Employers should be able to hire and fire anyone for any reason or no reason at all.
But, no. Property rights have gone the way of the dinosaurs.
The PC Nazis are at it again. What about that First amendment the libs are so fond of spouting about? Does it only apply to them?
"Here you have a company, in the name of tolerance, exercising an extreme degree of intolerance."
Typical Liberal Newspeak. Taking away freedoms in the name of freedom. Never Allstate for anything.
Blessings, Bobo
If the employee wrote something that draws attention to the company in anyway, they have the right to fire him. Also, if the company has a pre-stated policy regarding writing/publishing, or even moonlighting policies, then they may have fired the employee justly. However, if the employee writes an article and therein he is unidentifiable as a company employee, then the company should leave him alone.
Homosexual Agenda Ping.
More on the story about Matt Barber, the former Allstate employee who was fired for writing an article supporting marriage (aka as "anti gay marriage") not during work time, nor as a representative of his company.
Implications abound.
Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.
Note: In our brave new world, "tolerance" means "intolerance" of conservative, moral, or religious values. "Inclusion" means immorality must be shoved down everyone's throat regardless of religious affiliation.
One way to combat sodomite-friendly companies like Allstate is to buy just one share of stock and then to file a shareholder's resolution, which must appear on the ballot at the next shareholder's meeting. The ballot question would be a resolution on a question along the following line:
Be it resolved that since it is not in the Company's interest to alienate any particular market segment and in particular the segment composed of traditional families, the shareholders direct the Board to forbid any direct or indirect support of organizations or groups advocating alternative lifesyles (such as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered) or any corporate image or product marketing tailored specifically to appeal to that market segment.
This brings this issue to all the shareholders when the notice of the shareholder's meeting is sent out. At that time, the Board may include its a statement of which way it recommends shareholders vote on each resolution. This forces the Board to defend the company's marketing practices.
Of course, the Board will probably state it thinks the GLBT market is an important one. I would respond that the Company cannot but help alienate the traditional value market as it overtly markets to the GLBT market and this alienation is totally unnecessary.
(Of course, had Allstate been around in 1850, they could have said that the slaveowner's market was a important one. Just because a market is important doesn't necessitate tailoring an ad campaign to it.)
If anyone can propose a better way of putting this, please post it!
Get this. As a California business owner, I have to allow a male employee who wants to wear a dress to work the opportunity to do so. Thanks Gray Davis.
The CA Supreme Court just ruled that if I allow ANY romantic relationships between ANY employees, I can be sued for sexual harassment because I allowed the creation of a "hostile work environment".
But if Allstate can legally get away with firing a pro-marriage guy for his writings off work hours, what's to stop me from firing the transvestite? I actually think that this may be a GOOD THING for pro-business conservatives.
The government interference into the workplace is out of control. I no longer have the ability to make personal, "gut-feel" hiring and firing decisions for my own business, even in "at-will" California, without being subject to any number of lawsuits. I'm not a government agency or a government contractor or a public company, but a private business.
Our pathetically litigious society is one where people feel like you owe them a job. I built my company, and I should be able to hire and fire whomever I please, based of course on behavior alone (not on skin color or other immutable factors).
This means that if I have an employee who's religious behavior is a detriment to the perception of my company, I should have the ability to fire that employee for their behavior, as it affects either their performance, or the perception of my company, as embodied by my employees.
So if Allstate wants to be a company that actively promotes a homosexually charged culture, should they be able to fire hetero employees who do not agree with them?
If so, then it should be the prerogative of every company that wishes to protect its hetero-normative values, to terminate GLBT employees who cannot keep their behavior out of the workplace, or where their identity is inextricably tied to their employment (i.e. a VP, a marketing or sales person, a customer service representative or agent).
Thoughts?
Allstate's rather vocal stance on homosexuality is one reason I won't do business with them.