does this mean we have to give people a chance to defend themselves b4 we blacklist 2 or just for disciplinary actions
I mean, if they aren’t employed by you during blacklist I guess not. But if you mean cadets they aren’t really employees.
Please note that I’ll have no comment on the matter and will not be providing any opinion on the question of interpretation which has been debated above as this could potentially end up as the subject of a Supreme Court review.
That is just a long-winded way of saying “don’t ask me for my legal opinion on this because I won’t answer.”
Skye Jones
Chief Justice
ok boomer
nah we get it skye
3 Likes
The law only protects employees (or terminated employees).
1 Like
Hello,
I’d just like to let you know that when I become a Senator, I would be HAPPY to receive the public’s input in my DMs (Stamose#7046). I think this is a beneficial part of the community having communication between the government and the civilians. A part of the government’s job is making laws that the civilians need.
Most employers have a good reason to fire or suspend someone. We wouldn’t just fire everyone if there were no employee rights. Employers have to consider much more than simply the laws.
Now, in my opinion, this law goes slightly too far. It mandates me to inform someone when a simple question about them is asked. Such a question could be: “Hey do you know what X’s callsign is?” I would then have to notify that person that someone asked what their callsign was. This just seems a bit ridiculous now, doesn’t it? That employee will probably not even care that someone asked for their callsign and it is just a waste of my time.
Yea that sort of stuff I don’t think is needed, but of course we need employment rights to keep the supervisors in the state in check, but it shouldn’t be overbearing either.
This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
1 Like