BYU-I Teach let go

[USU78]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Really?  Do you have any examples you can share, if not Target, then another similar situation?  I haven't seen any news articles about situations like this for average employees.  I can think of some high profile individuals who lose sponsorships or lose their jobs because of public comments, but I think thats a different situation than an average person.  

Let's not pull this perfectly nice thread down a prop 8 rabbit hole.

[USU78]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

All lawyers i know have JDs or LLMs. Political Science is a different animal. Where you working as a legal assistant/paralegal? Definitely don't need a PhD for that.

My JD is not a PhuD

[hope_for_things]

23 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Apples and oranges. BYU is a private institution with policies that their incoming professors (both the LDS member or nonmember)  will have to agree to do before they even get hired (e.g. not teaching or publicly publishing anything against the church or its teachings while they are employed with them).  

Frankly it does not matter if she is right or if she is wrong. It does not matter if the current trend of the country is pro-gay. It does not matter if God accepts a gay lifestyle or if He does not. What matters is she violated BYU policy and was let go for it.

I side with BYU 100% and thankful that the church I attend is not swayed by current public opinion no matter how popular that opinion might be.

I'm not saying they are exactly the same situations, but I do think they are similar.  I'm not a Target employee, but its possible that their employment agreement also has similar language about not publicly publishing things that run contrary to the employer's values or that might do damage to the reputation of the employer. 

Since you haven't responded to my query, I'm wondering if this means that you would be opposed to Target taking action against employees in the scenario that I proposed, or if you would be in support of Target taking action, would you care to clarify?  

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

The size of the government decreased under Obama.

When discussing the "size of the government", don't forget to include contractors:

U.S. contractors becoming a fourth branch of government

 

[RevTestament]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

I don't see any evidence of more PhDs than there is demand for them. The PhDs are getting jobs, but the Universities have found a way to cut corners by making them contractors instead of employees.

Which they would not be doing if it weren't for Obama's Obamacare, and if there were a shortage of PhDs. Then the PhDs would have more market power to ask for higher wages. As it is they are more like factory workers who can be replaced easily, and hence lack bargaining power, which gets us right back to supply and demand.

Quote

We spend trillions on fighter jets. The money is there, it just needs to be allocated appropriately.

I believe there is a reason Ben Bernanke elected to not seek another term at the Fed Reserve - he disagreed with the politics of continual fiscal stimulus. The money is not "there." It is being printed by the Federal Reserve to replace all the bad debt and to buy government debt. Did you know that the Federal Reserve holds more government debt than any other institution or government? No, of course not. That is not known by our people who continue to demand the government spend more. If I were Ben Bernanke I would want out of this house of cards too, before it collapses. It's only a matter of time. This is the cause of the Fed government taking a credit rating hit. It is overspending at a rate that is approaching irreversible - esp when interest rates go back up. It has a huge debt it will have to service at higher interest rates making the annual payment an unserviceable chunk of its revenue. Yet, no one has the political will to raise even the smallest alarm bell, and we have a public that almost voted in a lot more with Clinton. I give it two decades, max, unless the public demands change. The problem is the public seems to be demanding more. I see a shockingly different future, and the end to the US as we know it. A new image of the beast is rising.

[cinepro]

35 minutes ago, Gray said:

We spend trillions on fighter jets. The money is there, it just needs to be allocated appropriately.

Trillions?

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Let's not pull this perfectly nice thread down a prop 8 rabbit hole.

You made a claim "Thats already happening", and I'm asking for evidence to support this claim.  I'm issuing you a soft CFR, because I haven't seen evidence of this "already happening" and I'm curious if you can provide some support for the claim you made.  My examples are hypothetical thought experiments that I believe are relevant to this discussion, you don't have to comment on the prop 8 one if you don't want to.   

[RevTestament]

2 minutes ago, USU78 said:

My JD is not a PhuD

OK. bro. I'm clear. Yeah, family law would definitely not be my thing either. Glad to hear you are ulcer-free. JDs are actually quite versatile and marketable outside universities, and even law firms or government.

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Interesting.  Do you think this infringes on the freedom of speech at all?   Would there be any limits to this kind of discretion for employers to take.  

For example, lets say you send a private email to a friend in confidence where you discuss your opinions about a controversial issue, and then lets say that friend forwards that email to others and it enters the domain of the public sphere.  Could a company fire you for expressing a private opinion, that later became public through no fault of your own?  

I'm an employer.  My employees have no contracts or other additional agreements. If I were sitting in my office and overheard an employee say that he thinks the Star Wars prequels are superior to the OT, do I have the "right" to fire them on the spot?

Yes.  Would it be stupid, arbitrary, and petty?  Yes.  But we have the right to be stupid, arbitrary and petty, as long as it's not discriminatory against a protected class.

Conversely, do my employees have the right to quit and leave without giving notice?  Yes.  Even if I invest tens of thousands of dollars in training them, and I pay them during the slow months of the year so I will have enough staff for the busy time of the year, they can wait until we are at maximum capacity and I'm desperate for workers and walk into my office and say "I quit" and leave, and there's nothing I can do about it.  They have that right.

So the answer to any hypothetical you can come up with regarding private emails, politics, personal opinions etc. is "Yes, they can be fired."  As long as it isn't discrimination against a protected class, then yes, they can be fired.  And while that may seem unjust to some naive and half-formed sense of justice we may have, at the very least we need to understand that if we make it harder for people to get fired, we also make it harder for people to be hired.  It's two sides of the same coin.  The more protections you give to certain people, the less desirable they are as employees.

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Are you in the education sector? You seem to be missing my point. You are ignoring the economic law of supply and demand. When too many get a degree for the purpose of education it causes a glut like what we are seeing. They reason there was no glut before Obama is because the law of supply and demand was allowed to work. Obama's policies ignored that law, and PhDs  who bought into the rhetoric are now paying the price - next they want us to pay the price for them.

Now, it may be true that universities have administrative glut. That is typical of government financed bureaucracies like Obama promoted. Why? because normal laws of supply and demand are bypassed in government financed bureaucracies. They are not subject to normal laws of supply and demand like private universities. 

"Forgiveness would very likely stimulate the economy" - by adding to the national debt. You do not understand economics. Keynesian fiscal stimulation is temporary and is supposed to get repaid when the economy recovers - the problem is the political will to do so - to repay the fiscal stimulation debt - never seems to be there - except for under Gingrich's congress which ironically Clinton took credit for. Leftists somehow think that overspending is some permanent magic bullet and they equate "caring" with spending more. Eventually, we will pay the price in taxation, increased interest rates and inflation - and eventual death of the current federal banking system.

The purpose behind education isn't to get a job. The purpose of an education is to have a more enjoyable life. The Iron law of Labor is that there is always someone that will work for less. All the Supply in the world will not increase Demand in the slightest. There is a reason why Buggy-whips aren't big sellers any more.

[stemelbow]

15 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I'm an employer.  My employees have no contracts or other additional agreements. If I were sitting in my office and overheard an employee say that he thinks the Star Wars prequels are superior to the OT, do I have the "right" to fire them on the spot?

Yes.  Would it be stupid, arbitrary, and petty?  Yes.  But we have the right to be stupid, arbitrary and petty, as long as it's not discriminatory against a protected class.

Conversely, do my employees have the right to quit and leave without giving notice?  Yes.  Even if I invest tens of thousands of dollars in training them, and I pay them during the slow months of the year so I will have enough staff for the busy time of the year, they can wait until we are at maximum capacity and I'm desperate for workers and walk into my office and say "I quit" and leave, and there's nothing I can do about it.  They have that right.

So the answer to any hypothetical you can come up with regarding private emails, politics, personal opinions etc. is "Yes, they can be fired."  As long as it isn't discrimination against a protected class, then yes, they can be fired.  And while that may seem unjust to some naive and half-formed sense of justice we may have, at the very least we need to understand that if we make it harder for people to get fired, we also make it harder for people to be hired.  It's two sides of the same coin.  The more protections you give to certain people, the less desirable they are as employees.

I'm getting a chuckle at the idea.  Sitting at the stand in court, cinepro tesitifies, "he like Star Wars for crying aloud.  I couldn't stand the thought that my fine employee liked that crap so I canned him. "

"You realize this is a suit brought against you for wrongful termination right?  I mean he didn't show up late or give you sloppy work?  You didn't need to cut costs or free up a position?"

"nope.  Best employee I could imagine.  It's just that he likes Star Wars and said so within earshot of my office."

Id be curious how that'd go.  

[USU78]

28 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

You made a claim "Thats already happening", and I'm asking for evidence to support this claim.  I'm issuing you a soft CFR, because I haven't seen evidence of this "already happening" and I'm curious if you can provide some support for the claim you made.  My examples are hypothetical thought experiments that I believe are relevant to this discussion, you don't have to comment on the prop 8 one if you don't want to.   

Thanks. Not my thread, and I would prefer not to threadjack further.

[RevTestament]

7 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

The purpose behind education isn't to get a job. The purpose of an education is to have a more enjoyable life. The Iron law of Labor is that there is always someone that will work for less. All the Supply in the world will not increase Demand in the slightest. There is a reason why Buggy-whips aren't big sellers any more.

Still bangin our head on that brick wall are we? The purpose of education is to be able to get a job of one's choice rather than being forced to accept what one can get. I don't understand any point you are trying to make or if you even disagree with me... Yes I agree supply does not increase demand which is my point now over numerous posts. Obama seemed to ignore that and was providing money for people to get degrees which increased supply without increasing demand. Thus creating a PhD glut, and creating a situation where PhDs are accepting jobs as independent contractors in order to get some type of work, albeit at historicly low pay. PhDs have to work to make themselves valuable. They have to write papers, or somehow distinguish themselves in their fields in order to create demand for themselves and be able to command high salaries. Only the best are going to be able to become tenured professors - the rest - esp when there is a glut - are destined to accept what they can get as even independent contractors or change their field of work. Running up the national debt so everyone can get a PhD is not sensible policy. I do not want to pay a PhD salary to get my car fixed(usually I do it myself anyway...).

[USU78]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm getting a chuckle at the idea.  Sitting at the stand in court, cinepro tesitifies, "he like Star Wars for crying aloud.  I couldn't stand the thought that my fine employee liked that crap so I canned him. "

"You realize this is a suit brought against you for wrongful termination right?  I mean he didn't show up late or give you sloppy work?  You didn't need to cut costs or free up a position?"

"nope.  Best employee I could imagine.  It's just that he likes Star Wars and said so within earshot of my office."

Id be curious how that'd go.  

🌟 Wars geeks are a protected class?

[Gray]

44 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Which they would not be doing if it weren't for Obama's Obamacare, and if there were a shortage of PhDs. Then the PhDs would have more market power to ask for higher wages. As it is they are more like factory workers who can be replaced easily, and hence lack bargaining power, which gets us right back to supply and demand.

Now we've gone off the deep end into fantasy. Obamacare has something to do with the number of PhDs? You were just saying there was an overabundance, now you're saying there needs to be a shortage? Does that mean there isn't an overabundance after all?

They're cutting costs because they can, for now. But it will bite them in the end. All the money is going toward administration, and its not sustainable.

 

 

44 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I believe there is a reason Ben Bernanke elected to not seek another term at the Fed Reserve - he disagreed with the politics of continual fiscal stimulus. The money is not "there." It is being printed by the Federal Reserve to replace all the bad debt and to buy government debt. Did you know that the Federal Reserve holds more government debt than any other institution or government? No, of course not. That is not known by our people who continue to demand the government spend more. If I were Ben Bernanke I would want out of this house of cards too, before it collapses. It's only a matter of time. This is the cause of the Fed government taking a credit rating hit. It is overspending at a rate that is approaching irreversible - esp when interest rates go back up. It has a huge debt it will have to service at higher interest rates making the annual payment an unserviceable chunk of its revenue. Yet, no one has the political will to raise even the smallest alarm bell, and we have a public that almost voted in a lot more with Clinton. I give it two decades, max, unless the public demands change. The problem is the public seems to be demanding more. I see a shockingly different future, and the end to the US as we know it. A new image of the beast is rising.

The money is indeed there. New spending initiatives does not imply that all other spending remains static.

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Privacy is decreasing at an alarming rate.  Companies have access to increasingly accurate information about everyone.  I want to think through the implications of this kind of access to information, because I worry this encroaches on our freedom.  

I don’t think it’s an invasion of privacy to access information about people when they themselves are the ones who have voluntarily placed into the public sphere to begin with. The government, private companies, and even individuals do this sort of thing all the time. There is absolutely nothing remarkable or alarming about it.

 

Quote

Did you see my other example earlier about Target, a company that has publicly come out in favor of the transgender community.  Would you support Target using publicly available internet data to find and identify any employees of Target that have ever made comments or posted articles that are negative towards the transgender community, and then firing those employees on the grounds that those comments go against company's values?  

The question in my mind is not whether or not I would support some particular action but, more generally, ‘who gets to decide: the company or someone else?’

In my opinion, employees are hired to advance their employer’s interests, not to undermine them. When an employee’s public speech sufficiently alienates coworkers, customers, regulators, etc., then it seems to me that an employer may reasonably claim a right to sever his connection to the employee in those circumstances. And I tend to think that companies are generally the ones in the best position to determine what is in their best interest – though I understand that reasonable minds may hold different opinions.

[Gray]

54 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Trillions?

$1.45 trillion the F-35 alone.

http://time.com/money/4310099/f-35-budget-pay-free-college-student-loans/

 

[RevTestament]

9 minutes ago, Gray said:

Now we've gone off the deep end into fantasy. Obamacare has something to do with the number of PhDs? You were just saying there was an overabundance, now you're saying there needs to be a shortage? Does that mean there isn't an overabundance after all?

They're cutting costs because they can, for now. But it will bite them in the end. All the money is going toward administration, and its not sustainable.

Creating more teachers as independent contractors is a way of cutting costs by avoiding having to pay health insurance for employees under Obamacare. So yes, Obamacare does have something to do with it in the sense of why PhDs are being hired as independent contractors. With less supply, the market would correct so that fewer PhDs would accept work as independent contractors. Again it's simple supply and demand.

Quote

The money is indeed there. New spending initiatives does not imply that all other spending remains static.

No, the money is not "there." New spending out of non-existent revenue is financed through issuing debt. Being that there are not enough people or foreign governments to buy all this debt, the Federal Reserve is purchasing this debt. With what? Largely, with money it has printed. No offense, but you clearly do not understand economics. Go take a course in government finance. It will be an upper level economics course.

I have gotten off the subject of the thread though which is dealing more with right to fire than the economics of her situation as an independent contractor/"employee." So, I probably won't address this subject further.

[thesometimesaint]

24 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Still bangin our head on that brick wall are we? The purpose of education is to be able to get a job of one's choice rather than being forced to accept what one can get. I don't understand any point you are trying to make or if you even disagree with me... Yes I agree supply does not increase demand which is my point now over numerous posts. Obama seemed to ignore that and was providing money for people to get degrees which increased supply without increasing demand. Thus creating a PhD glut, and creating a situation where PhDs are accepting jobs as independent contractors in order to get some type of work, albeit at historicly low pay. PhDs have to work to make themselves valuable. They have to write papers, or somehow distinguish themselves in their fields in order to create demand for themselves and be able to command high salaries. Only the best are going to be able to become tenured professors - the rest - esp when there is a glut - are destined to accept what they can get as even independent contractors or change their field of work. Running up the national debt so everyone can get a PhD is not sensible policy. I do not want to pay a PhD salary to get my car fixed(usually I do it myself anyway...).

If you are getting an education just to get a job. You will be sorely disappointed. Down turns in an economy, and sometimes temporary lack of positions make spending a small fortune make education a chance at best. I'm old enough to remember when Aerospace engineers were a dime a dozen. Men in their late 40's and early 50's were happy if they could be hired to flip hamburgers.

Tell me I'm worthless.

SEE

The actual number of all government jobs actually decreased under Obama.

SEE https://newrepublic.com/article/118954/public-sector-payrolls-under-obama-much-lower-other-presidents

[Amulek]

35 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm getting a chuckle at the idea.  Sitting at the stand in court, cinepro tesitifies, "he like Star Wars for crying aloud.  I couldn't stand the thought that my fine employee liked that crap so I canned him. "

"You realize this is a suit brought against you for wrongful termination right?  I mean he didn't show up late or give you sloppy work?  You didn't need to cut costs or free up a position?"

"nope.  Best employee I could imagine.  It's just that he likes Star Wars and said so within earshot of my office."

Id be curious how that'd go.  

Well, technically, he said he could fire someone for saying they like the prequels better than the original trilogy. That seems like an entirely defensible position - both legally (at least in my jurisdiction) and morally. 

 

[thesometimesaint]

4 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Creating more teachers as independent contractors is a way of cutting costs by avoiding having to pay health insurance for employees under Obamacare. So yes, Obamacare does have something to do with it in the sense of why PhDs are being hired as independent contractors. With less supply, the market would correct so that fewer PhDs would accept work as independent contractors. Again it's simple supply and demand.

No, the money is not "there." New spending out of non-existent revenue is financed through issuing debt. Being that there are not enough people or foreign governments to buy all this debt, the Federal Reserve is purchasing this debt. With what? Largely, with money it has printed. No offense, but you clearly do not understand economics. Go take a course in government finance. It will be an upper level economics course.

I have gotten off the subject of the thread though which is dealing more with right to fire than the economics of her situation as an independent contractor/"employee." So, I probably won't address this subject further.

Small independent contractor based companies are not required to be covered by the ACA.

Making teachers independent contractors is a fools game played by idiots for their rich masters. Sears tried making each store employee/manager an independent contractor competing against other managers. Now Sears is going bankrupt. Its former employees dispersed, while its owner made millions.

[RevTestament]

12 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

If you are getting an education just to get a job. You will be sorely disappointed. Down turns in an economy, and sometimes temporary lack of positions make spending a small fortune make education a chance at best. I'm old enough to remember when Aerospace engineers were a dime a dozen. Men in their late 40's and early 50's were happy if they could be hired to flip hamburgers.

***

The actual number of all government jobs actually decreased under Obama.

SEE https://newrepublic.com/article/118954/public-sector-payrolls-under-obama-much-lower-other-presidents

I can barely read that graph - it seems to be directly controverted by several other sources which show total Federal employees were greatest during the Vietnam War in the 60s and least under GWB. 

http://www.facethefactsusa.org/facts/that-bloated-federal-workforce-historically-it-looks-buff

This shows the total of all federal employees grew under Obama and was higher than that of Bush even after Obama called the troops back home.

[carbon dioxide]

On 7/18/2017 at 0:49 PM, cinepro said:

Honestly, after reading that, I would have huge concerns if this person were teaching my children in college.  Not for what she says, but for how she says it.  That is not a college-level presentation of ideas.

Amen to that.  If she wrote "I am LDS and I support gay rights" nothing would have happened in my opinion.  Her Facebook post is filled with nonsense and is an attack not only on the church but the scriptures themselves. 

Edited July 19, 2017 by carbon dioxide

[sunstoned]

11 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

If I worked as a math teacher in the public schools, and rejected Algebra based on my feelings. I could hardly claim academic freedom if the school didn't renew my contract.

This is a straw man.  Algebra is a hard science taught by all universities.  What this professor did was disagree with a policy. This is a policy of the LDS church and as best as I can tell not a policy of BYU-I.  Are both the same?  No, they are not.  BYU does not allow non-married students to live in non-approved housing.  Is this a church policy, no.  It is a university policy.  The argument can be made that both are separate organizations. This professor expressed her belief.  She also gave a disclaimer that these were her opinions only.  She did not promote or teach these beliefs in her classrooms.  This whole thing smacks of big brother.

Edited July 19, 2017 by sunstoned

[Anijen]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

JDs are actually quite versatile and marketable outside universities, and even law firms or government.

Temporary digression here (begs forgiveness)... I have a JD, you know where I can get a job?