4 ms·

I saw this all the time in Nashville after my family moved there, a person couldn't even admit to being gay and keep their job. I got fired once for admitting

I saw this all the time in Nashville after my family moved there, a person couldn't even admit to being gay and keep their job. I got fired once for admitting I had gotten a divorce in the past. I shit you not. Definitely saw people get fired for being pro-choice. Maybe I've been in the workforce too long but I don't think this is entirely a new thing.

underseacables 5y ago
I think it goes much further than that, and it is the employers to blame. A person should be able to speak their mind politely and non-threatening, without fear of losing their job, or their safety threatened. Unfortunately it is the employers that are bullied into believing that to keep that employee, for example, who said that the arson and fires of Kenosha were absolutely wrong, might somehow jeopardize the entire company or their safety. [a] Consequently they cave to this paranoia, or perhaps fear of violence, and fire the person. I think it’s abhorrent, cowardly, and companies should be held liable for doing so. Eventually we are going to reach some point where companies start to fear lawyers and civil judgements more than they fear the Internet mob. Once a company has to shell out millions for improperly dismissing an employee Because they exercised a nonviolent freedom of speech outside of the workplace, then perhaps they will grow a spine. {a}. https://reason.com/2021/06/15/daniel-elder-cancel-culture-choral-composer-antifa-blm-gia/ https://reason.com/2021/06/15/daniel-elder-cancel-culture-ch...
- engineer_22 5y ago
  Employee opinion is linked to company opinion. Insofar as the market cares what a company thinks about politics, having the wrong opinions can hurt the company. If you force a company to keep a "disruptive" employee, can you force a customer to purchase from that company?
  - underseacables 5y ago
    But what is a disruptive employee? Someone who speaks their mind respectfully and politely outside of work? A company should not be able to claim but someone is disruptive simply because they exercise their right to speak on an issue outside of the workplace. You may have just identified the legal action. Was the employee disruptive? If courts ruled that the employee was not disruptive to the company, then it’s possible a court could rule that their termination was not justified. I’m not sure what company you work for, but I certainly hope it’s not as dictatorial and all powerful

underseacables 5y ago

I think it goes much further than that, and it is the employers to blame. A person should be able to speak their mind politely and non-threatening, without fear of losing their job, or their safety threatened. Unfortunately it is the employers that are bullied into believing that to keep that employee, for example, who said that the arson and fires of Kenosha were absolutely wrong, might somehow jeopardize the entire company or their safety. [a] Consequently they cave to this paranoia, or perhaps fear of violence, and fire the person. I think it’s abhorrent, cowardly, and companies should be held liable for doing so. Eventually we are going to reach some point where companies start to fear lawyers and civil judgements more than they fear the Internet mob. Once a company has to shell out millions for improperly dismissing an employee Because they exercised a nonviolent freedom of speech outside of the workplace, then perhaps they will grow a spine. {a}. https://reason.com/2021/06/15/daniel-elder-cancel-culture-choral-composer-antifa-blm-gia/ https://reason.com/2021/06/15/daniel-elder-cancel-culture-ch...

engineer_22 5y ago
Employee opinion is linked to company opinion. Insofar as the market cares what a company thinks about politics, having the wrong opinions can hurt the company. If you force a company to keep a "disruptive" employee, can you force a customer to purchase from that company?
- underseacables 5y ago
  But what is a disruptive employee? Someone who speaks their mind respectfully and politely outside of work? A company should not be able to claim but someone is disruptive simply because they exercise their right to speak on an issue outside of the workplace. You may have just identified the legal action. Was the employee disruptive? If courts ruled that the employee was not disruptive to the company, then it’s possible a court could rule that their termination was not justified. I’m not sure what company you work for, but I certainly hope it’s not as dictatorial and all powerful