Usually government employees are unionized though and collective bargaining agreements usually require firing for cause. Wouldn’t that be a factor before First Amendment?
Mind you I’m a Canuck so we have no First Amendment and people here fired for no cause are required to receive severance.
That is a technical enough legal question that I'd better not try to answer.
Another thing, though. A number of states have laws against employers retaliating for political activity, defined differently from state to state. Someone might sue under one of those laws.
What we have here is an excellent example of the right wing ethos towards laws: They expect laws to protect but not bind them (or not apply to them at all as and when they choose!) as the in group, but for everybody else in the outgroup they expect the opposite: for laws to bind but not protect them.
These laws are of their very own making, yet they whine and complain about them when they are applied to them and they have to abide by them, calling them unfair. But when they are the ones applying them, or they are being applied to others, especially those they hate, they stand in full support of them. And the reason why, the reason for this double standard and hypocrisy, is the ethos above that is an epitomized representation of hypocrisy and double standards.
Society DOES need to grapple with the question of how much power your employer has over your social media usage. But "l got fired for posting that I'm a literal Nazi" is probably not the best test case.
Because the case can be made that you're hurting your company by being a Nazi in their employ, especially one who posts Nazi stuff.
They can be open to anti-discriminatory suites for hiring such people with such beliefs because the very foundation of such beliefs and ideologies like Nazism is intolerance and discrimination.
The same cannot be said about firing people based on them being gay or trans though, as being gay and/or trans is not only not "a belief" (though most of the bigots on the right want this to be the case), but it is not something that encompasses intolerance or discrimination. Being gay or trans doesn't compel one to be intolerant of non gay or non trans people after all.
The question is, how much control should your employer have over your out of work life? Sure, your off the clock behaviour can harm your employer's business reputation; but doesn't that mean you're a 24/7 brand ambassador? Shouldn't you be compensated for that? And have a clearly defined Code of Conduct about what conduct is and isn't acceptable?
Someone said that Nazi posts are a massive liability for an employer, because it's written evidence of a hostile work environment for employees of colour who have to work with the shit stain. That's why I said it's not a good test case - it's pretty open and shut. Also, Nazis should be fired because fuck Nazis.
There needs to be legislative clarity around more subtle social media activities. Someone posting pictures of themselves in a MAGA hat or Planned Parenthood T-shirt, for example, when their employer doesn't agree with those political opinions. A straight teacher at a religious school, posting about the partner they live with but aren't married to. Posts about binge drinking or photos wearing very little. There's LOTS of perfectly legal behaviour employers might take exception to, or claim is damaging the reputation of their business. Exactly what rights do they, or should they, have to restrict your off the clock behaviour?
Celebrities and senior positions like CEO often have "Morality" clauses in their contracts. It's recognised that they're intimately associated with the brand they're representing; their behaviour will be publicly scrutinized; and bad behaviour will damage the brand and affect its reputation and profitability. It's specified what behaviour is unacceptable, and what the consequences will be. If it's something that will affect their ordinary life - for example, they can't wear any brand of watch but the sponsor's in public - they're paid for that inconvenience.
It's explicitly recognised that the contracted behaviour benefits their employer, and so they're compensated for it. As they should be.
If your boss wants you to do or stop doing a thing, and makes that a condition of your employment, you should be paid for doing that thing. If you aren't paid, that's wage theft.
But if a boss is sufficiently self important, an absolute random can lose their job because of mainstream legal activities they're doing on their own time, not getting paid to avoid, and don't even have any reasonable grounds to know their boss would be pissed about it. That's what I was talking about.
Agree 100%. It's why I will never work for a company whose owner is loud and proud of quasi-fascist political affiliations or a religiously-affiliated organization, university, or charity. It's just an invitation to be ostracized and judged for something other than the quality of one's work. I was going to apply for a job with a Christian university until I saw that the first question on the application was "Describe your relationship with Jesus Christ." A friend said I should have written "I invoke His name daily".
Before I retired, I was in the union and even negotiated our new telework agreement. A former coworker felt that he was being discriminated based on his age. He told me his story and it seemed like he had a case, so I told him to file a grievance. OMG not a grievance, he said!!! There would be retribution! Management should just know that what they're doing is wrong. So I said, "Got it. Expect other people to fight your battles. Have a nice day!"
I had a friend who used to call every few months and say, "My boss is being an asshole. Can I sue him?" And every time I'd tell him, "Not unless it's because you're in a protected class or have engaged in Constitutionally-protected conduct. Your boss has every right to be an asshole." Always amusing when the asshole's on the other foot.
This sounds eeeirily familiar. Remember Trump pinky promise to pay any legal bills if a conservative physically hurts a liberal? He was openly inviting his deranged followers to punch journalists or anyone protesting him. I’m certain those legal bills were paid, for sure, ayup. Musk is pathetic, but he knows very few of these lawsuits will have merit or even survive an immediate motion to dismiss. This is another MAGA stunt by a lonely, wealthy loser bribing terrible people to like him.
Actually, I hope they ARE holding their breath [waiting] for Musk to pay their legal bills. This would help reduce the number of stupid assholes inhabiting the planet.
At will employment is also a two way street, and that's something that many workplaces will use against you as well. Two weeks notice if you have to quit? It's a courtesy. You're allowed to quit the same day, no notice, and it is perfectly legal. They cannot withhold your final paycheck. They cannot withhold your retirement investment (which should have been with a third party trust organization anyway.)
So many of the younger folks new to the work force are being told lies by their employers about their rights. "You can't quit with no notice!" Oh yeah? Watch me.
Had a coworker friend who quit work and gave two weeks notice. She was told that "company policy" was to give at least three weeks' notice, and if she didn't they would withhold her final paycheck, reimbursement for all her unused vacation time (she had A LOT, which was one of the reasons she got another job), and her retirement benefits. She told them, "Then you can tell all that to my lawyer" and walked out.
She received all which was owed to her, without even having to contact her attorney. Weird, huh?
The Wages and Hours department in your state labor department is there for a reason. A friend of mine is an in-home nurse and her mgmt added school aide functions to her case because "they're behind in hiring school aides". I told her that it's wage theft and gave her the link to file a complaint. She said it's been going on for a few months but she was going to give them a few more weeks to straighten it out. I backed off (because friend) but WHY? Why give your employer even more time to put more work on your plate without paying for it?
Right? It's one thing to be willing to accept additional job duties, but they better be paying you overtime. Odds are pretty good that the reason they struggle to find qualified school aides is because they don't want to pay the correct wage for that labor in the first place. Turn that wage into the overtime rate of your existing employees, and suddenly raising the hiring rate becomes the cheaper option.
he's paying the weird kids to play with him now because nobody else wants to anymore.
the people who need the dead bird in their lives for basic communication are the ones who always have been barely keeping the lights on but there were a lot more people coming and going and using the app for entertainment.
the dead bird will stay until a substitute arises. so far that hasn't been the case.
That’s certainly true now, since they mostly got their massive tax heist in 2017. Plus, they’ve always been a party of the 1%, who believe they wouldn’t be billionaires if not for Republicans keeping the socialists from taking it away and giving it to the homeless (the horror!), and the masses of MAGA rubes who know nothing about taxes, but who are often bigoted, closed-minded culture warriors who are simply dissatisfied, angry people who like to feel vindicated. So they feed the masses their daily dose of “you are SPECIAL, not in spite of how terrible you are, but because of it.”
I was under the impression that the people Melon fired when he came on board are filing suit against him for violating California law? Did I hear wrong?
Call me when elmo actually puts his money where his stupid mouth is.
The other exception is government employers. Firing a government employee is a government action, so there is actual First Amendment protection there.
Usually government employees are unionized though and collective bargaining agreements usually require firing for cause. Wouldn’t that be a factor before First Amendment?
Mind you I’m a Canuck so we have no First Amendment and people here fired for no cause are required to receive severance.
That is a technical enough legal question that I'd better not try to answer.
Another thing, though. A number of states have laws against employers retaliating for political activity, defined differently from state to state. Someone might sue under one of those laws.
What we have here is an excellent example of the right wing ethos towards laws: They expect laws to protect but not bind them (or not apply to them at all as and when they choose!) as the in group, but for everybody else in the outgroup they expect the opposite: for laws to bind but not protect them.
These laws are of their very own making, yet they whine and complain about them when they are applied to them and they have to abide by them, calling them unfair. But when they are the ones applying them, or they are being applied to others, especially those they hate, they stand in full support of them. And the reason why, the reason for this double standard and hypocrisy, is the ethos above that is an epitomized representation of hypocrisy and double standards.
Every time I see the phrase "what we have here", I think of Strother Martin.......
Society DOES need to grapple with the question of how much power your employer has over your social media usage. But "l got fired for posting that I'm a literal Nazi" is probably not the best test case.
Because the case can be made that you're hurting your company by being a Nazi in their employ, especially one who posts Nazi stuff.
They can be open to anti-discriminatory suites for hiring such people with such beliefs because the very foundation of such beliefs and ideologies like Nazism is intolerance and discrimination.
The same cannot be said about firing people based on them being gay or trans though, as being gay and/or trans is not only not "a belief" (though most of the bigots on the right want this to be the case), but it is not something that encompasses intolerance or discrimination. Being gay or trans doesn't compel one to be intolerant of non gay or non trans people after all.
The question is, how much control should your employer have over your out of work life? Sure, your off the clock behaviour can harm your employer's business reputation; but doesn't that mean you're a 24/7 brand ambassador? Shouldn't you be compensated for that? And have a clearly defined Code of Conduct about what conduct is and isn't acceptable?
Someone said that Nazi posts are a massive liability for an employer, because it's written evidence of a hostile work environment for employees of colour who have to work with the shit stain. That's why I said it's not a good test case - it's pretty open and shut. Also, Nazis should be fired because fuck Nazis.
There needs to be legislative clarity around more subtle social media activities. Someone posting pictures of themselves in a MAGA hat or Planned Parenthood T-shirt, for example, when their employer doesn't agree with those political opinions. A straight teacher at a religious school, posting about the partner they live with but aren't married to. Posts about binge drinking or photos wearing very little. There's LOTS of perfectly legal behaviour employers might take exception to, or claim is damaging the reputation of their business. Exactly what rights do they, or should they, have to restrict your off the clock behaviour?
Celebrities and senior positions like CEO often have "Morality" clauses in their contracts. It's recognised that they're intimately associated with the brand they're representing; their behaviour will be publicly scrutinized; and bad behaviour will damage the brand and affect its reputation and profitability. It's specified what behaviour is unacceptable, and what the consequences will be. If it's something that will affect their ordinary life - for example, they can't wear any brand of watch but the sponsor's in public - they're paid for that inconvenience.
It's explicitly recognised that the contracted behaviour benefits their employer, and so they're compensated for it. As they should be.
If your boss wants you to do or stop doing a thing, and makes that a condition of your employment, you should be paid for doing that thing. If you aren't paid, that's wage theft.
But if a boss is sufficiently self important, an absolute random can lose their job because of mainstream legal activities they're doing on their own time, not getting paid to avoid, and don't even have any reasonable grounds to know their boss would be pissed about it. That's what I was talking about.
Agree 100%. It's why I will never work for a company whose owner is loud and proud of quasi-fascist political affiliations or a religiously-affiliated organization, university, or charity. It's just an invitation to be ostracized and judged for something other than the quality of one's work. I was going to apply for a job with a Christian university until I saw that the first question on the application was "Describe your relationship with Jesus Christ." A friend said I should have written "I invoke His name daily".
Before I retired, I was in the union and even negotiated our new telework agreement. A former coworker felt that he was being discriminated based on his age. He told me his story and it seemed like he had a case, so I told him to file a grievance. OMG not a grievance, he said!!! There would be retribution! Management should just know that what they're doing is wrong. So I said, "Got it. Expect other people to fight your battles. Have a nice day!"
Elon seems to be challenging Trump in the Pissing-Away-a-Huge-Fortune category.
The Guinness Book of World Records will have to judge the winner. (I don't trust Forbes, because Forbes falls for anything.)
Forbes did post some calculations not long ago confirming that if Trump had put his inheritance in an index fund he'd have more money today.
Must be nice to have that much FU money to piss away!
I had a friend who used to call every few months and say, "My boss is being an asshole. Can I sue him?" And every time I'd tell him, "Not unless it's because you're in a protected class or have engaged in Constitutionally-protected conduct. Your boss has every right to be an asshole." Always amusing when the asshole's on the other foot.
"If you were unfairly treated..."
Sounds awfully vague and slippery to me. Oh, right—it's Elon Musk.
This sounds eeeirily familiar. Remember Trump pinky promise to pay any legal bills if a conservative physically hurts a liberal? He was openly inviting his deranged followers to punch journalists or anyone protesting him. I’m certain those legal bills were paid, for sure, ayup. Musk is pathetic, but he knows very few of these lawsuits will have merit or even survive an immediate motion to dismiss. This is another MAGA stunt by a lonely, wealthy loser bribing terrible people to like him.
Elmo won't even pay the janitor. Sure hope nobody's holding their breath for him to pay their legal bills.
Actually, I hope they ARE holding their breath [waiting] for Musk to pay their legal bills. This would help reduce the number of stupid assholes inhabiting the planet.
At will employment is also a two way street, and that's something that many workplaces will use against you as well. Two weeks notice if you have to quit? It's a courtesy. You're allowed to quit the same day, no notice, and it is perfectly legal. They cannot withhold your final paycheck. They cannot withhold your retirement investment (which should have been with a third party trust organization anyway.)
So many of the younger folks new to the work force are being told lies by their employers about their rights. "You can't quit with no notice!" Oh yeah? Watch me.
Had a coworker friend who quit work and gave two weeks notice. She was told that "company policy" was to give at least three weeks' notice, and if she didn't they would withhold her final paycheck, reimbursement for all her unused vacation time (she had A LOT, which was one of the reasons she got another job), and her retirement benefits. She told them, "Then you can tell all that to my lawyer" and walked out.
She received all which was owed to her, without even having to contact her attorney. Weird, huh?
The Wages and Hours department in your state labor department is there for a reason. A friend of mine is an in-home nurse and her mgmt added school aide functions to her case because "they're behind in hiring school aides". I told her that it's wage theft and gave her the link to file a complaint. She said it's been going on for a few months but she was going to give them a few more weeks to straighten it out. I backed off (because friend) but WHY? Why give your employer even more time to put more work on your plate without paying for it?
Right? It's one thing to be willing to accept additional job duties, but they better be paying you overtime. Odds are pretty good that the reason they struggle to find qualified school aides is because they don't want to pay the correct wage for that labor in the first place. Turn that wage into the overtime rate of your existing employees, and suddenly raising the hiring rate becomes the cheaper option.
he's paying the weird kids to play with him now because nobody else wants to anymore.
the people who need the dead bird in their lives for basic communication are the ones who always have been barely keeping the lights on but there were a lot more people coming and going and using the app for entertainment.
the dead bird will stay until a substitute arises. so far that hasn't been the case.
I'm starting to think that being openly bigoted without consequence has replaced tax cuts for the wealthy as the number one goal of conservatism.
That’s certainly true now, since they mostly got their massive tax heist in 2017. Plus, they’ve always been a party of the 1%, who believe they wouldn’t be billionaires if not for Republicans keeping the socialists from taking it away and giving it to the homeless (the horror!), and the masses of MAGA rubes who know nothing about taxes, but who are often bigoted, closed-minded culture warriors who are simply dissatisfied, angry people who like to feel vindicated. So they feed the masses their daily dose of “you are SPECIAL, not in spite of how terrible you are, but because of it.”
I was under the impression that the people Melon fired when he came on board are filing suit against him for violating California law? Did I hear wrong?
They are suing for violation of their contracts and not paying for work done IIRC.
He'll cover their legal fees, no question!!!!!
More stories of the Leopards Eating Faces Party.
Fuck Ted Cruz.
Republicans: We should have Free To Work At Will Employment and You Must Like it Or Else
*gets fired for being a gross bigot*
Republicans: Not like that!
We meant gays!!! Not us.