Way OT – Employer/Employee Conflict

[TimothyMoulder]

>>There is no clause in the constitution that "separates church from state".

You should actually read once in a while.<<

So should you...

From Wikipedia...

In the United States, separation of church and state is sometimes believed to be in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and by legal precedents interpreting that clause, some extremely controversial. The Establishment Clause states that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" However, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the Fourteenth Amendment (one of the Reconstruction Amendments) makes the Establishment Clause and other portions of the Bill of Rights binding on state and local governments as well, although it is arguable that this restriction on state and local government existed in Article VI of the unamended Constitution and that the Fourteenth Amendment was a clarification on the limitation of government power. Many other democratic governments around the world have similar clauses in their respective constitutions.
The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, but rather is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, Jefferson referred to a "wall of separation between church and state."

James Madison, the father of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, wrote in the early 1800s, "Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States." Ulysses S. Grant also called for Americans to "Keep the church and state forever separate."

********

The words may not appear in the constitution themselves, but the case I cited was accurate, and Jefferson's letters clearly indicate that seperation of Church and State was exactly what he intended to accomplish with the establishment clause.

A few years ago, I read a column by a liberal newswriter who was retracting his previous views on gun control. His argument had been that the second amendment only afforded the presence of an armed militia, and was not intended to allow any and all Americans to own firearms.

A friend challenged him to read some other writings of the founding fathers, and put the amendment into context. He did so, and realized he'd been mistaken. Reading what Jefferson, and I believe Madison in particular, had to say on the issue, he could no longer deny it. The intent of the founding fathers was that any american who wished it could be armed to the teeth if they so chose.

As for the Deists, I have no issue with them. We Calvinist Presbyterians are not so far from them in some respects. The world is a work of art, which science ponders. God is the artist, whom religion ponders on. But the artist is evident in his work.

Edit - Incidentally, what does that have to do with the price of tea in china? I feel God is evident at points in history where the idea of coincidence is itself absurd. That doesn't make me a deist, and has no bearing on their deism either. - end edit

Edit 2 - I removed the last paragraph out of respect for Pentecostals. That was incendianary, even for me. Despite this, I still feel that the decline in contemplative Christian congregations is owing to the sexier, "party" atmosphere of emotive denominations."

TM

 

[Lancie1]

We’ve, of course, been discussing when, where, and what type of wedding to have since we got engaged with an emphasis more on where than anything else because she does not want to get married here (nor do the kids).

This all comes down decisions my fiancé and I must make for ourselves and we both know that.

Anon,
You should go ahead and get married. It is the "right" (notice I did not say moral) thing to do, for your fiance and the kids, and you will be a better man for doing it.

To me, the decision to get married or not is a separate one from the decision to stay or not stay with the job. I believe that you love this woman, and unlike your first marriage, know exactly what you are getting into. So go ahead, what do you have to fear?

Your big decision is where to tie the knot? How about on a cruise ship? Sign up for a cruise for the whole family down to Mexico, or the Panama Canal. Then get the Captain to marry you onboard! Send your boss a wedding picture.

 

[monkeyhead]

To quote one of my favorite co-workers:

"The quickest way to ruin a job is by discussing politics and religion."

 

[Tom Jenkins]

Missing the point

To me, the decision to get married or not is a separate one from the decision to stay or not stay with the job.

The central question in my mind is not about getting married. It is about whether or not Boss has the right to exert pressure to influence this most personal of decisions.

I don't buy any of the mutterings about Boss's authority or intentions. The authorities that gave Socrates the hemlock were undoubtedly sincere about protecting the youth of Athens. The priests who rode with the conquistadors and converted Mexico at the point of the sword were surely convinced it was for the natives' own good.

And I refuse to let Boss hide behind the veil of scripture. The ante-bellum American south was overrun with ministers who could quote the Bible and prove that Negro slavery was both right and God's will. In my own youth men of the cloth in the US and South Africa could prove with scripture references that miscegnation was evil and apartheid was a good thing.

So what happens if Boss decides that a wedding on a cruise ship is no good because of the surrounding evil gambling? What happens if he decides other passages outweigh the miracle at Canna, and that glass of wine with dinner has to go? In the upcoming election Boss will surely conclude that one candidate has proven a more faithful advocate of the gospel, and is business friendly to boot. Is he justified in coercing his employess to vote the right way? After all, what is good for Boss's business is obviously good for the town as well.

The question is how far over the line of coercion in an employee's personal life is too far. The best answer, in my mind, is not to cross the line at all.

 

[testsubject]

Very well put, Tom.

 

[TimothyMoulder]

Hear hear! This guy will never quit. It's a short leap from believing in a Absolute Truth to thinking that such belief makes you (personally)infallible.

Anon has got to get out of there, quick!

TM

 

[Steve Bailey]

It's a short leap from believing in a Absolute Truth to thinking that such belief makes you (personally)infallible.

It's an equally short leap to thinking that those who refuse to accept your version of Absolute Truth are inferior and thus not subject to the same rules that govern civil conduct among the enlightened.

 

[TimothyMoulder]

It's an equally short leap to thinking that those who refuse to accept your version of Absolute Truth are inferior and thus not subject to the same rules that govern civil conduct among the enlightened.

This is very true...

I'll base this on a Christian viewpoint, since I'm from that angle myself, but I believe most major religions have something along the same line.

What you refer to is called Pride (capital intended). It is the chief and most severe sin in all of Christianity. It is the most insidiuous, and the most damaging to individuals and societies. Murder is nothing compared to Pride. Murder kills a few. Pride can, and has, killed millions.

The worst part about Pride is, at bottom it has a distorted misapplication of Absoulte Truth: "Jesus loves me". Perversely, the harder you try to grasp that truth, the firmer a grasp Pride gets on you.

It goes something like this, using Prosperity Theology as an example. Note that these are baby steps - there is no great leap of logic here:

1. Jesus loves me.
2. I am rich.
3. I am rich because Jesus loves me.
4. You are poor. Jesus must not love you.
5. I can do whatever I want to you, because Jesus loves me, and does not love you.

Now replace #2 with whatever you prefer:\

I am American.
I am Presbyterian.
I am Muslim (replace Jesus with Allah)
I am Shiite, or Sunni
I am white
I am your boss

See where this gets you? The critical part is, this is recognized in most religions. In the Bible, Jesus spoke more than 50 times on the correct treatment of the poor. Why? Because they are a barometer of how badly infected a person, or a people, have become. They are the first to be forgotten, the first sacrifices when the budget gets tight.

It's a pity so many purported Christian politicians have no trouble at all leaving the "widow destitute and the fatherless without recourse".

Riddle: What's the difference between someone who thinks the universe owes them something, and someone who thinks the universe is out to get them?


TM

 

[Stephen Luft]

Tom,

Mr. Luft made, and reference to the authority of Scripture has been the basis of untold evil and misery throughout the world and throughout time.

It is not the use of scripture, or its authority that caused the evil, but rather man's misinterpretation of the scritpures and man's intent for control. Don't blame God for man's thirst for power and control. We are the one's that sinned. We are the one's that disobeyed.

Any writings, teachings or books can be taken out of context. God's Word is no different. It is very easy to use one verse out of context from the rest of the passage whereby the meaning is entirely different than its intended meaning. Paul instructs Timothy:

"Study and show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needs not be ashamed, RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH." 2 Timothy 2:15

What you are seeing today, as well as over the last 1700+ years is not what God intended because people are not rightly dividing the Word of Truth. Don't be fooled, because God was well aware of what was going to happen. It is all in His Word

Whether you choose to believe His Word or not, doesn't change the outcome in His Book.

You don't have to tell me about the travesties that were done in the name of our Lord. As a Jewish believer, I had to overcome everything I ever knew. It was when I started going to church and reading God's Word, that I was reunited with my Jewish Heritage...and in essence the Church's true heritage. It was over the last 6 years, that I have done a great deal of study on church history. There are many things that have been adopted by the church over the centuries that are just flat out wrong and are not supported by God's Word.

Many of the issues you have today, are related to the "man made" traditions of the church and the "man made" history of the church...not God's.

There is evil in the church, and has been for centuries, but that isn't God's fault...it is man's. For all the evil there has been, there is still good, and that good is what our Messiah did. Regardless of what man has done to defile it, belief in Him is all that is needed. Once you choose to believe in what He did, then, a desire to serve him and follow his teachings is at the center of your life. This has nothing to do with the religous structure that you talk about, but a relationship with the creator of the universe. The one who paid the price for the sin of the world.

The vast number of denominations was never intended by God, but is a result of man's interpretation. Denominations would form, because someone didn't like one of the doctrines, so they separate and write their own doctrines. There is only one church...it is God's church. The doctrine for God's church is God's Word.

And for my own edification, specifically, what law has our annonymous friend's boss broken?

He wasn't fired without cause. He wasn't treated differently than other employees, in that two other employee's "situations" were handled in the same manner. He didn't say anything about his pay...just his title, so we don't know if his pay changed.

For those who stated that what you do in your personal life has no bearing on your professional life...really!

So it is alright to be a drug user on the weekend, so long as it doesn't affect your job? Is it alright to be drunk and disorderly on the weekend, so long as it doesn't affect your work week? What about drinking and driving? Please don't even say that it is fine so long as you don't get caught. These aren't even biblical examples...they are based on society's rules. ALL THREE ARE ILLEGAL.

What is the level of credibility of someone who is in an adulterous affair? Would you want them to be your manager. Whose to say that what they are doing on their own time, wouldn't enable them to do the corporate version of adultery.

What happens when what they do on their own time start affecting their work time. Looking at the previous example. An affair goes bad, and that person is now dealing with it on your company's time.

It all comes down to a person's integrity and credibility. As employees and managers, you are representatives for your company.

Have we lowered our standards so much that integrity doesn't matter anymore?

Our annonymous friend's boss has set standards for his key employees. Whether biblically based, legally based or a combination of the two, they are still standards that he holds his employees and specifically key personnel accountable.

Steve,

How can truth be absolute if there are different versions?

 

[Tom Jenkins]

Steve,

How can truth be absolute if there are different versions?

Aye, there's the rub.

Who gets to decide for another what writings are divinely inspired? The Pope? L. Ron Hubbard? The Dahli Lahma? The Emperor of Japan?. There are many people in the world who would say "yes" to any one of these.

Who gets to decide if behaviour outside working hours is unacceptable? The police? The boss? The elderly maiden co-worker? The subordinate who wants your position?

There is a significant difference between behavior that is "alright" and behavior that is condemned and punished. Of course driving under the influence is not "alright". However, is it my place to make efforts to ascertain if any employee is doing so? If I find out about it I would certainly, as a "friend", converse with the individual and offer counsel. As an employer I would take pains to avoid censuring or punishing the individual unless and until this behavior spills into the work place. This is not an intellectual exercise - I have been in this position more than once over the years. I don't own an employees life - I am only entitled to a fair day's work for a fair day's pay.

My objection to Boss's actions is precisely because it is impossible for mere humans to consistently draw the line between concern and coercion properly.

I don't approve or condone all of my employees' behavior. However, it is not my place or my right to make moral decisions for anyone else. Period. The alernative has always resulted in pain.

 

[Stephen Luft]

Let me restate my question to Steve, in that I didn't state it as intended.

How can there be different versions of absolute truth?

 

[Steve Bailey]

How can there be different versions of absolute truth?

The question implies the existence of such a thing as absolute truth. I have too much respect for your intelligence to assume that you don't know what I meant. I don't intend to get into a game of semantic "gotcha" with you. I should have enclosed the words in quotes.

I will ask this, however. Given the sorry track record of mankind's misuse of scriptural instruction, how can we be sure that anon's boss is not simply using his religious beliefs to exercise power over his employees?

 

[Stephen Luft]

Steve,

There is nothing stated by our annonymous friend that his boss does or doesn't misuse scripture. However, based on the following quotes, I would be led to believe that he doesn't.

I work for a very small company and have known the boss most of my life as I attended church with he and his family when I was a child.

This is the first and only job right out of college. Been here 7 years and truly enjoy the people I work with, the work I do, and the customers I work with.

Outside of his current situation, it appears that it has been a harmoneous work environment.

Tom,

It doesn't really sound like a place where coercion is present.

Titles don’t have much meaning in our company nor our industry so removing the word ‘manager’ from my title isn’t really a big deal to me though I think he was probably thinking this would eat at my ego some.

If it wasn't an issue, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Two other employees have had similar ‘transgressions’ and are both still employed. One now holds a Vice-President title and is typically the only one who can make the boss see reason when he’s gone astray. I have had one conversation with VP about this and while he does not agree with what I have done (or what he himself did) on a moral basis he also did not condemn me for my actions. His feelings on the boss’s actions (prior to this week) were that it’s a free market and either side in the employment can call it quits if desired. I intend to give him a call just as soon as he returns home.

The "boss" is the person who sets policy for the company. He is the owner...his neck is on the line; his name is on the loan; his name is on the lease. If anything happens, it is not the employee that is held accountable...it is the boss and his company, because you are employeed by the company. You may not always agree with certain policies, however, as long as you are employed by that company, you are to abide by them. The VP didn't judge or condemn, but, told him what his options are.

 

[Tom Jenkins]

It doesn't really sound like a place where coercion is present.

If it wasn't an issue, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The "boss" is the person who sets policy for the company. He is the owner...his neck is on the line; his name is on the loan; his name is on the lease. If anything happens, it is not the employee that is held accountable...it is the boss and his company, because you are employeed by the company. You may not always agree with certain policies, however, as long as you are employed by that company, you are to abide by them. The VP didn't judge or condemn, but, told him what his options are.

One last comment, and then I'll agree to disagree in silence.

I am also the owner, and the boss. My house is mortgaged to provide working capital. My wife's and my retirement and life savings are on the line. This still does not give me the right to dictate personal behaviour.

Boss reduced Anon's title and responsibility because of Anon's personal life. He said the reduction would end if Anon brought his private life into conformance with Boss's view of morality. If that isn't coercion I don't know what the heck is! My dictionary defines coerce as "1. to compel to act or think in a given manner 2. to dominate; restrain"

If I tell an employee he has the option of remaining forever as a lowly minion or take a specific action that is not just telling him options, that is coercion. Period. When King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella gave the Jews of Spain the option of converting to Christianity, leaving Spain with nothing but the clothes on their backs, or burning at the stake, had they merely "told him what his options are"?

Where does it end? Who decides where it should end? You? Your minister or rabbi? Reverend Moon? David Koresh?

I recall reading somewhere about some other properly appointed authorities whoose rightful duties included enforcing adherence to their interpretation of revealed wisdom and tradition. They were called Pharisees. Ring any bells?

 

[colerick]

Google Ford Sociological Department....