Court reporter fined for courting reporting in court reporting.
-
I don't see what any of that has to do with people being fired for owning guns.
It was just a prior argument that leaked into this thread. Which practically never happens around here. My shocked face:
-
Out of curiosity, in the strictest sense - is it even legal to fire somebody for owning a gun? How does that fall against the 'right to bear arms'
It isn't. Just as you cannot fire someone for exercising freedom of speech...outside of work. Corporate rights to govern their employees stop outside of work hours and outside of the workplace. Also, Indiana has a "Bring your gun to work" law that would even allow him to keep one in his car, without the employer being able to do anything about it.
My wife once had to step in on a termination at one of their IN entities because an employee was carrying a gun at work. She specifically mentioned how he would be completely within his rights to keep it in his car, but he could not bring it inside the building (the law is a little fuzzy on whether the parking garage would fall inside those bounds, etc.)
It's a private company, and as long as it's an at-will state, they can fire you for whatever they want other than the handful of "Protected Classes"
Guns are not a protected class.
Actually, they could technically fire you for being a part of a protected class, as long as they can successfully argue that it would be against company culture. That becomes a pretty sticky area to tread in to though.
You cannot discriminate against someone based on their political views
So much disinformation out there. Yes, you can, technically speaking. It falls under company culture, etc.
-
-
Should we move this to the Meta category now that it's a political discussion about politics on TDWTF forum?
-
@Intercourse said:
Just as you cannot fire someone for exercising freedom of speech...outside of work.
With direct exceptions to reputation risk to the corporation, and slander, and a few other things, but I know what you were going for.
-
@Intercourse said:
Actually, they could technically fire you for being a part of a protected class, as long as they can successfully argue that it would be against company culture. That becomes a pretty sticky area to tread in to though.
Indeed. Abercrombie & Fitch are going to the Supreme Court over a woman's head scarf:
Of course, that case seems to have complicating factors not present in the OP.
-
Wait a minute, did I just jump to a parallel universe where TDWTF is for lawyers?
BOOOOORING!!! I WANT LAME CODE AND LAME INTERVIEW SITUATIONS!!! ENTERTAIN ME DAMN IT!!!!
-
-
Should we move this to the Meta category now that it's a political discussion about politics on TDWTF forum?
Is there a more WTF topic than that?
-
In that case, replace "school" with whoever had the idea that you should let your pupils anywhere near the mains line with soldering wire.
-
@Intercourse said:
It isn't. Just as you cannot fire someone for exercising freedom of speech...outside of work.
While I recognize the right to freedom of speech, I have to ask: Is it actually possible to cleanly discern between "outside of work" and "while at work"?
I mean, there are plenty of examples where someone twittered / publicised / wrote / said something which was a bit at odds with the public rules of the company he/she worked at - and promptly was sacked as a result.
-
The bootstrap thread is
over there.
-
In that case, replace "school" with whoever had the idea that you should let your pupils anywhere near the mains line with soldering wire.
That would be FrostCat ;)
-
Indeed. Abercrombie & Fitch are going to the Supreme Court over a woman's head scarf:
Yeah, and people think that religion is the trump card in employment relations. It really is not.
Many years ago, when I worked in a different industry, I had to ask some employees to work on Sunday and one of the guys refused because he did not work on Sundays because he had to go to church. Now, I knew this particular person was not a religious man. I just told him that he could either work on Sunday or fuck off and find another job. (I did not particularly care for him to begin with) He started carrying on about freedom of religion, etc. I could have given a fuck less. If your company needs you to work on a Sunday, even if you do not want to because of religious reasons, they can fire you for not working on Sunday.
-
Even where a state has legalized it, marijuana possession is still a federal crime
I always found the US legal system very confusing. Having things that are both legal and a crime does not make it better.
-
I mean, there are plenty of examples where someone twittered / publicised / wrote / said something which was a bit at odds with the public rules of the company he/she worked at - and promptly was sacked as a result.
If it falls under the guise of culture, then yes. Also, disparaging the company brings the company in to the argument. It also depends upon the position. Exempt employees are, in the eyes of the law, kind of always working. Also, if your statement brings economic harm to the company then you can be fired for bringing economic harm to the company. The exercise of free speech is antecedent to the reason for termination. Look at TwitterGate Re:PyCon.
But mostly, I said that to acknowledge that businesses have every right to restrict your freedom of speech and even religion, within the confines of work hours and workplaces.
-
Re. the original topic. It's a huge WTF and the guy should be able to sue them for it.
Re: the category. I think this topic doesn't belong in the sidebar because it's not related to technology. But it's not a big deal either way.
Re: at will employment. Protected categories are crap. IMO company should be able to fire you for the stuff you do in your private life ONLY if that stuff can be shown to be hurting the company. In this case, I don't see how that was the case.
-
@Intercourse said:
If it falls under the guise of culture, then yes. Also, disparaging the company brings the company in to the argument. It also depends upon the position. Exempt employees are, in the eyes of the law, kind of always working. Also, if your statement brings economic harm to the company then you can be fired for bringing economic harm to the company. The exercise of free speech is antecedent to the reason for termination. Look at TwitterGate Re:PyCon.
But mostly, I said that to acknowledge that businesses have every right to restrict your freedom of speech and even religion, within the confines of work hours and workplaces.
Well, doesn't that mean that an employee should stay away from controversial topics? You can't always estimate what will create a shitstorm of attention (what with the tendency to take stuff out of context which is not helped by Twitter's 140 character limit). And even when you can estimate the results, you'll want to refrain from taking extreme positions.Which in essence means that you just ceded freedom of speech to your corporate overlords
-
Sometimes you have to think about what the possible costs might be when opening your mouth. The higher you are up the food chain, the more likely you are to draw attention to the company.
If the janitor at some organization ends up going on a racist tirade on social media, no one is likely to give a shit that he works for Acme Mega Corporation.
If the HR manager for Acme Mega Corporation goes on a racist tirade on social media, it is likely to draw attention and make people look at how many people work for AMC who are not a shade of caucasian. Then that person gets shit canned.
-
It also shows the value in anonymity, disassociating your comments from your company and yourself.
-
That also. Even myself, on here, try to keep things pretty anonymous. People know I am a male, roughly 35, with a 3 year old toddler and a wife, who owns an IT company somewhere in the USA. As much as I have used this place to bitch about particular customers, I try to keep it that vague. ;)
Edited because I made it appear as though my wife owns the company, though I suppose by default she owns half of it. Sort of. ;)
-
I wouldn't be so sure that no one gives a shit about a janitor. I mean, they fired a server because he complained on Twitter about being stiffed of both the meal tab and his tip.
-
IIRC, he also posted the check that showed where he worked specifically, when he was working, and the customers name on the receipt. It was also shown later that the people gave him a good tip in cash, so he was really just being a huge cock.
If they fired every anonymous person in the service industry that bitched about getting poor pay, there would not be many people working in the service industry.
-
Out of curiosity, in the strictest sense - is it even legal to fire somebody for owning a gun? How does that fall against the 'right to bear arms'
It might be in certain circumstances. Maybe you live in a place that bans them? I wouldn't bet on you losing a lawsuit in a case like that, though.
People do things they aren't allowed to because they think they can get away with it, obviously. No doubt that's what happened here, which is why I fervently hope he sues big and wins big, to dis
encourage others.
-
@Intercourse said:
IIRC, he also posted the check that showed where he worked specifically, when he was working, and the customers name on the receipt. It was also shown later that the people gave him a good tip in cash, so he was really just being a huge cock.
If they fired every anonymous person in the service industry that bitched about getting poor pay, there would not be many people working in the service industry.
I think we're talking about a different case ;)
-
these days gun ownership is a political topic. Since actually owning a gun is an expression of a person's views on gun ownership, you could (possibly) argue that being fired for being a gun owner qualifies as being fired for your political views.
The only part that makes it illegal is that Indiana has a state policy exception: http://www.btlaw.com/files/ALERT - L&E_Indiana Guns to Work Legislation.pdf or http://www.faegrebd.com/14433
In my previous post I listed NATIONAL exceptions - I didn't take the time to look into every state's exception and therefore was right & wrong at the same time ;)
The Indiana state exception basically says you can't even ASK an employee about their guns, much less fire them due to it, so gun ownership is indeed a protected class in Indiana.
-
It's a private company, and as long as it's an at-will state, they can fire you for whatever they want other than the handful of "Protected Classes"
Guns are not a protected class.
Partially wrong. In this case, state law might protect him: your employer specifically cannot fire you for bringing a gun to work if it's locked in your car. We'll have to see if he sues and if so, how it shakes out.
-
I'm not "claiming" anything, you've just shown that you still haven't gained the intellectual capacity to understand that I don't like people doing slightly dangerous things when I'm responsible for said people doing said things.
I understand it perfectly, your puerile insults notwithstanding. I just disagree with you, and I think you're a pantywaist.
-
Partially wrong. In this case, state law might protect him: your employer specifically cannot fire you for bringing a gun to work if it's locked in your car.
I hanzoed you ftw.
Indiana's state law also protects you from even being ASKED about your guns.
-
I actually couldn't care less what idiotic people do when I'm not responsible for them and a safe distance away.
Of course, you're too stupid to admit that I was always talking about people with a sense of self-preservation.
-
I think we're talking about a different case
Yes we were, but I still agree with the decision to fire. He publicly called out the customer by name. He should have been fired. I would do the same.
-
I'm assuming this Rhydon user is a front page troll...
-
I understand it perfectly, your puerile insults notwithstanding. I just disagree with you, and I think you're a pantywaist.
And I think you're a moron who should be kept at least a 100 meters away from any schoolclasses.
Of course, you're too stupid to admit that I was always talking about people with a sense of self-preservation.
Here's the thing, though: You can't read minds.
-
I think this topic doesn't belong in the sidebar because it's not related to technology.
Feel free to change the category if you have a better one.
-
@Intercourse said:
Yes we were, but I still agree with the decision to fire. He publicly called out the customer by name. He should have been fired. I would do the same.
Yeah, but he was on the level of a janitor
-
Well, doesn't that mean that an employee should stay away from controversial topics?
What we're talking about in this subtopic is an excellent reason not to tweet, blog, etc, under your real name.
-
We aren't afraid of guns. The thing is that the English are incredibly violent already without having guns.
-
We aren't afraid of guns. The thing is that the English are incredibly violent already without having guns.
For sure! I mean, they're playing Rugby without the armor, unlike the US pussies!
-
Feel free to change the category if you have a better one.
I don't. We need one. RL WTF?
-
I hanzoed you ftw.
I saw that. I take the inflexible position that I respond as I'm reading. If something lower in the topic is relevant I'll respond as I deem fit. Reading the entire thread before responding is too much work, and you still run the risk of a last-minute Hanzo.
-
I'm assuming this Rhydon user is a front page troll...
No, he's an established forum troll from the CS days.
-
Their version of Rugby is most bizarre.
-
Here's the thing, though: You can't read minds.
Here's the thing, though: I said I wasn't talking about idiots repeatedly, but you can't admit to being wrong.
-
And I think you're a moron who should be kept at least a 100 meters away from any schoolclasses.
That's OK, even such an Eloi as you deserves an opinion.
-
Here's the thing, though: I said I wasn't talking about idiots repeatedly, but you can't admit to being wrong.
Yes, yes, most tiresome. That won't help you in court, though: "Your honor, how was I to know? He was always so well-behaved!"
That's what I meant with not being a telepath. I'm speaking of experience here: I've had even the most intelligent of my pupils undergo a herp-derp moment.
-
And as I said more than once I would never advocate telling a student to try that out, which you seem determined to either ignore, or have an amazingly specific form of blindness.
If I found out a thoughtful student did this and didn't get hurt or damage anything, my response would be something along the lines of "well, you had fun and didn't get hurt. Excellent. Now please don't try that again in my classroom."
In the same class, I was given a partially-assembled motherboard of a Heathkit trainer. I finished attaching components, and when I first turned it on, let out the magic smoke, because the moron who assembled the first 80% (in a previous year) fucked up. The teacher didn't freak out and call in a hazmat team, because nobody got hurt.
I'd imagine you'd have an embolism about that, too.
-
You guys both need to go to the lounge and make out.
-
Riiight, And that, my dear, is why you should be kept at a long distance from any classrooms.
Your definition of what constitutes a "thoughtful" student and my definition varies wildly.
I think that's a general problem with some people: Just because they were pupils once they think that they know all about teaching. And then they draw the wildest conclusions, just take yourself: You were in a class consisting of all of four(4) pupils. And then you go and somehow conclude that just because it worked with you (singular data point and we all know about the relationship between anecdotes and causal relationships) and your tiny class, it somehow must be true for any and all kinds of teaching environments.
-
I'll actually call that one out.
You're saying he's afraid of only slightly unsafe things, but the things in question were never his fear. It was his job, should someone take issue with said only slightly unsafe things, that had him worried, and rightly so.
-
I'll actually call that one out.
You're saying he's afraid of only slightly unsafe things, but the things in question were never his fear. It was his job, should someone take issue with said only slightly unsafe things, that had him worried, and rightly so.
Exactly. If something happens (it doesn't even need to be life-threatening) and they find that I let them do a non-sanctioned experiment (and using the mains line for anything other than to plug in a power supply is definitely non-sanctioned) then I'm on shit-creek without a paddle.
The Supreme Court will hear the case about Abercrombie & Fitch's rejection of a sales person who wore a headscarf for religious reasons.
