Business owners stand by decision to fire workers who protested

I can appreciate the logic of weighing long-term dependability based on eliminating undependable employees against the short-term interruption caused by needing to find 30 qualified people all at once.

I can also appreciate the argument that cutting employees slack now could potentially yield dividends of loyal employees in the future. The question is whether the loyalty of unreliable employees would ever benefit the employer.

Consider the words of Nicolo Machiavelli in The Prince. (The emphasis is mine.)

Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you. And that prince who, relying entirely on their promises, has neglected other precautions, is ruined; because friendships that are obtained by payments, and not by greatness or nobility of mind, may indeed be earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need cannot be relied upon; and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails. . .

. . .Returning to the question of being feared or loved, I come to the conclusion that, men loving according to their own will and fearing according to that of the prince, a wise prince should establish himself on that which is in his own control and not in that of others; he must endeavour only to avoid hatred, as is noted.​

Machiavelli clearly identifies the possibility that allowing the employees to leave the customers in the lurch may not yield the loyalty you expect. An employer who allows employees to ditch work for a protest, may find that that it becomes a precedent, and simply embeds undependability in the worker culture of the business.

I, am going to side with Machiavelli on this question.

By firing the undependable employees, the employer establishes the precedent that the workers should not take their jobs for granted, and that they should be reliable and diligent out of fear of losing their jobs.

 

I am flabbergasted that you find it hard to believe that some people think the unreliable (protesting) employees are in the right.

All my life I have watched a steady decline in accountability, dependability, and willingness to accept the consequences of our actions.

Many Americans have come to think of employment and prosperity as rights, not as uncertain rewards for hard work and sacrifice.

Many have come to believe that somehow it is not their own responsibility to be respectable and valuable, but rather that others have a moral responsibility to respect and value them.

Worst of all, many people think that all that is required to be virtuous is to suffer misfortune, regardless of whether it is one's own fault.

 

Marcus, are you addressing me? I think you must have quoted the wrong post as I'm all for firing these protesting slugs.

 

I am sorry if my writing was muddled and poorly set up. I know we agree about the firing.

I was merely saying I was surprised that you found it "hard to believe we have people who actually think like that."

I was saying the attitude you were incredulous at is a lamentably common one, and I was surprised you did not expect it.

 

The right to protest should be a protected right in my opinion.

This country needs to adjust its view on employees. It's entirely too self serving and myopic.

 

Nobody interfered with their protest. Their protest interfered with their livelihood and decisions have consequences. They made the choice.

Now, if this was something that was being planned months in advance and these employees wanted to attend and the employer could have had time to plan his job schedules around these absences, then I would have more sympathy for them. Since this was a thrown together at the last minute thing and they were warned they had to work, I have no sympathy for them.

 

The right to protest does not trump the duty an employee
owes to an employer to show up and simply do his job (absent some medical or family emergency).

There is an unexpressed contract (I'll do your work if you pay me enough) that is voided when you leave an employer in the lurch.

 

Having Constitutional rights does not mean that people get to avoid choices, so long as one of the choices is a Constitutional right.

Having a right to protest does not imply having the right to force a third party to do something for you or with you.

The relationship between an employer and an employee is voluntary. With or without a protest, the employer has a right to terminate the relationship, and so does the employee.

 

If they don't want to show up for work, hopefully the owner can find some people who will.

 

The only reason she wasn't fired is that she was an elected official, not a hired one.

 

When my business was in a bind I told my men,if you don't show up Saturday don't bother showing up Sunday. You owe your employer something besides bare minimum

 

The right to protest at whose expense? Their boss had materials ready and expectations from his customers. How much money did he lose because his employees wanted to protest with no notice? Doesn't the employer have rights to free speech as well?

 

Good Point!

This brings up the problem of elected officials who do not do their jobs (sometimes because they are protesting.)

Obviously I am talking about Congress, both current Democrats, and previous years' Republicans.

The American voters have not been firing our undependable employees when we should have. I hope that continues to change.

We need to stop voting for ineffective and incompetent incumbents.