Seems very stupid to me, don't agree with twitter get your job taken away. I don't like his way of thinking, but he shouldn't get fired for a for it, starts a very dangerous trend if going to a rally causes this.
Seems very stupid to me, don't agree with twitter get your job taken away. I don't like his way of thinking, but he shouldn't get fired for a for it, starts a very dangerous trend if going to a rally causes this.
There are many categories of discrimination, some are artificial, some are about things you can't influence and some are about things you can influence.
One of the most basic things in your job is: Don't make your company look bad. The employer is free to determine the potential damage and act accordingly.
I'm not going through go through 61 pages....so, I just want to say this:
Good, fire all these fuckers!
So, it's far more likely that the neo-Nazis were displaying support for Nazis, and that's why they were called as such... as opposed to being called such things for no reason, then turning to the exact same thing for comfort and solace. yeah, no.
Of course it exists, and we should get rid of affirmative action, including the Electoral College.
That's not what it is. These guys expressed their freedom of speech, despite how ugly the speech was. Their employers found out and let them go. People get fired for the dumb shit they do that ends up on social media often enough.
As I mentioned in my last quote, freedom of speech does not protect you from the consequences of expressing said freedom.
Carte blanche though or with restrictions? Say I got a job somewhere and then felt my manager slighted me and decided to go around shit-talking my employer and our products/services to anyone who would listen. Should the employer have no recourse under my protection of freedom of speech? Would writing something into the hiring contract regarding this behavior being a fireable offense be fought against as a restriction of my freedom of speech?
At the end of the day regardless of how I or anyone feels about it this boils down to if he had at-will employment. If so the employer can release someone at any time for any reason. And everyone has been seeming to look at this from a moral vantage point, it doesn't even have to be that. If the employer was in any way concerned about backlash (protesters at their business, negative press, etc) then you can see from a pure business standpoint where regardless of the employer's feelings on the matter its a simple bottom line issue to let the person go.Originally Posted by Gehco
Owing something? What?
Where did you read that?
Victim card? What?
Where did you see that?
What i have wrote are my experiences of what happens when freedom of speech and employer restrictions do not work.
Government is literally irrelevant since the corporations and tycoons dictate what the corrupt politicians/judges will say and do.
That happens less in developed countries, but is a daily fact of life in other poorer parts of the world.
We have rich/powerful people physically assaulting other people on camera, video recordings all over the internet - but no courts have ever pressed charges against those repeated public assaults for well over two decades.
Government might be a relevant factor in USA/sweden/germany, but is of zero consequence is less developed countries where corruption from rich tycoons is the law.
In such an environment you will quickly learn what it means when you give your boss unlimited power over his employees, especially when open jobs are non-existent and "disposable income you can save" is a pipe dream.
Two different pair of shoes. You can't influence your sexuality, you can decide if you go to white supremacist rallies and chant shit. I'm fine with firing gays who screw each other in the middle of a pride march in front of a camera team and I'm fine with white supremacists getting fired if they chant Nazi slogans und insult minorities. I'm not fine with gays or white supremacists getting fired just for showing up to those events.
Don't compare apples and oranges for some laughable victimization.
You raise good questions that should be determined by experts who are properly educated and experienced for law making.
For starters people should try and see the wisdom in not making your employer a god in terms of legal power.
That might be less of a problem if other jobs are plentiful, but in an environment where you either work there or starve for the next 6 months the need for employer power restriction becomes clear very soon.
You are whining that an employer can fire an employee. Stop, it's embarrassing.
Freedom of speech IS working. That's the whole point.
Once again, the boss does not have unlimited power. If that's the case, then you should address that, and not freedom of speech. Your problem is with corporatism, not freedom. Stop blaming freedom.
What do you think freedom of speech should mean?