Employment Rights

Hello everyone. Today, I want to talk a little about employment rights and the issues within them. I have been against the employment rights for a while, and it really is getting out of hand. I am pretty certain that only employers and possibly former employers will agree with my post, and it may be disregarded. However, it is worth a shot.

So first, I want to talk about exactly how employment rights have evolved. Now, I have been in this community since 2016, so 4 years. My first position that I was given the authority to administer terminations was in the Department of Transportation as the Associate Secretary. At the time, employers could terminate for any reason they seem breaking the handbook. In addition, this power was not abused by the transportation administration. It actually resulted in a mature, professional, and highly reformed department. I wished I could provide proof of this, but it would require me to look through a bunch of boards and cards. It is important to note that employment rights existed, but nobody really used them except in the most extreme cases. I was not aware of them until I became the Deputy Secretary.

Now, I want to take a little road to the real world. If you do not like your boss, you do not stay there and keep working under them. You leave. Now, in Firestone, this can be different as if you really want to drive fire trucks you have to work for the SCFD. However, it is crucial to note that fighting for your rank or position back will not help you. You are still under their authority. You are subject to their rules. Why should you keep fighting so hard and vigorously to work under someone who dislikes you? It just seems extremely counter-productive and it provides such a headache for the department head. In addition to that, applicants somehow have rights as well? (Note the following may be inaccurate and I would like such inaccuracies to be corrected) I get that you should not deny someone just because you dislike them, but at the end of the day, is it really your department? It should be up to the department head if they want to accept you or not, and should not be subject to any civil litigation. This is how you prevent low-quality individuals from being accepted. Someone’s incompetence can not be proven in court all the time, and when it does it never is enough. Again, it’s ridiculous fighting so hard to get into a position. Going back to my main point, in real life, if an employer sees you have a bad credit score or such alike, they may be willing to hire you. The same principle should apply in Firestone.

Now, the principle “if you don’t like it, leave” may sound pathetic, and it has been heard by many (if you get the reference.). However, a lot of people have done this. People leave departments and the State due to their dislike for it. People should also continue to do that as well. After all, the department will suffer if it truly has an issue.

So, what now? Remove employment rights? That’s up for debate, but in my opinion, if an employer is clearly doing a terrible job at administering disciplinary actions without racism, sexism, etc, and has questionable actions they should most definitely be dismissed. The Governor or County Executive should be responsible for ensuring that actions are not a clear violation of moral and ethical values. We continue to see the quality of law enforcement, public employees, etc decline due to employers simply not willing to go to court over it. The court is a massive headache, and that’s another story for another day. I have seen someone mention (forgot their name) to make employment rights under an EO. I think this is a good idea. In a bigger scope, you are agreeing to be subject to the rules your employer sets, and the EO would be the best way to approach this. The court really should not be the go-to because you want to be stubborn and not accept your mistakes. However, as this State progresses this becomes the norm.

Those who came and read everything thus far, thank you. It really is saddening to see how the quality of employees within the State slowly decrease because of these employment rights. You miss one thing in a policy or handbook, and everyone uses it to loophole it. There is no “common sense” rule because people who want to abuse the employment rights fail to have any common sense. People like to blame POST, the department heads, etc, and I will not disagree – a few of the problems lay within them. However, they are so limited and have to follow a long procedure just to get a simple consequence out. It is merely unfair to those who put in relentless effort to keep a good record, be competent, etc that others who violate rules fail to get the proper consequence if any. Over time, these people will also start breaking rules and use employment rights in their favor. Next thing you know, we’re a state full of idiots and incompetent individuals.

There are probably other points I missed, and I may continue to add. I am very open to whatever change is presented, as long as the change can be agreed upon at least a majority of employers. Feel free to leave your thoughts below. You may agree, you may disagree. I do not mind, just do not be toxic.

Cheers,
EC

9 Likes

mad facts, i cant psb this guy who has a criminal alt cuz i dont got 100% proof but we all know he has one

9 Likes

The employment rights are statutory rights meaning that they can be waived, departments can have all employees waive such rights through a contractual agreement. The only downside to this is the probable decrease in employees who do not want to waive said rights.

The other two options are, in my head at least:

  1. Revise the current employment rights to make it more condensed and limited.
  2. Another alternative to appealing disciplinary actions.

Perfectly fine with me.

ElloNT and I were discussing this briefly in the Congressional discord, and the idea was that we would let DPS handle appeals. However, this would cause issues for departments not under DPS. Perhaps a board under the Governor’s authority would be better (such as the pardon board, for example). There are many other alternatives that I cannot think of right now, but I do not think Court is the best way especially considering the time it takes alongside the nightmare of finding a good lawyer at times. Feel free to drop some alternatives, however.

im all for firing ppl for no reason but
if u dont have 100% proof he has an alt… how do u know he has an alt?..

5 Likes

The Board of Pardons and Parole doesn’t seem like a bad idea in my perspective.

4 Likes

change the freedom of information clause.

  1. an employee does not need to know about EVERYTHING brought forth about them.
  2. it hinders investigations. having an employee know we are investigating them obstructs our investigation as now they will attempt to cover up any sorts of information that incriminates them.
  3. an act to correct disciplinary restrictions is absolute garbage. if you do something terrible, we may only terminate you on the spot and not hours later despite you doing something absolutely terrible.
  4. requiring a defense is stupid. if you don’t like the punishment, you challenge it in court.
2 Likes

crime alts are cool loser

I love it when someone leaves the discord of a department but not the department group then sue because we falsely terminated them / didn’t give them time to give a defense however we couldn’t contact them cause you know they left the Discord. :man_facepalming: Smh

Luckily the person just dropped the case against us.

I agree with parrot on most of everything. They shouldn’t know they are under investigation cause like he said, then they start covering stuff up.

I do think they should have the opportunity to give a defense in which they have 24 hours to respond **Cough cough,**add a time limit please instead of …“shall be afforded the opportunity to provide a defense in response to the allegations prior to action being taken. Employees shall have the right to be directly advised of the issuing and reasoning of any disciplinary actions, including warnings, “strikes,” suspensions, demotions, terminations, or any action that affects their rapport taken against them”.

Departments should have employment rights, they are part of the government. Private employment rights is a different thing although it does seem to be out of the scope of the OP.

tbh i couldn’t agree further. i do believe the employee should be able to defend themselves if formal action is being considered (maybe in a court-style hearing) however, if the investigation or complaint goes nowhere, why do they need to know? it may hinder performance.

with that said, i personally think the executive branch should adopt a formal complaints and disciplinary framework; each department currently runs very differently, and thats dependent on the type of department head, and that can create issues for times where the law may disagree.


courts already are swamped, giving them more work just because a department head was too lazy to confront someone is stupid.

that is stupid though. if you have no means to reasonably confront, then you shouldn’t have to (or if there is undisputable evidence of it or if its an emergency, they can always provide a defense in a form of an ‘appeal’)


thats such a stupid argument i don’t even think it deserves a response

1 Like

Right to challenge cases are a huge annoyance to the courts

I believe that disciplinary action appeals to go to a proper board in DPS (for departments under DPS) comprised of law enforcement, public service, and legal professional. For DHS and FNG, frankly the “eliteness” of the department should remove a chance of appeal, or a joint board between them 2. Obviously, if it gets real out of hand and stupid, then the Governor should be responsible for stepping in and dealing with it.

For private businesses, I believe it should be the same as the DPS deal, with commerce overseeing it. Again, there will have to be legal professionals on such board.

1 Like

Case against DOBW ^
Like I said, he went ahead and dismissed it but tbh I don’t think we should’ve even had to go to court.

support

If we required formal civil complaints, we’d definitely have much less right-to-challenge civil cases.

(I could do that, for the record)

it’s undeniable that employment rights should exist. although my argument is to change the freedom of information clause, not abolish employment rights.

adopt court fees and many will be reluctant to simply sue? I surely would reconsider a court case if it cost me a pretty penny.


on the topic of providing a defense, I find it rather redundant. in the event that someone is in violation of policy, they are to be questioned during the investigation. their account of the situation should be forwarded during questioning for command staff to review. a defense is redundant as you pretty much plead for forgiveness, admit your wrongdoings or deny something/everything.

Fedora is probably going to disallow court fees.

how bruh

Remember the time the Sheriff fired a lad for saying he didn’t support the sheriff and the Supreme Court has to step in? I do, because I wrote the slip for Cybervict v SCSO. Y’all can’t handle unlimited power so you don’t get it. I trust no department head with the complete authority to end a career as they please. And if you do your job properly you have nothing to fear from a lawsuit.

Though I do disagree with the new defense prior to termination thing.

2 Likes

The only thing I proposed to be amended respectively, was the requirement of having to inform an employee when someone complains about them, and why they are being investigated.