• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

apdst said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

At-will Employment? Right-to-Work? What Does It All Mean? | Lynchburg Business
 
StillBallin75 said:
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."
Click to expand...

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.
 
washunut said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Captain Adverse said:
???? 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.
Click to expand...

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?"
 
Beaudreaux said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ChezC3 said:
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?"
Click to expand...

Ummm...stop believing the news and go out and play baseball?
 
washunut said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually, based on your description of your position above, I think we're in agreement. Of all elected officials, the Presidency should be the most watched.
 
Zyphlin said:
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



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



At-will Employment? Right-to-Work? What Does It All Mean? | Lynchburg Business
Click to expand...

"generally" and "with some limitations", as your sources point out. It's not absolute, like you've been trying suggest.

Example: A few weeks ago, my boss wanted me to haul an illegal over-dimensional load. I wasn't going to do it. He couldn't legally fire me for refusing.

Another example would be an employee refusing to perform tasks in such a way that are unsafe. The employee can't be fired for refusal.

Not to mention, it's just bad business to fire someone without a good reason. Once word gets out, you'll never find worthwhile employees.
 
I haven't been suggesting its absolute. I've actually mentioned that there are SPECIFIC things that it doesn't apply to. I specifically mentioned federal discrimination law as one example. Refusing to do an illegal act, which you just referenced, is another.

What this editor was fired for doesn't qualify.

In terms of good or bad business, that's irrelevant to the notion of whether or not his constitutional rights were "violated" by the left as the OP asserted and as all my posts have been referring to
 
Zyphlin said:
Despite your own inflated opinion of yourself, you claiming your opinion as fact isn't any more worthwhile or accurate than trjfr doing it. Also, instead of ignorant broad statements about right and left like this perhaps you should actually take a moment to loom at reality...where in this very thread you have a person on the right acknowledging the existence of societal rights and someone on the left acknowledging natural rights.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should notice intentional hyperbole as a response to partisan hyperbole before making such silly rash assumptions. That way I wouldn't have to point out your errors like this.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Perhaps you should notice intentional hyperbole as a response to partisan hyperbole before making such silly rash assumptions. That way I wouldn't have to point out your errors like this.
Click to expand...

Ah I see. My mistake. Strange, when other posters like redress do this its obvious that its satire, tongue in cheek, and not serious because its such a change from their normal mentality and presentation. Don't know why that didn't shine through as clearly from yours....
 
ReformCollege said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that the guy wasn't unjustly fired - if he's telling the truth, he may very well have been. But this has literally nothing to do with free speech or freedom of the press.
 
apdst said:
"generally" and "with some limitations", as your sources point out. It's not absolute, like you've been trying suggest.
Click to expand...
wrong again
unless you have an employment contract that says otherwise, and the termination is not for an EEO protected basis (age, gender, race, ethnicity, etc), you can be fired for any reason - or no reason. you are an at will employee
similarly, you can leave your employer for any or no reason (again assuming there is no employment contract which specifies otherwise, removing you from the 'at-will' category)

Example: A few weeks ago, my boss wanted me to haul an illegal over-dimensional load. I wasn't going to do it. He couldn't legally fire me for refusing.
Click to expand...
yes he could. accept this challenge: tell us what you could have done had he fired you, such that you could have retained your job
Another example would be an employee refusing to perform tasks in such a way that are unsafe. The employee can't be fired for refusal.
Click to expand...
again, you could be fired and i again offer the same challenge, to show us what you could have done to retain your employment

Not to mention, it's just bad business to fire someone without a good reason. Once word gets out, you'll never find worthwhile employees.
Click to expand...
in some industries, where they depend on a small pool of specially skilled potential hires, yes. otherwise, no
with the large pool of ready applicants with the skills required to perform the job, the employer can cycle thru a lot of them and the supply of qualified candidates will remain adequate
that changes when the economy favors the employee, and demand for labor exceeds supply
 
justabubba said:
wrong again
unless you have an employment contract that says otherwise, and the termination is not for an EEO protected basis (age, gender, race, ethnicity, etc), you can be fired for any reason - or no reason. you are an at will employee
similarly, you can leave your employer for any or no reason (again assuming there is no employment contract which specifies otherwise, removing you from the 'at-will' category)


yes he could. accept this challenge: tell us what you could have done had he fired you, such that you could have retained your job

again, you could be fired and i again offer the same challenge, to show us what you could have done to retain your employment


in some industries, where they depend on a small pool of specially skilled potential hires, yes. otherwise, no
with the large pool of ready applicants with the skills required to perform the job, the employer can cycle thru a lot of them and the supply of qualified candidates will remain adequate
that changes when the economy favors the employee, and demand for labor exceeds supply
Click to expand...

So, you're telling me, that as a CDL operator, of a commercial motor vehicle, I can be fired for refusing to participate in illegal activity?

Again, I hope you never operate your own business. You'll get your butt sued off, before it's said and done.

You people hate the private business sector soooooo much, that you've never bothered to learn how it really works. Oh yeah...:lamo
 
apdst said:
So, you're telling me, that as a CDL operator, of a commercial motor vehicle, I can be fired for refusing to participate in illegal activity?
Click to expand...
yep. you can be fired. in this instance for refusing to follow a direct order. but the employer does not even have to offer a reason for your termination; and the smart ones don't
it is such things as the unfairness of at will employment which will cause labor to regain its former position of influence in our nation. so, if you don't like the idea of being fired for no reason, step up and help organize a union at your workplace. it only requires 50% plus one of the worker bees to make that happen

Again, I hope you never operate your own business. You'll get your butt sued off, before it's said and done.
Click to expand...
if you only knew how many businesses i have been involved with
one of the smartest people i know is my attorney. but other than an EEO claim, and a sears small claims suit, i have never been the defendant. and i won both of those, pro se


You people hate the private business sector soooooo much, that you've never bothered to learn how it really works. Oh yeah...:lamo
Click to expand...
foolish comment. i spent my federal career assisting small businesses. those business owners appreciated my help to the degree that they have kept be very busy and well compensated during the ten years since my civil service retirement. would seem to be a strange way for someone who hates the private business sector to spend his time and effort
 
justabubba said:
yep. you can be fired. in this instance for refusing to follow a direct order. but the employer does not even have to offer a reason for your termination; and the smart ones don't
it is such things as the unfairness of at will employment which will cause labor to regain its former position of influence in our nation. so, if you don't like the idea of being fired for no reason, step up and help organize a union at your workplace. it only requires 50% plus one of the worker bees to make that happen


if you only knew how many businesses i have been involved with
one of the smartest people i know is my attorney. but other than an EEO claim, and a sears small claims suit, i have never been the defendant. and i won both of those, pro se



foolish comment. i spent my federal career assisting small businesses. those business owners appreciated my help to the degree that they have kept be very busy and well compensated during the ten years since my civil service retirement. would seem to be a strange way for someone who hates the private business sector to spend his time and effort
Click to expand...

Yep! Waste of time talking to you about this subject. :lamo
 
StillBallin75 said:
I'm not saying that the guy wasn't unjustly fired - if he's telling the truth, he may very well have been. But this has literally nothing to do with free speech or freedom of the press.
Click to expand...

Of course it doesn't. It was a private business decision. Its not like Obama called them up and told them to fire the guy.
 
apdst said:
Yep! Waste of time talking to you about this subject. :lamo
Click to expand...

you're right (for a change)
you have long ago lost this debate
 
justabubba said:
you're right (for a change)
you have long ago lost this debate
Click to expand...

Well, that's not true and anyone who's spent more than a week running a business know that you better have a good reason to fire someone, or you're opening yourself up to a lawsuit that will cost you money, whether you win, or lose.

Anyone that thinks an employee can be fired for refusing to participate in illegal activity is smoking crack, too.
 
apdst said:
Well, that's not true and anyone who's spent more than a week running a business know that you better have a good reason to fire someone, or you're opening yourself up to a lawsuit that will cost you money, whether you win, or lose.

Anyone that thinks an employee can be fired for refusing to participate in illegal activity is smoking crack, too.
Click to expand...

what a point you make
those business owners who tell their employees to do something known to be illegal
are then going to be oh so worried about the legality of terminating those same employees
they fire you
no reasons given
as an at will employee they get rid of you for whatever reason they have but refuse to share with you
i don't like it either, but that's the reality
and it is one of the reasons for employees to want a union on site to represent their interests
you time waster, you:
Yep! Waste of time talking to you about this subject.
Click to expand...
 
justabubba said:
what a point you make
those business owners who tell their employees to do something known to be illegal
are then going to be oh so worried about the legality of terminating those same employees
they fire you
no reasons given
as an at will employee they get rid of you for whatever reason they have but refuse to share with you
i don't like it either, but that's the reality
and it is one of the reasons for employees to want a union on site to represent their interests
you time waster, you:
Click to expand...

If you were right, companies would go through so much trouble creating written policies, for employees to follow. This isn't just to inform the employees of what and what not to do, but to also protect the company in the event of a lawsuit for wrongful discharge.

If "wrongful discharge" didn't exist, the term wouldn't exist, either. I think you're greatly misinterpreting the law.
 
apdst said:
Well, that's not true and anyone who's spent more than a week running a business know that you better have a good reason to fire someone, or you're opening yourself up to a lawsuit that will cost you money, whether you win, or lose. Anyone that thinks an employee can be fired for refusing to participate in illegal activity is smoking crack, too.
Click to expand...

Anyone who has run a business for more than a week knows you don't need a good reason to fire someone, just can't use a bad one.

In Oklahoma they just need to say a person's services are no longer required... end of story.

You can TRY and claim otherwise- good luck with that, the system is NOT set-up to support the worker.

The threat of lawsuit is also dicey- first you need to have been fired from a company big enough to be worth an attorney's time and effort, next you need more than your say so- you really think the other guys will get fired over you?

You need to be a rare commodity- truck drivers are not rare, I know plenty working under crap contracts with the dispatch company because there are lots of truck drivers around.

To me the editor being fired shows that 'conservative' opinions on what constitutes freedom of speech gets trumped by Capitalism's idea of 'I pay your wages, you make me happy or I'll find someone else'. The marketplace spoke- it didn't like what that editor printed, and demanded a chance if the business was to continue getting their hard earned money.

What part of marketplace forces do 'conservatives' not understand?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom