5 ms·

I’m reading this as, he made racist or otherwise hateful statements in a semi-public forum and nobody was going to put their organization’s name behind that. It

I’m reading this as, he made racist or otherwise hateful statements in a semi-public forum and nobody was going to put their organization’s name behind that. It’s an interesting problem. On the one hand it’s a free country you can say what you please and your employee can fire you for it. On the other hand I think it’s inhumane for someone to lose their job - and most notably healthcare - because they are one of a large number of knob heads out there and were unwise enough to advertise it.

Larrikin 4y ago
I think someone who is willing to speak out hatefully against large swathes of the population based on things like sex and race are exactly the kind of people that should be ostracized. In the case of the work environment, getting fired. If they aren't, they stick around, making coworkers uncomfortable, possibly getting promoted and then ensuring the group they hate doesn't get hired or promoted But HR departments are not usually doing that as a first step. They talk to the employee and try to get an apology if needed. The stories in the news are always egregious examples or people with a long history and it was the last straw
pyuser583 4y ago
Without a due process ensured by a union, it’s very hard to know what they did. Even if someone does something truly horrific, unions still need to protect their rights to a proper hearing, evidence, etc. A while ago a reporter was fired from the NYTimes for repeating racist language used by a third party. The reporter had works at the NYTimes for decades with a clear record. A few years before the incident, they became part of unions negotiating team. Once they joined the negotiating team, the paper suddenly began disciplining then for minor infractions. Once the allegations about racist language came about, they had a dirty record. Per the union agreement, had a right to see the evidence against them. The paper refused to do that. If this person hadn’t been part of union negotiating team, they would have had a clean record, and likely would have survived. They are now working as a reporter at the Economist.
pyuser583 4y ago
> Some of his rivals for a big promotion got him accused of something that had nothing to do with work. How does that translate into making racist or hateful statements? A better translation is they were in a forum where racist or hateful statements were made, but did it participate in making them.

Larrikin 4y ago

I think someone who is willing to speak out hatefully against large swathes of the population based on things like sex and race are exactly the kind of people that should be ostracized. In the case of the work environment, getting fired. If they aren't, they stick around, making coworkers uncomfortable, possibly getting promoted and then ensuring the group they hate doesn't get hired or promoted But HR departments are not usually doing that as a first step. They talk to the employee and try to get an apology if needed. The stories in the news are always egregious examples or people with a long history and it was the last straw

pyuser583 4y ago

Without a due process ensured by a union, it’s very hard to know what they did. Even if someone does something truly horrific, unions still need to protect their rights to a proper hearing, evidence, etc. A while ago a reporter was fired from the NYTimes for repeating racist language used by a third party. The reporter had works at the NYTimes for decades with a clear record. A few years before the incident, they became part of unions negotiating team. Once they joined the negotiating team, the paper suddenly began disciplining then for minor infractions. Once the allegations about racist language came about, they had a dirty record. Per the union agreement, had a right to see the evidence against them. The paper refused to do that. If this person hadn’t been part of union negotiating team, they would have had a clean record, and likely would have survived. They are now working as a reporter at the Economist.

pyuser583 4y ago

> Some of his rivals for a big promotion got him accused of something that had nothing to do with work. How does that translate into making racist or hateful statements? A better translation is they were in a forum where racist or hateful statements were made, but did it participate in making them.