Page 23 of 28 FirstFirst ... 132122232425 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 276

Thread: Editor fired for anti-Obama headline says bosses responded to pressure

  1. #221
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,520

    Re: Editor fired for anti-Obama headline says bosses responded to pressure

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Tennessee is an at will employment state

    Unless it can be shown his firing was because of discrimination for race, sex, age, religion, disability, or national origin then he's basically SOL. In an at will state an employer has the rights to fire employees for basically any reason that isn't specifically protected by law. It doesn't matter all that much whether its in his contract or not
    And, the law says that unless you have a valid reason to fire someone, you can't just do it arbitrarily. In other words, if this practice has taken place before, with no punitive action, the owner is violating federal law.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  2. #222
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,156

    Re: Editor fired for anti-Obama headline says bosses responded to pressure

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    And, the law says that unless you have a valid reason to fire someone, you can't just do it arbitrarily. In other words, if this practice has taken place before, with no punitive action, the owner is violating federal law.
    your ignorance of labor law is showing
    except for the EEO exceptions, the employer need have no reason to terminate the employment of someone in their hire
    the employer can terminate the employee because of their looks as was recently confirmed by the court when the termination of employment by a dentist who fired his dental assistant because she was too good looking

    Melissa Nelson Fired For Being Too Sexy - Business Insider
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  3. #223
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,520

    Re: Editor fired for anti-Obama headline says bosses responded to pressure

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    your ignorance of labor law is showing
    except for the EEO exceptions, the employer need have no reason to terminate the employment of someone in their hire
    the employer can terminate the employee because of their looks as was recently confirmed by the court when the termination of employment by a dentist who fired his dental assistant because she was too good looking

    Melissa Nelson Fired For Being Too Sexy - Business Insider
    You people are so hung up on the "evil coporation" that you aren't even aware of the laws that are in place.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  4. #224
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,156

    Re: Editor fired for anti-Obama headline says bosses responded to pressure

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    You people are so hung up on the "evil coporation" that you aren't even aware of the laws that are in place.
    then educate us
    while i doubt you have the means to accomplish that, i welcome your attempts to do so

    but insisting you know something we don't is never going to allow you to prevail in a debate
    so, share with us the laws that are in place which will undermine our arguments
    until you do so, recognize that your position has been soiled by every member who has posted in the opposition
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  5. #225
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Editor fired for anti-Obama headline says bosses responded to pressure

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    But now where, can you fire someone without a valid reason. In the case, the owner's reason could possibly be invalid.

    Valid, or not, it still doesn't protect him from spending a truckload of money defending his decision in court.
    Yes apdst, there are many places you can fire someone without a valid reason.

    At Will Employment

    Tennessee is an At Will Employment state AND a Right to Work state. This means that absent some kind of labor agreement, an employer can fire anyone for any reason, good or bad, including "no reason", as long as the firing does not violate federal or state laws regarding discrimination AND that such a labor agreement to the contrary is unlikely because Unions have little power in the state.

    Also, there's a reason why businesses aren't bankrupted continually in At Will Employment states anytime they fire someone...the laws are rather clear and an attempt to sue someone for wrongful termination when there's no evidence that can be shown of it violating a state law are likely to be thrown out in rather short order by judges.

  6. #226
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Editor fired for anti-Obama headline says bosses responded to pressure

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    And, the law says that unless you have a valid reason to fire someone, you can't just do it arbitrarily. In other words, if this practice has taken place before, with no punitive action, the owner is violating federal law.
    No, the law doesn't say that apdst. Please, produce the law you suggest states such things?

    Again, another article explaining what an At-Will state is:

    What You Can't Fire Someone For | AllLaw.com

    Under the employment-at-will doctrine, an employer can generally fire an employee for any reason or for no reason at all. However, there are some things that an employer can't fire an employee for. Employers cannot fire employees for reasons that would violate anti-discrimination laws. (For more information on employment discrimination laws read the article, "Employment Discrimination Laws You Should Be Aware Of".) An employer also cannot fire an employee for reasons that would violate public policy. For example, an employer cannot fire an employee because that employee turned the employer in for violating the law.
    Here's another, from a lawyer from my state explaining it. Note, Tennessee is similar to Virginia in that it's At-Will and a Right To Work

    First and foremost, one must understand that Virginia is both an at-will employment state and a right-to-work state. A proper understanding of these terms is essential for an understanding of the rights of both an employer and employee.
    Right-to-work means an employer cannot make an agreement with a union that membership in the union is a condition of hiring or continued employment. Basically, membership in a union is voluntary for employees. In most workplaces, right-to-work is irrelevant because there is no union. In addition, an employer rarely violates this prohibition.
    At-will employment means that, subject to some limitations, the employer is free to discharge individuals for good cause, bad cause or no cause at all, and the employee is equally free to quit, strike or otherwise cease working. This is the heart of employment law in Virginia, and the subject of most disputes. Usually, a case for wrongful discharge will arise from a violation of the at-will employment limitations.
    The most important limitations on at-will employment are found in a patchwork of federal and state laws and regulations designed to prohibit discrimination. Discrimination is generally defined as taking an adverse action against an employee or potential employee based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age or handicap status. There are also limitations on such adverse actions based on pregnancy, family medical leave, refusal to commit illegal acts and a host of other things. In addition to the above limitations, an employer also must abide by the limitations contained in the terms of any employment contract between the employer and employee.
    At-will Employment? Right-to-Work? What Does It All Mean? | Lynchburg Business

  7. #227
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    01-22-17 @ 09:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    4,136

    Re: Editor fired for anti-Obama headline says bosses responded to pressure

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    Or con-libs, who say "Business owners should be able to hire and fire whoever and whenever and for whatever reason they damn well want to...unless it's a guy who's critical of Obama."
    I certainly wouldn't say that boss doesn't have the right to fire him. But just the same as the headline made Obama supporters raise an eyebrow, his firing does cause me to raise an eyebrow. If that were my newspaper, I would likely cut off my subscription for such a thing.

  8. #228
    Preserve Protect Defend
    Beaudreaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Covfefe, NC
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 05:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,566

    Re: Editor fired for anti-Obama headline says bosses responded to pressure

    Quote Originally Posted by washunut View Post
    Of course the owner has the right to fire whomever he/she pleases. That being said stakeholders also have a voice. Employees can choose to stay or go elsewhere, subscribers can choose to continue or change papers ( hard to do in small towns) and advertisers will decide if they want to spend their advertising dollars with this paper.

    As to the Presidency. We do not elect royalty. Papers have a proud tradition of speaking truth to power and not kneeling at the feet of Presidents. Too bad that standard does not apply to newspapers today.
    Very good points. And as for your first paragraph, I agree totally.

    As to the second, I agree to the point that the Free Press has the Duty to take anyone to task, especially our elected officials, and inform the public about what's happening in our country. However, there is a major difference between fulfilling ones duty in a professional manor, and calling the President what this person did in print, protected by, and one might even say hiding behind, the First Amendment. My point goes further, and went further in my original post, when it comes to the divisive hatred that is spewed by the media today, such as cable TV "news" such the likes of Fox and MSNBC. There is no civility. Without civility, how can we have a civil and thoughtful discussion? The lack of civility has lead many times to civil war. Yes, war. Both cold and hot. And right now, we have a cold war going on in this country. Continually crying that THEY (whichever THEY you wish to declare upon: Progressives, Conservatives, Liberals, Religious Right, etc.) are evil, can lead to uncontrollable hatred that people will eventually act upon, and that point the cold war becomes hot. There are many instances of this happening already. Bombings or burning of abortion clinics. Defacing religious symbols, like burning the Koran. Or burning the flag. Or taking an otherwise normal trial of a potential homicide and making into the "trial of the century" regarding race, when there is absolutely no evidence that race played a part.

    With great power (the First Amendment) comes great responsibility. Not just the responsibility to interview, investigate and inform, but to do so in a professional and civil manner.

    That is lacking in our media today. All forms of media, including boards like this one. And it needs to change.

  9. #229
    Relentless Thinking Fury
    ChezC3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,144

    Re: Editor fired for anti-Obama headline says bosses responded to pressure

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    ???? You find that surprising? I've known that for a long time. The news has a poor history of professionalism. It was yellow journalism that got us into most of our wars prior to 1941. Even during that war it was used by the government as a propaganda tool to increase morale back home. It' didn't develop a veneer of professionalism until the advent of television and the prestige garnered from live televised reporting.

    I'd say from 1958 to 1985 or so, it attempted to maintain some higher level of professionalism. Then cable took off, and shortly thereafter the internet, and it became what it is today. Now they just blatantly tell us what they want us to think is important and keep it in our faces while they compete to sell commercial advertising.
    a cookie or Bozo button, your choice. I chose the button...

    Sometimes things needs to be stated, like tucking one under someone's chin, gives'em a "Good morning sweetheart..."

    Now that we're crystal regarding the obvious, "What Is To Be Done?"

  10. #230
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    8,360

    Re: Editor fired for anti-Obama headline says bosses responded to pressure

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaudreaux View Post
    Very good points. And as for your first paragraph, I agree totally.

    As to the second, I agree to the point that the Free Press has the Duty to take anyone to task, especially our elected officials, and inform the public about what's happening in our country. However, there is a major difference between fulfilling ones duty in a professional manor, and calling the President what this person did in print, protected by, and one might even say hiding behind, the First Amendment. My point goes further, and went further in my original post, when it comes to the divisive hatred that is spewed by the media today, such as cable TV "news" such the likes of Fox and MSNBC. There is no civility. Without civility, how can we have a civil and thoughtful discussion? The lack of civility has lead many times to civil war. Yes, war. Both cold and hot. And right now, we have a cold war going on in this country. Continually crying that THEY (whichever THEY you wish to declare upon: Progressives, Conservatives, Liberals, Religious Right, etc.) are evil, can lead to uncontrollable hatred that people will eventually act upon, and that point the cold war becomes hot. There are many instances of this happening already. Bombings or burning of abortion clinics. Defacing religious symbols, like burning the Koran. Or burning the flag. Or taking an otherwise normal trial of a potential homicide and making into the "trial of the century" regarding race, when there is absolutely no evidence that race played a part.

    With great power (the First Amendment) comes great responsibility. Not just the responsibility to interview, investigate and inform, but to do so in a professional and civil manner.

    That is lacking in our media today. All forms of media, including boards like this one. And it needs to change.
    I agree that the headline was over the top and that discourse of politics needs to be more civil. However I am concerned that the press today is less about talking truth to power than supporting one side or the other.

    The area where we may disagree is that I do not think that the presidency should be hands off, regardless of which party is in office. Just the opposite, there needs to be more scrutiny as the power one holds increases.

Page 23 of 28 FirstFirst ... 132122232425 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •