4 ms·
the key point is without the union he would have had no recourse
by dvngnt_ 3y ago
the key point is without the union he would have had no recourse
- gosub100 3y ago[flagged]
- itsdrewmiller 3y agoIt only failed because he had a right to arbitration under his collective bargaining agreement, as well as I assume a "just cause" termination standard. He would not win a wrongful termination lawsuit for this in his state.
- dbingham 3y agoIt only failed because he had protection of the union. Also, both liberals and conservatives have aggressively attempted to get people fired for political views.
- skrebbel 3y agoI recognize that in the context of threads like these "liberal" just means "Democrat" but as a non-American, it still reads funny to me. I mean you can't properly call yourself a liberal by any textbook definition of liberalism and be in ok with firing people for their political views. This is the kind of stuff ACLU fights against, right? It's a bit like saying "socialists have aggressively attempted to take away people's unemployment benefits".
- vinay427 3y ago> I mean you can't properly call yourself a liberal by any textbook definition of liberalism and be in ok with firing people for their political views. Isn't this usage (not being okay with firing people arbitrarily) more compatible with the US/North American sense of 'liberal' than the modern non-Anglo European sense of 'liberal'? Specifically, the emphasis on individual liberties over government regulation, which the US sense of 'liberal' eschewed while keeping the social liberalism dimension. 'Liberal' parties at least in German-speaking countries tend to be very approximately (European) center-right, for instance.
- andrepd 3y agoEven then, I still find the usage of the word "liberal" or "libertarian" by no-rules capitalism apologists to be quite ironic. It is the kind of ideology who defends the "freedom" of an employer to fire at will his employees for any reason (like speech outside of work), without pondering for a moment what that means to the freedom of the employee...
- School-Cotton 3y agoWhat’s the point of comments like this? Words mean different things in different languages, and as you seem to be aware, “liberal” in the US has evolved to just mean left-of-center, and not what it means in your country. Plenty of words in plenty of languages have meanings that are not justifiable by etymology; it’s not unusual at all. Btw, “socialist” in many European countries is also used in a way quite different from its traditional meaning. The French “socialist” party would have been unrecognizable to traditional socialists like Marx.
- skrebbel 3y agoThere’s not really a point. It’s just weird to me seeing people deeply illiberal things call themselves “liberals” even though I know that it’s because the word “liberal” has a meaning in the US that has very little to do with classical liberalism and that’s just how it goes sometimes.
- gosub100 3y agothe point of comments like that is to showcase the hypocrisy of a group that previously was about open, diverse thought but has now become incredibly narrow-minded.
- lebean 3y agoAgreed, but I'm an American so the misuse of the word "liberal" drives me even more bonkers, because I encounter it all the time.
- janalsncm 3y agoCalling it a “liberal” play is a pretty shallow swipe, and at this point I don’t even know what liberal means. This is an issue of worker’s rights, and the sad reality that as long as healthcare is tied to employment and workers can be fired for anything they say, free speech will be reserved for the class of people who don’t have to work.
- gosub100 3y agoI called it a "liberal" play because I dont see conservatives getting people cancelled, calling for their employers to sack them.