Fired for being hot

[WIP]

I don't understand why workers have as many rights as they do. Their end is easy, it's just a job. The employer is in a much tougher situation. Especially in a business like a dentists office, the employer has a much deeper commitment. They can't just leave, they have to be able to make whatever changes they need to.

And they also get richly rewarded for being the owner of a business. I am reminded of that fact every time I think back to my former idiot dentist bragging about how he had a 28 foot pool installed in his new home...just so he could improve his triathalon times! Not that he was an incompetent dentist....I just got sick of his bragging about his workouts and race times....he never did manage to beat me at 5K....but regardless - I sure as hell couldn't afford a 28 foot pool! And neither could the employees working for him. Including the one he knocked up and left his wife for!

One point that capitalists of all stripes....whether liberal progressive or ruthless libertarian always ignore, is that EVERY employee working for them is underpaid! And if you don't believe me, tell me how long a business stays profitable after it pays its employees more than the full value of their work? Answer is NEVER. Because a capitalist system depends first and foremost on the owners of capital being able to extract more value from workers than they are compensated for. And modern capitalism goes beyond the system of small business ownership that began with skilled tradesmen taking on apprentices centuries ago; now it is a system that depends on constant and continued economic expansion to keep inflating the money supply, so that owners of capital can continue to profit, and profit more than actually producing products of real value.

The richest of the rich in the modern capitalist system are the bankers who use the banking system itself to bleed the real economy of wealth and concentrate it in their own estates....but, now I'm getting way off topic, and I'll have to note this for a future topic I want to present -- because I believe most of our ills today...everything from sickness, social dysfunction, wars, ecological degradation etc., are not examples of our system not functioning properly....the truth is the exact opposite! Our modern capitalist system is doing exactly what it was intended to do, and most people are suffering as a result...whether they are aware of the cause of their suffering or not.

[WIP]

Pardon me, Wip...but it's more actually that the woman had brought it on herself.

Maybe I'm getting it from Star Trek or something...the line "with great power comes great responsibility." Wherever it's from, the point is that the employer has the bulk of the responsibility to prevent a situation like this from getting out of hand. I don't see much more going on than the fact that he was assuming more interest in him by her than was likely happening, and if she is guilty of anything, it's bending to an overbearing boss and feeding his ego, instead of putting him in his place right from the beginning!

[Bryan]

And they also get richly rewarded for being the owner of a business. I am reminded of that fact every time I think back to my former idiot dentist bragging about how he had a 28 foot pool installed in his new home...just so he could improve his triathalon times! Not that he was an incompetent dentist....I just got sick of his bragging about his workouts and race times....he never did manage to beat me at 5K....but regardless - I sure as hell couldn't afford a 28 foot pool! And neither could the employees working for him. Including the one he knocked up and left his wife for!

If it's that easy to run a profitable business, why does anyone work day jobs? Why don't they all run their own businesses? The answer is, it's NOT easy, and most of them don't make it.

[WIP]

But of course, that's always the case. "Men are men" and women have to be the keepers of men's penises. As you and kimmy said, it's typical Muslim mentality.

I was only 16 at the time, so I was a little young to take on the role of social crusader, but it's always stuck with me that I stood by like the others in that restaurant and did nothing, nor said anything while this girl was being abused by the owner.

* I just want to add as a post note that I am not into bashing Muslims as many are on these forums, and I bring up Saudi Arabia or other examples of Muslim patriarchal extremism to put the mirror in front of the Christian or secular variety of misogynists on our side. I live in a neighbourhood that's largely immigrants from all over, including Muslim countries. Except for distinctive dress of some, or a ludicrous fear of dogs, they are typical of others who are new and still adjusting to life in a new country that's much different than home. I won't judge all Muslims by what the extremes do...especially when the imperialists and reactionaries on this side have fueled the extremism; just as I can't judge all Christians by what right wing fundamentalists do. Much of what they believe and practice is antithetical to traditional Christian values, just as the modern day Salafis and Wahabbis are a modern creation in the Muslim World, and the result of an adverse reaction to western culture and western colonization.....rather than part of a tradition that was trying to end the constant wars and blood feuds, and improve the quality of life of people living in the Arabian Peninsula back in the 7th century.

I don't know, all my life I've had this strange belief that my partner is responsible for his behaviour around other women, not the other way around. Even when I was cheated on I never held the other woman responsible as I've seen some women do.

I can understand why a lot of women get sucked in to the usual pattern of viewing other women as rivals, but this is exactly how guys get away with so much shit in the first place. A lot of guys take advantage of the way women view love and sex, and use it to their advantage. Fact is - men can compartmentalize sex and love...we can be in love with a woman, and still try to seduce another for fun and games...if we can get away with it. It's not that me, or most guys who don't screw around, are paragons of virtue....it's more of a matter that, aside from a few rock stars or guys with too much money, the only way most guys can be screwing around is if they are out there actively looking for opportunities! And once they start down the 2nd track, they have to be good liars, and have the energy to make the time and money available to deceive two women at the same time. It's a shame that many women fall for their bullshit alibis....at least the first or 2nd times, but if a woman is in love with a man, and views love and sex as interwoven, it's hard to get used to the male capacity to decompartmentalize the two. And, Instead of working together, women fall into the trap of falling for his excuses and breaking friendships, and being divided and isolated by the men who try to run their lives.

I would be okay with my husband flirting, but this guy was going way beyond that and he was doing it in the same office where the wife worked. What a gem, yeah, so the wife decides to keep the husband and fire the pretty receptionist.

That seems to be the net result here. I know a lot of guys who do the flirting thing and don't take it further....or just haven't had the opportunity to do so. For myself, I've avoided starting down that road, which hasn't been too terribly difficult for me, likely because I was very shy around girls when I was young, and took along time to open up and be able to talk to them. Keeping things low key and avoiding talking about sex, was always a good way for me to keep my anxiety levels down if I met someone for the first time. So, to each his own....the only thing I would expect is that the guys who are going to deliberately lead themselves into temptation....like two guys I work with who pestered me to get on Facebook....started looking up old girlfriends as soon as they joined. No surprise they both ended up divorced....except to them apparently....since neither of them accepts the blame for ruining their own marriages.

Edited December 26, 2012 by WIP

[bush_cheney2004]

The richest of the rich in the modern capitalist system are the bankers who use the banking system itself to bleed the real economy of wealth and concentrate it in their own estates...

Patently false.....many of the "richest of the rich" people in the world are not bankers at all. There are many failed banks and bankers to go with them. Some even go to prison (S & L Crisis - USA )

http://www.bloomberg...est-people.html

Edited December 26, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[cybercoma]

Sounds like Muslim logic to me.

-k

Sounds pretty insulting to men too. You know, since their nature is to be lascivious predators apparently.

[cybercoma]

how can the man stop his attraction to this woman?

Maybe your church could help him out with one of those sexuality re-assignment classes. They could teach him to be homosexual, since he's clearly not happy being heterosexual. It's affecting his work life.

[betsy]

Maybe I'm getting it from Star Trek or something...the line "with great power comes great responsibility." Wherever it's from, the point is that the employer has the bulk of the responsibility to prevent a situation like this from getting out of hand. I don't see much more going on than the fact that he was assuming more interest in him by her than was likely happening, and if she is guilty of anything, it's bending to an overbearing boss and feeding his ego, instead of putting him in his place right from the beginning!

I am not saying he was not responsible. He was, for letting things get out of hand. He is the employer. He should know better. He tried to rectify it....but obviously that was not enough. So, he did what he had to do.

But let's not try to paint the woman as lily-white blameless in this situation. Without her cooperation, she wouldn't have been in this situation. She is an adult after all.

Edited December 27, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

I don't think the wife has any more right than her husband, to fire an employee for personal reasons that are mostly the fault of her husband....since he was the one with the power in whatever relationship existed between him and this woman.

Just because you think that way doesn't mean it is that way.

As to who has the power in that workplace? What moron would think the wife doesn't wield any power? Perhaps she wield more power than the husband!

That's something the employee should've taken into consideration before embarking on this sex-talk with the husband!

Admit it. The employee ended up in that predicament partly due to her own miscalculation.

[Guest Manny]

I've had several 'work spouses' over the years, and never tried nor wanted them to have a sexual component. Sometimes they steer well clear of any topic related to sex (depending on personalities involved) but at other times, some of the women I've known have been mind-blowingly open about various aspects of their sexual histories and preferences. I know things about the history of one of my married female friends her husband doesn't know and she doesn't want him to know. The thing is, though, neither of us is physically/romantically attracted to the other. So we're just friends. We can talk about a lot of stuff, and it has nothing to do with romance or sex. I have another friend who vents a lot about stuff at work because her husband has never worked in a large business and really doesn't 'get it'. Venting to him is pointless since he's so lacking in understanding and unsympathetic.

And yes, they vent about their husbands/boyfriends too. Maybe that's the part this wife didn't like, that her husband was complaining to a friend about her. But people do that all the time. It makes no difference that the friend is a different gender.

There are no hip waders deep enough

[Bonam]

One point that capitalists of all stripes....whether liberal progressive or ruthless libertarian always ignore, is that EVERY employee working for them is underpaid! And if you don't believe me, tell me how long a business stays profitable after it pays its employees more than the full value of their work? Answer is NEVER.

You don't understand the meaning of the term underpaid.

[Bonam]

I can understand why a lot of women get sucked in to the usual pattern of viewing other women as rivals, but this is exactly how guys get away with so much shit in the first place. A lot of guys take advantage of the way women view love and sex, and use it to their advantage. Fact is - men can compartmentalize sex and love...we can be in love with a woman, and still try to seduce another for fun and games...if we can get away with it.

This is not a uniquely male feature. There are plenty of guys that can't/don't "compartmentalize" love and sex, and there are also women that do do this too.

It's not that me, or most guys who don't screw around, are paragons of virtue....it's more of a matter that, aside from a few rock stars or guys with too much money, the only way most guys can be screwing around is if they are out there actively looking for opportunities! And once they start down the 2nd track, they have to be good liars, and have the energy to make the time and money available to deceive two women at the same time.

So your point of view of guys is that they're all cheating bastards at heart, only kept in check by their own laziness. I for one disagree.

It's a shame that many women fall for their bullshit alibis....at least the first or 2nd times, but if a woman is in love with a man, and views love and sex as interwoven, it's hard to get used to the male capacity to decompartmentalize the two. And, Instead of working together, women fall into the trap of falling for his excuses and breaking friendships, and being divided and isolated by the men who try to run their lives.

Working together with who? The woman who the guy cheated with? Working together with that person to do what? Get some kind of revenge? Not really following here.

That seems to be the net result here. I know a lot of guys who do the flirting thing and don't take it further....or just haven't had the opportunity to do so. For myself, I've avoided starting down that road, which hasn't been too terribly difficult for me, likely because I was very shy around girls when I was young, and took along time to open up and be able to talk to them. Keeping things low key and avoiding talking about sex, was always a good way for me to keep my anxiety levels down if I met someone for the first time. So, to each his own....the only thing I would expect is that the guys who are going to deliberately lead themselves into temptation...

What is this concept of "temptation"? Sounds like something originating in silly Christian religious notions. Our current society has no requirement of monogamy, nor of getting married to begin with. Any individual who would rather have multiple sex partners than just one is free to do so, limited only by their ability to find willing partners. Further, there are plenty of women that succumb to "temptation" as well.

People here are trying to make this a gender issue when it really is not in the slightest. The issue is a workplace relationship. Period. Could have happened with the genders of the two individuals reversed just as easily.

[betsy]

People here are trying to make this a gender issue when it really is not in the slightest. The issue is a workplace relationship. Period. Could have happened with the genders of the two individuals reversed just as easily.

Or two same-sex. It is indeed workplace relationship. It need not have to be about sex either.

Edited December 27, 2012 by betsy

[Guest American Woman]

Certainly not.....wearing proper workplace attire is a problem for some men and women. I guess it conflicts with their individualism, sense of style, and freedom of expression, but HR staff now have to go to the trouble of defining what is and is not acceptable. What I see at work sometimes is laughable, but quite intentional. Get with the program or get a different job.

Agreed. Her refusal to wear a lab coat could have been grounds for termination. I wonder how long border patrol guards would last if they showed up sans uniform and name tag?

The only reason this incident has created the attention it has is because it's falsely made out to be about a woman being fired for being too hot - and that's not the case.

I have to say, too, that the wife is being portrayed by some as a jealous woman - as if she doesn't have legitimate grounds for her objection to the woman working in the office they all share. Others are making the man out to be a pig, as if women are always innocent victims. Others still are blaming the woman, as some sort of husband snatcher. Others seem to think that because they have self control, there's no way anything could have happened between the two.

Bottom line, this case was about the "relationship," which involves two people. Both the dentist and the assistant played a part in that relationship, and since it was his practice, how else could this have turned out?

As I said, if it were the assistant's husband who had objected, she would be able to quit. She has that right. She wouldn't have been forced to stay, and by the same token, the dentist shouldn't be forced to keep her on. Had the assistant acted in a purely professional manner, this wouldn't have played out the way it did.

[Guest Manny]

Agreed. Her refusal to wear a lab coat could have been grounds for termination. I wonder how long border patrol guards would last if they showed up sans uniform and name tag?

The only reason this incident has created the attention it has is because it's falsely made out to be about a woman being fired for being too hot - and that's not the case.

I have to say, too, that the wife is being portrayed by some as a jealous woman - as if she doesn't have legitimate grounds for her objection to the woman working in the office they all share. Others are making the man out to be a pig, as if women are always innocent victims. Others still are blaming the woman, as some sort of husband snatcher. Others seem to think that because they have self control, there's no way anything could have happened between the two.

Bottom line, this case was about the "relationship," which involves two people. Both the dentist and the assistant played a part in that relationship, and since it was his practice, how else could this have turned out?

As I said, if it were the assistant's husband who had objected, she would be able to quit. She has that right. She wouldn't have been forced to stay, and by the same token, the dentist shouldn't be forced to keep her on. Had the assistant acted in a purely professional manner, this wouldn't have played out the way it did.

'nuff said!

[WIP]

I am not saying he was not responsible. He was, for letting things get out of hand. He is the employer. He should know better. He tried to rectify it....but obviously that was not enough. So, he did what he had to do.

But let's not try to paint the woman as lily-white blameless in this situation. Without her cooperation, she wouldn't have been in this situation. She is an adult after all.

Well, from the information given to the public, this working relationship went on for 10 years; so if anything wasn't right, the employer had a lot of time to address these issues before anything got out of control....as we are told.

We put the burden of responsibility on the persons or groups in society that have the power - not those at a disadvantage who have to adapt to demands, wishes and wants of the boss in this example. My guess is that any unprofessional conduct was on his part, or being encouraged by him...which is just as bad, since he had the power to stop it or let it keep going.....so, I really don't care what her motives or intentions were, because, even if she was a gold-digger looking to break up a marriage to marry a rich dentist (like the receptionist in my former dentist's office), it was a situation that was under the boss's complete control anyway.

[WIP]

Just because you think that way doesn't mean it is that way.

As to who has the power in that workplace? What moron would think the wife doesn't wield any power? Perhaps she wield more power than the husband!

That's something the employee should've taken into consideration before embarking on this sex-talk with the husband!

Admit it. The employee ended up in that predicament partly due to her own miscalculation.

If we take a step back and look at the overall context, both the wife, and the employee are women who's primary avenue to a better life comes through marrying the man who has the money, or is earning the large salary. Supposedly from the beginning of my generation, this was all in the past, and women are independent and able to earn their own way without needing to depend on a man to ensure their own success in life. In the return to austerity, there are a number of signs to indicate that these relics of patriarchy are on the return; and the young women will start focusing again on marrying the man who will have the best earning potential, while those who got left out will play the classic role of the gold-digger, and try to displace wife#1 so they can have their shot at a life of luxury! But, rather than blame the women for how they react or adapt to living in a man's world again, I'm going to focus the blame on the system that inevitably leads to people debasing and degrading themselves for personal success.

[WIP]

You don't understand the meaning of the term underpaid.

And, if you do, forgot to tell the rest of us what it means!

[WIP]

This is not a uniquely male feature. There are plenty of guys that can't/don't "compartmentalize" love and sex, and there are also women that do do this too.

So your point of view of guys is that they're all cheating bastards at heart, only kept in check by their own laziness. I for one disagree.

I didn't mean 'completely separate.' I would say that a guy who wants to have sex with a woman he despises is sick in the head, but a lot of guys will do it anyway, while most women I've met will only do it for other personal gains that might be included. And, guys who value the relationships their in and put a high premium on stability, will avoid the temptations that come along and not let them get past the fantasy stage. My thoughts about "laziness" have more to do with the fact that the guys who are screwing around for a long time have to be more than pathological liars! They have to be a lot more organized with their time than I am or care to be.

What is this concept of "temptation"? Sounds like something originating in silly Christian religious notions.

Silly Christian notion or not, what else should we call it when you might see a girl or even have a conversation with one that really turns you on....yet you know in the back of your mind as soon as more deliberate thinking kicks in, that everything's going to go bad if you try to explore that other possibility?

Our current society has no requirement of monogamy, nor of getting married to begin with. Any individual who would rather have multiple sex partners than just one is free to do so, limited only by their ability to find willing partners. Further, there are plenty of women that succumb to "temptation" as well.

Our current society hasn't been around for very long, and is not sustainable anyway, so I'm not exactly sure what worth it is to talk about 'normal' right now at this point in time. That said, I would argue that monogamy has become important - not because of religious indoctrination - but because personal relationships are so unreliable and dependent on material factors like where you live, where you work etc., that there is more at stake in protecting a marriage today than there ever was before in history! When I was young, there were friends I had that were only friends while we were drinking together, and didn't survive the transition to adult responsibilities....just as there were friends my wife and I had with other couples that we got to know through our kids....but as our children grew older and moved away from earlier friends, the adult friend component didn't last either!

Today, monogamy may be important for the first time in human history! But, as long as we remain doing roughly what we are doing now, it will remain so. If we start talking about what's intrinsically normal as humans, and what's not, it can't be done without going back and doing an exhaustive study of how humans lived in hunter/gatherer bands during the long period of the Pleistocene - the era in which we evolved into modern humans. Everything that has happened to us culturally ever since then - including the 10,000 year age of agriculture are all adaptations made because of cultural pressures since the major evolutionary changers were made.

[betsy]

Well, from the information given to the public, this working relationship went on for 10 years; so if anything wasn't right, the employer had a lot of time to address these issues before anything got out of control....as we are told.

I've read she's been working in that place for 10 years. I don't know exactly when they both transgressed and got very up close and personal!

Anyway, he did finally address it - as demanded by the bigger boss. The power behind the throne!

[guyser]

Can the employer sue if an employee quits ?

Kind of I suppose.

Proprietary information reasons.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Kind of I suppose.

Proprietary information reasons.

Actually, yes. If they were unable to fill the vacancy and suffered a significant loss to income as a result of not giving proper notice. Its more likely that they just drop their standards and accept someone who is available. But only really in the case of receiving a signing bonus to guarantee a commitment of a certain period. A family member in Engineering gets signing bonuses to guarantee that they will stay for a certain period.

Dental hygenists aren't really unique in skill or in short supply, probably wouldn't give them out.

[Bonam]

And, if you do, forgot to tell the rest of us what it means!

"Fair pay" is what the market determines for a given type of job based on supply and demand. It is not the total revenue of a company minus expenses divided by the number of its employees. If companies didn't generate profit, then people would not invest capital in them, entrepreneurs would not start new businesses, etc.

I didn't mean 'completely separate.' I would say that a guy who wants to have sex with a woman he despises is sick in the head, but a lot of guys will do it anyway, while most women I've met will only do it for other personal gains that might be included.

So what you're saying is guys might have sex with someone they don't really like for the sexual gratification and women might do it for the monetary/career gratification. Don't see much difference.

Silly Christian notion or not, what else should we call it when you might see a girl or even have a conversation with one that really turns you on....yet you know in the back of your mind as soon as more deliberate thinking kicks in, that everything's going to go bad if you try to explore that other possibility?

If to the best of your ability to determine the new girl that you met is a prospect for a more fulfilling relationship than the one you are currently in, it is within your realm of possibility to terminate your current relationship and pursue the new one. Nothing forces one to remain in an unsatisfying marriage.

Our current society hasn't been around for very long, and is not sustainable anyway, so I'm not exactly sure what worth it is to talk about 'normal' right now at this point in time. That said, I would argue that monogamy has become important - not because of religious indoctrination - but because personal relationships are so unreliable and dependent on material factors like where you live, where you work etc., that there is more at stake in protecting a marriage today than there ever was before in history!

I'm not sure I understand your line of thought. From what I understand, you are saying that most relationships are becoming more temporary, and so it is important to preserve marriage as a permanent monogamous bond. Why? If the dynamic nature of our society where people move around a lot is driving most relationships to become more temporary rather than lifelong, how does this make monogamy more important than it has been in the past?

When I was young, there were friends I had that were only friends while we were drinking together, and didn't survive the transition to adult responsibilities....just as there were friends my wife and I had with other couples that we got to know through our kids....but as our children grew older and moved away from earlier friends, the adult friend component didn't last either!

Yes, that has been my experience too. A lot of friendships last while you have something in common. When that something in common is no longer applicable, the friendship can disappear over time. Still not seeing the connection though...

Today, monogamy may be important for the first time in human history! But, as long as we remain doing roughly what we are doing now, it will remain so. If we start talking about what's intrinsically normal as humans, and what's not, it can't be done without going back and doing an exhaustive study of how humans lived in hunter/gatherer bands during the long period of the Pleistocene - the era in which we evolved into modern humans.

What's intrinsically normal for humans is for males to desire multiple sexual partners in order to spread their genes to the next generation as much as possible, for females to want to secure a strong male for life that can provide protection and stability and increase the chance of survival of their offspring, and for human groups to organize in a way that creates stability and increases the chances of survival of the group.

Anyway, I'm sure a lot of people naturally want to be monogamous. But for those that are driven to have multiple sexual partners, there is nothing wrong with that, nor anything in our society that forces them to forgo that. Just like some people would rather have same sex partners or opposite sex partners, some may prefer a single partner or multiple partners. Not everyone has to get married, and those that are constantly feeling "temptations" should look into arrangements other than traditional marriages.

Edited December 28, 2012 by Bonam

[betsy]

If we take a step back and look at the overall context, both the wife, and the employee are women who's primary avenue to a better life comes through marrying the man who has the money, or is earning the large salary. Supposedly from the beginning of my generation, this was all in the past, and women are independent and able to earn their own way without needing to depend on a man to ensure their own success in life. In the return to austerity, there are a number of signs to indicate that these relics of patriarchy are on the return; and the young women will start focusing again on marrying the man who will have the best earning potential, while those who got left out will play the classic role of the gold-digger, and try to displace wife#1 so they can have their shot at a life of luxury! But, rather than blame the women for how they react or adapt to living in a man's world again, I'm going to focus the blame on the system that inevitably leads to people debasing and degrading themselves for personal success.

What on earth are you talking about??? Earth to WIP - come down here with us, please.

[Guest American Woman]

What on earth are you talking about??? Earth to WIP - come down here with us, please.

I couldn't get past the first line in his post.