Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

Dave Ramsey fires employees for premarital sex

Page 1 of 1 [ 9 posts ] 

Previous topic | Next topic

Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 46,689
Location: Houston, Texas

29 Mar 2021, 4:34 pm

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/dave-ramsey-s-company-fired-12-employees-for-premarital-sex/ar-BB1f5JlP?ocid=msedgntp


_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,952
Location:      

29 Mar 2021, 4:36 pm

<* Insert snarky comment about corporate screw-overs here *>


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

29 Mar 2021, 4:40 pm

That's a whole lot of junk!

McCarthy-type crap.

I bet Dave Ramsey probably engaged in premarital sex.....



Mountain Goat
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 May 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 15,014
Location: .

29 Mar 2021, 5:26 pm

I also agree that an employer has the rights to make their own rules up. It is up to the employee to abide by them or look for another employer. As long as the rules are stated before an employee starts working for the employer, then it is a fair system.

I dissagree strongly with the UK laws where employers do not even have the rights to choose employees that they want to employ, and to sack an employee who has a reputation of avoiding doing their jobs effectively the employer can end up in court if they don't find something serious enough to be considered as a sackable offense.
When I worked for the railways one train driver used to know the law so well, that for a day under six months a year he was off sick where everyone knew he was not ill, and he had done this for 23 years and got away with it, and there was nothing the company could do as he knew how to cheat the system.

It has led to a situation where employers who would have employed two or three employees dare not employ and refuse extra work to develop their businesses beyond their own self employment, which has made jobs scarce to find for those who do not have the skills to run a business, but do have the skills to work.

So I will always defend the rights for an employer as long as the employer is fair. Having the rules that the employer in this case has is not an issue, if he first states these rules to potential employees, and it is up to them if they choose to work there or not. What is not fair is if an employer makes the rules up as they go along.

This may seem harsh what I say, but at the end of the day everyone has the right to set up in business so if one does not like it, one can be an employer and make ones own rules up instead.

Think yourself fortunate that you have the freedom to employ who you want to with the terms you want to state in the USA, as in Britain one is not allowed to do this in our dictatorship style EU led government system we have at the moment. (When the end of the time given when we can free ourselves from EU rules, we will start to adjust our rules as a country so we can bring back fairness again).


_________________
Verifying you are human. This may take a few seconds...


Daddy63
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 551

29 Mar 2021, 7:02 pm

Mountain Goat wrote:
I also agree that an employer has the rights to make their own rules up. It is up to the employee to abide by them or look for another employer. As long as the rules are stated before an employee starts working for the employer, then it is a fair system.

I dissagree strongly with the UK laws where employers do not even have the rights to choose employees that they want to employ, and to sack an employee who has a reputation of avoiding doing their jobs effectively the employer can end up in court if they don't find something serious enough to be considered as a sackable offense.
When I worked for the railways one train driver used to know the law so well, that for a day under six months a year he was off sick where everyone knew he was not ill, and he had done this for 23 years and got away with it, and there was nothing the company could do as he knew how to cheat the system.

It has led to a situation where employers who would have employed two or three employees dare not employ and refuse extra work to develop their businesses beyond their own self employment, which has made jobs scarce to find for those who do not have the skills to run a business, but do have the skills to work.

So I will always defend the rights for an employer as long as the employer is fair. Having the rules that the employer in this case has is not an issue, if he first states these rules to potential employees, and it is up to them if they choose to work there or not. What is not fair is if an employer makes the rules up as they go along.

This may seem harsh what I say, but at the end of the day everyone has the right to set up in business so if one does not like it, one can be an employer and make ones own rules up instead.

Think yourself fortunate that you have the freedom to employ who you want to with the terms you want to state in the USA, as in Britain one is not allowed to do this in our dictatorship style EU led government system we have at the moment. (When the end of the time given when we can free ourselves from EU rules, we will start to adjust our rules as a country so we can bring back fairness again).


In most European countries in general it is extremely difficult and very expensive to terminate employees even when there is clear justification. Normally 1 or 2 years of salary must be paid and sometimes more. It's a huge issue for companies wanting to set up operations and often they seek out countries with more pro-business laws that provide needed flexibility. I've lead acquisitions of bankrupt companies in Italy and France where my company was expected to pay multiple years of salary in severance even though the companies we wanted to be were out of cash. Negotiations took many months to come to a reasonable agreement.

The US is much easier and other countries even easier than the US. With that said this Ramsey dude seems like a nutjob who doesn't understand the law. At will states do provide more flexibility but that doesn't mean his company isn't subject to laws concerning wrongful termination for things like discrimination, hostile work environments, sexual harassment or the Family and Medical leave act. He's gonna get busted for something and even if he doesn't the legal fees are going to be massive.

The best policy in my opinion is to be friendly and professional and offer the terminated employee a few weeks of compensation in exchange for signing a binding waiver of any right to sue the company no matter the reason for termination. They will almost always sign and take some cash. That approach would have saved Ramsey a ton of money and a lot of wasted energy.



CockneyRebel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 121,205
Location: In my own little country

29 Mar 2021, 7:06 pm

I don't agree with premarital sex. On the other hand, I think that what people do on their free time is their own business and they shouldn't get fired for doing the things they enjoy.


_________________
The Family Schlager


kitesandtrainsandcats
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2016
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,968
Location: Missouri

29 Mar 2021, 8:09 pm

Daddy63 wrote:
With that said this Ramsey dude seems like a nutjob who doesn't understand the law.


Actually, it seems he understands his state's law perfectly, https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/l ... 980891002/
Quote:
Since Tennessee is an at-will employee state, employees can be fired for any reason, or no reason.



As for the state law itself, https://www.tn.gov/workforce/employees/ ... ights.html

Quote:
Are there any legal restrictions against firing, suspending or disciplining employees?

Employers may legally terminate an employee at any time for any reason, or for no reason without incurring legal liability. However, an employer may not discriminate against any employee on the basis of the employee's race, sex, age, religion, color, national origin, or disability. Likewise, an employee is free to leave a job at any time for any or no reason with no adverse legal consequences.


And some legal commentary on the law, http://www.tennesseeemploymentlawcenter ... _will.html

Quote:
Despite widespread use of the term, there are actually very few labor laws that protect you from a generic "wrongful termination" in employment-at-will situations. Just because you think it is unfair that you lost your job does not necessarily mean that you have a cause of action. The action must be unlawful.


_________________
"There are a thousand things that can happen when you go light a rocket engine, and only one of them is good."
Tom Mueller of SpaceX, in Air and Space, Jan. 2011


Last edited by kitesandtrainsandcats on 29 Mar 2021, 8:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Mountain Goat
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 May 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 15,014
Location: .

29 Mar 2021, 8:15 pm

CockneyRebel wrote:
I don't agree with premarital sex. On the other hand, I think that what people do on their free time is their own business and they shouldn't get fired for doing the things they enjoy.


I agree with you, but I also think that employers should be allowed to choose their employment terms. Ok, if they are too strict, not many will take on the job, and of course the terms need to be stated before employment commences or it is not fair.

While I do agree that what happens outside work is ones own business, if an employer wants a certain standard of employee who he or she will want to work with, then they must be allowed to ask for certain standards.

A difficult one because there are areas where an employer needs to know how ones general standards are outside of work, but at the same time, what happens outside of work should be private... So it is an area where there is a conflicting interest.

From an employers point of view, if they have a certain standard where they aant their company employees to abide by this same standard as their customers may buy because they feel safe to buy because of this standard, then as long as this standard is told to the potential employee, then the employee has to agree to it or not take the job.

It is a bit like employers who have enviromentally friendly policies and want their employees to follow them. How far is reasonable for an employer to take it?

Lets say an employer has no rights outside of work. Now a church is an employer as it employes a church leader (Pastor/priest/vicar or whatever other title they use).
Now lets say in the employees private life, the employee could be into demonic worship e.g. witchcraft or wikka or something which is the opposite of what Christianity (Or another religion) stands for. The church has a right to know if their employee holds the values that the church holds because if they do not, then their new leader may cause more harm then good if he or she is employed.

There are many other situations where an employer needs to know a bit more about the employee then how they conduct themselves in work so it is never as simple as it first seems.


_________________
Verifying you are human. This may take a few seconds...


Daddy63
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 551

29 Mar 2021, 8:35 pm

kitesandtrainsandcats wrote:
Actually, it seems he understands his state's law perfectly


It's much more complicated than that. If the terminated employee can show for example that Ramsey had created a hostile work environment, they could win. It seems pretty clear that firing people because of their personal sex life creates a hostile work environment.

https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/hr/do ... ssment.pdf

There are so many options even in an at-will state. I seriously doubt Ramsey will win.

As he is a radio personality, he may be willing to eat all of the legal fees and lose just for the publicity it will bring him. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.