U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-08-2018, 05:46 PM
 
119 posts, read 36,913 times
Reputation: 116

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost View Post
So if you have a factory worker who is known to be legitimately racist and sexist yet works alongside black people and women, you wouldn't be concerned that you had a potential serious problem on your hands?
If that person works for many years and keeps his believes to himself and no one ever complained about that person - I don't see this a problem. Nor a potential problem.
And what would constitute being 'legitimate racist'? <snip>

Last edited by toosie; 07-08-2018 at 06:58 PM.. Reason: Deleted partisan politics
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-08-2018, 05:48 PM
 
119 posts, read 36,913 times
Reputation: 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost View Post
You are misunderstanding the first amendment. The first amendment guarantees that the government cannot prevent your free speech. It says nothing about what private individuals or employers can do.

This is a widespread misunderstanding.
I understand it is about the government. But why should private companies be held to lesser standards than the government?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2018, 06:01 PM
 
20,305 posts, read 16,477,627 times
Reputation: 38117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banbuk77 View Post
I understand it is about the government. But why should private companies be held to lesser standards than the government?
Again you misunderstand the First Amendment. It means you cannot be arrested and thrown in jail by the government due to unpopular speech. Companies canít do that either. It says nothing about there being no consequences for what you say.

What does free speech have to do with this case anyway? Singling one person out and demanding i.d. only of them is not speech.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2018, 06:01 PM
 
119 posts, read 36,913 times
Reputation: 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost View Post
You seem to be in favor of expanded freedoms, and part of the reason you don't like the idea of someone getting fired for non-job reasons is that it limits that person's freedom. But doesn't it limit the employer's freedom to say he or she can't fire a person because that person is a racist (or whatever)?



I think employers should be free to fire employees for any reason that isn't currently illegal simply because I think they should have the freedom to work with people they like.

Similarly, if a person works in customer service but is known to be a racist, it is not unimaginable that such a bias could taint their workplace actions. That sort of thing might be tough to measure in the workplace, and I would not want a known racist dealing with my minority customers.

This isn't an issue of freedom. Freedom of some kind is being limited on one side or the other. The question is whether you think the worker or the employer should have expanded freedom in this regard. Considering employment is at-will, and I believe it is at-will for good reasons, I think employers should have the final say in who they hire, within the bounds of our current exceptions (and possibly some additional ones, such as sexual orientation).
You can't have it both way.
What you are saying is the status quo is the best way to go because it is how it currently is.

If you want employer to have a freedom to hire and fire anyone for no reason - then OK. I am with you. Just let's be consistent and apply this to religion, nationality and other numerous 'exceptions' to your desired rule.
But for some reason it is not OK to fire someone who hates jews and gays because this is 'religion', but is ok to fire someone how asked a black person for a pool id because that was obviously racist.

So what I say is either let's scrap all the limitations or let's include politically incorrect views and off work actions based on those views (that are not illegal) to the list.
I am Ok with either way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2018, 06:06 PM
 
119 posts, read 36,913 times
Reputation: 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocnjgirl View Post
Your first line is no longer true. Several years ago the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United, which gives corporations the rights of individual citizens.
Private citizens have a right of free associations. If you don't want to be friend with some group - no one is going to force you. But companies don't have that right. So whatever SC ruled on political contribution issue doesn't make corporations equal to regular people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2018, 06:17 PM
 
119 posts, read 36,913 times
Reputation: 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Racks View Post
1. He abused his position of 'authority' and trust as the HOA pool manager.

2. His choice to involve law enforcement could have potentially caused serious harm and/or death to an innocent homeowner if they assumed she was threat based on his accusation.

3. He did not take accountability and apologize when he was proven wrong by law enforcement.

4. All of this was captured on video and presented to the world wide web. His company was made aware of his actions and decided that they did not align with their values so he was terminated.

Choices have consequences. Just because it may seem 'small' to you does not mean it's a non-issue for the company who is on the receiving end of negative publicity because of this man's actions. If Banbuk, Inc. employed this guy and your company was on the receiving end of thousands of negative google/yelp reviews would you still keep him employed? Since he made the choice to be an butthole, he should now find a company that will be OK with him abusing LEO resources and taking the law in his prejudiced hands.

1. I have no problems with him losing his pool job. My question was about his regular job.

2. Are you saying no one should call police when there is a suspicion of a crime because they might harm the suspect?

3. You don't know that. There was 40 sec video. Maybe he did apologize? Maybe he didn't think he did anything wrong? What difference does it make, at all? The fact he asked a black person for an id is a clear cut proof he is a racist. Even if he apologized 100 times - that would've helped him.

4. Or did they just got scared of the SJWs mob and some bad publicity? And decided it is much easier to throw a good employee under the bus than stand behind him?

We both agree that a company is a lose/lose situation when SJW start making a stink about something.
So they will always choose the easiest way out - and will fire a poor guy regardless of the fact did he something wrong or not.

That is why I want the playing field to be equal. So when Banbuk.inc get calls about some Joe Schmo having said something politically incorrect and he needs to be fired immediately - I would love to have an ability to say "Sorry, but the law prohibits me from firing a worker for something he did at his free time".

That is what I am suggesting. There should be a law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2018, 06:43 PM
 
Location: Ohio
19,692 posts, read 14,151,738 times
Reputation: 15870
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banbuk77 View Post
Also please don't say the employment is at will and a company can fire anyone at any time for no reason.
It's a fact. It's too bad you don't like it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Banbuk77 View Post
Should a conduct outside of the company be included as well if that conduct is not against the law?
All conduct reflects on the company. Companies do not have to tolerate employees whose acts disparage the reputation of the company, or which impede the company's business.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Banbuk77 View Post
Also, under the current rules, can that guy sue the company for wrongful termination and what are his chances of getting a settlement?
It's unlikely a jury would be sympathetic. He might win the verdict, but the jury might only award $1 in damages. Knowing that, it's unlikely there'll be a settlement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Banbuk77 View Post
What the point to have the 1st amendment if a person who exercises it loses his/her job?
The US Constitution is a contract between you and government.

It is not a contract between you and I, or between you and your employer.

The US Constitution does not apply in my house, just as it does not apply in the work-place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2018, 06:44 PM
 
Location: Lake Norman, NC
7,181 posts, read 11,197,686 times
Reputation: 30731
I don't know ALL the details of this particular case, but in general, I do not support firing this man over this incident at this time.

He was not representing his full time employer when this incident went down. He was not wearing the company logo or did he mention the company at all.

I've heard that he was too adamant in his questioning the woman's credentials for being there, but I didn't hear anything about not being calm and orderly.

The media was quick to crucify the guy as a racist, but I don't know if he really is.

So, I can't justify Sonoco for sacking him based on the allegation. I'd let him carry on until the whole thing was resolved and step up the Diversity and Interpersonal Skills training in the meantime. If it turns out that he did something racially charged, then I'd consider taking action.

But this seems to be a heat of the moment, knee-jerk reaction, let's err on the side of caution response by the company.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2018, 06:49 PM
 
Location: California
30,513 posts, read 33,335,622 times
Reputation: 25987
Companies have long employees to "morality clauses". It became out of vogue to do so in recent time but now with public mobs threatening boycotts and protesting outside of homes and whatnot there is pressure to bring that kind of things back, and in a much bigger and more major way. No longer just for breaking the law or rules of society, but for being 'offensive' to anyone for any reason or having any sort of connection to someone/something else deemed improper or just for just not denouncing loudly enough.

We had the bright idea that we can get companies and other people to bend to our will by throwing fits, and the media plays along with that, and everyone is happy as long as it's pushing OUR ideas. But now we get to live with the consequence unless we decide, as a society, that we don't want to live in a world like that. The problem is that too many people see themselves as the perfect ones to have power to control the behavior and words of everyone else. Of course it WILL be used against everyone eventually so it's not MY ideal, but apparently it's not up to me to decide anymore, it's up to the mob.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2018, 06:58 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
77,972 posts, read 69,907,126 times
Reputation: 75762
OP, IMO the question you ask is a difficult one. As I posted earlier, there are some jobs, in which traditionally its been reasonable to expect or require an employee to conduct themselves in a respectable manner at all times off the job. However, with most jobs, you'd think that wouldn't matter, and that what someone does in their private time is their own business, and no one else's, right? That does seem perfectly reasonable and fair. Company time is one thing, personal time is another.

Well, I've come up with an example for you to consider.

Let's say a company producing consumer goods of some kind has been running ads showing members of minority groups using their products. The company is trying to expand its customer base from the mainstream consumer into minority groups, to increase sales. Let's say one of their employees is involved in an incident similar to the one in your opening post, and the matter hits the local news, and generates a flap. Since the company is trying to project an image of being hospitable to all segments of the population, perhaps trying to shed an elitist image, would it be fair for them to fire an employee who behaves in a way that would counteract their strategy of reaching out to a broader customer base? An employee who seems hostile toward, or unable to get along with, the very demographic that the company is trying to win over?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:03 AM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top