• 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

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.


Right! That's called a layoff, which means you have to pay unemployment.

Ever hear of a "pink slip"?

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?

Funny how Libbos throw people's right out the window, when those rights no longer serve their purposes.
 
Right! That's called a layoff, which means you have to pay unemployment. Ever hear of a "pink slip"? Funny how Libbos throw people's right out the window, when those rights no longer serve their purposes.

What does the excellent liberal program of unemployment have to do with this? Fired is fired. call it what you want you still are out of a job, and the boss still doesn't need a reason for firing you. (your thinking a union shop) Oh and an employer doesn't have to pay unemployment if he claims you violated a rule or are 'disruptive'- again who else in the shop will get in the unemployment line for at best half pay to back you up? Like I said the rules are heavy against a worker in a 'right to work' state.

Funny how some 'conservatives' claim the rules that throw people's rights out the window are liberal..... ummm it is the 'conservatives' and red states that created these work place rules. Right to work really means right to fire.

I NEVER said I agree with the way 'right to work' states are run... just telling you how they are run... you can bet your CDL I didn't support any of it.... (your side did)
 
Right! That's called a layoff, which means you have to pay unemployment.

Ever hear of a "pink slip"?



.

Businesses pay unemployment insurance REGARDLESS of whether they lay people off or not. The only thing laying off people does is temporarily raise your rate (a percentage of total wages paid, capped at a different level in each state). Businesses do not pay unemployment, they only pay unemployment insurance. your grasp of business ownership and expenses seems to be lacking
 
Businesses pay unemployment insurance REGARDLESS of whether they lay people off or not. The only thing laying off people does is temporarily raise your rate (a percentage of total wages paid, capped at a different level in each state). Businesses do not pay unemployment, they only pay unemployment insurance. your grasp of business ownership and expenses seems to be lacking

When did I say otherwise?
 
What does the excellent liberal program of unemployment have to do with this? Fired is fired. call it what you want you still are out of a job, and the boss still doesn't need a reason for firing you. (your thinking a union shop) Oh and an employer doesn't have to pay unemployment if he claims you violated a rule or are 'disruptive'- again who else in the shop will get in the unemployment line for at best half pay to back you up? Like I said the rules are heavy against a worker in a 'right to work' state.

Funny how some 'conservatives' claim the rules that throw people's rights out the window are liberal..... ummm it is the 'conservatives' and red states that created these work place rules. Right to work really means right to fire.

I NEVER said I agree with the way 'right to work' states are run... just telling you how they are run... you can bet your CDL I didn't support any of it.... (your side did)

A documented firing prevents a person from drawing unemployment. As Forced Appeal pointed out, when someone draws off you unemployment, your rate goes up. That's more money out of your pocket.
 
A documented firing prevents a person from drawing unemployment. As Forced Appeal pointed out, when someone draws off you unemployment, your rate goes up. That's more money out of your pocket.

I believe you mean- fired for cause, and the cause can be as simple as late, argumentative, slow work, disruptive. Easy enough for a company to claim and takes you weeks to fight. No money for you until it is resolved- might take months.

Actually the boss's unemployment tax rate doesn't go up unless you fire too many folks too often. It is a simple fund all qualifying employers pay into at a predetermined rate and it does take a bit of abuse to change the rate and employers can fight the rulings so unless your boss cans folks on a regular basis he will feel no pain from canning you.

Your final argument, now that we have determined the right to work rules are from 'conservatives' and liberals were not the ones to create this system that takes 'rights away' as you claim, your final argument is something like my nose made your fist bloody so I have the last laugh. :roll:

The editor's firing, or yours for that matter, sends a very strong message to the others- don't piss off the boss. I doubt the editor or you will get the others standing there doing the slow clap as you are escorted off the property.

When it comes to riding unemployment I doubt anyone sees it as a good thing. If you can live on half wages then go piss off the boss and enjoy the ride... :peace
 
I believe you mean- fired for cause, and the cause can be as simple as late, argumentative, slow work, disruptive. Easy enough for a company to claim and takes you weeks to fight. No money for you until it is resolved- might take months.

Actually the boss's unemployment tax rate doesn't go up unless you fire too many folks too often. It is a simple fund all qualifying employers pay into at a predetermined rate and it does take a bit of abuse to change the rate and employers can fight the rulings so unless your boss cans folks on a regular basis he will feel no pain from canning you.

Your final argument, now that we have determined the right to work rules are from 'conservatives' and liberals were not the ones to create this system that takes 'rights away' as you claim, your final argument is something like my nose made your fist bloody so I have the last laugh. :roll:

The editor's firing, or yours for that matter, sends a very strong message to the others- don't piss off the boss. I doubt the editor or you will get the others standing there doing the slow clap as you are escorted off the property.

When it comes to riding unemployment I doubt anyone sees it as a good thing. If you can live on half wages then go piss off the boss and enjoy the ride... :peace

In a courtroom, the company would have to prove that, too.
 
No, it doesn't

Yes, it does. If a person is, "no longer needed", i.e. a reduction in the work force, would be considered a layoff and warrant issueing of unemployment.

When unemployment is applied for, the unemployment office will contact the employer to find out why that person is no longer employed, at which time, the employer will have to give a reason.
 
In a courtroom, the company would have to prove that, too.

It will never be in a courtroom, the 'conservatives' have the game rigged against that. First you have to get by the review board, and as an out of work, receiving none of the excellent liberal program called unemployment benefits just how do you plan on taking your old boss to court? Bet you your shiny non-union button your boss can drag any court processing out for months with delays while you sit wishing you didn't live in a right to work state.

And remember in many right to work states the loser pays the winner's court costs. All your boss needs is for the foreman to back the late to work and argumentative story up. Who backs your story up?
 
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....

Probably because I do it a little more often and usually announce it. Occasionally I like to fly under the radar... to see if other notice the point.
 
Yes, it does. If a person is, "no longer needed", i.e. a reduction in the work force, would be considered a layoff and warrant issueing of unemployment.

When unemployment is applied for, the unemployment office will contact the employer to find out why that person is no longer employed, at which time, the employer will have to give a reason.

no longer had a need for his skill set
now, tell us what is illegal about that
or even how the employee will fight to get his job back
 
Roy Exum: Why Drew Lost His View

Sunday, August 04, 2013 - by Roy Exum

Several months after Drew Johnson was hired in June of 2012 to write editorials for the conservative side of the Chattanooga News Free Press opinion pages, it became apparent to the staff and readers alike that management had made another colossal blunder. Johnson exhibited two of the most “deadly sins” of a columnist – a brash arrogance and an inflated ego. Neither of the deplorable traits had ever been witnessed before on either of the opinion pages that make the Times Free Press unique in the publishing world.

Worse, the founder of what Johnson claimed was a “free market think tank” was quickly identified as particularly mean-spirited, his perceived inner anger sometimes overshadowing his rightful opinions. Anyone who thinks that his sophomoric headline directed at President Barack Obama this week to “shove it” was the reason he was unceremoniously dumped should study the circumstances. It was merely the straw the newspaper needed – and wanted -- to terminate its latest embarrassment.

Roy Exum: Why Drew Lost His View - 08/04/2013 - Chattanoogan.com


That all but proves that he was not fired for his opinion but because of his refusal to follow the rules of his employer. He was already on probation, which was proven because of having been placed under an editor of opinion pages, and he broke the rules of his paper once again. This time the straw broke the camels back and he was fired.

Johnson should stop whining and look for a new job where he is allowed to break the rules etc.
 
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

Yep! Waste of time talking to you about this subject. :lamo

You're both kind of correct.

Bubba, most at will states have laws on the books that state you can't fire someone for violating public policy. An example of such a violation would be demanding they break the law (Source 1, Source 2). So, depending on the state apdst was in, he absolutely could try to sue for wrongful termination if it was explicitely stated OR could be legally proven that he was fired for refusing to undertake an illegal act.

Apdst, Bubba is midly right in terms of the likelihood of succeeding IF your boss isn't a complete idiot. A reason is not required to be given in an At Will Employment job unless specifically specified within a WRITTEN contract between the employer and employee. A smart boss that is unhappy with you refusing to do an illegal action will either make some other claim as to why he's firing you OR just firing you for no reason at all (Saying something like "I just don't think you're a good fit in the office"). As long as they don't make it abundantly and obviously clear that the firing was due to a reason that is protected they're likely to be fine. The business owner has significantly more power in these situations than the employee.

So yes Bubba, he COULD be fired apdst COULD be wrongfully fired if he was let go for refusing to do an illegal act. But yes apdst, there's a very easy way for the employer to fire you for your refusal and yet be legally in the clear depending on the reasoning he actually gives.
 
Right! That's called a layoff, which means you have to pay unemployment.

Correct. You still have to pay unemployment, but that doesn't change the fact that you've been removed from the job.

Funny how Libbos throw people's right out the window, when those rights no longer serve their purposes.

Funny how when a conservative editor gets fired the "Cons" are suddenly all in favor of trampling the rights of business owners. See how that works?
 
Correct. You still have to pay unemployment, but that doesn't change the fact that you've been removed from the job.



Funny how when a conservative editor gets fired the "Cons" are suddenly all in favor of trampling the rights of business owners. See how that works?

And a layoff is different fron a termination.
 
You're both kind of correct.

Bubba, most at will states have laws on the books that state you can't fire someone for violating public policy. An example of such a violation would be demanding they break the law (Source 1, Source 2). So, depending on the state apdst was in, he absolutely could try to sue for wrongful termination if it was explicitely stated OR could be legally proven that he was fired for refusing to undertake an illegal act.

Apdst, Bubba is midly right in terms of the likelihood of succeeding IF your boss isn't a complete idiot. A reason is not required to be given in an At Will Employment job unless specifically specified within a WRITTEN contract between the employer and employee. A smart boss that is unhappy with you refusing to do an illegal action will either make some other claim as to why he's firing you OR just firing you for no reason at all (Saying something like "I just don't think you're a good fit in the office"). As long as they don't make it abundantly and obviously clear that the firing was due to a reason that is protected they're likely to be fine. The business owner has significantly more power in these situations than the employee.

So yes Bubba, he COULD be fired apdst COULD be wrongfully fired if he was let go for refusing to do an illegal act. But yes apdst, there's a very easy way for the employer to fire you for your refusal and yet be legally in the clear depending on the reasoning he actually gives.

A "no cause" termination isn't absolute.
 
A "no cause" termination isn't absolute.

At this point apdst, why don't you actually finally provide some actual sources and links to validate your claims in this thread. You've made a TON of claims, and all you've done to back it up is stating your opinion on things and what you think it is. I've provided NUMEROUS links and sources of various lawyers and various information regarding the law showing where you've been in error over and over again...and all you've basically been doing is repeating your personal views on what you think it is or can be done.

Do you have anything to validate your various claims?
 
So the Dixie Chicks put all country singers on notice, Speak ill of Bush or the War on Terror or you'll be denied airplay?

Dix Chicks went to a foreign country and trashed our pres, that rubbed her fans the wrong way and they didn't want to hear them on the radio anymore and stopped buying their music. This is night and day as to what happened to the journalist.
 
What it does is to put all journalist on notice, speak ill of Obama you're FIRED.
Incorrect.

The journalist in question was hired specifically to provide a conservative point of view. He behaved unprofessionally, both in the past and in the incident.

There are also huge numbers of journalists who criticize the President every single day, with no fear of being fired.
 
Name one reporter who was ever fired for being critical of Bush?

Your partisan blinders loom large on your face.


Phil Donahue. Don't remember? Probably because all the "liberal" media didn't hardly touch the story. I'll let Hannity, someone I'm sure you are more comfortable with, show you in his interview with Phil:

SEAN HANNITY (co-host): What happened at MSNBC?

DONAHUE: Well, we were the only antiwar voice that had a show, and that, I think, made them very nervous. I mean, from the top down, they were just terrified. We had to have two conservatives on for every liberal. I was counted as two liberals.

HANNITY: You have the force of two liberals.

DONAHUE: I mean, you know, it's a shame, you know? Now, we were replaced by Michael Savage, and now they have Chuck [sic: Joe] Scarborough. And by the way, I wish them all well. A lot of the people who worked for me, incidentally, a wonderful crowd of very young, bright people who worked for me, some of whom have now matriculated to other programs on MSNBC. So I want them to do well, but I certainly wasn't -- it was a very, very unhappy time for me.

HANNITY: You felt mistreated? You felt mistreated?

DONAHUE: Well, we were very -- I was isolated, and we were very alone at the end. And then we had nobody supporting us, and our numbers were very decent. We weren't Elvis, but we were often the best number --

HANNITY: You were the highest-rated show on the network.

DONAHUE: Yes. And we were told to leave.​
 
Last edited:
wrong it is an Inherent Right granted by our Creator. the bill of Rights wasn't written to give us those rights it was written so those rights could not be taken away. This is one of the fundamental differences between the Right and the Left. The left believes our rights come from government granted to them by the Bill of Rights. The Right knows they are Inherent Rights granted by our Creator and the Bill of Rights was to keep government from taking them away

the Constitution isn't an enabling document is was written as a limiting document

Awesome. When logic fails, blame God.
 
Back
Top Bottom