Originally Posted by Machka (Post 14324290)

I can see the temp agency's point of view. Without a car, you're limited to places that are close to where you live, or that have decent public transportation, and places that don't require any sort of driving as a part of the job.


I'm all for commuting by bicycle, but sometimes it is rather limiting.

Originally Posted by dscheidt (Post 14322955)

Car ownership, or lack there of, is not a protected category, unlike, say, race, sex, or religion. Employers are free to hire or fire their employees for any other reason, or none at all, unless there's a contractual agreement not to, as in the case of a union collective bargaining agreement. They can decide they don't care to employee people who don't drive, they can decide the dont' care to employ people who like the Green Bay Packers, or just about anything else.

Originally Posted by Ratzinger (Post 14330298)

Wow, that is definitely not the case in Canada and frankly I'd be surprised if it were the case in any of the States. So if you're doing a good job but your employer says "You're fired because I don't like people who like a particular football team" you can't sue for wrongful dismissal? That would be an extraordinary amount of power in the hands of employers.

Originally Posted by Bekologist (Post 14330391)

One of the paradoxes embedded in "right to work" americans are cursed with in most every state.

non-union, non-governmental employees in the states, generally speaking, can be let go for any reason, or no reason at all, so long as it is not a result of you being a member of a protected class. there's no grounds to sue for wrongful dismissal.