how strong / relevant are the unions in the U.S. anyways? popular culture has told me that both union busing and corrupt unions are time honoured traditions over the pond

Those laws would fuck up everything in the same way tenured professors fuck up the educational system.

Sure ill elaborate.



Part of their job is to address problems and other things that are going on. Its frankly retarded to not allow them to criticize things.

You want to ban their speech.
They shouldn't be allowed to criticize people when they incite attacks on the US? really now?
What purpose does that serve? Nothing good.

Enforcing that ridiculous law would also be incredibly difficult and arbitrary.

You don't like that someone is criticizing you? Too bad. Get thicker skin, and dont do stupid or bad things like incite attacks against the US.



Moral hazard: You can do any stupid stuff you want and they are forced to not fire you. This takes away disincentives of bad behavior, and infringes on the employers right to contract and freedom of association.
If employees are allowed to act like total jackasses that could easily hurt their business and you want them to be banned from being fired..
They should also not have to sit through massive damages and then prove it happened. It can be very difficult to prove a direct causation and why wait until the damage is already done? Thats terrible for the economy.

ex: You are standing outside swearing up and down and your social media is filled with racial slurs and bigotry. You also decide to carve a swastika into your forehead.
Other people take note of this and don't like you. They don't want to associate with you and decide not to go to your workplace.
A simple absence of people from the store you work at does not leave any evidence that it was your fault.
Meanwhile months go by and your employer is being forced by the government thugs to keep giving you money while their business is possibly being irreparably harmed.
Simply being allowed to fire you is much smoother and conducive with liberty.


My previous response applies to part of this.

You want to force everyone into a contract to which they may or may not agree.
If I want to offer someone money with a stipulation that they don't say certain things I should be more than free to do that and someone else should be more than free to accept that offer.

If I own a bookstore I don't want my employees telling people my shop sucks or encouraging the democrats to come in and burn my books.




So you want to FORCE employers to keep employing criminals against their will.
This should be obvious why it would work out horribly.
The court system can drag on for months or years.
We have the same situation as before. Someone is doing something wrong that people are likely to hate and their employment is a drag on the business.

I believe a person should be allowed to terminate someone's employment for crimes unless they are (freely) contractually obligated to do otherwise.


Thats a good analogy.
It essentially allows them to be shitty employees without repercussion.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Sep 12 2014 07:16pm

Freedom of speech absolutely means freedom from consequences. You're not free to express yourself if you lose the ability to make a living.

No it doesn't. You are misinformed.
The first amendment is meant to protect people from government punishment.

The idea that you won't ever have consequences for your speech is a fairyland myth.
If you call someone a bad name, the consequence is that they are often upset with you and may choose not to hang out with you.
If you treat someone with respect and kindness the consequence might be a friendship.
If you say freedom of speech means freedom from consequences, the consequence is that someone else will tell you that you are wrong.

Someone telling you that you're wrong is exactly what should happen in a free society. A virtual lynch mob targeting your employer acting as the thought police is 1984.

So you want to restrict the speech of people who are offended by something in the name of protecting freedom of speech?
THAT is 1984 doublespeak

While I enjoy the spirit of the law, I don't believe that this is something the government should enforce. This is something society needs to learn on their own.