[vmarks]

Of course if you want to be clear, you'll admit that I never PMd you asking you to do anything regarding Zim, or anyone else.

You aren't the only one to have ever claimed that a government was conspiring. There have been plenty of others posting threads in the past on such wild red herrings as 'Israeli Art Students' and other nonsense.

Those who claim Kerry filmed himself 35 years ago to prepare him for this run are certainly theorists, but who do they claim Kerry conspired with to do so?

Label them as you see them. If someone claims government is conspiring, they're a conspiracy theorist. To be one isn't a big deal if the theory proves to be true, but when you cite evidence that your theory is true in this thread, it's quickly shown to not be true.


An employer exercising judgment is not the government quashing dissent.

Thanks for reading me wrong. When you post a conspiracy theory, you are a conspiracy theorist. Period. That's the definition. Whether or not you think this is a bad thing is anyone's value judgment. It doesn't mean open season on anyone, it simply means calling a spade a spade. I can't help it if you or anyone else thinks that conspiracy theorists have a bad, good, or anything otherwise, reputation.

[BRussell]

Hey vmarks I have a complaint for you moderators. I post and post and post here, and never change anyone's mind. In fact, they usually just dig in their heels. Can you do something about that?

[voodoo]

Top clich� lines on MacNN pol forums.

1. Call spade a spade

(has gained popularity over the last months, perhaps because of its alluring simplicity. Everybody understands you should call a spade a spade no?)

2. Hindsight is 20/20

(although off to a screaming start in 2001 and 2002 its charm has begun to wear of. It is a bit too techy and no one really knows what that 20/20 stands for anyway - makes the person flinging it forth seem like he does though so this will never be tired with besserwissers and people suffering from an intellectual complex)

3. Just report it and we will deal with it accordingly.

(Very hot and still going strong with the moderators of MacNN forums, although the members have long since seen through such empty promises)

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Those who claim Kerry filmed himself 35 years ago to prepare him for this run are certainly theorists, but who do they claim Kerry conspired with to do so?

Conspiracy: A combination of men for an evil purpose; an agreement, between two or more persons, to commit a crime in concert, as treason; a plot.

I'm not sure how it can be a conspiracy if he was the only one doing it, and if no one else knew what he was going to do with it. So if everyone just thought he just wanted pictures of himself, then they have no knowledge, so that makes him the sole conspirator, and I don't think there can be a conspiracy with one. I really don't care what he filmed himself for, but that example doesn't seem like a conspiracy.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Thanks for reading me wrong. When you post a conspiracy theory, you are a conspiracy theorist. Period. That's the definition. Whether or not you think this is a bad thing is anyone's value judgment. It doesn't mean open season on anyone, it simply means calling a spade a spade. I can't help it if you or anyone else thinks that conspiracy theorists have a bad, good, or anything otherwise, reputation.

When they start throwing in words like "nut" and "insane" they're crossing the line though, right?

BG

[Zimphire]

I was once told if what I posted warranted the comments it gathered, I shouldn't be complaining.

If I were to post thread after thread after thread about left wing conspiracies. People would probably get annoyed after awhile and start calling a spade a spade.

<Patient> Doctor It hurts when I do this.
<Doctor> Don't do that.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Of course if you want to be clear, you'll admit that I never PMd you asking you to do anything regarding Zim, or anyone else.

I never claimed you did. You are not the only moderator.
I DID receive that PM, though, from another moderator...not that that is here nor there.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Conspiracy: A combination of men for an evil purpose; an agreement, between two or more persons, to commit a crime in concert, as treason; a plot.

I'm not sure how it can be a conspiracy if he was the only one doing it, and if no one else knew what he was going to do with it. So if everyone just thought he just wanted pictures of himself, then they have no knowledge, so that makes him the sole conspirator, and I don't think there can be a conspiracy with one. I really don't care what he filmed himself for, but that example doesn't seem like a conspiracy.

Kerry recommended himself for a purple heart, falsified the doctor's reports, signed the necessary upper brass releases, and temporarily took over the entire military process of operations for a day to award himself a purple heart.

Now that I think of it, I"m wrong, that's not a conspiracy theory. It's a theory of temporary omnipotence.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by LoganCharles:
The loser should be blacklisted.

ahhhh...now if I were to say that comments shows we were entering a new McCarthyism, I'd be labeled a conspiracy nut, right? ok, just checking.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Some states are 'right to work' states, where you cannot be fired without good cause, and it's nearly impossible to let someone go.

Other states are not 'right to work' states, where you are employed at the employer's pleasure.

Just to be clear, I don't think that's the case. I could be mistaken but as far as I know all 50 states are "at will" states. This means that, absent an agreement to the contrary, one is employed at will and can be fired without cause.

"Right to work" usually refers to the right to work in a union shop without joining or paying union dues.

[Edit: BRussell has uncovered a California statute that says you can't be fired for engaging in lawful activities off the job. "At will" is still the common law rule, but that statute carves out a new area of protection for employees. "Right to work," however, generally refers to union-related employment laws.]

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Just to be clear, I don't think that's the case. I could be mistaken but as far as I know all 50 states are "at will" states. This means that, absent an agreement to the contrary, one is employed at will and can be fired without cause.

"Right to work" usually refers to the right to work in a union shop without joining or paying union dues.

I believe you're correct about "right to work".

I DO think any employee can be fired at will, but if it is done for things not spelled out as policy or contrary to policy, I think they stand a good chance of being sued. If damage can be tied to malice, I think there's a legitimate case there...but again, I'm not a lawyer, this is just my impression.

I DO know that in the last couple of decades, the places where I"ve worked have consciously backed up firings with progessive paper trails (bad work reports, reprimands, etc.) that increase in severity so that when they DO fire them, they feel more solid about it.
It is a bit disingenous, though, because I saw other managers who "didn't like" an employee, bringing about situations that would allow them to evaluate the employee negatively. Usually, the employee knew about it...

but I"m getting a bit afield.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I believe you're correct about "right to work".

I DO think any employee can be fired at will, but if it is done for things not spelled out as policy or contrary to policy, I think they stand a good chance of being sued. If damage can be tied to malice, I think there's a legitimate case there...but again, I'm not a lawyer, this is just my impression.

I DO know that in the last couple of decades, the places where I"ve worked have consciously backed up firings with progessive paper trails (bad work reports, reprimands, etc.) that increase in severity so that when they DO fire them, they feel more solid about it.
It is a bit disingenous, though, because I saw other managers who "didn't like" an employee, bringing about situations that would allow them to evaluate the employee negatively. Usually, the employee knew about it...

but I"m getting a bit afield.

It can be confusing. The common-law presumption is of at will employment, meaning one is employed at the will of the employer and can be fired without cause, even maliciously. However, one can enter into an agreement (e.g. a union contract) that requires good cause. An employer can also voluntarily adopt a for cause policy, and if they violate their own stated policy they risk getting sued. There might also be some government employers who are statutorily required to show good cause. Of course, employers can't generally discriminate on the basis of race, sex, etc.

Most medium-large employers do maintain (and sometimes manipulate) performance records in order to be able to document firings and reduce the risk of lawsuits, especially discrimination suits.

I didn't practice employment law, but I can't tell you how many times people have said to me "I just got fired for no apparent reason/having long hair/being late/screwing the boss's wife/etc. - can I sue?" In most cases the answer is "No" - in the absence of a contract or policy, employers aren't required to give a reason at all.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by zigzag:
"Right to work" usually refers to the right to work in a union shop without joining or paying union dues.

Yep. I work in a "right to work" state, and that's exactly what it means.

BG

[DBursey]

If Bush runs his country like he runs his campaign rallies, then perhaps we can add the term democratic to his list of growing deficits.

Pledging allegiance to Bush-Cheney

An excerpt:

Before attending a rally to hear Vice-President Dick Cheney, citizens in New Mexico were required to sign a political loyalty oath endorsing the re-election of George W. Bush.

Around the country, Bush is campaigning at events billed as "Ask President Bush." Only supporters are allowed entrance and talking points are distributed to questioners.

Since the birth of the American party system, presidential candidates have gone directly to the sovereign people � who are the only source of legitimacy and power � to make their case.

After the Democratic Convention, Kerry travelled from New England to the Pacific Northwest doing just that. Not one of the hundreds of thousands who attended his open-air rallies had to pledge allegiance to him, and he encountered organized Bush hecklers as part of the price.

At Bush's rallies, he is the packaged president as pseudo-populist. But these controlled environments reflect his deeper view of the presidency as sovereign, pre-empting democracy.

Foundering in the polls, without a strategy for Iraq, unwilling to say the name of bin Laden, he is always secure in knowing that the cheering multitudes have been carefully selected.

Strutting and swaggering on the stage as though he has conquered the crowd, he plays to true believers. But a social studies teacher from small-town Michigan who would not bend her knee had her ticket to see her president ripped up.

"Ask President Bush" has crystallized the essential underlying question, framed succinctly by the greatest American poet of democracy, Walt Whitman, who wrote: "The President is there in the White House for you, it is not you who are here for him."

All the talk of being 'leaders of the free world'? So much hollow, rattling rhetoric.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
When they start throwing in words like "nut" and "insane" they're crossing the line though, right?

BG

Is it ok for a liberal to do the same? To use the words hate, bigot, homophobe, stupid, racist, ignorant, etc? That is crossing the line, no? Or is it that when there is an EVEN playing field, liberals start to get a little nervous? Sorta sucks, huh? Why do you fear a fair and balanced discussion board?

[LoganCharles]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Is it ok for a liberal to do the same? To use the words hate, bigot, homophobe, stupid, racist, ignorant, etc? That is crossing the line, no? Or is it that when there is an EVEN playing field, liberals start to get a little nervous? Sorta sucks, huh? Why do you fear a fair and balanced discussion board?

It's because they think they're smarter than you.

They all think Lerkfish is a genius because he posts links to liberal websites that he spends hours a day on. Yet when someone like Simey articulates a well rounded and crafted post the best they can add is something like "You righty's sure try to derail a topic".

I wouldn't even bother posting here except their behavior is so sickening that it demands to be punished.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by LoganCharles:
It's because they think they're smarter than you.

They all think Lerkfish is a genius because he posts links to liberal websites that he spends hours a day on. Yet when someone like Simey articulates a well rounded and crafted post the best they can add is something like "You righty's sure try to derail a topic".

I wouldn't even bother posting here except their behavior is so sickening that it demands to be punished.

Sigh. Reported.

[Millennium]

The company was out of line to do this, given that the conduct in question took place outside of company time and was not at a company-sponsored event. That said, the man was quite rude about what he did, and so while he shouldn't have lost his job, he can't be called some kind of saint.

At the same time, this in no way points to any kind of government conspiracy; it was handled entirely by private citizens exercising their legal right to free association, however ethically wrong they might have been. There is no evidence of any kind of governmental involvement in this.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to dislike the Bush Administration. So many, in fact, that there is no need to manufacture conspiracy theories.

[Troll]

You call this the greatest democracy on the planet? A place where you can be fired for expressing political beliefs at a political rally because your employer's client doesn't approve of your politics! What next? Will your employer be allowed to check your vote and fire you if you don't vote for the party he supports? Unbelievable. Honestly. If this really is legal, it's the kind of thing you expect to see in fascist dictatorships, not the USA.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by LoganCharles:
It's because they think they're smarter than you.

They all think Lerkfish is a genius because he posts links to liberal websites that he spends hours a day on. Yet when someone like Simey articulates a well rounded and crafted post the best they can add is something like "You righty's sure try to derail a topic".

I wouldn't even bother posting here except their behavior is so sickening that it demands to be punished.

Yes, lots of it is pretentious back patting.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Troll:
You call this the greatest democracy on the planet? A place where you can be fired for expressing political beliefs at a political rally because your employer's client doesn't approve of your politics! What next? Will your employer be allowed to check your vote and fire you if you don't vote for the party he supports? Unbelievable. Honestly. If this really is legal, it's the kind of thing you expect to see in fascist dictatorships, not the USA.

Troll what does that have to do with having a Democracy?

That is just part of our freedoms of choice we have. You have to take the good with the bad.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Millennium:
The company was out of line to do this, given that the conduct in question took place outside of company time and was not at a company-sponsored event. That said, the man was quite rude about what he did, and so while he shouldn't have lost his job, he can't be called some kind of saint.

At the same time, this in no way points to any kind of government conspiracy; it was handled entirely by private citizens exercising their legal right to free association, however ethically wrong they might have been. There is no evidence of any kind of governmental involvement in this.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to dislike the Bush Administration. So many, in fact, that there is no need to manufacture conspiracy theories.

again with the conspiracy theories. that's YOUR label, not mine.

regardless, the point is that it doesn't HAVE to be the government themselves enforcing the groupthink or blacklisting people who disagree with Bush. During McCarthy's reign of error, was the govt. blacklisting actors, or were the studios blacklisting them?
It is not the govt. per se that has to act with their own hands to accomplish these things, and the blacklisting mentality may not even be their intent, but when the atmosphere is created that protestors are "traitors" and "aiding the enemy" to disagree with Bush, then you have the situation we are now experiencing....all the govt has to do is drop the latest talking points, or highlight who to hate, and the loyal take care of the details themselves.
No need for direct involvement.

Just this thread exemplifies exactly what we are talking about...was I the person who brought up blacklistin? no. But it was brought up...easily.
these thoughts are getting easier and easier to have, no?
Isn't it getting easier and easier to accuse liberals of being Saddam sympathizers, isn't it getting easier and easier to suggest critics of Bush are nutcases? The fact is, we are all fish in this water. Some of you can't see the water, however.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Troll:
You call this the greatest democracy on the planet? A place where you can be fired for expressing political beliefs at a political rally because your employer's client doesn't approve of your politics! What next? Will your employer be allowed to check your vote and fire you if you don't vote for the party he supports? Unbelievable. Honestly. If this really is legal, it's the kind of thing you expect to see in fascist dictatorships, not the USA.

Who said the employee was fired for his politics?

How do you know the client wasn't a Kerry supporter?

How do you know his boss wasn't a Kerry supporter?

Perhaps *all* were in agreement regarding their politics.

It looks like he was fired for being a dumbass. That's the primary reason that folks get fired.

There's a long history of employee discipline for acts committed outside of the workplace.

Nobody owes you a job. It isn't a tangible item that you can own. If you don't like the compensation, you're free to look for a better job.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
You call this the greatest democracy on the planet? A place where you can be fired for expressing political beliefs at a political rally because your employer's client doesn't approve of your politics! What next? Will your employer be allowed to check your vote and fire you if you don't vote for the party he supports? Unbelievable. Honestly. If this really is legal, it's the kind of thing you expect to see in fascist dictatorships, not the USA.

The alternative to at will employment is having a government intervene between private parties to monitor private employment contracts and tell employers who they may, and who they may not fire, and on what grounds.

That kind of over-intrusive government seems more in line with fascism than the US hands-off classical liberal approach.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The alternative to at will employment is having a government intervene between private parties to monitor private employment contracts and tell employers who they may, and who they may not fire, and on what grounds.

That kind of over-intrusive government seems more in line with fascism than the US hands-off classical liberal approach.

In the US the state intervenes in agreements between private parties all the time. In the specific context of labour law, it apparently doesn't let you fire a person because they're black. In other democracies the list is just a bit bigger. You can't fire them because they're black or because of their political beliefs. I don't see why it's not over-intrusive to get involved in gender and race issues but it is to get involved in political issues.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Troll what does that have to do with having a Democracy?

Do you see how this has a chilling effect on speech? Do you think other employees that value their jobs are going to wear anti Bush t-shirts to work? Do you think they're going to be more careful about what they say in their own time in case a client or a colleague reports them? Chilling speech is anti-democractic.

[LoganCharles]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:

Just this thread exemplifies exactly what we are talking about...was I the person who brought up blacklistin? no. But it was brought up...easily.
these thoughts are getting easier and easier to have, no?
Isn't it getting easier and easier to accuse liberals of being Saddam sympathizers, isn't it getting easier and easier to suggest critics of Bush are nutcases? The fact is, we are all fish in this water. Some of you can't see the water, however.

Wrong.

The guy was fired for embarrassing a client. If the employer loses the client because of this employee's behavior then it is clearly a reason for dismissal. From what I gather the guy did it on purpose. I mean why would you accept an invitation to go to a pro-Bush rally by a client only to protest? Sneaky bastard. Sounds like he wants to be a nurse. That's fine but do it the right way, quit. It seems he wanted to burn some bridges in the process. So be it. For that he deserves what he gets.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Who said the employee was fired for his politics?

How do you know the client wasn't a Kerry supporter?

How do you know his boss wasn't a Kerry supporter?

Perhaps *all* were in agreement regarding their politics.

It looks like he was fired for being a dumbass. That's the primary reason that folks get fired.

There's a long history of employee discipline for acts committed outside of the workplace.

Nobody owes you a job. It isn't a tangible item that you can own. If you don't like the compensation, you're free to look for a better job.

How can expressing a political opinion at a political rally be considered acting like a dumbass? Political expression is protected under your constitution precisely because it is not dumb! Someone here is using money to interfere in the democratic process. The effect of this is that people will feel less free to express their political beliefs for fear of losing their jobs. For the same reason that you shouldn't be able to fire me because I won't sleep with you, you shouldn't be able to fire me because I don't express the same political beliefs as you.

[LoganCharles]

Originally posted by Troll:
Do you see how this has a chilling effect on speech? Do you think other employees that value their jobs are going to wear anti Bush t-shirts to work? Do you think they're going to be more careful about what they say in their own time in case a client or a colleague reports them? Chilling speech is anti-democractic.

Politics like sex do not belong in the work place. It creates nothing but problems. If I were a boss and an employee showed up to work wearing a blatant political statement I would treat it the same as I would if that employee showed up shirtless. Send them home to mommy for some new clothes or be fired. If you don't like those rules then go be your own boss or be a live-at-home anarchist. Dems' da rulz.

[Spliffdaddy]

once again, Troll....who said their political beliefs differed?

[BRussell]

What if this guy had gone to the rally and applauded and asked one of those silly softball questions that Bush takes when at these things, and what if a liberal Democrat had fired him for it, saying he "acted like a dumb ass." Would that have been acceptable?

[Troll]

Originally posted by LoganCharles:
Wrong.

The guy was fired for embarrassing a client. If the employer loses the client because of this employee's behavior then it is clearly a reason for dismissal.

I disagree. The employer should sue the client if he leaves over this. The client invited the guy to a political rally. People make political statements at political rallies. It is your right to heckle at a political rally and it's something that happens as a matter of course in a healthy democracy. The client can't expect the employee not to make political statements at that meeting. The client took a risk mixing politics and work. I can't see how this guy's statement reflects on the corporate interests and certainly I can't see how a right to terminate business would arise.

[Spliffdaddy]

heckling and asking questions are two different things.

Anyhow, you can be fired for nothing at all - and I agree with that.

Nobody is taking something from you if they fire you.

Did you expect to be paid for work you haven't been asked to do yet?

[Troll]

Originally posted by LoganCharles:
Politics like sex do not belong in the work place.

Then why did the client invite the guy to a POLITICAL RALLY??

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
Do you think other employees that value their jobs are going to wear anti Bush t-shirts to work?

I should hope not! Nor pro-Bush t-shirts. Most employers ban such displays as unprofessional. They also can contribute to a hostile work environment for other employees. Imagine, for example, that you are an anti (or pro) Bush person, and your supervisor has posters up with pro (or anti) Bush slogans. Wouldn't you feel intimidated by that? Would that be conducive to a professional work environment?

Politics has its place. And generally, that isn't the workplace.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
once again, Troll....who said their political beliefs differed?

Where did I say their beliefs differed?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
Then why did the client invite the guy to a POLITICAL RALLY??

Why shouldn't a client invite a vendor to it?

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Troll:
Where did I say their beliefs differed?

Originally posted by Troll:
You call this the greatest democracy on the planet? A place where you can be fired for expressing political beliefs at a political rally because your employer's client doesn't approve of your politics! What next? Will your employer be allowed to check your vote and fire you if you don't vote for the party he supports? Unbelievable. Honestly. If this really is legal, it's the kind of thing you expect to see in fascist dictatorships, not the USA.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by BRussell:
What if this guy had gone to the rally and applauded and asked one of those silly softball questions that Bush takes when at these things, and what if a liberal Democrat had fired him for it, saying he "acted like a dumb ass." Would that have been acceptable?

Yup. Free country.

That's just it- liberals seem to think that 'freedom' only means they have the right to do what they want whenever they want, but no one else has the same rights.

It is however, a two-way street.

Therefore yes, the liberal Democrat can fire his own employee for whatever reason also.

'magine that!

[LoganCharles]

Originally posted by Troll:
I disagree. The employer should sue the client if he leaves over this. The client invited the guy to a political rally. People make political statements at political rallies. It is your right to heckle at a political rally and it's something that happens as a matter of course in a healthy democracy. The client can't expect the employee not to make political statements at that meeting. The client took a risk mixing politics and work. I can't see how this guy's statement reflects on the corporate interests and certainly I can't see how a right to terminate business would arise.

No. Think of it this way. It is proper business etiquette for clients to take each other out to dinner. This dinner is usually meant as a casual "thank you, for your business" type thing. Now let's say that during dinner one of the clients, the guy who was invited decides to take his plate of food which he decides he doesn't like and proceeds to hurl it across the room. This would indeed embarrass the said client and would be dutifully reported (something voodoo :wink: should know about) to that clients superior. It would then be in that superior's best interest to get rid of such a prick.

There.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I should hope not! Nor pro-Bush t-shirts. Most employers ban such displays as unprofessional. They also can contribute to a hostile work environment for other employees. Imagine, for example, that you are an anti (or pro) Bush person, and your supervisor has posters up with pro (or anti) Bush slogans. Wouldn't you feel intimidated by that? Would that be conducive to a professional work environment?

Politics has its place. And generally, that isn't the workplace.

Absolutely! But who mixed business and politics in this case? I can't understand what posseseed the client to invite a business contact to a political rally. But he did and evidently the boss knew. To then turn around and say, "You can't be political at work," is just ridiculous.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
snip

I didn't say their beliefs differed. I said he was being fired because his boss didn't approve of his politics. I said he was being fired for expressing political beliefs ... at a political rally that he was invited to because of his business!

[andi*pandi]

It is generally considered by some small-minded bosses perfectly ok to fire anybody for any offense, no matter how small. I once knew an art director who fired a designer for pointing out to a client the proper way to set up files. The client was "embarrassed."

So while I'm a little shocked at this story, and yes it does beg the question of whether political leanings could lead to job losses, I was much more offended by the T-shirt people's arrest, and the folks having to sign allegiance to attend rallies.

What do they do if you "fake" allegiance to get in? Follow you to the voting booth to make sure you don't change your vote? Or is admittance to these events in effect voting by proxy?

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Millennium:
The company was out of line to do this, given that the conduct in question took place outside of company time and was not at a company-sponsored event. That said, the man was quite rude about what he did, and so while he shouldn't have lost his job, he can't be called some kind of saint.

My sentiments exactly. To a t. So to speak.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Yup. Free country.

That's just it- liberals seem to think that 'freedom' only means they have the right to do what they want whenever they want, but no one else has the same rights.

It is however, a two-way street.

Therefore yes, the liberal Democrat can fire his own employee for whatever reason also.

'magine that!

I had this very thing just the other week. My employer had a guest speaker who was a former Clinton official and was affiliated with the Kerry campaign. The meeting was organized by my employer, clearly political, clearly not directly work related. We were encouraged to ask questions, and nobody suggested that we should pull any punches. But those of us who would have liked to be tougher nevertheless were very polite. Why? So as not to embarrass our employer. It's just common sense professional behavior to recognize that our actions would reflect on the firm, and that this was not the time or place to be combative.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I should hope not! Nor pro-Bush t-shirts. Most employers ban such displays as unprofessional. They also can contribute to a hostile work environment for other employees. Imagine, for example, that you are an anti (or pro) Bush person, and your supervisor has posters up with pro (or anti) Bush slogans. Wouldn't you feel intimidated by that? Would that be conducive to a professional work environment?

Politics has its place. And generally, that isn't the workplace.

this avoids the point that the incident did not occur at the workplace, nor on company time.

[Troll]

Originally posted by LoganCharles:
No. Think of it this way. It is proper business etiquette for clients to take each other out to dinner. This dinner is usually meant as a casual "thank you, for your business" type thing. Now let's say that during dinner one of the clients, the guy who was invited decides to take his plate of food which he decides he doesn't like and proceeds to hurl it across the room. This would indeed embarrass the said client and would be dutifully reported (something voodoo :wink: should know about) to that clients superior. It would then be in that superior's best interest to get rid of such a prick.

There.

How is that relevant. Heckling someone at a political rally is not the same as throwing food across the room at a dinner.

[Spliffdaddy]

I think it should be said that any employer who would fire an employee without having a sound business reason to do so, is probably not going to be successful in business.

Being a good and respectful employee is all you can do. If the idiot running the show doesn't think you're an asset to his business, there ain't much you can do about it.

Fire me. You're only hurting yourself.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
Absolutely! But who mixed business and politics in this case? I can't understand what posseseed the client to invite a business contact to a political rally. But he did and evidently the boss knew. To then turn around and say, "You can't be political at work," is just ridiculous.

See my post above. This isn't situation where the employer opens the door and therefore its a free for all. There are unwritten rules which the employee violated.

I'd feel differently if the employer forced the employee to participate in a rally or meeting with a politician he disagreed with. But there is no evidence of that. When the employee took up the invatation to go to the employer and client-sponsored event, his conduct reflected on the employer. He should at the least have been polite.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Yup. Free country.

That's just it- liberals seem to think that 'freedom' only means they have the right to do what they want whenever they want, but no one else has the same rights.

It is however, a two-way street.

Therefore yes, the liberal Democrat can fire his own employee for whatever reason also.

'magine that!

I'm not talking about the legality of it. People here seem to be applauding his firing. I think an employer is a complete and utter prick to fire someone for expressing a political opinion in his private life. I would think so if it was the other way around too. It's unimaginable to me that people think this is a good thing.

And there's a larger issue here about what has happened to political rallies. Since when have they been these selective, loyalty-oath signing pro-candidate-only events? I saw Reagan in 1988 and Clinton in 1996, and simply showed up - no one checked my views at the door. At Kerry's events, there are regularly people showing up protesting and waving flip-flops and shouting things at him. With Bush, it's somehow inappropriate to disagree with him at one of his events. It's really odd. And I think that's the larger backdrop for this guy being fired.