You can get fired for pretty much anything, outside of a few protected things. Employers can easily fire you for eating lunch in the wrong place, or saying something they don't like on Facebook. It's happened, due to the nature of at-will-employment.Originally Posted by seraosha
That's not what it takes to get fired, unless you're working under union rules of some kind. It's perfectly legal to fire someone for not fitting in well, or simply due to personal dislike.I'm looking forward to seeing the regulations that are supposedly in violation, because if this wasn't clearly explained, in black and white, and posted publicly, as well as in a handbook that had been given to the employee, then I'd anticipate a lawsuit.
[QUOTE=Shurik SST;5195255]
Missed the point. NJ transit authority is a state actor, it is not a private enterprise and therefore it is bound to the highest of state laws including the Constitution which includes the 1st.
[quote]
The constitution doesn't guarantee you a right to state employment. And EVERYONE, private enterprise included, is bound to the "highest of state laws".
I don't know of any laws that say you can't be fired for something like this, nor does firing him violate the 1st amendment in any way. Arresting him might.Get it? Burger King and you can enter whichever legal agreement you want to, but the State, including the Federal and State authorities is bound by its own laws. And the 1st should be higher in the pecking order than some NJ code of ethics or some other crap they are evoking.
Very true, but it's not a very good analogy. For one, education is compulsory - nor is this an example of the government "establishing" Islam.Same reason if you go to a private Catholic school, you can teach about Jesus and the Bible all you want but not in public schools. Public schools are bound by the principle of separation of church and state. Private school is not.
Unfortunately you don't have any sort of employment protection because of what you do off the clock. Just as it's perfectly legal to drug test employees and fire them for failing, whether the drug use happened on the clock or off.Can not compare this to Sherrod as she spoke in the context of her office she held an a public employee ie on the damn clock. This guy did not. If you asked me, he broke no ethics rules. All this BS about ethics violation is a simple parroting of what the vengeful PC crowd in the NJ transit management wants you to hear.
I think that there are special laws that force employers to facilitate voting and explicitly forbid retaliation. Otherwise that would indeed be legal.
Personally, I simply choose not to work for places that I feel are trying to restrict my off-the-clock freedom, such as drug testing me, for example. The best defense, as usual, is an up to date resume and valuable skills. If my employer fires me for expressing political opinons outside of work - **** em.
His constitutional rights were not violated. He didn't encroach on anyone else's constitutional rights either. What he did was create a headache for his boss.
Right- because that's what they could go after.
My point here is that it wasn't really an issue of freedom of speech, much in the same way the proposed burning of qurans by Terry Jones wasn't either.
It hasn't been determined yet, but this may also apply to the firing of Derek Fenton.
As to your other points concerning the university- he hasn't been fired yet, we'll see what happens, but yeah.
Either way, the school had every right to fire him.
Dont forget General Petraeus said burning the Koran would endanger American troops,guess the guy didnt give a crap about our troops.
Not true at all. I do not have to practice anything the state practices regarding discrimination. If for example, I dislike a minority, I can prevent them from my entering my property. The government can not. I can open up a store selling Nazi skinhead punk, the government can not. I can print a pamphlet espousing all kinds of weird and crazy stuff and nobody can stop me. The government can not do those things.
A private employer is under no obligation to not to discriminate on some basis, it is up to them to decide if it matters to them and usually it is a financial decision.
The Constitution limits the government. Not the people. Get that straight first. Give me for example one Amendment that curtails the power of the people? You will not find any.
Only example is obvious silly stuff like something that is harmful to other people's property or life which is really protecting other people in a codified legal manner.
Depends on the local labor laws. Some states have employment rights and some have less. It is up to actual NJ laws. But the problem becomes the this is a public corporation that should, as a government owned corporation, have some tighter controls and could be seen by a court to be curtailing this man's speech. If government started curtailing people's private speech rights it could set a very dangerous precedent which a judge could easily be very cautious of.
Nope, it is an example of a government employer hurting a person for his exercise of his constitutionally protected rights. He broke no law. He acted in his private behalf on his own time.
Those things are usually spelled out in your employment contract or determined by the actual laws. It simply is not true you have no employment protections. There are such things as wrongful termination. Again, it depends on the conditions of your employment contract. You do not have all the rights but an employer is bound by that contract just as the employee is. I doubt that contract includes a Koran burning clause.
And you are presenting a skewed and incorrect analogy as having drugs in your system is illegal and can potentially impact negatively one's work performance. This guy did nothing illegal, was fired by a public corporation and the claim that this could be related to his work performance is tentative at best.
The issue: Being fired because of his act, explicitly or being fired because of his act, but dressed up as something else.
The companies may have a whole range of reasons to fire this guy. But they can't fire him because of his appearance in NY burning a Qur'han. The legal process that will surely follow will be epic. And I smell JP, and when there is JP there is money, politics and hatred. But never justice.
Nope it's not. That's discrimination. You hire someone with a strict contract and guidelines. As far as the hired does not exceed those set boundaries, you can't fire him. Public employment is contract based. Granted that contract may contain small prints that deter people from expressing themselves, but...normally you can't "fire at will".It's perfectly legal to fire someone for not fitting in well, or simply due to personal dislike.
Heh.probably this guy was terrific employee,and his boss was looking for the reason to boot him off.Or maybe the company just didn't liked the bad PR.
If you are contract worker,you should know that your contract says something in following lines:Your company reserve the right to boot you off without legal consequenses,if a) b) c).Now this a) b) and c) written in generic and vague language,which makes it easier for companies to kick your ass to the curve,if the boss doesn't like you.
But a food for thought:One guy(ok,many one guys) decides to provocate the **** out of USA and decides to build mosque near ground zero.He gets to continue with his stuff,because it is apparantly unconstitutional to refuse him so.
Other guy decides to provocate the other side,and gets booted from his job.
I allready wrote what I think about this issue in some thread about the subject,and why this group does what it does.It was apparently too logical for some people to comprehend.I certainly hope there would be a way around this issue,so the mosque wouldn't be built (like all this story with houselord Imam who is slumlord...Very convinient timing,and I hope this issue will be inflated to the point that all that mosque building could be gently avoided,and no laws broken).
Also,this guy probably can get the financial aid of certain factions,to sue the bejesus out of that company.It is always good to sue companies,and get some of their nice money.
What if Petreaus said you should become a Transvestite, or the troops would be endangered? Petreaus concern is Force Protection, not your Rights.
Ok.. so after several years in grad school studying government and Constitutional law, studying law and contracts, having a mentor who is one of the best know "Right to work" advocates and my experience with the legal system, my opinion is that a "at-will" employment contract is only as much limited to within legal termination. "At-will" employment does not mean "At-will" termination. But that is just my humble educated opinion, I never said he would win, just that he has a case. Employment law is not always so cut and dry. If it were, there would not be so many lawsuits over termination.
Maybe the only way to even this sh*t out is for Americans, and maybe even more so Christians to start wilding out and going batsh*t anytime a flag or a bible is burned, that way folks won't think to themselves "hey lets burn this American flag, those ****s wont do **** to us."
Going bat**** how? In case you don't get it, "they" are here, christians are not there, since in their "land" being something else (socially speaking) is "not advised". So unless we JDAM the crowds every time a flag is burnt, they will not stop. And I am in favour of the said logic. After all it what they want.
First of all, "having a case" really means nothing, insofar as anyone can sue anybody for anything regardless of whether they have a reasonable/legally justifiable position.
As far as "at will" employment - I don't understand the highlighted sentence. I couldn't disagree more with your interpretation in the next sentence: "at will" employment absolutely and necessarily means "at will" termination. The lack of a contract between employee and employer means either can sever the relationship at any time, for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all -
ie "CHULO, you are fired because my wife is on her period. Goodbye" Perfectly acceptable.
Death of Freddom of Speech...?
Gezzz , Glen Beck says all the atrocities he wants anytime he wants ....
Oh wow...there is no compulsory contract in the US in public companies? What is this, 19th century?
Compulsory employment contracts are for the birds. But then again, we have unions for certain industries. As far as I am concerned, many unionized employees need the union to justify their continued employment......or else. For example, teachers can attain "tenure", also known are possibly the largest disincentive to do **** ever beholden on the face of the earth.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote