Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 Next »
Reply To Thread

Stumping for BushFollow

#52 Sep 20 2004 at 5:41 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
PieMan wrote:
Quote:
You have *zero* rights to freedom of speech once you come on my property.


Thats the thing. Were NOT on your property, were on our own time on public property. What RIGHTS do you have that says you can dictate to us what we do on our own time.


Huh!? At what point did a parking lot, presumably owned/leased/whatever by the owner of the company (aka: "the boss") become public property? While the details are a bit sketchy, I would assume that if her car had been parked on a public street a block away, the boss would have never noticed the sticker or had reason to be upset about it. The whole point was that she was that by parking her car with that bumper sticker on his property, she was in essence putting up a sign on his property. He has every right to ask that she remove it if he doesn't like it. When she refused, he then has every right to fire her if that's the only way he can get the offensive thing off his property.


Can I put signs up on your front yard saying "I'm a member of the KKK"? Or do you have a right not to have opinions you don't believe in expressed on your property? I just find it amusing that you make such a huge distinction between your rights and the rights of someone else.



And Joph:

Quote:
So making a pass at your employee and firing her if she refuses you is okay because sexual harassment is just you being a jackass and no one should be able to take that away from you?


Totally different situations. In the same way that the boss has a right to his own property, so do his employees. In this case, the property is the employees body/privacy. The boss has no right to infringe on that. So making an unwanted pass and then using that to fire someone is completely backwards. In exactly the same way that if the boss had insisted that all employees *must* put pro-Bush stickers on their cars or get fired would also be wrong.

She has a right not to have him impose himself on her property (or self), and he has a right not to have her impose herself on his. In this case, by putting a sticker on her car on his property, he was imposing herself on him in a way that he didn't like.


Think about it, if she just wanted her opinion for herself, she could have stuck that sticker on the inside of the car where only people inside the car could see it, right? Somewhat by definition, a bumpersticker is meant as a message for people in the area *outside* the car. Her property is only the car itself and inside it. The message is specifically aimed at those outside the car (on his property). Thus, she's putting her speech into his property and he has a right to ask her to remove it.

Edited, Mon Sep 20 18:43:38 2004 by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#53 Sep 20 2004 at 6:41 PM Rating: Decent
Gbaji, you're a CU[u][/u]NT and I'm sure all your "friends" know that.

That's is all.

#54 Sep 20 2004 at 7:22 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,053 posts
(bear with me as I'm stuck in Pittsburgh until I can get a train out of town and back east and pain levels have my brain phasing into another universe.)

Gbaji,

Since most companies lease office and warehouse space, most likely a empolyer doesn't own either the parking lot or the building. Even a lease wouldn't give your arguement water. (I wish I could send some water that Ivan dump here to you though)

So if you want a Company to be able to hire and fire at will, can the Landowner be able to break the lease on the space they lease to them, when they don't like the company giving money to campains and PAC's they don't like?

#55 Sep 20 2004 at 7:59 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
Totally different situations
So is gay marriage and incest, but that doesn't stop the idiots from trotting it out every time a thread starts about it.

You're missing the point, big time.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#56 Sep 20 2004 at 8:09 PM Rating: Good
****
6,730 posts
Why do guys even argue with gbaji? He is a well spoken, long winded varrass. Nothing more.

#57 Sep 20 2004 at 8:59 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
ElneClare wrote:


Gbaji,

Since most companies lease office and warehouse space, most likely a empolyer doesn't own either the parking lot or the building. Even a lease wouldn't give your arguement water. (I wish I could send some water that Ivan dump here to you though)


A lease is a contract that gives you temporary "ownership" of something for the duration of the contract and as long as you hold up your end of said contract.

Or are you suggesting that it's ok for me to break into your leased car and "borrow" it, since you don't actually own it?

Quote:
So if you want a Company to be able to hire and fire at will, can the Landowner be able to break the lease on the space they lease to them, when they don't like the company giving money to campains and PAC's they don't like?


No. Because there are terms to the contract. Now, if your work has policies or terms involved in your employment contract, then that will define what you can and can't be fired for.

As I said waaaaaay back towards the beginning of this thread, the exchange of labor for pay is a contract between you and your boss. The "terms" of the contract and how beneficial they are is going to be based on the same sort of supply/demand forces that work in any market. If you are a drone who can be replaced by any of a thousand people walking down the street on any given day, then odds are you aren't going to be able to push for favorable employment terms. That includes being able to do/say whatever you want while working there.


You're seeing only the employees rights in this situation, but employment involves two sides coming to an agreement. You think that it's unfair for the employee to be denied the "right" to do what he pleases while at work and/or on the property of the employer as long as he gets his work done. That might seem reasonable, but you're totally missing the other side of the coin. To the boss, it's his money being spent. He owns the building and the lot and the equipment. Techically, for the time period you are being paid he "owns" you as well (not literally of course). Should he not have the "right" to not have to pay you to do something he doesn't like?


And that's the really silly point here. If she wasn't an employee and was just parking her car on his property (or posting a sign, or protesting, or whatever), we would all agree that it was well within his rights to have her and her sign/bumpersticker removed from the premises, right? Why on earth does that magically change if she's an employee? So, he *pays* her to put up a sign that he disagrees with and because he's paying her while she's doing that, he can't remove it?

That's ridiculous! I'm sorry, but I just don't see it. Sure. The guy was being an uptight A-hole, but that's 100% his right to be in this situation. Unless there was a contract signed as part of her employment that guaranteed her right to post any sort of political or opinion messages she wanted on the premises while working there, then he has every right to ask her to remove it, and every right to fire her if she doesn't.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#58 Sep 21 2004 at 1:04 AM Rating: Decent
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have *zero* rights to freedom of speech once you come on my property.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Thats the thing. Were NOT on your property, were on our own time on public property. What RIGHTS do you have that says you can dictate to us what we do on our own time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Huh!? At what point did a parking lot, presumably owned/leased/whatever by the owner of the company (aka: "the boss") become public property? While the details are a bit sketchy, I would assume that if her car had been parked on a public street a block away, the boss would have never noticed the sticker or had reason to be upset about it. The whole point was that she was that by parking her car with that bumper sticker on his property, she was in essence putting up a sign on his property. He has every right to ask that she remove it if he doesn't like it. When she refused, he then has every right to fire her if that's the only way he can get the offensive thing off his property.


Can I put signs up on your front yard saying "I'm a member of the KKK"? Or do you have a right not to have opinions you don't believe in expressed on your property? I just find it amusing that you make such a huge distinction between your rights and the rights of someone else.



Someone needs to lear how to think. YOu should realize that i wasn't refering to the bumper sticker issue but rather a hypothetical situation where as I were to attend a political rally and get shown on TV making nasty comments toward the presidnet. Its stuff like that which you cannot get fired for.


The bumpersticker is a grey issue and IMO this is how it should be.

1) no bumperstickers (equal treatment so its ok to allow no bumperstickers in your parking garage)

2) bumperstickers allowed( ok because your not discriminating against anyone)

3) anti bush bumperstickers not allowed but pro bush bumper stickers are ( this is not ok because its discriminatory)

1 2 3 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 219 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (219)