can you please elaborate on this because I’ve signed multiple
2 Likes
pretty sure he means that even if you sign it, they aren’t legally able to use it against you in court.
5 Likes
Here is my opinion: (PLEASE do not respond to this if you have nothing better to do than to be toxic. These are my views as a Senator, and I’m trying to be as transparent as possible in what I think about the entire situation. If you have concerns, come to my DM’s; Cenosity#9086)
-
The current employment rights need to be overhauled.
-
The current employment rights benefit the employees, more than the department heads/employers.
- The employers/department heads have it much worse.
- The Department Heads that no longer support the removal of the employment rights are only removing their support because they no longer want to stick up in what they believe in, and they’re just going along with everyone else, because they more than likely don’t want to be viewed in a different manner than what they actually support/agree with.
It’s very common in Firestone, that people will easily sway their opinion, and or mind on certain situations, just to follow along with other people in our community. This is one thing I don’t understand, having seen many department heads retract their acknowledgement of employment rights being not so good.
What many of you guys think we’re trying to do:
- Remove all employment rights for good
What we’re actually trying to do:
- Remove the outdated employment laws that serve no good purpose anymore, and replace the current bill with a new one, so that department heads have it a bit more easier, businesses are separated, and employees still have their rights.
Do I agree with the removal of the current employment rights? Yes.
Do I agree with the DSA proposal? No.
Do I think other congresspeople agree with the removal of employment rights? Yes.
Do they agree with the DSA proposal? Most likely not.
Sharks attempt at removing the employment rights I believe after being a full supporter, had turned out to be rushed. I originally agreed to co-sponsor the bill, however I after realizing how it would impact the community, have turned my focus on providing new legislation that would benefit all sides of it, rather than just the employees, but more importantly, removing the old employment rights, where in most cases, were not even rights.
What I don’t understand, as a x2 Cabinet member, and employee in almost every department (not including LEO, besides being in FSP) I still agree with the removal of the employment rights, not just because I am a “Senator,” but due to that’s what I believe would be benefitting our state the most. Everyone is complaining that the department heads will abuse their powers, and so forth.
-
Department Heads are responsible for the upkeep of their department operations, including that of managing their employees that they hire.
-
If a department head isn’t fit to be handling out their own punishment;
a. You shouldn’t have confirmed the Senators into office in-which confirmed said department head
b. The Governor has every right to remove a Cabinet member who they do not believe is capable of serving on their Cabinet- this includes not meeting requirements laid forth by themselves. -
This comes back to the question, of why are they a department head in the first place, if we cannot put trust in their hands that they’d actually give out stupid punishments, without reasoning.
The problem I see more than anything, is that before employment rights, we operated just fine, with not as many issues prominent. I agree with employees having rights, however, you cannot say they did not have rights, as they were able to sue the department, or the department head basically regardless.
This is all just my opinion, not trying to cause problems, simply just trying to put my opinion as a Senator out there, and what my views are in trying to resolve some of the issues with the outstanding views on our employment rights.
Keep in mind, my views come from being an employee, as well as being a department head, so there really aint no bias in my viewpoint. Whether I’m an employee, or a department head, my opinion doesn’t change. I’m not expecting replies to this either.
6 Likes
The State has had employment rights for over 2 and a half years now. How come we were doing ‘just fine’ if clearly the community has supported employment rights for 2 and a half years enough for them not to be nullified or repealed, enough so that employment rights have in fact been strengthened?
5 Likes
Do you remember when employment rights were created? What has changed since then? What were problems before, that are more prominent now?
There were a lot of people who did not agree with them in the first place. And as a Cabinet member before and after these employment rights existed, yes, we were perfectly fine before them. If anything it’s gotten worse for department heads, and is only there to benefit the employees.
People are always like, “what benefit does it have for employees?” When in reality we need to start talking about, “What benefit does it have for department heads?” Can’t go just one way. We need to find a common balance. As stated above, “new legislation that would benefit all sides of it, rather than just the employees, but more importantly, removing the old employment rights, where in most cases, were not even rights.”
I like how you think the employment rights have been strengthened. There’s really not much too them, and as a matter of fact, congress has been loosening them up, as I did last term removing the existing garbage from the bill. Everyone’s worried about employees, and employees only, however, they’re not the only people who deserve rights in the state. Department heads are in their positions for a reasoning, as I’ve said in my above statement as well.
This is just another case of issues not being prominent enough to find problems with them. This has happened a lot, just like all of the loopholes that are found in the law. That’s something that occurs very frequently, as many of the situations are very rare. Under the circumstance of employment rights, it’s more or so the employees using them to their advantage, as the law sucks, and needs to be replaced.
2 Likes
There were concerns with the ambiguity of the first Employment Rights law which was quickly amended. There was only a negligible amount of opposition against the concept of Employment Rights if I recall correctly.
Ah yes, ‘I think that my own department is doing perfectly fine’. Also, what exactly do you expect from Employment Rights? That department heads get to benefit from it?
Employment rights are obviously directed towards employees. They benefit employees. How exactly can department heads be benefited? The purpose of employment rights is to protect those lower down in departments from those higher up. If you’re in an administrative position, you should be competent enough to understand and analyze situations adequately and fairly to make decisions about those with little or less power. I don’t see why high commands are playing the victim; they usually have a good rapport with Firestone and are able to easily move from sector to sector, unlike lower employees who are protected with the purpose to prevent command members from tarnishing the reputations of those starting out in Firestone.
Present such fair legislation. And what do you mean, ‘were not even rights’?
Removing what garbage from what bill? When? From what I know, Jef’s employment rights legislation was amended with only minor changes, and his legislation was definitely strengthened when compared to prior legislation.
Exactly. Department heads are in a position of trust over their department and their employees as either being elected to the position or promoted. It’s their responsibility to do their job and every part of their job by administering their employees fairly. Employees have no power over this. Employment rights provide the balance in and of itself; employers don’t need extra ‘rights’ because they inherently already have them. Employment rights are a mere counterbalance to the already prevalent privilege of employers.
Yeah, the issues aren’t prominent enough, good catch. If you find loopholes there’s nothing holding you back from amending those loopholes. What loopholes exist in the current Act? It needs to be replaced, okay, go ahead, replace it or just amend it.
2 Likes
Only applies to constitutional rights not the rights provided under our employment rights laws…
2 Likes
Respectfully DHs have a lot of rights. They have the right to set policies for their department, the right to fire and suspend, the right to regulate grooming standards, etc.
The idea behind the employment rights was to prevent a tyrannical government (and yes there was some of that that did - and DOES, just look at the courts docket… not every case but there are some… - occur).
I am not accusing DHs of being corrupt but - we all make mistakes and people shouldn’t be fired based off of limited evidence OR (in one case) making their profile picture a picture of a cross with an X thru it because it is “anti-christian”.
5 Likes
This is a false representation of the facts
2 Likes
what is a true representation of the facts?
i’m not taking sides here im just curious about what happened in this specific case
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
2 Likes