Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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 05-31-2018, 05:13 PM
 
33,387 posts, read 34,847,766 times
Reputation: 20030

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambler123 View Post
Exactly. A person can mouth off all the racist nonsense he wants, but his company can still fire him for it, I don't have to listen to it, and I can call him a racist for it.

Freedom of speech does not protect you from consequences or guarantee you an audience.
post there my friend.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-31-2018, 05:45 PM
 
297 posts, read 166,941 times
Reputation: 636
In every place I've worked, the company handbook has pointed out that at all times, inside and outside work, I am representing the workplace and its values, or a variation of the same.

While the government can't make any laws restricting free speech, an employer seems to be fully able to do so under the pretext that they pay you.

However, that pay is for time worked, not time spent outside the workplace. One could argue that most people can afford the lives they lead outside the workplace because of the pay they receive by the workplace and by that token have essentially become slaves of the employer.

On the other hand, if I am "representing" the workplace even outside of working hours, I essentially become some form of "ambassador" for that particular employer, therefore, shouldn't I charge the employer every time I am asked where I work and what my job is?

The workplace says they can control what I wear and what I say when I am in workplace property. However, outside of it, I am my own person, I think my own thoughts and chose to act/not act accordingly.

Yet, people get punished for exercising their constitutional protected right. Roseanne Bar won't go hungry any time soon, but the 200+ employees of the show may. While I am not trying to protect what she said, she does have the right to say whatever she wants. As for the employees, it was the network who fired them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2018, 06:31 PM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,782 posts, read 17,364,082 times
Reputation: 7990
Quote:
Originally Posted by kukumjacka View Post
In every place I've worked, the company handbook has pointed out that at all times, inside and outside work, I am representing the workplace and its values, or a variation of the same.

While the government can't make any laws restricting free speech, an employer seems to be fully able to do so under the pretext that they pay you.

However, that pay is for time worked, not time spent outside the workplace. One could argue that most people can afford the lives they lead outside the workplace because of the pay they receive by the workplace and by that token have essentially become slaves of the employer.

On the other hand, if I am "representing" the workplace even outside of working hours, I essentially become some form of "ambassador" for that particular employer, therefore, shouldn't I charge the employer every time I am asked where I work and what my job is?

The workplace says they can control what I wear and what I say when I am in workplace property. However, outside of it, I am my own person, I think my own thoughts and chose to act/not act accordingly.

Yet, people get punished for exercising their constitutional protected right. Roseanne Bar won't go hungry any time soon, but the 200+ employees of the show may. While I am not trying to protect what she said, she does have the right to say whatever she wants. As for the employees, it was the network who fired them.
Rosanne very likely had a 'moral turpitude' clause in her contract that permitted her firing. The situation varies from one job to another, depending on written company policy and contract. IMO most people could not have be fired for what she did, since it was off the job. But anyone at her level is going to have a written contract and a MT clause.
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 > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

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

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top