Woman fired for Kerry bumpersticker

[Darth Wong]

Good question.

My guess is 2 reasons.

One is the conflict between the right of free speech and the right of the private employer to refuse to associate with those who hold differing opinions.

Where is this "right" enumerated? I have never heard of the Constitutional provision giving employers the right to fire people for having differing opinions.

The second would be that it probably doesn't happen very much at all. Most employers realize that the bad publicity from doing something like this would result in lost business. After all, if your little factory supplies GM with parts and a bunch of activists protest to GM about their subcontractor's 'un-American' behavior, you can lose your GM contract.

If we adopt this logic, no anti-discrimination laws whatsoever are required, since bad publicity will keep employers from ever doing it. That's just silly.

If we allow discrimination based on political beliefs expressed outside the workplace, what's to stop a homophobe from firing a gay employee not because he's gay, but because he supports gay marriage? That's a loophole big enough to drive an Abrams through.

[Lagmonster]

Gobbell was just hired by John Kerry!

www.dailykos.com

Kerry must have had his grin surgically removed after reading that one. It was like a great political opportunity handed to him on a gold plate by God.

[Darth Wong]

Gobbell was just hired by John Kerry!

www.dailykos.com

Kerry must have had his grin surgically removed after reading that one. It was like a great political opportunity handed to him on a gold plate by God.

Unfortunately, he has demonstrated so little political acumen that the opportunity handed to him on a silver platter is the only kind of opportunity he can handle properly, and sometimes not even then.

[Durandal]

Gobbell was just hired by John Kerry!

www.dailykos.com

Kerry must have had his grin surgically removed after reading that one. It was like a great political opportunity handed to him on a gold plate by God.

My guess is that this is a move Clinton's boys (who he's recently brought on board) thought up. It really sounds like something Clinton would've done.

[Stormbringer]

Gobbell was just hired by John Kerry!

www.dailykos.com

Kerry must have had his grin surgically removed after reading that one. It was like a great political opportunity handed to him on a gold plate by God.

My guess is that this is a move Clinton's boys (who he's recently brought on board) thought up. It really sounds like something Clinton would've done.

It doesn't necessarily have to be Clinton's people. Any one with a half a brain could have pulled that one off.



Then again Kerry doesn't seem to be blessed with even half a brain so it might just be.

[Glocksman]

Good question.

My guess is 2 reasons.

One is the conflict between the right of free speech and the right of the private employer to refuse to associate with those who hold differing opinions.

Where is this "right" enumerated? I have never heard of the Constitutional provision giving employers the right to fire people for having differing opinions.

You don't lose your right of association once you become an employer.
While there are limits imposed on it by law (you can't discriminate on race, gender, etc.), it still exists.

And as far as being a specific enumerated right goes, no, it's not. However if you follow SCOTUS's logic in enumerating a 'right to privacy' in Roe, then a right of association certainly follows.

The political opinion exemption is a blind spot in US anti discrimination laws that should be addressed. Tellingly, sexual orientation is not protected under Federal laws either. Several states have their own laws covering the issue, but no Federal laws protect homosexuals from housing or job discrimination.

The second would be that it probably doesn't happen very much at all. Most employers realize that the bad publicity from doing something like this would result in lost business. After all, if your little factory supplies GM with parts and a bunch of activists protest to GM about their subcontractor's 'un-American' behavior, you can lose your GM contract.

If we adopt this logic, no anti-discrimination laws whatsoever are required, since bad publicity will keep employers from ever doing it. That's just silly.

If we allow discrimination based on political beliefs expressed outside the workplace, what's to stop a homophobe from firing a gay employee not because he's gay, but because he supports gay marriage? That's a loophole big enough to drive an Abrams through.

As I pointed out, in a lot of states you can be legally fired for simply being gay, much less expressing opinions that disagree with your employer's.

Bad publicity may not be much of a barrier but it's the only one currently legally available in most states.

I'm not sure how many people do get fired for disagreeing with their employer's political opinions each year. If anyone has some numbers to gauge the extent of the problem, I'd like to know, as right now my opinion is that it's pretty rare due to the lack of reportage on the issue.

[Durandal]

It doesn't necessarily have to be Clinton's people. Any one with a half a brain could have pulled that one off.

This is John Kerry's campaign we're talking about here. A PR move like this is extraordinary.

[Rogue 9]

It doesn't necessarily have to be Clinton's people. Any one with a half a brain could have pulled that one off.

This is John Kerry's campaign we're talking about here. A PR move like this is extraordinary.

And you're happy about the fact that it's extraordinary for them?

[Jalinth]

Good question.

My guess is 2 reasons.

One is the conflict between the right of free speech and the right of the private employer to refuse to associate with those who hold differing opinions.

Where is this "right" enumerated? I have never heard of the Constitutional provision giving employers the right to fire people for having differing opinions.

I think the logic is that the US federal Constitution does not protect these type of sanctions. The broad thrust is to stop the government from doing things because of its inherent power. So this is more of a situation where the constitution is preventing certain actions by the government and not by its citizens.

Having said that, I'd be surprised to see a US State that specifics stops this type of action (through employment laws) face any successful legal challenges. In other words, the local government can say you may not fire for Reasons X, Y, Z. As long as reasonable exceptions exist (where your stated beliefs and employment have a direct and logic correlation - such as working at an overtly Baptist college while being a Satanist, working for Planned Parenthood while being an outspoken anti-abortion advocate, etc...), courts wouldn't have too many problems in my view.

Of course, if a state doesn't take any steps, employers can fire w/o any significant consequences. This falls into the category of "not right, but not illegal".

The second would be that it probably doesn't happen very much at all. Most employers realize that the bad publicity from doing something like this would result in lost business. After all, if your little factory supplies GM with parts and a bunch of activists protest to GM about their subcontractor's 'un-American' behavior, you can lose your GM contract.

If we adopt this logic, no anti-discrimination laws whatsoever are required, since bad publicity will keep employers from ever doing it. That's just silly.

If we allow discrimination based on political beliefs expressed outside the workplace, what's to stop a homophobe from firing a gay employee not because he's gay, but because he supports gay marriage? That's a loophole big enough to drive an Abrams through.

I agree that public pressure is not a wonderful substitute for laws. It might work for large companies (who have customers from all walks of life so do face market share loss if they piss them off), but smaller ones are much harder to target. If you only have 10 clients and all are ardent supports of Bush (or Kerry) then your actions may boost your revenue, not decrease. Not much of a penalty.[/b]

[Stormbringer]

It doesn't necessarily have to be Clinton's people. Any one with a half a brain could have pulled that one off.

This is John Kerry's campaign we're talking about here. A PR move like this is extraordinary.

Hence the comment following the one you quoted.

[Darth Wong]

I think the logic is that the US federal Constitution does not protect these type of sanctions. The broad thrust is to stop the government from doing things because of its inherent power. So this is more of a situation where the constitution is preventing certain actions by the government and not by its citizens.

Agreed, but in this case, we're hearing that "freedom of association" is being semantically misused in order to give employers the right to fire people arbitrarily, and that's not what freedom of association is for. The employees of a company are not a private club; their hiring and firing conditions are subject to labour laws, and freedom of association doesn't have anything to do with it.

[Durandal]

It doesn't necessarily have to be Clinton's people. Any one with a half a brain could have pulled that one off.

This is John Kerry's campaign we're talking about here. A PR move like this is extraordinary.

And you're happy about the fact that it's extraordinary for them?

Just pointing it out ... and hoping smart PR moves like this become the norm for Kerry rather than the exception.

[Aeolus]

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"?

In a "right to work" state employees cannot be required to join a union as a prerequisite to employment.

[The Yosemite Bear]

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.

yeah californication is the exact opposite, we have protection, good benefits, but ungoldly high cost of living expenses....