So I just discovered that I have been working next to the waste of oxygen that raped my best friend several years ago. I work in a manufacturing environment and I know that you can’t fire someone just for being a sex offender unless it directly interferes with work duties (in the US). But despite it being a primarily male workforce he does work with several women who have no idea what he is. He literally followed a woman home, broke into her house, and raped her. Him working here puts every female employee at risk. How is that not an unsafe working environment? How is it at even legal to employ him anywhere where he will have contact with women?

  • metaStatic
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    0
    ·
    8 months ago
    link
    fedilink

    people don’t think it be like it is but it do.

    anti-discrimination laws just mean employers can’t give the real reason so they’ve gotten really good at making up legally acceptable reasons.

    • ilinamorato
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago
      edit-2
      8 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      And in right to work “at-will” states, not even that much.

      • AnyOldName3
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        0
        ·
        8 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        You’re thinking of at-will employment states. Right to work is about joining unions and making that difficult.

      • SatanicNotMessianic
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        0
        ·
        8 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        “Right to work” means employees can work in a union shop and receive the benefits of such without having to join the union or pay dues. It’s a set of laws that have successfully destroyed unions.

        You’re thinking of “at will” employment laws, which means an employer can fire an employee for any reason or for no reason, but not for an illegal reason (which varies depending on state but includes the right to organize and rights against discrimination and retaliation).

        • ilinamorato
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          0
          ·
          8 months ago
          link
          fedilink

          Oh, of course. Thank you for pointing that out.

          • SatanicNotMessianic
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            0
            ·
            8 months ago
            link
            fedilink

            Sorry - I should have realized others would point that out as well. I didn’t mean to pile on.

            • ilinamorato
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              0
              ·
              8 months ago
              link
              fedilink

              No worries, I assumed it was done in good faith and appreciated the heads up. Thanks!

      • BottleOfAlkahest
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        0
        ·
        8 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        You mean “at-will” states and that functionally means any state but Montana.