Woman fired for Kerry bumpersticker

Jadeite · Post by **Jadeite** » 2004-09-13 10:21pm

http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdail ... cker.shtml

lost job for sporting Kerry sticker on car

By Clyde L. Stancil
DAILY Staff Writer
cstancil@decaturdaily.com · 340-2443

MOULTON — Lynne Gobbell never imagined the cost of a John Kerry-John Edwards bumper sticker could run so high.

Lynne Gobbell said her boss fired her last week because of the Kerry-Edwards campaign sticker on the back of her car.
Gobbell of Moulton didn't pay a cent for the sticker that she proudly displays on the rear windshield of her Chevrolet Lumina, but said it cost her job at a local factory after it angered her boss, Phil Gaddis.

Gaddis, a Decatur bankruptcy attorney, owns Enviromate, a cellulose insulation company in Moulton.

Gaddis did not return phone calls from THE DAILY about the alleged Thursday firing.

Gobbell said she consulted a lawyer, but then changed her mind about going to see him. She said she has cried about the incident and must do without income for three weeks while the state unemployment commission decides if she is eligible for compensation.

Gobbell said she was averaging 50 to 60 hours a week on the plant's bagging machine.

"The lady there (at the unemployment commission) said that she has never heard of a firing like this before," Gobbell said.

Gobbell gave this account:

"We were going back to work from break, and my manager told me that Phil said to remove the sticker off my car or I was fired," she said. "I told him that Phil couldn't tell me who to vote for. He said, 'Go tell him.' "

She went to Gaddis' office, knocked on the door and entered on his orders.

"Phil and another man who works there were there," she said. "I asked him if he said to remove the sticker and he said, 'Yes, I did.' I told him he couldn't tell me who to vote for. When I told him that, he told me, 'I own this place.' I told him he still couldn't tell me who to vote for."

Gobbell said Gaddis told her to "get out of here."

"I asked him if I was fired and he told me he was thinking about it," she said. "I said, 'Well, am I fired?' He hollered and said, 'Get out of here and shut the door.' "

She said her manager was standing in another room and she asked him if that meant for her to go back to work or go home. The manager told her to go back to work, but he came back a few minutes later and said, " 'I reckon you're fired. You could either work for him or John Kerry,' " Gobbell said.

"I took off my gloves and threw them in the garbage and left," Gobbell said.

Though she is unemployed and uncertain if she will get her job back, Gobbell said, she doesn't regret her decision to keep the sticker on her windshield.

"I would like to find another job, but I would take that job back because I need to work," she said. "It upset me and made me mad that he could put a letter in my check expressing his (political) opinion, but I can't put something on my car expressing mine."

She was referring to a flier that she said Gaddis placed in employee envelopes to remind them of the positive impact that President Bush's policies have had on them. An employee at the plant who would not identify himself confirmed the contents of the letter.

Gobbell provided a copy of the flier. It says:

"Just so you will know, because of the Bush tax (cut):

I was able to buy the new Hammer Mill
I was able to finance our receivables
I was able to get the new CAT skid steer
I was able to get the wire cutter
I was able to give you a job"
It further says:

"You got the benefit of the Bush tax cut. Everyone did."

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-09-13 10:32pm

This is flagrantly illegal. Employers do not have the right to terminate employees on the basis of political affiliation, and certainly not for expressing that affiliation on a bumper sticker.

And are employers allowed to distribute political propaganda to their employees?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-09-13 10:34pm

Durandal wrote:And are employers allowed to distribute political propaganda to their employees?

It's a grey area to say the least. In general it's a case by case thing.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-09-13 10:40pm

I smell a huge wrongful dismissal lawsuit in the works.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2004-09-13 10:42pm

Indeed. The ACLU is going to loove this.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-09-13 10:43pm

I suspect there may be more than meets the eye here, but it's definitely grounds for a lawsuit if the only justification is the Kerry sticker.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-09-13 10:44pm

Joe wrote:I suspect there may be more than meets the eye here, but it's definitely grounds for a lawsuit if the only justification is the Kerry sticker.

You never know, Bush supporters have done dumber.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-13 10:47pm

Any boss who would print and distribute literature instructing his employees to vote for Bush is probably more than capable of firing one for refusing to do so. This is a factory, and I know factories, Joe. You would not believe how much factory owners can resemble tinpot dictators.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-09-13 10:53pm

Oh, I scrolled right past that bit about the Bush literature. Yeah, she should sue his ass.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-09-13 11:06pm

No kidding, I've worked in one. If this is what it looks like, I hope he gets bleed dry of the profits from that tax cut he loved sooo much.

This kind of behavior has no place in a democracy.

JME2 · Post by **JME2** » 2004-09-14 02:01am

You realize of course that this is simply the tip of the iceberg; it's going to get worse the closer we get to Election and more shit like this is going to happen.

Post by **Edi** » 2004-09-14 10:56am

If something like this happened here, the union lawyers would be all volunteering to do the case for free and the courts would curb-stomp the asshole for violating something like 50 different statutes of employment law.

Edi

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-14 11:01am

Edi wrote:If something like this happened here, the union lawyers would be all volunteering to do the case for free and the courts would curb-stomp the asshole for violating something like 50 different statutes of employment law.

Edi

But it's not happening there. It's happening in Alabama, where most people are probably saying something fucking stupid like "actions have consequences" and shrugging their shoulders because she shouldn't have made waves. "Private industry has rights too, you know

"

Post by **Edi** » 2004-09-14 11:19am

Darth Wong wrote:
Edi wrote:If something like this happened here, the union lawyers would be all volunteering to do the case for free and the courts would curb-stomp the asshole for violating something like 50 different statutes of employment law.

Edi
But it's not happening there. It's happening in Alabama, where most people are probably saying something fucking stupid like "actions have consequences" and shrugging their shoulders because she shouldn't have made waves. "Private industry has rights too, you know "

Yeah, I know. It seems incredible to me, but on reflection not much of a surprise. US legislation in a great number of areas is simply fucked up beyond belief. When you add the general serious right wing bent of the liberal wing of American politics and factor in that most people in places like that are actually extremist right wing, there's nothing strange about it. (Note: using European political scale here).

Edi

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2004-09-14 12:44pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Edi wrote:If something like this happened here, the union lawyers would be all volunteering to do the case for free and the courts would curb-stomp the asshole for violating something like 50 different statutes of employment law.

Edi
But it's not happening there. It's happening in Alabama, where most people are probably saying something fucking stupid like "actions have consequences" and shrugging their shoulders because she shouldn't have made waves. "Private industry has rights too, you know "

"Gobbell said she consulted a lawyer, but then changed her mind about going to see him. She said she has cried about the incident and must do without income for three weeks while the state unemployment commission decides if she is eligible for compensation."

It seems she's already settled on doing absolutely nothing at all.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-14 12:54pm

neoolong wrote:"Gobbell said she consulted a lawyer, but then changed her mind about going to see him. She said she has cried about the incident and must do without income for three weeks while the state unemployment commission decides if she is eligible for compensation."

It seems she's already settled on doing absolutely nothing at all.

Have you ever worked in a small factory town? I have. You don't sue a factory owner. Ever. Not unless you plan to move out, because you will be blacklisted and you'll never work in that town again. Right now she's probably thinking about how she can salvage her future prospects after already offending one business owner, and figuring that a lawsuit would just make things worse.

That syndrome was not a problem for someone like me, because I had no particular loyalty to this town (and I think my employers realized it, which is why they never pushed me the way they pushed the local boys), but when you're a small-towner who's lived there your whole life, the idea of moving away simply doesn't enter your mind. It's as unthinkable as cutting your arm off.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2004-09-14 01:06pm

I'm just saying she's already decided she's not going to do anything about it.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2004-09-14 01:46pm

It seems that if it is a right to work state that he can fire her for that. There isn't much she can do...

Lord MJ · Post by **Lord MJ** » 2004-09-14 04:40pm

Legally the employer is completely justified in his actions, since political affiliation is not a protected class.

Ethically and morally however he is completely wrong. It is immoral to take away someone's means of living because her political beliefs make you "uncomfortable."

In fact it is immoral to fire someone for any reason other than:

1.) The actions of employee are detrimental to the functioning of the firm
2.) Downsizing and layoffs are absolutely necessary for continued survival of the firm.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-14 04:41pm

Kamakazie Sith wrote:It seems that if it is a right to work state that he can fire her for that. There isn't much she can do...

What do you mean by "right to work state"?

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2004-09-14 04:44pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Kamakazie Sith wrote:It seems that if it is a right to work state that he can fire her for that. There isn't much she can do...
What do you mean by "right to work state"?

Down and dirty explaination is Non-Union.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-14 04:46pm

LadyTevar wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
Kamakazie Sith wrote:It seems that if it is a right to work state that he can fire her for that. There isn't much she can do...
What do you mean by "right to work state"?
Down and dirty explaination is Non-Union.

So ... unions are not allowed? Why is it called "right to work"?

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-09-14 04:49pm

Darth Wong wrote: What do you mean by "right to work state"?

The application for most factory jobs contains a clause that says employment can be terminated by either party without cause (like many low income jobs). While I don't think these clauses hold up against state law, it's just one more thing to fight against.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-14 04:51pm

The Kernel wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:What do you mean by "right to work state"?
The application for most factory jobs contains a clause that says employment can be terminated by either party without cause (like many low income jobs). While I don't think these clauses hold up against state law, it's just one more thing to fight against.

Contracts cannot contravene legislation, regardless of whether you sign them or not. I can only see this working in a state that has almost no worker protection laws at all.

In any case, I certainly can't understand why it would be called "right to work". It sounds like the correct term would be "right to arbitrarily fire".

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-09-14 04:54pm

Darth Wong wrote: Contracts cannot contravene legislation, regardless of whether you sign them or not. I can only see this working in a state that has almost no worker protection laws at all.

In any case, I certainly can't understand why it would be called "right to work". It sounds like the correct term would be "right to arbitrarily fire".

I'm just guessing at what he meant here, I've never heard it called "right to work" either.

BTW, even in California (which has some of the better employee protection laws) we still see similar contracts in low paying jobs. For instance, when I was in high school I took a summer job at The Gap and they had a similar clause in the contract. I don't know if it would have held up to scrutiny, but that is one more motion to defeat in court and big companies like the idea of having plenty of reasons to drag out potential legal procedings in order to drain the plantiffs financially.