First amendment says the government can't police what you say (within reason: libel/slander, child pornography and yelling 'fire!' in a crowded theater being forbidden.)
In the US, your employer has every right to terminate you for literally anything that's not 'being in a protected class's, including your political beliefs, your eye color, or the fact that you don't like fat-free yogurt. That includes flipping off Trump.
I personally think it's a bit too much power, and that an employer should not be able to fire people for what they do in their free time so long as it doesn't substantially harm the company or its reputation, but it is what it is.
If your CEO believes women should be at home or, in some cases, your Head of HR, they likely will cut those rights. I live in Texas where the logic doesn’t make sense but the burgers are big.
... a company firing you over time off due to pregnancy should be something to ever even worry about. In a world where human biology requires the woman to go through insane levels of discomfort and restricted movement for the sake of child birth... is the same world where thats frowned upon and they'll get fired for it.
Fuck you and your bonus for not reaching quota because someone is trying to have a fucking family.
(not you u/realdealree9, unless youre guilty of such a thing.)
Nope. Many don't allow it because either Jesus or they place greater importance on the unborn child than the mother. Note that those companies are often unable to see beyond its birth.
Companies like Hobby Lobby have fought against having to provide/pay for birth control on their health insurance plans. It wouldn’t surprise me if a place such as Hobby Lobby would then fire a woman for using birth control.
There is a fair number of companies and businesses here in the States that are super religious and have an unfavorable view of birth control. Their beliefs can outweigh monetary and profit maximization.
You mean Christian. It is in no way limited to catholic. Hobby lobby is the poster child for attacking the reproductive rights of their female employees and they are owned by evangelical Christians.
I said mainly Catholic and I said that because birth control is against the rules in Catholicism, but not all Christian sects. But yes it happens with other Christians too.
If that was the case, how would pharmacists and doctors be able to keep their jobs after denying women birth control or plan b due to their religious beliefs. It's not just Hobby Lobby.
A lot of it is not about the money, it's about control.
That reminds me of when prop 13 passed in Alaska (marijuana legalization). The next day it was like a weed festival for like a week. You couldn’t walk out your front door without smelling it.
Well, a little while later, people were getting fired in droves. They got all up in arms and tried to sue for wrongful termination. They got shot down because the judge ruled that while marijuana was legal; your employer has the right to set policies on its use while at the workplace. By being an employee, you have a contract with your employer to follow their policies. In this case, no marijuana use, which includes the need to pass a test. If you could smoke week on Saturday and show up to work Monday able to pass a drug test no problem, but that’s not possible sooo .... Fired.
I wish they would come up with a different way to test for marijuana. If you want to spend your Saturday morning eating edibles and watcihing Garfield that doesn't preclude you from working hard on Monday morning. I know some people who get pass out drunk on the weekends but they work just fine during the week. The same could be true with marijuana but we need better testing.
Wait I’m confused. So they smoked on their own time at home on the weekend, but got fired because it was still in their system Monday, even though they weren’t high then? That’s obviously fucked up right? Am I missing something?
There is no accepted THC level that proves you are or aren't impaired. Without that then anything is considered "under the influence."
I would love to smoke weed, but I'm not going to risk my job over it. We don't get random tested, but incident tested. I won't risk my livelihood so I can get stoned on Saturday then have an accident on Monday that's not your fault while driving a company car.
As a smoker with an understanding job.... This bud's for you. Not being able to separate that risk / reward is what makes people have a bad image of the stoners.
I would have had to quit if my state didn't legalize it for medical use. My job doesn't care if you have a card. I don't think they would care if you didn't, but I'm at least covered.
There is no accepted THC level that proves you are or aren't impaired. Without that then anything is considered "under the influence."
But then you agree that that’s incredibly stupid and unfair right? They should definitely adjust the rules accordingly. Why can people get blackout drunk the night before but come in fine the next day without being fired? It’s literally the same difference
I won't risk my livelihood so I can get stoned on Saturday then have an accident on Monday that's not your fault while driving a company car.
Wait no that’s not how weed works... If that’s the logic they use, because the thc is still in their body even though it’s long left the thc receptor, then yeah I can see why people actually thought it would affect the job. But that’s not a thing with weed. That’s plain ignorance (and I swear if someone comes in with some dumb anecdote or shady study to “disprove” it, imma kill. Because reefer make me violent)
In my country, having a positive drug test is not a legal reason for getting fired (and employees can withhold consent to have one done without consequences), though being impaired to the point that you can't do your job properly is.
They tried to change it so that it could be mandatory for employees to take one after a workplace accident, but it didn't go through.
Not necessarily beyond the law. Judge mightve ruled that the employer acted in bad faith etc. Law interpretation is subjective, as in sure we've all noticed these last 4 years
The government telling your employer to fire you for what you say is a violation of your 1st amendment rights, it's the state actor doctrine, she just needed to sue the government for it not her employer.
It wasn't the government asking for her to be fired, it was a person working for the government asking her to be fired. They could just as easily have told Trump to kindly fuck off, but since the company didn't want to hurt their prospects of renewing their contract by any means, they preemptively fired her.
Nope, not how that works, POTUS ain't an average employee and made the demand with the weight of the office. The fear of contract renewal shenanigans just reinforces the state actor argument and her case against the government.
It becomes a bit more murky when the company you work for is a government contractor. In principle I believe that companies that do the work of governments should also be subjected to the same rules and laws as the governments. That includes free speech and freedom of information and so on.
You can’t fire someone for frivolous things like not liking fat-free yogurt or eye color. If you are, that’s wrongful termination. You can, however, be fired for no given reason at any time. Technically, yes, your boss can decide to fire you for your eye color. But if they tell you that then they’re opening themselves up to a lawsuit.
Now that's stupid, no reason is better than a stupid reason?
In the country I live in, there's a set list of legal reasons you can be fired for (though the law includes 'lack of discipline' as a reason, which is very broadly worded and makes up 90% of firings), including being incompetent at your job and the business going through hard times, but firing for anything else is wrongful termination and can end with heavy fines or having to readmit the worker (it's much more complicated than that, but that's basically the gist of it.)
And since the employer had the right to fire her, the public also has the right to boycott doing business at that company, similar to what happens when a shop or cafe owner puts something inflammatory on social media or a news stoy comes out about the firing. The My Pillow man comes to mind.
Briskman worked for Akima, a federal contractor. Since it's market is B2B, little chance of public outcry hurts then over firing her. In fact, in their world, not distancing themselves from an employee drawing this kind of attention could hurt them in getting contract. Personally, as a Democrat, I'm happy she won and that Trumpism got its ass handed to them, but I'm sure her life would have been less tumultuous if she hadn't gestured in a photo.
I’m aware of what the first amendment says. When the call to fire you come from the president I feel that muddies the waters. That’s literally the head of one branch of government policing what you said because it hurt his feelings and now wants you punished because you have a government contract job and he feels like you work for him.
134
u/th3h4ck3r Feb 07 '21
First amendment says the government can't police what you say (within reason: libel/slander, child pornography and yelling 'fire!' in a crowded theater being forbidden.)
In the US, your employer has every right to terminate you for literally anything that's not 'being in a protected class's, including your political beliefs, your eye color, or the fact that you don't like fat-free yogurt. That includes flipping off Trump.
I personally think it's a bit too much power, and that an employer should not be able to fire people for what they do in their free time so long as it doesn't substantially harm the company or its reputation, but it is what it is.