Opinions you are not allowed to hold

[Bill Mattocks]

No, that is clearly wrong. Unless, of course you work for another candidate.

The fine line is 'opinion' versus 'action'. If I work for the federal government, must I vote for the incumbent President? No. Nor do I have to hold opinions based on the current Administration. However, I am expected to do my job, even if some of the policies being implemented are not ones I agree with. Agreed?

The case at Gallaudet is interesting. As Diversity Officer, you would expect the person to be open to all minorities. And to the full rights for all minorities. Signing that petition shows that she does not believe in full rights for gays. That can be construed as a conflict of interest. While it is conceivable that she would be able to set aside her personal views in the discharge of her duties, the optics are very wrong.

I think here we are talking about the appearance of wrongdoing, versus the act of doing something wrong. Signing the petition does not show what she did or did not do in her capacity as Diversity Officer. One would expect that if she had failed in her duties, that would be the reason for her involuntary suspension.

She did not lose her job for having that opinion. She lost her job for making that opinion public, placing her employer in a very akward position.

So it's OK to have an opinion, but you can't talk about it, if it embarrasses your boss.

Hmmm. So if I have a political bumper sticker on my car in the parking lot of my employer and it's the opposite of the one my employer endorses, it's OK to fire me? After all, I have made my opinion public...

I honestly do not think Gallaudet has a leg to stand on here. If she loses her job (she is currently on paid leave until the situation is resolved), I suspect she has a dandy lawsuit.

But I find it interesting and noteworthy that people who are expressing opinions that do not support same-sex marriage are being excoriated in the press as if they were criminals for holding that view.

Shall we next start firing climatologists who refuse to agree that climate change is man-made, or who express the opinion that perhaps it is not man-made, either publicly or privately?

At what point does this start to resemble the McCarthy hearings and subsequent Blacklisting of actors, etc?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I as a business owner believe in the "right to refuse service to anyone for any reason or no reason" concept.
Government says "Thats fine, except in these cases".
So I can't refuse service to religions, races, or sexual orientations that I disagree with.
I either serve all or none as it were.
I don't agree with government sticking their nose into business. I should live or die on my own. Ban X, and hope the supporters of my decision outweigh the negative attention I get for doing so, and so forth.

But that's my call. I should be allowed to do so. I should be allowed to have, and express my opinions, no matter how backward, obscene, or bizarre.

You should be allowed to call me on them, refute them, and so forth.

Without worry that we lose jobs, face fines, and what not.

If the O'Reilys want to deny same-sex couples their services, they should be allowed to do so.
I should also be allowed to not patronize them and hope they go under.
Opinions. Expressions of opinions. Somewhere there's a Constitution involved.

Now, someone might say "but Bob, there's a whole list of things you don't let us say here".
Yup. Private property and all that. Don't like it, go elsewhere. As the guy paying the bills with money from advertisers and supporters, I have to hope that I'll gain more than I will lose so I keep the sites 'doors' open. If I'm wrong, someone buys MT at fire-sale rates.

I think it's a mess really. Ultimately, I agree with Bill, though I suspect I've wandered around a bit on the topic, which I apologize for.

 

[granfire]

Yes, but apparently even holding the opinion will get you in trouble, witness the woman suspended from her job for signing a petition in favor of repealing same-sex marriage. That's what I'm talking about, not denying anyone any rights.

Like I said, I am suspecting there was a lot more going on than just signing a petition.

For all we know that was just the final straw. Of course, it does not fit the story that the poor woman was persecuted for her opinion.

(ever since I have seen first hand the two stories to an issue, both the real life scenario as it played out and the sap story from a tabloid magazine, I am exceedingly jaded. The poor victims seem to have enough skeletons themselves to make you go hmm)

 

[billc]

I think people are assuming too much to begin with on the diversity officer...

after signing a petition to put same-sex marriage on the ballot next month.

She did not, in fact, state her opinion on this matter. Her opinion would be stated when she actually goes to vote on the matter, as opposed to having the issue decided by a judge. She may very well support gay marriage, and she may want to actually vote for it. She could also be against it, and want to vote that way as well. I have signed my name on the petition for candidates, democrats, to get their name on the ballot in my state, simply because I believe in their right to be on the ballot. I fully planned on voting for their opponent, but I still signed the petition.

So, it isn't even her opinion that she is being punished for here, it is the act of wanting that opinion decided on by the rest of the community.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I think people are assuming too much to begin with on the diversity officer...


She did not, in fact, state her opinion on this matter. Her opinion would be stated when she actually goes to vote on the matter, as opposed to having the issue decided by a judge. She may very well support gay marriage, and she may want to actually vote for it. She could also be against it, and want to vote that way as well. I have signed my name on the petition for candidates, democrats, to get their name on the ballot in my state, simply because I believe in their right to be on the ballot. I fully planned on voting for their opponent, but I still signed the petition.

So, it isn't even her opinion that she is being punished for here, it is the act of wanting that opinion decided on by the rest of the community.

Excellent point. Although I doubt many will believe that, whether it turns out to be true or not.

 

[CanuckMA]

The fine line is 'opinion' versus 'action'. If I work for the federal government, must I vote for the incumbent President? No. Nor do I have to hold opinions based on the current Administration. However, I am expected to do my job, even if some of the policies being implemented are not ones I agree with. Agreed?

Agreed.

I think here we are talking about the appearance of wrongdoing, versus the act of doing something wrong. Signing the petition does not show what she did or did not do in her capacity as Diversity Officer. One would expect that if she had failed in her duties, that would be the reason for her involuntary suspension.


So it's OK to have an opinion, but you can't talk about it, if it embarrasses your boss.

It goes beyond embarassing your boss. When you publicaly express an opinion that casts a doubt about your ability to discharge your duties, it crosses the line.

She most likely did not sign that petition in her official capacity. But doing so casts a shadow as to her impartiality on a subject.

Hmmm. So if I have a political bumper sticker on my car in the parking lot of my employer and it's the opposite of the one my employer endorses, it's OK to fire me? After all, I have made my opinion public...

No, unless your employer is a political candidate or your duty involves promoting your employer's political views.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

It goes beyond embarassing your boss. When you publicaly express an opinion that casts a doubt about your ability to discharge your duties, it crosses the line.

I disagree. Innocent until proven guilty, etc. Casting a doubt sufficient grounds for termination? I think not.

She most likely did not sign that petition in her official capacity. But doing so casts a shadow as to her impartiality on a subject.

So all they have to do is to prove that and then terminate her.

No, unless your employer is a political candidate or your duty involves promoting your employer's political views.

Does her employment involve promoting her employer's views? I'm not seeing that as a facet of most employment contracts. It is essentially saying "You don't just work for me, you must be FOR me and tell people that you are FOR me." I don't know of any such jobs, but maybe they exist.

 

[WC_lun]

I don't believe a person should be fired for JUST voicing thier opinion, and in the example from the article, we do not know if that was the case or not. Hopefully not.

It is my view that many people have no problem using thier free speech rights and expressing thier varied opinions on all sorts of issues. At the same time, it seems some want to abdicate the responsibility taken when that right is excercised. You may say anything you want to say, ranging from the very profound to the shockingly ignorant, but anything you utter has a price tag on it. You are free to say it, you are not free from the repurcussions of saying it.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I don't believe a person should be fired for JUST voicing thier opinion, and in the example from the article, we do not know if that was the case or not. Hopefully not.

Nothing so far to indicate anything else.

It is my view that many people have no problem using thier free speech rights and expressing thier varied opinions on all sorts of issues. At the same time, it seems some want to abdicate the responsibility taken when that right is excercised. You may say anything you want to say, ranging from the very profound to the shockingly ignorant, but anything you utter has a price tag on it. You are free to say it, you are not free from the repurcussions of saying it.

There are always consequences for exercising one's rights. That does not make all repercussions fair game. What if someone took exception to her signing of the petition and punched her in the head, or fired her husband from HIS job, or ran over one of her kids? All repercussions she should expect for exercising her rights? Yes, I am illustrating an extreme here, but trying to make a point. Repercussions are one thing. Illegal repercussions are another. That's properly called 'retaliation'.

I don't think you can just wave off anything that happens to her as 'well she got what she deserved'. So far as I know, employment contracts don't have anything to say about an employee's political beliefs. Unless you know of any that do, in which case let me know.

 

[Carol]

I disagree. Innocent until proven guilty, etc. Casting a doubt sufficient grounds for termination? I think not.

Innocent until proven guilty is for a person charged with a violation of criminal law and has nothing to do with the employment relationship. It is lawful to terminate someone for stealing, for example, even with no police involvement.

With at-will employment, a person can be lawfully terminated for any reason that doesn't violate laws (e.g. Termination based on gender, etc)

Not everything that is lawful is fair, wise, or even good business.

So all they have to do is to prove that and then terminate her.

They likely do not have to prove that to lawfully terminate her. Typically the only burden of proof that is on the employer is if the employer seeks to deny a UI claim on the grounds of gross misconduct or other reasons permissible by law. If the employer seeks to deny a claim and the terminated employee does not request a hearing, the terminated employee will not get benefits. However' if the terminated employee requests a hearing or an appeal to a hearings decision, the burdens of proof are on the employer.

Does her employment involve promoting her employer's views? I'm not seeing that as a facet of most employment contracts. It is essentially saying "You don't just work for me, you must be FOR me and tell people that you are FOR me." I don't know of any such jobs, but maybe they exist.

Employment contracts are not very common. A substantial majority of gainfully employed Americans work on an at-will basis although there certainly some exceptions. I only volunteer for LPNH but no one has asked me to be a member of the Libertarian Party of NH to go out canvassing (I am not a member).

I do think it is is possible for a person to conduct themselves in their personal life in a way that interfere with their ability to earn the trust of the person they are serving, which can be a CLM (career-limiting manoeuver). I do not necessarily agree, but that does not mean such a thing is unlawful.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Valid points, I stand corrected. So, as it appears, you CAN be legally fired for holding an opinion. And I guess it's an odious opinion like not being in favor of same-sex marriage, then hooray. What a world. Either have the 'correct' opinion in public, or lose your job.

 

[Cryozombie]

Valid points, I stand corrected. So, as it appears, you CAN be legally fired for holding an opinion. And I guess it's an odious opinion like not being in favor of same-sex marriage, then hooray. What a world. Either have the 'correct' opinion in public, or lose your job.

Yup. The employers typically hold all the power, since we don't have Right To Work. I can be fired for not doing Volunteer work or Community Service in their name on my time off from work. "Give up your time to advance our agenda and make us look good, or we will penalize you for not doing so." (Granted, its a little more complicated of an issue than "Do it or get fired" but the possibility still stands.)

 

[Carol]

Yup. The employers typically hold all the power, since we don't have Right To Work. I can be fired for not doing Volunteer work or Community Service in their name on my time off from work. "Give up your time to advance our agenda and make us look good, or we will penalize you for not doing so." (Granted, its a little more complicated of an issue than "Do it or get fired" but the possibility still stands.)

That is actually a very common mistake people make when looking at employment laws. All 50 states are "at-will" states.

A "Right To Work" state means your employer cannot force you to join a union as a mandatory condition of employment. Right To Work states are primarily in the south and midwest -- workers in those states have both Right To Work and Employment At Will.

A preclusion to Employment At Will would be a employment contract or a Collective Bargaining Agreement that specifies the term of employment...but the majority of working Americans do not work under such an agreement.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

That is actually a very common mistake people make when looking at employment laws. All 50 states are "at-will" states.

A "Right To Work" state means your employer cannot force you to join a union as a mandatory condition of employment. Right To Work states are primarily in the south and midwest -- workers in those states have both Right To Work and Employment At Will.

A preclusion to Employment At Will would be a employment contract or a Collective Bargaining Agreement that specifies the term of employment...but the majority of working Americans do not work under such an agreement.

I guess I'm just sad that a person would be fired for not being for same-sex marriage and other people think that's a good thing. A shame. I would not want a person to be fired for being of either opinion; I think it's none of my business if I'm their employer.

 

[Sukerkin]

I agree, Bill. Personal opinions that do not impinge on your ability to do your job are noones business but your own.

But I can't help but ponder what the story is in this particular case as I cannot imagine it's as clear cut as it's been presented.

 

[granfire]

I guess I'm just sad that a person would be fired for not being for same-sex marriage and other people think that's a good thing. A shame. I would not want a person to be fired for being of either opinion; I think it's none of my business if I'm their employer.

I am guessing here that their behavior disrupted the work place.
There are people who cannot keep their opinion to themselves, and what it is worse: they cannot convey them in a civilized manner.

Or, and that could also be a reason why they got a sit-down, their terms of employment include the little gig called the Hash Act. I might have misspelled it.
It prevents people employed in certain government installations from voicing their opinion on many aspects.
And that can get you your walking papers in a heart beat!

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I am guessing here that their behavior disrupted the work place.
There are people who cannot keep their opinion to themselves, and what it is worse: they cannot convey them in a civilized manner.

Or, and that could also be a reason why they got a sit-down, their terms of employment include the little gig called the Hash Act. I might have misspelled it.
It prevents people employed in certain government installations from voicing their opinion on many aspects.
And that can get you your walking papers in a heart beat!

I have no reason to believe that her behavior disrupted the work place. If that were the case, I believe the employer would have given that as a reason instead of the reason they gave, which was that she signed a petition to put same-sex marriage on the state ballot. There is no reason they would give a particular reason for letting her go that is MORE controversial than a simple "she was disruptive at work," which would not have even made the news.

Usually the simplest explanation is the correct one. The employer said it was for signing the petition. I am going to believe that is actually what happened unless I get information that proves that's not what happened.

 

[Carol]

I am not seeing a person losing their job, nor am I seeing any posters that are happy about it. Personally I don't take a "you're either with us or you're against us" view for controversial topics, I discuss many from a neutral point of view. In this case, I don't know if that's a bad thing or not.

The Chief Diversity Officer from Gallaudet is on paid administrative leave -- which is not the same as being fired. She said she signed the petition for [personal reasons] AND to spark a campus-wide discussion on the matter. There's more going on here than just a personal view, to my eyes. I don't know "Chief Diversity Officer" may have a different impact than a comptroller or database administrator or high-rise window washer.

The university indicates they want to work out an agreement so she keeps her job. That doesn't sound to me like an org that's just looking for any reason to kick her to the curb.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The Chief Diversity Officer from Gallaudet is on paid administrative leave -- which is not the same as being fired. She said she signed the petition for [personal reasons] AND to spark a campus-wide discussion on the matter. There's more going on here than just a personal view, to my eyes. I don't know "Chief Diversity Officer" may have a different impact than a comptroller or database administrator or high-rise window washer.

The university indicates they want to work out an agreement so she keeps her job. That doesn't sound to me like an org that's just looking for any reason to kick her to the curb.

First, I said that she was on leave, several times. Others have changed that to 'fired' and I didn't bother to correct them.

Second, and this is I believe more to the point, when someone is placed on administrative leave, paid or unpaid, and then the employer makes statements about how they hope the employee can 'keep' their job, it means nothing less than that their job, as it currently stands, is history. They have been effectively fired, even if they are still getting a paycheck. It states rather plainly that unless some accommodation or understanding is reached, the job won't be retained. In other words, if nothing changes from the way things stand, the job is bye-bye.

I have no doubt the employer wants the employee to keep her job NOW. It's national news. If it had not become such, what do you think the response would be after they put her on administrative leave?

I hate to say it, but it seems to me that the people who do NOT want to believe that this is PC run amok are dancing and twisting to spin this in any direction that makes it look as though it's not exactly what it appears to be.

Let's call a spade a spade and be done with it. Her job is in jeopardy because she expressed an unpopular political opinion with regard to same-sex marriage. No amount of spin-doctoring changes that.

 

[CanuckMA]

Without having the job description, I see a position of Chief Diversity Officer as a person that ensures the University is inclusionnary. She can have all the personnal opinions she wants, but when she takes a public stance on what most see as contrary to the goal of the university, it casts the position and the university's position on diversity in a bad light. So they removed her from the position pending a review. Nothing wrong with that. It is perception because of the position she holds. She may have done it for good reasons, but it just does not read that way at first brish, and that is as far as most people will see.

Not unlike Bill's statement that she was fired because of a personal opinion, it could easily be spun as the Diversity Officer is anti-gay. Not the kind of publicity any employer would want.