Bosses can legally fire employees they see as an 'irresistible attraction'

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I guess what im saying is that perhaps if youre going to fire someone for personal reasons in the context of small business it should be policy to have that sort of thing documented first so that resolution could be attempted or give the employee the opportunity to start looking elsewhere or flat out quit. For example with alty- if he doesnt like his contractor it should be policy for him to say i dont like you. We should see how we can work together of if we should reconsider this arrangement. Otherwise its like youre fired. Also your nose looks funny and i hate how you laugh.

[Pergamos]

I think with joint ownership, like in Fleetwood Mac, there's a lot more motivation to work things out.  Dissolving the band means everyone is fired.

Meanwhile for the horny Dentist firing the woman doesn't mean he's out of a job.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Oh certainly theres more incentive. I still think it should be a general policy for small businesses. Especially after a given amount of time.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

No- i get it. A band is also a small business. I understand all that. If i break my arm the band doesnt play for 6 weeks. If pete breaks his arm the band doesnt play for 6 weeks. That all makes sense. Being sexually attracted to a bandmate and having them find out by me telling them i want them out of the band doesnt. If anything i just suck up my feelings or address the problem and try and work through it. Or go on tour- as im sure that would kill any attraction. Bands dont really go through lawsuits though unless theyre signed.

A band is a collective. Different situation. That would be more like, he worked at a dental office with five other dentists and he was really attracted to one of them, and he wanted her to leave. Wouldn't happen; he would have to either work it out or leave. It's a completely different dynamic.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I think I got this now.

Small business is just to fragile to be held by the same standards. It doesn't have large amounts of unending capital to draw from, there are no bailouts, and nobody gives a shit if you succeed or fail in the long run, with the exception of the relationships you build yourself. It doesn't really matter if this dentist is a piece of shit or not because any protection enabled to allow a business operate smoothly is more important.

I have an issue where I don't want to deal with a contractor I'm working with, and I feel I should suck it up and it'll be good for me. But it doesn't make me uncomfortable, I don't dread going to work. And if I did I would want to end it, or anything else, immediately because I am not able to switch off. I don't clock out, mentally, though it's a skill I'm developing.

As for bands, most people don't depend on them wholly for all income with little-to-no contingencies in place. If that were the scenario I'd imagine things would be different. I'm still unconvinced that this guy is anything but an asshole, but who said being an asshole should be illegal?

Yes, exactly.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I guess what im saying is that perhaps if youre going to fire someone for personal reasons in the context of small business it should be policy to have that sort of thing documented first so that resolution could be attempted or give the employee the opportunity to start looking elsewhere or flat out quit. For example with alty- if he doesnt like his contractor it should be policy for him to say i dont like you. We should see how we can work together of if we should reconsider this arrangement. Otherwise its like youre fired. Also your nose looks funny and i hate how you laugh.

Still talking about "what he should do" and missing the point of what the court should rule.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Not necessarily. Not all bands are collectives. Its the tendency but not the rule.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Nigel im not missing the point of what the courts should do. You mentioned changing social policy. Thats what im suggesting. The law currently doesnt allow protection for either party. It should. Just because i dont agree with you doesnt mean im missing the point.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Oh certainly theres more incentive. I still think it should be a general policy for small businesses. Especially after a given amount of time.

So, some kind of legal requirement for mediation? Who pays for the mediation? Who is the mediator?

Say I had an assistant and after ten years I just plain got to the point where I didn't like being around her. Over time, our personalities just drifted in opposite directions and she bugs the shit out of me now. It sounds like you want a law passed that, if I wanted to let her go, with appropriate notice and a good reference and everything, I would have to first document that I don't like her... how? What would that documentation look like? "Martha came in today and hung up her coat in that way I don't like. Then she started talking about things I'm not interested in and complained about her husband for the 37,000th time since she started working here. Then she fondled her cross and stared into space for a minute. I can't stand it anymore".

What would the penalties be for doing it incorrectly? Would I be fined, or sued?

So, then, I have to present Martha with my documentation proving actual instances of me not liking her (this, somehow, is supposed to be more constructive than simply saying "Martha, I feel like we have personality incompatibilities") and then we go to mediation, which isn't even required for a DIVORCE. How many sessions? I've been to mediation, it's about $300 a pop. Four sessions? That's a reasonable amount to find out whether things can be resolved. Also, there goes my mortgage this month. Congratulations, I'm in foreclosure. Martha is also out of a job, because I can't pay her, and my studio is in my house so I can't work either. Fuck you, now we're both out of a job.

Or maybe you want to pass a bill so that the taxpayers cover mediation. I'm all for that... good luck!

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Nigel im not missing the point of what the courts should do. You mentioned changing social policy. Thats what im suggesting. The law currently doesnt allow protection for either party. It should. Just because i dont agree with you doesnt mean im missing the point.

"Social policy" as encoded by laws, so yes, the court is automatically involved there.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm also realllllly interested in the "protection for either party" idea that you mention. Are you proposing that the same process has to be followed in order for a person to quit their job? Because, after all, if a small business owner relies on an employee for the day-to-day operation of their business, they would be up shit creek if the employee just quit on them.

[Salty]

Another way to look at it: say this dentist had set up an arbritation agreement with his employee. He would probably lose out in the end, even if he doesn't go to court because arbitration lawyers cost a lot of money. Its in his best interest to end such a situation quickly and as cleanly as possible.

But for a massive corporation, they can spare the time and money, and don't even have to close up shop to go into court. They can fight it out, the odds are overwhelmingly in their favor.

This mechanism does small bsuienss no good.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Why would mediation be necessary? Whatever happened to "lets have a chat." if youve been working with someone for ten years why wouldnt you let them know they were bugging the shit out of you? Why wouldnt you give them some warning or indication that they were getting on your nerves?


And by protection of the employer i meant from lawsuits like these. Even though he won i imagine he wont be getting a lot of customers and may be out of work himself. But youre right in that people up and leaving you fucks you over.

[Bu🤠ns]

Not necessarily. Not all bands are collectives. Its the tendency but not the rule.

*cough*Ritchie Blackmore*cough*

/Irrelevant to where  thread is going...

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Not necessarily. Not all bands are collectives. Its the tendency but not the rule.

*cough*Ritchie Blackmore*cough*

/Irrelevant to where  thread is going...