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.
A couple of days ago some guy lost his job because he was a pool manager (or something) at his community pool and questioned a black lady about her residence. The social media verdict was that he was a racist and sjw found out where he worked and started calling the company.
Not many companies nowadays have guts to stand against the mob - so the guy got fired.
Let's not discuss here if the guy is a racist or has bias against certain people. That is not the point. Even if he does have bias - this is a free country last time I checked and anyone is free to have any bias.
As long as that person does not disrupt his workplace - his/her views or biases should not be a reason to fire that person. Even if those biases are not politically correct. The only exception is if that person is somehow represents the company (a CEO or some kind of high level representative).
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).
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 saw the news piece you’re referencing. I was surprised to see he was terminated by his employer But I will say I felt like he used extremely poor judgement in handling the situation. He was out of line. She apparently had credentials yet he wouldn’t let it go. Association Commado. It’s why I won’t serve on an HOA board. But as the saying goes: There’s 3 sides to every story. Yours. Mine. And the truth. Shared memories / experiences serve each differently. Fact is he jeopardized his career and his families well being over a community pools rules. Smh
Status:
"It's WARY, or LEERY (weary means tired)"
(set 18 days ago)
Location: A Yankee in northeast TN
16,149 posts, read 21,279,901 times
Reputation: 43923
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banbuk77
Even if he does have bias - this is a free country last time I checked and anyone is free to have any bias.
As long as that person does not disrupt his workplace - his/her views or biases should not be a reason to fire that person.
Except this guys actions did disrupt his work at the pool, and reflected badly on whoever he was working for.
He showed poor judgement in acting on his bias, something that his other employer might find worrisome. He would at that point likely be considered potentially high risk for making similar bad judgments in that environment also. You don't want someone working for you who doesn't understand the consequences of the actions they choose to make.
Wouldn't that be a a felony to beat a dog?
But having a views on some political matter is not. See the difference?
Also, I agree that there are positions that require some higher standards of behavior. Especially for positions in authority (police officers for example).
But even in such cases - there should be some kind of due process and company have some kind of protocol to follow to determine if the conduct was really outrageous. Not like in this case when the guy was fired several hours after the video of him (doing nothing illegal or saying nothing outrageous) was posted online.
I'm not sure about it being a felony to beat a dog to death. I believe that this is a matter that is controlled by state law. However I don't believe that people who commit felonies are unemployable. There may be another job he could perform satisfactorily and without question.
I do agree with you that some convictions or judgments today creep pretty close to "thought crimes" and that that's a frightening concept with deep implications for personal freedom. Much seems to be written "between the lines" regarding a person's beliefs and the reasons for their behaviors.
I have not followed this incident but do understand that there was some off-camera action that appeared to call for the need of an unbiased third party (the police) to be called to verify the fairness of the man's decisions. Whether this is an accurate reflection of what actually happened I do not know.
These controversial issues can turn into witch-burnings as easily as they can violation of rights. I know most companies today would prefer to appear on the side of human rights.
Wouldn't that be a a felony to beat a dog?
But having a views on some political matter is not. See the difference?
Also, I agree that there are positions that require some higher standards of behavior. Especially for positions in authority (police officers for example).
But even in such cases - there should be some kind of due process and company have some kind of protocol to follow to determine if the conduct was really outrageous. Not like in this case when the guy was fired several hours after the video of him (doing nothing illegal or saying nothing outrageous) was posted online.
How is harassing someone at a public pool reflective of someone’s “views on a political matter?”
Again, I am not talking about positions that required some kind of higher standards (police officers, teachers, etc) that are supposed to be an example for others.
So yes, a police officer who post racist views should be fired since those views affect his impartiality on the job. 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.
This is my point. 95% of regular Joe Schmo people don't represent companies they work for.
They just go to work and perform their work duties. A company that employs 100s or 1000s of people should not lose any business if one of those people happen to have some views that some woke sjw find offensive.
And the company lose business only if they refuse to fire that person. But if there was a law prohibiting firing people for their legal out of work behavior - the company wouldn't lose any business since they won't be able to do anything about that person.
No, simply having racist views should not be fireable. Acting on them however is. If you harass your company’s black customers because you have a bias against black people you should be fired.
And it is not legal to discriminate or harass because you don’t like someone’s skin color.
These “Living while black” incidents have been going on for 200 years here. It’s just now we are hearing about them all. People have to accept the free ride to hate and discriminate is done, there is a price to pay now, as there should be.
Let's not discuss here if the guy is a racist or has bias against certain people. That is not the point. Even if he does have bias - this is a free country last time I checked and anyone is free to have any bias.
As long as that person does not disrupt his workplace - his/her views or biases should not be a
He wasn't fired because of his bias. He was fired because of his actions in calling the police on someone who wasn't breaking any laws.
If you do something to make a public embarrassment out of yourself, the company you work for can decide you are a liability to them and let you go. No matter how unfair that is. We live in "at will" employment - at least in most states - in the USA. I don't really like at will employment, but it probably won't go away any time soon.
A couple of days ago some guy lost his job because he was a pool manager (or something) at his community pool and questioned a black lady about her residence. The social media verdict was that he was a racist and sjw found out where he worked and started calling the company.
Not many companies nowadays have guts to stand against the mob - so the guy got fired.
Let's not discuss here if the guy is a racist or has bias against certain people. That is not the point. Even if he does have bias - this is a free country last time I checked and anyone is free to have any bias.
As long as that person does not disrupt his workplace - his/her views or biases should not be a reason to fire that person. Even if those biases are not politically correct. The only exception is if that person is somehow represents the company (a CEO or some kind of high level representative).
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).
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?
Yes, somebody should be fired if the employer thinks it is fitting, and yes the fired employee should be able to sue for wrongful termination if the employer did it for poor reasons.
In the case of the pool manager guy, it seems he was doing what the HOA hired him to do, but there isnt enough information about his initial interaction with her (or her response) that is available to see if the firing was justified.
What is clear though, is media has ginned up the outrage over the pool incident to tilt toward the guy being a racist jerk, without any additional information. See article below as one example:
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?
First amendment: you are free to say whatever you want to say (absent yelling FIRE in a movie theater). However, you are not exempt from the consequences of your verbal utterances: be they positive or negative.
Your 2nd company fired you - with/out cause is irrelevant. The company higher-ups deemed your behavior/utterances not in keeping with company beliefs/morals/standards. That is the consequence of you exercising your first amendment right. Say what you will, no one is denying you your right to say whatever you said; only now you are paying with a negative consequence.
As a matter of fact, the general public does not see the higher-ups often or at all. What is seen are the everyday representatives of the company - you and the rest of the underlings - secretaries, receptionists, service reps, repair people, etc.
Last edited by NY Annie; 07-08-2018 at 11:03 AM..
Reason: additional comment.
He was not doing his job. The HOA rules did not require any attendee to present photo identification for use of the pool. The only requirement was to have a working badge for access. She had a badge to get inside the pool but Mr. HOA wanted to see her photo identification and called the police when she (rightfully) could or would not provide that. Once the police came, the officer confirmed her badge access and asked Mr. HOA if he was satisfied, to which he replied rather smugly that "a photo ID would have been better". He never offered the woman an apology and wasted first responder resources on someone who was not breaking any HOA rules or laws.
If he had not involved law enforcement, he would still have his cushy $100k+ job now.
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.
