What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Should one's Political Affiliation and views be considered for protected status? (2 Viewers)

S

Smack Tripper

Footballguy
Hearing about people losing employment over their political opinions.

Should you be able to fired or otherwise discriminated against for your political affiliation or views, much as we have other protected classes for employment or other forms of discrimination?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Smack Tripper said:
Hearing about people losing employment over their political opinions.

Should you be able to fired or otherwise discriminated against for your political affiliation or views, much as we have other protected classes for employment or other forms of discrimination?
Click to expand...
There are a number of states that do prohibit employment discrimination  based on political activities or affiliations. California, for example. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I feel like we’d first have to start with a universally agreed to definition of what is considered a political affiliation or view.  Without that it seems unenforceable and I’m not sure you will ever get there.

 
I mentioned in the "How I Became a Progressive" thread that my political views have, at times, been shaped by participation in this forum.  This question is a perfect example.  My immediate, very much non-visceral, reaction is that I think political views should be fair game for firing in a private workplace but not a public one.  However, my feelings on the matter aren't particularly strong and I'm reasonably certain that they aren't well thought out.  A thoughtful and eloquent argument by someone like @IvanKaramazov, @fatguyinalittlecoat, @Maurile Tremblay, or @Ramsay Hunt Experience, among others, could likely change my mind.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
AAABatteries said:
I feel like we’d first have to start with a universally agreed to definition of what is considered a political affiliation or view.  Without that it seems unenforceable and I’m not sure you will ever get there.
Click to expand...
I agree, I'm throwing it out there as a broader concept, I'm not sure exactly where you set the lines, I certainly wouldn't like to see klan members or al-queda protected. 

But I also don't think women like this should lose their job :  https://vtdigger.org/2020/06/14/windsor-principal-on-leave-after-black-lives-matter-comments-stir-controversy/

 
AAABatteries said:
I feel like we’d first have to start with a universally agreed to definition of what is considered a political affiliation or view.  Without that it seems unenforceable and I’m not sure you will ever get there.
Click to expand...
This.  I don't think you should be fired for something general such stating your support for Trump or Biden.  But start stating views on gay rights for example and there's going to be overlap between creating an uncomfortable work environment and expecting protect under your own political views.

 
What kinds of political activity are protected by California political activity retaliation law?

Generally speaking, California's political workplace retaliation law protects employees' right to engage in political activity outside of work.8

So, for example, it would probably not be illegal under Labor Code 1101 and 1102 LC for an employer to restrict the ability of employees to engage in political discussions with clients or customers while at work, or to use the position provided by their job to promote political opinions that the employer does not support.
I guess now that I consider it, it’s good to have something like this as long as it doesn’t get abused.  Trippers example of KKK or Al-Qaeda is exactly the type of thing I would be worried about.  But maybe it’s best to not work from the fringes and protect the vast majority of us and deal with the extremes as the need arises.  That’s why the hyperbole about the left being socialists and the right being fascists sucks - we collectively try to label folks as extreme.
Click to expand...
 
Neat bored

ETA - this was my comment the rest was from biggie’s link

I guess now that I consider it, it’s good to have something like this as long as it doesn’t get abused.  Trippers example of KKK or Al-Qaeda is exactly the type of thing I would be worried about.  But maybe it’s best to not work from the fringes and protect the vast majority of us and deal with the extremes as the need arises.  That’s why the hyperbole about the left being socialists and the right being fascists sucks - we collectively try to label folks as extreme.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
AAABatteries said:
I feel like we’d first have to start with a universally agreed to definition of what is considered a political affiliation or view.  Without that it seems unenforceable and I’m not sure you will ever get there.
Click to expand...
All over the board here in my thoughts.  If I put my "employer" hat on, I'd draw the line at the point where the political aspects of my employee's beliefs impact their job, their relationship with coworkers, or reflect poorly on my company.

 
The Commish said:
All over the board here in my thoughts.  If I put my "employer" hat on, I'd draw the line at the point where the political aspects of my employee's beliefs impact their job, their relationship with coworkers, or reflect poorly on my company.
Click to expand...
Yeah and it gets tricky very quickly.  We could make up lots of hypotheticals but I do like your idea from an employer perspective.

 
Should people in the FFA be protected from disciplinary action for stating their political views there?

I don't see why private employers shouldn't get to make rules similar to those that private message boards sometimes make.

"Don't share your political views at work" might be a pretty good rule at some companies.

"Feel free to vocally support Biden but not Trump" would be a lame rule for most employers, but not all. If I get hired to work on the Joe Biden campaign, for example, I'd expect to be fired for vocally supporting Trump.

In any case, with respect to private employers, this really doesn't seem like something we need a law about.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Should people in the FFA be protected from disciplinary action for stating their political views there?

I don't see why private employers shouldn't get to make rules similar to those that private message boards sometimes make.

"Don't share your political views at work" might be a pretty good rule at some companies.

"Feel free to vocally support Biden but not Trump" would be a lame rule for most employers, but not all. If I get hired to work on the Joe Biden campaign, for example, I'd expect to be fired for vocally supporting Trump.

In any case, with respect to private employers, this really doesn't seem like something we need a law about.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about workplace discussion in my concept, I'm talking about people facing actions for content they post on social media or in their private time. 

 
AAABatteries said:
The Commish said:
All over the board here in my thoughts.  If I put my "employer" hat on, I'd draw the line at the point where the political aspects of my employee's beliefs impact their job, their relationship with coworkers, or reflect poorly on my company.
Click to expand...
Yeah and it gets tricky very quickly.  We could make up lots of hypotheticals but I do like your idea from an employer perspective.
Click to expand...
I know this is pretty subjective on my part, but to me it's one of those "I know it when I see it" things.  A lot would be cured by companies having a rule saying keep your political views out of the workplace.  It's grounds for termination. Being completely upfront and candid during the hiring process.  

 
The Commish said:
I know this is pretty subjective on my part, but to me it's one of those "I know it when I see it" things.  A lot would be cured by companies having a rule saying keep your political views out of the workplace.  It's grounds for termination. Being completely upfront and candid during the hiring process.  
Click to expand...
But again, lets start here because I can find more, but take this instance https://vtdigger.org/2020/06/14/windsor-principal-on-leave-after-black-lives-matter-comments-stir-controversy/

From what I can tell this woman posted this on her personal page on her own time.  I don't think this is would rise to a standard of "racist".  I can see it being... not in total alignment with their community obviously. 

Some of what has spurred this thought with me was the supreme court decision on LGBTQ workplace rights.  For some, this may go very against their personal beliefs.  But it has been deemed, you have to accept beliefs that aren't your own, for the holder of those beliefs has rights too. 

 
Smack Tripper said:
But again, lets start here because I can find more, but take this instance https://vtdigger.org/2020/06/14/windsor-principal-on-leave-after-black-lives-matter-comments-stir-controversy/

From what I can tell this woman posted this on her personal page on her own time.  I don't think this is would rise to a standard of "racist".  I can see it being... not in total alignment with their community obviously. 

Some of what has spurred this thought with me was the supreme court decision on LGBTQ workplace rights.  For some, this may go very against their personal beliefs.  But it has been deemed, you have to accept beliefs that aren't your own, for the holder of those beliefs has rights too. 
Click to expand...
I do think that the type of job matters.  If you're a factory worker or a landscaper or something, there's no reason you should be fired for something like this.  It gets trickier for someone like this that's a principal of a school.  The way she is seen by the community matters.

I'm not sure exactly where the most appropriate lines should be drawn, I just feel pretty strongly that different jobs should have different policies and there's no one-size-fits-all approach that makes sense.

 
Smack Tripper said:
But again, lets start here because I can find more, but take this instance https://vtdigger.org/2020/06/14/windsor-principal-on-leave-after-black-lives-matter-comments-stir-controversy/

From what I can tell this woman posted this on her personal page on her own time.  I don't think this is would rise to a standard of "racist".  I can see it being... not in total alignment with their community obviously. 

Some of what has spurred this thought with me was the supreme court decision on LGBTQ workplace rights.  For some, this may go very against their personal beliefs.  But it has been deemed, you have to accept beliefs that aren't your own, for the holder of those beliefs has rights too. 
Click to expand...
I'll start with the post I made in response to AAA.....if this is going to cause an issue for her being able to do her job effectively or reflects poorly on the company (school in this case), I have no problem with them making the decision to let her go.  What she said is very popular with many people.  It's also really lacking and tone deaf to many other people.  I would suggest it's magnified when it's a person trusted to guide the youth of this country.  Why?  Because it's my belief that the change we need in this country isn't going to be accomplished by legislation.  It's going to be accomplished by raising children with a different perspective and being open/honest about this country's past and current state.

The Commish said:
All over the board here in my thoughts.  If I put my "employer" hat on, I'd draw the line at the point where the political aspects of my employee's beliefs impact their job, their relationship with coworkers, or reflect poorly on my company.
Click to expand...

 
Smack Tripper said:
[scooter] said:
Huh? Do you think a person should be able to send death threats to people, as long as they had prior facebook posts that didn't contain threats?
Click to expand...
A death threat is a crime we all agree on.  Are we putting opinions on that plane now?
Click to expand...
Posting a death threat is an action.

Posting a view that threatens your employer is an action.

It's the act of posting which changes a view to an action.

 
I think we are heading down a slippery slope in this country with PC, cancel culture, and aggressive social media, where people no longer have interact face to face......we tear people down, and try to publicly shame them  without knowing or even caring to know all the facts.....the mob takes over, and then you see people, and businesses bow down to the mob because they become afraid of losing their livelihood.  Common sense and methodical thought process does not reign......emotional outbursts are the new norm.

So yes, I think some things need to change to protect people from the PC mob.  One thing we have in our own power though is to not engage.....I got rid of Facebook and don't do Twitter or Instagram...online forums for FF, fly fishing, and backpacking are about all I do with social media anymore......I listen to both sides of the aisle in one form or another from time to time to keep myself abreast, but the toxic, everyday social media is something I'm not wanting a part of.....maybe more and more people will get tired of it and walk away

 
Last edited by a moderator:
[scooter] said:
Posting a death threat is an action.

Posting a view that threatens your employer is an action.

It's the act of posting which changes a view to an action.
Click to expand...
A death threat is a crime, so let’s just forget that example, poor analogy.  
if you’re hung up on the concept of an an action, I’ll concede it’s an action 

so if your point an opinion that may be harmful to an employer, should then an employer be forced to specify and stipulate acceptable opinions?  I could see a scenario where there is a prohibition on social media.  And that’s a concept... I’d be more comfortable with that than singling opinions out 

 
Manster said:
I think we are heading down a slippery slope in this country with PC, cancel culture, and aggressive social media, where people no longer have interact face to face......we tear people down, and try to publicly shame them  without knowing or even caring to know all the facts.....the mob takes over, and then you see people, and businesses bow down to the mob because they become afraid of losing their livelihood.  Common sense and methodical thought process does not reign......emotional outbursts are the new norm.

So yes, I think some things need to change to protect people from the PC mob.  One thing we have in our own power though is to not engage.....I got rid of Facebook and don't do Twitter or Instagram...online forums for FF, fly fishing, and backpacking are about all I do with social media anymore......I listen to both sides of the aisle in one form or another from time to time to keep myself abreast, but the toxic, everyday social media is something I'm not wanting a part of.....maybe more an more peoe will walk away.
Click to expand...
It's easy to frame the issues in this country in a "cut/dry" manner at the 10,000 foot level.  I've seen this term "cancel culture" being used more and more, but I have no idea what it actually means.  I'll state what I believe is rather obvious, but maybe not....that it's natural to see it as "mob mentality" when a bunch of people get worked up over a comment we make.  For me, I take it as a signal to reflect on what I said and try to see their point.  Clearly, if it upset a bunch of people, then I am part of the problem.  What I said was either flat out offensive (and an apology is required) or it was taken the wrong way and I need to do a better job of explaining my position and if upon explaining my position, it doesn't make all that much of a difference agree to disagree (apologize where appropriate) and move on.  If I don't do those things and simply dig in on my position, I am no better than "the mob" I perceive as attacking me.  One of the more valuable lessons my parents taught me was "consider the source".  I have added onto that "be comfortable with people not agreeing with you".  Sometimes it's ok to be on that island by yourself.  We need to take way more time to understand others.

 
Smack Tripper said:
But again, lets start here because I can find more, but take this instance https://vtdigger.org/2020/06/14/windsor-principal-on-leave-after-black-lives-matter-comments-stir-controversy/
Click to expand...
In my mind, there are some similarities here to the affirmative action conundrum.

As background, I'd say that sometimes in romantic relationships, there's a personality clash that makes people a poor fit for each other. Sometimes the same can happen in employment relationships. I'd never want to tell an employee that she wasn't allowed to quit her job because her employer had personal views she abhorred. If a relationship isn't working out for personality reasons (including incompatible political views), either party should be able to end it and move on, IMO.

Where this is similar to affirmative action is in the complicating distinction between private and public employers.

While I'd give a lot of leeway to private parties deciding whom they do and don't want to associate with, I'm extremely leery of public employers discriminating based on race or on expressions of political views.

I'm quite comfortable, for example, allowing private schools to have race-based affirmative action programs if they think such programs will benefit their students' educational experiences. State universities are a harder call because, on the one hand, government-sanctioned racial discrimination is icky due to its terrible history, but on the other hand, if state universities are going to compete with private universities, they should be able to adopt programs that benefit their students' educational experiences, same as private universities do.

By the same token, I'm quite comfortable allowing private actors to end employment relationships that aren't working out due to personality clashes if that will create a more harmonious work environment. But I'm way less comfortable when the government decides which views may or may not be expressed during its employees' time off from work.

The link above concerns a public-school principle, I believe. Terminating her for holding stupid views should depend, IMO, on whether the views in question are objectively stupid or merely subjectively stupid, which can be a fuzzy line. So it seems complicated.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
In my mind, there are some similarities here to the affirmative action conundrum.

As background, I'd say that sometimes in romantic relationships, there's a personality clash that makes people a poor fit for each other. Sometimes the same can happen in employment relationships. I'd never want to tell an employee that she wasn't allowed to quit her job because her employer had personal views she abhorred. If a relationship isn't working out for personality reasons (including incompatible political views), either party should be able to end it and move on, IMO.

Where this is similar to affirmative action is in the complicating distinction between private and public employers.

While I'd give a lot of leeway to private parties deciding whom they do and don't want to associate with, I'm extremely leery of public employers discriminating based on race or on expressions of political views.

I'm quite comfortable, for example, allowing private schools to have race-based affirmative action programs if they think such programs will benefit their students' educational experiences. State universities are a harder call because, on the one hand, government-sanctioned racial discrimination is icky due to its terrible history, but on the other hand, if state universities are going to compete with private universities, they should be able to adopt programs that benefit their students' educational experiences, same as private universities do.

By the same token, I'm quite comfortable allowing private actors to end employment relationships that aren't working out due to personality clashes if that will create a more harmonious work environment. But I'm way less comfortable when the government decides which views may or may not be expressed during its employees' time off from work.

The link above concerns a public-school principle, I believe. Terminating her for holding stupid views should depend, IMO, on whether the views in question are objectively stupid or merely subjectively stupid, which can be a fuzzy line. So it seems complicated.
Click to expand...
I agree with this, and it's worth pointing out that this already sort of occurs in higher education.  As an employee of a public university, I'm free to post about how great atheism is*, but I would expect to be fired from Wheaton for doing so.  

Another complicating factor is that there are some views that are such lightning rods that expressing them out loud would make it really hard for certain folks to do their jobs.  Consider a university president, for example.  That job is like 5% giving platitude-filled speechs, 10% making important decisions like who to hire as athletic director, and 85% fund raising.  If a president blurted out that he believed that there are population-level differences in cognitive skills between men and women, his ability to do his job would be severely impacted to the point where the university would be poorly served by keeping him around.  (I'm using Larry Summers as an example there -- this isn't a hypothetical).  I have mixed feelings about this sort of thing.

* Not that I would do this since I'm not an atheist, but you know what I mean.  

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Did Megan Rapinoe Just Win A Medal Of Freedom For Ruining Women's Soccer, Subway & Victoria's Secret? (7/17/22 21:14 PST)
Replies
11
Views
693
The Dude
T
GordonGekko
Did "Canceling" Babylon Bee's Political Satire Change The Future Of All Social Media Forever? (6/5/22 12:30 PST)
Replies
18
Views
741
Juxtatarot
Juxtatarot
GordonGekko
Should Ruth Bader Ginsburg Have Retired Before Her Passing To Protect Roe v Wade? (6/27/22 17:59 PST)
Replies
47
Views
1K
BladeRunner
BladeRunner

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top