More tRump Lawsuits Involving Golf

[TheHound]

Staff at Trump's golf course say he wanted to fire women who weren't pretty enough

 

 

Donald Trump wanted to fire female employees he considered unattractive and replace them with better-looking women at a golf resort he owned, according to court documents from a 2012 lawsuit.

As reported by the Los Angeles Times, the court documents detail a lawsuit that alleges Trump pressured employees at the Trump National Golf Club in Rancho Palos to replace those he viewed to be unattractive female employees over a number of years in the 2000s.

MY COMMENT: Only a shitty businessman would pick employees' looks over their ability to do their jobs.

 

Donald Trump Sued for $6 Million by Golf Club Members | Golf.com

 

The Republican presidential candidate bought the club for $5 million in 2012. About 60 members of the renamed Trump National Golf Club wanted to leave, but Trump wouldn't return their $35,000 to $210,000 initiation fees as Ritz-Carlton had promised, until new members joined, according to the lawsuit. Meanwhile, they were barred from the club but still charged $6,000 annual dues and $1,800 annually for food and drink, the suit said. The non-jury trial before District Judge Kenneth Marra is expected to conclude Wednesday.

 

 

 

Golfers Say Trump Reneged on Deal - The New York Times

 

Hey tRumproids: Trump is a scumbag and I hope his plane crashes. You tRumproids are much worse than tRump and I wish all agonizing lives and agonizing death. FUCK ALL YOU NAZIS!

 

 

 

[Golfboy]

Staff at Trump's golf course say he wanted to fire women who weren't pretty enough

Oh good for him!!! There is no law protecting ugly liberal women.

[TheHound]

Oh good for him!!! There is no law protecting ugly liberal women.

 

Hey Goofboy your level of retardation is growing. Do the world a favor and eat a gun.

[Golfboy]

Hey Goofboy your level of retardation is growing. Do the world a favor and eat a gun.

lol. Moron thinks "ugly" is a protected class... do you still throw up every time you look in the mirror?

[BatteryPowered]

Just curious...what was the legal grounds for the lawsuit? As far as I know, there is nothing in the discrimination laws protecting looks. I understand beauty is in the eye of the beholder and only goes skin deep, but ugly goes clean to the bone.

 

While terminating them isn't something I would do as an employer, I can see wanting to have attractive people in certain positions. Have you every seen a butt-ugly skank at Hooters, Twin Peaks, Titled Kilt, etc.? By the way, you also wouldn't want a fat slob waiter either.

[king of the county]

Hillary's record

 

 

 

 

enter]

[/center

[eclectic skeptic]

Oh good for him!!! There is no law protecting ugly liberal women.

Liberal?

You are certifiably insane.

And there you go again defending EVERY disgusting thing Trump has done.

 

Which makes me glad to post this quote of yours that will live in infamy:

" I've never tried to defend Trump because I'm not a supporter."

[king of the county]

What about the Ryder cup?

[TheHound]

lol. Moron thinks "ugly" is a protected class... do you still throw up every time you look in the mirror?

 

How a person looks is not legal grounds for firing them you fuck ignorant tRumproid. Die soon!

[eclectic skeptic]

Staff at Trump's golf course say he wanted to fire women who weren't pretty enough

 

 

Donald Trump wanted to fire female employees he considered unattractive and replace them with better-looking women at a golf resort he owned, according to court documents from a 2012 lawsuit.

As reported by the Los Angeles Times, the court documents detail a lawsuit that alleges Trump pressured employees at the Trump National Golf Club in Rancho Palos to replace those he viewed to be unattractive female employees over a number of years in the 2000s.

MY COMMENT: Only a shitty businessman would pick employees' looks over their ability to do their jobs.

Donald Trump Sued for $6 Million by Golf Club Members | Golf.com

 

The Republican presidential candidate bought the club for $5 million in 2012. About 60 members of the renamed Trump National Golf Club wanted to leave, but Trump wouldn't return their $35,000 to $210,000 initiation fees as Ritz-Carlton had promised, until new members joined, according to the lawsuit. Meanwhile, they were barred from the club but still charged $6,000 annual dues and $1,800 annually for food and drink, the suit said. The non-jury trial before District Judge Kenneth Marra is expected to conclude Wednesday.

 

 

Golfers Say Trump Reneged on Deal - The New York Times

 

Hey tRumproids: Trump is a scumbag and I hope his plane crashes. You tRumproids are much worse than tRump and I wish all agonizing lives and agonizing death. FUCK ALL YOU NAZIS!

 

 

 

Like Trump's numbers aren't already low enough with women. Lol

Damn... the only news these days about Trump is BAD news that's costing him votes.

Sweeter than honey.

 

How a person looks is not legal grounds for firing them you fuck ignorant tRumproid. Die soon!

If a democrat was involved in this the scumbag would say exactly what you just did.

His hypocrisy is off the charts.

[BatteryPowered]

How a person looks is not legal grounds for firing them you fuck ignorant tRumproid. Die soon!

So...give me a couple of weeks and I can find a legal reason to fire anyone in The Peoples Republic of California.

 

I live in a right to work state...so we can use whatever grounds we want. Of course, almost anyone can qualify for unemployment benefits...so there is that expense when the company's experience rate goes up.

[eclectic skeptic]

 

I live in a right to work state...so we can use whatever grounds we want.

Thanks for showing us yet another reason why right to work states sucks.

[TheHound]

Just curious...what was the legal grounds for the lawsuit? As far as I know, there is nothing in the discrimination laws protecting looks. I understand beauty is in the eye of the beholder and only goes skin deep, but ugly goes clean to the bone.

 

While terminating them isn't something I would do as an employer, I can see wanting to have attractive people in certain positions. Have you every seen a butt-ugly skank at Hooters, Twin Peaks, Titled Kilt, etc.? By the way, you also wouldn't want a fat slob waiter either.

 

There are legal grounds for termination which generally involve the worker not doing his or her job, being late, insubordination and otherwise not being a good employee. How pretty someone is or isn't in not grounds for termination.

 

I don't go to Hooters but the deal with Hooters is the women working there get hired on their looks. Getting hired for your looks is very different than getting fired for your looks.

[BatteryPowered]

Thanks for showing us yet another reason why right to work states sucks.

I can understand the hatred of right to work (RTW) states from liberals.

 

According to the most recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

 

Non-farm Job growth in RTW states was 12.9%...in Non-RTW states it was 6.0%

Average Poverty Rate in RTW states was 8.5%...in Non-RTW states it was 10.1%

New company and product growth (measured by patents granted) in RTW states was 33%...in Non-RTW states it was 11%

Real Personal Income growth in RTW states was 26.0%...in Non-RTW states it was 19.0%

Employment-based private health insurance coverage in RTW states grew 8.5%...in Non-RTW states it grew 0.7%

 

All the things liberals want to get worse so the can scare people into voting for them got better. Damn.

[king of the county]

 

How a person looks is not legal grounds for firing them you fuck ignorant tRumproid. Die soon!

 

 

Uh if you sign a contract it is

[TheHound]

Thanks for showing us yet another reason why right to work states sucks.

 

Even in "right to work" states you can't fire people for their looks, religion, race or looks. tRump has a complete and total disregard for the rule of law. His tRumproids are worse. Put them in cages.

[BatteryPowered]

Ugly is not a protected class in discrimination law.

 

Just don't say they are being terminated for their looks. Most employees will do one or two things a week that violate workplace rules. Just start documenting them and can them for other reasons. Less risky is wait for them to quit and replace them with a hottie.

[TheHound]

I can understand the hatred of right to work (RTW) states from liberals.

 

According to the most recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

 

Non-farm Job growth in RTW states was 12.9%...in Non-RTW states it was 6.0%

Average Poverty Rate in RTW states was 8.5%...in Non-RTW states it was 10.1%

New company and product growth (measured by patents granted) in RTW states was 33%...in Non-RTW states it was 11%

Real Personal Income growth in RTW states was 26.0%...in Non-RTW states it was 19.0%

Employment-based private health insurance coverage in RTW states grew 8.5%...in Non-RTW states it grew 0.7%

 

All the things liberals want to get worse so the can scare people into voting for them got better. Damn.

 

LINK?

 

You LIED!

 

 

“Right-to-Work” States Still Have Lower Wages | Economic Policy ...

 

False Claims, False Promises: Why “Right to Work” Is Wrong for Everyone

The facts below illustrate why right to work is wrong for workers, businesses, and our economy. (You can also download this fact sheet as a PDF.)

Wrong for workers

• These laws drive down wages for all workers, including non-union members, women, and people of color.

  Workers living in right-to-work states earn about $1,500 less per year than workers in states without these laws. The wage penalty is even higher for women and workers of color.

  (http://www.epi.org/publication/bp299/)

• Workers in right-to-work states are less likely to have health insurance.

  The rate of employer-sponsored health insurance for workers in right-to-work states is 2.6 percentage points lower than in states without these restrictions.

  (http://www.epi.org/publication/bp299/)

• Right to work makes workplaces more dangerous.

  According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the rate of workplace deaths is higher in right-to-work states.

  (http://www.aflcio.org/Issues/Job-Safety/Death-on-the-Job-Report)

Wrong for businesses

• Right-to-work laws do not improve business conditions in states.

  (http://www.bepress.com/rle/vol5/iss1/art25/)

• Right to work is not a deciding factor in where businesses locate.

  (http://www.areadevelopment.com/Corporate-Consultants-Survey-Results/Q1-2014/28th-Corporate-Executive-RE-survey-results-6574981.shtml?Page=2)

• High-tech companies that provide good-paying, American jobs favor states where unions have a strong presence, because unions provide a high-skilled workforce and decrease turnover.

  (http://www.itif.org/publications/2014-state-new-economy-index)

Wrong for the economy

• Communities lose jobs when wages are lowered by right to work.

  The Economic Policy Institute estimates that for every $1 million in wage cuts, the local economy sheds six jobs.

  (http://www.epi.org/publication/working-hard-indiana-bad-tortured-uphill/)

• Right to work does not improve the employment rate.

  In fact, seven of the 11 states with the highest unemployment rates have right-to-work laws on the books.

  (http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm)

• According to a report from Ohio University, these laws actually led to a decrease in employment in certain industries.

  (http://econpapers.repec.org/article/sejancoec/v_3a73_3a2_3ay_3a2006_3ap_3a402-418.htm)

Right to work proponents are wrong

• Right-to-work supporters hide behind the claim that right to work protects workers who don’t want to join a union or agree with a union’s politics.

  But federal labor law already protects workers who don’t want to join a union or make political contributions.

• Right to work’s true purpose is to hurt the ability of unions to advocate for all workers and serve as a check on corporate greed.

 

[BatteryPowered]

LINK?

 

You LIED!

http://www.westernjournalism.com/healthiest-state-economies-right-work-states/

 

Last year, the National Institute for Labor Relations released a detailed study of right to work vs. non-right to work states. The research was based upon data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, United States Census Bureau, United States Patent and Research Office, and Bureau of Economic Analysis. Five economic factors were analyzed in right to work and non-right to work states in the Midwest, with the following statistical conclusions:

 

Job growth is twice as strong in RTW states. The percentage growth of non-farm private sector jobs (1995-2005) 
in right to work states was 12.9%
, while non-right to work states came in at 6.0%.

 

Perhaps surprising to some, poverty is actually higher in non-right to work states. The average poverty rate, adjusted for cost of living, was 8.5% in RTW states, and 10.1% in non-right to work states. This may likewise have more to do with geography and cost of living factors, however.

 

 

New company and new product growth is significantly greater in RTW states. During that same period, annual percentage growth in patents granted was 33% in RTW states, and only 11% in non-right to work states.

 

Income growth rates are higher in RTW states as well. The percentage growth in real personal income was 26.0% 
in RTW states, while non-right to work states grew at 19.0%.

 

Even health insurance coverage in RTW states fared better. Note that this data was gathered before the implementation of Obamacare. The percentage growth in the number of people covered by employment-based private health insurance was 8.5% for RTW states, and 0.7%
for non-right to work states.

 

Consequently, based on National Institute for Labor Relations research, right to work states create more private sector jobs, enjoy lower poverty rates, experience more technology development, realize more personal income growth, and increase the number of people covered by employment-based private health insurance. Clearly, when looking at the big picture, the economy of a state is more likely to be more robust when the workforce has the freedom to choose.

[Golfboy]

 

Even in "right to work" states you can't fire people for their looks

Yes you can. There is no protection for the ugly.

You should know that.

[XavierOnassis]

Uh if you sign a contract it is

 

===============================

How would you write a contract that states, "if the employee becomes, in the opinion of the boss, ugly, then she can be fired immediately." ?

 

If you had a choice over hiring Brad Pitt or The Donald as your Fifth Avenue apartment's doorman, who would you choose?

How about Roger Ailes? or Sheldon Adelson?

[123urout]

Staff at Trump's golf course say he wanted to fire women who weren't pretty enough

 

 

Donald Trump wanted to fire female employees he considered unattractive and replace them with better-looking women at a golf resort he owned, according to court documents from a 2012 lawsuit.

As reported by the Los Angeles Times, the court documents detail a lawsuit that alleges Trump pressured employees at the Trump National Golf Club in Rancho Palos to replace those he viewed to be unattractive female employees over a number of years in the 2000s.

MY COMMENT: Only a shitty businessman would pick employees' looks over their ability to do their jobs.

 

Donald Trump Sued for $6 Million by Golf Club Members | Golf.com

 

The Republican presidential candidate bought the club for $5 million in 2012. About 60 members of the renamed Trump National Golf Club wanted to leave, but Trump wouldn't return their $35,000 to $210,000 initiation fees as Ritz-Carlton had promised, until new members joined, according to the lawsuit. Meanwhile, they were barred from the club but still charged $6,000 annual dues and $1,800 annually for food and drink, the suit said. The non-jury trial before District Judge Kenneth Marra is expected to conclude Wednesday.

 

 

 

Golfers Say Trump Reneged on Deal - The New York Times

 

Hey tRumproids: Trump is a scumbag and I hope his plane crashes. You tRumproids are much worse than tRump and I wish all agonizing lives and agonizing death. FUCK ALL YOU NAZIS!

 

 

 

YOUR MUSLIM MESSIAH IS NOT GOING TO LIKE YOU BASHING PEOPLE THAT BUILD HIS PLAY GROUND......BETTER WATCH IT,LIBERALS THAT SCREW WITH HIM END UP DEAD...

 

 

 

[123urout]

[king of the county]

Beheading to the golf course haha.

[123urout]

STUPID LIBERALS......SOOOOO BUSY BASHING PEOPLE THAT BUILD THINGS............LOVE PEOPLE THAT PLAY AROUND AND FUCK EVERYTHING UP.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIBERALS.........................CANT FIX STUPID!!!!!!!!!