Juan Williams Loses Job At NPR For Telling The Truth

[Sheldon]

Wow! Discussing the employment status of an employee in a memo. WRONG!

Vivian Schiller Sends Memo to Clarify Juan Williams Situation | ThirdAge

He isn't now, or wasn't yesterday, an employee. He is a former independent contractor.

If that was the case, then they had no ability to direct him or his activities at all. An Independent Contractor, by definition, is not an employee, and cannot be supervised as an employee. He contracts to do a job to complete a specified product. Once the employer presumes to supervise, the Independent Contractor becomes an employee.

I thought that was what the NPR head was saying; Williams failed to "complete a specified product", so they tore up his contract. In this case, he was becoming less of an analyst--what he was hired for--and more of a talking head hack? I guess it's his word versus hers, and I wouldn't be surprised if his participation at Fox Nooz played a role in NPR terminating his contract.

 

[Foxfyre]

He isn't now, or wasn't yesterday, an employee. He is a former independent contractor.

If that was the case, then they had no ability to direct him or his activities at all. An Independent Contractor, by definition, is not an employee, and cannot be supervised as an employee. He contracts to do a job to complete a specified product. Once the employer presumes to supervise, the Independent Contractor becomes an employee.

He contracts to do a job...and if he doesn't do it to their specifications they are within their rights to void the contract.

It's pretty basic.

Yup but they can't tell him how to do it or how to supervise his employees, if any, or direct his work in any way other than specify when the job has to be done and completed and what will constitute an acceptable end product. They certainly cannot specify how he conducts himself or what speech is acceptable off the job.

 

[saveliberty]

Who paid Juan's social security? If it was NPR, then he is an employee. If it was Juan, but his activities were directed by NPR, then NPR is guilty of avoiding taxes.

 

[WillowTree]

Fox's America Live opens with attack on Media Matters' Boehlert







http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201010220025

 

[Foxfyre]

And even if his contract DID specify an expectation of certain protocol or confidentiality or behavior when representing the company issuing the contract--I have worked under such restrictions as an independent contractor for decades--once the company waives such provisions and continues to use the contractor, they cannot then enforce those provisions later on just to get rid of that contractor. Juan, if an employee, does indeed have a legitimate complaint. If an independent contractor, he likely has a valid suit for breach of contract.

Either way NPR screwed up.

 

[Missourian]

He isn't now, or wasn't yesterday, an employee. He is a former independent contractor.

If that was the case, then they had no ability to direct him or his activities at all. An Independent Contractor, by definition, is not an employee, and cannot be supervised as an employee. He contracts to do a job to complete a specified product. Once the employer presumes to supervise, the Independent Contractor becomes an employee.

He contracts to do a job...and if he doesn't do it to their specifications they are within their rights to void the contract.

It's pretty basic.

Even if your "basic" definition is presumed as correct for arguments sake, Williams wasn't terminated due to the his contracted job performance...therefore PBS is still in the wrong.

Goalposts moved in 5...4...3...2...

 

[Ravi]

If that was the case, then they had no ability to direct him or his activities at all. An Independent Contractor, by definition, is not an employee, and cannot be supervised as an employee. He contracts to do a job to complete a specified product. Once the employer presumes to supervise, the Independent Contractor becomes an employee.

He contracts to do a job...and if he doesn't do it to their specifications they are within their rights to void the contract.

It's pretty basic.

Yup but they can't tell him how to do it or how to supervise his employees, if any, or direct his work in any way other than specify when the job has to be done and completed and what will constitute an acceptable end product. They certainly cannot specify how he conducts himself or what speech is acceptable off the job.

Sure they can...he is a public figure and represents NPR even when on another network. His comments on FOX caused him to lose credibility as an analyst on NPR. No one is required to pay a person that makes them look less credulous.

 

[Ravi]

If that was the case, then they had no ability to direct him or his activities at all. An Independent Contractor, by definition, is not an employee, and cannot be supervised as an employee. He contracts to do a job to complete a specified product. Once the employer presumes to supervise, the Independent Contractor becomes an employee.

He contracts to do a job...and if he doesn't do it to their specifications they are within their rights to void the contract.

It's pretty basic.

Even if your "basic" definition is presumed as correct for arguments sake, Williams wasn't terminated due to the his contracted job performance...therefore PBS is still in the wrong.

Goalposts moved in 5...4...3...2...

NPR but I'm sure those rational news outlets all look the same to you.

According to statements by NPR he was terminated because his comments as a pundit damaged his credibility as a news analyst.

 

[WillowTree]

He contracts to do a job...and if he doesn't do it to their specifications they are within their rights to void the contract.

It's pretty basic.

Yup but they can't tell him how to do it or how to supervise his employees, if any, or direct his work in any way other than specify when the job has to be done and completed and what will constitute an acceptable end product. They certainly cannot specify how he conducts himself or what speech is acceptable off the job.

Sure they can...he is a public figure and represents NPR even when on another network. His comments on FOX caused him to lose credibility as an analyst on NPR. No one is required to pay a person that makes them look less credulous.

You think Juan has lost credibility? Boy, you sure got your head up your ass today. Don't look now but the tide is coming in.

 

[Stephanie]

Yup but they can't tell him how to do it or how to supervise his employees, if any, or direct his work in any way other than specify when the job has to be done and completed and what will constitute an acceptable end product. They certainly cannot specify how he conducts himself or what speech is acceptable off the job.

Sure they can...he is a public figure and represents NPR even when on another network. His comments on FOX caused him to lose credibility as an analyst on NPR. No one is required to pay a person that makes them look less credulous.

You think Juan has lost credibility? Boy, you sure got your head up your ass today. Don't look now but the tide is coming in.

they won't feel sorry for Juan, he was a lefty 99% of the time, but he had the nerve to agree with the right 1% of the time, and he appeared on that darn Fox News Station.

so off with him..

 

[Foxfyre]

He contracts to do a job...and if he doesn't do it to their specifications they are within their rights to void the contract.

It's pretty basic.

Yup but they can't tell him how to do it or how to supervise his employees, if any, or direct his work in any way other than specify when the job has to be done and completed and what will constitute an acceptable end product. They certainly cannot specify how he conducts himself or what speech is acceptable off the job.

Sure they can...he is a public figure and represents NPR even when on another network. His comments on FOX caused him to lose credibility as an analyst on NPR. No one is required to pay a person that makes them look less credulous.

Unless his contract specifies that he cannot work for any other media entity, in which case he would be an employee, he is NOT representing NPR anywhere other than when he is working for NPR. IF he had been violating certain terms of his contract with NPR for, as they say, for years and they had concerns for years, they should have enforced it at the time the terms of the contract were violated. They didn't. In almost ALL states, that would automatically be a waiver of those terms of the contract. Without letters of warning or written reminders of the provisions of the contract, they cannot waive them for a length of time and then arbitrarily use them as an excuse for punative measures.

If he was an Independent Contractor, they had every right to not renew his contract for any reason. They most likely did not have legal justification to terminate it for the reasons they did.

 

[Sunni Man]

they won't feel sorry for Juan, he was a lefty 99% of the time, but he had the nerve to agree with the right 1% of the time, and he appeared on that darn Fox News Station.

That 1% is what got him fired.

The Left demands 100% compliance or else you are a traitor to their agenda.

 

[Sheldon]

they won't feel sorry for Juan, he was a lefty 99% of the time, but he had the nerve to agree with the right 1% of the time, and he appeared on that darn Fox News Station.

That 1% is what got him fired.

The Left demands 100% compliance or else you are a traitor to their agenda.

Who is that in your avatar?

 

[Sunni Man]

they won't feel sorry for Juan, he was a lefty 99% of the time, but he had the nerve to agree with the right 1% of the time, and he appeared on that darn Fox News Station.

That 1% is what got him fired.

The Left demands 100% compliance or else you are a traitor to their agenda.

Who is that in your avatar?

Colonel Count Klaus von Stauffenberg

The man selected to carry out the plot to kill Hitler in Operation Valkyrie.

Operation Valkyrie: German Officer's Plot to Assassinate Adolf Hitler

 

[Ravi]

Yup but they can't tell him how to do it or how to supervise his employees, if any, or direct his work in any way other than specify when the job has to be done and completed and what will constitute an acceptable end product. They certainly cannot specify how he conducts himself or what speech is acceptable off the job.

Sure they can...he is a public figure and represents NPR even when on another network. His comments on FOX caused him to lose credibility as an analyst on NPR. No one is required to pay a person that makes them look less credulous.

Unless his contract specifies that he cannot work for any other media entity, in which case he would be an employee, he is NOT representing NPR anywhere other than when he is working for NPR. IF he had been violating certain terms of his contract with NPR for, as they say, for years and they had concerns for years, they should have enforced it at the time the terms of the contract were violated. They didn't. In almost ALL states, that would automatically be a waiver of those terms of the contract. Without letters of warning or written reminders of the provisions of the contract, they cannot waive them for a length of time and then arbitrarily use them as an excuse for punative measures.

If he was an Independent Contractor, they had every right to not renew his contract for any reason. They most likely did not have legal justification to terminate it for the reasons they did.

As far as I can tell, he's never made any public, bigoted remarks in the past. So, no, there is no waiver granted as you are trying to describe.

 

[Foxfyre]

they won't feel sorry for Juan, he was a lefty 99% of the time, but he had the nerve to agree with the right 1% of the time, and he appeared on that darn Fox News Station.

That 1% is what got him fired.

The Left demands 100% compliance or else you are a traitor to their agenda.

I don't think it was even that. Is there an ideology involved in saying that one is nervous around somebody or feals fear even though they know and admit it is irrational? Similar to feeling fear even though you know the snake or the spider is non poisonous and won't hurt you.

Those on the left describe such irrational nervousness and fear or concern around Christians, Tea Partiers, Republican leaders, etc. with impunity.

What Juan did was 1) he was an honest man who refused to deal in dishonest diatribes against people he disagreed with and 2) the remark he made involved Muslims.

Muslims are now the new protected and inviolate class among the extreme left. We are not allowed to treat Muslims as anybody else is treated. We cannot note or acknowledge that a person committing or attempting or plotting a crime is Muslim even if the crime is an expression of his faith. We cannot discuss that there are Muslims who are admirable and decent and distinguished citizens, neighbors, friends and there are Muslims who are dangerous and to be treated with great caution.

If CAIR or a George Soros backed entity or an extreme Leftist proclaims a statement about Muslims racists or Islamophobic, then the guilty must be destroyed immediately.

And if good people don't continue to strongly speak out against this kind of tactic we are going to see a hell of a lot more of it.

 

[mal]

Shouldn't it be Won Juilliams?...



peace...

 

[WillowTree]

Sure they can...he is a public figure and represents NPR even when on another network. His comments on FOX caused him to lose credibility as an analyst on NPR. No one is required to pay a person that makes them look less credulous.

You think Juan has lost credibility? Boy, you sure got your head up your ass today. Don't look now but the tide is coming in.

they won't feel sorry for Juan, he was a lefty 99% of the time, but he had the nerve to agree with the right 1% of the time, and he appeared on that darn Fox News Station.

so off with him..

I'm sure this incident just gave birth to a new conservative. Yes I am.

 

[Foxfyre]

Sure they can...he is a public figure and represents NPR even when on another network. His comments on FOX caused him to lose credibility as an analyst on NPR. No one is required to pay a person that makes them look less credulous.

Unless his contract specifies that he cannot work for any other media entity, in which case he would be an employee, he is NOT representing NPR anywhere other than when he is working for NPR. IF he had been violating certain terms of his contract with NPR for, as they say, for years and they had concerns for years, they should have enforced it at the time the terms of the contract were violated. They didn't. In almost ALL states, that would automatically be a waiver of those terms of the contract. Without letters of warning or written reminders of the provisions of the contract, they cannot waive them for a length of time and then arbitrarily use them as an excuse for punative measures.

If he was an Independent Contractor, they had every right to not renew his contract for any reason. They most likely did not have legal justification to terminate it for the reasons they did.

As far as I can tell, he's never made any public, bigoted remarks in the past. So, no, there is no waiver granted as you are trying to describe.

Well the implications that they are making on air and in that memo suggest that there was. Also that he is mentally unstable.

What they have done to Juan Williams is despicable. And I don't see how anybody can defend that.

 

[Sheldon]

Unless his contract specifies that he cannot work for any other media entity, in which case he would be an employee, he is NOT representing NPR anywhere other than when he is working for NPR. IF he had been violating certain terms of his contract with NPR for, as they say, for years and they had concerns for years, they should have enforced it at the time the terms of the contract were violated. They didn't. In almost ALL states, that would automatically be a waiver of those terms of the contract. Without letters of warning or written reminders of the provisions of the contract, they cannot waive them for a length of time and then arbitrarily use them as an excuse for punative measures.

If he was an Independent Contractor, they had every right to not renew his contract for any reason. They most likely did not have legal justification to terminate it for the reasons they did.

As far as I can tell, he's never made any public, bigoted remarks in the past. So, no, there is no waiver granted as you are trying to describe.

Well the implications that they are making on air and in that memo suggest that there was. Also that he is mentally unstable.

What they have done to Juan Williams is despicable. And I don't see how anybody can defend that.

Yeah, the way it was handled has been a major PR fumble. I won't be surprised if the NPR's whats-her-name's head is on the block because of the public backlash.