fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3057 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3057 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[Polandball]

__________________________________________________

03.

[The X-Files]

__________________________________________________

04.

[Nick Lea/Krycek]

__________________________________________________

05.

[Plague Inc Evolved]

__________________________________________________

06.

(Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.)

__________________________________________________

07.

[Grimm]

__________________________________________________

08.

[Discworld]

__________________________________________________

09.

[Magi the labrynth of magic]

__________________________________________________

10.

[The Clangers]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 052 secrets from Secret Submission Post #437.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I actually do believe people are entitled to their opinions but they're not entitled to protection from getting yelled at or other repercussions for said opinions (save arrest or government censorship or the like.)

Nicely said. :)

Yeah, pretty much.

Should the owner of a company be allowed to fire workers who support different a different political candidate?

No, and I wonder what you're getting at here.

I would guess they're about to bring up UKIP.

While I'm well aware of UKIP's reputation, and find them to be pretty much the racist shitfuck party of the UK, I'm not sure I'd be up for outright firing someone just for being a UKIP supporter. But if their support of UKIP could be proven to create a hostile work environment (as anon below might have indicated) or they were particularly vocal or abusive in the workspace about it (likely given how extreme UKIP and its supporters can be) then sure, I could see how it would be easy to let them go.

My question, I guess, is where you draw the line between what kind of repercussions for speech are and aren't acceptable. Because that looks to me like a repercussion for speech of the kind that you're saying is permissible and I'm honestly not sure how you differentiate those two things.

Look at the Brendan Eich affair. Was it acceptable for there to be a public campaign for him to resign or be fired? Would it have been acceptable for Mozilla to fire him, instead of for him to resign? If not, how do you say one of those is acceptable and the other isn't? But the kind of campaign that pressured Eich is exactly the kind of campaign that you seem to be defending. So, I mean, those are the difficulties of the position that you're outlining here, to me.

(To be absolutely clear: I in no way agree with any of Eich's political views and find them morally, politically, and factually wrong)

I want to apologize right here because I honestly thought you were one of my fanclub members trying to play a "gotcha!" game on me, so please excuse me for viewing your original question with some suspicion.

Anyway, moving on to your question: No, I don't think employers should have the right to dismiss someone just for their political views. If they're not being abusive about it, what's it matter? That doesn't mean there can't be polite arguments between employees. Though I do think there are limits -- a UKIP supporter (or a member of Christian Identity, for that matter) might necessarily create a hostile work environment just by being there, but that would need to be proved.

The Eich example is a special case, however, largely due to the fact that Eichs himself was in a leadership position -- that, to me, is a more serious issue than your coworker being a Tea Partier or whatever. Here's a guy who made a donation to a hate campaign, didn't play it up or talk about it, and it wasn't until years later that OKCupid dragged it out when he was made CEO. Actions have consequences. He has a right to his opinion and to donate to whoever he wants. But that doesn't mean people shouldn't be allowed to disagree with him, or that OKCupid shouldn't have been allowed to publicize the issue, or that his employees shouldn't be allowed to be upset. What occurred was a leadership issue: if he had stayed, he would have been unable to lead effectively. He was not fired, he was not run out by the "thought police" (I'd really like for people to stop using terms half-remembered from a book they read in high school -- or more likely a friggin' pop song -- to describe public reactions to unpopular opinion) and it is disingenuous to paint people upset by his hiring as CEO as a "lynch mob" or other broad-stroke brush. His hiring went against the company's own standards and office culture. His politics were personal and he kept them out of the business, but being hired as CEO and thereby the face of the company was a tone-deaf decision that put his company at risk internally and externally.

No.

Maybe. Depends on the candidate.

UKIP is a hategroup so vocally supporting them should be a sackable offence. I know I wouldn't feel comfortable working with a UKIP supported.

But to be fair UKIP is a bit extreme.

Most people will say no, and reasonably so, but I'd like to point out that it can be yes under certain circumstances. If the employee uses their position with the business to further a political agenda, and associates the company name with that agenda, the company has the right to remove the employee to maintain neutrality. Campaigning should be done on your own time and with your own resources.

(Though that invites the question of what employees should do if company management takes a political position they don't agree with. I'm not sure how to answer that.)

I agree with this, and the employee dilemma is an interesting one. I know there's a lot of people who work for Chick Fil A because they need the money, not because they agree with management's views.

Agreed.

[ SECRET POST #3057 ]

Re: Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Re: Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Re: Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Re: Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Re: Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Re: Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Re: Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Re: Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Re: Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Re: Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Re: Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Re: Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Re: Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Re: Everyone is entitled to their opinion.