The Mandalorian

fretmeister

fob said:

Is it acceptable for an employer to have a contract that robs you of your basic rights? If you don't build 40 thingamajigs by 5pm we get to stab you in the eye with a fork. Ah ah ah - you signed the contract, we're allowed.

What professions would not be subject to 'representing their employer'? Surely, any employer can say 'fretmeister likes guitars which is against our ethos - he's fired'.

It doesn't rob anyone of basic rights in the slightest. It asks the employee to curtail their personal freedoms (not rights) while they are an employee. And again - it is consensual.

The employee retains the ability to say "my employer is a cock" in public as loud as they want. And as that will be against the terms of employment the employee retains the consequences of deciding to do it.

You have a freedom to sleep until noon every day if you want. And your employer has the freedom to sack you for being late. Every part of an employment contract involves limiting freedoms in exchange for being paid. 


And adding things that are manifestly illegal doesn't help your position. No they cannot say "we'll stab you if..." because that is a criminal act. They can say to a contractor (not an employee) that if 40 thingies aren't finished by 5pm there is a financial penalty though. And those terms would have been agreed to before engagement.

Similarly liking guitars could not be a term because it has nothing to do with bringing the company into disrepute. 

Strawmen arguments are pointless.

stickyfiddle

Freedom to post stupid shit on Twitter is not a basic human right. 

I work for a Big 4 accounting/professional services firm.  I don’t have anything in my contract but you can be damn sure if I posted racist shit on my LinkedIn I’d be up for a bollocking, and if I did it again after I’d be fired. I don’t think that’s controversial 

Axe_meister

I think the main problem here (and it's the same on the ultra left), is that in their eyes, bigotry, Transphobia, racism is not wrong. Also because of the two party system in the US, they class themselves as conservatism, hence it is all an attack on conservatism. 
Freedom of speech is a great power we the great unwashed have the fortune to have, but with it comes responsibility so we should think before we speak.
 

joneve

stickyfiddle said:

Freedom to post stupid shit on Twitter is not a basic human right. 

I work for a Big 4 accounting/professional services firm.  I don’t have anything in my contract but you can be damn sure if I posted racist shit on my LinkedIn I’d be up for a bollocking, and if I did it again after I’d be fired. I don’t think that’s controversial 

Yep, nailed it right here (as did Paul with his previous assessment(s))

Axe_meister

joneve said:

stickyfiddle said:

Freedom to post stupid shit on Twitter is not a basic human right. 

I work for a Big 4 accounting/professional services firm.  I don’t have anything in my contract but you can be damn sure if I posted racist shit on my LinkedIn I’d be up for a bollocking, and if I did it again after I’d be fired. I don’t think that’s controversial 

Yep, nailed it right here (as did Paul with his previous assessment(s))

Likewise if we posted marxist shit (I work for one of the big 3 cloud providers)

fob

fretmeister said:

It doesn't rob anyone of basic rights in the slightest. It asks the employee to curtail their personal freedoms (not rights) while they are an employee. And again - it is consensual.

It's a right to freedom of expression. Consensual or not, you're saying that an employer can have an employee sign away their rights.

fretmeister said:

You have a freedom to sleep until noon every day if you want. And your employer has the freedom to sack you for being late. Every part of an employment contract involves limiting freedoms in exchange for being paid.

This is an actual strawman. You wouldn't be doing your job in this case. We're not talking about firing you for not doing your job but rather firing you for personal opinions expressed. Saying, 'well we got you to sign away your rights' takes us to the point above.

fretmeister said:

And adding things that are manifestly illegal doesn't help your position. No they cannot say "we'll stab you if..." because that is a criminal act. They can say to a contractor (not an employee) that if 40 thingies aren't finished by 5pm there is a financial penalty though. And those terms would have been agreed to before engagement.

If you're making it legal for employers to sign away freedom of expression then why not? Can they say that you're not allowed to attend certain events? You're not allowed to drink or smoke? Do they get to approve your partner?

fretmeister said:

Similarly liking guitars could not be a term because it has nothing to do with bringing the company into disrepute.

Says who?

munckee

stickyfiddle said:

Freedom to post stupid shit on Twitter is not a basic human right. 

I work for a Big 4 accounting/professional services firm.  I don’t have anything in my contract but you can be damn sure if I posted racist shit on my LinkedIn I’d be up for a bollocking, and if I did it again after I’d be fired. I don’t think that’s controversial 

Would you call her comments racist or anti semitic?

Jalapeno

stickyfiddle said:

Freedom to post stupid shit on Twitter is not a basic human right. 

I work for a Big 4 accounting/professional services firm.  I don’t have anything in my contract but you can be damn sure if I posted racist shit on my LinkedIn I’d be up for a bollocking, and if I did it again after I’d be fired. I don’t think that’s controversial 

Exactly - witness the Chief Exec of KPMG !

stickyfiddle

munckee said:

stickyfiddle said:

Freedom to post stupid shit on Twitter is not a basic human right. 

I work for a Big 4 accounting/professional services firm.  I don’t have anything in my contract but you can be damn sure if I posted racist shit on my LinkedIn I’d be up for a bollocking, and if I did it again after I’d be fired. I don’t think that’s controversial 

Would you call her comments racist or anti semitic?

Maybe..? As a white straight English bloke I honestly don’t think I can judge. 

But again, you can be damn sure they’ll have sat down after the first round of controversy and explained what the line is. 

zepp76

stickyfiddle said:

munckee said:

stickyfiddle said:

Freedom to post stupid shit on Twitter is not a basic human right. 

I work for a Big 4 accounting/professional services firm.  I don’t have anything in my contract but you can be damn sure if I posted racist shit on my LinkedIn I’d be up for a bollocking, and if I did it again after I’d be fired. I don’t think that’s controversial 

Would you call her comments racist or anti semitic?

Maybe..? As a white straight English bloke I honestly don’t think I can judge. 

I’m a little confused by this, does a persons colour, sexuality and ethnicity hinder them from knowing if something is racist/anti Semitic?

 “As a white straight English bloke I honestly don’t think I can judge”

 Would that not mean you couldn’t judge if you’d posted racist shit on your LinkedIn?

 Genuinely interested by your comment.

fretmeister

fob said:

fretmeister said:

It doesn't rob anyone of basic rights in the slightest. It asks the employee to curtail their personal freedoms (not rights) while they are an employee. And again - it is consensual.

It's a right to freedom of expression. Consensual or not, you're saying that an employer can have an employee sign away their rights.

fretmeister said:

You have a freedom to sleep until noon every day if you want. And your employer has the freedom to sack you for being late. Every part of an employment contract involves limiting freedoms in exchange for being paid.

This is an actual strawman. You wouldn't be doing your job in this case. We're not talking about firing you for not doing your job but rather firing you for personal opinions expressed. Saying, 'well we got you to sign away your rights' takes us to the point above.

fretmeister said:

And adding things that are manifestly illegal doesn't help your position. No they cannot say "we'll stab you if..." because that is a criminal act. They can say to a contractor (not an employee) that if 40 thingies aren't finished by 5pm there is a financial penalty though. And those terms would have been agreed to before engagement.

If you're making it legal for employers to sign away freedom of expression then why not? Can they say that you're not allowed to attend certain events? You're not allowed to drink or smoke? Do they get to approve your partner?

fretmeister said:

Similarly liking guitars could not be a term because it has nothing to do with bringing the company into disrepute.

Says who?

1: In certain circumstances - yes. This is obvious. You have a right to refer to others using bigoted terms and your employer can fire you for it - because you agreed to act professionally when you signed the contract.

2: It's not a strawman. It's a statement of how employment works. 

3: A criminal act remains a criminal act even if a contract demands it. This is long established law. And for a wider picture -in  some states in the USA employers do indeed get to put "morality" clauses in which can even prevent an employee from smoking at home and other things like that. In some places people are lawfully fired for being homosexual. In the UK police personnel are banned from joining the BNP. It's a lawful restriction.

4: The company would have to prove it. They would lose in the ET.


People who go on about rights being taken away only ever look at those rights in a vacuum. It's never like that. You have a right to a family life under Art 8. You have a right to marry under Art 12.

BUT you still need the consent of the person you want to marry and that person also has to be of a certain age. So the rights are subject to caveat. 

Even Art 2: The right to life, usually referred to as an absolute right, is not an absolute right as it still allows for the proper application of the legal process: such as a police marksman shooting an armed man who is a threat.


Now though - lets have a look at the crux: Article 10. The Right to Freedom of Expression.

Again it is not an absolute right it has limits including the usual stuff - national security / preventing harm / protecting health but it has stuff that it appears you are not aware of: protecting the rights and reputations of other people.

So the reality is there are already limits on Freedom of Expression - Person A's rights to use bigoted language against Person B is trumped by their right to not suffer abuse. There is also an obligation on Person A: a duty to behave responsibly and to respect Person B's rights.


Here's the Equality and Human Rights Commission guidance. You will see that the rights pertaining to Freedom of Expression are all subject to caveat. Employment is at page 20.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/20150318_foe_legal_framework_guidance_revised_final.pdf


The old "rights aren't rights if they have caveats" argument is facile, naïve, and simply wrong.

Heartfeltdawn

stickyfiddle said:

Freedom to post stupid shit on Twitter is not a basic human right. 

LastMantra

Well this is far more exciting than the mandalorian. 

fob

fretmeister said:

<snip>
Here's the Equality and Human Rights Commission guidance. You will see that the rights pertaining to Freedom of Expression are all subject to caveat. Employment is at page 20.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/20150318_foe_legal_framework_guidance_revised_final.pdf

Unwanted behaviour’ can include any kind of behaviour, including spoken or written
words or abuse, imagery, graffiti, physical gestures, facial expressions, mimicry,
jokes, pranks, acts affecting a person’s surroundings or other physical conduct.
This type of harassment is not a criminal offence but can constitute the ground for a claim in the Employment Tribunal.
The EAT has ruled that the dismissal of an employee for non-work related tweets
was potentially fair where the tweets could be seen by staff and customers at 65
stores. Conversely, an employer who demoted someone for posting comments
disapproving of marriage of same-sex couples on Facebook was found to have
acted in breach of contract. The judge ruled that while workplace rules can
sometimes restrict the use of social media outside work, his Facebook wall was
inherently non-work related and the colleagues able to access it had chosen to
become his Facebook friends.

It seems like the powers that be are not as definite as you, but they can cast their nets as wide as they can be vague. Maybe we're arguing about what is and what should be. I know enough lawyerly types to know that the decision generally goes in the favour of the money. That doesn't mean it should.

fretmeister said:

In some places people are lawfully fired for being homosexual.

Speaks for itself I think.

fretmeister

I'm arguing what the law is.

I'm also arguing that in the case of Gina Carano it is correct / available as an option to her employer - at least if it was within E&W jurisdiction.

And if the decision always went with the money nobody would ever win in the ET. It's bollocks.

stickyfiddle

zepp76 said:

stickyfiddle said:

munckee said:

stickyfiddle said:

Freedom to post stupid shit on Twitter is not a basic human right. 

I work for a Big 4 accounting/professional services firm.  I don’t have anything in my contract but you can be damn sure if I posted racist shit on my LinkedIn I’d be up for a bollocking, and if I did it again after I’d be fired. I don’t think that’s controversial 

Would you call her comments racist or anti semitic?

Maybe..? As a white straight English bloke I honestly don’t think I can judge. 

I’m a little confused by this, does a persons colour, sexuality and ethnicity hinder them from knowing if something is racist/anti Semitic?

 “As a white straight English bloke I honestly don’t think I can judge”

 Would that not mean you couldn’t judge if you’d posted racist shit on your LinkedIn?

 Genuinely interested by your comment.

I don’t know, to be honest. I do think there is a definite difference between someone appreciating that something may be offensive compared with someone actually being offended by it. 

I’d like to think I could tell if I wrote something stupid and racist, but it’s pretty evident that a lot of people can’t make that judgement. That’s not necessarily because this people are racist, but I suspect often happens because people simply aren’t aware of racist connotations around certain images or tropes. Their intent may not be racist at all but the action may still offend. 

 It’s always going to be complicated and in this case I honestly don’t know enough about the lady to know for sure, but if she was told once to stop and still did it again, that’s on her.

bloodandtears

LastMantra said:

Well this is far more exciting than the mandalorian. 

Oh no it's not 

fob

I'm arguing that the law's an ass.

I'd also argue that Gina Carano's post (massive hyperbole it may have been) was an excuse to fire her not a reason.

fretmeister

1: there are many examples of that.

2: That argument requires evidence. There doesn't seem to be any. Other than her repeated refusal to abide by reasonable requests by her employer.

fob

The evidence is the post itself. Bonkers to compare being hated for your political views to being a Jew in Nazi Germany but not antisemitic.