Do you ever wonder if you can get fired for painting little Naked Women?
- Thread starter beowulfthehunter
- Start date
Avelorn
Sven Jonsson
Many things concering labour protection and when you can fire someone are not regulated by law or decided by the government in Sweden. It\'s regulated by negotiations between union and employers. That\'s why you can\'t fire people so easily here in Sweden.. the union has been strong and both the employers and the workers has agreed on compromises because they have had the same view on what is really important: Growth of the economy to be able to redistribute property and not only redistribute poverty. We have no legislated minimum wages either.. that is also regulated by the negotiations.
Basis of the now deteroriating Swedish model that has led us to fame and glory..
Basis of the now deteroriating Swedish model that has led us to fame and glory..
@Avelorn
The basic rules for employment are, I believe, controlled by the law. The union/industry contracts contain further rules.
@hakoMike
If sex with children were NOT illegal then I wouldn\'t bother having this discussion. I would argue for having it criminalised, instead.
The basic rules for employment are, I believe, controlled by the law. The union/industry contracts contain further rules.
@hakoMike
If sex with children were NOT illegal then I wouldn\'t bother having this discussion. I would argue for having it criminalised, instead.
Sorry, I misread your post... If it\'s legal then it\'s legal! That\'s my point of view. It might be highly inappropriate, but grown people are allowed to make such decisions. It\'s their right to do so. What is the point with having laws, if people are not allowed to live by them?
Exactomundo, just as it is the right for those that hire these people, and find out about such behavior, to make the decision to fire them.
People often talk about having the right to do what you want, but not about taking responsibility or the consequences for your actions.
You are talking here once again about Legal/Illegal as if black and white. Yet we have found out that speeding (illegal) is a grey area. In life, far more often than not, there is no black and white, just shades of grey. Without the full story we\'ll never know wether the firing was just or not.
I\'m hearing a lot about Hypocracy, but I\'ll tell you what I find hypocritical.
That a nation based on freedom, has the right to tell you who you must hire, give you restrictions on how you must fire someone, all the while stealing your money in the form of taxes. Labor Laws by exsisting are restricting someones freedom, thereby hypocritical in a free nation.
They are placing restrictions on a business that they do not own, and taking away the rights of business owners to run their business as they see fit.
In effect crippling small business owners.
philologus
Subgenius
Sorry, I accidentally grabbed your quote along with Ritual\'s. Thanks for the kind words though. Much appreciated.
@Evil Dave
I\'m with you when you say people should take responsibility for their own actions. I don\'t think, however, that for instance an employer should have the right to punish someone for what he or she think is irresponsible behaviour, because that is a subjective thing. If you break the law, then it is the court system that should punish you. There may be reason (see my above post) for the employer to fire you, but not merely as a second punishment for your crime. If you don\'t break the law, then YOU should take moral responsibility for your actions... not your employer! If your behaviour cause your employer problems in some way then you have a conflict. IMO, your rights in this situation are as important as your employer\'s.
I don\'t think we will come any further in this discussion, since we clearly have different views in this matter. I thin I\'ve made my point clear and I understand your point.
I\'m with you when you say people should take responsibility for their own actions. I don\'t think, however, that for instance an employer should have the right to punish someone for what he or she think is irresponsible behaviour, because that is a subjective thing. If you break the law, then it is the court system that should punish you. There may be reason (see my above post) for the employer to fire you, but not merely as a second punishment for your crime. If you don\'t break the law, then YOU should take moral responsibility for your actions... not your employer! If your behaviour cause your employer problems in some way then you have a conflict. IMO, your rights in this situation are as important as your employer\'s.
I don\'t think we will come any further in this discussion, since we clearly have different views in this matter. I thin I\'ve made my point clear and I understand your point.
vincegamer
New member
You are all assuming (and it\'s probably a likely assumption, but still an assumption) that he had a contract. The vast majority of employees are employees at will and that means they can be fired for any reason or for no reason at the drop of a hat.
Those with contracts are the lucky ones.
vincegamer
New member
But what right does the contract force him to give up? He\'s not contracting away his right to vote. He\'s merely agreeing to work for X and that during the time he works for X he will abide by certain behavioral standards. If he chooses not to abide by those standards then he doesn\'t have to work for X.
vincegamer
New member
This is not a \"free\" nation in that sense. This is a nation where majority rules (with restrictions based on a concept of inherent human rights).
The majority decided that it was bad for the nation as a whole for children to work 80 hour work weeks. Laws limited the freedom to employ a 9 year old in a sweat shop.
To what someone said about Sweden and how US contracts can over-ride laws, that is simply not true. You cannot legally contract for a criminal act. Anything not criminal though is fair game - except, as I hinted before, you cannot contract away a \"FUNDAMENTAL\" right such as the right to vote. However, there aren\'t that many fundamental rights so it is not a significant concern for this debate. The right to paint pictures with your ass is not a fundamental right. The right to teach children is not a fundamental right (unless they are your own children).
@vince
The point is that the employer, through such a contract, forces the employee to give up the possibility to certain legal activities in his own free time. The employer can make such claims when the employee is working, and thus represent the employer, but the employee\'s free time is his/her own. The opposite means that in some ways the employer owns the employee.
Of course, the employee can chose not to accept the employment under those circumstances, but in many cases they won\'t have much choice, other than unemployment. Thus, there is a certain element of force in that system.
And it seems that we have a different definition of what is fundamental...
What I meant by the contracts overriding the law is that the contracts limit people\'s freedom in a way that the laws don\'t! Most such contracts would not be legally binding here, unless the law says you can have such contracts in a particular case (pre-nuptual agreements, for instance...).
This discussion is dragging on and I begin to understand how these things work in the US. It\'s also clear that to a certain extent our opinions are formed by the society we have grown up in, which is quite understandable.
The point is that the employer, through such a contract, forces the employee to give up the possibility to certain legal activities in his own free time. The employer can make such claims when the employee is working, and thus represent the employer, but the employee\'s free time is his/her own. The opposite means that in some ways the employer owns the employee.
Of course, the employee can chose not to accept the employment under those circumstances, but in many cases they won\'t have much choice, other than unemployment. Thus, there is a certain element of force in that system.
And it seems that we have a different definition of what is fundamental...
What I meant by the contracts overriding the law is that the contracts limit people\'s freedom in a way that the laws don\'t! Most such contracts would not be legally binding here, unless the law says you can have such contracts in a particular case (pre-nuptual agreements, for instance...).
This discussion is dragging on and I begin to understand how these things work in the US. It\'s also clear that to a certain extent our opinions are formed by the society we have grown up in, which is quite understandable.
Duende
New member
Just to go off on a tangent, I wonder if the dismissal still would have happened if the teacher in question was female?
IF another case was discovered where a female teacher was painting canvases with her butt and any other naughty bits, would she also be dismissed as immoral? And if she wasn\'t, could the male teacher\'s dismissal be construed as sexist?
???
IF another case was discovered where a female teacher was painting canvases with her butt and any other naughty bits, would she also be dismissed as immoral? And if she wasn\'t, could the male teacher\'s dismissal be construed as sexist?
???
@ritual: Two points and I\'ll let it go
1.) you seem to think firing this man is an act of retribution.
Could it not be the employer merely listening to the will of the customers, therby, protecting their own interests, and the interests of the school?
I do know it is very hard to get rid of a well liked teacher, when the school board is required to make the decision. They have to worry about re-election, and those parents wil be the ones who vote for them. The fact that the vote was unanmous in this mans case speaks volumes.
2.) No one forces you at gunpoint to sign any contract, you always have the choice to get up and walk away.
1.) you seem to think firing this man is an act of retribution.
Could it not be the employer merely listening to the will of the customers, therby, protecting their own interests, and the interests of the school?
I do know it is very hard to get rid of a well liked teacher, when the school board is required to make the decision. They have to worry about re-election, and those parents wil be the ones who vote for them. The fact that the vote was unanmous in this mans case speaks volumes.
2.) No one forces you at gunpoint to sign any contract, you always have the choice to get up and walk away.
I dson\'t see it as a good reason for dismissal.
I would have no problem with him teaching my (hypothetical) kids. If he was a crap teacher I would have. Couldn\'t care less if he painted with his wang. The whole thing is a creation of society, putting a taboo or wrong label on anything even vaguely associated with sex or nudity.
I would have no problem with him teaching my (hypothetical) kids. If he was a crap teacher I would have. Couldn\'t care less if he painted with his wang. The whole thing is a creation of society, putting a taboo or wrong label on anything even vaguely associated with sex or nudity.
