Should Racial Views Get You Fired?

[Poli_Sigh]

What a ridiculous thought - of course not. However, that having been said - publicly talking about one's political views or engaging in heated political debates/arguments is uniformly unacceptable in the majority of business offices or other professional settings - at least where I've worked that has been the case.

Perfectly fine to take them outside or to lunch or for drinks after work, however. Consequently, if someone holds extreme political views they are seldom expressed in any setting subject to being overheard by other co-workers or to being sanctioned by management.

It is our right to hold differing political views and/or opinions, even possibly radical ones. It is not, however, our right to express these views in a manner, which would lead others to commit acts of treason or sedition against the United States. Or at least that's my understanding of what our rights are in this regard.

 

[yidnar]

yes racial views should get you fired!!If you are black and your boss is a white racist he should fire your black ass!!

 

[manifold]

I've always maintained that an employer should be allowed to terminate an employee for any reason, or no reason at all. If you value freedom, you understand that it's a two-way street.

In addition to the conditions that brought about the Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire in which dozens of young women were killed, one of the main grievances leading to formation of the ILGWU (International Ladies Garment Workers Union) was the habit of employers taking sexual liberties with young female employees and firing those who resisted for some contrived reason. This is but one very good reason to disagree with your position.

If an employee demonstrates a willingness and the ability to perform the job he/she is hired to do an employer should not be at liberty to punish that employee by terminating him/her without a valid reason. The ability to do so imparts excessive power to an employer.

That's why I also support unions.

 

[manifold]

If said business determines that the mere fact that they have a racist under their employ is bad for business then they are damn right.

And if said business determines that the mere fact they have a black man under their employ is bad for business?

A business that determines that today wouldn't stay in business.

Having those "determinations" this day and age IS bad for business.

You didn't answer the question.

"Bad for business" was the criteria you established as legitimate. Perhaps you should think before you type next time.

 

[Sunshine]

Can't do that....especially when most of the time they're black.

We had an issue with a couple of guys in our shops. One in ours and one in another shop.

The one in the other shop, a black, stopped coming to work in the shop because he didn't like any of the other employees. This is a guy that saw racism in everything. He felt that all of the other guys hated him....so he stopped showing up for work and regular meetings. He would go out in the field but he couldn't stand any of his fellow employees. The situation went all the way up the chain. Eventually the foreman was relieved and the black guy eventually quit. I never had any problem with him, but he just never could get along with the guys in his shop.

In my shop we had a Black guy that was going around telling all of the blacks in our department that a particular guy, who was white, was a racist. Even though he was new to the job most of the blacks believed him and started giving the white guy the cold shoulder. Turns out this black employee was gay, had approached the white guy for sexual favors and was rejected. Within weeks the black employee had claimed he hurt himself slipping on an icy entry-ramp and was out on workman's comp. We started having to put a bucket of salt at every entryway in every shop and office building on post. Within a couple of months the guy eventually left for another job.

Now if both of these guys had been white they probably would have been fired, but because they were both black everyone had to walk around like they were walking on eggshells. They didn't want any lawsuits for discrimination.

Now I'll wait for all of the claims of racism.

Like I said, racism poisons the work environment and should not be tolerated.

It is up to the employer to define what is acceptable behavior in the work environment. Racist discussion, sexual harrassment, religion, politics can all create friction in the workplace

Fuckin A, I was in the Military for 7 years and none of that shit was tolerated sexual harassment, racism, religion etc if you want to be an asshole racist sexist bigot, do it on your own time .

I think that is the gist of this thread. -People who have views that run contrary to those acceptable in the workplace, but who are not generally known to have them and who don't flaunt them in the workplace.

You have racial views that are non-mainstream.

You do not share them with anyone at work. At work, you perform very well. Nobody ever has a complaint.

But, the Southern Poverty Law Center discovers your identity. They call your boss and announce that you are a "white supremacist."

You are fired on the spot.

Is this right?

 

[Unkotare]

You have racial views that are non-mainstream.

You do not share them with anyone at work. At work, you perform very well. Nobody ever has a complaint.

But, the Southern Poverty Law Center discovers your identity. They call your boss and announce that you are a "white supremacist."

You are fired on the spot.

Is this right?

NO its not right.

if you do your job and respect your coworkers and leave you hood at home it should not be a problem

that is how i feel about drug tests......

Why? (or were you kidding?)

 

[High_Gravity]

Like I said, racism poisons the work environment and should not be tolerated.

It is up to the employer to define what is acceptable behavior in the work environment. Racist discussion, sexual harrassment, religion, politics can all create friction in the workplace

Fuckin A, I was in the Military for 7 years and none of that shit was tolerated sexual harassment, racism, religion etc if you want to be an asshole racist sexist bigot, do it on your own time .

I think that is the gist of this thread. -People who have views that run contrary to those acceptable in the workplace, but who are not generally known to have them and who don't flaunt them in the workplace.

You have racial views that are non-mainstream.

You do not share them with anyone at work. At work, you perform very well. Nobody ever has a complaint.

But, the Southern Poverty Law Center discovers your identity. They call your boss and announce that you are a "white supremacist."

You are fired on the spot.

Is this right?

I guess my question would be is how did they find out the employee was a racist?

 

[Sunshine]

I've always maintained that an employer should be allowed to terminate an employee for any reason, or no reason at all. If you value freedom, you understand that it's a two-way street.

But if an employer fires an employee either because the SPLC calls and informs him that the otherwise good employee is a racist, or because the employee is overheard expressing racist viewpoints, don't you think that in spite of the employer's right to fire anyone he chooses he is at least symbolically impinging on the First Amendment?

I should mention that I strongly oppose the right of an employer to fire an employee (after a reasonable probationary period) without valid cause.

There is a spate of case law in which employers have tried to hide behind the At Will doctrine to fire employees for causes which were discriminatory or retaliatory. If a person is fired without cause, but can go back and show that he was fired due to retaliation for a variety of things then the At Will firing does not hold up.

Having worked in health care with no whistleblower statute in place, that type of retaliation comes immedidately to mind. But discrimination would certainly fill the bill as well. The At Will doctrine only goes so far. Here is some information on Wrongful Termination.

In addition to the statutory limits on "at-will employment," various courts have begun extending a measure of protection to so called "at-will" employees on the theory that a worker may have some degree of property right that may be vested in his/her job as a result of oral or implied contracts made by the employer or if a discharge is found to be in violation of an express public policy.
Several courts, for instance, have construed language in employer personnel manuals or employee handbooks as de facto employment contracts where they describe some sort of guarantee of job security or spell out the kinds of offenses for which a worker may be fired.

The Hawai'i Supreme Court's decision in Kinoshita v. Canadian Pacific Airlines, 68 H. 594 considered the existence of an implied contract.

The case involved two part-time passenger agents who were fired in 1982 after they were accused by Drug Enforcement agents of cocaine trafficking. Denied any appeal rights by the airline, the workers filed suit in State Circuit Court charging the employer with breach of contract, unlawful discharge and discriminatory practices (HRS §378-2). The Court upheld their suit on the ground that the employer had violated its own "employee rules" in meting out the discipline. In light of this decision, local employers have systematically rewritten most of their personnel handbooks and manuals to protect themselves from future wrongful discharge suits.

http://clear.uhwo.hawaii.edu/laws6.html

At-will employment is a doctrine of American law that defines an employment relationship in which either party can break the relationship with no liability, provided there was no express contract for a definite term governing the employment relationship and that the employer does not belong to a collective bargaining group (i.e., has not recognized a union). Under this legal doctrine:

“ any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.[1] ”

The doctrine of at-will employment has been criticized as predicated upon flawed assumptions about the inherent distribution of power and information in the employee-employer relationship and for its brutal harshness upon employees[2][3]. Regardless, the doctrine is widely credited as one of the major factors behind the strength of the U.S. economy; this thesis has been advanced by leading scholars in the field of law and economics such as Professors Richard A. Epstein[4] and Richard Posner.[5] In particular, at-will employment has been credited with making possible the success of Silicon Valley as an entrepreneur-friendly environment.[6] The doctrine enables American entrepreneurs to rapidly staff new startups, secure in the knowledge that they can also promptly terminate employees who turn out to be incompetent or lazy (which is not the case in many other countries).[citation needed]

Several statutory and judge-made exceptions to the doctrine exist, especially if unlawful discrimination is involved regarding the termination of an employee. These restrictions (explained below) have been controversial; an empirical study in 1992 by the RAND Corporation showed that imposing exceptions to at-will employment resulted in a long-term drop in aggregate employment of two to five percent.[7]

As a means of downsizing, such as closing an unprofitable factory, a company may terminate employees en masse. However, there are legal limitations upon the employer's ability to terminate without reason .[8]

Statutory exceptions
Although all U.S. states have a number of statutory protections for employees, most wrongful termination suits brought under statutory causes of action use the federal anti-discrimination statutes which prohibit firing or refusing to hire an employee because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or handicap status. Other reasons an employer may not use to fire an at-will employee are:

for refusing to commit illegal acts – An employer is not permitted to fire an employee because the employee refuses to commit an act that is illegal.
family or medical leave – federal law permits most employees to take a leave of absence for specific family or medical problems. An employer is not permitted to fire an employee who takes family or medical leave for a reason outlined in the Family and Medical Leave Act.
not following own termination procedures – often, the employee handbook or company policy outlines a procedure that must be followed before an employee is terminated. If the employer fires an employee without following this procedure, the employee may have a claim for wrongful termination.
Examples of federal statutes include:

Equal Pay Act of 1963 (relating to discrimination on the basis of sex in payment of wages);
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (relating to discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin);
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (relating to certain discrimination on the basis of age with respect to persons of at least 40 years of age);
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (related to certain discrimination on the basis of handicap status);
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (relating to certain discrimination on the basis of handicap status).
The National Labor Relations Act provides protection to employees who wish to join or form a union and those who engage in union activity. The act also protects employees who engage in a "concerted activity".[25]
In addition to being fired based on status in a protected class (race, gender, etc.), employers are not allowed to retaliate against any protected action. "Protected actions" include suing for wrongful termination, testifying as a witness in a wrongful termination case, or even opposing what they believe (whether they can prove it or not) to be wrongful discrimination.[26] In the recent federal case of Ross v. Vanguard, Raymond Ross successfully sued his employer for firing him due to his allegations of racial discrimination.[27]

See also

Employment Rights Act 1996, for the UK approach to employment protection. See also, Contracts of Employment Act 1963, for the first modern UK law on the requirement to give reasonable notice before any dismissal.
Creen v Wright (1875–76) LR 1 CPD 591 and Hill v C Parsons & Co [1972] 1 Ch 305
Employment agency
European Social Charter
UK agency worker law
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act)
Bammert v. Don's Super Valu, Inc., 646 N.W.2d 365 (Wis. 2002)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

 

[Sunshine]

Fuckin A, I was in the Military for 7 years and none of that shit was tolerated sexual harassment, racism, religion etc if you want to be an asshole racist sexist bigot, do it on your own time .

I think that is the gist of this thread. -People who have views that run contrary to those acceptable in the workplace, but who are not generally known to have them and who don't flaunt them in the workplace.

You have racial views that are non-mainstream.

You do not share them with anyone at work. At work, you perform very well. Nobody ever has a complaint.

But, the Southern Poverty Law Center discovers your identity. They call your boss and announce that you are a "white supremacist."
You are fired on the spot.

Is this right?

I guess my question would be is how did they find out the employee was a racist?

It doesn't say 'how' is just says 'who.'

My problem with the entire scenario is lack of due process for the fired employee.

I guess I'm just amazed at the number of people who are up for a good lynching these days if they consider the cause to be in line with their own views and the lynchee is white.

 

[yidnar]

Its a sad day when grown men who want to fuck children can have a legal organization.

you can thank libb organazations like the aclu for defending the rights of child molesters ,lesbo's, faggs,commy's, athiest,and black's!!funy they won't defend white heterosexual Christians!!

The greatest proponent of NAMBLA are pedophiles hiding behind libertarianism, Yidnar.

and they are defended by the ACLU!!

 

[MarcATL]

And if said business determines that the mere fact they have a black man under their employ is bad for business?

A business that determines that today wouldn't stay in business.

Having those "determinations" this day and age IS bad for business.

You didn't answer the question.

"Bad for business" was the criteria you established as legitimate. Perhaps you should think before you type next time.

I answered the question you asked.

It's not my fault that you don't like it.

 

[manifold]

A business that determines that today wouldn't stay in business.

Having those "determinations" this day and age IS bad for business.

You didn't answer the question.

"Bad for business" was the criteria you established as legitimate. Perhaps you should think before you type next time.

I answered the question you asked.

It's not my fault that you don't like it.

You responded to it, you didn't answer it.

Is "bad for business" a legitimate reason to fire somebody or isn't it?

 

[High_Gravity]

I think that is the gist of this thread. -People who have views that run contrary to those acceptable in the workplace, but who are not generally known to have them and who don't flaunt them in the workplace.

I guess my question would be is how did they find out the employee was a racist?

It doesn't say 'how' is just says 'who.'

My problem with the entire scenario is lack of due process for the fired employee.

I guess I'm just amazed at the number of people who are up for a good lynching these days if they consider the cause to be in line with their own views and the lynchee is white.

I just asked cause its not everyday the Southern Poverty Law center just calls up a workplace to inform a company an employee they have is a white supremecist.

 

[manifold]

I guess what William Joyce should have asked was whether racists should be a protected class.

But when you put it that way the answer is obviously no.

 

[Sunshine]

I guess my question would be is how did they find out the employee was a racist?

It doesn't say 'how' is just says 'who.'

My problem with the entire scenario is lack of due process for the fired employee.

I guess I'm just amazed at the number of people who are up for a good lynching these days if they consider the cause to be in line with their own views and the lynchee is white.

I just asked cause its not everyday the Southern Poverty Law center just calls up a workplace to inform a company an employee they have is a white supremecist.

I think the SPLC was just used as an example here. It could be your next door neighbor.

OK, it would seem to me that there is a quantum difference in your garden variet 'racist' and a 'white supremacist.' I think a lot of people get labeled racist when they are really classist. They just aren't going to hang with someone who is of a different social class....or as we say in America where there aren't supposed to be classes....a different income bracket. That would necessarily include a lot of people of the black and Hispanic persuasions. So it would seemingly be racist, but not really.

And ya know, as long as we can do what we want in our own homes, then racial quotas don't apply there. We can invite or exclude anyone we like from our own private lives and homes. I think that is what this thread is about. Should the person who does that be fired for being a racist?

What about a 'black supremacist?' Or a black separatist?

 

[MikeK]

I would say yes he should be fired, racist garbage like that doesn't need to be brought into the work place. The job I work at now is mostly black employees so if that got out he would want to quit anyways. And yes if a Black person said he hates whites I would want his ass shit canned also.

Did you ever hear this? [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tptZOjSkQX8]Chris Rock - I Hate *******.wmv - YouTube[/ame]

Please tell me your thoughts about it. And keep in mind that 90% of the audience is Black.

 

[High_Gravity]

It doesn't say 'how' is just says 'who.'

My problem with the entire scenario is lack of due process for the fired employee.

I guess I'm just amazed at the number of people who are up for a good lynching these days if they consider the cause to be in line with their own views and the lynchee is white.

I just asked cause its not everyday the Southern Poverty Law center just calls up a workplace to inform a company an employee they have is a white supremecist.

I think the SPLC was just used as an example here. It could be your next door neighbor.

OK, it would seem to me that there is a quantum difference in your garden variet 'racist' and a 'white supremacist.' I think a lot of people get labeled racist when they are really classist. They just aren't going to hang with someone who is of a different social class....or as we say in America where there aren't supposed to be classes....a different income bracket. That would necessarily include a lot of people of the black and Hispanic persuasions. So it would seemingly be racist, but not really.

And ya know, as long as we can do what we want in our own homes, then racial quotas don't apply there. We can invite or exclude anyone we like from our own private lives and homes. I think that is what this thread is about. Should the person who does that be fired for being a racist?

What about a 'black supremacist?' Or a black separatist?

I think if a person is racist and brings their baggage into the workplace they should be fired, because like rightwinger said it causes problems at the job and can cause tensions in the office, and this applies to everyones regardless of race. To me a black racist like 52nd Street should be fired just as quick as the ignorant inbred yidnar for example. However if that person is a racist and doesn't bring it to the job, I would say he can remain at the workplace as long as the rhetoric and bs stays at home.

 

[High_Gravity]

I would say yes he should be fired, racist garbage like that doesn't need to be brought into the work place. The job I work at now is mostly black employees so if that got out he would want to quit anyways. And yes if a Black person said he hates whites I would want his ass shit canned also.

Did you ever hear this? [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tptZOjSkQX8]Chris Rock - I Hate *******.wmv - YouTube[/ame]

Please tell me your thoughts about it.

I can't view youtube videos at the job their blocked. I'll watch it at home later.

 

[manifold]

I just asked cause its not everyday the Southern Poverty Law center just calls up a workplace to inform a company an employee they have is a white supremecist.

I think the SPLC was just used as an example here. It could be your next door neighbor.

OK, it would seem to me that there is a quantum difference in your garden variet 'racist' and a 'white supremacist.' I think a lot of people get labeled racist when they are really classist. They just aren't going to hang with someone who is of a different social class....or as we say in America where there aren't supposed to be classes....a different income bracket. That would necessarily include a lot of people of the black and Hispanic persuasions. So it would seemingly be racist, but not really.

And ya know, as long as we can do what we want in our own homes, then racial quotas don't apply there. We can invite or exclude anyone we like from our own private lives and homes. I think that is what this thread is about. Should the person who does that be fired for being a racist?

What about a 'black supremacist?' Or a black separatist?

I think if a person is racist and brings their baggage into the workplace they should be fired, because like rightwinger said it causes problems at the job and can cause tensions in the office, and this applies to everyones regardless of race. To me a black racist like 52nd Street should be fired just as quick as the ignorant inbred yidnar for example. However if that person is a racist and doesn't bring it to the job, I would say he can remain at the workplace as long as the rhetoric and bs stays at home.

But what if he does keep that bs away from the office, but his co-workers find out he goes to Klan rallies on the weekends?

 

[High_Gravity]

I think the SPLC was just used as an example here. It could be your next door neighbor.

OK, it would seem to me that there is a quantum difference in your garden variet 'racist' and a 'white supremacist.' I think a lot of people get labeled racist when they are really classist. They just aren't going to hang with someone who is of a different social class....or as we say in America where there aren't supposed to be classes....a different income bracket. That would necessarily include a lot of people of the black and Hispanic persuasions. So it would seemingly be racist, but not really.

And ya know, as long as we can do what we want in our own homes, then racial quotas don't apply there. We can invite or exclude anyone we like from our own private lives and homes. I think that is what this thread is about. Should the person who does that be fired for being a racist?

What about a 'black supremacist?' Or a black separatist?

I think if a person is racist and brings their baggage into the workplace they should be fired, because like rightwinger said it causes problems at the job and can cause tensions in the office, and this applies to everyones regardless of race. To me a black racist like 52nd Street should be fired just as quick as the ignorant inbred yidnar for example. However if that person is a racist and doesn't bring it to the job, I would say he can remain at the workplace as long as the rhetoric and bs stays at home.

But what if he does keep that bs away from the office, but his co-workers find out he goes to Klan rallies on the weekends?

See that could be a problem because it could cause all kinds of shit in the workplace, this is new territory for me because in the Military you were just not allowed to do that kind of shit.