So much for freedom of speech and expression.

[2A_Tom]

I know, I was pretty disappointed to see a successful derail, umm, derailed. We need to unban someone or beg them to come back, because we are clearly not as good at this as we used to be.

He is still a plinker, not shootered, but if he does come back he may lurk in the shadows till we P*** him off again. He has only been here a short time and this is his second dog pile.

 

[Birds Away]

He is still a plinker, not shootered, but if he does come back he may lurk in the shadows till we P*** him off again. He has only been here a short time and this is his second dog pile.

Dang, I guess I missed the first one.

 

[Woobie]

He is still a plinker, not shootered, but if he does come back he may lurk in the shadows till we P*** him off again. He has only been here a short time and this is his second dog pile.

When you are ignorant of some basic facts, and stand on your misdirected views with defiance, the dogs pile. But before they did, people tried to respectfully engage him, but they were quickly labeled as wimps.

If he wants to hit the reset button and hash this out, I'll be the first in line, but he's gotta tone it down.

 

[2A_Tom]

This is where the first one started,

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...top-10-our-nations-history-7.html#post6835140

There was a slight melt down, an apology and then every one made nice.

There have been several of us who have had to learn that name calling makes for a very weak argument and distracts from any good point we may be trying to make.

If he comes back, I do hope he learns how to make a point without angering his readers.

 

[jamil]

*****es.

 

[T.Lex]

*****es.

Felines?

 

[Woobie]

Felines?

I was thinking canines. Specifically expectant female types.

 

[2A_Tom]

I've never heard a cat called that.

 

[churchmouse]

He is still a plinker, not shootered, but if he does come back he may lurk in the shadows till we P*** him off again. He has only been here a short time and this is his second dog pile.

And that is another reasons I referenced the rules in my earlier post.
Call me a wimp....to my face.....please.

I will engage in discourse all day until names start being flung at me.
Then emotions get involved and things go south very fast.

 

[historian]

And that is another reasons I referenced the rules in my earlier post.
Call me a wimp....to my face.....please.

I will engage in discourse all day until names start being flung at me.
Then emotions get involved and things go south very fast.

Wimp!



​Do I get my cheeseburger now?

 

[jamil]

"I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today."

J. Wellington Wimpy

 

[jbombelli]

And that is another reasons I referenced the rules in my earlier post.
Call me a wimp....to my face.....please.

I will engage in discourse all day until names start being flung at me.
Then emotions get involved and things go south very fast.

I'll do it. Lol.

 

[ATM]

And that is another reasons I referenced the rules in my earlier post.
Call me a wimp....to my face.....please.

I will engage in discourse all day until names start being flung at me.
Then emotions get involved and things go south very fast.

Once emotions get involved, my victory is assured.

 

[rhino]

I recently wasted a perfectly good Poindexter on someone apparently too young to understand the implications. They just looked at me like a dog watching a card trick.

Casting pearls before swine, I say.

 

[WebSnyper]

So now are we talking legally or "right & wrong?"

Because IF we are talking legally most boards, judges, courts, etc tend to side with plaintiff's regarding firing without cause. I'm not an expert, but as a student of human resources and compliance issues it has been explained in detail that when push comes to shove most judges tend to favor having a reason to fire someone. The reason most employers get away with firing employees is not because they are on strong legal grounds, but rather the employee doesn't have the knowledge or resources to fight. Because when they do, they can often win.

In this case all it would take would be for her to illustrate a time when a male radio personality "insulted" a guest and wasn't fired to have a pretty solid EEOC claim. Relatively simple and strong legal precedent.

Regards,

Doug

Edit: Even IF they do have a reason for termination, most boards, panels, juries, judges want to see that the employee was first reprimanded and had their bad behavior explained to them while giving them a chance to correct their behavior. Failing this - employee often wins.

Lega

Legally. The right and wrong aspect is not something I'm going to tackle in this thread. I don't have enough info, or interest in dealing with that on the internet.

I would think in an at will state, a company may be better not stating a reason, simply because that reason could then be used against them. How about irreconcilable differences for a reason. Would that work? Or some other equally nebulous, generic reason, unless the company has concerns about getting hit for discrimination against a protected class themselves, then I'm guessing having a reason may be needed (?)

 

[Libertarian01]

Lega

Legally. The right and wrong aspect is not something I'm going to tackle in this thread. I don't have enough info, or interest in dealing with that on the internet.

I would think in an at will state, a company may be better not stating a reason, simply because that reason could then be used against them. How about irreconcilable differences for a reason. Would that work? Or some other equally nebulous, generic reason, unless the company has concerns about getting hit for discrimination against a protected class themselves, then I'm guessing having a reason may be needed (?)

I hear what you are saying and understand that, at least in Indiana, we are an "at will" state.

What many people cannot get through their heads is, "so what?" That does NOT do away with the myriad of Federal regulations and court decisions that allow protection to workers even in at will states.

Here is a small example of laws that protect employees even in Indiana:

Thirteenth Amendment
Fourteenth Amendment
Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1871
Equal Pay Act of 1963
Title VII of the CRA
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Rehabilitation Act of 1973
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Executive Order 11246
Civil Rights Act of 1991 (Basically same as Title VII,but applies Section 1981 to employment discrimination cases)

Most people may think age discrimination is for people in the 60's or somewhere "up there" but it can apply to anyone over 40.

All of these protections already exist even in at will states. The fact is most employees don't know about them or understand them. Many unions do and so exercise their rights to a greater degree than the ignorant lone employee.

Unions are also aware of the protection of "past & prior practices" that generally applies to both union and nonunion settings, yet most nonunion people are ignorant of this protection and thus fail to use it.

How all of these could apply to Susan Olsen would take an employment law lawyer to illustrate. The variety of interpretations over the past many decades is way beyond my ability to explain.

You can also use other legal premises to illustrate how we "know" why an employer did something without being able to "prove" it. For example, say you work at the same place for eight (8) years and in all that time you have had good or better employee reviews. Then on November 19th, 2016 you come work with a "TRUMP - Make America Great" hat on, even though your boss has put out a "Hillary" sign. You are fired, with no reason given, on November 23, 2016. Your lawyer can sue and possibly win for wrongful termination due to being fired for an act that was NOT prohibited by the employment rules. The reasoning your lawyer would likely use is call "temporal proximity." Your termination followed very close in time the wearing of your Trump hat, and even though we cannot prove with 100% certainty why you were fired, the temporal proximity of the wearing of the hat to your termination while all other facets of your employment record are good can be shown to the jury as evidence of why you were fired.

In the above example you would have less of a leg to stand on if there was a rule against the wearing of political hats at work. But, what if the bosses wife, who is also an employee regularly wore a "Hillary for President" pin? Then you would probably have grounds for sexual discrimination and would likely win (based upon evidence at hand.)

I freely concede that many thousands of people are fired every year where the employer never gets challenged. My only point in all of this is that employers are not challenged because most Americans are woefully ignorant of their legal rights, and even if they are aware don't have the financial ability or willpower to fight. Note I am NOT necessarily supporting the value of those legal protections here, but only illustrating that they do exist and Ms. Olsen may have more options than one would think, as do most of us.

Regards and Merry Christmas,

Doug

 

[hopper68]

I hear what you are saying and understand that, at least in Indiana, we are an "at will" state.

What many people cannot get through their heads is, "so what?" That does NOT do away with the myriad of Federal regulations and court decisions that allow protection to workers even in at will states.

Here is a small example of laws that protect employees even in Indiana:

Thirteenth Amendment
Fourteenth Amendment
Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1871
Equal Pay Act of 1963
Title VII of the CRA
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Rehabilitation Act of 1973
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Executive Order 11246
Civil Rights Act of 1991 (Basically same as Title VII,but applies Section 1981 to employment discrimination cases)

Most people may think age discrimination is for people in the 60's or somewhere "up there" but it can apply to anyone over 40.

All of these protections already exist even in at will states. The fact is most employees don't know about them or understand them. Many unions do and so exercise their rights to a greater degree than the ignorant lone employee.

Unions are also aware of the protection of "past & prior practices" that generally applies to both union and nonunion settings, yet most nonunion people are ignorant of this protection and thus fail to use it.

How all of these could apply to Susan Olsen would take an employment law lawyer to illustrate. The variety of interpretations over the past many decades is way beyond my ability to explain.

You can also use other legal premises to illustrate how we "know" why an employer did something without being able to "prove" it. For example, say you work at the same place for eight (8) years and in all that time you have had good or better employee reviews. Then on November 19th, 2016 you come work with a "TRUMP - Make America Great" hat on, even though your boss has put out a "Hillary" sign. You are fired, with no reason given, on November 23, 2016. Your lawyer can sue and possibly win for wrongful termination due to being fired for an act that was NOT prohibited by the employment rules. The reasoning your lawyer would likely use is call "temporal proximity." Your termination followed very close in time the wearing of your Trump hat, and even though we cannot prove with 100% certainty why you were fired, the temporal proximity of the wearing of the hat to your termination while all other facets of your employment record are good can be shown to the jury as evidence of why you were fired.

In the above example you would have less of a leg to stand on if there was a rule against the wearing of political hats at work. But, what if the bosses wife, who is also an employee regularly wore a "Hillary for President" pin? Then you would probably have grounds for sexual discrimination and would likely win (based upon evidence at hand.)

I freely concede that many thousands of people are fired every year where the employer never gets challenged. My only point in all of this is that employers are not challenged because most Americans are woefully ignorant of their legal rights, and even if they are aware don't have the financial ability or willpower to fight. Note I am NOT necessarily supporting the value of those legal protections here, but only illustrating that they do exist and Ms. Olsen may have more options than one would think, as do most of us.

Regards and Merry Christmas,

Doug

And the radio station could loose the case and still come out a winner. The same public who would have protested to get her fired will see the station as fighting a heroic fight against an oppressive government infringing upon the station's rights. Any fines imposed will be offset by money pouring in to help the cause.

What is said in private should stay that way but in today's world it does not. If you have a low opinion of someone and express it in private to them do not be surprised when they make it public.