3 ms·

If you're an exec and you start appearing at Trump rallies, and it might upset/offend your customers, you're going to get fired for cause right away. Except in

by dvtrn 8y ago

If you're an exec and you start appearing at Trump rallies, and it might upset/offend your customers, you're going to get fired for cause right away. Except in California, where Facebook operates you would be taken to court quick fast and in a headspinning hurry for firing someone for appearing at a Trump rally. So for the context of this discussion, FB and how their executives seem to be talking out of both sides of their mouths here, you seem to be effectively asking Facebook to break the law.

sonnyblarney 8y ago
No, there are no exceptions anywhere. When an executives public appearances cause damage to the company they will be fired. First - those laws are to protect individuals from attending political rallies. As I said - merely attending a rally is not a big deal. But an an executive appearing at a rally, on stage, making political claims? That's a different world of participation. Second - those regs are to protect employees from regular political participation. Not public agitation, moreover, executives are in a completely different category. Executives generally are not completely stupid, and are not completely out of touch, and so they generally do not do public things which are going to get them in trouble. Now CEO's may take a risk an do something for attention one way or another, like Elon Musk, but political rallies and speeches are altogether another territory. How many current CEO's and Executives do you see giving speeches at political rallies? Basically none. Why is this you might wonder?
- dvtrn 8y ago
  Second - those regs are to protect employees from regular political participation. Not public agitation, moreover, executives are in a completely different category. California state law seems to disagree. CHAPTER 5. Political Affiliations [1101 - 1106] 1101. No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy: [...](b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees. I mean that seems pretty cut and dry to me, Kaplan's actions seem pretty objectively covered here. It doesn't make exception for executives, it doesn't specify who is or isn't covered (except for section 1106 which has very specific applications of chapter 1102 governing public emplyoees), it doesn't say what the merit of their political activity needs to be, it doesn't say anything about 'public agitation', nor does any portion of Chapter 5 s But IANAL. I'd be more than willing to read any case law you have that should refute this. But an an executive appearing at a rally, on stage, making political claims? Perhaps I missed something: what claims did Mr. Kaplan make at the confirmation hearing or about the hearing that you claim are political? I'd like to read a source of any statements he's made that you refer to here. The coverage I've read indicates (and if you have something that suggests he made actual statements about Kavanaugh's confirmation, the committee process, or the allegations against him I would implore you to share it, if you'd be so kind) that he was seen in attendance at the hearings. Anything else is speculation, conjecture and supposition and makes for a poor argument for why Kaplan should not be allowed to attend the confirmation of a personal friend to the Supreme Court. Are you suggesting that his attendance at these hearings constitutes a political 'claim'?

by dvtrn 8y ago

sonnyblarney 8y ago

No, there are no exceptions anywhere. When an executives public appearances cause damage to the company they will be fired. First - those laws are to protect individuals from attending political rallies. As I said - merely attending a rally is not a big deal. But an an executive appearing at a rally, on stage, making political claims? That's a different world of participation. Second - those regs are to protect employees from regular political participation. Not public agitation, moreover, executives are in a completely different category. Executives generally are not completely stupid, and are not completely out of touch, and so they generally do not do public things which are going to get them in trouble. Now CEO's may take a risk an do something for attention one way or another, like Elon Musk, but political rallies and speeches are altogether another territory. How many current CEO's and Executives do you see giving speeches at political rallies? Basically none. Why is this you might wonder?

dvtrn 8y ago
Second - those regs are to protect employees from regular political participation. Not public agitation, moreover, executives are in a completely different category. California state law seems to disagree. CHAPTER 5. Political Affiliations [1101 - 1106] 1101. No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy: [...](b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees. I mean that seems pretty cut and dry to me, Kaplan's actions seem pretty objectively covered here. It doesn't make exception for executives, it doesn't specify who is or isn't covered (except for section 1106 which has very specific applications of chapter 1102 governing public emplyoees), it doesn't say what the merit of their political activity needs to be, it doesn't say anything about 'public agitation', nor does any portion of Chapter 5 s But IANAL. I'd be more than willing to read any case law you have that should refute this. But an an executive appearing at a rally, on stage, making political claims? Perhaps I missed something: what claims did Mr. Kaplan make at the confirmation hearing or about the hearing that you claim are political? I'd like to read a source of any statements he's made that you refer to here. The coverage I've read indicates (and if you have something that suggests he made actual statements about Kavanaugh's confirmation, the committee process, or the allegations against him I would implore you to share it, if you'd be so kind) that he was seen in attendance at the hearings. Anything else is speculation, conjecture and supposition and makes for a poor argument for why Kaplan should not be allowed to attend the confirmation of a personal friend to the Supreme Court. Are you suggesting that his attendance at these hearings constitutes a political 'claim'?