Nazis showing up at places uninvited.

[Burgold]

Just now, Kilmer17 said:

Actions have consequences.  

 

 

Yup. We have freedom of speech, but there can be (and sometimes should be) a price to it.

[Kilmer17]

1 minute ago, Burgold said:

Yup. We have freedom of speech, but there can be (and sometimes should be) a price to it.

My employees absolutely do not have freedom of speech.  If they do something in the public that reflects badly on my company, they will face consequences

[Burgold]

4 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

My employees absolutely do not have freedom of speech.  If they do something in the public that reflects badly on my company, they will face consequences

It's weird. Part of me approves of that and totally understands that you need to feel/act that way as a businessman and another part of me finds it unsettling. I guess it all depends on what we mean by "free speech"

[The Evil Genius]

3 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

My employees absolutely do not have freedom of speech.  If they do something in the public that reflects badly on my company, they will face consequences

 

Like whistle blowing and espousing a sordid history of corruption (or worse, Cowboy fandom).

 

I kid though. And that's the bottom line, only a few instances of speech is actually protected in the workplace, especially in at will states (which is most of them now I think).

[Kilmer17]

Are Cowboys fans considered part of the LGBTQ umbrella now?

[Fresh8686]

Freedom does not necessarily include complete protection from the consequences that arise from exercising it.

That's why in real life, the more freedom you have, the more responsible you have to be. Taking care to make sure the consequences of one's choice don't create a situation that brings about a collapse one can't recover from (to be responsible is to put effort into keeping things from falling apart, whether it be a job, a trust, a goal, or another human being).

 

It's a lesson this president would do well to learn, but of course he won't.

[Kilmer17]

4 minutes ago, Burgold said:

It's weird. Part of me approves of that and totally understands that you need to feel/act that way as a businessman and another part of me finds it unsettling. I guess it all depends on what we mean by "free speech"

That's one of the points I try to bring up in these debates.  But admittedly do a poor job or more likely am too interested in poking the bear than making the point. 

 

Where do we draw that line?   As a biz owner, do I get to make that determination?

[Llevron]

13 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

My employees absolutely do not have freedom of speech.  If they do something in the public that reflects badly on my company, they will face consequences

 

As it should be. And you really aint asking for much. "Dont cost me money and dont embarrass me" 

Edited August 17, 2017 by Llevron

[Popeman38]

Just now, Llevron said:

 

As it should be. And you really aint asking for much. "Dont cost me money and dont embarrass me" 

Nowadays, that is a BIG ask. Documenting every stupid thing you do and posting it for permanent archiving on the Internet. 

[LadySkinsFan]

4 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

That's one of the points I try to bring up in these debates.  But admittedly do a poor job or more likely am too interested in poking the bear than making the point. 

 

Where do we draw that line?   As a biz owner, do I get to make that determination?

 

You can with personnel policies, with statements like non-discrimination statements or stating your corporate values and what public actions employees take in violation of those values means, up to and including termination. 

 

Just like corporate computers and other kinds of equipment  cannot be used for xXxX.  

 

 

[Kilmer17]

1 minute ago, LadySkinsFan said:

 

You can with personnel policies, with statements like non-discrimination statements or stating your corporate values and what public actions employees take in violation of those values means, up to and including termination. 

 

Just like corporate computers and other kinds of equipment  cannot be used for xXxX.  

 

 

Welllllllllll.........

[LadySkinsFan]

Yes, I am a radical Lesbian and leftist, and also self-employed, so business is business. I never brought my private life or politics or religious views to work. As a consultant I was there to do a job.

 

Outside of that, my life is my own. I marched for lesbigay and women's rights. I also didn't get arrested for my activities.

 

I don't think that employers have the right to dictate that employees be non-smoking, and other things like that.

 

But if someone is doing violence, that would be a fireable offense. 

[Burgold]

21 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

Where do we draw that line?   As a biz owner, do I get to make that determination?

I think to a degree you should, but I do feel there are things that supersede business. Maybe that's the point though. If it's important enough, it is important enough to lose your job over.

 

On the other hand, as a simple point of reference, when I worked at the radio station, I posted very little if ever about politics. Washington Post reporters are restricted from endorsing any political candidate. There are ethical lines... some self-imposed, others corporate imposed.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Yikes, even Bannon is distancing himself from Trump.  

[visionary]

6 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

Yikes, even Bannon is distancing himself from Trump.  

The other way around maybe, but they both seem happy with Trump's recent comments.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 17, 2017 by visionary

[Larry]

1 hour ago, Kilmer17 said:

My employees absolutely do not have freedom of speech.  If they do something in the public that reflects badly on my company, they will face consequences

 

I don't think they should.  

 

Well, no doubt there are exceptions.  It's different is the person is the public spokesman for your company or the CEO.  Somebody like that, where his face serves as an icon for the company.  For people like that, I would think that appropriate language in his contract is appropriate.  

 

For example, I understand that it userd to be standard (assume it still is) that people like Walter Cronkite had clauses in their contracts forbidding them from doing things like appearing in commercials.  the reasoning was that CBS invested a whole lot into creating an aura of trustworthiness and objectivity in the guy who appears on camera, and having that person endorsing toothpaste or underwear or a political candidate would harm that aura.  

 

I have no problem with special rules being applied to people like public spokesmen, NFL QBs, actors in Disney movies.  Maybe people in positions of authority, like public school teachers or police officers.  

 

But I don't think that exercising free political speech is a right that people should be required to give up, if they want a job, any job.  

 

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think my employer has the right to tell me that I can of can't donate to the ACLU.  Or the NRA.  Or have a Trump bumper sticker (or a Redskins one) on my car.  I don't think they pay me enough to claim that I'm an employee 24/7.  

 

In short, I think that this trend of mobs of people stalking people based on their political views, so that the mob can threaten the employer if the employer doesn't comply with their demand for punishment can be abused.  (I'm not sure that this case is abuse, or if it's just close.  just pointing out the possibility.)  

 

In short, I believe that no, people who have a job do not give up all rights that the employer feels like not giving them.  

 

 

 

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

8 minutes ago, visionary said:

The other way around maybe, but they both seem happy with Trump's recent comments.

 

 

 

Ooops, I misread it.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Jake and Elwood. Your Country needs you! 

 

 

Hail. 

[LD0506]

[visionary]

 

[Kilmer17]

1 hour ago, Larry said:

 

I don't think they should.  

 

Well, no doubt there are exceptions.  It's different is the person is the public spokesman for your company or the CEO.  Somebody like that, where his face serves as an icon for the company.  For people like that, I would think that appropriate language in his contract is appropriate.  

 

For example, I understand that it userd to be standard (assume it still is) that people like Walter Cronkite had clauses in their contracts forbidding them from doing things like appearing in commercials.  the reasoning was that CBS invested a whole lot into creating an aura of trustworthiness and objectivity in the guy who appears on camera, and having that person endorsing toothpaste or underwear or a political candidate would harm that aura.  

 

I have no problem with special rules being applied to people like public spokesmen, NFL QBs, actors in Disney movies.  Maybe people in positions of authority, like public school teachers or police officers.  

 

But I don't think that exercising free political speech is a right that people should be required to give up, if they want a job, any job.  

 

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think my employer has the right to tell me that I can of can't donate to the ACLU.  Or the NRA.  Or have a Trump bumper sticker (or a Redskins one) on my car.  I don't think they pay me enough to claim that I'm an employee 24/7.  

 

In short, I think that this trend of mobs of people stalking people based on their political views, so that the mob can threaten the employer if the employer doesn't comply with their demand for punishment can be abused.  (I'm not sure that this case is abuse, or if it's just close.  just pointing out the possibility.)  

 

In short, I believe that no, people who have a job do not give up all rights that the employer feels like not giving them.  

 

 

 

 

I used to think that way too.  But if I had an employee that ended up with a swastika hat on tv at a save the monument rally, it would affect my business.  The issue then becomes, where do we draw the line?  

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

2 hours ago, Burgold said:

It's weird. Part of me approves of that and totally understands that you need to feel/act that way as a businessman and another part of me finds it unsettling. I guess it all depends on what we mean by "free speech"

That's not what freedom of speech is. It means that the government isn't going to arrest you. It doesn't mean people have to like you or that your employer can't fire you.

Edited August 17, 2017 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[Llevron]

11 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

 

Real talk - as long as Juggalos dont **** with White Nationalists, I **** with Juggalos. Ill take evil clowns over Nazi clowns literally every day of the week.  

[Burgold]

12 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

That's not what freedom of speech is. It means that the government isn't going to arrest you. It doesn't mean people have to like you or that your employer can't fire you.

I know. But there's always a difference between what's legal and what's right. And there are exceptions. If I see someone being persecuted because of their religion or race and I speak up against it the employer will have a tougher time getting away with firing me for it.