What Is Privilege? NY Asst. Principal In Hot Water

[ralliann]

If people can afford it, that is.

If the money for education follows the child then they can afford it.

 

[JustSomeBloke]

What I am advocating for is that racist language is evidence of racist attitudes, which absolutely negatively affect one’s workplace and coworkers.

Unless they express those attitudes at work, then that is an incorrect assumption. You seem to be making the same mistake as another forum member I have recently replied to, in that you think people are incapable of leaving their opinions at home, and remaining professional at work.

So therefore I see it like theft or drunkenness at work, it is a legit reason to fire someone.

Seeing it that way is incorrect, because you have made an invalid comparison.

Both of those activities you mentioned are also crimes outside of the workplace. Theft is a crime. And performing a task that requires the person to be sober has been criminalised in some cases, for example, driving while drunk. However, saying things some people might consider offensive has generally not been criminalised, as it is covered by the First Amendment.

Not sure why I have to keep repeating myself...

The reason why you have to keep repeating yourself, is because your arguments don't withstand even the most basic scrutiny.

I see what you are doing here. You have constructed some fallacious arguments, so that you can justify in your own mind extra-judicial punishment of those who you consider to have stepped out of line. You are essentially engaged in a war against the First Amendment when people say things you don't like, and you are willing to use any underhand and nefarious methods available to you to do so. And I've seen the kind of stuff that gets posted on Twitter when these incidents happen. It's an absolute cesspit of unbridled hatred. Do you really want to be part of that?

I have also tried to remind you that we are all sinners, and with that in mind it is befitting that people should be given a chance to change before selecting the nuclear option of firing them.

 

[seeking.IAM]

I run a mental health treatment center and from time to time have had employees post things on social media that I did not want to see. That usually involves a conversation with HR and our lawyer before we take action. Sometimes my lawyer and HR Director has said I can do something about it, and sometimes I can't (even when I'd like to).

The legal guidance I have received is that there is a fine line between what an employee can say and can't say on social media without being held responsible. The line as explained to me is that an employee can say something about their employer but not about their employee's business or clients. The former is described as being like a "water cooler" conversation one might have at work complaining to your co-worker about management. Some examples are:

Permissible--> My company should pay its staff more. I could make more somewhere else.
Permissible--> I didn't get that raise I wanted and its not fair.
Permissible--> The boss sure was grouchy today. I don't know why I keep working here.

Not permissible--> Our therapists can't counsel their way out of a wet paper sack.
Not permissible --> Our clients are really stupid to come here for services.
Not permissible --> Our clients all live in public housing and are on the dole.

If the Assistant Principal worked for me, it would have most definitely been a disciplinary matter for a post that is going to sting some of her students and their parents who may read it.

And you want to know how I usually find out about such things? One of their co-workers calls it to management's attention because the co-worker knows it's inappropriate. An Assistant Principal (i.e. manager) should know too.

 

[keith99]

I'm not big on teaching children that it's okay to change gender on a whim, that homosexuality is completely normal, that the world owes you a living, that being white, male and heterosexual is a crime against humanity, that women are inherently superior to men and that Marx is the saviour of the world. They are also being taught that that to disagree with any of those notions is evil.

It is not the job of educators to raise children. That's the job of parents.

You obviously live in a very different world than I do.

I do agree on the last point. BUT it at least is the job of school officials and child care workers to not make that job harder. I would argue it is even their job to assist in that endeavor and that in that position it is beneficial to society if they make some effort to pick up the slack when parents fail.

NOT primarily their responsibility. But a teacher who generically despises about half their students openly is not what I would want teaching my kids, even though any child of mine would not fit into her despised group.

Any child of mine would be more apt to share my problems. Usually knowing far more than the teacher about certain subjects and not remaining silent when the teacher is wrong. It seems far too many teachers think standing up for the truth against authority is wrong. At least when tehy are the authority.

(And since my strength is in math there was no room for error, no reasonable denial. But it still happened).

 

[JustSomeBloke]

But a teacher who generically despises about half their students openly is not what I would want teaching my kids, even though any child of mine would not fit into her despised group.

I see that you are still assuming that teachers are unable to act in a professional manner when at work in their teaching role.

I am starting to think that you are projecting your own weaknesses onto others.

 

[Sparagmos]

Unless they express those attitudes at work, then that is an incorrect assumption.

People act on attitudes, and you don’t leave prejudices or racism at home.

Unless they express those attitudes at work, then that is an incorrect assumption. You seem to be making the same mistake as another forum member I have recently replied to, in that you think people are incapable of leaving their opinions at home, and remaining professional at work.

Let’s say you had a babysitter that to your knowledge was doing a fine job taking care of your kids. But then you saw a social media post where the babysitter expressed attitudes that sexualized children. Would it be fair to assume the babysitter’s attitude about children could affect how they treat your children? Would you feel comfortable continuing to employ that babysitter?

Both of those activities you mentioned are also crimes outside of the workplace. Theft is a crime. And performing a task that requires the person to be sober has been criminalised in some cases, for example, driving while drunk. However, saying things some people might consider offensive has generally not been criminalised, as it is covered by the First Amendment.

You make a good point. So choose from any of the things that are not illegal that people get fired for all the time as an example that there is such thing as gross misconduct.

The reason why you have to keep repeating yourself, is because your arguments don't withstand even the most basic scrutiny.

. I’m not complaining that people don’t agree with me, only that I would have to repeat myself.

You are essentially engaged in a war against the First Amendment when people say things you don't like, and you are willing to use any underhand and nefarious methods available to you to do so.

. The first amendment only protects you from government censoring of speech, it doesn’t apply to your employer so I’m not sure why this is relevant. There are still consequences to speech, and conservatives have always defended the employers right to fire people without just cause. It’s the law of the land, with the exception of 2 or 3 states, that an employer can fire you without cause. “At will.” Judges have upheld that in court repeatedly. So I’m not promoting anything that’s not in line with the law or the opinions of many judges upholding the law.

I have also tried to remind you that we are all sinners, and with that in mind it is befitting that people should be given a chance to change before selecting the nuclear option of firing them.

I AGREE! That is why I support just cause protection for all workers. Right now it is perfectly legal to fire people without cause and without a second chance. Do you support laws that would allow people that second chance and the opportunity to contest a firing due to a social media post?

 

[JustSomeBloke]

People act on attitudes, and you don’t leave prejudices or racism at home.

Can you prove that people always act on their attitudes, and never leave prejudices or racism at home? What kind of evidence can you provide to support that assertion?

Are you sure you are not projecting your own weaknesses onto others?

Let’s say you had a babysitter that to your knowledge was doing a fine job taking care of your kids. But then you saw a social media post where the babysitter expressed attitudes that sexualized children. Would it be fair to assume the babysitter’s attitude about children could affect how they treat your children? Would you feel comfortable continuing to employ that babysitter?

If you have to use an example that is both extremely improbable and atypical of the majority of workplaces, then that is a fairly good indication that your case is very weak.

Your babysitter example is extremely improbable because although child abusers often use social media to directly message potential victims, your suggestion that an abuser would publicly state their interest in children on a social media account that their friends, relatives, and customers might see is so improbable as to be quite ridiculous. Even the most foolish of abusers would realise that to do so would likely result in an unannounced visit at dawn from law enforcement to seize and inspect their digital devices.

Your babysitter example is atypical of the majority of workplaces because most people do not work in roles that involve caring for children or vulnerable adults. And in countries that take the protection of children and vulnerable adults seriously, there are extensive safeguarding measures, such as criminal records checking, to try and minimise the potential for abusers to exploit a position of power.

Obviously nothing in your example applies to the majority of workers, because most people work in environments where everyone is an adult, and therefore capable and mature enough to look after themselves and report inappropriate behaviour.

You make a good point. So choose from any of the things that are not illegal that people get fired for all the time as an example that there is such thing as gross misconduct.

Here in the UK, I think people generally get fired for engaging in activities that harm the employer's business. Examples would be assaulting or sexually harassing others in the workplace, fraud or theft, misusing the employer's official communication channels or IT systems to harm the business. I'm not a legal expert, but I think most, if not all of those examples are potentially actionable from a legal perspective. Either because they are crimes, or because they could result in a lawsuit against the employee for defaming the employer.

If people are posting comments that some people find offensive on their private social media outside of work time, then that is clearly not harming their employer's business, because they are not acting in an official capacity representing the business. Although if they posted such comments during work hours when they should have been working then that could be actionable as a minor disciplinary matter. And if they repeatedly engaged in private pursuits at work that could eventually lead to being fired.

I’m not complaining that people don’t agree with me, only that I would have to repeat myself.

What can I say? If you responded with watertight arguments then I wouldn't be here. But you don't. And the worst of it is that you appear to be projecting your own weaknesses onto others, when you say that people are incapable of leaving their personal views at home and acting professionally in the working environment.

The first amendment only protects you from government censoring of speech, it doesn’t apply to your employer so I’m not sure why this is relevant.

It is relevant because if the First Amendment doesn't apply to your employer, then it should do. Why should an employer have control over what you do in your own personal time when you are not at work? It is none of their business, unless you attempt to pass off your own personal views as the official views of your employer. Some people don't like Christian moral standards, and consider them offensive. Should it be a matter of gross misconduct to bring a Bible to work, and read it during tea break where others can observe what you are reading?

There are still consequences to speech, and conservatives have always defended the employers right to fire people without just cause. It’s the law of the land, with the exception of 2 or 3 states, that an employer can fire you without cause. “At will.” Judges have upheld that in court repeatedly. So I’m not promoting anything that’s not in line with the law or the opinions of many judges upholding the law.

You blame the conservatives, but you seem happy to be able to exploit the ease of firing people to inflict extra-judicial punishment on people who express opinions you don't agree with in their own private leisure time. That smacks a little of double standards.

I AGREE! That is why I support just cause protection for all workers. Right now it is perfectly legal to fire people without cause and without a second chance. Do you support laws that would allow people that second chance and the opportunity to contest a firing due to a social media post?

Employers should always need a good reason for firing employees.

Although I'm puzzled by your response, because you claim you want better protections for employees, but you don't seem to mind when activists launch a Twitter hate campaign and doxxing operation to try and get someone fired for personal comments. In fact, in some of your earlier posts in the other thread you seemed to enthusiastically support it. Are you finally softening your views and realising that the kangaroo court of Twitter is unfair, vindictive, and unchristian?

 

[ralliann]

People act on attitudes, and you don’t leave prejudices or racism at home.

Let’s say you had a babysitter that to your knowledge was doing a fine job taking care of your kids. But then you saw a social media post where the babysitter expressed attitudes that sexualized children. Would it be fair to assume the babysitter’s attitude about children could affect how they treat your children? Would you feel comfortable continuing to employ that babysitter?

You make a good point. So choose from any of the things that are not illegal that people get fired for all the time as an example that there is such thing as gross misconduct.
. I’m not complaining that people don’t agree with me, only that I would have to repeat myself.

. The first amendment only protects you from government censoring of speech, it doesn’t apply to your employer so I’m not sure why this is relevant. There are still consequences to speech, and conservatives have always defended the employers right to fire people without just cause. It’s the law of the land, with the exception of 2 or 3 states, that an employer can fire you without cause. “At will.” Judges have upheld that in court repeatedly. So I’m not promoting anything that’s not in line with the law or the opinions of many judges upholding the law.

I AGREE! That is why I support just cause protection for all workers. Right now it is perfectly legal to fire people without cause and without a second chance. Do you support laws that would allow people that second chance and the opportunity to contest a firing due to a social media post?

You keep bringing things into this conversation that do not apply to your case. You did it with me concerning "accusers" without any sense of legal action. Now you bring illegal desires into this.
You want law to be created concerning things that are not now law. You keep skirting the issue.
Not only would I fire that babysitter, I would contact the authorities.

 

[Aussie Pete]

You obviously live in a very different world than I do.

I do agree on the last point. BUT it at least is the job of school officials and child care workers to not make that job harder. I would argue it is even their job to assist in that endeavor and that in that position it is beneficial to society if they make some effort to pick up the slack when parents fail.

NOT primarily their responsibility. But a teacher who generically despises about half their students openly is not what I would want teaching my kids, even though any child of mine would not fit into her despised group.

Any child of mine would be more apt to share my problems. Usually knowing far more than the teacher about certain subjects and not remaining silent when the teacher is wrong. It seems far too many teachers think standing up for the truth against authority is wrong. At least when tehy are the authority.

(And since my strength is in math there was no room for error, no reasonable denial. But it still happened).

I despise homosexuality. I would not want a gay teaching my children. If I say that publicly in Australia, I will be taken to court and sued for everything that I have. My kids are well and truly grown up, so it's not an issue for me now. I objected when the socialist greenies started brainwashing my 6 year old. That was 20 years ago. I was ignored but at least I was not punished.

Teachers are afraid to stand up for the truth. Men are avoiding teaching because they are presumed to be serial sex offenders, especially at primary level. Teachers here are constantly trained on the latest PC nonsense. George Orwell would recognise the approach. How teachers find time to teach is beyond me. That they are doing a lousy job is obvious. Kids struggle at the cash register to work out change. No wonder they want to eliminate cash. You need a degree in maths to subtract two from four. Don't start me on what passes for English these days. Even government data states that educational standards are in decline. The good new is that you can no longer buy a golliwog at the school fete. The world is so much better off. Not.