Corporal Punishment in the Workplace

[JollyRoger]

Should corporal punishment be allowed in the workplace or should we restrict the choices available to a business on how to motivate employees? Many employees seem a bit spoiled these days and sometimes certain methods of discipline are just not adequate. If you object to this, but are in favor of corporal punishment of children, why are you more willing to see a child being on the receiving end of physical punishment, but not an adult? If a company's employees are unionized, should they be able to bargain for the corporal punishment of a member of management that violates a clause in the collective bargaining agreement? Should just low level employess be subject to corporal punishment, or should it extend to the President, CEO, and Board of Directors if that is what the shareholders want?

 

[galdre]

Mental/emotional punishment is so effective we don't need corporal punishment.

 

[IglooDame]

It worked for the Royal Navy, after all.

 

[JollyRoger]

Mental/emotional punishment is so effective we don't need corporal punishment.

Shouldn't that be for the owners of a business to decide? The banks and car companies had to be bailed out, so perhaps mental/emotional punishment wasn't enough for those companies.

 

[NovaKart]

The only way I can see it as applicable is if your job is a professional dominatrix.

 

[JollyRoger]

The only way I can see it as applicable is if your job is a professional dominatrix.

What if you are a school teacher?

 

[galdre]

What if you are a school teacher?

Well then you're whipping the kids, and that's ok

 

[JollyRoger]

Well then you're whipping the kids, and that's ok

Why should we be giving away a service to kids that goes for a hefty chunk of change in the free market?

 

[IglooDame]

Why should we be giving away a service to kids that goes for a hefty chunk of change in the free market?

I'd answer your question, but I think I'd probably get some "smoking hole in the ground" moderation inflicted on me.

 

[galdre]

Why should we be giving away a service to kids that goes for a hefty chunk of change in the free market?

It's a public service to aid in their proper development. We want to make sure they'll become good little imperialists when they grow up.

 

[JollyRoger]

Refocusing away from socialized bdsm in public schools (I think there is a thread for that), I am more interested in why employers tend to get sued for this kind of thing. Do we really want trial lawyers and activist judges determining something that should perhaps be more properly relegated to business judgment?

 

[SerriaFox]

If you object to this, but are in favor of corporal punishment of children, why are you more willing to see a child being on the receiving end of physical punishment, but not an adult?

Children are not allowed free will, nor should they be. Children are made to go to school for a reason. Since it is counter productive to send a child away for school (that is likely what they want) the threat of, and occasional usage of corporal punishment is acceptable.

Adults are allowed free will, and business are allowed to fire them, that should be sufficient punishment.

 

[JollyRoger]

Children are not allowed free will, nor should they be. Children are made to go to school for a reason. Since it is counter productive to send a child away for school (that is likely what they want) the threat of, and occasional usage of corporal punishment is acceptable.

Adults are allowed free will, and business are allowed to fire them, that should be sufficient punishment.

Since adults have free will, they can leave a company that uses excessive punishment. It would seem to me that the free will argument better supports corporal punishment in the workplace than in schools since someone with free will has a better shot at escaping such punishment.

Are business people now children? You are taking some of their free will away in how they deal with their employees.

 

[galdre]

Refocusing away from socialized bdsm in public schools (I think there is a thread for that), I am more interested in why employers tend to get sued for this kind of thing. Do we really want trial lawyers and activist judges determining something that should perhaps be more properly relegated to business judgment?

Should it be supervisors punishing their subordinates, or could a group of employees get together and punish their boss? Or both ways?

Personally I think there should be laws against the mental/emotional punishment that often takes place in workplaces. Sadly I think Oregon is the only state with any kind of anti workplace bullying policy.

 

[IglooDame]

Isn't an adult paddling another adult considered to be assault, unless the paddlee consents (except in Massachusetts and possibly other states, where consent is irrelevant)? So, outside of Massachusetts, it's only a question of whether the employees actually object. I have no idea if listing "employees are subject to corporal discipline" on a help-wanted listing would avoid EEO issues, but it's a fun thought. Before any corporal discipline is handed out, the employee must consent in writing to it, or be terminated as a violation of employment contract. Hmmm...

 

[Tani Coyote]

Only if you're in the army because you forfeit many of your rights upon joining it IMO. It is no longer an issue of morality to inflict punishment; it is now an issue of life or death as disciplined troops are a must.

Outside of that, I don't think corporal punishment has any place in employment. We are a free market society, not a slavery-based one.

Oh and assault laws.

Theoretically you could consent to being paddled when signing up for a job but... that's extremist.

 

[JollyRoger]

Isn't an adult paddling another adult considered to be assault, unless the paddlee consents (except in Massachusetts and possibly other states, where consent is irrelevant)? So, outside of Massachusetts, it's only a question of whether the employees actually object. I have no idea if listing "employees are subject to corporal discipline" on a help-wanted listing would avoid EEO issues, but it's a fun thought. Before any corporal discipline is handed out, the employee must consent in writing to it, or be terminated as a violation of employment contract. Hmmm...

How explicit must the consent be though? If you are working for an employee in Texas and they change their policy (such as making arbitration of employement disputes mandatory, thus cutting away the right to a jury trial), they can make your act of continuing employment count as consent to the changes in company policy.

We are a free market society, not a slavery-based one.

And the free market would solve the problem. Companies that instituted such policies could be boycotted. They may have to pay more to find employees willing to work under such conditions. I think inflicting physical punishment on a slave is more troublesome than inflicting it upon someone who has the free will to quit.

 

[IglooDame]

How explicit must the consent be though? If you are working for an employee in Texas and they change their policy (such as making arbitration of employement disputes mandatory, thus cutting away the right to a jury trial), they can make your act of continuing employment count as consent to the changes in company policy.

That would seem to be a separate issue, though. What if you're working for an employer in Texas and they change their policy with respect to pay or vacation time, cutting it in half? Same difference as for changing policies regarding punishment - you take the hit, or you quit.

 

[MobBoss]

It worked for the Royal Navy, after all.

Well, it was only 1 part of the 3 part requirement. The other two parts being rum and buggery.

 

[NovaKart]

Only if you're in the army because you forfeit many of your rights upon joining it IMO. It is no longer an issue of morality to inflict punishment; it is now an issue of life or death as disciplined troops are a must.

Outside of that, I don't think corporal punishment has any place in employment. We are a free market society, not a slavery-based one.

Oh and assault laws.

Theoretically you could consent to being paddled when signing up for a job but... that's extremist.

If someone is forced into the army their rights are given up involuntarily. Anyway I'm not comfortable with the idea of corporal punishment in the army, particularly not in a conscript one.