Prada fires “ugly” employee, now suing her for $780k

I was not speaking of a governmental connection, why are you making it seem as if I am? That’s pretty subtle manipulation of my statements, obviously designed to lead a viewer into false beliefs. I was speaking about the collective, so why don’t you consider the collective notion of a class of people who are bound together loosely based on a perceived similarity of economic impact issues?

Yes, I believe people should be discriminated by their looks. Prada has the right to hire and fire whom she wishes, with only governmental restrictions inhibiting that. This woman’s case was tried in Tokyo, where obviously looks are not a factor, she is now petitioning the U.N. to create a basis for suing Prada in the U.S. where she hope ‘socialist’ sympathies, by a collective of similarly emotionally validated and skewed losers, will bolster her claim, or rather YOUR claim, that looks SHOULD NOT play a part in employment, even though they do.

So as per your desires, people will no longer consider it essential to dress either professionally, or attractively? I mean who defines professionally or attractively… oh yes, evil employers making unreasonable demands based on looks! Right? So yes, let’s extend this issue you have with looks… what does it matter if the person we speak to who represents the company they work for has rotted teeth, or extreme non-communicable diseases causing their skin to scale or rot as you converse… ignore that! Do the right thing! Right? Because after all, what does appearances have to do with business, or economics, or sales, or anything at all? Right?

Well then, so what does the bottom line, people’s sensitivities, marketability, social inhibitions, taboos and fears have to do with anything? Right? So forget about whether customers have a problem because they ALL SHOULD JUST GET A LIFE! Right? And if business suffers, well… TOO BAD! Because people are owed a job and defending that abstract uber utopian perspective is worth any losses which may result? Right? So you would choose for the potential demise of a business, so that certain individuals who cause it damage by their appearances, can have a permanent position and gain economic compensation, because of?? ahhh… oh yes, because of the Civil War, because once… blacks were slaves and have continued to be discriminated against because of their LOOKS? Right?

Well I have news for you, society will not either shield their eyes or change their minds based on your utopian decree, people will continue to shop at stores where representatives present themselves as looking attractive to whatever feeble notions of fashion and acceptability they wish to respect. So if an employer wishes to protect the jobs of the majority, they are expected to shape their employed force in the direction that their customers demand them to, aren’t they? Well, aren’t they? Or do you really really think Prada should abandon the implicit Prada brand justifications for visual appeal that has made her a billionaire, and provided jobs and welfare for thousands, who depend on her sense of aesthetics to lead the company into further profits in their and its future?

I posit that customer demands will continue to press Prada into fulfilling her reputation, and employee demands will continue to fill her integrity with the obligation, to fire people who do not meet the criteria she has historically set forth as essential to all their well beings. So your desire to Egalitarianize a successful business and strap it down to YOUR particular notion of, the lowest common denominator effort to shape and control their collective human behavior… is a FAIL. So deal with that? Yes, you should, I think, but then I can’t control your behavior like you’d like to control everyone, including mine… right?

The group that hired and fired her is in Tokyo, so local labor laws apply.

So… to you, being ‘fair’ is mostly about ‘how it appears’? I say, “at least Prada was honest!”, I don’t know how many times people have been fired or laid off with NO clue, as the employer is afraid to give one, or doesn’t want to appear one way or another, or simply has no concern with giving a reason… but Prada, oh man… she’s out front and fully disclosing, no matter what it might mean to someone else, she hangs it out there and goes for it!, I admire that, in fact from my personal experiences I say, “I admire that in a woman!”

People, and in this case a mix between a person and a company, takes risks… they hire someone based on criteria that is important to them, and if at some point a person fails to meet that criteria, they are fired or laid off. That happens everywhere, except perhaps in some specifically affiliated jobs, where someone may simply get moved somewhere else, or some other alternative plan of action.

Life isn’t about being transparent, uniform or fair… life is about confronting, fighting and winning… or not. This is an absolute until modified by a formal agreement. Law as such then, is a formal agreement, it doesn’t matter what some personal issues are, if the law says one thing, that’s the way it is. If the law suggests some ‘hypothetical standard’ is negotiable, then that’s the way it is, unless there is a default to some ‘standard’. I suggest that people who are especially sensitive to ‘humans and their foibles’, should negotiate an employment agreement which proclaims particular modes, via clauses, guidelines, etc., such as the circumstances and ramifications of separation… I always do. This woman obviously did not.

‘Utopian’ is a framework, it’s an abstract. I don’t think it’s valid to simply say, “It’s unfair to set an unreasonable expectation on something so subjective as beauty.”, without even suggesting what you believe a minimum expectation of beauty is, …so seeing that trend in your prose, I proclaimed that you have in your mind, some ‘utopian’ notion you live your life to, but let’s face it… that’s purely subjective and cannot be mandated en total on others, or can it? I figure local labor laws are the place where the majority suggests the framework, and my argument goes with THAT ‘subjective’.

Yeah, short articles. It’s really short on You Tube! hehe I have no idea how people can be satisfied on Twitter?!?

Now… don’t start calling me a troll, that will defeat your entire premise of integrity via a stable utopian pacifistic vision? ; )

I am saying the law is right, so until people change THAT, you and I are only dancing around it.

Only Atlas Shrugged, but then I’ve read over 2000 books so she is but one author amongst many. I have however watched a couple of her filmed interviews, and read a number of her columns and articles… she was a brilliant articulate woman with many valid notions.