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.
That's why the new law is required. If they already have a work-related data and haven't fired that person already - they shouldn't be able to fire him after his behavior gets a public attention thru the social media.
If they didn't fire him before - that is a proof he was doing an acceptable job.
Same way it is with the whistle blower cases. As soon as someone complains about the company - they better not touch that person. And no amount of work-related data would help them. Should've acted on that data sooner.
Why should a company be forced to have a nazi working for them just because they didn’t know he was a nazi before they hired him? What if it’s a Jewish-owned company? They just have to accept retaining and paying an employee that wants to see them wiped off the face of the earth? Employers should have no rights at all?
Off the clock, employees should be able to do as they please, as long as they competently do their job when working. If they never mentione their Nazi affiliations at work and aren't trying to convert their coworkers, it shouldn't be an issue.
I've heard of employers who didn't like their employees doing skydiving on their free time (insurance costs if they get hurt) or volunteering with a specific group on their own time because it was a group the boss didn't like. Think about it. You could be fired for belonging to PETA or for joining a political group your boss doesn't agree with.
In fact, the reason I post as rodentraiser all over the place is because when I first starting posting online, my boss would have taken issue with posts she didn't agree with and probably would have fired me because of them (what if our customers recognize you!). I worked for a cliquey little bank at the time that was very conservative. My views on abortion, religion, and other things would have given them vapors (not because of how I felt, but because I posted my views online).
If, as a boss, you are afraid of losing business by hiring the "wrong" employees, then make it a condition of employment that your future hires be of "unblemished and moral character". Have a list of all the things your employees can't do off the clock and have them sign it, just like a non disclosure contract.
Again, I don't feel that when I go to work for someone, I have to give up my hobbies, my opinions, or the things I do in my free time that give me pleasure or earn me extra money. If my employer wants that kind of control over me, he either better make slavery legal again or pay me 24/7, because I don't feel like I have to shine for anyone when I'm off the clock.
Again, this is not about speech, it’s about actions this man took. I don’t get how harassing and bullying a mother and her child at a pool constitutes “hobbies” or “things that give you pleasure”. Racism is not a political viewpoint, btw.
In his or her defense, this is a debate forum. The fact that people are disagreeing with him isn't reason for him to stop defending his view.
I think he's wrong, and I think he should take the arguments against his position more seriously. But the unpopularity of his view isn't reason for him to abandon his view.
I didn't suggest he abandon his view. In fact, I said, "while you have one opinion (which is fine)..."
From his posts, it seems that he can't understand that there is another (or other) points of view.
What's interesting to think about is how many people on this forum would be afraid to state their views if they had to put their name on their post.
[quote=Banbuk77;52450472]That's why the new law is required. If they already have a work-related data and haven't fired that person already - they shouldn't be able to fire him after his behavior gets a public attention thru the social media.{/quote]
Did you read that back to yourself after you wrote it? I ask because it's patently absurd.
Quote:
If they didn't fire him before - that is a proof he was doing an acceptable job.
"Straw that broke the camel's back."
It's already been explained to you by someone else that many employers tend to keep borderline employees as a lesser evil than going back through the hiring process (and possibly not getting anyone any better).
Quote:
Same way it is with the whistle blower cases. As soon as someone complains about the company - they better not touch that person. And no amount of work-related data would help them. Should've acted on that data sooner.
No, it's not at all the same thing as a whistleblower. A whistleblower has done a good thing for society. That's why he gets protection--he is a hero. We want to encourage whistleblowers.
Nobody deserves specific protection for being a public jackass.
Last edited by Ralph_Kirk; 07-10-2018 at 02:22 PM..
A few years ago I was managing a helpdesk. Over the course of a project, my boss called me in and said, "Ralph, I need you to listen to this."
A week earlier, one of my call reps had been on the phone with a difficult customer. He had turned to one of the other reps and they began discussing the customer in unflattering terms...but forgot to mute the phone.
The customer had recorded their conversation, then sent the recording to the company CEO with a complaint.
That recording had richochetted around the executive floor for a couple of days before winding its way back down the chain to my boss and then to me.
Well, listening to it, I didn't do a facepalm. I did forehead-to-the-desk.
But...I pointed out that the recording itself was illegal under state law, and using it to fire the guys would leave us in murky legal waters for a wrongful termination lawsuit.
I'm sure they didn't take my word for it--the company lawyers must have said the same thing, because a decision was made above our level not to fire them.
But for sure...I told them in no uncertain terms that they were skating on the thinnest fracking ice in the world, and they'd better start looking for new jobs while they still had one.
A few years ago I was managing a helpdesk. Over the course of a project, my boss called me in and said, "Ralph, I need you to listen to this."
A week earlier, one of my call reps had been on the phone with a difficult customer. He had turned to one of the other reps and they began discussing the customer in unflattering terms...but forgot to mute the phone.
The customer had recorded their conversation, then sent the recording to the company CEO with a complaint.
That recording had richochetted around the executive floor for a couple of days before winding its way back down the chain to my boss and then to me.
Well, listening to it, I didn't do a facepalm. I did forehead-to-the-desk.
But...I pointed out that the recording itself was illegal under state law, and using it to fire the guys would leave us in murky legal waters for a wrongful termination lawsuit.
I'm sure they didn't take my word for it--the company lawyers must have said the same thing, because a decision was made above our level not to fire them.
But for sure...I told them in no uncertain terms that they were skating on the thinnest fracking ice in the world, and they'd better start looking for new jobs while they still had one.
They lasted about another two months.
Yes.
While it can be one incident that gets someone fired, it's often a series of performance related issues. "We" once had a religious nut as a teacher in our school. She was warned repeatedly not to bring up religious issues in her art class. But somehow she kept having to tell girls that if they wore short skirts they were going to hell. The principal at the time overlooked all the things that we were aware of outside the school, but finally one parent exploded about the in-school issues and a looooong paper trail meant so long sally, so long.
People who are on their own defined mission are often a terrible liability.
It depends on the outside of work behavior and the nature of the work the person is performing. Would you want a man who beat his dog to death working in a veterinary clinic?
I wouldn't want him working anywhere but behind bars.
The HOA policy is to require a pool pass, which the black woman--who was a resident--had. There was a white woman at the pool at the same time who didn't even have a pool pass.
My response is based on the information provided in the OP. Unless additional information has been provided, that I have not seen, you are making presumptions.
Based on the OP, I see a guy employed to manage a community pool. Nothing is mentioned of a pass(in the OP). I'm assuming the guy had a reasonable reason to question whether or not the women was a resident. I've seen too many occasions where it has been considered racist to question a black as opposed to other races.
Perhaps, he has never seen the women questioned, but has knowledge the other is a resident without the pass. Perhaps, he is a racist. I'm quessing that part of managing a community pool, that has membership, comes with a certain amount of screening that every race is subject to. I would find it racist if there is evidence he knew both were residents, yet, singled out the black women to make sure she had her card, while not enforcing it on others. The OP does not make this distinction.
My response is based on the information provided in the OP. Unless additional information has been provided, that I have not seen, you are making presumptions.
Based on the OP, I see a guy employed to manage a community pool. Nothing is mentioned of a pass(in the OP). I'm assuming the guy had a reasonable reason to question whether or not the women was a resident. I've seen too many occasions where it has been considered racist to question a black as opposed to other races.
Perhaps, he has never seen the women questioned, but has knowledge the other is a resident without the pass. Perhaps, he is a racist. I'm quessing that part of managing a community pool, that has membership, comes with a certain amount of screening that every race is subject to. I would find it racist if there is evidence he knew both were residents, yet, singled out the black women to make sure she had her card, while not enforcing it on others. The OP does not make this distinction.
per the bolded, you are the one relying on a ridiculous presumption that in 14 pages of posts, no new information has been provided.
Try reading the thread, then perhaps you'll be able to comment intelligently. As it is, all of your presumption are wrong. Starting with the fact that he was not an employee at the pool.
My response is based on the information provided in the OP. Unless additional information has been provided, that I have not seen, you are making presumptions.
So you just admitted to being too lazy to do any of your own research, but you're going to state an opinion about someone else anyway.
Before you claim I'm making presumptions, at least do some basic research. Google is your friend.
If you seek out some of the news stories, there was, indeed, a white woman on the scene who specifically testified to the police officer that she didn't have a pool pass and had never been asked to show one.
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.
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.
