Foothills
Well-Known Member
I'm sure they did.
Do you think people should be protected from punishment from their employer for expressing opinions
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
Foothills
Well-Known Member
A good example of why so many Americans have decided to drop outta the work force entirely.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Do you think an employer should have the right to fire you if you say something in the privacy of your own home that happens to get leaked?
What if you do it in private and someone records what you say without your knowledge like what happened to the owner of that basketball team a couple years ago?
It seems to me that people should be able to say whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes, but the fact is that if what they say is offensive to people and they work for a company where it matters, where it might affect sales, then that affects the livelihood of the employer. So this is one of those situations where the freedom of speech comes into conflict with the freedom to run your own business how you see fit.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Millionaire team owners and factory line workers are held to different standards.
...which is often a big part of the problem.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
So what do you think? If I'm the manager of a Taco Bell and I say something racist towards Mexicans in the privacy of my own home and it gets leaked without my consent, then Taco Bell starts losing customers, do you think they should be allowed to fire me? Do you think that encroaches on my freedom of speech or is NLXSK1 correct in that the 1st amendment protects me from encroachment from my government, not my employer?
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Our technology is racing ahead of our ability to effectively navigate these kinds of dilemmas.
I think surreptitious recordings while in one's home are an invasion of privacy, possibly actionable. I'm aware that does not reach the heart of the matter, it just muddies things further lol
thewanderingjack
Well-Known Member
Are they curently? no, should they be? that's like freedom of speech itself, it's still limited by some factors and with good reason (the old, you can't scream "fire!" in a crowded theater)... Sexual Harassment already limits it in the workplace, and rightly so...
I think current protection is pretty good, but still getting hashed out... I believe there's prob court cases about this very thing out there, with decisions going both ways.
A business has a right to refuse service to ANYONE for ANY/NO reason... which could be discrimination, but isn't (mostly).
Tough Q
I want to say yes, to a degree, but where do we draw the line? Can't get fired for advocating pot, but for advocating aborting in a christian state?
I think current protection is pretty good, but still getting hashed out... I believe there's prob court cases about this very thing out there, with decisions going both ways.
A business has a right to refuse service to ANYONE for ANY/NO reason... which could be discrimination, but isn't (mostly).
Tough Q
I want to say yes, to a degree, but where do we draw the line? Can't get fired for advocating pot, but for advocating aborting in a christian state?
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I think you are correct in that they will fire anybody in the lower ranks that embarrasses the leadership or the company or affects the brand in a negative way. Maybe not overtly but they will do the deed. Is it wrong? I think so, maybe management wouldn't think so, it's all a matter of opinion. Management currently have the power to fire anybody unless there are protections under the law or there is a contract as you would have if a union represented you. Why would redress require a union and absent a union, no universal right that says people should only be fired for cause with a rational grievance system to ensure protection of this right is maybe the next question.
What is definitely wrong and should be illegal is violating your privacy in the first place. There the perpetrator is definitely in the wrong and if you could prove he did it, should be liable for damages.
Ace Yonder
Well-Known Member
In my opinion freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to say whatever you want with no consequences or repercussions at all, it just means that the government will not prevent you from saying it. You should have the right to say whatever you want, but a private employer should have the right to fire you if they feel it reflects poorly upon their business.
thewanderingjack
Well-Known Member
And if you factor common sense: mostly, people don't get fired for little disagreements or small pov things.. I am pretty "liberal" while my boss is a staunch republican (literally has a Reagan photo over his desk)... we disagree on a lot of things, he doesn't approve of pot, but knows i both use and advocate it's use... He's generally more concerned with my job performance than my conversation...
AND... I wouldn't go work for an orthodox catholic church (as an example) and volunteer as a pro-abortion advocate... wouldn't really want to do one if I was into the other would I?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
This is interesting. I think this is pretty much how I feel about it, too. But how far do you believe this should extend? Should the employer have the right to fire you if you say something that only offends him? In other words, I guess we're getting into "right to fire" type issues. Prevalent in the midwest, if you say something disparaging about your employers religion, "I believe in evolution" etc., and it offends him, even though it might not affect his business, do you think he should have the right to fire you? In that case, I don't think he should have that right. So why the difference? Should he only have the right to fire you if it affects his business?
Ace Yonder
Well-Known Member
Well I would want the right to fire someone who said they didn't believe in evolution, because I want smart employees and I would never trust someone like that with my livelihood. Personally I think that private businesses should have the right to fire people for whatever reasons they want, because I don't think they should have any legal obligation to employ someone. I think that as the owner of a private business I should have the right to hire and fire whatever employees I want, because I am the one paying them. I shouldn't be forced to continue paying and interacting with an employee that I don't like. To me it's like asking if someone should be allowed to get divorced just because they don't love their wife or husband anymore, or if we should force them to stay married until they are hit or cheated on.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Should I be able to fire you if you're middle eastern/white/black/gay/etc., or discriminate against you for hiring purposes based on that?
Ace Yonder
Well-Known Member
If you are a private business owner, you should have the right to hire and fire whoever you want. However, if you start firing people because of their race, I as the consumer have every right to stop patronizing your business, and the right to try to convince other people to do the same. Public/government jobs, however, should absolutely not be able to discriminate based on race or religion or personal ideology.
thewanderingjack
Well-Known Member
I think that's where it all kinda breaks down... I mean, small to mid size businesses for example: discriminatory hiring/firing practices at that level aren't common knowledge... it's really between the parties involved.. stories and rumors circulate, but whose to say what's rue or not... so, your bakers is a secret neo-nazi who doesn't hire non-whites non-heteros... is it okay as long as you don't know and he's making decent bread?
In big corp things are more apparent and get magnified. People also make a bigger deal. I have seen many people fired or quit over discrimination in small business, and they didn't feel there was anything they could do (being also "wage slaves" unable to afford an attorney to sue)... so they grumbled and moved on. And many businesses just keep on cycling through staff (meaning somethings usually wrong, unless there's a practical reason, like seasonal work) but customers hardly seem to notice or care...
(hyperbolic hypothetical) I could technically run a hospital that both only employs white people and only caters to whites... would that be okay, so long as people didn't notice or realize why?
And if so, then why even bother with the non-discriminatory practices thing? Seems weird.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Doesn't that just encourage segregation?
thewanderingjack
Well-Known Member
Maybe we're just not as intellectually evolved as we'd like to think... look at cities... you still find a lot of cultural groups clumping together... wanting to be surrounded by like individuals is a big thing for most people... I like variety, but even I have a certain.. range? Sure, it's not based on gender, race, color, creed, or anything else like that... more about behavior... you know "more civilized" to a certain extent... I've often imagined that maybe a lot of people would be happier if each states became a bastion for a certain popular cultural way...
Segregation could increase tolerance... as people don't feel like their culture is being lost or taken over, and feel like they have a safe space, a "home"... though of course it also creates the opposite effect as people have friction with other cultures because they don't have intercultural communication experience...
The answer is always better people.
Ace Yonder
Well-Known Member
No, because a business that hires and fires people based on race will inevitably do worse than a business that hires and fires people based on merit. So the economic incentive is against segregation, and economic incentives are the strongest way to influence change in business practices (in fact economic incentives are pretty much the strongest way to influence change period). I also think that if people are so eager to segregate, that speaks to a deeper problem that requires a deeper remedy. Even if you say "You can't fire them just because they're middle eastern", a racist person will just find another reason as an excuse to fire them (or more likely to not hire them in the first place). You need to fight the racism on a deeper level than just making private business owners pretend that's not the reason they're doing it.
thewanderingjack
Well-Known Member
Unless they can get people doing a decent job... like, yeah the black guy could have done better, but the white guy does well enough... yeah, my business could do better if I didn't discriminate, but so long as it's netting profits over losses... it's all good.
I worked at a bakery. No women had worked there for as long as I knew of (5+ years)... probably never... both the manager and owner were like that... but it was still the popular bakery in town, cuz no one ever thought about it... They also discriminated against non Mexicans... which is both odd and not... the owner thought Mexicans would work harder for less... and the Mexican manager just didn't like working with non Mexicans... he seriously asked a native American if his family still wore hides and lived in a tepee and other shit like that... they had all kinds of other bad business practices (mold in the baking trays and pans, false advertising, over charging for things... we sold a loaf that I think was meant to have olive oil or something at a dollar more than the one that didn't, only they were the same. No one noticed. So, I guess that was all ok?