21 year employee fired for admiting to owning a gun...

[CathyInBlue]

I know several business owners who would disagree, including ones that had to skip meals to keep their children fed when the business was starting. Or skip a few checks so their employees got theirs. Or.......

Can an employee simply quit and take their toys and go home leaving an employer in the lurch? I have worked at a place where if one employee did it, would have caused major problems in production and quite possibly could have resulted in the plant closing.

Just because a person wants to do a thing does not automaticly mean that person if good at doing that thing. It was still those parents' choice to start a business on such a shoestring budget. Perhaps the smarter decision would have been to start the business with its own capital, separate from the household budget capital; Perhaps in the form of a business loan. Whatever, not my place to judge. Doesn't change the fact that the business owner was the one in the seat of power to make those decisions. And making decisions to place one's business at the mercy of an indispensable employee is likewise a choice the employer is privileged to make. Perhaps that employer lacked skill in the human resources department; Poor hiring/firing decisions. Once again, doesn't alter the essential power imbalance of the employer/employee relationship.

It is the nature of a boat to float on water. The fact that a few boats have sunk does not negate the nature of boats in general.

 

[jrogers]

I'm just here to address the real issue:

tagged

Check out this one weird trick not discovered by a mom or a school teacher!

 

[Timjoebillybob]

IC 34-28-8-6

Bill, I've read that statute. There is nothing there that I can find that says they can't ask. Just that they can't make it a condition of employment that they have to answer or fire/not hire them for the wrong answer.

Just because a person wants to do a thing does not automaticly mean that person if good at doing that thing. It was still those parents' choice to start a business on such a shoestring budget. Perhaps the smarter decision would have been to start the business with its own capital, separate from the household budget capital; Perhaps in the form of a business loan. Whatever, not my place to judge. Doesn't change the fact that the business owner was the one in the seat of power to make those decisions. And making decisions to place one's business at the mercy of an indispensable employee is likewise a choice the employer is privileged to make. Perhaps that employer lacked skill in the human resources department; Poor hiring/firing decisions. Once again, doesn't alter the essential power imbalance of the employer/employee relationship.

It is the nature of a boat to float on water. The fact that a few boats have sunk does not negate the nature of boats in general.

I'd say in at least 2 of the cases that I know they were pretty good at it. The one last I heard still owns his company and is doing quite well. The other went from a 10 man shop to I don't know how many employees iirc 4-5k, turned it into the largest of it's kind in the US went public and is now a multimillionaire.

And yes the owner is the one in the seat to make the decisions. And if that decision is to terminate or not hire any person for any reason they should be free to make it. Same as an employee should be able to make that decision if they choose not to work for them for any reason. I asked someone else in this thread and they never answered. If an employee quits without a valid reason, should they be penalized by the state? Or be able to be sued by their former employer?

 

[dusty88]

I can see how his usage fits.
Barrier - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Yeah the "barrier" definition is correct because I specifically used it to say it prevents "some" people from becoming employers. If you choose to actually carry the "burden" then it becomes a burden, not a barrier. But no matter. We can say "burden" and make nearly the same point if that works better. The fact is that current law creates an unequal relationship and damages opportunities for both employers and employees.

The employer should be making a free-will purchase when he buys someone's labor or service. Without the interference of government, it's no different than being a customer. My hairstylist could be my employee that I hire to cut my hair or she could be the business owner. If she were my employee apparently, I cannot use my feelings about her gun ownership to deny continuing to hire her services. If, however, she had a sign on her shop or her uniform that indicated guns are welcome, I can walk on by, choosing to discontinue my services with her and there would be no legal consequence nor civil litigation to me.

Just because a person wants to do a thing does not automaticly mean that person if good at doing that thing. It was still those parents' choice to start a business on such a shoestring budget. Perhaps the smarter decision would have been to start the business with its own capital, separate from the household budget capital; Perhaps in the form of a business loan. Whatever, not my place to judge. Doesn't change the fact that the business owner was the one in the seat of power to make those decisions. And making decisions to place one's business at the mercy of an indispensable employee is likewise a choice the employer is privileged to make. Perhaps that employer lacked skill in the human resources department; Poor hiring/firing decisions. Once again, doesn't alter the essential power imbalance of the employer/employee relationship.

What exactly is this "power" the employer has over the employee?

If 1 of 10 welders decides to start the business and hire the other 9 welders, does that person who formed the business hold more power over the other 9? Or can they exercise power by working somewhere else, or for themselves perhaps?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Tagging for later.

 

[actaeon277]

I'm just here to address the real issue:



Check out this one weird trick not discovered by a mom or a school teacher!

Tagging for later.

 

[beararms1776]

Bill, I've read that statute. There is nothing there that I can find that says they can't ask. Just that they can't make it a condition of employment that they have to answer or fire/not hire them for the wrong answer.

But the employer made it a condition by asking. Right?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[Timjoebillybob]

But the employer made it a condition by asking. Right?

In this instance? Quite possibly. But generally speaking they can ask, but they can not require you to answer or fire/punish you if you answer in the affirmative. How some people state that they can't even ask at all is wrong. For instance they make it out to sound like if let's say your boss overheard you talking about your new pistol, he/she couldn't ask how you like it. Or ask if you own guns because he likes to target shoot and if you do wants to invite you to his private range.

 

[hoosierdoc]

A boss can't talk about guns with an employee at all? That's an improvement???

 

[Timjoebillybob]

A boss can't talk about guns with an employee at all? That's an improvement???

That is how some people interpret the law. I'm still not sure how they get that from it.