Recruiting Forum Football Talk IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
#110,401
#110,401
Devo182 said:
Yeah yeah but if a millionaire causes it, then clearly it's a $5mm problem 😌

I remember growing up and being taught people shouldn't sue one another, due to the bible.

Which is why it's amazing to me, in the very same country, just how individually litigious people are and have been for so long. Greed and materialistic capitalism overtook any sense of basic ethics so long ago. The "hustle" culture...it's awful.
Click to expand...
We employ over 200 people, and when someone is fired, the first thing we always hear is “you'll be hearing from my attorney…”

Umm, m’am, you were on video snorting meth in your office, have them call anytime!! Lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: Devo182, Rocky_Top_Vol13, Old Man Orange and 6 others
#110,403
#110,403
VolGee4 said:
No, it’s not. If I owned a salon and spa that caters to women and I had an employee that got on social media and said they hated women, then I would absolutely have the right to terminate that person.

Let’s learn something today: freedom of speech is from government intrusion, not in the private sector. If the government was allowed to tell a business owner that he couldn’t fire people, then we would have many more problems that even you would agree aren’t right.

Let’s take it even further, Chik Fil A hires franchise owners, who have to follow Christian values. I’m Christian, just like you. But do you think there is a problem with that? They are a private entity who make decisions based on their values to protect their interest. Same principle!
Click to expand...
Blah blah blah...them firing him for that was ridiculous...period.
 
#110,407
#110,407
St. JohnVolCactus said:
And, some people confuse the different forms of free speech, i.e. hyperbole for literal intent, opinion for hate speech. Hyperbole is absolutely protected speech. Opinion is protected speech as well.

There should be no consequence for free speech. Guess some people have failed to learn what free expression is supposed to be. The forefathers intended to allow people to speak their minds, free from consequence from the powers that be. You know like, "screw the king and the horse he rode in on."
Click to expand...
So in the name of free speech and free expression I should be able to go to be boss and tell him he is a “f-in idiot” when I disagrees with me? No of coarse not. Do I have the freedom to do it? Absolutely! You have right to say anything you want, but you do not have the right to control the consequences of your actions.
The reality was the consequences of our forefathers saying what they wanted, was war. There was still a consequence, good or bad. No water what you want, there will always be consequences of what you do. It’s not a rule of law, it’s something you will live with regardless of your opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: barrylee, VolsDoc81TX, hooter vol and 1 other person
#110,409
#110,409
Jimmy Football said:
Hard to boycott a product you don’t use, but I digress. The overall point is Sirius should have stood by their employee. It was wrong (not legally, but ethically) to fire him over this.
Click to expand...
But a business will look at what it will cost them versus employee value. It may not be right, but it’s a by product of the way business owners run their businesses. I’m only assuming Sirius know the demographics of the listeners to each of their channels, I’m pretty sure they do and they took the route to save paying customers. Again, just assuming.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SmokinBob and orangejuice
#110,410
#110,410
orangejuice said:
So in the name of free speech and free expression I should be able to go to be boss and tell him he is a “f-in idiot” when I disagrees with me? No of coarse not. Do I have the freedom to do it? Absolutely! You have right to say anything you want, but you do not have the right to control the consequences of your actions.
The reality was the consequences of our forefathers saying what they wanted, was war. There was still a consequence, good or bad. No water what you want, there will always be consequences of what you do. It’s not a rule of law, it’s something you will live with regardless of your opinion.
Click to expand...

The consequences should be proportional to the actions. JMO, but they weren’t, in this case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SmokinBob, Ulysees E. McGill and Volunteer821
#110,412
#110,412
Orangeredblooded said:
But a business will look at what it will cost them versus employee value. It may not be right, but it’s a by product of the way business owners run their businesses. I’m only assuming Sirius know the demographics of the listeners to each of their channels, I’m pretty sure they do and they took the route to save paying customers. Again, just assuming.
Click to expand...

All I’m saying is that it’s not right. It’s a violation of ethical business practices. I know that it happens, I just wish it didn’t.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SmokinBob, Ulysees E. McGill and Orangeredblooded
#110,417
#110,417
jave36 said:
All true except the cost. Many people going to and failing out of college doesn't increase the cost. If anything it decreases it because universities can spread fixed costs among more tuition payers if more people go to college, regardless of whether or not they should go to college.
Click to expand...
The "cause" in my statement is the number of people going to universities, worsened by those who shouldn't be. The "cause" isn't the failures. Sorry I wasn't clear about that. But yes, the number going does increase the cost. It's a supply and demand thing. They know they can get the money. If college became unpopular over the next 10 years, they stop building buidings, hiring staff, unnecessarily forcing new textbooks on students, and costs would drop.

What you say about more students spreading the expenses could and should lower tuition and fees, but it hasn't. Just look at the rise in costs vs the rise in enrollment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jave36
#110,418
#110,418
Jimmy Football said:
Oh, I understand that. I just think what they did was unethical, and can’t be justified on the grounds that it saved them money to can him.

Also, for the people that are defending it on those grounds, I do think there is a line where almost everyone would say, “Ok, this person didn’t deserve this, and we can’t condone this action, even if it means their stock price will drop of few cents.”

The Lye firing is over that line for me. It will be interesting to see where others draw that line.
Click to expand...
Eh, doesn't bother me. Companies have the right to do what they think is best for them. They still have to pay out his contract.
 
#110,419
#110,419
  • Like
Reactions: VolsDoc81TX
#110,420
#110,420
OrangenSC said:
The "cause" in my statement is the number of people going to universities, worsened by those who shouldn't be. The "cause" isn't the failures. Sorry I wasn't clear about that. But yes, the number going does increase the cost. It's a supply and demand thing. They know they can get the money. If college became unpopular over the next 10 years, they stop building buidings, hiring staff, unnecessarily forcing new textbooks on students, and costs would drop.

What you say about more students spreading the expenses could and should lower tuition and fees, but it hasn't. Just look at the rise in costs vs the rise in enrollment.
Click to expand...
Good points, but while there is correlation, doesn't mean it's causation. They're raising rates because the government and loans are paying 90% of tuition, not because too many people are going.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Volnukem, franklinpence, VOLSONLY and 2 others
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement





Back
Top