This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Man, you are going to be so pissed when you learn about how constructive dismissal works.
The good news is that if the legislature is on board, they can just rewrite the statutes on these departments and then there isn't any intra-executive conflict needed at all. Want to abolish USAID, just have Congress do it in a one-liner. The courts have long since deferred to Congress' authority over the purse strings.
In fact, the only reason the courts have as much power as they do is that Congress doesn't go back through and amend statutes when they are interpreted wrong. Largely because Congress can't be assed to do much of anything, let alone their core function. So much of the dysfunction of the US government is downstream of that power vacuum caused by a Congress that can't or won't legislate.
I'll show you my Bar card if you can explain which remedies a court can apply in response to a constructive dismissal/termination claim.
It'll save us all some time.
Point is, a Judge can't really force an employer to keep an employee if the employer really wants to let that employee go. They can impose monetary penalties, but in this case they'll probably be paid happily.
Well first would you agree that the elements of constructive termination would be met and we’re just haggling about remedies?
On to remedies, I think front pay could end up being quite a bit.
Under Whittlesey an ambitious plaintiff could argue they would have likely worked till normal retirement and would be entitled to their entire future pay.
Less ambitiously, a plaintiff still does alright. Maybe it’s in the realm of “pay it to go away”
And this is where I think it'd end up if they kept the person on the payroll but just denied them the ability to actually do their job while the situation was worked out.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link