LOL WUTMan lost his job because he complained about New York, like shops not selling eggs or yogurt

submitted by GrilledTofuIdentifying as a block of tofu from i.imgur.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Need stronger employment laws for that. It's perfectly legal to fire people for voting for someone you don't like in most states. Granted it's practically impossible to enforce generally speaking if you just lie about it. Which is what happens, but it's not at all healthy for any sort of democratic society to function this way.

[–]RedEyedWarriorThe Evil Cishomo 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Listen, I think small businesses should have as little government interference as possible, because they have few employees and lots of competitors. But large corporations should not be allowed to fire employees just because of an employee's beliefs. I can understand sacking an employee for stating an opinion publicly if the employee claimed he was speaking on behalf of the company, otherwise the employee should not be sacked

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

There's a difference between saying something in uniform on company time and saying something privately with no obvious connection to the company.

Regardless there are few employment protections for people. This is horrible for any democracy since it gives large corporations a huge amount of influence on what can and cannot be said in the public square.

For a healthy democratic society to exist political speech needs to be protected and we cannot allow undue retaliation against legal speech conducted outside of ones employment duties. Should be seen as a violation of a companies civil duties and should have consequences.

This needs to apply to smaller employers to some extent as well but really it's the circumstances that are important to take into consideration. But employees should have legal recourse for undue firings if we want a free and stable society.

If we want an autocracy freedom is optional.

[–]RedEyedWarriorThe Evil Cishomo 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well said.

[–]LyingSpirit472 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

More people have to remember about free speech: When you do something to someone over disagreeing with you, then eventually when the pendulum shifts to the other side, you just said it's okay for THEM to do to YOU when they get power.

[–]jet199 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You can certainly have limits on laws, like they only apply to firms which employ 50 people or less.

Certainly some tax laws are already like that.

[–]RedEyedWarriorThe Evil Cishomo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

As should be the case.

[–]LyingSpirit472 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Heck, even the few protections employees get are covered if the company just lies about it. The manager's a bigot and wants to fire you for being in a protected group? The manager hit on you and was butthurt that you rejected them? As long as they can lie and claim "no, no, we fired them for x, y, and z", they're able to do it [note: EVERY COMPANY makes a file of minor offenses that they can use as an excuse to fire you so that, when they choose to fire you, they can say it's for these reasons so you can't sue.]