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.
Excuse me, if someone yells on the street "I like to rape little children" - it IS a matter of public concern, since no one knows for sure, whether this person is mentally stable, is looking for help or planning the said above rape. Normal people usually don't yell such things I think.
But may be that's just me.
Public concern vs public safety isnt the same thing..
Individuals have a right to be mentally unstable..
Dont you have a right to not associate with someone who you determine to be unstable? But you want the employer to not have that same right.. weird
Rule #1 of crony-statist employment- If you are employed by a crony-statist type of company for the gubmint and care about your job you should probably refrain from making spur of the moment obscene and immature gestures at random motorcades near golf courses where important people may be coming from who could affect the company you work for.
A stupid gesture indeed but things have a tendency to happen for reasons more often than not.
There is no stawman argument being formed except those who believe its fascism to be able to fire someone. The whole thought process is completely backwards.
I very well doubt it was the finger that got her fired, it was more than likely her attitude when it was questioned.
Interesting take on it. And no I did not suggest there shouldn't be any consequences for something proven to be an over-step of freedom of speech rights and I very carefully explained that as they are defined.
You are correct; the whole thought process is backward.
Again, you like HER freedom of speech but not the employers freedom of speech. Yep. Creepy as hell. Her words don't have to be fighting words or bomb threats or even just liking pepsi more than coca cola. *shrug*.
So stop being a raging facist and let her do her thing and the company do their thing, each having the right to do so.
No one here is opposing her free speech. It's you that feel that others should be unable to respond to it. Wow...if you can't process that simple arrangement I'm long overdue with this. Bye.
If the response to any freedom of speech or expression that is not proven as harmful, damaging to the business, dangerous or inciting harm to others, that is responded to by punitive measure such as firing the person's freedom of speech has been infringed upon. It is not simply the employer exercising his freedom of speech. That is the dumbest argument heard yet on here.
You're suggesting it's alright and perfectly fine for an employer to disagree with the expressed opinion of someone while not at work by firing them from their job when it merely disagrees with his political bent.
Boy all you whannabe Putins really worship your bosses don't you? Don't you ever get tired of kissing azz?
Any time a left wing nut job gets fired and cast away to the streets, an angel gets its wings. Hoping this happens to some of our extremist acquaintances on C-D, as I'm sure they have done the same or worse.
It has happened to me. If you do something off the clock, and your employer finds light about it. The employer has a right to terminate you. It is what it is. First off all, you as an employee, what you done off the clock can hurt the companies reputation, harm the companies image which can ruin revenue, or make other employers unable to work with you. This is the reason why Unions and contracts are important in todays economy because employees will be protected regardless of what he or she has done outside the sphere of work. But employers these days want to do away with unions and contracts due to the fact employees have to much bargaining power and leeway.
Ever since Trump became elected, folks on both sides of the aisle have been making divisive remarks all over social media, and some how these remarks end up in the eyes of employers. Some people are not even racist, or anti government but make remarks out of the sheer of anger and are fired from their jobs. In today's America. It is best to keep your mouth shut, you cant say anything funny anymore because people take it easily offensive like having a joke with the N word in it like Bill Maher, or Kathy Griffin with a headless statue of Trump.
Also if you have a job, don't go to a protest. Generally speaking unemployed, contract, union or folks who own a small business go to protest, rallies and marches. If your employer sees you at a rally or a march, you will probably get fired. Don't do things like online porn or online nude photo shoots, a good chance the larger public will see it and thus you will get fired.
if you don't represent the company in a favorable manner you get canned and are looked upon as a loser.
Correct.
It's the *money* ( or rather people with money) that run your life and dictate you what you are allowed to do and what's not. And even though you can claim that as long as the "government doesn't do it" ( i.e. punishes you for your political opinion,) it's a "freedom of speech."
In reality it's not, which becomes increasingly obvious.
I consider a state that runs on false pretenses to be a loser in the long run.
Because sooner or later these false pretenses will be obvious for all to see.
If the response to any freedom of speech or expression that is not proven as harmful, damaging to the business, dangerous or inciting harm to others, that is responded to by punitive measure such as firing the person's freedom of speech has been infringed upon. It is not simply the employer exercising his freedom of speech. That is the dumbest argument heard yet on here.
You're suggesting it's alright and perfectly fine for an employer to disagree with the expressed opinion of someone while not at work by firing them from their job when it merely disagrees with his political bent.
Boy all you whannabe Putins really worship your bosses don't you? Don't you ever get tired of kissing azz?
We are not talking about "employment at will" in this particular case, but "freedom of speech."
Firing someone is not a Freedom of Speech issue, but rather Employment At Will in action.
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.
