Should you be fired for how you voted in a election or ballot issue?

Phoenix said:

"Should you be fired" = should you be employed

Click to expand...

:spin:

Phoenix said:

If you are going to state that a person should not be allowed by law to be terminated, you are granting them the right to that employment.

Click to expand...

Not a right to that employment, but a regulation on that employment. A term and condition of the contract, not a right to the contract.

Phoenix said:

I notice you skipped over addressing why you believe a person can be terminated for their religious beliefs but not for their vote.

Click to expand...

Keep an eye out and you might notice that I frequently skip over many irrelevant portions of people's arguments :2wave:

Jerry said:

Keep an eye out and you might notice that I frequently skip over many irrelevant portions of people's arguments :2wave:

Click to expand...

or uncomfortable to address....I get it.

Look out! The labor unions are proposing changes in their bylaws that will eliminate secret votes on union policies by employees, make all of their votes visible to the other members (or at least the bosses). Any who vote in disagreement can then be punished or fired.

Phoenix said:

While I appreciate your insight, Your personal experience don't make it the rule.
And maybe hetros that vote for prop 8 aren't being terminated in mass quantities. I was using the information in the article.
1) a woman was terminated fro voting for Prop 8
2) a "Black List" has been made for businesses and individuals that voted for Prop 8.
3) Protesters has decimated a business because the owner voted for Prop 8.

My only observation is that in a predominately gay area it wouldn't surprise me if a significant amount of people were terminated for their vote.

Click to expand...

I hear you and thanks... My point was to show that I think that this is a rare thing, and not anything to worry about. Unless I missed something, and I probably did, the employers are breaking the law and I am sure that unlawful firings are a fairly common occurance.

ronpaulvoter said:

Look out! The labor unions are proposing changes in their bylaws that will eliminate secret votes on union policies by employees, make all of their votes visible to the other members (or at least the bosses). Any who vote in disagreement can then be punished or fired.

Click to expand...

Don't just write it prove it please! If this is true it's imperative to be informed.

rsixing said:

Don't just write it prove it please! If this is true it's imperative to be informed.

Click to expand...

EFCA or Employee Free Choice Act. Would permit unions to be recognized if they secured 50%+1 signatures of an appropriate barganiing unit. This process foregoes conducting union elections. Current card check process requires 30%+1 just for the NLRB to permit an election. Elections are conducted by secret ballot.

EFCA would change that by permitting union organizers to request employees sign card checks and sign them on the spot. This effectively eliminates the need for elections and removes all secrecy as Joe at lunch is going to feel intimidated to sign the card lest he perceive he'll be ostracized if he doesn't while others around him have.

Meanwhile, once the union gets 50%+1, the union is the recognized bargaining representative. Once recognized, EFCA would require that a contract be settled within 30 days (maybe only 28) and if not then binding arbitration. Now in states like mine, MI, a union shop state, those employees in the bargaining until are compelled to pay union dues or an admin fee (aka service fee) or they are fired. This is a fundamental shift in how unions may organize and how such union certification elections would be conducted (i.e., will not be conducted).

JMak said:

EFCA or Employee Free Choice Act. Would permit unions to be recognized if they secured 50%+1 signatures of an appropriate barganiing unit. This process foregoes conducting union elections. Current card check process requires 30%+1 just for the NLRB to permit an election. Elections are conducted by secret ballot.

EFCA would change that by permitting union organizers to request employees sign card checks and sign them on the spot. This effectively eliminates the need for elections and removes all secrecy as Joe at lunch is going to feel intimidated to sign the card lest he perceive he'll be ostracized if he doesn't while others around him have.

Meanwhile, once the union gets 50%+1, the union is the recognized bargaining representative. Once recognized, EFCA would require that a contract be settled within 30 days (maybe only 28) and if not then binding arbitration. Now in states like mine, MI, a union shop state, those employees in the bargaining until are compelled to pay union dues or an admin fee (aka service fee) or they are fired. This is a fundamental shift in how unions may organize and how such union certification elections would be conducted (i.e., will not be conducted).

Click to expand...

...and the union isn't even the employer :shock:

Jerry said:

...and the union isn't even the employer :shock:

Click to expand...

Yeah, the employer's interests take a huge hit in this. No more elections, no further opportunity to address the claims the union is making, limits to 30 days negotiating a contract and then binding arbitration.

JMak said:

Yeah, the employer's interests take a huge hit in this. No more elections, no further opportunity to address the claims the union is making, limits to 30 days negotiating a contract and then binding arbitration.

Click to expand...

How does a workforce get rid of an existing union? Sign cards during lunch?

Was the employee fired or voting for prop 8? Or is that what she's claiming? I'd have to see what the incident he was written up for was before I make a decision. Simply saying that he was fired for discrimination wouldn't make much sense if the incident in question wasn't also written up. I'll have to wait before I make a decision. I don't think I've ever heard of somebody getting fired for discrimination without the incident for which he was fired also being described in full detail.

It's a right to not be discriminated against, not a right to employment.

Click to expand...

Rights do not act as restrictions on individuals, only government entities.

Please redress your argument accordingly.

Ethereal said:

Rights do not act as restrictions on individuals, only government entities.

Please redress your argument accordingly.

Click to expand...

Yell "fire" in a theater and see how far your right to free speech goes :2wave:

Yell "fire" in a theater and see how far your right to free speech goes.

Click to expand...

Laws act as restrictions on individuals, rights act as restrictions on governments. There is no such thing as a right not to be discriminated against by individuals, there is, however, a law which forbids employers (individuals) to discriminate against others on certain bases just as there is a law against yelling fire in a theater.

Such a law, in my opinion, is blatantly unconstitutional as it seeks to enforce a nonexistent right at the expense of an actual right (private property rights). A business is private property, therefore the owner of said property is under no obligation to share it with others.

WI Crippler said:

There is so much wrong here, I'm not sure where to start. :2razz:

Click to expand...

Notice that I said Gearge W, not George W. Those that voted for the great destroyer George W, should only be exiled to Texas.

Jerry said:

Yell "fire" in a theater and see how far your right to free speech goes :2wave:

Click to expand...

Well, if there happen's to actually be a fire in that theatre when he yells, "fire", it should go pretty far.

Ethereal said:

Laws act as restrictions on individuals, rights act as restrictions on governments. There is no such thing as a right not to be discriminated against by individuals, there is, however, a law which forbids employers (individuals) to discriminate against others on certain bases just as there is a law against yelling fire in a theater.

Such a law, in my opinion, is blatantly unconstitutional as it seeks to enforce a nonexistent right at the expense of an actual right (private property rights). A business is private property, therefore the owner of said property is under no obligation to share it with others.

Click to expand...

There is a law restricting my right to free speech because if I yell "fire" in a theater I am restricting your right to personal safety.

Your principal is therefore false.

There are many laws which restrict personal rights in situations where those rights would unjustly infringe on others. Discrimination is one. Unless my political views are causing you harm, you have no right to fire me for them absent an expressed agreement to comply with your political leanings was a part of the employment contract.

This is why companies tend to terminate people for unrelated reasons to the actual offence.

Jerry said:

There is a law restricting my right to free speech because if I yell "fire" in a theater I am restricting your right to personal safety.

Your principal is therefore false.

There are many laws which restrict personal rights in situations where those rights would unjustly infringe on others. Discrimination is one. Unless my political views are causing you harm, you have no right to fire me for them absent an expressed agreement to comply with your political leanings was a part of the employment contract.

This is why companies tend to terminate people for unrelated reasons to the actual offence.

Click to expand...

So, Firstly, I'd like to say that I agree with you entirely. This is a great, succinct, explanation of how our Rights are understood.

However, I am just curious as to what clause in the Constitution explicitly provides for exceptions to our explicitly stated rights. Do you happen to know of one? For example, this right that you mention, the 'right to personal safety': that right is not mentioned in the Constitution, is it? Now, don't get me wrong, I fully agree that we have a right to personal safety, but I am just wondering how this right is found within the Constitution.

Now, perhaps there are rights that the Constitution doesn't specifically mention that it nevertheless recognizes. I just would like to hear your take on that.

Jerry said:

There is a law restricting my right to free speech because if I yell "fire" in a theater I am restricting your right to personal safety.

Your principal is therefore false.

There are many laws which restrict personal rights in situations where those rights would unjustly infringe on others. Discrimination is one. Unless my political views are causing you harm, you have no right to fire me for them absent an expressed agreement to comply with your political leanings was a part of the employment contract.

This is why companies tend to terminate people for unrelated reasons to the actual offence.

Click to expand...

A terminate doesn't unjustly infringe on a person's right because they do not have a right to employment. Especially not employment by the person of their choosing. Also if you are going to admit that people are fired for reasons other than the actual offense then surely you will admit to the folly of a law that states a person can't be terminated for XXX reason. How is it not a right for an employee to decide who he wants to work for him?

There is a law restricting my right to free speech because if I yell "fire" in a theater I am restricting your right to personal safety.

Your principal is therefore false.

There are many laws which restrict personal rights in situations where those rights would unjustly infringe on others. Discrimination is one. Unless my political views are causing you harm, you have no right to fire me for them absent an expressed agreement to comply with your political leanings was a part of the employment contract.

This is why companies tend to terminate people for unrelated reasons to the actual offence.

Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a right not to be discriminated against - it simply does not exist - therefore it makes no sense for you to claim that anti-discrimination laws serve a valid Constitutional purpose in a manner analogous to certain speech laws (yelling fire).

If a black man comes to my house and I tell him to vacate the premises on the basis that he is black he must comply with my demand otherwise I can have him arrested - he cannot call the police once they arrive that I am violating his right not to be discriminated against - so why do you feel this principle of private property suddenly ends once my house is turned into my business?

However, I am just curious as to what clause in the Constitution explicitly provides for exceptions to our explicitly stated rights. Do you happen to know of one? For example, this right that you mention, the 'right to personal safety': that right is not mentioned in the Constitution, is it? Now, don't get me wrong, I fully agree that we have a right to personal safety, but I am just wondering how this right is found within the Constitution.

Now, perhaps there are rights that the Constitution doesn't specifically mention that it nevertheless recognizes. I just would like to hear your take on that.

Click to expand...

Rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution (privacy, safety) are covered by the Ninth Amendment which affirms the existence of implicit rights.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
-US Constitution, Ninth Amendment.

This Amendment, in conjunction with the penumbras of other Amendments, has been construed so as to provide citizens with implicit rights. I feel, however, that the penumbras of other Amendments are unnecessary and that the Ninth Amendment is sufficient in and of itself for the allocation of implicit rights.

Ethereal said:

This Amendment, in conjunction with the penumbras of other Amendments, has been construed so as to provide citizens with implicit rights. I feel, however, that the penumbras of other Amendments are unnecessary and that the Ninth Amendment is sufficient in and of itself for the allocation of implicit rights.

Click to expand...

Both instances demonstrate the problem with judicial activism. You can simply read into the amendments anything that you can imagine might exist in the so-called shadows eminating from those amendments.

Case in point...the right to marital privacy established in Griswold has evolved a right to homoexual sodomy in Lawrence and evolved further to a right to gay marriage (MA Supreme Court). Somewhere, the marital part was just abandoned in order to satisfy the personal policy preferences of a majority of judges ruling on a specific question.

Both instances demonstrate the problem with judicial activism. You can simply read into the amendments anything that you can imagine might exist in the so-called shadows eminating from those amendments.

Click to expand...

I see your point about divining things from the penumbras of Amendments, but I do not agree that rights must be explicitly or even indirectly referenced in the Constitution in order for them to exist. As I said...

"I feel, however, that the penumbras of other Amendments are unnecessary and that the Ninth Amendment is sufficient in and of itself for the allocation of implicit rights."

The Ninth Amendment is the explicit grant of implicit rights. Implicit rights are afforded so as to cover a wide range of obscure and abstract practices. No where in the Constitution - penumbras or otherwise - could one divine a right to construct hot-dog statues in your back yard, but that doesn't mean the government can forbid said practice on such as basis as I have outlined as it would be unconstitutional.

Case in point...the right to marital privacy established in Griswold has evolved a right to homoexual sodomy in Lawrence and evolved further to a right to gay marriage (MA Supreme Court). Somewhere, the marital part was just abandoned in order to satisfy the personal policy preferences of a majority of judges ruling on a specific question.

Click to expand...

It seems your issue with the right to privacy isn't necessarily the concept itself but rather its improper utilization. Just because the concept is abused or distorted by the judiciary does not mean the concept itself is invalid. Individuals do have a right to privacy, how far that right extends is another matter entirely.

JMak said:

Both instances demonstrate the problem with judicial activism. You can simply read into the amendments anything that you can imagine might exist in the so-called shadows eminating from those amendments.

Case in point...the right to marital privacy established in Griswold has evolved a right to homoexual sodomy in Lawrence and evolved further to a right to gay marriage (MA Supreme Court). Somewhere, the marital part was just abandoned in order to satisfy the personal policy preferences of a majority of judges ruling on a specific question.

Click to expand...

What you don't mention is that government sanction of marriage is an invasion of privacy in itself. It should have been outlawed long ago and we wouldn't have the issues we are dealing with now.

Ethereal said:

I see your point about divining things from the penumbras of Amendments, but I do not agree that rights must be explicitly or even indirectly referenced in the Constitution in order for them to exist. As I said...

"I feel, however, that the penumbras of other Amendments are unnecessary and that the Ninth Amendment is sufficient in and of itself for the allocation of implicit rights."

The Ninth Amendment is the explicit grant of implicit rights. Implicit rights are afforded so as to cover a wide range of obscure and abstract practices. No where in the Constitution - penumbras or otherwise - could one divine a right to construct hot-dog statues in your back yard, but that doesn't mean the government can forbid said practice on such as basis as I have outlined as it would be unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

I agree. It is or (should be) interpreted that a person has a right to do what they want so long as it doesn't violate the rights of others.

Dezaad said:

So, Firstly, I'd like to say that I agree with you entirely. This is a great, succinct, explanation of how our Rights are understood.

However, I am just curious as to what clause in the Constitution explicitly provides for exceptions to our explicitly stated rights. Do you happen to know of one? For example, this right that you mention, the 'right to personal safety': that right is not mentioned in the Constitution, is it? Now, don't get me wrong, I fully agree that we have a right to personal safety, but I am just wondering how this right is found within the Constitution.

Now, perhaps there are rights that the Constitution doesn't specifically mention that it nevertheless recognizes. I just would like to hear your take on that.

Click to expand...

While the Constitution itself restrains only the government, theoretically leaving private individuals to assault on another without limit, we can observe the rights which the Constitution presumes to exist and further demonstrate how these rights are protected from infringement by private individuals.

While it is entirely appropriate to look to the Constitution when determining which rights it presumes to exist, we can not look to the Constitution for a direct restraint imposed on a private individual; Restraining private individuals was not the Constitution’s function.

While American culture views the right of personal safety through the Christian notion of Natural Law, generally speaking many different societies world-wide hold that the right of personal safety exists in every individual inherently. That is to say that the right of personal safety is not believed to be an external entity conferred, but an internal attribute expressed.

If the right of personal safety is observed as internal, then the right of personal safety is not something the Constitution would grant, but something the Constitution would presume to already exist and further move to protect.

In its restraint of the government, we can observe the Constitution presuming the right to personal safety existing in the following examples:

LII: Constitution
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Click to expand...

LII: Constitution
Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

Click to expand...

Amendment II
LII: Constitution
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Click to expand...

Please note that the 2nd amendment does not establish a right to bear arms.
The second amendment presumes that the right to keep and bear arms exists and then moves to prevent the government from infringing upon it. Nowhere in the Constitution is this right generated, yet it exists.

Amendment IV
LII: Constitution
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Click to expand...

Here again we see that the Constitution presumes that the right to be secure in your person exists as it moves to restrain government from infringing upon it, yet nowhere in the Constitution is this right generated. Various codified laws further move to protect your right to be secure in your person from private individuals, and like the Constitution, these codified laws do not generate the right, but presume it already exists.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/13/sections/section_245.html

United States Code
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 13 - CIVIL RIGHTS

U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04
Section 245. Federally protected activities

(b) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, by force
or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes
with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with -....

(2) any person because of his race, color, religion or national
origin and because he is or has been -....

(C) applying for or enjoying employment, or any perquisite
thereof, by any private employer or any agency of any State or
subdivision thereof, or joining or using the services or
advantages of any labor organization, hiring hall, or
employment agency;....

...shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one
year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed
in violation of this section or if such acts include the use,
attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives,
or fire shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more
than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts
committed in violation of this section or if such acts include
kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an
attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years
or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Click to expand...

This code demonstrates a pre-existing right observed; that one has the right to apply for or enjoy the employment of a private individual free from threats of force or actual attempts of violence.

I hope these are sufficient examples. Please let me know how you would like to discuss this further.

Jerry said:

No such right exists.

"At will" employment has its definitions and limits, and political lean is not grounds to terminate.

Click to expand...

For once, I agree with Jerry, though, I promise, this is the only time!

The OP asked what "should" be the law, which is a speculative question. However, chevydriver1123 stated as a matter of fact, "They [private businesses] have every legal right to hire and fire whoever they want for whatever reason."

As a matter of fact, that is not true under current law.

Looking at your District Manager the wrong way is insubordination and one can be fired for that. Of course, if the employee sues, it would help the company's case considerably if there were witnesses to the confrontation.

But your voting record and the gender of your mate are private matters. As the owner of a small business, I can tell you that firing someone for either of those things is really not going to work. He or she will just sue you and you will wind up having to pay their back wages.

Whether this should or should not be the case is a seperate issue. I'm just telling you what the law is.