Employer/Employee Rights

[bobarian]

The "facts" provided do not allow us to give a cogent answer. If it's a news story why not provide a link? Otherwise we're just pretty much blowing wind.

Is it unfortunate? Yes
Is it wrong? Who knows
Is it illegal? Doubtful

A code of ethics denotes a specific pattern of behavior that an employee must uphold. I see nothing in the OP that suggests the employer was "meddling" in the employee's personal life. He was free to do whatever he did. But behavior has consequences.

The Constitution was written to protect the individual from government, not to protect employees from employers.

[forgop]

Originally Posted by bobarian

The "facts" provided do not allow us to give a cogent answer. If it's a news story why not provide a link? Otherwise we're just pretty much blowing wind.


The Constitution was written to protect the individual from government, not to protect employees from employers.

The ToE wanted me to keep the specifics out of the discussion because it could turn things south quite easily.

I understand the context of protection from government, but the question lies in what constitutional rights you think are fair to give up under the guideline of being employed by said company.

[markem]

Originally Posted by forgop

I understand the context of protection from government, but the question lies in what constitutional rights you think are fair to give up under the guideline of being employed by said company.

Dude! Listen. Listen closely. You have NO constitutional rights in your relationship with your employer. Constitutional rights (I'm painting writ large here) are, for the purposes of this discussion, about protection from government, not protection from employer.

[bobarian]

Originally Posted by markem

Dude! Listen. Listen closely. You have NO constitutional rights in your relationship with your employer. Constitutional rights (I'm painting writ large here) are, for the purposes of this discussion, about protection from government, not protection from employer.

Exactly! Give that man a cigar!

[taltos]

With all due respect to the ToE, his job and what he admittedly did have a direct bearing on how to answer this question. In at least one of the papers his job was mentioned. I think that the employer was correct in the firing but the ACLU believes that his First Amendment rights were violated. This story is not over yet.

[BlackDog]

Given the few facts you've provided, it sounds to me like the employer acted within their rights. Employers cannot fire someone for religious, gender, or age related reasons. Or, as has been said, negotiated contractual agreements. Otherwise, the employer can terminate your employment for any reason at any time. Employment is not a guarantee, it is a priviledge, and for some reason that employer chose to revoke that priviledge from that employee. Without knowing more of the back-story, there's not much else for us to go on here.

[markem]

Originally Posted by taltos

With all due respect to the ToE, his job and what he admittedly did have a direct bearing on how to answer this question. In at least one of the papers his job was mentioned. I think that the employer was correct in the firing but the ACLU believes that his First Amendment rights were violated. This story is not over yet.

Well, now that the open secret is out, I can't see this thread staying around for long.

[jledou]

search at-will employment rights, most of the time they can fire you for what ever they want unless it is specifically protected by the government be it local or state or federal.

[icehog3]

Originally Posted by taltos

With all due respect to the ToE, his job and what he admittedly did have a direct bearing on how to answer this question.

And if the discussion turns specific to this case, it will become political and religious in nature and will be closed with extreme prejudice, Paul.

[kayak_rat]

Originally Posted by markem

Dude! Listen. Listen closely. You have NO constitutional rights in your relationship with your employer. Constitutional rights (I'm painting writ large here) are, for the purposes of this discussion, about protection from government, not protection from employer.

I agree also. A person chooses to work for a company......he chooses.

[Samsquanch]

Google is a powerful tool

[forgop]

Originally Posted by markem

Dude! Listen. Listen closely. You have NO constitutional rights in your relationship with your employer. Constitutional rights (I'm painting writ large here) are, for the purposes of this discussion, about protection from government, not protection from employer.

I never argued constitutional rights with your employer. I'm just arguing over decency.

[bobarian]

What does "decency" have to do with anything here?

Is it "decent" for an employer to lay off an employee with 30 years seniority so they can hire a new intern for 1/5th the salary? Maybe not but it happens all the time.

"At will" employment gives employers wide leeway in dealing with their employees.

The First Amendment does not apply. The employee was sanctioned for a violation of ethical rules. Now if a government agent had stepped in and prevented him from exercising his rights that is a different issue.

[mosesbotbol]

http://kyw.cbslocal.com/2010/09/16/n...-pages-in-nyc/

We have been walking on eggshells as a nation for a while.

[bobarian]

That may earn you a timeout Moses. We all can use Google, but it was specifically requested not to link the actual story.

[BlackDog]

Given that I think I better understand the situation to which the OP refers, I think there are two other considerations. One is that an employer has a duty to ALL of his employees, not just one individual. If one individual jeopardizes the harmony of the workplace, then yes, they have a right to fire him. Secondly, if an employee creates a situation where the employer may be adversely effected by loss of customers, then there too the employer has the right to sever the relationship with that employee.

[Tenor CS]

I downloaded the "code of ethics" for the company in question and gave it a quick read. Couldn't really find anything that screamed "Ah, there's the reason!"

The closest I could come up with was this: "No Department employee should knowingly act in any way that might reasonably be expected to create an impression or suspicion among the public that he or she may be engaged in conduct violative of his or her trust as a State officer or employee."

But even that's not very precise.

He could try to sue, but I doubt he'd win.

The first amendment is not as all-protective as many wish and hope it is or would be.

People simplify it as "freedom of speech" but that doesn't mean that you can say and do whatever you want without consequences. It just means that you generally won't get arrested for "just words."

(Unless those words are a threat to do harm.)

[bobarian]

Congress shall make no law...

[icehog3]

Originally Posted by icehog3

And if the discussion turns specific to this case, it will become political and religious in nature and will be closed with extreme prejudice.