others.

How and why is that the case?

Because they control the money, and that is life and death power over others.

Are we willing to accept that who can and cannot control and dominate others should be a matter of who has the most money?

[Incitatus]

110. So what if a person shows up, sits on his ass all day and refuses to do any work?

Would it be okay to fire them then?

Your idea that employers shouldn't have the right to fire anyone is completely absurd. I find it hard to believe you are actually serious.

[William Z. Foster]

122. according to whom?

That is the issue. How about if the employees get together and decide what to do about the problem worker? If not, why not? Perhaps the person is staging a wild cat strike. Perhaps the person needs some sort of assistance.

I can't help but notice that most people here are answering this as though they were the boss rather than the employee. "How about if the miscreant does this that or the other? Can I fire them then?" No one is speaking from the point of view of the employee. No wonder many working people question whether or not we are on their side.

How about if the employees get together and decide who they want for a boss, and set strict rules as to what the boss's obligations and duties are to be? If not, why not?

[Incitatus]

138. Have you ever worked as a manager or owned your own business?

It is not the employees who get to decide how to handle the problem, because they do not own the company. The person who invested their time and money in the company does. I have been a business owner and I have worked as a manager. Firing people is not something I take lightly or enjoy doing, but sometimes it has do be done. In every case I have been involved with, the majority of the employees did understand and agree with the termination.

Who is going to start their own business if they won't be allowed to fire people they hire and their employees get to make the rules?

[William Z. Foster]

144. my whole life, yes

I have fired people. I now think that is immoral. I am certain that it is. Never again.

[LooseWilly]

160. Do people even own their own businesses anymore? How quaint.

From what I've been seeing of late, it seems like most businesses being opened now involve someone hustling up some investors to pony up some money... or hustling a bank into ponying up some money... and then a fictional entity is given that money, and that fictional entity then assumes all the risks of the business that was started with other people's money.

The myth of the "business owner" is a farce in this day and age. The business is its own person, and the dude/chick who hustled up the money then likes to assume some sort of "Holy Role as Entrepreneur" in a society in which only commerce is valued.

There may still be some stubborn baby boomers out there who started businesses with their own money, and who actually take risks with that money, and who haven't drawn up some fictitious entity to assume all the risk for them so that they won't have to worry about losing their aging ass if they face a lawsuit... but I don't for a minute buy that the number is anything but dwindling.

Some hustler who gets some money from a bank to buy up a franchise restaurant/retail store is not risking anything but his/her time and someone else's money... so can we be done with putting "small business owners" on a "pedestal" in this country as if they were some sort of antebellum southern belles?

[Scout]

204. i'm a "worker" not a boss and i turned in a co-worker for stealing time

and for buddy-fucking the rest of us when it came to the shit work.

she got fired, and damn well deserved it.

[William Z. Foster]

219. go get 'em tiger

I can see that you are no one to mess around with.

[Scout]

227. and i can see that you are very full of shit! :-) n/t

[William Z. Foster]

232. smile when you say that

Oh, I see now. You did. No problem then.

[dionysus]

339. + 5

[WillowTree]

117. Your first question establishes a 100% erroneous premise.......

.......upon which you built the rest of your scenaio.

Because it is the mendacious employee who decides his or her own fate when s/he chooses to engage in dishonest behavior, knowing full well that when they do, they're putting their job (a.k.a. their livelihood) in jeopardy. Your sympathy and justifications for such people is seriously misplaced.

[William Z. Foster]

124. ah, yes, the "personal responsibility" ploy

I see.

The person without power has only themselves to blame. The person with the power has the person without power to blame. But we are to ignore the power imbalance and pretend it is all "equal."

Giving the benefit of doubt to the person without power (I have justified no behavior) is "seriously misplaced." Giving the benefit of doubt to the person with power is not to be questioned.

That is what I understand you to be saying. Well, we hear that line of reasoning everywhere now, on all issues.

[WillowTree]

150. You seem to have a really distorted obsession with this "power" thing.

But you seem so attached to it that I think I won't bother trying to convince you otherwise. I hope the two of you will be blissfully happy together.

[William Z. Foster]

152. why the snark?

Do you not think that politics is about power?

Do you not think that the same patterns we see on a larger scale and are so mortified by are reflected in the social relationships and arrangements on the smaller level?

Why do you think we should not talk about power - who has it and who does not - regarding this issue? Do you think that it is not important or relevant?

I would say that those on this thread supporting the boss's power are the ones closer to, more attached to, and more obsessed with power.

[DatManFromNawlins]

123. What utter nonsense

Employers have a responsibility to their employees to provide them with a safe and hospitable working environment. Failure to do so opens the company up to litigation, which can cost money and ultimately jobs. Employees are told when they are hired that there is a set of guidelines they must follow to continue to be employed. Don't follow the guidelines, and you lose your right to work there.

If you want to harass, lie, and steal, then start your own business and see how far that behavior takes you. The vast majority of people who employ other people earned money as employees then invested it to become employers. When you steal, you are stealing from the business as an entity, the owners, your current co-workers, the insurance provider for the company, and potential employees.

[William Z. Foster]

125. you ignore the power imbalance

You are ignoring the severe power imbalance, and then are going on to talk about the relationship as though it were a contract between equals. That is a serious misrepresentation, and one that has dire consequences. Could employees dismiss a boss were he or she to promulgate that lie?

[DatManFromNawlins]

235. I'm not ignoring anything

Employees can dismiss bosses any time they like. It's called quitting. If you decide to work for a dishonest boss, then you deserve the consequences of your actions.

You completely ignore the fact that employees have the responsibility to manage their own money responsibly. Employers don't become employers by managing their money foolishly. Employers rightfully set the terms for employment at their companies. Prospective employees can either accept the terms or turn them down. They can even start their own company if they desire to, and if they never want to have an employee or an employer, they can simply be an independent contractor.

Not good enough? Sorry, at some point, personal responsibility has to play a role in this deal. If you aren't responsible to save your money, if you aren't willing to hold your employer up to standards, if you aren't willing to put in the work necessary to own your own business, if you haven't educated yourself and honed your skills enough to work independently of a boss, then you've dug your own hole.

[William Z. Foster]

238. exactly

You are claiming that a worker's freedom to quit is equal to an employer's right to fire them. That is a perfect example of ignoring the power imbalance.

We are getting every single right wing theme on this thread. Now we have "personal responsibility" rearing its ugly head.

You have made management's case. That is fine. Nothing new or interesting to it. But let's not pretend that it is anything other than that.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

179. I've never been a boss, but I also think the notion that you can't fire anybody is nuts.

At my last job, we had an employee who was fired because he came into work drunk. We had another who was fired because he attacked and choked his girlfriend on premises.

[William Z. Foster]

233. question

Do bosses that do that, or worse, then lose their businesses at the sole discretion of the workers?

You are saying that because there are a few people who do bad things, that therefore absolute power must be given to one person over everyone. That is the rationale for totalitarianism, for dictatorship. That is what I would call "nuts."

[DailyGrind51]

332. In an "employment at will" state, like Illinois, all an employer need do is say,

"We are no longer in need of your services.", if there is no contract stating otherwise.

[HillGal]

121. Let's go a step further, if someone broke into your house and stole money and items from your

house, would you not call the police? afterall the thief would most likely be a person down on their luck, how can you possibly report that person?

[William Z. Foster]

145. that is revealing

Did it ever occur to you that it might be a more accurate analogy if we saw the bosses as the ones breaking into the house, and the workers as the ones being robbed, rather than the analogy you are making?

[HillGal]

187. You don't think employees should be fired even if a theft occurred, so I'll ask you again, if

someone breaks into your house and steals money and possessions are you going to refrain from calling the police? You can't say theft is acceptable when it's done to someone else, then when it's done to you scream police.

[MrScorpio]

191. Employers lie to their employees all the time, and the system is stacked against the working person

They've all but destroyed the unions.

Forced jobs from American cities and towns, into the the third world so they make more money.

And many corporations are raping the Earth as we speak.

They feed on the desperation of the working man, but survival is classified as crime. But of course that's quite alright with some people, isn't it?

Capitalism is the "best" system on Earth!


But you know, on the other George W. Bush lied egregiously on his resume, but that didn't stop him from stealing the White House. So, I guess I can see it either way.

[HillGal]

194. Hpw many times do I have to ask before you answer the question? if you were robbed would you

refrain from calling the police because of the circumstances the robber might find themselves in?

[MrScorpio]

239. So, you're doubling down on a bad analogy, aren't you?

There's no reason to answer, because I recognize your strawman argument for what it is.

There's no way that a reasonable person can equate fudging a resume with armed robbery. Unreasonable people may do it, but if you're trying to have an honest discussion on the matter, you'll try a much more applicable approach.

[Touchdown]

241. Why don't you ask a question that isn't rigged, if you want an answer?

You set up your own little convenient scenario, and nobody is allowed to deviate from it, or the outcome you want would be altered. By not answering your rigged question you've set up, we are all telling you to blow it out your ass.

Do you get that?

[Hissyspit]

313. There are plenty of analogies that could work here rather successfully, but you are not using

one of them.

Welcome to DU, by the way, ballygrl?

[William Z. Foster]

198. your analogy doesn't work

That is why no one is answering you.

[HillGal]

215. Absolutely not, no one is answering because it would be hypocritical to say employers have no right

to fire someone for theft yet if they were victims of theft they would report it to the proper authorities, what's the difference?

[William Z. Foster]

225. I will help you out

"Does a homeowner have the right to pass judgment and execute sentence on someone they claim is robbing their house?"

That would be analogous to "does a boss have the right to throw someone out of work whom they claim stole something?"

I would answer "no" to both questions.

[HillGal]

236. The homeowner has the right to throw whomever they want out of their house. Employees have some

rights, but to expect to keep their job when they rob the person who is paying them is insane.

[William Z. Foster]

254. not true

The homeowner can not throw a legal tenant out of the building arbitrarily; cannot throw minor children on the street; cannot throw certain government inspection people off the property; cannot throw an accident victim off their property unilaterally and arbitrarily.

At issue here is should the boss be allowed to - on his or her say so alone, with no other procedure - call the person a thief and then fire them allegedly for that? Should employees be protected from abuse by that method, or not? I say "no" to the first and "yes" to the second.

There was a time, back 40 years ago or so, when you would not hear these sneering and hostile responses from even the very worst bosses. Labor still had some respect then, and more importantly Labor had clout. Today everyone fancies themselves a would be entrepreneur and feels free to act the petty tyrant.

I can remember hearing these arguments from the bullies, 14 and 15 year old kids of the most bigoted and reactionary parents. Hearing them from adults who are Democrats is a shock, and must reflect the damage done to people's thinking - to their sense of decency and fair play and to their humanity - caused by the Reagan era, the constant barrage from right wing media, and the compromising and weak stance by Democratic party leaders over the last few decades.

Yet what I am saying is being characterized as nuts, insane, lunacy, being a jerk and whatever else people can come up with? Strange times.

[WCGreen]

302. I was a landlord for many years and it is difficult to evict anyone...

welcome to DU ballygirl

[Are_grits_groceries]

314. Welcome!

:hi: from DU Ballygirl!

[jberryhill]

303. Welcome to DU!

Is a Hillgal the opposite of a ValleyGirl? Or do they just rhyme?

[MrScorpio]

304. Welcome to DU, Ballygrl N/t

[Robbien]

305. Welcome to DU, Ballygrl n/t

[SeattleGirl]

306. Welcome to DU, Ballygrl! n/t

[Amerigo Vespucci]

307. Welcome to DU, Ballygrl! n/t

[CaliforniaPeggy]

308. Welcome to DU, Ballygrl...n/t

[EFerrari]

309. Welcome to DU, Ballygrl.

[Lilith Velkor]

310. Welcome to DU, Ballygrl

:hi:

[pokerfan]

311. Welcome to DU, Ballygrl! (nt)

[Heidi]

312. Ballygrl!111!!! Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[Skittles]

323. I CAN KICK BALLYGRL ASS

YES INDEED

[Jeffersons Ghost]

341. did you check her green card?

[Starry Messenger]

137. Workers have been brainwashed.

We are conditioned to think of ourselves as "lucky" if someone chooses to employ us. The rulers have managed to convince people to forget who really gets things done and produces results.

[TBF]

261. I don't know if it's brainwashing, or just being beaten into submission -

most actual workers know the score, and they also know if they talk back they will be sitting on the street without a job.

But definitely some brain-washing on this particular website. Many who want to identify with the bosses - probably from their cubicles... we are dealing with a minority of wanna-be rich folk on this site who happen to be in charge of the party right now. When I helped out on the Obama campaign I saw many of these suburban kids (young adults), running around with their laptops, ready to change the world. How much they understand of the world comes into play daily in these threads. They don't have a fucking clue.

[LanternWaste]

185. What is the practical alternative?

What is the practical alternative?

[William Z. Foster]

199. there are so many

An entire universe of possibilities, alternatives, come into view once we are willing to look honestly at and question the current accepted arrangements rather than seeing them as inevitable.

You insert the word "practical" into your sentence. That gives you an out - you can reject any alternatives people might offer by merely declaring them to be "impractical." Usually when people talk about "practical" they mean "practical given that we are not going to interfere with the needs and desires of the wealthy and powerful few and the system they have set up to control and dominate all of us."

[Scout]

205. so name a few, whether you think they are "practical" or not....

hmmmmm?

and tell us how they will work in the business you own, and in some others....

[William Z. Foster]

209. I think I will do that

Clearly this is a hostile climate for any such discussion, as evidenced by your post. But I think I will proceed anyway. I will get to work on it. I may write an OP. This is a very important and valuable area to explore.

I am not going to talk about my personal situation, as obviously that opens the door to personalizing things and so missing the forest for the trees, and to being personally attacked which would create a distraction. You have no sincere interest in that, anyways or you would not have asked in the way that you did - as a smug and baiting challenge. I will tell you that many new things are being tried everywhere I look with miraculous results - not on the P&L, but in human terms. Many are re-thinking all of this, and ideas are spreading like wildfire. "Isn't there a better way to do things? This is insane the way we are doing things" That question is worth asking, don't you think? Obviously the people defending the current arrangements and speaking as or for bosses are not very happy, or they would not be posting the way that they are.

This does raise another interesting issue to explore. Are the demands for personal information - "oh yeah, then what are you personally doing if you are so smart???" - part of the whole libertarian individualism insanity that has seized control over so many people's minds?

[LanternWaste]

243. I insert it out of realism.

"You insert the word "practical" into your sentence. That gives you an out -"

I insert it out of realism. Many concepts are wonderful in theory, but do not work when placed into a practical scenario.

Personally, I think your exception to me using that word is simply because it denies you any answers to the question you have yet to answer...

I'd love to hear your practical (i.e., workable, dynamic and realistic) solution to whqat you perceive as a problem... :shrug:

[William Z. Foster]

251. haven't had a chance yet

It is a big subject, much to talk about and explore.

Clearly, you start out deeply prejudiced on this subject and hostile, as I said - "Many concepts are wonderful in theory, but..." and ""it denies you any answers to the question you have yet to answer" and "...to what you perceive as a problem."

Workers rights are to be dismissed out of hand with this passive-aggressive nonsense - "what I perceive as a problem?" By a Democrat?

Portraying any alternative proposals - preemptively in this case - as "impractical" is an old and common ruse always used against social critics everywhere, always used to beat back calls for social progress. "Sure, slavery is bad, I grant you that, but what is your practical alternative?" sounds ludicrous today, but was used the same way back then as you are using that argument now.

However, it is NOT the case that the arguments of those critics fall down because "they have no practical solutions" nor because they are dodging the issue. They may be dodging the "when did you stop getting drunk" trap of baiting and leading questions, yes.

But as I said I am going to get to this. I look forward to it, despite the fact that I think the likelihood of there being any sincere interest or any discussion is pretty small.

A few "alternatives" off the top of my head - an arbitration procedure; a public agency for matching up workers to jobs; democratically run work places; a national full employment job guarantee program; elected bosses; minimum income for all people not dependent upon the employer; federalization of many industries; New Deal type federal programs and jobs; Labor associations, Unions, with whom employers must negotiate to get any access to any skill or talent or labor. Employers then would not be permitted to buy - and sell at a profit - the skill or labor at the expense of the well-being or sanity or dignity of the human being providing those things.

We can apply some creative thinking to those and many other ideas and have an intelligent discussion about any of them. I am just getting warmed up and I am not going anywhere nor dodging anything.

[eridani]

97. Depends on how relevant the lie was--

--to his/her ability to do the job.

[gleaner]

104. I voted yes ....

It is one instance where you are told going in, before you are hired, that you can be terminated if your application is not true. When you work for certain federal agencies they check every item on your application and you have to sign a release for a background check, provide your addresses for the last 16 years and account for every trip you have made out of the U.S. This is not new it has been the case for a long time. You also have to go over a list of organizations and tell them if you have belonged to any of them and tell them what you do in your spare time. I am not kidding. They really do this and heaven help you if you lie.

[Greyhound]

105. I think you meant "Should an employer..."

Based on that, no.

[ProudDad]

111. RIGHT!!!

They have the "legal" right to do it but...

Shouldn't...

[ProudDad]

113. They should also have no "right" to conduct

drug tests...

DNA samples...

Psychological exams...

etc. etc. etc.

They're basically chicken shits who listen to too many f*cking lawyers...

But in the bowels of a global empire whose sole purpose is to increase the GDP (make a few filthy rich), what can one expect?

[William Z. Foster]

146. power

All of that gives one group of people a tremendous amount of power over others. It could be argued that no one under any sort of circumstances should enjoy that much power over others. I would so argue. But to grant that much power to people based solely upon how much money they have or have access to? That is abominable.

If people want to know why the country is such a mess and why we and the Democratic party have made so little progress against the extreme right, the answer is right here in this thread. Authoritarianism, profits over people, "he who has the gold rules," trickle down, privatization, the haves over the have nots - it is all right here.

[ProudDad]

114. In nosy, chickenshit corporate USAmerika

there are so many reasons to HAVE to "lie" on an application...

It's a set up...

My best "jobs" were determined with a short interview and a handshake...

That doesn't happen much in the corporate capitalist USAmerikan Empire...

[keroro gunsou]

118. judgement call

they should have the out to fire someone who lies about something important, like say, if an accountant is busted for embezzlement. if the same accountant was nailed for simple possession a few years back, but has been clean since, well, it's up to the employer.

i've fudged my resume a little, claiming greater knowledge of a programming language than i actually had. fortunately, i was working with someone who DID know the language and had no problems helping me get up to speed.

there are small lies, and then there are BIG ones... not everyone deserves to be punished for a small one.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

119. absolutely

If you bought a product which was falsely advertised you would have some recourse of action.
As an employee, you are selling yourself (your labor) to an employer. You have an obligation to advertise truthfully.

[ProudDad]

221. Indeed!

It's a very bad thing for a wage slave to lie to his slave master...

A very, very bad thing... :rofl:

[William Z. Foster]

282. there we have it

Workers are commodities to be bought and sold, yet have all of the liabilities and risks and responsibilities that they would if they were still seen as a human being.

Corporations are to have all of the rights and freedoms as though they were persons, bit none of the liabilities and risks and responsibilities.

Workers are not human beings when it comes to freedom and rights, corporations are.

Workers are human beings when it comes liabilities and risks and responsibilities, corporations are not.

[Dawson Leery]

120. kick

[William Z. Foster]

133. kick, yes

I welcome the discussion.

[unkachuck]

126. NO....

....since you're selling yourself on an application, don't think of an untruth as a lie, think of an untruth as an advertising exaggeration....they do it to me all day long on TV....

....besides, if the dumb corporate chumps can't figure out where the truth is, then that should be their problem, not yours....caveat emptor....

[William Z. Foster]

132. amen brother

It was getting lonely in here.

With the products many employers are selling, and with their come-ons to potential "associates," anything goes in their sales pitches, and it is "catch me if you can" and "my lawyers are bigger than your lawyers" should anyone object. But let an employee take 1/100th as much liberty - in order to stay alive and keep a roof over their heads and feed their family, and almost everyone here says "throw them on the street."

I don't think I have ever seen an employee handbook, a company prospectus or solicitation for investors, or ad copy from any corporation that was not packed with one brazen shameless lie after another.

There is a severe disconnection from reality, and an obvious double standard in most of the replies on this thread. There is also an alarming degree of identification with management and an extreme amount of antagonism and hostility toward workers.

[Touchdown]

244. Perfect! The Cascade "Virtually Spotless" argument.

Virtually spotless isn't really a lie, because it actually means spotted. It just looks good on the advert.

If it works for dishwashing detergent, it should work for people!

[William Z. Foster]

127. without a hearing??

With no arbitration? With no due process? On the boss's word?

No. A thousand times no. With every response I read on this thread I am more convinced.

Should an employee have to disclose mental health records? Criminal record? Union organizing activity? Dismissal from another job for organizing activity? Is failure to comply with those things "lying" on the application?

[ProudDad]

222. Nope...that's self-defense in a hostile work environment ! (n/t)

[Bert]

128. I got a question for you

Does a person applying for a job have a right to privacy? Does this person have a right to any life outside of said job? In short does the employer basically own the employee?

[William Z. Foster]

136. +100

Those are the questions that I would think would immediately pop into the mind of anyone with even the slightest pretension of being anywhere on the political left.

[rucky]

131. What if an employer lies to you to get you to accept a job?

That seems common, too.

What's the recourse?

[William Z. Foster]

141. there is a good question

Here is but one of thousands of examples, in a de-regulated anti-worker climate run amok.

Let Your Passion Ripen Here!

Consumer interest in natural foods is expanding rapidly, and we plan to be there to meet the demand. Achieving our growth goals will take creativity, dedication, and commitment to growth and change on the part of every team member.

This is why we provide numerous training opportunities for our team members, and why we have stepped up our recruiting, succession planning and career development training for our future leaders. Many leaders in the highest-level positions at Whole Foods Market today started out stocking groceries!

Our online "Whole Foods Market University" (WFM-U) was created to provide team members with information and education on a vast array of topics. WFM-U taps into the great wealth of information and creativity found among our team member base and in our company's leadership, making learning personal and fun.

The education and development tools available through WFM-U — which include self-paced courses and video vignettes — are intended to connect team members and team leaders to our core values, and to improve and deepen their knowledge of our company and our industry.

http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/careers/training.php

:puke:

Is Whole Foods Bad for the Planet?

Whole Foods CEO John Mackey has probably brought more people to organic foods than anyone else in the United States. And many of the folks shopping at his markets undoubtedly consider themselves to be environmentally aware. They might even believe that by purchasing their groceries at Whole Foods outlets they are doing their part to help the planet. But certainly many of them would probably be startled to learn of of Mackey's position on climate change: he's a global warming denier.

Though many of his shoppers are concerned about personal and planetary health, his latest revelation so far has gotten scant attention. But when Mackey penned an anti-health care reform op-ed in the Wall Street Journal last August, it spurred a swift call for boycott from progressives. "Whole Foods has built its brand with the dollars of deceived progressives," proclaimed the the "Boycott Whole Foods" Facebook page, which had 33,829 members at last count. "Let them know your money will no longer go to support Whole Foods' anti-union, anti-health insurance reform, right-wing activities." A website promoting the boycott also sprang up. Mackey's anti-labor positions have also triggered considerable ire, after he compared having a union to "having herpes." But there's yet no virtual call to eschew Whole Foods because of Mackey's global warming position.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/01/whole-foods-john-mackey-climate-skeptic

Fired From Whole Foods Over Trash-Bound Tuna Fish Sandwich!

Out of 30 tuna fish sandwiches bound for the trash, 57-year-old Whole Foods employee Ralph Reese set aside one for himself, to be eaten at the end of his shift last November. But an unnamed supervisor at the Union Square supermarket (let's call him Inspector Javert) noticed the sandwich sitting on the deli counter and demanded to know why it wasn't on its way to a landfill. After Reese explained that he intended to eat it, Javert threw it out, and Reese was fired two days later, because, the company claims, he was essentially attempting to steal the sandwich; Whole Foods policy dictates that food cannot consumed by employees without being purchased.

And because Reese was fired for "misconduct," he was denied unemployment benefits. Elizabeth A. Shollenberger, director of government benefits and consumer law for Queens Legal Services, represented Reese as he protested the misconduct classification. She tells City Room, "A lot more people are getting fired for very minor reasons. What we are seeing is that they are firing people for ‘misconduct’ when what they are really doing is downsizing and it’s an attempt to not pay benefits... I’m not going to shop at Whole Foods anymore. Their behavior was outrageous, the way they treated this man."

Reese had worked at Whole Foods for two years and had transferred to the deli from the grocery department, where he says his previous supervisor let employees take damaged food. He explains, "They can’t sell them. They can only write them off as a loss. That is why they throw them out." Last month an administrative law judge ruled that since Reese did not eat the food or take it out of the store, the incident did not "rise to the level of misconduct." Reese is still unemployed, but he started receiving his benefits two weeks ago. He says, "All of this over something that was going in the garbage."

http://gothamist.com/2009/03/17/fired_from_whole_foods_over_trash-b.php

Whole Foods vs. Unions

In what's being euphemistically dubbed the 'third way', the CEOs of Whole Foods, Costco, and Starbucks have joined together to lay out a 'compromise' to the management/labor stand-off over the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). At issue is whether employees interested in forming a union would be allowed to choose their union formation process. Current law lets companies insist upon a secret-ballot election, even when employees would prefer a majority sign-up method.

I'm not going to restate the merits of labor's position (you can read about it here and here) but surely we can agree that employees should be able to choose how they decide to form a union, right? Well, Whole Foods CEO John Mackey thinks it's un-American. Mackey said that binding arbitration is "not the way we normally do things in the United States" and that allowing workers to organize without a secret ballot "violates a bedrock principle of American democracy."

First, if Mackey thinks that binding arbitration isn't the way we do things in the US, then perhaps he should try reading a copy of Mother Jones... after all, they're sold at Whole Foods markets. Second, Mackey's tired canard has been debunked over and over. Even the Wall Street Journal editorial board, home of anti-labor commentary, finally admitted last week that the "the bill doesn't remove the secret-ballot option." Again, it merely allows employees to choose the union formation process.

So, why would "mission-driven" Whole Foods CEO John Mackey keep repeating this worn out lie? I mean, I understand that he doesn't like unions, but he's pissing off his good progressive customers who expect that the company's motto—"Whole Foods, Whole People, Whole Planet"—actually means something. This customer is not satisfied.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2009/03/whole-foods-vs-unions

Here is a boss who lies, lies, lies with relative impunity, and his lies are self-serving, calculated and intentional and have serious and dire consequences for all of us.

[DefenseLawyer]

139. In most states an employer has the right to fire an employee for wearing brown shoelaces.

At will employment... and it is always at somebody else's will.

[Ardent15]

148. No

As William Foster said here, they don't have the right. They have the power.

[Starry Messenger]

151. Wow, revealing poll results.

I wonder how widepread a "problem" this really is. Getting a job in this country is an exercise in image management. Is that also considered a "lie"? Why don't corporations come in for severe punishment for not being even remotely like the promises of their PR departments??

[William Z. Foster]

156. very much so

About 20-1 management over Labor.

This is one of those rare times when a question is asked that will catch people unawares and illicit an honest response. Initially people expressed shock and confusion that anyone could possibly dissent from the majority opinion. This is a question for which people were not prepared and had no deceptive "conservative in liberal clothing" talking points at hand, and the unvarnished truth came spilling out.

People claim they are opposed to Enron and Exxon and Haliburton and Blackwater and Cheney and the Republicans, and that they support justice and equality and democracy and workers rights, but when caught off guard and asked a question about the social dynamic that has created all of those horrors, they vote in opposition to their pretensions.

Justice? Hardly anyone pointed out that it was the boss's word about this, and that there was no due process. Democracy? Suggest that the workers meet and vote on this and you will be met with stunned amazement that you would offer such a bizarre suggestion. Equality? Hardly anyone even considered the power imbalance inherent in the relationship. Rights? Most heard the question "does the boss have the right" to mean "should the boss have the power" and answered in the affirmative.

This is why we cannot win justice and equality and democracy and workers rights on the national scale. Where it really matters, in their own lives and the lives of their working class comrades people are opposed to those - many are incredulous that anyone would take any position other than opposition to those. They cannot even imagine it.

[Starry Messenger]

164. It is the same trap of "personal responsibility"

People posit that we can make social change by changing our place of work, or moving or choosing a different profession--all choices one can make if you are middle class or your profession is in demand. You have a cushion. If you are poor or your profession is wiped out (like the shrimp fishers in LA) then too fucking bad. You need to choose better to survive. It is cruel. :(

[William Z. Foster]

168. yes

This thread makes the double standard so obvious.

Funny when our lives are dominated by corporations - by definition a government granted license to do business without any personal responsibility - working people are being battered by people marching under the "personal responsibility" banner. That is so bizarre and improbable - there is a certain macabre symmetry to that.

"Personal responsibility" really means "blame."

Wealth is transferred up, the burdens are all transferred down. Power is transferred up, blame is transferred down.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

162. Because they are the ones doing the hiring and you can "fire" them by quitting.

Basically if you are without union representation, you're doing a trapeze act without a safety net.

[LooseWilly]

180. I want the right to "fire" them with a shiv in the parking lot.

I mean, I already have the power, but the right would be nice too. :)

[SemiCharmedQuark]

161. Yes.

I'm thinking of that fraudulent doctor that lied about his credentials. Or that fraudulent student that lied about his academic background.

[William Z. Foster]

165. exactly!

That is how it works.

1. Bring to mind again and again all of the lurid details of some egregious or disgusting behavior by some individual somewhere. Really dwell on it.

2. Let your anger and resentment build and build.

3. Be willing - just in this one extraordinary case - to toss away all of your principles and ideals.

4. Demand some authoritarian and reactionary "solution" to the "problem."

5. Scratch your head and wonder why the right wingers keep winning.

Now...

Think about some lazy and incompetent teacher who cannot be fired...

Think about some free-loading Mexican taking someone's job and getting free benefits...

Think about some woman scamming the system to get welfare...

Think about someone who bought a house they can't afford...

[Beaverhausen]

166. What about lying about having a college degree?

should a company hire someone they knew lied about that on their application?

Even if the person signed the application stating that everything in it was true?

This just happened where I work. My boss wanted to hire someone, but they found out he lied about having a degree.

How could you trust someone who did that?

[LooseWilly]

170. Trust? When did trust become relevant to the workplace?

Workers get laid off/fired/downsized all the time. What use is "trust" to a worker?

And as for the job... can the person do the job? That's the whole point of the application. It's not about an employee demonstrating submissiveness in the face of authority by revealing any and all information that a potential employer might randomly decide to ask... is it? Is it about selecting for employees that are willing to do the human equivalent of a dog cowering and peeing itself to demonstrate submissiveness in the face of a pack "superior"?

You know, the more I look around this thread, I think it is about potential employees demonstrating submissiveness... and employers looking for the most submissive employees they can find... the ones that will work the extra hour or two off the clock, come in on a weekend without expecting overtime... anything that the boss asks.

And lying on an application is a demonstration that a potential employee won't pee him/her self for the boss.

[Beaverhausen]

173. Telling the truth is 'submissiveness?" That's ridiculous

This person was stupid to lie about having a degree. Period. My boss wanted to hire him and he had good references. But he filled out an application and submitted a resume stating he had a degree.

He lied.

Lying is just plain bad karma. It will come back to you eventually. And it came back to this person.

[LooseWilly]

181. Person had good references?

References relative to the line of work?

I don't hear any mention of not being able to do the work. All I hear is that person said that he/she had a degree, but didn't. If the person has references that say he/she can do the work though, then who gives a shit about the degree? The boss. The boss dictates the terms, and everyone has to submit to the terms (which don't sound like they actually have anything to do with the job, but rather some prejudice the boss has about people with degrees being better at everything than people without degrees).

If employees have to submit to terms set by the boss, which are not apparently relevant to the job in question... then yes- the application process is an exercise in submissiveness. The lie is a violation of the rule set up by the boss... and violating the rules set up by the boss is an act of defiance, rather than submissiveness.

Look back over your post, there's no mention that the person couldn't do the job... rather there is mention of references that presumeably indicate that the person can do the job.

Lying, in this case, wasn't "bad karma," it was a form of behavior that the boss chose to punish- defiance of the "rules," as defined by the boss.

[William Z. Foster]

265. of course it is

One person has the power to enforce this truth test on the other, and the it does not work the other way.

No one is saying lying is good. We are saying that it is unjust for one party to be able to enforce this or anything else on others at their sole and arbitrary discretion, while the others cannot apply the same strictures against the boss or owner. Calling this a "right" and then claiming that the relationship between the two parties is equal violates all concepts of rights, all ideas about fairness, justice, freedom, democracy and equality.

Lying is apparently not bad karma for the wealthy and powerful. They prosper from it and gain in riches and power. How about we, the workers, start imposing and enforcing some "karma" on the bosses?

Typically, the boss is lying when they say that a college degree is required in order to do the job. More commonly, college graduates are sought for these reasons: that attracts a more upscale people with whom the boss feels more comfortable, and has nothing to do with any performance; it attracts people who are more likely to be sympathetic with management and therefore more compliant and submissive; it attracts people who are accustomed to a medieval aristocratic hierarchy and know their place and know how to kiss ass. All of these "qualities" the boss is looking for very often come at the expense of competence and production.

If lying is such a terrible (and rare we are to assume) thing, and if "karma" is to be imposed and enforced by one person against another and "karma" is such a good thing, how about we impose some "karma" on these bosses' asses?

Give me the old fashioned boss who didn't dress up his authoritarian behavior in "enlightened" terms such as "karma."

[William Z. Foster]

172. really?

How could I trust someone who forced applicants to sign an application stating that everything in it was true?

What is the point of requiring a degree in the first place? If there is some specialized skills required, test for those. Otherwise it is an attempt at enforcing social hierarchy and dominance and social controls. That is pretty creepy.

We have a control freak, and a person trying to survive in a world dominated by control freaks. I will trust the latter before the former, all things being equal.

[Beaverhausen]

174. I guess honesty just doesn't matter to you

But I can't imagine an employer not wanting the person applying for a job to be truthful in an application.

and some jobs do require a degree. That's just how it works.

So, if you don't have a degree, don't apply for that job; and if you apply, certainly don't lie about having one. You will get caught.

I agree that some employers lie and cheat their employees, but certainly not all. And hopefully an employee can leave a job where the employer is the dishonest one. I did it, several times.

[LooseWilly]

183. "Some jobs do require a degree"- have you ever asked yourself why?

The only sensible answer is- because a degree demonstrates knowledge in a field.

But in your example, the person had references. Presumeably, those references indicated that the person had demonstrated knowledge in a field. So, what's the point of the degree, other than an arbitrary detail that is being required by the employer? Or, perhaps being required by the bureaucrats that established the policies of the employer?

Is "honesty" somehow "holy"? Why does that judgement seem to only apply to people applying for a job, rather than employers, businesses, etc.? BP said that it's blowout preventer would prevent oil spills... and that they had safety measures in place. They lied. Can we, or the British, fire all of the executives? Can we charge them with fraud? What happened to the sanctity of honesty?

It never existed in the first place.

The old delusions of "personal responsibility" in the workplace either need to be applied equally in the form of "corporate responsibility," or people just need to get over the 50s mythology of the good ol' US of A.

The morality component of this issue really needs to be eliminated.

[William Z. Foster]

200. there is where we see things differently

You cannot see the extreme disparity here, you talk as though it didn't exist. There is no more powerful way to support and promote the injustices and inequalities that permeate our society and are causing all of the social problems - pretending they don't exist. Thinking that an individual employee's freedom to quit a job is equal to the employer's freedom to fire an employee, or that an individual consumer's freedom to not buy misrepresented products is equal to a corporation's freedom to flood the market with misrepresented products are two perfect examples of this world of fantasy and pretend from which you are viewing things.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

177. Those aren't valid comparisons.

Not all teachers are incompetent. Not all Mexicans are free loading. Not all women scam welfare. By definition, someone lying on their job application is a liar.

[William Z. Foster]

201. maybe not

But you have not demonstrated that they are invalid with your post. You merely illustrated that you arbitrarily apply different standards to different situations.

By your logic then, bosses lying to workers, investors and consumers should forfeit their livelihood - lose their businesses. That would mean all corporations, and almost all businesses (other than independent contractors) would be shut down. Then perhaps they would become worker owned and operated democratically. We can't have all of those liars controlling the economy and the government, and our lives, can we?

[LooseWilly]

163. It seems to me that this is a question for minds that are fond of trivia.

Who won the 1958 World Series? - I don't give a shit.

I think everyone in the thread should ask themselves this question: What's the point of the application?

To find someone who can do the job.

If the person lies on the application, but can do the job... who gives a shit about the application? If the person lies on the application and can't do the job... again, who gives a shit about the application?

My amateur psychological profile of who gives a shit about the application- control freaks with power issues... a type of person who often is misinterpreted by bosses as being "boss-like" and therefore promoted... usually by bosses who are themselves control freaks with power issues. I suspect it has something to do with the Peter Principle: "in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence"...

[RandomThoughts]

182. Brilliant!!!!!!!!!

Another reason to not play the game.

[AnArmyVeteran]

208. I 'Double Brilliant' it!

[Hubert Flottz]

189. Not if you are the chief Justice of the SCOTUS.

[slutticus]

210. Here's a little tip:

It's not a lie if you believe it.

[jp11]

211. What is a delusion?

[Touchdown]

283. A delusion is what is not asked on a job application.

We must respect each other's beliefs while we sell our souls to the machine.

[Rex]

213. Always.

[William Z. Foster]

218. yep

And we should hang any accused of cattle rustling, too. The boss man says they're guilty, and that's good enough for me. We don't need no hearing or trial or grievance procedure or any of that sissy stuff. That would just waste time. What? You trying to say that the boss man would lie about something like that? That's a hanging offense, too.

[TheKentuckian]

234. Meh...I lean toward not giving a shit unless it explains why the candidate can't perform

If you have a desired skill set and the employee's work doesn't match the qualification and it's found to be a falsehood or an embellishment then it is fair game to call into account.

[GreenStormCloud]

245. Depends upon the lie.

At one time in my life, I had been through a series of jobs in only a few years. That makes a person look unstable and employers are hesitant to hire such a person for a good job. They don't want to hear the reason why you did some job hopping for a few years. So back then I filled in "self-employed" for those years.

Doing that now would likely get a person caught, as many employers will do a credit check which will list the jobs you had.

I hate "Have you ever... type questions. Ever is a long time. They don't need to know that I had a dispute with a boss 25 years ago and got fired.

On the other hand, if I claimed that I oould operate a fork lift and had a safety certification to do so, then that would be a signifigant lie. However, most employers have their own tesst that they administer to verify important stuff that is job related. In the fork lift example, the employer could ask to see the certification card and then ask the applicant to demonstrate his/her skill with a fork lift.

[quaker bill]

250. If the questions are relevant to the job

then yes, absolutely. However, employers should be constrained to relevant and legal questions.

[William Z. Foster]

263. by whom?

Who will be doing this "restraining?"

There will never be any restraining going on, and all restraints will be circumvented, so long as there is no one pressuring for that and with the power to enforce it. There never will be any such pressure or any such power for working people so long as the attitudes and agendas posted on this thread dominate the thinking of people who think of themselves as being in opposition to the political right wing. Never.

[defendandprotect]

255. Presuming you didn't murder anyone, that is.... and my reasoning would be

because the employee will find it impossible to hold the employer accountable

for misleading them about the job, the company, whatever --

No control over medical benefits which may be changed -- stagnanting salaries, etal.

[MajorChode]

259. An employer most certainly does have that right

If you don't have either a personal contract or a contract via a union, you are considered an "at-will" employee by the law. This means an employer can fire you for ANY reason that doesn't violate civil rights laws. This could be anything such as lying on your application, not wearing the right color shoes, or just because they don't like you much. If they fire you because you don't go to the right church, you are protected by the law, but if they fire you because you are gay you aren't.

[William Z. Foster]

264. rights

We need not worry about the "rights" of the person holding the power in any situation, or in the country at large. People with power don't need their rights protected, they have the power to get what they want. The only reason we ever talked about rights at all was to protect the powerless.

The concept of rights in connection with those holding power is absurd and reactionary, unless we subscribe to the notion that "might makes right." That is contradictory to any and all thinking about human rights or civil rights or the Rights of Man. Rights have always been fought for by the less powerful against the more powerful.

To talk about "boss's rights" we may as well talk about "bigot's rights" or "racist's rights" or "tyrant's rights."

[MajorChode]

267. Did you read the OP's question?

Or did you just zip down to my reply for an opportunity to inject an incoherent snark?

The question was asked and answered. Any inferences of judgement calls are your own.

Your notion that those who are "holding power" should have no rights, or for whatever reason it is forbidden to discuss those rights, or what rights are and aren't or whatever else you're trying to imply is absurd.

Cheers!

[William Z. Foster]

270. obviously

I have made a few posts on this thread, and have fielded all sorts of snark. I see absolutely no snark in my post to you. Perhaps you did not read the thread, if you think I just jumped down the thread to give you a hard time.

I did not say that "those who are holding power should have no rights." I said that worrying about protecting the rights of those holding the power is silly. It is silly. I did not say that we are forbidden to discuss the rights of the powerful. I have no problem with discussing the rights of the powerful as being equal to the rights of those without power. I have a problem with them being unequal, however. Don't you?

[MajorChode]

272. Could have fooled me

What your motivations were, I can only guess, as your "problem" seems to be with someone who provided a relevant answer to a pointed question. Your response doesn't begin to answer what those motives were. But in your defense, it could very well be your comprehension skills that are in question rather than any nefarious motives. I apologize profusely for overlooking that possibility and jumping to conclusions as you did.

I will repeat my 2nd sentence for the cheap seats:
"The question was asked and answered. Any inferences of judgement calls are your own."

If there is something you don't understand about that statement, please ask and I will further clarify.

Cheers!

[William Z. Foster]

274. yes

You answered the question, and I responded to your post - that is how this thing works.

You have not supported or defended your position. Thought I would give you the opportunity to do that, but you don't have to.

Hope that is clear now.

[MajorChode]

296. I didn't take a position

Is this really so hard to understand? I realize you are desperately trying to claim otherwise, but hysterically wishing something was so does not make it so.

Should I..

1) Use words with fewer syllables?

2) Draw you a picture?

3) Provide detailed maps?

4) All of the above?

I have not "supported or defended" my alleged "position" because such only existed in your mind in the first place. Despite pointing this out in crystal clear terms(twice no less) which should have been obvious from the beginning, you still fail to understand. I'm not sure how I could make it more clear, really. Why you continue to pretend otherwise is anyone's guess, but I'm not playing those games anymore.

Have a nice day.

[William Z. Foster]

300. I don't know

I have no idea where you stand from your post.

The OP asked it this were a "right." Your answer could be either "it may as well be, since it is a power" or "it should be and I support it being seen as a right." World of difference between those two.

[gravity]

269. If you can't fire, employees would have all the power

If you hire a worker, they can be lazy and unproductive and you can't do anything about it.

There are many circumstances where an employer doesn't have the right to fire someone, but there are many instances where they do. Lying on the application is one of those in my book since the employee misrepresented themselves.

However the employer doesn't have the right to fire someone because their race or that they wanted to start of family.

[William Z. Foster]

271. false premise

The premises here, which are the underpinning of the conservative political agenda and the justification for Reaganomics, is that in the absence of bosses and threats that most people most not be engaged in productive work; that the owners are responsible for creating wealth and have first rights to it; and that it will trickle down to workers. The opposite is true. Being boss is about imposing social hierarchy, not productivity.

I have no problem with people taking that position - there have always been some who have. It creates a lot of needless confusion and dissension, however, to have Democrats taking this position and then using the most convoluted rhetoric and logic in order to reconcile that with the traditional positions of Labor and the Democratic party. They are trying to mix oil and water, trying to have their cake and eat it, too.

[gravity]

273. You are over complicating things

Many people here want to fire employees at the MMS to hold them accountable. They didn't do there job properly, so they don't deserve to be employed at the job. It isn't an absurd concept.

[William Z. Foster]

275. who?

Who is going to be fired at MM, by whom, and what is the procedure?

[gravity]

291. The procedure isn't relevant

What I am trying to get at is what do you do when you have employees at the organization accepting gifts from oil companies and providing lose oversight, which was one of the major causes of the BP oil disaster.

Sometimes people deserved to be fired. Employees can lie, cheat or fail to perform their duties and should be accountable.

Employers can lie, cheat and steal from employees too. In the case the employee can quit the job and take the employer to court.

Taking either extreme saying that employees can do no harm or employers can do no harm is just absurd. There is a lot of middle ground that respects the rights and interest of both parties involved.

The argument should be really what cases the employer has the right to fire someone, and what cases that they don't have the right to do so. What right to the employees have in case their employer is treating them unfair?

[William Z. Foster]

294. sure it is

Big difference between merely accusing a person, seizing them, and holding them in indefinite detention because they might be guilty, or someone thinks they are or claims they are, and honoring due process and the rights of the accused. All the difference in the world. The procedure matters very much. The Bush administration had no "right" to arbitrarily arrest and detain people. They would not have the "right" even were it legal to do so. They would have the power, that is all. So long as they have the power, what difference does it make if we call that a "right" other than to make it more difficult to talk about the power they have and how they are using it?

Question - why would "hey, don't like your job, you can quit!" not be a legitimate argument against Labor organizers? Or do you think it is?

[gravity]

298. This has nothing to do with Guantanamo

and this argument isn't about procedure, which is a different concept. You are creating straw men.

The argument is about firing an employee based on lying on an application. Would you support it if the employer had to make their case in front of a judge?

[William Z. Foster]

299. yes

Having a procedure that gave the employee an equal chance is the right thing, yes.

[Love Bug]

266. Yes, if you signed it claiming the info was true.

[William Z. Foster]

268. what if the application is a lie?

What sort of contract binds one party and not the other?

[Zavulon]

277. I can't imagine how anyone could vote 'no.'

I've read through the entire thread and haven't seen a single decent argument in favor of the 'no' vote.

[William Z. Foster]

285. for example?

I have made many arguments for the "no" position, as have others. Do you have a rebuttal for any of them?

[Zavulon]

287. Having seen your suggestion of

an employee getting ownership of the business in the event of a lie, I see that your idea of a proper analogy is so far from mine that I can't see such a discussion with you going anywhere. I can only wonder if you'd apply the same standards to marriage and politics; by your standards we'd have no marriage (which, I admit, I wouldn't see as much of a tragedy), no politicians and no government. For that matter, we'd have constant property transfer - everyone lies.

Why an employer should be required to keep a liar on the payroll is still beyond me and is a case you simply haven't made to my satisfaction (or to the satisfaction of the overwhelming majority of respondents to this poll). Why not just eliminate employee applications and background checks entirely?

[William Z. Foster]

288. marriage?

So one partner should have to fill out the application and the other not? One partner would be required to tell the truth and the other not?

Which partner would that be?

[Zavulon]

290. Oh, either.

If one lies, the other gets all the stuff, right? Your idea is that if an employer lies, the employee gets the business.

Oh, wait - you're not objective to both sides. If you were, a lying employee would have to surrender all of his or her assets to the employer.

[William Z. Foster]

292. but they start out equal

The partners in a marriage start out equal, and there is due process to arrive at any settlement.

For many - most - working people, losing your job is pretty damned close to "surrendering all of his or her assets." Of course, they don't have much in the way of assets, thanks to the boss. An awful lot of workers are a few missed paychecks away from destitution.

But nevertheless, your analogy falls down on another score. The boss is free to take a worker to court and sue them for all of their assets, and make a good case if it can be shown that the worker caused a loss for the boss. Very unlikely and much more difficult that it would happen the other way around.

[Zavulon]

293. My analogy wasn't meant

to be serious, it was actually mocking your "assets to the employee" idea, something I would have thought was obvious. The fact that you took it seriously is further indication that we're too far apart to make this discussion a worthwhile one. I'll walk away with my opinion and wish luck to you and yours.

[William Z. Foster]

295. ok

You have no rebuttal. That is fine with me.

[Zavulon]

297. Fine with me, too, as

you have no sensible stance to be rebutted.

[William Z. Foster]

320. LOL

Well...er...uh...

If you weren't trying to rebut what I am saying, I wouldn't even be talking to you, would I?

I think you tried, failed, and only now claim that it is not worth your time. It was worth a lot of time to you back when you still thought you might prevail.

[Zavulon]

335. I made no such attempt,

but if thinking that gets you through the day, good for you. Grab yourself a cookie and a smile. Don't let the poll numbers hurt your feelings.

:rofl:

[Hempathy]

278. Yes.

But then, in our state all jobs are considered "at will", meaning that you can be fired at any time for just about any reason the employer decides.

[William Z. Foster]

301. the right, or the power?

Should bosses be seen as having this as a right, or do they merely have the unopposed power to do this? Do you favor them having this unopposed power, or not?

[Hempathy]

315. Having the right gives them the power.

It's not a big concern for me, as I'm in the enviable position of not having a boss, nor being a boss.

[William Z. Foster]

316. wow

Having the right gives them the power? And having the power gives them the right...hmmm...

"Might makes right." I think that is what many people on this thread are in fact saying.

[Hempathy]

317. I think that most people are simply cogniscent of how things work in the real world.

You lie to an employer or potential employer at your own peril.

duh.

[William Z. Foster]

319. yes

The boss has the power. But the question was does the boss have the right.

[Hempathy]

321. And the answer was already given awhile back.

In our state, yes.

[William Z. Foster]

324. rights are not granted by governments

See the problem?

[Hempathy]

325. Rights are generally recognized and acknowledged by government.

And our state recognizes and acknowledges the right of an employer to fire liars if they so choose.
No problem.

[William Z. Foster]

327. ok

So you see it as a right? Does any law that any government passes for any activity then make that activity a right? That is contradictory and diametrically opposed to the concept of rights as originally intended.

Was owning slaves a right? It was once legally protected. No problem?

[Hempathy]

329. "Does any law that any government passes for any activity then make that activity a right?"

FYI- rights are not granted by governments.

And- "Owning" a slave is a much different thing than terminating the employment of a liar.

[William Z. Foster]

331. exactly

So what then is your basis for calling this a right? You said it was legal, therefore a right. I said governments do not grant rights. You respond to that with "FYI- rights are not granted by governments" - repeating what I said and agreeing with me. Then you say slavery is different. How? What makes firing an employee a right?

[Hempathy]

334. NOT exactly.

"You said it was legal, therefore a right"

where did i say that?

"I said governments do not grant rights"

and in your very next post you asked this: "Does any law that any government passes for any activity then make that activity a right?"

So- you're saying that governments do not grant rights, and then asking if governments can "grant" rights to certain activities...??? :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[William Z. Foster]

336. so much confusion

I have no idea what you are trying to say, sorry. You keep contradicting yourself. When I ask you questions based on your premises, you assume they were my premises.

Here is what you said:

"Rights are generally recognized and acknowledged by government. And our state recognizes and acknowledges the right of an employer to fire liars if they so choose. No problem."

I don't know. You translate that for me if I am missing what you are trying to say.

[Hempathy]

342. Yes, you do seem very confused...but it's of your own doing-

You have yet to point out to me where, according to you, i said: "it was legal, therefore a right"

And now you're saying that i "keep contradicting" myself- so please, point out some of those contradictions, because i don't see them...:shrug:

btw- what part of "Rights are generally recognized and acknowledged by government" don't you understand?.
and also- what part of "Our state recognizes and acknowledges the right of an employer to fire liars if they so choose." are you having trouble with?

would it be helpful for you if I used more mono-syllabic words? Is that where the difficulty lies for you?

[William Z. Foster]

344. I don't know what you are saying

btw- what part of "Rights are generally recognized and acknowledged by government" don't you understand?.

and also- what part of "Our state recognizes and acknowledges the right of an employer to fire liars if they so choose." are you having trouble with?

If that does not say that rights are what the government recognizes and acknowledges, and that your state recognizes an employer to have a certain right so therefore it is a right, then what does it say?

[killbotfactory]

280. If the employer lies to the employee do the employees get to takeover the company?

Oh, no, I guess not.

[AnArmyVeteran]

322. Only if the employer can prove they lied less than the applicant...

[Renew Deal]

330. Amazing that this is a week old

And still only has 329 posts. It's a slog.

[GodlessBiker]

333. It should have to be a lie which is material to the employee's employment.

A lie on a resume saying you were President of the Animal Rights Society when you were really just the Vice President, and the employment has nothing to do with animal rights, should not be grounds for firing.

[Synicus Maximus]

340. A lie is a lie is a lie.

[GodlessBiker]

343. No it isn't. Morality is gray. Sometimes lying is the morally correct thing to do.

Lying is not inherently evil.

[William Z. Foster]

345. sounds good

When do we start applying that to the wealthy and powerful?