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.
Free speech in the first amendment to the constitution generally protects individuals who express criticism of the government from being punished by the government.
However, recently there have been some high profile instances where people were fired or forced out of their jobs because they expressed some political views or contributed some money to a political cause, outside the job, not favored by their employers.
Do we really have free speech when you can be fired for saying something in your private life outside your job because your employer doesn't like it? Should people lose their livelihood over expressing their views on their own time?
Should the employer's rights to hire and fire supersede the employees rights to have their say on their own time?
About 15 years ago, a New York city cop and two firemen were fired for participating in a parade in Howard Beach, Queens dressed in Afro wigs and blackface. It was on their own time. They appealed the firings but the courts upheld it.
Was that an expression of free speech? I would say it was....it was also extremely stupid on there part. I think they should have been disciplined but not fired but I can see NYC,s point. They were civil servants and should not have embarassed their employer with such a foolish stunt.
There is always a fine line between free speech and how an employee,s right to free speech affects the business.
About 15 years ago, a New York city cop and two firemen were fired for participating in a parade in Howard Beach, Queens dressed in Afro wigs and blackface. It was on their own time. They appealed the firings but the courts upheld it.
Was that an expression of free speech? I would say it was....it was also extremely stupid on there part. I think they should have been disciplined but not fired but I can see NYC,s point. They were civil servants and should not have embarassed their employer with such a foolish stunt.
There is always a fine line between free speech and how an employee,s right to free speech affects the business.
Interesting case to bring up here.
IMO, a for-profit enterprise absolutely has the right to terminate an employee for publicly posting anything that could hurt that company's image/sales/marketing.
I'm not quite as sold when it comes to public employees, at least not firemen, cops, first responders. I'd be amenable to more of a "three strikes" rule than an immediate dismissal. Pre-employment psych screening, post-infraction sensitivity training, counseling, etc. etc. Business/retail/service employees are a dime a dozen. Cops, firefighters, etc., not so much.
The labor laws in this country are universally based on "free will". I.e, no forced labor. You are free to leave your employer any time you choose for any reason or no reason. Similarly, they are free to fire you at any time for any reason whatsoever (or for no reason). Even if you signed a mutually binding contract (like with professional coaches or high-level executives), there are always clauses allowing either side to get out of the contract by paying fees.
You are free to call your boss an imbecile in public. He is free to fire you for that reason, or because you've gained a few pounds over the years, or because he had a bad day and wanted to fire someone.
The only exceptions to this could be if you can prove you were discriminated against as a member of a protected class. So if you can prove that you were fired because of your race, gender, or (in some states) sexual orientation and age, then you can sue.
And yes, if you do or say something in public that hurts the image and profit potential of your employer, then you may be fired for doing it. Similarly for a public employee that hurts the image and elect-ability of officials. A teacher that poses for nude pictures could compromise her ability to control a classroom (i.e., do her job) if the boys in her class find the pictures online, and could also hurt the chances of her school board members to get reelected if they don't fire her for it.
It's more of a gray area if you simply support the wrong political party and get fired for it (say, you're an outspoken Liberal who gets fired for voting for Obama in a conservative area). But still, "free will". Your boss could just as easily fire you because he doesn't like your most recent hair cut, and you could just as easily quit because you don't like your parking space.
So no, I do NOT believe that free speech laws should be expanded to protect employees who say or do things their employers disagree with.
Should the employer's rights to hire and fire supersede the employees rights to have their say on their own time?
Yes.
Let's say you own a restaurant, and I'm one of your waiters. I decide that I want to open a local chapter of the KKK. I start holding rallies and press conferences spouting all sorts of racist hatred that gets picked up by the news and gets lots of local coverage. Now, people who used to be regulars no longer come in, and there is a group picketing outside your business driving away practically every potential diner. Your other employees don't want to work with some white trash bigot and give you the ultimatum that either you fire me or they quit. Do you believe you shouldn't be allowed to fire an employee who will literally destroy your business and probably drive you into bankruptcy?
There are enough laws and interpretations now. Any employee, especially union employees, have the right to sue if their civil rights have been violated. Free speech is a civil right. They already have protection and rights.
The labor laws in this country are universally based on "free will". I.e, no forced labor. You are free to leave your employer any time you choose for any reason or no reason. Similarly, they are free to fire you at any time for any reason whatsoever (or for no reason). Even if you signed a mutually binding contract (like with professional coaches or high-level executives), there are always clauses allowing either side to get out of the contract by paying fees.
You are free to call your boss an imbecile in public. He is free to fire you for that reason, or because you've gained a few pounds over the years, or because he had a bad day and wanted to fire someone.
The only exceptions to this could be if you can prove you were discriminated against as a member of a protected class. So if you can prove that you were fired because of your race, gender, or (in some states) sexual orientation and age, then you can sue.
And yes, if you do or say something in public that hurts the image and profit potential of your employer, then you may be fired for doing it. Similarly for a public employee that hurts the image and elect-ability of officials. A teacher that poses for nude pictures could compromise her ability to control a classroom (i.e., do her job) if the boys in her class find the pictures online, and could also hurt the chances of her school board members to get reelected if they don't fire her for it.
It's more of a gray area if you simply support the wrong political party and get fired for it (say, you're an outspoken Liberal who gets fired for voting for Obama in a conservative area). But still, "free will". Your boss could just as easily fire you because he doesn't like your most recent hair cut, and you could just as easily quit because you don't like your parking space.
So no, I do NOT believe that free speech laws should be expanded to protect employees who say or do things their employers disagree with.
I seem to recall a SCOTUS decision that said, effectively, that employers had no right to prohibit their employees from wearing campaign buttons (remember those?) supporting one candidate or another, or one position of another. Unfortunately I am unsuccessful in finding anything on-line supporting my memory. Was in the very late 60's early 70's IIRC.
I get dress codes and appearance codes. I get that is the employer's property. That said we need a LOT more case law, a LOT more examination of the intricacies of free speech. Because this is not an all or nothing thing. Corporations do not own us and they do no own our private time away from the job. That said, someone should not be presenting themselves as an employee at this or that corporation, thus implying that they represent the corporation's point of view.
I seem to recall a SCOTUS decision that said, effectively, that employers had no right to prohibit their employees from wearing campaign buttons (remember those?) supporting one candidate or another, or one position of another. Unfortunately I am unsuccessful in finding anything on-line supporting my memory. Was in the very late 60's early 70's IIRC.
I get dress codes and appearance codes. I get that is the employer's property. That said we need a LOT more case law, a LOT more examination of the intricacies of free speech. Because this is not an all or nothing thing. Corporations do not own us and they do no own our private time away from the job. That said, someone should not be presenting themselves as an employee at this or that corporation, thus implying that they represent the corporation's point of view.
It has been against the law for federal employees to actively campaign for any politician while on the job. There's a lady in the present administration that is currently facing disciplinary action for using government assets to actively campaign for President Obama while she was supposed to be working at the job she was hired to do.
The labor laws in this country are universally based on "free will". I.e, no forced labor. You are free to leave your employer any time you choose for any reason or no reason. Similarly, they are free to fire you at any time for any reason whatsoever (or for no reason). Even if you signed a mutually binding contract (like with professional coaches or high-level executives), there are always clauses allowing either side to get out of the contract by paying fees.
You are free to call your boss an imbecile in public. He is free to fire you for that reason, or because you've gained a few pounds over the years, or because he had a bad day and wanted to fire someone.
The only exceptions to this could be if you can prove you were discriminated against as a member of a protected class. So if you can prove that you were fired because of your race, gender, or (in some states) sexual orientation and age, then you can sue.
And yes, if you do or say something in public that hurts the image and profit potential of your employer, then you may be fired for doing it. Similarly for a public employee that hurts the image and elect-ability of officials. A teacher that poses for nude pictures could compromise her ability to control a classroom (i.e., do her job) if the boys in her class find the pictures online, and could also hurt the chances of her school board members to get reelected if they don't fire her for it.
It's more of a gray area if you simply support the wrong political party and get fired for it (say, you're an outspoken Liberal who gets fired for voting for Obama in a conservative area). But still, "free will". Your boss could just as easily fire you because he doesn't like your most recent hair cut, and you could just as easily quit because you don't like your parking space.
So no, I do NOT believe that free speech laws should be expanded to protect employees who say or do things their employers disagree with.
That is a very good argument for employers rights.
The issue of gay rights and gay marriage has been a hot topic recently and it sort of inspired this thread for me.
A couple of examples, one hypothetical and one real got me thinking about this.
Hypothetically, suppose a senior executive working for Chik-fil-A, whose founder has openly said he opposes gay marriage, contributed money to a pro-gay marriage political group and came out in favor of gay marriage on TV. As a result, Chik-fil-A fired this person for stating his views on his own time.
Another example, which actually happened: The CEO of Mozilla, which makes the web browser Firefox, was found out to have contributed to the anti-gay marriage initiative in California. He was promptly fired once this was revealed.
Both of these people would be having their free speech rights severely limited based on activity on their own time,if they wanted to maintain their livelihood. It may all be perfectly legal for the employer to fire them but doesn't that make free speech a secondary consideration to a company's arbitrary views and economic considerations in a country that supposedly values free speech?
No, the First Amendment shouldn't be expanded to include non-governmental jobs.
Employers should have the right to hire/fire whomever they want. That, however, is not even currently the "rule" because there are some "special" people who are given that special consideration (that's the agenda--not equality). Consider the recent employee (not anonymous, BTW) survey given to J.P. Morgan Chase employees asking about their sexual preference, and inquiring about whether they're "allies" of the LBGT community. Huh?
Regardless, there are other ways of handling these intrusions. Boycotts have been known to help. Or, as we're always told when CEOs have the audacity to express their opinions publicly, "speech has consequences." Indeed they do.
We don't need another law.
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.
