That buries a hell lot in "reasonable"! I think we both agree that beliefs that affect job performance should not qualify for protection. Why do you believe that dismissal for non-affecting actions stemming from religious belief is potentially reasonable?
Say I'm a Muslim. You, my employee, are a Christian. I might not give a damn what you believe as long you don't actually take action along it, but should I be able to fire you for going to church? Or for eating bacon?
If I was sitting on the Supreme Court, I would have probably put religious belief in the same category as political belief. That is, neither one would be a protected class and an employer should have the right to fire you for such beliefs if he finds them objectionable. However, the court obviously disagreed with me on this point, and I can see why they did. Historically and culturally, religion has been treated differently in this country than political beliefs.
Look at elections, for example. The Republican Party can exclude Democrats from running for office as GOP candidates, and no one would argue that the law does, or should, prevent the GOP from doing so. On the other hand, the GOP can't have a rule banning a member of a liberal church from running, even if the beliefs of that church are contrary to the GOP platform (granted, of course, that such a person would never actualy be nominated as a candidate, but the GOP still can't say "No Unitarians.")
Religion is kind of a hybrid between inate characteristic and voluntary behavior. At least, that's how we seem to treat it from a legal perpective in this country. There are almost no situations where you can fire someone based on race, but there are some where you can fire a person for their religious beliefs (or, at least, fire them based on the actions arising from those beliefs).
AFAIK you cannot in fact fire someone under current law for actions arising from religious beliefs; religiously-motivated conduct is protected from state establishment to the contrary by the 1st (provided that the motivation is secular, etc., blah blah blah) and from private resistance by the 14th.
But that aside, given that neither of us actually approve of current law anyway. You said that reasonable employers who object to given (non-performance-affecting) employee beliefs should be allowed to fire them for it. My question, again, is how this is reasonable. This is a little different from "should have the right": I have the right to have utterly unreasonable regarding my tastes on, say, modernist art; thus you've given two different standards here, reasonable judgment or at-will judgment.
(1) which one is it, and
(2) goodness, why? Tom has power over Smith's quality of life, and Tom should have the right to use this power to punish Smith for religious conduct? In what ethical scheme is this appealing?
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Which is exactly why I don't use the Constitution as the end-all, be-all of human rights. That's more of a conservative thing.
In the context of a conversation about rights in the US, it kind of is the end-all and be-all.
Which is why black people are still counted as 3/5ths of the vote, women and men without property can't vote and all other lower court opinions and English common law were burned after its adoption.
The Constitution is just one aspect of U.S. law, and it's one that can be changed. Restricting discussion of what can and cannot happen to "what's in the Constitution" is about as ahistorical as you can get.
I'm pretty sure all those things you listed have been amended out of the Constitution, though. The basis of all law in the US is the Constitution, and laws that are found in conflict are overturned--usually.
In saying that, it's important to remember that the Constitution is a living document and that it must change and grow over time, which is why we have an amendment process in the first place. Like Lincoln said, it isn't a suicide pact.
You definitely don't understand the Constitution.
Explain, please. Because from what I remember from civics class is that there's an on-going debate between this idea and originalism (or whatever it's called).
0
Options
acidlacedpenguinInstitutionalizedSafe in jail.Registered Userregular
I would support authoritarianism if it would solve the country's problems. . . but only if I get to be the Philosopher King. I promise I'll be good!
Similarly, you are able to be discriminatory on the basis of race and gender so long as the position is directly affected by those qualities in a directly tangible way. Hollywood is legally allowed to tell me to go fuck myself if I audition for the part of Lady Macbeth solely because I have a donger.
I'm sure you have a more expansive view, yes? Except, if I can scoot on a limb here, for the parts where you think it's too expansive and you'd rather restrict rights.
Which rights do you think I might restrict? The ones involving commerce, maybe?
Here's a hint. I, just like the majority of American jurists from the 1950s to 1980s, do not consider the rights of commercial entities to be on the same plane as the rights of citizens.
Unless you're actively breaking the law there really isn't a good reason to be fired for your out of work actions.
The intrusion of work into our at homes lives is a really annoying side effect of modern technology. I can see the argument where if you're going around actively trying to destroy the company you're working for maybe--maybe--there's some cause for firing you, but bosses shouldn't be above the first amendment. Basically, if the government can't pop you in prison, your boss shouldn't be able to fire you.
You misunderstand the Constitution rather thoroughly.
How so?
"Congress shall make no law..." not "an employer shall not be a dick"
Eh, there's still the general idea that other people can't dick over your rights either. "Your rights end where another's begin" and all. At least, that's how I've always interpreted it.
certainly on moral grounds. but not, importantly, on legal grounds as of yet.
Wouldn't non-discrimination law apply to this though, outside of TEH CONSTITUTION? And I'd imagine those laws have their ideological routes in the bill of rights, but honestly now I'm just playing semantics.
Those laws have their roots in federal statutes enacted in the 60's and beyond under the auspices of the commerce clause. Congress (at the time) thought that it was good policy to limit an employer's ability to discriminate, but it was not Constitutionally mandated to do so. As of now, the protected classes are race, religion (unless the employer is a religious organization), veteran status (there was a fear that dirty hippies wouldn't hire vietnam vets), gender, or pregnancy. then there's age and the ADA, which prevent discrimination on those statuses unless it's necessary for the job.
Hmm, maybe that's something we should look at then. I just always assumed free speech counted as one of those classes, at any rate it should be. Like, you aren't free to say whatever you want AT work or when you're out in an official capacity for your job, but when you're just Average Person, Man About Town your boss shouldn't be able to dictate what you do. And if that isn't where we are legally we should work on that.
I disagree. You could be trashing the company's image to a million followers on YouTube every evening, and then coming in to work every day. Trading on your employment to lend your criticism some weight, even though you're not technically doing a bad job, is harming the company. That should certainly be grounds to get you fired.
FWIW you probably need to have a different vision of what the Constitution should be to want to alter the Constitution at any given time and so setting forth alternatives is very much part and parcel of the whole process
(2) goodness, why? Tom has power over Smith's quality of life, and Tom should have the right to use this power to punish Smith for religious conduct? In what ethical scheme is this appealing?
In one where the chief freedom is the freedom to use your capital without government coercion and interference. I understand the concept. You can't understand fascism without it.
I disagree. You could be trashing the company's image to a million followers on YouTube every evening, and then coming in to work every day. Trading on your employment to lend your criticism some weight, even though you're not technically doing a bad job, is harming the company. That should certainly be grounds to get you fired.
whistleblowing aside, I hope
Anyway. Can we rally around the non-performance-affecting thing here, because that seems to be an intuitively appealing standard that nobody seems to have actually objected to
I'm sure you have a more expansive view, yes? Except, if I can scoot on a limb here, for the parts where you think it's too expansive and you'd rather restrict rights.
Which rights do you think I might restrict? The ones involving commerce, maybe?
Here's a hint. I, just like the majority of American jurists from the 1950s to 1980s, do not consider the rights of commercial entities to be on the same plane as the rights of citizens.
I'm going to guess the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment and its enforcement as an individual right, for starters. Just a guess!
Which is exactly why I don't use the Constitution as the end-all, be-all of human rights. That's more of a conservative thing.
In the context of a conversation about rights in the US, it kind of is the end-all and be-all.
Which is why black people are still counted as 3/5ths of the vote, women and men without property can't vote and all other lower court opinions and English common law were burned after its adoption.
The Constitution is just one aspect of U.S. law, and it's one that can be changed. Restricting discussion of what can and cannot happen to "what's in the Constitution" is about as ahistorical as you can get.
Those things you mentioned are no longer true because the Constitution was amended. Not sure what you mean by lower court opinions and English common law.
The question when talking about rights in the US is whether or not such right is Constitutionally protected. That's the prism through which all rights are judged.
by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. [...] I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.
Given your political leanings I'm always kind of surprised that you don't give this more due.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Unless you're actively breaking the law there really isn't a good reason to be fired for your out of work actions.
The intrusion of work into our at homes lives is a really annoying side effect of modern technology. I can see the argument where if you're going around actively trying to destroy the company you're working for maybe--maybe--there's some cause for firing you, but bosses shouldn't be above the first amendment. Basically, if the government can't pop you in prison, your boss shouldn't be able to fire you.
You misunderstand the Constitution rather thoroughly.
How so?
"Congress shall make no law..." not "an employer shall not be a dick"
Eh, there's still the general idea that other people can't dick over your rights either. "Your rights end where another's begin" and all. At least, that's how I've always interpreted it.
certainly on moral grounds. but not, importantly, on legal grounds as of yet.
Wouldn't non-discrimination law apply to this though, outside of TEH CONSTITUTION? And I'd imagine those laws have their ideological routes in the bill of rights, but honestly now I'm just playing semantics.
Those laws have their roots in federal statutes enacted in the 60's and beyond under the auspices of the commerce clause. Congress (at the time) thought that it was good policy to limit an employer's ability to discriminate, but it was not Constitutionally mandated to do so. As of now, the protected classes are race, religion (unless the employer is a religious organization), veteran status (there was a fear that dirty hippies wouldn't hire vietnam vets), gender, or pregnancy. then there's age and the ADA, which prevent discrimination on those statuses unless it's necessary for the job.
Hmm, maybe that's something we should look at then. I just always assumed free speech counted as one of those classes, at any rate it should be. Like, you aren't free to say whatever you want AT work or when you're out in an official capacity for your job, but when you're just Average Person, Man About Town your boss shouldn't be able to dictate what you do. And if that isn't where we are legally we should work on that.
I disagree. You could be trashing the company's image to a million followers on YouTube every evening, and then coming in to work every day. Trading on your employment to lend your criticism some weight, even though you're not technically doing a bad job, is harming the company. That should certainly be grounds to get you fired.
I understand, and that's a fair enough point. I just don't like the idea of employer as king that we seem to be developing in the states.
I would question why someone would keep working for the company under that circumstance. Surely the "I used to do this, but I wised up..." line would be more powerful that "Fuck these guys, now hold on while I go do some work for them."
Having your cake and eating it too is a pretty common reason. Thinking you'll never get caught insulting them while taking their money every day to do the minimum job required. Continued access to new stories. There's a reason why this guy remained anonymous as he waswriting the book.
I'm going to guess the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment and its enforcement as an individual right, for starters. Just a guess!
You want to start a militia? That's what the original text is about.
The backstory of that particular amendment is that the Founders and the majority of Americans at the time despised standing armies. As most of them were from nations where professional armies were tool of repression, this is understandable. That's also why boarding soldiers with civilians is explicitly banned.
This attitude bit the revolutionaries in the ass multiple times. The militias wouldn't work with the Washington's standing army, leading to all sorts of fuck ups. The worst problem was that American citizens were using their militias to prevent the army from foraging, and a lot of places wouldn't even sell their food to the American army. That's why Washington's army nearly starved to death in Valley Forge, despite the fact that there were townships all around it.
And I actually could give a shit about gun rights. It's not something I'm particularly passionate about. I'm from the rural South, so I'm not afraid of them, and I support hunting.
And since most gun nuts are sad fucks, let them keep their toys. It's not like they are going to do anything with them. The most likely thing, barring the occasional nutter, is that they'll use them on themselves. Most firearm deaths are suicides, after all.
Which is exactly why I don't use the Constitution as the end-all, be-all of human rights. That's more of a conservative thing.
In the context of a conversation about rights in the US, it kind of is the end-all and be-all.
Which is why black people are still counted as 3/5ths of the vote, women and men without property can't vote and all other lower court opinions and English common law were burned after its adoption.
The Constitution is just one aspect of U.S. law, and it's one that can be changed. Restricting discussion of what can and cannot happen to "what's in the Constitution" is about as ahistorical as you can get.
Those things you mentioned are no longer true because the Constitution was amended. Not sure what you mean by lower court opinions and English common law.
The question when talking about rights in the US is whether or not such right is Constitutionally protected. That's the prism through which all rights are judged.
by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. [...] I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.
Given your political leanings I'm always kind of surprised that you don't give this more due.
Very few people believe in the limited powers doctrine now, on the left or the right. It's a crying shame, I swear.
Having your cake and eating it too is a pretty common reason. Thinking you'll never get caught insulting them while taking their money every day to do the minimum job required. Continued access to new stories. There's a reason why this guy remained anonymous as he waswriting the book.
Great book, by the way.
I like how all the examples of why we should allow employers to restrict rights to protest in democracy come down to "some people may slack and gossip." It's like you don't really take this freedom thing that seriously.
Having your cake and eating it too is a pretty common reason. Thinking you'll never get caught insulting them while taking their money every day to do the minimum job required. Continued access to new stories. There's a reason why this guy remained anonymous as he waswriting the book.
Great book, by the way.
There is a fairly significant difference between specifically disparaging the name and activities of a company you work for (especially if you are broadcasting what might be considered internal communications to the outside world i.e. new stories) and political or generic advocacy and speech.
I disagree. You could be trashing the company's image to a million followers on YouTube every evening, and then coming in to work every day. Trading on your employment to lend your criticism some weight, even though you're not technically doing a bad job, is harming the company. That should certainly be grounds to get you fired.
whistleblowing aside, I hope
Anyway. Can we rally around the non-performance-affecting thing here, because that seems to be an intuitively appealing standard that nobody seems to have actually objected to
Not to mention the fact that all the innumerable circumstances and specific nature of individual instances are why we have a court system in the first place. You can't legislate to every peculiar possibility and even attempting to do so would lead to worse results than better. Have some faith in the people that put on robes for their job.
I'm going to guess the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment and its enforcement as an individual right, for starters. Just a guess!
You want to start a militia? That's what the original text is about.
The backstory of that particular amendment is that the Founders and the majority of Americans at the time despised standing armies. As most of them were from nations where professional armies were tool of repression, this is understandable.
This bit the revolutionaries in the ass multiple times. The militias wouldn't work with the Washington's standing army, leading to all sorts of fuck ups. The worst problem was that American citizens were using their militias to prevent the army from foraging, and a lot of places wouldn't even sell their food to the American army. That's why Washington's army nearly starved to death in Valley Forge, despite the fact that there were townships all around it.
And I actually could give a shit about gun rights. It's not something I'm particularly passionate about. I'm from the rural South, so I'm not afraid of them, and I support hunting.
And since most gun nuts are sad fucks, let them keep their toys. It's not like they are going to do anything with them. The most likely thing, barring the occasional nutter, is that they'll use them on themselves. Most firearm deaths are suicides, after all.
On the other hand, the first thing the former Confederate states did after Reconstruction was to confiscate all the guns they could take from black folks, and then restrict their purchase. But I guessed right... you're for more expansive rights than the Constitution enumerates, except for when you aren't.
Do you have a guidepost here, for what rights you feel ought to be secured to a free people? Or are we going at it piecemeal?
Very few people believe in the limited powers doctrine now, on the left or the right. It's a crying shame, I swear.
IKR
I've said before that modern US federal state functions in a way unrecognizable from explicit changes in the Constitution, particularly in the realm of economic policy; adherence to federal limitation is most evident in culture-war rather than other areas.
Of course my own takeaway is that the Constitution was pretty shabby to begin with, and that a modern mixed-economy state is pretty awesome, whereas other people's own reactions are... different.
Do you have a guidepost here, for what rights you feel ought to be secured to a free people? Or are we going at it piecemeal?
Hate to tell you, but "going at it piecemeal" is kind of how society works. That's why we tackled civil rights for African-Americans before women, homosexuals and other minorities.
As for a guidepost, what exactly are you looking for? I'm pretty sure that there's no Master Plan for society that I can buy at Barnes and Nobles.
P.S. I liked how you went on to barrage me with a gun rights argument after I said I don't give a shit about gun rights. I think your problem is that I don't fit whatever political stereotyped strawmen you are comfortable arguing with.
Having your cake and eating it too is a pretty common reason. Thinking you'll never get caught insulting them while taking their money every day to do the minimum job required. Continued access to new stories. There's a reason why this guy remained anonymous as he waswriting the book.
Great book, by the way.
I like how all the examples of why we should allow employers to restrict rights to protest in democracy come down to "some people may slack and gossip." It's like you don't really take this freedom thing that seriously.
You'll have to explain your sarcasm there, the snarky tone sort of mangled your point. Maybe I missed a bit while I was rolling my eyes...
Because I didn't say anything about restricting rights to protest, and you seem to have forgotten that "employers" also have freedoms that should be taken seriously.
Having your cake and eating it too is a pretty common reason. Thinking you'll never get caught insulting them while taking their money every day to do the minimum job required. Continued access to new stories. There's a reason why this guy remained anonymous as he waswriting the book.
Great book, by the way.
I like how all the examples of why we should allow employers to restrict rights to protest in democracy come down to "some people may slack and gossip." It's like you don't really take this freedom thing that seriously.
You'll have to explain your sarcasm there, the snarky tone sort of mangled your point. Maybe I missed a bit while I was rolling my eyes...
Because I didn't say anything about restricting rights to protest, and you seem to have forgotten that "employers" also have freedoms that should be taken seriously.
They do indeed. However, the freedom to perform retaliatory firings on the basis of an employees political affiliation should not be one of them.
You'll have to explain your sarcasm there, the snarky tone sort of mangled your point. Maybe I missed a bit while I was rolling my eyes...
Because I didn't say anything about restricting rights to protest, and you seem to have forgotten that "employers" also have freedoms that should be taken seriously.
I already said that I don't consider the rights of business entities to exist on the same plane or a higher plan as citizenry. There is a name for that form of government, though.
It's called fascism.
And my sarcasm is that, in an argument about how employers can abuse the rights of their employees to participate in the democratic process as active, vocal citizens, the counter arguments have revolved around stories about employees slacking off because they don't believe in the job or writing tell-all books. Or, to be fair, using their free-time to advocate for loathsome shit, which is something we've decided to tolerate as a society because the alternative is far worse.
In the balance of society, I'm thinking that issues about freedom of assembly and political activity outweigh embarrassment and inconvenience to private firms.
Phillishere on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
edited November 2011
But whose rights should be more important? People or companies? Or should they be equal?
I would argue that tyranny by employers is in some ways worse than tyranny by government because today there aren't many people standing up for employees. I think one of the worst decisions the Supreme Court has ever made was making corporations people.
P.S. I liked how you went on to barrage me with a gun rights argument after I said I don't give a shit about gun rights. I think your problem is that I don't fit whatever political stereotyped strawmen you are comfortable arguing with.
You liked that? Cool. I did it because I had the sense that you really feel the Constitution is wrong all over the place, in all sorts of ways, and that you were less than willing to go down that road... but you were will go to far enough down it to take shots at others for using it as a touchstone. So I didn't feel you were being terribly honest. Support of the 2nd was a good way to judge whether I was right.
That sense I have that you're not being terribly honest has, for me at least, been validated by the way you turned into Sarcasm Goose pretty much immediately.
... oh, damn. You didn't actually like that at all, did you? Crap.
... oh, damn. You didn't actually like that at all, did you? Crap.
Ummm. I'm not the person you have in your head. Whatever emotional response you think I'm having to your arguments, I'm not.
And I haven't personally attacked you. I'm attacking our arguments, which are mostly the same tired conservative lines that have been trotted out for decades. That's why I find it funny that you went on DEFEND GUNS autopilot without me ever bringing it up.
That made me laugh.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I see a disconnect here. I'm not thinking "employer == corporation" and you guys seem to be thinking that.
"Employer" is more often a person, or maybe a couple of people.
Well, I probably unfairly use "corporation" as a catch all for company.
I think the difference is that while a person has specific rights a company or business doesn't. I mean, they should perhaps be protected by anti-defamation protection, but whistleblowers and generally unhappy workers shouldn't be fired for things they say in their private lives. I would urge a friend who was in a circumstance like that to find different employment because it's clearly not a good fit (maybe hollow advice in today's job market, but still).
Having your cake and eating it too is a pretty common reason. Thinking you'll never get caught insulting them while taking their money every day to do the minimum job required. Continued access to new stories. There's a reason why this guy remained anonymous as he waswriting the book.
Great book, by the way.
I like how all the examples of why we should allow employers to restrict rights to protest in democracy come down to "some people may slack and gossip." It's like you don't really take this freedom thing that seriously.
You'll have to explain your sarcasm there, the snarky tone sort of mangled your point. Maybe I missed a bit while I was rolling my eyes...
Because I didn't say anything about restricting rights to protest, and you seem to have forgotten that "employers" also have freedoms that should be taken seriously.
They do indeed. However, the freedom to perform retaliatory firings on the basis of an employees political affiliation should not be one of them.
I'd agree with this. You can't assume that because someone is a Communist, they won't be a great investment banker, or just because they don't believe in property rights, it doesn't mean they'll be a terrible tort lawyer. Not legally at least, and often not in the Real World either.
However, when an employee starts taking actions that, were they successful, would damage the employer's business, I think it's fair not to require the employer keep employing him.
... oh, damn. You didn't actually like that at all, did you? Crap.
Ummm. I'm not the person you have in your head. Whatever emotional response you think I'm having to your arguments, I'm not.
And I haven't personally attacked you. I'm attacking our arguments, which are mostly the same tired conservative lines that have been trotted out for decades. That's why I find it funny that you went on DEFEND GUNS autopilot without me ever bringing it up.
That made me laugh.
To be fair, you opened up with the standard gun-control line of "lol militias". You're both being silly geese.
To be fair, you opened up with the standard gun-control line of "lol militias". You're both being silly gooses.
That was in response to his "I bet you don't agree with the Second Amendment" post. And that's the standard line, because that's what happened. History happened.
I'm actually finding this argument very clarifying. For as much as conservatives go on and on about freedom, I think it is very important to realize that their conception of freedom is far different than it has been standardly understood in American and Western society. It is the freedom for those with the capital to conduct business to do so in the way they choose, and anyone who objects can raise the capital to start their own business.
They are more than happy to support private entities punishing employees for participating in their representative democracy. That's not a definition of freedom that conforms to the concepts of "natural rights" that gave birth to our democracy:
I see a disconnect here. I'm not thinking "employer == corporation" and you guys seem to be thinking that.
"Employer" is more often a person, or maybe a couple of people.
What difference does it make how many employers and employees there are in a business?
I think there's a difference in scope that matters. It's not the same thing for a plumber to fire his assistant because he saw a youtube video of the guy talking about how all plumbers are morons, and for Whole Foods, Inc. to purge all the Republicans from its payroll (they haven't done this, btw... I'm pretty sure the CEO is a moderate conservative).
This type of hypothetical is not fun to answer because it confuses moral imperatives that are categorically exclusive.
In English: sure, if I knew that authoritarainism would be better for all, then of course I'd support it. But I don't and can't know such a thing. Instead, what I do know is that while it's possible that authoritarianism could fix all our woes, authoritarianism usually tends to lead to problems worse than what we have now. And there are good reasons to suspect it would repeat this trend if we tried.
Having your cake and eating it too is a pretty common reason. Thinking you'll never get caught insulting them while taking their money every day to do the minimum job required. Continued access to new stories. There's a reason why this guy remained anonymous as he waswriting the book.
Great book, by the way.
I like how all the examples of why we should allow employers to restrict rights to protest in democracy come down to "some people may slack and gossip." It's like you don't really take this freedom thing that seriously.
You'll have to explain your sarcasm there, the snarky tone sort of mangled your point. Maybe I missed a bit while I was rolling my eyes...
Because I didn't say anything about restricting rights to protest, and you seem to have forgotten that "employers" also have freedoms that should be taken seriously.
They do indeed. However, the freedom to perform retaliatory firings on the basis of an employees political affiliation should not be one of them.
I'd agree with this. You can't assume that because someone is a Communist, they won't be a great investment banker, or just because they don't believe in property rights, it doesn't mean they'll be a terrible tort lawyer. Not legally at least, and often not in the Real World either.
However, when an employee starts taking actions that, were they successful, would damage the employer's business, I think it's fair not to require the employer keep employing him.
How does that stand in disagreement with anything from the last few pages of this tangent? No one is suggesting that you should be prevented from firing an employee for moonlighting at a competing firm. However, being empowered to fire someone solely for being a Democrat/Republican unduly impacts the very foundations of our democracy. Your capacity to earn a living should not be dependent on subverting your capacity for self government.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
This type of hypothetical is not fun to answer because it confuses moral imperatives that are categorically exclusive.
In English: sure, if I knew that authoritarainism would be better for all, then of course I'd support it. But I don't and can't know such a thing. Instead, what I do know is that while it's possible that authoritarianism could fix all our woes, authoritarianism usually tends to lead to problems worse than what we have now. And there are good reasons to suspect it would repeat this trend if we tried.
Posts
AFAIK you cannot in fact fire someone under current law for actions arising from religious beliefs; religiously-motivated conduct is protected from state establishment to the contrary by the 1st (provided that the motivation is secular, etc., blah blah blah) and from private resistance by the 14th.
But that aside, given that neither of us actually approve of current law anyway. You said that reasonable employers who object to given (non-performance-affecting) employee beliefs should be allowed to fire them for it. My question, again, is how this is reasonable. This is a little different from "should have the right": I have the right to have utterly unreasonable regarding my tastes on, say, modernist art; thus you've given two different standards here, reasonable judgment or at-will judgment.
(1) which one is it, and
(2) goodness, why? Tom has power over Smith's quality of life, and Tom should have the right to use this power to punish Smith for religious conduct? In what ethical scheme is this appealing?
Explain, please. Because from what I remember from civics class is that there's an on-going debate between this idea and originalism (or whatever it's called).
Which rights do you think I might restrict? The ones involving commerce, maybe?
Here's a hint. I, just like the majority of American jurists from the 1950s to 1980s, do not consider the rights of commercial entities to be on the same plane as the rights of citizens.
The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution, as are the Amendment. And that's why the 3/5ths part gets struck out in modern versions.
I disagree. You could be trashing the company's image to a million followers on YouTube every evening, and then coming in to work every day. Trading on your employment to lend your criticism some weight, even though you're not technically doing a bad job, is harming the company. That should certainly be grounds to get you fired.
In one where the chief freedom is the freedom to use your capital without government coercion and interference. I understand the concept. You can't understand fascism without it.
whistleblowing aside, I hope
Anyway. Can we rally around the non-performance-affecting thing here, because that seems to be an intuitively appealing standard that nobody seems to have actually objected to
I'm going to guess the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment and its enforcement as an individual right, for starters. Just a guess!
Given your political leanings I'm always kind of surprised that you don't give this more due.
I understand, and that's a fair enough point. I just don't like the idea of employer as king that we seem to be developing in the states.
I would question why someone would keep working for the company under that circumstance. Surely the "I used to do this, but I wised up..." line would be more powerful that "Fuck these guys, now hold on while I go do some work for them."
Great book, by the way.
You want to start a militia? That's what the original text is about.
The backstory of that particular amendment is that the Founders and the majority of Americans at the time despised standing armies. As most of them were from nations where professional armies were tool of repression, this is understandable. That's also why boarding soldiers with civilians is explicitly banned.
This attitude bit the revolutionaries in the ass multiple times. The militias wouldn't work with the Washington's standing army, leading to all sorts of fuck ups. The worst problem was that American citizens were using their militias to prevent the army from foraging, and a lot of places wouldn't even sell their food to the American army. That's why Washington's army nearly starved to death in Valley Forge, despite the fact that there were townships all around it.
And I actually could give a shit about gun rights. It's not something I'm particularly passionate about. I'm from the rural South, so I'm not afraid of them, and I support hunting.
And since most gun nuts are sad fucks, let them keep their toys. It's not like they are going to do anything with them. The most likely thing, barring the occasional nutter, is that they'll use them on themselves. Most firearm deaths are suicides, after all.
Very few people believe in the limited powers doctrine now, on the left or the right. It's a crying shame, I swear.
I like how all the examples of why we should allow employers to restrict rights to protest in democracy come down to "some people may slack and gossip." It's like you don't really take this freedom thing that seriously.
There is a fairly significant difference between specifically disparaging the name and activities of a company you work for (especially if you are broadcasting what might be considered internal communications to the outside world i.e. new stories) and political or generic advocacy and speech.
Not to mention the fact that all the innumerable circumstances and specific nature of individual instances are why we have a court system in the first place. You can't legislate to every peculiar possibility and even attempting to do so would lead to worse results than better. Have some faith in the people that put on robes for their job.
On the other hand, the first thing the former Confederate states did after Reconstruction was to confiscate all the guns they could take from black folks, and then restrict their purchase. But I guessed right... you're for more expansive rights than the Constitution enumerates, except for when you aren't.
Do you have a guidepost here, for what rights you feel ought to be secured to a free people? Or are we going at it piecemeal?
IKR
I've said before that modern US federal state functions in a way unrecognizable from explicit changes in the Constitution, particularly in the realm of economic policy; adherence to federal limitation is most evident in culture-war rather than other areas.
Of course my own takeaway is that the Constitution was pretty shabby to begin with, and that a modern mixed-economy state is pretty awesome, whereas other people's own reactions are... different.
Hate to tell you, but "going at it piecemeal" is kind of how society works. That's why we tackled civil rights for African-Americans before women, homosexuals and other minorities.
As for a guidepost, what exactly are you looking for? I'm pretty sure that there's no Master Plan for society that I can buy at Barnes and Nobles.
P.S. I liked how you went on to barrage me with a gun rights argument after I said I don't give a shit about gun rights. I think your problem is that I don't fit whatever political stereotyped strawmen you are comfortable arguing with.
You'll have to explain your sarcasm there, the snarky tone sort of mangled your point. Maybe I missed a bit while I was rolling my eyes...
Because I didn't say anything about restricting rights to protest, and you seem to have forgotten that "employers" also have freedoms that should be taken seriously.
They do indeed. However, the freedom to perform retaliatory firings on the basis of an employees political affiliation should not be one of them.
I already said that I don't consider the rights of business entities to exist on the same plane or a higher plan as citizenry. There is a name for that form of government, though.
It's called fascism.
And my sarcasm is that, in an argument about how employers can abuse the rights of their employees to participate in the democratic process as active, vocal citizens, the counter arguments have revolved around stories about employees slacking off because they don't believe in the job or writing tell-all books. Or, to be fair, using their free-time to advocate for loathsome shit, which is something we've decided to tolerate as a society because the alternative is far worse.
In the balance of society, I'm thinking that issues about freedom of assembly and political activity outweigh embarrassment and inconvenience to private firms.
I would argue that tyranny by employers is in some ways worse than tyranny by government because today there aren't many people standing up for employees. I think one of the worst decisions the Supreme Court has ever made was making corporations people.
Jesus, that was a self defeating typo...
You liked that? Cool. I did it because I had the sense that you really feel the Constitution is wrong all over the place, in all sorts of ways, and that you were less than willing to go down that road... but you were will go to far enough down it to take shots at others for using it as a touchstone. So I didn't feel you were being terribly honest. Support of the 2nd was a good way to judge whether I was right.
That sense I have that you're not being terribly honest has, for me at least, been validated by the way you turned into Sarcasm Goose pretty much immediately.
... oh, damn. You didn't actually like that at all, did you? Crap.
"Employer" is more often a person, or maybe a couple of people.
Ummm. I'm not the person you have in your head. Whatever emotional response you think I'm having to your arguments, I'm not.
And I haven't personally attacked you. I'm attacking our arguments, which are mostly the same tired conservative lines that have been trotted out for decades. That's why I find it funny that you went on DEFEND GUNS autopilot without me ever bringing it up.
That made me laugh.
Well, I probably unfairly use "corporation" as a catch all for company.
I think the difference is that while a person has specific rights a company or business doesn't. I mean, they should perhaps be protected by anti-defamation protection, but whistleblowers and generally unhappy workers shouldn't be fired for things they say in their private lives. I would urge a friend who was in a circumstance like that to find different employment because it's clearly not a good fit (maybe hollow advice in today's job market, but still).
I'd agree with this. You can't assume that because someone is a Communist, they won't be a great investment banker, or just because they don't believe in property rights, it doesn't mean they'll be a terrible tort lawyer. Not legally at least, and often not in the Real World either.
However, when an employee starts taking actions that, were they successful, would damage the employer's business, I think it's fair not to require the employer keep employing him.
What difference does it make how many employers and employees there are in a business?
...okay. Why should theyhe have the freedom to perform retaliatory firings on the basis of an employee's political affiliation?
To be fair, you opened up with the standard gun-control line of "lol militias". You're both being silly geese.
That was in response to his "I bet you don't agree with the Second Amendment" post. And that's the standard line, because that's what happened. History happened.
I'm actually finding this argument very clarifying. For as much as conservatives go on and on about freedom, I think it is very important to realize that their conception of freedom is far different than it has been standardly understood in American and Western society. It is the freedom for those with the capital to conduct business to do so in the way they choose, and anyone who objects can raise the capital to start their own business.
They are more than happy to support private entities punishing employees for participating in their representative democracy. That's not a definition of freedom that conforms to the concepts of "natural rights" that gave birth to our democracy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights
Yup.
I think there's a difference in scope that matters. It's not the same thing for a plumber to fire his assistant because he saw a youtube video of the guy talking about how all plumbers are morons, and for Whole Foods, Inc. to purge all the Republicans from its payroll (they haven't done this, btw... I'm pretty sure the CEO is a moderate conservative).
See above - I don't actually think this.
In English: sure, if I knew that authoritarainism would be better for all, then of course I'd support it. But I don't and can't know such a thing. Instead, what I do know is that while it's possible that authoritarianism could fix all our woes, authoritarianism usually tends to lead to problems worse than what we have now. And there are good reasons to suspect it would repeat this trend if we tried.
How does that stand in disagreement with anything from the last few pages of this tangent? No one is suggesting that you should be prevented from firing an employee for moonlighting at a competing firm. However, being empowered to fire someone solely for being a Democrat/Republican unduly impacts the very foundations of our democracy. Your capacity to earn a living should not be dependent on subverting your capacity for self government.
Thread over?