Given that I said racist harassers should be charged with disturbing the peace or similar and assigned community service, I have no idea how anyone could think I was advocating ‘protecting the racists first’. I’m advocating not having corporations be a de-facto secondary government.
1 Like
So the racists get community service but can’t be fired and get to keep causing problems at work?
7 Likes
If they’re causing problems at work, then they’re causing problems at work.
1 Like
Your patience is a marvel to witness, truly.
5 Likes
Also, as long as capitalism is allowed to continue, capital is holding our lives in it’s hands already, we are just picking nits at a point with the details.
Regulation helps and I’m a big fan but we are already letting them act as a second government in much more serious ways than this.
6 Likes
I assure you that they are.
You are defending Schroeder’s racist.
6 Likes
Actually I’m thinking more along the lines of something like:
If I found out a co-worker of mine was an Evangelical who posted lost of anti-LGBTQ stuff, but I had no other idea they were biased against me, would I be wronging them to try to get them fired?
I tend to think ‘yes’ if I’ve seen no signs of bias from them.
But ‘no’ if I use it as support if I do have reason to think they’re showing bias against me.
1 Like
That is a reasonable point. If I had to pick a THING ONE to ban employers from doing to regulate employees’ private lives, it’d be to ban demanding samples of people’s bodily fluids, except in a very few cases where there can be some argument from safety.
1 Like
Yes, that is a no brainer, 200%, been arguing this for years personally.
4 Likes
Racism is generally not illegal in and of itself. Most of the time it’s perfectly legal to spout racist bullshit in public or advocate racist policies or put on a white robe and start burning crosses.
That’s why maintaining a safe and supportive work environment may require firing people who haven’t actually committed a criminal offense inside or outside the office.
7 Likes
So you are 100% against the way that companies don’t monitor people’s behavior and 0% against the way they actually monitor people’s behavior, and the way that every poster you are arguing against says they should.
5 Likes
No sunk costs, Duke.
6 Likes
I mean, considering that people gave ‘posts something racist on social media’ as an example of something that should mark them as unqualified for the job, no.
1 Like
I understand the hypothetical. Personally I’ve never been surprised when I found out that someone held beliefs that would define me as subhuman.
It’s always been a more, oh yeah, that makes sense kind of thing.
Studies show over and over that people who are really trying to be allies are a little biased in decision making for hiring, promotions, grades, medical treatment ect.
People who are really trying still have a hard time being fair. People who don’t even agree that people are equal? Can they ever manage to be fair?
8 Likes
That’s a good point, and honestly I don’t think I could object if there were actually some NLRB or other public standard on behavior that might make people unsuitable for making hiring, firing, and promotion decisions.
1 Like
Every single poster who has cited that has pointed out that it is to protect other employees from discrimination.
The original post that spawned this discussion was such an example, even though it was misapplied in such a way that will likely cost that employer dearly. Employees reported a co-worker’s posts that made them uncomfortable - though in this case, it was because those co-workers were being bigots themselves.
You are the only one who has imagined it as every corporation running its own surveillance state and firing employees for perceived, private racism.
Own it and move on.
6 Likes
Or 'background check’s or something ‘going viral’.
1 Like
Nope. Those are separate issues.
6 Likes
in the days before internet social media i know of instances when people who had written letters to the editor of their local newspaper got fired because the opinions they expressed went against the values of the management at their work. one was a letter against the way school rules were being used to discriminate against african-americans by a teacher who was asked to resign at the end of that semester and another was from a worker at a nearby steel mill who was complaining about anti-union activity at his job who was fired two days after the paper came out. the teacher had better protections than the laborer because he had a term contract while the laborer had an “at-will” contract.
everything old is new again
4 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
