Current Events

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

267 | 268 | 269

 ... 487

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next

darwinsjoke

darwinsjoke

Virginia Beach, VA
July 2003

MAR 22, 2005 02:12 PM

if she sues and wins i foresee a rash of lawsuits against faux news after the liberal housecleaning that took place after rupert murdoch placed roger ailes in charge there.

DopeSpike

dopespike

Columbus, OH
October 2003

MAR 22, 2005 02:14 PM

s5 said:

InfernoMDM said:
I have heard that the Vice President may have been fired for being republican. I dont know the details and wondered if anyone else had any information on it.

Also do you think someone should be fired for there political affiliation? Would it be ok in certian circumstances?



it's still a rumor so it could be completely untrue.

but, to answer your question, yes, i think political affiliation is an acceptable reason to fire someone, especially at the executive level, where your political beliefs could have an important impact on the direction of the company. i personally would wait to see if it worked out with that person, or i might be more inclined to save myself the trouble of personality clashes and disagreements down the road, depending on the individual.



So lets say your my VP of my company and the dicretion of the company has been going nowher but up. I find out that you are not in a political party I support and fire you based on the fact that you are whatever you believe in. I think it's stupid. Unless the person is not performing at the level they should be, there is no reason for termination. That my friend is what we call discrimination.

Dead_Ringer

Dead_Ringer

I'm lost
September 2004

MAR 22, 2005 02:19 PM

DopeSpike said:

s5 said:

InfernoMDM said:
I have heard that the Vice President may have been fired for being republican. I dont know the details and wondered if anyone else had any information on it.

Also do you think someone should be fired for there political affiliation? Would it be ok in certian circumstances?



it's still a rumor so it could be completely untrue.

but, to answer your question, yes, i think political affiliation is an acceptable reason to fire someone, especially at the executive level, where your political beliefs could have an important impact on the direction of the company. i personally would wait to see if it worked out with that person, or i might be more inclined to save myself the trouble of personality clashes and disagreements down the road, depending on the individual.



So lets say your my VP of my company and the dicretion of the company has been going nowher but up. I find out that you are not in a political party I support and fire you based on the fact that you are whatever you believe in. I think it's stupid. Unless the person is not performing at the level they should be, there is no reason for termination. That my friend is what we call discrimination.



It is pretty stupid to fire someone only because she is a Republican, which leads me to believe she was fired for some other reason which had a direct effect on the company's bottom line. Of course this might not be the case. You are right about it being discrimination, but it is not impermissible discrimination under federal law. However, under some state laws, depending on where a suit is brought, she may have a case.

FridgeMagnet

FridgeMagnet

Chicago, IL
November 2004

MAR 22, 2005 02:19 PM

rottenart said:

FridgeMagnet said:
I think we should go out there, and win just one....for the Zipper.



my, you are a clever one...




So are the dudes who wrote Airplane. But thanks!


s5

s5

STAFF

San Francisco, CA

MAR 22, 2005 02:19 PM

legionnaire said:
All kidding aside, it probably is something that's worth protecting.



i don't really see the point of it. it's not like democrats or republicans are particularly marginalized minorities. both groups are roughly half of the country. nor is there a rash of widespread firings that either group needs to be protected from.

Dead_Ringer

Dead_Ringer

I'm lost
September 2004

MAR 22, 2005 02:24 PM

s5 said:

legionnaire said:
All kidding aside, it probably is something that's worth protecting.



i don't really see the point of it. it's not like democrats or republicans are particularly marginalized minorities. both groups are roughly half of the country. nor is there a rash of widespread firings that either group needs to be protected from.



Agreed. Plus it's just not rational to fire an otherwise productive employee because of her political affiliation. It's inefficient to do so and bad business. I imagine that most reasonable employers in the business of turning a proffit, could give a damn about an otherwise productive employee's political affiliation. This kind of thing seems likely to work its self out according to how much the employer vallues the employee.

FridgeMagnet

FridgeMagnet

Chicago, IL
November 2004

MAR 22, 2005 02:26 PM

s5 said:

legionnaire said:
All kidding aside, it probably is something that's worth protecting.



i don't really see the point of it. it's not like democrats or republicans are particularly marginalized minorities. both groups are roughly half of the country. nor is there a rash of widespread firings that either group needs to be protected from.



I might be reading this wrong but, are you saying you need to be a marginalized minority who is widely discriminated against in order to have your freedom of expression protected? Which is essentially what political party affiliation is.

I don't think there needs to be legislation here to protect party affiliations, but I do think that sort of thing may already be covered depending on how you interpret the 1st ammendment.


rottenart

rottenart

Norman, OK
February 2004

MAR 22, 2005 02:28 PM

i guess the other thing is that if a workplace was so militant in its political atmosphere, someone of the opposite mindset either a) wouldn't work there in the first place or b) quit of their own volition.

rottenart

rottenart

Norman, OK
February 2004

MAR 22, 2005 02:35 PM

dkmfc said:
can't we all just get along?

I want to fire someone for liking pie.

or better yet, ice cream. I hate ice cream. I'd fire you for it. it makes me sick to the stomach because I am lactose intolerant.

it's my belief that I should be able to fire any ice cream lovers who are highly ranked members of my company because they think differently than me.
because their beliefs might affect the direction of the company, and we all know that everyone thinking the same doesn't have a stagnating effect on a company, it's a positive thing.



ha! i'd fire you from my ice cream company, though the irony is that i'm lactose intolerent too.

s5

s5

STAFF

San Francisco, CA

MAR 22, 2005 02:40 PM

DopeSpike said:
So lets say your my VP of my company and the dicretion of the company has been going nowher but up. I find out that you are not in a political party I support and fire you based on the fact that you are whatever you believe in. I think it's stupid. Unless the person is not performing at the level they should be, there is no reason for termination. That my friend is what we call discrimination.



it's called "at will" employment, which includes the right to fire someone or to quit just because you don't like the personality of your coworker.

i realize that the fox news / bill o'reilly culture we've found ourselves stuck in has convinced everyone that republicans are a persecuted minority, but the fact is, you don't have to work with people you don't like.

luckily, we've established that you can't fire someone for their immutable characteristics, like their skin color or certain disabilities. and the debate over what is "immutable" will always rage on and change with the times. i just don't think "i believe in X set of ideas" is all that sacred or necessarily worthy of special protection.

Dead_Ringer

Dead_Ringer

I'm lost
September 2004

MAR 22, 2005 02:41 PM

FridgeMagnet said:

s5 said:

legionnaire said:
All kidding aside, it probably is something that's worth protecting.



i don't really see the point of it. it's not like democrats or republicans are particularly marginalized minorities. both groups are roughly half of the country. nor is there a rash of widespread firings that either group needs to be protected from.



I might be reading this wrong but, are you saying you need to be a marginalized minority who is widely discriminated against in order to have your freedom of expression protected? Which is essentially what political party affiliation is.

I don't think there needs to be legislation here to protect party affiliations, but I do think that sort of thing may already be covered depending on how you interpret the 1st ammendment.



This isn't a freedom of speech issue because the 1st amendment does not apply to private employers. It applies to the federal government and the states, by way of incorporation by the 14th amendment. Title VII is a federal statute which applies to employment discrimination in matters of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Congress saw fit to protect these classes from discrimination in the work place, based on the immutable characteristics of those classes, and chose not to protect "political affiliation." Certainly the wisdom of this is debatable, but not Congress' constitutional authority to do so.


[Edited on Mar 22, 2005 by dead_ringer]

s5

s5

STAFF

San Francisco, CA

MAR 22, 2005 02:42 PM

FridgeMagnet said:
I might be reading this wrong but, are you saying you need to be a marginalized minority who is widely discriminated against in order to have your freedom of expression protected?



this discussion isn't about freedom of expression; it's about employment practices.

FridgeMagnet

FridgeMagnet

Chicago, IL
November 2004

MAR 22, 2005 02:50 PM

s5 said:

FridgeMagnet said:
I might be reading this wrong but, are you saying you need to be a marginalized minority who is widely discriminated against in order to have your freedom of expression protected?



this discussion isn't about freedom of expression; it's about employment practices.



Ok, I must be confused then. Ignore me, I'll go back to the whimsically insouciant posting.

s5

s5

STAFF

San Francisco, CA

MAR 22, 2005 03:01 PM

dead_ringer said:
Agreed. Plus it's just not rational to fire an otherwise productive employee because of her political affiliation. It's inefficient to do so and bad business. I imagine that most reasonable employers in the business of turning a proffit, could give a damn about an otherwise productive employee's political affiliation. This kind of thing seems likely to work its self out according to how much the employer vallues the employee.



in general, this is true. the case of published media, what ideas the magazine promotes are also important, probably more important than "productivity".

bean

bean

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

MAR 22, 2005 03:08 PM

dkmfc said:
I thought playgirl was all about soft cock shots and the like.
are they actually a serious mag?


Well, I for one thought everyone read it for the articles.

Scopitone

Scopitone

Irvine, CA
OLD SKOOL

MAR 22, 2005 03:14 PM

If this happened in the 90's and he was fired for being a Republican, I'd be livid. But anyone calling themselves a Republican these days is either a sociopath, a millionaire, or waiting for GodÂ’s annihilating love to wash over us all.

fountainofdreams

fountainofdreams

Batavia, IL
January 2005

MAR 22, 2005 07:26 PM

dead_ringer said:

legionnaire said:

rottenart said:
well, if she decided to sue and won, wouldn't that set some sort of precedent for future conflicts like this? like having political affiliation added to the ADA list or something?


Ha! Does that mean we get to permanently define being a Republican as a disability? wink



Haha. On that note, this is pretty funny.

[Edited on Mar 22, 2005 by dead_ringer]



bwahahahaaha!

you know what's sad...

whatever

Aaron

Aaron

Shakopee, MN
July 2004

MAR 22, 2005 07:34 PM

She, as a repersentitive of Playgirl magazine, made a political statement, the person who hired her didn't believe this statement was apporpriate in the context of her employment. I delivered pizzas, if I was to say to someone I delivered to, "Vote for Kerry" and they called my boss to complain I know I would have been fired.

Whether or not this was why she was fired, (it appears that it isn't) it is still a valid reason for termination.

Satanica

Satanica

Vatican City
November 2004

MAR 22, 2005 07:45 PM

Go down a few days on this blog for a first hand account- http://www.tinynibbles.com/violetblue.html

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next