Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 13 Jul '17 19:39
    http://www.businessinsider.com/talia-jane-fired-yelp-eat24-2-2016

    http://www.cracked.com/video_20135_how-these-entitled-millennials-want-jobs-that-pay.html

    Yelp customer-service agent Talia Jane published a Medium blog post called "Dear Jeremy" — an open letter to Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman claiming that some of his employees just can't make ends meet.

    Talia Jane's lengthy Medium post paints a grim picture of San Francisco-based Yelp, the Yelp Eat24 food-ordering subsidiary at which she officially worked, and of being a low-paid worker in the extremely expensive San Francisco Bay Area.

    About two hours after posting her essay, Talia Jane took to her Twitter account to announce that she had been fired from Yelp.

    She says there was no warning, just a disconnected email account and, later, a call from HR to discuss severance, indicating that her public story may have led to her termination.


    The great and wonderful Ben Sasse, possible future presidential candidate, had many insightful things to say about Talia Jane in his book, without consulting her because who needs to hear someone's version of the story before you start bashing them

    https://theoutline.com/post/1729/ben-sasse-is-a-millennial-bashing-baby
  2. 13 Jul '17 20:10
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    http://www.businessinsider.com/talia-jane-fired-yelp-eat24-2-2016

    http://www.cracked.com/video_20135_how-these-entitled-millennials-want-jobs-that-pay.html

    Yelp customer-service agent Talia Jane published a Medium blog post called "Dear Jeremy" — an open letter to Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman claiming that some of his employees just can't make ends mee ...[text shortened]... ou start bashing them

    https://theoutline.com/post/1729/ben-sasse-is-a-millennial-bashing-baby
    You think an employer should keep an employee who attempts to publicly damage its reputation? I cannot imagine a world is which that isn't a for-cause fire-able offense.
  3. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    17 Jul '17 09:57 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by quackquack
    You think an employer should keep an employee who attempts to publicly damage its reputation? I cannot imagine a world is which that isn't a for-cause fire-able offense.
    Imagine, if you can, a world in which workers have the freedom to form and join trade unions, to represent their interests and to resist oppression by unfair employers. It works well. The idea that employers / owners can arbitrarily fire workers who irritate their majesties is disgusting. Their job is their means of living and firing is typically also a barrier to future employment so the implications are severe. In your world, workers must tolerate abuse and be afraid to protest, even in the most reasonable and humble terms.

    What should happen here - the only possible remedy - is that all the other workers should walk out and picket to prevent the business continuing until this woman was reinstated. Workers depending on charity in a brutally unequal society like the USA will wait til hell freezes over. Even the most vulnerable groups can act collectively with the courage and political leadership to take on such oppression. It will have to come.
  4. 17 Jul '17 10:57 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by finnegan
    Imagine, if you can, a world in which workers have the freedom to form and join trade unions, to represent their interests and to resist oppression by unfair employers. It works well. The idea that employers / owners can arbitrarily fire workers who irritate their majesties is disgusting. Their job is their means of living and firing is typically also a b ...[text shortened]... ly with the courage and political leadership to take on such oppression. It will have to come.
    It has nothing to do with employees "tolerating abuse" employers being "majesties" or perceived "freedom" (whatever that is),

    Employment and remuneration is based on supply and demand, if you don't like it where you work and you feel you are worth more, then leave and go to the job that pays more. Don't bitch about it online and expect you boss to be happy when they can employ from the 50 people waiting to fill your job. When you join a firm you enter into a contract, or perhaps you don't; in the former case you are mutually obliged with your employer to fulfil the terms, in the later case there are no terms and your employment can be terminated at will by either party.

    The best way to complain in these circumstances is to lever you employability to obtain better terms elsewhere and then blog about your previous employment if you still feel motivated to do so...which I doubt.
  5. 17 Jul '17 11:17
    Originally posted by divegeester
    It has nothing to do with employees "tolerating abuse" employers being "majesties" or perceived "freedom" (whatever that is),

    Employment and remuneration is based on supply and demand, if you don't like it where you work and you feel you are worth more, then leave and go to the job that pays more. Don't bitch about it online and expect you boss to be ...[text shortened]... d then blog about your previous employment if you still feel motivated to do so...which I doubt.
    "Employment and remuneration is based on supply and demand, if you don't like it whereyou work and you feel you are worth more, then leave and go to the job that pays more. "
    so what happens in areas where the supply is always going to be larger? what happens with maids, janitors, garbage men? should they "leave" and go somewhere else? where exactly? what stops people paying 1 dollar an hour? do you think there won't be someone desperate enough to take any job? like healthcare, free market doesn't work here. when you have 50 people of similar skill fighting for a spot, as an employee you have no leverage. it is the employer setting the terms and if it weren't for those pesky minimum wage laws, they would pay as little as possible.

    "When you join a firm you enter into a contract"
    yes. what is your point? if the person had legal means to demand more money she obviously would have used them. instead, she let her boss know that the salary, coupled with high living costs in many cities, makes it hard for someone to live. a decent human being would have explained that they are unable to pay more. not fire her outright.

    "The best way to complain in these circumstances is to lever you employability"
    YES!! a maid should lever her "employability". Because hotels are always on the lookout for awesome maids and are fighting each other over who can employ the very few maids available.
    There are thousands of empty spots in journalism just begging to be filled, the aspiring journalists can really lever their "employability".
  6. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    17 Jul '17 11:25
    Originally posted by finnegan
    Imagine, if you can, a world in which workers have the freedom to form and join trade unions, to represent their interests and to resist oppression by unfair employers. It works well. The idea that employers / owners can arbitrarily fire workers who irritate their majesties is disgusting.
    Oh, you mean the way employees can arbitrarily quit. The employer/employee relationship is one of mutual benefit, if that's not the way either party see's it, for any reason, it's time to part ways. Which is what many employees do, but not the non-crybaby, world owes me something whingers, oh no, it's always someone elses fault.
  7. 17 Jul '17 11:31 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    so what happens in areas where the supply is always going to be larger? what happens with maids, janitors, garbage men? should they "leave" and go somewhere else? .
    Supply is generally always larger than demand; it's called competition. For those employed there is employment law which variable of course. Perhaps you are suggesting there is a global employment law?

    What about those who are the ones not officially employed at all - are you suggesting there should be full employment globally?
  8. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    17 Jul '17 11:59
    Originally posted by divegeester
    Supply is generally always larger than demand; it's called competition. For those employed there is employment law which variable of course. Perhaps you are suggesting there is a global employment law?

    What about those who are the ones not officially employed at all - are you suggesting there should be full employment globally?
    Is there something bad about full employment globally?
  9. 17 Jul '17 12:17
    Originally posted by finnegan
    Imagine, if you can, a world in which workers have the freedom to form and join trade unions, to represent their interests and to resist oppression by unfair employers. It works well. The idea that employers / owners can arbitrarily fire workers who irritate their majesties is disgusting. Their job is their means of living and firing is typically also a b ...[text shortened]... ly with the courage and political leadership to take on such oppression. It will have to come.
    The only logical remedy for publicly slandering your employer is for you to lose your job. Free speech does not mean you are immune from the damage you cause to other. While I can imagine your unbalanced approach, it is certainly not an improvement.
  10. 17 Jul '17 12:34
    Originally posted by divegeester
    Supply is generally always larger than demand; it's called competition. For those employed there is employment law which variable of course. Perhaps you are suggesting there is a global employment law?

    What about those who are the ones not officially employed at all - are you suggesting there should be full employment globally?
    "Supply is generally always larger than demand; it's called competition"
    competition is between two companies. the one doing a better smartphone for example will win because the customers will buy it. that doesn't apply to employees in fields that over saturated. they can't walk out, their families will starve. they can't get work anywhere else, the market is already saturated. they can't have a fair negotiation when their employers hold all the cards
    the employers can pay as little as they want. unsafe work conditions. no vacation days. you need regulations for these. you need to allow unions.

    "Perhaps you are suggesting there is a global employment law?"
    what? like a job for anyone? so that everyone enjoys crap conditions? of course not.
    i am saying that, if you manage to get a job and put in 8 hours of work each day, you should not starve and/or be homeless.

    "What about those who are the ones not officially employed at all - are you suggesting there should be full employment globally?"
    they should be offered unemployment benefits and affordable professional courses so that they may change fields. they paid taxes at some point. they may pay taxes again. they are not handouts, they help society as well as the unemployed.
  11. 17 Jul '17 12:36
    Originally posted by quackquack
    The only logical remedy for publicly slandering your employer is for you to lose your job. Free speech does not mean you are immune from the damage you cause to other. While I can imagine your unbalanced approach, it is certainly not an improvement.
    i keep promising myself i wouldn't respond to idiots and then an idiot says something so idiotic that i can't help it.

    it's not slander if it's true. do you have proof that what she says is not true?
  12. 17 Jul '17 14:49
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    i keep promising myself i wouldn't respond to idiots and then an idiot says something so idiotic that i can't help it.

    it's not slander if it's true. do you have proof that what she says is not true?
    If you want to call someone an idiot, look in the mirror. Only an employer as dumb as you would give pay someone who is openly criticizing them to the public. The employer does not need to sue the employee or former employee, although it might well be within their rights but certainly the sever the relationship so the person writing criticism does not bolster themselves as an insider.
  13. 17 Jul '17 14:54
    Originally posted by quackquack
    If you want to call someone an idiot, look in the mirror. Only an employer as dumb as you would give pay someone who is openly criticizing them to the public. The employer does not need to sue the employee or former employee, although it might well be within their rights but certainly the sever the relationship so the person writing criticism does not bolster themselves as an insider.
    i see you abandoned your slander claim. at least you learned something today.
  14. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    17 Jul '17 15:13 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    i keep promising myself i wouldn't respond to idiots and then an idiot says something so idiotic that i can't help it.

    it's not slander if it's true. do you have proof that what she says is not true?
    Is it your position that an employer should not be allowed to discipline or fire an employee who takes to social media to rip the company unless the company can prove the falsity of the employee's allegations?
  15. 17 Jul '17 15:35
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    i see you abandoned your slander claim. at least you learned something today.
    The employee should be fired immediately for cause as they have no right to publicly bash their employer. The employer can litigate the slander claim afterwards if they chose or can just be thankful that they are no longer associated with this individual.