Juan Williams Fired From NPR

Remove all ads!

This just in....

 

So now you finally agree with me, Snook?

 

I'm conflicted in that if I were a manager, I wouldn't want to have to work with someone who pissed me off. If I find someone reprehensible for some reason, I shouldn't have to employ the guy.

On the other hand, as an employee who (theoretically) is doing my job and obeying my boss' directions at work, and by extension am a benefit to the job, then my personal political beliefs (or religious beliefs, or my taste in clothes/music/art as evidenced outside the workplace) are really a stupid reason to fire me. They are quite literally none of the employer's business.

I suppose the argument can be made that some outside activities affect your reputation / the perception the public has of you, and in that case your external activities can have a negative impact on your job performance.

This is where unions come in, and unions can be great or terrible, that I well know. But I really see where Montresor is coming from in that if I as an employer don't have the freedom to employ who I wish, IMHO MY rights are being abused. By firing some guy who is annoying to me, I am not preventing him from getting life or liberty, and I am not stopping him from going out and pursuing happiness -- he can go work for someone who isn't pissed off by him.

The Invisible Hand argument says that in the long run, if I terminate people for BS reasons, then I will lose out because those talented people will work for my competition and run me out of business.

OTOH, as an employee I'd appreciate having some stability in my job, and know that I can't be fired at whim by my employer. Such "fire at will" environments are not conducive to employee morale or low stress levels.

 

I have to show that to Mrs. Chandos who is a senior manager and does nothing but complain about how people who work for her "piss her off" everyday. She would fire just about eveyone in the building if she had her way.

BTW, I still remember what you have said about a female boss you once had.

Exactly. You have the right to your life. But we are in the process of replacing government tyranny with corporate tyranny. At least before we could vote government out of power. Where does the middle-class draw its strength? It's work ethic: an honest, hard day's work for an honest day's wage. Beyond that, an employee owes the bastards nothing. If they want to tell workers what they can do when they are not on "the clock," then they can start paying for any time they take from them.

Also, before we start taking anything Breitbart has to say, we have to remember what happened to Shirley Sherrod, and how he engineered that fiasco with his dishonesty.

 

Unions are an even thornier issue, in my mind. Ostensibly, the union represents the workers that it covers, yet it seems to me that the workers have little to no say about what the union's positions are on anything, and in many cases these days (outside of Right to Work states, at least) have little choice even as to whether or not they can support the union. When a union gives money to a political campaign, it is essentially mandating that it's members support that campaign. Leaving the union often means leaving the entire field of work, as jobs are union controlled.

Likewise for them 'firing' people. Question, though. Does that mean they kicked him out of the union, that they actually mandated the boss to fire him, or was he somehow a contractor working directly for the union, as oppossed to a union member?

 

I hate to say this but as much as it seems an outrage, the people for whom you work can tell you what you can wear when you are on the clock. Many companies have a dress code, and they can establish what it is. I am never allowed to wear anything on the sales floor that can be political. For instance, I have a small pin with a peace dove that just says "imagine" on it (from the John Lennon song), and I was told I could not wear it when I'm working because it may seem too political. Even the American flag pins are not allowed, believe it or not. But at my last job they were allowed. So every place has its own dress code.

I doubt the Breitbart story is true, but if it is, and there's always the chance the guy is telling the truth for once, I still think (as a fellow worker) it is an outrage for the worker in question to be fired for it. It goes against my basic sense of fairness.

Hmmm, but maybe the guy was trouble, you know...not a very good worker, or being too political at work, or something, so it was just the straw that "broke the camel's back."

 

As a teacher, my public behaviour influences the way I am perceived in the community. Thus, the school board can fire me if my conduct "brings the profession of teaching into disrepute" (I think those are the words.)

I don't know of that power having been used in times past, but I'm sure it has been. I would hazard that other professions have similar "morality clauses" in their contracts.

Refresh my memory about the female boss -- I've had 2 in particular who are in my permanent bad books and about whom I have used some very un-Mormonish words.

As for Juan Williams, well, it looks like he made a habit of aggravating his employers. He may have been within his rights but torquing off the people who pay you is never the wisest of ideas!

 

That's such a crock, especially in this day and age.

 

That's the thing, it used to be having sex outside the bonds of marriage was grounds for dismissal, or being seen at the bar or such, but these days, I think it just covers really wild, really outrageous, really public stupidity.

 

She was an assitant principal -- a no good --- and a -----. Hell, I thought you describing my ex-wife.

 

Chandos, if the union was actually employing him, like as contractor or something, then yes, they have every right to dictate his dress code. If the union was controlling the job he worked at, but wasn't actually the employer, then that's something else.

As to off-the-clock performance, it depends on the job. If your job involves you being a public face for anyone, in any way, then I can see how getting smashed at the bar in teh evening could reflect poorly on that someone, even if you are off the clock. In that situation, they should be able to fire you, though it'd be better if there is at least some guidence as to what they're worried about. If it's for a church, extra-marital sex is a problem. If it's for a politician, supporting particular views could be a problem. If it's a corporation, they should stipulate what kind of things they're concerned about. In the case of teachers, they're considered public trustees, and ones in particular positions of trust, given their influence over young minds. What they do off the clock could be seen by said young minds as acceptable behavior. Thus, it depends on what society considers actual acceptable behavior.

 

Oh, please. That's bull. Teachers should feel so lucky these days.

I thought it was up to your employer. Now you are saying it's up to "society?" That just sounds to vague to me. I have no idea what society considers "accepable behavior" for itself. Society appears to be confused on that point.

 

I would go so far as to say most companies have a dress code of some sort. There's very few that do not. If you are a professional, you almost certainly have a dress code, whether you're a teacher, lawyer, or just about anything professional. In my job, we have a business casual dress code, but that doesn't mean I can come to work in a T-shirt, jeans, and sneakers. And I agree with you that almost all sales positions require you to be at least somewhat well dressed. Even if you work for something like Best Buy, where all the employees wear blue polo shirts, they expect you to have something nicer than jeans to go with it.

My wife is a teacher, and she doesn't feel all that "lucky these days". While I agree that she makes a pretty decent salary considering it's for 10 months of work per year, there have been pay freezes for two straight years. To further cut costs they have been culling the most experienced teachers in the work force. What they did last year was say any teacher with 25+ years experience (the number of years required for a full pension) who was 60+ years old (the age at which you can start collecting said pension) had to either retire or get their pensions cut, which basically forces you to retire. The idea here being that you take the most experienced (and highest paid) teachers and replace them with recent college grads who get paid the least. That didn't affect my wife as she is nowhere near 60, and doesn't have anywhere close to 25 years on the job.

 

I think he was referring to the teachers' "influence over young minds." Which, given attention spans, electronic distractions and general disrespect, is probably a valid (if cynical) point.

Now, if you want bull...

...we had a winner several posts back.

 

Teachers are supposed to be good examples for their students. They are there, arguably, to pass on the values of the culture in which the students live. Therefore, they should be representatives of the best characteristics of that culture.

Now, as culture's values have changed, so have the teachers and so have the codes of conduct -- dress codes being a good example, and school rules and norms being another. I'll give you a few examples.

It is my understanding that in the 50s , most teachers wore pretty formal clothes to school. Ties for males, skirts and blouses for females. Today, as one commentator in my town put it, "when you go into a school, it's hard to tell the students from the teachers!"

I always had my students call me "Mr. Depaara", with no stupid nicknames or first name basis horsecrap. I have heard of some teachers who are on a first name basis with their students. I strongly disapprove, but I guess there are worse things in the world.

When I was a boy (1978, for anyone interested), it was very clear to me that my mom didn't like my first grade teacher. I asked her why. My mom told me that the woman was living with her boyfriend out of wedlock. Horrors! Today, that wouldn't even raise any eyebrows. I get the feeling that a few decades earlier, that woman wouldn't have been able to keep her employment.

 

That's exactly right. According to my kids, there are students that teachers can't even keep in their seats, let alone "influence their minds." BTW, my kids don't even care about the personal lives of thier teachers, and really, it's none of their business to know that, but only what the teachers wish to reveal about that aspect of themselves. Regardless, that's how I teach them to be, since I do influence their young minds, and I'm not willing to pass that responsibility off to anyone else.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: All these "religious moralizing" busybodys should get their noses out of the lives of others and get lives of their own. And that's not directed at anyone on this board, but just a general statement.

 

It goes to the sliding line of what is criminal and what is merely frowned upon. For example, if you were to find out that Mr. Walders strangles small animals on the weekend, you probably don't want a felon teaching your kid, even if he is really skilled at getting grade 4 students to learn their times tables. But what if he is a swinger, and has multiple partners every weekend at Chez Nous, the local swinger's club? A parent, or a group of parents, might still be uncomfortable with this, even though it is perfectly legal to boink anyone who consents. In times past such behaviour, legal though it may have been, and private as it may have been, would have cost a teacher his job. Today, the idea is "it's legal, it's personal, it's none of the parents' business", and to a degree I respect that and even advocate it, as I've done things that I wouldn't want students or their parents to know about. At the same time, though, where do you draw the line? Just because society in general is more accepting of some things doesn't mean everyone is comfortable with all the changes.

 

Well, yes. Felons and ex-cons don't usually end up as public school teachers.

That's really none of my business. Especially when we have Republican governors and senators in several states who seem to come close to what you describe.

No one can please everyone with his/her personal life, regardless. Example: If I knew my kids were being taught by some Repbulcian, Sarah Palin-loving supporter, it might give me pause about what kind of influence the teacher was having on their "young minds." But it's a free country, at least it is supposed to be, so even if some rabid conservative is teaching my kids how to read, it's still none of my business in the long run. Of course, I may question if that person actually knows how to read.

 

Given that I was specifically talking about public school teachers, society (as represented by the State) is the employer.

Yes, thus our problem. I think there are a few standards we can agree on, for example the already stated "crimes" criterion, but beyond that it becomes a rather vague field.

I was actually talking more about younger kids: the elementary school kids and the like. That being said, there were plenty of rumors going around my HS as to what teachers did in their spare time. I don't know how much of it was true, but the rumors alone managed to influence at least a few kids.