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.
Suppose this anonymous guy was on probation at work for being a SOB that nobody wants to work with and he was given warning that he'd better change his ways and learn how to get along with people. A week later he is in the news for causing an unnecessary commotion and giving someone a hard time for no reason? Sound's like firing time to me.
Also please don't say the employment is at will and a company can fire anyone at any time for no reason. There is a long list of the exceptions to that rule (religion, nationality, disability, etc).
You're bringing up the obvious response to your question and saying "Don't say it." Employment is at-will, and companies can fire a person for any reason that isn't illegal. The Civil Rights Acts of '64 and '67 list some illegal reasons, and you've mentioned a few of them here. Being a racist is not one of them.
Your question, though, is about how we should structure our society, not what our laws currently permit. Think about this: 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)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banbuk77
Should a conduct outside of the company be included as well if that conduct is not against the law?
Also, under the current rules, can that guy sue the company for wrongful termination and what are his chances of getting a settlement?
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. Further, a person's actions outside the workplace can foreshadow their actions inside the workplace. Imagine a person is known to be an anti-corporation lunatic who has tons of guns at home and has gone on rants defending terrorist acts....and his employer is a major corporation. That corporation has good reason to be interested in his "hobbies" outside the workplace. Whether firing him is the best way of preventing a terrorist event in that situation is debatable, but I don't think it should be illegal for that company to fire him.
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).
Last edited by Wittgenstein's Ghost; 07-08-2018 at 03:22 PM..
But what about a Joe Schmo assembly worker? His racist views (as long as he doesn't share them with coworkers) don't affect his job performance.
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?
Yes, this is a reality.
But shouldn't there be a law to change this reality? What the point to have the 1st amendment if a person who exercises it loses his/her job?
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.
You pretty much destroy a business when you tell them who they can hire fire and how much you must pay them
Government gets its money from business not the reverse
The fact that business leaves hostile communities should change behavior but it doesn’t
No argument here. Let's agree he didn't do his pool job right. I have no problem that he got fired from his pool job since he didn't do it right.
My problem is that he also got fired from his regular day job. Simply because he made a mistake doing his volunteer job that has nothing to do with his regular job and someone decided he is a racist.
Even if he is racist - that is still legal.
So again, why a person is being punished for doing nothing illegal? Why a company is not allowed to fire someone who believes that women are third class and that gays should be killed , but is free to fire someone who have some different biases?
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.
What this boils town to, is: Can your employer throw you under the bus, if the employer finds it expedient to do so?
If you're in "management", then YES! ...generally.
Can your boss ESCALATE the situation, by announcing to the press that what you did was "terrible"? Well, if what you did was to, deliberately and with malice, push a poor old lady on a walker, into oncoming traffic, resulting in her death, then your employer definitely CAN say you did something "terrible".
But, when the "terrible" situation is totally a matter of opinion - totally a gray area - then maybe they can, and maybe they can't. Much depends on whose legal team is better, and who has deeper pockets (and more potent "connections"). The Employer's statement, to me, seems unnecessarily damaging to Mr. Bloom's future employment prospects. I see grounds for a suit, and for a monetary award (or settlement) in the mid six-figures. Will that happen? Depends....
Seems to me, various someones at Adam Bloom's employer, did a quick assessment of the situation, and decided that it would be easier and cheaper, and make for better press, if they just threw him off the wall, to be devoured by the wild dogs below. If he were some big, likeable, studly, bubble-butted, barrel-chested, square-jawed, action hero of a guy - with a feel-good name like 'Harley O'Malley', then maybe it would be more advantageous to defend him.
Instead, Poor Mr. Bloom is not-so-great-looking, and has a name which is a lightening rod for secret antisemitism. Like the name, 'Zimmerman', 'Bloom' instantly triggers resentment by certain types, who are (secretly, for the most part) going to hate him for (their perception of) who heis, rather than what he (supposedly) did. They're not going to let facts get in the way of feelings.
My guess is that the Employer made the cynical decision, to cut their losses (and milk the situation for as many Goody-Goody Suck-up Points as the millions of Dollars worth of free publicity could get them). And what a grand opportunity, to hire someone younger and cheaper (maybe with NO dependents - always a great way to manage insurance costs)!
Last edited by GrandviewGloria; 07-08-2018 at 04:46 PM..
That's the problem. Companies are not allowed to have any beliefs and morals. And the standards should apply only to the conduct within a company or when representing it.
Joe Schmo assembly worker should be allowed to say whatever he wants at hes free time and shouldn't lose his job over it.
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.
The reverse of this is perhaps when people NOT getting hired because of things they have posted on social media websites.
Like it or not, 'public-facing' businesses don't want (and won't tolerate) the negative public image associated with the poor, extra-curricular decisions and choices of some employees. One function of most HR departments is navigating the 'legal minefield' of getting rid of undesirable employees.
No argument here. Let's agree he didn't do his pool job right. I have no problem that he got fired from his pool job since he didn't do it right.
My problem is that he also got fired from his regular day job. Simply because he made a mistake doing his volunteer job that has nothing to do with his regular job and someone decided he is a racist.
Even if he is racist - that is still legal.
So again, why a person is being punished for doing nothing illegal? Why a company is not allowed to fire someone who believes that women are third class and that gays should be killed , but is free to fire someone who have some different biases?
This is again not new. Why did Vanessa Williams lose her Miss America crown because years before she posed for Penthouse? Because the sponsors thought it showed poor morals. That wasn’t illegal either. Companies have always sacrificed individual employees to protect their reputations and their customer base. Appearance means a lot, like it or not.
Again it’s not that he might be racist, it’s that by all appearances (keeping in mind that appearance is everything) he acted in a discriminatory and racist way.
If you are a racist and keep it quiet you’re fine. Post pics of yourself at a Klan rally, all bets are off. Those aren’t illegal either. Legality has squat to do with it.
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.
