Employee demoted, 40% pay cut, for Facebook comment - Page 7

Soapy Sam · 21st November 2012, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by Rolfe

.

I'm really quite surprised by the level of support Americans give to employers who want to control their employees' speech.

I'm not. I have worked for American companies for thirty some years.

Quote:

By their lights, I should have been fired long ago for the things I have said about "organic" farming. Fortunately I'm not in the USA.
Rolfe.

Well, you're in an odd, semi academic sort of quasi-ngo, or whatever. If you worked for Monsanto or Marshall's Chunky Chicken, you would probably have been on the manager's carpet a time or two, even here. Academics in the states get more leeway than private sector employees , much as they do here.
The wife,while a civil servant was under all sorts of restrictions about what opinions she could express publicly. Doctors and other NHS employees are , too , as are lawyers and those employed by them. We have a right to say more or less what we like so long as we don't run into hate crime regulations, impinge on client / customer privacy, or otherwise rock the boat too much. I can't see anyone getting as uptight as this dude's employer unless he has been widdling on the carpet for quite some time. This was just once too often, innocuous as it was.
ETA- It's a bit like the mods here. A certain amount of sailing close to the wind will be tolerated, but if it becomes a pattern, a banning may be applied for what seems like a paltry reason.

Neally · 21st November 2012, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

So you don't think a business owner should be able to fire someone that is a member of the KKK?

Sure, he also should be able to fire someone because they voted for a Democrat or expressed a negative sentiment towards the GOP. Would you have a problem with that?

thaiboxerken · 21st November 2012, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad

You didn't answer the question. Could that happen?

You don't like the KKK. Perhaps our hypothetical boss hates meat-eaters. "Meat is murder" after all

Why should a boss's personal feelings affect an employees livelihood?

People should be judged on how good they are at their job.

So no other factors should ever determine if a person should be fired or not?

thaiboxerken · 21st November 2012, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by Neally

Sure, he also should be able to fire someone because they voted for a Democrat or expressed a negative sentiment towards the GOP. Would you have a problem with that?

Are you saying that the KKK is just a political group and not the dangerous, white-supremecist club that likes to lynch people?

Metullus · 21st November 2012, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by Neally

Sure, he also should be able to fire someone because they voted for a Democrat or expressed a negative sentiment towards the GOP. Would you have a problem with that?

Short sighted of the employer, but I have no problem with that. Neither would I have a problem if it was the other way around.

Just as I have no problem with a Democrat who would refuse to work for a Republican or a Republican who does not wish to work for a Democrat. Again, kind of stupid.

Neally · 21st November 2012, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Are you saying that the KKK is just a political group and not the dangerous, white-supremecist club that likes to lynch people?

Answered your question, you didn't answer mine, and I'll add this, should an employer be able to decide who they can fire based on whether they agree with the employee's personal political beliefs or not?

Originally Posted by Metullus

Short sighted of the employer, but I have no problem with that. Neither would I have a problem if it was the other way around.

Just as I have no problem with a Democrat who would refuse to work for a Republican or a Republican who does not wish to work for a Democrat. Again, kind of stupid.

Agreed.

thaiboxerken · 21st November 2012, 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by Neally

Answered your question, you didn't answer mine, and I'll add this, should an employer be able to decide who they can fire based on whether they agree with the employee's personal political beliefs or not?

No, as long as those beliefs are not bigotry.

DreamingNaiad · 21st November 2012, 04:27 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

No, as long as those beliefs are not bigotry.

But in the US there are no laws protecting employees from bigoted bosses. That is the problem.

Metullus · 21st November 2012, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad

But in the US there are no laws protecting employees from bigoted bosses. That is the problem.

Yes there are.

DreamingNaiad · 21st November 2012, 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by Metullus

Yes there are.

So if an employee is in favour of gay marriage and their employer isn't they can't be fired?

That just seemed to be about an employees race/religion/sex/nationality/political affiliation, etc. Nothing about the employee's opinions as far as I saw.

Metullus · 21st November 2012, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad

So if an employee is in favour of gay marriage and their employer isn't they can't be fired?

Of course they can be fired.

Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad

That just seemed to be about an employees race/religion/sex/nationality/political affiliation, etc. Nothing about the employee's opinions as far as I saw.

Yup. Laws that protect employees from bigoted bosses. Or, at least, from discrimination by bigoted bosses.

DreamingNaiad · 21st November 2012, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by Metullus

Of course they can be fired.

Yup. Laws that protect employees from bigoted bosses. Or, at least, from discrimination by bigoted bosses.

Except they don't protect everyone from bigots. Firing someone for being pro gay marriage isn't a good thing. I don't know why you think it's ok to take away someone's livelihood because they don't agree with you. People don't always agree. Unless it affects job performance you really should just suck it up and act like an adult (not you specifically, in general).

That is not protceting people from bigots. Eg a bigot believes gays are evil. He fires all employeex who disagree. How were they protected from their bigoted boss?

roger · 21st November 2012, 06:42 PM

Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad

Except they don't protect everyone from bigots. Firing someone for being pro gay marriage isn't a good thing. I don't know why you think it's ok to take away someone's livelihood because they don't agree with you. People don't always agree. Unless it affects job performance you really should just suck it up and act like an adult (not you specifically, in general).

That is not protceting people from bigots. Eg a bigot believes gays are evil. He fires all employeex who disagree. How were they protected from their bigoted boss?

(I'm quoting this post as a good stepping off point, not to reply to DreamingNaiad in particular).

Well, complex things are complex, and this situation is (to me) complex. So, I find it unlikely that we will find a good answer, just a least unpalatable one.

Okay, so I have a lawn that needs mowing. I hire somebody to do so. As they are packing up to leave, I hear them using the "n word" in speech in a very derogatory fashion, or advocating for NAMBLA, or pick your poison.

I'm a big boy, my poor widdle ears will survive this, so no need to tell me to grow a pair or whatever. Nonetheless, I don't particularly desire to put money in racist's pockets, if I have alternatives. And I do have alternatives; plenty of people are looking for work.

I'd consider it quite wrong to say that I have to continue paying this person to mow my lawn if I don't want to. All in all, I'd rather my money go to say, a young person trying to work their way through college, or whatever.

If the scenario doesn't resonate with you, substitute it with whatever you like. If you went to a grocery store where they had big posters up stating that women should be barefoot and pregnant, or that all jews must die, would you feel compelled to continue shopping there, or would you start shopping at the store across the street with roughly identical prices and an owner that regularly donates to Meals On Wheels or whatever?

So, no, in general I do not want to be limited in how I spend my money, which is it's own form of speech. That stands whether I am a shopper, or an employer. Of course, that will always lead to it's own abuses, such as the case in the OP, where no one can point to anything more than mild distaste with the guy's opinion. But if the alternative is that I no longer have any say in how I spend my money, then I don't accept that alternative. Because for every mild case there will be extreme ones.

That's the price of freedom - it doesn't always work out how you might want. There's the Franklin quote along the lines of if you trade freedom for security you deserve neither. Well, the topic is not security here, but I think the sentiment still applies. It's easy and comforting to say that this employer, in this case overreacted, and we should stop that, but at what cost?

thaiboxerken · 21st November 2012, 07:57 PM

Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad

Except they don't protect everyone from bigots. Firing someone for being pro gay marriage isn't a good thing. I don't know why you think it's ok to take away someone's livelihood because they don't agree with you. People don't always agree. Unless it affects job performance you really should just suck it up and act like an adult (not you specifically, in general).

That is not protceting people from bigots. Eg a bigot believes gays are evil. He fires all employeex who disagree. How were they protected from their bigoted boss?

did you not read the link provided?!

ponderingturtle · 21st November 2012, 07:58 PM

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Correct. That is exactly what I do think. And if we had KKK here, that is how it would be.

(That is assuming that the KKK isn't an illegal organisation, and that there's nothing in the contract of employment the employee signed that made it specifically clear that membership of - preferably named - illegal organisations was unacceptable. Even then, I suspect the law would allow the employee to resign from the organisation rather than be fired.)

I'm so glad we are a more free society than the USA, even if it allows some people to be free to do things I don't agree with.

Rolfe.

So the guy who got fired after he was outed as being violentacrez should go to Britain where he will be guaranteed a job, no matter how many pictures of underage girls if finds and publishes on the internet.

ponderingturtle · 21st November 2012, 08:00 PM

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Actually, yes. Regulation of powerful elites equates to greater freedom for ordinary people. And yes, I have been an employer.

As one of the elite, you should take a stand and hire these guys.

Neally · 21st November 2012, 09:02 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

No, as long as those beliefs are not bigotry.

That leads to some interesting choices. Which would be okay in your mind?:
1. Boss man John, "Greg, we found out that you contributed to the organization that supports the proposal to legalize gay marriage in the state. Here's your final paycheck."
2. Boss woman Jane, "Steve, I noticed that you sent a private Tweet that said that you want all illegal aliens rounded up and deported. Your fired!"
3. Boss man John, "Most members of the GOP are bigoted on some level, therefore I'm not going to hire any, but if I do, and find out later, I'll fire them."
4. Boss women Cheryl, "Debbie, we found out that you contributed to the organization that opposes the proposal to legalize gay marriage in the state. I think Friday will be your last day with us."
5. Boss man Ted, "Jim, your private Facebook post mentioned that you're in favor of burning the Koran. We don't like that sort of thinking by our people. Here's your final paycheck."

I'm fine with an employer having the right to do all the above. Likewise reverse the roles of employer and employee, and I'm fine with an employee quitting in the same scenarios. It would be an irrational thing to do from a business perspective, but either way both parties should have that freedom.

thaiboxerken · 22nd November 2012, 12:22 AM

1 is wrong
2 is ok
3 is wrong ( but tolerable )
4 is ok
5 is ok

I just parsed which reasons were discouraging bigotry and it wasn't that hard to reach my conclusions.

anglolawyer · 22nd November 2012, 03:03 AM

Originally Posted by xjx388

Professionals, especially those who deal with the public, have a duty to behave . . . well, professionally. A doctor, teacher, lawyer, etc. who goes around espousing opinions which might be considered controversial should expect repercussions from their clients and fellow professionals. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

I don't like that at all! I (a lawyer in case you can't guess) don't see why I shouldn't say whatever I like, within the law of course. What does 'professionally' mean? This is a pernicious prelude to silencing dissent. It might be my opinion that the entire judicary is corrupt and the legal profession is mostly composed of greedy, lying frauds (it might be yours too). What the heck has that to do with how I do my job? Society might benefit from hearing what I have to say (the principal justification for the right of free speech btw.) and be able to do something about the greedy, lying frauds.

I think you have an old-fashioned 'pillar-of-the-community' idea about the much-devalued professions the middle classes once aspired to. Like social order will disintegrate if I don't show up at church on Sunday.

ETA ignore this. It's OT and I now realise the thread is 7 pages long, not one. Sorry. Very unprofessional of me.

Soapy Sam · 22nd November 2012, 04:02 AM

You're fired.

anglolawyer · 22nd November 2012, 04:51 AM

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

You're fired.

What a relief! Now I can speak freely.

Neally · 22nd November 2012, 07:55 AM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

1 is wrong
2 is ok
3 is wrong ( but tolerable )
4 is ok
5 is ok

I just parsed which reasons were discouraging bigotry and it wasn't that hard to reach my conclusions.

As expected, your rationale as to what is acceptable and unacceptable WRT hiring and firing is hypocritical and based on your personal political partisan beliefs. 1 & 4 are mirror images, yet you reject one and accept the other, and just what exactly does "is wrong but tolerable)" mean?

LondonJohn · 22nd November 2012, 08:23 AM

I think that many people are getting bogged down on this issue. In the UK (and after all, that's the most pertinent territory to be discussing, as per the subject of the thread), an employee can be dismissed for:

1) persistent poor performance in his/her job, providing that appropriate warnings and attempted corrective processes have been applied prior to dismissal.

2) redundancy (the role is no longer required within the company)

3) persistent breach of any company rules (usually set out in an employee handbook), again provided that suitable appropriate warnings and corrective procedures have already been applied

4) any action from the employee that might be reasonably construed to bring the company or any of its employees into disrepute - either cumulatively (with appropriate warnings) or if any single offence is sufficiently serious, instant dismissal may be warranted.

And of course it's that fourth option that is at the heart of this particular issue. The crucial word here is "reasonable", and it's indefinable in statute, since there are so many terms and behaviours (an infinite amount in principle) that would need to be codified. In practice, it's up to tribunals or courts to decide what constitutes "reasonable". That is the central point in this debate.

For example, a tribunal/court might decide that an employee rubbishing his own company in very general, mild terms at a trade fair's drinks party might be worthy of a written warning, but not grounds for instant dismissal. On the other hand, vehement, detailed criticism of his company, coupled perhaps with a recommendation that people should not do business with his company, might be judged to be sufficiently serious as to warrant instant dismissal. A minor fraud conviction would be judged sufficient grounds for instant dismissal for an employee in a position of financial trust, but probably not for a refuse collector. If a catholic priest had an affair with a married woman, this would certainly constitute grounds for dismissal, but if a plumber did the same, it would not.

In other words, it's all about context and judgement for each individual circumstance. There are no black and white rules. Instead, it's ultimately up to tribunal or courts to use their powers of judgement (and any precedent) to decide what constitutes "reasonable" on a case-by-case basis.

In the particular case under discussion here, the court decided (quite correctly, in my view) that the employee could not be reasonably construed to have brought his employer - a local authority housing trust - into disrepute over privately-made comments that, while unpalatable to many people, were not illegal and were not expressed in an inflammatory way.

LondonJohn · 22nd November 2012, 08:27 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

So the guy who got fired after he was outed as being violentacrez should go to Britain where he will be guaranteed a job, no matter how many pictures of underage girls if finds and publishes on the internet.

Massively poor "reasoning" on display here.....

DreamingNaiad · 22nd November 2012, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

I think that many people are getting bogged down on this issue. In the UK (and after all, that's the most pertinent territory to be discussing, as per the subject of the thread), an employee can be dismissed for:

1) persistent poor performance in his/her job, providing that appropriate warnings and attempted corrective processes have been applied prior to dismissal.

2) redundancy (the role is no longer required within the company)

3) persistent breach of any company rules (usually set out in an employee handbook), again provided that suitable appropriate warnings and corrective procedures have already been applied

4) any action from the employee that might be reasonably construed to bring the company or any of its employees into disrepute - either cumulatively (with appropriate warnings) or if any single offence is sufficiently serious, instant dismissal may be warranted.

And of course it's that fourth option that is at the heart of this particular issue. The crucial word here is "reasonable", and it's indefinable in statute, since there are so many terms and behaviours (an infinite amount in principle) that would need to be codified. In practice, it's up to tribunals or courts to decide what constitutes "reasonable". That is the central point in this debate.

For example, a tribunal/court might decide that an employee rubbishing his own company in very general, mild terms at a trade fair's drinks party might be worthy of a written warning, but not grounds for instant dismissal. On the other hand, vehement, detailed criticism of his company, coupled perhaps with a recommendation that people should not do business with his company, might be judged to be sufficiently serious as to warrant instant dismissal. A minor fraud conviction would be judged sufficient grounds for instant dismissal for an employee in a position of financial trust, but probably not for a refuse collector. If a catholic priest had an affair with a married woman, this would certainly constitute grounds for dismissal, but if a plumber did the same, it would not.

In other words, it's all about context and judgement for each individual circumstance. There are no black and white rules. Instead, it's ultimately up to tribunal or courts to use their powers of judgement (and any precedent) to decide what constitutes "reasonable" on a case-by-case basis.

In the particular case under discussion here, the court decided (quite correctly, in my view) that the employee could not be reasonably construed to have brought his employer - a local authority housing trust - into disrepute over privately-made comments that, while unpalatable to many people, were not illegal and were not expressed in an inflammatory way.

^^^^ This exactly. A million times, this.

thaiboxerken · 22nd November 2012, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by Neally

As expected, your rationale as to what is acceptable and unacceptable WRT hiring and firing is hypocritical and based on your personal political partisan beliefs. 1 & 4 are mirror images, yet you reject one and accept the other, and just what exactly does "is wrong but tolerable)" mean?

Simple. One of them is fighting for equal rights. The other is fighting to restrict the rights of people simply because they are gay.

"wrong but tolerable" is just a jab at conservatives.

Neally · 23rd November 2012, 08:16 AM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Simple. One of them is fighting for equal rights. The other is fighting to restrict the rights of people simply because they are gay.

As I said, partisan judgements based on your judgement of "equal rights".

How about equal rights for child pornographers, NAMBLA followers, oh and the animal rights fringe the want equal rights for animals. Are you bigoted against Mohamed? Unless you support laws against depicting him in cartoons, you must be.

See, the "bigoted" criteria you seek to use to determine who can and can't be fired is a matter of interpretation and convenience for justifying your partisan and personal beliefs. Nice try though.

thaiboxerken · 23rd November 2012, 02:55 PM

Equal rights stops where those rights impede the rights of others to do as they wish. Tell me, how does gay marriage impede the rights of heterosexuals?

DreamingNaiad · 23rd November 2012, 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Equal rights stops where those rights impede the rights of others to do as they wish. Tell me, how does gay marriage impede the rights of heterosexuals?

It doesn't. His opinion doesn't affect homosexuals either.

If he was advocating violence or calling all gays degenerate paedos I would be all for him being fired. But there can be no reasonable discussion if everyone who disagrees with you is punished. People won't learn that they are wrong that way. It will just breed more hate.

Neally · 23rd November 2012, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Equal rights stops where those rights impede the rights of others to do as they wish. Tell me, how does gay marriage impede the rights of heterosexuals?

How does someones opinion on gay marriage impede your rights? Oh wait, it doesn't, yet you think someone that doesn't agree with your opinion deserves to be fired and someone that agrees with you on that same topic shouldn't be allowed to be fired. Like I said, hypocrisy.

Rolfe · 23rd November 2012, 05:49 PM

So, Thaiboxerken believes he knows exactly when it is OK to sack someone for their opinions and when it isn't.

How is this to be enforced? How is an employer who sacks someone for something Thaiboxerken believes is unjustified to be disciplined? How is the employee to be recompensed?

Rolfe.

Neally · 25th November 2012, 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by Rolfe

So, Thaiboxerken believes he knows exactly when it is OK to sack someone for their opinions and when it isn't.

How is this to be enforced? How is an employer who sacks someone for something Thaiboxerken believes is unjustified to be disciplined? How is the employee to be recompensed?

Rolfe.

Well it looks as though our friend Thaiboxerken has been shamed away now that his hypocrisy has been exposed.

thaiboxerken · 27th November 2012, 08:01 PM

Originally Posted by Neally

Well it looks as though our friend Thaiboxerken has been shamed away now that his hypocrisy has been exposed.

What hypocrisy?

There are some opinions that absolutely should be subject to employer actions. Is anyone claiming that no expressed opinions are actionable? Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence of that speech.

And to answer Rolfe's question, the easiest way to enforce the "thaiboxerken's rules" is to submit all inquiries to me before taking action.

Agatha · 2nd December 2012, 05:56 AM

Just to bring closure to this, the judge has now ruled that each side will bear their own costs. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2012/3320.html

Usually, the losing party (in this case the Housing Trust) would bear the costs of both parties, but the Trust made a part 36 (settlement) offer of £1000 to Mr Smith which he turned down, despite the fact that winning would mean he would only recover £98.

If a party refuses to settle but comes out with less than the Part 36 settlement offer, that party (despite winning) generally bears the costs. The judge didn't make Mr Smith bear the Trust's cost because he felt that the Part 36 offer didn't address the question of the real issue between the parties - which was that Mr Smith felt he'd been wrongly disciplined and demoted.

21st November 2012, 11:28 AM	#241
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885	Originally Posted by Rolfe . I'm really quite surprised by the level of support Americans give to employers who want to control their employees' speech. I'm not. I have worked for American companies for thirty some years. Quote: By their lights, I should have been fired long ago for the things I have said about "organic" farming. Fortunately I'm not in the USA. Rolfe. Well, you're in an odd, semi academic sort of quasi-ngo, or whatever. If you worked for Monsanto or Marshall's Chunky Chicken, you would probably have been on the manager's carpet a time or two, even here. Academics in the states get more leeway than private sector employees , much as they do here. The wife,while a civil servant was under all sorts of restrictions about what opinions she could express publicly. Doctors and other NHS employees are , too , as are lawyers and those employed by them. We have a right to say more or less what we like so long as we don't run into hate crime regulations, impinge on client / customer privacy, or otherwise rock the boat too much. I can't see anyone getting as uptight as this dude's employer unless he has been widdling on the carpet for quite some time. This was just once too often, innocuous as it was. ETA- It's a bit like the mods here. A certain amount of sailing close to the wind will be tolerated, but if it becomes a pattern, a banning may be applied for what seems like a paltry reason.
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885	Last edited by Soapy Sam; 21st November 2012 at 11:35 AM.

21st November 2012, 12:12 PM	#242
Neally Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,101	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken So you don't think a business owner should be able to fire someone that is a member of the KKK? Sure, he also should be able to fire someone because they voted for a Democrat or expressed a negative sentiment towards the GOP. Would you have a problem with that?
Neally Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,101

21st November 2012, 02:58 PM	#243
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,979	Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad You didn't answer the question. Could that happen? You don't like the KKK. Perhaps our hypothetical boss hates meat-eaters. "Meat is murder" after all Why should a boss's personal feelings affect an employees livelihood? People should be judged on how good they are at their job. So no other factors should ever determine if a person should be fired or not?
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

21st November 2012, 03:01 PM	#244
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,979	Originally Posted by Neally Sure, he also should be able to fire someone because they voted for a Democrat or expressed a negative sentiment towards the GOP. Would you have a problem with that? Are you saying that the KKK is just a political group and not the dangerous, white-supremecist club that likes to lynch people?
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

21st November 2012, 03:21 PM	#245
Metullus Forum ¾-Wit Pro Tem Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Waldo's Pond Posts: 3,967	Originally Posted by Neally Sure, he also should be able to fire someone because they voted for a Democrat or expressed a negative sentiment towards the GOP. Would you have a problem with that? Short sighted of the employer, but I have no problem with that. Neither would I have a problem if it was the other way around. Just as I have no problem with a Democrat who would refuse to work for a Republican or a Republican who does not wish to work for a Democrat. Again, kind of stupid.
	__________________ I have met Tim at TAM. He is of sufficient height to piss on your leg. - Doubt 10/7/2005 Aristotle taught that the brain exists merely to cool the blood and is not involved in the process of thinking. This is true only of certain persons. - Will Cuppy

21st November 2012, 03:57 PM	#246
Neally Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,101	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken Are you saying that the KKK is just a political group and not the dangerous, white-supremecist club that likes to lynch people? Answered your question, you didn't answer mine, and I'll add this, should an employer be able to decide who they can fire based on whether they agree with the employee's personal political beliefs or not? Originally Posted by Metullus Short sighted of the employer, but I have no problem with that. Neither would I have a problem if it was the other way around. Just as I have no problem with a Democrat who would refuse to work for a Republican or a Republican who does not wish to work for a Democrat. Again, kind of stupid. Agreed.
Neally Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,101

21st November 2012, 04:20 PM	#247
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,979	Originally Posted by Neally Answered your question, you didn't answer mine, and I'll add this, should an employer be able to decide who they can fire based on whether they agree with the employee's personal political beliefs or not? No, as long as those beliefs are not bigotry.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

21st November 2012, 04:27 PM	#248
DreamingNaiad Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: The forgotten sweet abyss Posts: 465	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken No, as long as those beliefs are not bigotry. But in the US there are no laws protecting employees from bigoted bosses. That is the problem.

21st November 2012, 04:38 PM	#249
Metullus Forum ¾-Wit Pro Tem Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Waldo's Pond Posts: 3,967	Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad But in the US there are no laws protecting employees from bigoted bosses. That is the problem. Yes there are.
	__________________ I have met Tim at TAM. He is of sufficient height to piss on your leg. - Doubt 10/7/2005 Aristotle taught that the brain exists merely to cool the blood and is not involved in the process of thinking. This is true only of certain persons. - Will Cuppy

21st November 2012, 04:49 PM	#250
DreamingNaiad Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: The forgotten sweet abyss Posts: 465	Originally Posted by Metullus Yes there are. So if an employee is in favour of gay marriage and their employer isn't they can't be fired? That just seemed to be about an employees race/religion/sex/nationality/political affiliation, etc. Nothing about the employee's opinions as far as I saw.

21st November 2012, 05:18 PM	#251
Metullus Forum ¾-Wit Pro Tem Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Waldo's Pond Posts: 3,967	Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad So if an employee is in favour of gay marriage and their employer isn't they can't be fired? Of course they can be fired. Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad That just seemed to be about an employees race/religion/sex/nationality/political affiliation, etc. Nothing about the employee's opinions as far as I saw. Yup. Laws that protect employees from bigoted bosses. Or, at least, from discrimination by bigoted bosses.
	__________________ I have met Tim at TAM. He is of sufficient height to piss on your leg. - Doubt 10/7/2005 Aristotle taught that the brain exists merely to cool the blood and is not involved in the process of thinking. This is true only of certain persons. - Will Cuppy

21st November 2012, 05:43 PM	#252
DreamingNaiad Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: The forgotten sweet abyss Posts: 465	Originally Posted by Metullus Of course they can be fired. Yup. Laws that protect employees from bigoted bosses. Or, at least, from discrimination by bigoted bosses. Except they don't protect everyone from bigots. Firing someone for being pro gay marriage isn't a good thing. I don't know why you think it's ok to take away someone's livelihood because they don't agree with you. People don't always agree. Unless it affects job performance you really should just suck it up and act like an adult (not you specifically, in general). That is not protceting people from bigots. Eg a bigot believes gays are evil. He fires all employeex who disagree. How were they protected from their bigoted boss?

21st November 2012, 06:42 PM	#253
roger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2002 Location: Mountain View, CA Posts: 11,021	Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad Except they don't protect everyone from bigots. Firing someone for being pro gay marriage isn't a good thing. I don't know why you think it's ok to take away someone's livelihood because they don't agree with you. People don't always agree. Unless it affects job performance you really should just suck it up and act like an adult (not you specifically, in general). That is not protceting people from bigots. Eg a bigot believes gays are evil. He fires all employeex who disagree. How were they protected from their bigoted boss? (I'm quoting this post as a good stepping off point, not to reply to DreamingNaiad in particular). Well, complex things are complex, and this situation is (to me) complex. So, I find it unlikely that we will find a good answer, just a least unpalatable one. Okay, so I have a lawn that needs mowing. I hire somebody to do so. As they are packing up to leave, I hear them using the "n word" in speech in a very derogatory fashion, or advocating for NAMBLA, or pick your poison. I'm a big boy, my poor widdle ears will survive this, so no need to tell me to grow a pair or whatever. Nonetheless, I don't particularly desire to put money in racist's pockets, if I have alternatives. And I do have alternatives; plenty of people are looking for work. I'd consider it quite wrong to say that I have to continue paying this person to mow my lawn if I don't want to. All in all, I'd rather my money go to say, a young person trying to work their way through college, or whatever. If the scenario doesn't resonate with you, substitute it with whatever you like. If you went to a grocery store where they had big posters up stating that women should be barefoot and pregnant, or that all jews must die, would you feel compelled to continue shopping there, or would you start shopping at the store across the street with roughly identical prices and an owner that regularly donates to Meals On Wheels or whatever? So, no, in general I do not want to be limited in how I spend my money, which is it's own form of speech. That stands whether I am a shopper, or an employer. Of course, that will always lead to it's own abuses, such as the case in the OP, where no one can point to anything more than mild distaste with the guy's opinion. But if the alternative is that I no longer have any say in how I spend my money, then I don't accept that alternative. Because for every mild case there will be extreme ones. That's the price of freedom - it doesn't always work out how you might want. There's the Franklin quote along the lines of if you trade freedom for security you deserve neither. Well, the topic is not security here, but I think the sentiment still applies. It's easy and comforting to say that this employer, in this case overreacted, and we should stop that, but at what cost?
	__________________ May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view. May your mountains rise into and above the clouds. - Edward Abbey Climb the mountains and get their good tidings. Nature's peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their energy, while cares will drop off like autumn leaves. - John Muir

21st November 2012, 07:57 PM	#254
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,979	Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad Except they don't protect everyone from bigots. Firing someone for being pro gay marriage isn't a good thing. I don't know why you think it's ok to take away someone's livelihood because they don't agree with you. People don't always agree. Unless it affects job performance you really should just suck it up and act like an adult (not you specifically, in general). That is not protceting people from bigots. Eg a bigot believes gays are evil. He fires all employeex who disagree. How were they protected from their bigoted boss? did you not read the link provided?!
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

21st November 2012, 07:58 PM	#255
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,433	Originally Posted by Rolfe Correct. That is exactly what I do think. And if we had KKK here, that is how it would be. (That is assuming that the KKK isn't an illegal organisation, and that there's nothing in the contract of employment the employee signed that made it specifically clear that membership of - preferably named - illegal organisations was unacceptable. Even then, I suspect the law would allow the employee to resign from the organisation rather than be fired.) I'm so glad we are a more free society than the USA, even if it allows some people to be free to do things I don't agree with. Rolfe. So the guy who got fired after he was outed as being violentacrez should go to Britain where he will be guaranteed a job, no matter how many pictures of underage girls if finds and publishes on the internet.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

21st November 2012, 08:00 PM	#256
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,433	Originally Posted by Rolfe Actually, yes. Regulation of powerful elites equates to greater freedom for ordinary people. And yes, I have been an employer. As one of the elite, you should take a stand and hire these guys.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

21st November 2012, 09:02 PM	#257
Neally Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,101	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken No, as long as those beliefs are not bigotry. That leads to some interesting choices. Which would be okay in your mind?: 1. Boss man John, "Greg, we found out that you contributed to the organization that supports the proposal to legalize gay marriage in the state. Here's your final paycheck." 2. Boss woman Jane, "Steve, I noticed that you sent a private Tweet that said that you want all illegal aliens rounded up and deported. Your fired!" 3. Boss man John, "Most members of the GOP are bigoted on some level, therefore I'm not going to hire any, but if I do, and find out later, I'll fire them." 4. Boss women Cheryl, "Debbie, we found out that you contributed to the organization that opposes the proposal to legalize gay marriage in the state. I think Friday will be your last day with us." 5. Boss man Ted, "Jim, your private Facebook post mentioned that you're in favor of burning the Koran. We don't like that sort of thinking by our people. Here's your final paycheck." I'm fine with an employer having the right to do all the above. Likewise reverse the roles of employer and employee, and I'm fine with an employee quitting in the same scenarios. It would be an irrational thing to do from a business perspective, but either way both parties should have that freedom.
Neally Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,101

22nd November 2012, 12:22 AM	#258
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,979	1 is wrong 2 is ok 3 is wrong ( but tolerable ) 4 is ok 5 is ok I just parsed which reasons were discouraging bigotry and it wasn't that hard to reach my conclusions.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

22nd November 2012, 03:03 AM	#259
anglolawyer Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: surrey, england Posts: 3,296	Originally Posted by xjx388 Professionals, especially those who deal with the public, have a duty to behave . . . well, professionally. A doctor, teacher, lawyer, etc. who goes around espousing opinions which might be considered controversial should expect repercussions from their clients and fellow professionals. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech. I don't like that at all! I (a lawyer in case you can't guess) don't see why I shouldn't say whatever I like, within the law of course. What does 'professionally' mean? This is a pernicious prelude to silencing dissent. It might be my opinion that the entire judicary is corrupt and the legal profession is mostly composed of greedy, lying frauds (it might be yours too). What the heck has that to do with how I do my job? Society might benefit from hearing what I have to say (the principal justification for the right of free speech btw.) and be able to do something about the greedy, lying frauds. I think you have an old-fashioned 'pillar-of-the-community' idea about the much-devalued professions the middle classes once aspired to. Like social order will disintegrate if I don't show up at church on Sunday. ETA ignore this. It's OT and I now realise the thread is 7 pages long, not one. Sorry. Very unprofessional of me.
	Last edited by anglolawyer; 22nd November 2012 at 03:09 AM. Reason: Out of date

22nd November 2012, 04:02 AM	#260
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885	You're fired.
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885

22nd November 2012, 04:51 AM	#261
anglolawyer Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: surrey, england Posts: 3,296	Originally Posted by Soapy Sam You're fired. What a relief! Now I can speak freely.

22nd November 2012, 07:55 AM	#262
Neally Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,101	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken 1 is wrong 2 is ok 3 is wrong ( but tolerable ) 4 is ok 5 is ok I just parsed which reasons were discouraging bigotry and it wasn't that hard to reach my conclusions. As expected, your rationale as to what is acceptable and unacceptable WRT hiring and firing is hypocritical and based on your personal political partisan beliefs. 1 & 4 are mirror images, yet you reject one and accept the other, and just what exactly does "is wrong but tolerable)" mean?
Neally Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,101

22nd November 2012, 08:23 AM	#263
LondonJohn Philosopher Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 5,599	I think that many people are getting bogged down on this issue. In the UK (and after all, that's the most pertinent territory to be discussing, as per the subject of the thread), an employee can be dismissed for: 1) persistent poor performance in his/her job, providing that appropriate warnings and attempted corrective processes have been applied prior to dismissal. 2) redundancy (the role is no longer required within the company) 3) persistent breach of any company rules (usually set out in an employee handbook), again provided that suitable appropriate warnings and corrective procedures have already been applied 4) any action from the employee that might be *reasonably* construed to bring the company or any of its employees into disrepute - either cumulatively (with appropriate warnings) or if any single offence is sufficiently serious, instant dismissal may be warranted. And of course it's that fourth option that is at the heart of this particular issue. The crucial word here is "reasonable", and it's indefinable in statute, since there are so many terms and behaviours (an infinite amount in principle) that would need to be codified. In practice, it's up to tribunals or courts to decide what constitutes "reasonable". That is the central point in this debate. For example, a tribunal/court might decide that an employee rubbishing his own company in very general, mild terms at a trade fair's drinks party might be worthy of a written warning, but not grounds for instant dismissal. On the other hand, vehement, detailed criticism of his company, coupled perhaps with a recommendation that people should not do business with his company, might be judged to be sufficiently serious as to warrant instant dismissal. A minor fraud conviction would be judged sufficient grounds for instant dismissal for an employee in a position of financial trust, but probably not for a refuse collector. If a catholic priest had an affair with a married woman, this would certainly constitute grounds for dismissal, but if a plumber did the same, it would not. In other words, it's all about context and judgement for each individual circumstance. There are no black and white rules. Instead, it's ultimately up to tribunal or courts to use their powers of judgement (and any precedent) to decide what constitutes "reasonable" on a case-by-case basis. In the particular case under discussion here, the court decided (quite correctly, in my view) that the employee could not be reasonably construed to have brought his employer - a local authority housing trust - into disrepute over privately-made comments that, while unpalatable to many people, were not illegal and were not expressed in an inflammatory way.
LondonJohn Philosopher Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 5,599

22nd November 2012, 08:27 AM	#264
LondonJohn Philosopher Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 5,599	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle So the guy who got fired after he was outed as being violentacrez should go to Britain where he will be guaranteed a job, no matter how many pictures of underage girls if finds and publishes on the internet. Massively poor "reasoning" on display here.....
LondonJohn Philosopher Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 5,599

22nd November 2012, 08:38 AM	#265
DreamingNaiad Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: The forgotten sweet abyss Posts: 465	Originally Posted by LondonJohn I think that many people are getting bogged down on this issue. In the UK (and after all, that's the most pertinent territory to be discussing, as per the subject of the thread), an employee can be dismissed for: 1) persistent poor performance in his/her job, providing that appropriate warnings and attempted corrective processes have been applied prior to dismissal. 2) redundancy (the role is no longer required within the company) 3) persistent breach of any company rules (usually set out in an employee handbook), again provided that suitable appropriate warnings and corrective procedures have already been applied 4) any action from the employee that might be *reasonably* construed to bring the company or any of its employees into disrepute - either cumulatively (with appropriate warnings) or if any single offence is sufficiently serious, instant dismissal may be warranted. And of course it's that fourth option that is at the heart of this particular issue. The crucial word here is "reasonable", and it's indefinable in statute, since there are so many terms and behaviours (an infinite amount in principle) that would need to be codified. In practice, it's up to tribunals or courts to decide what constitutes "reasonable". That is the central point in this debate. For example, a tribunal/court might decide that an employee rubbishing his own company in very general, mild terms at a trade fair's drinks party might be worthy of a written warning, but not grounds for instant dismissal. On the other hand, vehement, detailed criticism of his company, coupled perhaps with a recommendation that people should not do business with his company, might be judged to be sufficiently serious as to warrant instant dismissal. A minor fraud conviction would be judged sufficient grounds for instant dismissal for an employee in a position of financial trust, but probably not for a refuse collector. If a catholic priest had an affair with a married woman, this would certainly constitute grounds for dismissal, but if a plumber did the same, it would not. In other words, it's all about context and judgement for each individual circumstance. There are no black and white rules. Instead, it's ultimately up to tribunal or courts to use their powers of judgement (and any precedent) to decide what constitutes "reasonable" on a case-by-case basis. In the particular case under discussion here, the court decided (quite correctly, in my view) that the employee could not be reasonably construed to have brought his employer - a local authority housing trust - into disrepute over privately-made comments that, while unpalatable to many people, were not illegal and were not expressed in an inflammatory way. ^^^^ This exactly. A million times, this.

22nd November 2012, 12:15 PM	#266
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,979	Originally Posted by Neally As expected, your rationale as to what is acceptable and unacceptable WRT hiring and firing is hypocritical and based on your personal political partisan beliefs. 1 & 4 are mirror images, yet you reject one and accept the other, and just what exactly does "is wrong but tolerable)" mean? Simple. One of them is fighting for equal rights. The other is fighting to restrict the rights of people simply because they are gay. "wrong but tolerable" is just a jab at conservatives.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

23rd November 2012, 08:16 AM	#267
Neally Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,101	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken Simple. One of them is fighting for equal rights. The other is fighting to restrict the rights of people simply because they are gay. As I said, partisan judgements based on your judgement of "equal rights". How about equal rights for child pornographers, NAMBLA followers, oh and the animal rights fringe the want equal rights for animals. Are you bigoted against Mohamed? Unless you support laws against depicting him in cartoons, you must be. See, the "bigoted" criteria you seek to use to determine who can and can't be fired is a matter of interpretation and convenience for justifying your partisan and personal beliefs. Nice try though.
Neally Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,101

23rd November 2012, 02:55 PM	#268
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,979	Equal rights stops where those rights impede the rights of others to do as they wish. Tell me, how does gay marriage impede the rights of heterosexuals?
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

23rd November 2012, 03:36 PM	#269
DreamingNaiad Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: The forgotten sweet abyss Posts: 465	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken Equal rights stops where those rights impede the rights of others to do as they wish. Tell me, how does gay marriage impede the rights of heterosexuals? It doesn't. His opinion doesn't affect homosexuals either. If he was advocating violence or calling all gays degenerate paedos I would be all for him being fired. But there can be no reasonable discussion if everyone who disagrees with you is punished. People won't learn that they are wrong that way. It will just breed more hate.

23rd November 2012, 03:49 PM	#270
Neally Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,101	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken Equal rights stops where those rights impede the rights of others to do as they wish. Tell me, how does gay marriage impede the rights of heterosexuals? How does someones opinion on gay marriage impede your rights? Oh wait, it doesn't, yet you think someone that doesn't agree with your opinion deserves to be fired and someone that agrees with you on that same topic shouldn't be allowed to be fired. Like I said, hypocrisy.
Neally Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,101

23rd November 2012, 05:49 PM	#271
Rolfe Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 34,340	So, Thaiboxerken believes he knows exactly when it is OK to sack someone for their opinions and when it isn't. How is this to be enforced? How is an employer who sacks someone for something Thaiboxerken believes is unjustified to be disciplined? How is the employee to be recompensed? Rolfe.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

25th November 2012, 05:51 PM	#272
Neally Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,101	Originally Posted by Rolfe So, Thaiboxerken believes he knows exactly when it is OK to sack someone for their opinions and when it isn't. How is this to be enforced? How is an employer who sacks someone for something Thaiboxerken believes is unjustified to be disciplined? How is the employee to be recompensed? Rolfe. Well it looks as though our friend Thaiboxerken has been shamed away now that his hypocrisy has been exposed.
Neally Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,101

27th November 2012, 08:01 PM	#273
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,979	Originally Posted by Neally Well it looks as though our friend Thaiboxerken has been shamed away now that his hypocrisy has been exposed. What hypocrisy? There are some opinions that absolutely should be subject to employer actions. Is anyone claiming that no expressed opinions are actionable? Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence of that speech. And to answer Rolfe's question, the easiest way to enforce the "thaiboxerken's rules" is to submit all inquiries to me before taking action.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine Last edited by thaiboxerken; 27th November 2012 at 08:04 PM.

2nd December 2012, 05:56 AM	#274
Agatha Winking at the Moon Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: UK Posts: 4,226	Just to bring closure to this, the judge has now ruled that each side will bear their own costs. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2012/3320.html Usually, the losing party (in this case the Housing Trust) would bear the costs of both parties, but the Trust made a part 36 (settlement) offer of £1000 to Mr Smith which he turned down, despite the fact that winning would mean he would only recover £98. If a party refuses to settle but comes out with less than the Part 36 settlement offer, that party (despite winning) generally bears the costs. The judge didn't make Mr Smith bear the Trust's cost because he felt that the Part 36 offer didn't address the question of the real issue between the parties - which was that Mr Smith felt he'd been wrongly disciplined and demoted.
	__________________ People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... timey wimey... stuff.