You are not logged in. Join Free! | Log In Thank you!    

Welcome to your Green Bay Packers Online Community!

Since 2006, PackersHome has been providing a unique experience for fans.
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Share
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline Wade  
#1 Posted : Friday, December 28, 2012 7:43:24 AM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Posts: 5,654
Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 562
Applause Received: 588

How do you all react to this story?

What should you do when your employee is *too attractive"?

What do you think of the case/ruling? What would you do if you were in the woman's situation? In the man's situation?

Based on the video I don't consider the woman in question particularly attractive. But I do know what it is being seriously attracted to and tempted to "behave inappropriately" with a co-worker. Though I'm not completely dead when I have a student worker who is attractive, I feel far too old to be tempted to do anything in that respect, and my negativity toward my job makes that even more unlikely. But I'm not going to moralize about married men who shouldn't have their thoughts stray, since I'm going to enjoy a nice pair of legs, etc. whenever the opportunity presents itself.
None of the above. It wouldn't have been a wasted vote. Obama and Romney -- Those were the wasted votes.
Sponsor
Offline Pack93z  
#2 Posted : Friday, December 28, 2012 8:16:41 AM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

U.S. Minor Islands
Posts: 12,605
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 353
Applause Received: 936

I seen this the other day... without knowing all the case history, it seems weak on the surface in the court of law.

Basic premise, it is illegal to discriminate on ethic background or sexual orientation, but Iowa now is splitting the hairs based on looks?

I read about he "low cut" top and other accusations, but after her long tenure of employment it seems that behavior would have been more prevalent earlier than now.

Me thinks it was the wife's insecurities that prompted the termination.. unjustly in my opinion. And the fine state of corn upheld it.

What next.. incorrect eye color? Shade of hair?
The wolves will never lose sleep over the feelings of the sheep.

UserPostedImage
Offline DakotaT  
#3 Posted : Friday, December 28, 2012 8:27:45 AM(UTC)
DakotaT

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

Posts: 6,972
Joined: 8/18/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 570
Applause Received: 1,191

Well, it's common knowledge that attractive people have gotten a lot of jobs over better qualified unattractive people. The only person looking like a douche' is the dentist. Something tells me there's a little more to this than the overview in the article.
UserPostedImage
Offline PackFanWithTwins  
#4 Posted : Friday, December 28, 2012 9:33:35 AM(UTC)
PackFanWithTwins

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Posts: 2,647
Joined: 9/26/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 11
Applause Received: 346

I think the business size is a huge factor in this case. If it was a company of a 1000, where she could be assigned to another dentist. But in a small business there may not have been another position for her (some pun intended). In a business, if there is a conflict or potential conflict between two workers, and it cannot be resolved, and they cannot be split apart, one of them will be let go. In this case, the boss cannot very well let himself go.

The world needs ditch diggers to Danny!!!
UserPostedImage
Offline gbguy20  
#5 Posted : Friday, December 28, 2012 9:52:59 AM(UTC)
gbguy20

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Posts: 2,162
Joined: 8/28/2009(UTC)

Applause Given: 185
Applause Received: 247

It's bullshit, essentially.
call me Dan
Offline Formo  
#6 Posted : Friday, December 28, 2012 10:50:27 AM(UTC)
Formo

Rank: All Pro

Posts: 5,555
Joined: 8/12/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 215
Applause Received: 152

Wow.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Offline Wade  
#7 Posted : Friday, December 28, 2012 3:51:44 PM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Posts: 5,654
Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 562
Applause Received: 588

Originally Posted by: DakotaT Go to Quoted Post
Well, it's common knowledge that attractive people have gotten a lot of jobs over better qualified unattractive people. The only person looking like a douche' is the dentist. Something tells me there's a little more to this than the overview in the article.


For some reason I just thought of the dentist in the original MASH movie.

None of the above. It wouldn't have been a wasted vote. Obama and Romney -- Those were the wasted votes.
Offline wpr  
#8 Posted : Friday, December 28, 2012 7:00:00 PM(UTC)
wpr

Rank: Hall of Famer

United States
Posts: 11,889
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 2,416
Applause Received: 1,203

I did not see where they talked about low cut clothing on her part but I certainly would not hire a woman who dressed provocatively.

I can agree with the courts. It may have ended up in the IA Supreme Court but it had to start in the regular state court and went to the Appellate court before hand. Every decision would have been the same. This is not a case of illegal discrimination. (Everyone discriminates every day. When you choose a blue shirt instead of a red one. Drink a latte instead of a reg coffee, that is discrimination. It is acceptable.) You can discriminate by hiring a working mom instead of a single, tattooed, pierced 20 year old. you can terminate her based on her looks as well.
"You don't hurt 'em if you don't hit 'em." Chesty Puller



UserPostedImage

Offline zombieslayer  
#9 Posted : Friday, December 28, 2012 8:33:19 PM(UTC)
zombieslayer

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Posts: 9,919
Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Location: San Francisco

Applause Given: 778
Applause Received: 495

I hope this dentist loses his business. Lame.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)

2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. Ted Thompson Mike McCarthy Aaron Rodgers
Offline yooperfan  
#10 Posted : Friday, December 28, 2012 9:50:50 PM(UTC)
yooperfan

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Posts: 1,714
Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Location: Ishpeming Michigan

Applause Given: 480
Applause Received: 225

Total bullshit!
Offline Wade  
#11 Posted : Saturday, December 29, 2012 9:54:55 AM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Posts: 5,654
Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 562
Applause Received: 588

Originally Posted by: wpr Go to Quoted Post
I did not see where they talked about low cut clothing on her part but I certainly would not hire a woman who dressed provocatively.


Well, if I may be crude, what is more important? Business or babes? :)

I know of at least one co-worker in my past who I would have loved to see dressed more provocatively. Who with absolutely no intention to do so distracted me with great regularity even though she never dressed in anything more provocative than a blouse and slacks. (sigh)

Seriously, though, I wouldn't hire a woman who came to the interview dressed provocatively either. Because pervert that I am, I know *I* would be distracted if many good-looking women of my acquaintance came to work that way. And I have enough trouble being productive as it is!!



None of the above. It wouldn't have been a wasted vote. Obama and Romney -- Those were the wasted votes.
Offline gbguy20  
#12 Posted : Saturday, December 29, 2012 9:59:44 AM(UTC)
gbguy20

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Posts: 2,162
Joined: 8/28/2009(UTC)

Applause Given: 185
Applause Received: 247

My boss and I used to have a deal. I continue being awesome, and she would only hire cute women. Best deal I ever made.
call me Dan
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by YAF 2.1.0 | YAF © 2003-2014, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.210 seconds.