re: #387 kirkspencer

Regardless of truth. OK.

You have just described the core reason I object to “at will” states. The laws are passed to “protect the worker” from unions. Unions which, in this case, would tell the business to shove it. In other words they’re not to protect the worker, they’re to protect the company.

Because if this man turns out to be innocent, it doesn’t matter. He’s 60. As you said it’ll be a long time before the trial is finished. After a year he’s pretty much unemployable. Because he was fired he loses a bunch of benefits - and he can’t sue because it’s “right to work”.

He is screwed.

If he’s guilty that’s OK. But if he’s innocent… I have this apparently naive belief that one of the cornerstones of this nation is that our system tries to protect the innocent, to prevent harm to the extent possible to those falsely accused. Apparently that nation does not exist. Instead if you hamper that bottom line you just need to go away. Don’t let your corpse block the driveway, please, the janitor was outsourced last week.

He can sue and claim wrongful termination, but the suit won’t likely proceed till the criminal case is resolved.

But while I take your point, the best I could support in his case is suspension and given the evidence likely without pay. The fact is that he carries a stench and his working would be detrimental to his employer, due to PR damage. Forcing the the company to endure that damage would be wrong, as the corporation does have rights to protect its own image and values.