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.
Even though her employer was a food vendor. It was a food vendor working in conjunction with or selected by an MLB organization. Racism is not tolerated in the wonderful world of sports at any capacity, free speech or not.
Plus once she stated her connection to a MLB organization, she crossed the gray area as the MLB organization has a image to protect. She showed herself where the door was.
I said progressive which is not conservative and is left/liberal by default. Of course you wouldn't agree being a progressive and pro-immigration. People use to not get fired for things they said at the work place let alone outside of it. Free speech use to be an accepted concept in private life and the private sector too. PC speech was an anti-free speech agenda pushed by the left.
The whole concept that an American can't say that America should maintain its demographic or even to say they want to live with their own identity group without being completely demonized and ostracized is entirely a mostly post 1960 progressive concept.
If you actually read up on the history and intent behind the at-will employment related cases, you would realize how irrational this response is.
* You specifically said "progressive liberals" not "progressive". The following is your quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1
progressive liberals have resorted to infringing free speech through the private sector making and end-run around the concept and protections of free speech. It was a bad precedent set when people stated getting fired for merely free, political speech outside of the workplace.
* Your statement about me supporting the liberal pro-immigration policies is not correct.
* If by "progressive" you mean supporting laws/rights that came to be during the Progressive Era of this country. Then yes.. some but not all of it. It spawned worker rights, women's suffrage, fought government corruption, child labor laws and civil liberties. It promoted public health and education. Really nothing wrong with any of that... A LOT of people's rights came about during that time. One of America's most liked presidents, Teddy Roosevelt, came to influence during this time....
* People absolutely did get fired for things they said or activities they did outside of work. It has been happening for decades. The reason why it is more prevalent now is that regular people, through the use of social media, have a much louder voice that can be broadcasted to the public. The most common form of at-will termination misused was for retaliation. In one case (I cannot remember her name), a woman was fired from a job when it was discovered she took part in protests related to women's right to vote. That was the 1920s.
* At will employment has its roots dating back to the 1870s. Despite you belief, it wasn't placed into law for some sort of liberal agenda. Its root is from Tatterson v Suffolk Mfg... you should read up on it.
In its present form goes back specifically to "Master and Servant" by Horace Gray Wood in 1877.
* Which leads to my final point. Despite what you think that the At-Will employment was somehow put into place to allow employers to stifle free speech, it was not. It was actually put into place to protect the ordinary citizen from entering into a contract of servitude. No citizen can enter into an employee contract without either a specified length of time willingly (essentially signing away their freedom). If no time was specified, the laws defaulted the agreement to a term of 1 year.
If the contractual agreement was indefinite, then the employee reserves the right to leave employment at-will thereby avoiding a state of indefinite servitude/employment. In return for that the employee's right to leave the contract at any time, the employer also retains the same right... to terminate the agreement/contract/employment at any time.
The at-will clause to employment is thereby a two way street. (Of course, some states have exceptions.. but thati is another topic)
You only have to look at other countries that do not have such laws where forms of indentured servitude take place in which the contract can place who families, even generations, into what amounts to forced labor. Sometimes the contracts are coupled with inherited debt in which dead parent's debts are passed to the children. The end result is indentured servitude of whole generations in a bloodline... until the debt is paid.. if ever.
As a final note. I do believe what happen to this lady is wrong. I do believe that people should be free to say or do whatever they want outside of work without retaliation from the employer. I'm simply saying how it is and clarifying some of the legal aspects to my limited knowledge... avoiding any emotional element and outcry. There has to be a better compromise here somewhere.... that I'm not sure about. What I'm sure about is that our country is far better with this clause than without it.
PS> Some provisions have been passed to protect employees from retaliation under the premise of at-will. However, it only applies to government employees and thus the details I am not familiar with. I also highly recommend you get a copy of the Employee's Handbook before accept a job or position. Look for a company policy that states that termination won't be done without "just cause".
That's your opinion founded in your been for a personal political narrative, not a fact. And your appeal to history has no bearing on the rights of innocent individuals in the workplace, and how they are treated unevenly according to race and politics. I thought that group punishment wasn't an ideal that the Left nor minorities believed in? Can we now audit Muslims for the "true threat" of their ideology and their body count? Yes? No? How about other groups? You're simply self interested and see white people as your primary enemy. That shouldn't be allowed to effect the livelihood of innocents.
No I don't. Specifically, white nationalism is my primary enemy on this earth. I get along with white folks that aren't white nationalist just fine, thank you...
If you actually read up on the history and intent behind the at-will employment related cases, you would realize how irrational this response is.
* You specifically said "progressive liberals" not "progressive". The following is your quote
* Your statement about me supporting the liberal pro-immigration policies is not correct.
* If by "progressive" you mean supporting laws/rights that came to be during the Progressive Era of this country. Then yes.. some but not all of it. It spawned worker rights, women's suffrage, fought government corruption, child labor laws and civil liberties. It promoted public health and education. Really nothing wrong with any of that... A LOT of people's rights came about during that time. One of America's most liked presidents, Teddy Roosevelt, came to influence during this time....
* People absolutely did get fired for things they said or activities they did outside of work. It has been happening for decades. The reason why it is more prevalent now is that regular people, through the use of social media, have a much louder voice that can be broadcasted to the public. The most common form of at-will termination misused was for retaliation. In one case (I cannot remember her name), a woman was fired from a job when it was discovered she took part in protests related to women's right to vote. That was the 1920s.
* At will employment has its roots dating back to the 1870s. Despite you belief, it wasn't placed into law for some sort of liberal agenda. Its root is from Tatterson v Suffolk Mfg... you should read up on it.
In its present form goes back specifically to "Master and Servant" by Horace Gray Wood in 1877.
* Which leads to my final point. Despite what you think that the At-Will employment was somehow put into place to allow employers to stifle free speech, it was not. It was actually put into place to protect the ordinary citizen from entering into a contract of servitude. No citizen can enter into an employee contract without either a specified length of time willingly (essentially signing away their freedom). If no time was specified, the laws defaulted the agreement to a term of 1 year.
If the contractual agreement was indefinite, then the employee reserves the right to leave employment at-will thereby avoiding a state of indefinite servitude/employment. In return for that the employee's right to leave the contract at any time, the employer also retains the same right... to terminate the agreement/contract/employment at any time.
The at-will clause to employment is thereby a two way street. (Of course, some states have exceptions.. but thati is another topic)
You only have to look at other countries that do not have such laws where forms of indentured servitude take place in which the contract can place who families, even generations, into what amounts to forced labor. Sometimes the contracts are coupled with inherited debt in which dead parent's debts are passed to the children. The end result is indentured servitude of whole generations in a bloodline... until the debt is paid.. if ever.
As a final note. I do believe what happen to this lady is wrong. I do believe that people should be free to say or do whatever they want outside of work without retaliation from the employer. I'm simply saying how it is and clarifying some of the legal aspects to my limited knowledge... avoiding any emotional element and outcry. There has to be a better compromise here somewhere.... that I'm not sure about. What I'm sure about is that our country is far better with this clause than without it.
PS> Some provisions have been passed to protect employees from retaliation under the premise of at-will. However, it only applies to government employees and thus the details I am not familiar with. I also highly recommend you get a copy of the Employee's Handbook before accept a job or position. Look for a company policy that states that termination won't be done without "just cause".
At will employment has nothing to do with it. This is about PC speech enforcement and is relatively recent, mostly post 1980s, agenda pushed by liberal progressives. You ramble on like someone who only understands American history and concepts from reading material. People use to generally ignore and brush off what people said they didn't like in and out of the workplace because they recognized that people had free speech. It was mostly by the 1990s when liberal progressive had finally got instituted PC speech code in the work place and outside of it.
The real white supremacists are any minorities in Europe, Australia, Canada, Russia or the United States and those liberals who say they need, and/or have a right to be there. By their very act of going and being in those places they're saying by their actions that the white man's countries are better, superior to theirs. And by the liberal, zionists, and communists saying they have a right to be here or need to be here they're tacitly admitting that those peoples are inferior to white countries because their own peoples are not capable of fixing what may be wrong in their own countries so they need the right to escape to white nations.
And they call white nationalists "white supremacists". LOL. Totally backward. By their actions THEY are the White Supremacists. White people just want their own countries and to be left alone. Not to be superior. Same as China built the Great Wall because they wanted to stay Chinese. Why aren't the Chinese called out for being racist? Chew on that!
No I don't. Specifically, white nationalism is my primary enemy on this earth. I get along with white folks that aren't white nationalist just fine, thank you...
Why? Is black nationalism your enemy , so many of the problems today are because of integration and lack of equality in "multicultural " societies and trying to force vastly different people to live together and compete for jobs in a multicultural, multiracial society that few, if any, nations really like and emulate. These multicultural ,multiracial societies dont work
At will employment has nothing to do with it. This is about PC speech enforcement and is relatively recent, mostly post 1980s, agenda pushed by liberal progressives. You ramble on like someone who only understands American history and concepts from reading material. People use to generally ignore and brush off what people said they didn't like in and out of the workplace because they recognized that people had free speech. It was mostly by the 1990s when liberal progressive had finally got instituted PC speech code in the work place and outside of it.
So I'm suppose to take the unsubstantianted statements of some unknown poster on an internet forum hiding behind a keyboard over a substantiated history and concepts that are well documented? A person who cannot even remember whether or not he said "progressive" or "progressive liberal" as the foundation of his stance and is only timeline is 1980s, 1990s and "used to". A person who doesn't understand that the very reason this lady can be wrongfully but legally rdismissed is due to the "At will" employment that one dismisses so quickly. Probably never even heard of "at will" employment until now.
Please.. I've heard of UFO conspiracy theories with much more content. At least left and right nutjobs in this forum will defend their views with much more zeal and a few youtube videos.
Thank God Trump's victory is giving people like her a voice.
Smh.
People always had their voice, however there is nothing Trump or government can do about what "private entities" will and will not tolerate as far as speech is concerned.
Interesting-is this considered a wrongful termination by some? Freedom of speech and all that jazz.
Seems the prospect of a Trump Presidency has brought some unsavory folks out of the woodwork.
I wish people would get a handle on what that term actually means.
No, you have no freedom of facing the consequences of your speech unrelated to government agencies. You also have no freedom to not be the kind of person that a particular company wants endorsing its products. You have no freedom from your employer firing you for having and publicly announcing unsavory or unpopular views.
Freedom of speech irrelevant.
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.
