Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.What I am advocating for is that racist language is evidence of racist attitudes, which absolutely negatively affect one’s workplace and coworkers.
Seeing it that way is incorrect, because you have made an invalid comparison.So therefore I see it like theft or drunkenness at work, it is a legit reason to fire someone.
The reason why you have to keep repeating yourself, is because your arguments don't withstand even the most basic scrutiny.Not sure why I have to keep repeating myself...
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.
I see that you are still assuming that teachers are unable to act in a professional manner when at work in their teaching role.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.
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.
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?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.
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.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.
. I’m not complaining that people don’t agree with me, only that I would have to repeat myself.The reason why you have to keep repeating yourself, is because your arguments don't withstand even the most basic scrutiny.
. 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.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.
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?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.
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?People act on attitudes, and you don’t leave prejudices or racism at home.
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.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?
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.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.
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.I’m not complaining that people don’t agree with me, only that I would have to repeat myself.
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?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.
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.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.
Employers should always need a good reason for firing employees.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.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?
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.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).