I thought it a joke at first but in this world you never can tell.

http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/n...2/sticker.shtml

http://www.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2106714&

Is there something in the water in Alabama?


Is the action of the employer justifiable? Should he be able to fire her for a bumper sticker?

Would you encourage the employee to take this matter to the courts?

Is this a violation of the empoyees' Constitutional and Civil Rights?

Should the employer face charges for violating her rights?

Is the action of the employer justifiable? Should he be able to fire her for a bumper sticker?

Justifiable? Only if you're a narrow-minded idiot. As the article states, it doesn’t seem to be against the law…but it should be. It’s just as discriminatory as it would be if a person had a rainbow sticker on their car and their boss was a homophobe and fired them for it. Our political beliefs should not be a reason to lose our jobs.

A side note: Right on, Mr. Kerry for offering her a job!! I hope he follows through, so she can tell her previous boss to stuff it.

Would you encourage the employee to take this matter to the courts?

I don’t know if it would be worth her while if there are no laws specifically protecting one’s expression of political beliefs in the workplace (as the discrimination laws do). I'll leave it to AD's legal eagles to dissect that issue.

Is this a violation of the empoyees' Constitutional and Civil Rights?

I believe it is. If companies have the right to insist that you toe the same political line as the company, a lot of people would lose their jobs (including me!).

Should the employer face charges for violating her rights?

From a purely ethical and moral standpoint – yes. It’s ignorant…and brings to mind countries where one must never, EVER express a negative opinion of the dictator…er, I mean king, er... leader.

Is the action of the employer justifiable? Should he be able to fire her for a bumper sticker?

The school district I worked for did not allow campaigning within the building, but there was no rule about a bumper sticker on a car. Had Ms. Gobbell been campaigning inside the plant on company time, I would think the employer on firmer ground. Since it was outside--on the parking lot, I don’t think the employer was justified, therefore he should not have fired her.

Would you encourage the employee to take this matter to the courts?

Definitely. I don’t believe in letting anything like this slide.

Is this a violation of the empoyees' Constitutional and Civil Rights?

I’m not a lawyer, but I see the bumper sticker as flowing logically from the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech.

Should the employer face charges for violating her rights?

Again, I’m not a lawyer, but if this is a violation of rights, then the employer should be held accountable, although I'm not certain what form that accountability would take. I see this episode as an affront to the concept of free elections.

BTW: My thoughts on this would not be different if someone got fired for displaying a Bush sticker under the same circumstances.

What a great show idea for "The Phil Hendrie Show". He does stuff like this all the time. I suppose we should wait to see if Gaddis is scheduled for a guest spot on Hannity & Colmes, Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage's "Savage Nation".

If he is, we'll know the story is authentic.

A bankruptcy attorney with a vested interest in George W. Bush? Doesn't sound like he believes the economy is "turning the corner".

Is the action of the employer justifiable? Should he be able to fire her for a bumper sticker? Not if he really did that and that is all there is to the story. If she were engaged in other activities that he felt were detrimental to other workers or to her job performance, he could be within his rights assuming Alabama is a "Right to Work" state and she had no union representation.

Would you encourage the employee to take this matter to the courts? AT this point and from what the story said, the only witness to the melee was carrying messages, which would always make it a hard case to prove conslusively.

Is this a violation of the empoyees' Constitutional and Civil Rights? Not enough information on the "I quit / You're fired" "he said / she said" in the article to tell.

Should the employer face charges for violating her rights? See above answer.

Actually, on its face, this seems pretty offensive and mean-spirited but there are usually always things that don't surface when you hear the first accounts.

If it had been similar in scope to what was represented, I would imagine the ACLU would be sniffing around in short order. They have recently chosen to take sides against the Patriot Act with National TV Ads in some markets.

See more info on ACLU stance against expanding or strengthening the Patriot Act HERE.

I believe that we would all agree that taking your personal political beliefs into the workplace should earn a person a good talking to. At the same time, it's absolutely horrendous that the first amendment would be torn apart. The problem with this nation today is that we have islands where our rights are held hostage at the door(i.e.-some schools and the work place) At a minimum, our rights are not taught or encouraged to be followed very well. At it's worst, are stories as given through the link. No, the employee should not have been fired at all.



I don't see this as a Kerry supporter being wronged, I see it as the first amendment being wronged and the courts are the common man's recourse against tyranny from above(i.ae.-government and business)




Most definitely, the employer was clearly in the wrong and the should be made to pay dearly for it.

Since when does the constitution cover a private business?



Notice the word 'congress', not private businesses. Her boss was in every right to ask her to remove that bumper stick from her car if it was parked on his property. Now if her car was in a public parking garage or on the side of the road he would have no authority to tell her to remove it. But as long as she is on his property he can tell her to remove it, or he can terminate her employment.

So many times on AD I see people ignorant to what Amendment 1 of the constitution states.

His right to tell her not to have a bumper sticker on her car is just the same as his right to tell her she cannot have personal items all over her desk. If she violates his rules for working there, he can fire her.

I'm sorry Sleeper but this doesn't jive. Her property (the car) doesn't cease being her property once she turns the ignition off in his parking lot... unless she's double parked or something and he can impound it. I.e. requires breaking a *law.* He cannot tell her what to do with her property any more than she can rearrange office furniture without his permission. He can, however, fire her at will like any employer and possibly infringe her rights.

Sleeper,

I'm very well aware of what the constitution says and how the courts have applied federal guarantees to the states through the "due process clause" of Amendment 14. I tend to think of the constitution in broad terms, which include court cases and existing law made under the constitution. I wasn't aware of if or how the courts had interpreted the issue of private workplace rights, so I looked it up. Apparently public employees enjoy some 1st Amendment rights, but not private. So, while the constitution says Congress, it might be applicable to the Chicago Fire Department. The Constitution is what the courts say it is.

After looking it up on Find Law, I have concluded that you are correct, and that there is no application of case law to private employers. That doesn't mean, however, that this employer is off the hook. I don't know whether, having a bumper sticker on a car would come under existing laws, such as WLAD, but I think the issue is open to interpretation and possible court ruling. Would it be covered under discrimination if the employer allowed a Bush sticker, but not a Kerry?

According to Find Law.



http://library.lp.findlaw.com/articles/fil...ionallaw_2_1889

Sometimes it may not be as simple as it seems.

I wonder what kind of attorney would use this as a basis for firing an employee--did he not realize what kind of a stink she could raise for this peevish conduct on his part?

But if the employer wants to make a fool of himself, it is his prerogative. I just do not see how this behavior would generate a desire to vote for his candidate among the remaining employees. There is an old saying, "Just because you have silenced me does not mean you have changed my mind."

The negative publicity generated toward a petty Bush supporter and the positive publicity generated for the Kerry campaign are both very good. I'm not sure the woman would want to sue her former employer in this case; just let him stew in his own juices.

I believe this is a violation of her rights. She was fired for her ideology, which I believe is the same for being fired for you religious ideals. If I had a Darwin sticker on my car and my employer believe the Catholic (or anything else for that matter) way of creation, then should I be fired because I don't hold his religious ideals? I believe this would be covered under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.



Although political ideology is not explicitly stated I think that it would be analogous, but that is my interpretation.

Personally, I would press charges for compensation.

Discrimination Laws

QUOTE

Is the action of the employer justifiable? Should he be able to fire her for a bumper sticker?

Legally justifiable, noooooo, but only barely. Had he ordered her to remove the bumper sticker from his property (i.e., either move her car or remove the sticker from the car), and she had refused, then he'd be perfectly within his rights. However, there's one other thing, and that's the issue of whether or not a person has a right to a job. If a person has a right to a job, then another person has an obligation to employ them, which is wrong. I support the notion, barring contracts (whether individual or collective) that say otherwise, that just like an employee has the right to walk out on an employer at anytime, for any reason, so to does an employer have the right to fire an employee at any time, for any reason.

QUOTE

Would you encourage the employee to take this matter to the courts?

Well, if I could guarantee that it came before me, I would. I'd throw her out of court, have her attorney pay all the legal fees, and laugh all the way out the door. Nonethess, I'd still suggest that she not take it into court. She's probably had a slew of job offers already from fuzzy headed liberals who want a cause belli, and she'll likely make a fair bit more than that fella was paying.

QUOTE

Is this a violation of the empoyees' Constitutional and Civil Rights?

Not as I understand them. She has no right to express her political opinions on his property, not even passively. Again, part of it comes down to where was the car parked. Nor, as noted above, does she have a right to a job.

QUOTE

No. Unless, of course, you think that any employee who has quit a job because their employer's political expression offended them should face charges for violating the employer's rights.

Clearly, a bankruptcy attorney who is so incredibly busy in his law practice because the economy is so terrible that he has not time whatsoever to operate his manufacturing business.

From the posts here, I can assume that none of you "fuzzy-headed" conservatives have any bumper stickers on your vehicle, or if you do, you are unemployed? Would conservatives be as laissez-faire if the sticker had been an NRA sticker and the person was fired for it?

Take the partisan crapola out of the equation and you are left with this: she used a common expression of a personal belief and was fired for it. Since employers can fire people with the lamest excuses - "she wore a paisley shirt and I hate paisley" - or no excuses at all, as long as the reason doesn't fall under the protected-by-law EEO categories, they're within their rights.

While the fired person doesn't have many legal rights, they have a plum opportunity to make that employer look like a narrow-minded (beast of burden with long ears), as has been the case. You go, girl.

Oh, and by the way...what is the legality of the company putting a purely partisan statement in an employee's paycheck? Isn't that a threat, albeit passive?
The sociologist Max Weber described power as "the probability that one actor [the boss] within a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his will despite resistance [from the employee], regardless of the basis on which this probability rests."

So, it is legally OK for a boss to actively strongarm his employees to HIS personal political beliefs, but not OK for an employee to passively express her beliefs? Man, there is something seriously wrong with our world...

I'm not sure what the heck a fuzzy-headed conservative is, is it a compliment or an insult?

I absolutely think it was gross injustice for the woman to be fired from her job over a bumper sticker. I could abide by company regulations concerning displays on desks and bulletin boards in your work area. But that shouldn't extend to the parking lot. Further, a vehicle is the mode of transportation to the workplace, if a bumper sticker is grounds for firing, then so should be dislike of car color, spinning rims and fuzzy dice.

Even in the military, we are not prohibited form political statements on our vehicles, as long as they are not vulgar. I could even place paraphenalia on my desk without repercussion, but I do not, out of respect for other political beliefs. I'm there to do a job and be a professional, not to recruit for a campaign. So if someone in my rigidly disciplined line of work can have a bumper sticker, it should go without saying that everybody in America should be able to also.

In the founders time, it was the government that people had to struggle against. As I stated above, we can't have pocket-islands of tyranny simply because the power above the individual happens to be a corporation as opposed to the government.




I'm having a hard time agreeing with this. Will customers of a given business be forced to do likewise? How would that not be discriminatory if you allow patrons that right but not employees? Are some stickers allowed and not others? Once again, the employer is not being harmed in any way by a bumper-sticker.




I don't believe that anyone would argue that the founders were talking about government and individual rights. At the same time, it would be crazy to just stick to 1798 wording in the year 2000 in which we have another monstrosity above us that is just as powerful and oppressive as government(i.e.-business) Perhaps we need an amendment to reiterate our rights in this sphere as well.



There is a big difference between the situations. In the former, the bumper sticker in no way interferes with the work environment, nor does it produce a harassing environment towards other employees that might affect productivity. I'm all on board about writing someone up and telling them not to do it again if they bring politics into the office. The latter(having a bumper sticker on the car) is simply a matter of personal expression outside of one's workplace and thus, is not brought into the workplace. It's simply wrong that the employee would be punished simply for having the wrong candidate on his bumper sticker. That is unfair and arbitrary. You should only be fired for how you do your job and get along with your fellow workers. Everything else is just irrelevant.

Sleeper, of course! And an honest interpretation of the First Amendment would include the notion that private businesses cannot make law of any sort. That's up to government.

I see this case as having a strong discrimination element. If the employer allows some political bumper stickers in the parking lot but not all, that is clearly discrimination.

But is discrimination against a person's political leanings illegal? Interesting question. I don't know.

I do know this: Focus on the Family requires a statement of a potential employee's epiphany with Jesus. Seems clearly a discriminatory practice against non-Christians, and especially those who have not had a Jesus epiphany. Still, this practice continues unchallenged.

I'd like to think it's because making such stories up is easy enough or that nobody non-epihanized really cares to work there; however, my real fealing is that businesses get to do things that might be unlawful because bringing legal action is too expensive for most folks. It's an enforced apathy. Instead of not fighting city hall, you can't fight businesses.



Justifiable? Only if consistent. Ban all political bumper stickers from the parking lot.

As pointed out, employers need not give a reason for firing an employee under most state laws these days. In a civil society where relationships count, a reason would be a moral requirement. But relationships between employers and employees have long been abandoned to our current mercenary society.

Still, a fired employee can bring a law suit against a former employer for various reasons, mostly having to do with federal law superceding state law, and mostly for race/gender discrimination.



I'd encourage discussing the matter with a few lawyers to figure out the chances of winning or making a point, and the probably costs. Most lawyers will review a case for free or a small fee.



That's a question for a lawyer familiar with the particular state employment laws as they relate to the superceding federal laws. There is a gray area I can see here as to who owns what. Technically, only the vehicle's tires are on the employer's property. The rest of the vehicle is suspended above the property by those tires and clearly owned by the employee. Also, if the employer hasn't made efforts to inform employees of his/her own rules through orientation meetings and employee manuals, then there might be a case.



I'd go for compensation for lost salary, job hunting expenses, possible loss of future income (due to the firing black mark on resume), and possibly punative damages. This is assuming that a case can be built, of course.



I've never met an attorney who didn't like a good debate, and differing opinions tend to stimulate their minds. So I'd say a bad attorney with a narrow world vision would fire an employee with a contrarian bumper sticker.

In fact, the handful of times I've used an attorney, one of my screening tests is how they deal with a contrarian opinion. Sneaky? Oh, you betcha!

But fair. They do the same in the initial meeting for various other reasons, like how honest is this client? I want to know how well the lawyer thinks.

Thank you BoF for responding with logic and tact instead of emotional haste. It is well noted. As well, thanks for your research on the topic.

As far as your mentioning of a Bush bumper sticker instead of a Kerry sticker I feel the same way. If the rolls were reversed it would be no different.

This woman's boss was not telling her to change her vote, which he has no right to do. He was telling her to remove a sticker from her car.

If the Bumper Sticker wasn't obscene than the Employer had no right. I see these things every day and I disagree with lots of them but every one is entitled to there opinion.

Bumper Stickers are bad but Micheal Moore makes an entire movie based on fabrications and lies and no one can do any thing about that? Thats just plain stupid!

That person should have there head examined.

Which he also has no right to do. The sticker is on private personal property which he does not own. Owning the parking lot gives him the right to tell his employees where to park in it, not how to decorate their vehicles.

And just how far would you take this businessman's "right", Sleeper? Is it okay for him to tell customers they have to remove bumper stickers from their cars before they can spend money at his place? How about his vendors? Are they fair game, too? No? What's the difference? They are all using "his" parking lot, aren't they?

Sorry, Sleeper, the only possible response to "remove that bumper sticker, or you're fired" would be: "Sure thing. Just as soon as you start making the car payments."

He can do this with her car as he could tell her not to wear a Kerry pin while at work as well. Her body is her personal property, is it not?

Customers are far and away different from employees.

This is merely a case where most of you are allowing your emotions to take over and scream "not fair", when in fact, it is completely with in his rights to have a say(if he owns the property where the car is being parked).

I will reiterate; the 1st amendment of the constitution does not cover private businesses.

Is the action of the employer justifiable? Should he be able to fire her for a bumper sticker?

Would you encourage the employee to take this matter to the courts?

Is this a violation of the empoyees' Constitutional and Civil Rights?

Should the employer face charges for violating her rights?

Not sure about justifiable, but the employer has surely described himself as a total jerk.
Waste of time to go to the courts, this is a matter that should be MBE, or managed by embarrassment. Probably the guy is too much of a jerk to be embarrassed, tho.
Don't know if her rights were violated. The boss has a right to be a total jerk and his employees know that now if they did not before. My guess is that productivity will decrease.
I would move on, but would also take a few opportunities to tell the world what a total jerk this guy is. Having the right to be a jerk does not mean you MUST be a jerk.

Sleeper,

there's something your missing here. Clearly the employer IS within his rights(as in: they're not going to jail for the action), however, exercising your rights means you have to deal with the consequences, which means a potential lawsuit (which I imagine would the circumstances of this case would horrify just about any 12 jurors they could find).

Biker,

I don't see how good of a judge you would be if you would throw out a case as debatable as this. The question is, does the bumper sticker intefere with her ability to do her job? Clearly it does not, if an employer fires someone for something that does not intefere with their ability to do their job they open themselves up to be sued by the employee, it's bad business, bad ethics, and bad publicity.

This woman is 100% entitled to compensation for this heinous action. She may not be "entitled" to her job but under the laws created to protect employees (and thank god for them or we'd still be in the industrial age), an employer CANNOT indiscriminately fire their employees for actions which have nothing to do with their job performance. By your logic Biker and Sleeper, an employer could fire an employee if they refused to work 24 hours a day or having sex with the employer(Logic that Empoyee is not "Entitled" to a Job) or by wearing the color green(Logic that Employer is simply exercising Private Enterprise rights). There are thankfully many laws which prevent this kind of worker mistreatment.

Seriously, is this news to anyone?

I'd really like to see the argument put forth of how having a Kerry sticker on her car could have any effect on her ability to do her job. Talk about defending the indefensable.

Edited for clarity on logic fallicies.

Bill55AZ proved my point for me perfectly. Just by mentioning one simple word. Jerk.

Interjecting emotion into this debate is what is entirely wrong. Is the guy a jerk? Of course he is... but does that change what the 1st amendment says?



Sure the story on its surface would horrify any jurors, but once you interject fact and logic into this story, any sensible and well thought process would show the employer was well with in his right to terminate her employment for not following his rules.

I assume you support an employer demanding Christian employees remove or cover all cross jewelry without a hygiene/workplace safety/image reason, because that's their body. If not, why is the establishment clause the Holy Grail of all things sacred in the Constitution? I'm overly sensitive due to party affiliation, so I could be wrong.

Actually, in most cases, the employer has every right to fire an employer for ANY reason, or for no reason. It is called "employment at will" . Conversely, the employee has a right to quit at any time, for any reason, or for no reason.


There are certain things for which an employee cannot be fired. Those would be race, sex, disability, etc. as defined by the anti-discrimination laws cited earlier.

Here is an article that is against the concept of "employment at will" Unjust Firings: Time For A Statute



So...

Is the action of the employer justifiable? Should he be able to fire her for a bumper sticker?
It is legal, I don't know about justifiable. I think I would be reluctant to fire a good employee based upon who they thought would be a better President. A poor employee, on the other hand...

Would you encourage the employee to take this matter to the courts?
She has virtually no case, unless she can prove discrimination under existing anti-discrimination laws. I didn't see anything that could be interpreted as falling under a protected category.

Is this a violation of the employees' Constitutional and Civil Rights?
Private businesses cannot violate Constitutional Rights, only the government can do that. Civil rights (such as anti-discrimination laws) are another matter. But I see nothing that violates her Civil rights.

Should the employer face charges for violating her rights?
No. He should face the backlash of being a jerk, from his employees and (more importantly) from his customers.

That is different. Expression of ones religion is protected against. Ever notice the bottom of any application. We do not discriminate based on race, gender, religion or creed. Political affiliation is not mentioned.

Is the action of the employer justifiable? Should he be able to fire her for a bumper sticker?

Absolutely. It is more than justified. It is his right to be able to do so. Some might think not, but remember that his business is his property and his responsibility.

If he so chooses to terminate anyone for any reason, he may do so. Some may bring up the Constitution but that has no bearing here.

The Constitution is the law set in place to tell the Central Government what guidelines they must follow. It does not in anyway, shape or form imply that private citizens or their businesses which are their property must do. This is not a 1st Amendment issue.

In fact I think that if the government tried to intervene in anyway that would be against the constitution itself which clearly grants rights to owners of property and reasonably prohibits the government from telling people what they can do with their property.

Is this a violation of the empoyees' Constitutional and Civil Rights?

Should the employer face charges for violating her rights?



I still haven't seen anyone address this. Just because he's the boss, does that mean he has the right to advertise his political affiliation (and issue veiled threats at the same time) to all his employees? Didn't he set a precedent by including an ode to Dubya in his employees' paychecks? Maybe the employee can finagle a lawsuit out of that.

AML,

Regarding no case, envision this:

A company has an unstated policy that business casual is okay, but then fires an employee for wearing jeans and sneakers. There could be recourse from this former employee due to the lack of definition for business casual clothing.

I'm pretty sure this also depends on the state where the incident happens. Some states are more protective of employee rights than others. I doubt Alabama is one of them, but it'd be worth looking into should something like this bumper sticker incident happen.

Thinking back, maybe the former employee should have used the Igor defense: "What bumper sticker? Now who put *that* there!"

Anyway, point is that even though federal law supercedes state law, state law can enhance rights not granted by federal law. This is why consulting with a lawyer in this and other employment cases is important.

We are after all talking about a person's livelihood, or ability to make a living, or as the Declaration states, the unalienable right to life. We do have a right to make a living. (This political opinion has been approved by me, AM guy.) The idea that an employer can at will, for no good reason, hurt this right to make a living is just plain wrong, giving employers much too much power over their vassals. I mean employees. No, I'll stick with the first take: vassals.

An employee quitting will likely not hurt the employer. However, a firing black mark will definately hurt the former employee when seeking out new employment. There will also be loss of income revenue and expenses incurred during job hunts. Relocation may become necessary, along with the expense and emotional stresses involved, not to mention stress from the firing itself.

So to get this back on track, some states have sensitivity to the right to make a living and have put laws on the books protecting this right. My opinion is that codifying this into federal law would make sense. But then I'm pro employee <gasps of astonishment from the crowd>, or put in another way, a classic Democrat with a sense of how poorly we've done with protecting the rights of citizens to make our livings.

I was pretty surprised to discover that the employer can legally fire someone in this manor. I have dealt with this sort of thing for years now. As a member of a trade union even my current independent beliefs could cause me alot of trouble. You're either pro-democrat or your very, VERY quiet. My prior membership in the GOP would have caused me to loose my ability to earn a living, without question.

The Union does not just come out and say "Your a Republican, you'll never work in this town again'. They instead find anyway possible to remove your good standing in the union, even if they need to make it up. In a state that is not a right-to-work state, that means you can't do what you do anymore.

If I lost my good standing, even if my employer loved my work they would have to fire me per union contract, or at least transfer me to a non-union job (Which means no more technical work in the field, which I love).

However, having a legal right, and a moral right are two different things.



I TOTALLY agree. However, a more effective approach would be to push this story to HIS customers and convince them to boycott HIS goods because of HIS actions.

The consumer has the ultimate power in this situation. If a company has poor labor practices, we can boycott that company until either they wise up or someone replaces them.

So, who has the research skills to discover who his customers are so we can all begin a letter writing campaign to them?

As far as I know there is no Federal statute that prohibits the employer from doing this. Can't speak for Alabama but I could take a stab at it and say that it is still ok. The difference is the owner of a company, or the agents acting on the behalf of the owner's may run the business as they see fit (provided they stay within the law). If the company is public then they will have to deal with the backlash of their shareholders.

Now on a practical level it is not an action that an employer should engage in. It could lower moral, productivity, and increase turnover. All of which affects the employer’s bottom line.

This particular employer is a bad egg. The sad part is the tone of an organization is set by the top dog. Mr. Dog- good luck keeping the good employee's and I wish you an eternity of low performing staff that run your business to the ground. I hope your customers do catch wind of your actions and decide to bring their business elsewhere.



To add to Amlord's employee at will post, I want to add that this may not seem fair, and I suppose it isn’t, but the employee has a right to leave at any time. They are not being forced to work for someone who wants to shove their political beliefs down their throats. Also, giving notice is not a requirement either.

Is the action of the employer justifiable? Should he be able to fire her for a bumper sticker?

I know that Wal-Mart prohibits its employees from wearing a campaign button because it might offend a customer. This, however is a factory. It was a bumper sticker on a car. How much damage could a bumper sticker on an employee's car actually do to this company's bottom line?

Would you encourage the employee to take this matter to the courts?

Without question!

If the first attorney she spoke to told her she doesn't have a case, I would advise her to check the yellow pages for an attorney referral service, or for the phone number of the local bar association. Alternatively, she might check with a local labor union for the name of a good labor attorney.

Is this a violation of the employees' Constitutional and Civil Rights?

I'm not an attorney, but I would feel that this was unquestionably a violation of her rights as an American citizen.

Should the employer face charges for violating her rights?

I spent thirty years with my employer sending me letters, newsletters, etc. which clearly etched in my mind the fact that the Corporate Leadership felt the Republican Party was good for the company.

The enclosure in her paycheck,


is a very typical company newsletter. All credit for successful management of the company is being given to George W. Bush and his tax cuts. Neither salesmen, management, nor factory workers are being given credit for the company's ability to grow. As the signs in the locker rooms used to say, "Random beatings will be administered until morale improves."

Somewhere in time, the Republican Party has lost sight of the fact that the person who is noted for saying,

was Abraham Lincoln, a Republican President. I firmly believe that as an individual citizen, I am more likely to have my interests represented by the Democratic Party, and it has been the Corporations I have worked for that have convinced me of this, not the unions, and not the political parties.

If this employer can be charged with violating her rights, more power to the prosecutor who succeeds. However, I think this case needs to hit this corporation somewhere in the bottom line. I think she should sue at a minimum for an amount equal to her estimated lost wages and benefits for the rest of her life. I would love actually; for a jury to award her the company, and send Phil Gaddis to bankruptcy court with someone representing him as he tries to start his life over.

It is his business, he is not required to provide a platform for anybody's political beliefs.

It is his business, he may put anything he wants into the paychecks. If the employees don't like what they're getting along with the paychecks, they have a simple means of avoiding his bourgoise capitalist propaganda: they can quit.

Undoubtedly, had an employee showed up with a bumper sticker that said "
AIDS, culling the herd", and had been given the choice of removal or termination, most of you objecting to this would be ecstatic.

There's one more thing y'all are overlooking: an employee got into a *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** match with the owner. BOTH handled it badly. According to the article, nobody suggested moving the car offsite. She insisted on her imagined Constitutional right to have her say on his dime, and he behaved like a boor in firing her.

BTW: I'm perfectly suited to be a judge in this case, were it to come up were I'm at. Employer's here can fire for any reason, except race, religion, sex, color, etc.

I wouldn't be. The problem with this is that she was not doing this on "his dime" (Unless he paid his employees for their commute). Having a bumper sticker on her car was not taking away from her work. She was not campaigning on the clock or neglecting her work. She merely had a bumper sticker on her car.

I would imagine if she had a Christian Fish on her car, or a "W" sticker, or an NRA sign there would be a lot of people who say he was right that would be up in arms.

THe politics should not be the issue here. THe issue is, that she was fired for off the clock activities.

Overlandsailor,

Heard a good one from my retired former union Repbulican brother (go figure) who plans to vote Kerry (!) cuz he just doesn't care any longer, and he wants to do something nice for his little bro .

Seems he gets Republican bumber stickers all the time, unsolicited in the mail, due to having made a donation years back.

Seems a strong union guy Democrat hardly ever looked at the front of his pickup truck.

Seems that this strong union guy Democrat suddenly was getting flipped the bird a lot while driving around work sites.

Seems someone had put Republican bumber stickers on the front of his pickup truck.

And the fireworks started from there.

Let's see, get this back to topic of debate now:

Just because an employer owns a parking lot does not mean the employer owns the minds of the drivers of vehicles parked in the parking lot. The Middle Ages are long gone folks. Land ownership does not equate to lordship.

Too many folks think it does though, as evidenced from this thread. I have worked for employers who thought they owned my mind, long ago and for minimum wages. Hah! What [insert derogatory term regarding intelligence]!

Today I work for an employer who cares mostly about results. Yes, there's some discouragement of thinking outside the narrow political box that has put this country into great danger (IMO), but it is gentle compared to the little lordships I remember from thirty years back.

There's a reason for this: knowledge of rights on both sides. Lawsuits have come and been won. The little lordships have been slapped down to what they really are (delusions of grandeur), but they will come back if we aren't willing to at least look into what our rights in the workplace are.

Regarding unions and overlandsailor's problem with being Republican, that too is a form of lordship. I'd not like it either, and would probably check the front of my pickup truck regularly.

.

This 'Lordship' happens all the time. For example, all the Union Parking lots with the "No Foreign Cars Allowed" signs.

As for the Union Problem I spoke of, I should have made it clear that in St. Louis Organized Labor is quite strong. In other areas labor is weaker, in afew it is stronger. So my experiences might not be the same for all people.

Secondly, it depends on your position. My father was an Active Supporter of Perot in 1992. He was also a UAW member. However, his ability to earn a living was controlled by General Motors. The Union could try to take away his standing, but there were ALOT of Perot supporters in Organized labor so everyone simply ignored it. Now if he had been an active and vocal Bush sr. supporter he would have had some issues.

A guy who works "out of the hall" and is vocally opposed to the Democrats in general can find himself not getting enough work to support his family while others are doing just fine. Depending on the individual Union Hall.



I totally agree that this should NOT be allowed, but as best as I can tell it is. Now if a person was actively campaigning while on the clock, and thus neglecting their job I can see why an employer would terminate them. But this is not the case here.

I still feel that the best approach to this issue would be the consumer approach. Let his customers know that you will not purchase anything from them so long as they do business with this tyrant. And then stick to it and DONT buy from them.

I think we're all getting way off subject here. Discussing the merits of who owns the parking lot shouldn't even come into question.

In my opinion, the real issue is private ownership and the government telling people who they can and cannot fire. (No I'm not sidetracking the actual debate question). I think this question is at the heart of the original question of justifiablilty.

I think that it's more important that we keep the employers rights to decide what to do with their business's than it is to allow the government to tell us what to do with our property. That is a disturbing trend in California.

People like to talk about the threat posed by owners of companies making decisions that are "tyrannical" or "against the 1st amandment", but business's have to worry about public preception and the toll it could take on profit whereas government has nothing to fear by letting themselves step out of line and becoming so involved in the day to day decisions of business. I shudder to imagine what lesson government might learn if they think they can tell private business's what to do. In fact I'm certain that we fought a war over 200 years ago for the very same reasons.

I would be curious to know how an employer would be hurt by a car in a parking lot with a bumper-sticker. When I see Bush-Cheney stickers at a given establishment, I've never had the inclination to not do business there. I seriously doubt anyone does. I honestly doubt that a business is harmed by differing opinions expressed on the back of cars.



Well, the government is of, by, and for the people. Laws are passed with the people's consent and thus, no entity is privileged to be above the constraints of the people's will.



Yes, the founders were talking about governmental threats to rights in 1798. At the same time, no one would seriously contend that after 1798, no new laws or regulations would've been approved by the founders in any way. Same thing goes here. If we churn out people who know the bill of rights, but who can be summarily fired for writing letters to editor, does that not make a mockery out of the first amendment?

I didn't say that the company would be hurt by a sticker. What I said was . Meaning that we should worry more about the governement telling us what to do then worrying about private businesses telling their employees what to do. If you don't like what a business does you can let them know by boycotting. That's called getting them where it hurts.


So that really has nothing to do with what I said. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough the first time .



Exactly, and in setting up that government our forefathers prohibitted the federal government from telling us within reasonable bounds what we can and cannot do with our own property.



No, because the First Amendment is not a private issue. It is a regulation for our Central Government, not people. Just the same if I throw you off my property for saying you hate George Bush, you can't go get the police andhave them let you back onto my property because of your First Amendment rights. Whereas is you work for the US Dept of treasury and are fired for having this bumper sticker, or you recieve unfair treatment at the hands of the Government for having thsi sticker, then you might very well have a case for the courts.

Somehow a company having more rights or rights over individual is totally repugnant to me- why is it that it is okay to remove your rights as soon as you are employed? With corporations being more powerful than our goverment, and having so much control of our freedoms- I think it is high time for a "bill of rights" that limit employer behavior, and what rights an employer DOES NOT have.

This boss is an evil person, and deserves to be treated as such. And we, as a society, should terminate his right to make a living.

While its true that 1st amendment rights of free expression are not to be infringed by government alone, there may be a case here concerning personal property.
Since the car is not paid for by the company and if the company she works for does not limit all decorations (rearview mirror crosses, Icons, all stickers no matter what the message) there is a plethora of far fetched possibilities in claiming discrimination. Im sure that a pro-Kerry messsage could be linked to religious, sex or race discrimination as a pro-Bush sticker could. There might even be a case as to life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Unfortunately these days, you can be fired for your political beliefs which is not protected under the law (so far) and seems to be a growing trend, which I believe needs to be adressed very soon. I see that some of you think this is a good and righteous thing somehow, perhaps because it fits your particular agenda of the moment. I would ask that you think about this in depth with the inevitability of the pendulum and tables are turned. Would you be so forgiving when conservative workers are fired for their beliefs, expressed benignly on their personal property in an employers parking lot? (Funny that this is unlikely to happen under a lib regime, maybe because they cherish personal freedoms?)

Such tendencies, complete shut-down of freedom of expression come only from extremism and paranoia/ fear. If an employer has to regulate bumper stickers on his employees cars (thier personal property), he is obviously in some extreme mindset that his lifestyle will be compromised, hence, he needs to impose control over his employees "to tow the party line or be fired", sound familiar? I know you all recognize that, it is either communism or fascism, its not a free american society.
You can argue that its ok. You can argue that its Constitutonal when it suits your party line, again, think about that. All employers can outlaw liberal talk on thier property, liberal expression on their premises, people may not have personal beliefs or only talk about them except in their homes amongst themselves, not express relgious beliefs by worn icons, no rights to express on personal property with threat of loss of their job....Why is all of this reminding me of China?
Because it is what you are going for in your fear, and giving your freedoms over in partisanship.

Be careful what you wish for. If we begin to declare that employers can dictate how we think or at least how we appear to think, in a corporate run society like the US we get into a very slippery slope. (sorry to use that, but its true)
You who declare a companies right to hire and fire based on political beliefs could well find yourselves compromised in the future.

One must keep to the Integrity of freedom, even if we do not agree with the current message, in order to protect us all across the board forever, no matter who is in power.

There was an article in the paper the other day about employee rights, but I didn't get around to reading it.
It would be nice, if employers were nice, but if they are paying us to be there and work for them, so we should be productive in a way that they decide. Some bosses are enamored of the power of their position, more so than the responsibility. What goes around, comes around.
Now, I would have gone back the next day and slipped Kerry stickers on every car in the lot, especially the boss's car.
You know how it is, as soon as we find out what irritates someone, we tend to use that knowledge against them. All in good fun, of course.
If it wasn't so far to go, I would put a Sheriff Joe bumper sticker on CR's race car.

The point is being missed. The business owner has no more rights than you do! He is just choosing to excersise his own rights over his property, that being his business. Not yours, and not hers. His, business. If this woman has a problem with her employer, she has every freedom in the world to leave the company. If he has a problem with her, he has every right in the world to terminate her. Such is life. My guess is that he isn't stupid enough to just let a great employee go for something as small as this. Most successful employers aren't that stupid, but if he is... my guess is he won't be around much longer because their won't be a business to run making decisions soley based on politcal beliefs, but if that is the case, it is his choice and no one else's. Not mine and not yours.

Here's a principle of our great Capitalism: The government doesn't get to tell you who to hire and who to fire.

Anyone who doesn't like the decisions made is able and capable of hurting this man. Here are the steps:

1. Find out his business.

2. Boycott it.

3. Contact all of the businesses he does business with and tell them that if this action is not ceased within thirty days, you will also boycott them.

When did we as Americans become so appathetic that we had to sit on our lazy butts all day waiting for lawyers and judges to get involved in our private lives?

When did we become so dependent on our government to solve everyday problems that we have to yell about the Constitutional effect on our private lives?

This is clearly not a First Amendment issue.



I doubt the merit of your claims that he is evil. If he was evil than Saddam was the devil incarnate but if I remember correctly Cruising Ram you weren't so gung ho about terminating his right to make a living.

Edited to add:

Firing some one for a Bush sticker is evil, but rape rooms do not constitute a clear case for removal???

As I stated originally, it is not possible to send this guy to jail, he has broken no laws. My point was that she can SUE for "wrongful termination." Which has a clear precedent in the court room of rewarding plaintiffs who have been unjustly fired for unjustified reasons.

Take a look at this Employment Law website, it's full of Caveats on how to avoid getting sued by your employees due to heinous actions. I can find at least 4 matches to this case, can you?

http://www.fairmeasures.com/wrongful.html#goodcause

Supporting this man's actions, whether you're hiding behind a wall of legalities, or you actually (and I cringe to say this) morally support him is beyond me. Based on what I read in the articles, he treated this woman as though she was sub-human simply because of a bumper sticker. The actions described by the unions are no less discpicable. Consumerism is not going to help in this case, the man makes a by-product that could be in anything. I like the idea of Consumerism having an effect on something like this, but I just don't believe in it.

I'm a manager at 2000 Person corporation, thankfully I'm not allowed to fire indiscriminately, I have to document a clear history of whatever problem I think is worth firing over, give the employee multiple warnings, and I need the consensus of Upper Management before I can go ahead with the firing. These are all protections put into place by my corporation to avoid wrongful termination suits.

To conclude, here's a great quote from the site:

QUOTE

Ann Kiernan replies:

The most important thing to do is tell the truth: that the termination is due to performance issues. And it shouldn't be a surprise. If you've been managing within the law, you've given the employee plenty of warning, with detailed examples, and an opportunity to improve.

And that's how an Employer SHOULD act.

All words that I would use describe government tyranny in telling people what they can and cannot do with their property.

As bad as this man's actions might seem to you, to me it seems worse to allow the government to tell people what they can and cannot do with their property.

johnlocke your user name is accurate. Locke spoke of 'life, liberty and property." Thomas Jefferson changed it to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." As my political theory professor pointed out more than 30 years ago, Locke was especially interested in property.

Without getting into the legal aspects of this case, I have some questions. How do we balance the woman's liberty to place a bumper sticker on her car against the employers property rights to what--the parking lot? Honestly, I think a kid on skateboard, for example, would pose greater risk to the parking lot and the cars that are parked there, than a piece of vinyl with Kerry's name printed on it. How does firing this woman protect his property? It was there the day before she was fired, the day she was fired and unless something catastrophic has happened, it's still there.

How do I debate this comment? I understand your concern about property rights, but how on earth does that have anything to do with a bumper sticker? What does the government telling this man what to do have to do with a personal lawsuit brought by this woman? Preserving this woman's right to sue for wrongful termination is the check and balance to allowing employers "employee at will" and the right to legally fire anyone they want without governmental legal reprucussions.

I say, in something as controversial as this let a jury and a fair-minded judge (not a judge like Biker ) hear all the facts in the case and determine if the woman deserves damages.

I don't like the idea of an America where an employer can face no reprucrussions for their actions. Think of the fear people would have to endure in the workplace... I think we've progressed signficantly past the hardcore capitilist exploitation policies of the late 19th century, and I'd hate to think that we'd want to slip back there in the name of property rights!

Within US law as it currently stands, I have to say that the employer seems to have been within his rights in firing this woman. Given that the constitution only limits the powers of government, and that employers (it seems) can fire anyone for anything that takes their fancy.

However, and with the luzury of being an external observer, I have to say I see this as a reason to change the law, not as a fantastic example of how well it works (even as a regrettable but necessary extreme).

I am gob-smacked - colloquial British English for "astonished", whose literal meaning is that I have been smacked in the "gob" (=mouth), so I am stunned & open mouthed - that US employees can be hired and fired on a whim outside of race, sex & religion (or whatever the legal constraints are). I find it incredible that only people represented by collective bargaining have contracts of employment.

What's all that about?

Ok, maybe you don't want to ossify your employment market into a socialist model, where nothing can happen without explicit government approval, but surely SOME kind of regulation is necessary for the smooth running of employment as a market? Flexibility is fine, but a man with no backbone is flexible, even though he can't do very much.

Is it any wonder jobs are being exported from the USA when the barriers to exit are so low?

Indeed. There is, however, a few important differences between a business and a private home. Businesses are granted a license to do business by the state government, in a charter written and defined by the representatives of the people of the state. Furthermore, businesses, as far as property goes, are inherently different than private homes. A business relies intrinsically on a social contract between themselves and their employees. It is necessary for the business that private citizens enter their premises every day, to do their work.

JohnLocke, it sounds as though you are saying this employer should be able to fire someone for driving a Volvo; for being black; for being ugly; for being a woman; for having blonde hair; for being too short; for being a Christian. Maybe you want to live in that country, but I've read the history books, and boy, it pretty much sucked for whole lot of people!!!

Quark,

You seem to be saying the same thing that everybody else is saying about the actions of this man. That his practice is unethical and immoral.

Maybe so but so are a million others' behaviors and practices and in this case we have no we have no right to tell this employer what they can do with their property.

Julian,



That's all about Proprietorship. The government not being able to tell Americans what they can do with their property within reasonable constraints.

I don't feel this is an issue of the employer's property, but rather one of the employee's property. At no point in time did the employee do anything to any of the employer's property. I have seen mention that it was his parking lot. Did the employee put the sticker on his lot, or on her car? It was on her car, therefore it is a matter of his determining what she can and cannot due with her property that is the issue. So, if personal property rights are the issue, I think it is quite clear that the boss should be strung up by his ....

As to the parking lot issue, at any point were rules as to what was and was not acceptable on that lot ever posted? I highly doubt it. Therefore, no rule or right of the property was being violated....the employee had the right (in fact, probably the obligation) to park her car on the lot, and that is what she did.

So, the issue here is basically one of a pig-headed boss interfering with one of his employee's right to free speech. There may be semantics that could be argued on other issues, but hopefully everyone here does in fact see this issue logically (even if not legally) for what it is.